Big_D
Member
I do not see the logic why they would bring down WTC 7 and shoot a missile at flight 93 at all.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Who thinks 9/11 was an inside Job?
- Thread starter RetiredGySgt
- Start date
Big_D
Member
I do not see the logic why they would bring down WTC 7 and shoot a missile at flight 93 at all.
eots
no fly list
I do not see the logic why they would bring down WTC 7 and shoot a missile at flight 93 at all.
all you do is prove the need for a real criminal investigation..and that has never occurred
because there is clearly a cover up
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,914
- 17,306
- 2,250
Heres another piece that debunks Popular mechanics.as I have showed the Bush dupes here my canada wants the truth link "too many times to remember only to have it ignored" so I'm not going to bother posting it again.But one of those 47 videos in there is called POPULAR MECHANICS DEBUNKED and that video has a radio announcer call in Benjamin Chertoff the editor there and Chertoff dodges all the questions he asks him and never does give him an answer.
PLUS The radio announcer THEN in the video, calls a demolition company and talks to the receptionist on the phone and asks her if the word PULL IT means anything.and as you can hear on the video,she says PULL IT? she then says she will go ask one of the higher ups in the company and she is off the phone with him for about 30 seconds or so and as you can hear in the video-"which nobody hear ever listens to since they only want to see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear" she comes back and says something like-sir apparently the term PULL IT means to IMPLODE a building and bring it down. This was heard by MILLIONS of listeners on his radio show but the 9/11 Bush dupes of course wont listen to that video cause again,they only hear what they want to hear.
Sep 25, 2006, 00:59
Email this article
Printer friendly page
It’s been an exciting year to be a 9/11 Truth Seeker. With each passing month there’s been a trend of continuing revelations and historic events that will break the dam of government deception once and for all. There have been actors, musicians, scientists, engineers, former presidential cabinet members, rescue workers, survivors, historians, and even foreign officials weighing in with their doubts about the official 9/11 narrative.
Recent polls by both Zogby and Scripps Howard show the number of Americans questioning the government about 9/11 to be growing exponentially. When they know you have the truth on your side, those who stand to lose will employ the most underhanded tactics to keep their own conspiracy theory alive.
As if right on cue, Popular Mechanics returns to the arena of 9/11 Truth to present an extension of their March 2005 hit piece, “Debunking 9/11 Lies: Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand up to the Hard Facts.” Now they’ve taken the original piece and extended it into a book-length format. In view of the fifth anniversary of 9/11 and the 9/11 Truth movement gaining more mainstream coverage than ever, it’s only to be expected that an attack on the movement’s credibility would emerge.
On the inside cover of the book there is a list of endorsements from some well-known talking heads. For example, Glen Reynolds, proprietor of the neocon blog Instapundit.com, takes time away from equating the people of Lebanon with Nazis (see Instapundit.com, 8/13/06) to endorse this collection of “hard facts.”
However, for the ultimate grand slam, Popular Mechanics (and by association Hearst Publishing) chose to enlist the literary talent of America’s “maverick” Senator John McCain for the book’s forward. Senator McCain tows an extremely Orwellian line, reminding readers that Americans were attacked for their freedoms on 9/11 and that the evidence of al Qaeda’s central role in the attacks is “overwhelming.” (p. xii) The senator explains that over the years many Americans have had trouble accepting such historical occurrences as the “surprise” attack on Pearl Harbor or the murder of a president by a lone gunman in a book depository. Certainly Senator McCain knows better, and I would imagine he has access to the same declassified documents that I do, which prove both claims to be incorrect. But before plucking the reader from the rabbit hole, McCain goes for the grand slam by claiming that anyone who questions the official 9/11 narrative is directly insulting all who tragically perished on that day, as well as “those who have fought in all the wars in our history.” (p. xiv) The suggestion here clearly is that any questioning of the government’s official line is treasonous.
In the interest of time, I will not go through each “myth” and refute it point by point. Since this book contains most of the same information as the original Popular Mechanics article, I would instead recommend that the reader track down Jim Hoffman’s excellent piece in Global Outlook Magazine #10. A more detailed piece by Peter Meyer was also posted on the Serendipity website last year. Other responses have come from Alex Jones, as well from the always resourceful website, Killtown.
It’s important to note from the start that this book is not meant to debunk anything. Its’ main purpose is to craft a mindset where anyone who questions the official 9/11 story likely spends their weekends at Roswell. This is a psychological attack on those who dare question their government’s account of a most tragic day in our history; it’s a return fire in an ongoing information war. The purpose is not to answer pressing questions. Instead, the writers choose the path of assassinating the character of anyone who dares ask such questions. Additionally, the book plants a seed in the mind of the reader that all 9/11 Truth seekers agree on every “myth” discussed. To reinforce this, the editors focus on major strawman arguments that I will discuss briefly.
