Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

The "Critics" of 9/11 Truth. Do They Have a Case?


Sirius
 Share

Recommended Posts

The "Critics" of 9/11 Truth. Do They Have a Case?

by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

The short answer to the question in the title is no.

The 9/11 truth critics have nothing but ad hominem arguments.

Let’s examine the case against "the truthers" presented by Ted Rall, Ann Barnhardt, and Alexander Cockburn.

But first let’s define who "the truthers" are.

The Internet has made it possible for anyone to have a web site and to rant and speculate to their heart’s content. There are a large number of "9/11 conspiracy theorists".

Many on both sides of the issue are equally ignorant. Neither side has any shame about demonstrating ignorance.

Both sides of the issue have conspiracy theories.

9/11 was a conspiracy whether a person believes that it was an inside job or that a handful of Arabs outwitted the entire intelligence apparatus of the Western world and the operational response of NORAD and the US Air Force.

For one side to call the other conspiracy theorists is the pot calling the kettle black.

The question turns not on name-calling but on evidence.

The 9/11 Truth movement was not created by bloggers ranting on their web sites. It was created by professional architects and engineers some of whom are known for having designed steel high rise buildings.

It was created by distinguished scientists, such as University of Copenhagen nano-Chemist Niels Harrit who has 60 scientific papers to his credit and physicist Steven Jones.

It was created by US Air Force pilots and commercial airline pilots who are expert at flying airplanes.

It was created by firefighters who were in the twin towers and who personally heard and experienced numerous explosions including explosions in the sub-basements. It was created by members of 9/11 families who desire to know how such an improbable event as 9/11 could possibly occur.

The professionals and the scientists are speaking from the basis of years of experience and expert knowledge. Moreover, the scientists are speaking from the basis of careful research into the evidence that exists.

When an international research team of scientists spends 18 months studying the components in the dust from the towers and the fused pieces of concrete and steel, they know what they are doing. When they announce that they have definite evidence of incendiaries and explosives, you can bet your life that that have the evidence.

When a physicist proves that Building 7 (the stories not obscured by other buildings) fell at free fall speed and NIST has to acknowledge that he is correct, you can bet your life that the physicist is correct.

When fire department captains and clean-up teams report molten steel--and their testimony is backed up with photographs--in the debris of the ruins weeks and months after the buildings’ destruction, you can bet your life the molten steel was there.

When the same authorities report pumping fire suppressants and huge quantities of water with no effect on the molten steel, you can bet your life that the temperature long after the buildings’ destruction remained extremely high, far higher than any building fire can reach.

When the architects, engineers, and scientists speak, they offer no theory of who is responsible for 9/11. They state that the known evidence supports neither the NIST reports nor the 9/11 Commission Report. They say that the explanation that the government has provided is demonstrably wrong and that an investigation is required if we are to discover the truth about the event.

It is not a conspiracy theory to examine the evidence and to state that the evidence does not support the explanation that has been given.

That is the position of the 9/11 Truth movement.

What is the position of the movement’s critics? Ted Rall says: “Everything I’ve read and watched on Truther sites is easily dismissed by anyone with a basic knowledge of physics and architecture. (I spent three years in engineering school.) http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29113.htm

Wow! What powerful credentials. Has Rall ever designed a high rise steel building? Could Rall engage in a debate with a professor of nano-chemistry? Could he refute Newton’s laws in a debate with university physicists? Does Rall know anything about maneuvering airplanes? Does he have an explanation why 100 firefighters, janitors, and police report hearing and experiencing explosions that they did not hear or experience?

Clearly, Ted Rall has no qualifications whatsoever to make any judgment about the judgments of experts whose knowledge exceeds his meager understanding by a large amount.

Ann Barnhardt writes: “I gotta tell you, I’ve just about had it with these 9/11 truthers. If there is one phenomenon in our sick, sick culture that sums up how far gone and utterly damaged we are as a people, it is 9/11 trutherism. It pretty much covers everything: self-loathing, antisemitism, zero knowledge of rudimentary physics and a general inability to think logically.” She goes down hill from here. http://barnhardt.biz/

Amazing, isn’t she? Physics professors have “zero knowledge of rudimentary physics.”

Internationally recognized logicians have “a general inability to think logically.” People trained in the scientific method who use it to seek truth are “self-loathing.” If you doubt the government’s account you are antisemitic. Barnhardt then provides her readers with a lesson in physics, structural architecture and engineering, and the behavior of steel under heat and stress that is the most absolute nonsense imaginable.

Obviously, Barnhardt knows nothing whatsoever about what she is talking about, but overflowing with hubris she dismisses real scientists and professionals with ad hominem arguments. She adds to her luster with a video of herself tearing out pages of the Koran, which she has marked with slices of bacon, and burning the pages.

