9-11….. Startling New Evidence of a Conspiracy

[GLASNOST]

Core was compromised.....Building collapsed
Science

Government is compromised ... Life turned to shit
Politics

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Message to Truthers and anyone who sympathizes.

Look, you want to say that powerful sources brought down the towers for their own agenda, fine. Pick your sinister entity; Bush, the military industrial complex, the Illuminati, whatever. Pick your motive, financial ruination of the US, war for profit, whatever. But why pick an impossible or at least highly unlikely route to get there?

Just say (insert your evil entity here) wanted to get the US into a war against Islamic Terror groups because (insert the nefarious motive here), so they financed, trained and organized OBL and a group of terrorists to hijack some planes and fly them into the towers?

That scenario would be MUCH harder to debunk than the controlled demolition scenario, or the fake airplane scenario, or the missile scenario.

If the Ivory Tower Had Collapsed Instead, the Twin Towers Would Still Be Standing

Stuck in status worship, Americans are afraid to admit that those who get into positions of power from which they could have prevented 9/11 are superficial no-talent narrow-minded conformists. We are led to believe that success goes to those who are best at the job, so there is a solidly built mental block blaming this all on incompetence. 9/11 should have been a wakeup call to change the way Americans get ahead. But it's only been a snooze alarm.

 

[TNHarley]

I'm not convinced at all it was our govt. However, I TOTALLY support an independent investigation. I don't trust our govt and I damn sure don't trust bush

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is an amazing, and eye opening film that may well change everything that you thought you knew or that you believed about what happened on 9.11.01.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/physics-study-911-controlled-demolition/
That’s it folks! Have at it .Don’t troll me bro. I’m just the messenger!

I appreciate that you had the integrity to post a source - Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage - that totally debunks your Europhysics News article which promotes the same, old, 9/11 CT replete with the same old, thoroughly discredited CTBS the "Truthers" have been spewing for over a decade. I found that article far more compelling.
To wit:

1) There is nothing "Startling" or "New" as your thread title claims, unless you first heard about the 9/11/2001 attack yesterday.

2) Europhysics News is not connected to the peer-reviewed Europhysics Journal (which is an actual scientific journal) but rather just a magazine that did not conclude anything but rather published the "work" of established (and discredited) "Truthers." The mysterious reclassification of an online news rag to credible scientific journal is typical of how some must play fast and loose with the truth in a lame attempt to fool the next generation of gullible foil-hatters.

3) Europhysics News did include a disclaimer in which they admitted to be publishing the authors' unscientific "speculation" and added that "the content of the article is the responsibility of the authors." Oh. In other words, they were simply spurring Internet traffic to their site.

4) When contacted for comment Europhysics News responded by confirming that their magazine is not peer-reviewed and that the article contains ‘speculative’ claims.

5) It is certainly your right to post the same old 9/11 CTBS that has been destroyed both here and everywhere else but to claim it is new and improved is, once again, just playing fast and loose with the truth.

6) The authors are all members of, or affiliated with 9/11 ‘truther’ movements and the debunker goes on to note:

"This is essentially the equivalent of asking a group of creationists, who also happen to be scientists, whether there is any evidence for intelligent design. A qualification a good scientist does not make. The ‘evidence’ these authors presented is the usual collection of debunked tropes which didn’t take long to be debunked yet again (again again).

There is nothing new here whatsoever. Europhysics News have published a pseudoscientific article of previously debunked 9/11 tropes to coincide with the 15th anniversary of the atrocity in a cynical attempt to maximise their publication’s exposure. This has then been miss-sold as a scientific journal by media and commentators alike."

.

To be honest, I can’t refute or debunk any of this. But it should be noted that people’s beliefs and perceptions alone- that go against the grain of the conventional wisdom- should not be used to discredit them by the bien pensant crowd.

