Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Documentary

By on August 3, 2011 in News 63

Please take a moment to look with an open mind at the evidence that has been compiled by independent researchers around the world that calls into question the findings of the 9/11 commission report.

, , , , , ,

  • Honu

    I have written comments on here before siding with the 9-11 truth movement.  I don’t necessarily believe Bush was involved and I don’t have any idea who was or why I just know that what happened that day didn’t happen according to the official report.  It’s not conspiracy, it’s science.  And now I bring you Tuna Ghost who will say the opposite…

  • Honu

    I have written comments on here before siding with the 9-11 truth movement.  I don’t necessarily believe Bush was involved and I don’t have any idea who was or why I just know that what happened that day didn’t happen according to the official report.  It’s not conspiracy, it’s science.  And now I bring you Tuna Ghost who will say the opposite…

  • Honu

    I have written comments on here before siding with the 9-11 truth movement.  I don’t necessarily believe Bush was involved and I don’t have any idea who was or why I just know that what happened that day didn’t happen according to the official report.  It’s not conspiracy, it’s science.  And now I bring you Tuna Ghost who will say the opposite…

  • Honu

    I have written comments on here before siding with the 9-11 truth movement.  I don’t necessarily believe Bush was involved and I don’t have any idea who was or why I just know that what happened that day didn’t happen according to the official report.  It’s not conspiracy, it’s science.  And now I bring you Tuna Ghost who will say the opposite…

  • Anonymous

    inb4 shitstorm

  • DeepCough

    Every year, the official story for the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 2001 becomes less and less credible, and that’s by and large because the Bush administration used this stark event to carry out the neoconservative plan of his P.N.A.C. cabinet to wage war in the Middle East to establish the U.S. as the Roman Empire of the 21st century.

  • Rooti

    Thanks for posting this, I will spend the $20 and buy the DVD. 

  • http://www.nickmeador.org/ ndmeador

    Loose Change covered a lot of the architectural aspects of the WTC demolition back in 2006. I haven’t watched the final version yet but it’s online: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28QukKjwLtI

  • http://twitter.com/Marklar_Prime Marklar Kronkite

    No, no, the law of conservation of momentum and Newton’s third law of motion were suspended on that day,.. ironically, for playing hookey.

  • Anonymous

    Three words: Doctor Judy Wood.

  • Tuna Ghost

    oh god I’m so tired

  • Tuna Ghost

    oh god I’m so tired

  • Albury Smith

    What did Box Boy attempt to refute in the 9/11 Commission Report?

  • Tuna Ghost

    Buddy I don’t think I can do all this again.  This is, what, the third time we’ve done this dance?  And still no one tackles how the “explosives” didn’t make a noise loud enough to show up on any of the recording devices.  No one tackles that one single question, and it is like an icicle in my brain every time.  I just don’t think I’ve got the energy to go through this again, but I’ll enjoy watching you handle it if you’ve got the patience.  

  • ArgosyJones

    … is a crazy bitch.

  • ArgosyJones

    I’m out.  This is a waste of my life.  Truthers are impervious to reason.  Every time you see them claim a new witness, or a new analysis, it’s just the same old tired shit.  Recycled conspiracy theories coming from the mouth of an architect are no more convincing than from their original sources.

  • ArgosyJones

    I’m out.  This is a waste of my life.  Truthers are impervious to reason.  Every time you see them claim a new witness, or a new analysis, it’s just the same old tired shit.  Recycled conspiracy theories coming from the mouth of an architect are no more convincing than from their original sources.

  • Anonymous

    Nice straw man.  I don’t hear any of these engineers or architects proffering any conspiracy theories, only scientific observations leading to what they consider scientific theories as to how the buildings collapsed.

  • ArgosyJones

    Well, then Spinach, you haven’t been around too long, have you?  All of Richard Gage’s material is recycled crap from conspiracy theorists.  Google ‘box boy richard gage’ if you want an idea of how serious this guy is.

    And just to be consistent, I should point out that he continually lies about the number of architects and engineers who have signed his petition, and that they are a small and shrinking fraction of one percent of the relevant professionals.

    And to be perfectly clear, you are welcome to ‘cinch’ a rope around your neck and hang around.

  • Honu

    Stooping to recommending someone who disagrees with you to go kill themselves?  Wow you’ve really convinced me now of your beliefs.  Whatever you think about Richard Gage still doesn’t address what you consider to be ‘tired old shit’.  Maybe it’s because the ‘tired old shit’ is actually valid and needs to be explored.  And even if you are so dug into your position and will never budge, still doesn’t change the inconsistencies of the official report. 

  • ArgosyJones

    I call it tired old shit, because it is old, tired, bullshit.  The same bullshit that Gage and others have been pedaling for more than 5 years.  It has already been thoroughly explored, by myself and many others.  I’m not going to waste my breath on you.  It has all been said and done before.  Maybe I’ll be interested in arguing with idiots for the anniversary.

    Why don’t you calm down and enjoy a Balowmey Sandwich.

