you've decided to continue writing about this. Get ready for a thorough literary beating, my dear....that is, in case truth seekers (like me) are willing to spend their time on this. Loose Change is one of the worst choices. Me oh my.

I personally don't belong to any cult, except maybe the Harley cult and I don't even own one ....yet. I would never ever ever alienate you because you're such a good writer and we have a common friend named Geoff. 

You don't belong to a minority, Mary. The majority is still swallowing the official lies. But hey, I respect you for coming back out of the corner with your gloves on, fists in the air, ready to fight. 

If you're still hung up on Loose Change and the controlled demolition bit, well, you've a long way to go. There's more to it. A lot more.  

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 2:29:04 AM

  (0+)

"In speaking to so many people outside the Internet community, I did not find one who did believe that it was a grand conspiracy perpetrated by our government."

 Go figure. Where would a person 'outside the Internet community' ever come across information and reasoning any different from what the government decreed?

The fact is, the official version of events was determined before the official investigation began. They knew the conclusion they wanted to reach, and there are a thousand cases of them interpretting the evidence (what was left of it) with an obvious intention to back up their foregone conclusions.

The investigation was bad science. This is my opinion. Don't ask me to back it up please. I don't bother trying to add to the mass of 911 truth material, since so many others have done so. I just think you don't realize that your opinion is partly sculpted by your prejudice in believing that no cabal of conspirators could ever pull off such a heinous crime. But you believe Moslem fanatics could. Why the difference? 

by Peter Dearman (10 articles, 32 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 144 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 2:40:39 AM

  (0+)

that we know how to bring buildings down with fire, the Loizeaux family and all other demolition specialists should be out of business. Your conclusion : it's easier and cheeper with fire. I wonder why nobody ever tried it before. I mean, it's so easy it's just mind boggling !

Fire !

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 4:45:16 AM

  (0+)

(I) Have no problem with the how those buildings came down, Fire was the operative force after the planes hit, but note that fire is NOT controlled demolishion.

 What gets me are all of the other little in-consitencies or consitencies that are there, the timing is such that the terrorists planned their stike at a time of near the LEAST occupation of the Building, last time they aimed for the most.

That Paper "Legacy for a New American Millienium" (Right title??) that decried the Need for a 'New Pearl Harbor' shortly thereafter(?) followed by 9/11.

The very idea that when the Second term of GWB (Go War Bush) was at election, all of a sudden Osama Bin is broadcasting news to America and telling Americans that it is 'up to them to decide' an internationally renowned terrorist who claims Absolute hatred of everything American is advocating Democracy...and that got swallowed whole...

 To many inconsistencies and too many consistencies, war for Oil in a Country that had been a sort of ally of the U.S. then one set upon by American Politics & Western media to the Point that any truth got lost long before the invasion. Then the set up in law as to ensure that the potential 'witness' is no longer capable of testimony as it was arranged to make it look 'nice and legal' while they got him hanged-murdered

Law of the Land (I) was told concering the U.S.'s signing of the Geneva Conventions on War, yet George had it violated, then backdated a law to cover they rear ends of all involved, method of a Dictator, law unto themselves...

To many other things, way to many murders ......waaaaaaay to sad.

by Mr. Robin Parsons (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 64 comments) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 6:42:48 AM

  (0+)

Hi Mary,

Keep your spotlight on 9/11.  As someone said "You don't belong to a minority, Mary. The majority is still swallowing the official lies."  But, they are waking up one by one thanks to the likes of you who are trying to debunk the "conspiracies" of it all.  The facts are in and those who have half a brain can see that 9/11 was an inside job.

So keep your spotlight on the 9/11 issue.  It helps to wake up the majority who are blindly believing their government.  Please see my web site http://www.dataoptions.com/political/911links.htm for many links to 9/11 facts.

Who knows perhaps we will see a nation-wide wake up! 

Aimee

DataOptions.com

by Aimee (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 100 comments) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 7:55:33 AM

  (0+)

Mary has real trouble with data. Here is an example of her lucid thought:

"Every one of these conspiracy theorists will tell you and the producers of the movie ‘Loose Change’ will tell you that Twin Tower One and Two along with Building 7 were controlled demolitions.  No, they were not.  Those buildings were so badly damaged that they fell in a free flow manner called pancaking.  The damage to Building 7 came from the debris of one of the towers assaulting it and it stood little chance of surviving."

Gee Golly Mary. I guess you didn't know your own NIST debunked FEMA's "Pancake" theory regarding the collapse of WTC 1,2,7 a long long time ago. I guess you didn't have the time to actually read documents from either source. Yet you state your position with such adamancy. Did you even consider WTC buildings 5 and 6 which were much much more severely damaged both by falling debrise and by intense fires (neither of which were present in WTC 7) yet they did not actually collapse at all... let alone in the controlled demolition manner of WTC 7:

"Observing the collapse of 47-story WTC 7 shows it to have all of the features of an implosion engineered by controlled demolition.

-The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).

-The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.

-Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.

-The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.

-The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.

----------------

You really should expand your mind a bit. Try reading Griffin's Debunking 9/11 Debunking .....    

-------------

The reviewers not only make it clear that this is a book worth reading, but their statements are interesting in their own right.

“David Ray Griffin’s Debunking 9/11 Debunking is a superb compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies. Tragically, the entire course of U.S. foreign and domestic policies since that date has grown out of these almost certain falsehoods. This single book could (and should) provide the basis for the United Nations? International Court of Justice, or some specially constituted global body (independent of the U.S.) to investigate with highest priority, and publicly report its findings about, the charge that unknown elements within the U.S. Government, and possibly some individuals elsewhere closely allied to the U.S., caused or contributed to causing the events of September 11 to happen.”---Bill Christison, former senior official of the CIA.

“Considering how the 9/11 tragedy has been used by the Bush administration to propel us into immoral wars again and again, I believe that David Ray Griffin's provocative questions about 9/11 deserve to be investigated and addressed.”—-Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of the United States

"Professor Griffin is the nemesis of the 9/11 cover-up. This new book destroys the credibility of the NIST and Popular Mechanics reports and annihilates his critics."---Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury during the Reagan administration

“David Ray Griffin hits another one out of the park by taking on the left gatekeepers and the mass media for the lies and cover-up called ‘the official story of 9/11/01,’ which is the greatest conspiracy theory ever perpetrated on the American public. I highly recommend this book for all thinking Americans.”---Meria Heller, Producer Host of the Meria Heller Show (www.meria.net).

------------------

The country is dividing between those who can't handle truth, those and those who seek the truth. 

Truth has always been the enemy of the statists, of the fascists, of the purveyors of lies and of war. Of the orchestrators of false flag operations to propagandize the populace into supporting wars of aggression. --- and, in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq (and soon Iran), Criminal Wars according to the standards noted at Nuremberg. 

The 9/11 Truth Revolution seeks the truth. Based on scientific investigation of empirical data. 

Supporters of the government's conspiracy theories and believers of government authorities and officials do not. Mary does not. 

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 8:43:20 AM

  (0+)

my intelligence. Way to go! Don't worry, I won't say anything about yours.

by Han (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 228 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 10:09:48 AM

  (0+)

The deniers of the Truth are always the same.  They use debunking sites instead of actual evidence to support their head in the sand reality.  A little point of interest for ya Mary.  Since neither NIST, nor the 911 cOmmission Report would even touch WTC 7, because the lie would've been too obvious, deniers such as yourself have to use assertion from tools to 'prove' their ridiculous fairy tale.

Here Mary--debunk this in your  next reality piece

9/11 Mysteries: Demolitions

or

Terror Storm

 I would love to see your (ir)rationalizations

by Matt Kjeldsen (13 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 7 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 10:14:05 AM

  (0+)

Mary, you are no doubt sincere but your all embracing remarks show your ignorance. You imply that the twin towers could not have been demolitions because demolitions don't smash windows all around. It is perfectly true that commercial demolitions do not smash windows all around, however this was not a commercial demolition.

And what about building 7? That did not smash windows so on what basis do you say it was not a demolition?

It is perfectly obvious to anyone who stops to think, and doesn't rashly rush to print, that the twin towers would have been brought down in a different manner to building 7. They had to be because the plan was to make it look like plane and fire damage, so the collapse had to start near the top. There was no plane involved with building 7 so it could be brought down from the bottom, just as in commercial demolitions, and that is just how it looked.

In a commercial demolition only minor damage is done through the height of the building and the collapse is initiated by destroying the supports near the bottom and gravity aids collapse. In the case of the twin towers however, starting near the top, there was not much mass and much more explosive would be needed. The effect of this extra explosive can be seen in the videos - have you not noticed how much material was flung out? Hundreds of thousands of lumps of concrete would have sprayed out all round. Windows would break. 

It all fits together when you give it a bit of thought. No matter how improbable the use of explosives seems, the rate of fall of the roofs of all three buildings, so close to free fall, can only be explained by accepting that the supports gave virtually no resistance.

Your continued use of arguments centred on the exaggerations of some activists, rather than on scientific studies, suggests that you have not yet bothered to read the peer reviewed work published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. As an influencial person you have an obligation to use good work. I look forward to reading your comments after doing so.

by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 10:23:41 AM

  (0+)

If you're referring to the video I think you are, then I must accuse your of being a bit disparaging of our witness. This guy was not a janitor. He was more of a manager of the building (probably one of a few) with keys to all floors. He'd been on the scene in '93. He was interesting and understandable. He reported hearing huge explosions BEFORE the aircraft ever hit the building. ... But perhaps that's not important...;-)

by Michael Gill (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 11:30:56 AM

  (0+)

Asking someone at "controlled demolition' whether the buildings were brought down by explosives is like asking the Pope wherther or not he prays to God....you should know the answer in advance. CD was the company brought in after the buildings fell to clean up the site, bringing down the remains of the other buildings that were damaged much worse by the debris and subsequent fires...but did not come down. Try sending a video of WTC-7 coming down to a random selection of demolition experts in Europe for a response.... like others have done, and the consensus is much different. For all I know, CD was involved in setting the charges...remember, Silverstein has admitted wtc-7 was 'pulled' on TV; why shouldn't we believe the others were set up to be 'pulled' as well? (A process that takes much planning, and many days or weeks of setting charges precisely to work well) As a physicist, I can tell you that no buildings can come down vertically into their own footpirint at near free-fall speeds in ANY type of collapse, without some kind of demolition wave destroying the resistance of the steel and concrete floors below the collapse area; the resistance of the undamaged floors would slow and probably stop the collapse at some point. If you viewed "Loose Change" and/or other 9-11 films, they all show various reporters reporting multiple explosions occuring in the towers well before they came down, same witth the firefighters and citizens. How do you explain that?

Not to mention, the intial hole in the Pentagon only about 16 feet in diameter, and no large pieces of debris on the lawn in front; where did the rest of the plane go? The two 10 ton engines made of hardened steel at least should of made two additional holes on either side of where the body of the plane entered, even if you can believe that the rest of the wings vaporized instantly (which doesn't make scientific sense, anyway)  

Please go back and take another look at the EVIDENCE.  

by Brad Griffeth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 138 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 12:12:30 PM

  (0+)

is "Rebuilding America's Defenses" from "The Project for a New American Century", PNAC in short. If you feel comfortable with PDF files (many don't so I always give a short warning before linking to a PDF), the document can be found at

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf Actually, I'm glad you mentioned this doc and I suggest Mary read it front to back. I did. The overall concept of pulling US troops out of central Europe, Germany to be more specific, and relocated to strategic locations further east struck me as a complete shift in foreign politics. In a way, I see it as an act of agression toward Russia & China...at the expense of former Russian satellite countries such as Romania, Poland, the Czech Republic, and last but not least, Iraq. Add Syria, Iran and a few more and you've got just the area the PNAC document refers to. Reading the document, one also gets a good feeling for the Military Industrial Complex and the business of War.

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 12:13:44 PM

  (0+)

to RobinParsons' comment. Darned Software !