I will add that it’s not useful or fair to compare 9-11 Truthers to creationists. It would be equally inappropriate to compare them to climate change deniers. The former has a religious bias and the latter is usually in the pocket of big oil. Both use pseudo junk science to support their positions Both are in a tiny minority among scientists. What is the bias of truthers other than a pursuit of the truth?

There are things that do not make sense. While it has been established that Europhysics News is in fact not a peer reviewed publication and relies on speculation to a degree, the magazine is published by the prestigious European Physical Society

While professor Jones’ analysis can be called into question, his work is being used by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth which, as I pointed out earlier, appears to be legitimate and credible.

In addition, this paper from the December 2001 issue of JOM, — the member journal of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society , — is in full agreement with the Jones group on this point. ( That the fire alone was insufficient to melt of weaken the structure to the point of failure) They too appear to be legitimate and highly credible.

Yet questions persist. To summaries:

On the official version’s side……..

Yes there is room for criticism of Steven Jones and his study was not peer reviewed.

It seems farfetched that the buildings could have been rigged with explosive without the perpetrators being seen or the explosives being detected.

How could an attack from the ground be coordinated with the hijackings, especially if it was an entity apart from Al Qaeda ?

On the truther’s side……

Steven Jones assertion that the fire could not have been hot enough to melt or cause failure of the steel was backed up by the unimpeachable Minerals, Metals & Materials Society.

Europhysics News is published by the prestigious European Physical Society

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth consists of 2,300 professionals and there is no indication that this is a fringe group of nutters and conspiracy buffs.

Then there is this…. A work of art that challenges the official account of 9/11 has been accepted into the permanent collection of the 9/11 Museum in New York City. And surprisingly, the piece was created by an artist who is best known for his illustrations in the mainstream media. http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/home.html

Destruction of evidence was reported and documented

No one can explain away the eye witness reports of explosions and molten steel

Building 7 was not hit by aircraft yet it was supposedly so seriously damaged and in the precise manner necessary to cause a symmetrical implosion

Still not convinced either way but I support the pursuit of the truth and still leaning towards something other than the official explanation

 

[MisterBeale]

Nice try but WTC was not built that way

I'm not trying to do anything but use sense.

It did not have a box like frame like an Erector Set
It had an inner core with floors added like a stack of records

In that case it would require a complete cross-section to be destroyed before anything (but a side chunk) to fall off of it.

That is why it pancaked as those stacks collapsed on the floor below

So, in your imagination, you have considered a stack of records, right? And in your imagination you have thought what would happen if you slammed something into its' SIDE ..... and that would cause the whole stack to fall straight down.

Sorry, but if it had a core then it would be more like a tree than anything else and would WITHOUT DOUBT fall over like a tree. You said "core", it's your own word. If the core were cut through by a force from its' side (as is the case) then the section above the slice would topple over to one side. If the whole structure were to be weakened from this "core" then it might fall straight down around the "core" but leave the core itself standing. Thanks for playing, but you lose in either case.

The plane penetrated to the core

 

[SAYIT]

...What is the bias of truthers other than a pursuit of the truth?

That is an interesting question and I have noticed a myriad of often conflicting agendas within the "Truther" Movement but what makes you think they are in "pursuit of the truth?" Because they say so?

"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch, former 9/11 CT royalty The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind

In addition, this paper from the December 2001 issue of JOM, — the member journal of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society , — is in full agreement with the Jones group on this point. ( That the fire alone was insufficient to melt of weaken the structure to the point of failure) They too appear to be legitimate and highly credible...Steven Jones assertion that the fire could not have been hot enough to melt or cause failure of the steel was backed up by the unimpeachable Minerals, Metals & Materials Society...

My prob with "Truthers" is their penchant for cherry-picking and otherwise playing fast and loose with the truth. For instance, there was no evidence of "molten steel" and according to that article:

"However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse."

In other words, your source did not cast doubt or aspersions on the official study but actually confirms it.

On the official version’s side……..

Yes there is room for criticism of Steven Jones and his study was not peer reviewed.