Now we come to Alexander Cockburn. He is certainly not stupid. I know him. He is pleasant company. He provides interesting intellectual conversation. I like him. Yet, he also arrogantly dismisses highly qualified experts who provide evidence contrary to the official government story of 9/11.

Cockburn avoids evidence presented by credentialed experts and relies on parody. He writes that the conspiracists claim that the twin towers “pancaked because **** Cheney’s agents--scores of them--methodically planted demolition charges.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/02/the-911-conspiracists-vindicated-after-all-these-years/

Little doubt but there are bloggers somewhere in the vast Internet world who say this. But this is not what the professionals are saying who have provided evidence that the official account is not correct. The experts are simply saying that the evidence does not support the official explanation. More recently, an international team of scientists has reported finding unequivocal evidence of incendiaries and explosives. They have not said anything about who planted them. Indeed, they have said that other scientists should test their conclusions by repeating the research. After calling experts “conspiracy kooks,” Alex then damns them for not putting forward “a scenario of the alleged conspiracy.”

Moreover, not a single one of the experts believes the towers “pancaked.” This was an early explanation that, I believe, was tentatively put forward by NIST, but it had to be abandoned because of the speed with which the buildings came down and due to other problems.

Unlike Rall and Barnhardt, Cockburn does refer to evidence, but it is second or third-hand hearsay evidence that is nonsensical on its face. For example, Cockburn writes that Chuck Spinney “tells me that ‘there ARE pictures taken of the 757 plane hitting Pentagon--they were taken by the surveillance cameras at Pentagon’s heliport, which was right next to impact point. I have seen them both--stills and moving pictures. I just missed seeing it personally, but the driver of the van I just got out of in South Parking saw it so closely that he could see the terrified faces of passengers in windows.’”

If there were pictures or videos of an airliner hitting the Pentagon, they would have been released years ago. They would have been supplied to the 9/11 Commission. Why would the government refuse for 10 years to release pictures that prove its case? The FBI confiscated all film from all surveillance cameras. No one has seen them, much less a Pentagon critic such as Spinney.

I have to say that the van driver must have better eyes than an eagle if he could see expressions on passenger faces through those small airliner portholes in a plane traveling around 500 mph. Try it sometimes. Sit on your front steps and try to discern the expressions of automobile passengers through much larger and clearer windows traveling down your street in a vehicle moving 30 mph. Then kick the speed up 16.7 times to 500 mph and report if you see anything but a blur.

Cockburn’s other evidence that 9/11 truthers are kooks is a letter that Herman Soifer, who claims to be a retired structural engineer, wrote to him summarizing “the collapse of Buildings 1 and 2 succinctly.” This is what Soifer, who “had followed the plans and engineering of the Towers during construction” wrote to Alex: “The towers were basically tubes, essentially hollow.” This canard was disposed of years ago. If Alex had merely googled the plans of the buildings, he would have discovered that there were no thin-walled hollow tubes, but a very large number of massively thick steel beams.

Cockburn's willingness to dismiss as kooks numerous acknowledged experts on the basis of a claim that a van driver saw terrified faces of passengers moving at 500 mph and a totally erroneous description in a letter from a person who knew nothing whatsoever about the structural integrity of the buildings means that he is a much braver person than I.

Before I call architects kooks whose careers were spent building steel high rises, I would want to know a lot more about the subject than I do. Before I poke fun at nano-chemists and physicists, I would want to at least be able to read their papers and find the scientific flaws in their arguments.

Yet, none of the people who ridicule 9/11 skeptics are capable of this. How, for example, can Rall, Barnhardt, or Cockburn pass judgment on a nano-chemist with 40 years of experience and 60 scientific publications to his credit?

They cannot, but nevertheless do. They don’t hesitate to pass judgment on issues about which they have no knowledge or understanding. This is an interesting psychological phenomenon worthy of study and analysis.

Another interesting phenomenon is the strong emotional reactions that many have to 9/11, an event about which they have little information. Even the lead members of the 9/11 Commission itself have said that information was withheld from them and the commission was set up to fail. People who rush to the defense of NIST do not even know what they are defending as NIST refuses to release the details of the simulation upon which NIST bases its conclusion.

There is no 9/11 debate.

On the one hand there are credentialed experts who demonstrate problems in the official account, and on the other hand there are non-experts who denounce the experts as conspiracy kooks.

The experts are cautious and careful about what they say, and their detractors have thrown caution and care to the wind. That is the state of the debate.

LINK :

Further reading at:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26475

Edited by Sirius
  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir or madam, your posts add up to a jumbled bunch of "taken-out-of-context-statements" that mean absolutely nothing.