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 12:16:01 PM

  (0+)

You should also check out the website patriotsquestion911.com and see how many tin foil hats you see on these high ranking government and military officials, icluding pilots, faa controllers,  military ranks up to and including 'General' that are convinced it was an inside job. also see pilotsfor911truth.com (think thats right, dont have the link in this computer)

by Brad Griffeth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 138 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 12:19:44 PM

  (0+)

"(But) is it possible that America's democratically elected government could be guilty of the worst crime in the nation's history – of participating in the wanton murder of thousands of its own citizens and the destruction of the national economy in order to advance some nefarious, secret agenda?"

(from an advert for Whistleblower Single Issue - September 2006)

Was Bush democratically elected ?

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 12:36:57 PM

  (0+)

by ChrisIXXIVeritas (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 33 comments) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 1:00:18 PM

  (0+)

I was just about to post a link to a very recent interview with Judy Wood. NOT a good idea in the company of the brainwashed.

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 1:19:42 PM

  (0+)

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm (Fiction) "A time comes when silence is betrayal." - Martin Luther King

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 1:50:23 PM

  (0+)

Please access this very informative site on how disinformation has been used to dupe us. Scroll past some glaring headlines to a very sober, convincing analysis. http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html#history Excerpt: 9/11 was an inside job, but not all claims of complicity are real muddying the waters to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement. A tactic similar to (if not part of) the Karl Rove strategy of promoting true material wrapped in a package of lies, such as the supposedly fake documents given to CBS News (see BS?) in September 2004 that had the accurate conclusion that Bush went AWOL from the National Guard. That smear alienated the rest of the media from looking at the story, which helped to ensure that the point spread between Kerry and Bush would be thin enough for vote fraud to tip the balance to Bush.

by Christie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 143 comments) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 2:30:34 PM

  (0+)

I like it when authors engage in the follow-up discussions. Anyhoo, PNAC and "Rebuilding America's Defenses" was mentioned above. Richard Perle was a member of PNAC. Was because it "was" and no longer "is" ; like any serious corporation, they've gone through a rebranding to protect the guilty....e.g. WorldCom / MCI / Verizon.

Perle; "Even if we cannot prove to the standard that we enjoy in our own civil society they are involved, we do know, for example, that Saddam Hussein has ties to Osama bin Laden. That can be documented."

He now denies having said this but it's on record, on video and factual.

http://uruknet.info/?p=m32660&s1=h1

A short note regarding Tenet's book "At the Center of the Storm" ......these guys are blaming each other for (letting) 9/11 (happen) and the illegal wars which followed. I'd like to see someone dig into this in an article. It looks to me as if the guilty are trying to come clean. Maybe some are more guilty than others. And by the way and on the go, Virgin Arilines has dropped Loose Change from their in-flight entertainment system. It's that bad. Or it's that serious or a Virgin fell from heaven ?

One more for the road ;

"A significant number of potential jurors in the Jose Padilla terrorism support case say they aren't sure who is responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, many because they don't trust the news media or U.S. government pronouncements."

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 2:34:31 PM

  (0+)

The 9/11 Deniers just had to come and harass you.

What gets me are all of the other little in-consitencies or consitencies that are there, the timing is such that the terrorists planned their stike at a time of near the LEAST occupation of the Building, last time they aimed for the most.

Less people on planes, less security.

That Paper "Legacy for a New American Millienium" (Right title??) that decried the Need for a 'New Pearl Harbor' shortly thereafter(?) followed by 9/11.

You can't even get the paper right and we are expected to take you seriously. The paper was written years before even GWB was president.

The facts are in and those who have half a brain can see that 9/11 was an inside job.

Ironically enough, cultists often have an elitism mentality that they are the "chosen ones" and belittle those outside their circle. Nice to know that someone like Aimee thinks that who think differently then her are morons.

Gee Golly Mary. I guess you didn't know your own NIST debunked FEMA's "Pancake" theory regarding the collapse of WTC 1,2,7 a long long time ago.

Maybe you should the NIST report first before making such dumb comments. NIST said that the Pancake collapse is rejected as the collapse initiation. Learn how to read.

Did you even consider WTC buildings 5 and 6 which were much much more severely damaged both by falling debrise and by intense fires (neither of which were present in WTC 7) yet they did not actually collapse at all...

Actually they did partially collapsed and had to get rid of the remains because they were beyond repairs. None of the WTC buildings survived that day.

You also fail to mention just how high these buildings were, the materials used to build them, and the methods. No two buildings are alike.

-The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).

Suddenly? The firefighters who gave the order expected it to collapse, hours ago.

-The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.

Wrong. It damaged nearby buildings and littered the surrounding streets.

-Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.

Yes, air doesn't magically disappear. It can be pushed.

-The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.

The pile was 12 stories from basement to top, and spread out over 150 meters. It left debris in several areas outside the footprint, including Vesey street and 30 W. Broadway.

-The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.

Where was the series of bangs and explosions, prior to the collapse like the Landmark Tower? Why were seismic readings longer then 7 seconds?

I guess it's easier to argue against the official story when you have create lies about it.

The 9/11 Deniers just had to come and harass you.

What gets me are all of the other little in-consitencies or consitencies that are there, the timing is such that the terrorists planned their stike at a time of near the LEAST occupation of the Building, last time they aimed for the most.

Less people on planes, less security.

That Paper "Legacy for a New American Millienium" (Right title??) that decried the Need for a 'New Pearl Harbor' shortly thereafter(?) followed by 9/11.

You can't even get the paper right and we are expected to take you seriously. The paper was written years before even GWB was president.

The facts are in and those who have half a brain can see that 9/11 was an inside job.

Ironically enough, cultists often have an elitism mentality that they are the "chosen ones" and belittle those outside their circle. Nice to know that someone like Aimee thinks that who think differently then her are morons.

Gee Golly Mary. I guess you didn't know your own NIST debunked FEMA's "Pancake" theory regarding the collapse of WTC 1,2,7 a long long time ago.

Maybe you should the NIST report first before making such dumb comments. NIST said that the Pancake collapse is rejected as the collapse initiation. Learn how to read.

Did you even consider WTC buildings 5 and 6 which were much much more severely damaged both by falling debrise and by intense fires (neither of which were present in WTC 7) yet they did not actually collapse at all...

Actually they did partially collapsed and had to get rid of the remains because they were beyond repairs. None of the WTC buildings survived that day.

You also fail to mention just how high these buildings were, the materials used to build them, and the methods. No two buildings are alike.

-The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).

Suddenly? The firefighters who gave the order expected it to collapse, hours ago.

-The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.

Wrong. It damaged nearby buildings and littered the surrounding streets.

-Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.

Yes, air doesn't magically disappear. It can be pushed.

-The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.

The pile was 12 stories from basement to top, and spread out over 150 meters. It left debris in several areas outside the footprint, including Vesey street and 30 W. Broadway.

-The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.

Where was the series of bangs and explosions, prior to the collapse like the Landmark Tower? Why were seismic readings longer then 7 seconds?

I guess it's easier to argue against the official story when you have create lies about it.

by MarkyX (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 2:56:11 PM

  (0+)

 So you woke up?

by tiffane (4 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 47 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 2:41:00 AM

  (0+)

Whether it be concerned with non-existent "gas chambers", or the anomalous collapse of a building with only minor damage.

by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 3:45:17 PM

  (0+)

I see you agree with the holocaust deniers.  How nice.

As for minor damage to WTC7, I'm sure this firefighter who was down there would completely disagree with you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LHEfF1vWnQ 

Or what about Chief Daniel Nigro, the fire commander who gave the evacuation order of WTC7?

 "The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Chief Daniel Nigro

Going to call the firefighters liars? 

by MarkyX (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 4:40:47 PM

  (0+)

"lol Holocaust Denier  I see you agree with the holocaust deniers.  How nice."

by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 5:36:59 PM

  (0+)

That firefighter is merely one of many people with an opinion.  If you think that building was any more than lightly damaged, then you've apparently never seen any of the steel-cored steel-framed buildings that have endured a real fire.

Here's more!

"WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. [Firehouse Magazine, 4/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, “At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged.” [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - William Ryan

Well I'm certainly going to disagree that WTC7 had "very heavy fire on many floors", if that's what you mean.

That's nice, too bad you weren't there.  These guys were.

And to the extent WTC7 did in fact have "very heavy fire on many floors", the fire was indisputably far less severe than fires occuring in many other steel framed buildings in recent history, yet none of the other buildings collapsed.

Please, start listing some steel frame buildings that had a huge skyscraper fell onto them, at least 40 stories high, destroyed the water supply so the sprinkers wouldn't work, and burned for several hours straight unfought.

This should be interesting. 

This clearly implies that the FEMA engineers had serious problems with the notion that the fires were responsible for the collapse. Are you going to call the FEMA engineers "liars"?

Learn how to read buddy.  It means based on the current information, they can't gather accurate information as to how the building fell exactly.  Low probability doesn't automatically mean impossible.

Either way, there is no proof of controlled demolition.  They were no series of blasts or lights going upwards (otherwise you would've had thousands of witnesses reporting it) nor do the seismic readings show explosive devices going off.  

by MarkyX (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 5:57:45 PM

  (0+)

Almost forget to aid that the FEMA statement is been quite some time and NIST is currently investigating the WTC7.

by MarkyX (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 5:58:48 PM

  (0+)

After reading her last article where she says an eyewitness she believes in said that building 7 came down after having been burning for several days with 1/2 million pounds of jet fuel, the fallacy of which went unanswered after I pointed it out, I decided THIS article and anything else by this author is not worth the time to read. My gut feeling is that this is just propaganda designed to hide further investigation and disparage those who question the government, although it might be just nonsense. It's certainly not to be taken seriously. Her credibility is shot.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 5:44:20 PM

  (0+)

My Grandfather said it throughout his life, I said it in a physics class and again in graduate school, Einstein said it long before, and more than once, to Jung and Niels Bohr, I say it again, in a moment.

When Jung approached Einstein about his theory of Synchronicity, he asked Einstein if the events he'd described from his psychoanalysis of bright patients, were, as many scientists believed, 'coincidental', or did his data hold up as specifically to the person which the event held psychic significance. Einstein's answer took into account that to an outsider, not connected to the psychic event, it would not make any sense other than 'coincidental,' but to the person to which the event, premonition, prophecy, etc. held significance, especially if the premonition, prophecy, was efficacious, "It is just God's way of letting us know we are not alone."

To Neil's Bohr, who thought that the Quantum was chaos and all was a giant coincidence, Einstein said, as simply and consistently as the above, "God Does not (or would not) shoot dice (or craps) with the universe."

There are no coincident's except to those who cannot see, and God does neither shoot craps with the universe nor ignore Hell on Earth, is the gist of Einstein's remarks.

My dad and grandfather were executives of the AF of L and a local in Chicago, which serviced Wreckers, and General Laborers Union Local 225. I worked for them as a proposal writer and BA for two years, while studying architecture, anthropology and more. They saw more than a thousand buildings wrecked, I saw more than 150. One of my several graduate and undergraduate degrees is in Architecture. My uncle was the famous JW Bagnolo, who built Churches, Hospitals, schools and municipal buildings. I worked for him full and part time through high school and part of college. I helped design and build several larger structures of stone and steel. He refused, to build buildings of Glass and steel, and I concurred, having said, decades ago that buildings of Steel and glass were suspect and could be easily destroyed by errant planes and other missiles. I watched buildings come down by explosive demolition by experts and by would-be experts. The collapse of the Towers was neither a simultaneous collapse caused by weight, or any other after effect. The most eminent danger of any sort of "collapse" is when the steel or aluminum transfers the heat rapidly down to the lowest floors making them soft and collapsible, immediately after the full force of the heat is in effect, not after it cools. Even so, the possibility of even that happening is rare, so rare that I know of no such instance.

To my trained eye, my education in architecture, the scenario would not have occurred as it did unless there was a catalyst, like demolition of some other form of sabotage.

Further, because I believe the quantum, rules out coincidence, as a scientist, I, like Einstein, do not believe that coincidence exists.

Further, time and history have decreed and shown us, that everything which has ever happened in the world of men, except acts of God, from before David's plan to eliminate Uriah, in order to marry Bathsheba, to the start of every war and incident, every assassination, every "accident" there is cause and effect, things occurred because something catalyzed them.