Starting on page 8, a section focuses on an unsupported theory that the planes that hit WTC 1 and 2 were carrying pods that unloaded a cargo upon impact. As both of the pieces cited above (Global Research, and Meyer's) pointed out, this is an argument that has been made by a handful of fringe 9/11 activists and popularized in the widely discredited “In Plane Site” video. It usually goes hand in hand with the “no windows on the plane” theory regarding flights United 175 and American 11. This can be disproved by simply examining video and photographic evidence. These two arguments are analogous to the Umbrella Man theory in the JFK assassination.
The editors don’t do so well in trying to pull together a theory that explains the lack of air defense. Popular Mechanics wants the reader to believe that there was no air response simply because there was no protocol for intercepting domestically hijacked planes previous to 9/11. Some simple background research on NORAD, FAA or Department of Defense regulations should clear this up entirely.
Rather than refute what the book does tell us, it’s important to acknowledge what it does not report. As discussed in numerous arenas, including Capital Hill testimony by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers, there were a number of military war games taking place on the morning of 9/11. A consequence of the war games was that instead of seeing four hijacked aircraft on their screen, the honest people at NORAD were looking at nearly 30. Popular Mechanics doesn’t even mention these and the impact they may have had on a successful air defense campaign. This absolutely warrants discussion.
The book then shifts to the question of what exactly hit the Pentagon. This is the most wildly debated and divisive topic in the 9/11 Truth movement. Few people agree on the specifics: some say the building was struck by a missile, some say a commercial plane, while others feel that Flight 77 indeed hit the Pentagon. So while few of us agree completely on what did happen at the Pentagon, almost all skeptics agree that something smells rotten here. Video of the second plane hitting the WTC has become the iconic image of the horrific events of that day. However, we have never seen any photographic evidence of a 757 crashing into the Pentagon. This seems a bit strange when you consider that we’re talking about the most heavily guarded and visually monitored building in the country. The Pentagon has cameras covering it at all angles such that the image of a plane should at least register as a large blur.
But to this day, we have not been given much more than five still video frames. These frames do not show any visual evidence of a 757. Add to that the immediate seizure of videotape from a nearby Citgo Station and Sheraton Hotel and red flags should shoot up. The government has said that they do have multiple videos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. However, when the DOD responded to a FOIA request by the right-wing organization Judicial Watch to release footage that would put “conspiracy theories” to rest, what was released was actually described as “underwhelming” by a Fox News reporter. Indeed, this was the government’s big opportunity to make their case. Instead, we were given no clear evidence of Flight 77, but what looked like still photos taken from almost the same angle as the previously released frames. If there is photographic evidence, which at least one of the 84 other surveillance cameras should have caught, why not release them all and shut us up?
The Pentagon section of the book offers a good example of some of the many inconsistencies present in this book. On page 61, the editors remind the reader that “it was unrealistic to think that the low-quality security camera image would reveal the crystal clear image of a Boeing 757 traveling at 780 feet per second.” Now turn to page 63 under the section titled ‘Flight 77 Debris.’ Here William Kagasse is quoted as saying, “It [Flight 77] was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it . . . I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet off the ground.” This quote was aired on ABC’s Nightline. According to Mr. Kagasse, the plane was extraordinarily identifiable down to specific details of the position of the window shades.
So which is it? If Mr. Kagasse was able to leave the scene with such detail, how could not one single security camera capture at least the blurry outline of a plane?
When discussing the size of the hole caused by the plane, we run into another psychological tactic frequently employed in the book. As stated previously, the Pentagon is one of the most hotly debated aspects of the official 9/11 narrative. There are hundreds of web sites that explore the events of 9/11 with some entirely dedicated to the incident at the Pentagon. Yet, Popular Mechanics chose to cite The Seventh Fire - Soar Beyond Mind as their primary source for their information on the Pentagon. Why do that when sites such as Pentagon Research exist to focus solely on this topic?
I can answer that pretty easily. If the reader decided to check the source given, they would find themselves on a web site dedicated to new age topics such as dream catchers and miracles. Information related to 9/11 is something of a footnote in the grand scene of the page. The implication would be that those who question 9/11 typically sit around talking mind control and “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,” both of which are hot topics on the site. This is pure misrepresentation.
Continuing the trend of misrepresentation, the editors went out of their way to tie as many sources as possible to Holocaust deniers. One example would be their choice to cite an article from Jeff Rense Program, noting afterwards that the site focuses frequently on Zionism and Holocaust denial. The message being that if the reader was starting to empathize with these conspiracy nuts, they should be aware that anti-Semitism dominates the movement. Nothing could be further from the truth. There will always be those who pin every wrongdoing in the world on Jews, Zionists and Israel.
