Friday, June 02, 2006

Infiltrate Us, Please!

Got a chance to watch the first segment of the new video by the Loosers. Note: although this says final edition in the intro, it's clearly not that; this is just a bunch of footage that they have to edit down and insert into the exisiting movie (possibly to make up for the loss of the Naudet footage).

Barrie Zwicker is the first subject of the new footage. As Markyx has noted, the guy talks like he's had one too many cups of coffee. Hilariously, he leads right in with whether the 9-11 Truth Movement has been infiltrated by the government.

"But of course, if they were going to infiltrate labor unions, civil rights movements, peace movements, which we know they've done, it's all in the record, why wouldn't they infiltrate our movement. I mean, what would they be thinking if they weren't? They'd be squandering taxpayers dollars if they did not infiltrate our movement!"

Sounds like a guy who's begging to be in a secret FBI file somewhere so that he can brag about it to his nutbar friends.

Here's Zwicker's nutbar "testimony" to Cynthia McKinney at the 9-11 Citizen's Commission. Note that right off the bat he admits that he doesn't have any evidence to give; he's just a "popularizer":

BARRIE ZWICKER: I would not describe myself as a researcher actually. I don't want to, I don't want to correct your introduction, we were getting along so well, but truly I think that I am, I, I see myself as a popularizer. I have done research, I was an investigative journalist for Canada's national newspaper for a time and all journalism should be investigative. But it turns out I think I'm a, I'm a popularizer. And the voice I will use in my prepared remarks today is different from the voice I would use in the DVD that will premiere tonight, The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw.


Okay, nice little shameless plug for your movie, but what is your evidence?

BARRIE ZWICKER: That was an interesting diversion. Thank you audience person. Now in the interest of not taking other peoples' time I will stick pretty closely to my prepared remarks here which begin this way.

00:03:10:29 "History is bunk" said Henry Ford. Interestingly he was a supporter of Hitler sending the Fuhrer a birthday gift each year. Another quote: "Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it" wrote Santayana whose reputation for thoughtfulness was a little better than Ford's. Now my responsibility here today is actually not so much to tell background behind the making of Great Conspiracy although I'll digress for a moment with a little tad. Moments from now boxes are supposed to arrive at the back there that contain the first issues of and I was talked into this, Barrie Zwicker's "9/11 Resource Guide," 52 pages.

00:04:00:02 And in it there's a story about how The Great Conspiracy was made but mainly it's a transcript of the DVD. It's probably the best list of 9/11 websites assembled anywhere. It includes John McCurdy's 9/11 literature survey divided into nine sections, very sound and other resource materials like that. It will go on sale in, in moments.

00:04:27:00 But my responsibility is not to discuss the making of the that, I hope, popular, another popular DVD because The Great Deception did prove itself in the market if you will. My responsibility is to address 9/11 and history. And to be truly responsible I must add the media. And to say there's an intersection between history and the media, however, comes close to being a misstatement unless we mean relatively insignificant and/or officially approved history. Now an example of officially unapproved and significant history would be Howard Zinn's book A People's History of the United States.


I think we've finally found the harmless guy for the Screw Loose Change Nutbar-o-Meter:

46 Comments:

At 02 June, 2006 10:33, Blogger MarkyX said...

Oh shit, that was Barrie? I didn't even notice it.

Yeah, speaking from experience, he's nuts.

 
At 02 June, 2006 10:45, Blogger entropicalia said...

Loose Change is shit. So what? That doesn't change the fact that the government's tall tale is shit, as well.

Fact is, you're not a physicist and neither am I. You can do all the "research" you want. You can counter my points with "facts" the same way I can counter yours. There are "experts" on both sides of the debate, chasing their tails and debunking and re-debunking each others' theories.

Too much evidence has been destroyed or confiscated for a real, unbiased investigation to take place. All any of us can do anymore is speculate.

This little circle-jerk of a blog has changed nothing about the big picture or ANYONE's worldviews, despite what you delusional, self-aggrandizing sheep think. Loose Change, at least, has gotten a large cadre of people thinking, questioning and discussing.

What exactly is it you're trying to accomplish here besides rubbing each others' tummies and making sure you all stay comfortable and warm inside your little Fox News bubble of our-government-is-mostly-benevolent "truth"?

We all deserve the real truth, and we all should be seeking it. This site is just a distraction.

And, just so you know, calling people with an opinion that differs from yours 'nutbars,' 'psychos,' etc., does not lend your cause a shred of credence.

 
At 02 June, 2006 10:59, Blogger MarkyX said...


There are "experts" on both sides of the debate, chasing their tails and debunking and re-debunking each others' theories.


Our experts are real experts. Someone who has a PhD in Theology or Geology cannot give an educated guess on what happened on 9/11

Structual engineers, demolition companies, and airline pilots can. Guess which ones are on our side?