People who seek the truth earn my admiration. People who take real or imagined statements to try to construct their own brand of the truth, do not.

Shame on you.

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir or madam, your posts add up to a jumbled bunch of "taken-out-of-context-statements" that mean absolutely nothing.

People who seek the truth earn my admiration. People who take real or imagined statements to try to construct their own brand of the truth, do not.

Shame on you.

Go ahead...debunk the good Dr. seeing as you know it all. Hot air proves nothing. Show all these "imagined statements" you go on about.

Good luck with that.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

just like JFK.....we will never know the whole truth.....just protect your own families and keep on living....LIFE IS TO SHORT....Ive lost friends and family at early ages....im not going to worry about "stuff" I cant control....JMO

Tim you're right maybe one person can't control anything but as a country and under one nation

and we the people can change things but we've to work together and be heard by all to get involved

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim you're right maybe one person can't control anything but as a country and under one nation

and we the people can change things but we've to work together and be heard by all to get involved

Read more:

Rtrusty.. Is correct.

We must ALL of us work together and resist the temptation to argue.

That is what the so called "elites" would have us do.

Arguing causes the Nation to divide, and once they have that, they can conquer.

Of course, it is acceptable to have a good healthy debate, but we must avoid falling into the trap of calling people names

We must shed the attitude that pits us against each other. This you against me attitude, or them against us.

When we see each other as Americans, and NOT separate from each other, we win.

Spread the word, help make the change.

Not complain, bring solutions and not problems.

When we do this, we will overcome the NWO and their evil plans for us all.

Best Regards

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the Truth Movement Losing Steam?

http://www.wagingpea...ell_911.pdfpage

Page 11- current article

The Truth About Charlie Sheen & Loose Change

http://www.prisonpla...haboutsheen.htm

So an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 signatures on a petition to reopen the 9-11 investigation is considered gaining steam? Or is the figure at 13,091? http://www.ae911trut...l-u-campus.html

A short history on the “noplanes on 9-11” hoax http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

Betraying Our Trust- fromfire fighters of 9-11

Firefightersfor911truth.org’scall to action is wrapped in phony patriotic blather and emotional rhetoricreplete with a revelation referring to Mr. Lawyer’s recent “awakening.” I, forone, would prefer that he simply stayed asleep. When I read such sentences as“Now I am asking FOR YOUR HELP TO SAVE OUR BROTHERS, SISTERS, AND OURCOUNTRY!”, I begin to wonder about the motivation of such people, ten yearsafter 9/11.

http://theintelhub.c...eading-message/

http://firegeezer.co...ment-part-four/

http://firegeezer.co...ent-part-three/

All 3 above articles printed in July of 2011.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the Truth Movement Losing Steam?

http://www.wagingpea...ell_911.pdfpage

Page 11- current article

The Truth About Charlie Sheen & Loose Change

http://www.prisonpla...haboutsheen.htm

So an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 signatures on a petition to reopen the 9-11 investigation is considered gaining steam? Or is the figure at 13,091? http://www.ae911trut...l-u-campus.html

A short history on the “noplanes on 9-11” hoax http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

Betraying Our Trust- fromfire fighters of 9-11

Firefightersfor911truth.org’scall to action is wrapped in phony patriotic blather and emotional rhetoricreplete with a revelation referring to Mr. Lawyer’s recent “awakening.” I, forone, would prefer that he simply stayed asleep. When I read such sentences as“Now I am asking FOR YOUR HELP TO SAVE OUR BROTHERS, SISTERS, AND OURCOUNTRY!”, I begin to wonder about the motivation of such people, ten yearsafter 9/11.

http://theintelhub.c...eading-message/

http://firegeezer.co...ment-part-four/

http://firegeezer.co...ent-part-three/

All 3 above articles printed in July of 2011.

Best quit while you still have some dignity. You post an Intelhub article? He is one of the largest truth sites out there.

Charlie Sheen? That was in 2007 he did that, he has since produced the video on "20 questions for the President"

That was done after your little 2007 article. Like I said, you are way behind, take some time and research.(not 45 minutes either)

"No planes" fiasco were a bunch of propaganda crap videos put out there to discredit 9/11 truth. You might as well look for the space weapons

that took down the buildings, or Godzilla.

You are out of your element here, maybe go back to dinar research...then it is ok(ie) to be wrong.

Here ya go, Charlie and his 20 questions...done over 2 years after your claim that he fled the 9/11 truth movement. Note the over 3 MILLION views.

Keep trying if you like, but you can't win. We are many...you are few.

Edited by Sirius
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the sentences “Now I am asking FOR YOUR HELP TO SAVE OUR BROTHERS, SISTERS, AND OUR COUNTRY!”, can make someone wonder about the motivation of the people uttering it ten years after 9/11.