Perhaps the most ludicrous assertion made in the entire book relates to WTC Building 7. Building 7 is often seen as the smoking gun of 9/11 research, based on its classic demolition-style collapse and lack of coverage in the “9/11 Commission Report.” Leaseholder Larry Silverstein also made an infamous confession in a PBS documentary. Mr. Silverstein states that he instructed the fire department commander to “pull” the building at 5:20PM. While some have argued that the first two towers collapsed because of the combination of fire and plane impact, the same could not be said of Building 7. While there were fires (pictured in the book), it was not hit by any aircraft. When combining the fact that the building collapsed at near free fall speed with Mr. Silverstein’s comments, this would seem an open and shut case: World Trade Center Building 7 was demolished. Mr. Silverstein later emerges to explain that by “pull it,” he was referring to removal of the fire fighters from the building. This is troubling when you factor in that the New York Times reported on November 29, 2001, that by 11:30 am all firefighters had been removed from the area due to safety concerns. Further, FEMA’s initial report indicated that there was only light structural damage caused by the fires. In fact, FEMA has all but literally scratched their proverbial heads in trying to explain the building collapse.
The editors also decided to take on the definition of “pull it” once and for all. After speaking with four unnamed demolition and engineering experts, they claim that not one of these individuals have ever heard the term “pull it” to describe controlled demolition. Instead the term is a reference to a procedure where a building is cut at the foundation and literally pulled over. To cover themselves, Popular Mechanics made sure to include a mention that the technique of literally pulling a building over itself was tried unsuccessfully on buildings 5 and 6. However, the aforementioned documentary showed a demolition team announcing that they were about to “pull” one of the other buildings. Once the order is given, the building clearly collapses in perfect symmetry. So it would seem that the attempts to “pull” the buildings were quite successful.
Since the publication of the original Popular Mechanics piece, Brigham Young University Physics Professor Steven Jones has released one of the most vital studies in 9/11 truth. Last year Dr. Jones began to study the possibility of a thermite reaction at both of the main towers of the WTC, thus causing their collapse. Further, Dr. Jones recently obtained a piece of debris from the rubble and was able to positively test it for the existence of compounds that would be consistent with a thermite reaction. As Dr. Jones’s study is very well sourced and thorough, the study must obviously be discredited in some fashion. Popular Mechanics carted out several metallurgic professors who disagree with the Jones hypothesis. They also quote Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc.,, who was contracted to remove all debris from ground zero. Mr. Loizeaux explaines that, "Dr. Jones misunderstands the properties of explosive charges.” Other than Mr. Loizeaux’s title, no other credentials are cited for him to make such an assertion. Finally, it’s noted that, “Dr. Jones primary field of study at BYU (Brigham Young University) is metal-catalyzed or cold fusion, a study that is unrelated to engineering or the performance of tall buildings.” The key word here is “primary.” While Dr. Jones may focus on such said issues in his studies at BYU, it does not mean that he hasn’t studied basic physics and metallurgy. So once again, the reader is to rely on assumptions and half-truths in the face of irrefutable evidence and dictates of logic.
Like a jury delivering a verdict, the book ends with a 20-page epilogue that serves as an indictment of the mind of “the conspiracy theorist.” Popular Mechanics Editor-In-Chief James B. Meigs manages to invoke the Illuminati, New World Order, and Zionism in the first sentence. Meigs cites numerous pieces of hate mail he has received, which accuse him of being everything from a government shill to a MOSSAD agent. Ironically, most of the charges leveled against people questioning the official 9/11 story are tactics employed throughout this book. A few examples include, but are not limited to, marginalization of opposing views, guilt by association, slipshod handling of facts, demonization and circular reasoning.
To his credit, Meigs acknowledges the questions some raised about the relationship between Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and Benjamin Chertoff, head of the magazine’s research department. Meig’s admits that they are likely related, but have never met and had no contact for the purpose of the 2005 article. This is a great example of the use of circular reasoning. It defies logic to think that, in writing a story like this, any journalist worth his/her weight wouldn’t cover all the bases. In this case, if a member of your staff is related to the head of the very agency that was born out of the ashes of 9/11, why not tap into that resource? It would seem to be as good a time as any for a Chertoff family reunion.
Let me be clear. I do not pretend to know exactly what happened on 9/11: I also have my disagreements with many of the theories that have been put out there over the years. What I do know is that what the people were told happened on 9/11 is not the truth. If Americans are to take any lessons from history, it is that those in power will redefine the truth in a way that bests suits their interests and agenda. Those who stand to profit from an event like 9/11 have no interest in opening themselves up to any line of questioning. They also suffer in that the facts are not on their side. This book tries to serve as the bandage for a gaping wound in the official 9/11 narrative. Unfortunately for those in charge, that wound shows no signs of healing.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor
Top of Page
PLUS The radio announcer THEN in the video, calls a demolition company and talks to the receptionist on the phone and asks her if the word PULL IT means anything.and as you can hear on the video,she says PULL IT? she then says she will go ask one of the higher ups in the company and she is off the phone with him for about 30 seconds or so and as you can hear in the video-"which nobody hear ever listens to since they only want to see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear" she comes back and says something like-sir apparently the term PULL IT means to IMPLODE a building and bring it down. This was heard by MILLIONS of listeners on his radio show but the 9/11 Bush dupes of course wont listen to that video cause again,they only hear what they want to hear.