Everything, which has ever happened in the world of men, except acts of God, is conspiracy. Only fools, losing gamblers, and scientists whose minds are blocked by emotional problems, believe in random occurrences-unsystematic happenings, scientists-true scientists, who comprehend the quantum and the laws of physics. God, indeed, does not shoot dice with the universe.

Further, I do not take polls of what other people believe and adjust my point of view to theirs. I make scientific studies and look for the evidence, not someone else's point of view. Doing that makes one a follower, not a leader.

All I can say about the collapse is that to me, and without the benefit of research, to me, visually, when the building collapsed, it looked as, in detail, a building does when it has been demolished by explosives.

As Woody Allen once said, "I was busy writing the non-fiction version of the Warren Report."

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 6:00:05 PM

  (0+)

Do not confuse "conspiracy theories" with "reasonable suspicion." Theories are simply possibilities based on intellectual conclusions. Suspicion is based on specific events and evidence. For example you can not conduct a courtroom trial based on theory, you can however, conduct one based on evidence.

by ChrisIXXIVeritas (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 33 comments) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 6:20:35 PM

  (0+)

Any amateur detective, once he watches all the videos available, not just Loose Change, but others like 9/11 Mysteries, reads all the repressed testimony of cops, firemen and ETs, reads all the Neocon Documents about the New American Century, studies how NORAD was diverted, how scores of intelligence services warned that something big was up, and on and on, will come to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job with designated al Qaeda patsies for theatre.

I have been on a ship in drydock with a raging fire that lasted all night, and guess what, no steel melted. It only distorted. I had to cut holes in the superstructure with a torch so the firemen could have access. Fire doesn't melt steel and collapsing structures can't pulverize it. Only powerful explosives can do that. To believe that a jet liner fire can transform thousands of tons of massive steel into liquid globules and dust is tantamont to believing in the tooth fairy, no matter how clever the arguments.

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 113 quicklinks, 240 diaries, 1413 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 7:12:41 PM

  (0+)

by ChrisIXXIVeritas (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 33 comments) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 8:16:42 PM

  (0+)

I Have a suggestion. When we write, could we address the comment to whomever, we wish to communicate? Otherwise we do not know at whom some of these comments are directed. The way in which some comments come in, it is hard for anyone to know if they are speaking to the author of the article or one of the commentors. I think that either, the reply software does not always work as it should, or I, for one, and some others, are using it incorrectly.

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 8:31:38 PM

  (0+)

It is amazing to me how when an article gets a few comments, the columnist, and the article, are quickly forgotten or, at least, fade into the background, and those who commented begin a conversation, discussion, argument, which has a life of it's own. I am betting that if the columnist, not just Mary M. but any writer, came in and tried to moderate or say something they would be ignored or chased away, so the boys and girls could go on with their own discussion. It is hilarious! Soon people are blasting away at each other and the source which created the discussion is put out of mind, all that is important is the current squabble among those making comments.

In several cases those commenting to the author didn't even bother to read the article, they simply started arguing with the author or others commenting, about something s/he never said, and from what they misunderstood in the comments. I had that happen on more than one of my articles, and I just watched with amusement, people slugging it out over something I didn't say, but one the those who commented said. It is a snort!

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 8:52:56 PM

  (0+)

That all of this 9/11 stuff is pretty far-fetched. I mean, who could believe that President Bush and his friends could do something for political gain, based on lies, and that ends up costing the lives of some 3,000 Americans and a lot of money, and then continue to lie about what is ....

Oh....  wait a minute......   NEVER MIND!

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 9:47:51 PM

  (0+)

Mary,I think most of these people know someone who had lunch in Paris with Elvis last year; most would believe that the landing on the moon was staged out in the desert; most believe the moon is really made of cheese. Thank you for your article and how silly your detractors sound. As far as the majority, who cares about that; still I would venture to say if one of those who believe it 911 was an inside job said as much on a national TV show, it would be laughed at by well over ninety-five percent of those who watched such a silly statement.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 10:44:53 PM

  (0+)

Once again ad hominem and a very lame attempt to assert guilt by false association. Much like Marky something above who wants to associate 9/11 Truth seekers with holocaust deniers. The effort to provide false or misleading information, the use of ad hominem-based attacks (and other fallacies of argumentation) are hallmarks of those who cannot, or have no interest in any effort to, engage in serious debate and exploration but resorts to sliming instead. These are fairly revealing behaviors. 

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 11:21:05 PM

  (0+)

You don't see it a problem that Loose Change or 9/11 Mysteries, two popular internet, had to use Holocaust Deniers as their source of information?

Why can't you guys get structural engineers or demolition firms within your movement?

by MarkyX (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 5:49:57 AM

  (0+)

Judgement without examination is the height of ignorance.

Mark Twain

by BreezyinVA (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 at 11:09:03 AM

  (0+)

It has become very evident that some people have no grip on reality and have become overly engrossed with the idea that the US govenment is behind all of the events of September 11.  These people have zero ability to see any other possibilities and will attack anyone who dares question their opinions.  I think it is time to move on and focus on what is happening here and now today.  The government goofed and did not listen to warnings but the government did not arrange for the events.  The buildings collapsed because they suffered extreme structural damage from a fire far hotter than anyone imagined.  The building techinques used were decades old.  As for some saying they heard explosions prior to the collapses - this was a very traumatic event and people simply cannot always remember the correct series of occurrences and many may have heard what sounded like explosions. Mary has provided some very good references for review but it seems that those who are stuck in the middle of this never ending X-Files episode will not even consider looking at them.  I guess it is easier or more dramatic to live in conspiracy land.  The rest of us, probably 99.9% of the US population, have the sense to know reality from fiction.

by Margaret Cloud (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 12:36:19 AM

  (0+)

--It is simply amazing that this stuff continues to droll out of some folks:

"It has become very evident that some people have no grip on reality and have become overly engrossed with the idea that the US govenment is behind all of the events of September 11.  These people have zero ability to see any other possibilities and will attack anyone who dares question their opinions."

*Simply more ad hominem nonsense. And I notice you are attacking those who don't share your myopic, sliming opinion.

" I think it is time to move on and focus on what is happening here and now today.  The government goofed and did not listen to warnings but the government did not arrange for the events."

 *A nice 'limited hangout'.... the old 'incompetence' theory hung out again.

 " The buildings collapsed because they suffered extreme structural damage from a fire far hotter than anyone imagined."

* This is simply a false assertion as has been well proven elsewhere (see Griffin, Hoffman, Jones, et. al)

 "The building techinques used were decades old."

* Another meager attempt at disinfo.... has nothing to do with whether they would fall or not.... The buildings were designed to withstand the hit of comparably sized, loaded 707's.

 "As for some saying they heard explosions prior to the collapses - this was a very traumatic event and people simply cannot always remember the correct series of occurrences and many may have heard what sounded like explosions."

* Simply a bald-faced lie. Many professional firefighting and police officials have testified to the occurrence of multiple explosings. Indeed, you can even hear the explosions on various news clips. 

"Mary has provided some very good references for review but it seems that those who are stuck in the middle of this never ending X-Files episode will not even consider looking at them."

* Actually they have been "looked at" and well-debunked by many writers. Hers are the same old hackneyed and easily refuted sources of b.s.

 "I guess it is easier or more dramatic to live in conspiracy land. "

* Once again, ad hominem.

 "The rest of us, probably 99.9% of the US population, have the sense to know reality from fiction."

* Above, Another bit of specious argument. 

"Clearly, many Americans - 65% - believed right off the bat in spring 2002 that the government was hiding something. By spring 2004, that figure was reduced almost 10 percent by the 9/11 Commission's dog-and-pony show. The Americans who were only peripherally paying attention to the Commission's work believed that all questions about the attacks were being answered, and so the percentage of Americans who believed the government was telling the truth increased slightly, from 21% to 24%.

Interestingly, however, the percentage of people thinking the government was "mostly lying" doubled during that same period. So those paying attention to the facts and the actual substance of the testimony understood that the government was lying and whitewashing the 9/11 attacks.

Then by October 2006, the number of Americans who believe the government is mainly lying almost doubled again, to 28%. This is significant for a number of reasons. First, the 9/11 Commission Report has already been out for a long time. Second, the mainstream media has been defending that fairy tell for many years, calling anyone who questioned it a conspiracy nut case and -- as evidenced by Bill O'Reilly's attack on Jim Fetzer -- attempting to intimidate and harass 9/11 truthers. And third, the boys have spent untold amounts of money on psyops operations, likely including paying a bunch of desk-jockies to troll 9/11 truth discussions (such as those held at this site).

But still, the poll results show that the truth is winning out against the propaganda. Those who realize the government is lying about 9/11 has steadily risen, despite all of the bullying, disinformation, and "questioning 9/11 is unpatriotic" b.s. that has been spewed from every Orweillian talking box in the land."

m

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 6:13:22 AM

  (0+)

*Simply more ad hominem nonsense. And I notice you are attacking those who don't share your myopic, sliming opinion.

But still, the poll results show that the truth is winning out against the propaganda.

So instead of scientific evidence to prove that 9/11 was an inside job, you guys have to resort to public image to look "legit".  You guys are trying to gain followers based on a belief, not a fact.  This is no different then a cult.

Even then, polls are mainly crap because they can be manipulated depending on the type of question asked and the demograph of the people being asked.  If all these people think the government was behind 9/11, where is the massive protests?  Why was there less then a 1000 people on Ground Zero where "Investigate 9/11" shirts?

People protest for even lesser things like gay marriage, tax hikes, and illegal immigration.  Yet when it comes to slaughter of 3000 people of their own government, only 20 guys show up with "9/11 was an inside job" banners.

You guys are a joke :) 

by MarkyX (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 7:05:31 AM

  (0+)

Macloud,

Thank you for the sane reaction. I said 95, but you are much more accurate at 99.5 percent.

Mary,

Take heart. There is no reason with some of these people.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 at 11:55:24 AM

  (0+)

The official story is BS, examine it and it falls apart- decades of warnings, from at least 11 different countries, summer of threat, "couldn't imagine" and they drilled that exact scenario, war games on 9/11, nearly 2 hours no interceptions, insider trading, VISA violations, 5 "hijackers" alive after 9/11, hijackers trained at US military bases, obstructed investigations before and after, CIA-Bush-Al Qaeda- Bin Laden connections, etc, etc, we've been massively lied to and their needs to be a real investigation, support Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul

Timeline made from thousands of MSM articles 

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 12:46:19 AM

  (0+)

Well Mary you have put the cat with the pigeon.  As we are giving our opinions I will give mine.   911 was a little bit of both.  What is important to me is what the u.s. did after. Behaved like it was their right to attack in all directions.  Exactly just where has it gotten us.  If we don't have a change soon in all areas we are in the deep sh*t.  Doesn't anyone ever look into the eyes of the children.  Blah Blah Blah     so what.

by davy (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 240 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 2:04:47 AM

  (0+)

It was the False Flag Psyop (and the U.S. has a long history of these) used to psychologically prepare the U.S. public for war and used as justification for waging criminal wars. None of this sh*t would be happening were it not for 9/11.

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 6:38:34 AM

  (0+)

Sorry Mary, I can not buy your reasoning. You fail to mention that LooseChange showed numerous other skyscraper buildings in the world that faced similar tragedies, and none of those fell. In fact they burned longer over 24 hours with planes hitting them. Why didn't they fall. Yet you expect me to believe the official version? Also the N. Tower was hit first, then 30 minutes later the S. Tower was hit; yet the S. Tower fell first. Why? This logic makes no sense, since of course both planes were suppose to have similar amounts of fuel. In fact...911 was more than a terrorist attack but the biggest bank robbery in US history. There is over 30 billion in gold bullion missing, along with money. I do not believe it vanished in destruction, when computers were found with hard drives still intact. And yet they found the passport to one of the terrorists in good shape in the rubble.

Hello!

