24 Hard Facts About 9/11 That Cannot Be Debunked


advertisement - learn more

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.

advertisement - learn more

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.

  1. Katy

    alright… i refuse to believe such an act was “a conspiracy” because you conspiracy theorists make a person sneezing the wrong was an american conspiracy…. -_- shit, what was katrina a conspiracy? boston marathon? gee how bout- oh go lets pin the TITANIC on america! HEY GUISE WE PLANTED THE ICEBERG RIGHN IN FRONT OF HER! TAKE THAT UK! like do you realize how STUPID that sounds? get real. 9-11 was terrorists i do not think america would go THAT far.

    • Christ J

      Actually, that’s not too far from what they ACTUIALLY think. Since their refusal to accept the NIST findings requires that they also refuse to accept the physics that proves them correct, they are forced to claim that Newton got his physics wrong – which is simply implausible – or that he deliberately conspired with every other physicist since then to mislead the public in order to make these attacks a possibility.

      They are reduced to claiming, albeit tacitly, that this was all set in motion before the USA was even a country.

  2. William Kus

    This is one of the problems with trying to find out what actually happened that day. There is not a lot of transparency. No independent investigation.

    More news that we will probably never know the truth about http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/classified-pages-911-report-may-implicate-key-u-s-ally/

    • Christ J

      Now that you’re back, Billy, how about addressing the various points I have raised on this page which have left your claims in such tatters that you have had to resort to starting a new thread in order to avoid my refutations?

      I mean, surely you aren’t so dishonest that you’d want to hide all that irrefutable information…?

      Wouldn’t that be delightfully ironic, in light of your indefensible claims?

  3. Jonathan

    Christ J – Its people like you who fuel ‘truthers’. You literally sound like you’ve been paid to come to this site and trash its content.
    And also trash anybody who might even slightly believe anything being said here. I’m remain a skeptic purely because I don’t want to be a conspiracy theorist. You’re bully style of arguing does not convince anyone. On the contrary, it pushes them to buy into the conspiracy theory.
    Please everyone a huge favor and shut up.
    I’m not interested in your reply either.

  4. Pingback: A Day of Remembrance | Sports Variety Journal

  5. 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 ignore what this guy says. There was no commercial plane that hit the pentagon. It would be impossible for a plane of that size to fly 5 feet off the ground before hitting the pentagon and not leave any marks on the grass at all. I already know what im talking about i have flown planes, any plane flying in nose first would have crashed into the ground, which is why you never have planes coming in nose first when thy land at runways.

          • Christ J

            Go on, mention “ground effect” – I DARE you. See what happens when you do…

            Before you make a fool of yourself and expose those vagaries for the attempted Argument from Authority that they are clearly supposed to be, I suggest you look at the source I have plastered all over this page:

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

            - because the fact is that there is a damage pattern here that is consistent ONLY with the wings of a large aircraft. Now, the author of this analysis knows nothing of leverage or geometry, so we’ll skip his conclusion for the time being, but his analysis of the impact damage is excellent. He knows what you are desperately trying to deny: that the impacting object had a wingspan of AT LEAST 120ft. That is simply beyond ANY dispute.

            I also expect you to link me to a photo of the lawn that is at sufficient distance and elevation to show the extent of the damage to it. If you provide anything from ground level then you have failed, because this is NOT sufficient to show any scars from certain angles. If you have no such links to provide then your claim that the lawn was undamaged is revealed as untenable.

            Now, the FDR indicated that the only time the plane would have been within 1.5m of the ground was just before impact, so I’d also like you to explain PRECISELY what you think the flight path was like. In detail.

            Finally, don’t forget to explain – in excruciating detail – why you are claiming that “It would be impossible for a plane of that size to fly 5 feet off the ground before hitting the pentagon”, because I’m almost certain that you are about to make something up and label it “ground effect”. If you do so, then you are in for a severe shock to your ego…

            Try me, sweetheart…

      • Tom Frederick

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

      • only

        You must enjoy wizzing into the fan while standing in front of it if you’re going to reason with people that want to believe in conspiracies.

        • Christ J

          That’s the point: quite a few of them DON’T “want to” believe in them. They are just unfortunate in that when they looked into this they stumbled upon the slick, well-funded presentations of the average career-”truth”er. To anyone not well-versed in the intricacies of peer-review many of their points seem reasonable, which makes some start to accept their more untenable claims. Furthermore, it’s only really since the internet became so easily-available that people have been in a position to learn proper scientific methodology, and “truth”ers rely on this lag to get away with their crap.

          I’ll continue to refute everything they say purely because these blogs WILL be read by people who are unsure and who genuinely want to find things out. Those people will note that people like me go to significant lengths to make the relevant principles clear and understandable, with references and quotes aplenty to back up our points. They will then note that nothing of that ilk is offered in response – merely a few mumbled insults and a handful of demonstrable falsehoods, with no evidence in support of them.

          For example, scan through the responses to people like me and Albury on this page alone, specifically those from Tom Frederick on one side and William Kus and Constitutionalist on the other. The former has demonstrated a willingness to acknowledge sources where they are presented, whereas the others have pointedly refused to correct demonstrable falsehoods, and will even try to defend “truth”ers that can be shown to be lying.

          These responses are intended to expose people like the latter to people like the former, while also providing the former with sufficient data to be able to work things out themselves from the source material. Anyone who actually wants to learn something will be encouraged, whilst anyone who merely wants to perpetuate a lie will crash to earth like a hijacked 767. I have every intention of ensuring that “truth”ers go extinct with this generation.

          • Tom frederick

            At least I am not ashamed to put my name out there , because I am only trying to learn the truth , to belittle me in any way only shows what an egocentric person you are .
            You failed to mention anything about the basement explosions , to hard to explain those away ?

          • Christ J

            Why the hell WOULD I mention them: you didn’t. Why would I refute something that you had never even brought up in the first place?

            That said, until you prove that they actually happened I have no need to refute them anyway. Link me to some OBJECTIVE evidence that attests to them actually existing and we’ll take it from there. Note that a handful of statements is NOT sufficient – decades of study has proven that eyewitness testimony is near-worthless as evidence UNLESS it is corroborated by other, objective sources. This is why it is seldom assigned any real value in court. Try using the video footage and seismic data for signs of explosions, although you’re going to be disappointed…

            I want you to include links to this data because I can then look into exactly when they occurred and under what circumstances, as this will make explaining them a lot more feasible, so include your sources.

            Oh, and “belittling”? I have just defended your attitude – although you have reverted to form a few times since then – when compared to the dogmatic ignorance of other commentators on this page. If you aren’t even capable of accurately reading these comments then why the hell would you think you had done sufficient research into 9/11?

            As long as you genuinely attempt to find things out we’ll have no problem, but the second you revert to already-disproven claims instead of following where the data leads you will find me actively hostile, and with good reason.

          • Tom Frederick G.E.D.

            I did , mention he explosions in the basement , The Janitor who rescued several people and who testified to the commission but was left out of the report , he has testified many times of the people crawling out of the basement with skin hanging off from burns , he reports that the first explosion was before the first plane even hit the tower , he then helped them out of the building , and the fire fighters who on video footage enter the lobby and the walls are blown out .
            This if FACT , I know you seismic data says no explosions then why are people crawling out of the basement with burns and why would this guy LIE.
            I AM only trying to find the truth , and I did think you were insulting me as you have in the last post , I told you I am not as smart as you are , in the ways That you are smart , but I can do MANY MANY things I bet you wouldn’t even come close to accomplishing.
            Anyway , I did mention the explosions in the basement and so did the fireman , you said they could not distinguish the sound of an explosion from moving sound waves or something like that , sound waves don’t burn people. It was in another post where I mentioned the fact that the explosions in the basement and fire , and I said and dont say they followed the elevator shafts down , because they are not connected , there are three separate sets , they do not travel in a straight line to the basement
            Everyone states that the popular Mechanics review explains it all ,Popular Mechanics ? seriously ? What about UL Laboratories review?
            Why would a building designed to take a hit like it did , fail.? The Architect said it was designed to be like punching a hole in a screen , should maintain its integrity , even with more than one plane , he was just dead wrong in his design ,right.
            I bring things up so you can explain them to me , as you have very well , so far , and I am a converted truther , but still have questions ,just to be clear in my mind and to have answers for other people who question.
            I also heard that 65,000 hand signed signature’s have been handed into New York Demanding a Review. Yes sixty five thousand.
            Why do they fight the review , why not just go on National T.V. Head to Head and it will all be explained for the public to see and then maybe it will go away or at least become smaller instead of growing.

          • Christ J

            You need to start replying to the right comment then, because you didn’t mention it in this thread.

            Anyway:

            “he reports that the first explosion was before the first plane even hit the tower”

            - how the hell does he know this? You claim he says these explosions were in the basement levels, so he had no possible way of knowing when the plane struck, did he?

            I want you to watch this and make sure that this is the footage you’re thinking of:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvUIQZ7t7Ak

            - and then I want you to pay very close attention to the commentary over the last twenty seconds or so. Now, take a look at the damage done to this area: what is actually broken? We have no trace AT ALL of any damage to ANY part of the structure except the glass – the most brittle, easily-broken material in there. We also have the cameraman stating that he saw people “on fire”, which is consistent with the commentary I asked you to pay attention to above, isn’t it?

            I suppose, technically, this would have been an explosion. However, I think it is incredibly misleading to classify it as such because of the causal factors. This is NOT the ignition of explosives, it is the rapid oxidation of hydrocarbon fuels and the increase in pressure that this necessarily produces. This features the same mechanism as an explosion – the rapid expansion of material – but simply is not in the same league.

            Is that clearer now?

            ” I know you seismic data says no explosions then why are people crawling out of the basement with burns and why would this guy LIE.”

            - they are burnt because there were fires down there, as mentioned in the above video. As for his testimony, you have no reason to believe him, just as I have no reason to accuse him of lying. As it stands, we have no indication that there were any explosions, and we DO know that there were fires at those levels. Don’t you think it’s pretty [plausible that he mistook the ignition of these fires as “explosions”? Could YOU tell the difference?

            “you said they could not distinguish the sound of an explosion from moving sound waves or something like that , sound waves don’t burn people.”

            - I assumed you were referring to the sounds of the collapsing building, and I think you still are. You are conflating accounts from over an hour apart and mistakenly wedging them together, and then presuming that all the cited effects were present at the same time. For example, did you hear ANY “explosions” in the above video? Do you see any flames and burning people in the footage that features those loud noises? No, you don’t. The video footage from just after the impacts shows fires, which is consistent with the impact physics; and the footage from just before the collapse shows loud noises, which is consistent with the collapse physics. Neither of these effects is common to both sets of footage, which means they occurred at different times as the result of different phenomena.

            You really need to be a LOT more precise with your claims, not to mention your research.

            “Why would a building designed to take a hit like it did , fail.? The Architect said it was designed to be like punching a hole in a screen , should maintain its integrity , even with more than one plane , he was just dead wrong in his design ,right.”

            - first of all, it was NEVER “designed” to take those impacts. It wasn’t “designed” to take ANY impact, although it was determined AFTER construction had begun that it could withstand the impact of a 707 which was basically empty and travelling at landing speed. This has a momentum of around 8% that of flight 175. Furthermore, the towers DID survive the observed impacts, didn’t they? If they had not done so then they would have toppled immediately, yet they remained standing for another 56-102 minutes, which means that the impacts themselves DID NOT cause the collapses. In fact, those early analyses of the buildings determined that the impacts should happen exactly as observed, although they failed to account for the fires because they presumed that such an impact would be as a result of an accident with a vehicle that had no significant fuel remaining.

            He got it right, even when the impact forces were an order of magnitude larger than he predicted.

            “dont say they followed the elevator shafts down , because they are not connected , there are three separate sets , they do not travel in a straight line to the basement”

            - I assume you’re referring to this arrangement:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center#mediaviewer/File:World_Trade_Center_Building_Design_with_Floor_and_Elevator_Arrangement.svg

            - but your conclusion is misleading. It is certainly true that at least one shaft runs the entire height of the building, and it is also evident that at lest the express elevator runs MOST of the height of the building too. Furthermore, the local elevators share shafts, so while none of them run the entire height of the building, their shafts DO. Now, the image linked to above is a little vague as to whether there was some form of obstruction between local elevator routes, but I don’t see any rational reason the suspect that there were. Do you have a more conclusive source?

            “Why do they fight the review , why not just go on National T.V. Head to Head and it will all be explained for the public to see and then maybe it will go away or at least become smaller instead of growing.”

            - because “truth”ers will NEVER accept anything other than their own biased, distorted, demonstrably-false conclusions. Have you ever watched the televised “debate” between the producers of Loose Change and Popular Mechanics? The latter conclusively disproved several of the formers claims, and what did they do? Scoff derisively. No solid, scientific dispute, no empirical observations cited, nothing. Just a “Hmph! Still don’t believe it”. If there was even a debate to be had then the scientific literature would be packed with properly-structured, referenced, SCIENTIFIC refutations of the NIST final reports. Instead, no such refutations exist.

            This is a rather telling point: the peer-review stage of publication involves your paper being sent to a random peer in that subject area for them to read. If they check through your work and find that your references are accurately cited, your data is correct, your conclusions are verified by your data, your methodology is sound, etc. then your work WILL be published. So why has the “truth” movement failed to get a single paper into the academic literature? Why have they instead had to resort to setting up their own pseudo-journals which feature NO peer-review at all?

            I’m all for asking questions, but you should be asking them of people like AE911T, or Steven Jones. They are hiding information from you.

            Actually, I’d like to take a moment to test you, if you don’t mind. This will also be helpful in highlighting the tendencies of the “truth” movement and giving you a few detailed examples by which to analyse their ability to apply rational scientific analysis to these events.

            Here goes: I have previously linked you to this site, but I’ll link it again for reference purposes:

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

            - now, reading through this work and going by the images he provided, what do you – Tom Frederick – think is the extent of the impact damage to the Pentagon façade? That is, what is the approximate horizontal distance which is visibly damaged from the impact of whatever hit the building?

            If you want to insert a caveat or two, such as denoting the extent of superficial damage to actual penetrative damage, then I’m happy for you to do so.

