August 3, 2006 3:02 AM
The government and 9/11
As we approach the five-year anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, Rocky Talk Live today begins a series of questions concerning the attacks and their effects on America's national security, foreign relations, civil liberties and more. It's our hope this will spark some intelligent and spirited discussion.
The first question stems from a Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll that says: "More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East."
So, here's our first in a series of questions:
Was the government involved in the Sept. 11 attacks? Or do you think it had prior knowledge they would occur?
Yesterday's RockyTalk Live poll was a landslide with 90% of more than 1100 votes cast saying they believed federal officials either participated in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent them because the U.S. wanted to go to war in the Middle East.
August 3, 2006
5:06 AM
9/11 was an inside job writes:
9/11 was a false flag operation. Look uo 9/11 scholars For Truth and watch the free movie Loosechange 2.
August 3, 2006
5:10 AM
9/11 a false flag operation writes:
Here is one resource for more information about the 9/11 false flag operation and inside job:
911Truth.org
August 3, 2006
5:13 AM
NORAD told to stand down on 9/11 writes:
There is a excellent free movie called Loosechange 2 that will most likely be in movie theatres later this year. Here is a link to the free versian:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1519312457137943386
August 3, 2006
5:16 AM
Many PHD's say 9/11 was a false flag operation writes:
Many very bright engineers feel 9/11 was a false flag operation much like the Reichstag Fires were.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
August 3, 2006
5:20 AM
CSPAN airing conference stating that 9/11 was an inside job writes:
"9/11 and the NeoCon Agenda on CSPAN 1!
In the Media
Another breakthrough media moment! This weekend CSPAN 1, the main CSPAN channel, will broadcast a truly powerful panel discussion from the June American Scholars Symposium: "9/11 and the Neocon Agenda," and will air it three times in prime viewing slots."
http://www.911truth.org/
August 3, 2006
5:27 AM
Kudos to Rocky Mountain News writes:
Even though I do not agree with a lot of what RMN prints this newspaper has just won my business for having this discussion which I think is the first mainstream commercial media outlet to do so. The truth is patriotic and news media has a duty to help the masses uncover the truth.
To the owners of RMN: uncovering the truth can be very profitable these days. I hope RMN brings this issue to the forefront especially in this election year.
August 3, 2006
5:34 AM
It's patriotic to share the truth and question the 9/11 false flag operation writes:
"There have also been a disparate number of individuals and citizens groups investigating the attacks and their aftermath. The diverse groups - from those advocating on behalf of family members through to conspiracy theorists - have been dubbed the "9/11 truth movement"."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=9-11_Truth_Movement
Will Colorado be the first state to launch a real investigation into 9/11? Only if our mass media outlets help uncover the truth.
August 3, 2006
6:40 AM
TOO MANY QUESTIONS writes:
There are too many questions unanswered about 9/11 which leads us to think this.
Why was Atta and company, known terrorists, given passports and allowed into the country in the first place?
Why did the comission say there was 21 opportunities to stop this attack and nothing was done?
Why did Bush do nothing even after the final PDB warning of attack on July ?
Why were the Binladin family then allowed safe passage back to Saudi Arabia?
Why were the flight schools not watched in FLA? They knew they were interested in flying planes into buildings. They knew they were in FLA.
Oh well...
August 3, 2006
7:02 AM
Anonymous writes:
"# Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700°F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800°F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000°F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?
# Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?
# Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?
# Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?
# A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?
# A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?
# The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?"
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/PressRelease30Jan2006.html
August 3, 2006
7:05 AM
9/11 like Northwoods writes:
Pre-9/11 Put Options on Companies Hurt by Attack Indicates Foreknowledge
Financial transactions in the days before the attack suggest that certain individuals used foreknowledge of the attack to reap huge profits. The evidence of insider trading includes:
* Huge surges in purchases of put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack -- United Airlines and American Airlines
* Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of reinsurance companies expected to pay out billions to cover losses from the attack -- Munich Re and the AXA Group
* Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of recorded by several financial services companies hurt by the attack -- Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America
* Huge surge in purchases of call options of stock of a weapons manufacturer expected to gain from the attack -- Raytheon
* Huge surges in purchases of 5-Year US Treasury Notes
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html
August 3, 2006
7:10 AM
Together, we can take our country back writes:
A few more publications like the Rocky Mountain News, the New World Order would be a smoking ash heap.
Here's a test, try to find 115 tons of Boeing at either the Flight 93 crash site, or the Flight 77 crash site. Good luck, you won't find it.
August 3, 2006
7:38 AM
TBone writes:
And then there was Larry Silverstein's quote, the WTC owner and the WTC7 collapse that barely gets mentioned. WTC 7 was bigger than any building in Denver, yet it barely got any coverage in the 9/11 commissions report. All evidence is in the direction of controlled demolition. This needs a sound investigation. My recommendation would be to bring in Scotland Yard.
From:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
August 3, 2006
7:56 AM
JS writes:
Because of the United States polices and procedures in all the middle east (anti-Arab and Pro-Israeli), there was bound to be some kind of retaliation against us at some point in time. And those policies continue unabated today, and therefore we can expect another attack in the future. Just because we are now in the middle east doesn't mean we are really going to change anything. It won't happen.
August 3, 2006
8:01 AM
Gary Duncan writes:
The best book I've read on this subject is "The New Pearl Harbor "by David Griffin. Most definately Bush let this tragety happen so he
could start a war in Iraq.
August 3, 2006
8:07 AM
John Galt writes:
This proves that one-third of Americans are incapable of logic & reason.
They must be liberals or Democrats or both.
August 3, 2006
8:15 AM
Joan Cimyotte writes:
Those who believe our government knew or had anything to do with 9/11 need to pull their heads out of their butts. The Islamo Fascists want us dead. They want everything about our way of life dead. They want your babies dead. Let me go Dr. Phil here, you people are suffering from post traumatic stress of losing to George Bush in 2000.
August 3, 2006
8:28 AM
harry palm writes:
Oh joy, the crazy's are out in full force today. I guess Clinton must have let the Kenya bombings happen. That bastard knew there was a bomb in the trade center on 93! Reagan knew damn well Hezzbolla was gonna bomb our barracks in 83. Damn Jimmy Carter helped Iran over throw the Shai!
All of this simply proves you people are sore losers and are incapable of making any sort of informed decision. Based on ever present lunacy, your desire to abort off spring, the new liberals that want the human race extinct, I figure through simple attrition the Right will gain political supremacy never to be regained by the loony unhinged left.
August 3, 2006
8:29 AM
Look at the physics of 9/11 writes:
Watch a video of WTC building 7 coming down and compare it to a video of a controlled demolition using explosives. This building was not hit by any aircraft. Wake up folks!
August 3, 2006
8:37 AM
Read this! writes:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0865715408/sr=8-5/qid=1154615387/ref=pd_bbs_5/102-4089189-2216913?ie=UTF8
August 3, 2006
8:44 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
What makes you think that the conspiracy nuts are all liberals? Far from it. Has anyone else here ever hung out with a bunch o' the old fellas down at the bar or the coffee shop? Bloody EVERYTHING's a conspiracy as far as they're concerned. They're overjoyed to have this one come along because it gives them a break from the old saws about Masons and Zionist elders and crap.
This is not a left/right issue, it's a "magical thinking" vs. critical thinking issue. Any bets that some of these same folks are drinking lemonade and cayenne pepper to reduce heart disease, or consulting chiropractors about their bone cancer, or quaffing liquified tiger penis instead of viagra? They're probably just about to "really hit it big" in their multi-level marketing company, too. Get that product out, kids!
This is truly the age of "truthiness" all right.
August 3, 2006
8:44 AM
Simple Physics Reveals 9/11 An Inside Job writes:
http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml
In order for the tower to have collapsed "gravitationally", as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
* The undamaged floors below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
* On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity
* On 9/11, energy was not conserved
However, none of these physics-violating conditions can be accounted for by the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses designed to prop up the official theory of 9/11.
Bottom line: the government/PBS/PM/SA explanation for the WTC collapses fails the most basic conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government/PBS/PM/SA theory does not fit the observed facts; the notion of a "pancake collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse theory" explanation is impossible, and thus absurd.
It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the observed WTC collapses can be blamed solely upon damages resulting from aerial assaults.
So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse" explanation, Gates' other premise, that people know what they saw, is also incorrect. It is left to the reader to decide if his conclusion, which was based upon two incorrect presumptions, is also flawed.
The purported "gravitational" collapse (video) of World Trade Center building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and which also vertically collapsed in within a second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that same day, similarly fails this same conservation-of-energy analysis.
The explanation for how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this basic reality check, is beyond the scope of this simple physics discussion.
August 3, 2006
8:46 AM
Ray Brisnehan writes:
If George W. Bush put this "false flag" operation together in the first nine months of his presidency he has more magical powers than Chris Angel. How long would it take just to secretly plant enough explosives in the Twin Towers to cause their collapse? Sorry,guys,but there a credibility problem here.
Are you saying the 9/11 attacks would not have happened if Kerry had won the election? Come on!!
August 3, 2006
8:49 AM
David Littleton writes:
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." - Mark Twain
Your government lies to you. If you do not understand this simple statement you have already fallen victim to the countless variations of Operation Mockingbird. Your thoughts are controlled and influenced by a government controlled mega-corporate media.
Anyone that doubts that your government would lie to you should seek out and read the recently declassified document "Operation Northwood". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)
If you would like to see the damning evidence for yourself on the governments involvement behind 9/11 read "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil" by Michael Ruppert. You can access tons of information by visiting www.fromthewilderness.com
"We must hang together, or we will all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin.
August 3, 2006
8:50 AM
Anonymous writes:
And there's Harry blaming Clinton again. I was waiting for that. Today's breakfast burrito bet was: Which neocon nimrod is going to use the word CLINTON in any reference of denial today first.
Harry or Hogar.
You win Harry. I get a free illegal pete's burrito, thanks buddy. You're a sure bet.
August 3, 2006
8:50 AM
Mark Wolf writes:
Quick tech note. Thanks for all the links submitted. Remember our software can only handle two links in each comment. If you have more, please break them up into two posts. Carry on.
August 3, 2006
8:52 AM
harry palm writes:
One man cant get away with a blow job from a fat girl. Bush is a dunce, he is not capable of stealing elections, starting wars for oil, or being behind the biggest crime in our nations history. SOMEONE would have talked by now. I dont doubt for one minute our goverments capabilities to make 9-11 on happen. I just think it would be much easier to look the other way and allow the terrorists to pull it off. But even that, would have leaked by now. And if they did let happen, GOOD! you people needed a wake up call to the damage others wish to bring to us.
August 3, 2006
8:53 AM
Anonymous writes:
Ray -
Kerry lost in 2004...I think you mean Al Gore in 2000, since 9/11 was in 2001.
Moron!
August 3, 2006
8:57 AM
Downing street memos writes:
These memos also concluded Bush already made up his mind to invade Iraq before UN inspections were complete. "The mushroom cloud speeches were in full effect"
9/11 provided the excuse to get people to back this war monger president. "you're with us or against us"
Funny how the 9/ll attackers came from somewhere else than Iraq. But people like Harry think Saddam caused 911
August 3, 2006
9:04 AM
JW writes:
"All of this simply proves you people are sore losers and are incapable of making any sort of informed decision. Based on ever present lunacy, your desire to abort off spring, the new liberals that want the human race extinct, I figure through simple attrition the Right will gain political supremacy never to be regained by the loony unhinged left. "
Look, Im not going to say 9/11 was a govt sponsored event. Truth is, we will just never know. Hell, some people think Roosevelt caused Pearl Harbor. But Harry, you got your conservative blinders on again. There is some evidence that Bush ignored the threat at the very least. The physics of how the towers collapsed is...interesting for anyone who isnt constantly sucking Bush's balls on public blogs.
Again, I wont say it is, but I wouldnt be dumb enough to ignore evidence either. Hell, the govt has demonstrated their willingness to screw the general public at the behest of private enterprise in the past.
August 3, 2006
9:06 AM
Anonymous writes:
No backtracking now Harry, just keep calling people names at the top of your lungs, that worked in 6th grade, right.
August 3, 2006
9:10 AM
harry palm writes:
You clearly dont know what backtracking means, dipshit. JW, what blinders you fool? I clearly said if he did know then, GOOD, it needed to happen.
August 3, 2006
9:13 AM
ItsNoConspiracy writes:
Oliver Stone is gearing up a screenplay based on the usual monday morning quarterbacking being done by "scholars".
People with too much time on their hands, again.
August 3, 2006
9:16 AM
That guy writes:
Another desparate attempt to shift the blame for ignoring terrorism by the 8 year Clinton administration.
Polls can produce just about any answer the designers have in mind, which is why they are generally worthless.
JW(jay) is wrong again.
August 3, 2006
9:25 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Dammit, my post didn't make it through the links filter. Here goes again:
Dear conspiracy idiots:
There is no 9/11 conspiracy. It doesn't even make sense. Here are two links that debunk both the general points raised here as well as that moronic "Loosechange 2" video:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html
The real truth is far more sinister than the conspiracy: that by and large our governmental agencies are totally incompetent. So much for the mystique of Tom Clancy-esque super secret kickassery--they're more like the keystone cops. The other even MORE troubling truth here is in the way that the Neocons capitalized on this tragedy by pushing their profligate agenda in Iraq and elsewhere (despite my initial support of the operations in Afghanistan, I'm angered about our inability or unwillingness to finish the job there).
This is not a left vs. right issue, it's a magical thinking vs. critical thinking issue. I'll bet you conspiracy folks are the same ones who take lemonade and cayenne pepper to remedy heart disease, or see your chiropractor about bone cancer, or quaff liquified tiger penis instead of viagra. Hell, you're just about to "hit it big" in your multi-level marketing company, aren't you? Get that product out, kids!
Indeed "truthiness" is today's zeitgeist. Why fact check when you can FEEL the truth?
By the way, Harry's right that Bush never explicitly linked 9-11/Al Qaeda and Iraq. But Cheney did repeatedly. So did many conservative media pundits. Whether this was out of ignorance, confusion, or pursuing a misleading agenda, more than a third of the electorate believed at one time that Saddam was partiallly responsible for 9/11--which, I think we can mostly agree here, is patently false, whatever his so-called "links" to terror.
Once again, truthiness rears its ugly head.
August 3, 2006
9:25 AM
JW writes:
"You clearly dont know what backtracking means, dipshit. JW, what blinders you fool? I clearly said if he did know then, GOOD, it needed to happen."
Lots of people say the same about Pearl Harbor. Im partially inclined to agree. Something did need to be done, and if Bush had to let this happen in order to get public backing, then it needed to happen.
As to your blinders, cmon Harry. All you do is bash liberals. Your political discourse consists of little more than hate for liberals, and teabaggin Bush in public. All in all, you are fairly useless, other than as a source of amusement on a semi-regular basis.
August 3, 2006
9:28 AM
harry palm writes:
Terrorism is fingerprintless. You and I will never know if Sadam had a hand fianicing them, giving them passports, or what not. He may very not of had a clue about what was going on. But make no mistake, he is a Sunni, Al-queda is a Sunni group and Iraq gave money to the charities that were know terror sponsors. More so, after 12 years of dicking around with the guy, its not up to the USA and the UN to prove they have what we thought, it was up to Iraq to prove us wrong, and he chose not to till 200,000 troops were massed on his boarder. to late, your losing power once we spend the billions to mobilize to your front door.
August 3, 2006
9:31 AM
harry palm writes:
Liberals are useless, I would gas them all if I could JW. I dont pretend to have the answers, I am just one of many that is going to put a stop the liberal establishment. I would also have to say, ALL of you are fairly useless except you all think your insight is the be all end all.
August 3, 2006
9:31 AM
9/11 a false flag operation writes:
"No backtracking now Harry, just keep calling people names at the top of your lungs, that worked in 6th grade, right."
Harry was exposed as a cry baby on the Mel Gibson thread. He likes to email admin but it backfired because they quickly saw that 90% of harry's posts are vulgar name calling tirades with a few violent threats thrown in.
The truth is like light to a vampire against the pro-war mongers.
PHD's say 9/11 was an inside job.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
August 3, 2006
9:31 AM
remember this? writes:
Its good to see the "John Galts" and "That Guys" are now becoming a whimpering minority on this subject. Those two show up every time 9-11 is mentioned to call us idiots and worse....go figure.
It is great to see Americans waking up over this.....its too important not too.
Maybe the neocons and whoever else is involved in this will regret ever allowing us an education. Looks to me like alot of good folk paid attention in science class.
August 3, 2006
9:32 AM
harry palm writes:
Umm moron, all anti jew links were deleted as well. And the majority of what I say remains.
August 3, 2006
9:33 AM
remember this writes:
ROFL Dirk Gently ROFL.
weak
August 3, 2006
9:33 AM
harry palm writes:
It seems the larger problem is either A) our goverment was behind it and we are all screwed. Or B) Complete lunatics are the ones that will be taking over power peddling this crap, and we are all screwed.
August 3, 2006
9:34 AM
JW writes:
"Liberals are useless, I would gas them all if I could JW. I dont pretend to have the answers, I am just one of many that is going to put a stop the liberal establishment. I would also have to say, ALL of you are fairly useless except you all think your insight is the be all end all. "
Un American, Egotistical bs. No ciggs is no excuse for this kind of thing. Fortunately, you have the right to be a raging a$$.
August 3, 2006
9:36 AM
Anonymous writes:
Well whaddya know.........the RMN poll shows 80-20
Guess which way.
Scripps 33.3% estimate is very kind.
August 3, 2006
9:38 AM
Aaron writes:
I believe that 9/11 was an inside job. But I also do not think Bush personally had the inside track into this inside job. I think his apparent dumpfoundedness on Sept. 11 while reading goat story might have been because he had just realized that someone other than himself had the upper hand. I don't think things turned out exactly the way they (BushCo) planned on 9/11.
Something wicked this way comes if we don't change our ways. It's time to wake up. Research for yourself that things that have been going on:
http://prisonplanet.tv/
http://cassiopaea.org/
Speak with your friends, your spouse, your neighbors, your coworkers, your boss. Bring up the topic, start dialouge, get people thinking and talking.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
August 3, 2006
9:40 AM
remember this? writes:
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Well said Aaron
August 3, 2006
9:43 AM
9/11 an inside job writes:
Lol harry admits to being a cry baby snake but we all already knew that!
The admin only deleted one link. You offer nothing but spam and threats harry. You got schooled on the Mel Gibson thread just like you get schooled on all your lame spam posts.
Here is what a planned demolition via a false flag operation supported by people like harry looks like:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248
August 3, 2006
9:44 AM
Patrick writes:
I am overjoyed to see more mainstream publications finally give 9/11 a little more attention. Don't think for a second that our ruling masters wouldn't do something like that to us. Please folks, just do a little research for yourselves so we can stop this cycle before it gets worse.
August 3, 2006
9:53 AM
harry palm writes:
Schooled? You take your blogging, like your insane conspriacy crap, a little to seroius. lay off the drugs nimrod. You have yet to interject with a reasonble post. You simply attach links to far left crap. That would be like people posting links to Rush Limbaugh or the Vaticans site to back up their religious propaganda. And it simply says you devoid of any sense of reality, much like the rest of the demobrats.
August 3, 2006
9:54 AM
Aaron writes:
[To the Editor]
Dear Mark Wolf,
Your article and poll - The government and 9/11
I wanted to take a moment and thank you for opening up dialog for this sensitive yet crucial issue facing our country. There are so many inconsistencies surrounding the "official" story of 9/11 that anyone who bases their thought in objective reality cannot believe for one second that it is true. If we could just decide for a moment that we will focus on what is likely to be true, versus what we would like to believe than this world would be a much different place indeed. From no obvious signs of plane wreckage at the Pentagon, the 3 towers at the WTC being the first 3 ever in the world to collapse due to fires, and much proof that the Bush administration had been planning on going to war with Iraq long before 9/11 even happened. 9/11 was about justifying: war, loss of freedom, increased government surveillance, indefinite detention. Overall 9/11 was about ratcheting up the control grid of fear that surrounds this planet to the next notch, about tightening the loose tighter around the neck of humanity.
Ps. I just learned something today, that in the 1920's when the British army was occupying what is now known as Iraq a general for the British army is quoted as having told the local people that he was arriving as their liberator. The British army also faced a fierce resistance by the Iraqi people, just like the American military does today. Sounds a little familiar does it not?
Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it. I hope to see more articles that seek to deal with the more somber aspects of our reality.
Sincerely,
Aaron
August 3, 2006
9:54 AM
9/11 an inside job writes:
Rocky Mountain News could be the first major media outlet to break the official 9/11 cover-up wide open. If it does then imagine how many new readers and the amount of respect RMN will get! Hopefully journalists still have an overwhelming desire to uncover the truth and help the USA bring to justice those who carried out false flag operations on 9/11.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248
August 3, 2006
9:55 AM
harry palm writes:
Why would 911 be an inside job when the Arabs were hell bent on pulling it off? If we fabricated lies to invade Iraq, we sure didnt need to fabricate lies to invade Afghanistan and take down mud hutts you lunatic. The war on terror isnt going to stop once a dem gets into office either dip. So you got yourself a lost cause, much like your life.
August 3, 2006
9:56 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Remember this: if my argument's weak, attack it then. Or are you just a trawling hater?
Any comments about the debunking links? No? Just more links to idiotic claptrap? All right! Go truthiness brigade!
By the way, having a PhD does not preclude someone from engaging in magical thinking. I worked with a number of professors in a social sciences field who, in their own research, were sharp as tacks. When it came to all the BS peddled by alternative nutrition nuts, however, they believed anything. By contrast, my wife has a PhD in Human Nutrition--several of her colleagues will believe anything in the media not related to their field; again, lazy mindedness. Further, there are many, many zany folks who have doctoral degrees and use that as a calling card to comment in any field, despite their complete lack of expertise outside of the area in which they go their degree: "Dr." Laura Schlessinger's degree is in physiology, which apparently gives her license to comment on psychology and social science. Bah.
Finally, I would like for all you conspiracy theory folks to pay Maddox a little visit, he'll knock some sense into you: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
August 3, 2006
10:00 AM
Anonymous writes:
Harry has been neutralized with overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was a false flag operation. Go back to your home in the mud harry.
August 3, 2006
10:01 AM
Anonymous writes:
This needs to be seen by every American.
www.policestateplanning.com/loose_change_ii.htm
August 3, 2006
10:02 AM
jay writes:
Ahhh...a typical day on the RMN blog....harry's forgotten to take his meds and is once again getting intellectually pummeled, the right wing nuts are frothing at the mouth because someone had the gall to rightly proclaim that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and no connection to Al Qaeda, and the conspiracy theorists are doing what they do best...although I'm not really sure what that is.
I don't know for sure what happened on 9/11...there are compelling arguments on both sides of the debate. If I had to lean one way or another, I'd probably lean towards the side of terrorists vs. our gov't. However, that being said, I don't think for one second that our gov't would have any moral qualms about harming its own citizens for a strategic initiative birthed in the backroom of the pentagon. Anyone who believes that our gov't, on either side of the aisle, holds the general population's best interests at heart has some real issues with reality.
August 3, 2006
10:03 AM
Steve writes:
For those who lump all 9/11 Truth movement followers in the "loony conspiracy theory" catagory, I would suggest going to Google video and downloading a video clip of World Trade Center 7's demolition. That 47 story building fell in less than 8 seconds even though it was never hit by a jet and only suffered minor fire damge.
Obviously, it had to have been wired with pre-set explosives, as I believe also, were both WTC towers 1 and 2.
I recently wrote Congressman Tom Tancredo's office and talked with several of his staff here in Colorado and in Washington. I have yet to get any answer or comment about these matters, though I assured them that I would be back for some statement and accountability.
Our government has been hyjacked. September 11th will go down in US history as a staged event far beyond events like the Lusitania, the Maine and the Gulf of Tonkin. The mainstream press is starting to catch on.
Has Hillary Clinton made any comment or investigation into this New York matter yet? Don't hold you breath, Kerry didn't in the last election either.
Who is really controlling the government of our country? Is it the voters or the Council on Foreign Relations and their handpicked puppets like Clinton and Bush.
People wake up! We have almost lost our freedom and Constitutiion.
If you doubt this, then EXPLAIN how WTC 7 came down without pre-set explosives, the 911 Commission didn't even try. I demand answers NOW before the next round of distraction hits with something worse then 911!
August 3, 2006
10:03 AM
Anonymous writes:
Harry-
You're starting to sound like Tracey F. Or, your losing the battle yet you can't convince yourself. Are you related to the lying oxycotin addicted deaf fat neoncon puppet supporter? B/C you sure are showing it and it's not looking good.
August 3, 2006
10:04 AM
harry palm writes:
Aaron, quit reading your socialist propaganda sites you tool. First off the brits landed in Iraq in 1917, and were welcomed. A major revolte happened in 1920. It also wasnt exactly Iraqis, it was the Ottomans, learn some history you fool. In fact, it wasnt even Iraq, the French and the Brits carved out and Named it Iraq, to give the people something after the fall of the Ottoman empire, which was a brutal empire.
"The British government laid out the political and constitutional framework for Iraq's government. Britain imposed a HÄ?shimite monarchy on Iraq and defined the territorial limits of Iraq without taking into account the aspirations of the different ethnic and religious groups in the country, in particular those of the Kurds to the north. Britain had to put down a major revolt against its policies between 1920 and 1922. During the revolt Britain used gas and air attacks on Iraqi villagers"
What you also fail to even touch is the Brits invested all the money into oil exploration and GAVE the rights to all the oil to Iraq in 1927. Get off your leftist pedistal, you are clearly to stupid to continue to conversation.
August 3, 2006
10:05 AM
Operation Northwoods writes:
Jay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a 1962 plan to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro as part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative. The plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real state sponsored terrorism (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. and Cuban soil. The plan was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, including the highest ranking member of the U.S. military, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer.
The proposal was presented in a document entitled "Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba," a collection of draft memoranda (PDF) written by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) representative to the Caribbean Survey Group. The document was presented by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13 with one paragraph approved, as a preliminary submission for planning purposes.
The previously secret document was originally made public on November 18, 1997 by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board [1], a U.S. federal agency overseeing the release of government records related to John F. Kennedy's assassination. [2] [3] A total of about 1500 pages of once-secret military records covering 1962 to 1964 were concomitantly declassified by said Review Board.
"Appendix to Enclosure A" and "Annex to Appendix to Enclosure A" of the Northwoods document were first published online by the National Security Archive on November 6, 1998 in a joint venture with CNN as part of CNN's 1998 Cold War television documentary series[4]—specifically, as a documentation supplement to "Episode 10: Cuba," which aired on November 29, 1998. [5] "Annex to Appendix to Enclosure A" is the section of the document which contains the proposals to stage terrorist attacks.
The Northwoods document was published online in a more complete form (i.e., including cover memoranda) by the National Security Archive on April 30, 2001. [6]
August 3, 2006
10:05 AM
harry palm writes:
How come drugs users are only okay when theya re liberal? Infact child molesters are okay, gays are okay, as long as they are not on the right????? idiot
August 3, 2006
10:06 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
By the way, I think this conversation is important (thank you, Mark): the "unanswered" questions about 9/11 are worth putting to our government so that we can demand competence and a tightly run ship. It is also worthwhile to air the conspiracy opinions because:
1) You never really know--some of this could be plausible
2) The items that are successully debunked allow us to give pause over how easily we can be convinced of things without very much evidence at all. A lesson worth learning, if any of you care to do so.
3) It gives us an excellent chance here to argue something that doesn't just repeat the same ol' left-right schism. It's kinda fun to sorta be on Harry's side, despite our vehement disagreement over most other things. Although, I have to say, Harry, perhaps you should get some smokes, then take some ritalin and some barbiturates--you gotta calm down, man.
August 3, 2006
10:08 AM
Mark Wolf writes:
Because of a dating error, we had identical Government-9/11 posts up. Comments by Steve and Patrick were put up there. They've just been transferred over and the duplicate item has been dispatched to cyberspace oblivion.
August 3, 2006
10:08 AM
harry palm writes:
Every point you conspriacy loons think of come directly from the movie, you are not original, you did not think this up, you are taking ONE mans movie as fact. Yet he profited from it. he is profiting from your stupidity. All the documents you cite have proven false. The building 7 is about the only questionable peice of eveidence put forth. You loons just dont look further than a movie, beacuse not only are you paranoid nut cases, you are lazy bastards that dont bother to ever read.
August 3, 2006
10:25 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
OMFG, I can't believe I'm saying this:
I agree with Harry. Abrasive though he may be, he's right: you people haven't come up with anything that hasn't been debunked in the links I sent. Further, Operation Northwoods, you can't expect us to take your post totally at face value for two immediately obvious reasons:
1. Your only source is Wikipedia
2. Even if Operation Northwoods is real/true, it doesn't mean that 9/11 was any such plan actually activated.
3. How does it behoove even the Neocons to damage the Pentagon and take out the World Trade Center? I believe our government would kill thousands for an agenda (cough-Iraq-cough), but I don' think they'd kill their own and wipe out the financial center of the country. Oh, but that just PROVES their resolve, eh?
Yeah, no use arguing with magical thinkers. Why don't you people go back to examining moon landing tapes?
August 3, 2006
10:30 AM
Wikipedia writes:
9/11 was carried out by gay liberals trying to conspire to erect a nude statue in Loveland just before granting amnesty to thousands of illegals who want to race bikes at high speed through Wash Park just so they can get the 2018 Olympics here.
August 3, 2006
10:30 AM
JW writes:
"The building 7 is about the only questionable peice of eveidence put forth. You loons just dont look further than a movie, beacuse not only are you paranoid nut cases, you are lazy bastards that dont bother to ever read. "
Physisits have questioned the destruction of ALL the WTC buildings. They question how the buildings could have collapsed the way they did. It basically comes down to the laws of physics. Gravity makes things fall at a certain rate. Given the type of damage the WTC buildings sustained, there should have been delays as undamaged lower levels were broken by falling upper levels. There were no delays. This points to the lower levels being taken out, providing freefall without resistance for the upperlevels, which is not consistant with the explanations given.
August 3, 2006
10:30 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Er, three, three reasons.
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!
August 3, 2006
10:31 AM
9/11 an inside job writes:
There have been dozens of other links dirk descibing many angles to the 9/11 false flag operation. You and harry are two peas in a pod and should get married.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html
August 3, 2006
10:35 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
JW, it's not about gravity, it's about steel strength. Please at least GLANCE at the debunking links.
August 3, 2006
10:38 AM
Thermite Identified As Culprit Of WTC Collapse writes:
Evidence mounting that cause first identified on Alex Jones Show led to towers' implosion
A new branch of 9/11 research claims to have identified the cause of the collapse of the twin towers. The photographic and video evidence makes a very strong case for thermite being responsible for the unprecedented implosions of steel framed reinforced buildings on September 11.
This facet was first brought to light during a November 2005 appearance on The Alex Jones Show by Brigham Young University physicist Professor Steven Jones. Jones said that white phosphorous wasn't powerful enough to cause the implosion but that thermite was the likely culprit. Alex Jones's 2005 release Martial Law 9/11 Rise of the Police State highlighted the physical evidence that the towers and Building 7 were brought down with incendiary devices.
Brigham Young University physicist Professor Steven Jones told peers at a Utah meeting that, "while almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail, the combination of thermite and sulfur "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
Jones points to a video (click here to watch) which shows a bright yellow molten substance dripping from the south tower minutes before its collapse. Government investigators claimed that this was aluminum from Flight 175 but Jones is adamant that aluminum is silvery in appearance and doesn't turn yellow.
Jones also told the Deseret News that sulfur traces found at ground zero indicates the thermite was combined with sulphur to make it burn even hotter than the normal 2500 degrees Celsius.
Jones stated that thermite was a "clever" choice because its ingredients, aluminum and iron oxide do not require identifying tags by law, meaning they couldn't be traced back to their manufacturers.
Watch the following video and observe how thermite completely melts a car engine in a matter of seconds, without the addition of sulphur, and also completely resists neutralization by liquid nitrogen. Notice how the dripping substance is identical to that seen in the south tower video
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm
August 3, 2006
10:44 AM
harry palm writes:
Idiot, Thermite is a regulated chemical that could be easily traced back. The easy part is throwing that out there for people like who dont even bother to look up Thermite to see how hard it is to get. The smoke you see coming out of the side is not explosives, its called Smoke Dampes, they pump the smoke out.
August 3, 2006
10:45 AM
Jim Hogue writes:
Congratulations for the coverage.
Many of the comments fail to understand the difference between theory and fact.
It is a fact that thermite and/or thermate reactions were involved in the collapse of the WTC Towers and WTC 7. That is not a theory. The theory is that these reactions were set by officials in the US government in order to demolish these buildings to accomplish various goals in the post 9/11 world.
It is a fact that there was an eight mile debris field around Shanksville PA and the corroner reported no bodies. The theory is that jets shot flight 93 out of the air.
Both the demolition and shoot down theories are correct in my opinion. And cleary they need investigation and prosecution.
Jim (author of the oirginal story about Sibel Edmonds at www.baltimorechronicle.com)
August 3, 2006
10:49 AM
Anonymous writes:
You have no creditability harry. No one takes you seriously but your soon to be husband dirk. No giant magical fans blew out the smoke harry spammer. Go back to your mud puddle harry.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
August 3, 2006
10:50 AM
RonT writes:
"The survey also found that people who regularly use the Internet but who do not regularly use so-called "mainstream" media are significantly more likely to believe in Sept. 11 conspiracies."
Doesn't that cover the FoxNews crowd? Of course, that also could be the DemocrayNow.org crowd, too...........
August 3, 2006
10:51 AM
harry palm writes:
Okay fine, you loons win, the goverment is behind it all and we are all screwed. You believe it so much that instead of taking action you simply want everyone to watch your idiotic movie. You must have some pretty strong convictions since you are so pro-active, blogging and all!! Way to go, I bet via the blogs you will take the country back as well! Douches
August 3, 2006
10:53 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
9/11 an inside job:
First of all, even if the Northwood Operation were proved true, that doesn't directly correlate to 9/11. It merely establishes precident for the possiblity.
Secondly, quantity of data does not correlate with quality of data. Did you seriously just suggest that the 9/11 conspiracy must be true because so many people believe in it and have put up data to back their claims? Please correct me if I'm wrong, because that's a terrible argument. The only way in which that becomes credible is if it's a huge majority of EXPERTS, who have all gone through peer review and various other vetting mechanisms. Just because all of you kooks can put up a website doesn't mean that your claims are valid.
Regarding thermite and steel: the "physicist" is clearly wrong (see numerous sites about the fire/steel issue, but to sum: steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C). Note my earlier post about people operating outside of their field of expertise. He is not a chemist or engineer. Assuming his expertise is legit, even, that doesn't preclude him from being a kook. Anyway, he's a prof at BYU, which means he can't teach much outside of the explicit approval of the Mormon Church. This automatically makes him suspect, in my view.
Can I just say: I'm not innately opposed to there being a conspiracy. If TRULY CREDIBLE evidence, including the "smoking gun", comes to light, I'll change my opinion. But until then: get a life and a brain, nutjobs.
August 3, 2006
10:53 AM
Steve writes:
Is there evidence of the "smoking gun" in the 911 conspiracy theory?" It appears so.
Dr. Steven Jones has chemically tested metal taken from WTC and found high amounts of Sulfer Thermate a patented product used almost exclusively in controlled demolition. Like thermite, this substance is far more effective in cutting steel and is the main means of severing girders during a controlled demolition. If we could have actually had a team of real investigators at the site instead of having it roped off and scrubbed the way it was, I am sure the forensics of what actually happened would have been discovered. Yet even the small amounts of steel that have been examined reveal the sulfer thermate.
There is still NO official explanation of how WTC 7 fell, unless you use controlled demolition.
Obviously the FDNY didn't expect towers 1 and 2 to collapse or they would not have sent 300 men into the buildings to put out the fires. There has never been a steel-reinforced skyscraper like the WTC toweres collapse due to fire.
I will grant that there are plentry of loose allegations (some of which may actually be planted, then feeble and novice attempts to debunk them in great "scientific" publications like Popular Mechanics" which confound the psudo intellectuals in the men's room) around the 911 Truth Movement. But the hard evidence concerning the forensics of how those towers turned into virtual volcanic ash and dust and fell out of the sky at the speed of gravity, leaving no huge "pancaked" rubble at the base, only neatly severed steel, and molten metal...and dust, does NOT square with Popular Mechanics or the 911 Commission's "pancake thoery".
August 3, 2006
10:55 AM
9/11 an inside job writes:
Support beams were cut at a 45 degree angle using Thermite. Bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the WTC two weeks before 9/11.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/preparation.html
August 3, 2006
11:00 AM
9/11 a false flag operation writes:
Bomb sniffing dods removed from WTC two weeks before 9/1. Guess who was in charge of security and authorized the removal of the thermite sniffing dogs before 9/11?
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm
August 3, 2006
11:01 AM
harry palm writes:
Bomb sniffing dogs were not removed, there was increased security threat and the week before they downgraded the threat. The only things removed were the excess dogs and patrol men. LOON. Dirk, you seem to be taking my stance with these peoples and developing an abrasive attitude towards them. Perhaps you understand me a little better. I dont call you and Jay loons, I just call Jay a douche
August 3, 2006
11:02 AM
Anonymous writes:
dods should be dogs on that last post
August 3, 2006
11:04 AM
Think About It writes:
Joan @ 8:15 -
Yes, the Islamo Facists want us dead - the same as Israel. Now ask yourself this simple question: Does it make sense that they can't even put Israel in real jeopardy of falling, yet they could come here and pull off 911 without support and help from the inside?
I think not. Open your eyes. Review the body of evidence. Follow the money trail, which was freaking HUGE! Then think logically and methodically about the whole ball of wax. What you come to is an understanding that with 9 of the 20 "attackers" still alive and having been interviewed by the BBC, something isn't right.
August 3, 2006
11:04 AM
Anonymous writes:
When is your wedding to dik harry spammer?
"George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.
The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a ``completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center ``up to the day the buildings fell down." "
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm
August 3, 2006
11:04 AM
hank diehl writes:
Believe in conspiracy theories? Angry and mad? Do they also believe in man-made global warming, that we are running out of energy, that the Bush tax cuts come at the expense of the poor, that we are in a soup-kitchen, 1929 economic depression, that Bush exports jobs, that Bush "knew," that half of America is unemployed, that Halliburton is stealing Iraqi oil for Cheney, that Clinton wasn't impeached and disbarred? Do they routinely tune in to "60 Minutes," read the New York Times and listen to Air America to get their information? Do they support Ward Churchill, feel sympathy of Osama bin Laden and belong to the ACLU?
Do they belong to a union?
If this same bunch is found to be foaming at the mouth with veins poping out of their bulging eyeballs, then they are what most Americans know as LIBERAL DEMOCRATS.
August 3, 2006
11:07 AM
900 days to go writes:
I do not think the Bush administration necessarily planned 911. I just think that either through sinister planning for support of an Iraq invasion or incompetence they let it happen. I think Condoleezza Rice was the most incompetent National Security Advisor we have ever suffered through if it is not a conspiracy which is very believable. But the goals of PNAC are certainly sick in nature so anything is possible. The ideas of world domination by PNAC are usually saved for fictional villains or cartoon mice geniuses named Brain. In either case the best plan of action is to get a new executive branch as soon as possible. I would recommend voting for Democrats in the hope we could impeach Bush and replace his cabinet within a year.
August 3, 2006
11:10 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Yeah, I guess I'm in one of those moods today. Usually I'm much more civil!
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the evidence for the thermite and angled cuts is based on:
1. Skepticism over the way in which the building(s) collapsed;
2. The notion that thermite and angled cuts seem to be a more plausible explanation
3. Evidence of this based on video footage and "gaps" in the explanation.
No physical evidence? Huh. Oh, and the "evidence" that is presented is right in keeping with putting the cart before the hose: "here's what I think happened, so I'm going to analyze the evidence looking for what I think to be the case", rather than the more accepted methodology of analyzing and THEN drawing conclusions. I'm sorry, I just don't buy it.
August 3, 2006
11:11 AM
jay writes:
harry, don't be bitter because you're the intellectual piñata of the RMN blog...it's not my fault you make a fool out of yourself every day. Try sounding out the words before you push Post.
August 3, 2006
11:20 AM
9/11 a false flag operation writes:
"Calculations done by the author correlated the collapse energies with the seismic signal of explosions at a quarry in the vicinity of the seismic observatory. These calculations indicate that the seismic spikes of the WTC events represent energies close to those of the collapses themselves (see Appendix A for these seismic energy correlation calculations). A sole video clip purported to show, by video image shaking, evidence of a pre-collapse WTC2 explosion is not conclusive. A video with shake-free periods for several minutes before and after collapse is not available. Therefore, wind flutter has not been disproved as a cause of camera shaking. A second video from another perspective is not available to show pre-collapse shaking temporally correlated with the first video. The existence of such a second video from an independent source would make such video evidence more credible [Ref. (5)]. From these observations, the author has concluded that there is no firm evidence of pre-collapse explosions that left seismic signatures."
http://cooperativeresearch.org/phorum5/read.php?3,104,212
August 3, 2006
11:23 AM
JW writes:
"1. Skepticism over the way in which the building(s) collapsed; "
This is really the only one that makes me think the "conspiracy" is even possible. Physisits timed the collapse of the WTC buildings. Based on the laws of gravity, there was no resistance during the collapse, which is inconsistant with the kind of damage the building suffered.
Not saying I believe it. Just saying that when the law of physics say thats not what happened, its worth looking into.
August 3, 2006
11:25 AM
Look at the physics of 9/11 writes:
Dirk @ 11:10
Perhaps you remember the molten steel unearthed at ground zero weeks after 9/11. The steel eventually became solid after cooling off and the COLOR from photos of this steel indicates the end-products of a chemical reaction between thermite, sulphur and steel.
The physical evidence of thermite and sulphur is seen in some video footage of 9/11 because the COLOR of the molten steel is consistent with a chemical reaction between thermite, sulphur and steel INSTEAD of steel that supposedly melted from an office and kerosene fueled fire.
Steven Jones, a physics professor at BYU, also has a sample of dirt from ground zero that has tested positive for thermite.
Too bad you're a Douglas Adams' creation and not a real detective.
August 3, 2006
11:26 AM
900 days to go writes:
Conspiracies come and go but the incompetence of the Bush, Cheney, Rice combination is this administration is constant. If there was not a conspiracy this is the only other answer and believing they are incompetent is not very hard.
August 3, 2006
11:26 AM
Look at the physics of 9/11 writes:
Dirk @ 11:10
Perhaps you remember the molten steel unearthed at ground zero weeks after 9/11. The steel eventually became solid after cooling off and the COLOR from photos of this steel indicates the end-products of a chemical reaction between thermite, sulphur and steel.
The physical evidence of thermite and sulphur is seen in some video footage of 9/11 because the COLOR of the molten steel is consistent with a chemical reaction between thermite, sulphur and steel INSTEAD of steel that supposedly melted from an office and kerosene fueled fire.
Steven Jones, a physics professor at BYU, also has a sample of dirt from ground zero that has tested positive for thermite.
Too bad you're a Douglas Adams' creation and not a real detective.
August 3, 2006
11:29 AM
9/11 an inside job writes:
"The free-fall times and pools of molten steel are entirely different matters. They are a matter of public record, observed by many individuals. So we have evidence of molten steel in the basement; the FEMA report saying molten steel was not to blame, just weakened floor joist bolts; collapse times close to free fall; no real record of a massive explosion (although numerous claims of sounds of smaller explosions and observations of demolition squibs). The immediate conjecture supported by direct observation is the following: controlled demolition, characterized by a (relatively) non-explosive, huge energy release necessary to melt (some) steel. M. Rivero of whatreallyhappened.com and others have proposed the use of thermite, familiar to those of us who had the high school chemistry course with an impressive thermite demonstration. So the question arises: can one get enough thermite close enough to melt sections of the inner core columns, as part of a controlled demolition scenario? The following calculations in this paper indeed do show that it is possible (and I stress possible). Until simple chemical reactants like thermite can be discarded there is really no need to invoke the use of highly speculative and sophisticated devices like thermobaric bombs and scalar EM weapons."
http://cooperativeresearch.org/phorum5/read.php?3,104,212
August 3, 2006
11:34 AM
Anonymous writes:
OK Dirk - you don't buy it. So how about dropping off the discussion rather than simply saying "I don't buy it" to each person's post that happens to raise questions? In other words, either add something or make room.
August 3, 2006
11:36 AM
Follow the money writes:
http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/WAR.html
"*In the days leading up to the 9-11 attacks, a record number of stocks, hundreds of millions of dollars worth, from the companies that would be devastated on September 11, such as United and American airlines, were sold off. A jump in UAL put options were 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between Sept. 6 and Sept.10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack. A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal on the day before the attacks. No similar trading occurred on any other airlines. This was a big news story for a couple of days after 9-11, but it suddenly and mysteriously dissappeared. ABC World News reported on Sept. 20, 2001 "Jonathan Winer, an ABC News consultant said, 'it's absolutely unprecedented to see cases of insider trading covering the entire world from Japan, to the U.S., to North America, to Europe." How much money was involved? Andreas von Bulow, a former member of the German Parliament responsible for oversight of Germany's intelligence services estimated the worldwide amount at $15 billion. Not a single U.S. or foreign investigative agency has announced any arrests or developments in the investigation of these trades, the most telling evidence of foreknowledge of the attacks. This, in spite of the fact that former Security and Exchange Commission enforcement chief William McLucas told Bloomberg News that regulators would "certainly be able to track down every trade." They found exactly where the trail was leading, then the story suddenly dropped out of site. They dropped the pursuit of this story for one reason only...
August 3, 2006
11:44 AM
fiesty writes:
Wow, gone for a morning, and look what I miss! I have a few questions, (which I'll post one by one), that I would LOVE to have answered about 9-11.
Please note that I am taking directly from the official report which is available online.
FIGHTER SCRAMBLE
OFFICIAL VERSION: “After consulting with NEADS command, the crew commander issued an order at 0923: ‘Okay… scramble Langley. Head them towards the Washington area…’… That order was processed and transmitted to Langley Air Force Base at 0924. Radar data shows the Langley fighters airborne at 0930… The heading of the Langley fighters was adjusted to send them to the Baltimore area… At 0936…He [mission crew commander] then discovered, to his surprise, that the Langley fighters were not headed north toward the Baltimore area as instructed, but east over the ocean.
The Langley fighters were heading east, not north, for three reasons. First, unlike a normal scramble order, this order did not include a distance to the target or the target’s location. Second, a “generic� flight plan- prepared to get the aircraft airborne and out of local airspace quickly- incorrectly led the Langley fighters to believe they were ordered to fly due east (090) for 60 miles. Third, the lead pilot and local FAA controller incorrectly assumed the flight plan instruction to “090 for 60� superseded the original scramble order.� [9-11 Commission Report, pg 27]
ISSUE 1: The official version states that the order did not include the “target’s location�; however, the NEAD commander specifically directed pilots not once, but twice, to where they were to go.
ISSUE 2: Why would pilots disobey a direct NEADS Commander order TWICE in favor of a “generic� flight plan? (The scramble order specifically stated Baltimore, and then, in the first few minutes in the air, they were re-directed to Washington. Yet they still proceeded east. It took a third order to get them where they were supposed to be.) Who authorized this? Were the pilots interviewed, and what was their rationale?
ISSUE 3: Besides directly disregarding orders, stating that the lead pilot and FAA controller believed a “generic� flight plan overrode the original scramble order simply does not make sense. Were these individuals interviewed, and what was their rationale?
August 3, 2006
11:48 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
9/11 false flag: Your posts are very good from the standpoint that they appear to be from sources that are making legitimate attempts at investigation. The posts raise the possiblility of conspiracy shenanigans, but they don't PROVE them. Most of all, they point to the immense complexity of the event and how much data can come out as "inconclusive", whichever side one argues on this.
I grant all you conspiracy folks that there is enough evidence to make us wonder and to be skeptical about particular aspects (some WAY more credible than others). But this still doesn't prove much, and it certainly doesn't tell us WHO is responsible. You have to go with what is proven, not what seems intriguing enough to believe in.
Look at the physics: again, this is all circumstantial evidence that you provide. There is enough to raise questions, no doubt, but it still doesn't actually prove anything. Meanwhile, the intriguing questions the "evidence" raises is taken by so many to the next "logical" point of assuming a conspiracy of thousands of astoundingly competent officials at both the state and federal level. THAT Is the most implausible part of the conspiracy theory. Kudos for getting the reference to holistic detecting, though--you're the only one to do so, as far as I know.
900 Days makes the best point of all: whoever's right on this, it means either the Bush administration is actively evil, or merely incompetent. In either case, we need to boot these jokers from office. That goes for the do-nothing Congress, also (Dems included).
August 3, 2006
11:55 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
11:34:
I posted several debunking links that explained why "I don't buy it". Apparently nobody has read them. I don't see the point of re-posting all that information here. We can discuss the quality of THOSE points, but I'm not going to just repost debunking points to every conspiracy point out there. It's a waste of everyone's time.
I think we're kind of reaching the point where one either believes in the conspiracy or doesn't. I can't refute all the points, and certainly I can't convert the zealous. So where do we go from here? What are the ramifications if the conspiracy's true? What if it isn't? So what, in other words?
August 3, 2006
11:57 AM
Scott writes:
Mark, good stuff! I had no idea that there were that many loons out there. Thanks!
August 3, 2006
11:58 AM
9/11 an inside job writes:
dirk
you are here to say nothing can be proven which is your function. The truth train will go ahead without you.
This is not about Democrat or Republican it's about finding out who really carried out 9/11. The overwhelming amount of evidence shows 9/11 was a false flag operation. People like you do not have a death grip over the blogs anymore. Chu Chu Chu Jump aboard the 9/11 truth train an free yourself from the war mongers who carried out 9/11 unless you are a criminal. If you are a criminal the truth will land you in prison! Woo Wooo
August 3, 2006
11:58 AM
hank diehl writes:
Wow, this sure looks like a major MOONBAT cave, Nurse Ratchet would be proud. Instead of straight jackets, there appears to be an over-abundance of tin-foil hats.
I bet if Scripps Howard/Ohio U. took it to the next logical step, they would have discovered that 100% of their 36% are LIBERAL DEMOCRATS.
Blind-hatred and rage, combined with intense anger, leads to terminal MOONBAT KOOKOSIS. America is luck that only 36% of its population is totally nuts!
Wait until Elvis finds out!
August 3, 2006
11:58 AM
David Littleton writes:
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." - Mark Twain
Your government lies to you. If you do not understand this simple statement you have already fallen victim to the countless variations of Operation Mockingbird. Your thoughts are controlled and influenced by a government controlled mega-corporate media.
Anyone that doubts that your government would lie to you should seek out and read the recently declassified document "Operation Northwood". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)
If you would like to see the damning evidence for yourself on the governments involvement behind 9/11 read "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil" by Michael Ruppert. You can access tons of information by visiting www.fromthewilderness.com
"We must hang together, or we will all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin.
August 3, 2006
12:00 PM
That one guy writes:
I got called out earlier in the posting so I figure I might have to weigh in here. Personally, I find it hilarious that people actually believe this nonsense. Our own government and President engineered 9/11? Or LET it happen? Please guys, get real. These people are thinking in the best interest of our country and killing three thousand innocent citizens is not keeping the country's best interest in mind. You watch too many movies if you think this actually was a conspiracy from Bush. If it was anyone's fault, it was Clinton's fault for ignoring terrorism and breaking down intelligence. Bush was in office for only 9 months prior to 9/11. For a group of people who don't think Bush can read, you sure give him a lot of credit for masterminding a conspiracy that would ultimately change the world. This would take a great deal of intelligence. You would have to get everyone in the government to go along with you and not leak the news, you would have to hire demolition engineers to blow the buildings (and swear them to secrecy too), also the military would have to be involved in shooting airplanes and firing missles (since no Boeing parts were found at any sites- that was sarcasm), documents forged and shredded, etc. We have been at war in Iraq for three years and you want me to believe that 9/11 was engineered by an idiot in only 9 months? So which is it? Is Bush the idiot you say he is, or is he a charismatic, super-mad genius who could concoct a plan like this and get everyone involved to follow along? He also wouldn't allow something like this to happen. But he definately should have left that school-room and jumped in front of the second plane while simultaneously beating up hijackers on the other planes. I seriously question the logic skills and intelligence of anyone who believes that Bush had anything to do with 9/11. Wake up. Quit using the internet and your imagination and use the two eyes you have. It happened the way we all saw it. Osama took credit and said it took him eight years to plan the whole thing. But I guess Bush could get it done in 9 months (sarcasm again).
August 3, 2006
12:03 PM
9/11 a false flag operation writes:
The old "you must be a kook if you can read and research" post again. The evidence shows 9/11 was an inside job and false flag operation. Get on the truth train unless you are a criminal at which point you are not welcome on it.
August 3, 2006
12:05 PM
fiesty writes:
I don't think all the comments about loonies or bats is at all fair. To the contrary, it demonstrates those folks have a closed mind. When I first heard about this theory, I too thought they were crazy- after all, I was on active duty on 9/11. However, after reviewing some of the points raised, I discovered there was definitely some validity. I don't know what the ultimate truth is; I just know that the official version is full of holes.
