24 Hard Facts About 9/11 That Cannot Be Debunked



planetower

9/11 has been one of the biggest events in recent history that sparked a mass awakening across the world. There has been much debate as to how it happened, who is responsible and why. To this day about 1/3 of americans do not believe the official story. In other areas of the world as much as 90% of the country does not believe the official story.

Here is a list of 24 facts that cannot be debunked about 9/11.

1) Nano Thermite was found in the dust at Ground Zero. Peer reviewed in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal. ‘Niels Harrit’, ‘Thermite Bentham’, “The great thermate debate” Jon Cole, ‘Iron rich spheres’ Steven Jones, ‘Limited Metallurgical Examination (FEMA C-13, Appendix C-6)’. ‘Nano Tubes’

2) 1700+ Engineers and Architects support a real independent 9/11 investigation. Richard Gage, Founder. ‘Explosive Evidence’, ‘Blueprint for Truth’, ‘AE911′, ‘Toronto Hearings’, ‘Kevin Ryan’.

3) The total collapse of WTC 7 in 6.5 seconds at free fall acceleration (NIST admits 2.25 seconds). Larry Silverstein used the term “Pull it”. Steel framed high rise buildings have NEVER totally collapsed from fire or structural damage. Builidng 7 was not hit by a plane. ‘Building 7′, ‘WTC 7′.

4) Dick Cheney was in command of NORAD on 9/11 while running war games. ‘Stand down order’. “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?”. Norman Minetta testimony. “Gave order to shootdown Flight 93.”, ‘NORAD Drills’.

5) 6 out of the 10 Commissioners believe the 9/11 Commission report was “Setup to fail” Co-Chairs Hamilton and Kean, “It was a 30 year conspiracy”, “The whitehouse has played cover up”, ‘Max Cleland resigned’, ‘John Farmer’.

6) FBI confiscated 84/85 Videos from the Pentagon. ‘Moussaoui trial’ revealed these videos. Released Pentagon Security Camera (FOIA) does not show a 757 and is clearly Missing a frame. ‘Sheraton Hotel’, “Double tree’, ‘Citgo”.

7) Osama Bin Laden was NOT wanted by the FBI for the 9/11 attacks. “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” CIA created, trained and funded “Al Qaeda/Taliban” during the Mujahideen. OBL was a CIA asset named ‘Tim Osman’. OBL Reported dead in Dec 2001 (FOX).

8)100′s of Firefighters and witness testimony to BOMBS/EXPLOSIONS ignored by the 9/11 Commission Report. 9/11 Commission Report bars 503 1st responder eyewitnesses. “Explosions in the lobby and sub levels”, ‘Firefighter explosions’, ‘Barry Jennings’, ‘William Rodriguez’.

9) 100′s of firefighters and witness testimony to MOLTEN METAL ignored by the Commission report. “Like you’re in a foundry”, “NIST’s John Gross denies the existence of Molten Metal”, ‘Swiss Cheese’, “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” Leslie Robertson’.

10) ’5 Dancing Israeli’s’ arrested in ‘Mossad Truck Bombs’ on 9/11 that stated “We were there to document the event.” ‘Urban Moving Systems’ front company, ‘Dominic Suter’. “$498,750 Business loan (June 2001)”. “Officer DeCarlo’, ‘Art Students’, ‘Israeli Spying’.

11) On September 10th, 2001. Rumsfeld reported $2.3 TRILLION missing from the Pentagon. ‘Dov Zakheim’ Pentagon Comptroller. Former VP of ‘Systems Planning Corporation’ (Flight Termination System). Signatore of PNAC document.

12) 220+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials question the official story. ’9/11 Whistleblowers’, ‘Patriots for 9/11′. ‘Robert Bowman’, ‘Sibel Edmonds’, ‘Albert Stubblebine’, ‘Wesley Clark’, ‘Mark Dayton’, ‘Alan Sabrosky’, ‘Cyntha McKinney’, ‘Jesse Ventura’, ‘Kurt Sonnenfeld’. “patriotsquestion911.com”

13) Towers were built to withstand a Boeing jet(s). “I designed it for a 707 to hit it”, Leslie Robertson, WTC structural engineer. “Could probably sustain multiple impacts of jetliners”, “like a pencil puncturing screen netting” Frank De Martini, deceased Manager of WTC Construction & Project Management. “As far as a plane knocking a building over, that would not happen.” Charlie Thornton, Structural Engineer.

14) History of American False Flag attacks. ‘USS Liberty’, ‘Gulf of Tonkin’, ‘Operation Northwoods’, ‘OKC Bombing (Murrah Building)’, ’1993 WTC attacks’. ‘Patrick Clawson’. Project for the New American Century (PNAC) needed “a New Pearl Harbor”, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”. 9/11 Achieved those goals.

15) BBC correspondent Jane Standley reported the collapse of WTC 7 (Soloman Brothers building) 20 minutes before it happened. CNN/FOX/MSNBC also had early reports. ‘BBC wtc 7′, ‘Jane Standley’, Ashleigh Banfield’.

16) “Flight 93″ debris was spread out over many miles. Cheney admits to giving the order to shootdown 93. “shot down the plane over Pennsylvania” Rumsfeld, “nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there” ‘Chris Konicki. “Not a drop of blood” Coroner Wallace Miller. “there was no plane.” Mayor Ernie Stull.

17) Bush hesitated for 441 days before starting the 911 Commission. ‘Jersey Girls’. ‘Phil Zelikow’ already wrote the outline before the commission began. Steel shipped over seas. Obstruction of justice. JFK and Pearl Harbor commissions were started within 7 days.

18) The 911 commission was given extremely limited funds. $15 million was given to investigate 9/11. (Over $60 Million was spent investigating Clintons’ affairs with Monica).

19) Bush said he watched the first plane crash into the North tower on TV before entering the classroom. “The TV was obviously on.” Was informed about the second impact while reading ‘My Pet Goat’ to the children. Remained for at least 8 more minutes while America was under “attack”.

20) The PATRIOT ACT was written before 9/11. Signed into law October 26th, 2001.

21) Marvin Bush was director of Stratasec (Securacom, ‘KuAm’) which was in charge of security of the WTC, United Airlines and Dulles International Airport. All three were breached on 9/11. ICTS was another company that provided security at the airports. ‘Wirt Walker’, ‘Ezra Harel’, ‘ICTS”, ‘WTC power downs’.

22) “Who killed John O’Neil?”. Former FBI task force agent investigating Al Qaeda/Bin Laden. Transferred by Kroll Corporation to head the security just before 9/11. John O’Neil died in the Towers. ‘Jerome Hauer’ ‘Jules Kroll’.

23) Insider trading based upon foreknowledge. ‘Put Options.’ Never identified insiders made millions. ‘United and American Airlines’ ‘Raytheon.’

24) At least 7 of the 19 listed highjackers are still alive (BBC). No video footage of 19 highjackers or passengers boarding the 4 planes. Pilots of the 4 planes never squawked the highjacking code. ‘Alive highjackers’, ‘ACARS’, ‘Pilots for 9/11 Truth’.

WTC 7 (The Smoking Gun)

http://rememberbuilding7.org/

Building 7 was a 47-story skyscraper and was part of the World Trade Center complex. Built in 1984, it would have been the tallest high-rise in 33 states in the United States. It collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, 2001 in 6.5 Seconds at free fall acceleration. It was not hit by an airplane and suffered minimal damage compared to other buildings much closer to the Twin Towers.

Share this around http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2Nrour7NZM&list=UUhJCg0zwLzZpqgug-N6DnIQ&index=1

Credit to https://www.facebook.com/kendoc911 and this awesome group https://www.facebook.com/groups/2204686781/ for putting together the list.

More From 'Alternative News'

CE provides a space for free thinkers to explore and discuss new, alternative information and ideas. The goal? Question everything, think differently, spread love and live a joy filled life.

615 comments on “24 Hard Facts About 9/11 That Cannot Be Debunked

  1. Tom Frederick

    I have also looked at the footage someone linked where it shows an F4 test , smashing into a cement wall at 500 knots , it did disintegrate , BUT it also did NOT penetrate the wall which looks to be at best 3 feet thick , the pentagon was 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete and Im sure its special concrete just like the new concrete they used in the new world trade center building.
    How did the 757 punch a hole through 9 feet of concrete and then punch another hole deep inside the interior?
    Where in those photos are any wing marks on the building ,where did the wings go ? Folded? if so why didn’t they fold at the Pennsylvania crash site , those pictures show a hole in the ground with a complete shape of a plane but totally enveloped as if it dove into water, and on the towers the wings punched a hole straight through steel .
    In other online plane tests wings are ripped off by a single pole , or a small mound of dirt, but these wings on 9/11 penetrate steel and concrete.
    How could the fire at WTC caused by the jet fuel be so strong that it weakened steel but at the pentagon, it left open books and files on wood desks undamaged
    I don’t understand , help me here Christ J

    • Christ J

      “I have also looked at the footage someone linked where it shows an F4 test ”

      - okie-dokie, let’s analyse that properly using the equations I provided last time. First, you need to determine the momentum, which means we need the mass and velocity of these planes. Flight 77 was about 150 tonnes and was estimated to be travelling at upwards of 400mph – at least – so it would have a momentum of about 27,000,000N. An F4 has a mass of about 13.5 tonnes and was travelling at about 575mph, which would give it a momentum of about 3,500,000N.

      In short, the F4 would have had less than 15% of the impact force of flight 77.

      You also need to do some more accurate research into the Pentagon construction, because your claims concerning the wall thickness are horrifically wrong:

      “the pentagon was 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete”

      - if they were THAT thick then they would never have bothered with windows. You are wrong. Look for the actual images of those walls and you’ll soon see that they were a LOT thinner than you have been told they were. Furthermore, look into the layout of the rings on the bottom couple of floors. Pay particular attention to where the rings start to become distinct from one another, because they are NOT separate for the whole height of the building. This is another fact that your sources are certain to have omitted due to its inconvenience.

      “Where in those photos are any wing marks on the building”

      - I have already posted this link here, so don’t you DARE reply without taking a long, hard look at this page:

      http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/pentagon/what-hit-it.htm

      - see that? A ~100-foot-wide impact hole with clear evidence of impact from the WINGS of a large aircraft. This source is pretty easy to find, so the fact that you are STILL unaware of it after all these years suggests you have no intention of actually testing your beliefs.

      ” Folded? if so why didn’t …”

      “In other online plane tests …”

      - look, I’m perfectly fine with helping people understand the physics involved a little better – because it’s perfectly evident that you’ll never be told this stuff on “truth”er sites – but you have to meet me halfway here. Cite some SPECIFIC examples that you are trying to compare to these events and THEN we can analyse the forces to see if they are actually comparable. For example, we have just established that the tests of an F4 hitting a concrete wall are an order of magnitude weaker than the force applied by flight 77. Until you give me some accurate data to work with it is physically impossible for me to compare phenomena, because I have nothing quantitative to go on.

      First things first: we have just proven that the Pentagon took clear damage from the wings of flight 77, however, we can also see that this was NOT sufficient to penetrate the entire wall for the entire wingspan. In fact, the damage you see is from the exploding fuel as the wings hit the wall, as the forces would have instantly ruptured the wings and ignited the aerosolized fuel – which would be around 30% of it at most. What was left of the wings was either dragged inside while still attached to the fuselage or blown across the lawn. The fact that most of the lawn debris was from the wings and rudder lends credence to this sequence of events.

      You need to provide a more specific aspect of these to analyse, because this is just too vague to go into detail on.

      “How could the fire at WTC caused by the jet fuel be so strong that it weakened steel but at the pentagon, it left open books and files on wood desks undamaged”

      - are you serious? The steel was surrounded by a catalyzed hydrocarbon fire – which has a potential to exceed 1500C – whereas the paper was NOT surrounded by ANY type of fire. Yes, it was fairly close to a fire, but it wasn’t actually close enough to ignite, was it? Flight 77 impacted the lowest two floors, and it is from this point that the structure collapsed as a result of the fire weakening it. My conjecture is therefore that EVERY scrap of unburnt paper you can find a picture of will be from a DIFFERENT FLOOR, meaning it was the other side of a slab of concrete, which is an excellent thermal insulator.

      Now, go and test my prediction. Try to find some evidence of a surviving piece of paper or another combustible material from the exact same area as was ablaze. Then, try to find some that was on the third floor or higher. I bet there will be none of the former and plenty of the latter.

      • Tom

        I may be able to pretend to see wing damage , what about the 9×12 foot engines where did they go, where did they hit.?

        • Christ J

          At the Pentagon? Well, the left engine entrance “wound” is readily apparent. Look at the first in his series of images and you can see that there is a gaping hole in the wall out of which flames are spewing. This is about 40% of the way from the main hole – where the fuselage hit – to the edge of the wing damage, and this is exactly where the engines were. The right one is much more difficult to see, and, truth be told, I can’t see clearly enough to tell where that impact scar is.

          However, the fact remains that there IS a hole through which the left engine punched through the wall.

          Also, “I may be able to pretend to see wing damage ,” – seriously? “pretend”? You don’t think those extended spurs of clear damage to the façade that happen to be in the exact right place to be due to impact of wings is significant? Hell, the guy who put that link together is (or WAS, in any case) clearly a “truth”er and even he was in no doubt that the impacting object had a significant wingspan. It’s not like you have to squint at it in a bad light to trick yourself into seeing it either. There is, quite literally, no alternative explanation for this damage pattern.

          Did you look into any other aspects, such as the thickness of the walls or the layout of the rings on the lowest floors?

          • Tom

            No I do not see what you see , a vague mark of blackened brick , I see no broken windows , I see no other hole except for the main hole .
            The Drake equation has been outdated and recalculated so that’s out.
            Using a calculator to obtain numbers dosnt help me understand it, its just a number to me , you use your math to prove points , but only if they are within your belief, is there a mathematical calculation which can also back other theories? Or do you only provide the one that fits your belief , if so than you are no better than the truthers and their claims.
            did you even try to use math to support other claims?

            .

          • Christ J

            Then you’re not seeing what is right in front of you. Look again at the very first image of the damage that is used to determine the extent of the opening. See that white car in the middle distance? Right behind that is the gaping hole left by the fuselage AND engine. The fuselage went through just to the right of that – where you can see the impact damage to the floor above from the tailfin – whereas the rightmost reaches of that hole were caused by the left engine. This hole is exactly as we would expect it fro the known dimensions of the plane when we note that only the fuselage, engines and landing gear had sufficient momentum to have penetrated the walls.

            Now, you may wonder why there is no remnant of wall representing the point where the fuselage and engine had a gap between them, but this is not what we would expect to see. The impact force would have caused this chunk of wall to be dragged along with the impacted sections, which is exactly what this image shows.

            I don’t care if you see it or not, it is there. The only thing preventing you from seeing it is a predetermined bias.

            “The Drake equation has been outdated and recalculated so that’s out.”

            - yes, it has, and the more accurate representations feature EVEN MORE unknown variables than did the original. The simple fact is that you have no idea how likely it is for life to arise ANYWHERE, much less on other planets orbiting other stars. You then have no idea what the odds are of any such lifeforms developing into sentient beings, or of the odds of those beings developing interstellar travel. There is NOTHING about this subject that s known with any certainty, which is why your claim that I must find it mathematically certain is an outright lie. I excuse you only because you appear to have deluded yourself into believing this beforehand.

            “Using a calculator to obtain numbers doesn’t help me understand it, its just a number to me ”

            - fair enough, but it SHOULD be your starting point. If you know what the relevant data is then you can work on deciphering what this means in a physical context. For example, the fact that the momentum of flight 175 is so far in excess of what the perimeter columns were capable of withstanding is a mathematical fact. The PHYSICAL implications of this, however, are that the momentum of the plane decreases by he amount of force the steel could resist, and that this will then result in a decrease in the velocity of the plane.

            “you use your math to prove points , but only if they are within your belief,”

            - that’s a load of crap. There is no alternative way to calculate forces – the equations cannot be manipulated to show a different result. I use them because they state, unequivocally, what is true. I draw conclusions from these calculated facts.

            This is why you will never find any such analysis of these events on a “truh”er site: the equations refute their claims, so they pretend Newton didn’t exist and that his equations are irrelevant. If it were possible to distort these equations then they would use them, but they don’ because they can’t. The quantitative data supports only one hypothesis, so there isn’t a valid reason in existence to dismiss that hypothesis, as outlined I the NIS final reports.

            “did you even try to use math to support other claims? ”

            - yup. Want to try it?

            Okay – thee are dozens of individual pieces of footage of the collapses. Not a single one of them contains and audible OR visual traces of explosions or explosives. Furthermore, the seismic data gathered from that morning also indicates that no explosions ever occurred. I thus conclude that no evidence (0) means that there is no truth to this hypothesis. In short, 0 = 0. The reason I am not using mathematical work to determine the veracity of any particular “truth”er clam is because I can disprove every one of them as implausible – or outright impossible – without any need to calculate them. Put it this way, would you feel the need to prove that your wife wasn’t a Polar bear? Would you bother to prove it mathematically when all the physiological evidence refutes this notion?

            If you’d prefer a specific analysis of whether it is POSSIBLE for any demolition hypothesis to be feasible, then we have another feature to measure. This bowing of the steel in the WTC immediately precedes the collapse:

            http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=9jha1u&s=5#.U9KjCcIg_IU

            - do you see the building being pulled inwards? That is only feasible if the floor trusses are sagging and the perimeter steel is – still attached to the floor trusses – being dragged inwards as well. This requires that the steel be heated to a high temperature for a SUSTAINED period of time. Any severing of thee columns would cause the columns to be bent in multiple directions due to there being no overriding mechanism guiding their direction. The only way this can happen is if there is a heat source gradually weakening this steel for a long time, which is completely impossible for incendiaries and explosives to account for. There is a single viable cause – fire. As we also know that this is what directly initiated the collapse we are forced to conclude that the fires – coupled with the impact damage – caused this initiation of collapse.

            It is then a straightforward task to show that single-floor collapse MUST result in a global collapse as per Newton’s calculations.

            Put simply, there is no way in hell that anything other than fire could have started these collapses and no other feature is needed to continue them but their own momentum. Any alternative is simply not physically possible.

            So, pick out your favourite hypothetical mechanism and we’ll compare it to this feature. What’ll it be? Thermitic materials? Conventional explosives? Lasers? Missiles? Your choice…

      • Tom Frederick

        Where did the 9×12 foot engines hit and where did they go?

  2. Tom frederick

    I cant argue all the math and science I’m just a nobody with a G.E.D , but on the day I saw the buildings fall my first thought was demolition , because I’ve seen lots of footage of demolished buildings. I also wanted to know how a plane could fly into the ground just like flying into water , I then questioned why the most protected building in America ,maybe even the world , didn’t have any photo or footage of a plane , or why the pentagon itself didn’t shoot the aircraft down , it has the capability.
    All those questions came to mind before hearing any conspiracy theories , just plane old common sense , which a lot of technical people lack.
    Some things need to answered , and I think that’s all truthers want , an independent investigation .
    Then Christ J can testify and prove his case.

    • Christ J

      “Truth”ers want no part of an “independent investigation”, because they will refuse to accept the inevitable findings. The NIST presented every last piece of data on which they based their conclusions – as peer-review requires – and “truth”ers have completely failed to find anything therein which would make their conclusion a non-sequitur. Put simply, their conclusions are the ONLY viable explanation that fits the raw data.

      ” I’ve seen lots of footage of demolished buildings”

      - I hear this from many a “truth”er, yet not a single one of you has ever been able to link me to a demolition that resembles ANY of the three collapses on 11/9/2001. That means that these collapses emphatically DO NOT resemble any demolition, so your intuitive thought upon first viewing is demonstrably incorrect.

      “I also wanted to know how a plane could fly into the ground just like flying into water ”

      - I assume you’re alluding to the fact that it penetrated the ground, albeit not to much of a depth? Well, we have a readily-available example that should clear this up for you: watch the Commonwealth games. Specifically, the long jump. Notice how the jumpers burrow into the sand when they land, only for their conscious movements to drag them out again? Well, imagine the same effect when a 150-tonne lump travelling at >400mph hits it instead – don’t you think it likely that the plane will burrow into the ground in much the same way?

      ” I then questioned why the most protected building in America ,maybe even the world , didn’t have any photo or footage of a plane ”

      - have you ever bothered to look into how many security cameras the Pentagon actually HAS? There aren’t as many as you think, and there were even fewer back then. The reason for this is simple: cameras are a poor alternative to living, breathing, THINKING human beings. The Pentagon DID have a substantial security force, which is infinitely better for the kinds of threats they expected to face.

      If you then look into how many of those few cameras were likely to have been facing the right direction when the impact occurred, then you would know that there would probably be a single one, which HAS provided footage, hasn’t it?

      “or why the pentagon itself didn’t shoot the aircraft down , it has the capability.”

      - that’s news to me, because I don’t recall the Pentagon being outfitted with anti-aircraft defences. I suspect this is yet another myth that some “truth”er or another has started off in the hope that it will gain traction before any of you bother to check it for factual accuracy.