Loose Change, at least, has gotten a large cadre of people thinking, questioning and discussing.


Discussing stupid things like "black smoke means fire is starved of oxygen".


We all deserve the real truth, and we all should be seeking it. This site is just a distraction.


We already have the truth, kthxbye.

 
At 02 June, 2006 11:09, Blogger LT said...

And, just so you know, calling people with an opinion that differs from yours 'nutbars,' 'psychos,' etc., does not lend your cause a shred of credence

We don't need no stinking credence. (sarcasm/humor added). And just so YOU'LL know, calling people (who espouse the ideas that you and others do when discussing 9-11) nutjob and/or psycho is not only APPROPRIATE BUT ACCURATE.

 
At 02 June, 2006 11:10, Blogger entropicalia said...

If you already have the truth, why bother with a project like screwloosechange? Why not just ignore the evil, insane "conspiracy theorists" if you have faith in your "truth"?

You remind me of fundamentalist Christians whose beliefs are not strong enough to not be threatened by something like the fucking Da Vinci Code. If you are so convinced of your "truth" why not just be content in that and shut up about it instead of attacking those who hold different views?

Note there is no "SCREW PEEPLE WHO B-LIEVE THE GOV. STORY CUZ THEY R TARDS" blog.

And please don't give me some bullshit about how you're on a noble mission to shut the psychos down before they destroy humanity.

 
At 02 June, 2006 11:14, Blogger entropicalia said...

Is that so, LT?

How is it you know what I believe, anyway?

I certainly don't believe a fucking missile hit the Pentagon, for example. But I also don't believe that 19 Arab boys with boxcutters sent our country spiralling into chaos.

If that makes me a "psycho" accurate or appropriate, I'm sorry you never managed to graduate gradeschool.

 
At 02 June, 2006 11:17, Blogger MarkyX said...


If you already have the truth, why bother with a project like screwloosechange? Why not just ignore the evil, insane "conspiracy theorists" if you have faith in your "truth"?


It's called "respecting the victims" and "being pissed off at a kid who doesn't have to work now" for mocking said victims?


If you are so convinced of your "truth" why not just be content in that and shut up about it instead of attacking those who hold different views?


Grr yeah, fuck debating or hearing the other side. Damn that evil freedom of speech.


Note there is no "SCREW PEEPLE WHO B-LIEVE THE GOV. STORY CUZ THEY R TARDS" blog.


Maybe not blogs, but there is numerous message boards. Want me to link?


And please don't give me some bullshit about how you're on a noble mission to shut the psychos down before they destroy humanity.


No, but the thought gave me a boner.

 
At 02 June, 2006 11:23, Blogger entropicalia said...

Please. This has shit to do with the victims.

If this were really about them, you'd be for an honest, unbiased investigation into their deaths. And, no, the 9/11 commission doesn't count.

Grr yeah, fuck debating or hearing the other side. Damn that evil freedom of speech.

No, I'm not saying you have no right to do so or even that you shouldn't do so, I just really don't understand the motivations behind it or what you get from it, besides some entertainment.

Which is fine, but don't wrap it up in some BS about 'oooh, the poor victims are being disrespected!' lie.

And if you're jealous of Dylan for cashing in on a tragedy, you should look to your precious government who has done WAY more cashing in than Dylan could dream of.

I don't know if they exist (but I'm guessing not), but have you ever seen anything - a book, a web page, a blog - from a relative of a 9/11 victim saying that the "truthers" are degrading their loved one and they wish it weren't so? I bet it's more plausible that some of those people are desperately seeking answers.

 
At 02 June, 2006 11:26, Blogger LT said...

your funny entro

 
At 02 June, 2006 11:48, Blogger Jujigatami said...

have you ever seen anything - a book, a web page, a blog - from a relative of a 9/11 victim saying that the "truthers" are degrading their loved one and they wish it weren't so?

I know a lot of family members and most of them are disgusted by the "truthers". The ones that aren't, just think they (the truthers) are stupid idiots and don't take offense because they (the truthers) don't know better.

But here's the deal from a personal standpoint.

I was there, I saw it all. I SAW both planes hit, and SAW they were commercial airliners. I felt the heat of the WTC fires on my face as I watched the towers burn. I saw dead bodies, I saw people jump and fall to their deaths. I did first aid on injured people we pulled into our building as the towers collapsed and smoke, dust, and debris flew everywhere. I lost friends in the towers. It is something that has scarred me for life.

Now, to make this clear, YOU AND THE REST OF YOU NUTBAR SHITHEADS ARE INSULTING ME! YOU ARE SAYING I DIDN'T SEE WHAT I SAW! YOU ARE CALLING ME A LIAR! YOU ARE INSULTING THE MEMORY OF MY FRIENDS THAT DIED THAT DAY.