August 3, 2006
12:07 PM
9/11 an inside job writes:
"Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html
August 3, 2006
12:12 PM
Anonymous writes:
That one Chick conveniently leaves out the part where Clinton told Bush that Al Qaeda should be one of his top priorities.
"No one could have conceived that they would use airplanes as weapons"
"No one could have conceived that those levees would break"
"No one could have conceived that we would be facing such an insurgency"
"No one could have conceived that Iraq would fall in to civil war"
August 3, 2006
12:12 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
Let's just get things clear, here:
1. I am way left on the issues. But I'm no conspiracy nut, as you can see.
2. Hank, you clearly have your conservative blinders on. Many of the people posting who believe in this stuff are conservatives. Get a clue and let go of your hate (and your ignorance, for that matter).
3. "9/11 an inside job": "truth" is always a matter of opinion. Probably the only postmodern position I agree with is that "truth" is largely a socio-cultural construct. "Fact", however, is a whole other thing. I merely stated that there is not enough FACT to support your claims. There is, at best, only the absence of ENOUGH fact surrounding this case to convince you that this is NOT a conspiracy. I would say the balance of evidence, as well as rudimentary plausibility, is in my favor. Should I be proven wrong, I won't be sore about it. In fact it would be to my benefit to believe that there is a conspiracy: the Feds, particularly the Neocons, would be run out of town. If there's a conspiracy, it would be a tremendous boon to my cause. But you know, I'm sorry, I just can't get on that train until there is enough fact to support your "truth".
August 3, 2006
12:16 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
You're not a kook if you can read and do research. You're a kook if you believe everything you read and your "research" is merely rehashing what other researchers' claims are.
Unless of course you refer to the researchers themselves. In this case, I'd say "kooky" but not actual kooks. Still, I stand by my previous posts.
August 3, 2006
12:17 PM
That guy writes:
Media experts point to the growing trend of blogging, which although rapid in its response and dissemination, is horribly prone to bias and false information.
The reliance of this blogs authors on weblinks to other blogs simply clouds the truth further.
Its fine to have a general discussion about opinion and self-evident truths, but the rhetoric is flaming - partly due to people's insistance that what they have read somewhere on the internet is true.
As for the Jay/JW aliases, I'm still here and ready to point out the idiots anytime.
August 3, 2006
12:18 PM
9/11 a false flag operation writes:
The producer of loosechange2 just got back from his tour in Iraq. He finished his tour with honors.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1519312457137943386
There is mountains of evidence indicating 9/11 was a false flag operation.
Dirk was never welcome on the truth train as he or she has no desire to uncover the truth.
August 3, 2006
12:20 PM
Anonymous writes:
The produce of False Change is french you friggin idiot! He didnt finish any tour in Iraq with honors. Are you really this retarded?
August 3, 2006
12:20 PM
Anonymous writes:
"As for the Jay/JW aliases, I'm still here and ready to point out the idiots anytime."
Then you must be pointing at yourself That Guy!
August 3, 2006
12:21 PM
harry palm writes:
rush limbaugh says the dems are loons and anyone buying into loose change is in need of therapy
www.rushlimbaugh.com
about as useful as all the whack jobs links you be posting nutcase
August 3, 2006
12:22 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
Nice, "9/11...", resorting to sophomoric metaphors and flaming, all while representing credibility. Riiiiiiiggght.
Have you no recourse to my posts? Do you not see that I have no political agenda in either believing or disbelieving you? You sound like a missionary who's frustrated that someone can't understand the "truth" of your revelations. You are certainly welcome to state that you find the evidence for conspiracy highly compelling, you may even believe it. But you cannot claim that it's actually true.
August 3, 2006
12:25 PM
Anonymous writes:
Harry has no creditability. He just whines to the admin like a cry baby when people start posting the truth. Harry's job title is professional spammer and want to be groom of dirk's.
August 3, 2006
12:27 PM
harry palm writes:
Yes the truth, we are turning into a police state, bush was behind 911, yet your dumbass is only blogging!! way to change the world loon. I hope you guys keep it up though, it will only seal the deal on another 8 years of a republican controlled white house and congress.
August 3, 2006
12:27 PM
That one guy writes:
I would like to point out that I have no relation to "That guy". Thank you.
August 3, 2006
12:29 PM
Anonymous writes:
Your agenda is to cover-up the truth Dirk. You use the standard truth suppression techniques in every single post of yours.
August 3, 2006
12:30 PM
Anonymous writes:
So far all your "truths" have been.
1) 911 was an inside job.
2) The jews are responsible for all the problems.
3) the jews start wars for fun and for profit.
4) America is becoming a police state.
5) Our empire is going to fall to ruins when the oil drys up.
6) If you vote democrat, it will put it all back to normal and the truth will be revealed.
Sounds like you have some serious issues with your idiotic crap being taken down. At least I know now the RMN isnt the loon you are. I am guessing you are the typical fat sweaty dipshit that cant read, but you can watch movies for insight......
Infact, you are so smart you actually try to pass off that a french guy is serving in Iraq....can you be anymore moronic or lost in your dope filled head jacka**>???
August 3, 2006
12:31 PM
That one guy writes:
While I agree with you sometimes, Harry, you might be taken more seriously if you refrain from calling everyone nutjobs and dipshits. You sound angry. Leave that foul play to the liberals. We are above that stuff. (or I am, you make the choice).
August 3, 2006
12:32 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
It must be pointed out, That Guy, with regard to media experts and blogging: most are concerned about the fact that people blog according to personal opinion and only visit blogs with which they agree--the echo-chamber effect. This severly undermines the democratice ideals of a Public Sphere.
I have to say that blogs like THIS, however, server to counter that. Undoubtedly I would never learn of the opinions of people like Harry, Hogar, etc. if I didn't come here. It helps shape my own opinion (often it hardens it, but not always). So I'd say this sort of thing does provide some kind of service beyond the typical notion of a blog.
August 3, 2006
12:34 PM
9/11 an inside job writes:
http://www.global-conspiracies.com/truth_lies_and_the_legend_of_911.htm
"Assembling The 9/11 Counter-Legends (or, Stacking Your Patsies)
The events of September 11 gave birth to three parallel threads - or counter-legends - pointing the way to the culpability of three possible foreign suspects, or patsies - namely, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Israel. Of the three, the Saudis were the patsies of choice for the mainstream "critics", who were a motley assortment of neo-cons, FBI investigators, or "retired" national security types opposed to the war in Iraq. The Pakistan/ISI thread to 9/11 flared up most noticeably in the events surrounding the death of Daniel Pearl and the alleged involvement of Omar Saeed Sheikh - events which were used, in fact, to smother the Pakistani/ISI connection to the 9/11 money trail. As regards Israel, the most radical opponents of the War On Terror were nursed on the twin threads of an Israeli spy ring and a neo-con cabal supposedly at the helm of the Bush Administration.
It was not by accident that these three countries were chosen to play the role of second-tier patsies - for each of them contained insular cliques of operatives which had played seminal roles in the covert arms and drug trade - in cahoots with their more senior Anglo-American handlers - throughout the Reagan-Bush years. Moreover, these countries would make useful patsies for the very reason that they were essentially outside the "established" - i.e. Euro-American - ring of nations. In other words, if insular cliques of criminal operatives were to be ferreted out of Germany, France, or Italy, no one would think to brand these nations wholesale with the mark of Cain. The same could not be said of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Israel, whose very security - physical, political, and economic - would be staked to the publicized activities of their own respective political/criminal cliques. "
August 3, 2006
12:38 PM
That one guy writes:
Whoa, Mr. 9/11, that was awesome! I can't wait for the next episode! Will Jack Bauer die? Will he foil the silly President's plan? Tune in next time!!!!!
August 3, 2006
12:39 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
12:29: LOL! Truth suppression? What, you mean demanding credible evidence to support claims? "Suppression" would suggest that I'm finding some way to ensure that your voice isn't heard, which is well beyond my capacity.
Give me "truth" then, I won't stop you. I merely state that thus far there is a credible answer for nearly every credible (and not-so-credible) conspiracy theory claim. You have the choice of believing one or the other. I am so far unconvinced by the conspiracy "evidence", not least because it's so implausible. As I already stated, it would benefit me and my politics if there WERE a conspiracy. But that doesn't mean I'm going to sign on for this reason.
Deal with my claims and the claims put forth by the debunkers I linked to. THEN we'll have a real conversation.
August 3, 2006
12:40 PM
Look at the Physics of 9/11 writes:
Dirk -
I'm sure you've heard the term "strategic plan" before today. Most successful organizations have them including PNAC and whoever pulled off 9/11, be it Al-Qaeda or another group.
The point is that not everyone in the organization need be familiar with every detail of the plan, only their respective role. Some of those roles have no direct or obvious link to the specific overall outcome. Therefore, a "conspiracy of thousands" is not required. One physicist has estimated 4,000 pounds of specific explosives could be used to bring down one of the towers = 10 men x 10 trips x 40 lbs./trip.
One is reasonable to ask, "Why haven't some of these people come forward?" The answer to this is far from simple but can be partially answered by radio station "WIFM" - "What's In it For Me?"
You ask for PROOF. There's plenty here to show the 9/11 Omission Commission, NIST and FEMA left major questions unanswered. That's what most of us want - a new, truly independent, complete, detailed, unyielding investigation. Though you say you're on the left side of the political fence, this goes way beyond politics.
August 3, 2006
12:40 PM
That one guy writes:
Still, nobody has addressed how Bush could be both an idiot and a genius mastermind at the same time. Give me another movie script Mr. 9/11. Or perhaps somebody else has an explaination for this?
August 3, 2006
12:44 PM
That one guy writes:
Seriously, if you tell me Bush is a genius mastermind with a straight face, I will concede that he blew up the towers on 9/11. No laughing, look me right in the eye and tell me Bush is a genius mastermind.
August 3, 2006
12:47 PM
Anonymous writes:
As if Bush is in charge of anything but brush clearing.
August 3, 2006
12:48 PM
That one guy writes:
And before you say it, remember that this guy is a simpleton from Texas who loves baseball and country music. He can barely pronounce the names of the people he put in his own cabinet. He gives back rubs to foreign Dignitaries and jokingly ribs the press guys who cover him at the White House. But he could have also been the brains behind the greatest act of terrorism in the history of Earth. Think about it.
August 3, 2006
12:50 PM
That one guy writes:
Oh now it wasn't Bush? I'm confused
August 3, 2006
12:51 PM
Look at the Physics writes:
That guy: is your question rhetorical in nature? Stop asking a non-question by implying that to believe the government was complicit requires Bush planned it or was even aware of it. You're looking too much through those ideological glasses. Put on the ones labeled "physics" and that will help clear up that blurred vision.
August 3, 2006
12:53 PM
Art Bell For President (of Valusia) writes:
I believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy hatched by Karl Rove and his associates, the Invaders from Pluto. It's part of a much grander scheme to manipulate stem cells in order to clone the Loch Ness Monster, so that Elvis can finally have a fitting mate. Word has it that the official mastermind orchestrating everything is the Easter Bunny, who, after the amazing success of the fake Moon Landing, has decided to go into the genetic engineering business.
Bush is actually an android (with lots of operating system problems), designed and built in Atlantis by the Shadow People. He's infiltrated the Easter Bunny's scheme on a mission from the Pope, to try and protect the stem cells, no matter how many American soldiers die in the effort.
Al-Qaeda is actually a Martian organization that is competing with the Plutonians for global conquest. Bin Laden isn't dead and he isn't sick...his human costume was lost by the dry cleaners, so he has to stay out of sight.
The Easter Bunny, an ancient Pluto native, has been orchestrating schemes like this ever since he helped Jesus fake his own death, back in 34 AD. His future schemes include building a road that will connect all the continents of the earth, and putting toll booths in at every 5 miles. Cha Ching!!!
August 3, 2006
12:59 PM
That one guy writes:
I'll ask another rhetorical question first? Are your glasses not tinted slightly with ideology? Let he who has no sin cast the first stone. Sometimes in life, things are as they appear. Einstein said that often the best answer is the simplest one. 9/11 is one of those cases. You are giving way too many people way too much credit by saying that our government would perpetrate these horrendous acts. The best (and correct) answer here is that it just happened. Osama was the culprit, he flew planes into buildings and they fell down because of it. It is that simple. There was no big conspiracy/plot to get the country into an Iraqi war. The genius who planned it all would have done a better job of linking Saddam and 9/11 if that were true. There would have been Iraqis on the planes with "Saddam for World Ruler" bumper stickers on their luggage. Something better than what we got. The holes are too big for your story to be true, so I must believe what I saw, and what seems logical.
August 3, 2006
1:05 PM
That one guy writes:
Art Bell: that was hilarious. The last time we had this discussion I presented my conspiracy theory to the group as well. I'll post it again in hopes that people think it is better than yours (just kidding). But here it is:
If you look closely enough at the video from 9/11, you can see a leprechaun running around. He is an evil leprechaun and I'm pretty sure it was this little guy who placed explosives in the towers so they would collapse after the planes hit. He had four partners. One for each plane. A unicorn was in the plane that landed in the field- everyone knows unicorns can't fly airplanes. A troll flew the one that hit the pentagon. And the towers were hit by twin yeti's from Nepal. How did they get onto airplanes, you ask? They were all hired by a wicked witch from Lincoln, Nebraska. She used her magic to make all of her new employees appear in the form of different New York Yankees. Her plan worked perfectly- who would suspect Derek Jeter would hijack a plane? Her motive was simple- She was upset about how the liberals in America were trying to convince everyone that the Government was more evil than she was. Her plan backfired. A terrible tumble down the social ladder resulted. She was last seen on an episode of the Montell Williams show pouring out her heart while her face melted from her tears (witches hate water). The evil leprechaun was held briefly at Guantanamo but released because Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton thought it was unethical to hold a leprechaun captive without the permission of the Fairy Counsel. The leprechaun was last seen at a Hooters in Flint, Michigan with his good buddy Michael Moore. They were sharing a plate of fifty hot wings (though Leprechauns don't eat chicken... hmmmm) and laughing about the good ol' days when Socialist states dominated the global landscape and America was a just a jealous, capitalist adolescent, know-nothing (all true).
This is 100 percent true and is supported by my website- www.crazytalk.conspiracy.theory.nutcase.com
I have many facts to back this up and Ward Churchill has supplied a paper. He brings up an entirely new idea of a "Big Brother", as he calls it, who watches over us all. If you don't believe my story it is obvious that "Big Brother" has brainwashed you through TV, advertising, and cell phones. Your only hope is to join the movement and send my website $100. This simple act will clense your capitalist, republican soul. We will send you your membership card and a t-shirt that says "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!" Cindy Sheehan will personally autograph it for another $50. Please send only cash or check as the credit card companies are evil and can't be trusted (that's another story).
August 3, 2006
1:06 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
"Look at the physics":
I realize that not everyone has to know all of a strategic plan. But they have to know their part in it and shut up about it. Most of the conspiracy theorists are suggesting sytematic conspiracies at the state and federal level. Certain small "teams" could have their discreet mission, but it still adds up to thousands of people involved. I'm not convinced that even "WIFM" can account for all of these points.
Incidentally, I made the comment about my personal politics to counter all the rabid rightwing claims that the only lefties believe in the conspiracy theory.
I recognize that the Commission left out stuff. There are some things they left out for obvious purposes: why would it be in anyone's interest to reveal every aspect of the mechanism through which our fighters are scrambled, or for the FAA to reveal every detail of the way in which they communicate air traffic positions, etc. to the military? These are matters of national security. What's more, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence: the so-called "unanswered questions" were left out not due to cover-up, but due to the fact that they didn't go through all the evidence with the idea in mind of either countering conspiracy charges or uncovering a conspiracy. Therefore OF COURSE it's not as thorough.
I agree with you that more investigation is required of certain aspects, or at the very least we should be informed that certain "inconsistencies" or matters of discrepancy are being looked into (even if we can't know all the details for N.S. reasons--I'd rather not have our entire NORAD and SAC plans a matter of public record). But all of this doesn't actually PROVE conspiracy--at best people have put forth a huge amount of alternative explanations for events that don't seem 100% kosher. That's different from being CONVINCED that those alternative explanations are the truth, however.
August 3, 2006
1:07 PM
harry palm writes:
that one guy, calling them loons and nutjobs seems rather appropriate. I dont call level headed liberals loons, I call people like Jay a douche, and he has proven that to be correct as well.
I honestly hope these loons believe their conviction very strongly and make it a center piece of their 2008 run for office, it will only seal the win for the republicans and further the reality that most liberals are complete whack jobs. The funny part about LooseChange is at exactly 17:10 into the film if you simply stop it, you can see a big ass piece of landing gear sitting right there, where the movie tells you there is no pieces of plane anywhere. They also show a fuselage and ask where is the big fuselage, if you look close, you can see a pick up truck close the fuselage, you can use the truck as a scale reference to see just how big the so called missing fuselage is.
This guy is profiting from their stupidity pure and simple, and these nuts are buying into hook line and sinker. Like Roswell, like Area 51, I am sure the goverment loves these stories because it keeps people from the real truth.
August 3, 2006
1:11 PM
harry palm writes:
Furthermore my sister company was on site the day of the attacks at the Pentagon. Everyone of those guys saw the damn plane hit the place. The president of our office there was in his truck across the river on his way to the pentagon, he watched the plane the pentagon. But those guys are all probably on Bush's payroll.......
August 3, 2006
1:11 PM
That one guy writes:
ok
August 3, 2006
1:15 PM
harry palm writes:
Hey Dirk, are your real initials AF by any chance? I get rather convined it is.
August 3, 2006
1:18 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
Harry, the only thing I've read in all of the posts today that has any credibility at all is some aspects of the thermite story (but not all) and the collapse of the buildings. In nearly every other example, I think the debunking sites are more convincing. But Harry, be real: this is not a liberal issue, as I said. This cuts across party lines.
Did anyone ever consider that the towers were not actually built to specs, but rather built on the cheap? It wouldn't be the first time contractors have bilked people out of millions on construction jobs.
August 3, 2006
1:20 PM
That one guy writes:
Now there's a legit conspiracy theory, Dirk!
August 3, 2006
1:21 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
No, Harry, my real initials are not AF. Sorry.
August 3, 2006
1:25 PM
Steve writes:
Lets take a lesson from the history we never learn from:
1. Lusitania
2. Maine
3. Gulf of Tonkin
4. Pearl Harbor
These were all events that acted as the pretext to US wars. In some cases we actually false-flagged and created these events, in others we allowed them to happen on purpose. Those of us who ask if it is possible that 911 is following the same pattern US wars have for the last 100 years, are not necessarily liberal or conservative, we are mainstream and somewhat skeptical based upon patterns that have occured in the past. People often state that they just can't believe our government would allow 3,000 people to be killed in order to promote a war agenda. This has happend time and time again in US history. These "conspiracies" are not flukes, they are ingrained in our national nature. (Examples 1,2,3,4)
This is not about George W, it is a bigger agenda of the Council on Foreign Realations, including BOTH political parties.
Yet at the same time, this entire 911 "terrorist" scenerio could have been pulled off by less then 25 people within a CFR black operation, the exact details known only to a handfull of demolition experts and remote airline pilots (ever seen a kid fly a plane by radio controll?) under layered "need to know" security. that is how all black ops function. That is exactly what happend before:
Examples: 1,2,3,4.
August 3, 2006
1:30 PM
That one guy writes:
You forgot the most important piece of your evidence Steve: ASSUME examples 1-4 are examples of government conspiracy. Pearl Harbor? Really? The Maine incident was so long ago it shouldn't count. Times are different now. We can't even fight a war the way we used to, why assume we start one the way you assume we used to?
August 3, 2006
1:31 PM
Anonymous writes:
I do not believe for one minute the government had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. The liberal media and the democratic party will stoop to any length to discredit Bush. I think this came about about 3 months before the elections in November. Anyone in their right mind could not believe Bush could plan this in only 9 months in office. Ben Laiden had planned this for years. I am no longer a fan of Bush
but lets be fair about this. He has
been blamed for Hurricane Katrina.
The levees have been there for years. He is also being blamed for global warming. The Democrats don't have any plan to improve things so they have to discredit Bush. I wonder what they will do when they finally get in office.
BJS in Denver
August 3, 2006
1:35 PM
Douglas Adams For President writes:
I have faith in Dirk's opinions. Running a Holistic Detective Agency is demanding work, and takes honor and sacrifice.
August 3, 2006
1:36 PM
bushwatcher writes:
Which is more suspicious: Bush having told us that he was, in effect, IN THE LOOP on the very beginning of the supposedly-secret supposedly-terrorist attack,
http://911blimp.net/aud_BushImplicatesBush.shtml
or the fact that no Democrat has ever questioned Bush about his remarkable revealing statements?
August 3, 2006
1:37 PM
harry palm writes:
Dirk, its not directed at you, its directed at the loons that get their panties twisted up and go off on these nutcase subjects. The Thermite would be good a theory, except where they try to tell its over the counter and not traceable. Aluminum also burns pink, not yellow, but at 1300 degrees you dont see colors forming, you see metal malting.
It is known fact the towers were built on the cheap using what was considered a radical design at the time. Soley because steel was thought to be strong enough was it allowed to be errected. The towers utilized less supports because most of the support relied on the weight of the steel and gravity. The portions that were hit and were hot enough to melt steel, also carried the weight from the top of the building until its breakpoint where the building could no longer support what was on top and the mid section gave, it all gave. Simply gravity. Lastly, are you kidding me about being bilked for millions? The towers were mob built by mob controlled unions, no shit they were bilked. Hell the UN was just bilked some $100,000,000.00 over on that plush 1.5 billion remodle they just had to have to enjoy their lobster and steak while discussing world hunger....
This issue may cut across party lines, but you and few other self proclaimed liberals are level headed enough to see it for what it is. You dont hear conservatives ranting about this, you hear liberals, or people that say "I am not liberal, I am progressive". So its easy to generalize.
August 3, 2006
1:40 PM
Steve writes:
A good question and good point That one guy. Warfare IS different today. But people are not. A war needs powerful public support and that is what these events generate. Remeber all the orgy of Patriotism that happened following 911? I am Not a liberal. And this re-examination did NOT start in the last 3 months. This has been gaining ground for over the years since 911. Why aren't Hillary or Kerry making these points. Because they are also funded and supported by the CFR.
August 3, 2006
1:42 PM
neo-historian writes:
bushwatcher,
I think it is more suspicious and far more revealing that no Democrat has ever questioned Bush about Bush's repeated, incriminating, self-implicating statements! (This is much bigger than just Bush...)
http://fawcett911.us/DemRepNeoHistory.html
If We The People are unable to rise above partisan political bickering (even if our political leaders cannot), then we deserve to have our precious priceless Constitution stolen out from under us right before our very eyes!
August 3, 2006
1:49 PM
harry palm writes:
Yeah thats great, paranoid nut job. Tell me, what purpose does having a police state serve? Show me one police state where the money is rolling in? The only interest our goverment has is making sure the tax dollars keep coming in. Ushering in a police state will bring our economy to a grinding halt and would serve zero purpose to anyone. Lastly, I really doubt our red neck boys in uniforms, as a lot of refer to them, are gonna help the goverment control us. I am also positive EVERYONE would rebel and it would be out of control.
Oh, its just so Bush can remain in power is what you say? Again, why the hell would he want to run a broke nation? You people are fools, plain and simple. Get off the meth
August 3, 2006
1:49 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
BJS:
Nobody is blaming Bush for the hurricane, only his RESPONSE to the hurricane, which in the view of many was inadequate, to put it charitably. Nobody is blambing Bush for global warming, they're criticising the fact that since he doesn't believe it exists (or didn't), he has refused to push for environmental or energy reforms for which there is widespread consensus. You obvisously haven't noticed, but a huge percentage of the people who believe in this conspiracy (possibly most) are NOT Democrats/liberals/left.
Steve: you have to take your meds. Absent that, at least consult credible history with regard to the issues you mention:
1. The cause for the explosion on the Maine was never determined. It served as a pretext for US imperial expansion. The two most likely reasons: Spain really DID blow it up, or it was an accident.
2. The Lusitania, it turns out, really WAS smuggling weapons to England. On the surface, this may give credence to your theory. But a cursory knowledge of the actual timeline of diplomacy during the era refutes it. Not to mention the presence of the Zimmerman telegram, which was no fabrication.
3. Gulf of Tonkin: a handful of hawkish people in Congress and the executive pushed through war powers based on flimsy evidence. This was not "engineered" by government, it was merely taken advantage of by some politicians.
4. Pearl Harbor: This has been widely debunked. The best we can say is that it's possible Roosevelt (through his naval officers) suspected that there could be an attack on Pearl Harbor (which they drilled for--for the record, "our boys" didn't prove to be good defenders of Pearl Harbor in war games, either), but he would hever have known when. Do you REALLY think Roosevelt would have allowed the Japanese to destroy several warships, include a top of the line battleship, in our best Pacific port, in order to drag the country to war?
But who am I to keep a conspiracy nut from his divinely revealed truths?
August 3, 2006
1:50 PM
That one guy writes:
Did I call you a liberal Steve? Let me check.... no. Alright. All I said was that you are asking us to ASSUME that things happened the way you say they did, that the Government started wars by using conspiracies and letting things happen. I realize that some radical websites exist to support these claims, but what you stated as fact is simply not fact. You want me to assume something different from what I believe and you use that assumption as evidence. Steve, the sky is not blue. Assume that it is actually pink then you will see what I mean. Water is not H2O. Assume that Oxygen is actually a creation of the devil and should be called Aeropollutant Trichlorohelion. This proves that water is actually H2AT3.
August 3, 2006
1:51 PM
That guy writes:
Dirk, can see your point. I tend to interject when certain posters point to a weblink or a poll as proof of fact. Those are the idiotic contributions I point out to the audience.
August 3, 2006
1:53 PM
harry palm writes:
Actually Japans intent was to destroy our carrier fleet, which was moved a few weeks before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Our goverment was already well aware the day of the battleship was over. They already knew battleships were worthless, and Japan knew it as well, that is why we were both building carriers like mad.
We didnt need a reason to enter world war 2, we were looking for reasons to stay out of it, you know the Dems, never met a war they wanted to fight... but anyway if the goverment wanted to be in WW2 they simply would have, Japans attack simply pushed us in quicker.
August 3, 2006
1:57 PM
Alison writes:
The Bush Administration is working for the Saudis and they planned and carried out 911 get support for the conquest of the middle east and its OIL. The US government is supplying Israel with weapons, a nudge, and a wink.
August 3, 2006
1:59 PM
Anonymous writes:
1stGenAmerican, why did you change your name to That Guy? Were you ashamed of getting the intellectual sh*t kicked out of you so often?
August 3, 2006
2:00 PM
Alison writes:
The Bush Administration is working for the Saudis and they planned and carried out 911 get support for the conquest of the middle east and its OIL. The US government is supplying Israel with weapons, a nudge, and a wink.
August 3, 2006
2:01 PM
Alison writes:
The Bush Administration is working for the Saudis and they planned and carried out 911 get support for the conquest of the middle east and its OIL. The US government is supplying Israel with weapons, a nudge, and a wink.
August 3, 2006
2:03 PM
That one guy writes:
Bigfoot was responsible for 9/11. He conspired with Bill Clinton to bring down the towers and collect the rubble to build his own invisible city in the forests of Washington State. Bigfeet now have their own city and can multiply without hassel from republicans. Soon Bigfoot will make a run at the Korean Peninsula for its abundance of rice and cartoons.
August 3, 2006
2:05 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
Harry, I must respectfully disagree on a couple of fiddly points:
1. Yes, Japan was after the carriers, which had gone out on maneuvers. But battleships were by no means on their way out. The Missouri class ships that were built during the war are proof of that (several of which are still in service). Battleships became of limited use in terms of naval superiority, but are vital for sea-based artillery support and the like. They still serve that function.
2. Actually, Roosevelt did want the US involved--it was the isolationist Congress that did not. This is why the conspiracy theory about Pearl Harbor still has legs.
That guy: fair enough. I feel your pain, man.
August 3, 2006
2:06 PM
Anonymous writes:
Allison, try learning your history, every administration has been in bed with the Saudis.
August 3, 2006
2:07 PM
John Galt writes:
These conspiracy thorists prove that they should have never been let out of the nuthouse.
They are nothing more than pseudo-intellectual morons yanking the chains of society to get a little attention.
The attention that they don't get from smarter and more reasonable people.
They belong in a comedy club or back in isolation rooms.
August 3, 2006
2:09 PM
Anonymous writes:
So, I have to ask something that has been bothering me for the past three hours:
Are you people all on crack or meth?
August 3, 2006
2:18 PM
harry palm writes:
Quit trying to suppress the truth by calling them crack heads!! They have a video some french guy made!!! how much more friggin proof do you need >?????
August 3, 2006
2:20 PM
PFC writes:
It's all about the Koolaid!
Listen here nutjobs...
I hated Clinton. Clinton would NEVER do this or standby and watch it happen.
You hate Bush. Bush would NEVER do this.
It would require such a large conspirarcy within the government that someone would have freaked out by now.
And all for what? You think Bush would jepordize his life, his office, and his legacy to be known as the Pres who killed 3K prople to make a few $MM bucks?
You hear the cave dwellers shouting, pointing their crooked fingers just like I do. You hear them saying they want to kill you, destroy our country just like I do.
Is it so impossible to believe that they actually got lucky once or twice?
But no, it has to be the evil Americans...
August 3, 2006
2:20 PM
popol vuh writes:
Wow, they say the truth hurts, but it's killing some of you, obviously.
The official story is riddled with holes, the actions taken after the fact indicate a widespread coverup, and the course of our history since that day has been one giant goosestep towards tyranny and you insist of clinging to the fantasy that some guy in a cave hates us for our freedom?
I pity you, seriously.
August 3, 2006
2:23 PM
Sam writes:
What I'd like to know is why the Rocky Mt. News (which is, unfortunately, becoming more and more ridiculous and slanted, like the Denver Post, every day) didn't print the whole story. 36%? Yes. (Though I'd like to know what nutters they asked.) But what about the fact that 38% of people asked, from the same poll, believed that the government is covering up information about UFO? Nutters is right.
To whit:
The level of suspicion of U.S. official involvement in a 9/11 conspiracy was only slightly behind the 40 percent who suspect "officials in the federal government were directly responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy" and the 38 percent who believe "the federal government is withholding proof of the existence of intelligent life from other planets."
The poll found that a majority of young adults give at least some credence to a 9/11 conspiracy compared to less than a fourth of people 65 or older. Members of racial and ethnic minorities, people with only a high school education and Democrats were especially likely to suspect federal involvement in 9/11.
August 3, 2006
2:24 PM
harry palm writes:
Damn, where do all these moonbats come from? Its almost as if some college class is having every dipshit in the classroom blog their beliefs today instead of actually learning something
August 3, 2006
2:25 PM
pockybot writes:
Even the 9/11 family members and Jersey Girls ARE SPEAKING OUT with their new documentary 9/11 Press For Truth,
which clearly shows US COMPLICITY:
http://www.911pressfortruth.com/
What, and the government told the truth about Iraq, antrhax, Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, Abu Gharib and the elections too?
August 3, 2006
2:28 PM
pockybot writes:
Bush hating liberals who believe the Bush/Neocon version of 9/11 IMHO are WORSE than Bush apologist Fox News watching folks. Least they don't know better. DOWN with the leftgatekeeper liberals.
CNN HEADLINE: PENTAGON LIED ABOUT 9/11 EVENTS...
Can you liberals and Bush worshippers who call us nuts comprehend this?
That's CNN.
Then again people believe Osama acted alone or with Saddam's help.
Remember: the US FUNDED the hijackers using Pakistani ISI intelligence as a proxy, and confused NORAD responders with war games!
August 3, 2006
2:32 PM
ItsNoConspiracy writes:
I would seem that the plethora of erstwhile conspiracy advocates ignore the reality of terrorism lapping at our shores. Perhaps Bush hating is such a sport that people start ot lose their rational minds jonesing for any morsel of evidence to stoke that hate.
Its a rough world out there. Let's not take for granted our freedom while drooling over these nutty weblink bonbons.
August 3, 2006
2:34 PM
harry palm writes:
What did a classroom full of loony bin escapes just watch Loose Change?> Every fact you idiots state come SOLEY from that movie. The information you claim to be true is not there, because this guy made it all up. The only credible piece of evidence is the Larry the Jew telling them to "pull it" and you completely over shadow that by your insanity. You are not changing minds with this crap, you are handing the country to the republicans, THANK YOU
August 3, 2006
2:38 PM
Moderator writes:
Pockybot,
Your comment was hung up because it contains three links. Our software only accepts two in a single comment. Feel free to break it up into two comments and send it again.
August 3, 2006
2:40 PM
Hank Rearden For President writes:
Ann Coulter should be burned at the stake...and Karl Rove should be used for the kindling.
That said, believing that the government hid some facts about the whole tragedy is one thing, but believing some shady US government agencies deliberately carried out 9/11 themselver (whether by plane, missle, or plastic explosives) is just plain nuts.
August 3, 2006
2:42 PM
Anonymous writes:
Well, you see, it's a double-edged sword, no-win situation, Kobiashi-Maru scenario:
1) There are those who believe that our government is complicit in some form or fashion - from "we let it happen" all the way to "those damned Arabs did it all".
2) There are those who refuse to believe that any level of involvment is possible, and they point to several "debunking" texts or video files as their proof.
I would point out that much of the text, video, and sound file data that I have reviewed in group 1, have been prepared, researched, and verified by scientists and engineers. Much of the data in group 2 have been prepared by people who are not in that group, though some has.
Clearly, we are at an impasse. This happens. Remember the story about how eggs are loaded with cholesterol and will kill you via heart disease? Now proven to be not so. Recall sacharin? It will give you cancer like it does lab rats - but only if you ingest four or more pounds of it a day for years. This list goes on, and on, and on ......
Then we have the blessing of a number of posters who run out of patience, or who simply don't understand the points and science well enough to argue logically who start calling others names like dipshit, moonbat, idiot, stupid, dumbass, and the like. This is truly helpful and very productive (sigh).
Does nobody on this blog know how to research and debate? Does nobody know how to intelligently debate anymore? Is there no way to use this as a learning forum rather than a pile of fodder for digressing into stupidity? Have we forgotten how to be civil with one another, and to at least listen to the points and questions that are being raised? My God folks, if there was really any need to determine if the NEA and school systems have made ignorant, rampaging imbeciles out of us, there would be absolutely NO need to look any further than here.
August 3, 2006
2:46 PM
Tree Hugger writes:
Harry-
I'm a betting man, pro football at least, and I'm betting come this fall the Dems will take the House vs. your assumption we loony's are handing over the country to the Repukes. You have the country right now and you're shitting on it. We're merely taking it back. If you are right come this November, I'll eat my words and pack you a purple bud bonger at the tree fort.
August 3, 2006
2:49 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
Amen, 2:42. Though I have been guilty of some namecalling today, generally I abstain. Unfortunately few will heed you're call (I know, I've tried the same thing).
One point of order: eggs do contain bad cholesterol. That doesn't mean they'll kill you. But you should avoid them (among many other foods) if your cholesterol is too high. NO foods will kill you (unless you have allergies), and there are no bad foods. Just ones that over time will cause you more problems than others.
August 3, 2006
2:51 PM
gr8fuldude writes:
TH -
you need to see this story.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/entertainment/9622048/detail.html
August 3, 2006
2:55 PM
Reasonable writes:
Those who attack others that have taken the time to seriously research 9/11 must work for the GOP. I know they hire people to man blogs and attack anyone with a divergent point of view.
Or, you simply cannot handle the comples idea that large gov't would be apart of state sponsored terrorism. This is due to your ignorance on the matter.
Shut your mouths, turn off Fox and READ.
I find this to be the most fascinating subject of my lifetime and I take it very seriously. I also believe that the story we are told by our gov't is not the truth. That then leads any reasonable person to wonder why and conclude that those suppressing the truth are INVOLVED.
This story is gaining traction and that is a testament to it's validity.
August 3, 2006
2:56 PM
Finlander writes:
I'm a Finn who has been researching 9/11 for almost two years now. There are many "smoking guns" -- such as the lack of air defense response during the almost two-hour hijacking drama, the fact that three different explanations have been offered for this, and the anti-hijacking exercises conveniently underway at the same time as the real events -- pointing to official complicity in the 9/11 events.
However, an adult individual with half a brain active really only needs to watch this short video clip to see that it was an inside job:
http://www.knowordie.co.uk/WTC7.avi
My detailed analysis of the case can be found here:
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
It contains a link to more detailed technical analysis by a Finnish Doctor of Engineering.
August 3, 2006
2:59 PM
Tree Hugger writes:
8dude-
Now that's the American dream. Is she for rent? She probably loves Dems too, we don't have to fake it.
August 3, 2006
3:06 PM
John Constantine writes:
-Just because some wanker makes an internet viddy don't make them the Dalai Lama.
-An unanswered question with vague implications is not a "smoking gun". It's just a reason for suspicion. A smoking gun is undeniable, while this "Loose Change" $h!te is a bloody lot of toads leaping to conclusions.
-Disagreeing with your government is not justification for accusing them of atrocity. Vote and campaign more effectively next time. Put your kids' bongs away and get some real knowledge. Don't be sore losers just because your opponents' President is a twit.
-The underground media is underground because its contributors are stoned out of their minds, not because they tell the "awful truth".
August 3, 2006
3:07 PM
harry palm writes:
Tree hugger, I have never called you a loon, just a misguided liberal. The country is strong, so what you mean is shitting on the wishes of the left. Not the country. If you one of these 911 bush is a terrorist peddle, then you are a loon. The guy from Finland, yeah right like some dude from Finland is reading our local paper, nice try jackass. There are more holes in this 911 conspriacy than swiss cheese. Get over it, it was the arabs, deal with it. And tree hugger, do you really think your party stands a chance at winning the house and senate as long as people that claim to be on the left are peddling this crap? The right is going to trounce you guys again and its not because we are right, its not because you are wrong, its because the base of your party is made up of these whack jobs and your party was high jacked by crazies. How can you not see that? All dems of reason have been pushed aside by the unhinged and they dont stand a chance. I also know of lots of closet republicans that simply act liberal to not feel the scorn of other liberals. There are many.
August 3, 2006
3:12 PM
Anonymous writes:
Dear Finlander -
Thank you for your intelligent, thoughtful, and researched entry. I haven't read it all yet, but will later tonight.
That was the point of my 2:42 post, as someone else eluded to - there ARE smoking guns, there ARE unanswered questions, and our government and its agencies (including the CIA, FBI, military, the NSA, and others) REFUSE to show us documentation, trascripts from interviews, black boxes and/or transcriptions from the airliners, or any other of the things that could help remove the cloud of suspicion.
What else could an educated and intelligent person think?
And, Mr. Constantine - to a degree, some of what you say bears a semblance of truth. You are, however, either forgetting or ignoring the possibility of the other side of your position which is that some part of the other view has a semblance of truth. What we're asking for is that documentation be made available to remove those numerous and sizeable clouds of suspicion.
August 3, 2006
3:13 PM
Tree Hugger writes:
You get em' Johnny. You believe there's not a civil war in Iraq too?
August 3, 2006
3:13 PM
Anonymous writes:
That's it Harry, just keep the rose-colored glasses on and pretend everything is okay.
August 3, 2006
3:16 PM
harry palm writes:
Yeah its all screwed up you are so worried about,,,, you blog....way to be proactive dunce.
We had idiots like during ww2 as well, history proved you were idiots then, it will prove you are morons now. Tree Hugger, let them have their damn civil war, then carve the country up into 4 parts
August 3, 2006
3:20 PM
harry palm writes:
Again, every bit of evidence you idiots cite come from movie. In the words of jay the ultra liberal, show me something PEER REVIEWED. Even liberals are distancing themselves from you idiots.
Perhaps you loons should take up a worthwhile cause, like hunting for Leprachauns
August 3, 2006
3:20 PM
jay writes:
harry,
Don't try to compare Iraq and ww2 please...try to keep her between the ditches alright?
August 3, 2006
3:22 PM
Anonymous writes:
christ harry - how about making a point or two instead of just getting pissed off and throwing spewage out there? and, do you think you could do it without calling someone a moron, or idiot, or douche? c'mon. surprise us.
August 3, 2006
3:25 PM
harry palm writes:
Why not Jay, go read the papers of that time and see the unhinged saying the same stuff they are today. No on had any idea Hitler was killing jews until we got to the camps. People were trying to avoid the war. Ya know there really is no point, you may have your shit together on social issues, but you have proven useless with your knowledge of history Jay.
It took 8 years to stop the attacks of the Wolverines in Germany after the fall Berilin, we stayed along time rebuilding what we destroyed. We also killed civilians by the hundreds of thousands. What was so noble about that? War is a crappy thing, sadly they need to happen. It ensures your vagina can scream as loud as it wants without recourse from the goverment.
August 3, 2006
3:25 PM
Tree Hugger writes:
Finldander-
Send some hockey talent over here in a hurry. Preferably young talent to the Red Wings who just signed a 41 yrs old twice retired goalie who fell and can't get up.
August 3, 2006
3:25 PM
boast writes:
Transportation Sec. Norman Mineta testifies to the 9/11 Commission the he and Dick Cheney watched flt 77 approach from at least 50 miles outside of DC. watch his testimony here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7Vs7KNlpXU
Dick Cheney was in command of NORAD on 9/11. see it here:
http://www.tyrannyalert.com/norad.mpg
August 3, 2006
3:25 PM
John Constantine writes:
"Course there's a civil war in Iraq, you dingy git. Just like there was in Somalia, just like there might be in Afghanistan. Just coz I don't believe in the tooth fairy doesn't mean I don't believe in teeth.
August 3, 2006
3:30 PM
Reasonable writes:
Harry, if you watched the movie you would see it is filled with eyewitness testimony from that very day. It compiles the news clips to show what the people there were actually experiencing. It then cites innumerable sources. Not all of the film is accurate but what do we really have to go off of? Speculation is there because of the hidden facts.
There has been no conviction in a court of law of BinLaden. If they had a case, don't you think they would present those facts. What do you REALLY know that makes you discount gov't involvement? Think long and hard about it.
August 3, 2006
3:33 PM
Sin writes:
I had a nice, long response all written out but then decided to edit the whole thing and just say this - the bulk of you are nothing more than dimwitted, America-hating douchebags.
Thanks.
August 3, 2006
3:34 PM
Reasonable writes:
And all the debunking pieces are mere theory as well since no one was able to actually study the actual debris. The steel was immediately shipped off to China. The WTC should have been treated as a criime scene. The cleanup began so quickly it seems to have been preplanned.
So, alll we have is theory on both sides since the physical eviidence was destroyed.
August 3, 2006
3:35 PM
harry palm writes:
If you would just watch the movie.....what a retarded line. There are eye witnesses that counter what you say completeley! Are they all on Bush's payroll? What about the plane parts you can see plain as day even in Loose Changes pictures, try stopping the movie and actually looking for them mouth of wisdom.
I have a crew of more than 100 guys that were working on the Pentagon the day of the attacks, all saw the jet! Are they all liars too? Get over yourself moron, you can rant all you want, only the morons that are being spoon fed this crap buy it. You are clearly not capable of reading or doing any more research beyond what the movie tells you, so go watch another movie. And rember, you saw it on TV and read it on line, IT MUST BE TRUE...jackass
August 3, 2006
3:37 PM
harry palm writes:
And to have a conviction of a person, you need to have him served and charged. Perhaps you need a lot more education since you clearly dont even understand the court system.
The plane pieces are clear as day, there is a reason those pictures move by so quick in Loose Change. Seriously you should be more concerned the sky is falling. That is probably more proveable as well.
August 3, 2006
3:38 PM
Anonymous writes:
Jeebus Boast - don't post stuff like that - you'll have Harry screaming, pulling his hair, and running in front of oncoming busses if you post stuff that disputes his view. Whataya thinkin'?
August 3, 2006
3:40 PM
Your goodhearted friend writes:
To all of my pals who buy into the conspiracy theories about 9/11, Put the crack pipe down!
August 3, 2006
3:41 PM
John Constantine writes:
If you don't know the answer to something, publicly pretending that you do is not the best way to find it.
If you want the facts from someone who's keeping them from you, poncing about in a straitjacket and accusing them of mass murder isn't the most convincing way to get them.
Why would they want to do something like that and risk getting caught later, when it would mean the end of their government, their economy, and possibly their nation?
August 3, 2006
3:41 PM
boast writes:
research the Pentagon 9/11 incident here:
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/index.html
August 3, 2006
3:44 PM
Anonymous writes:
3:38, your wife needs jenny craig and keeping her fat and unable to drive isnt protecting your life together. But surely, lots of 22 yr olds are just starting to ride bikes....ya big winner
August 3, 2006
3:44 PM
Steve writes:
For a peer review of Dr. Steven Jones' theory (which has been well reviewed by his peers) go to this link:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
For a demonstration of how two 106 story buildings lost their entire internal 47-column reinforced steel skeleton and collpsed into dust in 12 seconds (according to the 911 Commission) go to the "Wizard of Oz" and watch the wicked witch of the west melt when Dorthy throws water on her.
Same theory, minus the "pancakes"
August 3, 2006
3:46 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
I love how all you conspiracy folks like to lump: if someone doesn't believe in this, then they don't believe that Bush & Co. have been up to ANYTHING.
Not so--I hate Bush & Co. I think they've lied to us about a great many things. The parts of 9/11 they've lied about have mostly to do with covering their own incompetence. But I don't believe in this vast conspiracy.
Some of the documentation you're asking for is either subject to national security, or it belongs to private companies that own the exclusive rights to those documents (e.g. some of the footage at the Pentagon). Anyone who's followed the legacy of the Zapruder film should know how much litigation is involved in the release of such stuff.
What's more, nothing that has been presented that qualifies as a "smoking gun". Some of the evidence is immediately dismissable. That which is not offers the POSSIBILITY that this is true, but it doesn't actually prove it.
My point: given the evidence, you have every right to suspect government involvement, but you can't actually claim that this version of events is true. And you CERTAINLY can't claim this based on the stuff in that Loosechange video, which is easily debunked. I for one don't discount government involvement, but I do discount your version of government involvement, because it's based on a lot of circumstantial evidence.
Reasonable, this sentence here demonstrates your not-quite-so-reasonable reasoning: "The cleanup began so quickly it seems to have been preplanned." Oh, it couldn't POSSIBLY because there was a whole city block filled with dead bodies and hazardous debris right in Manhattan. It couldn't possibly be because people were demanding that the real estate be used as quickly as possible so as to keep the city from hemorrhaging billions. No sense in including the numeous people who thought it wasn't being cleaned up fast ENOUGH. No, the far more logical explanation is that they needed to destroy evidence of the greatest conspiracy known to man. Yeesh.
August 3, 2006
3:48 PM
Anonymous writes:
PUT OPTIONS:
Directly from the Chicago Tribune:
Securities regulators around the world are investigating whether the terrorists involved in last week's attack profited in financial markets, possibly by buying options on the stock of United Airlines, Boeing, American Airlines and other companies in the knowledge that prices would fall.
On Sept. 6, put volume on United Airlines was 3,150, more than four times its average daily put volume this year, according to data from the Options Clearing Corp. Put volume for Boeing on Sept. 7 totaled 27,294, more than five times its average daily put volume this year.
The day before the attacks, put volume on American Airlines stock was 4,516, nearly 11 times its average daily volume for the year.
· Chicago Tribune. Terrorist Trade Probe Widens. By Robert Manor and Melissa Allison. September 19th, 2001.
Directly from CBS News:
Sources tell CBS News that the afternoon before the attack, alarm bells were sounding over unusual trading in the U.S. stock options market.
An extraordinary number of trades were betting that American Airlines stock price would fall.
The trades are called "puts" and they involved at least 450,000 shares of American. But what raised the red flag is more than 80 percent of the orders were "puts", far outnumbering "call" options, those betting the stock would rise.
Sources say they have never seen that kind of imbalance before, reports CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. Normally the numbers are fairly even.
But insider trading is always motivated by greed, and a senior Wall Street executive noted it would be ironic if the terrorists' greed ended up providing one of the most promising leads investigators have.
· CBS News. Profiting From Disaster? September 19th, 2001.
-------------------
but the 9/11 Commission refused to investigate these because they found no connections to the profiteers and Al Queda. Hahahaha!
August 3, 2006
3:48 PM
boast writes:
PUT OPTIONS:
Directly from the Chicago Tribune:
Securities regulators around the world are investigating whether the terrorists involved in last week's attack profited in financial markets, possibly by buying options on the stock of United Airlines, Boeing, American Airlines and other companies in the knowledge that prices would fall.
On Sept. 6, put volume on United Airlines was 3,150, more than four times its average daily put volume this year, according to data from the Options Clearing Corp. Put volume for Boeing on Sept. 7 totaled 27,294, more than five times its average daily put volume this year.
The day before the attacks, put volume on American Airlines stock was 4,516, nearly 11 times its average daily volume for the year.
· Chicago Tribune. Terrorist Trade Probe Widens. By Robert Manor and Melissa Allison. September 19th, 2001.
Directly from CBS News:
Sources tell CBS News that the afternoon before the attack, alarm bells were sounding over unusual trading in the U.S. stock options market.
An extraordinary number of trades were betting that American Airlines stock price would fall.
The trades are called "puts" and they involved at least 450,000 shares of American. But what raised the red flag is more than 80 percent of the orders were "puts", far outnumbering "call" options, those betting the stock would rise.
Sources say they have never seen that kind of imbalance before, reports CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. Normally the numbers are fairly even.
But insider trading is always motivated by greed, and a senior Wall Street executive noted it would be ironic if the terrorists' greed ended up providing one of the most promising leads investigators have.
· CBS News. Profiting From Disaster? September 19th, 2001.
-------------------
but the 9/11 Commission refused to investigate these because they found no connections to the profiteers and Al Queda. Hahahaha!
August 3, 2006
3:53 PM
harry palm writes:
The steel of the world trade center was not shipped to china, it was put into a yard and investigated by NIST for three years. The towers were built with A-36 steel to save money, it was called a "hollow tube" structure which relied on more spacing in between the steel and that every time a concrete floor was added, more steel could be added and Gravity would support the structure.
Considering buildings of far less size have came down due to Post Tension cabling simply snapping in the concrete and causing the building to vibrate and then collapse, the offical story is not only plausible, but is supported by much more evidence than the loon brigrade presents.
http://wtc.nist.gov/
August 3, 2006
3:58 PM
boast writes:
The steel was sold to scrap metals vendors and most was soon on ships bound for China and India. Some of the smaller pieces and a few token large pieces of steel marked 'save' were allowed to be inspected at Fresh Kills landfill by FEMA's BPAT volunteers.
This illegal evidence destruction operation was conducted over the objections of attack victims' family members and respected public safety officials. Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering Magazine, wrote in an article condemning the operation:
Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center. The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately. 1
Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the Fire Protection Engineering Department at the University of Maryland, was quoted in the the New York Times as saying:
I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling. 2
Officials running the "cleanup operation" took pains to make sure the structural steel didn't end up anywhere but in blast furnaces. They installed GPS locater devices on each of the trucks hauling loads from Ground Zero at a cost of $1000 each. One driver who took an extended lunch break was dismissed.
August 3, 2006
3:59 PM
harry palm writes:
The steel was also not Fire Proofed like steel in buildings is today. Which did not allow any buffer between the fire proofing burning and the steel starting to burn. The only conspriacy is that your mothers didn't abort you and that got you this far without putting your own eyes out.
August 3, 2006
4:02 PM
boast writes:
here tthe link to the Fire Engineering article:
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225
there are many distortions in the NIST report.
August 3, 2006
4:02 PM
Anonymous writes:
Yeah a crew of several thousand are all in on it, oh no wait I forget Bush has a platoon of millions ready to bring down buildings, ship out steel, hide eveidence, pay off fire fighters, eye witnesses, steel elections, hide the bodys of both attack sites, pre plant explosives and then he still had to lie to take us to war......you are a total Douche.
August 3, 2006
4:05 PM
boast writes:
notice how the official story supporters have to stoop to calling the 9/11 skeptics names. makes you guys look real intelligent.
August 3, 2006
4:07 PM
Anonymous writes:
tsk tsk....harry palm the blathering idiot.......How many people do you think take you seriously now?
August 3, 2006
4:08 PM
Anonymous writes:
Those of you who believe in the 9/11 conspiracy are cuckoo for cocoa puffs! What you all need are some heavy duty meds.
August 3, 2006
4:08 PM
John Constantine writes:
FACT: American's stock plummeted starting around August 2001.
FACT: United's stock began it's tailspin in January 2000.
What with all their problems with labor unions, corporate shuffling and dodgy aerospace manufacturers, they didn't need a conspiracy to make their stock tank.
August 3, 2006
4:09 PM
Anonymous writes:
Afraid to post a name 4:02??