It seems farfetched that the buildings could have been rigged with explosive without the perpetrators being seen or the explosives being detected.

How could an attack from the ground be coordinated with the hijackings, especially if it was an entity apart from Al Qaeda ?

Before you dive down that rabbit hole you should know that some never return to reality ... MrBeale and LARam (formerly 9/11InsideJob) are two prime examples.

You admit that the rigging of CD charges "seems farfetched" (and it is) but beyond that please consider that those charges would have had to survive the impact of the passengers jets followed by hours of very hot and chaotic fires. The idea isn't just "farfetched," it's absurd and when the "coordination" of the hijackings is thrown in, it's absolutely ridiculous.

And why has Prof Jones failed to get peer-review after more than a decade of espousing the same old discredited CTBS?

Finally, there is nothing "new" or "startling" about Jones's claims so why, if you are not just another CT loon in search of some attention, would you title your thread as such?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

...What is the bias of truthers other than a pursuit of the truth?

That is an interesting question and I have noticed a myriad of often conflicting agendas within the "Truther" Movement but what makes you think they are in "pursuit of the truth?" Because they say so?

"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch, former 9/11 CT royalty The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind

In addition, this paper from the December 2001 issue of JOM, — the member journal of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society , — is in full agreement with the Jones group on this point. ( That the fire alone was insufficient to melt of weaken the structure to the point of failure) They too appear to be legitimate and highly credible...Steven Jones assertion that the fire could not have been hot enough to melt or cause failure of the steel was backed up by the unimpeachable Minerals, Metals & Materials Society...

My prob with "Truthers" is their penchant for cherry-picking and otherwise playing fast and loose with the truth. For instance, there was no evidence of "molten steel" and according to that article:

"However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse."

In other words, your source did not cast doubt or aspersions on the official study but actually confirms it.

On the official version’s side……..

Yes there is room for criticism of Steven Jones and his study was not peer reviewed.

It seems farfetched that the buildings could have been rigged with explosive without the perpetrators being seen or the explosives being detected.

How could an attack from the ground be coordinated with the hijackings, especially if it was an entity apart from Al Qaeda ?

Before you dive down that rabbit hole you should know that some never return to reality ... MrBeale and LARam (formerly 9/11InsideJob) are two prime examples.

You admit that the rigging of CD charges "seems farfetched" (and it is) but beyond that please consider that those charges would have had to survive the impact of the passengers jets followed by hours of very hot and chaotic fires. The idea isn't just "farfetched," it's absurd and when the "coordination" of the hijackings is thrown in, it's absolutely ridiculous.

And why has Prof Jones failed to get peer-review after more than a decade of espousing the same old discredited CTBS?

Finally, there is nothing "new" or "startling" about Jones's claims so why, if you are not just another CT loon in search of some attention, would you title your thread as such?

You might have noticed that for the most part, I'm not disagreeing with you. The difference between us is that I'm trying to have a balanced view of it and see all sides, while you are heavily invested in debunking the truthers totally. Why is that. You and the others who want so badly to prove the official version seem to be running scared of any other possibility. White you accuse the truthers of cherry picking, it seems as though that is exactly what you're doing.

 

[SAYIT]

...What is the bias of truthers other than a pursuit of the truth?

That is an interesting question and I have noticed a myriad of often conflicting agendas within the "Truther" Movement but what makes you think they are in "pursuit of the truth?" Because they say so?

"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch, former 9/11 CT royalty The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind

In addition, this paper from the December 2001 issue of JOM, — the member journal of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society , — is in full agreement with the Jones group on this point. ( That the fire alone was insufficient to melt of weaken the structure to the point of failure) They too appear to be legitimate and highly credible...Steven Jones assertion that the fire could not have been hot enough to melt or cause failure of the steel was backed up by the unimpeachable Minerals, Metals & Materials Society...

My prob with "Truthers" is their penchant for cherry-picking and otherwise playing fast and loose with the truth. For instance, there was no evidence of "molten steel" and according to that article:

"However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse."