And I wish you would stop.

 
At 02 June, 2006 11:49, Blogger Chad said...

I love how investigations like the 9/11 Commission, the FEMA report, the NIST report.... All of these "don't count" because they fail to conclude with the statement:

"The government was in on it."

And another thing entro. If all of the evidence has been destroyed stop calling for an independent investigation, because they would apparently have jack shit to investigate.

That's one of the Loosers favorite games to play. Call for an independent investigation to look at evidence that they say has already been destroyed. Win-win for them.

 
At 02 June, 2006 11:56, Blogger MarkyX said...


If this were really about them, you'd be for an honest, unbiased investigation into their deaths. And, no, the 9/11 commission doesn't count.


I have done an honest unbiased investigation. This is how countering with a CT worked for me.

1) Look at theory, study it.
2) Ask questions about it.
3) No answers, dodges question instead
4) Brings up question again.
5) Be called a 'shill'
6) Brings up question again.
7) Gets banned.

That's the problem here. CTs have no real evidence or strong theories. How come 9/11 commission doesn't work? How come I can't use Popular Mechanics article? How come I can't take a fire chief's word that they were no bombs? How come I can't use a demolition companies word on it? Or an airline pilot?

CT's ignore evidence. They take random people from Kevin Ryan who tested water to an old lady with Geology PHD telling me about buildings going down or how defenses work.


Which is fine, but don't wrap it up in some BS about 'oooh, the poor victims are being disrespected!' lie.


You don't think that saying the Flight 93 victims were FAKED or taking OSAMA BIN LADEN's WORD over experts, witnesses, evidence, and investigations RESPECTING THE VICTIMS?


And if you're jealous of Dylan for cashing in on a tragedy, you should look to your precious government who has done WAY more cashing in than Dylan could dream of.


Government does much more work and is more useful than Dylan. Just remember that it's because of the government, it's military, and so forth that United States is the most powerful nation on earth where one can spew shit like this and get away with it.

 
At 02 June, 2006 11:59, Blogger entropicalia said...

Juji - not only did it affect ALL OF US personally, I live in Washington, DC, so don't pull the 'I was there, so I win' card with me.

No one is debating that this was a horrible tragedy, that innocent people died and that it has left a scar on us all for life. Not all of us (myself included) are debating whether planes hit the WTC. I believe that they did--I just don't believe that's why they collapsed, or that the government didn't have foreknowledge or a hand in the operation, and I am entitled to that opinion.

Oh no, that hurts your feelings? I'm awfully sorry. It hurts MY feelings to be called insane because I feel that things don't add up.

Actually, no it doesn't. It just makes me feel sorry for you.

Chad:

I'd love an independent investigation but, as far as I know, that is impossible considering the lack of physical evidence left at this point.

There is PLENTY of circumstantial evidence that has been completely ignored, however, and it'd be nice if someone with some clout would look into that.

 
At 02 June, 2006 12:05, Blogger entropicalia said...

Well, Markyx, as far as the PM article is concerned, it does make the lot of us look like psychos. It "debunks" some of the theories, sure, but not any of the ones that hold water, just the more delusional ones that not all of us believe anyway.

As far as the 9/11 commission...I'll direct you to David Ray Griffin's book re: that.

You can take the fire chief's word, but why does his testimony have more weight than the witnesses who said they DID hear explosions?

And no, I honestly don't feel that questioning the official story is disrespectful to the victims.

 
At 02 June, 2006 12:09, Blogger MarkyX said...



You can take the fire chief's word, but why does his testimony have more weight than the witnesses who said they DID hear explosions?

And the fire chiefs said they were explosions too.

Guess what? Not all explosions are created by bombs. This is a statement out of ignorance.

 
At 02 June, 2006 12:12, Blogger Chad said...

Entro, you're obviously entitled to your opinion that magical explosives (of which there is NO circumstantial evidence to support other than pictures of "squibs" which have been explained away through physics, reason, and logic) brought down the towers and you are free to go around pretending that the infernos and structural damage caused by the planes had nothing to do with their collapse.

You are certainly free to do that.

And I am free to call you a borderline retard.

Also, please look up the definition of "circumstantial evidence". And if you want to ever be taken seriously in the future, keep Griffin's book out of the conversation.

 
At 02 June, 2006 12:16, Blogger Jujigatami said...

It hurts MY feelings to be called insane because I feel that things don't add up.

See, that's the DEFINITION of insanity.

And no, I honestly don't feel that questioning the official story is disrespectful to the victims.

Yes, that's because you are insane.

As for the "I was there" card. I was. I SAW it. You may live in DC, but I FUCKING SAW THE PLANES HIT!!!!