But what of the motivation of the people who had the Patriot Act ready to go right after 9/11, who then took their country into a war to chase one man who was not even wanted by the FBI for crime he was being hunted for, these same people were also perfectly all right with killing thousands of innocent civilians in that country, and afterwards they invented a whole load of lies with the help of a complicit mass media in order to illegally invade another country, causing the deaths of 1.6million people. The motives of these people? Pure for sure.

Read more:

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best quit while you still have some dignity. You post an Intelhub article? He is one of the largest truth sites out there.

Charlie Sheen? That was in 2007 he did that, he has since produced the video on "20 questions for the President"

That was done after your little 2007 article. Like I said, you are way behind, take some time and research.(not 45 minutes either)

"No planes" fiasco were a bunch of propaganda crap videos put out there to discredit 9/11 truth. You might as well look for the space weapons

that took down the buildings, or Godzilla.

You are out of your element here, maybe go back to dinar research...then it is ok(ie) to be wrong.

Here ya go, Charlie and his 20 questions...done over 2 years after your claim that he fled the 9/11 truth movement. Note the over 3 MILLION views.

Keep trying if you like, but you can't win. We are many...you are few.

If in your own mind you believe you are the many, it is ok, if it makes you feel better. The links you provided me are your own links that prove this is not the case. Why then is there in fighting in the Truth Movement? So if you cannot debate using your own words and cannot explain how the many is in between 10,000 – 50,000 signed petioners, it is kind of like pissing in the wind and wondering why you are getting wet. http://truthjihadrad...h-movement.html. Because the Truth Movement is divided into many parts and the many parts are divided on how to attain there stated goals: The medical fields wants answers about the dust contaminates at ground Zero to be better prepared for future events like 9-11, the fire fighters want to make for sure Congress keeps its promise to the fire fighters and to study if any thermite was used and accelerants. There are those within the Truth Movement who want to understand how our government could have completely failed on protecting Americans on 9-11. Others simply do not understand anything about 9-11 and want a better explanation of 9-11. As others want the terrorist brought to justice and even some of the Truth Movement want Bush’s government investigated.These petition and inquiries in themselves does not prove anything other than people want to reopen the 9-11 narrative for further investigation. Even David Griffin (Dr. of Philosophy) is backing down on his ideas of what the terrorist conspiracy means as stated in his debate with Matt Taibbi. http://www.alternet.org/story/100688/the_ultimate_9_11_'truth'_showdown:_david_ray_griffin_vs._matt_taibbi/?page=2.

Questions are not facts as explained in this paper; http://www.911myths....itiqueMay06.pdf; And if that document is old that does not render it less significant as beingless true, if people still use questions based as facts.

Any theory put forth how the towers came down by controlled demolition are unrealistic for example; “all the tiles were sprayed with thermite paint”, by John Hoffman,http://911research.w...g_scenario.htmlPosted at http://911research.w...s/thermite.html

What do 3 million views mean, did you interview all 3 million to ask about their thoughts on 9-11? Even the video you posted uses questions that try use a question as a fact.

You do not understand the meaning of a scientific paper, peer review paper,how to write an argumentative paper, and the math used in the collapse of thetowers. But then state I am losing a debate on a web site that is based on belief rather than facts. Than proceed to discuss your plans on a pm and have your cronies use responses like knuckle heads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is that all you guys do is sit around and talk about 9/11 and JFK conspiracies??? Jemine Freakin Christmas....9/11 was 10 years ago and none of your weak ass opinions of insider mass murder by the govt would buy a cup of starbucks coffee....i guess it takes folks like you guys for Idiot to be in the dictionary.....

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

is that all you guys do is sit around and talk about 9/11 and JFK conspiracies??? Jemine Freakin Christmas....9/11 was 10 years ago and none of your weak ass opinions of insider mass murder by the govt would buy a cup of starbucks coffee....i guess it takes folks like you guys for Idiot to be in the dictionary.....

That was good...really you are correct. Thanks

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Critics" of 9/11 Truth. Do They Have a Case?

by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

The short answer to the question in the title is no.

The 9/11 truth critics have nothing but ad hominem arguments.

Let’s examine the case against "the truthers" presented by Ted Rall, Ann Barnhardt, and Alexander Cockburn.

But first let’s define who "the truthers" are.

The Internet has made it possible for anyone to have a web site and to rant and speculate to their heart’s content. There are a large number of "9/11 conspiracy theorists".

Many on both sides of the issue are equally ignorant. Neither side has any shame about demonstrating ignorance.

Both sides of the issue have conspiracy theories.

