Loose Change - Part IV

[Class]

I just put in for my ban over there with this:


It's not even all that great, but if that doesn't get me banned, nothing will.
Might want to screenshot that incase a mod or admin deletes it.

[rikzilla]

Oh I see, I've been wondering who...:D

:D

It's my pet CT site...but I'm happy to share! Glad you're there man...somedays I think the shear volume of stupid may drown me...thanks for your help!

-z

[rikzilla]

Daughter: Daddy, why do you never spend anytime with me?
Truther Daddy: Well because I am busy collecting evidence and heresay from laymen inorder to bring down the people who run our country.
Daughter: Why Daddy?
Truther Daddy: Because there is no REAL evidence to bring them down darling, so I have to get what I can, or fabricate it. Like that CNN poll I told you about. You know, the one Daddy and his friend went to over and over again to change the results.
Daughter: But isn't that dishonest Daddy?
Truther Daddy: Are you really my daughter, or are you a CIA plant?

:)

BWAHAHAHAH!

I am sooooo stealing that!

-z

[MarkyX]

Gravy, Dylan finally figured out who you are. Aren't you relieved? It must have been hell for you, not knowing.


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9992&view=findpost&p=6577801

Oh boy this is going to be fun. Besides Dylan's lack of proper research (hello, how the hell does Gravy write a webcomic, write several guides, do two movies, runs a site, does his tourism job, and goes to ground zero?! Does time slow down for Mark Roberts?), he thinks we will ignore the article.

I decided to take his so called challenge, although I am seriously skeptical about the source of the site.

Here are some key points in the article.


Apparently, unidentified commissioners wanted to cover up the fact that U.S. support for Israel was one of the motivating factors behind al-Qaeda's 9/11 attack.


I find this hard to believe mainly because anyone who actually pays attention to the Middle East would already know about muslim extermists hatred for the west for not only doing things that are the complete opposite of their beliefs (examples are: Materialism, state and church seperate, our women wear as little or as much as they want), is also that we helped jews. However, the 9/11 Commission is supposed to talk about what happened that day, not the motives or the history behind Al-Qaeda. Just a red herring argument here.


The question is simple: If the vast bulk of Americans would be safer if U.S. politicians moderated their slavish support of Israel, designed to win the support of key pressure groups at home, wouldn't it be a good idea to make this change in course?


Looking at Mainstream Arab Media, they simply dislike the west because we are the complete opposite with what they believe in. Does Dylan ever wonder why gold rings cannot be worn by men or women are covered from head to toe? Or why even some Al-Qaeda members, as shown in the Usual Suspects video, consider Saudi Arabia to be the Westerner's lapdog? Or what about King Farut, who collected jewelry and shopped in Paris daily, was overthrown by the Muslim Brotherhood (the father of Islamic Terrorism?)?

This is what scares me about these morons. They are so ignorant of history and consider themselves scholars.


But like the original 9/11 Commission report, President Bush regularly obscures this important reality by saying that America was attacked on 9/11 because of its freedoms, making no mention of U.S. interventionist foreign policy as the root cause.


Oh no, it's not like their leaders say on mainstream Arab Media that they want to turn the entire world into an Islamic state. No no, Wally Shoebat, an ex-PLO terrorist, is all wrong about his statements. What about that Nonie Darwish, daughter of a martyr who was raised in Palestine? What the hell does she know?

The TRUTH movement who have spent our days in front of laptops in Starbucks know more about Muslims then those raised in the Middle East.

:eek:


The surveys show that people in Muslim countries admire American political and economic freedoms, culture, and technology. But the numbers go through the floor when Islamic people are asked about their approval of U.S. foreign policy.


I've already shown in my 9/11 Deniers Speak movie how polls are crap and are easily manipulated.

I read the entire thing and not impressed. It's bascailly making statements without much knowledge of history or parroting what CNN has stated. Does supporting Israel have some influence on Islamic terrorism? Yes. Is this the source of the extremists and how everything started? Nope, they attacked their own kind and the British in Egypt before Israel was made. They also played some key parts for Nazi Germany in World War 2.

[Abbyas]

Gravy, Dylan finally figured out who you are. Aren't you relieved? It must have been hell for you, not knowing.

Woo hoo!

It's taking my all not to reply (not been banned yet) and talk about all the truthers at ground zero starting fights with the firefighters.

[60hzxtl]

Woo hoo!

It's taking my all not to reply (not been banned yet) and talk about all the truthers at ground zero starting fights with the firefighters.


Yes abby, as Do- Over Dylan says about Gravy, he wants to provocateur the movement

Don't provocateur them!

[Abbyas]

Well, for all the LCers bouncing over here, here are some of my favorite interactions with Truthers at GZ:

What appears to be an ex-firefighter, becomes very vocal in his displeasure of the 9/11 truthers and at one point says, "I had friends die!"

The truther responds with, "So?"

It escalates and the only person trying to calm the poor guy down is Gravy. Les Jamison takes this as an opportunity to scream, "The terrorists are in the white house! The terrorists are in the white house!"

And Gravy, RealityBites and I are the ones doing the instigating?

How in the world can someone go down to the world trade center, say that firefighters are in on it (and if you think that WTC7 came down by controlled demolition, then every firefighter that knew it was coming down was complicit) and not expect some reaction? And how can you say that's not picking fights?

[DavidJames]

Gravy, Dylan finally figured out who you are. Aren't you relieved? It must have been hell for you, not knowing.


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9992&view=findpost&p=6577801Dylan, I have reason to believe that "Pat", one of the creators of the Screw Loose Change blog is also "gravy"... Just in case you weren't already aware you were "Pat"

[Regnad Kcin]

"gravy" aka MarkyX aka Mark Iradian aka Mark Roberts aka ... you get the picture ... is now showing up at Ground Zero on a weekly basis and starting fights with NY9-11Truth, provoking the cops to clear the area.

there's alot more to discuss, but the fact is, this man is out to infiltrate and provocateur the movement. he is a 40-something balding man who should have a life and family of his own, and is instead spending his own time, energy and money into harassing key members and gatherings of the 9-11 movement.

concerned "Tour Guide" or professional trouble maker? who knows. i'm sure he's reading this right now thinking of a clever response to it. the best he'll do is bring up my Jack Blood interview again. which I've already explained and apologized for.Bolding mine.

I have a three-year-old nephew who is more capable of rational thought.

[T.A.M.]

from my talking to some hardcore "truthers", they really don't care who tehy offend, or whos respect they lose. It is all about the "Truth" and getting it out there, even if it means....Lieing!!! The contradiction is just...overwhelming.

[DavidJames]

How in the world can someone go down to the world trade center, say that firefighters are in on it (and if you think that WTC7 came down by controlled demolition, then every firefighter that knew it was coming down was complicit) and not expect some reaction? And how can you say that's not picking fights?I had an interaction with JerryB9105 like that. Here is what Jerry said about the Captain who said he saw a huge hole in WTC7...
I don't challenge this man's credentials but it is obvious to me that some people there might have been involved. I asked him if he felt the captain was complicit in the killing of those at the WTC? He went nuts. What the heck else could he have meant?

They don't get it. They have no problem accusing people of murder and then get pissed off when you point it out.

[Abbyas]

Well, if this doesn't get me banned, nothing will.

they'll either marginalize or ignore the article entirely.

"gravy" aka MarkyX aka Mark Iradian aka Mark Roberts aka ... you get the picture ... is now showing up at Ground Zero on a weekly basis and starting fights with NY9-11Truth, provoking the cops to clear the area.

there's alot more to discuss, but the fact is, this man is out to infiltrate and provocateur the movement. he is a 40-something balding man who should have a life and family of his own, and is instead spending his own time, energy and money into harassing key members and gatherings of the 9-11 movement.

concerned "Tour Guide" or professional trouble maker? who knows. i'm sure he's reading this right now thinking of a clever response to it. the best he'll do is bring up my Jack Blood interview again. which I've already explained and apologized for.

Well, this will be the post that gets me banned.

Number one, Mark Iradian and Mark Roberts are two different people.

Number two, I've talked with those in the 9/11 truth movement at Ground Zero many times, and I've watched their reactions with other people, especially firefighters, this one was especially telling:

When an ex-firefighter, becomes very vocal in his displeasure of the 9/11 truthers and at one point says, "I had friends die!"

The truther responds with, "So?"

It escalates and the only person trying to calm the poor guy down is Mark Roberts. Les Jamison takes this as an opportunity to scream, "The terrorists are in the white house! The terrorists are in the white house!"

How in the world can someone go down to the world trade center, say that firefighters are in on it? And how can you say that's not picking fights?

I don't care that those in the 9/11 truth movement protest. They have every right to do so. But to go down to a memorial and belittle those that died, those that had bretheren die (If you believe WTC7 came down via CD, then every firefighter that knew it was coming down was complicit) and belittle the family members of those that died by saying that they didn't actually speak with their loved ones aboard planes, and then claim that you are doing so peacefully and not instigating fights?

Number three: The cops have not once cleared the area. They have only given warnings that the truthers have heard before.

Number four re: balding. Those in glass houses, Adonis.

[T.A.M.]

They actually remind me of the extreme Islamists in a way. They are blinded by their hatred, or they are so convinced they are right, that they are deaf to all else. They do not care who they offend or hurt on route to pushing the "Truth"

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Yes abby, as Do- Over Dylan says about Gravy, he wants to provocateur the movement

Don't provocateur them!
Verbing weirds things.

[MarkyX]

he best he'll do is bring up my Jack Blood interview again. which I've already explained and apologized for.


Forgot to point this out.

Dylan, if you are reading this, your statement had nothing to do with the lack of experience in media relations or that you were 'just a kid' (21 is an ADULT), but your lack of research.

NORAD tapes said they were bombs. Mark said to his mom that they were bombs. The Flight 93 transmission said they were bombs.

If you did your research, you or Jack Blood would have never bought the boxcutters story at all. You are only using your lack of experience and age to shield the fact that you are one lousy researcher.

Actually, if you did your reserach, you would have never made Loose Change

[Brainster]

Just in case you weren't already aware you were "Pat"

I'll take that as a compliment; Gravy's results may vary. :D

I suppose the good news is that these guys aren't looking into us very hard. My name has been given out on the radio interviews I've done and it would take about ten minutes poking around to find it otherwise.

[DavidJames]

I'll take that as a compliment; Gravy's results may vary. :D
I felt much the same way then the dufus's felt c0rbin was me. I felt good, not sure how c0rbin though felt though...:D

[Belz...]

"there's alot more to discuss, but the fact is, this man is out to infiltrate and provocateur the movement. he is a 40-something balding man who should have a life and family of his own, and is instead spending his own time, energy and money into harassing key members and gatherings of the 9-11 movement."

Oh, the irony hurts my sides!

[chipmunk stew]

Yeah I figured people are involved in activism, and life, and just come here every now and again to "touch base" and stay up on the latest 9/11 news, and the sceptics come here ready to rumble and are simply struck dumb by what they are seeing and reading and elect to remain silent.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9981&view=findpost&p=6579842

"elect"... Interesting word choice...

[Abbyas]

Dylan responded to my post:

abby, i won't be the one to ban you.

1) thanks for clearing that up.
2) I will definitely not disagree with you on that. There is a line between proper and improper behavior, and believe me, shouting at the top of our lungs is the last thing on our list (I speak only for myself, Jason and Korey). The altercation between Paul Isaac Jr and Jason happened down at Ground Zero only because Paul began shadowing Jason wherever he went, (as you see in the footage)
3) Understood. I heard that they cleared the area on one occasion.
4) I meant that to indicate his age. Bermas is balding too. Besides, Mr. Roberts has thrown enough personal assaults at me.

Thank you for voicing your opinion.

I then responded: Dylan, I have to say, I genuinely appreciate the respect in which you have replied. And due to that, I am sorry that I tacked on number 4.

It looks like someone has either gotten the advice of a publicist. And I'm kicking myself for apologizing.

[c0rbin]

I felt much the same way then the dufus's felt c0rbin was me. I felt good, not sure how c0rbin though felt though...:D


I am honored to be counted among my "graduating class" in this forum. If you notice our inception dates and their relevance to this topic, you are of two camps 1) It is too many coincidences to ignore. We are obviously nWo clone troopers itching to tread on the freedoms of those who question the Great Owl, or 2) we share a birthdate into the world of critical thinking that happens to coincide with a tragedy of national proportions.

Hat's off to you!

[DavidJames]

Hat's off to you!sorry, should I remove my hat, with my receding hairline, I too might discover I'm Gravy :D

[Brainster]

Well, I got this one up (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9992&view=findpost&p=6580243), we'll see if it stays up. My suspension ended earlier today.

[T.A.M.]

Correct me if I am wrong, but does anyone here claim to be an expert on any particular area of 9/11, and if so do you feel you have the credentials...

The reason I ask, is that someone I know states that the scholars are more qualified to talk on 9/11 then the JREF group. Now I don't totally disagree, that if someone here is spueing facts as their own, when they are not, then they are not qualified as an "Expert".

My argument over this is that while the "scholars" are academics, most of them are academics in fields unrelated to the nuts and bolts of 9/11. SO how does that make them any more qualified than anyone else to comment on the nuts and bolts of 9/11?

I think S. Jones and J. Woods are more qualified, certainly than me, but that is not the point. I believe when most people make arguements to Debunk 9/11 they are doing so with a reference paper or position from an "Expert", so it is that expert, whose opinion is being provided.

For instance, when it comes to WTC collapse, I think Professor Jones is more qualified than most here (I am guessing) to talk on it. However, if I bring up a peer reviewed paper by a group of MIT Civil and Structural Engineers to counter his arguements, is my evidence not more qualified than his (though i present it, the evidence is that of people with superior qualifications to he)?

Any thoughts??

[c0rbin]

I am afraid I am worthless when it comes to details. In fact, I try to stay away from arguments about airplane specifics or therMATE vs therMITE.

I approach the 9/11 Conspiracy from a 30,000 ft distance with questions like: "Why is 9/11 necessary for BushCo to aquire more gold or power?" or "These guys are savvy geo-political business men, isn't a stunt like 9/11 a little risky or expensive to try and pull off?"

So, no help in the "expertise" realm.

[T.A.M.]

If a lawyer calls Expert Witness "A", who is an expert on topic "X", do you state than the testimony of Expert "A" is useless because the lawyer has no epertese in topic "X"....no...of course not, but this is the argument they are putting forward.

[rwguinn]

Correct me if I am wrong, but does anyone here claim to be an expert on any particular area of 9/11, and if so do you feel you have the credentials...

The reason I ask, is that someone I know states that the scholars are more qualified to talk on 9/11 then the JREF group. Now I don't totally disagree, that if someone here is spueing facts as their own, when they are not, then they are not qualified as an "Expert".

My argument over this is that while the "scholars" are academics, most of them are academics in fields unrelated to the nuts and bolts of 9/11. SO how does that make them any more qualified than anyone else to comment on the nuts and bolts of 9/11?

I think S. Jones and J. Woods are more qualified, certainly than me, but that is not the point. I believe when most people make arguements to Debunk 9/11 they are doing so with a reference paper or position from an "Expert", so it is that expert, whose opinion is being provided.

For instance, when it comes to WTC collapse, I think Professor Jones is more qualified than most here (I am guessing) to talk on it. However, if I bring up a peer reviewed paper by a group of MIT Civil and Structural Engineers to counter his arguements, is my evidence not more qualified than his (though i present it, the evidence is that of people with superior qualifications to he)?

Any thoughts??

Since I am a Registered, Professional Engineer, dealing daily with loads, strengths, stresses, and strains from both static and dynamic standpoints (although i don't do buildings any more), I reject any implications that S. ones and/or J. Woods are qualified at all. They have demonstrated a remarkable lack of expertise in real-world engineering and statics, much less kinetics.

[DavidJames]

Correct me if I am wrong, but does anyone here claim to be an expert on any particular area of 9/11, and if so do you feel you have the credentials...

