WTC building 7

[daws101]

Lies of the 9/11 “Truth” Movement
Cliff Kincaid — May 21, 2014
309 Comments | Printer Friendly




With the official opening of the 9/11 Memorial Museum, media attention is being focused once again on the so-called 9/11 “truth” movement, the political agitators and publicity-seekers who insist that Muslim terrorists flying planes were not responsible for the deaths of nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. A group called Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is distributing 9/11 “truth” propaganda at the museum this week, insisting the attacks were an “inside job” by various forces.

Lies of the 9 11 Truth Movement

Truthers to protest 9 11 Museum The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs

CNN) – The National September 11 Memorial Museum opens to the public this week in lower Manhattan, and some conspiracy theorists, who are apparently no strangers to Photoshop, plan on attending.

The group "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" plan on standing outside the entrance on opening day to hand out fake museum brochures, designed to look exactly like the real ones, according to The Village Voice, which first reported the story.

Inside the brochure, they claim they've compiled "a vast amount of evidence proving that all 3 World Trade Center skyscrapers were deliberately destroyed by explosives on 9/11."

They actually don't prove anything, except man's capacity for believing crazy things, and man's insensitivity to the families of the 2,753 people killed in New York, the Pentagon, and in a field in Pennsylvania, killed by Islamic terrorists with al Qaeda as every credible investigation has actually proven.

Why do so-called "truthers" have such staying power?

 

[eots]

NIST has no evidence to support its progressive collapse theory

really? then what's this? :
6. What caused the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?

Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

for 2.5 seconds-----the CALCULATED velocity of the fall was consistent with
FREE FALL-------that's it-------eodtiot stakes his entire "philosophy" on observation and calculation of a 2.5 second interval? . sheeeeesh

Not just any "2.5 second interval" Rosie; those were 2.25 seconds during which the building's "facade" descended symmetrically for about 105 ft. against zero resistance to the downward motion. That means something on the order of 8 floors were completely removed from the path of descent, either simultaneously or in rapid enough succession to circumvent the resistance that would have otherwise been in effect. The fire-induced progressive collapse model holds no explanatory power for a single inch of that 105+ ft. freefall descent; which is why accepting NIST's explanation is tantamount to rejecting the third law of motion. The significance of that measly "2.5 second interval" can't be overstated.

Bullshit you assholes over state its importance constantly.
its the linchpin of your fantasy.

Its over 100 ft of free fall..hardly measly

again only in your fantasy reality is another thing altogether.

NIST computer model only shows initiation of the collapse and offers no explanation for the rest of the collapse at and (I quote NIST) at virtual free -fall

 

[eots]

explosive demolitions can do that to a building strong or not

There was no CD speculation is not evidence

its the only way to explain a symmetrical free fall collapse...

You twoofers manufacture an explanation and then invent data to support the conspiracy laden conjecture.

what evidence was manufactured,,what data invented..can you support anything you say?

right

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone assessed that the movement "gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of this administration", and expressed concerns about the number of people who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories.[111]

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) engineering professor Thomas W. Eagar was at first unwilling to acknowledge the concerns of the movement, saying "if (the argument) gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." In response to Steven E. Jones publication of a hypothesis that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition, Eagar said that adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement would use the reverse scientific method to arrive at their conclusions, as they "determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion".[112]

Calling conspiracy theorists "the truthers", Bill Moyers has quoted journalist Robert Parry by stating that the theorists "...threw out all the evidence of al-Qaeda's involvement, from contemporaneous calls from hijack victims on the planes to confessions from al-Qaeda leaders both in and out of captivity that they had indeed done it. Then, recycling some of the right's sophistry techniques, such as using long lists of supposed evidence to overcome the lack of any real evidence, the 'truthers' cherry-picked a few supposed 'anomalies' to build an 'inside-job' story line".[113]

Al Qaeda has sharply criticized Iran's ex-president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, over his suggestions that the U.S. government was behind the September 11 attacks, dismissing his comments as "ridiculous".[114]

Some skeptics, who oppose conspiracy as the a-priori explanation to events, and who find most of the questions posed by the Truthers to be either easily answered[115] or based on misleading or false facts[116] have claimed that some of the Truthers are knowingly disseminating false information, with no care for the grieving families, and accordingly called them "disrespectful" or even "sickos".[117]

not a single rebuttal to A@E911 TRUTH
just editorial opinion and empty claims that the could be proven wrong with out offering anything to support that claim...FAIL

 

[eots]

A linguist..lol...your like hollie with her science buff that likes to read sci-fi and fantasy novels

 

[daws101]

NIST has no evidence to support its progressive collapse theory

really? then what's this? :
6. What caused the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?

Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

for 2.5 seconds-----the CALCULATED velocity of the fall was consistent with
FREE FALL-------that's it-------eodtiot stakes his entire "philosophy" on observation and calculation of a 2.5 second interval? . sheeeeesh

Not just any "2.5 second interval" Rosie; those were 2.25 seconds during which the building's "facade" descended symmetrically for about 105 ft. against zero resistance to the downward motion. That means something on the order of 8 floors were completely removed from the path of descent, either simultaneously or in rapid enough succession to circumvent the resistance that would have otherwise been in effect. The fire-induced progressive collapse model holds no explanatory power for a single inch of that 105+ ft. freefall descent; which is why accepting NIST's explanation is tantamount to rejecting the third law of motion. The significance of that measly "2.5 second interval" can't be overstated.

Bullshit you assholes over state its importance constantly.
its the linchpin of your fantasy.

Its over 100 ft of free fall..hardly measly

again only in your fantasy reality is another thing altogether.

NIST computer model only shows initiation of the collapse and offers no explanation for the rest of the collapse at and (I quote NIST) at virtual free -fall

no further explanation is necessary. if you knew anything at all about physics.
show me the nist quote...

 

[daws101]

There was no CD speculation is not evidence

its the only way to explain a symmetrical free fall collapse...

You twoofers manufacture an explanation and then invent data to support the conspiracy laden conjecture.

what evidence was manufactured,,what data invented..can you support anything you say?

right

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone assessed that the movement "gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of this administration", and expressed concerns about the number of people who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories.[111]

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) engineering professor Thomas W. Eagar was at first unwilling to acknowledge the concerns of the movement, saying "if (the argument) gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." In response to Steven E. Jones publication of a hypothesis that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition, Eagar said that adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement would use the reverse scientific method to arrive at their conclusions, as they "determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion".[112]

Calling conspiracy theorists "the truthers", Bill Moyers has quoted journalist Robert Parry by stating that the theorists "...threw out all the evidence of al-Qaeda's involvement, from contemporaneous calls from hijack victims on the planes to confessions from al-Qaeda leaders both in and out of captivity that they had indeed done it. Then, recycling some of the right's sophistry techniques, such as using long lists of supposed evidence to overcome the lack of any real evidence, the 'truthers' cherry-picked a few supposed 'anomalies' to build an 'inside-job' story line".[113]

Al Qaeda has sharply criticized Iran's ex-president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, over his suggestions that the U.S. government was behind the September 11 attacks, dismissing his comments as "ridiculous".[114]

Some skeptics, who oppose conspiracy as the a-priori explanation to events, and who find most of the questions posed by the Truthers to be either easily answered[115] or based on misleading or false facts[116] have claimed that some of the Truthers are knowingly disseminating false information, with no care for the grieving families, and accordingly called them "disrespectful" or even "sickos".[117]

not a single rebuttal to A@E911 TRUTH
just editorial opinion and empty claims that the could be proven wrong with out offering anything to support that claim...FAIL

wrong its proves a&e has no credibility and no standing.
aint' that a bitch.
the facts in the article need no support, actual fact never does.

also The group "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" plan on standing outside the entrance on opening day to hand out fake museum brochures, designed to look exactly like the real ones, according to The Village Voice, which first reported the story.

Inside the brochure, they claim they've compiled "a vast amount of evidence proving that all 3 World Trade Center skyscrapers were deliberately destroyed by explosives on 9/11."

 

[daws101]

A linguist..lol...your like hollie with her science buff that likes to read sci-fi and fantasy novels

way to falsely minimize
Noam Chomsky
Researcher of Linguistics
Avram Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, logician, political commentator, social justice activist, and anarcho-syndicalist advocate. Sometimes described as the "father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy. He has spent most of his career at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he is currently Professor Emeritus, and has authored over 100 books. He has been described as a prominent cultural figure, and was voted the "world's top public intellectual" in a 2005 poll.
cognitive scientist, logician,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
in reality he's overqualified.

 

[eots]

he teaches philosphy

A linguist..lol...your like hollie with her science buff that likes to read sci-fi and fantasy novels

way to falsely minimize
Noam Chomsky
Researcher of Linguistics
Avram Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, logician, political commentator, social justice activist, and anarcho-syndicalist advocate. Sometimes described as the "father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy. He has spent most of his career at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he is currently Professor Emeritus, and has authored over 100 books. He has been described as a prominent cultural figure, and was voted the "world's top public intellectual" in a 2005 poll.
cognitive scientist, logician,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
in reality he's overqualified.

teaching linguistics at MIT makes him over qualified ..lol

 

[eots]

 

[Hollie]

There was no CD speculation is not evidence

its the only way to explain a symmetrical free fall collapse...