9/11 was a conspiracy whether a person believes that it was an inside job or that a handful of Arabs outwitted the entire intelligence apparatus of the Western world and the operational response of NORAD and the US Air Force.

For one side to call the other conspiracy theorists is the pot calling the kettle black.

The question turns not on name-calling but on evidence.

The 9/11 Truth movement was not created by bloggers ranting on their web sites. It was created by professional architects and engineers some of whom are known for having designed steel high rise buildings.

It was created by distinguished scientists, such as University of Copenhagen nano-Chemist Niels Harrit who has 60 scientific papers to his credit and physicist Steven Jones.

It was created by US Air Force pilots and commercial airline pilots who are expert at flying airplanes.

It was created by firefighters who were in the twin towers and who personally heard and experienced numerous explosions including explosions in the sub-basements. It was created by members of 9/11 families who desire to know how such an improbable event as 9/11 could possibly occur.

The professionals and the scientists are speaking from the basis of years of experience and expert knowledge. Moreover, the scientists are speaking from the basis of careful research into the evidence that exists.

When an international research team of scientists spends 18 months studying the components in the dust from the towers and the fused pieces of concrete and steel, they know what they are doing. When they announce that they have definite evidence of incendiaries and explosives, you can bet your life that that have the evidence.

When a physicist proves that Building 7 (the stories not obscured by other buildings) fell at free fall speed and NIST has to acknowledge that he is correct, you can bet your life that the physicist is correct.

When fire department captains and clean-up teams report molten steel--and their testimony is backed up with photographs--in the debris of the ruins weeks and months after the buildings’ destruction, you can bet your life the molten steel was there.

When the same authorities report pumping fire suppressants and huge quantities of water with no effect on the molten steel, you can bet your life that the temperature long after the buildings’ destruction remained extremely high, far higher than any building fire can reach.

When the architects, engineers, and scientists speak, they offer no theory of who is responsible for 9/11. They state that the known evidence supports neither the NIST reports nor the 9/11 Commission Report. They say that the explanation that the government has provided is demonstrably wrong and that an investigation is required if we are to discover the truth about the event.

It is not a conspiracy theory to examine the evidence and to state that the evidence does not support the explanation that has been given.

That is the position of the 9/11 Truth movement.

What is the position of the movement’s critics? Ted Rall says: “Everything I’ve read and watched on Truther sites is easily dismissed by anyone with a basic knowledge of physics and architecture. (I spent three years in engineering school.) http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29113.htm

Wow! What powerful credentials. Has Rall ever designed a high rise steel building? Could Rall engage in a debate with a professor of nano-chemistry? Could he refute Newton’s laws in a debate with university physicists? Does Rall know anything about maneuvering airplanes? Does he have an explanation why 100 firefighters, janitors, and police report hearing and experiencing explosions that they did not hear or experience?

Clearly, Ted Rall has no qualifications whatsoever to make any judgment about the judgments of experts whose knowledge exceeds his meager understanding by a large amount.

Ann Barnhardt writes: “I gotta tell you, I’ve just about had it with these 9/11 truthers. If there is one phenomenon in our sick, sick culture that sums up how far gone and utterly damaged we are as a people, it is 9/11 trutherism. It pretty much covers everything: self-loathing, antisemitism, zero knowledge of rudimentary physics and a general inability to think logically.” She goes down hill from here. http://barnhardt.biz/

Amazing, isn’t she? Physics professors have “zero knowledge of rudimentary physics.”

Internationally recognized logicians have “a general inability to think logically.” People trained in the scientific method who use it to seek truth are “self-loathing.” If you doubt the government’s account you are antisemitic. Barnhardt then provides her readers with a lesson in physics, structural architecture and engineering, and the behavior of steel under heat and stress that is the most absolute nonsense imaginable.

Obviously, Barnhardt knows nothing whatsoever about what she is talking about, but overflowing with hubris she dismisses real scientists and professionals with ad hominem arguments. She adds to her luster with a video of herself tearing out pages of the Koran, which she has marked with slices of bacon, and burning the pages.

Now we come to Alexander Cockburn. He is certainly not stupid. I know him. He is pleasant company. He provides interesting intellectual conversation. I like him. Yet, he also arrogantly dismisses highly qualified experts who provide evidence contrary to the official government story of 9/11.

Cockburn avoids evidence presented by credentialed experts and relies on parody. He writes that the conspiracists claim that the twin towers “pancaked because **** Cheney’s agents--scores of them--methodically planted demolition charges.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/02/the-911-conspiracists-vindicated-after-all-these-years/

Little doubt but there are bloggers somewhere in the vast Internet world who say this. But this is not what the professionals are saying who have provided evidence that the official account is not correct. The experts are simply saying that the evidence does not support the official explanation. More recently, an international team of scientists has reported finding unequivocal evidence of incendiaries and explosives. They have not said anything about who planted them. Indeed, they have said that other scientists should test their conclusions by repeating the research. After calling experts “conspiracy kooks,” Alex then damns them for not putting forward “a scenario of the alleged conspiracy.”