      Lastly, you CAN analyse the collapses mathematically – you just don’t want to because they will quickly prove you wrong. As I’ve mentioned several times on this page alone, you need but three equations for a reasonable understanding of both the collapses and the impact physics:

      F = ma
      p = mV
      a = Vf^2 – Vi^2 / 2s

      - in which F = force, m = mass,a = acceleration, p = momentum, V = velocity, Vf = FINAL velocity, Vi = INITIAL velocity, s = distance. That’s it. Here’s a brief overview of how to apply these:

      First off, you need to determine the momentum of the upper section once collapse has initiated. To do this you will need to find an estimate of the mass of the towers (there are plenty online, so pick the one that seems most accurate – I use a total estimate of ~280,000 tonnes) and you will need to know the velocity of this section. However, the velocity is unknown, so we have to work it out from things that ARE known.

      Enter that last equation. This equation gives the acceleration from the initial and final velocities, and the distance the object travels. However, we already know some of these:

      INITIAL velocity = 0m/sec
      Distance = 3.7m (the height of a single floor)
      Acceleration 9.8m/sec/sec (gravity. It’s actually fractionally less due to friction, but that makes no significant difference at this scale)

      - so we just need to rearrange this equation to make Vf the subject:

      Vf^2 = 2as + Vi^2

      - so plug in your known values and you’ll know the velocity of this upper section when it impacts the floor below. Then you can determine the momentum it possesses. All this leaves us is a comparison of this available force (momentum) with the resistive capacity of the support structure in the floor below. If the resistive capacity is GREATER than the momentum then the upper section will stop dead. If the momentum is greater then it will cause the support structure to fail and will go on to impact the next floor, however, it will do so with a NON-ZERO initial velocity, meaning that the next impact will have even more momentum. Put simply, either the collapse stops after ONE floor or it continue down to ground level. There isn’t really any room for any middle ground here.

      So, do the calculations and tell us all what Newton says should happen in this instance…

      • Tom Frederick

        I do honestly value your opinion ,I want to know the truth , but you criticized others for using unrelated examples then you yourself used the example of a long jumper who has provided for them specific material intended to reduce impact and compared that to a plane hitting undisturbed sod covered ground I don’t see the correlation , again forgive me for my small mind .
        And I do respect you opinion , Im sure your IQ is at least 100 over mine , so I also ask of you your opinion on the Disclosure movement – Dr. Steven Greer about UFOs – I believe , but is it also bunk?

        • Tom Frederick

          As I stated the drake equation is obsolete N=R*x fp x ne x fi x fl x fc x L
          you would need to use the Bracewell-style program using Van Newmann probe disbursement to get a more valid answer.
          Because in 1961 Drake did not know there were Billions of other Galaxy’s his equation was for the milkyway galaxy alone.

          • Christ J

            But that doesn’t really matter to the probability calculation in any case, does it? We already know our galaxy is conducive to the formation of living organisms, and we can thus extend this to other spiral galaxies. We can make educated guesses as to the hospitability of others too. For example, active galaxies are as close to a definite “no” as will ever exist, whereas elliptical galaxies are probably feasible. Globular clusters vary, but they can go down as a soft “maybe”.

            As a result, Drake’s equation can be extended to any other similar galaxy, and adapted to fit others accordingly. However, this was not my point. I suggested that you look at the variables contained within this equation in order to get some idea of how little data we have on this topic. We know next to nothing about how probable life is. All we can say is that it happened at least once. We don’t even know if it happened on earth.

            Finally, this actually has nothing to do with this article, so I suggest you look into this in your own time, rather than speculating on an unrelated blog. Stick to the erroneous “facts” described in the article and/or my explanation of why they are fallacious.

      • Tom Frederick

        other people have been criticized for using non related examples so how does a long jumper, jumping into material specifically provided to reduce impact compare to a plane hitting undisturbed sod covered ground relate ?
        I do value your opinion , so can I ask what you think about Dr.Steven Greer and his disclosure project .
        Thanks

        • Christ J

          Never heard of Greer or his project, but I can say something about it based on this description: if he is arguing that UFO’s are aliens, he is wrong; if he is arguing that they are military test aircraft, then he is right most of the time; if he is arguing that they are unusual natural phenomena then he is right some of the time. That’s all.

          Granted, the athlete is hitting a more pliable material, but the plane is a more slippery shape and is in possession of quite a bit more momentum.

          In any case, the point was not what they are hitting, but how their impact interacts with the impacted object/substance. After all, if the ground couldn’t possibly give way to an impacting object then how would you explain things like this:

          http://www.geo.tcu.edu/faculty/donovan/10113%20Introduction%20revision/photoalbum/images/Meteor%20Crater%20Arizona_jpg.jpg

          - do you know where the impacting object is usually found in these cases? Directly below the middle of the crater. It burrows into solid rock as if it was a liquid – which it IS when this energy is exerted on it. The plane, albeit a far less energetic case, did exactly the same thing to some loose soil. Does it really sound implausible when you think of things like Meteor crater, or Chicxulub?

          You should also note that I only criticize people for using incomparable examples when they use examples that have wildly disparate physical mechanisms. For example, when people try to claim that a “hollow” plane shouldn’t sever a handful of steel columns they are omitting the fact that the columns are also hollow, rendering their assertions invalid automatically.

          Examples are fine, but ONLY if they are comparable. My athletics example is, because it indicates the way a material reacts when something crashes into it. I didn’t claim that this case was directly analogous, but it IS indicative of why flight 93 ended up predominantly buried.

          • Tom Frederick

            I also did not realize that the meteor would be found under the impact site , I thought it was obliterated on impact, That is what you are saying , correct?
            Yes Steven Greer and many other Military personnel FFA personnel , CIA personnel have been petitioning congress to release UFO info , claiming they are hiding alien technology .
            Do you believe in extraterrestrial life ? If you say no, I no longer respect your opinion.
            Because your math knowledge should explain that it is mathematically improbable that earth is the only planet that sustains life.
            I feel now that I am a converted Truther and feel my small mind has again shown through , my mind is not capable of mathematical proof and relies only on instinct , which is good for the barbarian I am but has no relativity in complex situations.

          • Christ J

            They usually are destroyed upon impact, but if they have a slow enough velocity and are made of adequate mineral they can survive. Where do you think we got those Martian meteorites from that were claimed to contain signs of living organisms? Actually, size is pretty important here too, as these all directly affect the amount of energy released upon impact.

            “Steven Greer and many other Military personnel FFA personnel , CIA personnel have been petitioning congress to release UFO info , claiming they are hiding alien technology .”

            - well they aren’t. They are a combination of unusual weather effects that most people are unfamiliar with – there is a famous case of a lenticular cloud being mistaken for a UFO – and tests of military equipment. Have you ever looked into the UFO reports surrounding Area 51 when they were testing their earliest stealth and supersonic aircraft? Have you ever looked into how many of those UFIO reports vanish when analysed in light of the tests that are being declassified? You should…

            “Do you believe in extraterrestrial life ? If you say no, I no longer respect your opinion.”

            - nice attitude. “If you disagree with me then you have no valid opinion”. Tell you what: provide me with a completed Drake equation and we’ll see what the numbers say. Mt area of expertise is biochemistry (Genetics MSc) and I know the staggering amount of variables present in this case.

            We also need to know what you define “extraterrestrial life” as. Do you merely refer to some form of living organism – possibly unicellular – or do you refer explicitly to INTELLIGENT organisms? If the former, I suspect we will find several more examples within our own solar system, although they will almost certainly have a common origin with us. If the latter, until you complete that Drake equation I have no way of knowing the odds of such an event. Many have argued – rather convincingly – that if the course of life on earth was restarted it is unlikely that intelligent life would arise again here, so to try to postulate it for extrasolar worlds without ANY data to work with is untenably irrational.

            “Because your math knowledge should explain that it is mathematically improbable that earth is the only planet that sustains life.”

            - Drake equation. Fill it in and see if you have any unknown values. If you do, it is impossible to assign a probability to this question, which means your above statement is invalid.

            ” my mind is not capable of mathematical proof and relies only on instinct”

            - is it _really_ asking too much that you TRY to do these calculations? If you own a calculator and know how to multiply numbers then this is well within your ability. Or is it that you don’t WANT to do it for fear of having to reassess your beliefs?

            I actively encourage people to do these calculations themselves, so if you genuinely intend to have a go at them you will find me perfectly helpful. However, refusal to do something so simple in order to relieve oneself of a little ignorance is simply indefensible, as all the data is available for you to make use of and the calculations are glaringly simple. I know of no valid reason for refusing to do them.

    • William Kus

      Yes, I am not scientist or engineer either so most of the things being posted about the “physics” could easily confuse me or go over my head.

      But I have to agree that all three buildings falling the exactly the same way seems kind of fishy as do many of the other coincidences that happened that day. Not to mention all the lying and cover up that happened afterwards.

      If the government wants to build trust, then they should be transparent. Not secretive, misleading, and straight out dishonest/criminal.

      • Christ J

        Funny, your closing comment is a perfect description of many “truth”ers. Harrit et al lied about their report and tried to get it published without it being reviewed, and people like Khalezov and Woods have shown that they are all too willing t lie about physical phenomena if they think they can get away with selling it in a book.

        As for the “buildings falling exactly the same way”, feel free to explain when WTC 1 tilted like WTC 2 did. Or explain when either of them span around and fell across the road, as WTC 7 did. And those “coincidences” are post hoc claims that have no validity. You are throwing a dart into the air, drawing a target around where it lands and saying “WOW! Why did it land in THAT EXACT SPOT? Must be a conspiracy…”.

        Those physics are no more complex than multiplying a couple of numbers together. Anyone who still refuses to attempt a crude analysis of these collapses is deluding themselves in order to avoid having to accept their own inherent dishonesty.

      • For starters, all three buildings didn’t fall exactly the same way; the towers collapsed from the upper floors at their plane impact levels, and WTC 7 failed around the 13th floor, collapsed internally first, and then the gutted shell came down. Considering the fact that gravity works very consistently, this is not all that remarkable.
        Please read at least the “It Looks Like A Controlled Demolition” segment here:
        http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM
        11 of the 24 core columns in WTC 7 were W14 X 730s, i.e. 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross-sectional areas. Little steel columns don’t get cut secretly with explosives (or incendiaries if that’s what it is today) in Manhattan, and these were MASSIVE.

  3. psikeyhackr

    9/11 is now a bigger social problem than the events of 9/11.

    Engineers and scientists have used the Tacoma Narrows Bridge as a physics and engineering problem for decades though by now most Americans have never heard of it. In 1940 a suspension bridge in Washington collapsed because of high winds. It only took 4 months to build a 1/200th scale 54 foot model in a wind tunnel which duplicated the bridges oscillating behavior. In 1940 they did not have electronic computers.

    So no matter what the truth of 9/11 is our scientists and engineers must explain why they could not resolve the physics of the north tower collapse in 2002 much less still not doing it in almost 13 years. The 10,000 page NIST report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. There were 2900 perimeter panels from the 9th floor to the top. What were the weights and quantities of each grade of panel? Has Richard Gage even asked that? An article from 1970 says the heaviest was 22 tons but the average weight had to be 9 tons.

    Our engineering schools are now accomplices after the fact in the events of 9/11 for not resolving this middle school physics problem.

    Surely they can make models better than this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caATBZEKL4c

    • Christ J

      The reason they aren’t concerned with having a perfect model of every possible variable is twofold:

      1) such a model is impracticable to the point of impossibility.

      2) such a model is unnecessary.

      The former is true because there are such a crippling amount of variables involved that recreating them perfectly would be near-impossible alone. The fact that many of these are unknown, such as the distribution of, say, paper on the floors that burned, renders such a calculation impossible to perform.

      The latter is true because the NIST final reports – which I suspect you have not actually read – necessarily underestimate the mass of the towers. The fact is that the towers HAD to collapse totally if a single floor failed as a necessary consequence of Newtonian physics, and that a single floor HAD to collapse due to the structural damage it sustained and the observed temperatures that it was subjected to.

      Basically, your little rant is invalid. The physics involved ARE known, at least to an acceptable standard given the unknowns involved. You just don’t want to think they are because these reports absolutely decimate your chosen religion.

      The Tacoma Narrows incident was near-infinitely simpler, and yet 9/11 has been explained anyway. In fact, the forces present in the twins are far better understood than the specific forces present in the bridge.

      • psikeyhackr

        Who said anything about PERFECT? How did that word get introduced? Where is ANY MODEL that can collapse completely for which full data is provided?

      • psikeyhackr

        The Tacoma Narrows problem is SIMPLER just because YOU say so? All they would have to do is remove 5 stories, 91 through 95, and drop the top 15 stories and see how much of the lower 90 stories would be destroyed. Wouldn’t Newton’s 3rd Law be a factor? Shouldn’t the falling portion slow down? Wouldn’t we need to know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level for the sake of Potential Energy and the Conservation of Momentum?

        • Christ J

          Spare us the unjustified accusations, sweetheart. If you had done something as simple as looked at the Wiki entry for the Tacoma Narrows Bridge then you would have found plenty of explanation as to the physical forces at work. This isn’t simpler JUST because I say so, but I am perfectly correct in saying so.

          Contrast the explanations in that page with the thousands of pages required by the NIST to explain only the collapses of the twins and you’ll have some idea of the vast differences in complexity.

          In fact, as you mentioned yourself, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge is used to educate physics students, as it is a superb demonstration of certain phenomena. It is used as a pedagogical tool because it is simple, meaning that students can get a very good grasp of isolated effects. The WTC collapses are orders of magnitude more detailed.

          “All they would have to do is remove 5 stories, 91 through 95, and drop the top 15 stories and see how much of the lower 90 stories would be destroyed”

          - are you talking about a mathematical analysis? Because that would show up your chronic lack of integrity, as I have posted such explanations on this page. Several times.

          Allow me to make this extremely simple for little-old-you:

          You will need three equations:

          F = ma
          p = mV
          a = Vf^2 – Vi^2 / 2s

          - and that last one will have to be rearranged to make Vf the subject:

          Vf^2 = 2as + Vi^2

          (it’s even easier if you use a square root, but I don’t know how to coax that out of a keyboard)

          Now, you’ll also need a figure for the mass of the upper section. I recommend the following source, as it is the LOWEST estimate of the mass, but also looks to be the most reliable one:

          http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.journalof911studies.com%2Fletters%2Fwtc_mass_and_energy.pdf&ei=PBTOU-z8Nqre7AbkxoGwBg&usg=AFQjCNEInxaznbBCjEqxLDP1PqEs1QRmHw&sig2=tjWChHCA0PN7Sdid8i_Q1w&bvm=bv.71198958,d.ZGU

          - and we can use this to determine that the mass of the topmost fourteen floors of WTC 1 (the SMALLEST upper section relative to building size) was at least 9000tonnes. We can determine the velocity at the time this section impacted the floor below using the above equations, which gives us a velocity of:

          Vf^2 = 2as (Vi is zero)

          Vf^2 = 2 x 9.8m/sec/sec x 3.7m

          - which makes Vf = 8.5m/sec. We can now determine the impact force available to this mass:

          p = mv

          p = 9,000,000kg x 8.5m/sec = 76,500,000N

          Now, all YOU have to do is compare this figure to the resistive capacity of the steel support structure at floor 95. You need to bear in mind that this does NOT include the core columns, but DOEs include the perimeter columns and the connections between the trusses and core.

          That’s it. That’s all you have to do. If your figure is larger than the collapse should have halted. If the above figure is larger then the collapse continues until the building is gone – there is no room for middle ground here. If the force of the upper section is sufficient to overload a single floor then it will have a NON-ZERO initial velocity for the next stage of fall, resulting in the impact velocity INCREASING with every passing floor. Either the entire building is crushed or the upper section stops immediately – let’s see what you conclude from some simple analysis…

          “Wouldn’t Newton’s 3rd Law be a factor? Shouldn’t the falling portion slow down?”

          - yup, but not the way your uneducated assumption has led you to think. There IS an equal and opposing reaction, but this is in opposition to the RESISTIVE CAPACITY OF THE LOWER SECTION, NOT the impact force of the upper section. To clarify:

          When the upper section impacts the lower section, they both apply force. However, only one of them has any momentum, which means that the force is not balanced. Let’s say the lower section has a resistive capacity of 10,000,000N, whereas the upper section has the above momentum – 76,500,000N: what happens in this case?

          Well, the lower section tries to stop the progress of the upper section. It applies all 10,000,000N of force to it, resulting in the upper section applying 10,000,000N in return. they equal one another and cancel out. However, this has entirely depleted the force available to one of these objects, whereas the other still has plenty of available force to call on. Furthermore, the depleted object has now used up every last scrap f force available to it, so it no longer offers resistance to the other object. This means that whichever object was depleted has now failed, and the other object carries on unimpeded.

          So, the upper section has now had its momentum reduced to 66,500,000N. Does this mean anything? Yes: it means that we must now reassess the values used to determine its momentum – namely its mass and velocity. Now, we can’t just lose mass, because that is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics, so we must use the same value for mass and determine instead the current velocity:

          v = p/m

          v = 66,500,000N / 9,000,000kg = 7.4m/sec

          We have just witnessed a deceleration, so you are correct in pointing out that the upper section would slow down, although you are entirely incorrect in your application of Newtons laws.

          A brief note on the first law of thermodynamics: what you are claiming is actually a violation of this fundamental tenet. By implying that the LOWER section should match the force applied by the UPPER section you are demanding that the lower section suddenly gain additional force from absolutely nowhere. This is simply not possible or defensible.

          “Wouldn’t we need to know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level”

          - not really. As long as we have an approximate estimate of the mass of each floor slab we have enough to determine the MINIMUM momentum present in the event of a partial collapse. Furthermore, if we also know the strength of the sup[port structure – which we DO know rather well – then we know how much of that momentum could have been resisted by each floor. Basically, we have enough information to estimate the minimum amount of force applied, and the MAXIMUM amount able to be resisted. If the former is greater than the latter then the collapse happens as observed, with the only deviation from the actual collapses being biased AGAINST the NISTs conclusions. Basically, the only possible changes to the data with more accurate values would make the collapse EVEN MORE plausible, so the fact that it is already proven renders such impossibly-perfect data – which IS what you are demanding, despite your protestations – irrelevant.

    • It was NIST’s job to explain why the WTC hi-rises collapsed, not to provide meaningless trivia that anyone with a set of drawings and a pocket calculator could find for himself. The NIST engineers and scientists did their job.

  4. Mike

    Lots of people debunking this page, my question to you is, what’s with the Israelis getting caught on video celebrating/looking for the event, and getting caught with a van full of explosives?

    • Christ J

      How about linking to that video? I bet you’ll struggle to find it…

      I’ll spare you the effort: it doesn’t exist. A group of people were spotted celebrating the attack AFTER WTC 1 had been hit. There are no reports of them waiting for the attacks and they were never observed – or noticed, at least – prior to the first attack. You have been lied to.

      To be honest, it’s incredibly easy to find this out online. Is there a particular reason you have yet to debunk this yourself? Have you even tried…?

    • How many explosive attacks have Israelis ever committed in the US, let alone the NYC/NJ area? The behavior of the alleged “dancing Israelis” were witnessed by one woman, they were extensively interrogated for weeks by the FBI, and were deported because they were in the US illegally and may have been Israeli spies. They obviously had nothing to do with the al Qaeda suicide attacks of 9/11/01, would’ve been useless on the ground since the hijackings were overhead, and would really have been stupid to have celebrated publicly in NYC that day if they were guilty of being in on the al Qaeda Planes Operation.

  5. TruthHurts
    • Christ J

      It contains nothing that hasn’t already been torn apart on this very page, but let’s have a little look anyway – just for fun.

      From your link:

      “What if you found out that thousands of scientists, engineers and architects disagreed strongly with the official 9/11 conspiracy theory?”

      - as opposed to the MILLIONS who think that this tiny group of a couple of thousand of unqualified, irrelevant, unscientific, dogmatic liars have forfeited their right to a valid opinion when they decided to circumvent the scientific method? Are we supposed to suddenly forget that the overwhelming majority knows that these people are wrong?

      “Three (3) buildings were brought down on 9/11 by controlled demolition. That is a proven fact. ”

      - THAT^^ is an outright lie. Not only has there never been a single successful hypothesis that accounts for these collapses within a demolition paradigm, but there has never been any evidence that actually supports any such hypotheses either. The above statement is nothing more than a blatant falsehood.

      “Perhaps one of the most startling facts is that a third building collapsed on 9/11, about 5:20 PM. ”

      - “startling”? Really? What would we expect to happen to a building that has a 280,000-tonne neighbor fall on it, as shown here:

      http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0fa7339480af.jpg

      - and which then burned for SEVEN HOURS. Newtonian physics dictates that such a building – with this type of support structure – MUST fail. If you want to argue the contrary then you must take it up with Newton, which will require that you refute his work. You will not win this.

      “One thing that makes this so startling is the fact that it started off at perfect free fall for 8 floors.”

      - two lies in one sentence – they’re certainly being economical. There was NO period of freefall acceleration, because this is impossible under ANY circumstances, including demolition. It was NEAR-freefall, and this is expected from the variables. Furthermore, it did NOT “start off at” this velocity, it only attained near-freefall after it had gained sufficient momentum to experience a negligible resistance from the floors below. Ironically, this explicitly rules out any known method of demolition.

      “Even if you know nothing about physics, you know that solid objects offer at least some resistance.”