You twoofers manufacture an explanation and then invent data to support the conspiracy laden conjecture.

what evidence was manufactured,,what data invented..can you support anything you say?

right

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone assessed that the movement "gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of this administration", and expressed concerns about the number of people who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories.[111]

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) engineering professor Thomas W. Eagar was at first unwilling to acknowledge the concerns of the movement, saying "if (the argument) gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." In response to Steven E. Jones publication of a hypothesis that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition, Eagar said that adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement would use the reverse scientific method to arrive at their conclusions, as they "determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion".[112]

Calling conspiracy theorists "the truthers", Bill Moyers has quoted journalist Robert Parry by stating that the theorists "...threw out all the evidence of al-Qaeda's involvement, from contemporaneous calls from hijack victims on the planes to confessions from al-Qaeda leaders both in and out of captivity that they had indeed done it. Then, recycling some of the right's sophistry techniques, such as using long lists of supposed evidence to overcome the lack of any real evidence, the 'truthers' cherry-picked a few supposed 'anomalies' to build an 'inside-job' story line".[113]

Al Qaeda has sharply criticized Iran's ex-president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, over his suggestions that the U.S. government was behind the September 11 attacks, dismissing his comments as "ridiculous".[114]

Some skeptics, who oppose conspiracy as the a-priori explanation to events, and who find most of the questions posed by the Truthers to be either easily answered[115] or based on misleading or false facts[116] have claimed that some of the Truthers are knowingly disseminating false information, with no care for the grieving families, and accordingly called them "disrespectful" or even "sickos".[117]

not a single rebuttal to A@E911 TRUTH
just editorial opinion and empty claims that the could be proven wrong with out offering anything to support that claim...FAIL

You expect rubuttal to a YouTube video manufactured by twoofers?

Fail!

 

[Hollie]

A linguist..lol...your like hollie with her science buff that likes to read sci-fi and fantasy novels

Actually, you're just an angry twoofer who gets incensed when your goofy conspiracy theories are exposed as fraudulent.

 

[Hollie]

NIST has no evidence to support its progressive collapse theory

really? then what's this? :
6. What caused the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?

Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

for 2.5 seconds-----the CALCULATED velocity of the fall was consistent with
FREE FALL-------that's it-------eodtiot stakes his entire "philosophy" on observation and calculation of a 2.5 second interval? . sheeeeesh

Not just any "2.5 second interval" Rosie; those were 2.25 seconds during which the building's "facade" descended symmetrically for about 105 ft. against zero resistance to the downward motion. That means something on the order of 8 floors were completely removed from the path of descent, either simultaneously or in rapid enough succession to circumvent the resistance that would have otherwise been in effect. The fire-induced progressive collapse model holds no explanatory power for a single inch of that 105+ ft. freefall descent; which is why accepting NIST's explanation is tantamount to rejecting the third law of motion. The significance of that measly "2.5 second interval" can't be overstated.

Bullshit you assholes over state its importance constantly.
its the linchpin of your fantasy.

Its over 100 ft of free fall..hardly measly

again only in your fantasy reality is another thing altogether.

NIST computer model only shows initiation of the collapse and offers no explanation for the rest of the collapse at and (I quote NIST) at virtual free -fall

Nothing coming from the twoofers goes beyond conspiracy theory.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

three farts in a row from the agent trolls.^

 

[LA RAM FAN]

A linguist..lol...your like hollie with her science buff that likes to read sci-fi and fantasy novels

yep,the shills have fantasys that all these credible experts are wrong and the government and media are correct. they wont take my advise and stop smoking that crack they are one.

all they have to come back with in their drivel constantly is this-

 

[LA RAM FAN]

There was no CD speculation is not evidence

its the only way to explain a symmetrical free fall collapse...

You twoofers manufacture an explanation and then invent data to support the conspiracy laden conjecture.

what evidence was manufactured,,what data invented..can you support anything you say?

right

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone assessed that the movement "gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of this administration", and expressed concerns about the number of people who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories.[111]

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) engineering professor Thomas W. Eagar was at first unwilling to acknowledge the concerns of the movement, saying "if (the argument) gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." In response to Steven E. Jones publication of a hypothesis that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition, Eagar said that adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement would use the reverse scientific method to arrive at their conclusions, as they "determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion".[112]

Calling conspiracy theorists "the truthers", Bill Moyers has quoted journalist Robert Parry by stating that the theorists "...threw out all the evidence of al-Qaeda's involvement, from contemporaneous calls from hijack victims on the planes to confessions from al-Qaeda leaders both in and out of captivity that they had indeed done it. Then, recycling some of the right's sophistry techniques, such as using long lists of supposed evidence to overcome the lack of any real evidence, the 'truthers' cherry-picked a few supposed 'anomalies' to build an 'inside-job' story line".[113]