          • Tom Frederick

            First off I don’t reply to the proper thread because there is no reply prompt there , so I use reply prompt I can. .
            Second , The Janitor WAS on Site at the time and He clearly states that there was an explosion in the Basement , and then an explosion at the top when the plane hit , That’s his statement .The fireman also report not just broken glass but walls down , where did this fire come from?
            Third I don’t take the one on one interviews with the high school loose change guys as a debate I am interested in when I say I want to see a Debate between both sides I mean I want to see all the Architect’s, Engineers, Physicists, Fireman that have put their name on the petition head to head with those of alike.
            Fourth ,I have looked at the Pentagon pictures you told me to and reviewed , I would like to ask about the conflicting Black box data which indicates a different route that the eye witness account , and there is another truther group which analyzed the footage from The pentagon which clearly shows the footage was altered , their review shows the explosion before the plane hit the building , I saw the footage and the plane is clearly in a position before the building and the explosion is already in full bloom, did they doctor this footage to show that or was it doctored before they got it.
            They need to start prosecuting these people if they are just outright fabricating things for profit. .
            Also there are CIA people who clearly state the Pentagon Does have its own anti aircraft system which would clearly be classified , it does have the capability of shooting down aircraft and is instructed to do so UNLESS it receives a friendly signal which only comes from military aircraft.
            Many of my facts are incorrect because I guess its hard to believe people would post such blatant lies , which is why they should be prosecuted , if they are profiting from these lies , to me its FRAUD and should be punishable.
            Thanks for all you time with me , Christ J- Meaning Jesus Christ I suppose., Is he real or make believe ?.

          • Christ J

            The reply prompt appears earlier in the thread, just as it did for THIS thread when you just replied to me.

            ” The Janitor …”

            - still has no valid point until you provide a link to his ACTUAL statements. For christ’s sake, give me something to work with…

            “Fireman that have put their name on the petition head to head with those of alike.”

            - firemen have no relevant opinion unless they also have qualifications in physics, or at least can prove themselves competent physicists, in which case:

            “when I say I want to see a Debate between both sides I mean I want to see all the Architect’s, Engineers, Physicists,”

            - there is already a forum dedicated to this. It is called the peer-reviewed literature, and “truth”ers have persistently refused to enter it. Instead, they set up their own publications that masquerade as journals in order to fool the ignorant and desperately zealous into thinking that they have done something of relevance.

            I know of only a single occasion when a group of “truth”ers have tried to enter the peer-reviewed literature, and they packed their work with numerous lies and then tried to illegally circumvent the peer-review process in order to prevent those lies from being uncovered.

            You want a proper debate? Then get the hell off this blog and start hounding AE911T to publish their claims in REAL journals. You won’t succeed, and if you want to know why then look no further than AE911T’s annual income.

            “Fourth ,I have looked at the Pentagon pictures you told me to and reviewed , I would like to ask about the conflicting Black box data which indicates a different route that the eye witness account ”

            - I can only assume that your silence on the reason I asked you to review those images is an acceptance that the impact damage is exactly as I said it was? Glad we can move on with an acknowledgement that the impact damage wound was ~100 feet across.

            Now, I am unaware of any significant conflict between witness statements of the flight path of flight 77 and the FDR. I would thus like you to either state EXACTLY what discrepancies you think exist or link me to your source for this claim. Before you do so, however, I would suggest that you first determine whether you are working from the FDR data or the animation that was compiled from numerous sources. They are NOT the same thing. The former does contribute towards the latter, but they are not synonymous.

            “there is another truther group which analyzed the footage from The pentagon which clearly shows the footage was altered , their review shows the explosion before the plane hit the building , I saw the footage and the plane is clearly in a position before the building and the explosion is already in full bloom,”

            - I’m fairly familiar with the claim that this was a forgery, so I know that this is not “proven” but is a claim based on their analysis. One which, it must be said, is so speculative as to be a non sequitur.

            Secondly, if the footage was, as they claim, altered then how exactly do they then have ANY basis for claiming to have identified that the explosion preceded the impact? This sounds like a fatal inconsistency to me, so would you mind posting a link to this claims source?

            “Also there are CIA people who clearly state the Pentagon Does have its own anti aircraft system which would clearly be classified”

            - then why the hell did they agree to talk about it? If it was “classified” then I don’t see how they could have even mentioned it, so this has to go down as yet another inconsistency.

            Do you have a source for this assertion?

            “Many of my facts are incorrect because I guess its hard to believe people would post such blatant lies , which is why they should be prosecuted , if they are profiting from these lies , to me its FRAUD and should be punishable.”

            - I agree completely, however, they seem to be circumventing such prosecution by not directly marketing their demonstrable falsehoods. For example, many of the various “truth”er organizations have online shops, which account for the majority of their funds. There’s no law about selling people T-shirts, so if their customers are stupid enough to buy them then they can’t be blamed.

            The problem comes when you consider that they are not directly making money from their claims, they are making it as a secondary effect.

            Another crucial point here is their “journals”. REAL academic journals come in two forms: open access, whereby the authors pay to be published, and those that charge people to read them, which allow free publication – sort of. If these “journals” followed the latter category then they would be fraudulent, as they would be charging people to read supposedly-scientific analyses that were clearly fraudulent. However, the fact that, for example, the “Journal” of 9/11 Studies is free to access means that they cannot be defrauding people, because they are not charging them to read it.

            What they then do is base their merchandise on those “papers”, which means they can now make money by giving people free propaganda and then selling them some crappy posters and shirts to broadcast their lies.

            If these were REAL journals they would charge to access in order to meet running costs. The fact that they do not strongly implies they rely on funding from other sources – presumably the profits they make in their online store.

            Ever read the infamous Harrit paper? This was rejected from an actual journal because it was scientific fraud, which means that any journal that carries it would be liable. This is why it is cited on EVERY “truth”er site, yet is curiously absent from their fictitious “journals”. These “journals” cannot be prosecuted for monetary fraud, but scientific fraud is still a possibility, which is why they are so careful with their published articles. Harrit’s fraud doesn’t appear there, but several other “thermite”-based papers are.

            If you want some thorough analyses of these sources then I’d recommend joining something like the JREF. So long as you ask genuine questions and refrain from trying to assert what isn’t true you’ll find people perfectly accommodating. Just make sure you check previous threads before starting one on the same topic…

            Incidentally, my username is my ACTUAL name. “Christ is short for “Christopher”. I just include the “t” to wind up the religious.

          • Body Opus

            Christ, briefly, what I DO find entertaining , is your narcissistic replies. As if you , and YOU alone have been able to debunk and de-value common sense evidence. You’ve been made a fool numerous times…still..you persevere. You posted a link that clearly states in conclusion…there’s NO WAY flyt 77 (a 757) could have possibly have hit the Pentagon…perhaps a “much “smaller aircraft”! YOUR LINK , Mr Jesus Christ. So, either you’re paid to make foolish rebuttals by ??NSA?? or geeeeze whomever…or you just have a vast economy of words combined with intellectual ignorance. Also the name “Christ” ? REALLY…Well I’m the omnipotent one and your no son of mine (says the non-theist) Listen to your adversaries.

          • Christ J

            “You posted a link that clearly states in conclusion…there’s NO WAY flyt 77 (a 757) could have possibly have hit the Pentagon…perhaps a “much “smaller aircraft”! YOUR LINK , Mr Jesus Christ.”

            - and every time I have posted that link I have explicitly pointed out that his conclusion is nothing more than the result of his errors in analyzing the principles of leverage involved, along with some fundamental geometry errors. That link was a blatant attempt to prove that a 757 didn’t hit the building, yet ended up highlighting the fact that nothing else can account for the impact damage.

            I’ll make it very clear this time, just so someone like you has a chance of understanding it: the link I previously cited concerning the impact damage to the Pentagon proves that the damage was consistent only with a large jet – one which MUST have had a wingspan in excess of 120ft. Furthermore, applying simple leverage and geometry to this analysis proves that the observed damage is wholly consistent with the impact from a Boeing 757, or, at least, a plane with a 38m wingspan.

            How about you try actually analyzing that link, rather than parroting the unqualified conclusions contained therein? After all, I had no trouble using their data without having to blindly accept their incorrect conclusions…

            “Also the name “Christ” ? REALLY…Well I’m the omnipotent one and your no son of mine (says the non-theist) Listen to your adversaries.”

            - meet another non-theist, princess. My avatar is a truncated form of my ACTUAL name. Nice attempted-straw man, though…

            “Christ, briefly, what I DO find entertaining , is your narcissistic replies. ”

            - wrong. My replies are a combination of pure fury and stubborn scientific integrity. I refuse to let people like you lie about things just to try to further your propaganda, and I am absolutely apoplectic at the thought that you are so keen to actively distort the facts in order to buttress a worldview that is demonstrably false. You’re just the new scientology, and you are to be reminded of that uncomfortable fact at every opportunity until you accept that you are detrimental to the world.

            “As if you , and YOU alone have been able to debunk and de-value common sense evidence. ”

            - thus far, I am the only one willing to even TRY to analyse anything. Feel free to prove me wrong…

            “You’ve been made a fool numerous times”

            - not even once, sweetheart. Not a single one of you has managed to refute a single point I have raised.

            Why don’t you try? You can start by wedging your way into the arguments I’ve been having with Tommy or Billy, and see if you can either prove that I am libelous in calling Harrit et al a bunch of liars, or that Newton didn’t predict that the towers would have fallen due to the observed impact damage and fires.

            Include your workings wherever necessary. Assuming you have the honesty to even bother, of course, although you’d be neither the first “truth”er nor the last to try to twist your way out of a scientific discussion of your untenable dogma.

            Bring it.

  6. 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.

      • Tom Frederick

        Ok , somewhat understand all your explanations , and they all make perfect sense to me for what that worth, All the things I read which made me belief in a conspiracy , you have pretty much cleared up , the math explains a lot, What about the pilots that say the 260 degree turn could not be made , or that a757 could not reach 500 knots at that altitude , they also say it is impossible to fly at the height needed to it the building which took 1 mile to do (aerodynamically impossible ) they say.
        There is math and science which supports that isn’t there?

        • Christ J

          “What about the pilots that say the 260 degree turn could not be made”

          - they are dwarfed by the number of pilots who see no significant difficulty in the observed maneuvers. This fact alone means that those assertions are automatically invalid, as they are a minority view. If the majority of the experts disagree with them then it is indicative of their lack of accuracy.

          That said, why don’t you look into the exact behavior of flight 77 (which I assume you are referring to) and see how difficult it really was? All I see is a woeful approach that meant that the target was OVERSHOT and a long, drawn-out turn and descent in order to recover the situation. Is this REALLY that difficult…?

          “or that a757 could not reach 500 knots at that altitude ”

          - Boeing themselves state that a 757-200 is capable of mach 0.8, which at that altitude would be over 600mph. Flight 77 reached an estimated 530mph.

          ” they also say it is impossible to fly at the height needed to it the building which took 1 mile to do (aerodynamically impossible ) they say.”

          - “they” say this based on a moronic misrepresentation of “ground effect”. If you want to know what this REALLY is then read this:

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

          - and you’ll get the facts, rather than what a group of liars want you to THINK the facts are.

          • Tom Frederick

            Ok then , why are so many credible people willing to put their time and money and maybe livelihood on the line , why would they want to look stupid , Famous Actors heading, and funding seminars to inform more people , why would engineers , physicists and pilots say those things , why do So many people say they heard many explosions , some before the plane even hit the tower, why was the basement exploded , and don’t say the fire followed the elevator shaft to the basement, they are not connected to the basement. There are 3 different sets
            I know you said seismic data shows not explosions , then why are there literally hundreds of people who say there was.
            why are over 30 people with relative information now dead.
            You use examples , so here is one , If I take a rack of pool balls and hit them in the same exact spot with the same exact power ,they will never go in the same exact spot. How could three towers fall almost the same way on the same day , and not only that 4 airplanes completely disintegrated on the same day , it just seems to unbelievable .
            Most of this comes because the Government is so corrupt and so untrustworthy people have no other option than to believe the worst .
            There are so many examples of Government lies , and that’s why people keep referring to these things , to show that if the Government is capable of other terrible things than why not this one.
            Why was there plane debris found six miles from the crash site in Pennsylvania.
            Why did they find bone fragments on the top of buildings hundreds of yards away , why did they find engines that did not belong to the plane described as hitting the s pentagon,how is it they just happened to find the High jackers drivers license just lying there in the street .
            To much crap to swallow.

          • Christ J

            Simple: most of them genuinely think they’re right. It’s the Dunning-Kruger effect, in which the individual presumes that they know an entirely-alien subject well enough to draw conclusions from it intuitively. I doubt a single “famous actor” has a sufficient knowledge of the relevant physics to be able to make ANY assertions concerning these events, yet many of the proffer their invalid opinions regardless. Just look at Kirk Cameron’s ridiculous tirades against evolution, for example. He is utterly without expertise in anything to do with biology, yet his fame and his monstrous ego have convinced him and his fellow cultists that he has a valid case.

            Of course, there are always an unscrupulous minority who simply know easy money when they see it. How else do you explain the fact that most “truth”er sites have a Store? Why do they need to sell you the “truth”?

            “why would engineers , physicists and pilots say those things”

            - either outright fraud in order to sell something or a simple mistake. They do happen, you know. Einstein famously refused to accept his own data when it indicated that quantum mechanics was correct, and it now stands as the single most rigorously-proven theory in existence. Scientists make mistakes, which is why peer-review is so important. You’d do well to demand to know why the physicists you mention refuse to submit their claims for peer-review…

            As for pilots, I know of quite a few who think that Ground Effect would have prevented the Pentagon approach, yet you now know – from the link I provided – that this claim is utterly without basis. This is a case of a pilot trying to make claims concerning physics, so this falls under the Dunning-Kruger effect as well.

            “many people say they heard many explosions ”

            - could YOU tell the difference between the sound of a highly-energetic impact and an explosion? After all, they are both nothing more than a means by which pressure waves are released, so they have identical causes and effects. How sure would YOU be that you heard one and not the other?

            Now, compare the uncertainty inherent to such subjective interpretations and compare that to the complete lack of explosions in ANY piece of footage, or the complete absence of any hint of an explosion in the seismic data. In fact, seismic data is very easy to identify for explosions, as they have highly distinctive characteristics, so the fact that no such features were extant suggests…what?

            Which would you consider more trustworthy if you were on a jury: video evidence and seismic data, or a handful of witness accounts that are actively contradicted by the LIVE footage?

            “why are over 30 people with relative information now dead.”