  • Camronwiltshire

    Thank you Rooti.  Thank you everyone for commenting.  Everyone except team shill (argosy, tuna, albury) 

  • Camronwiltshire

    Thank you Rooti.  Thank you everyone for commenting.  Everyone except team shill (argosy, tuna, albury) 

  • Honu

    Why don’t you shove it up your ass and fuck off while doing it?  Oh, and calm down yourself.

    And the same old tired bullshit over rationalized pseudo science to fit arguments used against Gage and others have also been pedaled for about as long and are as boring to me as you think truther info is.

    So why don’t you stop wasting your breath (although really, isn’t it just typing?) and balow yourself. 

    Can’t wait to argue with you again on the anniversary.  See yuh!

  • Anonymous

    Lies have become Truth.

    Good work Truthers. Glad we thought you might shine some light on something.

    Incompetent fucking morons.

  • Anonymous

    Team shill

  • Anonymous

    Team shill

  • Tuna Ghost

    Huh, that’s actually a comforting thought, that in another ten years we’ll meet here on Disinfo to have the same argument again.  Kinda like a Civil War reenactment!  We should switch sides every ten years just to keep things interesting.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    Whatever you think about Richard Gage still doesn’t address what you consider to be ‘tired old shit’.
    We can probably save everyone some time and just link to this article

    http://disinfo.com/2011/04/richard-gage-explains-911-truth-on-fox-2-detroit/

    and its comments section, wherein the claims are debated fairly rigorously and insults are thrown back and forth like a nerf football.  You didn’t stick around very long, so you can’t be blamed for not remembering.  

    As for myself, until someone starts addressing the very reasonable question of why, if explosives were used, there is no recording of the explosion on any of the several recording devices in operation at the site of the WTC towers when the attack occurred, I’m going to stay out of it.  I mean, its a very reasonable question and no one, absolutely no one, addresses it.  Telling me “people heard explosions” isn’t an answer, as explosives powerful enough to knock down a building would have been heard nearly a mile away.  There is no getting around that.  Big explosions = big noise, regardless of the kinds of explosives and regardless of whether or not any kind of thermite was used.  The people who claim to have heard explosions would have been deafened, literally deafened, if they had been that close to explosives powerful enough to topple a building had being used.  People ten blocks away would have heard the explosions.  Until someone tackles this very reasonable question, I just don’t have the energy to re-type everything from the previous discussion.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    Yes, obviously the US government is so concerned with a loud minority of retarded jerkoffs to hire people to post on Disinfo for years as undercover shills to argue with aforementioned retarded jerkoffs, whom no one takes seriously anyway.  Yeah, that’s totally not overestimating your importance or anything.  You don’t sound like a self-important douche at all.  

    Not at all.  

  • Honu

    Thanks for being Civil.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Those plans could have been advanced with just a simple terrorist strike, though.  I mean, there were literally dozens of groups that wanted to attack the US on a scale like this, why not just let one of them succeed?  It’s far easier and there’s no trail leading back to you.  Plus, you don’t have to involve a hundred dudes whose mouths you have to worry about keeping shut.  That’s how the US government does things overseas, why would it change its tactics to something infinitely more dangerous when operating on its own soil where it is watched much more closely?  It doesn’t make any damn sense, man.

  • Tuna Ghost

    *looks up from bowl of soup*  Guh?  

    Oh!  Just go to the article I linked to down below.  Pretty much all the arguments have been made and countered there, and I just don’t have the energy to repeat all of that or to be snarky.  Cut back to you for accusations of shill, traitor, unwilling-to-accept-the-US-gov’t-could-do-something-like-this-despite-its-history-of-doing-blacker-shit-than-9/11, etc.  

    Damn we’ve got this shit down pat.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    You know, I’m starting to think that Truthers “believe” the conspiracy theories in the same way that fundamentalist Christians “believe” that the Earth is 4,000 years old.  They say the believe it, and they even think they believe it, but when it comes down to it they quite simply do not know what they believe.  The vast majority of fundamentalist Christians, when push comes to shove, use the same scientific reasoning that proves the earth is far older than 4,000 years without batting an eye or even realizing they’re using a line of reasoning that contradicts what they profess to believe.  In the same way, I think Truthers use the same reasoning and science that disproves their claims in their lives all the time without being aware that they’re doing it.  As such, they think they believe something, but in reality they’re just confused about the definition of “belief” and its effects on behavior.  

  • Camronwiltshire

    You Know, I’m starting to think that shills “believe” that the repetitive use of ad hominem attacks and character assassination as a method to attempt to discredit anyone who actually understands the laws of physics, or structural engineering, chemistry, metallurgy, etc. and thus realizes that 9/11 could not have feasibly happened the way the “official” conspiracy theory of the government states is akin to fundamentalist blah blah.  

    A is like B so B is A.   Get it through your head people! If I make an illogical analogy it is the same as reality in my anonymous echo chamber!   Anyone who questions the government is incapable of logical thought process because I Tuna Ghost the Anonymous Gormless Shill has stated it a thousand times.  Saying something no matter how untruthful will equal the Truth in my mind once I’ve said it often enough.  Anyone who disagrees with me based on testable experiments/experience in nature is obviously wrong and most likely just as confused as a fundamentalist blah blah blah.