It is my belief that Rudy Guliani was involved with this crime, reporting live to his headquarters of henchmen in building 7. That is why building 7 was pulled, a term Larry Silverstein used because they had to bring the building down to destroy evidence of their headquarters of demo directing; and gold heist operations.

The reason the S. Tower fell first is because they needed to make sure debris was not blocking tunnel exits where building 7 was. When they saw the tunnels were clear they O.K.'ed the N. Tower implosion. It took 7 hours to get the gold out. The same amount of time it took before building 7 imploded. The money was loaded in a tractor trailer to get it away from the S. Tower quickly incase the tunnels collapsed. When away from the weight they loaded up their cars, Vans, probably a few fake ambulances, and drive the loot to a safe location, under no watchful eyes. They left a little behind to make it appear they found the vaults.

And just because all demolitions are not the same, gives reason to using different methods, different types of thermite, and different ideas in bringing down a building. Its a bad idea to compare demolitions, and since it is different does not mean it was not one.

It was a bank robbery big time. Given JF Kennedy's assassination I suppose you believe Lee Harvey Oswald deserved his fate?

No Mary, I think you are afraid to believe America is under seige by the biggest Organized Crime Syndicate the world has ever known.

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 4:51:17 AM

  (0+)

You fail to mention that LooseChange showed numerous other skyscraper buildings in the world that faced similar tragedies, and none of those fell.

Were any of those buildings steel frame buildings that suffered a huge plane going into them?  Nope.  In fact, one of the buildings they use, the Windsor Tower in Madrid, had the steel portion of the building collapse.  The only reason that building stood is because it had a concrete core, something the Twin Towers or WTC7 didn't have.

Strange how Loose Change doesn't mention that feature.

Also the N. Tower was hit first, then 30 minutes later the S. Tower was hit; yet the S. Tower fell first. Why?

It was hit lower and had to sustain more weight.  No wonder you believe Loose Change; you aren't that bright.

There is over 30 billion in gold bullion missing, along with money.

Again, you aren't that bright.

That is why building 7 was pulled, a term Larry Silverstein used because they had to bring the building down to destroy evidence of their headquarters of demo directing; and gold heist operations.

Pull is not a controlled demolition term used for explosive devices.  Chief Daniel Nigro, the fire commander Larry Silverstein, gave the order.

And just because all demolitions are not the same, gives reason to using different methods, different types of thermite, and different ideas in bringing down a building. Its a bad idea to compare demolitions, and since it is different does not mean it was not one.

Of course, you have no proof of this whatsoever and you even bring up thermite.  The funny part is, you get this information from people who don't deal with controlled demolition for a living.  Where are the hundreds of demolition firms around the world saying that the towers were bought down by bombs?

by MarkyX (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 5:55:31 AM

  (0+)

Meant to say that Chief Daniel Nigro is the fire commander Larry Silverstein was talking about.

by MarkyX (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 5:57:12 AM

  (0+)

Sorry, meant to say gave the evacuation order.

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro

click here

by MarkyX (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 6:45:50 AM

  (0+)

Many Inconsistencies Surround 911.

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 12:22:55 AM

  (0+)

This is a false statement (an error?)

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 6:47:54 AM

  (0+)

The above was a reply to DOM

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 6:49:12 AM

  (0+)

and a due process this whole thing  is destined to become rumors. And rumors it is.  I asked for the trial for years. Why don't you, folks?

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 7:25:36 AM

  (0+)

...for the definition of the word "conspiracy". There can be no doubt that the events of 9/11 involved a conspiracy of unprecedented proportions. The basic questions everybody should be asking are: "Who are the conspirators?" "Who stood to benefit most from 9/11, and who actually has benefitted most since that day?" I think 9/11 was an inside job. But since I am human, and therefore imperfect, I am more than willing to accept the findings of a truly independent, comprehensive criminal investigation of the events of 9/11, which has yet to happen. Any of you in the "debunking" crowd care to join me in calling for that investigation? Sure would shut up the nut-job conspiracy theorists, wouldn't it?

by John Perry (31 articles, 32 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 81 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 8:22:37 AM

  (0+)

Anybody who doesn't support a complete, thorough, independent, international (it affected them too, don't you know) investigation is, in my mind, either complicit, complicit ex post facto, or certainly intent upon not having the event actually investigated (for the first time). And what might that person's or those persons' motives be?

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 8:46:44 AM

  (0+)

Hey John a while back I sent you an apology about the 911 Secret Government Plan. I don't know if you saw it. Just letting you. You are absolutely right. After creating a Pure Photo American Picture Album, about the Iraq War...my view is that this guys are big time gangsters in control of our government.

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 12:29:30 AM

  (0+)

Let's dissect Marky.

-You fail to mention that Loose Change showed? numerous other skyscraper buildings in the world that faced similar tragedies, and none of those fell.

M- Were any of those buildings steel frame buildings that suffered a huge plane going into them?? Nope.? In fact, one of the buildings they use, the Windsor Tower in Madrid, had the steel portion of the building collapse.? The only reason that building stood is because it had a concrete core, something the Twin Towers or WTC7 didn't have. Strange how Loose Change doesn't mention that feature.

Oh Marky,

What an odd twist, the Madrid fire is being? used to argue that concrete buildings are stronger than steel superstructures.? Perhaps this will make steel structure producers stand up and point out the? inconsistencies with the collapses on 9/11?

“Structural engineers say alliance claims are not only without merit, they are out of bounds. "Their assertion that concrete structures are safer than steel is based not on facts but on their greed to build concrete structures...,?"says Clifford Schwinger, quality assurance manager with Cagley Harman & Associates Inc., King of Prussia, Pa.  "That they are trying to profit from the 9/11 tragedy by claiming concrete construction is safer is worse than obscene.

-Also the N. Tower was hit first, then 30 minutes later the S. Tower was hit; yet the S. Tower fell first. Why?

M- It was hit lower and had to sustain more weight.? No wonder you believe Loose Change; you aren't that bright.

Tsk, tsk, Marky,

Is ad hominem all you're good for Marky??

Further:?"The south tower fell first because? it was hit lower thus there was more weight on the damaged area stupid" (as if the buildings being built from the ground up wouldn’t have been designed with the proportionate strength necessary regardless of where the impact occurred). "The buildings were designed to withstand a airplane impact but they forgot about the consideration for fuel" (laughter). I think they "pulled" the south tower first because the fires were so minimal they could not wait any longer or there would not of even been any smoke left."

In addition, you mislead by asserting that the weight of the material above was the determining factor in the collapse. The Towers were designed to withstand airliner hits anywhere in the buildings. Sufficient core columns were not damaged, the fires were not sufficiently 'hot' to weaken the steel. An amazing amount of redundancy of structure was built in to the buildings. Your argument is Simply bullshit. NEITHER? tower should have fallen and NIST does NOT make a valid case for collapse in their report.? However,?I'm sure you like to believe in the government conspiracy theory .... but again, you're not particularly credible.??

-There is over 30 billion in gold bullion missing, along with money.

M-- Again, you aren't that bright.

Marky, can you argue without resorting to ad hominen? Ah, I thought not.

--That is why building 7 was pulled, a term Larry Silverstein used because they had to bring the building down to destroy evidence of their headquarters of demo directing; and gold heist operations.

M-- Pull is not a controlled demolition term used for explosive devices.? Chief Daniel Nigro, the fire commander Larry Silverstein, gave the order.

Actually, Marky, "pulled" has been used in that context (see comments on 9/11 blogger.... oh but you already have since you troll there regularly. I bet you'd like to argue that Silverstein 'meant' removing the firefighters from WTC 7..... but then you'd have to ignore the fact that the firefighters already were removed hours earlier.

-And just because all demolitions are not the same, gives reason to using different methods, different types of thermite, and different ideas in bringing down a building. Its a bad idea to compare demolitions, and since it is different does not mean it was not one.

M-- Of course, you have no proof of this whatsoever and you even bring up thermite.? The funny part is, you get this information from people who don't deal with controlled demolition for a living.?

Oh Marky, Marky,

I'm sure You deal with controlled demolition every day....

There is abundant proof that thermite/ thermate was used in the Demolition of the towers. See,?.? The Journal for 9/11 Studies site.  but, of course, you have already but 'conveniently' choose to ignore that data.?

M-- Where are the hundreds of demolition firms around the world saying that the towers were bought down by bombs?

Marky, here you use the tried and true reverse reference to authority. One does not have to be an employee of CDI to have credibility here. Indeed, being an employee of that 'organization' is probably sufficient proof that one is not credible. However, there are many structural engineers, architects and physicists who prove you wrong.?

Many are members of Scholar for 9/11 Truth? or Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice and yet many more are members of? Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. And many more unaffiliated experts who also question the government's absurd conspiracy theory. Not just on the grounds of the demolition of the towers but on All issues pertaining to aspects of our government's involvement in the 9/11 False Flag (of which the demolitions? are but one part) .

Marky, you show yourself simply to be willing to obfuscate and mislead to promote your political agenda. The fact that you have to resort to frequent ad hominem and misinformation is sufficient evidence pointing to exactly what you are.

medicis

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 8:37:58 AM

  (0+)

John Perry hit it right on the head! Trolling, name calling and arguing will never settle this issue. The fact remains that there are boatloads of unanswered questions surrounding the events of that day.

  Why weren't the planes intercepted? Why were the lobbies of the towers so heavily damaged? Why can't we see the videos from the Pentagon? Why did BBC reporter Jane Standly report building 7 collapsing 24 minutes before it actually did? Why did BBC cut her feed 5 minutes before the event? Why didn't the Secret Service secure George Bush? Why did Bush claim he saw the first plane hit the north tower on TV when it had not been televised? What happened to our air defenses? And most importantly who had the most to gain? These are only a few. Seems to me that an INDEPENDENT investigation is definitely called for... and I didn't need a tin-foil hat to come to that conclusion...

by JD (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 9:06:53 AM

  (0+)

Mary, I've identified that you are not interested in the truth; you merely have an agenda. However, I want you to know that I would take the time to read your writing if I didn't already know that it was going to be full of contradictions, omissions, distortions, half-truths, and outright lies. And most of all, I won't read you because you are playing the right wing card of calling and/or insinuating that those who question the gov't are crazy. And I've had enough of that bullshit. I wont tolerate it. If you want to convince me (and others in here) do it without the sneaky personal attacks. Sigh, one bad thing about the internet is that people like you can get away with such disgusting and low down personal attacks. Shame on you and shame on opednews for continuing to publish you. If I want to read (or hear) such garbage, I can turn on fox news. {Opednews, if you keep this up, you are going to lose your faithful readers.}

by RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 9:12:13 AM

  (0+)

What an odd twist, the Madrid fire is being? used to argue that concrete buildings are stronger than steel superstructures.? Perhaps this will make steel structure producers stand up and point out the? inconsistencies with the collapses on 9/11?

Too bad that they are many qualified people who disagree with you.  Quoting one guy doesn't magically refute my argument.  The physical evidence remains: The steel portion of a building collapsed but the concrete core remained standing.  This was a building that had fire, wasn't not hit by a plane, and had explosions.  The firefighters didn't fight it because of fear it would collapse (I guess they are dumbasses because fire cannot damage buildings, right?).

The fact that you need to use a quote from one guy who doesn't even mention the Madrid building tells me you have nothing.  You are moving goalposts.

"The south tower fell first because? it was hit lower thus there was more weight on the damaged area stupid"

I guess all those structural engineers are stupid.  

"The buildings were designed to withstand a airplane impact but they forgot about the consideration for fuel" 

The building was made in the 70s.  What technology would they have to measure the fires?

I think they "pulled" the south tower first because the fires were so minimal they could not wait any longer or there would not of even been any smoke left."

No one cares what you think.  Real skeptics use facts, not opinion.

In addition, you mislead by asserting that the weight of the material above was the determining factor in the collapse. The Towers were designed to withstand airliner hits anywhere in the buildings.

As I have mentioned before, trying to land in a foggy weather with low fuel.  These are the words of Leslie E Robertson, the head structural engineer.  He says the buildings suffered 7 times more kinetic energy and has no problem with the official story.

ANd you are suggesting that weight didn't have a role in this?  Do they teach you gravity at school?