Sep 25, 2006, 00:59
Email this article
Printer friendly page
It’s been an exciting year to be a 9/11 Truth Seeker. With each passing month there’s been a trend of continuing revelations and historic events that will break the dam of government deception once and for all. There have been actors, musicians, scientists, engineers, former presidential cabinet members, rescue workers, survivors, historians, and even foreign officials weighing in with their doubts about the official 9/11 narrative.
Recent polls by both Zogby and Scripps Howard show the number of Americans questioning the government about 9/11 to be growing exponentially. When they know you have the truth on your side, those who stand to lose will employ the most underhanded tactics to keep their own conspiracy theory alive.
As if right on cue, Popular Mechanics returns to the arena of 9/11 Truth to present an extension of their March 2005 hit piece, “Debunking 9/11 Lies: Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand up to the Hard Facts.” Now they’ve taken the original piece and extended it into a book-length format. In view of the fifth anniversary of 9/11 and the 9/11 Truth movement gaining more mainstream coverage than ever, it’s only to be expected that an attack on the movement’s credibility would emerge.
On the inside cover of the book there is a list of endorsements from some well-known talking heads. For example, Glen Reynolds, proprietor of the neocon blog Instapundit.com, takes time away from equating the people of Lebanon with Nazis (see Instapundit.com, 8/13/06) to endorse this collection of “hard facts.”
However, for the ultimate grand slam, Popular Mechanics (and by association Hearst Publishing) chose to enlist the literary talent of America’s “maverick” Senator John McCain for the book’s forward. Senator McCain tows an extremely Orwellian line, reminding readers that Americans were attacked for their freedoms on 9/11 and that the evidence of al Qaeda’s central role in the attacks is “overwhelming.” (p. xii) The senator explains that over the years many Americans have had trouble accepting such historical occurrences as the “surprise” attack on Pearl Harbor or the murder of a president by a lone gunman in a book depository. Certainly Senator McCain knows better, and I would imagine he has access to the same declassified documents that I do, which prove both claims to be incorrect. But before plucking the reader from the rabbit hole, McCain goes for the grand slam by claiming that anyone who questions the official 9/11 narrative is directly insulting all who tragically perished on that day, as well as “those who have fought in all the wars in our history.” (p. xiv) The suggestion here clearly is that any questioning of the government’s official line is treasonous.
In the interest of time, I will not go through each “myth” and refute it point by point. Since this book contains most of the same information as the original Popular Mechanics article, I would instead recommend that the reader track down Jim Hoffman’s excellent piece in Global Outlook Magazine #10. A more detailed piece by Peter Meyer was also posted on the Serendipity website last year. Other responses have come from Alex Jones, as well from the always resourceful website, Killtown.
It’s important to note from the start that this book is not meant to debunk anything. Its’ main purpose is to craft a mindset where anyone who questions the official 9/11 story likely spends their weekends at Roswell. This is a psychological attack on those who dare question their government’s account of a most tragic day in our history; it’s a return fire in an ongoing information war. The purpose is not to answer pressing questions. Instead, the writers choose the path of assassinating the character of anyone who dares ask such questions. Additionally, the book plants a seed in the mind of the reader that all 9/11 Truth seekers agree on every “myth” discussed. To reinforce this, the editors focus on major strawman arguments that I will discuss briefly.
Starting on page 8, a section focuses on an unsupported theory that the planes that hit WTC 1 and 2 were carrying pods that unloaded a cargo upon impact. As both of the pieces cited above (Global Research, and Meyer's) pointed out, this is an argument that has been made by a handful of fringe 9/11 activists and popularized in the widely discredited “In Plane Site” video. It usually goes hand in hand with the “no windows on the plane” theory regarding flights United 175 and American 11. This can be disproved by simply examining video and photographic evidence. These two arguments are analogous to the Umbrella Man theory in the JFK assassination.
The editors don’t do so well in trying to pull together a theory that explains the lack of air defense. Popular Mechanics wants the reader to believe that there was no air response simply because there was no protocol for intercepting domestically hijacked planes previous to 9/11. Some simple background research on NORAD, FAA or Department of Defense regulations should clear this up entirely.
Rather than refute what the book does tell us, it’s important to acknowledge what it does not report. As discussed in numerous arenas, including Capital Hill testimony by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers, there were a number of military war games taking place on the morning of 9/11. A consequence of the war games was that instead of seeing four hijacked aircraft on their screen, the honest people at NORAD were looking at nearly 30. Popular Mechanics doesn’t even mention these and the impact they may have had on a successful air defense campaign. This absolutely warrants discussion.
The book then shifts to the question of what exactly hit the Pentagon. This is the most wildly debated and divisive topic in the 9/11 Truth movement. Few people agree on the specifics: some say the building was struck by a missile, some say a commercial plane, while others feel that Flight 77 indeed hit the Pentagon. So while few of us agree completely on what did happen at the Pentagon, almost all skeptics agree that something smells rotten here. Video of the second plane hitting the WTC has become the iconic image of the horrific events of that day. However, we have never seen any photographic evidence of a 757 crashing into the Pentagon. This seems a bit strange when you consider that we’re talking about the most heavily guarded and visually monitored building in the country. The Pentagon has cameras covering it at all angles such that the image of a plane should at least register as a large blur.