            - 23,000 people die EVERY DAY,, and there have been almost 5,000 days since then. Exactly how unlikely is this?

            “How could three towers fall almost the same way on the same day , ”

            - THEY DIDN’T. I’ve actually defended your inquisitiveness on this page, but if you intend to persist in this lie then I’d rather you just stopped replying, because this claim is nothing but blatant dishonesty. If you can look at any two of these collapses and convince yourself that they are identical then you are beyond help. WTC 2 tilted alarmingly, WTC 1 swirled around its core, and WTC 7 collapsed internally first, before spinning around and falling across the street. The only common factors are impact damage, fire and collapse. There is NOTHING else about these that is comparable.

            “4 airplanes completely disintegrated on the same day”

            - 95% of flight 93 was recovered, as was about half of flight 77. We have some more debris from flights 11 and 175, but these were also subjected to far more sever stresses than the others, which is reflected in the relative paucity of debris from these two. However, since we can also track the path of some parts of flight 175 through WTC 2 we still have sufficient information to dismiss outright your ludicrous “disintegration” nonsense.

            “it just seems to unbelievable .”

            - it gets quite a bit more believable if you stop lying about the evidence.

            “Why was there plane debris found six miles from the crash site in Pennsylvania.”

            - there wasn’t. Some of the more durable parts were found another few hundred yards along the direction of travel – almost as if their momenta took them that distance! – whilst some of the more lightweight (read: “can be transported by wind”) material was found up to a mile and a half away. Once again, go to the ACTUAL sources and not the liars you are presently parroting for.

            That “six mile” canard was due to someone trying to pass off the ROAD route as the DIRECT route. That is, they decided to measure the distance it would take to drive from crash site to debris and then tried to claim that this was the distance it would have taken a crow to fly between them instead. The fact that this lie is still perpetrated is testament to your dishonesty, because your cult should have eliminated this crap long ago.

            “Why did they find bone fragments on the top of buildings hundreds of yards away , why did they find engines that did not belong to the plane described as hitting the s pentagon”

            - I can only assume you have made this up, because it is not true and I can find nothing about it anywhere reputable. Cite evidence or admit you’re lying: your choice.

            “how is it they just happened to find the High jackers drivers license just lying there in the street .”

            - they didn’t. They found a passport. In any case, you would make exactly the same argument if it had been any other item from any other passenger, so this is a fraudulent claim from the outset. Furthermore, you have neglected to properly analyse where this item is likely to have been between impact and collapse and whether it is likely to have experienced conditions conducive to survival.

            For example, the passport in question is from a pilot, so it would have been in the cockpit. This area would have been decimated from the initial impact, resulting in there being every possibility of it escaping the plane at that point. Furthermore, as the plane punched most of the way through the tower it is likely that this item would have ended up very close to the far side, which was blown out by both the rest of the plane and the ensuing fireball. Thus we have a coherent and perfectly-plausible scenario by which it could have ended up exiting the tower and dropped to the ground. Try here for a little more detail:

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

            - and try some critical thinking for a change. That means you scrutinize ALL claims, not just the ones your favourite blogs ascribe to “The Government™”

      • This site is a strange one. Although I’m both a pilot and a structural engineer, I don’t think any of that knowledge and experience had anything to do with my comment when the first tower imploded. I simply said “I don’t know who did what, but that airplane didn’t knock that building down”

        And since the 911 Commissioners themselves have refuted their own ‘report’ and even written at least one book, probably to give themselves some distance when so much evidence kept coming to light. And anyone that spends as much time still ‘debunking’ various theories, should have their motives looked at. If it’s all so ‘proven’ why the need to write long long explanations, complete with complicated math and blah blah blah. As for all the ‘truth’ groups, a lot of them are either infiltrated or the brainchild’s of scum like Cass wazzizname (Sunstien or something) to muddy up the water. The Commissioners say their report is a ‘cover-up’ and NIST reluctantly, in their final report admitted that a hundred and some feet of 7 fell at ‘free-fall acceleration. And the professional ‘deniers’ have even come up with some whack job explanation how the ‘laws of physics’ are amendable, if you got a real good lawyer. There is enough undisputed evidence in the public record to bring some charges without any big deal or confusion.

        Bin Laden was never charged with anything to do with it, the FBI admits that much and it’s in the public record. Yet ask any of the treasonous political whores and they’ll still lie to your face. The Commission says they wanted to bring charges, but were somehow ‘persuaded’ not to. Who and what charges? And more than a thousand people have died because the government, knowingly, told people the air was safe to breath. When they had all the facts in front of their faces saying otherwise. Who should go to jail for just that?

        CIA 1035-960 Look that document up and see who came up with the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ and why. To control nincompoops who they wanted to control.

        “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” And that comes directly from the mouth of the CIA director, Bill Casey, in 1981. Looks like the ‘program’ is complete.

        • Christ J

          ” I simply said “I don’t know who did what, but that airplane didn’t knock that building down””

          - since the impact was about an hour earlier I don’t think you should be patting yourself on the back for this little display of “wisdom”, do you? Or do you think that physics is so slow that it takes 56 minutes for a building to realize that it’s been hit by ~30,000,000N of force and to drop to the ground?

          “And since the 911 Commissioners themselves have refuted their own ‘report’”

          - the Commission had nothing to do with the analysis of the collapses, that was left to FEMA and the NIST. You have evidently not read any of them.

          “And anyone that spends as much time still ‘debunking’ various theories, should have their motives looked at.”

          - really? So we should just let you lot lie about things without a word of dispute, should we? I bet you’d LOVE that. I bet you certainly wouldn’t then say “Look! They have no argument because they know we’re right! We Win!”, would you? No, I’m sure someone as mature as you would never stoop to that…

          “NIST reluctantly, in their final report admitted that a hundred and some feet of 7 fell at ‘free-fall acceleration.”

          - nope. They said it was “essentially free fall”, which means it was NEAR-freefall acceleration. Do you know why they didn’t – and wouldn’t – state that it was ACTUAL freefall acceleration? Because such an occurrence is physically impossible. Utterly impossible. Never-going-to-happen impossible. It. Cannot. Happen.

          Ever.

          ” And the professional ‘deniers’ have even come up with some whack job explanation how the ‘laws of physics’ are amendable,”

          - indeed, you have. For example, you are trying to claim that freefall acceleration occurred, despite it being physically impossible. You are also trying to claim that WTC 7 couldn’t have attained NEAR-freefall acceleration, despite the fact that Newton proved that it could.

          I want you to test my claims here: find some data on the mass of WTC 7, specifically, the upper section, and figure out the momentum involved. You’ll need no more than p = mV for the momentum, and a = Vf^2 – Vi^2 / 2s for the changes in velocity between floors. Someone with the background you just claimed to have should have little issue with such simple workings, surely…?

          In fact, a “structural engineer,” should also have no problem showing me exactly how to determine the resistive capacity of the steel, so let’s hear it sunshine.

          I expect silence, but I’d rather enjoy a surprise…

          • I normally don’t bother trying to argue a point with gringos (I’m just guessing with you, because you display all the symptoms of typical gringo mental illness. I’m a gringo myself, and the word out here in the real world is rarely used to insult….it’s just an identifier. Because Peru, for example, is full of ‘Americans’ too) But my rejoinder is short. The FINAL N.I.S.T. report does indeed use the term ‘free fall’ in describing the implosion of Bldg. 7. For 2.5 seconds. But you’re definitely a ‘cut and paste’ debater, or you’d know that. And last I checked that’s impossible in the scenario you’re selling. I’ll bet anyone a dollar that you’ve never read any of their versions…..let alone the Final.

          • Christ J

            “The FINAL N.I.S.T. report does indeed use the term ‘free fall’ ”

            - indeed they do, and I think it’s rather telling that you haven’t quoted them directly, because you would be forced to admit that your little claim is out-of-context and selectively omits critical qualifiers.

            Here is what they ACTUALLY said:

            “During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below.”

            - see that? You have neglected to mention that they qualify the term “free fall” with “essentially”, and that they stated that there was “negligible” resistance, as opposed to “no” resistance.

            This is probably something that you’d like people to dismiss as pedantic, but it is not. We know that the mass of the upper section of WTC 7 was in excess of 30,000 tonnes, and we know that calculating the momentum of this object from Newton’s equations results in the force available to this upper section making the resistive capacity of the lower section all but vanish in comparison. Newton PREDICTED that this would attain a velocity extremely close to that of freefall acceleration because of the momentum of the upper section, so this is entirely in line with the observed causal factors as an extension of Newton’s laws.

            Put simply, there is no way in hell you can twist “essentially” to mean “exactly”. You are lying by omission in an attempt to hide the fact that you have no case.

            ” And last I checked that’s impossible in the scenario you’re selling.”

            - I’ll call your bluff there, princess. Show me the calculations you performed in order to determine that your above statement is valid. Using Newton’s equations for momentum, force and acceleration, prove to me, right now, that the upper section would NOT be expected to attain “essentially” free fall velocity AFTER it had built up significant momentum. Show your calculations.

            You won’t, because you can’t. And you won’t even be able to plagiarize the vicarious workings of any other member of your little cult, because these workings are not found on ANY “truth”er website. This is because the majority are too uneducated to be able to do them, and the rest already know that they will prove their claims wrong – which would severely hinder their source of income.

            You’re bluffing, and you have nothing in your hand…

          • Directly from their final report of November 2008, this is the exact wording. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].” What report are you ‘reading’ from? Considering the fact that they have yet to provide any proof at all that any Muslims were even on the planes and the FBI admits there exists not a shred of evidence that Bin Laden was involved, you might lay off all the pages and pages of formulas you blather on and on about and consider the facts that;
            1. The FBI provided the explosives, planning and support for the 1994 bombing at the WTC, and the only reason the building didn’t come down was because their patsies didn’t park the van in the right place.

            2. Recent reluctantly supplied Emails of Eric Holder ordering the FBI to give Timothy McVeigh the explosives he used and covered up the FBI murder of a guy named Trentadue should have you in a more skeptical frame of mind when it comes to mouthing the wild ass conspiracy you’re selling.

            3. And I don’t subscribe to any particular theory except that the government is lying and covering something up. And that’s from the words of those who ‘investigated’ 911.

            4. And considering all the failures of various agencies, not only did no one get fired, within weeks they all got promotions. I could go on, but you’re not paid to think, are you?

          • pgkeen

            Good answer but you know (Christ J) is never going to stop his ridiculous comments. The official story appears to be his full-time job. It’s beyond annoying.

          • Just so you don’t waste your time following his ‘proof’ links, the one he leaves in his insult laden ‘answer’ is to a ‘FAQ’ page from NIST. Reading and referring to the actual report is probably above his pay grade or whatever. My NIST quote is directly from their final report from November (I think) 2008. It’s somewhat comforting to know that his pages and pages and pages of long winded blather are silly and nonsense writ large aren’t taken seriously. I use the much simpler ‘hidden video’ method. When there’s video evidence they won’t show anyone, they’re committing a crime. Of some sort. That the FBI was confiscating private video tapes ten minutes after the pentagon event, and it still hasn’t been shown to the public is all the evidence I need to smell the rats. And why haven’t we seen security video of the ‘hijackers’ boarding the planes in Boston? Because there’s something about them they don’t want you to see. Like maybe they never got on? I don’t know, but I do know that anyone that would ‘take their word’ is a big fool. Pura vida

          • This is funny and pretty much sums up my thoughts on this nonsense;

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98#t=11

          • Christ J

            And, from those exact same reports we also note that the NIST described this as “ESSENTIALLY free fall”[emphasis added]. They described it this way because the ACTUAL acceleration rate is sufficiently close to that of freefall for us to approximate it as such. A mathematician would refer to this common practice as “rounding up”. You know, like the way we approximate Pi to 3.142? Pi IS NOT 3.142, but we round it off to this value because a more precise value isn’t generally practical. This is exactly what the NIST did with the acceleration rate of WTC 7: rounded it up to make calculations viable.

            Your inability to successfully refute my previous comment is the sole reason for your continued wilful evasion of this point.

            “you might lay off all the pages and pages of formulas you blather on and on about ”

            - I’m sure you’d love that, but I have no intention of doing so. I am entirely correct in this attitude, as I can mathematically PROVE that fires were sufficient to have caused the observed collapses. You have no valid rebuttal of this fact, which is why you are so eager to change the subject. Are you really so unintelligent to need to be reminded that YOU voluntarily joined a thread that was dealing explicitly with the WTC complex? Why, then, would I allow you to bastardize Newtonian physics and then desperately try to veer off-topic after you realized you were on the brink of being utterly demolished in this pseudo-debate?

            Dream on, sunshine. I’m going to continue to hammer these simple equations into you until you either stop spamming these threads with irrelevant crap or accept that you have no basis for your fraudulent misrepresentations of Newton’s work.

            Here’s a little teaser:

            Mass of WTC 7 = 100,000 tonnes (at least)
            Height of each floor = 3.7m (subtract around 0.4m for the floor slabs themselves)
            Acceleration = 9.8m/sec/sec *

            * the reason the acceleration rate is presumed to be exactly that of gravity is due to the strength of VERTICAL columns. As soon as they veer away from being perfectly straight and rigidly upright they lose all of their resistive capacity, resulting in them offering no impedance to whatever was applying force to them. However, even if this was untrue the acceleration between floors would be the same, as a more prolonged period of resistance would also result in a far lesser initial resistance, so the net resistance would be identical in either circumstance.

            Now, let’s show incompetent little Gulfy how to do what Newton discovered three centuries ago and what is now routinely taught to children: calculate momentum.

            p = mV

            - but we don’t know the velocity, do we? Never mind – we can calculate it:

            a = Vf^2 – Vi^2 / 2s

            - which we rearrange thusly:

            Vf^2 = 2as + Vi^2

            - and we can now start to plug in our above data:

            2 x 9.8m/sec/sec x 3.3m –> remember that Vi is currently zero

            - so Vf = 8m/sec. We can now determine the momentum of this mass:

            30,000,000kg x 8m/sec = 240,000,000N

            - yup, that’s right: 240 MILLION Newton’s of force were available to the upper section of WTC 7. I make this more than ten times what the steel was capable of successfully resisting, although my analysis is sufficiently crude to make me wary of its accuracy. I’ll assume it could have withstood around 25%, just to be generous (I think I have actually erred the wrong way, as my initial estimate looks far too high). This means that we now have to sap 25% of this momentum to overload this floor, so we are left with 180,000,000N. What next?