    Remember this was spoken by the almighty Tuna/Albury/Argosy the three headed government lap poodle guarding the gates of the official sacred myth of 9/11.  Please someone take me seriously…..

  • Camronwiltshire

    You Know, I’m starting to think that shills “believe” that the repetitive use of ad hominem attacks and character assassination as a method to attempt to discredit anyone who actually understands the laws of physics, or structural engineering, chemistry, metallurgy, etc. and thus realizes that 9/11 could not have feasibly happened the way the “official” conspiracy theory of the government states is akin to fundamentalist blah blah.  

    A is like B so B is A.   Get it through your head people! If I make an illogical analogy it is the same as reality in my anonymous echo chamber!   Anyone who questions the government is incapable of logical thought process because I Tuna Ghost the Anonymous Gormless Shill has stated it a thousand times.  Saying something no matter how untruthful will equal the Truth in my mind once I’ve said it often enough.  Anyone who disagrees with me based on testable experiments/experience in nature is obviously wrong and most likely just as confused as a fundamentalist blah blah blah.

    Remember this was spoken by the almighty Tuna/Albury/Argosy the three headed government lap poodle guarding the gates of the official sacred myth of 9/11.  Please someone take me seriously…..

  • Tuna Ghost

    So are you going to address the fact that the “explosions” that brought down the towers didn’t make the noise that an explosion that powerful should have made?  No?  You’re just going to repeat the same “some people heard explosions!” blather, even though it doesn’t address the point that if they had been that close to an explosion powerful enough to bring down a skyscraper they would have been literally defeaned, that people would have heard the explosion ten blocks away?  But they didn’t?  That people one block away didn’t hear it?  That it didn’t register on any of the several recording devices present at the time?  That it doesn’t matter what kind of explosives were used, or whether or not there as any thermite, that the explosion would still be heard a mile away?  No?  You’re going to ignore that again?  You’re going to continue ignoring it because you have no explanation for it?  Just like every other Truther on Disinfo?  Just like they do every time we have this discussion?  

    Alright.  Just so we’re on the same page.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    If we compare the actions of 9/11 Truthers to the real activists who tackled another conspiracy, say for instance US involvement in Central America in the 80s, the difference becomes clear.  The US originally denied any involvement in the atrocities that were committed there by “freedom fighters”.  But people did their research, published papers in peer-reviewed journals here and abroad, collected witness reports and found incriminating documents and built a real case.  This is despite the fact that they were in very real danger for doing so.  Many reporters and even clergy members were killed for trying to bring the truth to light.  When they were finished, they gave it to the UN and the Church and other international organizations.  This allowed people like Noam Chomsky to go public here in the US and present it to various Government officials until the truth was impossible to ignore.  Of course there was nothing anybody could have done to prosecute anyone, but it gave the government a black eye when it came to light that the CIA trained and equipped the men responsible for the horrible things that happened in Nicaragua and other places. 

    These are the channels real activists go through to effect change.  These channels do not include making and selling DVDs and posting videos on YouTube.  There is a reason why the international community does not take Truthers seriously–they don’t have a case.  There are many, many countries that would love to pin 9/11 on the US government, but they don’t have anything substantial.  Because there is nothing substantial to have.  If Truthers really cared about making changes, they would do the things that would eventually create change.  Again, this does not include making and selling DVDs or posting videos on YouTube or going on The View.  That is what attention-seeking frauds do.  

    To my knowledge, there was one article published abroad in peer-reviewed journal, and it was discredited immediately.  By now we all know how the editor, who did not know the article had been published, felt about it (she said it did not belong in a scientific journal because it had little to do with nano-chemistry and had an obvious political agenda, and then she resigned in shame that it had been published under her watch.  This can be backed up very easily, if anyone wants me to.  I can do that because these are facts).  Since then there have been no real studies published in a scientific journal, no evidence brought to the international community’s attention.  But several peer-reviewed journals have done the exact opposite, provided evidence that shows there was no controlled demolition, because they have a real case.  Why can’t Truthers do that?  Truthers claim that the editor of the nano-chemistry journal was influenced by the US government (without any proof to back up that claim, of course), but are they seriously saying that the US is squashing all other attempts?  Is the influence of the US government that strong?  Then why wasn’t it strong enough to squash attempts to reveal the other black shit it has done in the past?  Or maybe, just maybe, people like Richard Gage and Stephen Jones don’t actually want to do the things that would create real change.  Maybe, just maybe, their primary concern is getting attention and being famous.  