The reason I ask, is that someone I know states that the scholars are more qualified to talk on 9/11 then the JREF group. Now I don't totally disagree, that if someone here is spueing facts as their own, when they are not, then they are not qualified as an "Expert".

My argument over this is that while the "scholars" are academics, most of them are academics in fields unrelated to the nuts and bolts of 9/11. SO how does that make them any more qualified than anyone else to comment on the nuts and bolts of 9/11?

I think S. Jones and J. Woods are more qualified, certainly than me, but that is not the point. I believe when most people make arguements to Debunk 9/11 they are doing so with a reference paper or position from an "Expert", so it is that expert, whose opinion is being provided.

For instance, when it comes to WTC collapse, I think Professor Jones is more qualified than most here (I am guessing) to talk on it. However, if I bring up a peer reviewed paper by a group of MIT Civil and Structural Engineers to counter his arguements, is my evidence not more qualified than his (though i present it, the evidence is that of people with superior qualifications to he)?

Any thoughts??
I claim no advanced knowledge or expertise in the science of the 9/11 events.

Without such a background, I have no illusions I can intelligently evaluate the analysis of experts with any confidence of being correct. I do believe if an overwhelming majority of the experts in a specific field agree on a conclusion based on direct analyses of the evidence, I am inclined to believe them as opposed to conclusions reached from unqualified people who reach said conclusions by observing pictures or videos.

Should some experts, qualified based on knowledge and experience in the related fields, bring their evidence forward, contradicting the majority, I will rethink my position.

[Johnny Pixels]

Correct me if I am wrong, but does anyone here claim to be an expert on any particular area of 9/11, and if so do you feel you have the credentials...

The reason I ask, is that someone I know states that the scholars are more qualified to talk on 9/11 then the JREF group. Now I don't totally disagree, that if someone here is spueing facts as their own, when they are not, then they are not qualified as an "Expert".

My argument over this is that while the "scholars" are academics, most of them are academics in fields unrelated to the nuts and bolts of 9/11. SO how does that make them any more qualified than anyone else to comment on the nuts and bolts of 9/11?

I think S. Jones and J. Woods are more qualified, certainly than me, but that is not the point. I believe when most people make arguements to Debunk 9/11 they are doing so with a reference paper or position from an "Expert", so it is that expert, whose opinion is being provided.

For instance, when it comes to WTC collapse, I think Professor Jones is more qualified than most here (I am guessing) to talk on it. However, if I bring up a peer reviewed paper by a group of MIT Civil and Structural Engineers to counter his arguements, is my evidence not more qualified than his (though i present it, the evidence is that of people with superior qualifications to he)?

Any thoughts??

I'm by no means an expert on any area. My only credentials I guess are my engineering degree, and being able to read. I'm still working towards a job in engineering, so I can't call myself a professional engineer, and I don't work day-to-day in the field. But then I've very rarely come across an argument that was rocket science and required to much science powerTM to debunk.

I tried to make the point over at the LC forum that someone could only be counted as an expert, or used as a professional whatever, if they were actually using their knowledge towards the work they had produced. ie Just because I've got a degree in automotive engineering doesn't mean I can design a car with square wheels and say it works. It's the thought behind something that makes it expert opinion, not the name, or the letters after that name.

[negativ]

While I'm more along the lines of c0rbin's thinking, I'll point out that one need not necessarily be a gourmet chef to understand why the toast burned.

(Or some similarly flawed analogy)

Also, our good buddy Killtown made the news (obliquely):

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm

Killtown's blog links to hundreds of conflicting witness accounts and news stories, video and photos of suspicious damage and debris, and other 9/11 conspiracy blogs, attempting to build up a preponderance of doubt about the government's claims. Killtown posits whether the World Trade Center towers were brought down by explosives, and whether the Pentagon was hit by a missile. (The blogger identified only as Killtown could be reached only via e-mail. He or she agreed to be interviewed without ever revealing identity and never got in phone contact with this reporter.)

About Mrs. McClatchey's "End of Serenity," Killtown concludes that either the smoke plume in the photo came from a bomb blast closer to her house, or that the picture was faked by Mrs. McClatchey or the FBI. Killtown writes: "If the first is true, then Val may be off the hook. If any of the latter two are the case, then Val, you got some splainin' to do!" He then proceeds to post her home address, phone number and personal e-mail information.

[SRW]

Well They finally baned me for posing from :

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/

Which gives eyewitness testimony to what WTC7 looked like right be for the collapse.

I finished with:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Good reading for everyone here. I cannot wait to hear the excuses for not reading it all. On second though I can wait. After all why read something that does not reinforce our view. Like being well rounded.
------------------------------------------------------------------
And as predicted the firemen just didn't know anyting and got it all wrong. Thoes people are useless.

[DavidJames]

Dylan Avery - 21 going on 6.
In a PM to you, I asked you what you would say to Bernard Brown, Sr. if he showed up on your doorstep. You responded that you would ask him why he picked that particular day to take a day off to go golfing. So what ARE you implying?i'm not implying anything. it's just the first question that came to mind. Classic "I'm just asking questions".

Dylan - Grow up, you are in the real world. What you say, including the questions you ask, have an impact, they mean something. It's beyond just "asking questions". Six year olds "just ask questions", you're an adult. Do real research, consult real experts. Perform real analysis, but most important think things through. The longer you play "dumb", the more foolish you look. Stop pretending you don't have an agenda. Stop pretending you're just asking questions.

I suggest you stop asking questions and start finding answers. Real answers, the kind that are tangible, supportable, verifiable, ones that can be presented in a court of law. Because if what you're implying is true, that's where this will end up, but up to this point, you've got nothing, squat, zip. What you've got is laughable (if it were not so serious). It's junior high school level crap.

[defaultdotxbe]

Dylan - Quit "asking questions" if you want to make accusations come out and make them, but be prepared to face the consequences if you cant back them up with solid evidence

[realitybites]

::: Finishes reading the last 10 pages.... :::

Guess this is what happens in the crazy world of conspiracy folk. Skeptics forum closed, Dylan figures out Gravy is really a combination of anyone and everyone named "Mark", and he, Abby, and I "instigate" the crazies at GZ.

Hm.... back to my regularly scheduled vacation.

[defaultdotxbe]

Dylan, I have to say, I genuinely appreciate the respect in which you have replied. And due to that, I am sorry that I tacked on number 4.
thanks man, i shouldn't have said it, anyway. cheers bud.

hahahha, dylan thinks your a man!

[Dog Town]

I just twisted my freaken ankle, so I have some time on my hands. Reading these last few pages of posts have had me in stiches(not literal).I respect all of you and your tenacity! It reminds of a book I read early nineties! It is called Take Down by Tsutomu Shimomura.Ever read it? It was about the take down of" The original Cyber Punk", Kevin Mitnick. Tomu got so annoyed with Mitnicks crap He took him down,in the prepube days of the net.If none of you have read it.Try it out.You are the next generation of Tomu.Great Friggen work. Not to mention how you do it with such humor.

Keep Smack'en Down Stoopid!

[steve s]

To clarify, I'm saying I don't think that explanation takes into account the distance of the squibs from the collapse point. One would postulate that if it was a phenomenon due to air pressure then the floors above the "Squibs floors" should be exhibiting it as well, no?

Further, how would the pressure become so localized, so as to blow out 1 or 2 windows and not the rest?

If those "squibs" were part of a controlled demolition, then the building would start to collapse at that point. It doesn't, thus no CD.

As Gravy pointed out in another post, the pressure isn't localized, it's fairly uniform. It's just looking for a weak spot to release the build-up. For whatever reason, those few windows were weaker than the others. It's sort of like that old saying, "A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link."

And as for the use of the word "squibs," I'd love to know if any of the Loizeauxs have ever used the word "squib." I've seen a couple of documentaries which featured them and IIRC they used the word "charge."

Steve S.

[defaultdotxbe]

And as for the use of the word "squibs," I'd love to know if any of the Loizeauxs have ever used the word "squib." I've seen a couple of documentaries which featured them and IIRC they used the word "charge."

Steve S.
AFAIK squibs are movie props (sortof) a tiny explosive they use to blow up a fake blood pack when someoen gets shot in a movie

there could be a second definition though

[DavidJames]

AFAIK squibs are movie props (sortof) a tiny explosive they use to blow up a fake blood pack when someoen gets shot in a moviethat's where I first heard that term as well.

I think that "innocent" question lost some it's innocence when he/she used the term squib.

[sat556]

the best he'll do is bring up my Jack Blood interview again. which I've already explained and apologized for.




Dylan, if you are reading this, your statement had nothing to do with the lack of experience in media relations or that you were 'just a kid' (21 is an ADULT), but your lack of research.


Let me see if I have this right. Dylan makes those comments, then claims that something he posts on his own forum saying how he was 'just a kid' constitues explaining and apologising? Did I miss something somewhere else? If not, then it's about time he made a more public apology, assuming he really believes that he was wrong.

[Mr. Skinny]

It's sort of like that old saying, "A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link."

Steve S.
I tend to think of it more as "the force (hydraulic, pneumatic, etc) follows the path of least resistance", although your analogy works fine as well.

[apathoid]

AFAIK squibs are movie props (sortof) a tiny explosive they use to blow up a fake blood pack when someoen gets shot in a movie

there could be a second definition though

The only squibs I'm aware of are the small electrical charges used to rupture sealing discs of fire extinguishing bottles on airplanes.
So naturally I giggle whenever I see CTers bring up "squibs" :)

[steve s]

The "Truth" movement, IMO, is about to become a victim of their own "success". They've attracted just enough attention from MSM to get critically examined and shown publicly to be (rule8)tards. After the public crucifixion, they'll be shackled to the Stone of Everlasting Shame and sent back to whatever hole it is they crawled out of. I hope this happens soon.

It reminds me of the guy who wrote that book A Million Little Pieces. He writes a work of fiction, but it doesn't sell very well. So he retools it as an autobiography and suddenly he's on Oprah and the book is selling millions of units. But then the MSM starts to scrutinize the book and suddenly his house of cards comes tumbling down.

So Dylan makes an admittedly fictional movie, releases it as a "documentary," and the CT crowd goes wild for it. Now the scrutiny begins. Too bad he never got on Oprah.

Steve S.

[Gravy]

Gravy, Dylan finally figured out who you are. Aren't you relieved? It must have been hell for you, not knowing.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9992&view=findpost&p=6577801
Avery's fact-checking department is hard at work again. See, MarkyX, I told you I was you!

As for us trying to cause a disruption at Ground Zero in order to get the police involved, it was the Deniers who:

– Grabbed our literature and tore it up.
– Threw our signs into a fenced-off construction area.
– Tried to physically block our access to a public sidewalk.
– Said they'd call the police and file harrassment charges if I spoke.
– Did cause the police to be involved when one of them started shouting at me while I was speaking to a member of the public.

[defaultdotxbe]

i think on some level even the CTers realize their conspiracy is too big to keep under wraps, thats why they keep saying "only a few people would have to be involved"

then they turn the same logic to debunkers, they cant fathom that dozens of intelligent people disagree with them, so they consolidate them all into one singular "Gravy" who they can easily label a govt shill or CIA operative

in conclusion, i need to start pimping my forums, maybe i can be Gravy too

[Gravy]

Just in case you weren't already aware you were "Pat"
I'd like a show of hands: who here is not me?

:wave1

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Dylan - Quit "asking questions" if you want to make accusations come out and make them, but be prepared to face the consequences if you cant back them up with solid evidence

Because he knows as soon as they go from "asking questions" to "making statements" things like libel and slander become much easier to prove in court.

[kevin]

Because he knows as soon as they go from "asking questions" to "making statements" things like libel and slander become much easier to prove in court.

that seems almost too foreward thinking for a CT. I dunno, I think it's something else that makes them act that way. It's like "i gotta secret and i'm gonna hint around about it...." behavior.

[Mr. Skinny]

I'd like a show of hands: who here is not me? :wave1

I am Spartacus (I mean Gravy)

[DavidJames]

that seems almost too foreward thinking for a CT. I dunno, I think it's something else that makes them act that way. It's like "i gotta secret and i'm gonna hint around about it...." behavior.To me, I think the reason is pretty basic. The minute they go from asking questions to making claims, games over, the movement (and their livelihood), will fall apart since they have nothing to back up any claims. Continuing to just "ask questions" (and the resulting innuendo) allows them to avoid having to provide answers.

[delphi_ote]

I'd like a show of hands: who here is not me?

:wave1
I am me, so I guess I shouldn't raise my hand.

(I am not, however, Iamme.)

[Johnny Pixels]

I'd like a show of hands: who here is not me?

:wave1

I'm a bot

[Brainster]

I'd like a show of hands: who here is not me?

:wave1

I'm not me. Errr.

[defaultdotxbe]

I'd like a show of hands: who here is not me?

:wave1
im trying to be you


YAY! i have a sig now :)

[DavidJames]

I'd like a show of hands: who here is not me?

:wave1I'm a little teapot...

[Dog Town]

I know Markyx, and how ever many people he is, will enjoy this.
I posted the Onion piece over at Colbert, under a new thread, "Stone reveals new 911 plane conspiracy".I then qouted the blow the lid off the 911 report paragraph. I sat back and waited for the pole to bob. First hit was by B Real, head moon bat over there!
B.Real---(start stoopid)
"Ohh great

"New Oliver Stone 9/11 Film Introduces 'Single Plane' Theory"

WTF is that crap. This ******* is going to do more damage than good. I can't believe he wouldn't address the 100s of eyewitness accounts that talk about huge explosions and flashes before the building even fell. You know, like the ****ing firemen that where actually there said". (end stoopid)

- Then some wisenheimer, with the handle KT, posts "you do know that is satire correct".Wonder who that was? KKK Clown perhaps(not really paranoid)?
So with my cover blown, I respond to B Real and KT

(me)
"Just wanted to see how well they read before they reacted.Just as I thought! Thanks for blowing it. Hey BReal how long did it take to get that hook out of your mouth?

LOL............................................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .........................Still Laughing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

B REAL YOU DUMB ASS!"

-- Thought you might get a laugh! God knows you guys make me chuckle with with your antics.

DT

[Brainster]

Then some wisenheimer, with the handle KT, posts "you do know that is satire correct".Wonder who that was? KKK Clown perhaps(not really paranoid)?
So with my cover blown, I respond to B Real and KT

(me)
"Just wanted to see how well they read before they reacted.Just as I thought! Thanks for blowing it. Hey BReal how long did it take to get that hook out of your mouth?

Heheh, you went monkey-fishing and caught one! KT is almost certainly Killtown.

[Abbyas]

I'd like a show of hands: who here is not me?

I am sparticus!

[CptColumbo]

You've gotten lazy in your old age, mister Columbo. ;)
That's Mister Columbo to you. If not Captain.

[Kent1]

Implosion World's paper has finally come out.
I can't access the site right now, but here is a link from the LC forum

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10012

[Gravy]

9/11 museum acquires its first memory.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/08/nyregion/08cnd-museum.html

A good acquisition, methinks.

[Johnny C.]

First hit was by B Real, head moon bat over there!
roflmao. He keeps trying to tell me that if a person jumped off of the wtc, it would take them 30-40 seconds to reach the ground! WTF!?

He even made me a video and put it on youtube.

I just sent a him a video of people jumping to escape the fires in the WTC (peace be upon them) taking only 7 seconds to reach bottom. Thats from at least the 70th floor or so, maybe even 90th. Im not sure.

Funny enough, my name over there is Moonbat. I mostly just mock them instead of arguing. If someone has a genuine question I PM them a well thought-out response, complete with sources.

[CptColumbo]

I'd like a show of hands: who here is not me?

:wave1
I'm pretty sure I'm not you, but you would know better than I.

[Regnad Kcin]

i think on some level even the CTers realize their conspiracy is too big to keep under wraps, thats why they keep saying "only a few people would have to be involved"Except that's wrong.

Any "inside job" would, by its nature, be just about the largest and most complex undertaking of its kind in the history of man. Not only to design, but to implement, and also to continue to cover-up.