      - which is how we know that freefall acceleration was not attained. Your source is trying to argue that the impossible happened, while simultaneously claiming that this impossible occurrence is somehow proof of his untenable crap.

      “But free fall means ZERO resistance. Think about that for a moment. More than 80 columns would’ve had to have vaporized or snapped in two”

      - this is incorrect. Even if the columns had been snapped in two, or vapourised, they would STILL HAVE OFFERED RESISTANCE. Do you see the problem now? This moron is trying to claim that the lowest reaches of WTC 7 VANISHED. Not exploded, not hit by lasers: vanished completely from the universe. And YOU are endorsing this crap.

      “Each of the 3 WTC buildings collapsed through the path of greatest resistance. ”

      - wrong. The path of greatest resistance was straight up, because the entire mass of the earth was providing the gravitational energy to bind the building to it. This means that any direction from horizontal to vertically DOWN was the path of least resistance. However, we have another factor at work here: the same phenomenon which makes the upwards direction the path of greatest resistance also drags the existing building DOWN, meaning that DOWNWARDS travel is actually compelled by the energy inherent to the earth. As there were no significant lateral forces acting on these buildings we are left with the pull of gravity ensuring that not only is upwards the path of greatest resistance, but that downwards is also the path of LEAST resistance.

      Now, there is an oversimplification involved here. I have neglected to include the inherent strength of the steel. However, this is actually irrelevant. Once the collapse has initiated the upper section develops momentum, and this dramatic increase in available force can then impact the floor it is about to contact. Assuming a total mass of 100,000 tonnes for WTC 7, the momentum of the upper section is around 255,000,000N, assuming a velocity of about 8.5m/sec upon impact from a static start a floor above. This is over TEN TIMES what the floor below – assumed to be the ninth – was capable of resisting.

      Put simply, this means that there was only about 25 million Newton’s of force available to prevent downwards acceleration, whereas the force preventing upwards acceleration was impractically large. We can also determine the amount of force required to engage in lateral motion by determining the amount of energy required to push the tower sideways, I would suggest that you do this yourself, as it will be an illuminatie experience to do some REAL research.

      I’m not going to scour their entire propaganda piece, but I’ll pick out another aspect at random to demolish – pun emphatically intended – just to give you some idea of the staggering dishonesty of those you worship:

      ” In fact, one eyewitness saw a plane banking and pulling away from the Pentagon moments after the explosion”

      - ah, now THIS is interesting, because the report he is referencing actually exists, which is unique in “truth”er circles. The witness in question is John O’Keefe and you can read his account, along with that of EVERY witness to the Pentagon attacks, here:

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

      - so, how does this claim hold up?

      Well, the first problem is that this is only one of THREE separate accounts attributed to O’Keefe. This is highly suspicious, to say the least. What makes this even more suspicious is the first of these testimonies:

      “I was going up 395, up Washington Blvd., listening to the the[sic] news, to WTOP, and from my left side-I don’t know whether I saw or heard it first- I saw a silver plane I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet, It came swooping in over the highway, over my left shoulder, straight across where my car was heading. I’d just heard them saying on the radio that National Airport was closing, and I thought, That’s not going to make it to National Airport.” And then I realized where I was, and that it was going to hit the Pentagon. There was a burst of orange flame that shot out that I could see through the highway overpass. Then it was just black. Just black, thick smoke.”

      Now, at NO POINT in this statement does he mention the aforementioned aerial maneuvers. In fact, this statement strongly implies that he couldn’t even see the relevant area properly, as he failed to spot anything other than the aftermath of the impact. This is problematic when we consider his next statement:

      “Then the plane — it looked like a C-130 cargo plane — started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround. ”

      - see that? He has now added a different plane and invented new movements for it. He is also now inferring that his vantage point was sufficient to have seen all the relevant details.

      This is a serious problem, because the links provided do not work, meaning that I have no way of verifying any of these statements easily. I am left with three statements from ONE individual which are completely contradictory and mutually incompatible. One or all of them MUST be false, but we have no way of determining which it is based on only his testimony.

      At this point we can apply the scientific method. I want you to treat this as a court case. Now, if you had dozens upon dozens of witnesses to an event, and ONE of them reported something that was inconsistent with the rest of the accounts, would you believe that single account or the plethora of corroborating ones. Next, if you found that that individual had provided several accounts, and that they were drastically different from one another to the point that they were completely irreconcilable with each other, would you consider that individual a reliable and accurate witness?

      Think very carefully about those questions. Then ask yourself whether the source you just posted is trustworthy for their attitude towards these things.

      Learn a little critical thinking.

      • Harold

        Your argument is weak at best…first responders and those who were inside those buildings on that day all have reported explosions being heard all over those structures. Columbia University recorded seismic activity before those buildings collapsed. Thermite found in the debris…the inexplicable shipping of the steel out of the country. The evidence is overwhelming and your pseudo science does not make for a compelling argument. This veteran is not convinced that the 911 commissions report approaches anything close to the truth.

        • How many FDNY quote mined by your 9/11 “truth movement” for the word “explosion” claimed to have heard DEMOLITION explosiVES and linked the loud bangs inside the burning buildings to any of the 3 WTC hi-rise collapses? How many FDNY are 9/11 truther nuts?
          There are PLENTY of sources of “explosions” in fires, including BLEVEs, flashovers, backdrafts, gas tanks & cylinders, shorted transformers, debris falling ~1200′ through express elevator shafts, and fuel vapor igniting in confined spaces.

        • Christ J

          My argumentS (plural) are airtight, which is why you didn’t even TRY to refute them scientifically. This is a debate that you have lost before even entering.

          “first responders and those who were inside those buildings on that day all have reported explosions”

          - no, they heard NOISES. Until you can prove that a loud noise = an explosion you have no right to presume these paramedics and office workers were sufficiently experienced with explosives and incendiaries to tell what they sounded like from a single, stressful sound. Humans have crap hearing and sound is nothing more than pressure waves. These waves are identical no matter what the source, so a loud impact would sound near-identical to an explosion.

          The truly crucial detail here is that the seismic data contains NO SIGNALS that are consistent with explosions, which means there were none.

          A relatively minor point is that explosions do not refute the NIST analyses, as there are several potential sources, such as fuel ignition and electrical faults.

          “Columbia University recorded seismic activity before those buildings collapsed. ”

          - you mean that very same seismic data the rules out ANY form of explosion? Tell me, do you really think it’s acceptable to ignore one of your cited pieces of evidence when it explicitly disproves your claims?

          Anyway, that temporal discrepancy is a fiction. It was invented by “truth”ers and is not, tragically, factual. Try again…

          “Thermite found in the debris”

          - thermitic materials were NEVER found ANYWHERE, and the only person who claimed to have found them was guilty of scientific fraud. He lied about his methods, lied about his data, and lied about the conclusions. He also tried to circumvent the peer-review system because he knew that his lies would be immediately spotted and his paper rejected.

          If you want a more thorough refutation of this claim then just ask, or scroll down, because I have dealt with this in some detail in other posts. Just hit F5 and search the page for “Harrit”, and you’ll find it.

          ” The evidence is overwhelming and your pseudo science does not make for a compelling argument”

          - HA! You haven’t presented any “evidence”, and you certainly haven’t refuted any of the scientific claims I have posted. You should probably know that merely engaging in ad hominem attacks by calling my comments “pseudo science”[sic] does not actually make me wrong, no matter how much you wish it did.

          “This veteran is not convinced that the 911 commissions report approaches anything close to the truth.”

          - that’s interesting, because it looks as if you haven’t even looked at this in enough depth to know the difference between the 9/11 Commission and the NIST and FEMA investigations, which is the bulk of what I have been commenting on.

          Come back when you have some valid contribution, because hand-waving and logical fallacies do not make for a convincing claim.

    • Will Kus

      Finally someone pointing out how ridiculous the pancake theory is. That sporadic fires from one jet could some how uniformly soften EVERY SINGLE steel beam in both buildings to the point that they would collapse at NEAR free fall speeds, with only a few seconds keeping it from being COMPLETE free fall. That someone how the weight of the upper part of the building would be able to pulverize the floors below it into fine dust.

      It’s easy to muck up the facts because the facts are generally hidden or falsified. There have been many, many, countless whistleblowers in very high ranking positions, but they are always ignored by the mainstream media if their version of events does not fit in with what the government controlled media wants the public to know.

      And like any good lawyer, if you continue to deny any wrong doing and constantly throw out misinformation in every direction, the simple truths get clouded and people like OJ Simpson and the US Government walk away with huge sums of money. If someone denies something long enough, you usually assume they must be telling the truth, because most of us are law abiding people who enjoy telling the truth. But you can also meet people who are pathological liars and yet you would never know by the way they look or act. And unfortunately most of the time these large groups of people keep to themselves, liars sticking with liars and truthful people sticking with truthful people, so that either group assumes the other doesn’t exist.

      • Christ J

        Bill, I’m pretty sick of explaining things to people for them to just move on to another thread and try to pretend that I didn’t absolutely humiliate them by systematically destroying their case. As a result of this wilful evasion on the part of the liars amongst us – otherwise known as “truth”ers – I am going to post this to you every time you comment on this page, because unless you deal with the fact that your sources are packed with lies and misrepresentations I will assume that you are lying on their behalf in order to defraud others.

        I will thus post my prior decimation of your cherished AE911T list of “technical articles” to you for as long as it takes for you to either sneak away with a tacit admission of your guilt, or address the fact that you are demonstrably wrong.

        William Kus

        Are you serious? You’re criticizing ME for pointing out that THEY are STILL advocating a known example of scientific fraud? What their inclusion of this source proves is that they are either actively perpetrating a scientific fraud or that they are so incompetent as to have no idea what that paper contains. Either way, their integrity is irreparably damaged.

        Would you like me to reel off a few more examples, just to make this a little more embarrassing for them – and for you as their advocate? Well, first of all we have to link to the CORRECT page, as you linked to the one above it:

        http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html#Technical_Articles

        - and we can see from this alone that these “technical articles” are NOT what they are claimed to be. The first two have no relevance to any specific hypothesis, as they are just the blueprints for the buildings themselves. They contain no evidence in favour of your chosen hypothesis and are only there as a reference to trivial points and to bolster the list of sources. These are just about the only credible references to be found on this page, as you would known if you looked through them at some point.

        Third on that list is this

        http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/29_Structural-Civil_Engineers_2009-06-17.pdf

        - which is where things REALLY start to get embarrassing. I’d like you to scan through this cited list of 29 “engineers” and tell me which of them have verified qualifications that are relevant to this event. Any that do NOT have verifiable qualifications relevant to this event will have NO presumption of validity placed upon their claims, as without relevant expertise they are no more valid than the claims of the average Buddhist monk.

        Next up is this:

        http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Republic-Magazine16_AE911Truth.pdf

        - which is a MAGAZINE article and was not subject to peer-review and has no relevance as a result. Circumventing the peer-review process is what people try to do when their work FAILS the peer-review process, and the reason it fails the peer-review process is because their work is crap. Either their conclusions are unsupported by their data, or they misrepresent their sources, or any other number of other violations of the objectivity of the scientific method. This is why these people have to resort to the popular press, or inventing their own pseudo-journals to publish their demonstrable falsehoods.

        The next link I have already dealt with, so we’ll move on to link 6:

        http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Republic-Magazine16_Nanothermite_Smoking_Gun.pdf

        - yup, ANOTHER magazine article. Next up are some electrical drawings, which, as with the general construction blueprints, are merely present as reference material for the known construction of the buildings and contain nothing specific to any collapse hypothesis. These are neutral by default. Fortunately, the next one gives us a little more to work with:

        http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

        - I’d like to link you specifically to this section:

        http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html#iron_spheres

        - now, this feature is crucial to the claims of these people, because they have frequently maintained that the formation of these iron-rich spherules requires extremely high temperatures. But is this assertion correct?

        Well, no. They made it up. Those spherules have identical composition to those features in this paper:

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1367912012001228

        - in which “the spherule formation is attributed to a low temperature hydrothermal process (150–200 °C) “. These spherules form at temperatures that are less than a seventh that of the possible temperatures in the fires observed. And this is, once again, ignoring the fact that the link they claim as a “technical article” is actually just a propaganda piece that has NEVER been subject to peer-review.

        This brings us to the second mention of the infamous Harrit paper. “Nuff said.

        I have now reeled through the first NINE links in that “technical articles” section and have found a couple of neutral construction diagrams that fails to support ANY hypothesis, and a few sources that are completely untenable as reference materials. Several of them have proven to be entirely dishonest in their content, such as the Harrit paper in general and the iron spherule formation mentioned above, whereas the rest are nothing more than newspaper articles. The first nine links contain NOTHING.

        “I would suggest people make up their own minds when viewing media concerning 9/11 and to ask people who are professionals within any given field for their opinions. Such as pilots, demolitionists, engineers and architects.”

        - I agree completely. I would also append that statement with a reminder that the small subset of sources that YOU have elected to endorse are NOT representative of the majority, which rather negates your point, doesn’t it? ON that note, how are you getting on with the aforementioned analysis of the actual expertise of the “experts” you are advocating? Found any reliable qualifications in any relevant field yet? I do have a source or two that would contradict you, but it would do you good to do this yourself first.

        Now, I have already gone into plenty of detail about the Harrit paper, so I’d like to pick your brains for a moment on this topic. If you knew that the NINST reports relied heavily on a particular source, but that this source had been PROVEN to be false, what would you expect the NIST to do? Would you expect them to drop that source from their list of references? I would too. Would you expect them to put that source to the test in order to determine whether the conclusions were valid? So would I. Would you expect them to reanalyze their findings if those conclusions WERE found to be false? Yep, same here. So why are you trying to defend AE911T for their continued reliance on Harrit and Jones long after they have been exposed as liars? Why do you think their refusal to omit such a patently-fraudulent source is acceptable?

        Finally, can you think of a single coherent reason for them refusing to delete this source from their list of “technical articles”? It was immediately removed from the academic literature as it did NOT undergo peer-review, it contains numerous instances of scientific fraud, and it has been refuted so many times that I’m surprised Harrit hasn’t topped himself in shame. What possible reason could there be for this article to STILL populate that list?

        • Will Kus

          Unfortunately the community did appear to jump to conclusions with the nano-thermite/thermite theory. I see this often.

          A lack of any real independent investigation causes this type of hullabaloo to happen.

          It is natural for people to want to use their imagination and create theories as to what happened. Unfortunately, nobody will probably ever know what really happened that day.

          What we do know is that the official story is not what happened. What we don’t know is what actually did happen.

          Here is a cool link from Planet Info wars acknowledging the debunked nano-thermite/thermite theory. From what I can understand is that they are saying it had to have been something much, much stronger than that, and in no way was it just normal fires causing a “pancake” effect that turned much of the towers to pure dust.

          People say it couldn’t have been a controlled demolition because of the lack of seismic signatures, but in reality that just adds to the mystery. Because much of the building was dust before it hit the ground, it didn’t weigh that much. If the pancake theory had happened, a whole lot of weight would have hit the ground and caused much larger seismic activity.

          It’s similar to the Kennedy assassination. Although we may not know 100% what happened that day, we do know the official story is bull if you look close enough. But then you get people going off on wild tangents about what they think happened.

          • Christ J

            Don’t you DARE try to pass this thermite crap off as “jumping to conclusions”. It was nothing less than fabrication of evidence to buttress a prejudice that was otherwise unwarranted. It is no different to forging evidence in order to try to ensure the conviction of an innocent man.

            The fact remains that YOU are endorsing that crap, because you are advocating the conclusions of a site that has allocated it two places in their top ten resources list. You are happily advocating a site that thinks nothing of lying about evidence.

            “A lack of any real independent investigation causes this type of hullabaloo to happen.”

            - straw man. ANY investigation will forever be dismissed by you if their conclusions differ from what you want to hear. This is just untenable evasion from the fact that none of the data supports your hypothesis.

            “What we do know is that the official story is not what happened.”

            - no, you THINK – or, more precisely, you WANT to think – that it is untrue. Tragically, neither you nor any of your sources has ever managed to refute any of the data, which is another way of saying that you are incapable of successfully refuting it. Ergo, it is correct. That’s how science works: if you fail to disprove the hypothesis it gains credibility until it has eventually survived sufficient analysis to be considered accurate. You have refused to address the points I made in the last comment because you are incapable of refuting me, which means my decimation of your treasured sources stands. You are disproven.

            Unless you can justify your above statement with facts and data you have no valid basis for uttering it. As you have also failed to provide any such data the only rational conclusion is that your case is non-existent. Feel free to try to prove me wrong…

            “Here is a cool link from Planet Info wars acknowledging the debunked nano-thermite/thermite theory. From what I can understand is that they are saying it had to have been something much, much stronger than that, ”

            - don’t bother with the link – I already know what a load of crap Harrit’s work is. I also note that you only ditch this hoaxed paper when you are reassured that there is another untenable hypothesis to usurp it.

            Let me make this perfectly clear – again: the upper section of WTC 1, which was the SMALLEST upper section of the three, had a mass of over 6000 tonnes. Upon impacting the floor below it would have a velocity of over 8.5m/sec, which would give it a momentum of 51,000,000N. Now, compare this figure to the amount of force the steel in that floor was capable of resisting. If the latter figure is higher then the collapse should have halted, whereas if the former is larger the collapse will progress as observed.

            See how simple this can be? Why, then, have you refused to EVER actually compare these figures? Because you’re a liar, that’s why. You are now so desperate for your lies to become true that you are willing to ignore the data for as long as it takes to delude yourself into thinking that it doesn’t exist. You are mentally ill. You are a fantasist, and bordering on chronically delusional. And you have done this to yourself.

            “People say it couldn’t have been a controlled demolition because of the lack of seismic signatures, but in reality that just adds to the mystery.”

            - no, it doesn’t. There is no possible way in the universe that there could have been any explosives or incendiaries present, which means that the collapse is inexplicable by your claims.

            “Because much of the building was dust before it hit the ground, it didn’t weigh that much.”

            - then explain the substantial seismic signals that were observed during the collapses; or the fact that over 1.5 MILLION TONNES of debris – DEBRIS, not “dust” – was processed by Fresh Kills. Go on, check them out. They recorded plenty of it – certainly enough for your claims that “much of the building was dust” to be rendered physically impossible. And that’s without even going into the fact that your claims are a violation of physical laws, specifically the laws of quantum electrodynamics, which is the single most thoroughly-confirmed theory that has ever existed. And YOU are trying to circumvent it.

            Then, of course, we have the fact that your claims are VISIBLY false, because the collapse footage alone proves that these “dust” claims are complete crap. You can also see this from the photographic record from the following few days:

            http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/September_17_2001.jpg

            - doesn’t look like “dust” to me, unless you think “dust” is a term that can be applied to chunks of steel and concrete that are more than 220ft long.

            “If the pancake theory had happened, a whole lot of weight would have hit the ground and caused much larger seismic activity.”

            - it DID. Observe:

            http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html

            - don’t bother spouting crap like that until you’ve actually read the relevant work, m’kay?

            We’re not going anywhere near JFK, because you’re trying to use that to hide the fact that you are consistently avoiding the facts in favour of making bald-faced claims that are no more true than a holy book. As you have, once again, neglected to deal with the fact that I systematically annihilated the sources you originally linked me to I will, again, repost my prior comment to you – try to answer the facts this time, dearie:

            William Kus

            Are you serious? You’re criticizing ME for pointing out that THEY are STILL advocating a known example of scientific fraud? What their inclusion of this source proves is that they are either actively perpetrating a scientific fraud or that they are so incompetent as to have no idea what that paper contains. Either way, their integrity is irreparably damaged.

            Would you like me to reel off a few more examples, just to make this a little more embarrassing for them – and for you as their advocate? Well, first of all we have to link to the CORRECT page, as you linked to the one above it:

            http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html#Technical_Articles

            - and we can see from this alone that these “technical articles” are NOT what they are claimed to be. The first two have no relevance to any specific hypothesis, as they are just the blueprints for the buildings themselves. They contain no evidence in favour of your chosen hypothesis and are only there as a reference to trivial points and to bolster the list of sources. These are just about the only credible references to be found on this page, as you would known if you looked through them at some point.

            Third on that list is this

            http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/29_Structural-Civil_Engineers_2009-06-17.pdf

            - which is where things REALLY start to get embarrassing. I’d like you to scan through this cited list of 29 “engineers” and tell me which of them have verified qualifications that are relevant to this event. Any that do NOT have verifiable qualifications relevant to this event will have NO presumption of validity placed upon their claims, as without relevant expertise they are no more valid than the claims of the average Buddhist monk.

            Next up is this:

            http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Republic-Magazine16_AE911Truth.pdf

            - which is a MAGAZINE article and was not subject to peer-review and has no relevance as a result. Circumventing the peer-review process is what people try to do when their work FAILS the peer-review process, and the reason it fails the peer-review process is because their work is crap. Either their conclusions are unsupported by their data, or they misrepresent their sources, or any other number of other violations of the objectivity of the scientific method. This is why these people have to resort to the popular press, or inventing their own pseudo-journals to publish their demonstrable falsehoods.