    To often I hear Truthers say “I don’t care what you tell me, what evidence you provide, I’m not going to believe the official story”.  Truthers have told me that here on Disinfo, for crying out loud.  Is that what someone who is seeking the truth would say?  Truthers ask people to have an open mind when they present their evidence, but where is their open mind when evidence that counters their claim is presented?  I was utterly convinced that the US was involved in 9/11 for many years–it was my first reaction upon hearing there had been an attack, and the Administration’s following actions seemed to confirm my suspicions.  It wasn’t until I was challenged to really look at the evidence without prejudice, to do the things that people who are truly concerned with the truth do, that I was able to see that there is no evidence for a controlled demolition.  This is why the international community (and everyone else) doesn’t care what Truthers have to say–they don’t do the things that people who are truly seeking the truth do.  They don’t do what real activists do.  They do the things attention-seeking frauds do, like make and sell DVDs.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    Welcome aboard.  For joining Team Shill you get a free smoothie and all the accusations of being a traitor you can carry!  You may be tempted to sympathize with the Truthers, seeing as how their numbers are dwindling and no one takes them seriously, and you are free to do so.  They’re not bad people, they’ve just been lied to by attention-seeking frauds desperate to stay relevant and be viewed as “fighting for the truth”.  

  • DeepCough

    Honestly, the 9/11 Truth movement is the result of retrospective outrage. Not only were there a lot of signs that terrorism was becoming more and more imminent on account of American political influence in the Middle East, but it was just blatantly obvious that Bush wanted to go Iraq purely for the fuck of it (oh, and the oil, too).

  • Tuna Ghost

    Yeah, combine that with the reports that the CIA was warning the White House of planned attacks involving commercial jetliners and one has to wonder how big a surprise 9/11 really was.  

  • Hoodoo

    Sounds like you could do with a large dose of reality!  Good luck!

    http://www.911-see-the-evidence.com/

  • Tuna Ghost

    Which is a more likely scenario: 

    a.) the key members of the Republican party risk everything–their careers, their lives, the very existence of the Republican party–planning an operation that would include hundreds of people that would all have to keep their mouths shut, a scientific community conveniently ignoring scientific principles, and a lack of evidence that several investigations (the NIST wasn’t the only investigation, mind you–the NYPD and FDNY did investigations of their own, and given how many of them were killed when the buildings collapsed, how likely is it they would have half-assed their investigation?) commented upon.

    b.) the US government simply does not care very much about defending the country from terrorist attacks.

    Scenario A is so complex it borders on impossible, while scenario B is not even controversial.  Scenario B has been proven time and time again.  The US government has admitted that it knew invading Iraq would only increase terrorist attacks around the world and attempted attacks in the US, and did it anyway.  The US government has admitted that the CIA warned the Bush administration about impending attacks involving commercial jets, but they did nothing.  Even if they wanted a terrorist attack to push forward their plans for invading Iraq, why did they in no way whatsoever provide evidence that implicated Iraq?  Why would they instead provide evidence that implicated Saudi Arabia, the supposed friends of the US, something they would have to hastily cover up and gloss over in the future?  Why does the US still do business with Saudi Arabia despite knowing full well they fund terror operations all over the globe?  Why would they cook up a ridiculously complicated operation, an operation that implicates the planners are all literally insane, that risks everything, when they could simply allow one of the dozens of groups that want to do something like this to succeed?  That’s what they do in foreign countries when tehy need something done.  Why change from a successful tactic that would leave no evidence whatsoever to something a million times more risky on their own territory?  

     Because the US government doesn’t care about terrorist attacks.  Jesus.  I mean, that’s not even a controversial statement.  Everybody knows that.  If you really think scenario A is more likely, then I am certainly not the one with a poor grasp on reality.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    Which is a more likely scenario: 

    a.) the key members of the Republican party risk everything–their careers, their lives, the very existence of the Republican party–planning an operation that would include hundreds of people that would all have to keep their mouths shut, a scientific community conveniently ignoring scientific principles, and a lack of evidence that several investigations (the NIST wasn’t the only investigation, mind you–the NYPD and FDNY did investigations of their own, and given how many of them were killed when the buildings collapsed, how likely is it they would have half-assed their investigation?) commented upon.

    b.) the US government simply does not care very much about defending the country from terrorist attacks.

    Scenario A is so complex it borders on impossible, while scenario B is not even controversial.  Scenario B has been proven time and time again.  The US government has admitted that it knew invading Iraq would only increase terrorist attacks around the world and attempted attacks in the US, and did it anyway.  The US government has admitted that the CIA warned the Bush administration about impending attacks involving commercial jets, but they did nothing.  Even if they wanted a terrorist attack to push forward their plans for invading Iraq, why did they in no way whatsoever provide evidence that implicated Iraq?  Why would they instead provide evidence that implicated Saudi Arabia, the supposed friends of the US, something they would have to hastily cover up and gloss over in the future?  Why does the US still do business with Saudi Arabia despite knowing full well they fund terror operations all over the globe?  Why would they cook up a ridiculously complicated operation, an operation that implicates the planners are all literally insane, that risks everything, when they could simply allow one of the dozens of groups that want to do something like this to succeed?  That’s what they do in foreign countries when tehy need something done.  Why change from a successful tactic that would leave no evidence whatsoever to something a million times more risky on their own territory?  

     Because the US government doesn’t care about terrorist attacks.  Jesus.  I mean, that’s not even a controversial statement.  Everybody knows that.  If you really think scenario A is more likely, then I am certainly not the one with a poor grasp on reality.  