Moreover, not a single one of the experts believes the towers “pancaked.” This was an early explanation that, I believe, was tentatively put forward by NIST, but it had to be abandoned because of the speed with which the buildings came down and due to other problems.

Unlike Rall and Barnhardt, Cockburn does refer to evidence, but it is second or third-hand hearsay evidence that is nonsensical on its face. For example, Cockburn writes that Chuck Spinney “tells me that ‘there ARE pictures taken of the 757 plane hitting Pentagon--they were taken by the surveillance cameras at Pentagon’s heliport, which was right next to impact point. I have seen them both--stills and moving pictures. I just missed seeing it personally, but the driver of the van I just got out of in South Parking saw it so closely that he could see the terrified faces of passengers in windows.’”

If there were pictures or videos of an airliner hitting the Pentagon, they would have been released years ago. They would have been supplied to the 9/11 Commission. Why would the government refuse for 10 years to release pictures that prove its case? The FBI confiscated all film from all surveillance cameras. No one has seen them, much less a Pentagon critic such as Spinney.

I have to say that the van driver must have better eyes than an eagle if he could see expressions on passenger faces through those small airliner portholes in a plane traveling around 500 mph. Try it sometimes. Sit on your front steps and try to discern the expressions of automobile passengers through much larger and clearer windows traveling down your street in a vehicle moving 30 mph. Then kick the speed up 16.7 times to 500 mph and report if you see anything but a blur.

Cockburn’s other evidence that 9/11 truthers are kooks is a letter that Herman Soifer, who claims to be a retired structural engineer, wrote to him summarizing “the collapse of Buildings 1 and 2 succinctly.” This is what Soifer, who “had followed the plans and engineering of the Towers during construction” wrote to Alex: “The towers were basically tubes, essentially hollow.” This canard was disposed of years ago. If Alex had merely googled the plans of the buildings, he would have discovered that there were no thin-walled hollow tubes, but a very large number of massively thick steel beams.

Cockburn's willingness to dismiss as kooks numerous acknowledged experts on the basis of a claim that a van driver saw terrified faces of passengers moving at 500 mph and a totally erroneous description in a letter from a person who knew nothing whatsoever about the structural integrity of the buildings means that he is a much braver person than I.

Before I call architects kooks whose careers were spent building steel high rises, I would want to know a lot more about the subject than I do. Before I poke fun at nano-chemists and physicists, I would want to at least be able to read their papers and find the scientific flaws in their arguments.

Yet, none of the people who ridicule 9/11 skeptics are capable of this. How, for example, can Rall, Barnhardt, or Cockburn pass judgment on a nano-chemist with 40 years of experience and 60 scientific publications to his credit?

They cannot, but nevertheless do. They don’t hesitate to pass judgment on issues about which they have no knowledge or understanding. This is an interesting psychological phenomenon worthy of study and analysis.

Another interesting phenomenon is the strong emotional reactions that many have to 9/11, an event about which they have little information. Even the lead members of the 9/11 Commission itself have said that information was withheld from them and the commission was set up to fail. People who rush to the defense of NIST do not even know what they are defending as NIST refuses to release the details of the simulation upon which NIST bases its conclusion.

There is no 9/11 debate.

On the one hand there are credentialed experts who demonstrate problems in the official account, and on the other hand there are non-experts who denounce the experts as conspiracy kooks.

The experts are cautious and careful about what they say, and their detractors have thrown caution and care to the wind. That is the state of the debate.

LINK :

Further reading at:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26475

Complete from beginning to end. Couldn't be better represented. Thanks Sirius.

just like JFK.....we will never know the whole truth.....just protect your own families and keep on living....LIFE IS TO SHORT....Ive lost friends and family at early ages....im not going to worry about "stuff" I cant control....JMO

Oh, but my friend. You are being controlled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complete from beginning to end. Couldn't be better represented. Thanks Sirius.

Time to get out of mama's basement and quit playing with the computer.....go outside and play with the neighbor boys....the sunshine and fresh air along with some exercise will help you...then you can play xbox for 1 hour young man before nap time....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is that all you guys do is sit around and talk about 9/11 and JFK conspiracies??? Jemine Freakin Christmas....9/11 was 10 years ago and none of your weak ass opinions of insider mass murder by the govt would buy a cup of starbucks coffee....i guess it takes folks like you guys for Idiot to be in the dictionary.....