Usual paid off noob
August 3, 2006
4:11 PM
boast writes:
more than just the two airlines:
Financial transactions in the days before the attack suggest that certain individuals used foreknowledge of the attack to reap huge profits. The evidence of insider trading includes:
* Huge surges in purchases of put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack -- United Airlines and American Airlines
* Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of reinsurance companies expected to pay out billions to cover losses from the attack -- Munich Re and the AXA Group
* Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of recorded by several financial services companies hurt by the attack -- Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America
* Huge surge in purchases of call options of stock of a weapons manufacturer expected to gain from the attack -- Raytheon
* Huge surges in purchases of 5-Year US Treasury Notes
In each case, the anomalous purchases translated into large profits as soon as the stock market opened a week after the attack: put options were used on stocks that would be hurt by the attack, and call options were used on stocks that would benefit.
Put and call options are contracts that allow their holders to sell and buy assets, respectively, at specified prices by a certain date. Put options allow their holders to profit from declines in stock values because they allow stocks to be bought at market price and sold for the higher option price. The ratio of the volume of put option contracts to call option contracts is called the put/call ratio. The ratio is usually less than one, with a value of around 0.8 considered normal. 1
August 3, 2006
4:15 PM
Chas Chandler writes:
Look, I realize how badly you all want your fairy tale to turn out to be true, but all you really have is a bunch of what-if conjecture, paraphrased eyewitness accounts, and semi-scientific, semi-intelligent questions.
I'd sooner believe that the son of an ancient Hebrew carpenter was actually a deity who died for our sins than this Loose Change false flag BS. Loose Change? More like loose definition of reality.
August 3, 2006
4:16 PM
900 days to go writes:
Conspiracies come and go but the incompetence of the Bush, Cheney, Rice combination in this administration is constant. If there was not a conspiracy this is the only other answer and believing they are incompetent is not very hard. Harry probably wants Rice for president when she is the main person that dropped the ball by ignoring the threat which was well documented with many intriguing leads.
August 3, 2006
4:18 PM
boast writes:
On September 10, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for. Rumsfeld stated: "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions."
Such a disclosure normally would have sparked a huge scandal. However, the commencement of the attack on New York City and Washington in the morning would assure that the story remained buried. To the trillions already missing from the coffers, an obedient Congress terrorized by anthrax attacks would add billions more in appropriations to fight the "War on Terror."
The Comptroller of the Pentagon at the time of the attack was Dov Zakheim, who was appointed in May of 2001. Before becoming the Pentagon's money-manager, he was an executive at System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor specializing in electronic warfare technologies including remote-controlled aircraft systems. Zakheim is a member of the Project for a New American Century and participated in the creation of its 2000 position paper Rebuilding America's Defenses which called for "a New Pearl Harbor."
August 3, 2006
4:21 PM
remember this? writes:
Nothing has been debunked, no matter what dirk harry and others say. INTELLIGENT people know this to be true. No amount of name calling,whining and petty little links will ever change that.
I truly feel sorry for these blinded individuals that think that buildings like these "Just Fall Down"......must suck to be so poorly educated and have the nerve to show it in public.
August 3, 2006
4:25 PM
John Constantine writes:
Define "huge", in terms of these companies. "Huge" compared to the mini-crash that typically takes place every Autumn...?
Look at a 10-year span of DJIA info, and you'll see a somewhat sharp drop almost every year since 1997...ALL OF THEM IN SEPTEMBER, and all of them affecting a broad swath of heavy hitters and blue-chips.
August 3, 2006
4:28 PM
Anonymous writes:
I agree, I truely think Harry is a paid GOP rep to blog all day supporting the Dunce administration. This is all he does, day in day out.
August 3, 2006
4:28 PM
fiesty writes:
How 'bout all you nay-sayers quit calling names and actually start addressing some of the points raised? This is supposed to be a debate, not a bunch of 5 year olds exchanging childish insults.
August 3, 2006
4:31 PM
fiesty writes:
"Look, I realize how badly you all want your fairy tale to turn out to be true, but all you really have is a bunch of what-if conjecture, paraphrased eyewitness accounts, and semi-scientific, semi-intelligent questions."
Really Chad? Please explain how my post earlier questioning the fighter jet scramble is "what if" conjecture.
August 3, 2006
4:31 PM
John Constantine writes:
The reason they couldn't track the $2.3 trillion is because the transactions are recorded in several systems (including paper files) throughout the DOD...NOT because it was "missing". The money wasn't missing, they just coludn't track all the expenditures with one accounting system, because it's tied up in several.
Stop paraphrasing, you silly twat. Here's the full speech, for anyone that's interested:
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010910-secdef.html
August 3, 2006
4:33 PM
boast writes:
huge yes huge....
# A jump in UAL (United Airlines) put options 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack.
-- CBS News, September 26
# A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal on the day before the attacks.
-- CBS News, September 26
# No similar trading ocurred on any other airlines
-- Bloomberg Business Report, the Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT), Herzliyya, Israel [citing data from the CBOE]
# Morgan Stanley saw, between September 7 and September 10, an increase of 27 times (not 27 percent) in the purchase of put options on its shares.
# Merrill-Lynch saw a jump of more than 12 times the normal level of put opinions in the four trading days before the attacks.
August 3, 2006
4:35 PM
Scott writes:
Regarding 9-11 "conspiracy theories," the very use of the term "conspiracy theories" demonstrates the journalistic laziness and shallowness that the "mainstream" media brings to this issue. Everyone agrees there was a conspiracy to carry out 9-11. The question is whether the conspiracy involved the evil cave-dwelling Osama and his freedom-hating band of fanatics, or perhaps another type of conspiracy that has more evidence to back it up.
But rather than look closely at the evidence with an open mind, authors such as Mark Fenster find it easier to psychoanalize the "conspiracy theorists" themselves. Hence the condescending speculations that people seek alternative explanations to vent their anger or to protect their small minds from the cold, hard "truths" that governments have been so reliable in providing throughout history.
Give me a break.
August 3, 2006
4:36 PM
FormalistAesthete writes:
It's unfortunate that the story doesn't state the exact wording of the question or differentiate between those who think that the US government was involved and those who think the US government "took no action to stop them". "Took no action to stop them" is subject to interpretation. Is it limited to intentionally doing nothing or does it include incompetence?
August 3, 2006
4:37 PM
Anonymous writes:
It doesn't surprise me that fiesty believes in the 9/11 conspiracy theory. She also believes that adult stem cells hold the same promise as embryonic stem cells and believes in creationism instead of evolution.
You nuts are in good company.
August 3, 2006
4:37 PM
fiesty writes:
I'm questioning the military aspect of 9-11, because I was active duty AF at the time, and the official explanation of what happened does NOT make sense.
In addition to my question about the fighter jets, what about the war games that morning? As a result of both exercise and real-world operations, the east coast (east coast alone), only had one set of fighter jets available for defense that morning. (And we've already discussed the fallacies in their actions.) We were essentially left defenseless. Why?
War Games.
OFFICIAL VERSION: The only exercise mentioned in the official report was Vigilant Guardian. “On 9/11, NORAD was scheduled to conduct a military exercise, Vigilant Guardian, which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union. We investigated whether military preparations for the large-scale exercise compromised the military’s response to the real-world terrorist attack on 9/11. According to General Eberhart, ‘it took about 30 seconds’ to make the adjustment to the real-world situation. Ralph Eberhart testimony, June 17, 2004. We found that the response was, if anything, expedited by the increased number of staff at the sectors and at NORAD because of the scheduled exercise. See Robert Marr interview (Jan 23, 2004).� [9-11 Commission Report, page 458]
ISSUE 1: According to official records for several agencies, there were actually SIX war games in progress on 9-11. Why does the official report omit these? [Listed on various agency websites]
• A National Reconnaissance Office exercise on September 11, in which a small corporate jet would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure.
• Global Guardian, an annual exercise that would pose an imaginary crisis to the United States Strategic Command. It had been running for several days. The exercise allegedly involved a simulated Russian bomber attack. Global Guardian is performed in conjunction with Vigilant Guardian, the annual training exercise (usually occurring in October) conducted by NORAD as well as exercises under the direction of Air Combat Command (Crown Vigilance) and US Space Command (Apollo Guardian). "Vigilant Guardian" is a HQ-sponsored CPx (Command Post Exercise), meaning it is conducted in offices and with computers, but without actual planes in the air. All of NORAD was involved in "Vigilant Guardian."
• Vigilant Warrior, a NORAD live-fly (confirmed by its second name 'warrior') exercise mentioned in Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies page 4-5 (possibly the same as Vigilant Guardian, or possibly the complementary "offense" or "red team" portion of the drill involving real planes acting as simulated hijacked plane)
• Operation Northern Vigilance, which involved deploying fighter jets to locations in Alaska and northern Canada. According to the Toronto Star: " Part of this exercise is pure simulation, but part is real world: NORAD is keeping a close eye on the Russians, who have dispatched long-range bombers to their own high north on a similar exercise." Planned on September 11, it was called off when the Federal Aviation Administration had evidence of a hijacking.
• Operation Northern Guardian- In late August 2001, two-thirds of the 27th Fighter Squadron are sent overseas. Six of the squadron's fighters and 115 people go to Turkey to enforce the no-fly zone over northern Iraq as part of Operation Northern Watch. Another six fighters and 70 people are sent to Iceland to participate in Operation Northern Guardian.
• TRIPOD II, a joint FEMA and Department of Justice bio-warfare vaccination exercise, scheduled for September 12 at New York's Pier 29, and revealed in testimony by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at the 9/11 Commission. The command center assembled at Pier 29 was used for FEMA response to the events of 9/11 after Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management offices were evacuated and later destroyed in WTC 7.
ISSUE 2: As stated, the 9-11 commission report said that Vigilant Guardian did not impede national response readiness, but in fact abetted it. However, that position, when evaluated with the other war games, is repeatedly shown false:
• As mentioned, 2/3 of the fighter jets from Langley AFB were unavailable for scrambling on 9/11; what fighters remained were scrambled but (coincidentally?) headed in the wrong direction. Due to the real-world operations, there were no fighters left to scramble.
• Fighter jets from Andrews Air Force Base were 200 miles away on a bombing run exercise from Washington D.C., leaving the capitol defenseless.
• When Boston center calls NEADS (Northeast Air Defense Sector), the response from NEADS was "Is this real world or exercise?" [9-11 Commission Report, page 17.]
• "During the course of the morning, there were multiple erroneous reports of hijacked aircraft in the system." [9-11 Commission Report, Statement 17.] For example, FAA's report of a "phantom flight 11" at 9:21, 35 minutes after the real flight 11 crashed into the WTC and even longer after the war games are alleged to have been aborted. [9-11 Commission Report, page 26.]
August 3, 2006
4:38 PM
remember this? writes:
I think we can safely say that there are questions regarding certain stocks....
This is really not the issue here, people have been making questionable fortunes this way for ages.
I would consider this a sideline and not worthy of the attention it is getting.
Especially when all things considered the world is in a shithole
and the DJIA just keeps on going up....go figure.
The real issue here is why thousands of people were murdered in cold blood on September 11th by buildings that were demolished from within. There is no other explanation as to these collapses......period.
The developer of the buildings themselves has been quoted as saying they could withstand MULTIPLE hits from a 707 and keep on standing,
I would venture to say that they could even have withstood a nuclear detonation without falling to pieces like they did.
August 3, 2006
4:41 PM
Anonymous writes:
August 3, 2006 04:37 PM -
Try to stay on topic please, rather than engaging in misdirection (I've never said anything remotely like what you claim about the stem cell issue, and am not a creationist.)
Love how you totally ignore the points raised, and are proving my post about name-calling as the last refuge for those who can't debate or use their brain.
August 3, 2006
4:41 PM
remember this? writes:
TY boast, those figures look a little more realistic
August 3, 2006
4:45 PM
Anonymous writes:
Pardon me if I don't find credible those that don't believe in evolution and embryonic stem cell research.
August 3, 2006
4:45 PM
remember this? writes:
Hey feisty good to see you :)
August 3, 2006
4:48 PM
fiesty writes:
"Pardon me if I don't find credible those that don't believe in evolution and embryonic stem cell research."
August 3, 2006 04:45 PM - you don't have to find ME creditable. The sources are! Along with your own eyes and brain. Note that I quote everything directly from the official report and other reliable news agencies. Look it up yourself.
Anyone have any responses to the questions about the jets and wargames???
August 3, 2006
4:51 PM
fiesty writes:
remember this- thanks. Had to put my 2 cents in since all I saw was whiners who don't want to debate (or maybe can't?) and were trying to distract by name-calling. It'd be interesting if there were folks actually interested in looking at the issues raised.
August 3, 2006
4:55 PM
harry palm writes:
the reality is you cooks have nothing other than what a movie told you to think. you clealry dont know anything about history, you dont know anything about market trends, you simply dont know squat. is what your saying possible? Sure is, and sure is every other nut ball conspriacy out there. But thats the funny thing, they always stay in the dark and only the tweakers who think they are smart believe them. You are just pathetically ignorant and out of touch with reality. I cant stop laughing about what a bunch of wind bags you all are. Throwing out the same repetetive crap in a attention grabbing manner like you are introducing something new, you are caught in a loop man, wake up! I am positive when I say most of you peddling this crap are clearly young people with hardly any money and to much time on your hands. Eventually you will grow up and realize what a silly bitch you were the entire time. Best of luck to you nutjob! I am sure someday you will expose the truth and bring the whole goverment down for what they did!! keep up the good work Sherlock!
August 3, 2006
4:56 PM
boast writes:
well only real critical thinkers look at the actual evidence/data. the "whiners" would rather believe something they have been told secondhand from either FOX or the distorted government reports.
August 3, 2006
4:58 PM
boast writes:
the evidence out there has nothing to do with Loose Change. STOP using it as an argument. debate the FACTS.
August 3, 2006
5:01 PM
Anonymous writes:
Lets debate the fact that you are insane! Tell us what happens next Secret Agent boast!!! you are clearly on the in and know to much!! its gotta be scary walking around the world knowing what you know!! My money says you poke your own eyes out in the next few years
August 3, 2006
5:04 PM
fiesty writes:
"well only real critical thinkers look at the actual evidence/data. the "whiners" would rather believe something they have been told secondhand from either FOX or the distorted government reports."
Hear, hear! It's too much "work" for some to actually research and critically analyze the evidence.
August 3, 2006
5:05 PM
Anonymous writes:
-100's of warnings prior to 9/1l- ignored.
-Clinton admin. tells incoming Bush admins. al-queda and bin-laden should be top priority-ignored
-Norad doesn't deploy jets even after 1st tower is hit.
-All of bin-laden family allowed to leave US right after 9/11.
-Bush blocks 9/11 commission and can only appear w/ Cheney and not be under oath.
-No WMD's
-No capture of osama.
There's your republican party doing such a great job protecting our wonderful country. Can you respond to any of this facts Harry?
August 3, 2006
5:05 PM
boast writes:
5:01 - call me all the names you want. i've been researching this since the day after 9/11. the collapse of WTC 7 is what got me started. it looked too much like a controlled demo to me. i enjoy knowing the truth. Patrick Henry sums up how I feel best when he said:
...it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."
August 3, 2006
5:06 PM
Hamster writes:
9/11 was a false flag operation.
And its not like they haven't done it before. Just checkout Operation Gladio (bet you haven't heard about Operation Gladio on any of the corporately controled US networks).
Sword Play: Attacking Civilians to Justify "Greater Security"
by Chris Floyd
'You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."
This was the essence of Operation Gladio, a decades-long covert campaign of terrorism and deceit directed by the intelligence services of the West -- against their own populations. Hundreds of innocent people were killed or maimed in terrorist attacks -- on train stations, supermarkets, cafes and offices -- which were then blamed on "leftist subversives" or other political opponents. The purpose, as stated above in sworn testimony by Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra, was to demonize designated enemies and frighten the public into supporting ever-increasing powers for government leaders -- and their elitist cronies.
First revealed by Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti in 1991, Gladio (from the Latin for "sword") is still protected to this day by its founding patrons, the CIA and MI6. Yet parliamentary investigations in Italy, Switzerland and Belgium have shaken out a few fragments of the truth over the years. These have been gathered in a new book, "NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe," by Daniele Ganser, as Lila Rajiva reports on CommonDreams.org.
Originally set up as a network of clandestine cells to be activated behind the lines in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, Gladio quickly expanded into a tool for political repression and manipulation, directed by NATO and Washington. Using right-wing militias, underworld figures, government provocateurs and secret military units, Gladio not only carried out widespread terrorism, assassinations and electoral subversion in democratic states such as Italy, France and West Germany, but also bolstered fascist tyrannies in Spain and Portugal, abetted the military coup in Greece and aided Turkey's repression of the Kurds.
SNIP
Indeed, it would not do for the families of the 85 people ripped apart by the Aug. 2, 1980 bombing of the Bologna train station to know that their loved ones had been murdered by "men inside Italian state institutions and ... men linked to the structures of United States intelligence," as the Italian Senate concluded after its investigation in 2000.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FLO502B.html
August 3, 2006
5:17 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
Remember this: a great deal of what has been talked about in terms of forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony, specifically relating to the Loosechange film, HAS been debunked. Saying otherwise, and calling me "close-minded" does not change that.
The numerous instances of fishy activities and inconsistent elements that other people have since brought up (war games, stocks, fighter scrambling) are all indeed quite intriguing. Maybe in the end they will point the way toward a genuine conspiracy. But at present, this is all just circumstantial. Is it compelling? Yes. Is it proof? Hell no. Absent concrete evidence that something really did go down, the far more likely scenario AT PRESENT is that our government was incompetent.
I wish our government really were as menacingly efficient and awesome as that which is depicted on the X-Files. Too bad that ain't the case.
I really am not close-minded on this. Much of what has been presented here is compelling. But that doesn't mean I'm going to get all zealous about a highly unlikely scenario based on circumstantial evidence. It sounds to me like YOU'RE the close-minded one: "There is no other explanation as to these collapses......period." Wait, you mean aside from the equally credible scenarios provided in the debunking links? Oh, wait, I see: THOSE aren't credible, but "Jerry's Conspiracy Page" is? Those other experts and PhD's aren't credible, only the ones that support YOUR version of events. Interesting...
Further, "remember this", you keep pulling quotes, stats, and other figures out of the air. You don't even bother citing.
In the end, you might even be right about what happened that day. But I'll be damned if you think that you can get away with lazy thinking, spurious claims, and establishing "truth" based on contested facts and circumstantial evidence, and THEN have the gall to call on us who challenge you of being unintelligent, non-critical thinkers. Gimme a break.
August 3, 2006
5:25 PM
Anonymous writes:
Get a grip on yourself Dirk....its ok to be blind.
NONE of the 9-11 conspiracy debunks are worth a damn.
And you know it.
You go against scholars, engineers, eyewitnesses, and anything else who stands in the way of your self serving attitude. You can try to make little of this event, wont happen.
Is there any point in particular you wish to debate huh? name it.....
August 3, 2006
5:27 PM
Anonymous writes:
the prevoius post was by
remember this?
Sorry Dirk pissed me off so bad I forgot to sign it. What a name
Dirk Gently LOLs
August 3, 2006
5:32 PM
Anonymous writes:
just start with debunkiing the Mineta testimony then...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7Vs7KNlpXU
August 3, 2006
5:34 PM
boast writes:
after watching the Mineta testimony, ask yourself why this was left out of the 9/11 Commission Report.
my post below too.
August 3, 2006
5:34 PM
Jirk Dently writes:
The X-Files and Dirk Gently
A match made in hell.
See the pics on Jerrys Conspiracy Page!!!
You claim remember this? states lies......where?? Quotes stats?? Where?? I dont see any??
Go have another drink....
August 3, 2006
5:37 PM
David Littleton writes:
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." - Mark Twain
Your government lies to you. If you do not understand this simple statement you have already fallen victim to the countless variations of Operation Mockingbird. Your thoughts are controlled and influenced by a government controlled mega-corporate media.
Anyone that doubts that your government would lie to you should seek out and read the recently declassified document "Operation Northwood". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)
If you would like to see the damning evidence for yourself on the governments involvement behind 9/11 read "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil" by Michael Ruppert. You can access tons of information by visiting www.fromthewilderness.com
"We must hang together, or we will all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin.
August 3, 2006
5:44 PM
boast writes:
here is what JFK said 10 days before he was killed. please take the 5min and watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlEqtaWpKEU
August 3, 2006
5:55 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
Remember this, you haven't debated with me at all. All you can do is claim I stand in the way of ALL this evidence. Then you undertake namecalling. Classy. (And so credible, too!)
Try telling me why the debunking links aren't worth a damn, then. Blow my mind with your staggering intellect and your irrefutable proof. Oh, and how is it again that my skepticism is self-serving?
Let me repeat (read slowly so you understand):
1. Some of the evidence you present is not credible.
2. The evidence you present which IS credible has some problems:
*Eyewtinesses who contradict the testimony of other eyewitnesses (so who do we believe?)
*The testimony of experts that contradicts the evidence of other experts
*The presence of "un-looked for" evidence used as conradictory evidence, when in fact it is evidence of something that the Commission did not address at all (which is either evidence of a cover-up avoidance, or something they didn't feel they had to spend time on--we can't know for sure, can we?)
What you say is plausible, and possible, but not proven. Until such time, I'm sorry, I'm not going to join your little cult.
And another thing: I hate to be an elitist, but not any old schmoe can conduct proper "research". It takes years of training in methodology and theory. You have to compile primary evidence in addition to secondary evidence (if you don't know the difference, then what you're doing isn't research). You have to delineate the evidence according to what is proven, plausible, and possible, in that order. Finally, and most importantly, you have to know your limitations. Occasionally you have to defer to others' expertise. You can't rely on "video footage" of a collapsing building in order to determine how it collapes. You have to pour over the remains. You have to collaborate with chemists, engineers, and other field experts.
"Research" is NOT cobbling together bits and pieces of other people's musings about what happened.
Seriously, though, without being smarmy: I want to commend you for all the work you've done, and I commend you for your dilligence. Hell, I think you're much more informed about this than 99% of the public. But please don't insult my intelligence by claiming to have THE ANSWER, and anyone who disagrees is therefore an idiot, least of all when this is all compelling, and possibly true, but is not actually PROVEN. And that goes for the rest of yas!
August 3, 2006
5:59 PM
remember this? writes:
Thanks boast :)
I had never heard that before
Refreshing!
August 3, 2006
6:00 PM
boast writes:
"the only Truth we know about 9/11 is that we don't know the Truth about 9/11" I think sums it up best.
August 3, 2006
6:04 PM
nihil matters writes:
Dirk Gently,
We too commend you on your dilligence...your an excellent company man. ;)
August 3, 2006
6:07 PM
remember this? writes:
Dirk you truly amaze me. This will be the last time I address you in this blog as it has become obvious you are not interested in debating ....only
flaming.
You mention I belong to a little cult.......well I guess then according to todays RMN poll so do 80+ percent of people here!
LOL you are such a hippocritter.
Also you claim I have the answer? Answer to what?? All I have is my opinion and its a rock solid one baby! Rock Solid
And Im sure everyone here enjoys being included in your rantings.
Said by Dirk: And that goes for the rest of yas!
August 3, 2006
6:12 PM
Sam writes:
Said By Dirk Gently:
Remember this, you haven't debated with me at all. All you can do is claim I stand in the way of ALL this evidence. Then you undertake namecalling. Classy. (And so credible, too!)
WHERE? Does he do this??
August 3, 2006
6:12 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
Company man! LOL! I'm pretty much a Marxist! I hate this government.
Boast, I'm not sure what you mean by debunking the Mineta testimony. It would hardly be surprising if the order was given to scramble fighters--I would expect the government to do so. Are you suggesting the fighters shot down the plane in PN?
It is curious that it wasn't included in the report, but I wouldnt' say that's very damning, unless you are relating it to some aspect of the story that I'm not picking up on.
August 3, 2006
6:13 PM
remember this? writes:
LOL nihil !!
August 3, 2006
6:24 PM
Tree Hugger writes:
Fiesty-
Good post at 4:37
I was listening to that banned in some states by the neocon religious right station am760 yesterday when Rhandi Rhodes was going over the exact 9/11 report time line about the F16's that were scrambled in the wrong direction. Dooooooooooh. The time line would of put an F16 into NYC with plenty of time to take down plane #2 before it hit the tower but (John Belushi) Noooooooooooooooooo, it was sent out over the ocean ghost chasing. I need to find the weed our military is smoking, it's definately stronger than mine. :)
August 3, 2006
6:30 PM
remember this? writes:
^^^^^^^^^
Cant wait for the next question :)
August 3, 2006
6:40 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
Remember this:
Let's pull back from the "oooh snap!" brink for a moment.
First of all, attacking your position and your methodology does not qualify as flaming. If I called you names, THAT would be flaming.
I admit that some of aspects of the TONE of what I've said are probably demeaning. I apologize, and will refrain from doing so in the future so that you don't have the excuse to avoid an actual debate. The "cult" reference was a smarmy aside. I obviously didn't mean it literally. Are you seriously fixated on that? Sensitive much?
I'M not interested in debating? I asked you to tell me why the debunking sites are worthless--you have not. I noted that much of your evidence is circumstantial. You have not yet stated why I might be wrong about this. You call me a hypocrite, conveniently enough, but without explaining your view here. Remember that the burden of proof resides with you, my friend.
I suppose it is a stretch to consider being called "blind" and "ignorant" as instances of namecalling. So techically, Sam, I suppose I was wrong. But only technically.
You folks obviously think it's hilarious to espouse dubious positions and claim intellectual superiority because of superior numbers, mainly because all of the sensible folks who share my view--not Harry, necessarily, though he made a few good points--have long stopped trying to argue with people who defend their positions with zealotry and personal attacks (with the occasional ADDITIONAL link to a dubious source). This isn't pro wrestling, people.
August 3, 2006
6:46 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
PS: I don't mean to suggest that the other view is not sensible--just that there are people who make their claims sensibly, and those who do not.
August 3, 2006
6:50 PM
boast writes:
Dirk - re: Mineta testimony
Dick Cheney watched flt 77 approach DC while it was at least 50 miles away. No evacuation orders were given to the Pentagon, the Capitol bldg, or the White House. You don't find that suspicious?
And yes this shouldve been in the 9/11 Commission Report but I guess we can just add it to long list of ommissions and distortions of said report.
August 3, 2006
6:50 PM
fiesty writes:
Here's more food for thought-
Specific Intelligence Warnings.
In evaluating warnings, two factors must be considered- is the information from a creditable source, and is the intelligence specific and actionable? In the following cases, both criteria are met- the sources are eminently reputable, and the information detailed/specific. The following reported warnings about 9/11were specific in the type of action, location, and date/time. Have these claims been investigated? If not, why? If so, what were the results? If valid, why were these warnings not acted on?
OFFICIAL VERSION: None, never addressed.
ISSUE 1: That former lead counsel for the House, David Schippers, says he’d taken to John Ashcroft’s office specific warnings he’d learned from FBI agents in New York of an impending attack – even naming the proposed dates, names of the hijackers and the targets, and the fact that the investigations had been stymied and the agents threatened:
“There was going to be a massive attack in Washington... The targets were going to be Washington, the White House and the Capitol Building. And that they were going to use airliners to attack them… The original report that I got was that they had arranged for three attacks on the United States - one, they were going to take down an airline; two, they were going to attack a federal facility in the heartland of the United States; and the third one was going to be a massive attack in lower Manhattan.
“Got a call from the office of the Speaker of the House, who happens to be an Illinois Republican, said we understand you've got some information, etc. I said, yes I do, I would really like to share it with somebody. I have at least two and maybe three witnesses that should be subpoenaed to come out there and testify in executive session and tell you what I was talking about. Ok. We'll get back to you. Never heard from them. Couple of days later, I got a call from the Senate Intelligence Committee. We hear that you've got information, etc. Yes, I have information and I'd be perfectly willing to bring it out to you. I'd be perfectly willing to have my witnesses go in there and testify but they have to be subpoenaed... Ok, we'll get back to you. That was last week, I still haven't heard from them... Strangely enough, the one group I haven't heard from is the FBI intelligence people.� [Click here to read transcript or hear interview with David Schippers.]
ISSUE 2: In August 2001, Drs. Garth Nicolson, Ph.D., and his wife Nancy Nicolson, Ph.D., among the world's most esteemed Mycoplasma researchers and Gulf War Syndrome investigators, reported to Pentagon officials that they had confirmed intelligence that on Sept. 11, 2001 a terrorist strike against the Pentagon would be made. Their sources included individuals in key intelligence positions, the mob, and one high level African diplomat. Their "information was passed on to the Director of Policy of the Department of Defense, the Inspector General of the US Army Medical Corps and the National Security Council," Dr. Nicolson wrote. "Unfortunately, it was ignored."
ISSUE 3: With 9/11 just short weeks away, the CIA reportedly told the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department that Osama bin Laden might soon launch an attack within the US, and Britain specifically warned the US that al Qaeda intended to attack using multiple airplane hijackings (Sunday Herald, 9/23/01 and 5/19/02).
August 3, 2006
6:57 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
Boast, of course I find this suspicious. But if it was fifty miles away, he was probably not thinking, "headed for Pentagon", he was probably thinking it was headed for other targets. Why didn't he order THOSE evacuations? Possibly because he expected the Langley fighters to have closed the distance and shot it down by then. Certainly under the circumstances I would have expected that.
All of this is suspicious. Never said it wasn't. But by no means is it ironclad, especially when off the top of my head I (someone who hates everything Cheney stands for) can come up with alternative, plausible explanations.
This is also coming from a person who testifies to have overheard some somewhat confusing bit of dialogue he didn't understand the full ramifications of at the time. Possibly there were other things afoot that he wasn't aware of, either. Possibly he remembered details wrongly. It's also possible he's lying (though I sincerely doubt it).
In short: yet another example of fishy information that could be fit into either scenario pretty well.
August 3, 2006
6:57 PM
fiesty writes:
Dirk (and others) -
I hope you notice that some of what is being posted is verifiable and creditable- for example, what I've posted typically refers to the official commission report.
Now, let's address the whole "you haven't proven anything". Maybe not, but we can prove what CAN'T be. Given some of what has been posted, you have to admit that the "official" story is false.
August 3, 2006
7:01 PM
fiesty writes:
Here's another interesting tidbit of information about evidence possible being suppressed.... Why? Hmm....
Plane Recorders.
OFFICAL VERSION: "In accordance with FAA, United 93’s cockpit voice recorder recorded the last 31 minutes of sounds from the cockpit via microphones in the pilot’s headsets, as well as in the overhead panel of the flight deck. This is the only recorder from the four hijacked airplanes to survive the impact and ensuing fire. The CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175 were not found, and the CVR from American Flight 77 was badly burned and not recoverable." [9-11 Commission Report, note 76, page 456].
ISSUE 1: Where is the complete, unabridged transcript from flight 93? Why has it not been made available?
ISSUE 2: Most people don’t realize that every flight has two recorders- a Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and a Flight Data Recorder (FDR). These recorders are specifically designed to survive a crash. [FAA website] For example- Barry M. Sweedler, from the National Transportation Safety Board, cites in a recent speech that for some crashes “the only wreckage recovered were the flight recorders�. [Click here for speech transcript.] This doesn’t make sense- there were four flights on 9-11, thus a total of eight recorders. Yet, according to the official version above, only two were recovered and one of which was so damaged it was worthless? What makes these four flight crashes any different from any other crash? How does the retrieval of 9-11 recorders compare against: 1) Historically, the percentage of recorders able to be recovered from crashes, and 2) Percentage of recovered recorders that were usable? According to online research from the FAA, it's extremely rare to NOT find a recorder from a crash.
ISSUE 3: The report specifically states that the recorders for the flights that hit the World Trade Center towers were not recovered. However, a NY firefighter [retired], Nicholas DeMasi has stated that he escorted federal agents on an all-terrain vehicle in October 2001 and helped them locate three of the four recorders for those two flights. His story is collaborated by a volunteer and honorary firefighter, Mike Bellone. They claim they were approached by unknown bureau agents a short time after they found the boxes among the WTC rubble before January 2002. “They confronted me and told me to not to say anything,� recalled Bellone, referring to one of three reddish-orange boxes with two white stripes he saw in the back of DeMasi’s ATV. “I said, ‘Give me a good reason.’ When they couldn’t, I told them I wouldn’t shut up about it." [Multiple online sources; click here for example. Individuals in question also published book called Behind the Scene: Ground Zero in Aug 2003 detailing their experience.)
This claim seems extremely creditable for several reasons. First, firefighters have the specific training and knowledge to find and identify recorders. In this case, we have one individual who had been a fire fighter long enough to retire, and has the wealth of experience to draw on. Second, there were multiple creditable witnesses. Third, the details provided are extremely specific; for example, the description of the data recorders. So, why hasn’t this claim been thoroughly investigated by the Government?
August 3, 2006
7:01 PM
FormalistAesthete writes:
The stock options "evidence" is discussed on snopes.com
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp
. They concluded that there is a more plausible explanation than that the trading was done by people with advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Sorry.
August 3, 2006
7:03 PM
maldive writes:
That's fine, you hate this president and this adminstration so you will resort to any twisting of the facts to push your agenda. The botton line is you discrace those who perished on that awful day, those who sacrificed their lives to try and assist the victims and all the families that may never truly heel. Bottom line line is your objectives are fueled by hate which should give you the sympathy to identify with the true evil that conspired to and carried out this attack . If you don't believe in religion then believe in Karma, and based on that I guess your life will continue it's foundation in hate and fot that people should pity you.
August 3, 2006
7:07 PM
fiesty writes:
FormalistAesthete -
Actually, I use Snopes alot, but am disappointed in that Snopes article- it is a little misleading. Though investigated, the investigation failed to answer several questions regarding the alleged foreknowledge. Here's some info from the official 9-11 Commission Report:
Trading on American and United.
There was a suspicious flurry of equity- and bond-trading immediately prior to 9-11, in the shares of companies directly affected by the disasters. [San Francisco Chronicle and CNN] In a statement to the 9/11 Commission in 2003, Mindy Kleinberg, of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, said:
"Never before on the Chicago Exchange were such large amounts of United and American Airlines options traded. These investors netted a profit of at least $5 million after the September 11th attacks. Interestingly, the names of the investors remain undisclosed and the $5 million remains unclaimed in the Chicago Exchange account." [Mindy Kleinberg Statement, March 31, 2003]
An investigation concluded there was no hard evidence of insider trading; however, this investigation completely failed to explain worldwide trading patterns around the 9/11 attacks. Why were the two specific airlines involved in 9-11 the ones affected? What about the timing of the trading? Most importantly, who were these “undisclosed investors�? These questions remain unanswered.
August 3, 2006
7:08 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
Fiesty:
Issues 1 and 3, though unfortunate and compelling, are probably chalked up to the infamous inter-departmental communication problems and bureaucratic quagmire that's supposed to be gettin fixed. These aren't the only juicy bits of info that weren't acted on (remember the hullabaloo about the hijackers training in Florida?).
Issue 2 is, well, it's possible. But frankly, it's a little too perfect as an alternative explanation: two Gulf War syndrome doctors and the mob? Throw in the Masons while you're at it, or the Russian mafia. It's a little too loaded, in my opinion. That doesn't make it untrue, just problematic. By the way--have you or anyone you can cite actually interviewed these characters?
August 3, 2006
7:10 PM
fiesty writes:
maldive-
You ought to be ashamed of yourself. The victims of 9-11, and their family, deserve at a minimum to have any lingering questions answered. Most of all, they deserve the TRUTH. Yet our Government has repeatedly failed to provide it, especially to the 9-11 Steering Committee and others, which is made up of victim families.
August 3, 2006
7:19 PM
fiesty writes:
Dirk- to answer your question, yes. There are transcripts of direct interviews, as well as footage. I still have much more information yet to provide.
And you can't tell me ignoring an order TWICE falls under "inter-departmental" confusion.
What gets me is not that each individual issue is so compelling, but the aggregate. In JUST what we've mentioned so far, we have:
1. Multiple specific intelligence warnings citing the specific date and method
2. "Undisclosed" investors potentially reaping $5 million on just the two airlines affected by 9-11
3. Multiple war games scheduled on that day which deprive the east coast of their usual defense capability, leaving only one set of fighters available.
4. That one set of fighters seemingly ignoring orders that, as a result, according to the "official" timeline, they arrived ONE minute too late.
5. In a first for aviation history and against astronomical odds, almost all recorders for all flights that day being "unrecoverable".
6. Possible evidence tampering.
I think this goes way beyond "suspicious". FOr all those out there stating we are being "gullible" and are "nutjobs" , you don't think the above deserves being addressed??? After all, most of it's right there in the "official" 9-11 report, so you can't say its "unsubstantiated"!
August 3, 2006
7:20 PM
Fabio writes:
Wow, I can't believe that 87% of the people did not believe in the government.
Ok, I have been talking about this in some other places, but I want to ask you this. Why would the government would let almost 3000 of their people die? They would never hurt their own citizens, I cannot see the government doing that just to prove a point
You cannot let your biased opinion against Bush make you believe such sensationalist news.
August 3, 2006
7:23 PM
AM760 writes:
The Bottom Line:
The PNAC(Project for a New American Century), the neocon bible, states in black and white they need another pearl harbor to start carrying out their agenda.
While I don't believe the Bush adminstration planned it or carried it out, I do think they knew it was coming and did nothing to prevent it and once it began they did nothing to stop it. There is to much evidence to dispute this.
1) Clinton admin. warns bush admin Al-queda and bin-laden should be top priority-its ignored.
2) 100's of warnings during Bush admins. first 9 months in office-ignored.
3)Transponders go down and than 1st tower gets hit and no fighter jets are deployed to intercept the others.
4) Bush doesn't want 9/11 comission and than can only meet in secret with Cheney and not under oath.
5) All of bin-ladens family members get to leave the US right after 9/11, not question asked.
And none of this is conspiracy its fact, public knowledge. It doesn't matter so much how the towers came down just look at the complacency and incompetence of this adminstration. I think they did it intentionally but even if they didn't these people should not be running our country and should be in jail.
To say republicans have made us safer is completely illogical and to support this cabel is like committing treason, like the Germans who supported hitler.
August 3, 2006
7:25 PM
maldive writes:
Ashamed - only for being gullable enough to have read one single word you and this so called journalist wrote. I sincerely believe that you have not the slightest regard for those who died and would bet you look only at this horrific event as a forum to promote your ideals. I'm guessing your a sad and angry person and compassion is a completely foreign thing to you.
August 3, 2006
7:28 PM
fiesty writes:
Fabio-
I don't know what to tell you. I'm not anti-Bush, as a matter of fact, I'm ashamed (now) to admit that I voted for him. I don't know the answer. Was our government just ineffective? Or did they know about it and let it happen? Or, worst case scenario, orchestrated it? Plus, who says its the "government", maybe just an influential faction? I don't know. All I do know is that there are some very glaring and serious issues surrounding 9-11. However, I seriously doubt we'll ever get an answer. Why? Because "they" are counting on the type of reactions we have seen in this blog- folks not even willing to look at the evidence supporting the issues raised, rather, folks dismissing objectors as "nutjobs" and the like.
August 3, 2006
7:29 PM
nihil matters writes:
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." - Mark Twain
Your government lies to you. If you do not understand this simple statement you have already fallen victim to the countless variations of Operation Mockingbird. Your thoughts are controlled and influenced by a government controlled mega-corporate media.
Anyone that doubts that your government would lie to you should seek out and read the recently declassified document "Operation Northwood". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)
If you would like to see the damning evidence for yourself on the governments involvement behind 9/11 read "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil" by Michael Ruppert. You can access tons of information by visiting www.fromthewilderness.com
"We must hang together, or we will all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin.
August 3, 2006
7:44 PM
Anonymous writes:
Thanks to all the dems, progressive, liberals, what ever who joined in today. Its given me hope.
I've been blogging here a few weeks and there's only been a few of us against these uninformed hate mongering repubs. I appreciate all the info you bring to the table and the back up.
We are not the minority, look at todays poll. Elections are being stolen(as in Mexico) and we are all being made to look like the minority and are called kooks, or conspiracy theorists, un-patriotic, liberals,etc... just because we know we own the govenment and we want to hold it accountable.
I get a lot of my facts from AM 760 so I encourage you to check it out if you haven't already. I saw somebody below make a reference to it.
Thanks again, lets keep informing the uninformed before it gets to late.
August 3, 2006
7:48 PM
AdamT writes:
Inside job all the way. No doubt about it.
Tonigh 8/3/06: Webster Tarpley on Mike Malloy at 10:30PM EST.
airamerica.com
August 3, 2006
7:49 PM
Fabio writes:
Ok, Nihil. Let me tell you one thing, all governments have lied to their people since the beggining of governments, ever since the greek and roma empires. All governments hide facts from their people. In fact, I dont know and never heard of any government that was completely honest to their people, you know why? because there never was one.
Im sure the government hides things from the people, someone has to be completely blinded not to believe that. Name me one government in any country in any time in history that didnt lie to their people.
Still, I do not see the government hurting their own people just to prove a point. I do not think they are lying about 9/11, because that is against their values, and those speculations are sensationalist news. They are not lying about 9/11, because they had no involvement in such events. Like I said, dont let the mistakes the government made lead you to believe they would do such an atrocity. They would not do it
August 3, 2006
7:49 PM
AdamT writes:
Inside job all the way. No doubt about it.
Tonigh 8/3/06: Webster Tarpley on Mike Malloy at 10:30PM EST.
airamerica.com
911blogger.com
August 3, 2006
7:57 PM
Anonymous writes:
nihil- that ben franklin quote is great, thanks for the laugh.
August 3, 2006
8:31 PM
Anonymous writes:
Fabio you spend you whole blog saying how govenments have always lied and keep things from the common person throughout time. But than you say this adminstration just couldn't or wouldn't do such a thing. What? You make no sense.
Just because you think repubs have some monopoly on values (which is a joke)you think it just couldn't be true, whaaaaa. Wake up.
August 3, 2006
8:39 PM
fiesty writes:
Talking about lies and so forth, you might find the following interesting.
Intimidation.
There have been numerous claims, some from extremely reputable sources, of individuals who were approached by government agents and subjected to threats/intimidation. Why have these claims not been investigated, at a minimum, by the police? [Personal threats are still a crime, or so I thought.] Here are but a few examples:
OFFICIAL VERSION: None- never addressed or investigated.
CLAIM 1: Nicholas DeMasi and Mike Bellone. As previously mentioned, these firefighters claimed to have found plane recorders, were later approached and told “not to say anything�.
CLAIM 2: Huffman Aviation Manager. A Huffman manager [Atta's flight school] quit because he suspected Atta and his cadres were double agents. He claims that FBI agents showed up at his house less than four hours after the attack, to ensure he kept quiet about his previous suspicions. The following was described by investigative journalist Daniel Hopsicker in his book Welcome to Terrorland:
A carload of FBI agents pulled up outside his house in the middle of the day, on the day of the attack. "They were outside my house four hours after the attack," he says. Hopsicker writes that "they didn't strong-arm him to make him think harder and cough up some useful leads, but to ensure he kept his mouth shut."
If this claim is true, not only is the attempt at intimidation interesting, but the fact the FBI agents showed up at his house only four hours after the attack. Has this claim ever been investigated, and if so, what were the results?
CLAIM 3: FBI Agents. As previously mentioned, David Schippers has 2-3 FBI agents who are willing to testify about the fact that when they tried to report intelligence specific to 9-11, they were threatened and told to keep quiet.
There was also the 9-11 victim who was approached while recovering in the hospital; but I can't find the specific source right now.
August 3, 2006
8:56 PM
Steve writes:
If you want to visit a good site that is coordinating 911 contacts and political action go to this link at :
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060721202752870
www.911truth.org
It's time to make our leaders dow what we elected them to do. Preserve and protect the Constitution!
August 3, 2006
9:08 PM
Pappy writes:
If your convictions are of truth. I must ask. Why do eight or more names being used by you all come from the same IP address? Your personality disorder hits new lows when you pretend to be mulitiple people on a blog, to argue a paranoid conspiracy that is debatable at best. I am more curious if you are crazy, or if some far left group put you up to it. Nobody wastes this much time, being this big of a schmo.
August 3, 2006
9:18 PM
EZ Company writes:
http://www.ehowa.com/youtubemovie.shtml?movie=t_B1H-1opys
You owe it to yourself to give this a listen. It shows uncut footage of Hamas propaganda videos. In other words, they are caught red handed fabricating the crimes they accuse Israel of.
August 3, 2006
9:35 PM
9/11 an inside job writes:
Wholly smokes the pro 9/11 believe the ridiculous official government story crowd is absolutely being crushed on here. Finally true Americans are insisting on the truth and saying so on the blogs. I posted this stuff many years ago and got threats left and right. A couple years in the trenches and the truth is starting to get out. Very happy to read this. Never stop fighting for the truth. Those that carried out 9/11 must be investigated, charged and brought before a jury in an official court of law. There is nothing more patriotic than demanding the truth be told and holding those responsible for 9/11 accountable for their horrendous actions. Looks like the 9/11 truth suppression levy is starting to break. The USA is being run by evil people but only because good people have let evil flourish. Through research and due diligence we will uncover the truth and which will make the good guys stronger and send the bad guys to prison. Justice is not swift but if we keep at it justice will prevail.
August 3, 2006
9:48 PM
Tree Hugger writes:
Holy crap 9/11 man,
This bong hit is for you. I feel like I just got a religious sermon from church that I don't go to. I'm going to bed now safe in thought there's people like you "fighting the good fight". - Triumph.
August 3, 2006
9:53 PM
Newton writes:
It is very simple really,
The North, South towers fell at almost a free fall speed indicating little resistance to the fall. Little resistance.
At the same time, we saw a massive plume of pulverized concrete, office furniture, and other building materials indicating massive amount of resistive force. After all, it takes a lot of energy to pulverize and that energy is lost to the downward momentum.
Massive resistance force indicated.
The only way to reconcile the almost free fall (little resistance) with the massive pulverized material (resistance indicated) is through the use of explosives.
The video 9-11 revisited shows fireman, policeman, employee and news coverage of the day. All these sources said bombs were present. Do we marginalize the lives lost and their professional opinions? Our government has done just that and more. They have been almost totally ignored.
August 3, 2006
9:54 PM
John Schlosser writes:
Okay. I get it now. Of course... how could we not know that Bush is really one of the reptile aliens from the underground colony near Dulce, New Mexico? Or, no-- maybe he's really one of the Greys from the base on the dark side of the Moon!
Perhaps he made those Arabs attack us with the Satanic magic we all know 33rd degree Illuminati Freemasons possess.
Of course not. It was the "neocons". Or maybe Mel Gibson had it right the other night, and doesn't have to apologize to anyone. Of course, Mad Mel just comes right out and calls us Jews, he doesn't dance around using that "neocon" crap. Maybe we do control the world. Hey, Eisenhower (is that a "neocon" name?) sold our children to the reptile aliens in the '50's so they could mix virgin blood into the dough for their matzohs... darn! I'm mixing all those conspiracies together again! It's so confusing!.
Seriously... if you believe the US government staged 9/11, you need deep psychological help, because you've gone far beyond the vague generalized paranoia we all possess.
Even Todd Bertuzzi, who isn't going to win a Nobel Science prize anytime soon, has a worthwhile quote, which, while I know it's out of context, some of you may want to think about.
Sometimes, it is what it is.
August 3, 2006
9:56 PM
Steve writes:
911 Inside job...
Yes it is true! People all over are finally waking up in masses to the 911lie that has been perpetuated by some very evil men. What we need now are candidates in Congress to start doing their job.
But this is actually a dangerous point, because as we begin the task of exposing Republicans and Democrats involved in this New World Order scam, they may try to use a distraction to divert attention away. Possibly another 911 type terror attack?
I wouldn't put it past them. These people have no respect for human life, unless it it their own filthy skin.
August 3, 2006
10:02 PM
Tree Hugger writes:
Ahhh Johnny, you just killed my buzz. And Todd Bertuzzi....isn't he a convicted by association ax murderer on skates?
August 3, 2006
10:04 PM
John Schlosser writes:
By the way, among the moonbats who believe this crap, "neocon" is the politically correct title for "conservative pro-Israel Jew". Since they don't have the pro-jihadi gonads to just come out and scream it like Mel, I'd thought I'd clear that up for them, so neutral readers are able to understand their cute little codewords.
August 3, 2006
10:17 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
Look, "9/11...", those of us skeptical of the conspiracy theory aren't "getting crushed"--we're getting shouted down (especially by the likes of "remember this", who apparently can't tolerate dissent, and has since gone to proselytize elsewhere, I guess).
But I concede this: for the last several hours, the pro-conspiracy posts have actually been attempts at making sense, rather than spouting off easily debunked nonsense. I concede that you have made excellent cases for being skeptical of the official report and for demanding that the government be more forthcoming.
But I STILL utterly reject the thesis that all of this adds up to the "truth" that our government engineered all of 9/11 unto itself, just so a handful of people in a secretive cabal could make more money in...oil and weapons, am I right?
This thesis by itself is pretty incredible. But the problem I'm having here is that everybody's posted "fishy" stuff, but nothing totally concrete as to the real reason behind its fishiness. For example, Fiesty, the intimidations you list could be part of a cover-up for the reasons many here state. It could also be a cover-up of levels of security breaches and incompetence that would 1) infuriate the masses even more; 2) expose crucial vulnerabilities to our enemies; 3) expose the incompetence of specific high-up officials, not merely the systematic snafus to which the Commission "officially" refers.
Personally, I think the latter is more plausible than the notion that our own government purposefully engineered the attacks. Obviously, many of you disagree. I can see I will never convince you that your version of events is not as plausible. But I hope you folks can at least concede that:
*I'm not a close-minded "moron" for not believing in the more outlandish possibility
*Nor am I a government stooge for not seeing things your way
*Nor is it remotely in my political interest to "buy" the "official" story (quite the contrary!)
*So far, all of the "evidence" presented, however plausible and systematic and intriguing, is not "rock solid", since alternative explanations can be made every step of the way.
*Some of you really are idiots for believing as you do. Others, who have clearly done more hard work and hard thinking, are misguided insofar as you think your point of view is irrefutable, but it's not.
Therefore what you folks have is a belief, a series of opinions, based on what you deem to be overwhelming corraborating evidence. Maybe you're even right. But you don't have proof. So don't shit on my head telling me that I'm blind for not seeing the light.
For the record, this doesn't mean I don't think there are many, many other evil things this administration has concocted and carried out over the years. Mass murder of our own citizenry, however, is among the few sins they probably have not committed.
August 3, 2006
10:25 PM
9/11 an inside job writes:
"But this is actually a dangerous point, because as we begin the task of exposing Republicans and Democrats involved in this New World Order scam, they may try to use a distraction to divert attention away. Possibly another 911 type terror attack?"
They have been caught in so many lies their goose is cooked. It's only the major news outlets that are keeping the 9/11 truth movement suppressed. This one is not about Republican or Democrat it's about uncovering the truth just like was done with Enron.
Uncovering the truth will soon become very profitable to major media outlets. Fox News has lost all credibility among learned people. Newspapers like RMN will gain credibility and readers if it takes a hard look at what really happened on 9/11.
The truth movement is all about research and posting links backing up the research which takes the name calling out of the game and therefore exposes the pro cover-up crowd quickly. We have facts and the criminals only have name calling.
I was in the military. There are a group of military people that will not commit war crimes or engage in false flag operations. That crowd will never share their views in public but they are their in higher numbers than many people think and may block another false flag attempt.
Congress won't help. Boycott Fox News and CNN and watch how fast things change. It's a slow process but just look at the overwhelming response on this thread. I have not seen anything like it.
August 3, 2006
10:27 PM
Anonymous writes:
Dirk has spent 14 hours on this thread! Who do you work for Dirk?
August 3, 2006
10:30 PM
Steve writes:
Science and Sociology 101
This is a very indicative social trait being demonstrated here. It has been long noted by historical experts in the scientific community that a NEW TRUTH emerges in the following way.
1. First it is ignored.
2. Next it is ridiculed.
3. Finally it is accepted by those very people quietly, "as if they had always known it to be fact".
Here are 3 examples:
1.Christopher Columbus and the round earth "theory"
2. Joseph Goldberger who argued with the NIH for years that Pelegra was a dietaty deficeincy against the drug companies that tried make people believe it was caused by a germ.
3. Scurvy, which was caused by a vitamin C defiency, when "scientists" argued for years that it was a germ related illness.
Do I need to mention Galileo?
You can tell from the tone of those who disputing the 911 demolition facts that they are runing out of steam. They are already at the second step. Ridicule.
They are SO Funny! and cute too.
Hang on to your blogs mockers. You may want to remind yourselves of how you were so wrong some day in the future when humble pie is served.
August 3, 2006
10:31 PM
Anonymous writes:
We offer links to thousands of pages of proof and Dirk posts for 14 hours straight we have no proof! Dirk has lost all credibility. He uses at least one truth suppression technique in each post.
August 3, 2006
10:44 PM
Steve writes:
Dirk
I do think you bring up some very good questions. And you are at least willing to consider some things outside your viewpoint, unlike many others I have seen posted.
Fact is that there ARE many bad and loose allegations in the 911 truth movement. Forget the pentagon missle theory, flight 93.. etc. etc.
I still think the forensics of how those towers fell to dust and molten metal present the best place to start, and will probably decide the issue. We really should begin with WTC 7 since that is the greatest challenge to explain.