            The next link I have already dealt with, so we’ll move on to link 6:

            http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Republic-Magazine16_Nanothermite_Smoking_Gun.pdf

            - yup, ANOTHER magazine article. Next up are some electrical drawings, which, as with the general construction blueprints, are merely present as reference material for the known construction of the buildings and contain nothing specific to any collapse hypothesis. These are neutral by default. Fortunately, the next one gives us a little more to work with:

            http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

            - I’d like to link you specifically to this section:

            http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html#iron_spheres

            - now, this feature is crucial to the claims of these people, because they have frequently maintained that the formation of these iron-rich spherules requires extremely high temperatures. But is this assertion correct?

            Well, no. They made it up. Those spherules have identical composition to those features in this paper:

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1367912012001228

            - in which “the spherule formation is attributed to a low temperature hydrothermal process (150–200 °C) “. These spherules form at temperatures that are less than a seventh that of the possible temperatures in the fires observed. And this is, once again, ignoring the fact that the link they claim as a “technical article” is actually just a propaganda piece that has NEVER been subject to peer-review.

            This brings us to the second mention of the infamous Harrit paper. “Nuff said.

            I have now reeled through the first NINE links in that “technical articles” section and have found a couple of neutral construction diagrams that fails to support ANY hypothesis, and a few sources that are completely untenable as reference materials. Several of them have proven to be entirely dishonest in their content, such as the Harrit paper in general and the iron spherule formation mentioned above, whereas the rest are nothing more than newspaper articles. The first nine links contain NOTHING.

            “I would suggest people make up their own minds when viewing media concerning 9/11 and to ask people who are professionals within any given field for their opinions. Such as pilots, demolitionists, engineers and architects.”

            - I agree completely. I would also append that statement with a reminder that the small subset of sources that YOU have elected to endorse are NOT representative of the majority, which rather negates your point, doesn’t it? ON that note, how are you getting on with the aforementioned analysis of the actual expertise of the “experts” you are advocating? Found any reliable qualifications in any relevant field yet? I do have a source or two that would contradict you, but it would do you good to do this yourself first.

            Now, I have already gone into plenty of detail about the Harrit paper, so I’d like to pick your brains for a moment on this topic. If you knew that the NINST reports relied heavily on a particular source, but that this source had been PROVEN to be false, what would you expect the NIST to do? Would you expect them to drop that source from their list of references? I would too. Would you expect them to put that source to the test in order to determine whether the conclusions were valid? So would I. Would you expect them to reanalyze their findings if those conclusions WERE found to be false? Yep, same here. So why are you trying to defend AE911T for their continued reliance on Harrit and Jones long after they have been exposed as liars? Why do you think their refusal to omit such a patently-fraudulent source is acceptable?

            Finally, can you think of a single coherent reason for them refusing to delete this source from their list of “technical articles”? It was immediately removed from the academic literature as it did NOT undergo peer-review, it contains numerous instances of scientific fraud, and it has been refuted so many times that I’m surprised Harrit hasn’t topped himself in shame. What possible reason could there be for this article to STILL populate that list?

            This won’t go away until you answer these points, Bill, so get on with it and stop making it so obvious that you’re a shill.

          • Will Kus

            Why are you such a spaz?

          • Will Kus

            Unlike yourself, I do not have the time or patience to reply to everything you have said point for point, although I admire your tenacity.

            Thankfully there are plenty of people who have already done plenty of research. Not all of it as solid as we would like to think, but obviously there are plenty of questions left unanswered as well as a lot of information that has been ignored or hidden by the mainstream media.

            There is very little transparency in the government and in the media.

            I feel bad for so many of the families of the people of the 9/11 victims as well as many of the first responders who were the ones who initiated this whole truther movement because they will probably never know what really happened that day.

            As with any other person who doesn’t have some kind of twisted agenda (cough Christ J cough), we know how corrupt the government has become with fighting pointless wars in other countries, shedding the blood of American citizens and non-American citizens, and completely destroying the Constitution because of 9/11.

            The whistleblowers have constantly been silenced in the mainstream media. Mistakes by the truther movement are seized upon by over-zealous who-knows-what clouding the basic premise of transparency, truth, and justice. Something that is in short supply since 9/11.

            I would suggest people continue to do their own research on many of these 9/11 truth sites and make a decision for themselves and not get confused by some snake-tongued pseudo lawyers who know how to confused an audience by misdirecting your attention away from the important things, like transparency, the Constitution, and truth.

          • Christ J

            “Why are you such a spaz?”

            - well done. I’m sure your mother is glad she bothered.

            “I do not have the time or patience to reply to everything you have said point for point,”

            - you don’t HAVE a response, because I have systematically torn asunder the sources on which your case rests.

            In any case, what exactly is stopping you from picking out one or two of those brutal hatchet jobs and trying to refute my refutation? Nought but your inability to find any issue with my points, I would suggest.

            “Thankfully there are plenty of people who have already done plenty of research.”

            - and, once again, that “research” has been shown to be nothing but misrepresentations buttressed by fabricated data. I know of no “truth”er “research” that is not extremely damaging to the “truth”er cause simply by virtue of there being nothing that supports their case. Harrit is a perfect example, as he clearly wanted to present his work as if it proved his hypothesis correct, when it actually did a superb job f completely refuting his initial claims. This is why “truth”ers refuse to apply Newtonian physics to the collapses these days – experience has taught them that it will end with them forced to defend the indefensible.

            “As with any other person who doesn’t have some kind of twisted agenda (cough Christ J cough), ”

            - my agenda is only the stubborn refusal to let people like you get away with lying about the facts. Nice try, though…

            “we know how corrupt the government has become with ”

            - first of all, “become”? You have always had this issue in some form, you are just choosing to point to it now to cover for your complete lack of supporting evidence. You are under the misapprehension that pointing to unrelated examples of government corruption is sufficient to justify blaming them for something else entirely. To use a courtroom analogy, this is no different to presuming that someone is guilty of murder because they were once convicted of tax evasion. You are forcing yourself to subvert the usual process of prosecution just because you are unable to build a legitimate case.

            “The whistleblowers have constantly been silenced in the mainstream media”

            - prove it. Without evidence this is nothing but an invention.

            “Mistakes by the truther movement are seized upon”

            - no, they are NOT. This isn’t about “mistakes”. Mistakes are forgivable – everyone makes them. What is attacked in the “truth”er movement is the fact that they refuse to reanalyze the data when those mistakes are pointed out. For example, a common “truth”er claim is that the damage to the Pentagon was only 12-20 feet across, whereas photographic evidence proved that it was close to 100 feet, including substantial damage that was solely consistent with the wings of a large jet. Rather than retract their initial claims, many “truth”ers have merely repeated them while completely ignoring the fact that those claims have been conclusively disproven.

            I am not attacking “mistakes”, I am attacking the kind of dishonesty that allows you to insist on repeating them AFTER you have been corrected. I am perfectly justified in doing so.

            “I would suggest people continue to do their own research on many of these 9/11 truth sites”

            - I sure as hell wouldn’t. I have already proven that these pages are not reliable. I would instead demand that people do some REAL research from primary sources and based on fundamental principles. 9/11 “truth” sites are worthless because of their refusal to correct their prior “mistakes”, and their dogmatic repetition of long-disproven data.

            “make a decision for themselves and not get confused by some snake-tongued pseudo lawyers who know how to confused an audience by misdirecting your attention away from the important things, like transparency, the Constitution, and truth.”

            - you’ve just done a remarkable job of describing yourself. Take a look at our previous comments: you have displayed no inclination to address the facts at hand, whereas I have done so in excruciating detail. You have tried to change the subject to avoid in-depth discussion of the facts, whereas I am still posting the same comment to you in order to elicit a response.

            YOU are guilty of attempted evasion here, not me. I am trying to force you to stick to the issues at hand, whereas you are trying to lead this off onto a tangential argument about politics. This is much simpler than you are trying to make it: if there is no scientific evidence for anything not detailed in the NIST final reports then your claims lose ALL credibility, so let’s analyse the data.

          • Will Kus

            It is because arguing with you is pointless. I would tell people to continue to do their own independent research.

            Luckily, there are people willing to speak out and question the official story and not get misdirected by people like you.

            http://patriotsquestion911.com/ has plenty of high ranking whistleblowers who, like myself, would like a real investigation.

            If there was nothing to hide, then there shouldn’t have been so much hidden.

          • Will Kus

            Here is a nice blog post explaining why the mainstream media doesn’t report on this.

            http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/10/hit-them-with-truth.html

          • Christ J

            “It is because arguing with you is pointless. I would tell people to continue to do their own independent research.”

            - but you didn’t. You told them to read from “truth”er sites. I have already proven that there is nothing of validity on them, so you are explicitly telling people to read only from sources that have been proven to be liars.

            Arguing with me IS indeed pointless, because I have facts on my side. You will NEVER win this argument simply because you are wrong, and I can prove it.

            “Luckily, there are people willing to speak out and question the official story and not get misdirected by people like you.”

            - so me citing actual scientific sources is now “misdirection”, is it? Because the only links I have cited in this thread are either YOUR sources or the odd one-or-two I used to prove them wrong. The key difference was that mine were peer-reviewed, whereas your consisted of magazine articles and pseudo-papers that have never been reviewed.

            I’m content to let people ask questions, but I am refusing to let liars like you try to funnel them towards the crap that you have allowed to fill your head. There is no validity to the claims proffered by your little cult, and I intend to make it very clear as to exactly WHY this is to anyone who asks. They can ask questions and I shall answer every damn one. ALL you’ll ever do is seek to indefinitely postpone such answers, because your worldview is built entirely on wilful ignorance.

            “http://patriotsquestion911.com/ has plenty of high ranking whistleblowers who, like myself, would like a real investigation.”

            - then I suggest you pick out some aspect of the investigations that are not scientifically acceptable and cite them as your reason, because you have yet to find such a fault, despite all these years of trying.

            “If there was nothing to hide, then there shouldn’t have been so much hidden.”

            - what was hidden? Or is this yet another attempt to argue in circles without being called out for it?

            I think it speaks volumes that you have still refused to address my thorough refutation of one of your cherished sources, yet you feel that you can throw out a blog post as if it has any validity. Unless you can successfully refute my claims about your previous source – AE911T – then your other sources will be considered invalid by default, especially those which are nothing more than the idle ravings of a like-minded propaganda merchant. If the source of your “scientific” data is false then why would you expect a blog to suffice?

            Your move, princess: are you going to address the facts or desperately try for a little more evasion?

            William Kus

            Are you serious? You’re criticizing ME for pointing out that THEY are STILL advocating a known example of scientific fraud? What their inclusion of this source proves is that they are either actively perpetrating a scientific fraud or that they are so incompetent as to have no idea what that paper contains. Either way, their integrity is irreparably damaged.

            Would you like me to reel off a few more examples, just to make this a little more embarrassing for them – and for you as their advocate? Well, first of all we have to link to the CORRECT page, as you linked to the one above it:

            http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html#Technical_Articles

            - and we can see from this alone that these “technical articles” are NOT what they are claimed to be. The first two have no relevance to any specific hypothesis, as they are just the blueprints for the buildings themselves. They contain no evidence in favour of your chosen hypothesis and are only there as a reference to trivial points and to bolster the list of sources. These are just about the only credible references to be found on this page, as you would known if you looked through them at some point.

            Third on that list is this

            http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/29_Structural-Civil_Engineers_2009-06-17.pdf

            - which is where things REALLY start to get embarrassing. I’d like you to scan through this cited list of 29 “engineers” and tell me which of them have verified qualifications that are relevant to this event. Any that do NOT have verifiable qualifications relevant to this event will have NO presumption of validity placed upon their claims, as without relevant expertise they are no more valid than the claims of the average Buddhist monk.

            Next up is this:

            http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Republic-Magazine16_AE911Truth.pdf

            - which is a MAGAZINE article and was not subject to peer-review and has no relevance as a result. Circumventing the peer-review process is what people try to do when their work FAILS the peer-review process, and the reason it fails the peer-review process is because their work is crap. Either their conclusions are unsupported by their data, or they misrepresent their sources, or any other number of other violations of the objectivity of the scientific method. This is why these people have to resort to the popular press, or inventing their own pseudo-journals to publish their demonstrable falsehoods.

            The next link I have already dealt with, so we’ll move on to link 6:

            http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Republic-Magazine16_Nanothermite_Smoking_Gun.pdf

            - yup, ANOTHER magazine article. Next up are some electrical drawings, which, as with the general construction blueprints, are merely present as reference material for the known construction of the buildings and contain nothing specific to any collapse hypothesis. These are neutral by default. Fortunately, the next one gives us a little more to work with:

            http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

            - I’d like to link you specifically to this section:

            http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html#iron_spheres

            - now, this feature is crucial to the claims of these people, because they have frequently maintained that the formation of these iron-rich spherules requires extremely high temperatures. But is this assertion correct?

            Well, no. They made it up. Those spherules have identical composition to those features in this paper:

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1367912012001228

            - in which “the spherule formation is attributed to a low temperature hydrothermal process (150–200 °C) “. These spherules form at temperatures that are less than a seventh that of the possible temperatures in the fires observed. And this is, once again, ignoring the fact that the link they claim as a “technical article” is actually just a propaganda piece that has NEVER been subject to peer-review.

            This brings us to the second mention of the infamous Harrit paper. “Nuff said.

            I have now reeled through the first NINE links in that “technical articles” section and have found a couple of neutral construction diagrams that fails to support ANY hypothesis, and a few sources that are completely untenable as reference materials. Several of them have proven to be entirely dishonest in their content, such as the Harrit paper in general and the iron spherule formation mentioned above, whereas the rest are nothing more than newspaper articles. The first nine links contain NOTHING.

            “I would suggest people make up their own minds when viewing media concerning 9/11 and to ask people who are professionals within any given field for their opinions. Such as pilots, demolitionists, engineers and architects.”

            - I agree completely. I would also append that statement with a reminder that the small subset of sources that YOU have elected to endorse are NOT representative of the majority, which rather negates your point, doesn’t it? ON that note, how are you getting on with the aforementioned analysis of the actual expertise of the “experts” you are advocating? Found any reliable qualifications in any relevant field yet? I do have a source or two that would contradict you, but it would do you good to do this yourself first.

            Now, I have already gone into plenty of detail about the Harrit paper, so I’d like to pick your brains for a moment on this topic. If you knew that the NINST reports relied heavily on a particular source, but that this source had been PROVEN to be false, what would you expect the NIST to do? Would you expect them to drop that source from their list of references? I would too. Would you expect them to put that source to the test in order to determine whether the conclusions were valid? So would I. Would you expect them to reanalyze their findings if those conclusions WERE found to be false? Yep, same here. So why are you trying to defend AE911T for their continued reliance on Harrit and Jones long after they have been exposed as liars? Why do you think their refusal to omit such a patently-fraudulent source is acceptable?

            Finally, can you think of a single coherent reason for them refusing to delete this source from their list of “technical articles”? It was immediately removed from the academic literature as it did NOT undergo peer-review, it contains numerous instances of scientific fraud, and it has been refuted so many times that I’m surprised Harrit hasn’t topped himself in shame. What possible reason could there be for this article to STILL populate that list?

            This won’t go away until you answer these points, Bill, so get on with it and stop making it so obvious that you’re a shill.

          • Will Kus: “I feel bad for so many of the families of the people of the 9/11 victims as well as many of the first responders who were the ones who initiated this whole truther movement because they will probably never know what really happened that day.”

            How many FDNY are 9/11 truther nuts like “yourself,” Will? I counted ONE on Erik Lawyer’s “Firefighters” for 9/11 “Truth” petition who even CLAIMS to have been active FDNY on 9/11/01.

    • Ask Richard Gage* and his “experts” to show you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7′s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY

      http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png

      If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.

      *Gage’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

    • Ask Box Boy* and his “more than 2100 [9/11 crackpots]” to show you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7′s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY
      http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png
      If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.
      *Box Boy’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

      • Christ J

        I have been blocked from replying to a certain comment, so this is just a test.

        • I’ve been banned from commenting on MANY “forums” run by the 9/11 “truth movement,” but Joe Martino has never done it to me, and has allowed you to post freely here too.

          • Christ J

            Correction: mostly freely.

            To be honest, we have an ongoing email conversation underway in which I am trying to figure out why I am being prevented from responding to one particular comment on this page, and he is being perfectly amiable. I wasn’t accusing anyone of anything and the above comment was, as I explicitly stated, just my way of seeing if my issue was with a single comment or the page as a whole. If it was the latter then my previous posts would indicate that it was a temporary problem and that I should retry at a later date, whereas the former suggests a problem specific to the comment in question.

            Basically, the comment you just responded to was my way of gathering as much information as possible about the problem to enable it to be reported more accurately.

  6. N7 Shadow

    The bottom just dropped out of all 3 buildings & the foundation beams were cut & melted.

    All 3 buildings went down perfectly the same exact way just by coincidence? Or pre-planned controlled demolition?

    The plane at the Pentagon hit the ground first yet the lawn is perfect in all the pictures.

    The engines, the heaviest parts of the plane at the Pentagon did absolutely no damage, the wall was intact with no sign of a large plane anywhere.

    Pictures of Pentagon show absolutely no damage from the wings or tail & the columns are all intact before it collapsed.

    Cameras all over the Pentagon yet there’s only 1 crappy shot of the explosion. You can’t even see a gigantic commercial airliner anywhere. You just see a tiny white blur in one frame & then the explosion.

    Eyewitnesses say they were solid gray planes with no windows. Military planes!

    Large cylinders attached to fuselage.

    Missiles shot from the things attached to the fuselage right before the planes hit the building.

    Bomb (demolition charge) on the first floor blew the hell out of everything before the first plane even struck.

    Bomb (demolition charges) in the basement to weaken the foundation.

    Mysterious trucks entering the buildings between 1am-5am so demolition charges could be precisely planted a few days before.

    Demolition charges going off all over the place right before buildings collapsed.

    Tons of false reports of hijackings & missing planes all over the place at the exact same time to cause confusion.

    In the days after 9/11, numerous pilots and aviation experts commented on the elaborate maneuvers performed by the aircraft in the terrorist attacks, and the advanced skills that would have been necessary to navigate those aircraft into their targets. The men flying the planes must have been “highly skilled pilots” and “extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators,” who were “probably military trained,” these experts said.

    And yet the four alleged hijackers who were supposedly flying the aircraft were amateur pilots, who had learned to fly in small propeller planes, and were described by their instructors as having had only “average” or even “very poor” piloting skills.

    Absolutely no reason for building 7 to collapse. Larry Silverstein tells them to demolish it so he can collect the insurance money. Why would demolition charges already be in place & ready to go??? This 1 alone totally destroys the official story. How can anybody say that demolition charges weren’t already set up a few days earlier? The buildings were planned to go down no matter what! The planes were just a distraction. How obvious does it need to be?

    Building 7 collapse reported BEFORE it happened.

    Large planes flying OFF COURSE straight towards the WTC & Pentagon & the military didn’t intercept not even 1 of them??? No other planes in the area, not even small military fighters.

    Bin Laden not wanted for 9/11 attacks? Not even attached to 9/11 attacks!

    This one doesn’t even need a conspiracy theory. The truth is right in your face. You can see the demolition charges going off in every video. The demolition charges were set up days before & Larry Silverstein KNEW the demolition charges were already set up & we have video of him telling them to demolish the 3rd building.

    People that believe the official story are telling us that the demolition charges magically appeared that morning and didn’t take any time or planning to set up perfectly. And when Larry Silverstein told them to demolish the 3rd building he was actually telling the damage from the first 2 buildings to make the entire 3rd building collapse in a perfectly controlled vertical drop. Because there were no demolition charges. This Larry Silverstein dude has the power of God & when he tells a building to collapse on itself you can be sure it’s going to obey his command.

    ARE YOU PEOPLE %#$&% SERIOUS??? No! Sorry! We have video proof that Larry Silverstein told them to demolish the 3rd building & it’s collapse had absolutely NOTHING to do with the first 2 buildings. Don’t even think about arguing this one! The guy was after the insurance money case closed! If there were any terrorists involved with 9/11 it was Larry Silverstein!

    • constitutionalist

      “The bottom just dropped out of all 3 buildings & the foundation beams were cut & melted.”
      The evidence states otherwise. The bottom did not drop out of the towers. Watch the videos. Their disintegration into dust began at the site of the upper floor explosions that had occurred earlier in the morning. They did come apart at free fall speed (acceleration, actually), but made seismic traces 8-10 fold too faint for a controlled demolition and without P- and S- waves. Building 7 made almost NO seismic impact, showing that most of its weight/bulk had gone up as dust earlier in the day, and that only its shell fell in free-fall, as seen in the video of late afternoon.

      But what of the other four WTC buidings? WTC 3, eighty percent or so of WTC 4, and huge cores of WTC 5 and 6 also turned to dust that day. Any description of 9-11 MUST include these facts.

      There is no evidence for cutting of any foundation beams before 9/11. The diagonal cuts shown in a couple of photos were made during “clean-up” (destruction of the crime scene). This is, however, not an important point, because the towers did NOT “collapse” starting at ground level.

      • Christ J

        Tsk tsk. Still mindlessly parroting those lies, Connie?

        “Their disintegration into dust…”

        - “disintegration” merely means that something breaks into smaller pieces. If you dropped a brick and it fell into two halves then it would have, technically, disintegrated. The word is being used dishonestly, in your case, to imply that the buildings were turned to “dust” in their entirety. Had you only sought some information from Fresh Kills – as I have suggested on multiple occasions, Connie – you would soon have found how little “dust” there was compared to the debris that was still in sufficiently large chunks as to be called “chunks”. You are lying by omission, and the fact that you continue to do so even after being told where you can find refuting data means you are wilfully misleading people on behalf of your priests. You are a shill.