  • Hoodoo

    Which is a more likely scenario:

    you hold all the answers to avery question and concern that the majority of the population legitimately holds regarding the official account of the events of 911…

    or you have feacal matter for brains.

  • Hoodoo

    Which is a more likely scenario:

    you hold all the answers to avery question and concern that the majority of the population legitimately holds regarding the official account of the events of 911…

    or you have feacal matter for brains.

  • Tuna Ghost

    The fact that you have not addressed the points I’ve made speaks volumes for you and the Truth movement in general.  Specifically, that you don’t really care about the truth if it conflicts with your previously held beliefs. 

    Even in scientific experiments performed in a controlled environment, unexplained strange phenomena and coincidences crop up all the time.  Any scienfific journal will have, in the letters column, dozens of letters pointing out and asking about these phenomena.  Their existence proves nothing and does not count as “evidence’ for anything. 

  • Camronwiltshire

     How about a digital face to face debate via skype?  Put it on Disinfo and settle this shit finally.  Just need an objective moderator.  Shit we can even ask some of the disinfo podcasts guys to moderate.  5 minutes to respond.  You just have to unmask and stand behind your words?  Objections??  10th anniversary is coming up.  Let’s do this.

  • Tuna Ghost

    This discussion cannot continue until you address the very, very simple question elaborated upon above.  Literally no Truther on Disinfo has done so.  You could be the very first!  

    Objections?  Yes.  Quite aside from the fact that you’ve insulted me time and time again, and that you’ve recruited me into this fantasy that you’re fighting for Truth and Justice against shadowy government forces bent on keeping the masses in the dark (thereby justifying in your mind god knows what sort of retaliation I deserve for my “crimes”), this demanding I show you my face or provide you (or your cousins in these here parts) with my personal information is an ad hominem, i.e. attacking the arguer instead of the argument.  Logical fallacy.  Look it up.  A real logical fallacy, not the “fallacies” you claim to spot in my posts without ever providing any evidence.  ”Fallacy” does not simply mean “you are wrong”.  Claiming that because I don’t show you my face or provide any personal information my points cannot stand, that is a logical fallacy.  I know this because I went to college, because I honestly try to pursue knowledge independently and without prejudice instead of having it fed to me by someone selling a membership in the “pretend to be a freedom fighter!” club (which, as you can see, now has DVDs for sale).  Like I told your cousin in another thread: call me scum, call me a coward, call me a shill, tell me that I’m at least partly responsible for the blood that has been spilt since 9/11, stab my brain with an icicle by using the word “fallacy” over and over without knowing the meaning, or just plain stab me with an icicle, but please for the love of god just ANSWER. THE. QUESTION.

    If you’re truly interested in a tete a tete away from the public to avoid grandstanding and losing face, answer the question.  I’ll give you my email address if you do.  You’re obviously passionate about the subject, and honestly its a viewpoint for which I have a lot of sympathy.  You won’t be the first Truther I’ve convinced to look at the facts without prejudice.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    by the way, in the interests of finding common ground, we can both at the least be thankful that neither one of us is that idiot MasoMystic who seems to believe that a NUCLEAR EXPLOSION felled the towers.  See?  That’s one thing we have in common.  We’re making progress already.

  • Camronwiltshire

    Oh like you’ve never insulted anyone on this forum?? Give me a break.  So you want to do a face to face (albeit digital) debate or what?  Also I have answered your question countless times.  So here we go one more time, I don’t expect you will actually answer my claims or my references but will again indulge in some form of ad hominem or red herring/circular logic dismissal but hey at least the folks at home will see even more clearly who the bullshitter is in this equation.

    For the record,  NIST did not look for explosives.  This is in violation of NFPA 21 http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=8  It’s hard to find what you won’t look for.  Also once independent researchers did look, it wasn’t very hard to find the evidence of explosive detonation haven taking place. (watch Blueprint for Truth for a more thorough presentation of these facts) You assume that if any explosives were used they must have made noise of a certain decibel range and anything under this somehow excludes the possibility of low noise incendiaries being utilized to fell the towers.http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=8   Watch this, wow, amazing, there are EXPLOSIONS recorded after all.  I have listed numerous videos which show very loud explosions all around ground zero at various stages of the attacks both pre and post collapse.   You are assuming that there are not explosives capable of melting steel that do not create a decibel range equivalent to your assumptions.  This is patently false, and nano thermite is one such incendiary whose residue has been found throughout the dust from all 3 towers, that could in fact cut through the core columns without the achieving the decibel range you offer.Of course you refuse any evidence of this based on spurious and illogical claims that this evidence is invalid because an editor associated with Bentham decided to resign upon learning of the nano-thermite papers publishing, someone who has no specific credentials to either understand or refute the peer reviewed paper, someone who made no attempt to whatsoever.  The paper  overwhelmingly demonstrates the presence of Nano Thermite,  as per the millions of iron rich microspherules present in the dust as well as a precise match of all of the associated chemistry one would expect to find had a thermate reaction taken place.    Her resigning does not equate with a scientific response to the evidence as brought forward.  To assume it does so or invalidates the evidence brought forth is illogical in the extreme.When pressed as to why no scientists have yet attempted to refute this paper, you insinuate that it is because it is somehow invalid or insinuate that Bentham is somehow subpar because of one instance where a paper with no scientific merit was published.  Again this does not deal with any of the evidence cited or the issues raised in a scientific manner.  This is again avoiding the issue and presuming that you needn’t counter this evidence because of logically fallacious insinuations rather than a proper refutation based on the scientific method.Professor Steven Jones clarifies why such pseudo debunking derisions do not satisfy the TRUELY  scientifically curious.”Here’s what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, “is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?” If not, you can and should say — “I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands…IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are “vanity publications” (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) — then why don’t the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.”http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/12/debunker-pat-curley-king-of-scientific.htmlhttp://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=8 If you ACTUALLY look at the link I provided and ACTUALLY watch the videos you will see NUMEROUS examples of eyewitness accounts and actual video footage of large explosions present on 9/11.    There, here is the refutation of your illogical claim for about the 10th time at least.  Now let’s debate face to digital face and settle this once and for all.