August 3, 2006
10:56 PM
Jack writes:
It was an inside job so the Oil Executives could do their thing. They get rich and we loose our children in the war.
Just look how building 7 was inploded.
Lets not forget the 3.000 mainly Christians that were murdered on that day.
It's about time that Christians sarted looking after each other too like one particular other one does.
And last but not least, let's not kid ourselves, the media in the Land of the Free is controlled by the crooks.
August 3, 2006
10:56 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
Again with the truth suppression claims--pathetic.
Steve--I have been trying to acknowledge that there are differences between the crackpot stuff (cruise missile in the Pentagon) and the more intriguing claims (WTC). Thanks for acknowledging this in turn.
That said, I keep saying you folks haven't provided PROOF, but you have provided plenty of EVIDENCE, NONE of which is so far irrefutable, by which I mean that there are alternative explanations for everything presented. Does that meant the alternative explanations are right? No. Does that mean that your evidence is not credible? Not in all cases. Does that mean that there isn't more to the story than the "official" report? No. What it does mean is that you can't keep telling me this is all proven. It isn't. That's all I was saying.
I think this post demonstrates exactly the problem: "We have facts and the criminals only have name calling." The facts thus far presented require extensive interpretation. That means they may be interpreted wrongly (perhaps I'm wrong in my interpretation, but you need to admit that interpretation is involved).
Please, one (or more) of you pro-conspiracy people exercise a little intellectual honesty by answering, please:
1. Counter-claims to debunk the debunking sites I posted this morning.
2. Counter-claims to the alternative explanations I have put forth (mainly with regard to Fiesty's posts).
Finally, "9/11..." just as a small point: it's a common myth that people didn't know the world was round prior to Columbus. Sailors and scholars throuhgout the Old World did know the earth was round. Although I disagree with your position on this particular issue, putting up the "Science and Sociology 101" is certainly worthwhile in a general sense.
August 3, 2006
11:17 PM
Q writes:
It may be too simplistic to think 9/11 was caused only in order to go to war with Iraq. There may have been a bigger agenda.
I haven't seen anyone comment on the connection between Marsh & McClennan, Cantor Fitzgerald and the $250Billion in Brady bonds that were coming due on September 11th.
Marsh and McClennan (run by the son of AIG Chairman Hank Greenberg) occupied the floors of the WTC that appear to have been "targeted". Cantor Fitzgerald held the only records of this bond transaction (which reportedly occured exactly 10 years ago to the day, 9/11/91) and their entire offices and all employeeys perished; even thought others lived both above and below their floors in the WTC.
It is sad to think our government could sacrifice 3000 people and there be a claim of $3.5 billion for the towers; in order to hide a $250 b transaction....I just hope the truth comes out so I don't have to keep taking my shoes off at the airport.
August 3, 2006
11:18 PM
Q writes:
It may be too simplistic to think 9/11 was caused only in order to go to war with Iraq. There may have been a bigger agenda.
I haven't seen anyone comment on the connection between Marsh & McClennan, Cantor Fitzgerald and the $250Billion in Brady bonds that were coming due on September 11th.
Marsh and McClennan (run by the son of AIG Chairman Hank Greenberg) occupied the floors of the WTC that appear to have been "targeted". Cantor Fitzgerald held the only records of this bond transaction (which reportedly occured exactly 10 years ago to the day, 9/11/91) and their entire offices and all employeeys perished; even thought others lived both above and below their floors in the WTC.
It is sad to think our government could sacrifice 3000 people and there be a claim of $3.5 billion for the towers; in order to hide a $250 b transaction....I just hope the truth comes out so I don't have to keep taking my shoes off at the airport.
August 3, 2006
11:18 PM
Steve writes:
Dirk,
You are correct that the 911 truth movement lacks the smoking gun proof. But remember, the burden of proof really lies with the 911 Commission, because it was their conclusion that provided the context by which the nation was propelled into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and also put the enforcement in both Homeland Security and the Patriot Act.
The one thing that this debate has over the JFK assissination theories and the "did we really land on the moon" conspiracy theory is that the ramifications are astrnomical. We really MUST have accuracy and truth at this stage of the game because so much hangs in the balence. There certainly are pleanty of reasons why some people would have an M O to perpetuate a false flag event as big as 911. I don't really think they care about human life, but that is my opinion.
I understand that the models of the pancake theory simulated by computer studies can NOT replicate the 911 enents.And even NIST has expressed some doubts--- And that does not meet their burden of proof!
We mentioned Dr. Steven Jones and the discovery of Sulfer Thermate a patented product for demolition found on metal samples, the way the buildings fell at virtual free-fall speed and other forensics.
But again, I still have problems believing that these huge buildings just turned to ash instantly and fell out of the sky. I think I need to really believe what the 911 Commission states before I agree to launch a war against terrorists who may not even exist.
just some thoughts here.
August 3, 2006
11:38 PM
steve writes:
Q.
Really? I didn't know that:
"Marsh & McClennan, Cantor Fitzgerald and the $250Billion in Brady bonds that were coming due on September 11th.
Marsh and McClennan (run by the son of AIG Chairman Hank Greenberg) occupied the floors of the WTC that appear to have been "targeted". Cantor Fitzgerald held the only records of this bond transaction (which reportedly occured exactly 10 years ago to the day, 9/11/91) and their entire offices and all employeeys perished; even thought others lived both above and below their floors in the WTC."
Why 250 billion would buy ya lunch for a while wouldn't it? This is another case of FOLLOW the MONEY. I am not saying you are absolutely right, but it is worth investigating. Ther are so many proffit motivated reasons why 911 could have been an inside job. We do need to check them with a new independent investigation.
August 4, 2006
12:16 AM
prima facie writes:
The hundreds or thousands of people who would have to be involved in such an "inside job" ... and no one's blabbed a word. Yet the -- gasp! -- shocking revelation that we're tracking bad guys' phone calls and money trails is leaked before the ink is dry on the memo.
Let's all take off our tin foil hats, stop looking for black helicopters, turn off Art Bell and join the real world, shall we?
August 4, 2006
3:04 AM
boast writes:
prima facie, not exactly. please take a few minutes to read this excellent essay on how 9/11 could be done by 7 men.
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/04/911-7-man-job.html
lots of other very informative essays there as well.
August 4, 2006
4:22 AM
remember this? writes:
Dirk...
Its called sleep and work Dirk.
We all arent on meth like you.....
August 4, 2006
5:34 AM
nihil matters writes:
Will the results of the 9/11 poll be posted on the front page of the Rocky Mountain News website or has this experiment resulted in an undesirable outcome for the internal powers that be?
August 4, 2006
5:40 AM
remember this? writes:
Good Question nihil!
August 4, 2006
6:05 AM
Anonymous writes:
Wheres all the outrage now that Israel proved Hezzbollah forged the entire claim of 54 civilians killed in an attack on an apartment building earlier in the week? Wheres the outrage for the liberal media for showing you those horrible pictures, but now they refuse to run the truth? They love showing dead arab babies. Why are they not showing the UAV footage that shows Hezzbolla firing the rockets from there, then moving the launchers inside? Where is the outraage that showed the bodies were moved there after the attack? And wheres the outrage that these people were able to find dead babies and such to take to this site to make their propaganda?
Wheres your rage that shows the building was hit by a missle at 12am but not knocked down till Hezzbolla blew it up around 8am?
Our country needs to blow up buildings to start wars. The Arabs are more than eager. These people on here are cuco for cocopuffs.
August 4, 2006
6:48 AM
Pres. Outrage will be taking vacation soon writes:
If you are looking for tough cowboy talk and outrage about terrists
hes going on vacation soon.
Just like the last PDB before 9/11" Binladin determined to attack US" Bush was down home on Crawford.
Bush legacy. "Most vacations taken for sitting president"
August 4, 2006
7:09 AM
fiesty writes:
Wonder if anything of interest will actually come of this?
"Investigators still looking into FAA, Pentagon reporting on their Sept. 11 actions" - http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=d52d8c6c-0abe-421a-01ba-818603953034&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf
August 4, 2006
7:28 AM
fiesty writes:
Dirk-
In response to your question about national security concerns being the reason behind the intimidation attempts, that would be good explanation IF they had been handled properly. That is simply not the case here. We have ambiguous agents using verbal tactics, in nonofficial settings, with no written record of any type. We don't have anyone being brought in an official setting to be interviewed, nor non-disclosure statements to be signed, nor security debriefings. That's how sensitive and national security issues are handled. So that explanation just doesn't wash.
So far, for each issue brought up, you have come up with extremely weak explanations that simply don't fly. Did you ever notice my summary post on August 3, 2006 07:19 PM? Response? Does the aggregrate not worry you?
August 4, 2006
8:00 AM
Anonymous writes:
I see the whacky meth heads were up all night blogging their insanity. Not content being crazy alone I take it......
August 4, 2006
8:11 AM
Moderator writes:
Vigilante,
Your comment from a couple of hours ago was hung up because it had more than two links. Feel free to break it up into two posts or drop one of the links.
Thanks
August 4, 2006
8:48 AM
Anonymous writes:
Hey moderator, why dont you expose this clown already. You would think even the RMN would be laughing at a tweaker holding conversations with himself all night long.
August 4, 2006
9:07 AM
Mark Wolf writes:
Nothing wrong with talking to yourself.
Oh yes there is.
No there's not.
YES THERE IS.
SHUT UP, *&%$^#@.
August 4, 2006
9:09 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Fiesty:
When I reference national security I was mostly talking about instances of covering up information or not publishing all of the details. I think the most likely reason for the "intimidation" interviews would be to cover up a tremendous cock-up. They're covering their ass, but not because they're murderers, merely because they're incompetent. You're welcome to think this is a "weak" explanation, but from my point of view it's more plausible than the elaborate conspiracy take on their actions (also, we're assuming that these witnesses are credible--probably they are, but possibly they're not). By the way, the stuff you presented in aggregate DOES bother me--alot. There's something fishy about all of it. But it's a big leap from thinking that not everything is right with the official report so as to protect incompetent officials to believing that our government purposely engineered the death of thousands and the hemorrhaging of billions of our national treasure.
Steve: you are innaccurate in your statement "it was [the Commission's] conclusion that provided the context by which the nation was propelled into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and also put the enforcement in both Homeland Security and the Patriot Act." The Commission didn't even exist when we went to Afghanistan. Similarly, the first incarnation of the Patriot Act was passed prior to the establishment of the Commission. Bush proposed the Department of Homeland Security several months before the Commission first met. The Commission's final report was released in 2005, well after all of the events you mention. I agree that their official line has tremendous ramfications for a variety of policy initiatives, but don't make it out to be different or bigger than it is, or to suit a timeline that doesn't exist.
Regarding the fall of the towers, I'm not sure what to think. On the one hand, it's intriguing that models have not replicated the fall, and that several experts are skeptical about the speed of the fall, etc. (not to mention the thermite, assuming this can be verified elsewhere). On the other hand, I'm skeptical of some of the modelling, not only because so much of it relies on speculation in order to plug in quite alot of the variables (they didn't know the precise nature of the damage, they couldn't establish for certain that the building materials were precisely as they were supposed to be, etc.). Further, the "little or no resistance" notion is problematic: 1) the appearance of little resistance, based merely on video footage, is highly problematic because of issues of scale, the quality of video, and the lack of actual measurement; 2) as many of you have pointed out, the fall of the towers closely resembles demolition--if the supports were weakened, whether through the result of just the accident or the result of cutting or charges, then the building fell as it should have based on the weakened supports (you can't have your cake and eat it too, conspiracy folks).
Incidentally, this site appears to me to debunk some of the more spurious aspects of the "towers fell too conveniently and precipitously" argument: http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/lcg3.html
By the way, "remember this": you accused me of being on meth while posting between 4 and 6 am? And you haven't posted any counter-arguments? Who's on meth?
For the record, I work from home--admittedly not a lot of work got done yesterday :-). But keep flaming if you can't come up with any good arguments. (Thanks to Steve and Fiesty, who are arguing well, convincingly, and with civility)
August 4, 2006
9:27 AM
fiesty writes:
Dirk-
Pls read my post to Fabio on August 3, 2006 07:28 PM. Note that I don't concur per se with the conspiracy theory, mainly that the "official" story is full of hogwash, and I'm not convinced it's due to the Government trying to hide incompetency or national security issues.
I am glad to see that you admit it's worrisome in aggregate, and that's based on just a FEW of the overall issues. I've been doing serious painstaking research (primarily trying to find creditable sources) on this for over a year, and what I've uncovered so far is extremely unsettling. I've been posting bits of the research paper I've written.
August 4, 2006
9:28 AM
Anonymous writes:
"To believe that EVERYTHING is a conspiracy is crazy; however, to believe that NOTHING can be a conspiracy is equally crazy."
August 4, 2006
9:28 AM
Reynolds Wrap Monopoly writes:
Remember, I can get you a great deal on tinfoil hats everyone!
August 4, 2006
9:30 AM
harry palm writes:
Dirk, simply try to erect something based on the towers design and watch how fast it comes down. They buillt the worlds tallest building on the cheap. Look up A-36 metal to see how weak it is. Look up "Hollow tube" construction and you will start to understand how easy it is for a structure to fall.
Also, simply look up construction collapes over the years. It does not take much for a building to lose its support and the rest gives in from the sheer weight of the structure.
Other construction mishaps include a 10 story building that was using post tension cabling in the slabs. One cable, just one cable out of thousands gave and caused the entire structure to shake violently till it all came down. The towers design was the first of its kind and was very flawed.
The simple fact that SOOOO much of this has been debunked leaves the questionable stuff sort of moot. Why did they not focus on the real aspects of it? Did they just need to forge and lie to have an hour movie instead of a 15 minute documentary,,,,that would not have made money?
August 4, 2006
9:32 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Fiesty: tell me more of this research paper. How are you presenting it? To whom? Just curious.
So...you're not "convinced" that the story plays out as it does to cover up incompetence, but you admit that this is plausible? That's all I wanted, really: to get someone to acknowledge that the consipracy "evidence" ranges from pure hogwash to compelling, but not 100% proven--that equally compelling explanations exist that do not require the existence of a vast conspiracy. The aggregate does indeed look suspicious, but this means the conspiracy is not proven, it's just possible.
But then again, you're actually being reasonable about this. Several of your peers don't seem to view this matter quite as openly.
August 4, 2006
9:34 AM
fiesty writes:
Regarding the Destruction of World Trade Center #7 (7 WTC):
ISSUE 1: It's interesting to note that the 9-11 Commission Report completely omits any explanation for the collapse of 7 WTC, a 47 floor building located immediately to the north of the World Trade Center site.
ISSUE 2: It is still unknown as to what actually caused the collapse of 7 WTC. “It (7 WTC) was not hit by any plane and collapsed at approximately 5:20 p.m. EDT on the evening of Sept 11, 2001. The question is, what caused it? Early tests conducted on steel beams from the World Trade Center show they generally met or were stronger than design requirements, ruling them out as a contributing cause of the collapse of the towers, federal investigators from NIST stated. Building Seven was not struck by an aircraft nor were the fires inside caused or sustained by jet fuel. Very few photographs or video provide a clear image of the full damage to the building…NIST is also conducting an investigation into the structural failures of World Trade Center Seven. The release of the final report has been twice postponed and is scheduled for release sometime in 2006.� [Multiple sources, click here for this particular summary.]
ISSUE 3: It was stated that a demolition for the building was ordered and carried out in the same day, which is logistically impossible and contrary to what NIST has stated in its draft reports (no evidence of demolition). “Larry Silverstein, the lease holder for Building Seven and insurance policy holder for the World Trade Center Complex, was quoted during a documentary as he recalled the events of that morning: I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.� [click here for this particular summary.] For those unaware, “pull� is the industry jargon for planned demolition. However, a building that size would take several days of preparation, yet it was supposedly accomplished in a single day? How, if it wasn’t partially wired already?
August 4, 2006
9:34 AM
Anonymous writes:
Hey Fiesty, why dont you posts your sources? Some dude on a blog has been researching. You probably have plans on how to reverse engineer UFO's as well. Why not post this entire paper and leave your sources open so they can be verified. You people are nuts, you have no research, you have no one of credibility to use and its clear you are simply using the say whatever you want technique.
August 4, 2006
9:37 AM
Anonymous writes:
Now she Feisty is quoting loose change.........again the only bit of eveidence you people have is this movie!!!
August 4, 2006
9:38 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Harry, I'm with you on your statement. I learned awhile back that there's no point in trying to convince people they don't have evidence when they think they do. The best I can do here is offer alternative explanations on the their claims, then send them a link to someone who actively sets out to debunk their claims. You have to throw these people a bone or they get all huffy. Just check out the posts from yesterday late afternoon and early evening!
August 4, 2006
9:38 AM
fiesty writes:
Dirk-
Actually, the paper is for my own satisfaction and it's still in progress. I got so annoyed with the "conspiracy nuts" who would cite internet sources etc without verifcation of data etc. So I started investigating on my own, outlining methodology etc. One of my main sources (cited constantly in brackets) is the actual 9-11 Commission Report (available at: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm ) since it's the "official" version of what happened.
August 4, 2006
9:42 AM
fiesty writes:
August 4, 2006 09:37 AM - Actually, no. Loose Change has lost credibility due to improper identification and treatment of source information.
August 4, 2006 09:34 AM - You'll have to be more specific. Most of the sources are listed in [ ], and I've been careful to include even page numbers for the Official Commission Report; I also listed specific titles and publisher information in some cases. For news stories, that's a bit harder since this blog limits to 2 links per post. As always, I can post the source for any item you ask for. So you are spurious and inaccurate in your claim.
August 4, 2006
9:43 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Fiesty, I have to say you lost me on that last post regarding WTC 7. I just posted a link that covers WTC 7 fairly well. You ARE quoting Loosechange (or the same sources it uses). That's not really "research". You have one primary souce: the Commission's report. Do you have any other primary sources? Further, you haven't posted an citations in any of your links. "It has been said" is not what I call evidence: by whom, to what effect, in what context? You're going to have to do better than that.
August 4, 2006
9:45 AM
harry palm writes:
If any of you simply go to NIST's site and read, even they give the example of how the tiniest bit of sway can lead to steel losing its structural integrity. Meaning, the steel didnt need to melt to bend, it just needed to moved enough, by even impact to have given. Not to the degree that it would bring a building down. But take into account that now if even half the metal melted and bent significantly the rest of the steel could not have possibly supported the rest of the weight as its structural integrity was greatly reduced by the initial impact. One floor giving away would lead the upper floors coming down on itself with no supports in the area of the fire. Furthermore, they cite PHD's that focus study had nothing to do with structural support. They cite a metal scrap yard guy saying "this metal was tough stuff",,,A SCRAP YARD MAN@@!@
Why is it no engineers, no structural engineers and basically no one with the expertise is in on this?Its all people that use their credentials to menipulate your mind into thinking what they say is absolute.
August 4, 2006
9:48 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Fiesty, I understand about the links--fair enough. But the primary sources are still an issue. Also, you need to build credibility by citing the overwhelming number of experts who do not agree with your version, then challenge their conclusions. Absent such criteria, your paper is a good discussion paper, but it's not a research paper.
August 4, 2006
9:48 AM
fiesty writes:
btw one good site for debunking many of the more spurious claims is: http://www.911myths.com . I use this alot to separate the "wheat from the chaff" if you will.
August 4, 2006
9:51 AM
fiesty writes:
Dirk- What about the rebuttal to the debunking claim regarding the insider trading? i.e. they claimed there was none, and yet the sources remained "unidentified". ??
August 4, 2006
9:53 AM
Truth Seeker writes:
Wake Up America!!!! We have been lied to while our government has killed innocent civilians!!!! All terrrorism is government sponsored!!! If you believe the offical lie, then you have been brain washed by the corporate media!!!!! The worst is yet to come, and we must be prepared!!! The question isn't whether or not your paranoid, the question is are you paranoid enough!!!!!!!
August 4, 2006
9:53 AM
harry palm writes:
area51.com is a great place for facts on aliens too.....911myths is a private site with an agenda, clear as day! If there was any validity to your claims, this would be much larger, people in goverment would in the drivers seat and heads would be rolling! I really doubt Nancy Pelosi and Dick Durbin are just sitting silently as a favor to bush.
August 4, 2006
9:53 AM
fiesty writes:
For clarification on the "New Pearl Harbour Type Event" statement -
In Sep 2000, a military report recommended an overarching unified space command, but stated it was unlikely to happen without a “Pearl-Harbour� type event, see the exact wording here:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." ['Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century', page 51, published by PNAC - see online at: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf ]
August 4, 2006
9:55 AM
Anonymous writes:
Everyone buy canned food and put on your tinfoil hats!!!
August 4, 2006
9:56 AM
Reynolds Wrap Monopoly writes:
And remember folks, to ALWAYS use two layers to completely block the aliens' ability to read your thoughts...As a matter of fact, why not just wrap your entire house?
August 4, 2006
9:58 AM
Mark Wolf writes:
One question for those who believe in the conspiracy.
Given the track record, just who in this administration do you think is capable of pulling something like this off?
August 4, 2006
9:59 AM
fiesty writes:
This one is just for fun, since it doesn't prove anything just gives you food for thought. I reference you to a transcript of what was said, and then my thoughts on it...
Rumsfield says “Plane shot down�.
In Dec 2004, Rumsfield went on a surprise “Secret Santa� visit to troops in Iraq. While talking, he said the following:
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: “And to change that way of living, would strike at the very essence of our country. And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, SHOT DOWN THE PLANE OVER PENNSYLVANIA and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten -- indeed the word "terrorized" is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be. And that is exactly what we cannot allow to happen.� [Multiple new sources: view CNN transcript at http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0412/24/nfcnn.01.html ]
A spokesman later said that Rumsfield had simply “misspoken�. This explanation simply doesn’t make sense. When people “misspeak�, they are normally speaking from incorrect or incomplete knowledge, or are confusing different events. First, as the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfield has detailed knowledge about the events of 9-11. Secondly, all four flights on 9-11 crashed; not even one came close to being shot down. So how can this be a case of confusing flights? Which?
This isn’t a case of Rumsfield “misspeaking� but blatantly coming up with something out of thin air. Or is he? Is it possible that, in the heat of the moment or by sheer accident, he spoke the truth? Many conspiracy proponents claim that flight 93 was shot down, since it left so late after its scheduled departure. I don’t know about that. However, this statement by Rumsfield is so odd, so left field, that saying he simply “misspoke� doesn’t make sense. It may not prove anything but it sure is interesting!
August 4, 2006
9:59 AM
Anonymous writes:
Feisty, now you are showing what a tool you are. The report you are speaking of is about weaponizing space, why the hell would they launch a terror attack to weaponize space??
August 4, 2006
10:04 AM
harry palm writes:
Oh jesus Wolf, now you opened Pandoras box. ITs the illuminati, the skulls, the Bilderbergs. Etc. But Bush knew!@!!!! he Knew!!!!! do you allow this to continue because you enjoy crazies or do you actually believe this a valuable debate Mark?
August 4, 2006
10:05 AM
Anonymous writes:
The left and the right are two sides of the same coin!!!! People wake up and see what is really going on!!! 911 set the foundation to bring upon another world war in which the powers that be can set up a one world governement and control our lives!!! The first two world wars were used to bring about radical economical and social change as will be the next world war on the horizon!!!!
August 4, 2006
10:06 AM
AdamT writes:
Rumsfeld is a total tool. Mr. Aspartame, remember he was the one who "called in his chips" to get this deadly neurotoxin past FDA approval. Watch the doc video "Sweet Misery" for the info. He is truly criminal.
This single man has killed so many on planet Earth, be it poisonous "sweeteners", wars, DU contamination, or what have you.
Not only does he need to resign, he needs to be behind bars for the rest of his life. Better yet, hung.
August 4, 2006
10:09 AM
Reynolds Wrap Monopoly writes:
And remember to wrap your computers as well, so those aliens can't read your hard drives...
August 4, 2006
10:09 AM
Anonymous writes:
The U.S. Military also created hurricane Katrina to kill many black citizens and run them out of New Orleans so they can build a secret society there for Reblicans that retire.Hush! Hush!
August 4, 2006
10:14 AM
Anonymous writes:
Yes they have a vested in interest in controlling us! Grind commerce to a halt and enslave the world!! Everyone loves to be in charge of ghettos where people dont work....
August 4, 2006
10:17 AM
Anonymous writes:
There really wasn't a Tsunami that hit.All the video you saw was made up by the CIA so that the Bush administration could collect millions and millions of dollars for the war ,because it's still underfunded and they still need to pay bounty money to people that turn in big name terrorists.Notice how the elder Bush and Clinton seem to be really sincere about helping these supposed victims?Clinton actually signed on for the fund raising to help his wife get in the white house. That's going to take lots of money.
To see how the video was altered go to , www.youwillbelieveanything.com
August 4, 2006
10:20 AM
Gettin Some writes:
Hey Hairy Palm -
If you could get a girlfriend, maybe your condition would clear up.
If you would have cracked a physics book in high
school, you would know that the official story of
the twins (possibly the most overbuilt buildings ever)
& 7wtc is not even a possibility.
August 4, 2006
10:22 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Fiesty, I'm not sure about which debunking source you refer to that references an "unidentified" source.
The Rumsfeld quote is pretty interesting. But if the plane was shot down, it bolsters my position moreso than yours: at least one of the scrambled jets did its job, found the plane, and shot it down before it could do any damage. I doubt very much that the military would immediately fess up to this. They would DEFINITELY not admit to this once they learned that average citizens had retaken control of the plane (or tried to). But the case is moot, because the Flight 93 tapes recently released suggest that the terrorists in the cockpit deliberately crashed it rather than put it in the hands of the "rebellion".
I have a question for the conspiracy folks also. Let's assume you're right, and the government engineered all this in order to pursue an agenda of oil seizure and weapons profits (and/or insurance claims--bwa-hahahaha...). Anyway, if they could engineer all of this, why were the first culprits Al Qaeda--a relatively small group with no nation state, few resources, and the bulk of its power centered in Afghanistan, which has nothing more valuable than heroin to export? Why not pin it on Iraq from the start? Why not fabricate superb evidence to make it look this way? For those of you who are liberal: you talk about the crappy evidence for going to war, about the crappy occupation plan, about all the incompetence there, yet you believe in this masterfully orchestrated conspiracy to set up all the years of crappy incompetence elsewhere?
Explain, please.
BTW, AdamT: I think Rumsfeld should be hanged, not hung. Judging by the way he carries himself he is already hung. :)
August 4, 2006
10:23 AM
fiesty writes:
yes folks let's make fun and name-call instead of actually debating the issues raised.... how many of YOU have actually taken the time to sit down and actually READ the official report? Hmm.... Probably too much work. Why actually use the gray matter behind your ears? Seems like Dirk is one of the few opponents to the conspiracy theory who is willing to engage in adult dialogue.
August 4, 2006
10:24 AM
Gettin Some writes:
Hey Hairy Palm -
If you could get a girlfriend, maybe your condition would clear up.
If you would have cracked a physics book in high
school, you would know that the official story of
the twins (possibly the most overbuilt buildings ever)
& 7wtc is not even a possibility.
August 4, 2006
10:26 AM
DIrk Gently writes:
Gettin' Some: I know there have been a lot of posts here, but at least try to keep up--I've posted several links that explain WTC7 and the collapse of the towers on perfectly normal and POSSIBLE terms. It's bad enough that you're a flamer and a conspiracy nut, don't be a johnny come lately, also.
August 4, 2006
10:30 AM
fiesty writes:
Regarding the foreknowledge claims, we've already touched on the trading put options on the airlines. The travel plans of several notables were also affected that morning; interestingly enough, debunking attempts against this issue is incomplete (typically addresses just Willie Brown and the Pentagon, and doesn't address the source of the tip). Here ya go-
Mysterious Travel Warnings.
There were many, many individuals who received security warnings the night before or the morning of 9-11, regarding travel. When looking at the claims, debunkers quite legitimately note that the majority of warnings were “vague� so should be dismissed as proof that anyone knew about the events of 9-11 in advance. [Personally, I think this argument is a little weak- do you really think folks would have given specific warnings that might be able to be traced?] Given the timing, number “warned�, and roles of the individuals involved, I would think these claims should not be dismissed entirely. Individually they may not be much, but together?
a. Willie Brown, Mayor [former] of New York. Brown received a warning at approximately 10 PM on the evening of September 10 to be cautious about air travel. [He was scheduled to leave San Francisco at 0800 to fly to into New York City.] The mayor, who was booked to fly to New York yesterday morning from San Francisco International Airport, said the call "didn't come in any alarming fashion, which is why I'm hesitant to make an alarming statement." He states that, at the time, he didn't pay it much mind. "It was not an abnormal call. I'm always concerned if my flight is going to be on time, and they always alert me when I ought to be careful." Exactly where the call came from is a bit of a mystery. The mayor would say only that it came from "my security people at the airport." [San Francisco chronicle-www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL] A few good questions to ask here are: How often during this time period did you receive cautionary warnings of this type? Who alerted your security personnel and where did their information come from?
b. High-ranking Pentagon Officials. It was discovered that high-ranking pentagon officials cancelled travel plans for the morning of September 11th “…apparently because of security concerns.� [Multiple news sources; most notable Newsweek, September 24, 2001 issue]. This raises some interesting questions. What exactly were these concerns and who raised them? Was this information shared with any other government agency?
c. Salman Rushdie (Author). The FAA refused to let author Salman Rushdie fly in North America starting the week before 9/11. From the [Times of London]: “On September 3 the Federal Aviation Authority made an emergency ruling to prevent Mr Rushdie from flying unless airlines complied with strict and costly security measures. Mr Rushdie told The Times that the airlines would not upgrade their security. The FAA confirmed that it had banned Rushdie from flying in the US and Canada but refused to say why. The author himself--who is famously hated by Muslims for his novel The Satanic Verses--says he believes the authorities knew the attack was coming.� Why did the FAA ban Rushdie from flying, and why was it so urgent that they had to get an emergency ruling?
d. Odigo IM Warning Two Hours Before Attack. Odigo is a company whose headquarters are located at 11 Broadway in New York- just a few blocks south of the World Trade Center complex and in the area that was blocked off for a time following the attacks. The FBI was investigating claims that two employees received a “nonspecific threat� warning via Instant Message (IM) two hours before the attack. [Multiple online news; here are two- www.itworld.com/Tech/2987/IDG010928IMwarning/ and www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/09/28/010928hnodigo.html] Interestingly enough, despite the fact these claims surfaced shortly after 9-11, I cannot find any reports as to the conclusion of the FBI investigation! I even tried going to the FBI website and searching for “Odigo�, but no results were found. I checked their press room, and nothing showed either.
August 4, 2006
10:30 AM
Anonymous writes:
The bombings in the London subway were not done by terrorists.Prince Harry and his school chums were playing a game of commandos and got carried away.Of course they had to cover it up. What would the commoners think?Harry seems to be acting out and the Queen has him seeing a counselor and he is doing well.They think the bombings are related to him losing his Mother and because she was dating a Arab, so they blamed it on Muslim terrorists.
To see the actual video of Prince Harry putting a bomb in the subway,go to, www.BritainsforBloodyJustice.com
August 4, 2006
10:32 AM
harry palm writes:
Yes by simply reading a pysics book, which they havn't you will have it all revealed to you. And if you just listen all the misinformation feisty provides, you too can be a kook. I have already demonstrated my knowledge of structure, as that is how I make my money you tool. Feisty, its GREY, not GRAY.
Perhaps the ones claiming to be scientists now should explain why an organization like NIST which employs THOUSANDS of far left scientists that spew out global warming crap one after the other are incomplete disagreement with you nuts? And if its bush that is silencing them, why cant he silence them on Global Warming???? Get off the meth losers
August 4, 2006
10:32 AM
fiesty writes:
btw, due to the complaints about sources, please note I am now doing so in a way to avoid the filter- just copy and paste into a new window.
August 4, 2006
10:35 AM
harry palm writes:
Getting some fails to explain how pysics and knowledge that the towers were over built could even possibly over lapse each other. The Towers, were known for being built on the cheap, not over engineered. The project was almost shelved because of costs until a structural engineer from Boulder came up with the Hollow Tube design utilizing A-36 metal, a cheaper grade of metal that met the spec of the time.The entire thought behind Hollow Tube construction would spacing of structural supports could be farther away, using less steel, it allows for the central elevator shafts and relies SOLEY on gravity keeping the structure up. Perhaps instaed of preaching pysics, you could just learn about the construction of the towers, TOOL
August 4, 2006
10:37 AM
Anonymous writes:
Alright, Dirk, why dont you bust Feistys chops. She just got explaining all this research he/ she does, yet EVERYTHING is directly from loose change. Moron is banking on the ones that didnt watch the movie
August 4, 2006
10:37 AM
fiesty writes:
Dirk-
Not so sure you can claim so easily the issue of WTC7. There are too many physicists and demolition experts who disagree. For example:
1. In a research report, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?, Brigham Young University Professor of Physics Steven E. Jones writes, "The 'explosive demolition' hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science.' It ought to be seriously, scientifically investigated and debated." ["Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" by Professor of Physics Steven E. Jones - http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html]
2. In a letter to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology [see here at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RYA411A.html ], Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories (UL), wrote "This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of a great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention of the steel failing at temperatures around 250 °C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure." UL is the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers. Kevin Ryan was subsequently fired from his job.
How do you address the issues brought up by these two individuals?
August 4, 2006
10:42 AM
fiesty writes:
August 4, 2006 10:37 AM - Oh really? I certainly don't recall Loose Change citing the Official Commission Report. (I only watched the first 20 min of it!) So instead of making vague assertations, why don't you try addressing or contradicting a specific point, hmmm? I've at least done my research, comparing what the official report says, media footage (not vague videos out on the internet), interviews and transcripts, etc. You've done NOTHING.
August 4, 2006
10:42 AM
Anonymous writes:
Hezbollah did not attack Israel, the U.S. did.The U.S. military are the ones shooting rockets into Israel and Israel is using that as an excuse to invade Lebanon again.Have you seen one dead Hezbollah soldier?Hmmmm.
The reason the U.S. is helping Israel to wage this fake war is Israel is looking for some extra land since they had to give some to the Palestinians.Also the U.S. wants to eventually go to have an excuse to bomb Syria and Iran.They know the only way to win Iraq is if they get rid of Iran.All those people you see getting hurt and killed in Lebanon are actors to get Iran really mad and then Israel and the U.S. can go after them.The secret mission is called Bombs Away.
To see how they are training actors to look wounded and dead go to www.bombsaway/youidiot.com
August 4, 2006
10:45 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Fiesty, the "non-specific threats" argument is the weakest you've put up yet.
First of all, the FORMER mayor of NYC is warned not to travel to NYC on a flight that is not in danger. Why, if there is a conspiracy, would he ever be notified, because clearly the notifiers know he is in no direct danger (gosh he might be stranded in Chicago or see smoke as he lands at JFK or La Guardia).
Secondly, "high ranking Pentagon officials" is far too vague. Plus, everywhere they go they face secruity threats--uh, because the WORK FOR THE PENTAGON. They could have received ANY kind of threat.
Third, Salmon Rushdie? Eh? Why would they bother protecting him? Are you suggesting that an atheist novelist professor who once wrote a book that earned him a fatwah is on the conspiracy?
Fourth, two employees of Odigo--a second-tier IM software company--is important enough to warrant forewarning? Maybe if they were a multi-billion dollar software firm that also had defense contracts. Maybe. But again, this just doesn't make sense. Further, a "non-specific threat" could have been anything--a stalker, a spurned lover, a rival business, a crazy person.
The fact that you bother to include these shows you how far off the deep end most of this stuff is--it doesn't make any sense, but it "seems odd" and so it's lumped into the grand conspiracy. It's madness.
August 4, 2006
10:47 AM
Anonymous writes:
WATCHING LOOSE CHANGE AND MIMICING EVERY PART OF IT IS NOT RESEARCH
August 4, 2006
10:49 AM
Anonymous writes:
Dirk's official title: 9/11 cover-up agent for God only knows who.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1519312457137943386
August 4, 2006
10:52 AM
Anonymous writes:
Way to show your obsessive/compulsive behavior all caps pro government corruption person.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1519312457137943386
August 4, 2006
10:53 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Fiesty:
By "too many" experts you mean two? I talked alot about why there are reasons to question the credibility of Dr. Jones. Possibly his research has validity, though even without the credibility issues, he's the only voice of dissent who even approaches expert status with regard to the issues he addresses. Dr. Ryan's comments have been debunked numerous places, including the links I sent with regard to the WTC collapse. What you say about Ryan is also verbatim what appears in the Loosechange video. Perhaps you should watch it in its entirety and/or read the site the debunks it specifically before you trot out this kind of stuff--it has on occasion made you look ill-prepared.
August 4, 2006
10:56 AM
Anonymous writes:
Yesterdays poll showed over 88% of people think our government is not telling the truth about 9/11.
August 4, 2006
10:58 AM
Anonymous writes:
Ill prepared? how about crazy liar who claims to be doing research they can't and only have a movie to go off. And web sites that repeat the movie. LOONY LOONY LOONY. Yet not one person in the house or the senate will take this matter up. Oh snap, our entire govemrment is in on it!!!! Whatever shall we do????
The only serious implication you kooks raise is either A) our goverment did it to control us and we are all screwed.
or B) people are gonna vote in nut jobs that believe and further this crap, and we are all screwed. Actually B is moot is because that means you cant possibly win an election and you should all stay home since its all pre planned stuff that you cant beat....
August 4, 2006
10:58 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
My impression of the bulk of conspiracy nuts here:
"If you think that just because I think that you think that I don't know quite what I'm trying to explain, that I'm going to give up my side of the argument just 'cause you think so, then you think again!" (Marcus Turner, "You Think Again")
BTW, 10:49/52, you seriously just posted Loosechange? That's your argument. Good grief.
August 4, 2006
11:00 AM
fiesty writes:
1. Dirk- it may be weak, because I've posted in order of descending importance. Weak can be weighed in with the aggregate. As regards the "just 2" there are more out there, those are just two whose articles I found very compelling.
2. I am still waiting for good rebuttals to the previous points raised.... for example, as clearly indicated in the official report, why did the fighter jets ignore two direct orders? why did the official report only mention one war game and claim national readiness was not affected, when in fact six were in progress and did affect the ability to respond? why has the FBI not followed up with the former lead counsel for the House, David Schippers, when he claims to have witnesses to evidence suppression? why has there been no explanation for the lack of recorders for this event? why has there been no investigation into the claims of the firefighters who said they had found a recorder? why did the investigation into the alleged insider trading not broaden its investigation into why these airlines were chosen and identify these "undisclosed" investors? Come on now, come up with better answers than vague national security issues and communication issues.
3. For you others- I'm tired of being bashed for "misinformation" or claims I'm "mimicing" Loose Change, when all I've done is actually read the Official Commission Report with a critical mind and analayzed inconsistencies. This information is freely available (most from the official commission report, where I've even provided PAGE numbers for goodness sakes), so explain to me how this makes me a nut job? I say you're the nut job 'cause your spouting off while ill-informed! Once again, unless you can actually debate issues and not name-call, why don't you leave this blog and quit wasting our time?
August 4, 2006
11:03 AM
fiesty writes:
oh, and for the record though I've stated it many times, I never said or agreed to any conspiracy theory. My stance is that the official explanation of the 9-11 events is unsupportable. Though data and evidence countradicts the official theory, it is insufficient to draw any solid conclusions regarding government involvement.
August 4, 2006
11:16 AM
Anonymous writes:
We're tiny we're tooney we're all a little looney.
August 4, 2006
11:17 AM
Question writes:
If the wackos are so off-base, then why do so many Americans polled think the Government was involved?
August 4, 2006
11:17 AM
Neil Slade writes:
First, thanks to the editors at the RMN for making this story the HEADLINE- congratulations. I have written to them more than once with my displeasure at Paul Campos' comments in Opinion which were way off base- perhaps this is a measure of evening things up. We have a great many very intelligent, very logical, very discerning people looking at this whole issue, and putting it on the headline begins to make this an issue for all to carefully consider and weigh the facts that are out there.
It should be mentioned that the Scripps poll is only one of three, and actually shows the least percentage of persons doubting the official story. The Zogby poll showed 42% disbelieving, and a recent Gallup poll actually showed 52% not believing the official story.
Finally, there are fire experts (notably in NYC), as well as engineers, and demolition people who flatly have rejected the official government reports from the start. These references are easily found -try starting at www.st911.org.
Speaking of the members of Scholars for 9/11as one example of a collective examining 9/11 issues, we are a diverse group of various professionals, not solely scientists, but including many. Any member is free to give his opinion regarding possibilities, and we keep an open mind to all opinions expressed, in the hope that as a group we will have a greater ability to come to accurate conclusions.
Notibly I would suggest looking at the work of mechanical engineering, explosives, software expert David Hawkins (though hard to understand with a superficial glance), who has come up with a plausible money trail as well as tracing of the modifications of Boeing aircraft with electronic guidance systems (for which they have already been fined) which may
explain the "how" of these planes flying with such precision into their targets (particularly of interest at the Pentagon).
http://valis.cjb.cc/HawksCAFE/
Thanks again to the News-- please, now just KEEP IT UP. :-)
Neil Slade
Associate member, Scholars for 911 Truth
August 4, 2006
11:19 AM
PFC writes:
Why do so many Americans vote for Libs?
Why are so many Americans fat and lazy?
Why do so many fat, lazy, liberal Americans drive gas guzzling SUVs?
If there are "many" that believe something, then it must be right!
August 4, 2006
11:25 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Fiesty, please for the love of God please read through the debunking links I posted (and there are more out there). They answer all but one of your questions pretty well, in my opinion. The one not adequately answered: the insider trading. Hey, ever think of the possibility that one or more people connected to the terrorists knew in advance and dumped their stock? Bin Laden has major connections, doesn't he?
You seem unable to discern what people are attacking. They're attacking your rebuttals to the official report, not the information from the official report. That's because all your rebuttals are the same ones that the Loosechange people use. That's why they think you're mincing Loosechange in order to produce your "research". Sounds like you found these sources on your own, but they're the same sources, and most of them have been, if not fully debunked, then adequately addressed as either "possible" or "plausible" but not PROVEN.
By the way, Neil Slade, these parts of you post seem revealing to me: "we are a diverse group of various professionals, not solely scientists, but including many" (ah, so not exactly a band of actual scholars, then? Why, praytell, do you use that name?); and "notibly". Hey, not everyone is a terrific speller. But I doubt anyone who qualifies as a scholar would make that sort of elementary mistake (it's unlikely to be a typo).
I think this is an important conversation, but let's try to skewer these bastards in government by using sustainable evidence and facts, shall we?
August 4, 2006
11:25 AM
899 days to go writes:
With all the different exchanges here I still see no other believable reason that stays consistent other than the Bush administration was incompetent. They had warnings and they either were too incompetent to act or they were negligent on purpose. Either way the blame should rest with the National Security Advisor. Rice dropped the ball and should shoulder the blame.
August 4, 2006
11:28 AM
fiesty writes:
Dirk- I HAVE looked at your debunking links, matter of fact, I've looked at more than those. Still don't see good answers for the fighter scramble and war games....
August 4, 2006
11:31 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Hey PFC: polling also indicates that almost half the country believes we uncovered WMD in Iraq. That just ain't the case. Generally speaking people are somewhat gullible idiots. Happily, the majority idiot population is pretty well evenly dispersed throughout the political spectrum, and some of them even make it to elected office. Happy days!
This is why I would like to promote a national campaign to improve critical thinking, rhetoric, and media literacy. Who's with me?
August 4, 2006
11:34 AM
That guy writes:
It's what I have been saying all along. Polls are worthless in general, rapid fire blog sites post "facts" about world and local issues that gullible short cutters read and believe and then regurgitate in other blogs.
Independent thinking is becoming a lost art. I say let's return to the days of common sense and critical thought. Better than most of what I read in RMN blogs.
August 4, 2006
11:35 AM
fiesty writes:
Don't you think the government owes it to the families of the victims to simply address these concerns and lay them to rest? Yet they consistently fail to do so. The 9-11 Independent Commission, made up of families of victims, has been trying (unfruitfully) to get their questions answered and can't. Check them out at: http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html
August 4, 2006
11:38 AM
ANSWER writes:
The answer to your question,Question is.This country is full of far left wing,Bush haters and are stupid enough to believe anything that is put on the internet blogs and truth websites are truth.
Now all you people that really think the U.S. government crashed planes into the World Trade Center and 9/11 was a government conspiracy so we could invade Iraq,I have one suggestion.
PUT DOWN THE CRACK PIPE AND GET INTO REHAB RIGHT NOW!!!!
August 4, 2006
11:38 AM
Question writes:
if polling is so wrong cuz americans are so stupid, then what about the committee worrying enough about truthfullness that they asked it to be investigate?
August 4, 2006
11:41 AM
Dirk writes:
Hey Answer, I'm far left wing and I have been vociferously arguing against conspiracy. On most issues, good ol' Fiesty here is far rightwing. This isn't about the usual universe of politics, however you want to make it that way.
August 4, 2006
11:45 AM
Delisub writes:
Not only are hundreds of scholars in the
sciences condemning the Gov't and supporting 911 theory, but the Canadian
Minister of Defense, the German Minister of
Defense, several Parliament (British) members, one Congresswoman, leaders of
other nations and get this one, several former Bush Cabinet members, who resigned. This is no fringe movement. World
wide it is indeed the majority point of view.
August 4, 2006
11:49 AM
Steve writes:
One thing I learned from 34 years working in the electronic industry was not all research was created equal. Sometimes it was good data, sometimes if was not. If it was counter intuitive I learned to be very suspicious.
This 9 11 poll is suspicious and I don't believe the data because I don't be think 1/3 of our
citizens are that nutty.
Bad research, and it should have been looked into before the Rocky published it.
August 4, 2006
11:58 AM
Anonymous writes:
Hey 1stGen/That Guy, if you can't stand to see polls/facts that disagree with your myopic world view maybe you should spread your hate somewhere else.
August 4, 2006
12:00 PM
Sandy writes:
Not only do many of us (I think more than 1 of 3) think the US Gov was involved in 9/11, we also believe that the US Gov was involved in the OKC bombings and the Assassination of JFK. We are not crazies, just realists. Our government is pretty sneaky and dishonest and has been known to do slimy things in the past. I put nothing beyond the current administration to do what it has to do to accomplish it's goal and whatever means that takes is not off limits for them. Many of us who feel this way are former federal employees who saw first hand how slimy and dishonest our government is.
August 4, 2006
12:05 PM
ANSWER writes:
Sorry Dirk I didn't mean to lump you in with the nuts.I think you are a voice of reason and I respect you for that.I'm not buying into this crazy theory either.
It's like when you get a bunch of people together and there is a monkey in front of them,but one person starts to convince the others that it is not a monkey it's a lion.If they keep looking and listening to themselves convince each other yes it is a lion they start a group that sees and knows one thing but starts listening to someone else and sees something that is not true.It's a mob mentality.They get a rumour started and then it grows till alot of people believe it because they only believe in what they are told to believe.They are the monkeys.
August 4, 2006
12:10 PM
Anonymous writes:
Answer- There are none so blind as those who will not see. Or, in this case, close their minds and refuse to even look at the evidence.
August 4, 2006
12:12 PM
boast writes:
The NIST had found themselves in quite a pickle after the NIST's Metallurgical Results had attested to temps of less than 250c in Oct of 2004. The reason: the findings had contradicted their initial findings that the steel was adequate (representative) for the needs of the investigation (whole technical investigation), and more importantly, at the same time the findings had contradicted their "Fire Weakening" hypothesis.
So what did the NIST do?
Magic.
They, with a slight of hand, had changed their "adequate steel sample" from being adequate for the investigation (whole), to it only being adequate in determining the quality of the steel (final report).
The NIST did this even though in June 2004, before the "Steel temperature results" the NIST had clearly stipulated..
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter2.pdf
The collection of steel from the WTC towers is adequate for purposes of NIST’s investigation (i.e., chemical, metallurgical, and mechanical property analyses as well as a substantial damage assessment and failure mode examination) to examine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the impact of the aircraft and ensuing fires.
As you can clearly see above, the NIST clearly states, the collection of steel was adequate for the needs of the investigation (whole) - Chemical, Metallurgical,and Mechanical property analyses as well as a substantial damage assessment and failure mode examination.
Moreover, the NIST details exactly what the Metallurgical Investigation consists of in other papers describing their investigation..
http://www.nist.gov/testimony/2002/wtcplan.html
Collection and Analysis of Forensic Evidence: structural steel, material specimens and other forensic evidence to the extent they have been collected or are otherwise available; metallurgical and mechanical analysis of steel to evaluate quality and estimate maximum temperatures; analysis of fire and elevator control panels.
Hence, "The collection of steel is considered adequate for the needs of the investigation above"
Just in case more evidence is needed to ascertain the details of the investigation...
see link #1 in above post
NIST is implementing its technical plan to address these issues. A primary objective of the investigation is to determine why and how the towers collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft. As part of this investigation, the Materials Reliability and Metallurgy Divisions in MSEL are studying more than 200 structural steel pieces from the WTC site. Progress in this study is outlined here..............
.......Task 3: Property data to support studies of structure performance and airplane impact modeling. Fourteen grades of steel were specified in the design of the WTC towers. All grades have been characterized for room-temperature mechanical properties, and initial high-temperature test results are complete. Testing at high strain rate is underway to determine the effects of strain rate on the mechanical properties of the outer columns, the inner columns and the spandrels. Chemical composition and metallographic examinations have been completed on the majority of the steels. Creep, or time-temperature-dependent behavior of some steels will be studied after the high temperature properties are developed.........
Task 5: Metallographic analysis of steel to estimate temperature extremes. Microscopic, macroscopic and metallographic analyses are under way to determine the maximum temperature excursions seen by the steel.
Hence as was stated before regarding task's 3 and 5...
---The collection of steel is considered adequate for the needs of the investigation above"---
So, as you can clearly see, the Metallurgical aspect of the investigation which the steel was adequate for, had consisted both of determining quality, and determining steel temperatures.
Last but not least, lets turn to the NAIL in the coffin.
The "Nail in the coffin" is evidence of the fact that the NIST had actually discussed changing their initial findings from the steel being adequate for the investigation to it being adequate to only part of the investigation (determining quality).
Note, this discussion had taken place on the very same day the results of the steel being less than 250c had been presented - Oct 19th 2004.
see link #2 in above post
C: As John Barsom said, the statement is not accurate. The validity of the model question from yesterday speaks to this issue. I do not believe that we have enough forensic evidence. It may be okay to establish steel quality. There was no effort by the Building Performance Study team to systematically look at the steel.
C: The use of the term “adequate� needs to be revisited. There is no core column test to support the hypothesis. The floors came down, the slabs were pulverized. This was unprecedented. Exterior columns and core remained. The floors group will attack this finding
In summary, the NIST had only focused on one, and only one conclusion throughout its entire investigation, and that one conclusion being the assumption that fires were the cause of the two buildings collapsing.
That is the sole reason the NIST had ignored the metallurgical analysis results of the WTC structural steel . Over and over again, the wtc steel indicated temps of less than 250c, which inturn naturally indicated fires not being the cause for the collapses, yet the NIST kept on with their assumptions and computer generated simulations via their assumptions, that the steel had attained temps of 550c, even though there was not one piece of metallurgical evidence in support thereof..even going so far as tweaking their initial findings of the steel being adequate to it being inadequate in the final report,
August 4, 2006
12:15 PM
boast writes:
1.
http://www.aws.org/conferences/abst...4/papers/2A.pdf
2.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncstmin_oct19-20.htm
August 4, 2006
12:25 PM
Our Reichstag Fire writes:
More Peer Reviewed Papers to get you thinking.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Use your own mind but don't argue for or against something unless you've researched it yourself. Hundreds of professors, engineers, former high ranking officials of the US Military, former members of the Bush and Reagan administrations, retired intelligence professionals, etc., etc. can't all be crazy.
August 4, 2006
12:27 PM
Anonymous writes:
Boast @ 12:12 -
Excellent research and documentation. A number of questions were answered for me, and supported in your links. Well done sir.
August 4, 2006
12:28 PM
Our Reichstag Fire writes:
Did Cheney give orders that allowed flight 77 to hit the Pentagon?
http://www.911truthmovement.org/video/hamilton_win.wmv
August 4, 2006
12:33 PM
fiesty writes:
Our Reichstag Fire-
Problem is too many people here have completely closed minds, and won't even open them a crack to review dissenting evidence.
btw, nice site.
August 4, 2006
12:51 PM
Anonymous writes:
Idiots. Complete freaking idiots! This mountain eveidence is so overwhelming yet only the powerless happen to know of it.......
And by the way ALL of the NIST you provided is fake and is in complete contradiction to what the actual NIST site says. Go have a look for yourself. Well not you kooks, you are clearly to "close minded" to examine that you are falling for comeplete bullshit.
August 4, 2006
12:56 PM
Steve writes:
Dirk,
I conceed that you are entirely correct that the 911 Comission's report followed long after the beginnings of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and that the body of legislative enactments in Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, which were already being drafted and passed into law before the report was issued.
What I am trying to point out is that the 911 Commission's report was the necessary justification of the War Powers used and the enforcements of HS and PA.