        “upper floor explosions ”

        - evidence, or it didn’t happen. There were hundreds of cameras pointing at the towers and not a single one of them recorded any explosions. Furthermore, the seismic data from that day conclusively, and irrefutably, rules them out.

        “They did come apart at free fall speed (acceleration, actually),”

        - no, they didn’t. The closest was WTC 7, which took more than sixteen seconds to fall 47 floors – at a height of 3.7m per floor. No amount of wilful misrepresentation of Newtonian physics allows this to have attained freefall acceleration, which is why you have refused to ever defend your beliefs mathematically. Until you do, your claims are worthless.

        ” Building 7 made almost NO seismic impact, showing that most of its weight/bulk had gone up as dust earlier in the day, and that only its shell fell in free-fall, as seen in the video of late afternoon.”

        - the whirring noise you hear is the sound of Newton spinning in his elaborate grave. The amount of spinning that your bastardization of his work is inspiring will power Greater London for the next two centuries.

        That aside, you are easily revealed as a liar from the data alone:

        http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html

        -which shows the energy of WTC 7 to be about a third that of either of the twins. Considering the most reliable estimates of the twins are 280,000 tonnes and WTC 7 is 100,000 tonnes, this is a pretty accurate measurement, isn’t it? It’s almost as if the seismic data collected from WTC 7 collapsing was that of the collapse of a building with around 35% the mass of whatever caused the seismic signatures that coincided with WTC 1 and 2 collapsing. Extraordinary…

        “But what of the other four WTC buidings? WTC 3, eighty percent or so of WTC 4, and huge cores of WTC 5 and 6 also turned to dust that day. Any description of 9-11 MUST include these facts. “[sic]

        - they aren’t facts. I have previously linked you to resources that demonstrate that you are lying about this “turned to dust” crap, so your persistent ignorance of the facts is utterly untenable. You are, once again, exposed for the lying shill you really are.

        How about breaking with tradition and actually addressing the facts, rather than your dogmatic misrepresentations and outright falsehoods?

        • constitutionalist

          Dear persistent liar CJ: I am simply describing exactly what the evidence shows. You can’t change the evidence, but you sure do spend a lot of time trying to hide it. I wonder why…..

          • Christ J

            I just PROVED that you are lying, whereas all you can respond with is a little vague hand-waving and some ambiguous accusations that have yet to be supported by evidence.

            For example, you claimed that ” Building 7 made almost NO seismic impact…”, so I provided you with sources that prove that you are lying, like this one:

            http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html

            -and this alone both entirely refutes your claim and renders any other opinions you offer invalid by virtue of the fact that I have just proven you to be firmly intent on inventing “evidence”. Until you can provide some evidence to support your prior claims they have no basis in reality, and you are now faced with the task of explaining the substantial seismic signals I just linked you to – twice.

            You’re a liar, Connie, and I have proven it. Nothing you say has any value unless you can also provide supporting evidence. What everyone one this page is now completely aware of is how willing I am to cite sources, which nicely contrasts with your complete lack thereof. I wonder why you are so reluctant to link to some references…?

          • The evidence shows that 1,000 workers toiling on the rubble hills 24/7 took almost nine months to haul away over 1.5 MILLION TONS of debris.

          • Christ J

            Have to correct you there, Pom. It was 1.5 million TONNES: METRIC tonnes. Not only that, but the records show that the majority of this was in substantial chunks, which absolutely obliterates Connie’s claim that the entire building was “turned to dust”. In fact, that 1.5 million tonnes was only the stuff that made it to Fresh Kills. Another 200,000 tonnes of steel was recycled at the site itself, so we actually have 1.7 million tonnes of debris, almost NONE of which was “dust”.

            If the buildings had “turned to dust” as Con-artist claims then this mass should have been redistributed by the wind, resulting in Manhattan being blanketed in a nice, chunky layer of WTC dust. He would also have to explain what the hell they were carting away to Fresh Kills…

            I suspect Connie would be fine if we could just teach him to analyse the crap spouted by Woods in relation to some basic electromagnetic principles. Ho hum…

          • You’re doing a splendid job of exposing the frauds here. You might find this paper useful:

            http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf

          • Christ J

            Already have it. I actually use their estimates of the mass already, both because it seems like the most reliable analysis and because it is the LOWEST estimate, which means I am automatically biasing any calculations in the “truth”ers favour.

            In fact, I think I’ve been underestimating the mass of the upper section of WTC 1. I’ve been assuming a mass of about 6000 tonnes, but I seem to recall that that paper suggested it was more like 9000 tonnes. Once again, biased in favour of the cultists.

            Isn’t it amazing that their claims STILL fail, even when I bend over backwards to accommodate them? Whatever could that mean…?

      • Constitutionalist, you know nothing at all about ground effect:

        http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

    • N7 Shadow, it’s 2014 and you know nothing about the events of 9/11. Larry Silverstein merely agreed with the FDNY’s to PULL their operation from the WTC 7 collapse zone. He “ordered” nothing, having no authority to do so. Silverstein lost tons of money. His insurance payments did not come close to covering the rebuilding costs and the lost rents.

      Your “perfectly controlled vertical drop” by WTC 7 destroyed Fiterman Hall, a BUILDING ACROSS THE STREET. Demolition companies do not get paid for that kind of work.

  7. I’m just saying… too many of those “cold hard facts” may be true, but also somewhat irrelevant to whether or not this was a conspiracy.

    George Bush stayed at the school for EIGHT WHOLE MINUTES while we were under attack… What exactly was he supposed to do? Leave immediately and cause a panic? Teachers and parents would lose their unholy shit because the president was at this school and if he’s leaving so suddenly, he must be the next target so obviously the school is also the next target. EVERY BODY FREAK THE FUCK OUT. THE SCHOOL IS GOING TO IMPLODE.

    6 out of the 10 Commissioners believe…

    NOPE. Just stop there. You can’t use 6 out of 10 people’s beliefs as a cold hard fact that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

    Just stop.

    • Shaf Zaalim

      19) Bush said he watched the first plane crash into the North tower on TV before entering the classroom. “The TV was obviously on.” Was informed about the second impact while reading ‘My Pet Goat’ to the children. Remained for at least 8 more minutes while America was under “attack”.

      Read whole of this paragraph again and again, may be it will make sense to you.

      • constitutionalist

        You stated: “Bush said he watched the first plane crash into the North tower on TV before entering the classroom. “The TV was obviously on.” Was informed about the second impact while reading ‘My Pet Goat’ to the children.”

        The explosion in the first (north) tower was not shown on TV in real time. There is only one video that purports to show a plane hitting the north tower concurrent with the explosion there, and it was released much later.

        When Bush said this, he revealed either that he is a blithering idiot or that he was aware that a video of this crash was to be shown on TV, but forgot that it would not be done “live.” Until further proof, I believe both apply to the gentleman.

        • Christ J

          So, he revealed “EITHER” one thing or the other, so you decide to apply BOTH?

          That’s exactly the kind of logic we expect from you. Well done.

          Out of curiosity, have you come to this conclusion as the natural result of anything reminiscent of a thought process, or has it been determined entirely by your preferred worldview.

          That’s a rhetorical question, by the way.

          • constitutionalist

            Are you unable to read what I wrote?

            To simplify, I believe (for now) that Bush is a blithering idiot and knew that a video would be released that purported to show a plane crashing into the north tower. He didn’t realize how stupid or dishonest it would make him look to state that he had already seen the video before it was released.

          • Christ J

            I understood it perfectly, YOU didn’t. You claimed that he was one of two things, then immediately claimed he was BOTH, contradicting your own assertion.

            The fact that you present no valid evidence in support of your claim is noted, but then, I doubt any of us expected any different.

            Incidentally, can you prove that Bush saw that first impact before that sole piece of footage was released? That is, can you demonstrate that this wasn’t just a miscommunication from a sub-moronic president that was known for little other than miscommunication and an inability to speak his mother tongue?

            Put it this way: OJ said he didn’t kill his wife. By YOUR reasoning, this makes him innocent of that crime, because he said so. See the problem now?

    • Christ J

      Shut up! Common sense and some degree of scrutiny are not welcome here.

      To be honest, I’d never really thought of Bush’s reaction as due to them not wanting to send the message that wherever Dubya was would be the next target. I always just put it down to him having a single-figure IQ and genuinely not knowing what the hell to do.

      You also have ton understand that “truth”ers speak a different dialect to the rest of the Anglophone world. In their language “evidence” is synonymous with “distorted facts that have no relevance”; “cold hard fact” is tantamount to “wilful misrepresentation; and “wake up” means” believe what we tell you to believe without ever questioning what we say or checking our assertions for yourself”. This disparity in terminology may also manifest in the form of their thought processes, where people seem to conflate “critical thinking” with “disagree with the Government™ and whatever they say”. This also tends to lead to them performing the same mental gymnastics with physical laws, often to the extent that their misrepresentation of one law causes their claims to violate another.

      The last one is, by far, the most entertaining, as I can have plenty of fun correcting these mistakes using nothing but centuries-old facts and cold, hard numbers.

    • 9/11 WAS a conspiracy; bin Laden and al Qaeda conspired to SUICIDE attack the US for the THIRD time in just over three years.

      • constitutionalist

        “9/11 WAS a conspiracy; bin Laden and al Qaeda conspired to SUICIDE attack the US”

        That conspiracy theory is clearly ruled out by the irrefutable evidence of what happened in Manhattan on 9-11.

        • Christ J

          I assume you mean the irrefutable evidence that plane impact damage and fires caused the collapse of two buildings, and that impact damage and fire caused by one of those collapses caused a third. That’s what all the evidence attests to, so this simply has to be what you’re referring to.

          If you want to disagree then you need to take it up with Isaac Newton. You’ll lose.

          • constitutionalist

            The fantasy you describe is NOT what the hard evidence shows.

            For an easily accessible compilation of the evidence see Where Did the Towers Go, authored by Judy Wood, PhD. It is quite clear that WTC 3 and 4 also largely turned to dust that day, just as did WTC 1 & 2 (the towers) and WTC 7 (a huge 47 story tower).

            You make a fool of yourself when you insist on a reality that did NOT happen. For those with time and patiences enough, the same evidence is also available on Dr. Wood’s website and on the Facebook page managed in her name by Dr. Abe Rodriguez.

          • Christ J

            Don’t give me that crap, Connie. You have nothing and neither does Judith. I have no intention of wasting any more time with her demonstrably-false claims, but I’ll reel through what I can remember:

            1) WTC 3 and 4 showed damage consistent only with impact from a falling object. Is this unusual? Well, WTC 4 was about twenty feet from the Eastern side of WTC 2, and the fireball that followed the impact of flight 175 was directly above this point. Furthermore, the pivoting upper section(which is wholly consistent with the off-center impact) also leaned in this direction, so we have several potential sources of falling objects which can account for the damage to WTC 4.

            WTC 3 was between WTC 1 and WTC 2. Do I really have to explain how this building may have come to be damaged? It was about eighty feet from WTC 2 and about thirty feet from WTC 1, both of which collapsed right next to it. Are you trying to claim that the collapse of more than 560,000 tonnes of neighbouring buildings is somehow implausible as a source of a damage pattern that is consistent only with a falling object?

            We also have definitive proof that these buildings did NOT “turn to dust”. Here is a compilation of images from a “truth”er site:

            http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc3456.html

            - which details the fact that those buildings were clearly not “turned to dust”. Woods has sold you a demonstrable falsehood, and you have bought it without hesitation and in spite of the contrary evidence.

            As for the rest of the complex, Fresh Kills took in over 1.6 million tonnes of large chunks of debris. As the most reliable estimate of the twins mass is about 280,000 tonnes apiece I’d love to know where you think all this mass came from. Even with the mass added from the rest of the complex we would still expect the twins to take up more than half of the total debris, so this leaves you with around 500,000 tonnes of mass in excess of the mass of the entire complex to account for WHILE STILL HAVING TO EXPLAIN the mass they had processed up until then. If these buildings were “turned to dust” then where the hell did all this debris come from? And where did all the dust go? If >600,000 tonnes of buildings were “turned to dust” then this should have covered Manhattan with dust to a depth of about seven metres. Got any record of THAT?

            That’s without even getting into the fact that her mechanism for explaining that “dustification” is a violation of physical laws.

          • constitutionalist

            Repeat the lies often enough, the ignorant will believe them.

          • Christ J

            Is that it? No detailed defence of Woods and her violations of natural law, no refutation of my correction of your prior lies – or the sources I used to support my debunking?

            Know what, Connie? I agree completely. You spent so long trying to convince yourself that the Government™ did it that you managed to pull it off. You managed to convince yourself that the worst president in history and one of the least intelligent people to ever hold office in ANY country, was capable of even knowing what was happening, much less having an active role in enacting it. And Woods has tried so hard to justify her untenable assertions that she has refused to publish her work in an academic forum and has instead decided to present it to people who know nothing of relevance – because that way she’s free from critical thinkers and coherent analyses. She repeated her lies often enough that you have now accepted them without question.

            There’s a good reason “truth”ers target college students of non-scientific subjects – have you ever wondered what that reason is…? And don’t even bother replying unless you’re going to deal with the facts I mentioned above, especially concerning the collateral damage detailed in the link I provided.

          • For a more detailed analysis by actual professionals and not pseudo-scientists, I would direct you all to http://www.ae911truth.org/, which is Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. As the name implies, they are architects and engineers fighting to have a real investigation.

          • @William Kus:

            Ask Box Boy* and his crackpots to show you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7′s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY
            http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png
            If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.
            *Box Boy’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

          • Christ J

            William, let’s get one thing clear right now: AE911T are liars. They have no interest in determining the events of that day because they are wholly prepared to make things up in order to promote their own ideology. My proof? Their own website, which YOU linked to.

            Their home page contains a few tabs, one of which is entitled, hilariously, “evidence. If you click that link you’ll be presented with a list of their sources. Click on “Technical Articles”.

            The fifth – and, bizarrely, the ninth as well – article they cite is this one:

            http://www.ae911truth.org/documents/active_thermitic_material_at_wtc.pdf

            - and it doesn’t exist in the academic literature. It was never subject to peer-review because the authors circumvented the process in order to get it published, because they thought that merely by being published they would be considered correct. Tragically, this was not the case. The journal itself retracted the paper as soon as the fraud was discovered, and it has never been published in the FIVE YEARS since. Why do you suppose that is…?

            I’ll tell you: it would fail peer-review instantly. It would fail because they lie about their data, they lie about their tests, and they lie about their conclusions. They misrepresent sources and established scientific fact purely to advance their ideology. And the truly hilarious part is that their own data CONCLUSIVELY rules out thermitic materials. They proved that it was physically impossible for thermitic material to have been present.

            This article is rather (in)famous in “truth”er circles. In fact, it makes up Point 1 of this very article, which goes to show how desperate you lot are to believe this fantasy. It is a scientific fraud and has been soundly disproven as not saying what the authors claimed it said. And the site you referred to as being packed with “actual professionals and not pseudo-scientists” and “architects and engineers fighting to have a real investigation.” are actually helping to promote this fraud.

            What do you think that does for the credibility of your church/source? Do you think they look like “professionals” who are capable of properly analyzing the evidence when they can’t even acknowledge the staggering dishonesty of one of their most crucial sources?

            By the way, don’t take my word for ANY of this. Read the paper I linked to above and look into the relevant principles. If you want a decent place to start then look at page 21 of the PDF I linked to. At the foot of that page is (fig30), which is a bar chart representing the energy content of the chips they measured as well as the MAXIMUM possible energy content of a few known samples, including thermite. Now, look at the value for thermite – it’s about 3.8Kj/g. That means that thermite contains NO MORE THAN 3.8Kj/g. Clear?

            Now look at the values measured from WTC chips 3 and 4. These have values of about 5.8Kj/g and 7.2Kj/g respectively. Notice anything? These values are higher than it is PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE for thermite to have. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for these chips to have been thermite.

            If you look into this in a little more detail you’ll soon find that there are copious amounts of errors and outright falsehoods in this paper, so I strongly recommend reading it in full.

            Once again, this is the kind of source AE911T are actively promoting, even five years after it has been debunked, refuted and disproven. Until AE911T remove sources like this – and there are others – from their list of “evidence” they are every bit as repulsive as the authors of that fraudulent paper. And you’re just as worthless for accepting this crap without question.

          • You mentioned the 5th and 9th article on that page. That page has probably 100 links with the “Technical Articles” having over 50 links alone. http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html#Technical_Articles

            It seems very common for people who are “truther debunkers” to find a few errors in something and use it as evidence to completely “debunk” the whole movement, completely ignoring everything else.

            If this were the case, if there was but one thing that could be disproven in the “official” story of 9/11, would that also prove that the entire story was false? Or should at least be corrected?

            And “truth” is not just not lying about something, it is also an omission of facts, and withholding of evidence. Something that was very common when the “official” story of 9/11 is discussed.

            I would suggest people make up their own minds when viewing media concerning 9/11 and to ask people who are professionals within any given field for their opinions. Such as pilots, demolitionists, engineers and architects.

          • Christ J

            William Kus

            Are you serious? You’re criticizing ME for pointing out that THEY are STILL advocating a known example of scientific fraud? What their inclusion of this source proves is that they are either actively perpetrating a scientific fraud or that they are so incompetent as to have no idea what that paper contains. Either way, their integrity is irreparably damaged.

            Would you like me to reel off a few more examples, just to make this a little more embarrassing for them – and for you as their advocate? Well, first of all we have to link to the CORRECT page, as you linked to the one above it:

            http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html#Technical_Articles

            - and we can see from this alone that these “technical articles” are NOT what they are claimed to be. The first two have no relevance to any specific hypothesis, as they are just the blueprints for the buildings themselves. They contain no evidence in favour of your chosen hypothesis and are only there as a reference to trivial points and to bolster the list of sources. These are just about the only credible references to be found on this page, as you would known if you looked through them at some point.

            Third on that list is this

            http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/29_Structural-Civil_Engineers_2009-06-17.pdf

            - which is where things REALLY start to get embarrassing. I’d like you to scan through this cited list of 29 “engineers” and tell me which of them have verified qualifications that are relevant to this event. Any that do NOT have verifiable qualifications relevant to this event will have NO presumption of validity placed upon their claims, as without relevant expertise they are no more valid than the claims of the average Buddhist monk.

            Next up is this:

            http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Republic-Magazine16_AE911Truth.pdf

            - which is a MAGAZINE article and was not subject to peer-review and has no relevance as a result. Circumventing the peer-review process is what people try to do when their work FAILS the peer-review process, and the reason it fails the peer-review process is because their work is crap. Either their conclusions are unsupported by their data, or they misrepresent their sources, or any other number of other violations of the objectivity of the scientific method. This is why these people have to resort to the popular press, or inventing their own pseudo-journals to publish their demonstrable falsehoods.

            The next link I have already dealt with, so we’ll move on to link 6:

            http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Republic-Magazine16_Nanothermite_Smoking_Gun.pdf

            - yup, ANOTHER magazine article. Next up are some electrical drawings, which, as with the general construction blueprints, are merely present as reference material for the known construction of the buildings and contain nothing specific to any collapse hypothesis. These are neutral by default. Fortunately, the next one gives us a little more to work with:

            http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

            - I’d like to link you specifically to this section:

            http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html#iron_spheres

            - now, this feature is crucial to the claims of these people, because they have frequently maintained that the formation of these iron-rich spherules requires extremely high temperatures. But is this assertion correct?

            Well, no. They made it up. Those spherules have identical composition to those features in this paper:

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1367912012001228

            - in which “the spherule formation is attributed to a low temperature hydrothermal process (150–200 °C) “. These spherules form at temperatures that are less than a seventh that of the possible temperatures in the fires observed. And this is, once again, ignoring the fact that the link they claim as a “technical article” is actually just a propaganda piece that has NEVER been subject to peer-review.

            This brings us to the second mention of the infamous Harrit paper. “Nuff said.

            I have now reeled through the first NINE links in that “technical articles” section and have found a couple of neutral construction diagrams that fails to support ANY hypothesis, and a few sources that are completely untenable as reference materials. Several of them have proven to be entirely dishonest in their content, such as the Harrit paper in general and the iron spherule formation mentioned above, whereas the rest are nothing more than newspaper articles. The first nine links contain NOTHING.

            “I would suggest people make up their own minds when viewing media concerning 9/11 and to ask people who are professionals within any given field for their opinions. Such as pilots, demolitionists, engineers and architects.”

            - I agree completely. I would also append that statement with a reminder that the small subset of sources that YOU have elected to endorse are NOT representative of the majority, which rather negates your point, doesn’t it? ON that note, how are you getting on with the aforementioned analysis of the actual expertise of the “experts” you are advocating? Found any reliable qualifications in any relevant field yet? I do have a source or two that would contradict you, but it would do you good to do this yourself first.