            Well, we now have another 3.3m drop with negligible impedance, so let’s calculate the initial velocity:

            180,000,000N – 30,000,000kg = 6m/sec

            - and now the resulting velocity upon the next impact:

            2 x 9.8m/sec/sec x 3.3m + 6m/sec^2

            - Vf is now 10m/sec. This means the momentum is now:

            30,000,000kg x 10m/sec = 300,000,000N

            - which is a massive increase in momentum. And this is without adding the mass of the collapsed floor above, which is added to the mass of the above momentum equation, resulting in this being an UNDERestimate of the momentum. And then there’s the fact that I have overestimated the resistive capacity of the support structure.

            Are you starting to get this now? Using nothing more than three-hundred-year-old physics I have just proven that the upper section had sufficient momentum to have decimated the lower section, and if you were to continue these equations you would soon discover that the momentum drop with the impact of the next floor becomes so insignificant it would be indistinguishable from no impedance whatsoever.

            In short, your ludicrously-uneducated claim that the acceleration rate is contrary to Newtonian physics is a lie. And, now that you know it to be false, you will be nothing more than a worthless, lying shill for the amoral thieves that sell you your opinions every time you try to proffer this demonstrable falsehood. You are helping them perpetuate a conspiracy.

            “1. The FBI provided the explosives, planning and support for the 1994 bombing at the WTC, and the only reason the building didn’t come down was because their patsies didn’t park the van in the right place.”

            - irrelevant because it is a different event. The exact same logic requires that you are nothing but an air current, as the gulf stream is exactly that. It’s an untenable claim.

            “2. Recent reluctantly supplied Emails of Eric Holder ordering the FBI to give Timothy McVeigh the explosives he used and covered up the FBI murder of a guy named Trentadue ”

            - irrelevant because it is a different event.

            “4. And considering all the failures of various agencies, not only did no one get fired, within weeks they all got promotions. I could go on, but you’re not paid to think, are you?”

            - irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the WTC collapses.

            “3. And I don’t subscribe to any particular theory except that the government is lying and covering something up. And that’s from the words of those who ‘investigated’ 911. ”

            - irrelevant because you are referring to an investigative team that had nothing to do with the WTC collapses. You are referring to the 911 Commission, not the FEMA or NIST analyses, which means you are trying to draw conclusions about the building collapses from the only one of THREE investigations that had nothing to do with them. If you weren’t already a “truth”er I’d suggest that your dishonesty would be welcomed by their little cult.

            “should have you in a more skeptical frame of mind when it comes to mouthing the wild ass conspiracy you’re selling.”

            - this was particularly hilarious in light of the fact that you are clearly parroting others’ claims concerning the NIST final reports on WTC 7, complete with misrepresentations of their analyses of the collapse sequence.

            Tell you what: why don’t you show me a “skeptical frame of mind” by analyzing my aforementioned momentum calculations? Why don’t you do a minimal amount of Googling to see if my equations and values are correct? How about looking in to the effect that force has on vertical support columns?

            Come on, Gulfy: show us all your tiny, malformed, flaccid “skepticism”. And, while you’re at it, you can explain – in detail – why you are STILL parroting the claims of your priests concerning the acceleration rate even AFTER you have been informed of it being utterly impossible under ANY scenario. You can describe the reasons you think the NIST explicitly acknowledged a physically impossible effect in order to justify their conclusions and why you think those >1,000 scientists failed to notice this. You can then explain why you think “essentially” is synonymous with “exactly”.

            Bring it.

            Your adorable little link contains the same old debunked lies that you have compiled into your religion, Gulfy. It is no more valid a source than a SpongeBob episode.

          • Christ J

            “Good answer but you know (Christ J) is never going to stop his ridiculous comments. The official story appears to be his full-time job. It’s beyond annoying.”

            - then prove me wrong, princess. Provide some rigid mathematical data that explicitly refutes me and you’ll find me more than willing to accept irrefutable fact. Which makes me significantly better than you lot…

            Here’s an example of the dishonesty you are advocating:

            NIST NCSTAR 1-6

            ” “the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in the videos.””

            - see that? That is a direct quote from the NIST which indicates that they knew they were referring to something OTHER THAN freefall acceleration. They went on to acknowledge that this was ALMOST freefall when they said:

            ” During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below.”

            - which you can check for yourself here:

            http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

            - so, we have two sources from the NIST which explicitly state that freefall acceleration was NOT attained, but that a rate very close to freefall WAS attained. We can see that they are NOT arguing for freefall acceleration by the fact they describe it as “essentially” free fall. “Essentially, is NOT synonymous with “exactly”, no matter how much you want to think it is. They further confirm this point by saying there was “negligible” support, rather than “no” support. These terms are also not synonymous.

            Now that we have established that freefall acceleration never occurred, we can get down to whether NEAR-freefall is anomalous. For that I refer you to my response to Gulfy, in which I detailed the relevant physics and provided a starting point from which he – and you – can determine how rapidly the momentum increases and how dramatically the relative resistance decreases to the point of irrelevance.

            Of course, I have no doubt whatsoever that you are too much of a coward to actually perform such irrefutable mathematical calculations, as they will soon eave your religious beliefs in tatters. It doesn’t really matter, because anyone who reads this will see you for the lying coward that you are, and will note your desire to avoid any scientific analysis of the facts and a desperate struggle to maintain your wilful misrepresentations of facts. You’re doing a wonderful job of discrediting your little cult.

          • Christ J

            Really, Gulfy? Really:

            “Just so you don’t waste your time following his ‘proof’ links, the one he leaves in his insult laden ‘answer’ is to a ‘FAQ’ page from NIST. ”

            - so this makes a difference, does it? Never mind that they repeat this exact phrasing in the reports themselves, you think that the fact that it comes from the exact same people via a slightly different URL makes a difference to the veracity, do you?

            Nice try, princess.

            Let’s clear this up right now: I see two possible options for you –

            1) you dismiss BOTH NIST quotes, because you consider them contradictory and you have no valid means of discerning which is accurate.

            2) you accept that actual freefall acceleration is impossible, and that the NIST knew this, and that they were merely employing a little brevity in the somewhat naïve belief that morons wouldn’t selectively quote-mine them in an attempt to mislead people.

            - pick one.

            “It’s somewhat comforting to know that his pages and pages and pages of long winded blather are silly and nonsense writ large aren’t taken seriously”

            - that’s only going to be a valid assertion if you actually deal with the data I provided, sweetheart. Until that happens you’re just deluding yourself.

            “. When there’s video evidence they won’t show anyone, they’re committing a crime. Of some sort. ”

            - and so you have leapt to the conclusion that you can frame “them” for whatever you feel like. Let’s get hypothetical for a moment:

            You are in court, charged with hiding personal footage of a hit-and-run that occurred outside your house. You did so because the footage also contains your children toweling themselves off after a bath, and you were resultant to provide this to strangers, especially when there were numerous other witnesses to the event and a metric vaj-load of physical evidence. However, it is asserted that you hid this footage to hide the fact that YOU are the guilty individual.

            Sound reasonable? Do you think you should be convicted in such a case?

            Exactly. You are trying to bias the case based on nothing more than your own ideology, to the extent that you are willing to ignore any amount of contradictory data and lie about whatever you can. Your opinion is invalid by default.

            You’ve got NOTHING, Gulfy. Nothing but logical fallacies and outright falsehoods.

        • Tom Frederick

          You Bet it’s strange , Christ J may be a government employee , Its all about disinformation , post and promotes some really stupid theories’ in an effort to make all who question look stupid.
          After voting against the war in Iraq , and voting against the Homeland security act , he voted For and investigation into 9/11 Senator Wellstones Plane crashed and he was killed (Oct 2002 )
          After voting for an investigation into 9/11 and stating there would be fair trials for those involved Senators Tom Dashle and Pat leahy both received ANTHRAX in the mail which was linked to a military facility.
          Susan Lindauer A CIA operative, after asking to testify in front of congress became the first presentation and had person to be arrested under the homeland security act . She was detained for a year without representation and a 10 year gag order was placed on her after release , she has a VERY compelling story to tell.
          Sibel Edmonds FBI was fired after exposing deliberate translation errors were exposed. J Micheal Springman testifies that he was forced to give VISAs to the terrorist’s by the CIA.
          Indira Singh FBI, Testifies that after she exposed the money trail she was fired .
          6 of the 10 people on the 9/11 commission wanted charges filed and said the commission was set up to fail.
          There is a Lt. Col whos name alludes me at the moment , says he personally knew the pilot who shot down flight 93.
          Richard Andrew Grove , Willaim Bergman , Colleen Rowley Robert Wright and many, many others have very compelling stories to tell , these are not some back woods inbreads mouthing off they are people with very good credentials.
          If you really want to know the truth you need to listen to these stories .
          I for a moment was , white washed by Christ J , he is very good at disinformation , well trained at eluding the truth and convincing others he is right .
          I tend to believe the overwhelming stories of whistleblower’s , and there would be many more if there were no fear of retaliation.
          For those who don’t believe this was a conspiracy , I feel sorry for you , and I fear what influence your ignorance puts on our freedoms , the U.S. is in peril.

          • Christ J

            Grow up, Tommy. I have been nothing but amiable in encouraging you to check EVERYTHING I have said, yet you have refused to do even the slightest bit of research. You are – just like Gulfy – absolutely terrified of being proven wrong, so you simply refuse to ever put your claims to the test. Just look at how desperate you are to agree with the irrelevant, dishonest, demonstrably-false claims of Gulfy above. These are the EXACT same claims you posted to me, and which have been thoroughly refuted. You seem to be under the illusion that they are now valid again just because someone else posted them – presumably having plagiarized them from the same forums as you bought them from.

            Every single feature of these attacks that you have cited has been immediately refuted using nothing but irrefutable evidence, yet you STILL refuse to accept that you are wrong. You have nothing left, Tom – NOTHING. Every scrap of data you have mentioned has been revealed as erroneous. Every. Single. Time.

            “I for a moment was , white washed by Christ J , he is very good at disinformation , well trained at eluding the truth and convincing others he is right .”

            - what a pile of crap. I have packed this page with scientific data and rigid, long-established mathematical formulae. The “disinformation” you refer to is non-existent. It is nothing more than your attempt to wave away Newtonian physics because it disagrees with what you want to think happened.

            Word of advice – if your claims are in disagreement with Newtonian physics, they are WRONG. Simple as that.

            “I tend to believe the overwhelming stories of whistleblower’s ”

            - you don’t say…

            We already know, Tommy. We know that you WANT to believe their crap so desperately that you will gleefully gulp down anything they feel like jamming between your jaws. We know that you have no intention of ever actually testing their claims against the evidence for fear of proving that they are either mistaken or lying. And we know that your entire basis for these beliefs are an untenable over-reliance on a form of evidence that has been known to be inadequate for the last half-century. A few witnesses say they heard “explosions”, whereas the video footage shows that none occurred. You, disgustingly, decide that the video is wrong and that the indisputably-malleable human memory is right.

            Here’s something to consider:

            Imagine you are in court. I have accused you of raping one of your children, and claimed that I witnessed this crime myself. You, on the other hand, deny this charge and point to CCTV footage of yourself taken from the EXACT time this crime supposedly took place as indisputable proof that you were not even in the presence of your child at that time.

            By YOUR reasoning, you would insist that you be found guilty. You have argued that the 9/11 witnesses must be considered more reliable than LIVE video footage, so you are forced to do the same in your own case. Do you agree with this?

            Like hell you do. Know what that means? It means you are radically altering the burden of proof to favour YOUR claims, which is untenable.

            You are a liar to your core. Which is probably why you find the “truth” cult so appealing. Great minds think alike, so I can only assume that criminally-inept minds do too.

            I – and a few other posters on this page – have DESTROYED your claims, Tom. We have proven that you have no valid basis for your religious beliefs, and no amount of like-minded liars will alter that fact. You are wrong. If you choose to accept that error and look into the REAL facts of these events then you will gradually morph into a valuable human being. As things stand, however, you aren’t worth enough to balance out the carbon you add to the atmosphere when you breathe.

          • They must pay you by the word, considering the length of your rantings. And not that I give NIST any credibility at all, your refusal, or ignorance of what their FINAL report says blows your attempt to convince the minority of gringos that don’t suspect a crime by government that you have a clue. Again, what you said is ‘impossible’ is ‘explained’ by NIST as follows.

            NIST WTC7 FINAL – 1A Report 1-29-09_FINALREV

            “The observed descent time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time.

            A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s, and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below.”

            So NIST disagrees with your wild conspiracy theory, and so does anyone that’s taken any time examining what’s known. Are you doing this for money or are you as thick as you seem?

          • Tom Frederick

            As always you fill the page with ramblings , addressing none of what I said , I see nothing anywhere which pertains to what I wrote nor do I see someone else posting the same thing , I don’t just quit looking because you seem to have it all solved, I continued my search for the truth and came to those conclusions on my own,
            The facts are very clear to me , Too many credible people with compelling stories which make you look VERY stupid.
            None of those stories have been proven to be a lie , NONE.
            Just like all the other Debunkers you evade the details for which you have no explanation , and revert back to your mumbo jumbo math crap..There are just as many people who refute your claims as there are people who refute mine .So who is right ? You are of course, your ego centric simple mind cant see the truth , because its all clogged up with the programming you received in collage. OR maybe your a savant .
            I feel sorry or you.

          • Tom Frederick

            I said nothing about any footage ,How do you have video footage on a CIA operative of FBI whistleblower ? What the hell are you rambling on about ??? AVOIDING the truth that’s what . So you say all these people with information which proves all this was know in advance and helped along by our government are lyre’s.
            I didn’t say nothing hit the buildings EVER !!!! Im not a no planner , Im saying it was orchestrated by THE UNITED STATES ,,,someone within, maybe Bush didn’t know , hes a bumbling idiot anyway ,which is why it was easy to work around him. He even stated on video he was concerned it may be another conspiracy ,maybe he also was blindsided.
            Anyway your ramblings are getting pretty sickening and there is no point in wasting time.

          • Tom

            oh and by the way I have contributed more to this world than you ever will , The real world , not your city s of people fighting to get ahead and make more money and going about your little ant like mundane life , I create , I live free , I contribute to life by planting thousands of trees , flowers , and art is immortality.
            So get your facts straight before trying to belittle someone .