Al Qaeda has sharply criticized Iran's ex-president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, over his suggestions that the U.S. government was behind the September 11 attacks, dismissing his comments as "ridiculous".[114]

Some skeptics, who oppose conspiracy as the a-priori explanation to events, and who find most of the questions posed by the Truthers to be either easily answered[115] or based on misleading or false facts[116] have claimed that some of the Truthers are knowingly disseminating false information, with no care for the grieving families, and accordingly called them "disrespectful" or even "sickos".[117]

not a single rebuttal to A@E911 TRUTH
just editorial opinion and empty claims that the could be proven wrong with out offering anything to support that claim...FAIL

Nor has there been a SINGLE rebuttal to all those four videos I posted way at the very beginning of this thread despite all my challlenges.they have acted like those videos were never posted.

obviously they have me on their ignore list.


thats why i have them on mine since they ignore all my posts.lol.

 

[Hollie]

A linguist..lol...your like hollie with her science buff that likes to read sci-fi and fantasy novels

yep,the shills have fantasys that all these credible experts are wrong and the government and media are correct. they wont take my advise and stop smoking that crack they are one.

all they have to come back with in their drivel constantly is this-

What you twoofers fail to understand is that now a decade and a half past 9/11, you goofy conspiracies involving Joooooooos, thermite, Jooooooos with thermite, controlled demolition, Joooooooooos and every other goofy conspiracy involving multiple conspirators remain nothing more than fiction and conspiracy theory.

The above are some of the reasons why you conspiracy theory loons are referred to as, well, conspiracy theory loons.

 

[SAYIT]

Nor has there been a SINGLE rebuttal to all those four videos I posted way at the very beginning of this thread despite all my challlenges.they have acted like those videos were never posted.
obviously they have me on their ignore list.
thats why i have them on mine since they ignore all my posts.lol.

Woo ... I was wrong about you. I had you figured for at least 12 years old.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

someone farted in here.^

 

[eots]

its the only way to explain a symmetrical free fall collapse...

You twoofers manufacture an explanation and then invent data to support the conspiracy laden conjecture.

what evidence was manufactured,,what data invented..can you support anything you say?

right

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone assessed that the movement "gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of this administration", and expressed concerns about the number of people who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories.[111]

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) engineering professor Thomas W. Eagar was at first unwilling to acknowledge the concerns of the movement, saying "if (the argument) gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." In response to Steven E. Jones publication of a hypothesis that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition, Eagar said that adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement would use the reverse scientific method to arrive at their conclusions, as they "determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion".[112]

Calling conspiracy theorists "the truthers", Bill Moyers has quoted journalist Robert Parry by stating that the theorists "...threw out all the evidence of al-Qaeda's involvement, from contemporaneous calls from hijack victims on the planes to confessions from al-Qaeda leaders both in and out of captivity that they had indeed done it. Then, recycling some of the right's sophistry techniques, such as using long lists of supposed evidence to overcome the lack of any real evidence, the 'truthers' cherry-picked a few supposed 'anomalies' to build an 'inside-job' story line".[113]

Al Qaeda has sharply criticized Iran's ex-president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, over his suggestions that the U.S. government was behind the September 11 attacks, dismissing his comments as "ridiculous".[114]

Some skeptics, who oppose conspiracy as the a-priori explanation to events, and who find most of the questions posed by the Truthers to be either easily answered[115] or based on misleading or false facts[116] have claimed that some of the Truthers are knowingly disseminating false information, with no care for the grieving families, and accordingly called them "disrespectful" or even "sickos".[117]

not a single rebuttal to A@E911 TRUTH
just editorial opinion and empty claims that the could be proven wrong with out offering anything to support that claim...FAIL

You expect rubuttal to a YouTube video manufactured by twoofers?

Fail!

its a MIT engineer you goofball

 

[eots]

A linguist..lol...your like hollie with her science buff that likes to read sci-fi and fantasy novels

yep,the shills have fantasys that all these credible experts are wrong and the government and media are correct. they wont take my advise and stop smoking that crack they are one.

all they have to come back with in their drivel constantly is this-

What you twoofers fail to understand is that now a decade and a half past 9/11, you goofy conspiracies involving Joooooooos, thermite, Jooooooos with thermite, controlled demolition, Joooooooooos and every other goofy conspiracy involving multiple conspirators remain nothing more than fiction and conspiracy theory.

The above are some of the reasons why you conspiracy theory loons are referred to as, well, conspiracy theory loons.

Not true history is being written, 9/11 truth is becoming common knowledge..its being taught on campus it has gone mainstream