            Now, I have already gone into plenty of detail about the Harrit paper, so I’d like to pick your brains for a moment on this topic. If you knew that the NINST reports relied heavily on a particular source, but that this source had been PROVEN to be false, what would you expect the NIST to do? Would you expect them to drop that source from their list of references? I would too. Would you expect them to put that source to the test in order to determine whether the conclusions were valid? So would I. Would you expect them to reanalyze their findings if those conclusions WERE found to be false? Yep, same here. So why are you trying to defend AE911T for their continued reliance on Harrit and Jones long after they have been exposed as liars? Why do you think their refusal to omit such a patently-fraudulent source is acceptable?

            Finally, can you think of a single coherent reason for them refusing to delete this source from their list of “technical articles”? It was immediately removed from the academic literature as it did NOT undergo peer-review, it contains numerous instances of scientific fraud, and it has been refuted so many times that I’m surprised Harrit hasn’t topped himself in shame. What possible reason could there be for this article to STILL populate that list?

        • What “irrefutable evidence” would that be, pray tell?

    • Justin Hubbard

      Those “cold, hard facts” are true, that’s why they’re facts. Peoples beliefs that 9/11 was a conspiracy are irrelevant. What is relevant are the facts, and the facts are worth investigating. As for Bush hanging around for 8 minutes: His job would have been to put the book down, stand up, give his apologies and calmly leave the building. There would not have been any need for panic.

      • Christ J

        Be honest: was Dubya the kind of person who gave you the impression of being able to actually think in that kind of situation? I see his inaction as nothing more than the reaction of an incompetent borderline-retard who really does have no idea what the hell to do. Imagine Patrick Starr staring at a menu and I think you’ll have a near-perfect reenactment of Georgie’s thought processes at that time.

        And the “facts” this article contains are nothing of the sort. They’re the misrepresentative, misleading, and outright fictitious ravings of people who are willing to lie to push their dogma. They are riddled with dishonesty and the fact that they are STILL espousing Harrit’s known fraud is all the more disgusting. They happily endorse a lie because it is a lie that supports their worldview. Any mindset that tolerates this has no valid opinion, by default.

  8. Pingback: 24 Hard Facts About 9/11 That Cannot Be Debunked | The GOLDEN RULE

  9. No Academy Award for Best Visual Effects for this:
    http://tellmenow.com/2014/05/video-proof-showing-no-planes-hit-the-wtc-on-911/

    • You really should tell United Airlines that their 767 didn’t crash into the South Tower on 9/11. Tell the countless live eyewitnesses, the NTSB, FBI, FDNY, NYPD, etc. too.
      No-planers suck.

    • constitutionalist

      In the video to which you link, the building behind which the image of a plane passes is in fact not “quite far in the background,” but in the near foreground. Straw man here.

      This may be an attempt to distract the viewer from watching the image of the plane’s upper wing as it passes in front of the sharp edge of the black dust plume at 0:11-0:12. Note that the trailing edge of the upper wing seems to have notches out of it through which one can see the black dust plume. Imperfect hologram.

      What one does see very clearly is that the image of the plane does not slow, skew to one side of its axis of travel (that is not perpendicular to the face of the building), or fold up in any way as it is being attenuated by encountering the face of the building. The explosions inside the wall puffing outward to make the plane-shaped “roadrunner” hole are timed very precisely with the arrival of the image, the first puff occurring a fraction of a second after the “nose” encounters the wall.

      • Christ J

        YAY! Connie’s back! Let’s have some filthy fun, shall we?

        Let’s talk about those sexy “holograms” for a while. Do you understand ho holograms work, Con? They are a two dimensional image that is imprinted on a surface (remember this point for later) and they are hit with a light source – usually a laser – in order to produce multiple two-dimensional images that parallax tricks un into thinking is a three-dimensional image.

        For the planes to have been a hologram they would have to have been imprinted onto a surface that ran the ENTIRE length of the observed flight path, meaning you are actually trying to argue that there was a projecting screen that was:

        1) a couple of miles long
        2) had no supports
        3) was invisible
        4) was absolutely undetectable by any other means, including physical contact

        - that last one requires a short bit of clarification. Basically, that screen would have to extend up to the tower itself, yet it would have to be completely unaffected by the fireball that erupted from the tower less than a second later. You are arguing that something physical can be entirely intangible.

        I’m guessing this is futile, but I’d implore you to do a little learning before trying to proffer a description of something about which your knowledge is in negative values in future. M’kay?

    • Eye Witness

      I watched the video. That building is between the camera position and the WTC. I was in the street. I SAW the plane hit (the second one).

      • constitutionalist

        Tell us what you heard as the plane approached. Or was the first thing you heard a loud explosion?

        • Christ J

          Why should he? You’ll just refuse to accept his account if it doesn’t conform to the view you wish was true.

          • constitutionalist

            Why should he? …. Why are you answering for him? or her?

          • Christ J

            Once again, why should anyone answer that when you have already shown that you have no intention of accepting the evidence if it is unfavourable to your worldview? Why would anyone respond to someone who waits until the results are in before deciding whether or not the source is valid?

  10. Pingback: 24 Hard Facts About 9/11 That Cannot Be Debunked | My great WordPress blog

  11. WTC 7′s total collapse took more than 16 seconds, and the exterior portion took ~8.5 seconds, not 6.5 seconds. It’s impossible to time to 1/10-second accuracy because the bottom floors are blocked from view in all videos by buildings in the foreground and dust later in the collapse, so Gage, et al. are just plain lying. Regarding the owner and his comment:
    “I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that THEY WERE NOT SURE THEY WERE GONNA BE ABLE TO CONTAIN THE FIRE, and I said, ‘WE’VE HAD SUCH TERRIBLE LOSS OF LIFE, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And THEY [THE FDNY!] made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.” –L. Silverstein

    “We have never, ever heard the term ‘pull it’ being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we’ve spoken with.” -Brent Blanchard of Protec in A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2, & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION VIEWPOINT
    http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
    (Check it yourself on any C/D contractor’s web site.)

    If Larry Silverstein publicly admitted to blowing up his own property, why did Swiss Re, Lloyd’s, Zurich Financial, Copenhagen Re, and at least 8 other major insurers all pay him a total of $4.68 BILLION? They all fought his 2 planes = 2 incidents claims, and most of them won in court.

    • Christ J

      I once spent a slow day carefully searching for any mention of the phrase “pull it” in reference to a demolition prior to 9/11/2001. There were none. Anyone claiming that this linguistic quirk is indicative of a demolition is simply lying.

      There is an interesting precedent in this case too. The term “ground zero” had always referred to a nuclear detonation site prior to 9/11. This is actually the sole reason for some particular subsets of the “truth”er cult advocating the use of “mini-nukes” to initiate the collapses. That’s right: there ENTIRE basis for a particular hypothesis is the phrase assigned to the site and its prior usage. This is akin to claiming that every baby born via caesarean is a Roman emperor.

      (note for pedants: I know about Julius’ birth, so don’t bother)

      • WTC 7: Larry Silverstein, “Pull It.”
        And, it very clearly shows WTC collapsing at near free fall.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcNOHtkfeos

        • So it’s your belief that the FDNY secretly demolished WTC 7 with explosives, or didn’t you pay any attention to Silverstein’s PBS statement? How do you know that it collapsed at near free fall (~6.16 seconds for 610′)? How long should the EXTERIOR collapse have taken after the interior had already been collapsing for 8 seconds or more?

        • Christ J

          So what? Do you know how many times a demolition has been initiated by the phrase “pull it” in the entirety of human history? One. And that was during the clean-up operation at ground zero, but it WASN’T in association with WTC 7. It was used to refer to the demolition of the remnants of WTC 5, and they used this phrase because their chosen method was to attach CABLES to some of the remaining structure and PULL IT down.

          If you’re going to cite Silverstein then you need to actually quote him IN FULL, because using only selected parts of a statement is a dishonest shill tactic that has no purpose other than to distort the intended context in order to hide the actual meaning. You can find his ACTUAL statement here:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq-0JIR38V0

          - [transcribed] ““I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.”

          - now, the reason you have neglected to cite this in full is because there is a significant amount of ambiguity here, which renders your claim as to the intended meaning entirely unwarranted. In fact, a more tenable case can be made that he was referring to pulling the FDNY people out of the building, as it was expected to collapse as soon as the conditions inside were known. YOUR conjecture is that “pull it” refers explicitly to the tower itself, but this claim has no basis in evidence. At best, this statement is indicative of no particular hypothesis, so it is inadmissible as evidence for ANY claim.

          The reason YOU will argue against this conclusion more than others is that this is as reliable as your “evidence” gets. It’s all downhill from here…

          As for the collapse rate of WTC 7, I’m glad that a “truth”er has finally conceded that it was a case of “NEAR free-fall” rather than free-fall acceleration. That said, your inference that this is supportive of YOUR hypothesis is incorrect on multiple levels.

          First of all, this acceleration rate is what we would expect if the cause was the gradual weakening of the steel by fire. The collapse began from somewhere between the 12th and 18th floors, meaning that at least 60% of the building was ABOVE the point of initial failure. What this means is that the momentum that could have built up during the fall of a single floor that the fire necessarily led to would have allowed for an enormous build-up of force. F = MV, so while the acceleration during this time is independent of the mass that actual force is intrinsically linked to how much mass there is. Even a conservative estimate of this mass figure would place more than 30% of the total mass of the building ABOVE the point of failure, so this mass then exerts a force on the floor immediately below it.

          Put simply, the immense mass that made up the upper section of WTC 7 allowed for an enormous increase in force. This increase in force dwarfed the slight increase in strength of each successive floor, and would only begin to decrease when the entire lower section had been crushed, as it would then be crushing its own lowest floors and robbing itself of mass (and force) as a consequence.

          Another problem with your use of the collapse rate to support your incorrect claim is the way the acceleration rate varied. We saw a steady increase in acceleration until near-freefall was reached, followed by a gradual DECREASE in rate. This is consistent ONLY with a collapse that initiated from the floors that experienced fire and impact damage. What this means is that your chosen demolition mechanism MUST now survive the fires for SEVEN HOURS and still function sufficiently well to cause the collapse as observed. I’d very much like you to try to link me to any rig that could have withstood these condition for anywhere NEAR that amount of time. If you can’t prove that this is feasible then your chosen hypothesis has no way to explain the variation in the rate of collapse, whereas fire DOES explain this fact.

          Now, instead of a two-line attempt at trolling, how about actually addressing the facts this time?

          Even if you do, however, your reliance on Silverstein’s “quote” would render your case untenable. You need something else, because that statement simply does not say what you need it to say.

          • WTC 5 was not the only building in the entirety of human history that has been pulled down with cables; WTCs 4 and 6 were also demolished that way, as have a number of other buildings.
            Force is not the product of mass and velocity; it’s the product of mass and acceleration. Momentum equals mv, and KE = 1/2mv^2.

          • Christ J

            “Force is not the product of mass and velocity; it’s the product of mass and acceleration. Momentum equals mv,”

            - momentum IS A FORCE, which is why its units are Newtons. That means that the equation that denotes the applied force is F = MV.

            Claiming that force itself is the product of mass and ACCELERATION is due to a misunderstanding of the relevant physics. Put it this way, if we calculate the momentum f a 10-tonne object that is falling through a vacuum, we can measure the momentum it possesses at two moments:

            1) after a 1-second fall from rest.
            2) after a 2-second fall from rest (i.e. 1 second after the previous measurement).

            In scenario 1) we would get the SAME amount of force as scenario 2) if we used the ACCELERATION rate at each time to determine the momentum. This is because they are BOTH accelerating at 9.8m/sec/sec. As the mass is also common to BOTH scenarios we would be forced – no pun intended – to conclude that the momentum possessed by this object remained unchanged over the intervening second.

            I hope you can already see the problem with this. When we determine that the acceleration is what determines the momentum we can then conclude that momentum is also possessed by objects with a velocity of ZERO. Imagine we scale this example back a little further to determine the momentum at the 0th second: while there would not yet be a distinct velocity by which to measure acceleration, there would also be no support, so it would indisputably be subject to gravitational acceleration. This means that this object would possess the same amount of force even when it was not moving, which we know to be false.

            You’ve actually probably demonstrated this before: have you ever used one of those spring=loaded Newton-meters? Have you noticed how you get a certain value for an object when it is carefully lowered into place, but you get a momentarily GREATER value when you just let it drop and bounce around for a few seconds? That’s because the momentum is greater in the latter case, because the VELOCITY of the second object is greater. BOTH objects are subject to the same gravitational attraction to the earth, so their acceleration is identical. It is their velocity that gives them different momenta.

            “WTC 5 was not the only building in the entirety of human history that has been pulled down with cables; WTCs 4 and 6 were also demolished that way, as have a number of other buildings.”

            - I made no such claim, nor did I state that WTC 5 was the only time such a technique has been used. If you’re going to correct me on certain points then I welcome your input, but the least you could do is actually make sure I NEED to be corrected first. You have just misunderstood a physical principle that I am very familiar with and completely misrepresented by actual statements. Are you sure you’re not a closet “truth”er? You’re certainly showing the kind of attention to detail I’ve come to expect from them.

          • Someone else with the s/n of “Christ J” must’ve said the following:
            “Do you know how many times a demolition has been initiated by the phrase “pull it” in the entirety of human history? One. And that was during the clean-up operation at ground zero, but it WASN’T in association with WTC 7. It was used to refer to the demolition of the remnants of WTC 5, and they used this phrase because their chosen method was to attach CABLES to some of the remaining structure and PULL IT down.”
            It seems pretty clear to me that the writer, whoever he or she was, claimed that WTC 5 was the only building ever pulled down with cables.
            Force, momentum, and kinetic energy are three very specific physical terms, and the equation for force is F=ma, i.e. force is a function of mass and ACCELERATION, not mass and velocity. Momentum and KE are both functions of mass and velocity. Truther nuts ignore detail, so please don’t confuse me with them.

          • Christ J

            I didn’t say that WTC 5 was the only such demolition . What I actually said was that I can find no prior mention of this phrase in relation to collapsing a building. At NO POINT did I ever states that this was the first time that this technique had been used. That is a conclusion that YOU jumped to without justification for doing so.

            To clarify, I can find reference to the use of this phrase to demolish the remnants of a building only once, and that is in the demolition of WTC 5. I can find no reference to this phrase from before then, and I can find no reference to it after then either – although I spent far less time checking any subsequent use. What I EXPLICITLY pointed out was that it was the TERMINOLOGY that was debuted then, NOT THE TECHNIQUE ITSELF. Understand this time?

            Since you quoted me directly I know you have seen this already, but I’m going to paste it anyway. I want you to pay particular attention to the first sentence:

            “Do you know how many times a demolition has been initiated by the phrase “pull it” in the entirety of human history? One. And that was during the clean-up operation at ground zero, but it WASN’T in association with WTC 7. It was used to refer to the demolition of the remnants of WTC 5, and they used this phrase because their chosen method was to attach CABLES to some of the remaining structure and PULL IT down.”

            - the subject of that statement is the phrase “pull it”, NOT the technique itself. I only even mentioned the technique so that the reason for that particular phrasing was apparent.

            “Truther nuts ignore detail, so please don’t confuse me with them.”

            - re-read my original comments and your misinterpretation of them and tell me my not-really-sincere comparison was inaccurate.

          • The fact is that I’m by no means even close to being a 9/11 truther nut, and you’re peddling a distinction without a difference between what you said and whether WTC 5 was the only building ever “pulled” down with cables. You also invented a brand new physics equation with “F = MV.” Force does not equal MV (or mv, i.e. the correct symbols for mass and velocity), and momentum and force are separated by the factor of TIME.
            Since you and I are in agreement otherwise, I’ve magnanimously decided not to label you a 9/11 truther nut, at least for the time being, despite having to become didactic with you. I am keeping an eye on you, however. :-)

          • Christ J

            “WTC 5 was the only building ever “pulled” down with cables”

            “Do you know how many times a demolition has been initiated by the phrase “pull it” in the entirety of human history? One…It was used to refer to the demolition of the remnants of WTC 5, and they used this phrase because their chosen method was to attach CABLES to some of the remaining structure and PULL IT down.”

            YOU, albury, are claiming that those two statements are synonymous. If you genuinely think so then you have just forfeited your right to a valid opinion, because they are not. I EXPLICITLY stated that I was referring to the phrasing used – because this is what the commentator I replied to had cited – whereas YOU are extending this to include the method of demolition itself. I made no such connection – YOU did. YOU are wilfully distorting my comments to produce a non sequitur.

            The momentum of the upper section is the force it exerts upon impact. To be honest, I assumed anyone reading would have understood that, as there is no other application of it. If this was the point you were confused on then why the hell didn’t you say so in the first place?

            Incidentally, why do you suppose momentum shares a unit with force?

            “momentum and force are separated by the factor of TIME.”

            - but that isn’t what was being discussed, is it? We were talking about the amount of momentum AVAILABLE to impact the lower section, whereas the F = MA equation is used to determine the amount of force that is actually exerted. We will get to that if any of these clowns ever actually deal with the first part of the equation, in which the correct formula IS the one for momentum, because this is the amount of force (correct term) available for use.

            Scroll back up and re-read my original usage: I was pointing out that the momentum of the upper section – X – is available to impact the lower sections topmost floor. At the point of impact we would then determine how much of that momentum is required to overload the inherent strength of the support structure on that floor. THEN this becomes a relevant situation to apply F = MA, because we are NOW analysing how the applied force varies as the structure is interacted with. It is here that we will see a change in the rate of acceleration – not just the velocity, unlike in the period of falling that preceded it – as a result of the applied force.

            I use capitals in formulae because they stand out more. I like to leave “truth”ers with no way of saying they missed a detail, and the equations tend to be the most crucial point. As you can see, I shall continue to do so.

          • The 9/11 troofer you responded to only (dishonestly) quoted Silverstein’s “pull it” statement, Christ J; he said nothing at all about any phrase that demolition contractors allegedly use before pulling down a building with cables. Silverstein used it LONG AFTER WTC 7 collapsed, not to “initiate” it, so you didn’t even get that right.
            You used capital “M” and “V” incorrectly, just as you incorrectly claimed that force equals mass times velocity. It’s just as wrong as using “G” to denote “g.”
            Jeepers; I’m now reconsidering my charitable decision not to label you a 9/11 truther nut. Schooling you in demolition facts and basic science is becoming too onerous to bear.

          • Christ J

            “Schooling you in demolition facts and basic science is becoming too onerous to bear.”

            - get over yourself. You’ve succeeded only in continuing to delude yourself into thinking you corrected someone when all you really did was attack a straw man. You are trying to correct a statement that was NEVER made.

            And you can whine all you want, but I’ll continue to use capitalised formulae to make them clearer when feasible.

            Silverstein’s exact statement:

            ““I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.”

            - he says HIMSELF that he said this at the time, PRIOR TO THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7, making your claim that “Silverstein used it LONG AFTER WTC 7 collapsed, not to “initiate” it, so you didn’t even get that right.” completely incorrect. You have been refuted by the primary source. Once again:

            “and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it”

            - he said that BEFORE it collapsed, by his own testimony.

            Therefore, anyone who claims that this phrase is evidence that the building was intentionally destroyed is implicitly claiming that this statement was used to give the go-ahead.

            “The 9/11 troofer you responded to…said nothing at all about any phrase that demolition contractors allegedly use before pulling down a building with cables. ”

            - no, because he is claiming that the phrase applies to a demolition in general. I, on the other hand, pointed out that it was used in conjunction with the demolition of a DIFFERENT building and that it was used in that instance because it was a relevant phrase to describe the method used. Another straw man.

            To be honest, I think there is little doubt that the only reason you hold your current opinions is because you have blindly accepted the word of others. The sole difference between you and a “truth”er is your source material. If you had anything resembling a competence for coherent analysis or a decent knowledge base then you would be able to read a comment without twisting it out of context and you would have been able to answer my question about why you think momentum and force share a standard unit.

            You know nothing, sunshine. Considering your apparent aversion to the scientific method I’m now 50/50 as to whether you’re just a really bad troll. Don’t bother replying until you can demonstrate either a working knowledge of physics or that you can quote someone IN CONTEXT.

          • I’ve reconsidered, Christ J; you really are a 9/11 truther nut. They mangle basic science, and they love to distort what Silverstein said too. There’s only one correct physics symbol for mass and one for velocity, and Silverstein’s PBS statement MONTHS after 9/11 was his recollection of a phone conversation with an FDNY rep on the afternoon of 9/11/01, not his exact words at the time.
            Jeezus…

          • Christ J

            More straw men – you really are incompetent, aren’t you, Al?

            Interestingly, I picked up that little formulaic faux-pas from my physics tutor. And I shall retain it, in spite of how gleefully you leap upon it in order to avoid having to answer the ACTUAL points raised, you little coward. I shall persist in this because, as she stated when explaining this to us, it DOES make certain formulae more noticeable. It’s not ideal for those which use mixed case, such as another equation relevant to these events –

            a = (Vf^2 – Vi^2) / 2s

            – but I suppose an opinionated individual such as yourself would criticise me for not using the ” ² ” symbol if it got you out of answering a question. In fact, I could use any symbol I damn well wanted as long as I stated what it represented, so this little tirade of yours is not only entirely incorrect, but completely irrelevant as well.