Sufficient core columns were not damaged, the fires were not sufficiently 'hot' to weaken the steel. 

Yeah they weren't damaged by a plane going 500 MPH into the building /sarcasm. 

Also, numerous firefighters who deal with fire science for a living has stated that the fires were indeed hot enough to weaken the steel, mainly due to the jet fuel and carbon-based material such as plastics (computers, chairs, etc).

Why should I go with your unsupported opinion over people who deal with this stuff for a living?

our argument is Simply bullshit. NEITHER? tower should have fallen and NIST does NOT make a valid case for collapse in their report.?

Actually they have.  You'll notice that the only people who disagree with this are people who simply don't understand physics.  That's why your movement consists of religious bible humpers, cold fusion professors, and water testers.

Why can't your movement have the proper scientists to agree with you?  Do you go to McDonalds to check your health?

Actually, Marky, "pulled" has been used in that context

Prove it.   Why is that so many demolition companies say otherwise?  CDI says Pull It isn't a demo term for explosives.  Even the editor of ImplosionWorld.com says that Pull It merely refers to cables.

This doesn't explain the fact that there is no series of lights or explosions that could be heard miles away, traits of a controlled demolition absent of WTC7.

bet you'd like to argue that Silverstein 'meant' removing the firefighters from WTC 7..... but then you'd have to ignore the fact that the firefighters already were removed hours earlier.

I have Chief Daniel Nigro who said he gave the order.  He is the fire commander that Larry Silverstein is talking about.  Are you going to call him a liar?

Oh Marky, Marky,

I'm sure You deal with controlled demolition every day....

Strawman argument.  I never said I did.  I did contact CDI and other demolition firms.  They have also came forward and said that they weren't bought down by demolition.

There is abundant proof that thermite/ thermate was used in the Demolition of the towers. See,?.? The Journal for 9/11 Studies site.  but, of course, you have already but 'conveniently' choose to ignore that data.?

The journal of 9/11 Studies is run by Steven Jones, who has yet demostrated that such a "thermite device" exists and cannot even cite one building that had Thermite to be taken down.  He also wrote an article on how Jesus walked on North America.  Even his ex-coworkers who are structural engineers DISAGREE with him.

The co-editor of the journal is Kevin Ryan, who was fired from UL by pretending to be representing the company and said that they certified the steel (they didn't).  He was simply a water tester with no background dealing with structural engineering or physics.

Marky, here you use the tried and true reverse reference to authority. One does not have to be an employee of CDI to have credibility here. Indeed, being an employee of that 'organization' is probably sufficient proof that one is not credible. However, there are many structural engineers, architects and physicists who prove you wrong.?

Really?  Show me one structural engineer.

Many are members of Scholar for 9/11 Truth? or Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice and yet many more are

NONE of them are structural engineers or have the education to talk about building physics.  Also, Scholars for 9/11 Truth's founder believes that the buildings were bought down by Space Beam Weapons.

rchitects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Site hasn't even been opened yet and they have one anonymous member.

And many more unaffiliated experts who also question the government's absurd conspiracy theory. Not just on the grounds of the demolition of the towers but on All issues pertaining to aspects of our government's involvement in the 9/11 False Flag (of which the demolitions? are but one part) .

Who?  Like Morgan Reynolds, who says that the planes were holograms?

All I ask is scientific evidence that 9/11 was an inside job and to be bought into the courts.  You guys can't do that, so you must rely on "beliefs" like some twisted religion.

It took two journalists less then two years to expose Watergate and they didn't have access to information or discussion like we do today.  After 6 years, you guys have nothing but religious mormon ex-professors talking about fictional devices.

by MarkyX (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 9:47:51 AM

  (0+)

Marky reminds me much of Mark Roberts, a well-known and tendentious sophist who supports the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory. His stock in trade is to pose false and misleading criticisms of every item, frequently inserting specious arguments, cherry picking data and citing government sources already well-debunked (e.g., NIST, FEMA, Zeliko’s 911 Commission Report) as if they were Gospel. He has a great deal of time on his hands and can repeatedly attack over great lengths of time with the ultimate goal of derailing honest discussion. He also takes every opportunity to state falsehoods as if they were fact; e.g., 

Marky stated:

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

"Site hasn't even been opened yet and they have one anonymous member. "

However, Richard Gage,  noted architect and creator of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth has reported that many architects and engineers are becoming equally convinced of government complicity in 911 and are joining. They have already held successful conferences on the topic. And yes, the site is not fully functional but has long stated the objective to be functioning in May. It still is May isn’t it?

 A clue to his real purpose of dishonest discrediting and sliming is revealed in others of his favorite techniques:

Marky’s other stocks in trade are to fan the flame of guilt by false association (e.g., 9/11 truthers are Holocaust Deniers... blah blah) or ad hominem attack... e.g., Steven Jones, Ph.D. is a *Mormon*….. ‘Oh my Gawd!! We can’t trust him!‘ … by which it is implied he is less trustworthy and credible than a Hindu, Jew, or Christian  -- (all of whom, by the way, espouse equally unsupportable religious beliefs). 

Another example is to discount argumentation by attacking the person not the argument. For example, that provided by a scholarly theologian and philosopher like David Griffin.… attacked because he is a theologian and philosopher. Griffin’s coherent and cogent argumentation is not discussed.… rather, insinuation and ad hominem are used in an attempt to discredit the person. These and other techniques of disinfo (often including many of the other known fallacies in argumentation) are the hallmarks of dishonest debate. Such tactics are clearly revealing of the motive and ethics of the person using them.

Another tactic is to choose individuals within the movement (and it is a heterogeneous movement, ya know) who espouse fringe ideas and tout them as representative of the movement as a whole. Yet another disingenuous and misleading tactic. Marky is dishonest.

However, regardless of the tactics used by disinfo folks, the 9/11 Truth movement does have significant problems with disinformation from other sources and tactics. I thought I might include the discussion proffered by truthmove.org.….. so that you all might be apprised of the tactics and be aware of them for the future.

Disinformation

Infiltration, Misinformation, Disruption

The 9/11 truth movement is a prime target for disinformation, infiltration, and other forms of sabotage by forces who do not want the truth to be known. You can imagine that if mainstream anti-war and environmental groups have regularly been infiltrated, something as radical and revolutionary as 9/11 truth would demand a very sophisticated counterintelligence campaign.

Agents of disinformation may not “play their hand” until the right moment and disinformation must appear credible in order to be effective. Deceptive evidence is often delivered alongside accurate information.

Disinformation requires intentionality while misinformation does not. In the 9/11 truth movement, you will come across both—evidence, materials, researchers, and groups that either consciously or unconsciously promote false or misleading information. Much incorrect information within the 9/11 truth community likely began as disinformation but has been perpetuated as unintentional misinformation.

This is a very sensitive topic. Some may see it as “divisive” or inflammatory to name suspected examples and outlets of disinformation. We think it’s a necessary part of democratic debate and any sort of movement dedicated to truth. Nothing is ever 100% sure, but we can confidently say that the resources named on this page are spreading information that is unsupported by factual evidence and is highly damaging to the movement.

The issue of disinformation/infiltration can easily lead to paranoia. It is essential to maintain a clear head, whether delving into this subject academically or dealing with it directly.

The objectives and methods of disinformation are quite sophisticated. Here are a few of the main strategies:

?. The Straw Man Argument/Sensationalism - by promoting speculative, sensational, and false evidence, opponents can setup easily debunkable or dismissable points that can be used to lend credence to their position. The opposition prefers dealing with topics that can be easily countered, or that simply make 9/11 skeptics look like kooks. Controlled demolition and no plane at the Pentagon are some of the most incredible theories in the movement. Whether or not there is prevalent evidence to support these theories almost doesn’t matter if the public is likely to be incredulous and quickly dismiss them. At TruthMove, we find controlled demolition to be a compelling hypothesis but not theories of a missile or military plane at the Pentagon. Sensational issues such as these also have a way of overshadowing the drier, more documentary evidence. If, for example, controlled demolition captures your imagination, you may not be so interested in the hundreds of other details that together make a watertight case for government complicity.

?. Muddying the Waters - making it harder to discern the real evidence/researchers/websites from the fake ones. This approach both frustrates efforts at understanding the subject and makes the project less focused and more frustrating to be a part of. For example, when a newcomer visits the Scholars for 9/11 Truth site, and sees that there are two exclusive, competing groups (that are each essentially calling the other “disinfo”), they might become frustrated or dismissive with the whole movement). While one may be interested in researching and “getting to the bottom of 9/11,” distinguishing between honest information and disinformation, between trustworthy and suspect sources becomes another time-consuming, distracting layer of investigation.

?. Death by Association/Smear Campaign - by including the target idea/individual/movement along with another topic or personality that is disliked or discredited (UFOs, anti-semitism, nazis, etc.), the original subject can be smeared and dismissed. These smear campaigns can be extremely effective, as most people are very concerned with the image of a group or subject that they might get involved with. While not entirely due to disinformation, you can see this dynamic at work in the generalized image of “conspiracy theories.” For some reason, many diverse topics—UFOs, 9/11, JFK, Illuminati, Satanism, New World Order, Shapeshifting Aliens—are commonly conflated with each other in people’s minds.

?. Paranoia/Divide and Conquer - one of the most effective ways to destroy a group is to sow distrust among members. COINTELPRO is known to have supplied false information in order create suspicion between authentic progressive activists. Seemingly paradoxically, disinformation agents may actually promote discussion of disinformation/infiltration in order to increase paranoia. Such efforts may be targeted at creating suspicion around real and effective evidence/materials/activists.

?. Several high-profile “researchers” and supposed 9/11 skeptics have come out promoting theories that no planes actually hit the WTC towers, instead holograms and/or “TV fakery” was supposedly used to simulate the planes. Many of these same individuals also promote theories about “mini-nukes” or “space-beam” weapons being used to demolish the towers. 5 6 (Also, see my TM forum post, I HEARD AND SAW THE FIRST PLANE)

?. The “no plane at the Pentagon” theory has been called a hoax or disinfo by many within the movement. At TruthMove, we believe that most of the strongest points behind this argument have been effectively countered by honest skeptics within the movement. 7 8 9

?. “Criminal Politics” magazine mixes 9/11 truth with anti-semitism and other right-wing, hateful ideas. It features a mugshot-looking picture of David Ray Griffin on the cover, with the sarcastic headline, “Can This Retired Theologian Save the United States?” It seems to be a smear campaign against Griffin and the 9/11 truth movement as a whole. A direct quote: “[Michael S.] Rose - - like Professor David Ray Griffin has the courage that many Catholics have lacked to give the clear answers: - - the Jewish Masonic order was infiltrated into this church…to approve only those who tested out psychologically as having a predilection to homosexuality.”(See TM forum post)

?. Eric D. Williams was the webmaster and director of the “9/11 Accountability Conference.” He had written books on 9/11, fascism, the matrix, and the London bombings, yet just before the conference he released a new work of Holocaust revisionism, “The Puzzle of Auschwitz.” The association of the 9/11 truth movement to such a topic is possibly disastrous. And just the week before CNN did a piece conflating 9/11 skepticism with anti-semitism. 4 CNN

?. The “Plane Pod” theory appeared out of nowhere in 2004 and was widely promoted in the professionally produced “9/11: In Plane Site.” This film covers almost none of the concrete evidence for government complicity and instead makes up new “evidence” out thin air or blurry video footage. The main thesis of the film is that there were “pods” on the undersides of the planes which fired “missiles” at the buildings before impact. This is conceivably possible, but the evidence presented is simply blurry images of “flashes” as the planes enter the buildings, making this a ludicrous, damaging claim—probably a case of deliberate propaganda by someone involved in the production or promotion of this movie. 11

?. Recently a trailer for a new movie, “WMD at the WTC,” was released on the web. The producers have a prior track record of shoddy, flimsy “evidence” which we will not go into here. “WMD at the WTC” actually asserts that “directed energy hydrogen fusion” weapons were used to fell the towers. The trailers cites no compelling evidence, instead referring to such points as, “Decontamination procedure seen at WTC with hi-pressure water spraying…Rooftop 200,000 gallon water tanks for sprinkler system but no water in ruins.” The film asks us, “Is this Nuclear Winter at the WTC?” (Watch WMD at the WTC on Google VIdeo)

?. There are certain suspect web sites and individuals who almost exclusively link to and associate with one other. The consistency of those who are promoting speculative and ludicrous “evidence” to only refer to others of the same ilk is very suspicious. A good exercise is to compare 911review.org vs. 911review.com - at this point, it should be clear to you which one is genuine and which one is promoting far-out theories. (See this TM forum post: Two movements: The 9/11truth vs. 9/11speculation movements)

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 12:29:36 PM

  (0+)

However, Richard Gage, noted architect and creator of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth has reported that many architects and engineers are becoming equally convinced of government complicity in 911 and are joining. They have already held successful conferences on the topic. And yes, the site is not fully functional but has long stated the objective to be functioning in May. It still is May isn’t it?