Here is my quote:
"You are correct that the 911 truth movement lacks the smoking gun proof. But remember, the burden of proof really lies with the 911 Commission, because it was their conclusion that provided the context by which the nation was propelled into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and also put the enforcement in both Homeland Security and the Patriot Act."
What I am trying to say is that if the 911 Commission's report would have disagreed with a national policy which already had us in a deep conflict in the wars-- and laws on the books already going into enforcement, that would have proven quite embarrassing to the administration and the entire "war on terrorism." I think you will agree.
OR--Does this post-facto dilemma present a clear conflict of interest with the objectivity of the 911 report?
Another perspective from this angle concerns many of the members of the Commission who worked for both the airlines and military contractors while on the commission or in the past. There are clearly reasons why many people would see a conflict of interest. So again, the burden of proof is upon the 911 Commission, and there are good reasons why that may have created a rush to errant conclusions.
TO MY 911 Truth friends:
Go easy on Dirk here, He is only asking the kinds of questions that need to be presented because much of the Loose Change allegations are in FACT Loose allegations! If we are going to get to the bottom of this whole issue we need to seperate the facts from the fluff. We have to have an honest discourse to complete the process.
August 4, 2006
1:01 PM
harry palm writes:
Anyone paying attention should should click on the link Boast provides.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncstmin_oct19-20.htm
and
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter2.pdf
These are the real NIST sites and reports. The best part about them though, IS THEY ARE IN TOTAL CONTRADICTION To what they are preaching. It also contradicts Boasts claims that the metal was never examined and that it was immiediatly shipped off to China. The real doctors, scientits, explain exactly how it all broke down. But these people, who claim to be the scholoars, dont want to believe the other doctros. I wonder what George Bushs weekly payroll for hush money must be......
August 4, 2006
1:13 PM
Our Reichstag Fire writes:
Why is the majority of the physical steel evidence not consistent with the "progressive collapse" theory and more consistent with the use of thermate?
Physical evidence of a eutectic reaction....
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
August 4, 2006
1:15 PM
boast writes:
"Boasts claims that the metal was never examined and that it was immiediatly shipped off to China."
I already made the point that a very small amount of WTC steel was kept. And since when is it NISTs job to do a criminal investigation looking for forensic evidence of controlled demolition. thats not thier job. i once again point to William Manning's article in the well respected, 125 year old Fire Engineering magazine:
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225
apples and oranges harry!
August 4, 2006
1:20 PM
harry palm writes:
Your personal opinion is that a small amount was kept when we already know for fact that ALL of it was kept in Stanton Island. What is NIST doing an investigation? Are you really this stupid Boast? Its there job to set standards and discover break points. They find the weakness and are supposed to make sure it doesnt happen again. There was never a need to investigate anything for a controlled demolition you monkey! That is not the practice. Since when does anyone, having known facts as they were freaking video taped that day, launch an irrelevant investigation to prove it wasnt explosives? I would say that would be most alarming if they weant that route, knowing the facts as they were that day. What are you implying they were supposed to investigate that? You're a tool citing info you are to stupid and lazy to even read. Go watch loose change some more monkey, then come back I have a bridge for sale, on the cheap too!!
August 4, 2006
1:29 PM
fiesty writes:
No need, Harry? Despite Larry Silverstein, the lease holder for Building Seven and insurance policy holder for the World Trade Center Complex, quoted during a documentary as saying: "I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." [See video footage of his statement, which he has never denied, at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329&q=trade+center+7&pl=true ]
August 4, 2006
1:32 PM
Anonymous writes:
OK Dirk.... I took the time to read the popular mechanics debunk site.
It amazes me how many Professionals they chose to ignore here. A very smal and Inprecise debunk that manages to skirt the real issues entirely.
From me you will hear no more flaming or name calling or whatnot as this is too important to allow childish responses (on my part too).
The only way to deal with this issue is thru fact and intelligent discussion. I do promise to stay within those guidelines from now on.
Lets debate this like the real men and women here!
Now....here is my response to the popular mechanics debunk.
Debunked debunk #1 "The bump on the bottom of the plane". This has never been an issue to me, as no matter what was or wasnt on the belly of that plane has nothing to do with the demolition of Trade 1, 2 and 7. And In my opinion none of the pictures are clear enough to say either way.
Debunked debunk #2 Not really sure what to think of this. Again it is still a side issue that popular mechanics chose to talk about. The fact still remains, the buildings collapse had nothing to do with fighters being late.
Debunked debunk #3 This is the weakest yet.....saying that pancaking caused the puffs of debris shooting out windows. How can debris shoot out windows many floors below the collapsing section before compression has become a factor yet? Also in many pictures the beams propelled outward are all in that same mysterious 30 foot length.
Popular mechanics is unfortunatly standing firm on the "Pancake" method which has been debunked left and right by so many it staggers the mind. This wasnt a pancake or a waffle it was a demolition. No steel building has ever collapsed due to fire.....
Debunked debunk#4
ROFL......."pull it" Thats all I am going to say. Again no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire.
I also get a kick out the diesel fueling the fire here.....Diesel doesnt burn that way.
Debunked debunk#5
I wonder what time blast expert Allen E. Kilsheimer arrived to see the wing marks? The video supplied is a joke.
Show me a window that can withstand a 600 MPH impact from Aircraft Aluminum and I will show you a liar.
Also I cant help but wonder what it would be like to fly a plane that has the landing gear down at 600 MPH.
Are we to believe the plane had its gear down when it hit?? That doesnt make any sense...Think about it.
Debunked debunk#6
If all flights were grounded, what was this little white jet doing there and why was it allowed to continue on its way? And they still dont address the missing 20 minutes it takes to come down. It would also be one of the first plane crashes in history with no noticeable debris....just a couple of pieces of something here and there.
I dont buy it. Not for a second.
I bet the STATE POLICE OFFICER that reported the engine a great distance from the site doesnt either. I cant help but wonder if he still works for them or what?
Debunked debunk#7 No Comment, not really the issue again.
August 4, 2006
1:34 PM
harry palm writes:
Yeah, you already said that. Like twenty times dipshit. Its about the only eveidence I find interesting. To bad its so over shadowed by the rest of the lunacy and the fact that everytime the rest is debunked, you resort to it.
Why not try the Thermite claim or something. Better yet, why not race right out and try to purchase some thermite, untraceable thermite that is, and let me know how that works out for you.
Arn't you the one that claims to be a cripple, no wonder you spend all day and night buying this crap hook line and sinker.
If there was any validity to it, there would be rioting in the streets and the burning of goverment offices would have commenced by now. Clearly no has much more conviction other than the go with the flow of the momement attitude. And for the love of god, how many more times are you going to link excerpts from loose change?
August 4, 2006
1:34 PM
remember this? writes:
sheesh...Last post by remember this?
August 4, 2006
1:34 PM
boast writes:
ahhh more name calling and references to Loose Change. intelligent!
since it appears you didn't read the Fire Engineering article, here are some quotes
"For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car."
"Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint, for the safety of present and future generations who live and work in tall buildings-and for firefighters, always first in and last out-the lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world."
these are quotes form the editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering Magazine.
need more, here:
"The investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center has been hampered by the destruction of steel wreckage that could hold vital clues about why the twin towers fell, a fire expert is telling a congressional panel.
Glenn Corbett, a fire science professor at John Jay College, was critical of New York City's decision to melt down and recycle tons of charred and twisted steel from the trade center.
The investigation into the trade center collapse is being conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers. A FEMA assessment team is expected to release a report of its findings in April." - USA Today (03/06/02), CBS (03/06/02)
more...
Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer from the Fire Engineering department at the University of Maryland told the New York Times:
"I find the speed with which important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling."
August 4, 2006
1:42 PM
FormalistAesthete writes:
Our Reichtags Fire, the WPI article you referenced doesn't seem to support your claim of a thermate explosion. The authors provide plenty of possible explanations for the melting that don't require any conspiracy theories.
August 4, 2006
1:47 PM
Q writes:
Take a look at the Department of Defense web site...they have posted two videos as "evidence" that a plane hit the Pentagon. The video's do just the opposite; and actually show that it was a missile and not a plane that hit the Pentagon. There are several other sites showing video after the impact and how impossible it was that a plane the size of a 757 could have done so little damage. Not to mention that they never found any parts, engines, wings or bodies from that plane.
August 4, 2006
1:49 PM
That guy writes:
11:58 once again proves the point that you should attack the person instead of the message when you don't have a intellectual debate point to stand on.
Critical thought and common sense is not in the vernacular of such idiot posters - and will continue to be so.
Shooting blanks....
August 4, 2006
1:53 PM
boast writes:
yeah Q...the 6 ton titanium engines "vaporized" along with the rest of the plane but they were able to conclusively identify all but one of the passengers by their DNA.
August 4, 2006
2:05 PM
Steve writes:
Harry,
Let me take a stab at this, and admit up front that I might be totally wrong in the way I understand the facts about thermite and sulfur thermate. Perhaps others might be more informed than I am on the exact applications of these two substances and the evidence.
Thermite is easy to buy. You can get it on Ebay and pay more for shipping than the product, though I strongly advise people not to play with this stuff due to it's danger. Welders use it all the time and it is entierely possible that traces of it could be found on steel recovered from 911 that was cut and loaded for removal by the ground crew.
Sulfer THERMATE, you will not find listed on Ebay. This is a patented product that is a far more traceable and dangerous explosive used in controlled demoliton to snap girders and steel supports. As I understand, THERMATE is what Dr. Steven Jones claims to have found on things like the neatly sawed crosses that were taken from ground zero. This would be indicative of use in demoliton---and perhaps even the smoking gun.
If anyone else has more details than I do about this, please feel free to respond.
August 4, 2006
2:17 PM
Anonymous writes:
Hey Gettin Some -
I think Feisty and harry would make a cute couple...might shut him down somewhat...
August 4, 2006
2:27 PM
seraph writes:
It is painfully obvious that 9/11 was an inside job. Osama is not wanted for 9/11 by the FBI, and Dick Cheney let the plane hit the Pentagon.
My little film, which includes the Mineta testimony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtQdpClKhG8
August 4, 2006
2:32 PM
harry palm writes:
Loony toons says:
"Take a look at the Department of Defense web site...they have posted two videos as "evidence" that a plane hit the Pentagon. The video's do just the opposite; and actually show that it was a missile and not a plane that hit the Pentagon. There are several other sites showing video after the impact and how impossible it was that a plane the size of a 757 could have done so little damage. Not to mention that they never found any parts, engines, wings or bodies from that plane."
Just simply watching loosechange and stopping the video will reveal where the air craft engines went. they also claim types of engines that were never used on those aircraft but I dont remember the ones that were used.
I know a plane hit the Pentagon, my companys sister company had over 100 workers on site and they all saw the plane. The president of our DC branch was sitting across the Potomac in his truck heading to the Pentagon and watched the jet hit. A cruise missle did not hit the pentagon, a freaking plane did.
The best evidence of this is in loose change at exactly 17:10 stop the film. Look at the picture of the fireman standing in front of the pentagon and look right into the hole. There is a HUGE chunk of landing gear plain as day. Also look at the pictures where they ask you "wheres the fuselage", its sitting right on the godamn grass with a chevy truck close enough by so you can see just how big that fuselage was, it dwarfs the truck. You people are loons.
You are so quick to believe all these so called experts while dismissing other experts that will call you loons as well. You are acting like desperate little children who are caught in a loop and just can't except the fact that people have a vested interest in your buying into this so they can profit from it. Most of the links you dips provide contradict your claims. One idiot even asked "what is NIST Doing investigating a building collapse".......christ.
There is nothing but a few people stating thermite was found, no one that actually touched the steel agrees, only people who claim to have a brother who had a friend who had a friend. Then people say they were silenced, yet everyone of those turned out to be total crap. Even if this was true, you idiots have done such a diservice to it and have completely discredited it. Clearly there a lot of stupid people in the world that will buy into anything. Letterman & Leno demonstrate by taking the cameras into the streets of new york showing what a bunch of boneheads they all are
August 4, 2006
2:34 PM
FormalistAesthete writes:
Steve, actually Professor Jones (who formerly did research on "cold fusion") only claims to have found trace amounts of chemicals that COULD have been the result of the detonation of thermate. Others have come up with alternative explanations for the presence of these chemicals:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/06/17/18281125.php
"Could have" does not constitute proof!
August 4, 2006
2:44 PM
Anonymous writes:
This link should solve the controversy once and for all...
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4496099817614175808&q=911+loose+change
August 4, 2006
2:50 PM
Anonymous writes:
Its amazing how many idiots believe everything in one movie and then try to pass it all off as truth. The simple fact that an idiot Travis from Blink 182 is promoting this crap should be reason enough to realize on the deranged believe it.
August 4, 2006
2:56 PM
boast writes:
STOP using Loose Change as the basis for the claims and questions 9/11skeptics have. my questioning of the true events of 9/11 came wat before that film.
harry palm - please show me this alleged pic of flt 77's fuselage sitting on the lawn of the Pentagon.
August 4, 2006
3:10 PM
harry palm writes:
Feisty, Boast, they are one in the same. Boast, if you are such a reasearcher, as you claim you could find the picture in a matter of seconds. They are only posted all over in mass. Get to it Detective! You keep telling us all this reasearch you have done, yet you cant find the pics that show pieces of the aircraft all over? Get lost monkey, your clearly a tool and you sound like a broken record. Just google it, the pics are all over.
August 4, 2006
3:19 PM
Steve writes:
Formalist,
Thanks for that post challenging Jones and Thermate. I went there and scanned through as much of it as I could. He makes some good points, after her lays into Jones and Jones for a while. (in a rather crude manner)
He does present some worthy metalurgy facts. What would be interesteing to see, is a video documentary actually gathering several samples from different sites, then a battery of tests conducted to determine if there is actually thermate signatures, or a mixture of sulfer and iron in a molten mess that really does not account for a thermate cutting tool.
I don't think that we will get to see that soon, but it might be a great segment for "60 minutes," or History channel's "Urban legands."
I have to say though, having produced a number of video docs myself, it is not likely to ever see the light of day. Too bad.
August 4, 2006
3:22 PM
boast writes:
ha! if you are talking about this photo...
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-flight77-sm.jpg
c'mon now!
August 4, 2006
3:25 PM
JMCross writes:
Coincidence theory:
It’s just a coincidence that…
1) 19 armed men, some of them known threats, were able to defeat EVERY security measure in place at 3 major airports to prevent the hijacking of airliners.
2) several different military drills or exercises involving hijacked aircraft or other threats were planned or underway 11SEP01, adding the invaluable element of confusion at a crucial time in the attacks.
3) 3 modern high rise buildings collapsed due to fire, in a manner closely resembling controlled demolition (in the case of WTC7, VERY closely), a triple failure of design that is unique in history.
4) the flight data and cockpit voice recorders for the WTC and Pentagon aircraft were not recovered, again something unique to 11SEP01.
5) “the terrorists� were able to penetrate US Government security, obtain the codename of Air Force One and use it to threaten Bush directly on 11SEP01 (“Angel is next�).
6) the only video of the strike on the Pentagon, that we are allowed to see, does NOT include an airliner.
All you coincidence theorists out there...keep drinking that Kool Aid!
August 4, 2006
3:25 PM
Anonymous writes:
Even the 911 truth movement says a plane hit the pentagon. Even the movement has had to admit there is so much evidence that out weighs the conspiracy nuts, which is what lead to the now controlled explosions theory. Has anyone bothered to note whos funding The 911 Truth Movement? Please, go find the "truth" for yourself.
Note the irony that the controlled explosion theory only comes into play long after any evidence could possibly be introduced to prove or disprove the claim. Its all hearsay
August 4, 2006
3:27 PM
Anonymous writes:
Chris Farrell, the Director of Investigations & Research at Judicial Watch warned that the movement risks being drawn into a trap where the goverment finally shows the proof it was terrorists and the entire movement will be destroyed and never regain credibility again.
Why would they need to warn you loons if what they say is true?
August 4, 2006
3:33 PM
harry palm writes:
You are the only one refusing to examine the rest of the photos loony toons, there are milions, and you find a bad example at popular mechanics? Here here little girl, your own "911 Truth Movement" has already said a plane hit the pentagon. You freaks cant even decide on what to beleive.
August 4, 2006
3:40 PM
boast writes:
I, as most in the Truth Movement, believe a plane hit the Pentagon. I just dont think it was a 757, not American Airlines flt. 77. the damage is not consistant with a jet that size.
August 4, 2006
3:41 PM
Even paranoids have real enemies writes:
chew on this folks:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/9631789/detail.html
August 4, 2006
3:42 PM
Anonymous writes:
"The 911 Truth Movement" originally embraced "Loose Change" as the most accurate and compelling 911 film ever made. They hailed it as a must see for every freedom loving american.
"The 911 Truth Movement" now states that loose change is an inaccurate and downright ignorant movie that does a major diservice to the movement.
Others have claimed that a CIA mole must have had helped make the movie to discredit the conspiracy crowd.
Which one is it?
August 4, 2006
3:45 PM
harry palm writes:
If you believe a plane hit the pentagon, just not the one we were told. Ask yourself, why would the goverment risk such a detail at the risk of having the entire operation come to light?
http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/2005_07_21_Michael_Green_Loose_Change_analysis.htm
Heres a conpiracy nut that is nuts, but still none the less, even he says you people are ignorant nuts. And hes on your side!!!
August 4, 2006
3:48 PM
Anonymous writes:
Even paranoids have real enemies , do you even read what you post? The article is about Bush using the attacks as a pre text for war with Iraq, not that anyone knew the attacks were coming or that it was an inside job. Can you people make yourselves look any more idiotic?
August 4, 2006
3:50 PM
boast writes:
""The 911 Truth Movement" originally embraced "Loose Change" as the most accurate and compelling 911 film ever made."
WTF! where did you get that statement from? "as the most accurate and compelling".!?!? you're really just pulling crap out of your ass with that one.
August 4, 2006
3:54 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
Harry, you may as well give up. The only even moderately reasonable conspiracy theorists left the debate a long time ago. I personally got tired of posting constant refutations of all of the "evidence" that all these other conspiracy nuts keep posting. Look, there is no use trying to refute their claims, because no matter what you say they so firmly believe their version of events they will never, ever listen to you. I posted for 15 hours yesterday, fairly easily refuting much of it, and giving simple alternative explanations of that which I couldn't easily refute. Nobody debunked my debunking sites, they just flamed me and then posted more bullshit from the same loopy sites.
These people long ago left behind any notion of what was possible or plausible, and think that unanswered questions, dodgy sources, and circumstantial evidence constitutes proof. God help the poor schmoe who gets any of these morons on his jury, because they obviously don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict (for that matter, some of these idiots don't need proof--a missile hit the Pentagon?...oh for crying out loud: http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/lcg2.html ).
The really hilarious part is that the real crazies, not just the skeptics, have now overtaken this blog, and they think theyre WINNING.
Onward Truthiness Brigade!
That's it. I'm done. I can't hack all the imbeciles. Flame me if you like, but at least go back and read through my previous posts. That's another great thing about these idiots, Harry, they will spend hours piecing together so-called "evidence" but clearly can't be bothered to look back through previous posts to understand how the debate has evolved on here.
Nice job, "researchers". Your proficiency at layman's research is astounding. I think you can move on to the next stage, which is layman's rocket building. Don't worry, there's no training required, all you need are your amazing cognitive faculties and an internet connection. And whatever you do, don't listen to those "experts" at NASA, they are not credible because they work for the government and own stock in the companies that make Vagisil and Viagra, which is really just an evil plot to give people mental disorders whereby they have delusions of expertise and fact-finding, with their secret power of becoming whiny and hostile when people challenge their "expertise". Then when they reach a certain blood-pressure level, they turn into whining, festering genitalia. Wait....they go to you, too?! Noooooooooooooooooo!!!
August 4, 2006
3:56 PM
Tombstone Todd writes:
I find it it incredible that the President or anyone closely associated with the President or Pentegon would attack our country for some illusory end like a war in Iraq. I don't believe. Go ahead and call me a liberal loony (which is better than a liberal luny). But it is upsetting that the CIA knew that Al Qaida operatives were in this country and intentionally withheld, if not consciously misled, the FBI concerning their presence when the FBI was trying to confirm the whereabouts of the very people who were planning the WTC attack. There is an excellent article in the New Yorker two issues back that should be read. I'm also looking forward to reading the article in the current Vanity Fair.
August 4, 2006
3:57 PM
remember this? writes:
chew on this folks:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/9631789/detail.html
Posted by Even paranoids have real enemies on August 4, 2006 03:41 P
Shows the amount of fear by an intimidated commision. People are really truly afraid of discussing this, I think they realize our Govt. will do just about anything they want too, to anyone they please.
August 4, 2006
4:00 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
Last thought:
It's a testament to the incredible lack of cognitive faculties most of you pro-conspiracy people possess (Steve and Fiesty, and a handful of others, I exclude you here) that Harry and I have become allies here. Usually we couldn't disagree more about ANYTHING that's posted on this site. You have managed to unite people from opposite ends of the political spectrum through your idiocy. That is a true accomplishment.
August 4, 2006
4:03 PM
Anonymous writes:
Said by: Dirk Gently
I posted for 15 hours yesterday, fairly easily refuting much of it, and giving simple alternative explanations of that which I couldn't easily refute. Nobody debunked my debunking sites, they just flamed me and then posted more bullshit from the same loopy sites.
DIRK ARE YOU BLIND??
I Posted my rebuttel to your holy sites!!!
Did you just ignore it on purpose?
You havent refuted a damn thing.
August 4, 2006
4:06 PM
remember this? writes:
RMN hasnt this ass dirk crossed the line enough yet?
August 4, 2006
4:06 PM
Even paranoids have real enemies writes:
Dirk -
The fact that you would blog about something for fifteen hours speaks volumes.
For the record, I do not believe that Bush singlehandedly masterminded the whole thing. Never believed that, never will.
I posted the link to Channel 7's story to indicate that the government knows more about this than is being owned up to. I truly believe that there was at the very least tacit knowledge of something in the works. Call me looney if you want though.
August 4, 2006
4:13 PM
prima facie writes:
The moon landings never happened. All a movie studio production. I've seen the video!
The mob whacked Marilyn Monroe. Or was it the CIA? Whatever, she knew too much.
Ronald Reagan arranged the hostage-taking in Iran as a campaign ploy.
And George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, the most powerful men on the planet, got in bed with 19 nut cases to attack America (not mention dynamite a couple of buildings, you know, to practice for the New Orleans levees) and plunge the country into an economic recession so he could .... um, why would they do it again? Oh, yeah, to go to war in the Middle East to take control of oil -- which the president could do by executive order, by the way, but why go through channels? -- and install himself as the head of a world government, in which he'd be ... the most powerful man on the planet.
Got it now.
August 4, 2006
4:23 PM
harry palm writes:
How do you draw the conclusion from that article, that goverment is refusing to confess to your conspiracy? The entire article is based around whether or not Bush and Co. used 911 as a pretext for war with Iraq. Are you retarded or has the meth just distored your pereception ability?
Bush would not have had to attack the country to take us to Iraq. We could have attacked Iraq for his simple refusal to comply, as demonstrated by Clinton in 98, it was a useless 4 day exercise that amounted to bombings of empty sites. You are ludacris and in need of meds. There is no pending police state, it does not serve their interest at all. You people are loons, say whatever you want in response, I am gone for the weekend and really dont give a rats ass about your ineptness any longer. When you are clearly exposed for being mulitple people with such a pathetcially weak argument and links, you have already lost. Keep up the good work Detective Monkey!
Dirk, you are alright man
August 4, 2006
4:27 PM
remember this? writes:
Good riddance harry....dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
August 4, 2006
4:30 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
Remember this:
Yeah, I missed your rebuttal post the first time. I have seen it now. I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Oh, and thanks for staying on track with your no-flaming policy. How have I crossed the line? Why do you want me kicked off? I guess I'm an "ass" because I forcefully defend my position, attack others, and then don't appear to rise to the occasion when you DESPERATELY want to get your licks in. Okay, here goes:
First of all, the link you just posted about the Pentagon stonewalling is, once again, not PROOF of anything other than Pentagon stonewalling. If you read an earlier part of the thread, I mentioned to Fiesty that possibly a great deal of the "cover-up" angle to this story is so that they can cover their own incompetence. There are inconsistencies all over the place about when fighters were scrambled and what orders they received. This is alarming, and worthy of further investigation, but it is not likely to result in uncovering the fact that our government murdered its own citizenry and destroyed billions of dollars worth of businesses and property.
Secondly, your refutations of the Popular Mechanics site are so-so, at best (incidentally, the other link I provided that addresses Loosechange specifically, is far more thorough than PM, see also the link Fiesty provided for 9/11 myths). What I'm saying here is, your rebuttals have been addressed in all the other debunking links that have been posted.
But there is another issue I'd like to address here in your manner of rebutting. For example, you state, "How can debris shoot out windows many floors below the collapsing section before compression has become a factor yet?" Well, ask somebody. Are you sure that they haven't become a factor yet? How do you know? Are you a structural engineer? How much do you know about compression? How much are you willing to find out?
You see, the problem here is that you've employed "common sense" logic to a problem that is not common sense, but relies on incredible expertise and experimentation. Meanwhile, I'd like you to try some common sense logic on another problem: motive. I stated in an earlier post at 10:22 today:
"if they could engineer all of this, why were the first culprits Al Qaeda--a relatively small group with no nation state, few resources, and the bulk of its power centered in Afghanistan, which has nothing more valuable than heroin to export? Why not pin it on Iraq from the start? Why not fabricate superb evidence to make it look this way? "
I don't challenge the notion that there isn't a lot more fishy stuff here that needs to be investigated. I think there are a lot of people who ARE hiding information from us. But that doesn't mean that you or anyone else has PROOF of anything, nor does that "proof" add up to a massive conspiracy.
So...that's probably my last post of the day. I have other fish to fry. I've spent a long time here, periodically, over the last two days trying to talk down out of the tree people who appear mostly to be my political allies. That's why I've been committed to this, but as I told Harry (my political enemy), it's a lost cause.
I've posted this out of courtesy to you and to our previous conversations. I'm trying not to be smug or condescending, either--I mean what I say about courtesy. By all means post a reply and I'll read it, but I can't promise you a thorough response. I'm kind of tired of all of this.
August 4, 2006
4:30 PM
FormalistAesthete writes:
A few corrections for JMCross:
1) The hijackers didn't "defeat" security. Everything they had with them was legal to take on airplanes at the time. Security back in those days only was designed to prevent guns, knives, and bombs from being taken on airplanes.
2) And this proves?
3) Flying large airplanes at high speeds into large buildings was unique in history.
4) ditto.
5) A downright falsehood. There was never any threat to Air Force One. That story was invented in an effort to conceal Shrub's indeciveness.
6) There are plenty of witnesses who saw an airplane hit the Pentagon.
August 4, 2006
4:31 PM
Our Reichstag Fire writes:
RE: FormalistAesthete
Science is about testing a hypothesis. WPI had no reason to state one of many possible conclusions -- that the eutectic formations were caused by thermate -- especially considering the controversial nature of such a statement. You can tell by the context of the writing (or a couple hours of research) that none of the "possibilities" they mentioned are high probability "possibilities". In fact the researchers were "shocked" by what they saw. They've also called for additional samples which they've never received which is quite telling considering this is a huge unanswered mystery. Find yourself a metallurgist or anyone who specializes in materials science and without telling them why you are asking, ask them what the chances are of a eutectic reaction occurring naturally due to acid rain, ocean salts or the contents of burning buildings. Theoretically possible but not anywhere near probable. It becomes even less probable when samples of WTC steel tested later have all the chemical signatures of thermite as mentioned in various posts...
Dr. Jones also addresses many of the questions and objections mentioned in a document posted this month:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/
The point is we need an investigation that utilizes scientific method (if NIST had done that in the first place or anytime since, this would be a non-issue). This means you start by testing the most likely theory and, if the evidence doesn't fit, move to the next. Based on physical evidence, video evidence and eyewitness testimony, the most probable reason for the collapse of the 3 WTC buildings is controlled demolition. There is plenty of evidence that eliminates the "progressive collapse" theory so it can no longer be considered. However, even though I can't claim that it was demolition as fact, there has yet to be any evidence that would eliminate it as a possibility. Even if someone "feels" sure that it wasn't demolition, that still doesn't explain why the person wouldn't want a scientific investigation to be done. Believing something on faith is religion, not science.
August 4, 2006
4:45 PM
FormalistAesthete writes:
A question for conspiracy theorists: If the Bush Administration was involved in the attacks, why didn't they plant evidence that it was done by Iraqi agents rather than by al Qaeda?
August 4, 2006
4:53 PM
Anonymous writes:
There is no way those flight school flunkies could have made through every single security measure the USA has all at the same time. Our military was told to stand down and security was pulled from the WTC two weeks before 9/11. The government wanted to pull off Northwood's but Kennedy said no way.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html
August 4, 2006
4:56 PM
fiesty writes:
JMCross- notice no one addressed all these amazing "coincidences"...
Dirk- I love debating with you, since you *usually* are rational, and critical. Even though you and I disagree on this subject, at least you agree there is suspicious occurrences surrounding 9-11. That's all I could ask for, and far more than the other close-minded clobs out there. I concur, and believe we deserve an explanation.
August 4, 2006
4:58 PM
fiesty writes:
I stand corrected. FormalAsthete sorta addressed them...
August 4, 2006
5:01 PM
boast writes:
the plans to attack Afghanistan we're on the table before 9/11. they needed a reason to go through with those plans...that is why it was blamed on Al Queda first.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm
August 4, 2006
5:14 PM
FormalistAesthete writes:
And, Boast, they needed to create a huge, complex plan that required them to round-up and kill all the flight crews and passengers on 4 flights, ditch a plane in the ocean somewhere so that they could substitute a missile, create phony phone calls pretending to be people on hijacked airplanes that were so convincing that not a single recipient suspected that they were bogus, and plant explosives in 3 buildings without making a single mistake that would have exposed the plot? Wouldn't a truck bomb or 2 have been easier and still provided justification for an invasion?
August 4, 2006
5:20 PM
Anonymous writes:
The pro murder and pro war crimes crowd is losing badly here.
August 4, 2006
5:26 PM
boast writes:
FormalistAesthete - no, they needed a complete "shock and awe" scenario to get the entire country to back their illegal war
August 4, 2006
5:27 PM
fiesty writes:
JMCross- hope you don't mind, but I wanted to elaborate on the "amazing coincidences" list. These are but a few of the amazing coincidences involved with 9-11:
1. It was just coincidence that in Sep 2000, a military report recommended an overarching unified space command, but stated it was unlikely to happen without a “Pearl-Harbor� type event. ['Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century', page 51, published by PNAC-www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf]
2. It just another coincidence that put options were put on American and United immediately prior to 9-11. It was just an oversight of the committee (that investigated and cleared charges of insider trading) that they did not identify the investors or their rationale for the trades. [9-11 Commission Report, pg. 499]
3. It was unfortunate that six war games were in progress on 9-11 and an oversight that only one war game was mentioned in the official report. [9-11 Commission Report, page 458]
4. It was ill-luck that fighter jets from Andrews Air Force Base were 200 miles away on a bombing run exercise from Washington D.C., leaving the capitol defenseless. Of the remaining fighter jets that were scrambled from Langley, it was further “bad luck� that the pilots were “confused� enough to disregard two direct NEADS orders as to where to proceed and instead followed a generic flight plan over the ocean to the east- resulting in them being one minute too late. [9-11 Commission Report, pg 27]
5. For the first time in aviation history and against astronomical odds, only two flight recorders out of a total of eight flight recorders from the four flights were recovered. [9-11 Commission Report, note 76, page 456]. This is contrast to what Barry M. Sweedler, from the National Transportation Safety Board, cited in a speech that for some crashes “the only wreckage recovered were the flight recorders�. [www.ntsb.gov/speeches/s000314.htm] Obviously there’s a first time for everything!
6. It’s just an oversight that Nicholas DeMasi and Mike Bellone (firefighters who claim to have recovered one of the flight recorders) haven’t been interviewed yet by the FBI.
7. It’s regrettable that the warnings provided by former lead counsel for the House, David Schippers, weren’t acted upon. He says he’d taken to John Ashcroft’s office specific warnings he’d learned from FBI agents in New York of an impending attack – even naming the proposed dates, names of the hijackers and the targets, and the fact that the investigations had been stymied and the agents threatened. Also, it’s just an oversight that the Senate Intelligence Committee or FBI Intelligence Committee hasn’t gotten with him to discuss his witness’s reports, despite Mr. Schipper’s repeated invitations. You know how busy they are! [infowars.com/transcript_schippers.html]
8. Larry Silverstein, the lease holder for Building Seven and insurance policy holder for the World Trade Center Complex, simply misspoke when he said (during a taped interview) that he told the firefighters to “pull� WTC7. [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329&q=trade+center+7&pl=true]
Wow, what a combination of bad-luck that day, huh?
August 4, 2006
5:33 PM
Tek writes:
I'm from Denver and I believe there should be a new "Independent" investigation into 9/11. People, thousands of people have died on this day, thousands upon thousands of people have died in Iraq and abroad.
It's the least that can be done to honor their death. I can't believe and it disgusts me on how many people are unwilling to look at the evidence in an open minded way. EVEN IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE the government was involved, the least you can do to help re-unite the American people into having some common ground, would be to honor a new investigation. IF you disagree with what you call "nutty conspiracy thoeries" I hope to god you believe in a United America. That means a new investigation to put all these theories to rest correct ????????
August 4, 2006
5:55 PM
FormalistAesthete writes:
6) Michael Bellone has never been a fireman (though he volunteered to help with the post-9/11 search and rescue). He has lately made a career out of giving speeches on the pretext that he is an "honorary" member of the NYFD, but the NYFD says that he isn't and has told him to not wear an NYFD uniform. It also threatened to press charges unless he returned the fire department equipment that he had "borrowed".
http://www.gmtoday.com/news/local_stories/2005/October_05/10182005_10.asp
August 4, 2006
5:57 PM
fiesty writes:
FormalistAesthete - and the retired firefighter???
August 4, 2006
6:11 PM
Anonymous writes:
I just heard through the grapevine that the Republicans are trying to get the city of Denver to hold the Democratic Convention here.Also they are going to give them a tour of NORAD and when they got them all in there they are going to blow up the place.It's a major conspiracy to get rid of alot of Democrats at the same time.Since they are thinking about closing NORAD anyway nothing lost.The Bush Administration will then make it look like a terrorist attack and close all military bases so he can brainwash the military into only doing what he says and there will be no more Democracy.Bush will be the Dictator of the U.S. and we all will be under his rule.Sssshhhh don't tell anyone it's top secret.Start planning for a Bush Dictatorship.Duct tape your windows,stockpile water and food,and prepare for the end of the U.S. as we know it.You Liberals have pushed him over the edge this time.
For more on the secret Bush takeover go to www.yousuckers.com
August 4, 2006
6:22 PM
FormalistAesthete writes:
Only 2 people (one a known fraudster) claim to know anything about the "black boxes" out of the hundreds of people who worked on the post-9/11 clean-up? Those people didn't talk to each other? Or the FBI tracked down every single person who worked on the clean-up and told them that they would wind up in cement overshoes if they said anything?
What happened to the passengers and crew of the plane that didn't crash into the Pentagon? Are they buried in Giants Stadium next to Jimmy Hoffa?
August 4, 2006
6:36 PM
FormalistAesthete writes:
The exact quote from DeMasi was "When we got into the ATV to take off, the agent accidentally pushed me forward. The ATV was already in reverse, and my foot went down on the gas pedal. We went down the stairs in reverse. Fortunately, everything was okay. There were a total of four black boxes. We found three."
So even though the 2 planes crashed into different buildings that collapsed at different times, 3 of the black boxes ended up in the same place. What a coincidence!
August 4, 2006
6:40 PM
JM Cross writes:
Posted by FormalistAesthete :
“A question for conspiracy theorists: If the Bush Administration was involved in the attacks, why didn't they plant evidence that it was done by Iraqi agents rather than by al Qaeda?�
Perhaps the Ba’ath Party in Iraq, having been burned by the Bushes in the past, was not as willing to cooperate as the Saudi “royal� family, which has a long and profitable history dealing with Bush Inc. Or Pakistani ISI had more cash to spare than Iraq’s intelligence service. But I’m just speculating, you know, like you asked?
What kind of question is that anyway?
I know…why don’t you tell me why Al Kida didn’t make it look like space aliens were attacking THE INFIDELS in the name of Allah?
Quick now!
Fill us all in!
Try not to be a TROLL please.
August 4, 2006
6:42 PM
remember this? writes:
Ya know what really gets me.....the close-ups of those poor people ALIVE in those holes the planes made in that 1500 degree fire(sic). One picture so close you could see the red hair of the woman....my god people these buildings were not brought down by the planes, they werent brought down by fires...These people were ALIVE The fireman were ALIVE they saw 2 beatable fires. Then they were smoked by high explosive. Thats worse than murder, I will never change my tune.
I will never forget what really happened that day, and I suppose I will continue to vomit in disgust at the reality of it all.
Kudos to the RMN for taking this daring step....lets see how they deal with it.
August 4, 2006
7:00 PM
FormalistAesthete writes:
remember this?, in reality the NYFD decided right from the start that they couldn't extinguish the fires. The standard rule is that you need 1 gallon per minute per 100 cubic feet of fire area, which in an office building generally means 1 gallon per minute per 100 square feet of floor area. The 2 towers each were 208x208 feet, meaning a total area of 43264 square feet per floor. This means they would have needed 4326 gallons per minute for each floor that was on fire, and the pumps in the buildings were not working.
The NYFD uses 2.5 inch hoses for high rise fires. These flow roughly 250 gallons per minute, so they would have needed 17 hose lines per floor.
August 4, 2006
7:16 PM
remember this? writes:
FormalistAesthete says:
"in reality the NYFD decided right from the start that they couldn't extinguish the fires."
Care to provide a link to this???
I dont mean to squish your magnificent display of mathmatics. Not that it really matters much to you....The lead firefighter on the 74th floor called out 2 fires visible and asked for 2 lines.....in his voice verbatim.
August 4, 2006
7:21 PM
remember this? writes:
Im waiting :) tap tap tap
August 4, 2006
7:50 PM
,,|,, writes:
06:11 PM, Funny stuff!
Remember this...
,,|,, U
August 4, 2006
7:58 PM
remember this? writes:
Thats it ,,|,, Play you're little game and cheapen 9-11 some more.....
August 4, 2006
8:05 PM
9/11 and Iraq was planned from Bush Presidency Day One writes:
"One question for those who believe in the conspiracy.
Given the track record, just who in this administration do you think is capable of pulling something like this off?"
Go read the inaugural speech by Gw from Day one. He hints at WMDs
Iraq was planned way in advance.
Cheney is the guy , Wolfowitz, Pearl.
and the neocons planned this. Cheney's Haliburton profited from this war. And Haliburton also helped iRAN build its oil infrastructure (even though there was a trade restriction with this terrorist state.
Even Gw's Dad called these guys "insidious traitors". He did not trust these Neocons.
Its too bad Congress failed us badly and let the Neocons take us into the 100 years war. No end in sight now
August 4, 2006
8:16 PM
JM Cross writes:
Posted by Formalist Aesthete [with comments by JMC]:
“1) The hijackers didn't "defeat" security. Everything they had with them was legal to take on airplanes at the time. Security back in those days only was designed to prevent guns, knives, and bombs from being taken on airplanes.
[Well, I guess that depends on what you think “defeat� means. Those evil doers sure are crafty.]
2) And this proves?
[Uh…that it was a coincidence. Why so defensive?]
3) Flying large airplanes at high speeds into large buildings was unique in history.
[Yes, many unusual things did happen on that fateful day, didn’t they? Like the total effective failure of our multi-trillion $$$ military defense system.]
4) ditto.
[Right, but in this context, it’s not so unusual, since planes crash into large objects, like mountains, many times. What is unusual is the 12.5% effective recovery rate from 11SEP01. Normally, NTSB does a better job.]
5) A downright falsehood. There was never any threat to Air Force One. That story was invented in an effort to conceal Shrub's indeciveness.
[Well, while the 911 commission did report that the threat turned out to be unfounded, the result of a “misunderstanding�, the footnote brings to light that the Secret Service was the investigating entity, a la the Warren Commission, and that the director of the White House situation room disputed the SS finding. That’s the official story. I don’t know how well it fits in with your little CT about “an effort to conceal Shrub's indeciveness(sic).� ]
6) There are plenty of witnesses who saw an airplane hit the Pentagon.
[Right you are Ken! That has nothing to do with the fact that the only video seen in public does not corroborate them. But that’s just another coincidence.]
August 4, 2006
8:24 PM
remember this? writes:
Dont forget all the people who didnt see a plane strike the pentagon.......
August 4, 2006
8:57 PM
Our Reichstag Fire writes:
You can hear Chief Orio Palmer on the audio tapes the government didn't release for close to 4 years until the NY Times sued to get them released...
"Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones"
You can hear it about 45 seconds into the recording...
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/wtcaudio/wtc9.wmaHe made it to the 78th floor of the South Tower and radioed that they could put the fire out with 2 lines. I believe "code ones" are dead bodies.
If you remove the filename from the link, you can access the rest of the recordings.
August 4, 2006
9:05 PM
rachel writes:
i think the government did participate in the attacks. theres a documentary out that three men made concerning september 11. its a hr and a half long. but the facts are there that the government did know something. if you'd like you can check out the site.
www.loosechange911.com
August 4, 2006
9:49 PM
Anonymous writes:
More questions:
1) What relevancy does a report released by PNAC a year earlier about a unified space command have? Proves a motive?
2) I've already posted about the lack of credibility of the "put option" story,
3) Is it unusual for the military to be running several exercises on any given day? Unless it is unique, this argument is spurious.
5) I'm guessing that during the design of the black boxes no one anticipated 100 story buildings collapsing on top of them. Concrete and steel were pulverized, so why not black boxes? At least one of the 6 that you claimed weren't found actually was but it was too badly damaged to be useful. Why didn't they plant phony black boxes? That would have been better than claiming that the black boxes weren't found.
7) David Schippers' only relationship with the House was as a counsel during Clinton's impeachment proceedings. So why did these supposed FBI agents choose him to give their info to? And why when he was ignored by the govt. didn't he go public with what he knew? And why has no one else verified his story?
August 4, 2006
10:10 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
You're a class act, "Remember this": provide no evidence not already debunked here and elsewhere, flame people, offer no sustained rebuttal to my remarks (among others), and post continual "Oh, damn, got you there, boy? How do you respond to that?" Which is especially amusing, because "that" doesn't usually make sense (like the last post about people standing in the fire--unbelievable).
Clearly you won't change your tune. I won't try to change it. But I for one will not let you get away with verbally abusing others with your "wisdom". You can think you're right all you like. When you insist that others who don't see it as you do are "blind", without engaging in anything approaching real debate, you do a disservice to us all. Let the adults in the room actually discuss this, if you don't wish to gainfully participate. Many of your allies BELIEVE this to be true, but nobody's CERTAIN about it--because that's impossible. Your allies recognize this, why don't you? You're hear to proselytize, nothing more, and you get pissy when anyone disagrees with you. Give it a rest.
Fiesty, Steve, and others: thanks for your ardently (and civilly) made points. I continue to disagree, and there are times I find fault not merely with what you post, but how you've come to your points. But you have a legitimate desire to get to the bottom of things and try to persuade through rigorous debate, not perform conversions. Thanks for sparing us "non-believers" your scorn and petulance--it's very tiresome.
BTW, Rachel: OMG! There's a movie called Loosechange?! You mean the one we spent the first day debunking? The same one that even the regular pro-conspiracy contributors here are saying is hogwash? Thanks for playing.
August 4, 2006
10:25 PM
Anonymous writes:
9/11 Citizens' Commission Hearing Sept. 9th, 2004
M. Rupert discusses Dick Cheney in command of NORAD on 9/11 (29min.)
http://www.911busters.com/video/MOV/CC13_Michael_Rupert_Cheney_Morning_911.html
August 4, 2006
10:26 PM
Anonymous writes:
JM Cross--Are you seriously claiming that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon? Seriously?
I'm sorry--you are right to believe that there's a lot to be answered for. You are right to believe that there are things that officials are not telling us (or the Commission) that are dodgy. But if you don't think it was a plane that hit the building--then you are not a "truth seeker", you are its opposite. You are willing to believe ANYTHING that appeals to you. Lucky for you (but not us) you never ran into that guy from Heaven's Gate.
Oh, I know, JM, I'm "blind", I'm "close-minded", I'm a "government stooge", I can't "see the truth".
Well, you can certainly "feel" the truth, can't you, Captain Truthiness?
Will one of you pro-conspiracy people please handle this? People like JM Cross and Remember This are making you guys look bad, and could drag down the whole momentum of asking legit questions about that day (like accountability for SAC and NORAD).
August 4, 2006
11:12 PM
zlee writes:
Here's the recent c-span show on 911 for the uninformed:>)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/050806popular.htm
August 4, 2006
11:42 PM
double d writes:
none of these "hijackers" were ever on a flight passenger list. How does a rookie pilot fly so perfectly with no assistance from above the clouds. How does gasoline melt steel and turn concrete into dust? How does the secret service know america is under attack yet does nothing to move the president to a safe location immediately? How does any large aircraft fly freely in North American airspace for 1 hour without air defences taking action ?
i say inside job
August 4, 2006
11:42 PM
double d writes:
none of these "hijackers" were ever on a flight passenger list. How does a rookie pilot fly so perfectly with no assistance from above the clouds. How does gasoline melt steel and turn concrete into dust? How does the secret service know america is under attack yet does nothing to move the president to a safe location immediately? How does any large aircraft fly freely in North American airspace for 1 hour without air defences taking action ?
i say inside job
August 5, 2006
1:08 AM
Anonymous writes:
I really didnt;t thiink Denver had this many meth heads, but I guess i was wrong. Mr. Qolf, all be it, sarcarsticaly showed the entire blog thaat it's only one perons perpuating the myth that cruise missle hitt the pentagon. Let the loonys have their fun in the sun, it could onlyh be much more entertaining to watch them crumblle later
August 5, 2006
1:13 AM
Anonymous writes:
Its quite troubling to hear this crowd now say loose change is bunk, because it was proven to be a movie for fruitcakes, yet they keep posting shit direclty from it. I will give them creidt for trying to say its research of their own, but I am ratherconvinced that we are dealing with one meth head acting as if he is many to perpeutate this crap. Really sad actually
August 5, 2006
1:18 AM
Satan writes:
Mr. Wolf proved it was one meth head, end of debate. just a crazy guy
August 5, 2006
1:41 AM
zlee writes:
Meanwhile,
NORAD Tapes Expose Lax Military Attitude On 9-11 Air Defense
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/040806laxattitude.htm
one more nail in the 911 official story:>)
August 5, 2006
5:34 AM
remember this? writes:
Said by Dirk Gently
You're a class act, "Remember this": provide no evidence not already debunked here and elsewhere, flame people, offer no sustained rebuttal to my remarks (among others), and post continual "Oh, damn, got you there, boy? How do you respond to that?" Which is especially amusing, because "that" doesn't usually make sense (like the last post about people standing in the fire--unbelievable).
THOSE PICTURES ARE COMMON PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE IDIOT!
There was no fire burning where they were, NOW DO YOU GET IT??
THATS A REBUTTAL TO SOME WHO SAY THE 1500 DEGREE FIRE DESTROYED THE BULDINGS. GET IT NOW? THEY WERE ALIVE!
GET IT?
If you would ever take the time to look at the pictures widely available maybe you would open your eyes. I love the way you misconstrue and repost my thoughts in your way....You obviously dont understand the sarcasm present there.
Maybe you should have stayed in school and learned about sarcasm.
Pathetic.
It is now apparent youre only purpose here is to antagonize. I fell for your trap once.......not again. Since you contribute nothing whatsoever to this blog except BS You no longer exist to me......Now flame me away ya loser.
August 5, 2006
5:40 AM
remember this? writes:
Mr. Wolf proved it was one meth head, end of debate. just a crazy guy
Posted by Satan on August 5, 2006 01:18 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Care to prove this?
August 5, 2006
5:45 AM
remember this? writes:
Its quite troubling to hear this crowd now say loose change is bunk, because it was proven to be a movie for fruitcakes, yet they keep posting shit direclty from it. I will give them creidt for trying to say its research of their own, but I am ratherconvinced that we are dealing with one meth head acting as if he is many to perpeutate this crap. Really sad actually
Posted by on August 5, 2006 01:13 AM
So...youre calling all pro conspiracy people meth heads??...Wow that must be a lot of meth then !Considering the fact over 80% agree with the conspiracy theory poll conducted by this very newspaper, this one right here in Denver just 2 little days ago. Gosh I wonder how many take your infantile statement serious LOL.
August 5, 2006
11:03 AM
Steve writes:
***Dirk, please weigh in on this discussion as I think that your input will be decisive in the presentation of this issue:
Here is a question that I pose to everyone, no matter what opinion you have about the 911 events:
WTC 7
Since the 911 Commission did not give any lengthy evaluation or explanation for the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, would you support a full and bipartisan independent investigation of this PARTICULAR event?
Note: This is NOT about the Pentagon, flight 93 or the fall of towers 1 and 2. This ONLY concerns building 7.
Should we have a full investigation and explanation of WTC 7, if only to find specific building safety-related reasons WHY this one building collapsed?
Please feel free to express your views.
August 5, 2006
11:56 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Steve: I don't think I would support a full investigation of WC7 (though not fully opposed to it, either). The "official" explanation satisfies me. I WOULD support a full investigation of the actions of SAC, NORAD, and the involvement of the VP. Those are the most problematic aspects of that day, in my opinion.
Now for the bulk of a no-doubt long awaited response:
"Remember This"--temper, temper! Is that really the best response you can muster?
You know, criticism is not "flaming". Flaming is hurling insults. Perhaps you find my criticisms insulting, but that's not the same thing. I admit once again to stooping to my own brand of sarcasm, but honestly when communicating with you it's difficult to avoid this. If only it were so difficult to raise your ire. Apparently my "trap" is merely to antagonize, which you didn't fall for, eh? Seems to me you seem pretty antagonized. Which is a pity, because that was not my purpose at all--it was to ask you to either engage in debate properly and stop browbeating people with your claims of "truth".
I got your sarcasm. I was merely incredulous about your claim. Correct me if I'm wrong: you're saying that since people were standing near those flames, there never COULD HAVE been high temperature (or even a fire there), which therefore means it would have been impossible for the towers to collapse, right? If you really did your research, you would know that many people have already addressed this to contradict your claim. You are of course welcome to deny those claims, but if you're going to make such claims you also need to address their criticism of your version of events. Possibly we are thinking of different events, though. Post a link to the pictures if you think they're so rock solid, then. Don't just call me an idiot for either misinterpreting or denying your claim--state your case. Saying "yes it was/no it isn't" ad infinitum is not an argument, it's just contradiction (kudos here to Monty Python).
You still haven't responded to any of my earlier queries (were they too "idiotic" for you?). The only significant rebuttals you posted are things that either a) I've posted counter-rebuttals to and am awaiting response on, or b) rebuttals that have already been debunked or at least countered elsewhere. This conversation would be more productive if you addressed THOSE criticisms, which we can either accept or challenge. But you haven't done this.
Since you equate criticism and incredulity to antagonism, perhaps you have no place in a forum for debate, as I suggested earlier. In saying this I'm not trying to "boot" you or suppress your opinion (as if I had that power). I'm asking you to control your temper, mount a sustained intellectual rebuttal to my challenges/criticisms, and if you have criticisms or challenges of my view, state them in civil terms, be specific, and cite references where necessary/applicable. Fiesty, Steve and others seem quite capable of this, surely you are too? (Incidentally, they explicitly disagree with you that I contribute nothing to the debate.)
Ball's in your court. Are you going to actually drive to the hoop, or just huck the ball at my head again?
August 5, 2006
11:57 AM
remember this? writes:
Steve:
Silverstein says it all on camera......
Pull It.
August 5, 2006
12:16 PM
Anonymous writes:
For all of you that read firewall logs:
Now here is an interesting log of a scan by the Department of Defense. It was initiated as I was in this blog.....Draw your own conclusions, but in my opinion this blog is allowed to be monitored by he powers that be.