Time does not make an argument. Just because Charles Manson masterminded the killing of all those people in California well over 10 years ago doesn't mean they are going to let him out of prison. 10 years and still no answers to the basic physics problems with the govts. explanation of 911. I will never give up. Otherwise, I am just putting blinders on and following a government I know nothing about. That seems to be idiotic to me.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have some questions for anyone with architectural knowledge.

I watched the 9/11 event live,on TV, and before the first tower fell I saw a really huge red explosion on the side of the building opposite the side the plane crashed into it. This was some time after the crash. Spilled fuel was already burnt.

I was advised on this forum here that the reason for the explosion was due to fuel tanks and transformers and generators.

But I was thinking this morning about the logic of installing such equipment near the top of a tower instead of in the basement.

Like, just how would such fuel tanks get refilled? Would they really install this type of equipment mixed in with office space. The whole idea of it makes no sense to me. I'm no architect. But I am also not gullible.

The entire idea that there were fuel tanks up there seems totally lame to me now.

I'm a building engineer by trade not an architect but I can tell you without doubt that electrical transformers usually do not require a fuel source (only power fed from the main bus or from the emergency generator) unless they are for emergencies and it is rare to see that but the additional fuel source (tank) is almost always located away from the building structure itself or in the basement. The same goes for the emergency generators. In every building I have been involved with the emergency generators and transformers were either located away from the main building or in the basement as well as the fuel tanks. Smaller step down transformers are common in electrical closets on various floors of buildings of this type. Not anything that would produce such a huge explosion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time to get out of mama's basement and quit playing with the computer.....go outside and play with the neighbor boys....the sunshine and fresh air along with some exercise will help you...then you can play xbox for 1 hour young man before nap time....

Fresh air? Are you with the EPA or just watch too much TV?

I won't even open any of the other rabbit holes, you would just get lost and panic. Go ask your mama if she remembers Twilight Drive-In in '76.

I said good day.....I SAID GOOD DAY. Xbox.....waste of time like TV. Galaxian yeah!!

The only thing I see that might possibly be wrong is the title. perhaps it should read, "Do we have a choice?"

Because anybody but a knuckle dragging moron or a brain washed idiot could ever buy the "official" explanation.

Question everything.

I like your title better, but if I use brainwashed they will start posting all these articles about tin foil hats and such...

is that all you guys do is sit around and talk about 9/11 and JFK conspiracies??? Jemine Freakin Christmas....9/11 was 10 years ago and none of your weak ass opinions of insider mass murder by the govt would buy a cup of starbucks coffee....i guess it takes folks like you guys for Idiot to be in the dictionary.....

So can you actually taste the Fluoride in your water or is there no taste at all?

The articles are from this week, go back to your flock and stay out of the real world.

Quite puzzling why someone with your lack of intelligence would even venture into these posts.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If in your own mind you believe you are the many, it is ok, if it makes you feel better. The links you provided me are your own links that prove this is not the case. Why then is there in fighting in the Truth Movement? So if you cannot debate using your own words and cannot explain how the many is in between 10,000 – 50,000 signed petioners, it is kind of like pissing in the wind and wondering why you are getting wet. http://truthjihadrad...h-movement.html. Because the Truth Movement is divided into many parts and the many parts are divided on how to attain there stated goals: The medical fields wants answers about the dust contaminates at ground Zero to be better prepared for future events like 9-11, the fire fighters want to make for sure Congress keeps its promise to the fire fighters and to study if any thermite was used and accelerants. There are those within the Truth Movement who want to understand how our government could have completely failed on protecting Americans on 9-11. Others simply do not understand anything about 9-11 and want a better explanation of 9-11. As others want the terrorist brought to justice and even some of the Truth Movement want Bush’s government investigated.These petition and inquiries in themselves does not prove anything other than people want to reopen the 9-11 narrative for further investigation. Even David Griffin (Dr. of Philosophy) is backing down on his ideas of what the terrorist conspiracy means as stated in his debate with Matt Taibbi. http://www.alternet.org/story/100688/the_ultimate_9_11_'truth'_showdown:_david_ray_griffin_vs._matt_taibbi/?page=2.

Questions are not facts as explained in this paper; http://www.911myths....itiqueMay06.pdf; And if that document is old that does not render it less significant as beingless true, if people still use questions based as facts.

Any theory put forth how the towers came down by controlled demolition are unrealistic for example; “all the tiles were sprayed with thermite paint”, by John Hoffman,http://911research.w...g_scenario.htmlPosted at http://911research.w...s/thermite.html

What do 3 million views mean, did you interview all 3 million to ask about their thoughts on 9-11? Even the video you posted uses questions that try use a question as a fact.