          • Tom Frederick

            Where did you see me saying anything in this thread to what you are referring.???
            I see nowhere where someone has stated what I did, I see no response from you to what I posted , only going back to other postings which seem to be more comfortable for you.
            I continued my research , I dint just stop looking based on your reply’s I found more information and came to the conclusion on my own that I BELEIVE the whistleblowers ,The high level people with compelling stories , You tell me where they have been proven to be lies.

          • Christ J

            Tom, YOU are the one who is veering off-topic. Scroll up through your ravings and my concise explanations and you’ll note that this thread is about the impact physics of the planes, not whatever unverified, untenable, unscientific claim you have resorted to in a futile attempt to salvage your religion. And, best of all, this is YOUR thread. YOU started this discussion of the physics, and now – having been utterly decimated using nothing but irrefutable scientific fact – you have tried to change the subject.

            “Too many credible people with compelling stories which make you look VERY stupid.”

            - do you know the difference between a “story” and “evidence”? I know that probably sounds sarcastic to some, but that genuinely isn’t the intent. I honestly think that you are not sure of the difference between these two disparate concepts. The garden of Eden is a “story”, whereas evolution is where the “evidence” leads. Just as “demolition” is the story whereas fire and impact damage is what the evidence says caused those collapses. The fact that you are unable to argue that fact is the reason you have retreated to the comfort of your religion without ever actually engaging with the evidence at hand.

            “Just like all the other Debunkers you evade the details for which you have no explanation”

            - I have dealt with EVERYTHING you have uttered that is relevant to this topic. We will NOT discuss the subsequent wars, because they have nothing to do with the subject YOU raised when YOU started this thread. Comprende? I have explained EVERYTHING that you have uttered, and I have done so scientifically. I have given you sufficient credit to have thought you capable of doing a minimal amount of HONEST research yourself, whereas all you have done is ran to your favourite “truth”er priests to ask for other things to mention in the hope that I will forget that you have been soundly refuted.

            You have offered details, and I have dealt with each one. You sure as hell haven’t liked the answers, but I really couldn’t care less about that. If you’re too terrified to follow where the evidence leads then that’s for your pitiful conscience to live with. All I care about is ensuring that your dishonesty is presented here, for anyone to readily observe. I am happy for subsequent readers to see that everything you have tried to raise to defend your dogma has been revealed to be either grossly distorted or outright false. Hell, I even provided you with photos of the Pentagon impact, only for you to refuse to see what they clearly show.

            No matter how much you WANT to believe this crap, it will never be true. You are wrong, and ALL the evidence attests to that.

            “mumbo jumbo math crap”

            - says it all, really…

            “There are just as many people who refute your claims as there are people who refute mine ”

            - well, first of all, I VEHEMENTLY disagree with THAT. Secondly, there is a world of difference between refuting something and merely saying that you don’t believe it. Taking the aforementioned example, you stated that you still didn’t believe that actual photos showed a >100″ impact wound to the Pentagon, yet this is not a refutation – this was simply you saying “nope. Don’t believe it” before wedging your fingers in your ears and running away. The image itself is a flawless refutation of YOUR claims because it shows the exact extent of the impact damage, and it can be clearly observed that this is between 100-120″ across.

            THAT is a refutation. All you and your fellow mentally-ill individuals ever offer is personal incredulity.

            “your ego centric simple mind cant see the truth , because its all clogged up with the programming you received in collage. OR maybe your a savant .
            I feel sorry or you.”

            - okay, let’s test you: have you EVER – at ANY time – properly analysed the claims made by your priests? Tell you what – link me to one of the sites you consider informative and/or accurate and I’ll pick out a few of their claims. Then you can pick one from that shortlist and we’ll go into excruciating detail in order to determine whether you have come to an INFORMED decision or whether you have merely learned to repeat what they have told you.

            Are you brave enough to test them, or will you flee at the first hint of disproof?

            “So you say all these people with information which proves all this was know in advance and helped along by our government are lyre’s.”

            - and YOU are automatically dismissing anyone who disagrees with YOU, so what exactly are you trying to imply? Are you trying to portray yourself as the moral victor here? Are you trying to pretend you have taken the high road? Well, drag your ego out of the clouds, princess, because you are entirely guilty of the actions you have just projected onto me.

            Just so we’re clear, I dismiss your sources because their claims are directly contradicted by irrefutable evidence. I reject any claim of explosions because there are none on either the seismic data or the collapse footage – from ANY angle. Anyone who says they heard explosions was mistaken, and it is up to YOU to prove that they are not, because YOU are making a positive claim. I am under no obligation to prove a negative, in spite of the fact that I have already done so.

            “I have contributed more to this world than you ever will ”

            - you think so? Well, I’m a geneticist. I, and my peers, are permanently engaged in solving those trivial little puzzles like “how can we cure X?”. When someone finally cures cancer it will be one of us who does it – probably via a viral vector, and probably by developing something resembling a release factor which preferentially binds to telomerase mRNA sequences. People like me scoured the world of smallpox, and are constantly doing the same with polio, HIV, etc. But sure, keep planting your flowers in order to convince yourself that you’re better than me. I hope it gives you the nice, warm glow you get when your fellow liars pat you on the back for “waking up”, so that eventually you’ll be able to loosen your dependence on those amoral con-artists and start to actually USE that collection of synapses you were lucky enough to be born with.

            “So get your facts straight before trying to belittle someone .”

            (raises eyebrow)

            “The high level people with compelling stories , You tell me where they have been proven to be lies.”

            - okie-dokie. Pick one and we’ll go into their tall tale in detail (pun intended).

            In fact, let’s kill two birds with one comment:

            1) do you think that eyewitness reports of explosions in the WTC towers are accurate? Explain your answer, using references if necessary.

            2) what do you think hit the Pentagon? Again, explain your answer, using references if necessary.

            3) do you think it is physically possible for impact damage and fire to have INITIATED the WTC collapses? Explain and reference.

            4) do you think that a single-floor collapse – irrespective of the mechanism – could have resulted in a global collapse of those towers? Explain and reference.

            No more “stories”. Just deal with the data. Answer those questions using NOTHING but the available data, such as the live news footage and the photographic record. OBJECITVE sources are preferred, and subjective sources MUST be supported and corroborated by objective sources.

            Let’s see what you can come up with. I’m genuinely interested to see whether you fall back on the stuff you have already had debunked out of existence…

          • tom

            Again ,you never address the people I mentioned ,they are not people who hear bombs,you are not listening,…
            Ya whatever you think, people like you are destroying the world ,Monsanto has geneticists on its payroll thank God we have GMO to deal with now,your conception of what makes a person better than another is clearly fogged by your inability to see past your vanity.
            You still evade the facts ,people can be convicted on circumstantial evidence,and there is plenty.
            Your a waist of my time, going to plant flowers.and live ‘

          • tom

            Pentagon hole- Major General Albert Stubblebine ,who’s job it was to analyze photos for the military ,Says he analyzed that photo ,measured and reanalyzed it ,Says it wasn’t a 757.
            Explosions – since you give so much credit to video footage,I have seen lots of footage of explosions at WTC ,flashes ,,, ,,ripples,squibs,propelled steel beams, ,,,, ,pyroclastic flow.
            Your videos show smoldering fires,no plane at pent. But you hold them sacret.
            Get real

          • Christ J

            “Pentagon hole- Major General Albert Stubblebine ,who’s job it was to analyze photos for the military ,Says he analyzed that photo ,measured and reanalyzed it ,Says it wasn’t a 757.”

            - prove it. Post a link to his analysis. You won’t, because it doesn’t exist. You’ll never find anything more than I just did, which is this:

            ““Well there was something wrong. And, so I analyzed it not just photographically, I did measurements… I checked the plane, the length of the nose, where the wings were… I took measurements of the Pentagon – the depth of the destruction in the Pentagon.”

            [...]

            Conclusion: airplane did not make that hole.”

            - so where is it? Where is this photographic and physical analysis? WHERE IS HIS WORK?!?!?!

            I am under no obligation to accept the unsupported claims of ANYONE, so unless this man decides that this analysis should be presented for peer-review your claims have absolutely no basis in reality.

            Either find some ACTUAL evidence or give up, because merely citing someone saying “X happened because I say so” is absolutely ridiculous. Stubblebine constantly asserts that he analysed that damage, yet he refuses to ever show anyone those results. He’s had thirteen years to present his work, yet he has never deemed it worthy of presentation.

            Tell you what: let’s play this by YOUR rules. I have just performed a detailed photographic analysis of the Pentagon damage, and I have concluded that the damage is consistent ONLY with impact of a Boeing 757.

            There. Now you have two directly contrasting claims with the exact same amount of evidence to back up each one – i.e. nothing. So what are you going to do now, Tommy-boy? How are you going to decide which of these equally-valid claims is correct? Are you going to look at the source I demanded that you look at a few days ago – the one that conclusively proves that the damage is consistent only with a large jet?

            Like hell you are. You’ll just assume that whichever account best fits your predetermined view is correct and ignore anything that contests it.

            “Explosions – since you give so much credit to video footage,I[sic] have seen lots of footage of explosions at WTC ,”

            - so why can’t you cite any? If this footage is so easy to find why are you incapable of calling upon it when required to defend your beliefs from this devastating refutation? Why is it that you have consistently refused to provide the footage that you have equally-consistently asserted exists?

            “I can show you video proof that aliens destroyed the WTC, but I’m going to evade actually linking you to the footage indefinitely” – does that sound logical to you? Well, that’s exactly what you’re doing, sunshine. Insisting that you have evidence while simultaneously refusing to show it. I’ll accept this as a tacit admission that you have no such evidence and that you are lying to try to save your religious beliefs.

            “You still evade the facts ,people can be convicted on circumstantial evidence,and[sic] there is plenty.”

            - indeed they can – so long as it is valid. What NEVER happens is that people are convicted based entirely on what a coupe of witnesses say when those witnesses are directly contradicted by more reliable forms of evidence.

            For example, if someone goes missing, then their disappearance can be treated as murder if certain blood spatter patterns are found containing their DNA. This is because certain patterns indicate profuse bleeding, which will result in death if not treated. The fact that this person has not subsequently been admitted to a hospital for emergency treatment is sufficient to make it highly likely that they are now dead, and the last people who can be reliably placed in their company are now prime murder suspects. They are the prime suspects because they are the last people who are known to have been in a position to have caused the fatal bleeding.

            THAT is circumstantial evidence. Physical traces, logical deduction (concerning the prime suspects), and verified facts (the severity of the bleeding) are all used to construct a plausible sequence of events that fits the known facts better than any other.

            However, in YOUR case, you have not come remotely close to achieving anything close to this. You have no physical evidence of ANY kind, your claims are actively contradicted by irrefutable video evidence (which is why you’ll refuse to link me to those videoed “explosions” again), and you are required to falsely dismiss at-least-equally viable explanations in order to delude yourself into thinking that you have a plausible case.

            Prove me wrong, Tom. Link me to video footage of explosions. Provide me with a link to Stubblebine’s analysis of the Pentagon impact. Provide me with a rigid mathematical proof that shows that Newtonian physics prevents impact damage and fires from causing the WTC collapses.

            Or, alternatively, shut up. If you can’t cite evidence then no amount of evangelizing will make your rabid screams more coherent. Without scientific data to support your claims they are no more valid than the notion that we are all figments of an aliens’ imagination.

            “Monsanto has geneticists on its payroll ”

            - so does every medical research facility in the world. Are you trying to claim that everyone in my profession is inherently evil because of the distasteful business practices of ONE company? Are you trying to claim that gene therapy must be abandoned because Monsanto may prevent farmers from re-using seeds (which, incidentally, they never even implemented)?

            In fact, judging by your hand-waving, I bet you haven’t the slightest clue why you are so opposed to Monsanto. I bet you have no idea what they have been attacked for, and what they have done that is laudable. You have merely heard your priests tell you to despise this company, so you have obediently done so.

            You evidently have no moral compass.

            Seriously, Tommy, don’t bother replying if you aren’t going to either cite evidence or make a SPECIFIC claim. I’m not going to review an entire account and how it relates to other accounts just because you throw out a name or two, nor am I going to do the research that YOU should already have done. Take one of your (non-)points and go into detail, preferably with links, and try to make a decent case for its veracity. You’ll fail, but at least you’ll gain some knowledge of how scientific investigation works.

          • Christ J

            Oh good – Gulfy’s back:

            “They must pay you by the word, considering the length of your rantings[sic]”

            - by a wide margin, the longest comment here is yours. This would suggest that – by your own logic – you are being paid to shill for those whose opinions you mindlessly repeat.

            It’s funny that “truth”ers are so obsessed with how much people are paid to emphatically refute them. It’s almost as if they think this somehow makes al that nasty, horrible, inconvenient science go away…

            “So NIST disagrees with your wild conspiracy theory, ”

            - nope, and no matter how often you insist otherwise you will never be right about this. They explicitly stated that there was a period of “essentially free fall”, and they made this distinction because, while ACTUAL freefall is impossible under ANY circumstances, the observed rate was sufficiently close to it for it to be thought of as freefall.

            THAT is a fact beyond refute, because it is perfectly consistent with EVERYTHING.

            If you continue to insist that freefall acceleration occurred then you are automatically arguing that the collapse never took place, because EXACTLY freefall acceleration is impossible under any circumstances in the universe. Or, you can be somewhat sensible about this and accept that the NIST never predicted that sub-moronic, career-liars would be so keen to brazenly misrepresent their data in order to sell people a worldview. Naïve, maybe…

            “and so does anyone that’s taken any time examining what’s known.”

            - anyone who has taken the time to look into this knows that freefall acceleration is a physical impossibility through ANY atmosphere. And you are arguing about this…

            Incidentally, try actually READING their reports:

            “A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors”

            - see that? Now look at the acceleration rate for this stage (Stage 1). It INCREASES, and ends up fractionally below the acceleration rate observed in stage 2. What does this suggest to you? Why do you think the rate of acceleration increased up to the point where it was physically impossible for it to increase further?