But to this day, we have not been given much more than five still video frames. These frames do not show any visual evidence of a 757. Add to that the immediate seizure of videotape from a nearby Citgo Station and Sheraton Hotel and red flags should shoot up. The government has said that they do have multiple videos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. However, when the DOD responded to a FOIA request by the right-wing organization Judicial Watch to release footage that would put “conspiracy theories” to rest, what was released was actually described as “underwhelming” by a Fox News reporter. Indeed, this was the government’s big opportunity to make their case. Instead, we were given no clear evidence of Flight 77, but what looked like still photos taken from almost the same angle as the previously released frames. If there is photographic evidence, which at least one of the 84 other surveillance cameras should have caught, why not release them all and shut us up?
The Pentagon section of the book offers a good example of some of the many inconsistencies present in this book. On page 61, the editors remind the reader that “it was unrealistic to think that the low-quality security camera image would reveal the crystal clear image of a Boeing 757 traveling at 780 feet per second.” Now turn to page 63 under the section titled ‘Flight 77 Debris.’ Here William Kagasse is quoted as saying, “It [Flight 77] was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it . . . I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet off the ground.” This quote was aired on ABC’s Nightline. According to Mr. Kagasse, the plane was extraordinarily identifiable down to specific details of the position of the window shades.
So which is it? If Mr. Kagasse was able to leave the scene with such detail, how could not one single security camera capture at least the blurry outline of a plane?
When discussing the size of the hole caused by the plane, we run into another psychological tactic frequently employed in the book. As stated previously, the Pentagon is one of the most hotly debated aspects of the official 9/11 narrative. There are hundreds of web sites that explore the events of 9/11 with some entirely dedicated to the incident at the Pentagon. Yet, Popular Mechanics chose to cite The Seventh Fire - Soar Beyond Mind as their primary source for their information on the Pentagon. Why do that when sites such as Pentagon Research exist to focus solely on this topic?
I can answer that pretty easily. If the reader decided to check the source given, they would find themselves on a web site dedicated to new age topics such as dream catchers and miracles. Information related to 9/11 is something of a footnote in the grand scene of the page. The implication would be that those who question 9/11 typically sit around talking mind control and “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,” both of which are hot topics on the site. This is pure misrepresentation.
Continuing the trend of misrepresentation, the editors went out of their way to tie as many sources as possible to Holocaust deniers. One example would be their choice to cite an article from Jeff Rense Program, noting afterwards that the site focuses frequently on Zionism and Holocaust denial. The message being that if the reader was starting to empathize with these conspiracy nuts, they should be aware that anti-Semitism dominates the movement. Nothing could be further from the truth. There will always be those who pin every wrongdoing in the world on Jews, Zionists and Israel.
Perhaps the most ludicrous assertion made in the entire book relates to WTC Building 7. Building 7 is often seen as the smoking gun of 9/11 research, based on its classic demolition-style collapse and lack of coverage in the “9/11 Commission Report.” Leaseholder Larry Silverstein also made an infamous confession in a PBS documentary. Mr. Silverstein states that he instructed the fire department commander to “pull” the building at 5:20PM. While some have argued that the first two towers collapsed because of the combination of fire and plane impact, the same could not be said of Building 7. While there were fires (pictured in the book), it was not hit by any aircraft. When combining the fact that the building collapsed at near free fall speed with Mr. Silverstein’s comments, this would seem an open and shut case: World Trade Center Building 7 was demolished. Mr. Silverstein later emerges to explain that by “pull it,” he was referring to removal of the fire fighters from the building. This is troubling when you factor in that the New York Times reported on November 29, 2001, that by 11:30 am all firefighters had been removed from the area due to safety concerns. Further, FEMA’s initial report indicated that there was only light structural damage caused by the fires. In fact, FEMA has all but literally scratched their proverbial heads in trying to explain the building collapse.
The editors also decided to take on the definition of “pull it” once and for all. After speaking with four unnamed demolition and engineering experts, they claim that not one of these individuals have ever heard the term “pull it” to describe controlled demolition. Instead the term is a reference to a procedure where a building is cut at the foundation and literally pulled over. To cover themselves, Popular Mechanics made sure to include a mention that the technique of literally pulling a building over itself was tried unsuccessfully on buildings 5 and 6. However, the aforementioned documentary showed a demolition team announcing that they were about to “pull” one of the other buildings. Once the order is given, the building clearly collapses in perfect symmetry. So it would seem that the attempts to “pull” the buildings were quite successful.