In other words, your source did not cast doubt or aspersions on the official study but actually confirms it.

On the official version’s side……..

Yes there is room for criticism of Steven Jones and his study was not peer reviewed.

It seems farfetched that the buildings could have been rigged with explosive without the perpetrators being seen or the explosives being detected.

How could an attack from the ground be coordinated with the hijackings, especially if it was an entity apart from Al Qaeda ?

Before you dive down that rabbit hole you should know that some never return to reality ... MrBeale and LARam (formerly 9/11InsideJob) are two prime examples.

You admit that the rigging of CD charges "seems farfetched" (and it is) but beyond that please consider that those charges would have had to survive the impact of the passengers jets followed by hours of very hot and chaotic fires. The idea isn't just "farfetched," it's absurd and when the "coordination" of the hijackings is thrown in, it's absolutely ridiculous.

And why has Prof Jones failed to get peer-review after more than a decade of espousing the same old discredited CTBS?

Finally, there is nothing "new" or "startling" about Jones's claims so why, if you are not just another CT loon in search of some attention, would you title your thread as such?

You might have noticed that for the most part, I'm not disagreeing with you. The difference between us is that I'm trying to have a balanced view of it and see all sides, while you are heavily invested in debunking the truthers totally. Why is that. You and the others who want so badly to prove the official version seem to be running scared of any other possibility. White you accuse the truthers of cherry picking, it seems as though that is exactly what you're doing.

Except I'm not trying to prove the official version but after 15 years of reading "Truther" versions of 9/11 - such as the "no planes" or "controlled demo" theories that aren't just "farfetched," they're absolutely ridiculous (as established above) - I (and many others) have found the NIST report to be, while not perfect, by far the most rational and scientifically lucid explanation of the events of that day.

There are , in fact, so many (often mutually exclusive) CTs vying for acceptance that they have had the effect of not just cancelling each other out but actually discrediting the "Truther" Movement, its major players and its vastly diminished minions.

I'm sorry that you found your way to the game in the 9th inning of a blowout but that which you found to be "Starling New Evidence of a Conspiracy" is the same old hash that the authors (and their sycophants) have been slinging for over 15 years. The Sept (15 yr anniversary) re-release of that old hash seems to me a cynical attempt by the authors (and the online mag) to catch the attention (and money) of the angry, disenfranchised, disillusioned, gullible or otherwise downright dissatisfied.

FTR - While the NIST report was gov't commissioned, it was based on the findings of a number of independent civilian agencies and professional orgs by people whose reputations are of critical importance to their careers and who could have benefited handsomely from finding evidence of a gov't conspiracy. I mean, they could have written FIRST HAND factual accounts, enjoyed the fame, glory, book tours, speaking engagements and wealth that the authors of the thoroughly discredited CTs have tried to garner. Additionally, the insurers could have saved TENS of BILLIONS had their investigations turned up anything sordid.

That you choose to "have a balanced view of it and see all sides" at this late date, based on 10-15 yr old speculation, is of course your right. Have a good time and feel free to come to your own conclusions!

I will close with my last words in this exchange (as the subject bores the piss outta me) or rather with the words of another former "Truther," the co-founder of 9/11 Truth UAlbany, who didn't just slither away but had the integrity to spell out his reasons for leaving the movement 8 YEARS AGO (Dec 31, 2008):

Confessions of an Ex-Truther: Letter of Resignation (Scroll Down for Newer Posts)
The truthers will just tell you that all the experts are "in on it." Yeah, sure. Every engineer in the world is complicit in the government's murder of 3,000 people. And so are the firemen, who apparently ordered Larry Silverstein to "pull" Building 7. The truthers' misrepresentation of Silverstein's quote is one of the most popular "facts" to spit out, but in doing so, you are effectively in agreement that firefighters were not only involved in the controlled demolition of WTC7, but they are also aiding and abetting in the government's cover-up. Yeah, every firefighter who was out there on 9/11 is going to be complicit in the MURDER OF 343 OF THEIR FALLEN BROTHERS! To quote Loose Change co-creator Jason Bermas, "the firefighters are paid off."