You know they said a while ago that they will be open in April, right? I seem to keep better track of these people better then you. If what you say is true, this should be interesting, assuming they are structural engineers and people who deal with skyscrapers for a living.

Marky’s other stocks in trade are to fan the flame of guilt by false association (e.g., 9/11 truthers are Holocaust Deniers... blah blah) or ad hominem attack... e.g., Steven Jones, Ph.D. is a *Mormon*….. ‘Oh my Gawd!! We can’t trust him!‘ … by which it is implied he is less trustworthy and credible than a Hindu, Jew, or Christian -- (all of whom, by the way, espouse equally unsupportable religious beliefs).

Again, you don't see it as a problem that your movement requires the use of a holocaust-denier tabloid as your source of information? Loose Change, Alex Jones, and Steven Jones does rely on this information to get their viewpoint across.

One of the most common arguments I hear about the 9/11 Commission is "conflict of interest". So why can't I point out a conflict of interest within your movement?

And yes, the fact that Steven Jones is using science to justify his beliefs is rather an importent flaw to point out. Science is meant to gain a better understanding of the world around; it's not there to say "Aha, we were right"

The fact that Steven Jones actually wrote an article about how Jesus Walked in North America is telling me that Steven Jones isn't trying to get a better understand, but is out there to try to prove that he is right! That's not how scientific investigations work.

Another example is to discount argumentation by attacking the person not the argument. For example, that provided by a scholarly theologian and philosopher like David Griffin.… attacked because he is a theologian and philosopher.

A question of credibility. David Griffin has made a lot of claims but has never backed them up. His lack of background on the related subject matter also says that he shouldn't be making assumptions in areas that he is ignorant.

He even said, when the NORAD Tapes were released due to Vanity Fair, that he was going to examine the tapes to see if they were authentic. In what right does someone with no experience or training in the subject should automatically qualify them to be taken seriously?

And David Ray Griffin doesn't really bring anything to the table and has been quote mining firefighters in his past essays. His new book, Debunking the 9/11 Debunkers, doesn't bring anything that requires debunking. It's a big personal attack on anyone who opposes the truth movement, and thus does not require a scientific explaination.

Another tactic is to choose individuals within the movement (and it is a heterogeneous movement, ya know) who espouse fringe ideas and tout them as representative of the movement as a whole. Yet another disingenuous and misleading tactic. Marky is dishonest.

Fringe? Sorry man, but the majority of the movement does have a thing against jews for some oddball reason. There is a good chuck of people who believe that the planes were holograms. Even one of them was sourced in Loose Change. Judy Wood has been referred to before and Jim Fetzer was interviewed by the BBC and Fox News. Alex Jones and Dylan Avery also gain mainstream publicity.

Sorry man, these people do represent your movement.

by MarkyX (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 5:04:26 PM

  (0+)

Oh well, here we go again. This will be my last in response to Mark. There are, frankly, more important things to do. If that sentence sounds a bit disdainful... well, it is. Unfortunately, I regard interacting with you a bit tedious. But here we go, one last time.

However, Richard Gage, noted architect and creator of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth has reported that many architects and engineers are becoming equally convinced of government complicity in 911 and are joining. They have already held successful conferences on the topic. And yes, the site is not fully functional but has long stated the objective to be functioning in May. It still is May isn’t it?

You know they said a while ago that they will be open in April, right? I seem to keep better track of these people better then you. If what you say is true, this should be interesting, assuming they are structural engineers and people who deal with skyscrapers for a living.

[Apparently you know little about trying to coordinate development of a web site while also juggling conferences as well as the work that pays your wage (oh, my bad, writing here is the work that pays your wage perhaps?)- particularly the sorts of concurrent architectural projects Gage is responsible for. You’re grasping at straws here.]

Marky’s other stocks in trade are to fan the flame of guilt by false association (e.g., 9/11 truthers are Holocaust Deniers... blah blah) or ad hominem attack... e.g., Steven Jones, Ph.D. is a *Mormon*….. ‘Oh my Gawd!! We can’t trust him!‘ … by which it is implied he is less trustworthy and credible than a Hindu, Jew, or Christian -- (all of whom, by the way, espouse equally unsupportable religious beliefs).

Again, you don't see it as a problem that your movement requires the use of a holocaust-denier tabloid as your source of information? Loose Change, Alex Jones, and Steven Jones does rely on this information to get their viewpoint across.

[One accepts or rejects a thesis based upon the data it presents, its argumentation and logic. Your reference is to whom? Whatever, it still simply represents yet another nauseatingly tedious (and for you, repetitious) ad hominem argument. As well as a ‘guilt by association’ argument. Both of which paint you as disinfo.]

One of the most common arguments I hear about the 9/11 Commission is "conflict of interest". So why can't I point out a conflict of interest within your movement?

[conflict of interest.… hum... it appears you are using that term incorrectly. Regardless, I would guess I am not a supporter of the person you are perhaps alluding to. Since you didn’t name him, I am not sure.… In any case, I don’t accept your argument on the face of it. Half of my family are Jews (but of course you may try to label me as a self-hating Uncle, brother and brother-in-law of Jewish kin.… or some such nonsense) but even we recognize there is no necessary logical equivalence to the terms “anti-Semitic”, “Anti-Zionist”, “Holocaust Questions”, “anti-Israeli Government” etc., or logical equivalences among or between those who might hold one or another of those positions.… and so on. Indeed, if you read seminal Jewish researchers/intellectuals such as Dr. Norman Finkelstein, Dr. Ilam Pappe, Noam Chomsky and throw in Einstein for good measure, you’ll see some of those terms applied to them by themselves or by others as well. Yet, I think I trust information from those individuals sufficiently to look at the evidence for and argumentation for their positions on various topics.….   of course, Alan Dershowitz and the ADL would not.]

And yes, the fact that Steven Jones is using science to justify his beliefs is rather an importent flaw to point out. Science is meant to gain a better understanding of the world around; it's not there to say "Aha, we were right"

[This argument is simply nonsense. Theists from ALL religions have attempted to use science and logic to justify their beliefs... all through history. The history of the philosophy of religion is replete with efforts by scientists to justify their religious beliefs. It didn’t make their science in other areas any less or more valid. Yours is a fallacious argument without substance. There is no “flaw” to point out. Only in your mind. Further, you commit yet the same fallacy of argumentation again. The arguments Jones makes regarding physics of 911 fall or stand on their own merits. Not on the fact that he happens also to be religious and has approached the subjects of his beliefs about religion from a scientific perspective. Try school.]

The fact that Steven Jones actually wrote an article about how Jesus Walked in North America is telling me that Steven Jones isn't trying to get a better understand, but is out there to try to prove that he is right! That's not how scientific investigations work.

[Same criticism as above. Oh, and I suppose that YOU are now being unscientific and probably irrational in trying to prove YOU are right. Sorry, it does not wash. Jones, in writing about his religion was doing what many Jewish, Christian, Hindu (Buddhists tend to be above these things) scientists have also done. So many, many people discredited by your reasoning. Eh?]

Another example is to discount argumentation by attacking the person not the argument. For example, that provided by a scholarly theologian and philosopher like David Griffin.… attacked because he is a theologian and philosopher.

A question of credibility. David Griffin has made a lot of claims but has never backed them up. His lack of background on the related subject matter also says that he shouldn't be making assumptions in areas that he is ignorant.

[Your first contention is simply a lie. Beneath even you. Just about every thing he asserts is backed up with a source. His bibliographies run for pages in each of his works. Further, you make the fallacious assumption that he is ignorant simply because he does not have the degrees you wish him to have. This is a reverse of the appeal to authority...in other words, yet another ad hominem attack - for which you are well known.]

He even said, when the NORAD Tapes were released due to Vanity Fair, that he was going to examine the tapes to see if they were authentic. In what right does someone with no experience or training in the subject should automatically qualify them to be taken seriously?

[same criticism as above.… one more ad hominem chalked up for you. ]

And David Ray Griffin doesn't really bring anything to the table and has been quote mining firefighters in his past essays.

[I simply don’t know what you are talking about here. Perhaps you can clarify?]

 His new book, Debunking the 9/11 Debunkers, doesn't bring anything that requires debunking. It's a big personal attack on anyone who opposes the truth movement, and thus does not require a scientific explaination.

[Well, this is silly. Your first sentence is simply your opinion - which holds little credence any more - given that it ever did. (I suggest others read Griffin’s new book and decide for yourselves. - I doubt you, MR, have read it - you should at least have noticed the footnotes...) Your second sentence is clearly a lie inasmuch as Griffin makes no ad hominem arguments against anybody (I really thought you’d be able to tell - you know, taking one to know...) Perhaps you can find one in ‘Debunking 911 Debunking’? Get back to me on that, will ya?]

Another tactic is to choose individuals within the movement (and it is a heterogeneous movement, ya know) who espouse fringe ideas and tout them as representative of the movement as a whole. Yet another disingenuous and misleading tactic. Marky is dishonest.

Fringe? Sorry man, but the majority of the movement does have a thing against jews for some oddball reason. There is a good chuck of people who believe that the planes were holograms. Even one of them was sourced in Loose Change. Judy Wood has been referred to before and Jim Fetzer was interviewed by the BBC and Fox News. Alex Jones and Dylan Avery also gain mainstream publicity.

[Again, purely nonsense. The “majority of the movement”….. please. You want to source that contention? You won’t because you cannot. Even where folks do talk about possible Israeli government or Mossad involvement, they are typically pretty careful to distinguish between criticism of that organization (for which, by the way, there are many valid criticisms) vs being anti-Semitic. But you conflate the two in a sorry attempt to smear ‘truthers’ as a whole. Pathetic. There are fringe folks everywhere. You have your own. I can cite whole paragraphs of bile, venom and excrement voiced by folks on your side of the 9/11 issue. Shall I paint you with their brush? … ah. I thought not.

Regarding your second sentence: The issue of no-planers was sufficiently discussed in my previous post and it is interesting that you bring it up again. Perhaps you fail to recall.… The truth movement is heterogeneous. (look it up). Mainstream truth movement folks disavow that thesis and those who advocate variations on that theme (no planers, space beams, etc.). E.g., Fetzer, Wood. etc. They represent disinfo just as you represent disinfo. They are somewhat more clever, however.... Both Fetzer and Wood have done some good even if overweighed by the bad. But they have little credibility in the movement. The process of disinfo is to be expected in any clearly growing movement the PTB see as threatening. Google Operation Mockingbird and Cointelpro if you are forgetting what these were and are. Read a bit and get back to me sometime. 

Oh, and you got problems with Alex Jones and Dylan Avery... you take it up with them.

As an aside, I don’t ascribe to all of Jone’s positions (e.g., I am for choice, he is not) but I think it would be a hoot if you were to debate him sometime. I truly believe he’d wipe the floor with you.]

Sorry man, these people do represent your movement.