  • Camronwiltshire

    Oh like you’ve never insulted anyone on this forum?? Give me a break.  So you want to do a face to face (albeit digital) debate or what?  Also I have answered your question countless times.  So here we go one more time, I don’t expect you will actually answer my claims or my references but will again indulge in some form of ad hominem or red herring/circular logic dismissal but hey at least the folks at home will see even more clearly who the bullshitter is in this equation.

    For the record,  NIST did not look for explosives.  This is in violation of NFPA 21 http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=8  It’s hard to find what you won’t look for.  Also once independent researchers did look, it wasn’t very hard to find the evidence of explosive detonation haven taking place. (watch Blueprint for Truth for a more thorough presentation of these facts) You assume that if any explosives were used they must have made noise of a certain decibel range and anything under this somehow excludes the possibility of low noise incendiaries being utilized to fell the towers.http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=8   Watch this, wow, amazing, there are EXPLOSIONS recorded after all.  I have listed numerous videos which show very loud explosions all around ground zero at various stages of the attacks both pre and post collapse.   You are assuming that there are not explosives capable of melting steel that do not create a decibel range equivalent to your assumptions.  This is patently false, and nano thermite is one such incendiary whose residue has been found throughout the dust from all 3 towers, that could in fact cut through the core columns without the achieving the decibel range you offer.Of course you refuse any evidence of this based on spurious and illogical claims that this evidence is invalid because an editor associated with Bentham decided to resign upon learning of the nano-thermite papers publishing, someone who has no specific credentials to either understand or refute the peer reviewed paper, someone who made no attempt to whatsoever.  The paper  overwhelmingly demonstrates the presence of Nano Thermite,  as per the millions of iron rich microspherules present in the dust as well as a precise match of all of the associated chemistry one would expect to find had a thermate reaction taken place.    Her resigning does not equate with a scientific response to the evidence as brought forward.  To assume it does so or invalidates the evidence brought forth is illogical in the extreme.When pressed as to why no scientists have yet attempted to refute this paper, you insinuate that it is because it is somehow invalid or insinuate that Bentham is somehow subpar because of one instance where a paper with no scientific merit was published.  Again this does not deal with any of the evidence cited or the issues raised in a scientific manner.  This is again avoiding the issue and presuming that you needn’t counter this evidence because of logically fallacious insinuations rather than a proper refutation based on the scientific method.Professor Steven Jones clarifies why such pseudo debunking derisions do not satisfy the TRUELY  scientifically curious.”Here’s what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, “is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?” If not, you can and should say — “I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands…IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are “vanity publications” (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) — then why don’t the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.”http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/12/debunker-pat-curley-king-of-scientific.htmlhttp://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=8 If you ACTUALLY look at the link I provided and ACTUALLY watch the videos you will see NUMEROUS examples of eyewitness accounts and actual video footage of large explosions present on 9/11.    There, here is the refutation of your illogical claim for about the 10th time at least.  Now let’s debate face to digital face and settle this once and for all.

  • Hoodoo
  • Hoodoo
  • Hoodoo
  • Tuna Ghost

    I watched the first video, wherein nameless men are standing near a pay phone when a loud noise is heard.  If this is your evidence of “explosions” caught on recording equipment, then this conversation isn’t going any further.  

    You are assuming that there are not explosives capable of melting steel that do not create a decibel range equivalent to your assumptions. 

    I’ve said nothing about melted steel, since no one claims melted steel had anything to do with the collapse, and there is no evidence of melted steel anyway.  That claim, of molten steel, has been refuted countless times.  People claiming “there were pools of molten steel” is not evidence, I’m afraid, for a number of reasons that have already been elaborated on.  As for low-decibel explosions aided by nano-thermite, since there is no evidence at all that thermite of any kind can burn in any direction except down (talk all you want of paint or tape but that won’t make thermite burn horizontally), and since no one has thus far described in terms of process how nano-thermite would aid in an explosion, or how any of this was set up in a building that was still in use without anyone noticing, it remains a fantasy.  Explosions capable of knocking a tower down, let alone three, not making the noises they should have made remains a fantasy.  The noises people heard that sounded like explosions can and did have numerous other origins, which have been elaborated upon by several others.  