You do not understand the meaning of a scientific paper, peer review paper,how to write an argumentative paper, and the math used in the collapse of thetowers. But then state I am losing a debate on a web site that is based on belief rather than facts. Than proceed to discuss your plans on a pm and have your cronies use responses like knuckle heads.

Majority is many and the minority is few, deal with it. When you say "your last post" do you mean the one before your next one?

If I gave you an answer to debunk your last post, you would of said "prove it" so I provide a quick link and debunk you with zero effort.

You tried to show Sheen as one backing away from 9/11 but he came out full force but I guess you missed it, 3 million was to show the popularity of it.

You are new to this whole scene by the sounds of it, the 20 questions are legitimate ones with no proof of answers in the commission report period.

Nowhere did he state they were facts...he said we want answers, did you not even listen? Try to stop spinning what was said to suit your needs.

Nothing wrong getting people with fame behind their name to speak out if they dare to. Many a career has been ruined from people speaking out on things.

After doing this for almost a decade it gets tiresome stepping back 6 or 7 years to debate someone on your level, hence "research more" is advice.

I have met David Ray Griffin twice now, last week in Toronto at the hearings..were you there?

Maybe you should get away from the youtube videos,(too many government shill videos) and read his latest book (9th) ,

"9/11 Ten Years Later – When State Crimes against Democracy Succeed" Need a link?

Pretty soon you will be posting one of our vids or articles trying to tell me what we were saying....careful it's a small world.

As for the Thermite or Nano-Thermite, I nor anyone I am associated with are experts in that field, so we let the real experts handle that side,

the same can be said for the flight path and ability of the "amateur pilot" to maneuver a plane into the Pentagon, leave that for the experts in that field.

Although the presence of the doomsday plane leaves little doubt of how it was done, but why not release the dozens of tapes the FBI have locked

away to prove it was actually the plane that hit the Pentagon, why hide it.

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence.

But then state I am losing a debate on a web site that is based on belief rather than facts. Than proceed to discuss your plans on a pm and have your cronies use responses like knuckle heads

Not sure what you are going on about there, I don't have cronies, in fact I never even get colds. As you were.

My goodness S, you sure know how to put people in their place, dont you? I even like the OK(ie) one. B)

Well sometimes you have to be blunt, it is like someone like me wanting to take on Anderson Silva...I would train first.

But after years of you tube trolls and government shills slamming stuff in the comments, it gets a bit tiresome,

like stepping backwards when you want to move forwards. But hey, not everyone will wake up.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that makes sense to me.

I come from a family line of carpenters, so am a little familiar with building construction. And for the life of me I just could not see even the slightest possibility of a fuel tank being installed near the top of a building. Like, how would have been filled. Would have taken a very powerful pump to push oild up that many levels. AND why would they do that when the tank could at ground level or more likely lower than that?

So... in consideration of all you said, there would have been NOTHING up there that could have caused the huge blast I saw. It blew a big hole encompassing several stories in the side the tower.

AND I can't help wondering why this was ignored. WHY?

You are correct. I can flat guarantee no mechanical/electrical design engineer would have gotten that plan approved. Their is no reason for it. Emergency fuel tanks feed emergency generators that are located in a safe place (basement, or away from the building, Or underground as I have seen) when the main power source is lost they kick on. In normal operation building power is fed from the main into the building main bus and then the transformers (Large usually located, again in a safe place basement or away from the building) From the main transformers power is fed into the building and usually feeds smaller step down power transformers to get the power down to 120 volts to feed the office space. Normally, these smaller transformers are located in electrical closets on various levels of the building. No fuel tanks 100+ stories up. OSHA would have a field day with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fresh air? Are you with the EPA or just watch too much TV?

I won't even open any of the other rabbit holes, you would just get lost and panic. Go ask your mama if she remembers Twilight Drive-In in '76.

I said good day.....I SAID GOOD DAY. Xbox.....waste of time like TV. Galaxian yeah!!

I like your title better, but if I use brainwashed they will start posting all these articles about tin foil hats and such...

So can you actually taste the Fluoride in your water or is there no taste at all?

The articles are from this week, go back to your flock and stay out of the real world.

Quite puzzling why someone with your lack of intelligence would even venture into these posts.

got 3 troll tags left on my hunting license this year....and they are coming in under the feeder....Here Troll troll troll troll.....lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

got 3 troll tags left on my hunting license this year....and they are coming in under the feeder....Here Troll troll troll troll.....lol

Oh an internet tough guy, well I don't need any gun little man. Fists of truth will do just fine, seeing as you can't handle the truth.

Go back to your reality of fluoride and honest media and government, leave the truth to the clear minds. (lol?..what are you 14? Pathetic)

You're done here, you have nothing beginner,...now go get your white hat on and see if you can stop me from slapping the side of your face with my right foot. Really!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.