Why "just about" the largest? Faked moon missions would also be difficult to successfully pull off. Astronomically difficult, you might say.

[Johnny Pixels]

Implosion World's paper has finally come out.
I can't access the site right now, but here is a link from the LC forum

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10012

Just finished reading the paper. To summarise:

The CTs are talking rubbish.

It makes some good points, and also says that "pull it" is not an explosive demolition term. I see on the LC thread there are some people talking their way out of it.

Good stuff.

[defaultdotxbe]

It makes some good points, and also says that "pull it" is not an explosive demolition term. I see on the LC thread there are some people talking their way out of it.
implosion world has ties to CDI and CDI is a govt contractor, therefore they are all shills!


ha, i like how Paddy pulls out the ol' dictionary.com definition of "pull down" again

might be worth soemthing if silverstein had said "pull it down"


i also mirrored the letter here if you dont want to bother with rapidshare
http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf

[Sword_Of_Truth]

"gravy" aka MarkyX aka Mark Iradian aka Mark Roberts aka ... you get the picture ... "

Is anyone really suprised that Dylan Al-Avery thinks this?

Remember, this is the guy who thinks that out of 1.2 BILLION moslems or ethnic arabs in the world, only one has ever been named "Ziad" or "Walid".

I have a 9 year old boy named "Ziad" in my cub scout troop that I volunteer with. If he had something to do with 9-11 as Dylan Bin-Avery says the FBI claims, he is going to be doing ALOT of push-ups next wednesday. :p

[Johnny Pixels]

implosion world has ties to CDI and CDI is a govt contractor, therefore they are all shills!

If you're not a shill these days, then you're a nobody.

[Mr. Skinny]

That's Mister Columbo to you. If not Captain.
Bah, we knew ya when you were just a Lieutenant.

Now pi55 off.

[Johnny Pixels]

ha, i like how Paddy pulls out the ol' dictionary.com definition of "pull down" again

might be worth soemthing if silverstein had said 'pull it down"

Next thing you know they'll be "proving" that Jesus rode around on his backside, because the dictionary says Ass = Arse

[Johnny C.]

Just finished reading the paper. To summarise:

The CTs are talking rubbish.

It makes some good points, and also says that "pull it" is not an explosive demolition term. I see on the LC thread there are some people talking their way out of it.

Good stuff.
On 911myths they say "pulling" a building is when you use cables and heavy machinery to pull buildings off their center of gravity, causing them to eventually collapse.

Either way, it just didnt happen.

[T.A.M.]

I'm just the picasso of the Microbe world...no Mark here...

[defaultdotxbe]

On 911myths they say "pulling" a building is when you use cables and heavy machinery to pull buildings off their center of gravity, causing them to eventually collapse.

Either way, it just didnt happen.
thats exactly what IW says in the letter

but dictionary.com says "dynamite" so the those "so-called" experts must be lying LOL

[T.A.M.]

Israel's role in 9/11 - the movie (http://www.wingtv.net/911evil.html)

Posted over at the LC forum. Most didn't know what to say, as it contends israel had a central role in 9/11, which alot of the LC crowd are afraid to say anything about.

This is another sign that they will soon be disintgrating...too many way out there theories will make the more reasonable (bare with me) ones ignorable.

[Johnny C.]

Israel's role in 9/11 - the movie (http://www.wingtv.net/911evil.html)

Posted over at the LC forum. Most didn't know what to say, as it contends israel had a central role in 9/11, which alot of the LC crowd are afraid to say anything about.

This is another sign that they will soon be disintgrating...too many way out there theories will make the more reasonable (bare with me) ones ignorable.
It always leads back to the Jews.

[Joytown]

implosion world has ties to CDI and CDI is a govt contractor, therefore they are all shills!

i also mirrored the letter here if you dont want to bother with rapidshare
http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf

Wow .. that document is pretty damning to the Controlled Demo CT'ers. And they did something I think more experts in their respective fields need to do: face the CT questions head on.

So once again we have a situation where the experts in the field, in this case the very people who would know what to look for had it been a controlled demo, have provided their analysis of the situation. And once again it shows that the Conspiracy Theory has no legs to stand on.

It amazes me how the CT'ers ping pong back and forth between "it was a CD - it's so OBVIOUS - squibs and explosions and thermate and molton steel" and "of course it doesn't look like a CD - it was a CD that wasn't supposed to look like a CD!". One could get whiplash!

-Joytown

[Kent1]

The new CT journal has come out
http://www.journalof911studies.com/

The 4th article may be the most terrible one yet.
I think it may be even worse than the 3 plane elephant article.
In fact he uses it as a source for point number 21. Unbelieveable!
He also brings out dozens of debunked and tired claims.

Such as:
Hijacker names missing from flight manifests
Sole confession of bin Laden found in questionable video
(I guess he doesn't know about the one that occured around the election)
Several alleged hijackers discovered alive and well
Options trading in days preceding 9/11
Allegedly devout Muslim hijackers out partying prior to 9/11

(Maybe he should of read Mike's site first rather than just rip off many of Griffins false claims)

[Gravy]

The new CT journal has come out
http://www.journalof911studies.com/

The 4th article may be the worse one yet.
I think it may be even worse than the 3 plane elephant article.
In fact he uses it as a source for point number 21. Unbelieveable!
He also brings out dozens of debunked and tired claims.

Such as:
Hijacker names missing from flight manifests
Sole confession of bin Laden found in questionable video
(I guess he doesn't know about the one that occured around the election)
Several alleged hijackers discovered alive and well
Options trading in days preceding 9/11
Allegedly devout Muslim hijackers out partying prior to 9/11
Unbelievable. Remember, these are supposedly "peer-reviewed" papers.

Scholars???

[T.A.M.]

I think they get away with the "Peer reviewed" claim, because it is not a scientific journal. Let me tell you as a scientist, and as a frequent (daily) reader of truely peer reviewed articles, there is not one scientific paper created by any of them (S. Jones Included) that would be published in a true peer reviewed scientific journal.

[defaultdotxbe]

It amazes me how the CT'ers ping pong back and forth between "it was a CD - it's so OBVIOUS - squibs and explosions and thermate and molton steel" and "of course it doesn't look like a CD - it was a CD that wasn't supposed to look like a CD!". One could get whiplash!

-Joytown
did you read the posts on the LC board? they attack the IW letter stating how CDs start at the bottom with the old "its a CD designed not to look like a CD" argument, completely ignoring the meat of the IW letter detailing how much PLANNING would have to go into rigging the WTC to go down

and they accuse us of attacking strawmen, lol

[Gravy]

The new CT journal has come out
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Just read the Kevin Ryan paper. I'm glad he's not testing water for U.L. His ignorance and cherry-picking of data could endanger people.

[WildCat]

Now this thread is funny! "Why so quiet here?" (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9981) Sun Zoo asks...

Could it be because you fricking morons banned everyone who didn't drink the Kool-Aid so now there's nothing to discuss?

The depths of their stupidity is bottomless.

[T.A.M.]

I had a "truther" claim that we are now in the minority (those who believe the official story). So I did a little looking at the latest "scientific" poll that they are all gone crazy quoting:

Ohio State Poll:

*36% (that is a minority last I checked) of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."*

Now break that down...lets say we just break it down evenly...for sake of arguement. we have 4 variables...(1)Very Likely, (2) Somewhat likely, (3) Participated in the attacks, (4) let it happen.

so breaking down the combinations:

(1) Very likely + Participated
(2) Very likely + let it happen
(3) Somewhat likely + participated
(4) Somewhat likely + let it happen

So give them equal numbers (for arguments sake, as we dont have the breakdown of this available), and you get 36/4 = 9%

(1) Verylikely they participated=9%
(2) Verylikely they let it happen=9%
(3) Somewhat likely they participated=9%
(4) Somewhat likely they let it happen=9%

so really, the REAL believers in an "inside job", could be as little as 9%.

[SRW]

Implosion World's paper has finally come out.
I can't access the site right now, but here is a link from the LC forum

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10012

The discussion that this is causing is incredible. The report flatly states that no controlled domo could have happened, there was no molten steal found no evidence or possibility of explosives, and yet the idiots claim foul because not every theory is examined point by point.

It like giving them proof that there is no Santa Clause and they still want to argue about how a fat man can get down a chimney. Unfriggen believable.

[defaultdotxbe]

Now this thread is funny! "Why so quiet here?" (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9981) Sun Zoo asks...

Could it be because you fricking morons banned everyone who didn't drink the Kool-Aid so now there's nothing to discuss?

The depths of their stupidity is bottomless.
I think we figured out the whole story, so no need to post
yes, im sooo sure thats it

[WildCat]

yes, im sooo sure thats it
And yet I haven't seen a CT'er actually write down this "whole story"... :rolleyes:

[Dog Town]

Leave it to the Windy Cities Sun Times, to come out swinging. This article rips them all, "scholars" most, one fell swooop! BAM!!!!
" The Sleeper Must Awaken"
http://www.suntimes.com/output/roeper/cst-nws-roep08.html

[T.A.M.]

Oh man that implosion world study is basically the holy grail of debunking the CD theory.

[WildCat]

Leave it to the Windy Cities Sun Times, to come out swinging. This article rips them all, "scholars" most, one fell swooop! BAM!!!!

http://www.suntimes.com/output/roeper/cst-nws-roep08.html
Nice, Roeper ain't no fool.

Here's a little joke for you guys, I'm sure you've heard it before: Why is Chicago called the "windy city"?

[Dog Town]

Because wisconsin sucks? No Offense!

[WildCat]

Because wisconsin sucks? No Offense!
Sooo close...

[Dog Town]

You tease!

[WildCat]

You tease!
Because Wisconsin sucks and Indiana blows.

[Dog Town]

Tee hee hee! Yeah heard it. That spoiler thingee was cool though.This place is a trip.

[Hutch]

Just sent this e-mail to Mr. Roeper. I figure he'll get enough hate mail as is, he might as well know there are some folks on his side...

Sir;

Just a note to thank you for your article in the Sun-Times today, which I
just read on line.

Expect to be violently attacked by the supporters of the Conspiracy theory
who will claim that "If you just WATCH this video/picture/etc., you will
see the TRUTH" (capitalizations are intentional).

I am a member of the James Randi Education Foundation Forums (let me make it very, very clear that I am not an official representative of Mr. Randi nor do I speak for his group--I'm just a fan and a member of the message
board Forum there and my opinions reflect only my personal beliefs.) A number of us have been discussing this topic for weeks now at
http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64 (don't try to read them, we have literally thousands of posts on this topic). Several of our members have made websites that counter many of the CT'ers opinions. Please feel free to use them if you need ammunition against the furious attacks that your column will probably lead too, if our own experience is any judge.

My best wishes to you in your fight for rational, logical, and true skepical thought.

My best regards,

Hutch (used real name)


The Mecca of resources for debating the 9-11 CT
http://www.911myths.com/

Loose change movie debunked:
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

Blogsite that debunks the loose change video:
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

Video of the CT'ers and debunks:
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

The Mecca of resources for debating the 9-11 CT
http://www.911myths.com/


If any of our posters sites were left out, my apologies.

I'll let you know if I get any response.

[Dog Town]

On an even more positive note !Cynthia,'I'll talk my way right outa office", McKinney is getting her bra handed to her, 70-30. OWWWchhh! That has gotta leave a mark.

[WildCat]

On an even more positive note !Cynthia,'I'll talk my way right outa office", McKinney is getting her bra handed to her, 70-30. OWWWchhh! That has gotta leave a mark.
She got crazy eyes. Like this... :eye-poppi

[Dog Town]

His article is gonna raise the temp! I do like that you started and ended your list with 911 Myths!

[TjW]

Another thing to consider about this 600 MPH figure...

I have serious doubts about a 707 being capable of achieving 600MPH at such a low altitude.

With air that dense I suspect at that speed the amount of lift generated would rip the wings off.

-Andrew
No. For any wing, there is an angle of attack for which the lift of the wing is zero. Since you can go all the way to zero, then given airspeed above the stall, there's some point where you can reach the lift that just balances your weight.
OTOH, it's probably above the design dive speed, and it's possible that all sorts of fun Mach effects and possible fluttering could happen.
Pulling back hard on the yoke could pull the wings off, but that's generally true anywhere above maneuvering speed.

[kevin]

thats exactly what IW says in the letter

but dictionary.com says "dynamite" so the those "so-called" experts must be lying LOL

I wonder how hard it would be to petition dictionary.com to change their definition to the correct one. CTers would go off the deep-end if that happened.

[Dog Town]

I wonder how hard it would be to petition dictionary.com to change their definition to the correct one. CTers would go off the deep-end if that happened.

Gotta do that where do I sign?????!!!

DT

[R.Mackey]

Taken from Implosion World whitepaper: (http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf)

ASSERTION #3
"But explosive charges (aka plumes, squibs, etc.) can clearly be seen shooting from several floors just prior to collapse."
PROTEC COMMENT: No, air and debris can be seen pushing violently outward, which is a natural and predictable effect of rapid structural collapse.
There is an important hidden point in this statement about why certain windows failed and others didn't. There wasn't just air being forced out through lower floors, but also debris. Chunks of concrete bouncing down stairwells, office furniture blown into the windows, etc. Also the building was loaded funny after being plane-struck, so you'd see some windows stressed more than others. There's no reason to expect all the windows to blow out symmetrically.

... it matters little whether Alex Jones is drawing parallels to building implosions, Steven Jones is drawing conclusions from hot metal or Chuck Jones is drawing dynamite in the hands of Wile E. Coyote ...
Genius. :D

This is a nice writeup. Thanks for pointing it out to me.

[kevin]

Implosion World's paper has finally come out.
I can't access the site right now, but here is a link from the LC forum

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10012

That is freaking devastating! Yowza. The only counter I saw was to part 1 where they were talking about how imploding a building is done bottom up. I'm sure the CT'ers will claim this was done top down to make it look like normal fall. That would of course take way more explosives.

[R.Mackey]

OTOH, it's probably above the design dive speed, and it's possible that all sorts of fun Mach effects and possible fluttering could happen.
Pulling back hard on the yoke could pull the wings off, but that's generally true anywhere above maneuvering speed.
600 MPH is about 0.8 Mach at low altitude, lower than the Mach limit (cruising speed listed as 540 knots at altitude according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707)). The plane would probably be able to handle it, though I don't know if it would be able to sustain that kind of speed on the deck.

It'd be one heck of a bumpy ride, I'll tell you that.

P.S.: Unlike johndoeX, I don't even claim to be a pilot.

[Kent1]

That is freaking devastating! Yowza. The only counter I saw was to part 1 where they were talking about how imploding a building is done bottom up. I'm sure the CT'ers will claim this was done top down to make it look like normal fall. That would of course take way more explosives.

More good news......and it doesn't look very good for McKinney.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/elections/entries/2006/08/08/mckinney_losing.html

67% reporting in
Johnson , Hank 25,152 58.20
McKinney , Cynthia (i) 18,067 41.80

[tsig]

Since I am a Registered, Professional Engineer, dealing daily with loads, strengths, stresses, and strains from both static and dynamic standpoints (although i don't do buildings any more), I reject any implications that S. ones and/or J. Woods are qualified at all. They have demonstrated a remarkable lack of expertise in real-world engineering and statics, much less kinetics.


Thanks for the reality check.

[gumboot]

AFAIK squibs are movie props (sortof) a tiny explosive they use to blow up a fake blood pack when someoen gets shot in a movie

there could be a second definition though

Squib (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squib_%28explosive%29)

A squib is a small explosive device which has a wide range of uses, such as generating mechanical forces as well as in pyrotechnic use. A squib can range in size from a small cap only millimeters in diameter to ones which can be 15 millimetres in diameter...

...It must be distinguished from a detonator, which is used specifically to initiate high explosive. A squib may indeed be energetic enough to initiate high explosives, but that is not its primary purpose.

It must also be distinguished from the electric match, which produces only a flash of flame and is used to ignite military simulation pyrotechnics, stage pyrotechnics, fireworks in professional firework shows, charges for special effect purposes, rockets and a wide range of other pyrotechnic items requiring merely flame to ignite them.