Since the publication of the original Popular Mechanics piece, Brigham Young University Physics Professor Steven Jones has released one of the most vital studies in 9/11 truth. Last year Dr. Jones began to study the possibility of a thermite reaction at both of the main towers of the WTC, thus causing their collapse. Further, Dr. Jones recently obtained a piece of debris from the rubble and was able to positively test it for the existence of compounds that would be consistent with a thermite reaction. As Dr. Jones’s study is very well sourced and thorough, the study must obviously be discredited in some fashion. Popular Mechanics carted out several metallurgic professors who disagree with the Jones hypothesis. They also quote Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc.,, who was contracted to remove all debris from ground zero. Mr. Loizeaux explaines that, "Dr. Jones misunderstands the properties of explosive charges.” Other than Mr. Loizeaux’s title, no other credentials are cited for him to make such an assertion. Finally, it’s noted that, “Dr. Jones primary field of study at BYU (Brigham Young University) is metal-catalyzed or cold fusion, a study that is unrelated to engineering or the performance of tall buildings.” The key word here is “primary.” While Dr. Jones may focus on such said issues in his studies at BYU, it does not mean that he hasn’t studied basic physics and metallurgy. So once again, the reader is to rely on assumptions and half-truths in the face of irrefutable evidence and dictates of logic.
Like a jury delivering a verdict, the book ends with a 20-page epilogue that serves as an indictment of the mind of “the conspiracy theorist.” Popular Mechanics Editor-In-Chief James B. Meigs manages to invoke the Illuminati, New World Order, and Zionism in the first sentence. Meigs cites numerous pieces of hate mail he has received, which accuse him of being everything from a government shill to a MOSSAD agent. Ironically, most of the charges leveled against people questioning the official 9/11 story are tactics employed throughout this book. A few examples include, but are not limited to, marginalization of opposing views, guilt by association, slipshod handling of facts, demonization and circular reasoning.
To his credit, Meigs acknowledges the questions some raised about the relationship between Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and Benjamin Chertoff, head of the magazine’s research department. Meig’s admits that they are likely related, but have never met and had no contact for the purpose of the 2005 article. This is a great example of the use of circular reasoning. It defies logic to think that, in writing a story like this, any journalist worth his/her weight wouldn’t cover all the bases. In this case, if a member of your staff is related to the head of the very agency that was born out of the ashes of 9/11, why not tap into that resource? It would seem to be as good a time as any for a Chertoff family reunion.
Let me be clear. I do not pretend to know exactly what happened on 9/11: I also have my disagreements with many of the theories that have been put out there over the years. What I do know is that what the people were told happened on 9/11 is not the truth. If Americans are to take any lessons from history, it is that those in power will redefine the truth in a way that bests suits their interests and agenda. Those who stand to profit from an event like 9/11 have no interest in opening themselves up to any line of questioning. They also suffer in that the facts are not on their side. This book tries to serve as the bandage for a gaping wound in the official 9/11 narrative. Unfortunately for those in charge, that wound shows no signs of healing.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor
Top of Page
Last edited:
and that is a complete fucking LIEproof?oh and also Big dis info agent,the government HIRED Popular Mechanics to write that.Something I dont need to tell you since you already know that fact in your line of field.bye.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob56Hv-miUc[/ame]
the two chertoffs were not and are not related
that guy is a complete fucking liar
eots
no fly list
and that is a complete fucking LIE
the two chertoffs were not and are not related
that guy is a complete fucking liar
proof ?
Big_D
Member
I do not see the logic why they would bring down WTC 7 and shoot a missile at flight 93 at all.
all you do is prove the need for a real criminal investigation..and that has never occurred
because there is clearly a cover up
I prove it by posting experts explaining why it was not an inside job?
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,914
- 17,306
- 2,250
and that is a complete fucking LIE
the two chertoffs were not and are not related
that guy is a complete fucking liar
proof ?
yep.proof right there.you have two choices here,CONTINUE being an idiot and a frady cat and accepting the lies and propaganda of the governments version,OR start reading and listening to the truth.Obviously we both know which choice you will take.Like i said,millions of listeners on that radio show heard with their own ears.PULL IT in demolition terms, means bring it down.you lose Bush dupes.
Last edited:
wheres the proof you arent related to chertoff yourself?and that is a complete fucking LIE
the two chertoffs were not and are not related
that guy is a complete fucking liar
proof ?
the only "pull it" in demo terms is to use CABLES to physically pull a pre-weakened structure to one sideand that is a complete fucking LIE
the two chertoffs were not and are not related
that guy is a complete fucking liar
proof ?
yep.proof right there.you have two choices here,CONTINUE being an idiot and a frady cat and accepting the lies and propaganda of the governments version,OR start reading and listening to the truth.Obviously we both know which choice you will take.Like i said,millions of listeners on that radio show heard with their own ears.PULL IT in demolition terms, means bring it down.you lose Bush dupes.
it is NOT an explosive demo term
it is also a fire fighters term for evac the building
and gee, who was Silverstien talking to, the fire chief
so, just WHAT do you think they were using the term to mean?