    I mean, which are you claiming here?  ”The explosions didn’t have to be loud, they had nano-thermite!  Anyway, they were loud!”.  You’re all over the place, kid.  

    Of course you refuse any evidence of this based on spurious and illogical claims that this evidence is invalid because an editor associated with Bentham decided to resign upon learning of the nano-thermite papers publishing, someone who has no specific credentials to either understand or refute the peer reviewed paper, someone who made no attempt to whatsoever

    If the editor has no credibility, then why are Truthers trying to discredit her by saying she has been influenced by the US state department?  Why would they feel it necessary to do that, if she has no credibility to begin with?  

    If I were you, I’d be very wary of aligning yourself with Steven Jones.  He once “proved” that Jesus preached to the Native tribes of the Americas, and he “proved” that the events described in the Book of Mormon are historical fact.  And since no one has debunked him, these claims must be true, right?  That’s what he’s saying, right?  Since no one has attempted to refute his claims, these claims are valid?  The Book of Mormon is historical fact, and Jesus walked around in North America?  

    So it appears you’ve simply re-arranged all the evidence the truthers before you have presented.  These claims have all been handled before.  You’ve presented nothing new here, nothing that has not already been explained numerous times.  

    Frankly, I’m already involved in your little fantasies far more than I’d like, and the idea of allowing you and your kind further into my personal life is not something I’d like to do.  I know enough people locked into a fantasy world.  There is nothing to be gained by engaging with crazy people, as my experience with Truthers across this board have clearly shown.  Providing you with a new venue in which to call me names and ignore basic facts by shouting over them does not sound like a productive thing to do.  

    If you have nothing new to add, this conversation is over.  Everything you’ve claimed has been discussed at length in other places.  Its the same things, repeated over and over, in the hopes that the next time you say them they’ll be true.  I just don’t have the energy to go in circles with you any more.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    I watched the first video, wherein nameless men are standing near a pay phone when a loud noise is heard.  If this is your evidence of “explosions” caught on recording equipment, then this conversation isn’t going any further.  

    You are assuming that there are not explosives capable of melting steel that do not create a decibel range equivalent to your assumptions. 

    I’ve said nothing about melted steel, since no one claims melted steel had anything to do with the collapse, and there is no evidence of melted steel anyway.  That claim, of molten steel, has been refuted countless times.  People claiming “there were pools of molten steel” is not evidence, I’m afraid, for a number of reasons that have already been elaborated on.  As for low-decibel explosions aided by nano-thermite, since there is no evidence at all that thermite of any kind can burn in any direction except down (talk all you want of paint or tape but that won’t make thermite burn horizontally), and since no one has thus far described in terms of process how nano-thermite would aid in an explosion, or how any of this was set up in a building that was still in use without anyone noticing, it remains a fantasy.  Explosions capable of knocking a tower down, let alone three, not making the noises they should have made remains a fantasy.  The noises people heard that sounded like explosions can and did have numerous other origins, which have been elaborated upon by several others.  

    I mean, which are you claiming here?  ”The explosions didn’t have to be loud, they had nano-thermite!  Anyway, they were loud!”.  You’re all over the place, kid.  

    Of course you refuse any evidence of this based on spurious and illogical claims that this evidence is invalid because an editor associated with Bentham decided to resign upon learning of the nano-thermite papers publishing, someone who has no specific credentials to either understand or refute the peer reviewed paper, someone who made no attempt to whatsoever

    If the editor has no credibility, then why are Truthers trying to discredit her by saying she has been influenced by the US state department?  Why would they feel it necessary to do that, if she has no credibility to begin with?  

    If I were you, I’d be very wary of aligning yourself with Steven Jones.  He once “proved” that Jesus preached to the Native tribes of the Americas, and he “proved” that the events described in the Book of Mormon are historical fact.  And since no one has debunked him, these claims must be true, right?  That’s what he’s saying, right?  Since no one has attempted to refute his claims, these claims are valid?  The Book of Mormon is historical fact, and Jesus walked around in North America?  

    So it appears you’ve simply re-arranged all the evidence the truthers before you have presented.  These claims have all been handled before.  You’ve presented nothing new here, nothing that has not already been explained numerous times.  

    Frankly, I’m already involved in your little fantasies far more than I’d like, and the idea of allowing you and your kind further into my personal life is not something I’d like to do.  I know enough people locked into a fantasy world.  There is nothing to be gained by engaging with crazy people, as my experience with Truthers across this board have clearly shown.  Providing you with a new venue in which to call me names and ignore basic facts by shouting over them does not sound like a productive thing to do.  

    If you have nothing new to add, this conversation is over.  Everything you’ve claimed has been discussed at length in other places.  Its the same things, repeated over and over, in the hopes that the next time you say them they’ll be true.  I just don’t have the energy to go in circles with you any more.  