In aviation, squibs are used to generate pressurised gas to open valves and operate small mechanical devices such as those found on ejection seats, and to pierce metal diaphragms that are retaining pressurised liquids such as halon and fluorocarbon extinguishants, or release compressed nitrogen gas to act as a propellant.

They are widely used in the special effects industry to simulate a bullet hit by coupling the squib itself with a condom or balloon of either fake blood for hits on persons or dust/debris for hits on other objects.

Squibs may be sensitive to EM radiation and devices such as vehicle radios, radar, cellular and microwave transmitters can set off a squib unless the two leads are terminated correctly, or better still, are fitted with suppressing ferrite filters....

...Squibs were originally made from parchment tubes, or the shaft of a feather filled with fine black powder and sealed at the ends with wax. These were inserted into the touch holes of cannon and used to ignite the main propellant charge. Roger Bacon first described the making of squibs in 1248...

So in conclusion... put up your had if you believe a 15mm explosive cap caused that stuff to eject out of the windows of the WTC...

-Andrew

[kevin]

Gotta do that where do I sign?????!!!

DT

bummer, dictionary.com says:
Thus any comments regarding the content of the definitions that appear on our site should properly be directed to the publisher or copyright holder.

They list where their definitions come from. Anyone gotta link to the one where dynamite is actually listed (pull/pulling definitions only say it's used in demolition, no method is specified)?

[Kent1]

Also if anyone want to submit papers for the next debunking journal let me know.

http://www.jod911.com/


You can e-mail us at
submissions@jod911.com
or
debunk911@hotmail.com

You can keep your name private if you want.

Best,
Executive Editor: ScottS

[Johnny C.]

wikipedia is the only place where I have been anle to find info on squibs. All the other results are straight from conspiracy theorists websites.

[R.Mackey]

Lol, if you were gonna secretly blow up a building you would try your very best to not make it look like a typical CD...why cant they understand that?

I thought the only reason those poor, deluded fools came up with the controlled demolition theory in the first place was that "it looked just like CD."

Aaaand we've come full circle.

ETA: From the same freakin' thread:

Are people not using their freakin' eyes when the watch footage of the towers coming down or are they just refusing to watch them? You don't need an engineering degree to see that it didn't fall on it's own, fire, plane or not.

sigh. I really don't regret never bothing to register there. I'm allergic to so much stupidity...

[WildCat]

Squib (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squib_%28explosive%29)



So in conclusion... put up your had if you believe a 15mm explosive cap caused that stuff to eject out of the windows of the WTC...

-Andrew
Don't forget, squibs also pulverized 110 40,000 sq. ft. floors of 4" thick concrete...

[Regnad Kcin]

Nor did I, R.Mackey. And for the same reason.

[defaultdotxbe]

They list where their definitions come from. Anyone gotta link to the one where dynamite is actually listed (pull/pulling definitions only say it's used in demolition, no method is specified)?
my mistake, it doesnt list dynamite...although im sure i saw it somewhere....probably some truther adding it when they quoted dictionary.com (wouldnt surprise me)

[JamesB]

Just in case you weren't already aware you were "Pat"

Wow, maybe I am Gravy and just don't know it yet?

[60hzxtl]

Wow, maybe I am Gravy and just don't know it yet?


And this turned down "seven fugures."

[JamesB]

Just read the Kevin Ryan paper. I'm glad he's not testing water for U.L. His ignorance and cherry-picking of data could endanger people.

This is from the paper by Firmage:

The Pentagon was well prepared for aerial attacks, with batteries of anti-aircraft guns surrounding the headquarters of the world’s most powerful military. They did not fire a shot that day.

Do these morons even do any research at all? The military has not even had anti-aircraft guns for decades, much less had them emplaced in batteries around a public office building. I am glad these papers are "peer reviewed" or else they might say something really stupid.

[defaultdotxbe]

found the dynamite definition!

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/thesaurus/entry?lb=e&p=num:P1203200&lb=e

although its a synonym, not definition, and a loose one at that (note in the next definition for "pull down" for "to recieve, as wages, for ones labor" they include "win" a synonym)

[Class]

And this turned down "seven fugures."
I wish I could bump the LC distribution rights thread so that Dylan could see it but I am suspended until the 10th.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9599&st=30

I really want to know who supposedly offered him a seven figure contract for his "documentary".

[Regnad Kcin]

This is from the paper by Firmage:

The Pentagon was well prepared for aerial attacks, with batteries of anti-aircraft guns surrounding the headquarters of the world’s most powerful military. They did not fire a shot that day.Do these morons even do any research at all? The military has not even had anti-aircraft guns for decades, much less had them emplaced in batteries around a public office building. I am glad these papers are "peer reviewed" or else they might say something really stupid.C'mon, everyone knows the Pentagon is just a modern verion of this (http://www.tvsquad.com/media/2006/03/FTROOP001.jpg).

[kevin]

found the dynamite definition!

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/thesaurus/entry?lb=e&p=num:P1203200&lb=e

although its a synonym, not definition, and a loose one at that (note in the next definition for "pull down" for "to recieve, as wages, for ones labor" they include "win" a synonym)

jeez, that's reaching for it. Even worse than CTer's (anti-tax CTers primarily) that cite Black's Law Dictionary as if it were actual law.

hmmm, i wonder what they think the phrase "yeah, right, why don't you pull the other one" means.

[Dog Town]

I had a "truther" claim that we are now in the minority (those who believe the official story). So I did a little looking at the latest "scientific" poll that they are all gone crazy quoting

Here's some of the Scripps poll.6%

The Pentagon was not struck by an airliner captured by terrorists but, instead was hit by a cruise missle fired by the U.S. military.*

Very likely 6%
Somewhat likely 6%
Not likely 80%
Don't kniow 7%
Other response 1%

The collapse if the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings.*

Very likely 6%
Somewhat likely 10%
Unlikely 77%
Don't know 6%
Other response 1%

The truthers rank the six percenters. Damn not even a dime. Punks

[Dog Town]

Shoot,pun intended, they should revive The JFK thing. Better polls !

Here are several serious accusations that some people have made against the federal government in recent years. Please tell me if you think each of these is very likely, somewhat likely, or unlikely.
Officials in the federal government were directly responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy. Is this very likely, somewhat likely, or unlikely?*

Very likely 12%
Somewhat likely 28%
Unlikely 51%
Don't Know 9%

[Gravy]

Do these morons even do any research at all? The military has not even had anti-aircraft guns for decades, much less had them emplaced in batteries around a public office building. I am glad these papers are "peer reviewed" or else they might say something really stupid.
Of course the batteries don't LOOK like anti-aircraft weapons. They're disguised as light poles, portable generators, etc. Hanjour skillfully took several of these out on his attack run.

The more the "scholars" speak, the better it is for our side. Publish or and perish!


edited to be funnier

[Abbyas]

The more the "scholars" speak, the better it is for our side. Publish or perish!

I have decided to open my own Journal For Abby Studies. And anyone that refuses to debate my scholars will be labeled as cowards.

[Dog Town]

I have decided to open my own Journal For Abby Studies. And anyone that refuses to debate my scholars will be labeled as cowards.

I always wanted to be a "Scholar". Taking apps?

[Gravy]

Wow, maybe I am Gravy and just don't know it yet?
There are some simple questions you can answer to determine if you are Gravy. First, and most important, do the ladies luv you? Cuz the ladies can't get enough Gravy.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044d1fd43e7f3a.jpg

[Dog Town]

No......I'm Gravy.....!
Great piC!

[JamesB]

Of course the batteries don't LOOK like anti-aircraft weapons. They're disguised as light poles, portable generators, etc. Hanjour skillfully took several of these out on his attack run.

The more the "scholars" speak, the better it is for our side. Publish or perish!

Amazingly they base their theories on anti-aircraft batteries which haven't existed for 20 years, and a KC-767 tanker which didn't go into production until 4 years afterwards. Maybe they should change their name to Scholars for 9/11 Anachronisms?

[gumboot]

On 911myths they say "pulling" a building is when you use cables and heavy machinery to pull buildings off their center of gravity, causing them to eventually collapse.

Either way, it just didnt happen.


The ultimate irony of course, is WTC6 (or maybe 5) actually was "pulled" in the exact manner described above.

I believe CTers use the "demolition" of WTC6 as evidence that "pull" = demolish (never realising they didn't use demolitions to bring it down).

Of course all of this is a little irrelevant anyway. Silverstein is not in the demolition industry, and the conversation he was recounting was not with demolitions people.

He was a building owner talking to firemen. Why would they use demolitions jargon?

That's like a mayor recounting a conversation with a ballroom dancer and mentioning "doing the tango", and CTers concluding from this that they executed a terrorists because "Tango" is military jargon for "terrorist" and "doing" is a military euphemism for "kill".

It's plain bukkake of stupid, from the ground up.

-Andrew

[Gravy]

Maybe they should change their name to Scholars for 9/11 Anachronisms?
I do think they'd be more comfortable publishing here: http://community.livejournal.com/sca/

[defaultdotxbe]

The ultimate irony of course, is WTC6 (or maybe 5) actually was "pulled" in the exact manner described above.

-Andrew
it was 6, IW even mentions it in the letter
http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf

[Abbyas]

There are some simple questions you can answer to determine if you are Gravy. First, and most important, do the ladies luv you? Cuz the ladies can't get enough Gravy.

Well, it's official. We should move the molten steel arguement to focus on the molten Gravy.

[60hzxtl]

You may be Gravy, but the rest of us are just common "taters".:duck:

[Regnad Kcin]

Wavy Gravy (http://mendelsonarchives.com/Photos/Thumbs/Wavy-Gravy.jpg).

[Darth Rotor]

Of course the batteries don't LOOK like anti-aircraft weapons. They're disguised as light poles, portable generators, etc. Hanjour skillfully took several of these out on his attack run.

The more the "scholars" speak, the better it is for our side. Publish or and perish!


edited to be funnier
Hi.

How about the both of you look up "Vulcan" and "Phalanx" and explain to me how little you both know about anti aircraft artillery?

Then, look up the various Soviet exported arms, in calibers that include 12.5 mm, 25MM, the ZSU23, 57 MM, and beyond and see how many places such AAA is still in service.

Just a tip for your Google habits.

DR

[R.Mackey]

You missed "Goalkeeper."

True. However, in modern parlance I believe these are considered "point defense" weapons, intended to splash incoming missiles as a last resort, probably never getting in range of an aircraft (the Falklands campaign notwithstanding). I think the M163 Vulcan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M163) was the last of its type, the preference these days to go with Stingers or other anti-aircraft missiles rather than guns.

Anyway, I really doubt these things were ringing the Pentagon. If they were, they'd have been afraid to fire them, for fear of errant flak ripping up DC.

[defaultdotxbe]

Anyway, I really doubt these things were ringing the Pentagon. If they were, they'd have been afraid to fire them, for fear of errant flak ripping up DC.
thats pretty much what ive been saying about the issue, even if they were AA missiles, shooting down a large aircraft over a populated area is goign to cause serious collateral damage, potentially even more than just letting it hit the pentagon

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Hi.

How about the both of you look up "Vulcan" and "Phalanx" and explain to me how little you both know about anti aircraft artillery?

Then, look up the various Soviet exported arms, in calibers that include 12.5 mm, 25MM, the ZSU23, 57 MM, and beyond and see how many places such AAA is still in service.

Just a tip for your Google habits.

DR

I believe what he meant was such weapons haven't been placed around the Pentagon itself for decades.

In that respect, the original statement is correct.

[JamesB]

Hi.

How about the both of you look up "Vulcan" and "Phalanx" and explain to me how little you both know about anti aircraft artillery?

Then, look up the various Soviet exported arms, in calibers that include 12.5 mm, 25MM, the ZSU23, 57 MM, and beyond and see how many places such AAA is still in service.

Just a tip for your Google habits.

DR

Those aren't anti-aircraft weapons, they are anti-missile defense systems mounted on ships. Unless an Aegis cruiser is stationed in the parking lot of the Pentagon it is not relevent.

Are we to believe the US Army uses ZSU 23-4s? Damn, those budget cuts must really be hitting home!

[gumboot]

No. For any wing, there is an angle of attack for which the lift of the wing is zero. Since you can go all the way to zero, then given airspeed above the stall, there's some point where you can reach the lift that just balances your weight.


Sorry, let me correct. A boeing 707 can't fly level at low altitude at 600 MPH.

We're talking about the liklihood of a 707 hitting the WTC at 600 MPH. Putting aside dive bombing attacks, I can't see this ever happening.

According to this (http://books.elsevier.com/companions/034074152X/appendices/data-a/table-2/table.htm) chart:

Boeing 707-320C Never exceed speed (VNE) is 425 KCAS (Knots calibrated air speed).

At cruise altitude (25,000ft) 425 KCAS is Mach 0.99 or 597 KTAS (True Air Speed) (the chart actually says Mach 0.95 as Maximum Mach, allowing for a buffer, I suppose, or possibly allowing for variations between Indicated Air Speed and Calibrated Air Speed).

In contrast, if the 707 hit the WTC, at that altitude the VNE of 425 KCAS is Mach 0.66 or 425 KTAS. (Assuming no wind, with nominal atmospheric conditions, Indicated, Calibrated, and True airspeeds are all the same (and the same as ground speed) at sea level).

Hence 600 MPH (520 Knots) at sea level exceeds a Boeing 707's Never Exceed Speed (VNE) by 15%.

Theoretically airframe integrity begins to be compromised at VNE. Would a 707's wings tear off at 15% over VNE? I don't know. But I can't imagine a scenario in which a 707 would ever hit the WTC at that speed.

Of course, it is almost certain that the people doing the calculations simply looked up typical cruise speed and calculated the WTC's survivability based on that. I'm not saying they didn't determine it for that speed. :)

I'm just saying a scenario with an impact at that speed was never going to happen.

(Incidentally, on the same charts no VNE for the Boeing 757 or Boeing 767 is given...)

-Andrew

[defaultdotxbe]

suggestions for LC3

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10061

FLAME ON! http://images.xbox-scene.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/flamethrower.gif

[gumboot]

Those aren't anti-aircraft weapons, they are anti-missile defense systems mounted on ships. Unless an Aegis cruiser is stationed in the parking lot of the Pentagon it is not relevent.


The US Army's current standard mobile AA unit is the M1097 Avenger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1097_Avenger)

The Avenger Air Defense System is a US military weapon system utilized by both the Army and the Marine Corps that provides mobile, short-range air defense protection for ground units against cruise missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, low-flying fixed-wing aircraft, and helicopters.

This is one of the air defense systems placed around the Pentagon in Washington, DC after the September 11 terror attacks. The Avenger system has been in use since 1989.

If the Pentagon has an air defence system, why did they deploy this puppy?

Two things to consider:

1) The Pentagon is primarily an administrative building, not an operations centre
2) The Pentagon is located in a major city very close to (and on the approach line of) a major airport.

Therefore, to think the Pentagon had any form of AA defence system in place (never mind an automated one) is nonsense.

Hence why the CTers think it.

-Andrew

[Gravy]

How about the both of you look up "Vulcan" and "Phalanx" and explain to me how little you both know about anti aircraft artillery?

Since I don't know what I'm talking about, please explain to me what antiaircraft systems were installed at the Pentagon on 9/11/01.

[Gravy]

1) The Pentagon is primarily an administrative building, not an operations centre
While it is primarily an administrative building, it also houses the National Military Command Center (NMCC), which is very much a crucial operations center. It's the only part of the Pentagon that wasn't evacuated on 9/11. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/facility/nmcc.htm

[Brainster]

Just read the Kevin Ryan paper. I'm glad he's not testing water for U.L. His ignorance and cherry-picking of data could endanger people.

The only thing that makes that better is that Ryan is now the co-editor of JONES. (Anybody else note that acronym?)

[defaultdotxbe]

skillful avoidance of answering questions by truthers:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10018

i find it amusing

[brumsen]

The new CT journal has come out
http://www.journalof911studies.com/

The 4th article may be the most terrible one yet.