This is absolute horseshit, which brings me to why I've formally distanced myself from this sorry excuse for a movement. Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries, Alex Jones, and all the other kooks out there are fucking lying about, distorting, and misrepresenting the facts to further their personal agendas. And what is their agenda, you ask? Money, in the words of Shaggy 2 Dope, "mutha fuckin bitch ass money." Not only are they desecrating 3,000 graves, but they are profiting off of it. That, my friends, makes me sick to my fuckin stomach.

Some may think that this is just a big personal attack, and that I'm not presenting enough facts. I honestly don't give a fuck because the information is out there. I love how all the truthers, myself included for a time, brag about how they've done all the "research." Well my friends, research doesn't involve looking exclusively at other 9/11 conspiracy sites! Research involves looking at things from both sides of the spectrum, and making your own decisions. Check out the links I've listed above, or google "Screw 9/11 Mysteries" and "Screw Loose Change."

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

ACE Elevator Company
9/11 Questions and Research

How could explosives be planted in the WTC?
Ace is the trump card to win a new 9/11 investigation
By Rick Shaddock, ANETA Writing Team
with thanks to Dr. Crockett Grabbe (PhD, Physics, CalTech)

http://www.aneta.org/911experiments_com/AceElevator/

 

[rightwinger]

Exclusive photos the 9-11 commission does not want you to see

.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I'm not convinced at all it was our govt. However, I TOTALLY support an independent investigation. I don't trust our govt and I damn sure don't trust bush

Another Reason This Theory Was Planted by the Establishment

I trust Dumbo Dubya and the incompetents who get ahead in a crashing society to not be able to do their jobs. This is the worst Truthie Treason: to continue with the brainwashing that those on top are smarter than us, so they must have known!

 

[GLASNOST]

Exclusive photos the 9-11 commission does not want you to see

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

...What is the bias of truthers other than a pursuit of the truth?

That is an interesting question and I have noticed a myriad of often conflicting agendas within the "Truther" Movement but what makes you think they are in "pursuit of the truth?" Because they say so?

"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch, former 9/11 CT royalty The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind

In addition, this paper from the December 2001 issue of JOM, — the member journal of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society , — is in full agreement with the Jones group on this point. ( That the fire alone was insufficient to melt of weaken the structure to the point of failure) They too appear to be legitimate and highly credible...Steven Jones assertion that the fire could not have been hot enough to melt or cause failure of the steel was backed up by the unimpeachable Minerals, Metals & Materials Society...

My prob with "Truthers" is their penchant for cherry-picking and otherwise playing fast and loose with the truth. For instance, there was no evidence of "molten steel" and according to that article:

"However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse."

In other words, your source did not cast doubt or aspersions on the official study but actually confirms it.

On the official version’s side……..

Yes there is room for criticism of Steven Jones and his study was not peer reviewed.

It seems farfetched that the buildings could have been rigged with explosive without the perpetrators being seen or the explosives being detected.

How could an attack from the ground be coordinated with the hijackings, especially if it was an entity apart from Al Qaeda ?

Before you dive down that rabbit hole you should know that some never return to reality ... MrBeale and LARam (formerly 9/11InsideJob) are two prime examples.

You admit that the rigging of CD charges "seems farfetched" (and it is) but beyond that please consider that those charges would have had to survive the impact of the passengers jets followed by hours of very hot and chaotic fires. The idea isn't just "farfetched," it's absurd and when the "coordination" of the hijackings is thrown in, it's absolutely ridiculous.

And why has Prof Jones failed to get peer-review after more than a decade of espousing the same old discredited CTBS?

Finally, there is nothing "new" or "startling" about Jones's claims so why, if you are not just another CT loon in search of some attention, would you title your thread as such?