  • Abe

    If you understand what an objective analysis is, then you’d start your own investigation by first determining the subject matter of interest, “9/11 might have been an inside job” in this case.  But to be objective, you must research claims from every expert you found on the side of a conspiracy by taking the time to investigate if a counter claim exists by equally qualified sources on the other side.  If you did this, you’ve done more than most.  

    I can’t substantiate this, but I believe most people are bandwagon jumpers because they were sent some links from a friend, and yes, the information provided at the end of many of these links is very, very compelling, but following them blindly doesn’t make the information you find fact.  All you’ve done is found a mountain of “quote” evidence to support the claims that everything you thought you were researching would naturally support. This is not objective, it’s just what happens when you research anything that has two or more sides and you travel down only one path.So lets assume you’re a good investigator and took the time to vet, to the extent possible, all of the eye witness testimony, architects, structural engineers, scientist, military experts, etc. on both sides of each claim made and held them each to the same level of scrutiny.  I mean unless your beginning premise is that the foundation of the other sides claims are a complete fabrication propagated by the conspirators. In that case, please stop reading because you’ve defeated your argument for Truth before you began.If however after listening to videos and reading transcripts and reports from the witnesses and experts of comparable knowledge and experience on both sides of the controversy and you’ve charted the pros and cons for what you find only to find your scales are no longer in balance, then your finding may or may not support your opinion. If the scales aren’t even close then you are probably as close to the Truth as you can get, and you should be commended for a job well done, so please pat yourself on the back.If your analysis is done correctly, you should find your scales tipping one way or the other regardless because you won’t be able to substantiate a counter claim or claim, and you’ll have to weigh the credibility of that information.—– Now, if you say I believe the conspiracy because I was interested in the plausibility of the conspiracy and as I dug deeper and deeper and all the evidence on the subject points to it being a cover up at a minimum and an out right act of terrorism committed by entities in our government.  I’d have to say yah that’s possible, but what I suspect what you’ve found is one bit of information, leading to links of more information all providing new and more and more compelling and seemingly credible information to support the path you chose. That’s not finding the Truth, nor does is mean that what you found is fact. And if you dispute this statement, please go back and read the first section of my post, because clearly you are not capable of understanding how you should seek the “truth”.  Also notice I said seek, and not find the truth…

  • WeAreChangeAtlanta

    A very longwinded strawman with just a dash of appeal to ridicule at the end.  If the government’s conspiracy theory does not match the evidence then it means we need a new investigation.  This is all I or the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are saying.  They don’t have a conspiracy theory, they have looked at the evidence and see that  the govt’s version doesn’t add up.  

    Clearly they are not alone in this perspective.  They actively seek a official review and discussion of the evidence.  Even 6 of 10 9/11 commissioners have openly expressed doubt with the findings of the first commission investigation not to mention, well NO mention of building 7′s implosion in the report.  

    Usually when one side refuses to hear evidence and censors completely divergent opinion it means there is something to hide.  If this equates with me having a bias that cannot be overcome in your mind well there is really nothing I could say as it is a generic vague and circular logic that is again ignoring the evidence while supposing anyone who reviews it has only chosen on pill or the other and has not actually made a reasoned analysis.  The Architects and Engineers have and have no fear of bringing it forward.  This cannot be said for NIST or the Government whatsoever.

    If you disagree then let’s see a real debate between AE911Truth and NIST.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=720775832 Texabara Madg

    To not only start war in the middle east.  The WTC was a target itself.  It start a conmmotion in the trade business, it help implement the “Shock Doctrine” and it helped to attack US constitutional civil rights.  If you think like the military, who no more than business man with guns, you prefer to control the self-attack.  This was the impulse to neo-liberalism.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Hmm yes but the WTC is a relatively popular target.  If you believe the CIA has a connection to Al Queda (which many do here on Disinfo) then surely they would know the target ahead of time anyway.  

  • Jcheadsup

    “Conspirators All”

     

    The
    weather so clear that beautiful day

    Yet no
    one dare see beyond what they say

     

    The
    charges all set with little regret

    The
    planes just attacked to covered their tracks

     

    Most
    traitorous of crimes betrayed from behind

    Most
    egregious of sins betrayed from within

     

    The
    grave in the ground holds flight 93

    Though
    strange as it seems no bodies are found

     

    The
    Pentagon flashed a huge fire ball

    But
    still haven’t seen a plane as its cause

     

    The
    crime scenes all swept with no protocol

    The
    proof hauled away except DNA

     

    And so
    in the end the culprits are free

    To fill
    carpet bags and take liberties

     

    Have no
    one to blame except for ourselves

    By
    turning our backs conspirators all

  • Iainalex88

    the FDNY do implicate that the official story is not withstanding of further scrutiny.   They want a further investigation in which their pleas has time and time again been ignored.  And nobody said the whole republican party was in on it.  Although it was obvious somebody was it cannot be said for certain exactly who(most likely people who gained massive profits).  And there was no proof that the ones that did get the blame for the attacks actually did do it.  There is “proof” but further scrutiny into that reduces that the subject of that proof to a little less than concrete proof.