Got to give the Scholars credit, though, for publishing Greening's piece. Peer review may not be all you like it to be, but they do publish dissenting views.

ETA: Feel the urgent need to debunk? visit http://www.atfreeforum.com/911studies/

[defaultdotxbe]

Got to give the Scholars credit, though, for publishing Greening's piece. Peer review may not be all you like it to be, but they do publish dissenting views.
true, but i wouldnt be surprised if that was one of the weaker criticisms that was subitted

[JamesB]

Got to give the Scholars credit, though, for publishing Greening's piece. Peer review may not be all you like it to be, but they do publish dissenting views.

Hmm, I will have to submit mine then, both Legge and Jones refused comment.

[T.A.M.]

I dont accept his article as peer reviewed either, until they can proove that a panel of qualified experts in the area covered by the paper reviewed the article for content and validity, and then approved it...Greening or Jones or Woods...

[Brainster]

Got to give the Scholars credit, though, for publishing Greening's piece. Peer review may not be all you like it to be, but they do publish dissenting views.

You mean the editors of the publication, not the Scholars? I see Jones and Ryan on the Masthead. Not trying to be a jerk here, just being technical.

[T.A.M.]

Quote from Sun Zoo on suggestions for LC3 (my fav quote):

"South tower plane as drone evidence, no matter how "controvertial" it may be, in fact, the more controvertial the better, as long as it's true."

[MikeW]

Re: missile batteries at the Pentagon, Richard Clarke told us in his book that they thought about having air defences in Washington in 1996 but the idea was turned down. Here's the quote:

The Secret Service and Customs had teamed up in Atlanta to provide some rudimentary air defense against an aircraft flying into the Olympic Stadium. They did so again during the subsequent National Security Special Events and they agreed to create a permanent air defense unit to protect Washington. Unfortunately, those two federal law enforcement agencies were housed in the Treasury Department and its leadership did not want to pay for such a mission or run the liability risks of shooting down the wrong aircraft. Treasury nixed the air defense unit, and my attempts within the White House to overfule them came to naught. The idea of aircraft attacking in Washington seemed remote to many people and the risks of shooting down aircraft in a city were thought to be far too high. Moreover, the opponents of our plan argued, the Air Force could always scramble fighter aircraft to protect Washington if there were a problem. On occasions when aircraft were hijacked (and in one case when we erroneously believed a Northwest flight had been seized), the Air Force did intercept the airliners with fighter jets. We succeeded only in getting Secret Service the permission to continue to examine air defense options, including the possibility of placing missile units near the White House. Most people who heard about our efforts to create some air defense system in case terrorists tried to fly aircraft into the Capitol, the White House, or the Pentagon simply thought we were nuts.

[T.A.M.]

If I did a drug study for DRUG X, and I submit the study to a journal where the reviewing committee were a bunch of Philosophy proffs, would you trust the study enough to buy the drug or take it, or even invest money in it?

Even if I submitted the study on Drug X to a medical journal. If it were some obscure journal, where the peer review panel consisted of 1-2 somewhat related experts, would you trust the drug or the study?

Why is it we have such high standards for medical trials, but none, at least from the Truth movement, for evidence in their suggested murder by govt of 3000 people.

[brumsen]

Now I know that this is a fast-moving thread, but given that I have myself been accused of not answering questions, I cannot help but notice that quite a few direct questions from me have not been answered:

To JamesB (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1818054&postcount=302)
To Gravy (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1820930&postcount=495)
To Belz... (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1821745&postcount=550) (eta: originally asked here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1821371&postcount=507))

Apologies if I missed the answers to these questions.

[brumsen]

You mean the editors of the publication, not the Scholars? I see Jones and Ryan on the Masthead. Not trying to be a jerk here, just being technical.
Well, it is a journal published by Scholars for Truth, the editors of which are Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan - both members of that organization.

(btw, that's today.... First it was Jones and Wood, then just Jones, now Jones and Ryan... I asked somebody on the advisory board what was going on here, but he couldn't tell me.)

[JamesB]

Now I know that this is a fast-moving thread, but given that I have myself been accused of not answering questions, I cannot help but notice that quite a few direct questions from me have not been answered:

To JamesB (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1818054&postcount=302)
To Gravy (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1820930&postcount=495)
To Belz... (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1821745&postcount=550)

Apologies if I missed the answers to these questions.

I already mentioned on the "journal" forum. I e-mailed Jones on a variety of issues regarding PNAC, including sending him the paper I wrote in response to Legge's paper (which mentioned PNAC). He changed some parts of his powerpoint to correct "mistakes" which I pointed out, but never responded to me.

[apathoid]

Hi.

How about the both of you look up "Vulcan" and "Phalanx" and explain to me how little you both know about anti aircraft artillery?

Then, look up the various Soviet exported arms, in calibers that include 12.5 mm, 25MM, the ZSU23, 57 MM, and beyond and see how many places such AAA is still in service.

Just a tip for your Google habits.

DR

Phalanx is an anti-ship missile defense system. Vulcan? As in 20mm Vulcan cannon? Maybe its the gun of choice for the phalanx because it rapid rate of fire(100 rounds per second).

This is all nonsense though. There is a much easier way to determine if there is a missile/gun defense system, such as an FAA low-altitude chart for DC which show restricted airspace around the Pentagon. Let me save you the trouble, the airspace isnt restricted and if you look at an approach plate for the runway 15 viusal approach, it takes the airplane right over the Pentagon, less than 300' AGL.
No missile defenses, sorry.

[brumsen]

I already mentioned on the "journal" forum. I e-mailed Jones on a variety of issues regarding PNAC, including sending him the paper I wrote in response to Legge's paper (which mentioned PNAC). He changed some parts of his powerpoint to correct "mistakes" which I pointed out, but never responded to me.
So I take it that you did not ask him your question about peer review (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1817657&postcount=281)?

eta: did you send your paper marked as a submission to the journal? If so, he owes you an (motivated) editorial decision. You should insist on that.

[R.Mackey]

Got to give the Scholars credit, though, for publishing Greening's piece. Peer review may not be all you like it to be, but they do publish dissenting views.
Hey Brumsen, welcome back. I was just going to comment on this issue.

Back in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1822110#post1822110) I outlined some problems I found with Ross's analysis. I was gratified to see Greening take Ross to task on several of the same issues, while at the same time playing by Ross's rules, and still refuting his conclusions.

I also see that Ross has a rebuttal... talk about evading questions, check this beauty out. (Both Greening's refutation and Ross's response are found at http://www.journalof911studies.com/.)

Ross's whole argument is to siphon off as much of the initial collapse energy as possible. He postulates a "kinetic energy" sink of lower floors springing away from the collision of upper and lower floors, while utterly disregarding the additional structural damage that would be caused by transmitting that energy through the support columns, or explaining where it goes immediately afterwards. He stops his energy balance equation with the 20+ floors below impact moving downward at various speeds up to 4 meters per second, but clearly this is not the end state of a building that remains standing. (Ross's original paper can be found at the same URL, in "Volume 1, July 2006.")

Greening's main counterpoint (there are other adjustments that, on their own, also refute Ross's conclusion) is that Ross has grossly overestimated the number of floors that could recoil, not to mention the number that did recoil according to the video evidence:

WTC 1's collapse also involved a tilting of the upper section of the Tower and was therefore asymmetric. Thus the downward collapsing force had a significant angular component. Why is this important? Because the longitudinal compression wave induced by the initial rotational (tilting) action and free fall collapse of the upper sections of WTC 1 & 2 was not propagated down the central vertical axis of the columns. Lateral and even torsional compression waves were created. This means that most of the initial impact kinetic energy was expended in destroying the first impacted floor as proposed in Greening’s Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse report. In addition it is well known that an elastic compression wave in a spliced column system such as the WTC will not propagate efficiently, but dissipate, at each splice. Thus there is no justification for the assumption that the initial elastic deflection would propagate 24 storeys below the impact floor. This is an idealized concept that was not satisfied in the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Certainly, if Ross’ suggestion that 24 floors below about the 95th floor moved downward after the impact of the upper section, the videos and photographs of the collapse of WTC should show a noticeable downward displacement of floors between the 70th and 94th levels immediately after the impact. In fact, no such movement was observed. It is significant, however, that ejections of dust and debris were observed at a few locations several floors below the impacted floors. This observation suggests that the fast moving compression wave did inflict some damage to floors a few storeys below the directly impacted floors. However, and this is an important point, such “pre-damage” to lower floors should not be considered as “lost” kinetic energy but rather as energy that facilitated the later total collapse of the affected floors. Thus we suggest that, instead of 24 floors, a maximum of four floors would have shown any significant downward movement after impact of the upper block of floors.
Terrific. Case closed. The reactive mass is smaller, so even if accelerating those floors completely dissipates that part of the energy budget (also false, but let's roll with it), the amount of energy is far smaller than Ross would have us believe. Ergo, collapse is initiated when the upper block hits the lower structure.

Along comes Ross. What does he say?

Let us assume for a moment that Dr. Greening is correct. What would be the result of an analysis which allows all of Dr.Greening's assumptions to be held valid, all his figures to be utilised and all his reasoning to be used, but then simply allow the clock to tick over for a few more tenths of a second? Dr. Greening shows an energy excess at a point in time some 13 milliseconds into the collision.
(Paraphrasing, "OK, you got me, but what about...")

The falling upper section, according to Dr. Greening's analysis, remains able and equipped to continue to progress the collapse, and it will do so by continuing to accelerate the tower downwards and deforming the support columns. The most immediate task that it will face in doing so will be to continue the acceleration of those floors identified by Dr. Greening as being first affected by the collapse as it attempts to reconcile and satisfy the laws of conservation of momentum and energy. The upper section will also continue to act on the first impacted and impacting column sections by moving these through the remainder of their elastic strain phase and into the plastic phase range. This will consume energy and take time. Again assuming a continued constant velocity of 8.5m/sec the further movement through the plastic deflection of four storeys 444mm will take another 50 milliseconds.
(emphasis added)

But, Ross argues, if you just wait another 50 milliseconds, then -- according to my model -- the structure could transmit still more energy to the four lower floors, and it wouldn't collapse! It has to in order to conserve momentum and energy!

Need I point out how specious this reasoning is? Oh heck, I'll do it anyway:


After 13 milliseconds -- starting from the upper block hitting the lower block -- the two contact floors have been destroyed, and thus collapse has already been initiated. No point continuing the calculation, as it is moot.

Ross's "energy balance" had already accounted for the pillars being compressed to their plastic limit, with a much lower energy cost. Any further compression means total failure -- they have no more shock to absorb!

Ross needs the pillars to further compress a remarkable 444 millimeters, or roughly a foot and a half! This is a LOT of distortion, roughly enough to destroy four-floor sections on its own (3% strain is roughly maximum for steel).

Ross needs to get it through his head that he is basically assuming his conclusion. He is insisting that his model, in which the building stays up, conserves momentum and energy. If you force those to be true, as he has, of course your numbers will say it stays up. Your numbers will also have no bearing on reality...

I really have to hand it to Dr. Greening for putting up with such pretenders to science. I eagerly await his thorough destruction of Ross once again.

In my opinion, Steven Jones and his little circle of lunatics have done a grave disservice by not following the standards of peer review. Ross could learn a great many things from the process if they had. Unfortunately, it seems Ross hasn't yet learned anything, and will suffer needless ridicule, perhaps permanently damaging his employment potential, as a result.

[brumsen]

true, but i wouldnt be surprised if that was one of the weaker criticisms that was subitted
I guess R. Mackey just gave a strong argument that you're quite wrong here with this response...

[R.Mackey]

I don't have any evidence of that. I have no idea what gets submitted to their "journal." My guess is they published Greening's criticism because (a) Ross called him out first, and (b) Greening is one of few who bother to debate such idiotic ideas.

Greening shouldn't have to do this. Peer reviewers should have fixed or rejected Ross's paper before it ever saw the light of day. It's a learning process, not an inquisition, and not something that an honest researcher will avoid.

[Kent1]

Got to give the Scholars credit, though, for publishing Greening's piece. Peer review may not be all you like it to be, but they do publish dissenting views.

ETA: Feel the urgent need to debunk? visit http://www.atfreeforum.com/911studies/

After FO's meltdown from our last discussion I'm not so sure. Maybe....

Furthermore Jones has been avoiding my e-mails and online questions.
Maybe I'll use the debunking911 e-mail and that will get his attention.

[Kent1]

I don't have any evidence of that. I have no idea what gets submitted to their "journal." My guess is they published Greening's criticism because (a) Ross called him out first, and (b) Greening is one of few who bother to debate such idiotic ideas.

Greening shouldn't have to do this. Peer reviewers should have fixed or rejected Ross's paper before it ever saw the light of day. It's a learning process, not an inquisition, and not something that an honest researcher will avoid.

Gordon is over here debating a few of us. One of the biggest problems with gordon's posts over the months is an almost complete lack of supporting information.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7444&st=1185

[brumsen]

I don't have any evidence of that. I have no idea what gets submitted to their "journal." My guess is they published Greening's criticism because (a) Ross called him out first, and (b) Greening is one of few who bother to debate such idiotic ideas.
Strictly speaking you're right, of course. But I responded to the implied supposition that the dissenting article that they chose to publish was so chosen for being easily rebutted. Which you have shown Ross not to have been able to do.

[Gravy]

Now I know that this is a fast-moving thread, but given that I have myself been accused of not answering questions, I cannot help but notice that quite a few direct questions from me have not been answered:

To JamesB (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1818054&postcount=302)
To Gravy (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1820930&postcount=495)
To Belz... (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1821745&postcount=550) (eta: originally asked here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1821371&postcount=507))

Apologies if I missed the answers to these questions.
Shall we dance? In my post you linked to, I asked you two questions, which I believe you did not answer. Here they are:

1) Brumsen, this issue has come up on your forum a couple of times. NIST said they didn't include an analysis of post-collapse initiation events in their final report. I'm not aware that anyone at NIST said they didn't study the whole collapse. Perhaps they didn't. Are you aware of anyone at NIST making such a statement, or that anyone has even asked them?

2) There isn't a single shred of evidence to lead to the hypothesis that demolitions explosives were used. Nothing reported by the engineers, nothing reported by the ironworkers or firemen at Ground Zero, nothing reported by the detectives and forensics experts who sorted 1.6 billion pounds of debris for evidence. Nothing in the videos. Nothing. How much time should NIST have spent on this absurd idea?

Your question to me
Do you mean to say that they studied it [the whole collapse], but for some reason didn't include that in the report; or are you making a finer distinction here which I am failing to grasp?
I'm saying that the CTs definitively state that NIST did not study the whole collapse, and I'm asking what support they have for that claim.

[Belz...]

I am me, so I guess I shouldn't raise my hand.

(I am not, however, Iamme.)

You AREN'T ???

[Belz...]

That's Mister Columbo to you. If not Captain.

I thought you were a Lieutenant ?

[Belz...]

I am sparticus!

Is that a female version of SpartAcus ? If so, shouldn't it be Spartaca or something ?

[Belz...]

Now I know that this is a fast-moving thread, but given that I have myself been accused of not answering questions, I cannot help but notice that quite a few direct questions from me have not been answered:

To JamesB (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1818054&postcount=302)
To Gravy (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1820930&postcount=495)
To Belz... (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1821745&postcount=550) (eta: originally asked here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1821371&postcount=507))

Apologies if I missed the answers to these questions.

I have never made such an assertion, therefore no answer is needed. I simply asked if you had read it. Period.

[brumsen]

Shall we dance?

Ooooh I love to dance.



In my post you linked to, I asked you two questions, which I believe you did not answer. Here they are:

1) Brumsen, this issue has come up on your forum a couple of times. NIST said they didn't include an analysis of post-collapse initiation events in their final report. I'm not aware that anyone at NIST said they didn't study the whole collapse. Perhaps they didn't. Are you aware of anyone at NIST making such a statement, or that anyone has even asked them?