You might have noticed that for the most part, I'm not disagreeing with you. The difference between us is that I'm trying to have a balanced view of it and see all sides, while you are heavily invested in debunking the truthers totally. Why is that? You and the others who want so badly to prove the official version seem to be running scared of any other possibility. White you accuse the truthers of cherry picking, it seems as though that is exactly what you're doing.

Flat Earth Comes to Ground Zero

You're not being logical when you claim that the objective position is halfway between. This is a case where one side is completely wrong and should be rejected from all consideration. This planted wild goose chase lets the shallow conformists in "Intelligence" get away with their lack of deep knowledge, such as that on February 21, 1973, the Israelis shot down an off-course Libyan airliner because they had found out that the terrorists planned on hijacking one and using it as a bomb to kill thousands by crashing it into a large building.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I'm not convinced at all it was our govt. However, I TOTALLY support an independent investigation. I don't trust our govt and I damn sure don't trust bush

well then you obviously have never seen either of these two videos nor read this book i see.

..It was a joint CIA/mossad operation.These two videos and this book have never been debunked.the government has failed miserably to debunk them.If you want to learn the truth all you got to do is take the time out of your schedule-three hours worth both times and watch both videos.






The author of this book has begged congress to debate him out in the open on CNN.they wont,they are cowardly and corrupt and know it is the truth so they wont debate him out in the open.

Debunking 9/11 Debunking

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I'm not convinced at all it was our govt. However, I TOTALLY support an independent investigation. I don't trust our govt and I damn sure don't trust bush

well then you obviously have never seen either of these two videos nor read this book i see.

..It was a joint CIA/mossad operation.These two videos and this book have never been debunked.the government has failed miserably to debunk them.If you want to learn the truth all you got to do is take the time out of your schedule-three hours worth both times and watch both videos.




The author of this book has begged congress to debate him out in the open on CNN.they wont,they are cowardly and corrupt and know it is the truth so they wont debate him out in the open.

the fact our government paid shill and resident troll rightwinger posted a smiley is all the proof in the world it is indeed the truth,thats all he does when he cant counter facts that prove him wrong is post smileys in defeat.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm not convinced at all it was our govt. However, I TOTALLY support an independent investigation. I don't trust our govt and I damn sure don't trust bush

well then you obviously have never seen either of these two videos nor read this book i see.

..It was a joint CIA/mossad operation.These two videos and this book have never been debunked.the government has failed miserably to debunk them.If you want to learn the truth all you got to do is take the time out of your schedule-three hours worth both times and watch both videos.




The author of this book has begged congress to debate him out in the open on CNN.they wont,they are cowardly and corrupt and know it is the truth so they wont debate him out in the open.

the fact our government paid shill and resident troll rightwinger posted a smiley is all the proof in the world it is indeed the truth,thats all he does when he cant counter facts that prove him wrong is post smileys in defeat.

I've got tickets to the Rams/49er game in St Louis next weekend

Want to meet me?

 

[Toro]

I'm not convinced at all it was our govt. However, I TOTALLY support an independent investigation. I don't trust our govt and I damn sure don't trust bush

well then you obviously have never seen either of these two videos nor read this book i see.

..It was a joint CIA/mossad operation.These two videos and this book have never been debunked.the government has failed miserably to debunk them.If you want to learn the truth all you got to do is take the time out of your schedule-three hours worth both times and watch both videos.




The author of this book has begged congress to debate him out in the open on CNN.they wont,they are cowardly and corrupt and know it is the truth so they wont debate him out in the open.

the fact our government paid shill and resident troll rightwinger posted a smiley is all the proof in the world it is indeed the truth,thats all he does when he cant counter facts that prove him wrong is post smileys in defeat.

I've got tickets to the Rams/49er game in St Louis next weekend

Want to meet me?

The St Louis Rams are having an awful season. St Louis fired their coach, Jeff Fisher.

I wonder who St Louis will hire for their coach next year?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

...What is the bias of truthers other than a pursuit of the truth?