            Explain IN DETAIL, with references. Show us all that you’ve “taken any time examining what’s known.”…

          • Tom

            I think Jesus maybe stopped running at the mouth , maybe some virus he created finally caught him .
            Anyway , to all those out there with doubts like me , Keep reading various site and listening to all the testimonies , not just of people on site but to those high level people who can show there was for knowledge and help by the U.S. Government , even if we cant prove all the things jesus keeps coughing up , there is plenty of circumstantial evidence which should at least be heard and reviewed by a court and jury of our peers.
            let them have their Geneticist in the jury , This guy in previous thread says things like Fireman have no expertise in physics so their testimony is irrelevant but yet being a Geneticist somehow makes him an expert in every field .
            Its really funny to read the ramblings of a convoluted society drone. At least enjoy that humor.
            .

          • tom

            Your statement about you two making the same measurements and coming to different conclusions is childlike ,you see , he was trained for that very purpose ,you were not.
            Is that so hard to fiqure out.
            I just keep going here because people will be able to see your humorous rantings and avoidance of facts.This only helps people see what the real truth is.
            Your mission is disinformation , and we can all see that clear as day ,so the more you print the better.
            It’s very fun.

          • Christ J

            “Your statement about you two making the same measurements and coming to different conclusions is childlike ,you see , he was trained for that very purpose ,you were not.”

            - the Argument from (perceived) Authority is a logical fallacy, making it an invalid argument.

            Furthermore, if he really is qualified to do such work then he is also trained to present his data in peer-review format so that it can be assessed by his peers – you know, OTHER people who ARE qualified. So why has he refused to do so? What is he hiding?

            The simple fact is that the photos of the impact damage show a 120-foot gash across the lower edge of the Pentagon façade. Yet Stubblebine – your supposed “expert” – is an advocate of the “missile” hypothesis. He is claiming – as are you, now that I have provided you with those detailed photos on several occasions – that a missile caused damage that is ONLY consistent with a significant wingspan. And that’s without even mentioning the convoluted flight path required for this fictitious missile to have hit each of the damaged light poles…

            Furthermore, I reject your attempt to misrepresent his expertise on the basis of his ACTUAL qualifications:

            “Stubblebine graduated from the United States Military Academy and received a Masters degree in Chemical Engineering from Columbia University”

            - know what that entails? No? Then read this:

            “Chemical engineering is a branch of engineering that applies the natural (or experimental) sciences (e.g. chemistry and physics) and life sciences (e.g. biology, microbiology and biochemistry) together with mathematics and economics to produce, transform, transport, and properly use chemicals, materials and energy. ”

            - does any of this sound relevant to the physics involved in an imbalanced impact featuring volatile and ignitable substances? I see no significant crossover whatsoever. In fact, I’m willing to bet that my chemistry-heavy course was superior to his in terms of the relevant combustion mechanics, and I know fully well that I have every bit as good an understanding of the relevant physics, as I have been trying to cram these simple concepts through your skull for the last few comments.

            Stubblebine is no more valid a source than I, or the one I have cited on this page. And, in fact, he is LESS valid by virtue of his untenable refusal to present his calculations for analysis. As far as I’m concerned he has never even attempted to determine what happened, and is merely proffering his uninformed opinion based on the same dogmatic ignorance as the rest of you lunatics. Until he provides the academic community with his workings his opinion is worthless, and that is an irrefutable fact that I have already justified with evidence of my own.

            Suck on THAT.

            One more note on Stubblebine: he is borderline insane.

            “Stubblebine was involved in a U.S. Military project to create “a breed of ‘super soldier’” who would “have the ability to become invisible at will and to walk through walls”. Stubblebine reportedly attempted to walk through walls himself”

            - that’s right: your treasured “expert” is sufficiently ignorant of basic fundamental physics to have no idea how quantum electrodynamics works. This is a man who thought he could walk clean through a solid wall, and YOU are trying to present him as an authoritative source.

            “I just keep going here because people will be able to see your humorous rantings[sic] and avoidance of facts”

            - it’s cute that you actually believe that, because what they will note from these comments is that you merely throw out a name or two and leave the rest to flagrant obfuscation. I, on the other hand, have taken those scant, ambiguous mentions and systematically torn them to shreds, revealing them for the indefensible crap that they are.

            Stubblebine says a missile hit the Pentagon, whereas I have provided an indisputable source that proves that whatever hit the building had a wingspan of AT LEAST 120 feet, and that’s without even taking leverage into account. Stubblebine was refuted the instant I cited this page:

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

            - because it renders his claims incorrect instantly. I have dealt with your claims in more detail than you will have wanted, and I have proven them to be devastating to your claims.

            “Your mission is disinformation , and we can all see that clear as day ,so the more you print the better.”

            - on the latter point, I agree completely. Every single reply makes our respective accuracy ever clearer. What’s amusing is that you have consistently had to point out how inaccurate you want to think I have been, whereas I am content to let the evidence we have cited speak for itself. You have cited nothing, and I have not only cited plenty to support me, but I have thoroughly destroyed every case you have been unintelligent enough to make a specific claim about. No wonder you are so determined to avoid giving me any details to analyse…

          • Christ J

            To anyone who is thinking of following Tom’s advice:

            ” to all those out there with doubts like me , Keep reading various site and listening to all the testimonies ”

            - then the FIRST thing you should be doing is looking into the research into eyewitness testimony from people like Loftus and Palmer, Loftus, Munsterberg, etc., and look into things like false memories, schemas, confirmation bias, selection bias and a few other example effects.

            Then, when you have a decent idea of how malleable and unreliable eyewitnesses testimony is, you can compare Tommy’s favourite accounts to what the OBJECTIVE physical evidence says. If the accounts do not match the physical evidence then they are wrong, and that’s a fact.

            So, how well do they hold up…?

            “This guy[me] in previous thread says things like Fireman have no expertise in physics so their testimony is irrelevant but yet being a Geneticist somehow makes him an expert in every field .”

            - I have never claimed that my Genetics degree makes me an expert in this field(s), I merely mentioned it because it DOES make me an expert in some relevant fields, such as chemistry. I know, for example, that the collapses are absolutely impossible to explain unless they were the result of GRADUAL heating, and the only plausible mechanism is prolonged exposure to fires. I am an expert in those fields, and they are directly applicable.

            Likewise, I am sufficiently well-acquainted with visual analysis to be able to look at an image and see what is there. When looking at the Pentagon damage I can see that the impact damage extends across ~120 feet of the façade, whereas your only source has refused to look at those images and has done nothing more than make a claim that is instantly refuted by the images alone.

            Firemen have no relevant experience in metallurgy, which means they have no right to claim that a certain substance is of a specific chemical composition. They are also not a reliable source for people trying to provide evidence of “explosions” because they are physically incapable of discerning between the pressure waves created by explosions and impacting objects. Anyone who tells you that they are capable of telling these effects apart from an aural analysis alone is lying to you – and possibly to themselves.

            In short, I have some expertise in RELEVANT fields, whereas not a single one of those firemen has ANY physics or chemistry qualifications. Furthermore, I am not the one claiming something that is physically impossible, whereas those people who are trying to claim that they heard “explosions” ARE claiming the impossible. No human on the planet can discern the mechanism behind pressure waves from the sound it makes, so they are either grossly dogmatic or outright liars.

            I notice that your last few posts have been entirely devoid of any relevant data. I assume this is due to the fact that every time you post something specific I am able to demolish it with no more than a couple of minutes with a search engine and the good eye for detail that you have fraudulently assigned to yourself. If you have no evidence to offer then why are you hear, Tom? Whose ideas are you trying to advertise? What are you selling, Tom? Are you selling nukes? “Directed energy weapons”? Thermite? You clearly aren’t here to discuss the facts because you have shown with your last few comments that you are content to ignore them entirely, so who are you shilling for?

          • Tom

            Because I am not TRYING to convince ANYONE , I don’t try to explain , I just give information , and let people make their own conclusion’s and do their own research .
            You on the other hand try your Damndist to convince people you are right on all accounts , and mostly you just explain them away because you say so .
            You go back and fourth , on some occasions testimony is relevant and on others its not , on some occasions photos are relevant other times not, Sometimes math is relevant other times not, for you its only right if it explains your side of the story , If you read back you can see for yourself how many times you flip flopped ,Its actually Hilarious how blind you are as to your own incompetence.
            You think long drawn out explanations which consist 40 % belittling others is an actual portfolio of truth.
            Your amazingly ignorant for such a bright guy, But thats how smart people are absolutely no common sense , if a book doesn’t say it or tell them how to do it , it cant be done..
            At all different stages of life scientists have had very ignorant claims , like when the car was invented they said humans could not stand going past 20 miles per hour , they said the universe rotated around the earth ,They miscalculated the Bikini island bomb by 100 times , they said we could not fly , they said we could not reach the moon , so on and so on .You see , they are not so smart after all ,
            .

          • Christ J

            “I don’t try to explain , I just give information , and let people make their own conclusion’s and do their own research .”

            - no, you don’t. You try to nudge them towards sources that are in agreement with you, which is why you are so desperate for them to focus on “compelling accounts” rather than ACTUAL physical evidence. You would rather people went through the same indoctrination as you, and in order to secure more cult members you are willing to compel them to ignore ALL the evidence.

            This kind of activity is actually banned from courtrooms – did you know that? It’s called “leading statements”, and it has been banned since shortly after it was discovered that it can actively alter someone’s recollection, rendering their testimony useless as a result. YOU, Tommy, are trying to mislead others, and you are also trying to hide the real evidence from them in the process. This is why you have refused to address the photographic evidence I have cited on numerous separate occasions. You’re scared of them realizing that you’re lying to them, so you are trying to whitewash over the data in the hope that you can brainwash them before they get a little too curious.

            You are a liar to your core.

            “You on the other hand try your Damndist[sic] to convince people you are right on all accounts , and mostly you just explain them away because you say so ”

            - not even close. If I was trying to argue from authority I wouldn’t provide links to back up my statements. I am right, and I am perpetually intent on proving it by providing people with my source data. YOU, on the other hand, have yet to cite a single source that supports your claims. And we all know why, don’t we? It’s because you don’t have any. Your “evidence” is second-hand, having been first filtered through a series of equally-amoral liars before reaching you, whereupon it has been purified of all those ugly, inconvenient facts.

            This is precisely why your claims collapse every time I analyse them in even a minor amount of detail: they have been distorted, rearranged and overwritten before they reached you, and you – like a good little sheep – have gulped it down immediately because it tells you what you want to hear. It allows you to think that you’ve figured something out, when all you’ve actually done is FAILED to work something out.

            So, test me. Post ONE LINK to one of your sources – making sure it is actually relevant to this thread – and we’ll see if those claims can withstand honest inquiry. After all, the only valid reason for your refusal to undertake such a trivial exercise would be to hide the fact that you’re wrong, so I really don’t see any rational reason for you refusing this offer…

            “on some occasions testimony is relevant and on others its not”

            - testimony is only EVER relevant when it is supported by physical evidence, or some other means of OBJECTIVE data. For example, the fact that the collapses initiated when the fires weakened the perimeter columns and trusses to a certain critical point is beyond refute, because we watched it happen and recorded it on an objective medium:

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

            - take a VERY close loo at that Gif. That is a GRADUAL bowing of steel caused by PROLONGED exposure to a heat source.

            Now, try to find me an example of a prolonged heat source that is capable of doing that ASIDE FROM FIRE…

            “on some occasions photos are relevant other times not,”

            - I have NEVER said that photographic evidence is irrelevant. Ever. You are a liar, and this statement is libelous. If you continue to make claims about my statements – which are freely available on this page for everyone to check for themselves – then I will report you to the admins and your posts will be deleted. You are deliberately lying about what I have said.

            “Sometimes math is relevant other times not, for you its only right if it explains your side of the story”

            - go on then: find me ONE instance of mathematical application that I have referred to as “[not] relevant”. I have NEVER said that, nor would I ever do so. I don’t NEED to, because the maths agrees with me, as I have proven on this page.

            “If you read back you can see for yourself how many times you flip flopped ,Its actually Hilarious how blind you are as to your own incompetence.”

            - I haven’t, so yet more slander/libel. If you have to resort to using ad hominem attacks that are FICTITIOUS then you truly have nothing valid to say on this topic.

            You have access to every single one of my replies to you by doing nothing more taxing than scrolling through this very page. If you can’t cite an example of me contradicting myself then you are, once again, inventing fictitious traits in an attempt to hide the fact that you have nothing valid to contribute to this topic.

            “Your amazingly ignorant for such a bright guy, But that’s[sic] how smart people are absolutely no common sense , if a book doesn’t say it or tell them how to do it , it cant be done.”

            - aaawwwww: because poor-little-Tommy can’t figure out those horrid “book” things he has to belittle those who are capable of learning from them.

            You’re a bad joke. You can’t even argue on-topic anymore, such is the extent of your delusion.

          • tom

            Hope you all look at his So called evidence , and all other evidence , I never said to only look at what I told you to look at ,,look at it all EVERYTHING you can find ,both sides, I looked at both sides and its OVERWHELMINGLY tipped the questionable side.
            Christ J is the one that will not look at anything else he just automatically refutes it.
            When I say ,I see pictures of flashes ,ripples ,squish , he says photos are not valid,but when he argues his point he always refers to THE PHOTOS ,somehow they are valid for him but not others.
            If you look back in the threads you can see for yourself,he only addresaes some things and just ignores others ,just like the 9/11 commission did , just skip over the things you can’t explain and keep repeating the same old thing over and over and over , trying to program you like he is ,brain washed ,
            Plain and simple , he’s an outright liar.
            Take notes as you read , you will see how he goes back and fourth .

          • Christ J

            “Hope you all look at his So called evidence , and all other evidence , I never said to only look at what I told you to look at ,,look at it all EVERYTHING you can find ,both sides,”

            - you may not have explicitly said to ONLY look at your sources, but you certainly suggested that only your preferred accounts were reliable. Scroll up and you’ll find this:

            “to all those out there with doubts like me , Keep reading various site and listening to all the testimonies , not just of people on site but to those high level people who can show there was for knowledge and help by the U.S. Government ,”

            - posted by you, in a comment dated August 20. “listen[ing] to all the testimonies”, not “look at the physical evidence”, or “watch the footage”, or even” look into the physical principles behind X features”. None of that trivial stuff. You want people to listen only to “testimonies”. And on top of that, you actually stated that you want them to pay specific attention to “those high level[sic] people who can show there was for knowledge[sic] and help by the US Government[sic]“. At no point do you suggest that these testimonies be scrutinized, and at no point do you demand that they be compared to OBJECTIVE data in order to verify them. Instead, you want these favourable accounts to be accepted verbatim, purely because they happen to support your claims.

