My Critique of "911 Truth Movement" Literature

[Gravy]

Go to this site (left-click) to download the 1.6 Mb pdf:
http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=106777

High/lowlight: page 17.

Most of it will be familiar iif you've read my "Loose Change" analysis. I spent more time on WTC 7 because CTs seem to be focusing on that more, despite the fact that the NIST report isn't out yet.

What's most interesting, IMO, is how many misleading, unsupportable, and untruthful statements the "Truth Movement" manages to jam into a little 4-page pamphlet. They have a far lower truth per statement ratio than "Loose Change" does, if you can believe that.

AAAAAAARGH!

[Timothy]

Before releasing widely, you might want to have it proofed and edited for style. I've found one typo so far ('165' for '175' on p. 5), and I'm personally turned off by the tactic of having an initial tirade against using questions as evidence -- immediately followed by a slew of questions aimed at the Truth Movement.

The better crafted the document, the easier it will convince those who are uncertain in their opinions.

- Timothy

[Gravy]

Before releasing widely, you might want to have it proofed and edited for style. I've found one typo so far ('165' for '175' on p. 5), and I'm personally turned off by the tactic of having an initial tirade against using questions as evidence -- immediately followed by a slew of questions aimed at the Truth Movement.

The better crafted the document, the easier it will convince those who are uncertain in their opinions.

- Timothy
Thanks, Timothy. I corrected that typo. Not sure about the "slew of questions" though. I removed one, but I don't see the rest of the slew.

[Ducky]

Thanks, Timothy. I corrected that typo. Not sure about the "slew of questions" though. I removed one, but I don't see the rest of the slew.



linky no worky...

can you email it to me?

PM me for the info.

[Gravy]

linky no worky...

can you email it to me?

PM me for the info.
I had just uploaded a revision...our posts may have crossed.

[kookbreaker]

Page 13: The Meridian Fire in Philadelphia was started by a pile of oily rags, not a cigarette.

Pages 103, 104, and 105 of the following pdf have good pictures showing just how bad the fire damaged the buildings structure: http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf

[rjh01]

Just looked at the pictures. Looks like the building was near to collapse. What would have happened to loose change if it had?

[kookbreaker]

They would have pretended it never happened. Ignoring contrary evidence is very easy to do. They also ignore the Samopo shopping center collapse (mechanical collapse, but a definite pancaking) and the Ronan Point collapse (gas explosion brings down 1/4 of a sloppily built apartment building).

[Ersby]

That building in Madrid that the Loosers keep mentioning partially collapsed: the highest two or three floors. Of course, they weren't holding up the weight of a further 12+ floors. I expect that's just a minor detail.

[Gravy]

Page 13: The Meridian Fire in Philadelphia was started by a pile of oily rags, not a cigarette.

Pages 103, 104, and 105 of the following pdf have good pictures showing just how bad the fire damaged the buildings structure: http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf
Wow, good photos. Thanks.

[Gravy]

That building in Madrid that the Loosers keep mentioning partially collapsed: the highest two or three floors. Of course, they weren't holding up the weight of a further 12+ floors. I expect that's just a minor detail.
Yes, I mention that. The perimeter steel on the top 10 floors gave way, but the concrete core didn't collapse.

I made a few changes to the "Truth Critique." I'll always have a link to the most current version in my signature.

[Abbyas]

Gravy, just wanted to pipe in and thank you for the work you are doing. Your LC debunk is incredibly clear and backed up.

You have no idea how many people I've forwarded that thing to.

[Kent1]

Nice job. I've been following your threads here. The site is great. All kinds of subjects I enjoy. I've also been doing a lot of debunking for sometime. I've been involved with Pearl Harbor debunkers and 9/11 debunkers. In fact I was one of the guys who debated Stinnett on his own website. He's terrible. Another guy I've been working on is Steven Jones.

I've found many various errors and deceptions with in paper. I've interviewed many people he quotes and I can tell you, they are not happy.

A few points to note.

When he states in his paper
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)

[fire/debris-damage-caused collapse] is not in the FEMA report

Jones EDITED out the sentence right before this which states
"Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors.
The "hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence" was a reference to the total diesel hypothesis, NOT the fire/collapse.