I quoted the relevant statement in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1821784&postcount=555). It reads: “The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.”

Then you replied, as above, with NIST said they didn't include an analysis of post-collapse initiation events in their final report. I'm not aware that anyone at NIST said they didn't study the whole collapse.

... which gave rise to my question
Do you mean to say that they studied it [the whole collapse], but for some reason didn't include that in the report; or are you making a finer distinction here which I am failing to grasp?

I cannot see, given the NIST statement which I refer to above, how I'm saying that the CTs definitively state that NIST did not study the whole collapse, and I'm asking what support they have for that claim. is an answer to that.

It is not just CT's who state NIST did not study the whole collapse, it is NIST who says so. So could you now answer my question, please?

ETA: And as to your second question:
2) There isn't a single shred of evidence to lead to the hypothesis that demolitions explosives were used. Nothing reported by the engineers, nothing reported by the ironworkers or firemen at Ground Zero, nothing reported by the detectives and forensics experts who sorted 1.6 billion pounds of debris for evidence. Nothing in the videos. Nothing. How much time should NIST have spent on this absurd idea?

Zero would have been fine by me, as long as they had not included a conclusion in their report about alternative (=CD) hypotheses. Not doing any research on it and yet drawing a conclusion is what I object to.

[chipmunk stew]

Leave it to the Windy Cities Sun Times, to come out swinging. This article rips them all, "scholars" most, one fell swooop! BAM!!!!
" The Sleeper Must Awaken"
http://www.suntimes.com/output/roeper/cst-nws-roep08.html

There are more and more of these good commentaries. I just opened a thread to collect them:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61402

[brumsen]

I have never made such an assertion, therefore no answer is needed. I simply asked if you had read it. Period.
No. You said
Did you READ the reports ? I do believe they answer those questions quite nicely.
.. and I asked you to back this up by giving me a reference to where my question is answered.

To repeat, my question was: how does NIST justify the assumption that the collapse continues all the way down after what they call collapse initiation?

[WildCat]

Now I know that this is a fast-moving thread, but given that I have myself been accused of not answering questions, I cannot help but notice that quite a few direct questions from me have not been answered:
And you've missed a frew of mine, here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1821567&postcount=528) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1821572&postcount=529).

[WildCat]

To repeat, my question was: how does NIST justify the assumption that the collapse continues all the way down after what they call collapse initiation?
So you think that when the top 40 stories of WTC 2 started to fall they should have somehow bounced off the lower structures? Or come to a rest on top of it?

[MarkyX]

Guys, I need your help.

Vote on this poll.

http://www.colbertnation.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=2545

:D

[kevin]

Guys, I need your help.

Vote on this poll.

http://www.colbertnation.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=2545

:D

Are you going to pay us for our votes from your gov't slush fund?

[MarkyX]

No.

The gumberment is displeased with your progress.

[chacal]

You will all be well rewarded when the new world order is established. Don't worry.

[MarkyX]

Another thing..

Guests can post :)

[60hzxtl]

Guys, I need your help.

Vote on this poll.

http://www.colbertnation.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=2545

:D


Every April 15th I realize I'm working for the government. . . .

[Cuddles]

Got to give the Scholars credit, though, for publishing Greening's piece. Peer review may not be all you like it to be, but they do publish dissenting views.

ETA: Feel the urgent need to debunk? visit http://www.atfreeforum.com/911studies/

Peer review is not about publishing views, dissenting or otherwise, it is about publishing valid research. A paper with as many flaws as this one should never have been published because the basic maths and physics behind it are wrong (as pointed out by Greening and R.Mackey). While I don't expect referees to replicate all research to prove it right, the whole point of peer review is to catch errors like this.

[Gravy]

It is not just CT's who state NIST did not study the whole collapse, it is NIST who says so. So could you now answer my question, please?
I already did. Once again you referenced a NIST quote about the focus of the investigation being on the events leading up to the collapse. Please show me where they say that no one at NIST studied the events after that.

ETA: And as to your second question:

Zero would have been fine by me, as long as they had not included a conclusion in their report about alternative (=CD) hypotheses. Not doing any research on it and yet drawing a conclusion is what I object to.
Your evidence that they did not do any research on it? In answering both of these questions it seems to me that you're committing the same offense you accuse NIST of: jumping to conclusions without researching.

[Gravy]

Guys, I need your help.

Vote on this poll.

http://www.colbertnation.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=2545

:D
I didn't vote for three reasons:
–They don't say what government you're supposed to work for.
–I have no idea if you work for a government or not.
–Internet polls are stupid.

[mrfreeze]

So I have to ask, do Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart actually support this nonsense? Have they made statements one way or the other? Because it seems that one thing all Ct's agree on is their love for both of them. Which I can fully understand, since their respective shows can get quite funny, but jesus.

[Gravy]

From the Albany Times-Union story (http://timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=506008) on LC this weekend:

They're currently at work on an edited version of "Second Edition" to fix what they say are minor factual errors (like having the wrong type of bomber hitting the Empire State Building in 1945).
Hmm. 2 1/2 months to fix some minor factual errors, while postponing the much-heralded release of LC Final Cut? I think not.

In a conspiracist's world, any piece of evidence can be dismissed as fabrication, disinformation or naivete. So what would convince the three Oneonta filmmakers their theories are flawed?
...Rowe, the Army veteran, merely shakes his head.
"There is not one thing that they can do that can dissuade me from what I think," Rowe said. "I know they did it. ... I'm more sure of it every day."
The military has made a decisive man out of young Korey. Unfortunately it didn't teach him how to decide wisely.

But here's the scary part:
Their base of operations -- shared by a pit bull named Justice -- is a house trailer (rent: $700) on 46 acres dubbed "Camp Freedom."
That brings to mind an episode of Mr. Show in which different "sovereign nations" – consisting of individual paranoid militia/survivalist types who have declared their mountain retreats independent from the U.S. – compete against each other in an independent Olympics. One of the "nations" is called New Freedomland.

[JamesB]

So I take it that you did not ask him your question about peer review (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1817657&postcount=281)?

eta: did you send your paper marked as a submission to the journal? If so, he owes you an (motivated) editorial decision. You should insist on that.

I don't normally keep on sending e-mails to people who refused to respond previously, but now that I have a reason I will have to. I didn't send it for submission because I was under the impression that you had to have some sort of academic credentials to do so, but now that they have printed articles by people who apparently have less education than I do, I will have to do so.

[Gravy]

So I have to ask, do Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart actually support this nonsense? Have they made statements one way or the other? Because it seems that one thing all Ct's agree on is their love for both of them. Which I can fully understand, since their respective shows can get quite funny, but jesus.
No, those guys are far too smart for that. A while back the Loosers had a letter-writing campaign to ask Stewart to devote time to them, and we were all praying that he would. I have seen Bill Maher recently ripping into the CTs.

[kevin]

So I have to ask, do Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart actually support this nonsense? Have they made statements one way or the other? Because it seems that one thing all Ct's agree on is their love for both of them. Which I can fully understand, since their respective shows can get quite funny, but jesus.

I don't think they've made statements about it (at least not on their show.) Judging by the number of people Stewart has had on his show to explain why Islamic and Arabic people hate us I'd say he agrees middle eastern terrorists did 9-11.

I think CTers like them because they criticize the gov't. They assume anyone that criticizes the gov't is on their side. Which is why they accuse people that don't support them as on the side of the gov't even if those people voted against the current administration or criticize many gov't programs in other forums.

[mrfreeze]

I figured as much. I just got creeped out that colbert's message board kept creeping into the discussions. Then I realized it was a fansite. But still, at least now I don't feel bad about buying their products.

[Kent1]

I already did. Once again you referenced a NIST quote about the focus of the investigation being on the events leading up to the collapse. Please show me where they say that no one at NIST studied the events after that.


Your evidence that they did not do any research on it? In answering both of these questions it seems to me that you're committing the same offense you accuse NIST of: jumping to conclusions without researching.

A common error with CT'ers is that they NIST only studied up to the point of colapse. This is incorrect. IN fact Steven Jones had made the same mistake for a while in his paper.
For example his paper stated:
What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas in large pools in both Towers and WTC 7 as well? Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the buildings were “poised for collapse.”

However he had failed to read Chapter 6 pg 153: which states

"Photographic and videographic records were reviewed to identify structurally-related events. Where possible, all four faces of a building were examined for a given event or time period to provide complete understanding of the building response. Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and may result in incorrect interpretation of events. For instance, photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof (McAllister 2002). When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed."

So NIST is now stating that the antenna didn't fall first. This clearly shows that NIST did study aspects of the collapse. If you continue to read the report, there are also pictures and various other examples of NIST studing the DURING the collapse such as the tilt.

[Belz...]

No. You said

.. and I asked you to back this up by giving me a reference to where my question is answered.

To repeat, my question was: how does NIST justify the assumption that the collapse continues all the way down after what they call collapse initiation?

If you can't read my posts better than that, then there's little point in continuing this conversation. Or don't you know the definition of the verb "to believe" ?

[Kent1]

Another current one of the MANY errors in Jones paper,... Jones states that NIST did not study the observed squibs.
However one can turn to
pg 319 titled: Events Following Collapse Initiation 9.3.3
For example "The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it like the action of a piston, forcing material, such as smoke and debris out the windows as seen in several videos.

In the same section they also go on to discuss no evidence of explosives planted.

brumsen, next time you see Jones, tell him to try RESEARCHING the report before commenting on it.

Best..

[brumsen]

I already did. Once again you referenced a NIST quote about the focus of the investigation being on the events leading up to the collapse. Please show me where they say that no one at NIST studied the events after that.
I already did. Unless, that is, you mean to be saying that they did research it but wrote the report so as not to include that research. I've now asked you three times whether this is what you do want to say?
If so, my follow-up is of course: so why wasn't such research included in the report?


Your evidence that they did not do any research on it [alternative hypotheses / CD]? In answering both of these questions it seems to me that you're committing the same offense you accuse NIST of: jumping to conclusions without researching.
My evidence is that such research is nowhere to be found in the report. There is just the conclusion. My question is: what is it based on? Show me where in the report I can read about that, and I'll keep my mouth shut.

[brumsen]

If you can't read my posts better than that, then there's little point in continuing this conversation. Or don't you know the definition of the verb "to believe" ?
hahahahaha, that's a good one:rolleyes:

So you can use the verb believe in such a way that you won't be required to back it up, whereas any CT'er coming here would constantly have to back up the beliefs he states by means of evidence? Come on now. When you state your beliefs, you can be asked to justify them by means of evidence.

[brumsen]

So I take it that you did not ask him your question about peer review (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1817657&postcount=281)?
Hmm, just heard (from Greening) how the 'Scholars' (yes, I'll have to start using scare quotes now) handled the peer review of Greening's paper. It was reviewed by... Gordon Ross. Ahum.

[brumsen]

brumsen, next time you see Jones...
I've never seen him, and have little reason to. And he does not respond to my emails either.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I already did. Unless, that is, you mean to be saying that they did research it but wrote the report so as not to include that research. I've now asked you three times whether this is what you do want to say?
If so, my follow-up is of course: so why wasn't such research included in the report?



My evidence is that such research is nowhere to be found in the report. There is just the conclusion. My question is: what is it based on? Show me where in the report I can read about that, and I'll keep my mouth shut.

Because it is a waste of space in the report to explain why every other hypothesis is wrong, when they are presenting their hypothesis and the evidence that supports it. There was no existing hypothesis to disprove in addition to proving their hypothesis. The report is already massive, and you want them to make it larger by including all the work they did to cross ideas of their list in addition to the work they did to end up with the item off their list that they present.

If you feel there are problems with the evidence/logic used to obtain the conclusions that they did then please present it, otherwise you are left with agreeing that their assessment is accurate and other hypothetical explanations for the events are moot.

[Dog Town]

Guys, I need your help.

Vote on this poll.

http://www.colbertnation.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=2545

:D

Done. I voted yes! Only because I've seen you at lunch, in gubbermint shill cafe! Next to me of course! Did ya see the little B' slap I gave to B Real Stoopid over there yesterday? Love your work.

[brumsen]

So you think that when the top 40 stories of WTC 2 started to fall they should have somehow bounced off the lower structures? Or come to a rest on top of it?
No, not necessarily. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1821798&postcount=557)

ETA: oh yes, this reminds me of another unanswered question - one which I asked to Sword of Truth (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1821558&postcount=525).

[DavidJames]

If you feel there are problems with the evidence/logic used to obtain the conclusions that they did then please present it, otherwise you are left with agreeing that their assessment is accurate and other hypothetical explanations for the events are moot.Bingo, a point made to CTers over and over again but rarely, if ever, addressed. The problem is they don't have the knowledge or expertise to refute the expert analysis. All they can do it try and point out (alleged) omissions. In fact there has been no expert analysis, to my knowledge, refuting the official reports.

A fact which CTers ignore.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

To put it another way, when the prosecutor on a criminal case presents his/her evidence in court, they don't explain to the jury how they eliminated every other suspect except for the one sitting in the courtroom; they deal with the one in the courtroom and the evidence that shows that person's involvement in the crime.

[brumsen]

To put it another way, when the prosecutor on a criminal case presents his/her evidence in court, they don't explain to the jury how they eliminated every other suspect except for the one sitting in the courtroom; they deal with the one in the courtroom and the evidence that shows that person's involvement in the crime.
This because they are being asked to pronounce themselves over the suspect in the courtroom, and nobody else. They are not being asked to eliminate other suspects.
However, NIST, without being asked, eliminates other suspects - without reasoning. And since there is no reasoning to point to, I cannot support my point further than this. There simply is no such reasoning, and that's the problem I have with the report. Drawing a conclusion not based on any reasoning is logically faulty - it simply cannot be called a conclusion.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

This because they are being asked to pronounce themselves over the suspect in the courtroom, and nobody else. They are not being asked to eliminate other suspects.
However, NIST, without being asked, eliminates other suspects - without reasoning. And since there is no reasoning to point to, I cannot support my point further than this. There simply is no such reasoning, and that's the problem I have with the report. Drawing a conclusion not based on any reasoning is logically faulty - it simply cannot be called a conclusion.

No, you assume they didn't do the work because they haven't published it.

[mrfreeze]

Man, this poor guy lost his woman over this madness. http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10043

[T.A.M.]

Man, reading comments like those at that link (guy lost his gf), I can see that that movement is going to go absolutely nowhere.

They are complete and utter wingnuts. Ooh, the big bad doctors, pushin dem medicines...Ooh nurses, workin for the man....ooh, if my woman was against the 9/11 truth movement, I'd pack her bags.....

OMG....once again...prety much speechless.

[Belz...]

hahahahaha, that's a good one:rolleyes:

So you can use the verb believe in such a way that you won't be required to back it up, whereas any CT'er coming here would constantly have to back up the beliefs he states by means of evidence? Come on now. When you state your beliefs, you can be asked to justify them by means of evidence.

Please, you shouldn't blame your inability to understand words on me.

[Belz...]

This because they are being asked to pronounce themselves over the suspect in the courtroom, and nobody else. They are not being asked to eliminate other suspects.
However, NIST, without being asked, eliminates other suspects - without reasoning. And since there is no reasoning to point to, I cannot support my point further than this. There simply is no such reasoning, and that's the problem I have with the report. Drawing a conclusion not based on any reasoning is logically faulty - it simply cannot be called a conclusion.

You simply proceed from false assumptions. If I state a conclusion I don't have to justify why I didn't conclude something else. I'm merely expected to justify my actual conclusion.

[Belz...]

Man, this poor guy lost his woman over this madness. http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10043

Some of the replies there are simply mind-numbing!

[Gravy]

I already did.
I must have missed that all these times. Please humor me and point out where NIST says that no one there studied events after collapse initiation.

Unless, that is, you mean to be saying that they did research it but wrote the report so as not to include that research. I've now asked you three times whether this is what you do want to say?
I've been quite clear in my statements. I've made no claims about NIST studying events after collapse initiation. You definitively claim that they did not study those events. Please provide your evidence.