That is an interesting question and I have noticed a myriad of often conflicting agendas within the "Truther" Movement but what makes you think they are in "pursuit of the truth?" Because they say so?

"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch, former 9/11 CT royalty The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind

In addition, this paper from the December 2001 issue of JOM, — the member journal of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society , — is in full agreement with the Jones group on this point. ( That the fire alone was insufficient to melt of weaken the structure to the point of failure) They too appear to be legitimate and highly credible...Steven Jones assertion that the fire could not have been hot enough to melt or cause failure of the steel was backed up by the unimpeachable Minerals, Metals & Materials Society...

My prob with "Truthers" is their penchant for cherry-picking and otherwise playing fast and loose with the truth. For instance, there was no evidence of "molten steel" and according to that article:

"However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse."

In other words, your source did not cast doubt or aspersions on the official study but actually confirms it.

On the official version’s side……..

Yes there is room for criticism of Steven Jones and his study was not peer reviewed.

It seems farfetched that the buildings could have been rigged with explosive without the perpetrators being seen or the explosives being detected.

How could an attack from the ground be coordinated with the hijackings, especially if it was an entity apart from Al Qaeda ?

Before you dive down that rabbit hole you should know that some never return to reality ... MrBeale and LARam (formerly 9/11InsideJob) are two prime examples.

You admit that the rigging of CD charges "seems farfetched" (and it is) but beyond that please consider that those charges would have had to survive the impact of the passengers jets followed by hours of very hot and chaotic fires. The idea isn't just "farfetched," it's absurd and when the "coordination" of the hijackings is thrown in, it's absolutely ridiculous.

And why has Prof Jones failed to get peer-review after more than a decade of espousing the same old discredited CTBS?

Finally, there is nothing "new" or "startling" about Jones's claims so why, if you are not just another CT loon in search of some attention, would you title your thread as such?

You might have noticed that for the most part, I'm not disagreeing with you. The difference between us is that I'm trying to have a balanced view of it and see all sides, while you are heavily invested in debunking the truthers totally. Why is that? You and the others who want so badly to prove the official version seem to be running scared of any other possibility. White you accuse the truthers of cherry picking, it seems as though that is exactly what you're doing.

Flat Earth Comes to Ground Zero

You're not being logical when you claim that the objective position is halfway between. This is a case where one side is completely wrong and should be rejected from all consideration. This planted wild goose chase lets the shallow conformists in "Intelligence" get away with their lack of deep knowledge, such as that on February 21, 1973, the Israelis shot down an off-course Libyan airliner because they had found out that the terrorists planned on hijacking one and using it as a bomb to kill thousands by crashing it into a large building.

I didn't say that the truth was half way between. It either was or was not a conspiracy. It either did or did not involve others besides the hijackers. I am saying that the evidence for the official version being false is mixed. I demonstrated how that's true.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm not convinced at all it was our govt. However, I TOTALLY support an independent investigation. I don't trust our govt and I damn sure don't trust bush

well then you obviously have never seen either of these two videos nor read this book i see.

..It was a joint CIA/mossad operation.These two videos and this book have never been debunked.the government has failed miserably to debunk them.If you want to learn the truth all you got to do is take the time out of your schedule-three hours worth both times and watch both videos.




The author of this book has begged congress to debate him out in the open on CNN.they wont,they are cowardly and corrupt and know it is the truth so they wont debate him out in the open.

the fact our government paid shill and resident troll rightwinger posted a smiley is all the proof in the world it is indeed the truth,thats all he does when he cant counter facts that prove him wrong is post smileys in defeat.

I've got tickets to the Rams/49er game in St Louis next weekend

Want to meet me?

The St Louis Rams are having an awful season. St Louis fired their coach, Jeff Fisher.

I wonder who St Louis will hire for their coach next year?

They really didn't fire Jeff Fisher

He wears a disguise and still coaches from the sidelines

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Does this guy sound like a nut , or incompetent??