            Is Stubblebine one of those “high-level people” you want them to listen to? Because I have left his claims in tatters in my last couple of comments by doing nothing more than pointing out that he has refused to present evidence and wants everyone to accept his claims without any proof, just as you are demanding.

            Now, do you see what I’ve done there? I have taken your most recent assertion and provided a previous comment in order to prove that my comments were correct. I want you to bear that in mind, because you have repeatedly accused me of caprice without ever actually quoting me, so now you know exactly how to do so. Simply scroll up a wee bit and pick out the sections that you think are mutually inconsistent. Not that difficult, is it?

            If you refuse to justify your prior lies this time then I will accept it as an admission that you know you are incorrect, and that you are thus engaging in wilful acts of slander.

            ” When I say ,I see pictures of flashes ,ripples ,squish , he says photos are not valid,but when he argues his point he always refers to THE PHOTOS ,somehow they are valid for him but not others.”

            - you’re a liar. I have asked you to PROVIDE those photos EVERY TIME YOU HAVE MENTIONED THEM. You have refused, so my only viable conclusion is that they do not exist and that you are lying about them – which is pretty much your MO, isn’t it?

            Post a link to those photos and I will look into whether they actually support your claims. Under NO circumstances am I going to let you make a claim without providing evidence for it, so just grow up for a second and post the damn links. Further refusal will be accepted as evidence that you are unable to do so because those photos do not exist.

            ” If you look back in the threads you can see for yourself,he[sic] only addresaes[sic] some things and just ignores others ,just[sic] like the 9/11 commission did ,[sic]”

            I have only avoided those sections which are off-topic. If you want to discuss them as well then pop up to the top of this page and START A NEW THREAD. Is that really so difficult? All I am doing is preventing you from changing the subject and derailing a thread whenever you have a claim thoroughly refuted – which is pretty frequent – so you can either stick to the topic of this thread or start a new one for a different subject.

            Do we think we can manage that, Tommy…?

            “Take notes as you read , you will see how he goes back and fourth ”

            - if you’re taking notes then it should be all too easy for you to cite such behavior. After all, I have no way of editing my comments after they are submitted, so I can’t go back and alter them, can I? You therefore have all the data you need to try to justify your illegal accusations. Why, then, are you so terrified of doing it? What are you afraid of, Thomas? Are you scared of everyone finding out that you are making false accusations? The moderators seem to think this is true, as they suggested you have been doing this rather frequently. Or is this about your adorable little ego? Do you have to avoid this simple exercise in sourcework to protect your ego from having to deal with the thought that you may be wrong? Are you so mentally-fragile that you have to perpetually reinforce your delusions of intellectual superiority just to stave off the fact of your sub-mediocrity? Is your ego so heavily dependent on you believing that you are a competent analyst that you have to spend your entire waking life maintaining your wilful delusion?

            That’s a pretty worthless existence you have there, Tommy. Maybe you should go and learn something so you can actually tell yourself that you have some value to society, and this time actually MEAN it. No need for delusions or anything…

          • Tom

            you keep asking me to provide links to my claims , which I have done over and over , the problem is you just ignore them and keep asking for proof , Why dont you address all of what I posted , if you can explain them all away , your right , you cant , I gave you 15 or more names of people with credible information , you picked one and in your opinion discredited him , and somehow that in your mind discredits ALL the other names .
            You keep lying to the people on this site , keep up your evasive tactics , keep rambling on about the same thing over and over , and ignore the facts , we can all see who the liar is .
            If you research the names I provided , there is a clear and indisputable trail of lies , and circumstantial evidence, which all leads to a carefully orchestrated PLOT.
            Of that there is NO doubt .If you keep ignoring these facts , then you are nothing but a LIAR,A manipulator , a con artist ..
            Just connect the dots , its elementary.

    • 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.

      • Thought you might enjoy this little ‘theory’ presented by the guy who’s name’s on the bottom of it. It’s just refreshing and I even got a smile out of it. A refreshing different outlook than those who have made a religion out of a simple, unsolved crime. It’s sorta long, but I figure if the guy took all that time to write it, I could afford the time to read it. Enjoy (hopefully)

        Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event there will usually be at least one, often several, wild conspiracy theories which spring up around it. “The CIA killed Hendrix”, “The Pope had John Lennon murdered “, “Hitler was half Werewolf”, “Space aliens replaced Nixon with a clone”, etc, etc. The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it.

        So it’s hardly surprising that the events of Sept 11 2001 have spawned their fair share of these ludicrous fairy tales. And as always, there is sadly a small but gullible percentage of the population eager to lap up these tall tales, regardless of facts or rational analysis.

        One of the wilder stories circulating about Sept 11, and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs is that it was carried out by 19 fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they “hate our freedoms.”

        Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell. Normally I don’t even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories.

        These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush regime was caught unawares by the attacks, had no hand in organizing them, and actually would have stopped them if it had been able. Blindly ignoring the stand-down of the US Air Force, the insider trading on airline stocks — linked to the CIA, the complicit behavior of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the attacks, the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about 19 Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer 4 planes simultaneously and fly them around US airspace for nearly 2 hours, crashing them into important buildings, without the US intelligence services having any idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do.

        The huge difficulties with such a stupid story force them to invent even more preposturous stories to distract from its core silliness, and thus the tale has escalated into a mythic fantasy of truly gargantuan proportions.

        It’s difficult to apply rational analysis to such unmitigated stupidity, but that is the task which I take on in this article. However, it should be noted that one of the curious characteristics of conspiracy theorists is that they effortlessly change their so-called evidence in response to each aspect which is debunked. As soon as one delusion is unmasked, they simply invent another to replace it, and deny that the first ever existed. Eventually, when they have turned full circle through this endlessly changing fantasy fog , they then re-invent the original delusion and deny that you ever debunked it, thus beginning the circle once more. This technique is known as “the fruit loop” and saves the conspiracy theorist from ever having to see any of their ideas through to their (ill)logical conclusions.

        According to the practitioners of the fruit loop, 19 Arabs took over the 4 planes by subduing the passengers and crew through the use of guns, knives, box cutters and gas, and then used electronic guidance systems which they had smuggled on board to fly the planes to their targets.

        The suspension of disbelief required for this outrageous concoction is only for the hard-core conspiracy theorist. For a start, they conveniently skip over the awkward fact that there weren’t any Arabs on the planes. If there were, one must speculate that they somehow got on board without being filmed by any of the security cameras and without being registered on the passenger lists. But the curly question of how they are supposed to have got on board is all too mundane for the exciting world of the conspiracy theorist. With vague mumblings that they must have been using false ID (but never specifying which IDs they are alleged to have used, or how these were traced to their real identities), they quickly bypass this problem, to relate exciting and sinister tales about how some of the fictitious fiends were actually searched before boarding because they looked suspicious. However, as inevitably happens with any web of lies, this simply paints them into an even more difficult corner. How are they supposed to have got on board with all that stuff if they were searched? And if they used gas in a confined space, they would have been affected themselves unless they also had masks in their luggage.

        “Excuse me sir, why do you have a boxcutter, a gun, a container of gas, a gas mask and an electronic guidance unit in your luggage?” “A present for your grandmother? Very well sir, on you get.” “Very strange”, thinks the security officer. “That’s the fourth Arab man without an Arabic name who just got on board with a knife, gun or boxcutter and gas mask. And why does that security camera keep flicking off every time one of these characters shows up? Must be one of those days I guess…”

        Asking any of these basic questions to a conspiracy theorist is likely to cause a sudden leap to the claim that we know that they were on board because they left a credit card trail for the tickets they had purchased and cars they had rented. So if they used credit cards that identified them, how does that reconcile with the claim that they used false IDs to get on to the plane? But by this time the fruit loop is in full swing, as the conspiracy theorist tries to stay one jump ahead of this annoying and awkward rational analysis. They will allege that the hijackers’ passports were found at the crash scenes. “So there!” they exalt triumphantly, their fanatical faces lighting up with that deranged look of one who has just a revelation of questionable sanity. Hmm? So they got on board with false IDs but took their real passports with them? However, by this time the fruit loop has been completely circumnavigated,and the conspiracy theorist exclaims impatiently, “Who said anything about false IDs? We know what seats they were sitting in! Their presence is well documented!” And so the whole loop starts again. “Well, why aren’t they on the passenger lists?” “You numbskull! They assumed the identities of other passengers!” And so on…

        Finally, out of sheer fascination with this circular method of creative delusion, the rational sceptic will allow them to get away with this loop, in order to move on to the next question, and see what further delights await us in the unraveling of this marvelously stupid story. “Uh, how come their passports survived fiery crashes that completely incinerated the planes and all the passengers? ” The answer of course is that it’s just one of those strange co-incidences, those little quirks of fate that do happen from time to time. You know, like the same person winning the lottery four weeks in a row. The odds are astronomical, but these things do happen…

        This is another favourite deductive method of the conspiracy theorist. The “improbability drive”, in which they decide upon a conclusion without any evidence whatsoever to support it, and then continually speculate a series of wildly improbable events and unbelievable co-incidences to support it, shrugging off the implausibility of each event with the vague assertion that sometimes the impossible happens (just about all the time in their world). There is a principle called “Occam’s Razor” which suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct. Conspiracy theorists hate Occam’s razor.

        Having for the sake of amusement, allowed them to get away with with the silly story of the 19 invisible Arabs, we move on to the question of how they are supposed to have taken over the planes. Hijacking a plane is not an easy thing to do. Hijacking it without the pilot being able to alert ground control is nearly impossible. The pilot has only to punch in a four-digit code to alert ground control to a hijacking. Unconcerned with the awkward question of plausibility, the conspiracy buffs maintain that on that Sept 11, the invisible hijackers took over the plane by the rather crude method of threatening people with boxcutters and knives, and spraying gas (after they had attached their masks, obviously), but somehow took control of the plane without the crew first getting a chance to punch in the hijacking code. Not just on one plane, but on all four. At this point in the tale, the conspiracy theorist is again forced to call upon the services of the improbability drive.

        So now that our incredibly lucky hijackers have taken control of the planes, all four pilots fly them with breath-taking skill and certainty to their fiery end, all four pilots unflinching in their steely resolve for a swift meeting with Allah. Apart from their psychotic hatred of “our freedoms”, it was their fanatical devotion to Islam which enabled them to summon up the iron will to do this. Which is strange, because according to another piece of hearsay peddled by the conspiracy buffs, these guys actually went out drinking and womanizing the night before their great martyrdom, even leaving their Korans in the bar — really impeccable Islamic behavior — and then got up at 5 am the next morning to pull off the greatest covert operation in history. This also requires us to believe that they were even clear-headed enough to learn how to fly the huge planes by reading flight manuals in Arabic in the car on the way to the airport. We know this because they supposedly left the flight manuals there for us to find.

        It gets better. Their practical training had allegedly been limited to Cessnas and flight simulators, but this was no barrier to the unflinching certainty with which they took over the planes and skillfully guided them to their doom. If they are supposed to have done their flight training with these tools, which would be available just about anywhere in the world, it’s not clear why they would have decided to risk blowing their cover to US intelligence services by doing the training in Florida, rather than somewhere in the Middle East, but such reasoning is foreign to the foggy world of the conspiracy theorist, too trapped in the constant rotation of the mental fruit loop to make their unsubstantiated fabrications seem even semi-believable.

        Having triumphantly established a circular delusion in support of the mythical Arabs, the conspiracy theorist now confronts the difficult question of why there’s nothing left of the planes. Anybody who has seen the endlessly-replayed footage of the second plane going into the WTC will realize that the plane was packed with explosives. Planes do not and cannot blow up into nothing in that manner when they crash.

        Did the mythical Arabs also haul a huge heap of explosives on board, and manage to deploy them in such a manner that they went off in the exact instant of the crash, completely vapourizing the plane? This is a little difficult even for the conspiracy theorist, who at this point decides that it’s easier to invent new laws of physics in order to keep the delusion rolling along.

        There weren’t any explosives. It wasn’t an inside job. The plane blew up into nothing from its exploding fuel load! Remarkable! Sluggishly combustible jet fuel which is basically kerosine,and which burns at a maximum temperature of around 800°C has suddenly taken on the qualities of a ferociously explosive demolition agent, vapourizing 65 tons of aircraft into a puff of smoke. Never mind that a plane of that size contains around 15 tons of steel and titanium, of which even the melting points are about double that of the maximum combustion temperature of kerosine — let alone the boiling point — which is what would be required to vapourize a plane. And then there’s about 50 tons of aluminium to be accounted for. In excess of 15 lbs of metal for each gallon of kerosine.

        For the conspiracy theorist, such inconvenient facts are vaguely dismissed as “mumbo jumbo”. This convenient little phrase is their answer to just about anything factual or logical. Like a conjurer pulling a rabbit out of a hat, they suddenly become fanatically insistent about the devastating explosive qualities of kerosine, something hitherto completely unknown to science, but just discovered by them, this very minute. Blissfully ignoring the fact that never before or since in aviation history has a plane vapourized into nothing from an exploding fuel load, the conspiracy theorist relies upon Hollywood images, where the effects are are always larger than life, and certainly larger than the intellects of these cretins. “Its a well known fact that planes blow up into nothing on impact.” they state with pompous certainty. “Watch any Bruce Willis movie.” Care to provide any documented examples? If it’s a well-known fact, then presumably this well-known fact springs from some kind of documentation — other than Bruce Willis movies?

        At this point the mad but cunning eyes of the conspiracy theorist will narrow as they sense the corner that they have backed themselves into, and plan their escape by means of another stunning backflip.
        “Ah, but planes have never crashed into buildings before, so there’s no way of telling.” they counter with a sly grin.
        Well, actually planes have crashed into buildings before and since, and not vapourized into nothing.
        “But not big planes, with that much fuel “, they shriek in hysterical denial. Or that much metal to vapourize.
        “Yes but not hijacked planes!”
        Are you suggesting that whether the crash is deliberate or accidental affects the combustion qualities of the fuel?
        “Now you’re just being silly”.

        Although collisions with buildings are rare, planes frequently crash into mountains, streets, other aircraft, nosedive into the ground, or have bombs planted aboard them, and don’t vapourize into nothing. What’s so special about a tower that’s mostly glass? But by now, the conspiracy theorist has once again sailed happily around the fruit loop. “Its a well-documented fact that planes explode into nothing on impact.”