(About NIST finding no evidence of CD)
My evidence is that such research is nowhere to be found in the report. There is just the conclusion. My question is: what is it based on? Show me where in the report I can read about that, and I'll keep my mouth shut.
You claim definitively that NIST did not look into the idea that explosives were used in the towers. Perhaps you are right. There is only one way to find out: contact NIST. Again, have you or anyone else done so?

edited for grammar

[Gravy]

You simply proceed from false assumptions. If I state a conclusion I don't have to justify why I didn't conclude something else. I'm merely expected to justify my actual conclusion.
Just to clarify one point: NIST did say they found no evidence to support the missile or CD theories. Brumsen claims that because they didn't publish their observations that led to that conclusion, they must not have researched these theories. That's a perfectly valid question to have (contact NIST fercryinoutloud), but it's not a basis for a definitive statement.

[Brainster]

Man, this poor guy lost his woman over this madness. http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10043

So did Charlie Sheen (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0421061sheen1.html).

Respondent began to obsess about vaccines being poisonous, about 9-11 being a conspiracy....

LOL! I said that without surfing over; sure enough the guy also talks about vaccines. Note the charming avatar for "Live Free or Die Tryin'"--he's the kid whose dad showed just how scary a box-cutter can be.

Reading the comments it's clear that these polls saying lots of people are into 9-11 Denial are a bunch of bunk.

[60hzxtl]

http://www.attackcartoons.com/article.php/2006042506131838

(I actually watched this "come here often?" approach tried at St. Marks church. . . .it failed!)


Pssst. xtratabasco, she's gone. . .

[Darth Rotor]

Since I don't know what I'm talking about, please explain to me what antiaircraft systems were installed at the Pentagon on 9/11/01.
Gravy

-- The statement made was that the military does not use anti aircraft guns, and hasn't for twenty years. That was and is a load of crap.

-- The gentleman who scoffed about an Aegis cruiser being used is perhaps unaware that the US Army had, as recently as a few years ago, a Vulcan (very similar to the R2D2's on US surface combatants, aka CIWS (CIWS = Christ, It Won't Shoot! :p ) mounted on a tracked vehicle. The last one I saw was on anM-113, and was used as a AAA piece. (Digression: I had visions of a Vulcan on a track as a great crowd control weapon in OOTW, but my Army friends balked at that idea, for some good reasons. A man can dream.) I don't think the Vulcan is in the current ToE, but there may still be some in Reserve units.

-- The person who noted that "that is an anti missile weapon" is showing his ignorance or tunnel vision, not sure which. Anti missile defense is a lesser included case of Air Defense, or as the Navy used to call it, AAW. An "anti missile" weapon can most certainly be used as an anti aircraft weapon. Along those lines, the Patriot missile that shot down the (F-18, or was it F-16) in 2003 during the war was an anti missile weapon, so what was it doing performing as an anti air weapon? A little precision in expression is not too much to ask. (My USSR Russian equipment digression was a bit of a red herring, I must admit, it added little to the discussion without context, which is the use of them by various parties in the Mid East.)

-- My quibble with the discussion on this topic is the careless manner that Air Defense and AAA terms are being used. OK, so I am nitpicking.

-- Do I know what the IAD (Integrated Air Defense) template was at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001? No, I didn't work there then.

But

Gravy, you have piqued my interest. I know an Army Colonel (now retired) who was an ADA man. He was working in the Pentagon that day. His description of the noise, the lights, getting knocked off his feet (he was in an inner ring office not to far from where the plane hit) is an eye opener. I'll see if I can get him to share any letters of email he sent from back then. He's a prolific writer, so I suspect he's published something in the War College review or Parameters on that day's events.

If I can get ahold of him, he may be able to tell me about the IAD set up at the Pentagon. My worry is that it was classified as FOUO, or higher than that, and may be so now.

Will get back to you if I can get ahold of him.

DR

[60hzxtl]

R2D2's on US surface combatants, aka CIWS (CIWS = Christ, It Won't Shoot! :p ) mounted on a tracked vehicle. DR



Ha! Except when the Japanese Self Defenesers shot down an A-6 towing a drone (instead of the drone -ooops offset.) off Hawaii during RIMPAC 96!

[Hellbound]

Darth,

THe Vulcans are no longer in use on any tracked vehicles, even in Reserves, at least in any appreciable capacity. I've been in Guard, Active, or Reserve for the past 15 years (including multiple deployments, including being stationed with or working with AA and ADA units) and have yet to see one except for a historical display. So I don't think that was off by much.

Also, the Patriot system was originally designed as anti-aircraft, the anti-missile role was something of an add-on. In fact, this was part of the reason it took multiple Patriot missiles to shoot down each Scud..the software was not programmed to identify missiles by their radar signature, so anything that had a large return (including debris from an already-destroyed missile) had to be fired on. This is first-hand information from soldiers who operated these systems during Gulf I.

Since we're all nitpicking ;)

[RUSirius]

Hey all. Just joined this site which looks quite interesting. But I also have an ulterior motive...

here's the story:

I’m organizing a panel in San Francisco for The RU Sirius Show where a skeptic and an advocate of the “9/11Truth” campaign can debate. The panel will be on September 10, in the afternoon in SF. I’m looking for a well-spoken skeptic who has a history of public appearances who would like to be a part of it. (I'm still looking for the advocate as well, for that matter.)

As I understand the rules, I'm not allowed to post links yet, so I'll trust that anybody who is interested can find the show etc.

Presumably I can post my email address...

rusirius@well.com

I hope to hear from you.

[chipmunk stew]

Hey all. Just joined this site which looks quite interesting. But I also have an ulterior motive...

here's the story:

I’m organizing a panel in San Francisco for The RU Sirius Show where a skeptic and an advocate of the “9/11Truth” campaign can debate. The panel will be on September 10, in the afternoon in SF. I’m looking for a well-spoken skeptic who has a history of public appearances who would like to be a part of it. (I'm still looking for the advocate as well, for that matter.)

As I understand the rules, I'm not allowed to post links yet, so I'll trust that anybody who is interested can find the show etc.

Presumably I can post my email address...

rusirius@well.com

I hope to hear from you.Welcome.

Is this it? http://rusiriusradio.com/

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Boing Boing representing?

[Darth Rotor]

Ha! Except when the Japanese Self Defenesers shot down an A-6 towing a drone (instead of the drone -ooops offset.) off Hawaii during RIMPAC 96!
Familiar with that bit of brilliance. The ships I was on in the mid 80's were a mixed bag, when it came to trusting CIWS. Sometimes they'd work, and other times R2D2 would just sit there looking stupid during missle exercises. A couple of times, our ship's CIWS, I think it was mount 22, did the old "walk the fire up the drone cable" and caused a "knock it off" during the exercise. I'd like to say I remember that it severed the cable, but my memory is very fuzzy.

By the 90's, the ships I was on (I think there were some fixes to corrosion prevention, circuit cards, cooling, and some other stuff) CIWS was very reliable. Didn't the USS Missouri shoot up the Jarret, or another FFG, in the PG war of 91 with its CIWS? I remember stories about that, but again, memory fuzzy.

Huntsman: My question about the Patriot, with which I am familiar, was a sarcastic remark directed at the coomment regarding anti missile/anti aircraft. I think I should have used quotes around "air defense" and "missile defense" to indicate my sarcasm, clumsy me!

Thanks for your Phalanx info. Are they are out of the ToE? Hmmm, it is 2006, that is probably a dumb question. :p My old "Force XXI" hardware picture book is in a box somewhere. Can't remember if it was in the toy box, but then, Force XXI is also old news now that I think of it.

The Vulcan one I saw at Fort Riley (94 IIRC) was not a static display, it was a working piece of one of the ADA units. IIRC, Avenger is supposed to have replaced most/all of those. (For better and worse.)

DR

[Hellbound]

Hujtsman: My question about the Patriot, with which I am familiar, was a sarcastic remark directed at the coomment regarding anti missile/anti aircraft. Thanks for your Phalanx info. Are you sure they are out of the ToE? Hmmmm, it is 2006, that is probably a dumb question. :p My old "Force XXI" hardware picture book is in a box somewhere. Can't remember if it was in the toy box, but that, Force XXI is also old news, now that I think of it.

The Vulcan one I saw at Fort Riley (94 IIRC) was not a static display, it was a working piece of one of the ADA units. IIRC, Avenger is supposed to have replaced most/all of those. (For better and worse.)

DR

Well, I was first associated with air defense in 94, and the unit had a Vulcan track on display. Never saw one working. Admittedly, we were Patriot, but we had an AA contigent as well and worked with other air defense units in Germany.

I can't say definatively, but if they were still in use then it was not commonplace. I never saw or heard of them being used during the time I was in (and I'm currently stationed in a Reserve Command that covers 5 states, we have no vulcans in our ToE that I know of).

[Darth Rotor]

Well, I was first associated with air defense in 94, and the unit had a Vulcan track on display. Never saw one working. Admittedly, we were Patriot, but we had an AA contigent as well and worked with other air defense units in Germany.

I can't say definatively, but if they were still in use then it was not commonplace. I never saw or heard of them being used during the time I was in (and I'm currently stationed in a Reserve Command that covers 5 states, we have no vulcans in our ToE that I know of).
Thank you, Huntsman, that's expert enough for me.

I still think it would be a great riot control weapon in OOTW situations . . .

DR

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No, not necessarily. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1821798&postcount=557)

ETA: oh yes, this reminds me of another unanswered question - one which I asked to Sword of Truth (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1821558&postcount=525).

I had that figure, but I gave it to a structural engineer for safe-keeping. Ask around, it shouldn't take you too long to find wich one.

[Kent1]

I thought the name Joseph P. Firmage sounded familiar from the CT's latest batch of papers.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/

http://skepdic.com/refuge/firmage.html

He made $24 million by the age of 23 when he sold his software firm, Serius, to Novell.* He then went on to establish another very successful company, USWeb. He is now using his vast wealth to promote his vision of the unity of science, religion, alien visitation and parapsychology.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/view/2000/07/05/firmage/index.html?CP=SAL&DN=660

I never said I was definitely visited by an extraterrestrial -- those were not my words, but the words of half a dozen writers who then imprinted them on the rest of the public.

What I did say is that I woke up one morning and experienced the appearance of a human-like figure in my room. And we proceeded to have a conversation about space travel. And five minutes later he was gone. Was it my future self? Was it an extraterrestrial, or the consciousness of one? Was it a sleep paralysis episode? Or was it simply a bad potato? I do not know.

[chipmunk stew]

Welcome.

Is this it? http://rusiriusradio.com/
I'm listening to show #58, with "geek Jew lesbian" Heather Gold--good stuff!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I thought the name Joseph P. Firmage sounded familiar from the CT's latest batch of papers.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/

http://skepdic.com/refuge/firmage.html

He made $24 million by the age of 23 when he sold his software firm, Serius, to Novell.* He then went on to establish another very successful company, USWeb. He is now using his vast wealth to promote his vision of the unity of science, religion, alien visitation and parapsychology.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/view/2000/07/05/firmage/index.html?CP=SAL&DN=660

I never said I was definitely visited by an extraterrestrial -- those were not my words, but the words of half a dozen writers who then imprinted them on the rest of the public.

What I did say is that I woke up one morning and experienced the appearance of a human-like figure in my room. And we proceeded to have a conversation about space travel. And five minutes later he was gone. Was it my future self? Was it an extraterrestrial, or the consciousness of one? Was it a sleep paralysis episode? Or was it simply a bad potato? I do not know.

Read the 1st ~30 pages or so. He's spewing the same crapped that's already been debunk (albeit in a well written manner). So far, I am seeing nothing in his paper that we couldn't just point to 911myths.com to counter.

[Earl The Tall]

Hey guys, new to the board and I just wanted to come on and say that your doing a great job in countering the whole 'truth movement.' Awesome awesome work.

And this is comming from a former CTer.

[Belz...]

Just to clarify one point: NIST did say they found no evidence to support the missile or CD theories. Brumsen claims that because they didn't publish their observations that led to that conclusion, they must not have researched these theories. That's a perfectly valid question to have (contact NIST fercryinoutloud), but it's not a basis for a definitive statement.

Fair enough. However, they're not expected to dissect every possible conclusion and eliminate every single one of them until only one remains. All they really HAVE to do is show their reasoning for choosing that one conclusion.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I thought the name Joseph P. Firmage sounded familiar from the CT's latest batch of papers.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/

http://skepdic.com/refuge/firmage.html

He made $24 million by the age of 23 when he sold his software firm, Serius, to Novell.* He then went on to establish another very successful company, USWeb. He is now using his vast wealth to promote his vision of the unity of science, religion, alien visitation and parapsychology.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/view/2000/07/05/firmage/index.html?CP=SAL&DN=660

I never said I was definitely visited by an extraterrestrial -- those were not my words, but the words of half a dozen writers who then imprinted them on the rest of the public.

What I did say is that I woke up one morning and experienced the appearance of a human-like figure in my room. And we proceeded to have a conversation about space travel. And five minutes later he was gone. Was it my future self? Was it an extraterrestrial, or the consciousness of one? Was it a sleep paralysis episode? Or was it simply a bad potato? I do not know.


Writing up a critique now. Will someone be able to host it for me when it is finished?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Hey guys, new to the board and I just wanted to come on and say that your doing a great job in countering the whole 'truth movement.' Awesome awesome work.

And this is comming from a former CTer.

Welcome aboard, Earl. :)

[Dog Town]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Some 30 percent of Americans cannot say in what year the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington took place, according to a poll published in the Washington Post newspaper.

There's Your Sign ! This would explain why "thirty" percent buy the CT BS, they don't even know when it happened! Or once again that 30% of this country just doesn't have a clue!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060809/od_afp/usattackspolloffbeat_060809145351;_ylt=Ar8RnACfq5v KaMESL_URWp6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3NW1oMDRpBHNlYwM3NTc-

DT

[Earl The Tall]

Welcome aboard, Earl. :)

Thanks. I only hope I can be as good conservationists as the others here.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Here's what I have so far; feel free to comment/rip-apart/critique/etc:

1 Origin of Al Qaeda from CIA-backed Mujahedeen
Working in tight collaboration with its Pakistani counterpart (ISI), the CIA launched during the 1980s a comprehensive program to cultivate thousands of radical Muslims throughout Afghanistan, as a means to draw the USSR into a quagmire and suffer a strategic Cold War defeat in this vital Central Asia territory. One of the key assets for the CIA in this campaign was Osama bin Laden. The program went so far as to involve the creation and teaching of violence- and terror-infused curriculum to young children (who were
taught to do math with graphs showing units in tanks or guns, for example). Millions of these textbooks were still in use throughout the 1990s. A large segment of the Mujahedeen eventually were reorganized by bin Laden into al Qaeda, whose mission allegedly became the liberation of the Islamic world from
Western domination. These facts are compatible with the official conspiracy theory, though the long history between CIA, ISI, bin Laden and the Mujahedeen suggests that clandestine intelligence elements in the U.S. – official or private – may have had closer and more enduring ties to al Qaeda than generally believed.
See:
http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=sovietAfghanWar
Nafeez Ahmed’s Terrorism and Statecraft: Al-Qaeda and Western Covert Operations After the Cold War, in Paul Zarembka,
editor, The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006, Research in Political Economy, Vol.23: 149-188.
“What are al-Qaeda’s origins?
Al-Qaeda grew out of the Services Office, a clearinghouse for the international Muslim brigade opposed to the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In the 1980s, the Services Office—run by bin Laden and the Palestinian religious scholar Abdullah Azzam—recruited, trained, and financed thousands of foreign mujahadeen, or holy warriors, from more than fifty countries. Bin Laden wanted these fighters to continue the "holy war" beyond Afghanistan. He formed al-Qaeda around 1988.
“ – source: http://www.cfr.org/publication/9126/

“Bin Laden wished to extend the conflict to nonmilitary operations in other parts of the world; Azzam, in contrast, wanted to remain focused on military campaigns. After Azzam was assassinated in 1989, the MAK split, with a significant number joining bin Laden's organization.
…
After some deliberation the Saudi Monarch refused bin Laden's offer and instead opted to allow United States and allied forces to deploy on his territory. Bin Laden considered this a treacherous deed. He believed that the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. After speaking publicly against the Saudi government for harboring American troops he was quickly forced into exile to Sudan and his Saudi citizenship was revoked.” – source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

Given this history, there is no reason to assume, as Firmage has done, that US intelligence services had ties to al-Qaeda after its split/formation from MAK at the start of the Gulf War. It can no more be said that the US is responsible for al-Qaeda’s actions after this point than it can be said that the US is responsible for the Soviet Unions actions after the end of World War II.