            The fact is that the crude calculations I presented are accurate, and you simply can’t refute my use of momentum and force. If you could you would have done so when I explicitly asked you to. You are wrong and I am right. Prove otherwise or shut up, because repeatedly posting the same incorrect answer is doing you no favours. You’ve accused me of “mangl[ing] basic science” without EVER actually addressing any of my actual science. All you have done is repeatedly moaned about the use of case in a single formula, even when I have outright asked you to address the science itself. You evidently have no relevant expertise here, as demonstrated by your utter inability to work with the aforementioned principles. Read your own comments for a moment: you have persistently resorted to “but but but but, that’s the wrong type of letter…” instead of actually addressing the detailed descriptions I have provided. One of us seems to know his physics, and it sure as hell isn’t you, sweetheart.

            “Silverstein’s PBS statement MONTHS after 9/11 was his recollection of a phone conversation with an FDNY rep on the afternoon of 9/11/01, not his exact words at the time.”

            - and in this case these are synonymous. They are his recollection of HIS EXACT WORDS. Even if they aren’t the precise words he uttered at the time, it makes no difference. You are still guilty of misrepresenting my statements and inaccurately paraphrasing them.

            There is no way in hell that someone as dense as you has ever properly analysed these events, so the only available conclusion is that you are every bit as dogmatic as the “truth”ers you disagree with. You have simply accepted what someone else has told you without even trying to apply the proper scrutiny to any such claim. The sole difference between yourself and a “truth”er is the source of your vicarious opinions.

            If you want to try to refute me then you can start by explaining why momentum and force share a common unit of measurement. £10,000 says your inevitable reply contains no such explanation…

            Again.

        • Silverstein’s comment was FIREFIGHTER jargon expressing his agreement with the FDNY’s decision to PULL its operation outside the collapse zone. Demolition professionals do not talk about “pulling” buildings, unless they intend to wrap cables around a relatively small structure and literally PULL it off its center of gravity.

          WTC 7 did NOT collapse in free fall.

          • Silverstein’s “pull it” comment was Silverstein jargon for abandoning any firefighting efforts in his building because of the risk to FDNY personnel. The order for doing it came from the FDNY.

      • Just Wanting Truth

        You are way too vehement in your arguments for this lie. You are more closed minded than any truther ive encountered. The fact is these building were MADE to sustain multiple aircraft impacts. Also airplanes, no matter how hot a building is burning, dont magically evaporate into airplane dust. this was not a card tower, it was a concrete and steel mega-structure being “hit” by a floating tube made of aluminum. If you are naive enough to believe this insultingly unbelievable story, you are a lost cause. That or being paid to try and make sure the public doesn’t come around to the truth. Im sure you will have a blistering hot retort about that being another “crazy” conspiracy.

        • Christ J

          “these building were MADE to sustain multiple aircraft impacts”

          - no they were NOT, and no amount of repeating this lie will magically make it true. They were never even analysed for this before construction began, and it was found out well after they were on their way that they could have withstood a SINGLE impact from a 707 that was both low on fuel and travelling at landing velocity. This would give it a maximum applied force of about 6,000,000N, whereas the impact force available to flight 175 was at least 30,000,000N. Five times as energetic.

          Furthermore, that original analysis DID NOT find that the towers would resist the plane entirely. What Robertson actually found was that the tower WOULD BE PENETRATED BY THE PLANE, but that those planes would not do sufficient damage to cause a collapse. This is exactly what happened on 9/11/2001, as the planes DID NOT cause the collapses. In his analysis Robertson explicitly pointed out that he had not considered the effect of fire after those impacts, and it was the fires that were the critical factors.

          YOU are misrepresenting the evidence, not me.

          “airplanes, no matter how hot a building is burning, dont magically evaporate into airplane dust.”

          - you seem to be implying that no aircraft debris was recovered from the site, which is easily refuted:

          https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/k2.jpg

          https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/Smallpartbloodstreet62_121.jpg

          - and in any case, how would you expect a plane to fare when subjected to temperatures that could have exceeded 1500C, as proven in this source:

          http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fire.tc.faa.gov%2Fpdf%2Ftn98-29.pdf&ei=ThqWU6uwFe2c0wWZ_4CICg&usg=AFQjCNGUo8IKJAL3G2hkP8QkEfJjuzusAA&sig2=5JAM1ETRzdgpnIZon18pIQ&bvm=bv.68445247,d.bGQ

          - for over an hour? And that’s without considering either the impact forces or the enormous amount of force applied to it during the collapse. The above fires are hotter than those used to CAST aluminium, and they persisted for longer. You are refuted.

          ” it was a concrete and steel mega-structure being “hit” by a floating tube made of aluminum. If you are naive enough to believe this insultingly unbelievable story, you are a lost cause.”

          - want to know who else believed it? Sir Isaac Newton. Want to know why the opinion of a long-dead mathematician is relevant? Because he proved it mathematically. His laws detail why your claim is ludicrously wrong, which is why “truth”ers never bother to learn them. Let me give you some of the relevant figures:

          The plane, a 767-200ER, had a mass of about 150 tonnes upon impact, and impacted at about 560mph, which we’ll round down to 500mph. This gives it a momentum of:

          150,000kg x 223m/sec = 33,450,000N

          - all you have to do now is compare this to the resistive capacity of ~40 14-inch box columns with walls that were less than 1/2 inch thick. You’ll soon find that this was capable of resisting less than a fifth of the force that was possessed by the plane, so your argument is with Newton, not me. He’ll win.

          See that? No “blistering hot retort” and no ad hominem. Nothing but facts and verifiable sources. The evidence is on my side – all you have is misdirection, misrepresentation, wilful ignorance and active deception. YOU are a shill. You are advocating a case that has already been proven wrong beyond any rational doubt, and you do so by lying for your priests. You’re just another cult.

          Go on: just TRY to prove me wrong. Let’s see if you even know what “evidence” means…

  12. Pingback: A Tyranny of Evil Men—The Dirty Underbelly of America -2 | Megatronics Media

  13. NUNYA

    Well never know

    • Christ J

      We already do. “Truth”ers are just too entrenched in their wilful delusion to accept it.

      • tom grove

        s
        how did the entire building coliapse …….just explain that,,,,,,come on explain it…….motherfucker im talkin to you.,…explain that ,..,,,,,,,

        • Christ J

          Which one?

          It doesn’t matter, as they all abide by the same laws of physics, so we’ll just use WTC 7 as our example.

          WTC 7 had a mass of at least 100,000 tonnes (based on the LOWEST estimate I could find) and collapsed from between the 10th and 18th floors – there is a little dispute as to where this initiated, but it doesn’t really alter this analysis. In order to bias this in YOUR favour we’ll assume it collapsed from the 18th floor. This means that more than 60% of the building was ABOVE the collapse point. WTC featured a similar tapering of strength as the twins did, so we’ll conservatively assume that the upper 62% used only 30% of the mass, giving it a mass of 30,000 tonnes.

          Each individual floor in this tower was 3.7m high, so when we have a single-floor collapse (we’ll get to this in a minute) we will see the mass above this point fall for 3.7m before meeting any significant impedance. We can now determine the momentum built up when the upper section (all 29 floors) dropped through ONE floor:

          a = (Vf^2 – Vi^2) / 2s

          where

          a = acceleration (9.8m/sec/sec)
          s = distance (3.7m)
          Vf = final velocity
          Vi = initial velocity (which is ZERO in this instance)

          which we rearrange (and simplify) to:

          Vf^2 = 2as

          Vf^2 = 2 x 9.8m/sec/sec x 3.7m

          - so Vf = 8.5m/sec

          With this velocity figure we can now determine the FORCE that this mass exerts on the floor below it:

          F = MV

          30,000,000kg x 8.5m/sec = 255,000,000N

          And I make this more than TEN TIMES what the floor below was able to resist, although I’ll accept that my calculations of THAT are a little crude (although I did try to err on the side of the lunatics/”truth”ers). I’d encourage you to find a single “truth”er source that replicates this kind of analysis to compare their figures, because I have yet to find a single one who has the courage to actually do this work – because they know it will prevent them from being able to argue for their chosen cause.

          Anyway, what happens next? Well, let’s assume that the actual collision took about HALF of the momentum from this upper section – an overestimate of about 400%: what happens AFTER that?

          Well, the loss in force (and energy) translates into a loss in velocity:

          125,000,000N (rounded DOWN) / 30,000,000kg = 4.16m/sec

          However, those with a little sense will have noted that THIS is now our “Vi” figure, meaning that THIS time we have a NON-ZERO initial velocity, so we are certain to have a greater final velocity by default:

          Vf^2 = (2 x 9.8m/sec/sec x 3.7m) + 4.16m/sec^2

          - which makes Vf = 9.47m/sec

          - and this HIGHER velocity means we are also guaranteed a GREATER amount of force:

          30,000,000kg x 9.47m/sec = 284,100,000N

          See that? The force exerted on the floor below INCREASES with each passing floor. This happens because the increase in velocity far outstrips that of the increase in floor strength. In fact, the only time this mass decelerates is when the entire lower section has been crushed and the moving object is crushing its own lowest floors against the ground – as this is the only time it starts to lose significant MASS.

          What you have there is a solid, mathematical proof that states that the upper section MUST crush the lower section – and this entire calculation is biased in YOUR favour. I have rounded figures DOWN, I have overestimated the strength of the floors, and I have underestimated the mass of the upper section. EVERY single piece of data is favourable to YOU and your hypothesis still fails. Newton proved that this would happen three centuries ago, and YOU are trying to argue with him.

          Now, if your memory is sharp you will remember that I offered to also explain how the collapse STARTED. This is extremely simple. This paper:

          http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fire.tc.faa.gov%2Fpdf%2Ftn98-29.pdf&ei=sNRsU_7hLY3Y0QXy74DYAw&usg=AFQjCNGUo8IKJAL3G2hkP8QkEfJjuzusAA&sig2=HsAqdJGIlL1MunTseVhWPw&bvm=bv.66330100,d.d2k

          - PROVES that the fires in those buildings could have exceeded 1500 degrees Celsius, whereas steel melts at 1475C. This analysis features fires that are IDENTICAL in composition to those in the WTC buildings, so we have irrefutable proof that the fires could have MELTED steel – even though this is not required to cause the collapse.

          If these conditions were present on only ONE floor then we have conclusive data that shows that the fires were conducive to the collapse of a single floor, and indisputable mathematical proof that this MUST initiate a global collapse.

          Owned. By someone who has been dead since the early-1700s.

  14. Pingback: End Times Prophecy Headlines: May 1, 2014 – May Day | End Times Prophecy Report

  15. Try putting: ‘ plane crash into building wreckage photos ‘ into Google and note the enormous amounts of wreckage visible in all of them. Fascinated to see the Pentagon conspicuous by it’s absence amongst all these buildings, incidentally. You may notice that about 34 images into the set, there is one from jaradite.com showing a plane stuck into the wall of a building that is unlikely to have been stronger than the Pentagon and which hasn’t even allowed the wings to penetrate before stopping the aircraft dead…

    • Oops! I spoke too soon, the Pentagon photos are in there somewhere and, in fact, there are several showing the discrepancy between what would have happened if a 747 had hit the building and what actually happened. The way the building has collapsed looks far more like the effects of an explosion inside the building, causing the collapse of a supporting wall than of a plane crashing into it from the outside anyway.

      • Christ J

        I have provided you with a link to a thorough analysis of the Pentagon damage – performed by an undisputed “truth”er – and you have refused to even look at it. That analysis showed, beyond ANY doubt, that a large passenger jet impacted the building. Here it is again, just in case you have a sudden attack of scientific integrity:

        http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/pentagon/what-hit-it.htm

        - try actually LOOKING this time, eh?

        If it was the result of an internal explosion then why does the above link show none of the phenomena we would expect from such a violent explosion? Where are the ragged edges of the damage scars jutting OUTWARDS from the force of the blast? Why do these edges point INWARDS – proving that the damage was the result of external impact? Why has NO WITNESS ever identified anything other than a large passenger jet as the sole cause?

        Tell you what. I’ll give you a link to EVERY single witness account – once again, from a “truth”er site – and you can scan them yourself for anything that implies that the impacting object was anything other than a large jet:

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

        - all yours.

        “there is one from jaradite.com showing a plane stuck into the wall of a building that is unlikely to have been stronger than the Pentagon ”

        - feel free to post a link with some details about this incident and we can determine whether it is remotely relevant to this event. For example, we would need to know the impact velocity, structural composition, etc.

        Bring it.

      • You should explain all of that to American Airlines, the FAA, NTSB, FBI, and the 1000 or more other live and mostly CIVILIAN eyewitnesses to AA 77′s wreckage and human remains.
        https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary
        It was a 757, not a much larger 747, and the debris went inward, not outward as it would have if explosives had gone off inside the Pentagon.

        • Christ J

          The second link I provided her above was to a “truth”er site that hosts EVERY eyewitness account, and – wouldn’t you know it – not ONE of them is prepared to state that ANYTHING other than a large passenger jet impacted the Pentagon? Amazing. It’s almost as if the object that hit the Pentagon really WAS a large passenger jet…

          One of the more impressive accounts is from Albert Hemphill. He had this to say:

          ” The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike – an Arlington road leading to Pentagon”

          - this is interesting because of the REASON he isn’t sure of the specific model of plane. A 757 and an Airbus look extremely similar, so this is an indication that he saw the plane well enough to identify it pretty precisely, AND that he knew enough about these jets to be able to recall that his brief glance was not sufficient to discern between two very similar planes.

          Hemphill may well be the most reliable witness for exactly that reason. He knows he saw it well enough to be very precise, but he also knows he didn’t see enough detail to pinpoint the exact model.

          It will forever amaze me that these people are so desperate to see a desired lie that they will happily ignore the truth. It’s even more ironic, not to mention disgusting, that they have tried to brand themselves as “truthers”.

  16. DJ

    It’s not what they did that incriminates them…it’s what they won’t do that stains them with guilt.

    And they’ll never come clean.

    • Christ J

      Yeah, it’s disgraceful that they won’t admit to a series of things that never happened just because people like you are too unwilling to learn anything to be able to educate yourselves sufficiently to possess a valid opinion.

      You have presumed someone guilty and then demanded that they admit it, while simultaneously biasing things so that any evidence that supports their innocence is designated as fraudulent. People like you are what judicial systems are designed to counteract. People like you are dismissed from juries for being biased against defendants.

  17. DJ

    My biggest issue with all this is not any forensic evidence or leads or even missing reports from the official accounts…it is my government’s unwillingness to come forth with all of the evidence. It’s the fact that Bush and Cheney both bullied the 911 Commissioners and Judge into doing a “private” hearing, no recording, no witnesses, no oath being sworn, no videos, cameras, or even reporters. The fact that the FBI had to seize all that footage so that the People couldn’t see it was a missile hitting the Pentagon. That they sold off most of the WTC steel to China at pennies on the dollar no less, and built a ship with the remaining “forensic evidence”, that they failed to show an infinitesimal piece of proof when they seized, killed, drug out and sunk OBL’s alleged body in the North Arabian Sea?

    Where is the plane from Shanksville? The bodies, the DNA, black box, fuselage, engines, nothing. The site looked like Gozilla took a dump and didn’t flush the toilet paper. A 747 hits the Pentagon and leaves a 16foot hole? Where are the 6ton Titanium Rolls Royce engines, fuselage, seats, passangers, blood, nothing there either. How does a black box disappear from ground zero using the excuse that everything blew up, yet there was a passport that escaped unscathed from a terrorist – that IS STILL ALIVE?

    In the end, it’s not what they say that incriminates them – it’s what they’re hiding. So far, THAT has been their sentence. They have the smoking gun and refuse to show it. That in itself is a felony for obstruction of justice, evidence tampering, treason, among a host of other crimes punishable by death. Unless the law has changed.

    If the official report is accurate, then there is nothing to hide. We never saw a shred of tangible, conclusive or otherwise, evidence from the supposed SEVEN THOUSAND AGENTS that were sent to investigate – using National Security as a scapegoat is simply an insult to the American public and a huge display of cowardice in the highest degree. Why would there be a need to confiscate every piece of video available and only show the same footage on the news over and over? Too many unanswered questions, people. Too many.

    If I were the president of the US and I was accused of being implicit, participant, or spearheading this crime, I would be the 1st to demand that any and all evidence be brought to light.

    Plain – and – Simple.

    The only thing that baffles me more than that is how you debunkers have the galls to sit there and try to justify that. Way to look out for America. Maybe next time wake up before you think about speaking.

    • constitutionalist

      “That they sold off most of the WTC steel to China at pennies on the dollar” There was not very much steel that survived the directed energy weaponry, and most of it was from buildings 5 and 6. Otherwise, only a bit of one lobby wall, the pillars of which were left leaning over toward the remnant of building 6. One tiny square wing of WTC 4. Building 4 had several 12-14 foot holes punched out roof to ground. Building 5 had a huge hole punched down through the building ceiling to ground. No debris at the bottom of the holes in 5 and 6. The rest of the steel was turned to dust. Debris pile from each tower only 20 feet tall. Building 7 debris pile also minimal.

      • Christ J

        Connie, that’s just a lie. 200,000 tonnes of steel was recycled at the site – would you refer to 200,000 tonnes as “not much”?

        “Building 5 had a huge hole punched down through the building ceiling to ground. No debris at the bottom of the holes in 5 and 6.”

        - “ceiling to ground”? You mean, as if something had crashed down from above? But what could have done that? The only thing above WTC 5 was the impact point of WTC 1…

        ” The rest of the steel was turned to dust”

        - another lie. Feel free to look into the clean-up records, as they detail how much steel was recovered.

        “Debris pile from each tower only 20 feet tall.”

        - this is another lie, but let’s plug in some data and see how much debris there SHOULD have been so you can have a figure to compare to the documentary evidence from the site:

        The twins were approximately 95% empty space. Their total height was ~420m, so a crude estimate of the height of the collapsed debris pile would be 21m. This is complicated by the fact that the vertical columns must also be added to this mass, but these columns have a far lower volume than the horizontal structures. We’ll estimate that they would have added another 15m to the pile. We now have a height of 36m for the pile, however, this is only if the entire building falls into a neat pile that is square-based and level-topped. Since we know from the collapse footage that a substantial amount of the debris landed OUTSIDE of the footprints we must subtract accordingly from the debris pile height.

        Basically, we have an estimated height for the debris pile of NO MORE THAN 35m. This DOES NOT take into account that the pile may have its roots in the basement levels, so you will have to check that out before you assess the debris pile footage.

        One final note on your devotion to Judy: where did the energy go? The required energy to turn more than 200,000 tonnes of steel to “dust” is exactly the same amount of energy required to MELT that steel, so where did this enormous amount of heat go?

        Owned.

    • Christ J

      What difference does that make? Does this overturn the Newtonian physics that dictates the collapses? Does it suddenly make the fires less intense? Does it eliminate the effect of the on-board oxygen canisters, as noted in this paper:

      http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fire.tc.faa.gov%2Fpdf%2Ftn98-29.pdf&ei=Wa9HU62oFeao0AWHi4C4Bg&usg=AFQjCNGUo8IKJAL3G2hkP8QkEfJjuzusAA&sig2=GJo3pzSYJWRtnM-6ZMZGBA

      - which shows that the fires could have attained a temperature that could MELT construction steel?

      “the FBI had to seize all that footage so that the People couldn’t see it was a missile hitting the Pentagon”

      - here’s a compilation of the eyewitnesses to the Pentagon attack, from a “TRUTH”ER site, just so you can’t dismiss this evidence as being biased against you:

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

      - can you point to A SINGLE INSTANCE of one of the witnesses identifying the impacting object as ANYTHING OTHER THAN A LARGE PASSENGER JET? I’m not asking that you find a witness that saw a missile, only that you find a single one that saw something other than flight 77.

      “A 747 hits the Pentagon and leaves a 16foot hole? ”

      - no, it left an 80-foot hole, as this “truth”er PROVES:

      http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/pentagon/what-hit-it.htm

      “Where is the plane from Shanksville? The bodies, the DNA, black box, fuselage, engines, nothing. ”

      - well, since 95% of it was recovered, I suggest you follow the paper trail. As every passenger was also identified via their DNA I suggest you do the same for the remains. Your incredulous “nothing” is a lie, plain and simple.

      “a terrorist – that IS STILL ALIVE? ”

      - prove it. Provide me with just ONE piece of data that indicates that ANY of the hijackers was alive after 9/11. Just ONE piece of evidence…

      “If I were the president of the US and I was accused of being implicit, participant, or spearheading this crime, I would be the 1st to demand that any and all evidence be brought to light. ”

      - and if you knew that releasing certain pieces of data would act as an educational tool for anyone seeking to replicate these attacks, would you still release it? Would you deliberately release information that would turn the office staff into target? I think the Bush administration has serious questions to answer concerning their negligence in allowing those 3000 people to be murdered, but to allow the release of data that could condemn the same number again with the foreknowledge that it could be used in such a way is far worse. It says a lot about the amorality of “truth”ers that they repeatedly demand that these people be exposed in this way. If you did even the slightest bit of objective research you would understand why this act is not only untenably dangerous, but utterly unnecessary.

      In any case, you scumbags would simply claim the footage was faked. There is nothing to gain from the release of such data and plenty to lose.

      Plane(!) and simple.