ZoneAlarm Logging Client v6.1.744.001
Windows 98-4.10.2222- A -SP
type,date,time,source,destination,transport (Security)
type,date,time,virus name,file name,mode,e-mail id (Anti-Virus)
type,date,time,source,destination,action,service (IM Security)
type,date,time,source,destination,program,action (Malicious Code Protection)
type,date,time,action,product,file,event,subevent,class,data,data,... (OSFirewall)
type,date,time,name,type,mode (Anti-Spyware)
FWIN,2006/08/05,12:01:20 -6:00 GMT,30.208.3.49:45604,67.162.131.103:1026,UDP
FWIN,2006/08/05,12:01:20 -6:00 GMT,30.208.3.49:45604,67.162.131.103:1025,UDP
FWIN,2006/08/05,12:01:20 -6:00 GMT,30.208.3.49:45604,67.162.131.103:1027,UDP
FWIN,2006/08/05,12:01:20 -6:00 GMT,30.208.3.49:45604,67.162.131.103:1028,UDP
OrgName: DoD Network Information Center
OrgID: DNIC
Address: 3990 E. Broad Street
City: Columbus
StateProv: OH
PostalCode: 43218
Country: US
NetRange: 30.0.0.0 - 30.255.255.255
CIDR: 30.0.0.0/8
NetName: ARPAX25-TEMP
NetHandle: NET-30-0-0-0-1
Parent:
NetType: Direct Allocation
Comment: Defense Information Systems Agency
Comment: Washington, DC 20305-2000 US
RegDate:
Updated: 2002-10-07
OrgTechHandle: MIL-HSTMST-ARIN
OrgTechName: Network DoD
OrgTechPhone: +1-800-365-3642
OrgTechEmail: HOSTMASTER@nic.mil
# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2006-08-04 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
August 5, 2006
12:59 PM
Anonymous writes:
"So...youre calling all pro conspiracy people meth heads??...Wow that must be a lot of meth then !Considering the fact over 80% agree with the conspiracy theory poll conducted by this very newspaper, this one right here in Denver just 2 little days ago. Gosh I wonder how many take your infantile statement serious LOL."
Posted by remember this? on August 5, 2006 05:45 AM
I really can't believe your this retarded. Forest Gump was like Steven Hawkings compared to you. The poll you speak of represents approximatley 50 people that come around here. It was also inaccurate considering you are the one that kept hitting the vote button to stack it. You have a pack of morons that highly engaged in believing you, you have another pack of idiots that will believe anything and hardly know anything about that day, or know much about any of the world events. Then you have idiots like Charlies Sheen and Travis from Blink 182.
Put all those morons together and you have about 30% of the nation that supports your claims. You are an idiot, it is comical to listen to you idiots continue to tell everyone how you know the truth and we all dont. Keep preaching your truthiness, it seems to be achieving,,,,,,practically nothing
August 5, 2006
1:22 PM
Anonymous writes:
This is the mother of all 9/11 threads. Great call Posted by on August 5, 2006 12:16 PM
Only criminals need to worry about the trut coming out about 9/11. No wonder the DOD is here acting mighty nervous.
August 5, 2006
1:29 PM
Anonymous writes:
Told you idiots to put your tin foil hats on.
August 5, 2006
1:34 PM
9/11 a false flag operation writes:
You have spent days and days on here dirk and each of your spam posts has a truth suppression technique on it. Dirk's favorite truth suppression technique is too deny the obvious. The mountainous amounts of evidence show 9/11 was an inside job.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7218920724339766288
August 5, 2006
1:36 PM
Anonymous writes:
Excellent link!
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/050806popular.htm
August 5, 2006
2:27 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
"9/11...": Spam posts? Truth suppression? Why don't you try looking up these terms to see what they actually mean.
Further, Loosechange has been thoroughly and utterly debunked, as has been discarded by the mainstream of 9/11 conspiracy theorists (if you can call that mainstream, even).
If you have something to say, say it. Don't continue to waste mine and everyone else's time with "You are all rotten poo-poo heads and you're wrong! Here, watch Loosechange AGAIN."
August 5, 2006
3:39 PM
9/11 a false flag operation writes:
Loosechange 2 has not been debunked at all. They back up each claim with fact. Go back to your truth suppression spams as no one takes you and your spam buddy harry seriously. You have been spamming RMN for months. You are working spam overtime. You must get paid for each spam. Who do you work for Dirk? The National Alliance Of Spammers and Truth Suppression Bloggers I bet.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7218920724339766288
August 5, 2006
3:51 PM
zlee writes:
meanwhile 911 c-span hit of the month keeps rolling on...(Bush smirks:>)
watch it here...I especially like U of Minnesota Professor James Fetzer in this video...now this guy packs passion into the discussion as well...you know the kind the Boston Tea party legends tell us in the bill of rights school history books before the Halliburton-KBR make 'detention camps' days ...yeah, that kind....have a cheery nite, folks:>)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/050806popular.htm
ps ~ it's not debunkable meth head lovers...
A link to future Halliburton prison camps we get to go to later as we reach our old age...the lucky ones, that is:>)
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/332775.shtml
August 5, 2006
3:59 PM
JM Cross writes:
Posted by [anonymous] on August 4, 2006 10:26 PM [with comments by JMC]
“JM Cross--Are you seriously claiming that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon? Seriously?�
[No, and I never said such. What I said was the only video in the public realm does not show us an aircraft, of any type. Why are you building and destroying straw men with my name pinned to them?]
“I'm sorry--you are right to believe that there's a lot to be answered for. You are right to believe that there are things that officials are not telling us (or the Commission) that are dodgy. But if you don't think it was a plane that hit the building--then you are not a "truth seeker", you are its opposite. You are willing to believe ANYTHING that appeals to you. Lucky for you (but not us) you never ran into that guy from Heaven's Gate.�
[Gee whiz Mr. Anonymous, I appreciate your indulgence. Out of one side of your mouth you say I’m right to ask questions, but with the other you day if I don’t believe what you believe, then I am a fraud, a fool and prone to join a UFO death cult…nice arguments. Where’s the love?]
“
Oh, I know, JM, I'm "blind", I'm "close-minded", I'm a "government stooge", I can't "see the truth".�
[Again, you are putting words in my mouth. The sad thing is you basically called ME the same things, blind, closed-minded and a stooge, in the previous paragraph. Oh my.]
“Well, you can certainly "feel" the truth, can't you, Captain Truthiness?�
[You are fading fast…]
“Will one of you pro-conspiracy people please handle this? People like JM Cross and Remember This are making you guys look bad, and could drag down the whole momentum of asking legit questions about that day (like accountability for SAC and NORAD).�
[Well, what can I say to Mr. Anonymous that won’t produce more distortions and ad hominem attacks? Another troll under the bridge. Thanks for playing, sir. Don’t let your modem hit you on the way out.]
August 5, 2006
5:58 PM
Anonymous writes:
keep up the good truthiness
August 5, 2006
7:01 PM
Steve writes:
I don't want to change the subject here so I have waited to post this link until most of the 911 discussion has had its time.
One of the reasons why I question the entire 911 Commission dogma is that I have produced a video documentary on the HIV=AIDS fraud--A 300 billion dollar scam that has poisoned millions of people.
I have been working with over 600 scientists for the last 14 years (3 of which are Nobel Prize winners) who challenge and prove that HIV can NOT Possibly be the cause of AIDS.
The hecklers and scoffers who have swallowed the HIV/AIDS lie are almost identical to many who dispute the idea that the government can NOT lie to us in astronomical ways with subjects like 911. The parallels are so absolutely AMAZING!
The truth is, as Americans our most vulnerable weakness is our blind confidence in the government and the "free press."
We are the most DISINFORMED people on earth, I have come to believe. At least in other countries the public expects lies and are constantly on guard for them.
I won't say that I am totally convinced that 911 was a complete false flag event yet, or that there were absolutely NO terrorists involved (unless you count Bush and company) but I will say that it looks exactly like this:
HIV=AIDS: a terrorist tactic hoisted on the world, based on a completely bankrupt hypothesis perpetuated for political and economic gain in which the cures (AZT) actually cause the disease in many cases, and divert attention away from the real causes.
911: a terrorist tactic hoisted on the world, based on a false flag terrorist event perpetuated for political and economic gain in which the cures (Afghanistan, Iraq, Homeland Security and the Patriot Act) actually cause the citizens of the U.S. to perpetuate wars and vote themselves into slavery.
See the Parallels? It's the CFR and the New World Order agenda behind both.
Here is the link if you want to see the video. It is long.
PLEASE PLEASE..do not argue with me about HIV being the biggest medical fraud ever perpetuated on the public..UNLESS you have seen the video..ALL 2 hours of it first! I will only entertain intelligent debate. I am only bringing this topic up to show you that both of these things are almost exactly alike in the way they manipulate public opinion.
I really don't want to answer questions that I already have with references
here is the link to Google video for free download.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4396856850556632563
August 5, 2006
9:49 PM
fiesty writes:
That's a pretty interesting video though a bit long. Strangely enough, I got almost nothing when I searched for [debunking "HIV = AIDS - Fact or Fraud?"] Then again, I'm not surprised. Science tends to one of the most rigorous in defending itself, even when it becomes increasingly apparent they're wrong. History has shown that time and time again.
August 5, 2006
9:53 PM
Anonymous writes:
God I wish you could take over command of the Democractic party.
August 5, 2006
10:20 PM
Steve writes:
Thanks Fiesty,
Yes, I agree it is toooo looong.
But I wanted to cover everything because as you know, the detractors always come up with some hair-splitting marginal argument that they try to use to destroy the enormous body of logic.
Sound familiar?
There have been several blogs that ran this way. It is amazing how "experts" can program themselves to scientifically explain what they want to see. Some are still telling us that there is life on Mars---somewhere.
Just need billions more to find it!
August 6, 2006
8:21 AM
remember this? writes:
ZLEE
Thanks for the prisonplanet link you posted earlier. Another step in this most important event. It left me with tears of joy that something is beginning to happen. I have read so much, digested so much and researched so much at times my head spins. This one I missed Thanks Again.
August 6, 2006
8:32 AM
remember this? writes:
I am sure some of you out there are having difficulty getting back to this blog, as the RMN is always starting new ones and it is only natural it tends to get pushed out of the front page area.
Try saving a direct link to this page for your desktop
1. Right click on a blank part of this page. Select add to favorites ( I am unsure if all versions of Windows do this the same way, but I think they do)
2. Open your Favorites, it should appear at the bottom of the list.
Some, like me, may a long list and might have to scroll down some, just hover your mouse over the lil' arrows that will appear and it will self scroll.
3. Right click- ( It will say Rocky Mountain News Extra) on that link and select "Send To"
4. Select Desktop (create shortcut).
5.It should be there waiting for you, just click it and bam! (No.Im not Emeril) :) your here.
August 6, 2006
9:51 AM
Dr. RDW writes:
Bush, Neocons, GOP, Republicans.....
Complicit in Treason?
Or
Merely Clueless......?
Trick Answer: Both
August 6, 2006
9:55 AM
Our loving government would never harm a fly would they? writes:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060806/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_rape_slaying
"The medic, whose name was withheld for security reasons, told the hearing that he was the first responder to enter the house and found the girl sprawled naked in the house, her torso and head burned by flames. She had a single bullet wound under her left eye, he said.
He testified that he found Abeer's 5-year-old sister, Hadeel, in an adjacent room. She was shot in the head and the bullet had blown out the back of her head, he said. The children's father, Qassim, and their mother, Fikhriya — had suffered similar deaths: the mother's abdomen and chest were riddled with bullets, he said."
August 6, 2006
10:47 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Steve, I honestly don't want to the touch the HIV/AIDS thing with a ten foot pole, not least because I sincerely doubt anyone here has even the remotest expertise here (and although I'm sure the video raises excellent points, no video is capable of conveying true expertise--it can only give us ammo to challenge true experts). Also, I have spent too much time already occasionally popping into this blog and writing posts (some with links I had to find). I don't have time to watch a 2-hour long web doco (maybe some other time). So, I have no official opinion on that.
I would like to address one aspect of what you and Fiesty say in general about science and scientists. It is hardly deniable that research is colored to some extent by one's paradigm, and that there are occasions where research agendas can be skewed by third parties or by a particularly single-minded head researcher. That said, the VAST majority of science is done vigorously and in good faith. If there are contrary data or results, people work to rectify them. In short: conspiracies, suppression of evidence, and so forth happens extremely rarely (and is usually uncovered quickly--like the Korean stem cell fiasco). I'm sure you acknowledge this, but the tenor of your conversation seemed to suggest that as a rule you distrust what "science" (as if this were some unified entity) reports to you. Also, keep in mind that the info you get about scientific information or discrepancies is usually the fault of science reporters (i.e. the media) and not scientists themselves. Finally, Steve, you state, "It is amazing how "experts" can program themselves to scientifically explain what they want to see." This cuts both ways--which means it is just as likely to apply to the experts and science you are apt to quote to support your conspiracies. Although history has shown that sometimes the "crackpots" end up being right, on balance this is actually less frequent than the times that "crackpots" end up just being "crackpots". You must allow for BOTH possibilities.
Also, Steve, Fiesty, etc.: Could you please inform "9/11" of the various pro-conspiracy organizations that have dismissed or distanced themselves from Loosechange? I will provide this debunking link again, which apparently "9/11" does not believe: http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html . There are others out there, as well. And "9/11", if you are firm in your resolve that Loosechange is backed by fact, then present your case. You can't just say "yes it is/no it isn't" repeatedly.
Here is Wikipedia's entry on forum spam: "Spamming an internet forum is when a user posts a message that is off-topic or has little relevance to the subject being discussed, or a post that fails to contribute to the thread. Lastly, there is also the case where a person posts messages solely for the purpose of increasing his forum ranking." This does not accurately reflect the nature of my posts.
Ah, I THOUGHT all that "truth suppression" talk was familiar. I remember now: http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/printthread.php?t=15888 (do correct me if I'm wrong about your source). The problem with this truth suppression link is that if you read through the 17 points, all of these points can be employed for the purposes of truth suppression in turn (some of them, like "envoking authority" is not truth suppression at all, in most cases--it's citing a credible source). Quite a Catch-22, eh? Well, I guess that means you'll have to resort to actually mounting a sustained defense of your position in order to engage in meaningful dialogue, whether or not my dialogue is "truth suppression". I can only assure you that my intent is definitely NOT truth suppression, no matter how you see it. So long as I am making a good faith effort, it would be nice if you did so in return.
If my points are so easily dismissed as truth suppression, no doubt you will also be able to easily dismiss them on their own (lack of) merits, right?
Finally, "Our loving government...", I don't think your post is a good example of GOVERNMENTAL harm. Clearly this is a case of a few sick individuals who have murdered innocent Iraqis. That said, where we CAN blame government is in their casual disregard for Iraqis, in their inability to properly train our troops, in their inability to integrate sound occupation policy, in their inability to plan well enough to ship out the troops and commanders who are gung-ho go-tards, etc. While we can blame this administration, ultimately, for these atrocities because they have inculcated an environement for them, it simply is not accurate to say that these sorts of atrocities are what our goverment WANTS--not least because it undermines their credibility as well as what they would see as the successful completion of the mission. We should charge many people, all the way up to Rumsfeld, with war crimes. But that isn't to say that they purposefully kill innocent people--only the individual soldiers in this and other cases did that (this is the difference between 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree murder).
August 6, 2006
12:25 PM
9/11 a false flag operation writes:
One of the producers of Loosechange 2 came back from his tour in Iraq and helped make the film.
The link dorky Dirk the truth supression spammer does nothing to debunk the Loosechange 2 film.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1519312457137943386
August 6, 2006
12:35 PM
Anonymous writes:
That link dorky Dirk the spammer gives simply calls people names. The author posts stuff like how many times people the people the author dislikes have sex as proof that the government could never have carried out 9/11. Too funny. Dirk the truth suppression monger has no creditably here.
August 6, 2006
12:44 PM
Our loving government would never engage in widespread torture would it? writes:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/07/us-commanders-authorized-widespread.php
"US commanders authorized widespread abuse of Iraqi detainees: HRW report
Bernard Hibbitts at 10:59 AM ET
[JURIST] US military commanders in Iraq regularly authorized torture and abusive interrogation practices even in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal [JURIST news archive], and military lawyers brought in to brief interrogators erroneously told them that the Geneva Conventions [ICRC materials] did not apply to their detainees, according to a new Human Rights Watch report [text] released Sunday. The report, based partly on interviews with US soldiers, also says that soldiers who objected to the harsh interrogation methods were regularly discouraged from making or pursuing complaints. Two US detention facilities in Iraq - an off-limits site at Baghdad airport called Camp Nama [JURIST report] whose inmates were never registered with the Red Cross, contrary to international law, and another site in Mosul - were singled out as being particularly abuse-prone."
Dirk the spammers number one truth supression technique: deny the obvious over and over. So what agency do you work for dorky Dirk the RMN spammer and thruth supression artist?
August 6, 2006
1:14 PM
NORAD told to stand down on 9/11 writes:
http://www.public-action.com/911/noradsend.html
"Deflecting Attention From NORAD
Those who want to pursue the War on Islam of course want to sustain the lie that Muslim suicide pilots were responsible for 9-11. They want to keep the real trigger men — the men working under the NORAD cover — hidden from public view.
So public attention must be deflected from NORAD's culpability and focused on the FAA and the failureo of "the system." Top FAA executives and the FAA/NORAD liaison people were of course involved and could give us information. Their failure to speak is either a sign that they have been ordered to shut their mouths for the sake of "national security" or a testament to some other complicity.
While reading the following, notice the varied nature of the diversionary "what did the FAA know and when did they know it and when did they tell NORAD what they knew" controversy. You will notice that no one mentions NORAD's access to radar, nor a description of what NORAD could see. (Further discussion of this topic in Part II.) Instead there is constant fudging about radar data in general and a pretense that there is no cold, objective evidence that can be examined to tell us what really happened that day. "
August 6, 2006
1:18 PM
Toby writes:
Yeah, it was probably an inside job.
August 6, 2006
1:25 PM
9/11 a false flag operation writes:
If it was an inside job then as Americans we have the duty to find out what really happened and bring those responsible in front of a twelve person jury. Until those responsible for 9/11 are brought to justice the USA will struggle and be maligned throughout the rest of the world. The masses can uncover the truth if enough of us believe the USA is the greatest country in the world and help catch the real real criminals of 9/11. Looks like RMN's readership is way up. Uncovering the truth can be profitable and patriotic to boot.
August 6, 2006
1:44 PM
9/11 perps love to worship a pagan owl writes:
http://www.delfinworld.com/1/leaders.htm
"What industries are represented among the members?
Major military contractors, oil companies, banks including the Federal Reserve), utilities (including nuclear power), and national media (broadcast and print) have high-ranking officials as club members or guests. Many members are, or have been, on the board of directors of several of these corporations. You should note that most of the above industries depend heavily on a relationship with government for their profitability.
The grove is the site of a two week retreat every July (as well as other smaller get-togethers throughout the year). At these retreats, the members commune with nature in a truly original way. They drink heavily from morning through the night, bask in their freedom to urinate on the redwoods, and perform pagan rituals – including the “Cremation of Care�, in which the members wearing red-hooded robes, cremate a coffin effigy of “Dull Care� at the base of a 40 foot owl altar."
August 6, 2006
2:01 PM
Anonymous writes:
This thread is now officially the mother of all 9/11 blogs and the only major newspaper in the USA to allow this debate. I notice a lot of Hooters ads here. I think I will go to Hooters as a direct result of seeing the ad on this thread. RMN should let the editors know that uncovering the truth about 9/11 can be very profitable as well as patriotic.
August 6, 2006
3:55 PM
Steve writes:
Dirk,
I have to say that for the most part I agree that scientific research progresses on the basis of critical and objective observations. But there is a tremendous "blinder effect" that programs human errors into the mix when funding and continuation of research must rely on deisred results.
I am using the HIV=AIDS hypothesis as an example. (Most people don't know that HIV has never been proven to cause AIDS and with the death of the most recent pathogenic process called "viral load," we STILL have NO data to verify conclustions that HIV causes AIDS)
Any significant non correlation between HIV and AIDS would be sufficient to rule it out as the cause.
For example, if I found a blood spot at a crime scene that was not the victim's, but believed to be the accused, it could only be used as evidence if the blood type matched.
If the blood type was a mis-match you would have to rule out that blood spot as evidence. This is the kind of evidence that only a very stupid prosecutor would continue to use, UNLESS the public was not informed of the blood type mis-match. See what I mean?
Now imagine this:
If you take a piece of paper and draw a straight line accross the top, that would represent the constant number of people infected with HIV at about .05% (or 1 out of 200) since 1985. This graph actually appeard in the RMN not more than 3 months ago. REALLY!
But if you look at AIDS cases, they form a perfect bell curve rising from virtually 0 in 1985 to 85,00 cases in 1993 then declining by 2005 to about 12,000 cases. This graph DID NOT appear with the former. Can you imagine what would happen if it did?
People might start asking questions.
My point:
A 4 year old child can tell you that the straight line and the line with the bump are totally different. So..there is NO correlation between HIV infection and AIDS. This is only one of at least 15 major non-correlations between HIV and AIDS, any and all of which rule HIV out.
But this has not halted the funding of HIV/AIDS research to the tune of about 15 Billion dollars annually and keeps these "scientists" employed. There are almost 200,000 scientific papers (all of which have complex detailed, microbiological terms and calculations) written in support of HIV=AIDS by "scientists." It's True! Scientists who have published papers against HIV as the cause of AIDS loose their funding, no matter how reputable they are. This is what we call the "emperor's new clothes" syndrome. The arguments against HIV are so simplistic that a child can see the evidence, but not those on the payrole.
Now getting back to 911.
I, for one, appreciate the debunking sites that you have posted and I am looking at them pretty seriously.
I think the key issue is trying to determine if inertial (sp?) gravity could pulverize concrete to dust as it did, and that the entire steel support of those two towers could snap into pieces instantly (virtually identically) and allow these two huge 106 story buildings to fall in 12 seconds to the ground as powder. Does any explanation other than controlled demoliton have real scientific support? Then there is WTC 7, a part of the whole, yet totally different from towers 1 and 2. WTC 7 presents a serious NON-correlation to the original premise.
I have heard some good arguments. But this won't be the first time I wonder why the emperor looks butt-naked to me and so many others.
As for "Loose Change," I noticed immediately by the tone of Dylan's voice that this was a kid's "Blair Witch Horror" type Google video. But they did do an amazing job with a good part of it. I think they presented more coverage of the complete issue from several different facets and some of the documentation is excellent! The problem is that there are several loose allegations that really don't have sound credibility, and that hurts the piece as a whole.
In particular, I think the Pentagon part is very weak. But sometimes it is the sideline issue that opens up the door to everything else, even if the sideline premise is wrong and incidentally opens up some investigation into a new fact. For that reason, I encourage people to take a guarded look at "Loose Change."
I have tried to read the posts you put up, and I would encourage you to keep doing just that, so my collection is not lacking any unseen argument that disputes any false 911 explanations. I am not a scientist in that I can decipher every physics or metalurgy related statement. But I can find people who are---and I will!
From both sides of the debate.
Thanks, Steve
August 6, 2006
9:51 PM
9/11 a false flag operation writes:
Steve
So where are the holes in the Pentagon from the planes engines? There are none! It was a missile leaving just one hole. The Pentagon part of Loosechange 2 is very well done. One of the producers was in the military and served in Iraq. He finished his tour and immediately worked on Lossechange 2 with Dylan. Those sites that try and debunk Lossechange simply call people names. The facts show 9/11 was an inside job.
August 6, 2006
10:02 PM
Anonymous writes:
"Our loving 9/11":
First of all, the abuses aren't quite the same thing as the Haditha murders. But they ARE related in terms of the systematic failures of policy, training, and oversight. I said this repeatedly. I said that Rumsfeld and other commanders should face war crimes because of their complicity and/or incompetence.
The only thing I disagreed with was that it was a PLOT specfically to murder innocent Iraqis, which is what your earlier post suggested. Correct me if I'm wrong about your assertion, by all means. In fact, we are in agreement that these bastards should get hanged or at the very least court martialed. Why am I a truth suppressor on this? Because I bothered to dissuade you from the notion that governmental officials are actively trying to murder Iraqi civillians? Again, if I have misconstrued your argument, do please correct me, don't flame me.
Your link regarding the shananigans at the Pentagon contains a lot of interesting information. Some of it is very persuasive, in fact. We need to discuss it. But you can't merely post it as "proof" of your argument (least of all from a site that says, "those of us who have been following...KNOW that...". They don't KNOW shit. They SUSPECT it, and have come up with as much corraborating (but as yet not wholly conclusive) evidence of their story as possible. Much the same can be said of your other links. Let's discuss them. Please write about your own interpretation, or at least the significance of such findings. Just posting link after link is lazy in a number of ways. Do some actual intellectual labor, for a change. By the way, I'm not stonewalling, at all: I would like to talk about the stuff you've linked to. But I'm not going to do all the heavy lifting here so you can give a two-sentence reply about how I'm "truth suppressing", without addressing any of my points. Perhaps Steve and I (and possibly others) can have an intelligent conversation/debate about your links in your absence, if that's okay with you.
Regarding Loosechange and its debunking, I don't know what part of that link you read that refers to namecalling or sex--obviously some part of it I've never been to. But okay, you reject that link, so here's one Fiesty herself has already posted: http://www.911myths.com . You can also go here: http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm . There are others (limited to two links per post). I challenge you to do a counter-rebuttal. A real one. Actually challenge things point by point. Steve makes a good point in that there may be portions of the video that ARE credible and at the very least are causing people to reconsider the "official" version of events. That's fine. But to REALLY get to the bottom of things, you shouldn't rely on a video in which MOST of its points have been debunked or at least adequately countered.
If you'll review the definition of "spamming", you'll see that YOU are in fact the one spamming: a tremendous number of posts under different pseudonyms, posting the exact same (or nearly so) information in subsequent posts, and so on. Please stop spamming. Everyone here has seen Loosechange. Everyone here has read at least one report about Haditha, prisoner abuse, and/or the Pentagon "inconsistencies". Everyone here has read through numerous incarnations of pro-conspiracy websites. Enough. Post an argument of your own, with citations, to rebut skeptics like myself. Own up to your side of the story with proper deliberation, or get out.
August 6, 2006
10:05 PM
JM Cross writes:
Everybody needs to get over "Loose Change". Because of the serious errors of fact and logic, it's not worth defending. A much better place for people to start understanding 11SEP01 would be searching for David Ray Griffin at Google video.
For a more intellectually honest critique of “Loose Change� try;
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html
Harry provided us with this link, which is much more effective than he realizes:
http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/2005_07_21_Michael_Green_Loose_Change_analysis.htm
August 7, 2006
12:21 AM
Anonymous writes:
JMCross:
You need to "get over" youre blindness to the facts presented by loosechange, 911 revisited, 911 eyewitness etc; etc; etc; there are plenty more than just loosechange out there for people who care.
To all that wish to say that loosechange has been debunked I say in WHAT WAY?? Do you have a single argument worth a shit to prove otherwise.....no you dont!
Open your eyes and see the truth or keep them closed and go down with all those responsible. Its coming.
Im going to keep saying it day after day after day. The towers were demolished by controlled detonation after the fact .....I will say again. Quoting the main engineer who was also killed in the attacks. The buildings were designed to withstand MULTIPLE 707 impacts.
Also there is that one fact you all love to go around over and over.
NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE!
period.
Youre pathetic counter arguments hold no weight with intelligent people whatsoever, they never did.
I guess that is why the number of people who believe that 911 was staged is expanding so rapidly. hrmm
August 7, 2006
1:01 AM
JM Cross writes:
Another anonymous slasher. Did you even look at the critiques? Do you have any idea what my thoughts on 11SEP01 are? I don't think that I am operating under any illusions about the nature of the US government. I have been in the streets to protest against these criminals. You have a lot of spunk, but poor judgement as to who your allies and enemies are. Be careful who's wagon you hitch your star to, they may not be headed in the direction you think. Misinformation and disinformation are familiar tools to the enemy. You would be well advised to read Michael Green's analysis, it might open YOUR eyes to some painful truths.
On the other hand, if you are just another troll, wherever you are out there, F**K YOU TOO! (apologies to Lt. Col. Frank Slade;)
August 7, 2006
1:43 AM
Steve writes:
You have to remember that "Loose Change" was produced by high school kids and not professional investigative journalists. These young pups had no idea of the kind of scrutiny they would be facing, nor did they have the training to verify and check facts properly. Heck, look at even the way the "pros" muck it up!
As someone who has taken on the task of dealing with these kinds of contoversial and explosive issues in documentary production, I can testify that there is a big difference between entertainment value and well-documented reporting.
That is not to say that "Loose Change has been detrimental to the 911 truth movement." You have to remember that on a scale of 1 to 10, on how much the general public can intellectually engage in any given topic, most people come in about 4.
It's only people like us who really nitpick about the facts, regardless of our position on 911.
Take Oliver Stone's "JFK" for example. Most of the public gets the general drift of what "JFK" is about, but very few take time to dissect the inaccuracies. It's just entertainment and a "who done it " type thing to them.
But like "JFK","Loose Change" has become a sensation and real credit to all of us who are serious about the facts and exactly what happened on that black September morning.
I will be watching for newer and more professionally produced docs on the subject as things progress. Time has a way of sifting the truth, and historians will tell you that verification arrives through a long process that can take years.
Okay here is another subject. If sulfur Thermate was used to cut the steel girders in a controlled demolition, what pulverized the concrete (and everything else) to powder? I understand that there were no traces of explosives found in the dust, but I am not sure that they found huge amounts of ammonium nitrate (sp?) at the Murrah building in OKC either?
Anyone got an answer?
August 7, 2006
5:30 AM
The Girk Dently Mashup writes:
Dear conspiracy idiots:
I guess I'm in one of those moods today. I can't hack all the imbeciles. Get a life and a brain, nutjobs. Get a clue and let go of your hate (and your ignorance, for that matter). I'm not going to join your little cult. I'm pretty much a Marxist! But I'm no conspiracy nut, as you can see. I am way left on the issues. And another thing: I hate to be an elitist. It takes years of training in methodology and theory. You have to collaborate with chemists, engineers, and other field experts. Most importantly, you have to know your limitations. It's bad enough that you're a flamer and a conspiracy nut, don't be a johnny come lately, also. I for one will not let you get away with verbally abusing others with your "wisdom". I'll be damned if you think that you can get away with lazy thinking. Perhaps you should get some smokes, then take some ritalin and some barbiturates. At least try to keep up. Incidentally, I made the comment about my personal politics to counter all the rabid rightwing claims. You clearly have your conservative blinders on. All these other conspiracy nuts keep posting. I posted for 15 hours yesterday. The really hilarious part is that the real crazies have now overtaken this blog, and they think theyre WINNING.
I love how all you conspiracy folks like to lump, it's a testament to the incredible lack of cognitive faculties most of you pro-conspiracy people possess. You have managed to unite people... through your idiocy. That's another great thing about these idiots, some of these idiots don't need proof, they just flamed me and then posted more bullshit from the same loopy sites. The best I can do here is offer them a link to someone who actively sets out to debunk their claims. You have to throw these people a bone or they get all huffy.
Deal with my claims and the claims put forth by the debunkers. The items that are successully debunked allow us to give pause over how easily we can be convinced of things. I asked you to tell me why the debunking sites are worthless. I'm not sure what you mean by debunking, which is easily debunked. You people haven't come up with anything that hasn't been debunked. This has been widely debunked. Please at least GLANCE at the debunking links. I'm not going to just repost debunking points, resorting to sophomoric metaphors and flaming, all while representing credibility. I think the debunking sites, aside from the equally credible scenarios provided in the debunking links, are more convincing. Please, for the love of God, please read through the debunking links. Flame me if you like, but nobody debunked my debunking sites. Try telling me why the debunking links aren't worth a damn. Any comments about the debunking links?
If you have criticisms or challenges of my view, state them in civil terms, be specific, and cite references where necessary/applicable. Some of the documentation you're asking for is either subject to national security, or it belongs to private companies. This does not accurately reflect the nature of my posts. All of the sensible folks who share my view, who defend their positions with zealotry and personal attacks, think it's hilarious to espouse dubious positions and claim intellectual superiority. My impression of the bulk of conspiracy nuts here: "You are all rotten poo-poo heads and you're wrong!" I'm asking you to control your temper, mount a sustained intellectual rebuttal. You are of course welcome to deny those claims. If my argument's weak, attack it. If my points are so easily dismissed, no doubt you will also be able to easily dismiss them. But there is another issue I'd like to address here in your manner of rebutting. That's because all your rebuttals are the same ones, and most of them have been, if not fully debunked, then adequately addressed. The only significant rebuttals you posted are things I've posted counter-rebuttals to, or rebuttals that have already been debunked. What I'm saying here is, your rebuttals have been addressed in all the other debunking links that have been posted. I will provide this debunking. I'm trying not to be smug or condescending, but I can't promise you.
Seriously, though, without being smarmy: I want to commend you for all the work you've done, and I commend you for your dilligence. I for one don't discount government involvement. Given the evidence, you have every right to suspect government involvement. I really am not close-minded on this. Much of what has been presented here is compelling. Let me repeat (read slowly so you understand): Some of the evidence you present is not credible. Some of you really are idiots for believing as you do. The evidence you present which IS credible has some problems. The problem I'm having here is that everybody's posted "fishy" stuff, but nothing totally concrete as to the real reason behind its fishiness. I don't challenge the notion that there isn't a lot more fishy stuff here that needs to be investigated. There's something fishy about all of it. I have other fish to fry. In short: yet another example of fishy information.
That said, I keep saying you folks haven't provided PROOF, but you have provided plenty of EVIDENCE. But who am I to keep a conspiracy nut from his divinely revealed truths? I agree with you that more investigation is required. Although history has shown that sometimes the "crackpots" end up being right, on balance this is actually less frequent than the times that "crackpots" end up just being "crackpots". They're overjoyed to have this one come along because it gives them a break from the old saws about Masons and Zionist elders and crap. Any bets that some of these same folks are drinking lemonade and cayenne pepper to reduce heart disease, or consulting chiropractors about their bone cancer, or quaffing liquified tiger penis instead of viagra? They're probably just about to "really hit it big" in their multi-level marketing company, too.
There is no 9/11 conspiracy. It doesn't even make sense. You never really know--some of this could be plausible. I am so far unconvinced by the conspiracy "evidence", not least because it's so implausible. Well, it's possible. But frankly, it's a little too perfect. It's a little too loaded, in my opinion. That doesn't make it untrue. I concede that you have made excellent cases. But I STILL utterly reject the thesis that all of this adds up. You can't just say "yes it is/no it isn't" repeatedly. You must allow for BOTH possibilities. You see, the problem here is that you've employed "common sense" logic to a problem that is not common sense. I'd like you to try some common sense logic on another problem. How much do you know about compression? How much are you willing to find out?
August 7, 2006
5:52 AM
9/11 a false flag operation writes:
Notice the name calling of the pro-9/11 crowd. They have no game. Steve tries to invoke authority which is one truth supression technique. The producers of Loosechange 2 are in their 20's whith one having recently returned from his tour of duty in Iraq. Did you serve in Iraq Steve? I bet you did not.
August 7, 2006
6:29 AM
remember this? writes:
Basic Facts: And unneccesary to research as these are "Gimmes"
1. WTC 1,2 and 7 fell at free fall speed. That is only possible with explosives. No debunk possible.
2. No steel building has ever collpsed due to fire, many much hotter and of longer duration than any of the WTC fires. No debunk possible.
3. Wings, fins and stabilizers left no mark on the pentagon, none.
A 16 foot hole was all that was present before a secondary explosion collapsed that section.
No debunk possible.
4. A fire so intense it melted the titanium engines. Is what the Govt. says.
False....
Why is an open book, a computer monitor and wood furniture intact and uncharred right in the hole?
No debunk possible.
5.Said by Larry Silverstein on Sep 11
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
No debunk possible.
Anyone care to argue these?
You cant.
August 7, 2006
6:34 AM
remember this? writes:
Steve Says:
Okay here is another subject. If sulfur Thermate was used to cut the steel girders in a controlled demolition, what pulverized the concrete (and everything else) to powder? I understand that there were no traces of explosives found in the dust, but I am not sure that they found huge amounts of ammonium nitrate (sp?) at the Murrah building in OKC either?
Anyone got an answer?
You betcha, its a known side effect of explosive demolitions. And could you possibly post a link concerning the dust analysis?
August 7, 2006
6:43 AM
911 truth seeker writes:
Said by Dirk on the 7th:
All these other conspiracy nuts keep posting. I posted for 15 hours yesterday. The really hilarious part is that the real crazies have now overtaken this blog, and they think theyre WINNING.
1 post at 10:47am????
You have also become the master of the Instant Replay! As most of your post is copied from your other posts verbatim LOL
August 7, 2006
8:07 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
LOL. Wow, I must have really struck a nerve there, "9/11, etc.". Rather than spend a little time putting together a rebuttal/argument, you spend what appears to be hours cutting and pasting previous posts of mine. Not a bad job, either. Well I guess we all know your priority is flaming and yelling, and not debate. I figured as much. At least this time the post was reasonably entertaining and didn't cause me to slap my head and roll my eyes.
And you go so far as to denigrate your allies and cling to misinformation, which of course undermines the pro-conspiracy cause. You also clearly did not read any of the debunking links at all.
Wow. You are quite a piece of work, friend. If only we could all see you in real life.
August 7, 2006
8:14 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
10:02 is me.
While I'm here, for Steve:
I don't deny all that you say about HIV/AIDS, because I simply don't know enough about it. I'm EXTREMELY skeptical, but whatever. I just want to throw in a couple of points:
1. If a child can see the non-correlation(s), why haven't other scientists (particularly in other countries without a significant HIV/AIDS funding infrastructure) published/challenged in large numbers or involved the media?
2. Are you really suggesting that thousands of scientists and medical doctors worldwide are complicit with an un-scientific regime that results in the deaths of millions simply because they want funding? Have you ever been in one of these labs? The equipment and facilities are of course enormously expensive but practically nobody who works there (even including senior researchers) are paid well. Since the leading research on HIV/AIDS was and continues to be done at university facilities like Johns Hopkins, are you suggesting that middle-income professors and doctors are holding out for a few million in lab funding? Prestige, maybe. MAYBE. But not for the "payroll". Please correct me if I've misconstrued your argument.
Regarding 9/11: some of the cement would be ground to powder. Much of the other "dust" is asbestos, gypsum board and drywall. Think of all those ceiling panels in any office you've ever been to. Think of the walls. That's a lot of material. Also, clearly not all of the towers were ground to dust--think of the huge chunks of rubble Bush was standing on. Nobody came and put concrete chunks in the footprints under cover of darkness. There was plenty of concrete there--enough for there to be months of cleanup, which I presume would have been less if it were merely all dust and debris.
There is also this to consider: does a controlled demolition grind things to powder either? I've never seen a building be "ground to powder" as a result of a controlled demolition. Here is a link that provides quite technical analyses of the WTC collapse, provided by MIT: http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20VI%20Materials%20&%20Structures.pdf . I admit I have not read through all of it. You're clearly a bit more invested in this than I am--tell me all about it. :)
A total layman's answer to your steel beam point: all the joints snapped rather than the beams themselves, which would mean of course that all the beams are the same size because they were originally built all the same size, and remained largely intact (no doubt many were snapped into pieces). So the only photos I know of that show the beams as you say were taken from helicopter way above the site, which I think you'll agree is bound to skew one's perspective of scale and whether you're able to make out smaller steel beam pieces. But again, that's a total layman's answer. We'll have to look around to see if there is even a debunking answer to your question--possibly nobody's addressed this. I don't know (perhaps I'll work on this when I have more time later in the week).
BTW, "9/11, etc", what does this have to do with anything: "One of the producers was in the military and served in Iraq."
Huh? So what? Isn't that like "envoking authority", only worse because you think it's authoritative while the rest of us see it for being so obviously ad hominem inanity?
August 7, 2006
8:18 AM
DIrk Gently writes:
Regarding the crash into the Pentagon:
The first link is a collection of eyewitness accounts of a plane crashing into it: http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm . The second link is deeper within the earlier link I posted that considers evidence of the damage being caused by a plane and not a missile: http://911myths.com/html/pentagon.html.
August 7, 2006
8:26 AM
harry palm writes:
You're still arguing with the meth heads Dirk? You cant reason with paranoid schitzos. These are the same guys that sit around trying to have sex with ghosts and their mothers. I have never witnessed such weak arguments and pathetic reasoning for their beliefs. Even if 911 was an inside job, these kluks have done such a diservice to their own movement that they should just shut up and let their so called experts do the talking.
August 7, 2006
8:47 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Wow, "Remember This", here we go again. You state that the points you make are "unneccesary to research as these are "Gimmes", which goes to show you how much you actually care for research. But okay, I'll play:
"1. WTC 1,2 and 7 fell at free fall speed. That is only possible with explosives." Actually someone has done research on this. Here is what they say: "The towers were around 417 metres tall (excluding the spire), giving 417 = 0.5 gt^2, so with g = 9.8m/s^2 that gives a time of about 9.22 seconds. So if you dropped a ball off the roof, and there were no air resistance, then that’s the time it would take to reach the ground. Now we have a basis for comparison. If the towers really did fall completely in 8.4 seconds, then that would actually be faster than gravity, requiring some major additional force to push from above (or pull from below)...Large chunks of rubble, which are in free fall, are clearly falling faster than the rest of the building. The base of the massive chunk lower left is, what, 20 storeys lower than the top of the right-hand corner of the building? (And there may be rubble below that, and the building may be intact higher still). This suggests we should be looking at a collapse time greater than our 9.22 second freefall figure, not less...Calculating these times involves far too many judgement calls for us to claim proof of anything, but we do think it adds significantly more support to the 15+ seconds collapse time, and makes the 8.4 second end of the spectrum look particularly unlikely." (from 911myths.com/html/freefall.html). Incidentally, controlled demolitions rely PRIMARILY on gravity to do all the work--demolition merely removes support for the building. So even if the WTC was demolished with explosives, that doesn't solve the "falling faster than gravity" problem.
2. "No steel building has ever collpsed due to fire, many much hotter and of longer duration than any of the WTC fires." First of all, there is a logical fallacy to your argument. It's like saying, "Because the no building has ever been hit by a 757, clearly a 757 did not hit the WTC." More to the point, the issue you raise with regard to comparison to other buildings is addressed "Loose Change Viewer Guide" link I sent a long time ago. What's more, a prominent fire engineer disagrees with you that fire was not the primary cause of collapse: http://downloads.pennnet.com/fe/wtc.pdf .
More to come...
August 7, 2006
8:55 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Hey there, Harry. To be fair, I stayed in to debate with the reasonable ones. But at the same time I can't sit idly by while hypocrites like "9/11...etc." continue to spam and flame. Perhaps I'm a glutton for punishment...
For Steve: I found a couple of links that address the beams and the "ground to dust" issues you raised, see what you think. First, go to the simplified explanations at 911myths.com. They don't utterly debunk the claims for the most part, but provide very sound rebuttals, at the very least. There are also these two academic works (one paper, one lecture) that address the issue more broadly: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf , and http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml .
"Remember This", it would behoove you to peruse these, also.
August 7, 2006
9:27 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Okay, "Remember This", here are some other rebuttals to your arguments. I will at least say for myself (humble man that I am) that I don't KNOW these rebuttals are correct, but I SUSPECT/BELIEVE them to be convincing in their ability to debunk your claims. Here goes:
3. "Wings, fins and stabilizers left no mark on the pentagon, none. A 16 foot hole was all that was present before a secondary explosion collapsed that section." This link provides a fairly comprehensive examination of the Pentagon, including ways in which folks like you do the 9/11 Truth Movement a disservice by pushing the more spurious aspects of your arguments: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html . See also http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm (I do not condone the tenor of the discussion, but the actual presentation of evidence is very good).
4. "A fire so intense it melted the titanium engines. Is what the Govt. says." You're going to have to be more specific here--do you mean the Pentagon or the WTC? Because there are different answers for each case.
5."Said by Larry Silverstein on Sep 11
'I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.'" Well, you're right I can't rebut this quote (i.e. that this was actually said), but honestly, I'm not sure what you're driving at here. Are you saying that it's suspect that the building didn't collapse until after the order to pull out was given, which indicates demolition? Are you saying there was a pullout order given, so there shouldn't have been firefighters in there, thus the ones "trapped" were either patsies or liquidated for what they knew? I'm just not sure what your intention is with that quote.
Now, here's how it's supposed to work on your end:
1. Read the citations I provided.
2. Compose counter-arguments of your own or via other sources
3. Post them within a civilly worded, sustained argument that refutes what I say.
I think I've probably already wasted my time, because if you'd actually read through any of the links I posted earlier, you would have already stumbled across the rebuttals to the points you put up that you think are unassailable. For this reason I went to the trouble this time to find other sources than my earlier links, where possible. You are of course welcome to be skeptical of my rebuttals, but you'll have to at some points say WHY. I notice you still haven't done this with my posts from two days ago. So I'm waiting, "Remember This"....
August 7, 2006
11:47 AM
Anonymous writes:
You mean to tell me that while I watched the second plane hit the second tower it wasn't real?The plane that hit the Pentagon wasn't real even though all the news channels had people on immediately following the plane hitting the Pentagon telling us watching that they saw a plane hit the Pentagon?The witnesses to the first plane hitting the first tower were lying too?The dialogue recorded on Flight 93 that the widow heard and repeated of her husband saying their were terrorists with box cutters that looked Arab taking over the plane,that was all made up? The widow of the pilot of Flight 93 lost her husband because the our government crashed the plane or there was no Flight 93?Her husband didn't exsist?She is part of the conspiracy too?If you fly a jet into a building with thousands of gallons of jet fuel,it couldn't possibly bring down a building?The Government blew up the World Trade Center buildings?
Here's what really happened that day.A bunch of terrorists that had been planning for a long time a major attack on the U.S. The were smart and the U.S. wasn't watching them.They almost carried out their goals,they missed The White House. It stunned the American people.How many of you stood and watched in horror and disbelief that this was happening to us on our soil.How many of you watched and said, " Oh my God" with your mouths hanging open? Well so did our government.They didn't know what to do?They had alot of information and misinformation coming to them at the same time. They were probably standing watching their TV's in horror and disbelief just like we were.They are human too. Let's face it the terrorists got us good that day and we were not prepared for them.We the most powerful nation on earth had our heads in the sand,going about our everyday life,not caring about anyone other than ourselves.
Muslims were bombing U.S interests around the world and had been for 20 years.No big deal right? It didn't affect you?It was overseas.No one expected the terrorists to hit us in America.That's why they got away with it,because they were smart and we were stupid
Now we are back to the same situation.American's are forgeting what it felt that day.They are siding with the terrorists against our own government.They don't realize what is at stake here.We are fighting a war on the terrorists all over the world.It's not a conventional war,but most American's go along their merry way and don't realize we are in deep shit with these crazy people. They want us dead.All of us.You,you spouse,your mother,father,children,grandchildren,every American or Jew.
Now we have all these so called scholars who think the U.S. government planned and carried out the attacks of 9/11 ?This is pandering to the enemy.This is what they want a divided nation.If you actually believe that the government blew up The World Trade Center,The Pentagon,and Flight 93,you are crazier and more dangerous than the terrorists.
August 7, 2006
12:04 PM
Farqman writes:
There are so many unanswered questions about 9/11. The media and press have been so obviously manipulated by those that hold their pursestrings, that many questions have not only gone unanswered, but un-asked. Why did airline stocks AA and UA take an unprecedented slide, when experts in financial markets say there were no indicators, no reasons for such massive sell offs? Look at who sold off these and other WTC related securities, and you can generate a list of people and corporations that had knowledge of 9/11, on or before 9/10.
The list of persons with prior knowledge, I am sure, would be painful to acknowledge pubicly by the media. In the wake of the Patriot Act, it would seem that disclosure of trading of public and privately held securities the week of 9/11 might be helpful in the 'war on terror'. But SEC rules seem to supercede our constituional rights that the Patriot Act so casually disregards as inessential.
The spin on dropping towers with preplanted explosives is just another slight of hand to distract and discredit the public that does have reasonable suspicion of government and corporate (and private) culpability in the events of 9/11.
The news media need to get real, and ask some intellegent questions. Any loss of revenues by advertisers and sponsors will return tenfold if the public has a media outlet that they believe has integrity to what is real news in our world.
August 7, 2006
12:12 PM
John Galt writes:
This is for Mark Wolf.
Why are you wasting the limited brain power of these nutty conspiracy theorists by catering to their fantasies with such a stupid blog?
August 7, 2006
12:50 PM
Mark Wolf writes:
John Galt,
Because I was surprised as many people at the Scripps/Ohio University poll that showed more than a third of Americans they surveyed believed the government had some involvement in 9/11.
Whatever you believe about 9/11 - and I don't subscribe to the conspiracy - I believe it shows a deepening distrust of government by its citizens.
And, for the record, I don't think the responses have been characterized by "limited brain power" on either side of the issue.
August 7, 2006
1:21 PM
Tombstone Todd writes:
What I have read does not amount to pre-911 conspiracy, but the new book from the commission panelists and other articles imply that the government is not very forthcoming about what it knows about what happened. It is very troubling that the FBI was targeting certain Al Qaida operatives to prosecute them for the USS Cole bombing. The CIA was following the same people for other reasons. Apparently, the CIA did not want the FBI to pursue their leads, and they went so far as to mislead the FBI about the presence of Al Qaida operatives in the USA. Very disturbing that there should be turf wars over national security issues.
August 7, 2006
1:30 PM
david littleton writes:
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." - Mark Twain
Your government lies to you. If you do not understand this simple statement you have already fallen victim to the countless variations of Operation Mockingbird. Your thoughts are controlled and influenced by a government controlled mega-corporate media.
Anyone that doubts that your government would lie to you should seek out and read the recently declassified document "Operation Northwood". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)
If you would like to see the damning evidence for yourself on the governments involvement behind 9/11 read "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil" by Michael Ruppert. You can access tons of information by visiting www.fromthewilderness.com
"We must hang together, or we will all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin.
PS: Just for conversations sake...launching a successful dis-information campaign involves telling 98% truth and 2% untruth (to discredit the other 98%). I have family members that teach military theory...this is all PSYOP 101. I keep seeing the same derogatory catch phrases being used over and over again to describe the individuals that question the official 9/11 story on this blog by certain individuals. This leaves me to believe that these individuals must have one of the most boring cut and paste desk jobs offered by the Company (much like the reporters working at FOX). Go ahead and Google "CIA Denver" and look at where the CIA is moving their headquarters. I will admit that there are tons of disinformation campaigns floating around to discredit the real 9/11 investigations. I would advise everyone to concentrate only on what can be proven in a court of law. Many of the attempts to "discredit" the official 9/11 story were well crafted government designs that were pre-planned to keep the "conspiracy theorists" (which I proudly declare myself!) running in circles (once again...Disinfo 101). Again...for an excellent starting point to find what information can be PROVEN in a court of law...start with "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert. By the way...it will be a waste of time trying to egg me into a debate me on whether the US government was behind the attacks or not (I'm not running in circles...I know how to find my way around the wilderness). I am only here to inform those with brave and open minds where they can start their investigations.
August 7, 2006
2:35 PM
fiesty writes:
You know, I really resent the comments like "wackos" with "limited brain power". At least we are THINKING about the issue, which is much more than some others I could name. We've also posted a link at least twice about how the 9-11 Commission Panel was so doubtful about the testimony they were receiving, that they requested an IG investigation. So, were they wackos too?
As I have repeatedly stated, and Dirk has even admitted, there are definitely some suspicious and questionable issues surrounding 9-11. Examining them does not make one a wacko. Nor does demanding an answer from the Government. The public, victims, and their families deserve that.
That said, I agree that one can't draw definite conclusions (like the gov't planned it) since there's no proof or "smoking gun".
So for all you flamers out there, please try to distinguish between those bringing up valid issues, and those who argue extremist conclusions. They may be right, but at this point, it can't be definitively proven.
August 7, 2006
4:15 PM
Nervous Twitch writes:
Did the U.S. government have a hand in 9-11. Undoubtedly. What I find most striking about the whole event is the fact that not one single American citizen was allowed to fly during the aftermath of 9-11, yet members of the Saudi royal family were spirited away during that very same time period. As an instructor of mine once said - It just doesn't pass the smell test.
When will the cowardly Dems finally initiate an impeachment trial against that banal idiot Bush and the criminal puppet masters (Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, Rice, etc.) who are pulling his strings?
August 7, 2006
8:30 PM
remember this? writes:
Refreshing post Mr Littleton.
Where the hell have you been?
jk :)
August 8, 2006
12:34 AM
Steve writes:
Dirk,
Thanks for getting back to me. Sorry I took so long to respond but I wanted to round up some links to support my points in our discussion.
We were discussing the HIV=AIDS debate that I presented as close parallel to the media's treatment of the 911 truth movement. You raised some good questions, which always shows me that someone is thinking. Here are your questions:
From Dirk:
I don't deny all that you say about HIV/AIDS, because I simply don't know enough about it. I'm EXTREMELY skeptical, but whatever. I just want to throw in a couple of points:
1. If a child can see the non-correlation(s), why haven't other scientists (particularly in other countries without a significant HIV/AIDS funding infrastructure) published/challenged in large numbers or involved the media?
Answer: They have in masses. This is exactly the reason why I brought up this issue as a comparison to the 911 debate. The media is controlled by very powerful people in the medical/industrial complex, and the military/industrial complex. This is the reason why I am involved as an independent journalist. We as Americans assume that the media presents "Fair and balenced" coverage, when in fact it is highly controlled by people like the CFR. I think these power brokers are a huge cartel of human misery.
I encourage all 911 truth movement people to look at this link. Notice the statements made about those scientists questioning the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, and how they simply dismiss any debate with ridicule and arrogance. Does this tone sound familiar?
http://www.rethinkingaids.com/body.cfm?id=55
Shockingly similar isn't it?