[Sorry man, as I have demonstrated above and maintain now, you are clearly in error in just about everything you assert. And you are dishonest in your form of argumentation (such as it is) ]

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 11:17:32 PM

  (0+)

The greatest error we can make is beleive, one way or another, on any of this. The official report and explanation are full of holes; the so called "conspiracy" theories are mostly matters of the holes in official story rather than hard evidence of what did happen. Much important hard evidence has never been firmly established -- and much of the physical evidence has been destroyed or hidden. Unlikely things can happen -- Bush conspiracies, or pancake collapses -- but unless there is a thorough and honest investigation we can't know with any surity -- and there has been no such investigation (which in itself is an important issue!).

Those who call names at others who question and speculate are disingenuous, or incompetent thinkers, trying to substitute emotion and attack for reason. Those who claim competence and knowledge but make up facts deserve to be ignored. People deserve good answers, but the government has obstructed that -- as it's obstructed so much other information (and lied).

Was this government capable of lying and intentionally killing people? Of course -- they did that in Iraq. Did the do that on 9/11? Uncertain. Did they purposely let it happen? More likely, I think, but still uncertain. And when I say "the government" or "they" it's not clear who that means exactly -- which parts of the government or associated organizations or people are involved to what level -- that's something which needs to be investigated, and that it hasn't been is an indication of obstruction of information and justice.

Remember what Sherlock Holmes said: “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. This needs some modification -- some theorizing is OK when one has some data -- but the danger is to skew new data to match the theory. One should never reach a firm conclusion without conclusive evidence -- although there are times when one does *need* to make a decision before all the evidence is in -- to take your best guess. MY best guess is that the government is involved in some way -- and that's consistent with it's other actions and policies -- and that we should not trust anything the government says.  

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 3:07:24 PM

  (0+)

The most I've seen in response to any article on OpEdNews ....emphasizing the "I". Grab a google and search the news for "9/11 Mary". A few hours ago, Mary's article was (ranked?) displayed as search result #2 ....without adding the name. With the name, it's the #1 result right now. Publicity. The parrot and the cat. Mary knew her article would go off like a hand grenade here. So did I. Yet, I find it a bit amusing, this mini chapter, excepting a few comments - especially those by medicis whos comments are very imformative. 

Details : exactly what did go down that day ? Who dunnit ? Why ?

Why go into detail on these things when the broader perspective shows a much clearer picture ? We can go at each others throats for ages if we get hung up on details. The big picture shows who is right and who is wrong.

LIHOP vs. MIHOP

I've always tried to understand why or how anyone could point a finger at "the Government" or even "the pResident" (wasn't elected but selected). It's a lot like pointing the finger at that huge, pink, flying pig over London. The pig didn't go for a ride over London all on its own. Certain people were behind the idea of putting a pig up and the wind took over from there.

Pigs on Wing. Impossible ? Not quite.

For the past 5.x years, we've been looking into the details, debating them here and there. Disinformation has gone absolutely haywire. I'm sure millions upon millions have been spent in an effort to discredit anyone who has come even the slightest bit close to what went down. CointelPro rebaked ? You can bet your bottom dollar miss Marple. There's a HELL of a lot at stake.

KISS

Keep it simple, stupid.

Loose Change is a loose film. It's not bad for starters but it's not a religion. Neither is anything else in this direction.

Have you ever wondered why it is you can see some things better when you look past them and not directly at them ?

Note for Mary : keep it up. Keep the fire burning. It just might grow hot enough to 'someday' melt steel.  

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 3:52:00 PM

  (0+)

This author consistently conveys the trance-like mindset of mainstream America. Her 9/11 positions, invariably match to those of the government. Her articles are laden with choice propaganda keywords like "conspiracy theories" and rigid adherence to the official 9/11 line. This identifies her as either a government propagandist, or just another hopelessly brainwashed, mainstream American! Either way, she always manages to disregard mountains of facts, and reality itself, in her tributes to 9/11 propaganda! Her basic position that the idea of government conspiracies is crazy, is well worn government propaganda, nothing more. After all, what else would we expect the government say on this matter? Her fanatical conviction that truth could not possibly exist, outside the government's official 9/11 story is telling! Government propaganda and the truth, are two entirely different things. The author makes the fatal error of thinking the two, identical!

In the real world however, the threat of government conspiracies, like death threats, is far too serious to be taken lightly! Only the most useful of idiots, and government shills, would laugh at such advice! Just as wolves are the natural enemies of sheep, government is the natural enemy of the people. The public laughing at the idea of government conspiracies, is akin to sheep laughing at the idea of wolf conspiracies! For this reason, the nation's founding fathers taught eternal vigilance against, and distrust, of government. The author of this article, and other misquided, or mendacious souls, would have us believe that this sage counsel is wrong!

This article features another mainstay of the mainstream American mindset: 'Deferral to experts'! This involves suspending all rational judgment on any subject where one doesn't possess specialized training! In such a mind, even undeniable sensory input, from our eyes and ears, is denied the layman! She admonishes us that only an expert in controlled demolition, is capable of determining what a controlled demolition looks like! It doesn't matter to her or the government, that the so-called "collapses" at the WTC on 9/11, didn't resemble collapses, in any way, shape, or form! On the contrary, what occurred at the WTC on 9/11, looked exactly like controlled demolitions! By invoking the "deferral to experts" rule, the author consigns this fact to oblivion, with relative ease. The article goes so far, as to attempt to equate belief in conspiracy theories, to "cult-like" thinking! Again, the reality says something quite different! Mainstream thinkers like our author, heavily burdened by a rigid pro-government bias, are completely disqualified as an independent thinkers. It is they, who actually exhibit the classic signs of cult-like thinking. On the other hand, so-called "conspiracy theorists" , free of all biases, are independent thinkers, par excellence! If the author was a potential juror in a 9/11 trial, she would automatically disqualify herself, due to her blatant pro-government bias! The "conspiracy theorist" free of all bias, would be eminently qualified for duty on such a panel! The author was right about one thing however, she is part of a majority, that vast brainwashed majority, that is contemporary mainstream America! Since this majority is far more gullible than wise, humongous lies like the official 9/11 story, will always be far more popular among this group, than the truth!

by Rasoul Acheh (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 122 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 4:17:19 PM

  (0+)

Dear Mary

I find it offensive that you call people seeking the truth a cult.  You are slamming all the scholars, and architects and pilots and engineers and fire fighters and police and other citizens who have spent years studying the 911 false flag.  We constantly deal with suppression and even aggression.  We don't need it from within.  I know you are a concerned citizen.  Slow down and learn please.  You are not alone and we will help you.    It is OK to doubt but don't stop investigating please.  Examination is the path.

by BreezyinVA (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 6:04:54 PM

  (0+)

In my experience, you pathetic apologists for the state aren't interested in any kind of honest discussion of the matter whatsoever. All you do is keep repeating the same old endlessly debunked drivel, ad nauseum.

You would *never* admit to being wrong, even if someone produced an authentic videotape showing people rigging the building with explosives/thermite etc....even if five years from now, a member of the team that brought it down confessed to it on his deathbed, you would still never admit you were wrong.

Now with that said, let me summarize the situation with WTC7 for the benefit of those with open minds.

First, it is an incontrovertible historical fact that there have been several major fires in steel-cored, steel-framed high rise buildings in recent history, and not one of the other buildings involved has collapsed. Some of these fires were indisputably far more severe than anything WTC7 experienced.

For example:

In May, 1988, a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse. Why didn't it collapse?

In February, 1991, a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. Why didn't it collapse?

According to the news report: "The twelve-alarm fire burned for 18 hours. The extreme heat caused window glass and frames to melt and concrete floor slabs and steel beams to buckle and sag dramatically." Yet it still didn't collapse.

In October 2004, in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing. Why didn't it collapse?

Also in February, 2005, the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing. Why didn't that building collapse?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4263667.stm

Take a look at that charred structure in the picture, yet it's still standing. How can the WTC7 fire possibly be compared to far more severe fires like this?

When confronted with this inconvenient information, the response of the apologists is always the same: that unlike these other buildings, WTC7 also suffered "severe" structural damage.

Apologists like Mickey Mouse here will never tell you that the eyewitness testimony is conflicting.

The apologists will never mention, for example, the statements made by former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer:

"I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the sh*t's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw... I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest."

Rather, the apologists always cite Captain Chris Boyle's statement that, on the south side of the building, there "had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building".

The apologists will never tell you that the photographic evidence, what precious little bit of it there is, seems to show the damage on the south side being basically towards the corner of the building, and not nearly as bad as Boyle's testimony would imply.

Lastly, the apologists seem to be in denial of some basic physical principles.

Even if by some miraculous chance, a piece of debris did hit and "severely" structurally weaken WTC7, even a child who's ever played with blocks knows that a structure will fail where it is structurally weakened; if you chop a tree on the north side, the tree will fall to the north.

Sorry Mickey Mouse, but you don't get a neat, symmetrical, total collapse, from highly localized, asymmetrical damage. It just doesn't work like that in real life.

Lastly, maybe Mickey Mouse would like to explain why the Murrah Bldg. (or rather, what was left of it) didn't collapse after Tim McVeigh blew half of it away?

by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 7:14:36 PM

  (0+)

There is absolutely nothing rational about the government's official 9/11 story! The beauty of the government's advantageous position is that it's power over the media, and bureaucrats, allows it to lie with impunity! The phony rationality of articles such as this is nothing more than an expression of the fundamental axiom of modern propaganda: Even a lie, repeated often enough, becomes the truth, in the mind of the public! Therefore attempting to engage supporters of the official story in rational debate is a complete waste of time. These people are fanatics, they have no idea of what they are talking about, but then again, they don't have to! They will be found to have total contempt for the truth, their only goal is to defend the official story at all costs. Audacious lies require rigid adherence to the pary line! The Neocons use this technique constantly: repeat the lie incessantly, the truth be damned! The unsuspecting public will always buy the biggest lie, before the truth! It's the force of habit, TV has become the public mind, people rarely use their own!

The official 9/11 story is not only a lie, but an absurdity! The Twin Towers being literally wiped off the face of the earth, by mere kerosene fires, WTC 7 just up and imploding upon itself, the BBC reporting the "collapse" of WTC 7 on live TV, a full 20 minutes before it occurred, it goes on, and on! These are all undeniable signs of not only controlled demolition, but a massive conspiracy by high level players in the U.S. and certain allied governments, the media, and the private sector! Modern society can't be fully understood without understanding the ability of brainwashing to bend millions of minds, as well as the reality perceived by these minds! The only reason the official story appears to be true, to so many people, is a testament to the staggering effects of modern media borne brainwashing! Anyone supporting the official story, identifies themselves as either brainwashed, or a government propagandist, it's just that brutally simple!

by Rasoul Acheh (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 122 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 9:02:46 PM

  (0+)

I call them Faithers as opposed to Truthers.  Truthers are those actively seeking the truth (information).  Faithers are those accepting what they are told.

by BreezyinVA (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 at 11:15:59 AM

  (0+)

In May, 1988, a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse. Why didn't it collapse?

The only steel frame building you cite.  Big question: Was this building hit by a plane going at 500 MPH and had the fire proofing blown off?  No?  You aren't making a fair comparison here.

In February, 1991, a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. Why didn't it collapse?

The fire was contained by the firefighters, sprinkers were working, and the fireproofing wasn't blown off.  Oddly enough, after 11 hours, the fire fighters retreated because they would fear the building would collapse.  I guess they were are idiots for doing that, since fire cannot weaken buildings.

By the way, the building was destroyed in the end because it had too much damage.  Those pesky fires.

In October 2004, in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing. Why didn't it collapse?

Fire was contained by the military helicopters, no airliners hit the building, etc etc...

Also in February, 2005, the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing. Why didn't that building collapse?

Enough proof that you are a moron.

The Windsor building was a concrete core building.  The very picture you are pointing to actually shows the steel portion of the building collapse.  The only reason why it stood?  Because of concrete, not the steel!

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1205

Funny part is that building even had explosions (just like the WTC!) and the Firefighters didn't fight the fires because they feared it would collapse.

The apologists will never mention, for example, the statements made by former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer:

Unfortunately for Craig, the majority of NYFD said that they knew it was going to collapse hours ahead due to the physical signs of the building (leaning, etc) and the fire commander at the time, Chief Daniel Nigro, already said that he gave the evacuation order.