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,914
- 17,306
- 2,250
again for you .
yep.proof right there.you have two choices here,CONTINUE being an idiot and a frady cat and accepting the lies and propaganda of the governments version,OR start reading and listening to the truth.Obviously we both know which choice you will take.Like i said,millions of listeners on that radio show heard with their own ears.PULL IT in demolition terms, means bring it down.you lose Bush dupes.[/QUOTE] what a fool poor Divecon is when he knows he is losing an argument.He cant be mature enough to admit he has been proven wrong since he is afraid of government conspiracys and claims its all lies.How pitiful and sad poor little divcon is.
yep.proof right there.you have two choices here,CONTINUE being an idiot and a frady cat and accepting the lies and propaganda of the governments version,OR start reading and listening to the truth.Obviously we both know which choice you will take.Like i said,millions of listeners on that radio show heard with their own ears.PULL IT in demolition terms, means bring it down.you lose Bush dupes.[/QUOTE] what a fool poor Divecon is when he knows he is losing an argument.He cant be mature enough to admit he has been proven wrong since he is afraid of government conspiracys and claims its all lies.How pitiful and sad poor little divcon is.
Last edited:
see, i AM listening to the truth, not your moronic liesagain for you .
yep.proof right there.you have two choices here,CONTINUE being an idiot and a frady cat and accepting the lies and propaganda of the governments version,OR start reading and listening to the truth.Obviously we both know which choice you will take.Like i said,millions of listeners on that radio show heard with their own ears.PULL IT in demolition terms, means bring it down.you lose Bush dupes what a fool poor Divecon is when he knows he is losing an argument.He cant be mature enough to admit he has been proven wrong since he is afraid of government conspiracys and claims its all lies.How pitiful and sad poor little divcon is.
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,914
- 17,306
- 2,250
what a fool poor Divecon is when he knows he is losing an argument.He cant be mature enough to admit he has been proven wrong since he is afraid of government conspiracys and claims its all lies.How pitiful and sad poor little divcon is.[/QUOTE]again for you .
yep.proof right there.you have two choices here,CONTINUE being an idiot and a frady cat and accepting the lies and propaganda of the governments version,OR start reading and listening to the truth.Obviously we both know which choice you will take.Like i said,millions of listeners on that radio show heard with their own ears.PULL IT in demolition terms, means bring it down.you lose Bush dupes.
this needs to be posted for you again I see.too bad as always your afraid of the truth about government conspiracys.the facts prove your the biggest idiot here at this site divecon,the way you ignore facts worse than anybody here does.with JFK,9/11, EVERYTHING.the proof that your the biggest idiot troll here is laws were broken that day and nobody was held accountable for their actions.they destroyed the debris of the world trade centers,cleaned it all up and shipped it off to china to be recycled-destroying the evidence at a crime scene,during the space shuttle disaster of 86,ANYBODY who was caught touching evidence that day was arrested and taken to jail.Standard protocal air force procedures were not followed by the pentagan.
The FAA supervisor crushed the tapes of the recording in his hand and scattered them in different trashcans according to the employees there,the pentagan has protocal in place to scramble jets within 10 minutes at the most when an aircraft strays off course,and NORAD generals have come forward and said CHENEY told them to stand down,they have documentation that proves it also.Hey idiot retard in denial,go destroy evidence at a police crime scene sometime or get a job as an air traffic controller in washington and get a friend to have the plane stray off course and as we BOTH know,your going to be in prison the rest of your life frady cat of government conspiracys.have fun talking to yourself frady cat.you LOVE doing it obviously.
Last edited:
just more of the same from a fucking idiotthis needs to be posted for you again I see.too bad as always your afraid of the truth about government conspiracys.the facts prove your the biggest idiot here at this site divecon,the way you ignore facts worse than anybody here does.with JFK,9/11, EVERYTHING.the proof that your the biggest idiot troll here is laws were broken that day and nobody was held accountable for their actions.they destroyed the debris of the world trade centers,cleaned it all up and shipped it off to china to be recycled-destroying the evidence at a crime scene,during the space shuttle disaster of 86,ANYBODY who was caught touching evidence that day was arrested and taken to jail.Standard protocal air force procedures were not followed by the pentagan.
The FAA supervisor crushed the tapes of the recording in his hand and scattered them in different trashcans according to the employees there,the pentagan has protocal in place to scramble jets within 10 minutes at the most when an aircraft strays off course,and NORAD generals have come forward and said CHENEY told them to stand down,they have documentation that proves it also.Hey idiot retard in denial,go destroy evidence at a police crime scene sometime or get a job as an air traffic controller in washington and get a friend to have the plane stray off course and as we BOTH know,your going to be in prison the rest of your life frady cat of government conspiracys.have fun talking to yourself frady cat.you LOVE doing it obviously.
see, i AM listening to the truth, not your moronic liesagain for you .
yep.proof right there.you have two choices here,CONTINUE being an idiot and a frady cat and accepting the lies and propaganda of the governments version,OR start reading and listening to the truth.Obviously we both know which choice you will take.Like i said,millions of listeners on that radio show heard with their own ears.PULL IT in demolition terms, means bring it down.you lose Bush dupes what a fool poor Divecon is when he knows he is losing an argument.He cant be mature enough to admit he has been proven wrong since he is afraid of government conspiracys and claims its all lies.How pitiful and sad poor little divcon is.