2 Angry Islamists want to kill Americans
Numerous professional texts have surveyed the long history of tension between Islamic populations and Western policies. There is more than ample evidence to support a radical Islamic motive to perpetrate 9/11-level – or greater – violence. Yet since “false flag” operations work best when general public fear preexists of whoever is to be falsely blamed, the existence of real and serious threats from radical Islamic elements remains compatible with
theories of U.S. complicity or causation on 9/11.
See:
Bassam Tibi’s The Challenge of Fundamentalism: Political Islam and the New World Disorder
John Esposito’s Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam

At this point Firmage appears to be attempting to poison the well. His point is on militant Islamic populations, yet he begins dropping buzzwords (“false flag”) without supporting evidence. We also see that Firmage applies the “sensible” rating to this point under the “Create a new reality” column. If Firmage’s implication of “Create a new reality” (hereafter CANR) is that the US government orchestrated events to get al-Qaeda, or other militant Islamists to carry out these actions then it assumes that the government could do so in such a way as to prevent the Islamists from uncovering the ulterior motives behind the attacks (an excuse to go to war); or he is implying that al-Qaeda was not involved and the government carried out the entire operation. I assert that, at the most liberal interpretation, Firmage can put the “plausible” rating to point 2 under CANR. Instead, he uses “Sensible”. I suggest that this is because of confirmational bias.

3 Previous terror attacks attributed to al Qaeda
Numerous terror attacks throughout the 1990s were attributed to al Qaeda. The conservative assessment here is to take the official explanations at face value and agree that al Qaeda demonstrated the intention and capability to attack U.S. interests, though it is useful to review the history of these events with an open mind.
See:
http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=warnings
Nafeez Ahmed’s Terrorism and Statecraft: Al-Qaeda and Western Covert Operations After the Cold War, in Paul Zarembka,
editor, The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006, Research in Political Economy, Vol.23: 149 – 188.

Again, Firmage places the “Sensible” rating for this point under the CANR column. If Firmage is using this to argue the potential effectiveness of a “false flag” operator that would blame al-Qaeda then he needs to be explicit on this point. To not be clear merely suggests further confirmational bias and a desire to show this CANR theory as being supported by all the points.

Journal of 9/11 Studies 22 August 2006/Volume 2
4 Historical relationship of Bush officials and clandestine operations
A common refrain heard from the left – less often from the right – in response to suspicions about the official 9/11 story goes something like: “The Bush administration has demonstrated such incompetence on so many fronts that it strains the imagination to think they could of have pulled off something so
elaborate, and kept it a secret.” This argument ignores three key facts.

I would argue that this is a strawman attack. Counter-arguments to conspiracy theory claims have said that for the government; or a subset of its departments; to plan, execute, and keep secret is difficult to believe without substantiating evidence. To claim that the counter-argument is saying that President Bush could not have done so is a drastic oversimplification of the point and sets up a strawman for attack.

First, while George W. Bush may be intellectually challenged across the board, and while neoconservatives may have a gravely naïve, overreaching geopolitical agenda,

Further poisoning of the well using personal attacks. President Bush’s intellect is not relevant to the discussion of a “Historical relationship of Bush officials and clandestine operations”. Additionally, Firmage speaks broadly of neoconservative “overreaching geopolitical agenda[s]” without enumerating what these are, or their relevance to the point at hand. Also, describing these vague “geopolitical agenda[s]” as “overreaching” and “gravely naïve” with showing why is disingenuous to the discussion.

Bush officials in key national security positions have superlative experience in managing clandestine operations, and have repeatedly demonstrated ruthless, systematic, detailed-oriented control over sensitive programs and information. The historical preoccupation of key officials across the Bush administration with clandestine operations – both legal and illegal – is well known to historians of the field.
Second, vastly larger programs have remained secret for decades. A few examples: the National Security Agency has a larger budget and more employees than the CIA. It was organized in 1949.

Error of fact:“When did NSA become part of the U.S. Intelligence Community?
President Truman and the National Security Council issued a revised version of the National Security Council Intelligence Directive (NSCID) No. 9 on 24 October 1952, which resulted in the formation of NSA on 4 November 1952.“ – source: http://www.nsa.gov/about/about00018.cfm

“The origins of the National Security Agency can be traced to an organization originally established within the Department of Defense, under the command of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the Armed Forces Security Agency (AFSA), on May 20, 1949. The AFSA was to be responsible for directing the communications and electronic intelligence activities of the military intelligence units - the Army Security Agency, Naval Security Group and the Air Force Security Service. However, the agency had little power and lacked a centralized coordination mechanism. The creation of NSA resulted from a December 10, 1951, memo sent by CIA Director Walter Bedell Smith to James B. Lay, Executive Secretary of the National Security Council. The memo observed that "control over, and coordination of, the collection and processing of Communications Intelligence had proved ineffective" and recommended a survey of communications intelligence activities. The proposal was approved on December 13, 1951, and the study authorized on December 28, 1951. The report was completed by June 13, 1952. Generally known as the "Brownell Committee Report," after committee chairman Herbert Brownell, it surveyed the history of U.S. communications intelligence activities and suggested the need for a much greater degree of coordination and direction at the national level. As the change in the security agency's name indicated, the role of the NSA was extended beyond the armed forces.
The creation of the NSA was authorized in a letter written by President Harry S. Truman in June of 1952. The agency was formally established through a revision of National Security Council Intelligence Directive (NSCID) 9 on October 24, 1952, and officially came into existence on November 4, 1952. President Truman's letter was itself classified and remained unknown to the public for more than a generation.” – source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency


This entire
agency of the federal government remained completely hidden from the public until the 1980s, over three decades later. One of the programs run by NSA, believed to have started in the 1940s, was Project Shamrock, through which all major transatlantic telegraph cables were tapped with the cooperation of
AT&T and other communications carriers.

Error of fact: “Project SHAMROCK, considered to be the sister project for Project MINARET, was an espionage exercise that involved the accumulation of all telegraphic data entering into or exiting from the United States. The Armed Forces Security Agency (AFSA) and its successor NSA were given direct access to daily microfilm copies of all incoming, outgoing, and transiting telegraphs via the Western Union and its associates RCA and ITT. Operation Shamrock lasted well into the 1960s when computerized operations (HARVEST) made it possible to search for keywords rather than read through all communications.
Project SHAMROCK became so successful that in 1966 the NSA and CIA set up a front company in Lower Manhattan (where the offices of the telegraph companies were located) under the codename LPMEDLEY. At the height of Project SHAMROCK, 150,000 messages a month were printed and analyzed by NSA agents. In May 1975 however, congressional critics began to investigate and expose the program. As a result, NSA director Lew Allen terminated it. The testimony of both the representatives from the cable companies and of director Allen at the hearings prompted Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Sen. Frank Church to conclude that Project SHAMROCK was “probably the largest government interception program affecting Americans ever undertaken."
One result of these investigations was the creation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which limited the powers of the NSA and put in place a process of warrants and judicial review.
“ – source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_SHAMROCK

The telegraph companies provided copies of the data; the AFSA/NSA were not directly tapping in to the telegraph lines. It can be seen here that Firmage is attempting to set up an analogy for the installation of the tapping hardware and that of installing explosives in the towers. No such parallel exists however.

This vast program – involving people building, installing and
running equipment all over the world, and yet numerous others watching and translating conversations – was kept entirely secret until the 1990s.

It was not “kept entirely secret until the 1990s” as, by 1975, congressional critics began exposing the program.

Most American citizens have never heard of this program to this day. Serious students of the U.S. national security apparatus know how effective its systems can be in controlling information and people, and compartmenting information and tasks into a startlingly small number of hands.
Third, the official 9/11 story asks us to believe that only a couple of dozen poorly trained Islamic radicals deftly maneuvered through the world’s most powerful intelligence gathering and military machine. How much easier might it have been for a similar number of people to do so, employing many unknowing
others for secondary, compartmented tasks, if those handful with full knowledge of the plan also knew every aspect of the U.S. intelligence and military machine, and were in key positions governing its
activities and responses?

We may be loath to admit it, but our intelligence gathering has failed more often than it has succeeded, and not just the US. The fact that terrorist activities are carried out regularly around the world (Ireland, Israel, etc) shows that intelligence gathering is hardly a silver-bullet to stopping them.

The historical association between Bush officials, government and private intelligence networks and clandestine operations argues against the notion that incompetence allowed 9/11 to occur, and therefore
this fact must raise suspicion.

This is further spin. The operations/activities outlined in point 5 span six decades, and fourteen presidents (from both sides of the political spectrum).

See:
Joseph Trento’s Prelude to Terror: the Rogue CIA, The Legacy of America's Private Intelligence Network the Compromising of
American Intelligence
James Risen’s State of War: The Secret History of the CIA And the Bush Administration

[MikeW]

Writing up a critique now. Will someone be able to host it for me when it is finished?
That's a question I like to hear! Wanna be a 911myths.com contributor? If they're going to debunk the site, then we may as well debunk them first...

[MarkyX]

Going to sound like a tinfoil hat looney but I think someone is hacking the Google Video comments on my 9/11 deniers speak.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7216643725166640147&hl=en

Several comments were made AFTER the most recent one (11 hours ago), and now they are gone after I've come back.

[MikeW]

Here's what I have so far; feel free to comment/rip-apart/critique/etc:
Small point: "It was not “kept entirely secret until the 1990s” as, by 1975, congressional critics began exposing the program" needs a link. Otherwise, it's a solid start.

[Earl The Tall]

Going to sound like a tinfoil hat looney but I think someone is hacking the Google Video comments on my 9/11 deniers speak.

Several comments were made AFTER the most recent one (11 hours ago), and now they are gone after I've come back.

Wow, that one guy just won't give up! Funny though as in only focues on that one statement and nothing else.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Small point: "It was not “kept entirely secret until the 1990s” as, by 1975, congressional critics began exposing the program" needs a link. Otherwise, it's a solid start.

I was requoting from the wiki article above it, but yeah, I should clarify (given their consistent lack of attention to detail when reading).

[Brainster]

Hey guys, new to the board and I just wanted to come on and say that your doing a great job in countering the whole 'truth movement.' Awesome awesome work.

And this is comming from a former CTer.

Welcome, Earl. As one who once believed the CIA (or the oilmen or Nixon's plumbers) killed JFK, I know how seductive the CT can be.

One suggestion; I am trying to get rid of the "truth" part of this movement. It's the 9-11 Denial Movement. Semantics count, and if we're debunking the truth what does that make us? ;)

[Earl The Tall]

Welcome, Earl. As one who once believed the CIA (or the oilmen or Nixon's plumbers) killed JFK, I know how seductive the CT can be.

One suggestion; I am trying to get rid of the "truth" part of this movement. It's the 9-11 Denial Movement. Semantics count, and if we're debunking the truth what does that make us? ;)

Done and done Denial Movement from now on.

[MikeW]

I was requoting from the wiki article above it
Ah yes, sorry. Still, clarification is good, just spells out the failings in their arguments a little more clearly.

[Regnad Kcin]

Hey guys, new to the board and I just wanted to come on and say that your doing a great job in countering the whole 'truth movement.' Awesome awesome work.

And this is comming from a former CTer.I'm curious as to what CT you formerly believed. Also, what caused you to change your mind?

Welcome to the JREF. It's a terrific place (and be sure to visit the many subforums).

[T.A.M.]

Guys;

over at my blog, a truther is claiming the IW paper is useless to him, as it doesnt address the Pulversized Concrete Issue. As well, he claims there is footage around with smoke/dust cloud at bottom of WTC just prior to colapse (insinuating a bottom floor explosion for CD theory). ANy thoughts on either of these two issues.

Thanks
TAM

[Earl The Tall]

I'm curious as to what CT you formerly believed. Also, what caused you to change your mind?

Welcome to the JREF. It's a terrific place (and be sure to visit the many subforums).

It was few, roswel/UFOs, JFK, NWO, I believed most of them. Now what changed my mind is a intersting story. Sorry though if derails the thread somewhat. But, back in senior year of High School (2001-2002) *Note at the time I did not believe 9/11 was an inside job.

I had a great US Government teacher who knew about my obessions with CTs and would love to just debat with me about. They were always fun, and he then challenged me that if I could get enough information to convince him that there was something off about JFKs assanation he would give me an 'A' and let me skip class. Not wanting to waste an oppertunity like that I gladly accepted.

Over the course the next few months I read several books on the assantion, went to several websites and did a lot of digging. Here's where it just intersting, I decided to not just stick with the normal conspiracy throires sites and books. I went to every resource I could get my hands on. I mean to skip class the rest of the year and not get in trouble for it, I wanted to cover all my bases.

The more I researched it though, more the theories began to fall apart. Magic bullet was explained, the famous 'back and to the left' head movement, why over the years no one has said anything about it. (I found it during this our government can't keep long terms sercets, short-terms sure. Past a few months not so much.) the list went on.

Face with this new mountian of evidance I had to face facts. I was wrong, and when I would go back to the conspiracy books and sites and would not get any answers to counter this. Truth be told the feeling I got after this was wrong. So I went up to my teacher and told him that I couldn't prove it. I showed him all the information I had. From that day on I relized I need to take the time to look at all the information myself and not listen to just this one side and blinding agree with it. So my days of a CTer was at their end. And I haven't looked back.

As a side note, I got an A in the class, but was not allowed to skip the class.:(

[Abbyas]

Earl, that is such an inspiring story. What a way to learn critical thinking and a great teacher.

[T.A.M.]

Man the guys over at LC...I actually feel bad for them...

They are so caught up in their delusions, that some have lost partners, others cannot find them, others do not want to...

One smart CTer over there summed it up...

"What is the point in fighting for our country and freedoms, if you've got noone to share them with?"

I certainly hope there is noone over here on the debunking side that has fallen that far out of touch with the real world.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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

[simakperrce]

Drawing a conclusion not based on any reasoning is logically faulty - it simply cannot be called a conclusion.

You do not base a conclusion on reasoning, you base it on evidence.. Evidence that a controlled demolition brought down WTC: None. Hence, investigating controlled demolition as a possibility without a shred of evidence = waste of time, ressources and money.

[NickUK]

Also new here, from across the pond :)

Thank God for this forum. I watched Loose Change for the first time a few weeks ago from a link on an online gaming forum - OmG GUYZ U HAVE TO SE THIS PORVES THAT 9/11 WAS An INSiDE JOB LOLZ - and managed to get into some conversations surrounding it and the whole 9/11 CT.

I'll give you an example of a chat I had with a very good and well learned friend of mine:-

Chum: It was a Skyhawk / Cruise Missile / Truck Bomb that hit the Pentagon
Me: There's no evidence to say that's the case.
Chum: Of course there's no physical evidence, they aren't stupid, they removed it.
Me: *repeatedly bang cranium against hard surface*

I'm sure this sort of conversation is probably quite old news to you guys, but it really opened my eyes at the time. The Loose Change forum only made my blood pressure worse with the circularity of arguments, every 4th word being 'clearly' or 'obviously' or 'this is FACT', and worst of all, the obscene use of smilies. If Dante had emoticons, Inferno would be the LC forum.

It's good to be here. And the ninja thing is punka!

@ Abby - Just thought you'd maybe be interested to learn that your blog made me laugh so much whilst on the night shift at the hospital I nurse in that I woke 2 patients up. My explanation cut very little ice.

:)