Now take a look at the huge number of people, many who are physicians, PH.Ds or have advanced degrees challenging the HIV=AIDS dogma at this link:
http://www.rethinkingaids.com/quotes/rethinkers.htm
Many of these people are from out of the US, but many of them are here too. Now as for WHY the AIDS "experts" can not see the basic flaws in their government-sponsored research, it should be obvious. They Don't WANT TO see them, or they prefer to ignore them.
Here is the graph I told you about that clearly illustrates that there is no cause and effect correlation between HIV and AIDS. The big figures prove that HIV is a huge FRAUD!
http://www.rethinkingaids.com/graphs.htm
Dirk's question:
2. Are you really suggesting that thousands of scientists and medical doctors worldwide are complicit with an un-scientific regime that results in the deaths of millions simply because they want funding? Have you ever been in one of these labs? The equipment and facilities are of course enormously expensive but practically nobody who works there (even including senior researchers) are paid well. Since the leading research on HIV/AIDS was and continues to be done at university facilities like Johns Hopkins, are you suggesting that middle-income professors and doctors are holding out for a few million in lab funding? Prestige, maybe. MAYBE. But not for the "payroll". Please correct me if I've misconstrued your argument.
Answer:
Well actually these research scientists are paid pretty well and they have great benifits. A good friend of mine was one of the original Amgen developers of Interferon. He is, shall we say, now well to do. He also devdeloped the HIV antibody test kit for Abbot. That's when he noticed that the test is seriously flawed. He goes all over the world now explaining why the HIV test is NOT a gold standard and is prone to error---along with all the other junk science behind HIV=AIDS. Recently we met with several prominent leaders from South Africa who compared the AIDS machine to Appartheid. DONT' ASK QUESTIONS! they were told by the powers that be.
Speaking of John Hopkins. The first man you will see making a statement in my video documentary is Dr. Charles Thomas. PhD, former Professor of Biochemistry, Harvard and Johns Hopkins Universities. Former chair of the Cell Biology Department, Scripps Research Institute. He states,"They've got to hold on to HIV, why? To hold on to their funding!" He is joined by Dr. Peter Duesberg who was the first to discover Oncogenes or genes that cause cancer, and the first man to map the genetic structure of retroviruses like HIV. Even Dr. Luc Montagnier, the "discoverer of HIV" who originally discovered HIV before Robert Gallo pirated his discovery has admitted that "HIV might be harmless."
Here is the link to the video "HIV=AIDS -Fact or Fraud?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4396856850556632563
So now you see why I was reluctant to bring up the HIV=AIDS fraud, because we can get way off topic. But I can't resist answering good questions like the ones you posed.
I am only trying to draw the comparrison between this issue and 911.
Fight HIV!!! Ebola, SARS, West Nile and the damn bird flu!
Fight Terrorism! Osama, Saddam, Taliban, Iran and North Korea!!!
Some of these threats are VERY REAL.
But you can see how we are being conditoned to accept every fear and program don't you? That is what facinates me as a journalist, trying to get at the real truth.
Michael Tracy who is a journalism professor at CU shows my documentary to his students as a challeng to them. But remeber, Tracy is a Brit, so he sees American media differently than we do.
But think for a moment what would happen to the US media, IF--- HIV is revealed as the deadly fraud it really is?
Or, IF--- 911 was a false flag event that spun us into international war based on a lie!
These giant Media corperations are already shaken to the core, they could go the way of Connie Chung and Dan Rather overnight. There is BIG money involved here, and the New World Order Agenda too!
Why do you think the RMN has relegated this debate to a blog instead of printing hundreds of letters to the editor that they have received? Call Vince Carroll tommorrow and ask him?
Ask any major gatekeeper in the mainstream media knows who butters their bread? They know how to dodge really serious problems for the companies they work for.
I tried to get channel 12 to air my documentary. At first they said it was a great idea, and wanted to schedule a debate. Then they wouldn't even return phone calls---after the the Local Health Department and Chip Schooley at CU's AIDS research talked to them. I don't support PBS and I wouldn't reccommend it either. PBS is an outlet for controlled info in the guise of "free speech."
Finally, I will make one more point as to why the 911 Truth movement is gaining ground much faster than the HIV=AIDS=Deadly Scam movement in the media.
The war is going bad.
People are angry, and they are looking into why? The public knows something is wrong. That is why we need to sort this thing out and make SURE we are not being lied to as in the past.
Concerning our other discussions of the dust and explosive theory, I will get back to you. I have read the links you posted and I am doing some research.
Thanks, Steve
August 8, 2006
4:48 AM
9/11 a fasle flag operation writes:
Dirk is a proven liar. First he says he will stop posting and then he continues to spam. The links Dirk posts are links to people calling the truth movement people names. One of his links stated that one author must not be sleeping with his wife much therefore his theory about 9/11 could not be accurate. Dirk is a spam and truth suppression artist and nothing more. So who do you work for Dirk? Who has the time to spam these boards as much as you do unless you are paid to do it or misusing government or corporate computers?
August 8, 2006
9:04 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
9/11 is a proven imbecile. All he does is spam post repeated links to Loose Change and accusatory flames that pointedly avoid the issues. Then he practices what he preaches against (his so-called "truth suppression") by bitching about the tiniest bit of discourteous asides in ONE of the dozens of links I posted as a means of being able to dismiss ALL of the links I posted (that or he clearly didn't read any of them). So did you ride the short bus all eight years you went to school, 9/11? How long have you been mooching off of the average tax payer by spending all day online spamming, since clearly you lack the critical faculties to hold down a real white collar job?
So now that I've gotten that off my chest:
1. None of the last half-dozen links I sent contained any namecalling whatsoever. I still can't find the instance you describe in ANY of the links I sent anyway--do please kindly point that out to me, because as far as I can tell you've made that up in order to avoid debate.
2. Do you have any ACTUAL points to make, or would you rather just spam and flame?
3. Are you really incapable of seeing your own hypocrisy, or do you not care? I can understand of course if you think you're winding me up. I think on balance you're making yourself look worse and worse. But I took the bait this time, "9/11", just to have a little fun, so obviously my opinion is compromised (as if you would accept it, anyway). How many hands do I see for people who think "9/11" here has had quite a hand in his own debasement?
4. By the way, I work at NORAD. Officially, I work security on the Stargate, but most of the time I get paid to trawl through the internet and spend hours in flame wars with self-important internet trolls so as to make our nation safer for fascism. You twit.
August 8, 2006
11:43 AM
FormalistAesthete writes:
Sorry, Nervous Twitch, but those Saudi evacuation flights took place AFTER the govt. allowed airlines to resume flying (i.d., after 1100 EDT on Sep. 13).
August 8, 2006
12:28 PM
fiesty writes:
Interesting article on CNN today, surprising considering their leanings-
"9/11 conspiracy theorists energized"
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/08/06/sept11.theories.ap/index.html
August 8, 2006
3:20 PM
Steve writes:
Dirk,
Sorry I have not answered your blog. I wrote a very long and detailed answer last night and tried to post it with links and it was either lost, ignored or trashed. I got a prompt that said it had to be APPROVED.
I will try to write Mark Wolf and see if he can recover it . I put a lot of work into it. I should have saved it.
It's a CONSPIRACY! lol
Steve
August 8, 2006
3:26 PM
remember this? writes:
Kinda like the debris from the towers eh Steve?
jk :)
August 8, 2006
3:28 PM
remember this? writes:
Mr Mark Wolf,
Hi, just wanted to ask how long this blog will remain active, and also I'm curious If we have garnered any attention?
August 8, 2006
3:39 PM
Steve writes:
Right on Remember this!
I really have noticed some very strange things happen over the years to certain "communications" that I have sent or posted either on the net, via mail or radio transmission.
Makes on kind of believe in the "supernatural" about these matters..Oh well, we must not get too freaky..just press on
lol
Steve
August 8, 2006
3:46 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
Steve--sorry to hear about your mishap, or sabotage, whichever. I know how frustrating that can be. With me, it's never written as well the second time, either.
So...suckfest.
I'll periodically check in, though, to see if you've put anything up. Do it in chunks if you have to.
August 8, 2006
4:15 PM
JM Cross writes:
My dear Mr. Gently:
I have read the debunkerizing of you debunkinization links. I found them to be about as cogent and reasonable as a Faux Nooz staff meeting. They are obviously hit pieces, designed to confuse the ignorant and enrage the informed, just like you have been doing here for days and daze. ANYBODY can see that. I have read everything you have put up here. I can reduce the thesis of your reasoning to one word...crapola. Only the most rabid statist true believers could honestly say, "I find that Dirk Gently's arguments are powerful and persuasive. Ya know what I mean?" Laughable.
You play yourself off as an expert on many subjects, yet toss out errors of fact like candy from a Mardis Gras float. An example:
Dirk Gently [with comments by JMC] on August 3, 2006 02:05 PM
"Yes, Japan was after the carriers, which had gone out on maneuvers. [true] But battleships were by no means on their way out. [Wrong. Battleships(BBs) were most definitely on the way out, as you can see by the fact that most of them were broken up for scrap after the war. After Korea only a handful of BBs saw service. Even your pal with the autoerotic fetish agrees with me, see his August 3, 2006 01:53 PM post.] The Missouri class ships that were built during the war are proof of that [How so? Or does truthiness rear it's ugly head?] (several of which are still in service).[Wrong.] Battleships became of limited use in terms of naval superiority, but are vital for sea-based artillery support and the like. [That is exactly why the BBs were 'on their way out'. Thanks for making my point for me. Brilliant.] They still serve that function." [Just flat wrong.]
LOL, what a mind! That was too easy. You never know when you are going to run across someone who knows more about a subject than you. I was going to do that again, but this example is just devastating. I crack me up. Oh what the hell, let's take ol' Dirk to the mat again...
Dirk Gently [with comments by JMC] on August 8, 2006 09:04 AM
"9/11 is a proven imbecile.[This is an ad hominem fallacy.] All he does is spam post repeated links to Loose Change [Maybe this person is trying to counter your repeated links to the debunking domino guy. Hypocrite.] and accusatory flames that pointedly avoid the issues. [You mean like the way you side step the WTC7 implosion? Hypocrite.] Then he practices what he preaches against (his so-called "truth suppression") by bitching about the tiniest bit of discourteous asides in ONE of the dozens of links I posted as a means of being able to dismiss ALL of the links I posted..." [One of dozens you say? I think The Girk Dently Mashup puts THE LIE to that statement. I think most people would agree that lying is VERY discourteous. Hypocrite.]
When Dirky flames me later about this, remember one thing, nothing I have said is untrue. Dirk Gently is a proven HYPOCRITE. Yes indeed. Well, third time's the charm:
Dirk Gently [with comments by JMC] on August 6, 2006 10:47 AM
“Ah, I THOUGHT all that "truth suppression" talk was familiar. [You are taking on the airs of an expert, again.] I remember now: http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/printthread.php?t=15888 (do correct me if I'm wrong about your source). [Here comes the enlightenment...] The problem with this truth suppression link is that if you read through the 17 points, all of these points can be employed for the purposes of truth suppression in turn [This doesn't make any sense. Circular reasoning rarely does.] (some of them, like "envoking authority" is not truth suppression at all, in most cases--it's citing a credible source). [No Dirk, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, not good fact sourcing.] Quite a Catch-22, eh? [No.] Well, I guess that means you'll have to resort to actually mounting a sustained defense of your position in order to engage in meaningful dialogue, whether or not my dialogue is "truth suppression". [So we have to continue to engage you no matter what your true agenda may be? I don't think so. My purpose here is to render you IRRELEVANT.] I can only assure you that my intent is definitely NOT truth suppression, no matter how you see it. [Too bad your credibility is circling the toiler bowl. I, for one, find your assurance to be too little and too late.] So long as I am making a good faith effort, it would be nice if you did so in return. [I think it is clear that you are NOT making a good faith effort, and it would be nice if you would take your spam and go. There are plenty of sportstalkradio call in shows where you can exercise your beautiful mind.]
If my points are so easily dismissed as truth suppression, no doubt you will also be able to easily dismiss them on their own (lack of) merits, right?" [Done.]
Three strikes buddy. Take your seat on the bench. Nothing could better describe your current position than your own words:
"Are you really incapable of seeing your own hypocrisy, or do you not care? I can understand of course if you think you're winding me up. I think on balance you're making yourself look worse and worse."
Dirk Gently on August 8, 2006 09:04 AM
Look in the mirror sir.
August 8, 2006
4:16 PM
remember this? writes:
Feisty:
That was a damn good article.
It gives a good, hard look at how much some of our Scholars are willing to lose to get this truth out.
August 8, 2006
4:24 PM
Anonymous writes:
JMCross
Applause!
August 8, 2006
4:37 PM
fiesty writes:
remember this-
I begin to wonder if there's not hope left for all the sheep out there. First, we've recently seen in the news that the 9-11 Commission was so distrustful of the testimony they were hearing, that they requested an IG investigation. Second, we have polls ranging from 33-90% where folks state their distrust in the gov't in regards to 9-11. Lastly, we now have a major news network with an article on 9-11 criticism by noteworthy scholars.
Dare I hope?? I wonder if anything will come of this...
August 8, 2006
4:38 PM
Steve writes:
To Dirk and all,
I was rather critical of the media in the blog that I tried to post last night that got lost, or trashed, or ignored.
I asked why this debate has been relegated to a blog and not a full-fledged "letters to the Editor" battle that would go in the paper itself.
I think we should ask MR. CARROLL, (bowing to his wisdom) if he might run a Point and Counterpoint segment in the paper allowing us to put together the best arguments from both sides.
Any agree? We could all present the very best points and let the readers decide.
August 8, 2006
4:48 PM
FormalistAesthete writes:
At the time of the Pearl Harbor, the US Navy classified aircraft carriers as scouting vessels, not as capital ships. There were only 2 based in Pearl Harbor, as opposed to 9 battleships. To claim that on Dec. 7, 1941 that the US Navy considered aircraft carriers to be more important than battleships is pure fiction, and to cite that fictional claim as evidence that the US let the Pearl Harbor attack happen is nonsensical.
August 8, 2006
5:01 PM
am 760 writes:
GREAT post JM Cross, keep up the good work on trying to educate these people. It's nice to have you on the good team. Thanks
August 8, 2006
5:05 PM
fiesty writes:
Steve- that's a great idea!
August 8, 2006
5:13 PM
Mark Wolf writes:
Been out most of the day preparing to work a late election shift. Couple of replies:
Steve,
I was able to pry your comment loose from the jaws of the blogging software. If it's not up now, it will be shortly. Please remember, more than two links and the software hangs it up.
Remember this?
This post will be available in the archives indefinitely and will stay linked on the front as long as people are hitting it and commenting. Thanks for your interest. As far as impact, that's hard to say. It's certainly generated more comments than any blog item since RockyTalk Live debuted in January and we did have one fellow from Finland weigh in a few days ago.
Thanks for your interest. Steve, I'll be watching election stuff most of the night. If the post doesn't show up, holler.
August 8, 2006
5:14 PM
remember this? writes:
Feisty, Same! :)
August 8, 2006
5:16 PM
remember this? writes:
steve:
I second that emotion errr motion :)
A little smoky there!
August 8, 2006
5:19 PM
remember this? writes:
Thanks Mark :) Im honored
August 8, 2006
5:33 PM
JM Cross writes:
Thanks for the cheers. From now on when Dirk slithers in to spray BS around the room, someone can immediately point to my post and/or The Girk Dently Mashup so that any newcomers see what he is up to.
It is important that we don't scare off those that the Mormon church would call "investigators", who are looking at this skeptically, many for the first time. Serious discussion is difficult enough without Dirk and his sidekicks “harry palms� and “FormalistAesthete�, all of whose so called “arguments� would not measure up against the most mediocre high school debate team. In fact, their “arguments� are so rife with false data and logical fallacies that it calls into question their true agenda. I know it feels good to just firebomb these guys, but it is more effective to turn their own words against them. They destroy themselves quite well.
Good luck everybody. The truth will truly set us free.
Now watch me take on FormalistAesthete, yet again.
August 8, 2006
5:37 PM
fiesty writes:
JMCross-
Debating is what it's all about. "9-11 False Flag" doesn't seem to realize he's hurting the cause with all his flaming and insubstantial comments.
August 8, 2006
5:41 PM
FormalistAesthete writes:
snopes.com was able to find photographs of airplane parts outside the Pentagon.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Unless snopes.com was part of the conspiracy, that would seem to debunk the claim that a missile rather than an airplane struck the Pentagon.
I'm still waiting for someone to post some evidence of a conspiracy other than "it seems suspicious that ..."
August 8, 2006
5:42 PM
fiesty writes:
FormalistAesthete -
I'm STILL waiting for you to address some of the issues brought up earlier... That's a two-way street, you know.
August 8, 2006
6:07 PM
remember this? writes:
Well.....I just lost all respect for snopes. Same old stuff.
August 8, 2006
6:13 PM
fiesty writes:
Besides Snopes and 911Myths, does anyone know any other good debunking sites? I'm going to take Dirk's advice, and add rebuttals to debunk attempts to my paper.
August 8, 2006
6:15 PM
remember this? writes:
Be careful of those sites feisty, one yesterday tried to download some nastys!
August 8, 2006
6:17 PM
FormalistAesthete writes:
Feisty, I have neither the time nor the motivation to address every single claim. I'm merely participating because I enjoy observing how far people will stretch plausibility when they want to maintain a belief in something that they have little evidence to support. On top of that, for me the burden is on the conspiracy theorists to prove their side. I understand that showing that some of the claims are bogus doesn't disprove all the claims. But it calls into question the credibility of conspiracy theorists. Pointing out "coincidences" (many of which never really happened) is meaningless to me since I understand probability.
What it boils down to me is that if the Bush Administration wanted to stage an attack to justify an invasion of Iraq they would have pinned the blame on Iraq. My BELIEF (not something that I can point to hard evidence for) is that the Bush Administration was completely focused on Iraq and, despite warnings from their predecessors in the Clinton Administration, considered al Qaeda a nuisance that was threatening to interfere with their plans for invading Iraq, so that they ignored all the warning signs of an impending al Qaeda attack. It doesn't seem reasonable to me that the Bush Administration, who have a dim view of the intelligence of the American people, would have created such a complex plot that would have required a large number of participants and in which there were numerous things that could have gone wrong when a few truck bombs or a single hijacked plane could have garnered enough support to launch a war.
August 8, 2006
6:20 PM
FormalistAesthete writes:
wikipedia makes some attempt to discuss both sides. There won't be nearly as many debunking sites as conspiracy sites because few people want to waste their time trying to disprove speculative theories.
August 8, 2006
6:24 PM
fiesty writes:
Problem is that Wikipedia has lost credibility, so I tend not to use them as a source.
August 8, 2006
6:47 PM
remember this? writes:
Ok heres a limited snopes debunk the debunk.
I am amazed at snopes ignorance!
Once again they say kerosene Jet fuel melts steel LOL!
Lets see:
Kerosene burns at 900F
Stell Melts at 2,800F (WTC CERT)
Titanium melts at over 3,000F
Are you seeing a pattern here?
An engine that blew a 12 foot hole in the second ring but not the first?? Hahahahaha. Where is that heavy titanium baby ? Under different circumstances I would like to shake its hand for doing such an incredible feat!
Again No wing, fin or stabilzer Impacts on the Pentagon BEFORE it collapsed.
Bet it drives em' nuts there are these photos in existance
A 16 foot hole? Yeah first class ought to fit thru that.
I love how snopes says the WTC towers were made of ALUMINUM
and GLASS!! ARE THEY NUTS??
Can you be any more blatent?
There are over 200 reinforcing STEEL beams on the outer walls alone, as well as the 47 superstructure steel beams in the core. No Reynolds wrap on that baby! No sir!
Oh yeah and by the way.....the wings, fins, stabilizers and engines left some very DISTINCT marks on the WTC which is STEEL. But nary a scratch on the pentagon....That must be SOME FANCY limestone they have ROFL! Seeing as how its only seashells with a MOHS Scale hardness of 3 out of 10 right there above Talcum powder and drywall.
Steel ranks between 6-8 depending on type.
http://www.amfed.org/t_mohs.htm
August 8, 2006
8:01 PM
JM Cross writes:
I will now strike out FormalistAesthete. It may not be as much fun as handing Dirk the Debunkinator his own ass, but FormalistAesthete and I have a past. See my August 4, 2006 08:16 PM and August 4, 2006 06:40 PM posts. “remember this?� called him out on August 4, 2006 07:16 PM over his claim that "in reality the NYFD decided right from the start that they couldn't extinguish the fires", if not his “magnificent display of mathmatics�
(August 4, 2006 07:00 PM). FormalistAesthete did not respond, in any fashion.
That would be three strikes right there, frozen at the plate…like a bush leaguer. But let’s just say that the umpire made a bad call and go ahead disassemble his defense Dirk’s ignorant battleship blather.
Posted by Formalist Aesthete [with comments by JMC] on August 8, 2006 04:48 PM
“At the time of the Pearl Harbor, the US Navy classified aircraft carriers as scouting vessels, not as capital ships. [If this is true, what does it prove? If the USN had classified them as bathtub toys, that would not have lessened their intrinsic strategic or tactical value. The Japanese surely understood this, it is why they wanted to destroy them.] There were only 2 based in Pearl Harbor, as opposed to 9 battleships. [Wrong. Encyclopædia Britannica says “the three aircraft carriers attached to the Pacific Fleet were not at Pearl Harbor at the time and thus escaped.� At that time USN had a total of 8 carriers, 38% of them were based at Pearl Harbor.] To claim that on Dec. 7, 1941 that the US Navy considered aircraft carriers to be more important than battleships is pure fiction [PURE fiction? I guess “nobody could have imagined that the Japanese would use aircraft carriers to attack Pearl Harbor.� Except that during a joint Army/Navy exercise on Sunday, 07FEB1932, Admiral Harry Yarnell “sailed his aircraft carriers northwest of Oahu in rough weather, and launched 'attack' planes...Yarnell's aircraft were able to inflict serious 'damage' on the defenders.� (http://www.answers.com/topic/attack-on-pearl-harbor) Ain’t it funny how history keeps repeating itself over and over and over…?] and to cite that fictional claim as evidence that the US let the Pearl Harbor attack happen is nonsensical.� [In fairness, the answers.com link above continues:
“Conventional US Navy doctrine of the time (and other naval opinion as well) believed that any attacking force would be set upon and destroyed by the battleship fleet stationed at Pearl Harbor, and dismissed Yarnell's strategy as impractical in the real world.�
Clearly, they were wrong. You are wrong as well. I was not talking about Pearl Harbor, you brought up that straw man. I was exposing Dirk’s ignorance and/or disregard of fact. Now I have exposed yours.]
There it is. All I need now is harry palms to ride in slashing left and right. It would be a pleasure to hang that troll out to dry. I would sleep like a baby.
August 8, 2006
9:34 PM
JM Cross writes:
To fiesty and remember this?:
It looks like debunking the debunkers is relatively easy, and fun. The only problem is that it can lead us into vicious, and time wasting, circles of bunk and rebunk. I think the following is important to remember about Debunkers Union local 911:
“Often the term "debunkery" is not limited to arguments about scientific validity. It can also be used in a more general sense at attempts to discredit any opposing point of view, such as that of a political opponent. However, the further debunkery is removed from objective argument of fact, the more likely it is to become just another form of propaganda.�
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunker
August 8, 2006
10:52 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
Boy, I leave for a little while and JM takes the opportunity to rip me a knew one, eh?
Boy, where to start? Let's start here:
1. My last post was clearly a counter-flame as a kind of "F*** YOU" to "9/11", who, in Fiesty's words, "doesn't seem to realize he's hurting the cause [of the conspiracy and the debate, I assume] with all his flaming and insubstantial comments." OBVIOUSLY that post is hypocritical and full of ad hominem attacks, an irony I was sure would be lost on "9/11", so that he'd be goaded into flaming again. Clearly the irony is also lost on you. Usually I don't stoop to such levels, because I cherish civil debate, but I don't think that's actually possible with "9/11", so I did what I did. But I guess I won't do that again, because someone else will just come along, decontextualize my words and use them against me.
2. My links are all "hit pieces", eh? The last two links I sent, if I recall, were actually pro-conspiracy folks wishing to debunk the less fact-oriented factions of their own side. That doesn't strike me as a "hit piece", unless they're hitting "Loose Change" and similar. If my links are "clearly hit pieces", then by all means enlighten me as to why you think so. Or am I to merely rely on your prodigious intellect and your say-so? I asked this of "Remember This" and "9/11" also. "Remember This" had the courtesy to respond at least once. Provide a sustained counter-rebuttal to the "hit pieces" then--otherwise how am I to know you aren't just using stonewalling tactics, like the ones you accuse me of, by just saying they're hit pieces? You don't have to go point by point, but take a few points, and put up an argument about the general character of the pieces. Persuade me that your point of view is correct, or at the very least that their view is clearly wrong or highly problematic. Or would you rather resort to personal attacks? I don't think I need to go over the rest of the points you make in this section, since my clear intention was to flame "9/11" in an ironic (yet cutting) way. I hope you don't feel you wasted your time.
3. Let me get this straight: your first piece of evidence for me being the purveyor of false information is an elaborate examination of an aside I made about WWII battleships? Okay, whatever. Well, first of all, I guess you're suggesting a different interpretation of "on the way out" than I am. In the original context of the post, I was explaining that it was highly problematic to suggest that a battleship like the USS Arizona (top of the line in its day) was a sacrificial lamb for the pretext to war, because it was too valuable--clearly not "on its way out". To me, "on the way out" means that it's unimportant, and that they would shortly become of little or no use. Sorry, friend, that just ain't so.
To start with, the Iowa-class battleships (my bad, named them by their most famous incarnation, the Missouri) were used well beyond WWII: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/bb/bb61cl.htm . The USS Iowa herself is STILL IN SERVICE, although she will be decomissioned as soon as all the museum-ship formalities can be arranged. The New Jersey was retired in 1999. The Missouri was decomissioned in 1992 (after performing combat operations in the Gulf War--which included artillery support from the 16-inch guns, as I suggested). The Wisconsin was decomissioned in 1991. The other two from that class are mostly scrap (although the Kentucky's engines are still in use). If you were an expert, or even a reasonable fact-checker, you would of course already know this. Either you aren't/didn't, or you are willfully misleading people, or you are being tacitly disingenuous for the purposes of your personal attack.
I own up to this much: I was inaccurate in the use of the term "several", and I should have said "until very recently" instead of "still" used today (although technically, it would still be possible to deploy the Iowa in a similar capacity to what the Missouri did in 1991). That is all. By my reckoning, everything else is accurate, and even accounting for what I was innaccurate about, the CHARACTER of what I said still holds true--battleships have been quite important until quite recently, and so they are unlikely to serve as sacrificial lambs. Is this really the best you can do? Is it even important?
4. "You play yourself off as an expert on many subjects." No, never made any such claim--sorry if I come off that way. Though I admit painting me that way is an effective rhetorical tactic.
5. My "avoidance" of the WTC7 issue? I addressed that in one of the so-called "hit piece" links (actually, more than one) that debunked this notion. Since you reject all of these links (without actually addressing any of their points specifically, I might add), what am I supposed to do? Go out and get a degree in structural engineering and twenty years' experience so that I can come into this blog and debunk your (possibly true, or probably silly) notions? If you don't trust my sources, and I don't trust yours, then we are at an impasse, and it becomes a pissing contest. Obviously I will defend myself from personal attacks, and I will continue to criticize anyone whose argument has flaws, whether or not their evidence is good, but I have no desire to spend hours cutting and pasting the words of people I disagree with to attempt to make them look foolish just out of spite.
6. "Ah, I THOUGHT all that "truth suppression" talk was familiar. [You are taking on the airs of an expert, again.]" No, I'm being snarky. I recalled getting into a debate on another topic with someone whose posting style was much like "9/11's", and who kept dropping in plagiarized material which turned out to be from the link I posted about the 17 methods of truth suppression. Several regulars may recall this from a month or two ago, and it's certainly in the archives. So I was letting "9/11" know, in an admittedly snarky way, that I hadn't forgotten, and that I was on to the fact that s/he had been called out for his/her bullshit before.
7. "The problem with this truth suppression link is that if you read through the 17 points, all of these points can be employed for the purposes of truth suppression in turn [This doesn't make any sense. Circular reasoning rarely does.] " Let me try to make my point this way: the way in which "9/11" was employing the anti-truth suppression technique was itself a form of truth suppression. No matter what I said, regardless of whether it could even remotely be construed to adhere to these parameters, "9/11" would invoke the claims of "truth suppression" at every turn, and would offer no other points of debate (in fact was not even specific about what of my words were truth suppression). This is not circular reasoning at all--it was an attempt to get "9/11" to see his/her own hypocrisy.
8. "[No Dirk, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, not good fact sourcing.]" Oddly we are in agreement here, kind of. I think you misconstrued my argument about "appealing to authority". What "9/11" meant by "appealing to authority" (as I interpreted it) was in reference to instances in which I asked people for credible sources like experts, rather than going on gut hunches about what "makes sense". Most people would probably not categorize that as the logical fallacy of which we speak, but rather a legitimate "appeal to authority". An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy because its method of inference is not rock-solid. On the other hand, there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion of the authority is likely to be true, particularly if that assertion is within the relevant field of expertise. The former would be like asking a medical doctor (someone of cultural capital and therefore some authority) to make a judgement about law. But we would appeal to that authority, as well as defer to it, on matters pertaining to medicine. "9/11" made no such distinction, and I was pointing this out.
9. You know, speaking of truth suppression, let's see how you fair. You state, "[So we have to continue to engage you no matter what your true agenda may be? I don't think so. My purpose here is to render you IRRELEVANT.]" Here's what the site says about that: "6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda..." Hmmm....looks like you're truth suppressing, buddy. And that's not your only crime--see if you can spot the rest of which you are guilty.
Although to be fair, read through the list, folks: http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/printthread.php?t=15888 . There isn't a single item on there that both sides of this debate haven't employed with impunity. Either the list makes debate as we know it practically impossible in some instances, or we are all guilty of "truth suppressing". That, or aspects of that list are in themselves problematic. The only reason it was EVER brought up was because of "9/11" and his/her unhelpful posts.
10. Perhaps you're just being snarky, but I think you're seriously suggesting that people can read the "Girk Dently Mashup" (which I admit is cleverly done) for an accurate picture of my thread here. If you believe that, then I have some great footage of Bush rapping "Sunday Bloody Sunday" for you. Selective editing is a marvelous tool, don't you think?
11. I see you've just eviscerated FormalistAesthete in your typically smarmy fashion, also on the same Pearl Harbor topic (I'll leave you to defend yourself, FA, I'm sure you're more than capable of similarly sustaining the wanton rage of a hack artist). Both of us have posted a lot here, and the best you can do to make us "irrelevant" is to attack irrelevant bits about the state of the USN during WWII? LOL--it's not even on topic. Assuming even that your argument is that this is characteristic of all of our posts, it's a very weak argument. Any other examples? Especially if they're relevant to the discussion at hand? Can you state that any innaccuracies in other fields, should they exist, are deliberate?
12. After all this, none of the substance of anything I've said was taken to task. You spent who knows how long compiling an attack that you are smugly sure has destroyed me, and I can dismiss out of hand all but the fiddliest details about what--god damned battleships. I can only speak for myself, but you seem much prouder of yourself than you have any right to be. I'm glad you had fun, but frankly it's a bit off-putting, moreso when it isn't even well-founded.
I must say I'm a bit puzzled why you went to all the trouble. Seems to me it would have been more efficient to destroy the hit sites. THAT would have crushed my arguments. Instead your post consisted of 1) deconstructing an obvious flame; 2) inadequately debunking a largely irrelevant discussion about battleships; 3) misconstruing my statements/replies to "9/11" (I'll leave it to others to judge whether you did this willfully); 4) besmirching. Please note here that my statements, by contrast 1) deal your own innaccuracies; 2) clarify of my own words; 3) contain no name-calling or other flaming, unless you count me charging you with being a "hack" (which in context is not necessarily even an insult).
I know my word means nothing to you, but I will re-state my claim that I am engaging in the conspiracy debate in good faith, that my only "agenda" is to argue against what I believe to be spurious and/or untrue. You, by contrast, have made it clear that you see your function in this debate as undermining the character of your opponents, rather than challenging the substance of what they argue.
To that end: Steve, glad your post is finally up. I have read through it, but haven't read through all the links, and certainly don't have a response ready. I have had to take care of other matters first, as I'm sure you can see. I'll see what I can do tomorrow.
August 9, 2006
12:34 AM
JM Cross writes:
ATTN Mr. Wolf:
Posted by Dirk Gently on August 8, 2006 10:52 PM
“There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion of the authority is likely to be true, particularly if that assertion is within the relevant field of expertise�
It just gets worser and worser…
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:1x70EtqMiicJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority+there+is+no+fallacy+involved+in+simply+arguing+that+the+assertion+of+the+authority+is+likely+to+be+true,+particularly+if+that+assertion+is+within+the+relevant+field+of+expertise&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
Hmmmmmm…
“Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement)…�
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights
Dirk, Dirk, Dirk…
Plagiarize from m-w.com:
Main Entry: pla·gia·rize
Pronunciation: 'plA-j&-"rIz also -jE-&-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -rized; -riz·ing
Etymology: plagiary
transitive verb : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
intransitive verb : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
- pla·gia·riz·er noun
Uh oh…Dirk may be going bye bye…
From RockyMountainNews.com user agreement
“You agree not to upload, transmit, distribute or otherwise publish in these or any other Forums connected with the Company any Materials which are:
…2. an infringement of the intellectual property rights, including, but not limited to, copyrights and trademarks, of any person or entity…
…the Company reserves the right at all times to disclose any information necessary in its sole discretion to satisfy any law, regulation or governmental request, or to edit, refuse to post or remove any information or Materials, in whole or in part, that in the Company's sole discretion are objectionable or in violation of these terms and conditions. Please notify the Company of a copyright infringement.�
I wonder how many more instances of plagiarism are just waiting for some industrious debunker to expose? Does that make you nervous Dirk? Am I suppressing some deep truth here? Am I missing anything?
Thief
Liar
Hypocrite
August 9, 2006
3:10 AM
remember this? writes:
CNN has a new poll out.
Do you believe alternative theories for the September 11, 2001, attacks are credible?
So far results are:
Yes :71%
No: 29%
America is waking up:)
August 9, 2006
3:13 AM
remember this? writes:
Go gettum JM :)
August 9, 2006
8:30 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Guilty as charged, JM. At one point I deleted the link per the two-link minimum, but forgot to put Wikipedia in parenthesis. I didn't realize this until after I posted and you pointed it out. Good catch (you only caught one of the two sentences that I included, however--the other immediately precedes it). Obviously that was a costly mistake because 1) I'm sure you don't believe me; 2) since apparently that's the only rebuttal you have, that's the only one you were capable of mounting. Googling people's sentences strikes me as a sign of desperation, so it would have been interesting to see what you would have posted had I not screwed up.
No, this doesn't make me nervous in the slightest--I know where I got all my information. Google every single sentence, if you like. Now do you have a substantive rebuttal?
While you're busy calling me names, let me point out that you have not addressed the charges I laid at you with regard to the battleships, to say nothing of my other points. Would you care to explain why you were wrong? Perhaps in my error I am labelled a thief, but a hypocrite and liar--hmmmm, I think we can pretty liberal apply that term elsewhere.
We could play this game all day. Are you going to post an actual rebuttal, or will you be spending the rest of the day googling all my posts as well as FormalistAesthete's?
August 9, 2006
10:01 AM
david littleton writes:
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." - Mark Twain
Your government lies to you. If you do not understand this simple statement you have already fallen victim to the countless variations of Operation Mockingbird. Your thoughts are controlled and influenced by a government controlled mega-corporate media.
Anyone that doubts that your government would lie to you should seek out and read the recently declassified document "Operation Northwood". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)
If you would like to see the damning evidence for yourself on the governments involvement behind 9/11 read "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil" by Michael Ruppert. You can access tons of information by visiting www.fromthewilderness.com
"We must hang together, or we will all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin.
PS...Sorry to repost this info yet again but it needs to be seen by new eyes. Studies have shown that people on average do not go beyond the first three pages when googling information online. People like to have fast easy access to information. Most people do not like scrolling and scrolling for information. Perhaps that why some people like to take up three full pages of mindless rants? Perhaps to push information out of the reach of the average information seeker? ;)
August 9, 2006
10:06 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Steve:
My response must be somewhat limited, given that I have pretty much no expertise here, am not hugely well-read on the subject, and therefore I do not have tremendous resources to draw on. But here goes:
I agree with about 90% of what you say with regard to the media. I think it's a bit of a stretch to refer to the media as a "cabal", however. The problem with any "dark forces" argument with regard to the media is not that this isn't there--it's that there are other elements at work that make this much more complex than the usual cloak and dagger story: media markets, demographics, "official secrets", the limitations of individual reporters, the very format of the news, not to mention the immensely powerful forces of ideology and hegemony. You're not wrong that there aren't major powers influencing the media, but they are by no means the sole or possibly even root cause of media bias. There is a difference between propaganda that is intended to brainwash a market, and propaganda that is intended to SERVE a market. Most of what transpires on Fux News is in the latter category, though I wager to say not all.
Let's assume for the moment that there is an imposed media blackout. I think the less likely explanation is that certain people want to continue to make money off of this (though no doubt that would be true). The more likely explanation has to do with public health messages: over twenty years and millions have been spent getting the word out about HIV/AIDS and how to protect oneself. People have gotten the firm idea that these are linked, and what to do about not contracting HIV/AIDS. Without substantial proof that HIV definitely does not cause AIDS, publicly putting this question in mind undoes all this and potentially (if your proponents are wrong) poses a major public health risk. What's more, the questions raised could have the effect of 1) making people think that there is NO link between HIV and AIDS, which your proponents are not arguing; 2) allowing politicians to sieze upon the controversy and exploit it for nefarious ends. This is especially so in developing nations where, for example, Zimbabwe and South Africa may employ this research in ways that the results are not intended to be utilized--cutting funding, stigmatizing certain groups, refusing to buy drugs that we know really help people with AIDS, regardless of what the "real" cause is. The stakes here are awfully high, I'm sure you'll agree, so for the time being it may behoove us to wait until this controversy is definitely resolved.
The graph you point to, as well as the researchers involved, are very persuasive sources (the link to the original published article is much better than the graph that's posted on the site, by the way). Not being any kind of expert, I can't say that I have any basis to say who's right here. That said, here are some things to think about with regard to this information:
1. The information is posted on a site that is dedicated to debunking the HIV=AIDS "myth". Of course, where else would it or COULD it appear, right? I couldn't find any links to the rebuttals among other scientists to their own science. That's not necessarily a problem, since the site clearly has a "broader appeal" format in mind, and so why should they include such information? But we can't know for sure why such information is not readily available, and so we have to assume that one possibility is that the rebuttals to their work are likewise very persuasive.
2. As I (very tenuously) understand it, the rate at which HIV turns into AIDS is supposed to vary highly, and the mechanism for this is not well understood. It still remains a possibility that different "activation" rates could account for different numbers. What's more, the "cases per 100,000" is likely to be a more cumulative number in term of the spike we see, since the thesis is that HIV turns into "full blown" AIDS, which people can live with for years.
3. While the above is more tenuous, this explanation seems more probably to me: it wasn't really until about the late 80's and early 90's that most doctors, let alone the general public, even knew what AIDS was. The higher numbers may not reflect actual infection rates so much as they reflect the REPORTING of infection. That is--people who had it for a long time came about their diagnosis quite late.
4. The graph itself is somewhat misleading, because it's in different units. The top graph shows cases of AIDS "per 100,000", while the bottom graph shows total prevalence of HIV infection. Let's look at the last year, 2000. The total US population as of 2000 was roughly 281 million. The graph shows there were about 12 people per 100,000 infected with AIDS in 2000. So that's roughly 34,000 people. The bottom graph shows us that roughly 900,000 people in the US had HIV in 2000. Hmmmm.... By contrast, in 1990, the US population was about 249 million. In that year, the cases of AIDS per 100,000 were 19, which is roughly 47,000 people, and there were about 1 million people infected with HIV. (for population stats, see http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html ; the US Census site is of course the best, but it's very hard to navigate, whereas that table is quite easy to simply look at the numbers).
The sticky bits: these numbers don't seem to correlate at all, but it's hard to say why (unless they bear no relationship at all, as you might claim). This is the first possiblity. But it's kind of hard to tell, because the second graph doesn't show a lot of variance, since its units are by 100,000: rounding would mean that nearly 50,000 cases are put up or down a notch. That still doesn't solve our problem, but it undermines the vigor of the argument because the visual representation of the graphs are somewhat misleading (although this is still widely practiced, it's generally considered a bit of a no-no to do this). The other things the graph doesn't tell us: who's alive and dead out of all those numbers, which cases have turned to AIDS and which have not, and so on.
In terms of the "paid well" argument, you're correct that the researchers at the drug companies are paid well. And obviously it is in their interest to promote the status quo, although in most cases this debate is moot--they treat the symptoms, not the cause. It is only in the interest of companies who are actively seeking a vaccine or other cure to stay abreast of this controversy. For these folks, this issue is obviously more problematic (and it's actually in their interest to find the "real" cause, because they want to be the first to patent something that works--therefore they have no interest in supporting a "false" agenda). But I was mainly referring to the university researchers to do the bulk of epidemiological work on HIV/AIDS, which is at the heart of this controversy. They are typically not paid all that well, by comparison. I don't think that these folks would knowingly promote the HIV=AIDS "myth" if they thought the balance of evidence pointed elsewhere--few people are absent such scruples.
Funny that you mention Michael Tracey--I know the man pretty well. His socratic method, particularly at the graduate level, is very challenging and impressive. As far as I'm concerned, his credentials are impeccable (and he's a real American football nut, quite unlike most Brits, even the expats). You should read some of his articles, particularly about the state of public television as well as the Ramsey case--talk about someone who challenges magical thinking!
Finally, Steve, thanks for the stimulating discussion. I have always said I BELIEVE that there is no vast 9/11 conspiracy, but I don't KNOW that's the case. For the time being, this is my position on HIV/AIDS. But you have given me a lot to think about, and I greatly appreciate it.
I think we can
August 9, 2006
10:13 AM
Anonymous writes:
David Littleton:
Thanks for the clarification this time--at first I was like, "again?!"
Obviously I'm a skeptic here, but I'm not skeptical to the notion that our government lies to us and does us ill on regular bases. The quotes/links you posted are worth EVERYONE keeping in mind.
August 9, 2006
11:04 AM
fiesty writes:
remember this-
Do you have a link for that poll? I was just at cnn.com and didn't see it.
August 9, 2006
11:10 AM
9/11 an inside job writes:
Dirk is back to the name calling. ROFL. Dirk does not even read the lame links he puts up. Your last attack on me was hilarious. Nothing but name calling, spam and lies.
So who do you really work for Dirk? Either you are a corporate manager, government worker or third grader. I bet I pay a lot more in taxes then you do dorky spammer Dirk.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1519312457137943386
August 9, 2006
11:11 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Fiesty: I second your call for a link, to see the survey size and the accompanying text. That said, "remember this?" is about right about the figures--it's been widely quoted. But the gold standard: when Jay Leno includes such things in his monologue. That's when we know it's hit the zeitgeist.
Allow me to reiterate my earlier concession to you: whether ultimately proved wrong or right, the overaching notion of conspiracy can at least put pressure on people to find out what the Pentagon, in particular, is hiding. I wholly support that. But I worry that this sort of thing could be undermined with the "conspiracy" taint, especially if most of its propagators are relying on largely debunked sources like "Loose Change".
August 9, 2006
11:15 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Hey "9/11", of course my last response to you was a flame. That was the point. Allow me to refer you to my response to "JM Cross" below (the long one). You'll see what I was after.
There is no debating you. Flame all you like, I'm not going to stoop to your level again. Post something original, and I'll muster an actual response.
August 9, 2006
11:51 AM
fiesty writes:
"But I worry that this sort of thing could be undermined with the "conspiracy" taint, especially if most of its propagators are relying on largely debunked sources like "Loose Change". "
I agree with you there Dirk. There are some very valid questions and issues regarding 9-11, but they get lost/discredited in the malstrom of claims of "conspiracy" since most people are automatically going to ridicule conspiracy theories. Instead of claiming conspiracies, advocates should simply use research and evidence to point out inconsistencies and issues, and let folks decide for themselves. Those questions become the basis for investigations which can then reveal the truth, whether it be conspiracies or incompetence. Claims of conspiracies only hurt the cause, and keep us from getting ANY answers.
August 9, 2006
11:56 AM
fiesty writes:
In other words, who's going to be listened to or be more creditable- those shouting "conspiracy" or those bring validated questions and demanding answers?
August 9, 2006
12:12 PM
9/11 an inside job writes:
Dirk you offer nothing but lies. I don't care if you respond or not. You have been completely exposed and seen as a cover-up artist on this thread by post people except your lover harry. So who do you work for dorky Dirk the RMN spammer? How do you find the time to post thousands of spam posts on RMN? I only have time to post on a few topics that interest me where you seem to have unlimited time to spam all the topics you want. More and more I have a feeling you have a government job or work for a military contractor. Hopefully you are not actually a third grader as your lack of reasoning skills would indicate.
I took a look at your links and they were tripe. Birds of a feather flock together as they say.
Many scholars believe 9/11 was an inside job. A mountain of evidence suggests 9/11 was an inside job. Even your tirades on this this thread, your obsessive/compulsive behavior and your aversion to truth links indicate are working overtime to put out false information about 9/11.
You are not very patriotic dorky Dirk the RMN spammer. Keep on spamming on this thread. The poll on RMN showed over 80% think 9/11 is an inside job or the government knew about it and did nothing. You have been spamming this thread for days. You have about 1,000 times more posts than I have and I am on RMN blogs a lot. Are you being paid to spam here Dirk? I have a strange feeling you are.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1519312457137943386
August 9, 2006
12:27 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
Accuse all you like, "9/11", it just underscores your level of paranoia. I'm sure it's worth the government's dime to send someone like me to counter-flame someone like you. Anyway, didn't I already tell you? I work for the SG unit in Cheyenne Mountain. NORAD is moving out to make room for our expanded operations.
August 9, 2006
12:31 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
JM, I'm a bit disappointed you haven't come back in to do your usual magic. I can't wait to see what you'll come up with this time. Autofellatio is bad for your back, you know. ;)
August 9, 2006
12:38 PM
Anonymous writes:
who knows maybe "9-11" is a government plant trying to discredit the conspiracy theorists by his overboard flaming
August 9, 2006
12:51 PM
9/11 a false flag operation writes:
I simply do not believe the official 9/11 story and neither do a lot of researchers with PHD's who do research for a living. The moment I saw the WTC collapse I thought it was demolition. Almost five years later I still think it was a demolition. I don't even think it takes a PHD to realize the government's story does not add up. One of the producers of Loosechange 2 came back from his tour in Iraq and does not believe the official 9/11 story either and immediately went to work on Loosechange 2. I think Dirk's posts are funny seeing as how the RMN poll stated over 80% do not believe the official 9/11 story either. Dirk posted awhile ago he was going to stop posting. Dozens of spam posts later dorky Dirk is still posting. At $.25 per spam post he just might make enough for a few Happy Meals with his lover harry and his see no evil hear no evil deny the obvious spammer truth suppression friends. The keep 9/11 covered-up crowd is getting crushed here.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1519312457137943386
August 9, 2006
1:06 PM
9/11 an inside job writes:
ROFL! Sociopaths and criminals will always call their victims paranoid. Now there is no doubt you are a truth suppression spammer. You have used all the classic truth suppression techniques. Too funny.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=loosechange+2&btnG=Google+Search
August 9, 2006
1:12 PM
Biff Fartly writes:
Hi Im Biff Fartly, Dirks cousin, why do you keep picking on him. He just wants best for the rich white people of this country.
August 9, 2006
1:12 PM
Biff Fartly writes:
Hi Im Biff Fartly, Dirks cousin, why do you keep picking on him. He just wants whats best for the rich white people of this country.
August 9, 2006
1:20 PM
FormalistAesthete writes:
This is getting tedious, but I'll list a few relevant points before I move on:
1) The "weapons" the hijackers used were all things that they could have carried on openly, so the claim that hijackers couldn't have defeated airport security is irrelevant.
2) There was never any threat to Air Force One, so the claim that the hijackers couldn't have broken into secure communications systems is irrelevant.
3) The proposition that the govt. would create a phony disaster that would not only threaten to disrupt the economy and hinder chances for Bush's re-election but also involve the murder of the wife of a leading Republican (Barbara Olsen, wife of the lawyer who argued Bush's side in the Florida re-count case and who later became Solicitor General) merely to create a unified Space Command is implausible.
4) Despite the Pentagon being located in a major metropolitan area, there weren't any reports from people claimed to have seen the alleged missile. Where was the missile fired from? You can't fire a missile big enough to cause that much damage from a bass boat on the Potomac. It would have had to have been fired from some distance away, but no one saw it? Yeah, right. There were people who claimed to have seen an American Airlines plane crash into the Pentagon. There are photos of airplane parts on the ground outside the Pentagon.
5) To install enough explosives to have demolished the World Trade Center would have been a major undertaking that couldn't have been accomplished by sneaking in at night. It would have involved removing wall panels, stringing wires, drilling holes in support beams, etc., that would have at the minimum caused people to think that there was a serious renovation in progress. It simply could not have gone unnoticed, but no one has mentioned seeing any work being done at the time. And then there's the matter of designing a detonation system for the explosives that wouldn't be damaged by the impact and fires. And, of course, the difficulty of remotely guiding a large airplane into the right part of the building so that the demolition explosions would appear to be mixed in with the fire.
6) It is far more plausible that the black boxes from the planes that crashed into the WTC were destroyed than that 3 of them ended up in the same place despite the 2 towers collapsing at different times, as the 2 NYFD guys claimed. And, despite JMCross's misinformation, at least 1 of the black boxes was recovered from the Pentagon. Of course, this is totally irrelevant anyway. Black boxes aren't released to the public, so the government could have claimed that the boxes said anything that they wanted them to say. Fudging cockpit conversations wouldn't have been all that much more difficult than creating phony phone calls from people claiming to be on hijacked planes, which would have had to have done if the 9/11 attacks were an inside job.
7) Few of the critics of the official explanation of the WTC collapse are civil engineers or material scientists. Steven Jones, who founded the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, is a physicist who formerly worked in the discredited field of cold fusion and published a paper "proving" that Jesus Christ visited the Americas. The FEMA and NIST reports have been accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists and engineers, many of whom have no motivation to help the Bush Administration. The chairman of the BYU Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering has said "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims."
8) The wreckage from Flight 93 was not spread out over a large distance. One engine wound up 300 yards from the main wreckage in the direction the plane was traveling when it crashed.
9) David Schippers, a lawyer whose only claim to fame is that he assisted in the impeachment proceedings against Clinton, claims that he was tipped off some FBI agents before 9/11 and contacted John Ashcroft. I shouldn't have to point out the obvious questions here, but I probably do.
- Why did the FBI agents tell David Schippers and why didn't they tell anyone else?
- Why did Schippers only contact John Ashcroft, given that Ashcroft would obviously have had to have been in on the conspiracy?
10) Fire Chief Palmer was on the 78th Floor of the South Tower, which was the lowest floor damaged (only the tip of 1 wing hit the 78th floor). It was also a "sky lobby" and had little furniture to burn. The bulk of the fire was above the 78th floor. Using his quote as evidence that fire couldn't have caused the WTC collapse is bogus.
11) Hundreds, maybe even thousands, of people would have had to have been in on the conspiracy, or at least in a position to have noticed something going on. And not a single leaker or whistle-blower? No Richard Clarke or Paul O'Neill or Joseph Wilson or whoever revealed what was going on at Abu Gharib?
12) There are other explanations for the presence of sulfur on steel beams besides thermate explosives, such as the cutting instruments used during the clean-up.
Sorry, there are too many holes in the conspiracy theories for me to attach any credibility to them. I need to see some actual evidence, which no one has presented. Raising questions about the official version of 9/11 in no way proves alternative versions any more than raising questions about evolution proves creationism.
August 9, 2006
1:29 PM
FormalistAesthete writes:
JMCross, my arguments are filled with logical fallacies? Please list them.
It's easy to find examples in your posts. For example, the fact that Pearl Harbor proved that aircraft carriers could be decisive weapons does NOT prove that the US Navy knew that BEFORE Pearl Harbor, as you implied.
August 9, 2006
1:43 PM
fiesty writes:
FormalAsthete-
Good attempt at a response, but I believe it's lacking in certain particulars. In may cases you don't even address the argument:
"It is far more plausible that the black boxes from the planes that crashed into the WTC were destroyed than.."
Please address than the fact that recorders are, in some cases, the only thing able to be recovered from wrecks. Also address please what on this particular day, and for these particular four flights, makes the incidents so special that it's a "first" in aviation history to have such a low percentage of recorders found?
"Of course, this is totally irrelevant anyway. Black boxes aren't released to the public, so the government could have claimed that the boxes said anything that they wanted them to say. "
That's kind of the whole point.
"Steven Jones, who founded the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, is a physicist who formerly worked in the discredited field of cold fusion and published a paper "proving" that Jesus Christ visited the Americas."