Another point is regards to Barnett quote
‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)

The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5,180oF (~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel.

After speaking to Barnett I can tell you the steel members he was refering to, didn't EVEN reach 1000C.
Google "Microstructural Analysis of the Steels from Buildings 7 1 and 2 from the World Trade Center"

Another example was the Leslie Robertson quote about the molten steel.
I interviewed Leslie Robertson who stated
"I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge."

Futhermore I tracked down James Williams who wrote the article.
In fact I found out it was an error in Williams notes. Williams notes stated nothing about steel, but was in fact motlen metal.

So its easy to see how people have made error within the two.

Hope this helps a little. Again great job.
I can also tell you you'll be seeing a debunking by implosionworld.com coming soon.

Best Scott

[orphia nay]

Welcome to the forum, Kent1. I'm very glad you've joined us. Good work!
I'm bookmarking this thread to save your comments, but is there anywhere else you've posted your research on the net? (You won't be able to post links yet until you've made 15 posts, but if you use 'dot' for '.' we'll be able to find it.)
Thanks very much for your post.

[Gravy]

Welcome , Kent, and god job.

Steven E. Jones was next up on my debunking list, but you seem to have a handle on him! He's one of the biggest creeps in the "truth movement," because although he knows what the scientific method is all about, he completely abandons it in his 9/11 "research." It stinks that someone with scientific credentials is willing to play games with the facts about 9/11.

I applaud you for seeking the original sources for information. The more that is done, the more we will see that the "truthsters" have a habit of inventing the truth and taking quotes out of context.

[Skiltch]

Nice going, y'all. 9/11 was a tragedy, it should not be marred by conspiracy theories.

[chipmunk stew]

Mark, I finally read through your new work. Fantastic job! (Again!)

[Kent1]

I'll add a couple more on Jones. Lets see if that dot suggestion works

In Jones article Section 5. Squib-timing during the Collapse of WTC 7 is completely wrong.

I'm sure you've seen some of the debunking at 911myths regarding squibs.
911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs (dot) html

But if you check out other videos like at this website
www (dot) terrorize (dot) dk/911/wtc7dem2/

You can confirm, that indeed there were no squibs coming from building 7 from this area.
This completely wipes out the theory.

Another error is the suggestion the fires couldn't get up to 1000C.
In fact if you read the NIST report they explain that the fires were fully developed (1000C) on the northeast corner of the south tower.

[Mojo]

Printed it out and read it on the train home. Good work!

[chipmunk stew]

I'll add a couple more on Jones. Lets see if that dot suggestion works

In Jones article section 5. Squib-timing during the Collapse of WTC 7 is completely wrong.

Im sure you've seen some of the debunking at 911myths regarding squibs.
http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html

But if you check out other videos like at this website
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/

You can confirm, that indeed there were no squibs coming from building 7.
This completely wipes out the theory.

Another error is the suggestion the fires couldn't get up to 1000C.
In fact if you read the NIST report they explain that the fires were fully developed (1000C) on the northeast corner of the south tower.(completed links)

[Polaris]

Say Kent, if you have some good Pearl Harbor debunking stuff, I'd appreciate it if you'd PM me with it. I have a ladyfriend in Tokyo who's in need of an education that Imperial Japan wasn't just some poor innocent victim of a smear campaign and strong-arming into a war of conquest.

[Kent1]

Say Kent, if you have some good Pearl Harbor debunking stuff, I'd appreciate it if you'd PM me with it. I have a ladyfriend in Tokyo who's in need of an education that Imperial Japan wasn't just some poor innocent victim of a smear campaign and strong-arming into a war of conquest.

Well give me an e-mail at snssleep@pacbell.net and I can address the specific point. I just got a copy of Phil Jacobsen's newest article today.
If you don't know Phil, he is just an incredible source of information on the subject. He's a veteran Navy Cryptologist.

Also you can go to wikipedia Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge_debate
Under "External links" I added some great articles.

David Aiken also has some incredible knowledge. Type in Pearlharborattacked into google. He runs a great chat board and is one of the foremost experts on the subject.
I suspect you are talking the McCollum memo. A good source to start is in Gannon's book (Pearl Harbor Attacked) roughly pg 140 to 150.

Sorry for derailing the thread.

Scott