"Pull it" does not mean "bring it down" in demolition terms. In their paper, the demolition experts, Protec, stated explicitly that in all their years of demolition work, they had never heard the term "Pull it" used to signal the destruction of a building.
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf
I think 9-11 was a well orchestrated attack by Islamic terrorists who were hell bent on doing more that day but, thanks to the quick actions of the US armed forces, they only got away with what occurred. The outrage for me, as it relates to the attacks, has been on how the government was able to allow such an attack to happen. The country's system of tracking down and catching any potential threat was flawed and easy for the terrorists to attack. This was not an inside job. It was a well coordinated plot from the Islamic countries. Movies like Loose Change and Zeitgeist are misleading. The two best films on 9-11 are from National Geographic. Inside 9/11: Zero Hour which tells the true story of what happened and 9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories which debunks conspiracy theory lies. I think the culprits were more than just Al Queda. But Al Queda helped fund the attacks and were in on it. But I think the Saudi and Iraq governments were involved. Maybe Iran too. I also think the left came up with 9-11 truther theories to divert attention from what really happened that day and any conspiracy people from wanting real investigations into why the country was vulnerable that day and what Islamic countries knew and were in on the attacks. Instead they brainwashed some people into thinking Bush was behind attacks on the nation to start war with Iraq. Say what you will about Bush, he had a mixed record, this was not his doing and it was not an inside job. Upsets me people I would agree with otherwise on other issues, like David Icke, Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones, think it was an inside job. Ruins credibility when discussing economic issues and the police state. Some of what they are saying on other topics, I do agree with. But not this. I'm more with Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Marc Thiessen on 9-11 issues. I only started hearing about 9-11 conspiracies when Loose Change started coming out in 05. Misguided.
Last edited:
eots
no fly list
I think 9-11 was a well orchestrated attack by Islamic terrorists who were hell bent on doing more that day but, thanks to the quick actions of the US armed forces, they only got away with what occurred.
the total destruction of thee hi rise buildings and the deaths of thousands, a direct hit on the pentagon
one thwarted attack that was credited to the suicide mission of passengers ...quick actions ? wtf are you talking about
The outrage for me, as it relates to the attacks, has been on how the government was able to allow such an attack to happen.
Indeed they did...
The country's system of tracking down and catching any potential threat was flawed and easy for the terrorists to attack.
shoe bomber. underwear bomber,times square all stopped by passengers not intel...so what changed ?l
This was not an inside job. It was a well coordinated plot from the Islamic countries. Movies like Loose Change and Zeitgeist are misleading. The two best films on 9-11 are from National Geographic. Inside 9/11: Zero Hour which tells the true story of what happened and 9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories which debunks conspiracy theory lies.
the films you list are propaganda pieces not based on science at all
I think the culprits were more than just Al Queda. But Al Queda helped fund the attacks and were in on it. But I think the Saudi and Iraq governments were involved. Maybe Iran too. I also think the left came up with 9-11 truther theories to divert attention from what really happened that day
and that's because you are very uniformed of who the supporters of CD are
and any conspiracy people from wanting real investigations into why the country was vulnerable that day and what Islamic countries knew and were in on the attacks. Instead they brainwashed some people into thinking Bush was behind attacks
far too simplistic to say" bush was behind the attacks"
on the nation to start war with Iraq. Say what you will about Bush, he had a mixed record, this was not his doing and it was not an inside job. Upsets me people I would agree with otherwise on other issues, like David Icke, Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones, think it was an inside job. Ruins credibility when discussing economic issues and the police state. Some of what they are saying on other topics, I do agree with. But not this. I'm more with Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Marc Thiessen on 9-11 issues. I only started hearing about 9-11 conspiracies when Loose Change started coming out in 05. Misguided
there are many more people other than Alex Jones or loose change ..many of the high level military with outstanding service in some of the most sensitive areas of national security...so why do you go on about a news broadcaster and some students that made a film ?
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
PULL IT in demolition terms, means bring it down.
I think those that believe 9-11 was something other then what it was have been "pulling it " a little more then necessary if you get my drift...Maybe they should get out of their Mom and Dad's house,get out of the basement and go out and meet some nice girls and get on with their lives...
I think those that believe 9-11 was something other then what it was have been "pulling it " a little more then necessary if you get my drift...Maybe they should get out of their Mom and Dad's house,get out of the basement and go out and meet some nice girls and get on with their lives...
Last edited:
eots
no fly list
PULL IT in demolition terms, means bring it down.
I think those that believe 9-11 was something other then what it was have been "pulling it " a little more then necessary if you get my drift...Maybe they should get out of their Mom and Dad's house,get out of the basement and go out and meet some nice girls and get on with their lives...
so you are under the delusion the people at this link live in there mom and dads house ??
?Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
Similar threads
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 164
- Poll
- Replies
- 50
- Views
- 629
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 99
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 350
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 13
- Replies
- 2K
- Views
- 31K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8037
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-