    • Pura vida from an ex-patriot who was last in the U.S. in 2001. This site is full of full fledged Sunstein church members and probably some of those…..’algorithm people’, as I call them, ya know those computer programs they’ve got where one troll can become ten different ones. I just happened to be driving from Hartford to Philadelphia on the big day, and had to pass by the direct aftermath. When I watched the first tower go down, I looked, and remarked to the person I was with that “that airplane didn’t do that”. I’m both a pilot and a structural engineer, in large steel structures (mostly bridges, but same kind of ‘big’), but I don’t really think any specific, special knowledge was necessary when I said that. And I’m still not 100% sure of the exact ‘how’ and it’s mostly a waste of time arguing about it. It’s doing just what the social engineers want. Your comment is refreshing. If anyone is rabid about details at this point, I’ll give them a list of ten names, and if they can snatch three of them for me……for 24 hours. I’ll have all the specific details by then, maybe even signed statements. Again, Pura vida!

      • Most “forums” run by the 9/11 “truth movement” block everyone who doesn’t drink the Kool-Aid, so kudos to Joe Martino for allowing us “algorithm people” to have our say. If you’re really an SE, you surely know the importance of scientific method in establishing the validity of a hypothesis, so please urge Richard Gage* and his “experts” to show you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7′s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY

        http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png

        If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.

        *Gage’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

      • Will Kus

        As people begin to argue endlessly about the details, the main point begins to be lost. And why did we invade Iraq again? I never understood why we didn’t invade Saudi Arabia, as most of the hijackers were from there.

        • constitutionalist

          There is no proof that there were any hijackers, and plenty of reason to believe that no planes were involved in the destruction of the seven WTC buildings that day.

          Why did we invade anyone? To enrich the munitions manufacturers and bring the two countries into the IMF, as has been accomplished.

          • No-planers are the bottom of the heap.

        • Saudi Arabia didn’t suicide attack the US on 9/11; al Qaeda did, and were based in Afghanistan. The US invaded Iraq because President Bush’s goofy kid thought it was a good idea. It wasn’t.

          • constitutionalist

            Al qaeda was not who destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11. They did not have access to the advanced weaponry that was used.

          • Christ J

            What “advanced weaponry” would that be, Connie? Humans? Passports? Flying lessons? Knives/guns? I have access to three of these, and the fourth is readily available from a shop less than a five-minute walk from my house.

            Al Qaeda were the people who crashed the planes into the buildings. The collapses themselves were not planned, but were a direct result of the impacts and the fires they started. If you were capable of proving that this WASN’T the case then you would have responded the last time I provided you with the relevant data, so your insistence on maintaining your ignorance is wilful, as you have access to sources that refute you entirely.

            You’re a fantasist.

          • William Kus

            Afghanistan didn’t attack the US either and neither did the Taliban. If we are going to say because Afghanistan was harboring Al-Qaeda, so do many other countries, including Syria. And a direct result of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was that Al-Qaeda is now able to flourish in many more countries created by the instability that was the direct result of our “war” on “terror”.

            The clusterfuck of politics will continue forever. People act as if Al-Qaeda, and the hatred terrorist groups have for the West, was created out of a vacuum (because Muslims are just natural born terrorists and don’t understand what civilization is) and not the decades and centuries of oppressive colonization by the West and their puppet leaders.

            Although honestly I do not want to get drawn back into this conversation as I already have. Nobody is going to change their minds about anything and nothing is said that hasn’t been said a million times already.

            And I also don’t want to dishonor people who lost their lives and continue to suffer because of all this propaganda and politicians trying to get elected or re-elected because people like to beat their chests and feel righteous about “killing bad guys” when all this is about oil and profiteering from war and reconstruction.

          • The US didn’t attack Afghanistan either; it attacked AL QAEDA IN AFGHANISTAN as well as the illegitimate Taliban government that harbored them. 9/11 was the THIRD deadly al Qaeda SUICIDE attack on the US in just over 3 years, and was not a whodunit; al Qaeda WANTED the US to know they did it.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW8_Zbsirdw
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWVC4JBjtEE
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6obQ5naNn0
            From OBL’s 1998 (second) fatwa: “The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies-civilians and military-is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, ‘and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,’ and ‘fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God [blah, blah, blah...]‘”

          • constitutionalist

            Yeah, I thought so to, until I saw exactly WHAT took place in Manhattan on 9/11. Muslims did NOT do that.

          • @William Kus:
            The US tried to drained the swamp in Afghanistan in 2001 because that’s where bin Laden was and the 9/11 suicide plot was hatched. It’s also targeting al Qaeda in Yemen and Pakistan, which have very predictably become “safe” havens. If the US went after AQ in every nation where they exist, you’d hate the war on terror even more. Islamic radicals are in almost every country in the world, and Western nations can only ramp up their own security at home and target the most imminent threats.
            The war on terror isn’t perfect. Get over it.

          • William Kus

            I just think it’s important to remember how people suffer because of this war with more negatives than positives. If you could imagine that you’re going about your business one day with no ties to any terrorists and all of a sudden someone very close to you is the victim of a US airstrike or some other war related incident, it becomes much more real than just something we can read about on message boards.

            Sometimes I think people don’t see the toll war causes on even one person directly affected unless they have personal knowledge of having their entire world shattered. And I don’t mean the people who have a bloodlust for revenge and murder, the same reasons Al-Qaeda is doing their thing is the same reasoning America has for doing what they’re doing, although the damage America has caused to the world is 100x more than what Al-Qaeda ever did or could ever do.

            People will say, “Those damn Muslims started it, we aint never done nutin to those damn Muslim terr’istz.” But like I mentioned earlier, the US has been shedding blood in the Middle East for decades if not centuries. To say one side is wrong and one side is right is very simplistic and pretty ig’nant.

            Two wars that destroyed two countries because some guys crashed a plane into a building. And the worst part is the righteous indignation of the people who are behind it and the people who support it. It’s not an eye for an eye. It’s an eye for a million eyes and anything else we can blow up and much worse.

          • constitutionalist

            “… Two wars that destroyed two countries because some guys crashed a plane into a building.” – needs to be revised.

            “Two wars that destroyed two countries because THE WORLD WAS LIED TO AND TOLD THAT some guys WHOSE PALS WERE HIDING THERE HAD crashed planeS into EACH OF THREE buildingS. ACTUALLY, TWO PLANES COULD NOT DESTROY THE SEVEN BUILDINGS IN THE WTC COMPLEX, TURNING THEM LARGELY TO DUST, SO THE WHOLE CHARADE IS THE HEIGHT OF IMMORALITY.”

          • @WK:

            “[Nearly 3000 innocent people] were going about [their] business one day with no ties to any terrorists and all of a sudden [they or] someone very close to [them was] the victim of four suicide hijackings and plane crashes. “This war” is currently nation-building in Afghanistan while trying to defend against the remnants of al Qaeda and the Taliban, and it’s being conducted with support from much of the Afghan population. 9/11 was the THIRD deadly al Qaeda SUICIDE attack on the US in just over 3 years, and retaliation wasn’t optional.
            Invading Iraq in 2003 was a stupid and counterproductive move made by a totally inept US administration that’s been out of the WH for 5+ years, but US troops left there ~2-1/2 years ago, and al Qaeda and Iraqi Sunnis are doing a far better job these days of murdering innocent people deliberately than the US ever did unintentionally. Unlike its Muslim enemies, the US military has no reason to harm civilians, and doesn’t use them as human shields.
            If you were really interested in the suffering that followed 9/11, you’d look more closely at who’s inflicting it on whom and why it’s happening. You’d rather just keep your eyes closed and blame it all on the evil US.

          • @constitutionalist
            Are you trolling or really that ignorant? The al Qaeda suicide attacks of 9/11 were not a whodunit; they WANTED the US to know they did it, and left loads of evidence behind. Secret C/Ds in NYC are impossible, and there’s no plausible and coherent motive or the slightest bit of evidence for them.
            You’re in denial.

          • constitutionalist

            I am not ignorant. I am informed. The evidence that muslims did not perpetrate 9/11 is incontrovertible.

          • @constitutionalist
            These people would’ve disagreed with you:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW8_Zbsirdw
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWVC4JBjtEE
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6obQ5naNn0
            From OBL’s 1998 (second) fatwa: “The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies-civilians and military-is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, ‘and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,’ and ‘fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God [blah, blah, blah...]‘”
            Along with the al Qaeda perpetrators themselves, every nation, intelligence agency, and legitimate media source IN THE WORLD disagrees with you.

          • Christ J

            “I am informed. The evidence that muslims did not perpetrate 9/11 is incontrovertible.”

            - really, Connie? Then why are you so devastatingly unable to actually PROVE that little assertion? Why have you failed to cite any evidence for those claims that can’t be demolished with a short response and/or a ten-second Google session?

            You are “informed” only by likeminded Dunning-Kruger sufferers.

          • Christ J

            ““Two wars that destroyed two countries because THE WORLD WAS LIED TO AND TOLD THAT some guys WHOSE PALS WERE HIDING THERE HAD crashed planeS into EACH OF THREE buildingS. ACTUALLY, TWO PLANES COULD NOT DESTROY THE SEVEN BUILDINGS IN THE WTC COMPLEX, TURNING THEM LARGELY TO DUST, SO THE WHOLE CHARADE IS THE HEIGHT OF IMMORALITY.””

            – that’s quite a lot of lies for one statement, Connie.

            (deep breath)

            1) They [Al Qaeda] claimed credit for the attacks and members were indisputably aboard at least two of the planes.

            2) THREE of the buildings were destroyed by impacts and fire. The rest were torn down due to the damage being too severe to justify repair, as a rebuild was both easier and cheaper. Trying to claim that the entire complex was destroyed by the two planes alone is dishonest, and a blatant attempt to distort the facts to make them more supportive of your long-disproven beliefs.

            3) Fresh Kills, where the rubble was taken, have no idea what this “largely to dust” crap is in reference to, because it clearly doesn’t apply to the World Trade Center complex. 200,000 tonnes of steel were recycled at the site alone, and the overwhelming majority of the 1.6 million tonnes that was carted away was composed of substantial chunks of concrete. So where the hell is all this dust, Connie? How much of the mass of these building is unaccounted for by Fresh Kills? We have a figure of about 1.8 million tonnes for the site in LARGE rubble chunks, and since the twins were around 300,000 tonnes apiece and WTC 7 (the next-largest member of the complex) weighed around 100,000 tonnes how much dust COULD there have been?

            I can’t actually be bothered with your incorrect political points, and since they are off-topic I’m going to leave them anyway.

            I don’t suppose you feel like actually answering my questions about the “advanced weaponry” that you think was required to cause the observed collapses? Nah – that’s probably irrelevant, right? “Corporations…shills…conspiracy…oil…thermite…” and all that crap.

  18. Pingback: Hard Facts About 9-11 That Cannot Be Debunked | CSglobe

  19. Pingback: 24 Hard Facts About 9/11 That Cannot Be Debunked - Obscure Vision

  20. Pingback: FMP (BA) 911 Research | kezbrks

  21. GreatScott

    Several interesting facts that are un-debubkable:
    1. NO FBI Investigation into the crash/attack (A federal crime was committed)
    2. NO NTSB Investigation was conducted. This has never happened before.
    3. There were no building damage marks or holes where the B 757 Titanium engines should have penetrated the Pentagon building.
    4. In 2001, all cell phones were analog. Those cell phone calls on the Shanksville crash to their loved ones could not have happened because the analog cell phones will not work above 5000 feet.

    None the less, this is an excellent statement of the facts.

    • When conspiracy liars present their “facts,” expect something other than facts.

      The FBI assigned over SEVEN THOUSAND agents to the investigation of the 9/11 attacks.

      Dewdney’s crapola about cell phones being unable to work above 5,000 feet was debunked many years ago.

      The Pentagon Building Performance Report describes the aircraft damage very fully.

      • Robber

        The ability to use a phone on an aircraft above 5,000 feet, on or before 9/11, is still not proven possible. In 2001 cellphones could not be used on a plane due to height and speed of travel. A phone could not maintain a connection to any one cell site long enough for it to function properly.

        • Christ J

          Not quite, Robber. Phones couldn’t maintain a connection FOR MORE THAN A COUPLE OF MINUTES on a plane at that height and speed. There was nothing to prevent them gaining decent enough reception sometimes, but this could not be maintained for much longer than three minutes due -as you noted – to the problems inherent in transferring the call.

          I suggest you use this limitation to look into the calls that were made from flight 93: how long did they last?

          • constitutionalist

            The empirical trial of connecting such calls had a ZERO success rate. Why are you spreading false information? Oh, I see. You are one of the many disinformation agents sent to discredit honest people who post valid information.

          • Christ J

            Unless you can actually DEMONSTRATE that the information is incorrect you have no justification for referring to it in such terms. Feel free to provide a link that contains some actual evidence. Or, obviously, stop lying to yourself.

          • The twoofer myth about cell phones was debunked long ago:

            http://www.911myths.com/html/the_9_11_calls_weren_t_real.html

        • So you’re calling family members of the victims liars. Classy. The backs of the seats had FAA approved phones on them.

          • Dem274

            That does not change the fact, that forensic scientist found the nano thermite in the dust. That would convict anybody in a court of law. When serious scientist look at the facts, they come away stunned.. All I know is, they have destroyed our country since then.

          • Christ J

            Dem, Harrit and Jones LIED about their results. They claimed that their tests would only come up positive in the presence of thermitic materials, yet refused to admit that they were DESIGNED to test positive in the presence of paint- the same paint that had been found in ALL prior analyses of the dust and was known to have come from the steel.

            It gets better: they actually managed to CONCLUSIVELY prove that their samples COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THERMITIC. The energy content of these chips was almost double the energy that it is physically possible for thermitic materials to contain.

            When serious scientists look at this paper they laugh themselves sick. Then they get so angry at their shameless circumventing of the peer-review process that they turn green and go on a violent rampage.

            Nobody has EVER found ANY explosive at the site, and they won’t. Seismic data conclusively rules out any explosions, as does the footage. It’s as viable a hypothesis as claiming that an invisible King Kong brought them down.

            I suggest you do some proper research before taking someone as unscrupulous as Harrit at his word. I’d be more inclined to believe a psychopathic politician.

      • And I live under the sea with mermaids!! Open your eyes the truth will set you free!

        P.S you might also need glasses as there was nothing of a plane to be seen at the Pentagon first CRASH in History where not a single piece of the plane was found! Oh yah not very good with measurements but the hole at the Pentagone was about 20 feet wide maybe not even that and a BOEING fit in there…. ahhhh… I get it Houdini was there! That explains it all!

        • Christ J

          Here’s an analysis of the Pentagon damage done by a “TRUTH”ER:

          http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/pentagon/what-hit-it.htm

          - which irrefutably shows that the damage is far more extensive than you have claimed and that the damage is ONLY consistent with the impact of a large passenger jet. Notice how you have to lie about the extent of the damage before you have a viable claim? That’s because the evidence explicitly REFUTES your religion.

          Let’s see how you deal with that…

          • Christ J you may have allowed yourself to be bamboozled into believing that someone is a ‘TRUTH’er just because that person has posed as one… It was obvious to anyone who had eyes to see, from the footage of the crash site beamed into European TVs within the hour of it happening that whatever it was crashed into the Pentagon, that it was highly unlikely to have been any kind of plane, much less a passenger jet. There just wasn’t the right kind of wreckage at the site before anyone had time to move it. Sorry but jus’ sayin’…

          • Christ J

            Well, linnetwoods, that tells me that you haven’t even bothered to look at that link, because the article itself is arguing for a conspiracy. I have simply used part of their analysis to destroy the claims of others who have the exact same motivation, thus eliminating any bias in the source material.

            Go on, take a peek at the photographic evidence that person compiled. You will be left with NO TENABLE argument against the impacting object being a large passenger jet. There is NOTHING else that is consistent with the impact damage.

            Now, the person I linked to argues that the observed wingspan means that the plane had to have been smaller than a 757. However, this is a result of a poor application of the relevant physics and geometry, so I’ll leave this until you have properly analysed their work.

            Go for it. I DARE you to look at the images and his analysis of them. Let’s see how well your discrimination holds up now…

        • MX1010

          I was on vacation in DC in Oct ’01 and saw the Pentagon. That hole was way bigger than 20 feet.

          • I believe the hole probably was considerably larger than twenty feet but even so, was the hole/visible damage great enough to explain being hit by a plane with a 211′ (64 m) wingspan?

            The wings would not have broken off until they met the wall, if they didn’t actually go straight through it, so there should have been a 211′ wide hole or the residue of two shattered wings lying outside along with the rest of the fuselage and engines (which were also nowhere to be seen).

            Was the hole you saw THAT big? Incidentally, I’m sure the plane’s manufacturers would be happy to tell you that the bits and pieces filmed lying around outside the hole on the day were nothing like the wreckage which would have resulted from one of their aircraft being involved.

            I’m amazed we are all still having this discussion all this time later!

          • Christ J

            Yes, linnetwoods, it was – as I have proven to you by providing irrefutable sources. The damage remains consistent ONLY with the impact of a large passenger jet and the dimensions of the damage are perfectly consistent with one.

            I’m amazed that you people can ignore so much information and STILL convince yourselves that you are anything other than a deplorable shower of liars. Feel free to take a look at the source I have provided you with on several occasions, as this definitively refutes your gross misrepresentation of events.

          • constitutionalist

            Only problem is that a a 757 can not fly at the alleged speed at 10-20 feet altitude due to the ground effect. Turbulence from the engines and plane flying at that speed would have torn up the pristine lawn. Nice try, shill, but it doesn’t work. Don’t know what happened there, but it wasn’t a passenger jet.

          • Christ J

            Well, Connie, the problem there is that every single piece of evidence attests to the veracity of flight 77 being the plane involved. ALL of the other data states that this impact was caused by a 757, so the logical conclusion to be had from this is that your claims are either outright lies or honest mistakes.

            Here’s how we’re going to solve this little puzzle. You’re going to provide me with a fairly detailed description of the relevant physics that would prevent such a flight. You will include details concerning the change in altitude of the plane as it circled back around – having overshot its target – and indicate exactly when ground effect begins to affect the control of the plane and the extent to which this impairs the pilot. You will do this by using NOTHING but verifiable, objective sources. People who simply make the same claim as you with no evidence to support their claim are not sufficient, as this argument from personal incredulity is what we are circumventing, because it is a logical fallacy.

            You are then going to provide information concerning what this turbulence would do to a short section of turf and provide documentary evidence of the scene to conclusively prove that this effect is not present. Note that your mere failure to FIND such evidence is also inadmissible: you must PROVE that the lawn is both intact after the impact, and is expected to be shredded by the turbulence. If you cannot prove BOTH of these points then your case is non-existent.

            So, post some data – or some links to a suitably thorough analysis – or your claim can be ignored as a logical fallacy.

            “Don’t know what happened there, but it wasn’t a passenger jet.”

            - not a single witness saw anything BUT a large passenger jet and the damage is consistent with nothing else. The evidence is sufficient to disprove you entirely, so unless you can explain the damage pattern and the fact that everyone who was watching saw a large passenger jet hit the side of the building you have, once again, no case.

            I notice that you have abandoned your previous lie concerning the claimed “impossibility” of phone calls from flight 93, so I assume you have accepted that you have no empirical basis for your claims and you have tacitly admitted that you were wrong.

    • The UA 93 Verizon call log was admitted into evidence at the Moussaoui trial. 35 calls were made from Airfones, and 2 from cell phones at very low altitude right before Ziad Jarrah crashed it at Shanksville.
      Both of AA 77′s engines penetrated multiple rings of the Pentagon, and all 4 of the crashes were extensively investigated by the NTSB and FBI.
      This article is an excellent statement of pure BS.

      • Christ J

        Minor correction: the engines of flight 77 DIDN’T penetrate multiple rings. ON the lowest two floors of the Pentagon the outermost three rings WERE NOT SEPERATE: they were a continuous block with nothing but a few structural support columns and some drywall between them. The engines only had to penetrate TWO walls, which is perfectly feasible from the momentum they possessed.

        The fact that this is so often repeated by “truth”ers is testament to their lack of honest research. If they ever bothered to look at the Pentagon structural diagrams they would know that there is nothing mysterious about this impact.

        As for why they intentionally refuse to access this information, your guess is as good as mine.

        You should also remember that every one of those calls was cut off after a minute or two – exactly as we would expect from the intermittent signal strength.

        • Twoofers continue to pretend that the last hole created by the heavier parts of AA77 was the entrance hole.

          Against logic and sanity, they pretend that photos of aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon do not show, uh, aircraft wreckage.

          They still haven’t explained what the remains of the passengers and crew members of AA77 were doing inside the Pentagon.

          • Christ J

            Now, now: let’s be fair. ONE of those passengers was NOT identified by DNA evidence. Obviously the others were planted there – probably by the Boeing 757-shaped cruise missile that hit the building. Or something.

            I like using the following source, as it was actually compiled by a “truth”er:

            http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/damage_comp.jpg

            - and it shows that not only is the damage consistent only with a large passenger jet, but that there was plenty of plane wreckage in the immediate aftermath of the collision.

            I suspect this person has subsequently done some reading into the geometry and principles of leverage involved here, because his initial conclusions as to the type of impacting object are demonstrably false but this site is no longer active (this source is a mirror). If he had done a little research into the relevant sciences then his capacity for analytical techniques suggests that he would soon have ceased to be a “truth”er.

          • The ONE passenger aboard AA 77 not identified forensically was a small infant.

Leave a Reply