        Effortlessly weaving back and forth between the position that it’s a “well-known fact” and that “it’s never happened before, so we have nothing to compare it to”, the conspiracy theorist has now convinced himself (if not too many other people) that the WTC plane was not loaded with explosives, and that the instant vapourization of the plane in a massive fireball was the same as any other plane crash you might care to mention. Round and round the fruit loop…

        But the hurdles which confront the conspiracy theorist are many, and they are now forced to implement even more creative uses for the newly-discovered shockingly destructive qualities of kerosine. They have to explain how the Arabs also engineered the elegant vertical collapse of both the WTC towers, and for this awkward fact the easiest counter is to simply deny that it was a controlled demolition, and claim that the buildings collapsed from fire caused by the burning kerosine.

        For this, it’s necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and propose kerosine which is not only impossibly destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation of energy. You see, the kerosine not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball, vapourizing a 65 ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000°C for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper’s steel like butter. And while it was doing all this it also poured down the elevator shafts, starting fires all through the building. When I was at school there was a little thing called the entropy law which suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something which is readily observable in the real world, even for those who didn’t make it to junior high school science. But this is no problem for the conspiracy theorist. Gleefully, they claim that a few thousand gallons of kerosine is enough to:

        completely vapourize a 65 ton aircraft
        have enough left over to burn ferociously enough for over an hour at the impact point to melt steel (melting point about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel) and
        still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start similarly destructive fires all through the building.
        This kerosine really is remarkable stuff! How chilling to realize that those kerosine heaters we had in the house when I was a kid were deadly bombs, just waiting to go off. One false move and the entire street might have been vapourized. And never again will I take kerosine lamps out camping. One moment you’re there innocently holding the lamp — the next — kapow! vapourized into nothing along with with the rest of the camp site, and still leaving enough of the deadly stuff to start a massive forest fire.

        These whackos are actually claiming that the raging inferno allegedly created by the miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning kerosine melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the smoke coming from the WTC was black, which indicates an oxygen-starved fire — therefore, not particularly hot, they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building of 2000°C, without a shred of evidence to support this curious suspension of the laws of physics.

        Not content with this ludicrous garbage, they then contend that as the steel frames softened, they came straight down instead of buckling and twisting and falling sideways.

        Since they’ve already re-engineered the combustion qualities of jet fuel, violated the second law of thermodynamics, and re-defined the structural properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws of gravity get in the way?

        The tower fell in a time almost identical to that of a free-falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that it’s physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors. But according to the conspiracy theorists, the laws of gravity were temporarily suspended on the morning of Sept 11. It appears that the evil psychic power of those dreadful Arabs knew no bounds. Even after they were dead, they were able, by the power of their evil spirits, to force down the tower at a speed physically impossible under the laws of gravity, had it been meeting any resistance from fireproofed steel structures originally designed to resist many tons of hurricane force wind as well as the impact of a Boeing passenger jet straying off course.

        Clearly, these conspiracy nuts never did their science homework at school, but did become extremely adept at inventing tall tales for why.
        “Muslim terrorists stole my notes, sir”
        “No miss, the kerosine heater blew up and vapourized everything in the street, except for my passport.”
        “You see sir, the schoolbus was hijacked by Arabs who destroyed my homework because they hate our freedoms.”
        Or perhaps they misunderstood the term “creative science” and mistakenly thought that coming up with such rubbish was, in fact, their science homework.

        The ferocious heat generated by this ghastly kerosine was, according to the conspiracy theorists, the reason why so many of the WTC victims can’t be identified. DNA is destroyed by heat. (Although 2000°C isn’t really required, 100°C will generally do the job.) This is quite remarkable, because according to the conspiracy theorist, the nature of DNA suddenly changes if you go to a different city. That’s right! If you are killed by an Arab terrorist in New York, your DNA will be destroyed by such temperatures. But if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in Washington DC, your DNA will be so robust that it can survive temperatures which completely vapourize a 65 ton aircraft.

        You see, these loonies have somehow concocted the idea that the missile which hit the pentagon was not a missile at all, but one of the hijacked planes. And to prove this unlikely premise, they point to a propaganda statement from the Bush regime, which rather stupidly claims that all but one of the people aboard the plane were identified from the site by DNA testing, even though nothing remains of the plane. The plane was vapourized by the fuel tank explosion maintain these space loonies, but the people inside it were all but one identified by DNA testing.

        So there we have it. The qualities of DNA are different, depending upon which city you’re in, or perhaps depending upon which fairy story you’re trying to sell at any particular time.

        This concoction about one of the hijacked planes hitting the Pentagon really is a howler. For those not familiar with the layout of the Pentagon, it consists of 5 rings of building, each with a space inbetween. Each ring of building is about 30 to 35 ft deep, with a similar amount of open space between it and the next ring. The object which penetrated the Pentagon went in at about a 45-degree angle, punching a neat circular hole of about a 12-foot diameter through three rings (six walls). A little later a section of wall about 65 ft wide collapsed in the outer ring. Since the plane which the conspiracy theorists claim to be responsible for the impact had a wing span of 125 ft and a length of 155 ft, and there was no wreckage of the plane, either inside or outside the building, and the lawns outside were still smooth and green enough to play golf on, this crazy delusion is clearly physically impossible.

        But hey, we’ve already disregarded the combustion qualities of jet fuel, the normal properties of common building materials, the properties of DNA, the laws of gravity and the second law of thermodynamics, so what the hell — why not throw in a little spatial impossibility as well? I would have thought that the observation that a solid object cannot pass through another solid object without leaving a hole at least as big as itself is reasonably sound science. But to the conspiracy theorist, this is “mumbo jumbo”. It conflicts with the delusion that they’re hooked on, so it “must be wrong” although trying to get then to explain exactly how it could be wrong is a futile endeavour.

        Conspiracy theorists fly into a curious panic whenever the Pentagon missile is mentioned. They nervously maintain that the plane was vapourized by it’s exploding fuel load and point to the WTC crash as evidence of this behavior. (That’s a wonderful fruit loop.) Like an insect which has just been sprayed, running back and forth in its last mad death throes, they first argue that the reason the hole is so small is that plane never entered the wall, having blown up outside, and then suddenly backflip to explain the 250 ft deep missile hole by saying that the plane disappeared all the way into the building, and then blew up inside the building (even though the building shows no sign of such damage). As for what happened to the wings — here’s where they get really creative. The wings snapped off and folded into the fuselage which then carried them into the building, which then closed up behind the plane like a piece of meat.

        When it suits them, they’ll also claim that the plane slid in on its belly (ignoring the undamaged lawn) while at the same time citing alleged witnesses to the plane diving steeply into the building from an “irrecoverable angle.” How they reconcile these two scenarios as being compatible is truly a study in stupidity.

        Once they get desperate enough, you can be sure that the UFO conspiracy stuff will make an appearance. The Arabs are in league with the Martians. Space aliens snatched the remains of the Pentagon plane and fixed most of the hole in the wall, just to confuse people. They gave the Arabs invisibility pills to help get them onto the planes. Little green men were seen were seen talking to Bin Laden a few weeks prior to the attacks.

        As the nation gears up to impeach the traitor Bush, and stop his perpetual oil war, it’s not helpful to have these idiots distracting from the process by spreading silly conspiracy theories about mythical Arabs, stories which do nothing but play into the hands of the extremist Bush regime.

        At a less serious time, we might tolerate such crackpots with amused detachment, but they need to understand that the treachery that was perpetrated on Sept 11, and the subsequent war crimes committed in “retaliation”, are far too serious for us to allow such frivolous self-indulgence to go unchallenged.

        Those who are truly addicted to conspiracy delusions should find a more appropriate outlet for their
        Paranoia.

        It’s time to stop loony conspiracy theories about Sept 11.
        Copyright 2003 Gerard Holmgren
        This work may be freely copied and distributed as long as it not for commercial use.
        Please include the author’s name, the web address where you found it and the copyright notice.

        • Christ J

          It’s amazing that you and your fellow cult members are so engrossed in your delusions to develop such a convoluted web of distortion, misrepresentation, and outright fraud in order to keep it alive.

          Would you agree that a single wilful error is sufficient to undermine the integrity of this fantasist? Me too:

          “The tower fell in a time almost identical to that of a free-falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that it’s physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors.”

          - demonstrably false, as was proven by Isaac Newton. It is physically impossible for the upper section of each of these towers NOT to have attained the observed velocity when we consider only two irrefutable facts:

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

          - those two age-old equations instantly refute your article and call into question the integrity of the author, his competence in proffering a valid opinion, or both. Those equations are sufficient to dismiss your entire plagiarized rant outright, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it, because these equations are, quite simply, correct.

          Both you and Holmgren are utter cowards for refusing to learn a basic amount of simple physics in order to maintain your plausible deniability of the science involved in these collapses. You have forfeited your right to an opinion by insisting on making it up as you go along.

          Oh yeah, honey – I’m THAT good…

          (drops mic)

          • Whether or not you’re some algorithm creation, or just a really gullible and willfully ignorant victim of too much TV and fluoride poisoning doesn’t matter. In reality 911 is not the real problem. The fact that you can’t name a war in the last 100 years that wasn’t started with a lie, most often a false flag or other lie should be a clue to all but the totally historical idiot. This is what it’s really about, and your unwitting support of it.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OypVvkCx1Yc#t=623

          • Christ J

            “The fact that you can’t name a war in the last 100 years that wasn’t started with a lie…”

            - so, in short, you are changing the subject – again – to hide the fact that you have been proven wrong. You are trying to turn to yet another logical fallacy in an attempt to salvage a worldview that has been ripped out from under you, just so you don’t have to admit that you got it wrong.

            What a coward.

            Your latest little off-topic rant is nothing more than an attempt to infer guilt-by-association. There’s a good reason this fallacy doesn’t hold up in court…

            I also note that you have wilfully rejected my offer to teach you the relevant scientific principles that are involved in these collapses, which I will thus conclude is indicative of your lack of desire to determine the truth, and is nothing more than further evidence of how far you are willing to extent your ignorance to maintain your wilful self-delusion.

            Clinically-speaking, you are mentally ill. And I say that as someone in the midst of a medicinal degree and who has plenty of experience with psychology. You are demonstrably mentally-defective.

  7. 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.

  8. 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…?

      • ONE person ALLEGED that she saw the Israelis celebrating the al Qaeda suicide attacks on 9/11. Do these morons know of anything the evil Israelis bombed in NYC around that time…or EVER? Can they explain why the FBI interrogated them for several weeks and then deported them only for violating US immigration laws, not murdering ~3000 innocent people and doing tens of billions of dollars in property damage?

    • 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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…?

          • I haven’t seen the OP lie about anything. What lies has he told, pray tell?

      • 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.

  11. 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.

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

  13. 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?

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

  15. 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…

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

  17. 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.

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

  19. 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”.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

      • That temperature would have to sustain for a certain amount of time to melt the steel.

        • The melting of steel is not part of any NIST WTC hypothesis, but they speculate that there MAY HAVE BEEN some molten steel in the debris FIRES.

        • Christ J

          “That temperature would have to sustain for a certain amount of time to melt the steel.”

          - there are a couple of MAJOR problems with that claim:

          1) it depends entirely on the amount of steel that it to be melted. A gramme of steel is pretty easy to melt, whereas 20,000 tonnes is a fair bit trickier.

          2) no molten steel has ever been identified. Ever. That means that nobody has to explain its presence, because, quite simply, its presence is a fiction.

          Remember that all I was saying is that certain factors in the NIST findings do ALLOW for molten steel. They do not necessarily predict it, nor must they, for the aforementioned reason of its non-existence. There are several ways in which the steel COULD have melted, but there is no indication that it actually DID.

          Clearer?

    • 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.

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

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

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

  25. 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…

          • JLB

            You seem to be looking at this seriously and finding good reason for skepticism of various “truther” evidence. Have you also looked as critically at the evidence for the “official” version? It avoids or ignores a lot of facts that should be easy to address if the official version holds. This is just addressing the physical evidence. When looking at actions of those involved it reveals enough circumstantial evidence to warrant a grand jury at least wouldn’t you agree?

          • Christ J

            The majority of it? Not really. I HAVE looked at plenty, but there is such a massive amount of data in the NIST reports alone that a single person scanning through it is unlikely to have accurately appraised it all. Actually, this is rather telling, as if you encounter someone who claims that they HAVE read everything then I would suggest that they are lying.

            ” This is just addressing the physical evidence. ”

            - and that’s what matters most. If there is no indication that anything other than impacts and fire brought down the towers then that is what caused their collapses. If the Pentagon damage is only consistent with the impact of a large twin-engine jet then that is what hit it. This is a discussion of what caused this damage, so the physical evidence is all that means anything here.

            “When looking at actions of those involved it reveals enough circumstantial evidence to warrant a grand jury at least wouldn’t you agree?”

            - no, I would NOT agree. I am unaware of a single point that you could raise here that s better explained as conspiratorial than as opportunism in the aftermath of a genuine terrorist attack. And, since your legal system is based on the notion of a person being innocent until proven otherwise, you have no justification in attempting to pin the blame on any of those individuals untilyou have evidence that EXPLICITLY indicates their complicity. Understand? Something that could suggest a conspiracy AS WELL AS opportunism – or anything else, for that matter – is evidence of neither, so cannot be used as evidence for either.

            Welcome to the scientific method.

        • 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.

        • Dude if you are hiding something that happend YOU ARE NOT GOING TO RELEASE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT IT. 84 / 85 CAMERAS At the pentagon just happened to stop working on 9/11?!?!?! And the only one that was working somehow only showed still images AND ONE OF THE IMAGES HAD A CONTRAIL IN IT? Who really believes a Plane hit the pentagon? it was a modified cruise missile,damn.

Leave a Reply

Upcoming Event

Connect, Inspire, Chat & Share!
advertisement - learn more
CE Radio - Listen now!
Amazers
TEDx - Agents of Change
Subscribe to CE Magazine Monthly For Exclusive Content!
The Mind Unleashed
advertisement - learn more

We Recommend

www.truththeory.com

Trending Now

marijuana-colorado-600.jpg

7 Ways Marijuana Legalization Has Already Benefited Colorado In Only 8 Months

January 1st 2014 saw the opening of the very first cannabis shop in Colorado as the cultivation, manufacture and sale of the controversial plant became fully legalized. Since then, the state has seen a lot of promising results. Laura Pegram of…