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro

Why should I trust the words of one man who hasn't said anything for years and responds directly to what the numerous members of the NYFD are saying?

In fact, why are you trusting the word of Craig instead of the Fire Department?   Think they part of the coverup?

The apologists will never tell you that the photographic evidence, what precious little bit of it there is, seems to show the damage on the south side being basically towards the corner of the building, and not nearly as bad as Boyle's testimony would imply.

I guess this firefighter is lying when he says the building is leaning and ready to collapse

by MarkyX (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 9:21:45 PM

  (0+)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LHEfF1vWnQ

by MarkyX (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 9:36:57 PM

  (0+)

You or you post is. First you call names, and then say "The only steel frame building you cite.  Big question: Was this building hit by a plane going at 500 MPH and had the fire proofing blown off?" when jpsmith123 was quite explicit ("Now with that said, let me summarize the situation with WTC7 for the benefit of those with open minds.") he was talking about building 7, which was NOT hit with a plane.

You are confusing the the issue, apparently to me, quite on purpose -- although it's possible you did not thoroughly read his post, in which case your commentary is useless anyway.

You call this poster a moron for citing the Windsor building burning for two days? That's the sort of thing I expect to hear from hate radio or a troll, and further discredits what you write. You joined one day ago, and 14 comments, all on this thread. In my judgement you are a 'hit man' just trying to spread disinformation and intimidate other posters.

I still have an open mind on this, and you and those like will not change that --only evidence will change that, but the widespread existence of people like you and you your nasty disinformation tactics do increase the weight that there is something to hide in the official story. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 10:00:36 PM

  (0+)

"Pathetic"

Well of course you are, goofball.

by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 10:32:33 PM

  (0+)

The earliest serious challenges to the Official 9/11 lie, were mounted by critical thinkers, most of whom had no expertise in structural engineering etc! At the time of the attacks, most dissenting experts caved in to official pressure, or went along with the program from the start! This is why so-called "conspiracy theorists" are a national treasure! In every nation, there are always only a few people who really practice critical thinking at any given time. Most citizens rarely question anything, and are victimized by sophisticated media borne brainwashing and propaganda. Hence the vitriolic campaign of slander and ridicule which turned 9/11 critical thinkers (whose only crime was snooping into the treasure trove of suppressed 9/11 evidence), into "conspiracy theorists"! Without these amateur slueths on the case however, the truth of the events of 9/11 would have been effectively concealed from the public!

The many experts claiming the 9/11 truth spotlight today, are merely elaborating upon, or refining, the pioneering work of these first independent 9/11 researchers. These undaunted critical thinkers held the line, against the world class deception, and lies, of a mendacious, multi-trillion dollar government/media complex! For years after the attacks, they widthstood the smug ridicule of their brainwashed countrymen, and the relentless slander, of articles such as this. They held out, until johnny come lately "experts", overcame their own brainwashing, and or timidity, to enter the fray! The 9/11 truth movement in spite of it's many problems, remains a testament to the ability of the nonexpert concerned citizen, to uncover the truth, in spite of the massive resources of government and media to lie and decieve the public! Critical thinkers in all ages though ridiculed and persecuted, have overcome tremendous odds by their courage, and uncompromising desire to know the truth!

While the most effective brainwashing affects those, who're unaware they're brainwashed, there is really nothing about the events of 9/11, that is too difficult to understand, for the non brainwashed mind! While sophistry and endless debate may be important to some, no elaborate science is really needed to see the obvious falsehood of the official 9/11 story! In fact this is one of the most effective ruses of government "debunking" propaganda! 9/11 truth, is therefore fully accessible to anyone not burdened by brainwashing, using nothing more than common sense! What is difficult however, is removing the blinders obscuring the truth! These blinders are quite real, and are currently worn by millions of unsuspecting individuals, oppressed by crippling mainstream beliefs!

by Rasoul Acheh (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 122 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 8:13:32 PM

  (0+)

I've written a diary response to this article posted here.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 9:25:35 PM

  (0+)

but will place here as well. Sorry.

Oh well, here we go again. This will be my last in response to Mark. There are, frankly, more important things to do. If that sentence sounds a bit disdainful... well, it is. Unfortunately, I regard interacting with you a bit tedious. But here we go, one last time.

However, Richard Gage, noted architect and creator of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth has reported that many architects and engineers are becoming equally convinced of government complicity in 911 and are joining. They have already held successful conferences on the topic. And yes, the site is not fully functional but has long stated the objective to be functioning in May. It still is May isn’t it?

You know they said a while ago that they will be open in April, right? I seem to keep better track of these people better then you. If what you say is true, this should be interesting, assuming they are structural engineers and people who deal with skyscrapers for a living.

[Apparently you know little about trying to coordinate development of a web site while also juggling conferences as well as the work that pays your wage (oh, my bad, writing here is the work that pays your wage perhaps?)- particularly the sorts of concurrent architectural projects Gage is responsible for. You’re grasping at straws here.]

Marky’s other stocks in trade are to fan the flame of guilt by false association (e.g., 9/11 truthers are Holocaust Deniers... blah blah) or ad hominem attack... e.g., Steven Jones, Ph.D. is a *Mormon*….. ‘Oh my Gawd!! We can’t trust him!‘ … by which it is implied he is less trustworthy and credible than a Hindu, Jew, or Christian -- (all of whom, by the way, espouse equally unsupportable religious beliefs).

Again, you don't see it as a problem that your movement requires the use of a holocaust-denier tabloid as your source of information? Loose Change, Alex Jones, and Steven Jones does rely on this information to get their viewpoint across.

[One accepts or rejects a thesis based upon the data it presents, its argumentation and logic. Your reference is to whom? Whatever, it still simply represents yet another nauseatingly tedious (and for you, repetitious) ad hominem argument. As well as a ‘guilt by association’ argument. Both of which paint you as disinfo.]

One of the most common arguments I hear about the 9/11 Commission is "conflict of interest". So why can't I point out a conflict of interest within your movement?

[conflict of interest.… hum... it appears you are using that term incorrectly. Regardless, I would guess I am not a supporter of the person you are perhaps alluding to. Since you didn’t name him, I am not sure.… In any case, I don’t accept your argument on the face of it. Half of my family are Jews (but of course you may try to label me as a self-hating Uncle, brother and brother-in-law of Jewish kin.… or some such nonsense) but even we recognize there is no necessary logical equivalence to the terms “anti-Semitic”, “Anti-Zionist”, “Holocaust Questions”, “anti-Israeli Government” etc., or logical equivalences among or between those who might hold one or another of those positions.… and so on. Indeed, if you read seminal Jewish researchers/intellectuals such as Dr. Norman Finkelstein, Dr. Ilam Pappe, Noam Chomsky and throw in Einstein for good measure, you’ll see some of those terms applied to them by themselves or by others as well. Yet, I think I trust information from those individuals sufficiently to look at the evidence for and argumentation for their positions on various topics.….   of course, Alan Dershowitz and the ADL would not.]

And yes, the fact that Steven Jones is using science to justify his beliefs is rather an importent flaw to point out. Science is meant to gain a better understanding of the world around; it's not there to say "Aha, we were right"

[This argument is simply nonsense. Theists from ALL religions have attempted to use science and logic to justify their beliefs... all through history. The history of the philosophy of religion is replete with efforts by scientists to justify their religious beliefs. It didn’t make their science in other areas any less or more valid. Yours is a fallacious argument without substance. There is no “flaw” to point out. Only in your mind. Further, you commit yet the same fallacy of argumentation again. The arguments Jones makes regarding physics of 911 fall or stand on their own merits. Not on the fact that he happens also to be religious and has approached the subjects of his beliefs about religion from a scientific perspective. Try school.]

The fact that Steven Jones actually wrote an article about how Jesus Walked in North America is telling me that Steven Jones isn't trying to get a better understand, but is out there to try to prove that he is right! That's not how scientific investigations work.

[Same criticism as above. Oh, and I suppose that YOU are now being unscientific and probably irrational in trying to prove YOU are right. Sorry, it does not wash. Jones, in writing about his religion was doing what many Jewish, Christian, Hindu (Buddhists tend to be above these things) scientists have also done. So many, many people discredited by your reasoning. Eh?]

Another example is to discount argumentation by attacking the person not the argument. For example, that provided by a scholarly theologian and philosopher like David Griffin.… attacked because he is a theologian and philosopher.

A question of credibility. David Griffin has made a lot of claims but has never backed them up. His lack of background on the related subject matter also says that he shouldn't be making assumptions in areas that he is ignorant.

[Your first contention is simply a lie. Beneath even you. Just about every thing he asserts is backed up with a source. His bibliographies run for pages in each of his works. Further, you make the fallacious assumption that he is ignorant simply because he does not have the degrees you wish him to have. This is a reverse of the appeal to authority...in other words, yet another ad hominem attack - for which you are well known.]

He even said, when the NORAD Tapes were released due to Vanity Fair, that he was going to examine the tapes to see if they were authentic. In what right does someone with no experience or training in the subject should automatically qualify them to be taken seriously?

[same criticism as above.… one more ad hominem chalked up for you. ]

And David Ray Griffin doesn't really bring anything to the table and has been quote mining firefighters in his past essays.

[I simply don’t know what you are talking about here. Perhaps you can clarify?]

 His new book, Debunking the 9/11 Debunkers, doesn't bring anything that requires debunking. It's a big personal attack on anyone who opposes the truth movement, and thus does not require a scientific explaination.

[Well, this is silly. Your first sentence is simply your opinion - which holds little credence any more - given that it ever did. (I suggest others read Griffin’s new book and decide for yourselves. - I doubt you, MR, have read it - you should at least have noticed the footnotes...) Your second sentence is clearly a lie inasmuch as Griffin makes no ad hominem arguments against anybody (I really thought you’d be able to tell - you know, taking one to know...) Perhaps you can find one in ‘Debunking 911 Debunking’? Get back to me on that, will ya?]

Another tactic is to choose individuals within the movement (and it is a heterogeneous movement, ya know) who espouse fringe ideas and tout them as representative of the movement as a whole. Yet another disingenuous and misleading tactic. Marky is dishonest.

Fringe? Sorry man, but the majority of the movement does have a thing against jews for some oddball reason. There is a good chuck of people who believe that the planes were holograms. Even one of them was sourced in Loose Change. Judy Wood has been referred to before and Jim Fetzer was interviewed by the BBC and Fox News. Alex Jones and Dylan Avery also gain mainstream publicity.

[Again, purely nonsense. The “majority of the movement”….. please. You want to source that contention? You won’t because you cannot. Even where folks do talk about possible Israeli government or Mossad involvement, they are typically pretty careful to distinguish between criticism of that organization (for which, by the way, there are many valid criticisms) vs being anti-Semitic. But you conflate the two in a sorry attempt to smear ‘truthers’ as a whole. Pathetic. There are fringe folks everywhere. You have your own. I can cite whole paragraphs of bile, venom and excrement voiced by folks on your side of the 9/11 issue. Shall I paint you with their brush? … ah. I thought not.

Regarding your second sentence: The issue of no-planers was sufficiently discussed in my previous post and it is interesting that you bring it up again. Perhaps you fail to recall.… The truth movement is heterogeneous. (look it up). Mainstream truth movement folks disavow that thesis and those who advocate variations on that theme (no planers, space beams, etc.). E.g., Fetzer, Wood. etc. They represent disinfo just as  you represent disinfo. They are somewhat more clever, however. However, as one definition of disinfo goes, 90% truth, 10% falsehood... Both Fetzer and Wood have done some good even if overweighed by the bad. But they have little credibility in the movement. The process of disinfo is to be expected in any clearly growing movement the PTB see as threatening. Google Operation Mockingbird and Cointelpro if you are forgetting what these were and are. Read a bit and get back to me sometime. 

Oh, and you got problems with Alex Jones and Dylan Avery... you take it up with them.

As an aside, I don’t ascribe to all of Jone’s positions (e.g., I am for choice, he is not) but I think it would be a hoot if you were to debate him sometime. I truly believe he’d wipe the floor with you.]

Sorry man, these people do represent your movement.