That's completely irrelevant and blatant attempt to discredit him; please address his arguments (based upon physics) disproving the WTC 7 collapse.
"One engine wound up 300 yards from the main wreckage in the direction the plane was traveling when it crashed."
300 yards is not as much as you seem to think; most comparable crashes cover areas much larger than that. Look at the FAA and NSTB pages for others.
"David Schippers, a lawyer whose only claim to fame is that he assisted in the impeachment proceedings against Clinton, claims that he was tipped off some FBI agents before 9/11 and contacted John Ashcroft. I shouldn't have to point out the obvious questions here, but I probably do."
Once again, you're trying to discredit what he has to say. His motivations are moot- the question is, why DIDN'T the FBI and Ashcroft not do any investigation? Why are they still not checking out his claims? Your post doesn't answer that.
"Hundreds, maybe even thousands, of people would have had to have been in on the conspiracy, or at least in a position to have noticed something going on. And not a single leaker or whistle-blower? "
Actually, that's not true. There's several out there, Siebel and those FBI agents willing to testify, but they are being prevented by doing so. Look at Siebel- they did an emergency RETROACTIVE court order to "classify" what she was trying to say. Plus I listed others earlier that were trying to whistle-blow, who were being intimidated, and so forth. So this statement of yours is blatantly false.
You still haven't addressed the inconsistencies in the 9-11 report about the fighter jet scramble, the war games, etc. Or the weaknesses in some of the debunk sites posted- for example, Snopes tries to debunk the put options by citing the report's claim that they cleared insider trading. However, the challenge to the report remains- why didn't they identify the investors, their rationale for choosing to place put options on those airlines, who sent this mysterious trading recommendations fax sent that morning (mentioned in the report), etc.
I'm sorry but your answers are simply inadequate, and several are nothing more than attempts to discredit with non-related issues.
August 9, 2006
2:36 PM
Anonymous writes:
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | August 9 2006
Recent advances in the public profile of the 9/11 truth movement, owed in part to C-Span's airing of the American Scholars Symposium and Oliver Stone's World Trade Center movie, have provoked a slurry of new hit pieces against 9/11 truth activists. Most are characterized by their twilight zone illogicality and inability to get basic facts correct.
Wisconsin Sheboygan Press
This has to be my favorite 9/11 hit piece of all time, even topping Betsy Hart's 'argument' that 9/11 skeptics are wrong because they fear Muslims. It is the most inept and manifestly ridiculous attempt at arguing for the official line that I have ever encountered.
Amazingly it's written by the entire editorial staff - their best and brightest - which must mean that the rest of their journalists are a mixture of kindergarten kids and Rhesus monkeys.
Maturely titled, 'We've had enough of 9/11 conspiracy theorists', this pathetic excuse for an article dismisses WTC demolition evidence by proudly announcing, "Our opinion remains steadfast that it was a terrorist attack that brought the towers down."
Maybe my memory is a little faded but I don't seem to remember 'terrorist attack' appearing on the periodic table. I don't think even an extensive Google search will give you any results about a noun melting steel.
Here's another pearl of wisdom.
"The conspiracy theorists claim, in part, that the twin towers collapsed because of internal explosions and not as a result of the hijacked airlines plowing into them. To back this contention, they say the government deliberately reacted slowly to the reports of hijacked planes."
Like some kind of dodgy cut and shut car sold by criminals, the esteemed editorial staff have decided to weld together two different strands of the 9/11 skeptic's argument that are not even directly related to each other. By bizarrely claiming the skeptics say the NORAD stand down made the buildings collapse creates straw man reasoning.
I can't even adequately lower myself to their demented moronic level of thinking to fully communicate how utterly stupid and retarded their claims sound.
So Mr. Professor, what caused the collapse of the towers and Building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, the first time any steel building had collapsed from fire damage in history? "It gotta be 'dem 'dirty low down stinkin' terrorists dat done dem cole-apses, uh huh and 'dat's for damn sure."
It gets worse - in one instance they try to scientifically disprove claims that the government's version of 9/11 is a lie by typing the word,
"Nonsense"
And giving that word its own paragraph.
Cue their heavyweight historical 'fact' that also proves 9/11 was carried out by 19 dunderheads with box cutters that couldn't even fly Cessna's.
"Every major event creates enough doubting space for those who are always looking under beds. There were those who believed that President Franklin Roosevelt either caused or allowed the bombing of Pearl Harbor to happen in 1941 because he wanted the country to be pulled into World War II."
Really? Now c'mon, next you'll be telling me that whole Watergate conspiracy crap actually happened.
Iran Contra?
Nonsense.
And that old conspiracy theory about Station H - a radio intercept station that picked up Admiral Yamamoto's order for the Pearl Harbor attack. Or the declassified McCollum Memo - an eight stage plan to provoke a Japanese attack that was implemented at every stage by President Roosevelt.
Our illustrious editors wrap it all up by throwing their toys out of the pram and saying they don't want to hear any more about it. Unfortunately, following the publication of this expose they'll be hearing more about it. A lot more.
Send a letter to the editor of the Sheboygan Press and politely inform them of the fact that they've just been exposed as inept idiots who couldn't win a debate with a 3-year-old.
Coming soon in part 2: Big city papers scoff at 9/11 skeptics, but have trouble getting names right. Is prison planet.com a radio show hosted by Jack Blood? Is Alex Jones' new film called TerrorWar? The bottomless pit of sloppy research continues.
August 9, 2006
3:26 PM
FormalistAesthete writes:
OK, JMCross.
As I pointed out, finding or not finding the black boxes is irrelevant. If they had been found, the govt. could have lied about what was on them. Or even had them pre-programmed. Better yet, they could have planted phony ones in the wreckage. It's hard to imagine that with such a complex plot they wouldn't have thought about the black boxes. Therefore, the fact that the black boxes weren't found doesn't seem to provide any evidence of an inside job.
I think that I addressed why it isn't implausible that the black boxes weren't found in the WTC anyway. If steel beams were smashed in the collapse, why couldn't the black boxes also be smashed?
As far as Steven Jones goes, I think that pointing out that he has a history of proposing "unconventional" theories that never gain acceptance is relevant when people are citing his opinions as evidence. Why should the beliefs of a small fraction of academics, some who have a history of being involving with dubious and unsuccessful theories, be taken as the best evidence?
I don't understand your point about the Flight 93 wreckage. Conspiracy theorists have claimed that because the wreckage was spread out over such a large area, Flight 93 must have been blown up or shot down. I'm claiming that the wreckage wasn't spread out over an unusually large area, so the wreckage distribution does not provide evidence that Flight 93 was blown up or shot down.
Why wouldn't have Ashcroft investigated Schippers' claim? I believe that I stated that Ashcroft would have had to have to be on the plot. If the govt. was plotting something, wouldn't they have made sure that the guy running the Justice Dept. would make sure that the FBI, etc., wouldn't stumble across it by including him in the plot? If the plot was common knowledge in the FBI, why were there no leaks before the attack?
IIRC, Siebel Edwards was going to testify about problems with translating from Arabic and the possibility that there were traitors among the translators. I'm not aware that she was going to testify about any knowledge of any govt. plot to destroy the WTC, though I could be wrong.
It's easy to come up with reasons why the companies involved with the put options weren't identified. Such as the damage to the stock price of the companies were they linked in some peoples' minds to 9/11 even though it was just a coincidence.
The supposedly botched fighter response. Even assuming that it actually was botched (and that is very questionable), does in prove complicity or merely incompetence?
Out of all the "coincidences", all that's left is the war games. To someone familiar with probability, a few coincidences are to be expected. Even that assumes that war games rarely occur. I've never been in the military, so I don't know what the probability of war games taking place on any particular day is. Maybe this was unique, or maybe it's common for several things to be going on. And were these exercises classified? Or might have al Qaeda known about them and chosen the date because the military would be distracted?
You conspiracy theorists are doing little more than claiming that if one of the possible interpretations of a piece of evidence is that it proves a govt. plot then you've proved that there was a govt. plot. Sorry, but I like to evaluate all the possibilities before reaching a conclusion. And no, I don't think that I have to disprove that there was a conspiracy. As anyone who's ever been involved with the legal system knows, it's nearly impossible to prove absolute innocence.
But keep it up. You might eventually convince me that the govt. knew that there was some sort of terrorist plot that was going to take place on 9/11 and let it happen. You're not going to convince me that the govt. actually participated, however, unless you come up with actual evidence.
August 9, 2006
3:29 PM
FormalistAesthete writes:
Oops, my screen was too crowded. My previous post should have been addressed to feisty.
August 9, 2006
3:45 PM
fiesty writes:
FormalistAesthete-
Have you actually READ the 9-11 Commission Report? (It doesn't seem like it.)
August 9, 2006
3:49 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
FormalistAesthete states: "You conspiracy theorists are doing little more than claiming that if one of the possible interpretations of a piece of evidence is that it proves a govt. plot then you've proved that there was a govt. plot."
Good luck with this point, FA, even though I emphatically agree. I believe I made this exact point in various incarnations over the course of this entire blog, but so far as I can tell only Fiesty seemed to understand it at all. Possibility is not the same as proof, least of all when it seems less probable than more mundane explanations, and the pro-conspiracy side in the main seems only to recognize coincidences that lend credence to their view, ignoring the astounding coincidences that have to take place to support other aspects of their view.
Now let's see how long it takes for me to get flamed...
August 9, 2006
4:47 PM
JM Cross writes:
Posted by FormalistAesthete on August 9, 2006 01:29 PM
“JMCross, my arguments are filled with logical fallacies? Please list them.
It's easy to find examples in your posts. For example, the fact that Pearl Harbor proved that aircraft carriers could be decisive weapons does NOT prove that the US Navy knew that BEFORE Pearl Harbor, as you implied.�
JMC responds:
Wow, you and DG really are fond of the old battleships, aren’t you? You guys must work for “Old Navy.� First of all, my purpose was not to prove anything other than that Dirk, and then you, are making authoritative statements about a subject that are erroneous. My purpose was not to “prove that the US Navy knew that BEFORE Pearl Harbor�, that is YOUR straw man. It was to prove that DG makes statements that are false. When you chimed in to defend DG with statements that are equally wrong, but presented as fact, I pointed that out as well. Errors of fact are easy targets for the purpose of debunkery. But I’m sure you already know that.
Using a fallacy to accuse me of fallacy? What is that? A force multiplier?
August 9, 2006
5:48 PM
FormalistAesthete writes:
JMCross, first of all I admit that I read your post hurridly and might have misinterpreted your reference to Pearl Harbor. That being said, I don't understand what you are claiming is false about my statement on the perception of the importance of aircraft carriers. Are you claiming that the US Navy did consider aircraft carriers to be the dominant weapon, or at least on par with battleships, at the time of Pearl Harbor? Or are we both actually arguing the same point and misunderstanding each other?
August 9, 2006
6:09 PM
Anonymous writes:
"Now let's see how long it takes for me to get flamed..."
You are the only one doing the flaming Dirk. Look at all your obsessive posts desperately trying to cover-up the truth. Did you know the circus has clowns in it Dirk? I can prove it.
August 9, 2006
7:30 PM
JM Cross writes:
FA:
I don’t know if you are misunderstanding me. I don’t know if FA and DG are the same person. It wasn’t me that took off down the Pearl Harbor path. I know that DG made some uninformed assertions, which just happened to be about naval history. I used them as an example of how the facts do not stand in the way of DG blowing hard on just about any subject. I listed my objections to what DG and FA have said on the decline of the battleship(BB) as a weapon of war. I stand by them, in spite of DG’s 1 step forward, 2 steps back strategy. His “response� is even more error filled than what he originally wrote. Anyone who still cares can quickly check his boldly asserted “facts�. I did. I found sloppiness and plagiarism. “Loose Change� indeed.
I included information about the place BBs held in US strategy at the time, with a source even ;) History has shown that the Admiral’s pre 12/7 thinking was wrong. They would have been better off if they hadn’t relied on the BBs to defend their base. The future of BBs was museums. The future of the carrier was multi-billion $$$ nuclear powered floating cities. Perhaps you should do some research and tell me why I’m wrong. I would be happy to continue this discussion with you but, outside of the historical context aspect of USGov foreknowledge, the old Pearl Harbor IS off the NEW Pearl Harbor topic.
If you don’t want to do that, then let me ask you a question that is on topic, and we can all discuss it like human beings instead of 2 packs of monkeys fighting over a bunch of bananas.
Do you, and the rest of you coincidence theorists can jump in here, reject the idea that the USGov has and/or would stage events in order to achieve a covert agenda? Discuss.
Peace ya’ll.
P.S.---still looking for the debunking of the clowns. HA
August 9, 2006
7:57 PM
remember this? writes:
Hi everyone (waves) you too dirk.
This blog is geting enormous, takes
a while to load, big blank area up top with a football ad LOL.
Feisty, Sorry this took me so long, I was out enjoying the 100 degree weather for endless hours slaving :)
The link you asked for is on the same page you linked awhile back, you will recognize the article.
They embedded the poll about mid page so scroll down a little.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/08/06/sept11.theories.ap/index.html
August 9, 2006
7:59 PM
remember this? writes:
I have some reading to do looks like
August 9, 2006
8:13 PM
FormalistAesthete writes:
JMCross, as usual your post is elliptical, but I might well have misunderstood what your point about Pearl Harbor was. In any event, I'm more interested in discussing thinks like
- how the explosives were installed in the WTC without anyone noticing, given that it would have required ripping out walls, drilling holes in steel support columns, laying out cables, etc.
- how the detonating systems were protected against crash and fire damage.
- why they took so long to detonate the explosives, given that the detonating systems could have been damaged by fire.
- why they killed Barbara Olsen.
- how they managed to fire a missile in the middle of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area without anyone noticing.
- how they managed to plant phony airplane parts on the ground outside the Pentagon in broad daylight without anyone noticing.
- how the Bush Administration, which didn't even think to plant WMDs in Iraq, managed to pull off a complex plot without a hitch.
Answer those, and maybe I'll start believing.
August 9, 2006
8:42 PM
remember this? writes:
Formalist:
Mind If I do a little debunkerizing on your last post?
According to one movie , 911 Revisited I believe, states that, (get this) -FEMA! was doing some sort of security drills or the like, closing off various parts of the towers for a number of weeks previous.
Im not sure if Tripod 2 had something to with this or not.
GOOD QUESTION YOU POSE! To get any more detail I guess we will have to watch the movie.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939&q=9+11+revisited
2. Probably the same way they always do. Redundancy?
Looks like we need a demolitions expert in here now....
3. Had to let the fire burn for awhile to make it fit the "official story"?
It also allowed time and cover for pre collapse detonations which are in my opinion a widely held accepted belief that day? You could hear em in Jersey for C".sakes!
Can you imagine the death toll had they collapsed immediatly? Hate to even think....my god.
Again, good question.
4. I dont know :(
5. Well.....until more footage of that horrible event is released. I can only speculate, and thats not what you want to hear.
6. 1(one) noticible skin part with no inner skin, insulation, grass from rolling around( I should quote John Madde nbut that would be poor taste) or the like, unburned, and so light one man could carry it (I could). planes have hit mountains at great speed and left more than that....
7. I guess 6 addresses this one too.
8. Looks like there are quite a few "hitches" now....Good question about the WMD in Iraq tho....It is another country.....things wouldnt be so easy to "pull off" as you say.
If they did and blew it..maybe they were stolen or blown up by an IED...? who knows.
August 9, 2006
8:49 PM
JM Cross writes:
Elliptical?! If you say so pal. You ARE Dirk, aren’t you?
How’s this for elliptical?
1) I don’t know. I wasn’t there.
2) I am not a demolition expert.
3) Do you really think I was in on the planning?
4) I don’t know, because she was a NeoCon tool? Why would her life be any more valuable than any other agent who has been left out in the cold?
5) I personally don’t think that is what happened, so why ask me?
6) See #5
7) This Q carries a lot of assumptions with it. I can tell you one thing though. One look in the future Warpresident’s eyes after Card tells him “America is under attack� and you know the “Bush� part of the admin was not in on the plot…if there was one.
Now stop distracting me with your silly false dilemmas, I’m trying to watch “Loose Change� for the 23rd time.
August 9, 2006
8:52 PM
remember this? writes:
Sorry JM couldnt help myself :)
August 9, 2006
9:00 PM
remember this? writes:
Now If we can just get the RMN and Mark Wolf to update the front page.
Poll: Over one half see 9/11 conspiracy.
Maybe?
August 9, 2006
10:04 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
JM, it would indeed be nice indeed if we all stopped throwing poo at each other like monkeys (please recall who starting all this nonsense). But it seems you can't stop yourself from the constant character assassinations. I own up to and grant the inaccuracies of which I'm guilty, and pointed out places where you erroneously claimed I had committed some other crimes. I even pointed out places where you are AT LEAST as guilty as myself or FA with regard to playing loose with the facts, or not fully backing data, and especially with misconstruing the arguments of others. But apparently in your own mind you are guilt free and unassailable. And you make sure everyone knows this. It's very tiresome. Then you engage in the schizophrenic practice of engaging in meaningful debate while at the same time namecalling and mischaracterizing the tenor and substance of your opponents' arguments. You point out others' factual errors and logical fallacies while simultaneously making some of your own. You also have the habit of being disingenuous about the character of the argument that has transpired, and/or misconstruing other people's arguments. For instance:
"[Dirk's] “response� is even more error filled than what he originally wrote. Anyone who still cares can quickly check his boldly asserted “facts�. I did. I found sloppiness and plagiarism."
You found (accidental) plagiarism only (and by the way--do you think I really would have found it necessary to lift, uncited, two lines which I could have written myself from Wikipedia, which is probably the most accessed online databse around, for a minor point?). You would have also found where I corrected a number of your uninformed assertions. You would have also found I pointed out where you were clearly being disingenous about my argument and its place in the larger debate--a clear case of either utter misunderstanding or overt spin to suit your character assassination (I suspect the latter). You would have also found me asking you to engage in actual debate and address your own errors. I should have added at the time your habit of changing your rhetorical course as you see fit. It makes it difficult to discern the difference between where you're being firm on your stance, where you're being sarcastic, and when you're just flopping around to avoid being pinned down on any debate point.
If you want to call me a hypocrite and liar, fine. But be well aware that by your standards you are those as well. From one son of a bitch to another, let's just get to the nitty gritty here, and let's try and be on our best behavior.
Now for a post of substance...
August 9, 2006
10:46 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
"remember this?": Some comments on your comments to FomalistAesthete:
1. FEMA in the building may have provided the opportunity to plant the explosives, but this should be something we can check with regard to WHICH parts, what schedule and other circumstances that would allow for this. There is the other complication of involving more people, of course, this time from yet ANOTHER federal agency. Why not just keep it "in-house" as it were and have the FBI do it? Why involve another agency unnecessarily?
"2. Probably the same way they always do. Redundancy? Looks like we need a demolitions expert in here now...." Yeah, looks like we do. OR we can ask the numerous demolition experts that have weighed in on this, pro and con. Then we can see if any other experts have anything to add to what THEY say.
"3. Had to let the fire burn for awhile to make it fit the "official story"?
It also allowed time and cover for pre collapse detonations which are in my opinion a widely held accepted belief that day? You could hear em in Jersey for C".sakes!
Can you imagine the death toll had they collapsed immediatly? Hate to even think....my god." Here I'd have to point out the weakness of the "evil government bastards" argument: if they're willing to sacrifice several thousand people (nearly 3,000 in the end), what makes you think they wouldn't be willing to sacrifice 10,000? Don't get me wrong, our government most certainly is willing to sacrifice people, but my point is, in for a penny...
"5. Well.....until more footage of that horrible event is released. I can only speculate, and thats not what you want to hear." First a favor, then a rebuttal to the missile notion. Your favor: a Tomahawk cruise missile can be launched (from a battleship, JM!) at a range of roughly 1609km ( http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/ShirleyCheung.shtml ). That could do it without anybody noticing. Problem is the evidence that we've been bandying back and forth seems to me to overhelmingly suggest a plane hitting the Pentagon. You can claim it was a decoy, or it had charges, or was a special kind of plane made of balsa wood, or whatever. But it was clearly a plane.
"6. 1(one) noticible skin part with no inner skin, insulation, grass from rolling around( I should quote John Madde nbut that would be poor taste) or the like, unburned, and so light one man could carry it (I could). planes have hit mountains at great speed and left more than that...." These points have been addressed by at least two sites that I found and posted earlier. You can reject their claims, but you should go into details as to why.
"7. I guess 6 addresses this one too." Ditto.
"8. Looks like there are quite a few "hitches" now....Good question about the WMD in Iraq tho....It is another country.....things wouldnt be so easy to "pull off" as you say." They wouldn't really have to fabricate evidence in another country. Given the level of sophistication of the conspiracy that you have in mind, I don't think it would be beyond them to be able to manage forged documents (the Niger yellowcake thing is still in dispute, after all), forged communications intercepts, and then plant WMD in bunkers when they arrived. Nobody would have known about the latter, in particular: reporters have not always been allowed to be imbedded or tag along on missions. I think it would have been simple to pull this off if they really had wanted to. (Hell, I'm surpised they didn't try anyway, 9/11 conspiracy or no.)
Just a couple of rhetorical points, really. It appears, sadly, just as we're getting back on track, we are losing momentum because so many of the particulars are either 1) out of anyone's purview; 2) we don't trust each other's sources.
Your thoughts?
August 9, 2006
11:01 PM
remember this? writes:
Well it wasnt balsa wood thats for sure.
We can at least agree on that :)
August 10, 2006
12:07 AM
JM Cross writes:
WARNING: This contains "Dirk Gently" product. Do NOT read if you suffer from high blood pressure, chronic or acute sobriety, average or better intelligence, or have eaten in the last hour.
"You found (accidental) plagiarism only..."
Dirk Gently on August 9, 2006 10:04 PM
Really? Let's see...
"Move or copy text
When you copy text, the selected text remains in its original location, and a duplicate appears where you place it.
1) Select the text you want to move or copy.
a) place the cursor next to the text you want,
b) click and hold down the mouse button,
c) move the cursor to highlight the text,
d) release the mouse button.
2) To move text, click Cut on the Edit menu.
or
To copy text, click Copy on the Edit menu.
3) Click in the document where you want to move or copy the text.
4) On the Edit menu, click Paste.
The selected text appears in the new location."
---Microsoft Internet Explorer Help: Saving pictures or text from a Web page
I make that to be 7 steps. That was quite an (accident). (I) hope you weren't (injured). What? MORE parentheticals?
"...(and by the way--do you think I really would have found it necessary to lift, uncited, two lines which I could have written myself from Wikipedia, which is probably the most accessed online databse around, for a minor point?)."
Dirk Gently on August 9, 2006 10:04 PM
That doesn't really matter.
Why?
Because YOU (shamelessly) DID IT.
August 10, 2006
1:15 AM
JM Cross writes:
Could this be the true inspiration of the DG/FA axis? Or is it just someone's disturbed cross-dressing cousin? You decide.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200608070002
Send in the clowns.
August 10, 2006
3:19 AM
JM Cross writes:
Question for “Dirk Gently�:
Have you ever posted to this forum anonymously or under another name?
August 10, 2006
6:31 AM
JM Cross writes:
For Dirk
I have a proposition for you. Pick one 911 related subject, anything you like, and we will see what happens. As long as you behave, I will not make fun of you. Respect will breed respect. The others can watch and previously known posters can maybe referee. Otherwise it will be you and me. DG v. JMC.
No alter egos! I am asking you again, have you ever posted on this forum anonymously or over any other name? I can only suppose that you will tell me the truth, but at least we can go on the record. In my case, except for the DG mashup, everything I have posted is over my name. The mashup is the ONLY time I have EVER knowingly taken your words out of context, and that was just for laughs.
If I may suggest a subject that you have pushed heavily, and that is the ccdominoes “Loose Change� debunker. I have serious problems with that site, as you know, and I also have serious problems with the movie. So we need not be eyeball to eyeball about everything. It would take a while to go through it all, unless you want to focus on a specific section of the movie that might be interesting. We could deconstruct the movie and the relevant portion at ccdominoes, compare and contrast.
I tell you up front, my intention is tie up at least part of your attention here with something good, something helpful. If you play it clean, then maybe we can do that. If you are more interested in continuing your current strategy of being the class clown, then go ahead. But let me quote you on something we totally agree on:
“I'll be damned if you think that you can get away with lazy thinking [and] spurious claims…�
Well? The gauntlet is down…Agent?
August 10, 2006
6:38 AM
rememner this? writes:
JMC Now THATS what I call drawing a line in the sand :)
August 10, 2006
6:41 AM
remember this? writes:
Posted by rememner this? on August 10, 2006 06:38 AM
rememner???
sheesh.I need coffee....strong black and hostile lol
August 10, 2006
9:40 AM
fiesty writes:
FormalistAesthete-
Once again, you make a good attempt to address the issues, but fail to hit the meat of it. And, for the record, I am not trying to convince you of any conspiracy; rather, trying to point out some events (and explanations) of 9-11 that are bogus. Okay, here goes:
1. Whether or not you like Steven Jones character is moot; his skills as a physicist are, to my knowledge, not contested. Either way, please address the physics arguments he raises, and not the person.
2. Regarding Schippers, once again, please address the argument, not the person. (Not to mention that even if you don't like Schippers, the FBI agents involved should have credibility of their own.) We have not received an answer as to why Ashcroft, among others, did not heed Schippers (and the others listed) pre-9-11 intelligence warnings either before or after 9-11. These were creditable and specific!
3. Regarding the put options, simply clearing of insider trading does not explain the trading itself. Even if the companies weren't identified for corporate reasons (an explanation that makes no sense for the trading newsletter with the put options recommendation referenced in the official report), their rationale for the put options could still be explained.
4. "The supposedly botched fighter response. Even assuming that it actually was botched (and that is very questionable), does in prove complicity or merely incompetence?" Please read the portion of the official report dealing with this (I previously posted the specific page number), it's very very clear. It goes beyond incompetence which is why I asked why the pilots were never interviewed to explain why they disregarded two direct orders which resulted in the only close available fighter wing being miles away over the ocean so that nothing could be done. This is the biggest evidence of everything I've found that points towards governmental conspiracy, especially when combined with:
5. Yes, war games ARE coordinated. When you have multiple major war games, they declare a National Special Security Event (NSSE) day. McKinney has twice questioned Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about these 9/11 war games, and whether 9-11 was declared a NSSE day, during his testimony before Congress. Never got an answer either.
August 10, 2006
10:14 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
JM Cross:
Thanks for the "call out", as it were. To your points:
1. I admitted copying and pasting the passage from Wikipedia. The accident occurred when I deleted the URL and forgot to replace it with a parenthetical reference. By excluding the reference, that became plagiarism. Had I been interested in plagiarising outright, I would have done a better job and it would have been something more substantial, I reckon.
2. I have never posted under another name. I have posted anonymously by accident, then claimed my post. YOU did the mashup? All this time I thought "9/11" did it. That makes more sense--at the time I thought it was well beyond the capabilities "9/11" had heretofore demonstrated. Again, my compliments--it was pretty well done.
3. I have endeavored to play by the rules, and have not knowingly been on a campaign of disinformation or "truth suppression". Anyone who knows me can tell you that sometimes when I'm speaking about a topic I SOUND more authoritative than I had any intention of sounding, just by the way I put forth an argument. Often when I say "I think" people get the impression that "I know". Nearly always this is not my intention. Apparently this has carried over into the way I type on blogs, as well. I can only assure you that my intentions are good, and be more mindful of the line between what I know for CERTAIN, what I know based on incomplete recollection (e.g. the Pearl Harbor thing), and what I merely suspect based on the things I do know.
4. I think your suggestion of picking a particular topic is a good one, though I must say I'm beginning to tire somewhat of the subject (aside from the more speculative notions of motives and accomplishments). Our respective arguments are getting a bit threadbare on most topics. However, if you wish I'll play along just to demonstrate I'm not the "clown" you seem to think I am. I do wonder what got your goat in the first place--surely it wasn't my remarks about battleships? :)
So, how about this: correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to lump you in with "remember this?" if this isn't your thing, but I'd like to focus most on the Pentagon issue. Mostly whether or not a plane hit it, but I'd also like to talk about everything surrounding this particular aspect, up to and including the actions of NORAD and SAC. I find this the most interesting, because on the one hand, I think it's beyond a doubt that a plane struck the Pentagon. But on the other hand, the actions of the military on that day is by far the most suspicious and "roomy" area for consideration of a cover-up (I mean, not even the supposedly ass-covering Commission likes the Pentagon's answers--or is it just a front?). So...how about that? That also gives us room to flex our "war nerd" muscles, since we at once misunderstood and counter-corrected each other about the military possibilities/capabilities of battleships, among other things. (Man, I still find that whole discussion kind of funny, especially since we both took it quite seriously.)
Alternatively, I would be happy to consider a discussion of what works and what doesn't about that ccdominoes site. You're correct to say that some of the criticism of "Loose Change" is spot on, and other bits are either incomplete or unnecessarily snarky.
5. Incidentally, I'm glad you brought up Ann Coulter. To my mind she's the gold standard of what debate should NOT be: she says patently outrageous things, she tries to pass off snideness and flippancy as sound argumentation, she talks down her opponents, she lies to her allies about what her enemies' arguments are, she cites sources that are not credible, she incorrectly cites sources and even distorts their original meaning, and now she has been discovered to be a plagiarist, as well. The really sad thing is that because of who she is and how she conducts herself, none of this will really kill her career. I can't imagine anything that would, frankly. Damn, too bad.
August 10, 2006
10:33 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Fiesty:
Just have to make one point about Professor Jones (every time I type that I think of a Nazi shouting "Vo ist Jooooones!"). Considering our own lack of expertise in physics, bringing up his less savory academic forays IS relevant--it shows a penchant for going off the deep end, sometimes into matters that are not his area of expertise. In this case, his article is well within his area. The crucial question here is: did he launch into the topic because this is the sort of thing he does, and then do a very good job for which he is fully qualified; OR did he launch into this because this is the sort of thing he does and then mis-apply his own expertise in the pursuit of finally being credible on just one of his crazy quasi-academic forays? Because of his past, we can question his motives, and possibly his methodology. More information through peer review would be helpful here.
August 10, 2006
1:02 PM
BC writes:
For you people who think this could not have been an inside job, I wish you Americans luck when they launch a nuclear attack on this country and we blame it on Iran, and WWIII begins. This is their plan and I will suggest, when we go under Marshall Law, do not go to any FEMA camps, as your days on this planet are over with. Americans better grab a gun and be ready for the New World Order. How any of you can deny that this was not an inside job is beyond me. If you want videos of Mr. Silverstein who purchased both the twin tower buildings, and building #7 which was two blocks away and collapsed too, say to Dan Rather, "we pulled the building" and Mr. Rather asked him to elaborate on what that meant, his comment was "we brought it down". Mr. Silverstein had purchased these buildings two months before. Norad was performing this very same drill just before the actual event, and then it happens! How coincidental, and while the actual event was taking place, Norad was told to back off. A building in Madrid Spain last year, (of similar composition to the Twin Towers) burned for over 100 days, and did not collapse.
Go to infowars.com or prisonplanet.com and there are actual photos of explosive charges going off on the side of the buildings. The professional photographer who video taped the planes entering the buildings, noticed a flash on the nose of the plane just before it hit the building, and after further investigation, it suggests that a missile was lauched so the plane could enter the buildings. Why would the original architect of the twin towers state that these buildings were built to withstand a 747.
Where is the plane that hit the Pentagon? Eye witnesses were quoted as saying "I thought I saw a little plane". What they saw was actually a missile which looks like a plane, but there was not once piece of a plane pulled from the Pentagon.
You fellow Americans best prepare yourselves quickly, as we are on the brink of WWIII and the collapse of this country.
I just heard today that the Bush Administration has paid over $1 billion just recently to the media to silence them and report false stories. Shawn Hannity has been paided $26 million to continue his Neo Con reporting. WE ARE BEING TOLD LIES BY THE PRESIDENT AND THE MEDIA! WAKE UP!
August 10, 2006
1:12 PM
fiesty writes:
Dirk,
I won't argue that past research isn't relevant; however, I will argue that dismissing what he has to say out of hand due to it is completely unacceptable. Keeping his past research in mind while reviewing his arguments is acceptable. However, that's not what Formal was arguing- he was dismissing out of hand what a physicist had to say about WTC 7, without looking at the arguments' validity, solely due to past academic research he didn't like. That's poor logic.
As far as peer research, there ARE some out there. Jones posted his on a site run by PhDs, including the peer review comments. [Unfortunately, the link is at home and I'm at work. Will post when I get a chance.] There's only a few papers on the site, but it is fascinating.
Not to mention the reaction or retribution they suffer by doing so! Even with presenting valid arguments, they can't get taken seriously due to the types of attitudes we've seen first-hand. Further, if they try, look at the retribution they suffer. That was detailed in the previously posted link. [http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/08/06/sept11.theories.ap/index.html]
August 10, 2006
1:19 PM
fiesty writes:
BC-
Sadly, America won't wake up. Look at this blog- I'm NOT advocating a conspiracy of any type, just demanding answers to some contradictions and strange occurrences on 9-11. And yet, with few exceptions, the majority of critics won't even admit to the "fishy" items that happened that day! They WANT to be blind.
Folks are so set on what they believe and "know for sure", that they aren't willing to even look at evidence or questions contrary to their position.
August 10, 2006
2:14 PM
Steve writes:
Dear Mark Wolf.
Thanks for finding by eariler blog and getting it posted.
Dirk,
Thanks for your elaborate reply on the HIV=AIDS issue as it pertains to the 911 Truth movement. I was afraid that we might get entangled in details on this comparrison, but I do think it is worth the time.
AIDS is the silent Viet Nam in which over 300,000 Ameicans have died due to to the "miracle cures" of drugs like AZT. (not all AIDS patients but many) In fact, you will find that most AIDS paitients (about 60%) immediate and first cause of death is due to liver toxcity-related disfunction. AZT is designed to kill human cells as a DNA chain terminator. AZT is not a "smart drug" that targets cells with HIV. It kills everything---brain cells, nerve cells, bone cells, lung cells and toe nail cells. etc. It is a DNA nucleoside analog that functions like chewing gum in your zipper. It just stops DNA from joining and splitting apart. So people die from liver toxicity after about 2 years of use on average. Now the AIDS establishment wants to test all pregnant women (who have a high rate of false positive HIV tests due to pregnancy) so they can give this DNA terminator to them and the fetus, (some call them human babies). This is the plan for 40 million Africans.
I have friends that took AZT and died that way. I also know many HIV positive people who remain perfectly healthy after being "infected" for over 15 years, but they didn't take the poison either. The reason why I bring this up is because you can see what "erring on the safe side" and believing the AIDS industries unfounded lies can lead to.---Mass genocide. This where we draw another comparrison to 911.
Thanks for taking a look at the 2500 or so, sigantures on the Scientific Group for Reappraisal of HIV's list.
These are some of the finest people I have met, though I certainly don't know them all. Here is the link again if anyone is interested.
http://www.rethinkingaids.com/quotes/rethinkers.htm
I would continue to discuss the 10 reasons why HIV can NOT be the cause of AIDS, but I did a much better job with the documentary. It might take some time, but I would watch a little of it if you can, you will learn more about AIDS here then any place else in the mainstream media. Here is the link again:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4396856850556632563
What I am trying to point out with this discussion is: that incredibly stupid programs like the "AIDS virus"can go unchecked for years by the general public even though sound refuting evidence is heavily stacked against all those "honest" people on the program's payroll. It takes a special person(s) to risk being a whistleblower. Will a "Deep Throat" emerge in the 911 debate? I think so given time, they usually do.
What I have used the HIV=AIDS=Deadly Scam parallel to illustrate is the "uniform effect." I heard a Jewish man who survived the holocaust say something that I'll never forget. He said (paraphrasing) that he never really understood why his neighbors who were such nice bankers, cobblers, milkmen and clerks etc. turned into such vile monsters when they put on that German Uniform. It wasn't the Mr. Schmidt or Messier Shultz that he knew. These people just believed they were doing what Germany had to do.
Is George Bush so sadistic that he would sainly authorize a false flag event like 911 that would cost so many lives? I kind of doubt that. But Presidents often enact extreem measures that they think will ultimately benefit the entire nation.
JFK was offererd that option with Project Northwoods, he declined. Bush did not in my opinion.
It might have all gone under the radar--- except for WTC 7, the place where it all fell apart. That's where the entire thing is going to come unraveled. A Zogby poll revealed that 48% of the American public doesn't remember seeing the fall of WTC 7. But they will now, and they are going to be ANGRY!
I really think it is all going to come out. I have been a journalist for over 30 years, and I have seen what has happend with HIV/AIDS. The 911 Truth movement is moving 10 times faster into a political year with an unpopular war. Look out! We better hope and pray things hold together and we can reamain civil. Or we better hope and pray that a distraction of 911 proportions isn't inacted next to cover the lies of the first one.
August 10, 2006
3:02 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
Steve: I'd like to see at some point just a couple of quick discussion points regarding the points I raised. But obviously you're right--the main point in this particular blog is in regard to 9/11, and the parallels you draw are clear enough. That doesn't necessarily mean I accept those parallels, but I certainly don't rule them out.
Are they still really using AZT? Cripes, I thought they'd moved on to the new cocktail, which appears to work much better with fewer side effects. If AZT is what they plan on giving Africans, then that's something I do not support.
Although I doubt the conspiracy, I think your bringing fascism into the conversation is an excellent point. I don't think the government will turn into a dictatorship any time soon. But with the current political climate, it doesn't have to: we have all the quasi-fascist support embedded in the electorate already, so great evil will be voted on by everyone, rather than enacted through overt seizure of power. Luckily, I think there is tremendous backlash, but I worry it's too late. To that end, I just bought this bumper sticker today: http://www.cafepress.com/thewhitehouse.16208754 . I can't wait to proudly display it!
But only through symbolism and speech and very limited actioin can I combat American fascist tendencies. That's all any of us can do. Let's hope it's enough.
August 10, 2006
3:20 PM
fiesty writes:
Dirk, you're right about the "American fasicst tendancies". I have been SO unnerved by the trends in the US the last few years. Why? Well, my dad was AF and I spent ages 7-18 in Germany. In school, we met concentration camp survivors who told their stories. Also went to a week long seminar in Bonn talking about politics and national climate in Germany prior to Hitler coming to power, and the mass psychology utilized by Hitler. In other words, got a pretty in depth look at both Nazism and Facism. And I'm seeing some eerie parallels beginning here in the US... I keep telling myself that's crazy, this is the US after all, it can't happen here. RIght?
August 10, 2006
10:11 PM
Anonymous writes:
Fiesty, arguably there has always been fascist tendencies in any country with a strong current of nationalism, especially where symbols are so highly fetishized as they are here (e.g. the flag). But I agree that it's gotten much worse of late. I once read a piece that paralleled all the things that happened in the Reich prior to 1939 with the things that happened in the US from 2000 to 2004--it was pretty striking. Some things were a stretch, others scarily similar. I tried to find it just now, but no luck. If people think that fascism can't strike anywhere and happen to ordinary people, they're very naive.
August 10, 2006
10:34 PM
JM Cross writes:
Dirk
If we stick to whether or not a plane hit the building this will be over quick.
My view is that the bulk of evidence I have seen is not inconsistent with what we might expect if an aircraft similar to a 757 struck the Pentagon. Let me break down, off the top off my head, some of the major questions:
1) The hole in the Pentagon is too small. --- I studied this closely when it was first floated years ago. There are plenty of images of the damage before and after the floors collapsed. There is clear damage to the building on both sides of the hole created by the fuselage. At the points where the engines would have entered the building, the structural damage is more intense. The lack of damage from the rear stabilizers can easily be explained by their lack of mass and therefore energy that these parts would be transferring to the building.
It also occurs to me that if there is only the one hole caused by a missile, and if the huge fireball we see on the extant video came from that hole, it would have shown some sort of “jet effect�, all that energy shooting out the narrow opening, like we see in the WTC explosions. We don’t see that here. Instead we see a broad rapidly expanding fireball. To me this appears consistent with the wings being smashed against the building and spilling their fuel, which is obviously the source of the fireball. An exploding warhead is not at all likely to look like a Hollywood explosion, with pretty colors and contrasts. High explosives pack much more energy than what we see in the extant video.
People presenting this point, in my opinion, either have not looked at it closely enough, or are using it to deceive others. “Loose Change� is one among many that does the latter, selecting only the images and information that support their small hole assertion.
***
I have to go, so I will post this now and put up more later.
Both harry and I have pointed to this before, which I am in general agreement with...
http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/2005_07_21_Michael_Green_Loose_Change_analysis.htm
August 10, 2006
10:49 PM
JM Cross writes:
I agree about the flag worship in the USA. I was in Boy Scouts and the Army, so I know all about respect for the flag. But to many people it seems that respect has turned into idolatry. The flag is a symbol of freedom. Sacrificing the freedom to protect it's symbol is just dumb. These people disrespect the flag every time they wrap themselves in it. They do the same thing with Christian cross.
August 11, 2006
4:47 AM
JM Cross writes:
Dirk
More on the Pentagon
Before I go to issue 2, let me say that while my opinion is that the real AA77 hit the Pentagon, I can understand why there are doubts. I will get to that later. I want to rule out issues that appear to be weak or bogus first.
It is my opinion that the risk of substituting another aircraft or a missile for AA77 would have been much higher than the any benefit which I can conceive. The poor man’s cruise missile was the weapon of choice that day, and I think the information available to us right now shows that is what was used.
2) “Where is the Boeing?�--- The assertion here is that since the hole is too small for a 757’s wings and tail, they would have broken off and should be wreckage scattered about the area. Occasionally it is claimed that there is no wreckage, but usually the line is there isn’t enough.
Again, there are many pictures showing small and relatively light pieces of wreckage. One would expect the laws of physics to be maintained, even on 11SEP2001. The mass of the wreckage plane would have kept moving into the building until it lost all it’s kinetic energy, or was acted upon by another force. Like a fireball. If AA77 hit the Pentagon at over 500mph as we’re told, then I’m surprised to see as much wreckage outside the building as we do. It certainly didn’t bounce off the side of the building.
This is another case where close inspection of the claim and it’s evidence reveals nothing but speculation or deception , depending on the motive.
August 11, 2006
6:38 AM
9TheyLiedToUs11 writes:
My.....what a change of tune..
August 14, 2006
7:05 PM
FormalistAesthete writes:
feisty, I'm super busy right now, but a few quick thoughts:
1) I believe that it is relevant to mention that the leading proponent of the theory that explosives were used to destroy the WTC has a history of proposing wacky theories that have been debunked. A better response might have been to point out that the WTC demolition theory has received no support from the engineering and scientific communities (and since neither Steven Jones nor Jim "Squibs" Hoffman has suffered any negative consequences from publicizing their claims, the reason canNOT be that other engineers and scientists are afraid to speak out).
I think that there's a 2-link limit on posts, and here are the first 2 relevant webpages that I stumbled across in regards to Jones' claims about the WTC:
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/civil.htm
2) I don't believe David Schippers' claim for the following reasons:
- the only reason why FBI agents would have revealed a secret plot to anyone would be that they were trying to derail it. So why (a) tell Schippers, whose only involvement with the govt. were short stints with a couple of House committees, and (b) why not tell a bunch of people to increase the chance of word getting out?
- why was Schippers' only action to contact John Ashcroft? Didn't he take into account the possibility that Ashcroft might be in on the plot? Or even that if the FBI knew about the attacks then Ashcroft might also know about them? And why when Ashcroft blew him off didn't he go to someone else with the info? Even go to the news media?
- Schippers appears to only blame the Clinton administration and seems to hold the Bush Administration blameless (other than Ashcroft ignoring him).
- I haven't seen a claim that any of Schippers' 10 FBI agent clients are claiming anything about a govt. role in the 9/11 attacks. His first client, Robert Wright, is trying to publicize how turf wars and bureaucratic inertia hindered investigations that might have prevented 9/11. Is there any info about the others?
3) The rationale for the put options could have been explained, but it wasn't necessary (other than to keep conspiracy theorists from claiming that the failure to do so is evidence of a conspiracy).
4) From page 34, "The fighters were scrambled because of the report that American 11 was heading south [American 11 crashed into the WTC]." And "..but NEADS never received notice that American 77 was hijacked. It was notified at 9:34 that American 77 was LOST. Then, minutes later, NEADS was told that an unknown plane was 6 miles southwest of the White House." Finally, "It (the USAF) had a most one or two minutes to react to the unidentified plane approaching Washington." So the military never knew that American 77 had been hijacked until it crashed into the Pentagon. This means that it would have been "good luck" had the USAF pilots stumbled across American 77. And had that happened, conspiracy theorists probably would be claiming that the improbability of intercepting American 77 by chance was proof of a conspiracy.
5) If simultaneous military exercises are not unique, that increases the probability that this was a chance occurrence (especially since some of the exercises lasted several days). If the schedule of the exercises is not classified (I don't know whether it is or not), that raises the possibility that al Qaeda could have used the info to select the attack date. This issue is still open.
Consider this:
" 1) New York City has 11 letters
2) Afghanistan has 11 letters.
3) Ramsin Yuseb (The terrorist who threatened to destroy the Twin Towers in 1993) has 11 letters.
4) George W Bush has 11 letters.
This could be a mere coincidence, but this gets more interesting:
1) New York is the 11th state.
2) The first plane crashing against the Twin Towers was flight number 11.
3) Flight 11 was carrying 92 passengers.
9 + 2 = 11
4) Flight 77 which also hit Twin Towers, was carrying 65 passengers.
6 + 5 = 11
5) The tragedy was on September 11, or 9/11 as it is now known.
9 + 1 + 1 = 11
6) The date is equal to the US emergency services telephone number 911.
9 + 1 + 1 = 11.
Sheer coincidence..?! Read on and make up your own mind:
1) The total number of victims inside all the hi-jacked planes was
254. 2 + 5 + 4 = 11.
2) September 11 is day number 254 of the calendar year.
Again 2 + 5 + 4 = 11.
3) The Madrid bombing took place on 3/11/2004.
3 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 4 = 11.
4) The tragedy of Madrid happened 911 days after the Twin Towers incident.
Now this is where things get totally eerie:
The most recognized symbol for the US, after the Stars & Stripes, is the Eagle. The following verse is taken from the Quran, the Islamic holy book:
'For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced: for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah and there was peace.'"
That verse is number 9.11 of the Quran.
One can always find coincidences if one looks for them. That doesn't make them meaningful.
It's been my experience that these sorts of debates never change anyone's opinion. I was motivated in this discussion for reasons other than trying to change opinions, and I've gotten out of it what I wanted.
August 17, 2006
1:18 PM
9/11 a false flag operation writes:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1590675314105139271&q=loosechange+2&hl=en
Most scientists say 9/11 was an inside job and most criminals say it was not.
September 1, 2006
5:08 AM
Devon Asa writes:
We start with one of the least common decisions, but it is appropriate to begin with casino [url=http://www.casinoonlinegame.org/download-casino]casino[/url] Marty didnt know what to say about that He continued to stare at the online casino [url=http://www.casinoonlinegame.org/download-casino]online casino[/url] Put the winnings aside, and at the end of the 25ths round youll only have played 500 even, casinos [url=http://www.casinoonlinegame.org/download-casino]casinos[/url] and handed him the paper he had written on online casinos [url=http://www.casinoonlinegame.org/download-casino]online casinos[/url] the Aces, this is not a blackjack, but rather a total of 21 The distinction is important, [HREF "http://www.casinoonlinegame.org/download-casino" "casino online"] Professor Brown looked at it more closely .
September 5, 2006
3:23 PM
remember this? writes:
9-11 is the largest lie ever concocted by mankind and so far it seems to be working.....
October 7, 2006
7:34 AM
nihil matters writes:
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." - Mark Twain
Your government lies to you. If you do not understand this simple statement you have already fallen victim to the countless variations of Operation Mockingbird. Your thoughts are controlled and influenced by a government controlled mega-corporate media.
Anyone that doubts that your government would lie to you should seek out and read the recently declassified document "Operation Northwood". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)
If you would like to see the damning evidence for yourself on the governments involvement behind 9/11 read "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil" by Michael Ruppert. You can access tons of information by visiting www.fromthewilderness.com
"We must hang together, or we will all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin.
February 12, 2009
3:39 AM
Gennick writes:
Hello. And Bye.
May 10, 2009
11:52 PM
Chuck Boldwyn writes:
Chuck Boldwyn
Retired Physics & Chemistry Instructor says:
The internet repeatedly established weight of a single Twin Tower is 500,000 Tons.
DL(110) = 500,000 Tons
The weight of the 16 Floor alleged falling block is much less than 73,000 Tons, as the steel is only .25 inches thick at the top, but we will consider the whole Tower to be of uniform thickness.
DL(16) = 73,000 Tons or less
The weight of the lower WTC 94 floor block is 430,000 Tons or more as the steel gets progressively thicker and thicker,until it reaches 4 inches thick toward the bottom floors.
The top alleged falling 16 floor block is less than (1/6) the weight of the lower 94 block.
Even though the top block was very massive, on a comparitive scale to the lower 94 floor steel, highly intact block, according to the laws of Physics, it could never collapse the topmost 94th floor, floor 94, with its gravity weight of force alone, much less the entire 94 floor steel tower below.
The Tower could support 20 times its Live Load (LL)weight.
CL = Collapse Load
CL(94) = 20 x LL(94) (via John Skilling, WTC Cheif Enginer, deceased, but published everywhere)
The Live Load is confirmed by NIST 911 Commision Report Science Guy, Ronald Hamburger to be:
LL(94) = 5 x DL(94)
therefore:
CL(94) = 20 x LL(94)
and therefore:
CL(94) = 20 x (5 x DL(94))
and therefore:
CL(94) = 100 DL(94)
According to the above, the very unique Safety Factor is the Collapse Load Factor, whis is:
100 x DL(110)
It is not 5 DL(110)
It is not 20 DL(110)
It is 100 DL(110)
& it is 20 x 5 x DL(110)
Get over it OCT misguided dupes and misguided PHDs.
This means the the lower 94 block of steel could support 100 blocks of 94 floors before possible total collapse could occur.
This also means that the lower 94 block of steel could support 588 blocks of 16 floors before possible total collapse could occur, since one 94 block is equal to 5.88 16 floor blocks.
588 Vector Force units of upward support (stressed Normal Force)against 1 Vector force unit of downward gravity weight force, all by its lonesome.
Now apply Vector math Addition to opposing Forces to find that the top block could never in one's wildest dreams totally collapse the lower 94 floor block of powerfully strong and very thick,
4 inches, steel.
588 Force units of upward support
minus
1 force unit of downward weight Force
gives 587 force units of non-collapsing support.
1 Force Unit(FU) = 1 DL(16)
(588 FU up) - (1 FU down) = 587 FU up.
No collapse can possibly occur...
CL(94) = 588 DL(16)
That is crushing and most devastating news for the Original Conspiracy Theorists in the Government and in the Mass Media.
They no longer have a lying and deceitful or ignorant leg to stand on.
Amen, story over using Vector Forces Physics. the Ultimate Truth and Proof.
That is the Final & Ultimate answer as to why the twin towers could never, ever collapse under the conditions offered by NIST, the Government, the Mass Media, and the big name University and corporate PHDs.
Since the confirmed discovery of the red and gray nano Thermite active and explosive particles in the WTC dust samples, there is no leg to stand on by the NIST, government and all the "quack" PHDs hired by the Government to do their lying diry work with the Mass Media.
Game over. Get the Gallows and Guillotines ready!!
Here is a little bit of shocking information for you OCT people and non physicists to digest.
You would have to raise the top 16 floor block, the alleged falling block, to a height of 120 miles above the 94 floor block and then drop it. The 16 floor block would drop for 200 seconds and collide with the top of the lower 94 block at a velocity of 4,500 miles per hour with a colliding energy of 1.5 x 10^14 Joules of energy before total collapse could occur.
That collision energy, 1.5 x 10^14 Joules, is the energy equivalent of 2.4 Hiroshima Atomic bombs or the equivatlent energy of 36,000Tons of TNT or a very large number of mini nuclear devices.
This is attained only if there is no air resistance, in ideal conditions of Free Fall. Because there is air resistance, the Terminal velocity of about 1200 miles per hour will prevent the top 16 floor block from attaining the required collision velocity and the required collision energy to totally collapse the botton 94 floor steel tower.
In other work, under any conditions it will be impossible to totally collapse the lower 94 floor tower.
Amen....End of the Official Conspiracy Unscientific Theory of NIST, the Government, the Mass Media and the retarded PHDs from the Universities and Industry.
All of those PHDs are shot down in flames, becoming the laughing stock of their students and peers. They all need to retire and spend the money they got for writing and supporting tnose stupin and foolish ideas and theories they have corruptly put forward. Their careers are doomed.
Chuck Boldwyn
Retired Physics & Chemistry Instructor.
cboldwyn@bellsouth
You may request my detailed PDF research report to be emailed to you if you send me your email address at cboldwyn@bellsouth.net.
You will be amaze and shocked when evaluating my blockbuster research findings.
Bring on the debunkers, if they are brave and foolish enough to try their foolish best...