I saw the damage to the towers. No one, NO ONE that was there and saw the size of the holes in the towers and saw and felt the fires HAS ANY DOUBT WHAT CAUSED THE TOWERS TO FALL. We don't need an investigation in to what caused the towers to fall, BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNOW, WE SAW IT!

Here's a newsflash you insane moron, it wasn't explosives, it was a gigantic fucking plane ramming into the towers at 400+ miles per hour.

No one that witnessed it has ANY doubts about that.

 
At 02 June, 2006 12:25, Blogger debunking911 said...

Just look at the bone head they have for a savior...

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/jones.htm

Then look at how easily his crap is refuted..

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm

Ento, you have been drinking Rev Jones koolaid for to long. You should be listening to both sides even if you don't agree with the other.

BTW, the NIST is the body that investigated the towers, not the 911 commition. It's made up of hundreds of people in many teams which have to work together. The amount of people needed to pull this off is ABSURD.

You want independent? How about PEOPLE IN JONES OWN UNIVERSITY!

Letter to the Editor
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006


Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/04/09/443801bdadd6e

Let me guess, he works for the MIB...

 
At 02 June, 2006 12:41, Blogger entropicalia said...

Chad:

Yes, you can call me a borderline retard, but it doesn't help your case. Ingrate.

My big problem with the 'it was fires' theory is the way the buildings fell, period.

Certainly I'll look it up.

circumstantial evidence: evidence providing only a basis for inference about the fact in dispute.

Such as, say, strange stock activity, statements made by Silverstein (especially re: building 7) and Guiliani, testimony from people like Andrew Grove, etc. It's being ignored.

What is your problem with Griffin?

Juji:

Really? Have you spoken to every single person who saw the towers fall, in person, that day as you assert over and over that NOT ONE OF THEM thinks something is fishy? What a feat!

 
At 02 June, 2006 12:46, Blogger entropicalia said...

debunking911:

The author of that letter is giving his opinion. It is impossible - without building another WTC and crashing planes into it - to know exactly what happened.

I've read stuff like this before (pancake theory, etc.) and I've read demo explanations that sound just as rational to me. As I'm not a scientist (and neither are you, I'm sure) the only thing we can do is decide which sounds correct to us. That doesn't make me a moron or a psycho, nor does it make you either of those things.

I respect your opinion, but you're not going to change mine.

Also, as an aside, I don't think that the towers were set up the way he says. I saw a History Channel (NOT having anything to do with conspiracy theories, by the by) documentary on the buildings recently which says they were set up more like this (with each period representing a column):

. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .

 
At 02 June, 2006 12:50, Blogger MarkyX said...


Yes, you can call me a borderline retard, but it doesn't help your case. Ingrate.

My big problem with the 'it was fires' theory is the way the buildings fell, period.

Certainly I'll look it up.


The two towers fell as they should. Demolitions are from the bottom, not the top.

Plus not a single structual engineer, fire science, or demolition companies (you know, people qualified to make statements concerning 9/11) said they were bought down by bombs.

 
At 02 June, 2006 12:52, Blogger LT said...

How is it you know what I believe, anyway?

later:

Not all of us (myself included) are debating whether planes hit the WTC. I believe that they did--I just don't believe that's why they collapsed, or that the government didn't have foreknowledge or a hand in the operation, and I am entitled to that opinion.

I knew I was right.

LT

 
At 02 June, 2006 12:53, Blogger debunking911 said...

David Ray Griffin (b. 1939) is a professor emeritus of philosophy of religion and theology, at the Claremont School of Theology in Claremont, California.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ray_Griffin

Hes not an expert at civil engineering. He uses logical fallacies to make arguments for his nonsense.

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/dubious_claims.html

 
At 02 June, 2006 12:56, Blogger entropicalia said...

But, Markyx, haven't you even seen a video of a controlled demo? They look so similar.

Honestly, I think even if those people found something amiss they'd keep it to themselves out of fear.

But, I guess that makes me retarded.

I don't know what happened. I. DON'T. KNOW. WHAT. HAPPENED. Neither do any of you. We just know what we believe happened, and we all have our own "internets reesurch!!1" to back it up.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you people, because none of us are qualified to.

 
At 02 June, 2006 12:58, Blogger entropicalia said...

I'm extremely proud of you then, LT.

 
At 02 June, 2006 13:05, Blogger LT said...

But, Markyx, haven't you even seen a video of a controlled demo? They look so similar.

as it has been explained in here several times, no they really don't

 
At 02 June, 2006 13:07, Blogger entropicalia said...

...they do to me, but ok, I'll defer to you "experts."

 
At 02 June, 2006 13:08, Blogger debunking911 said...

"The author of that letter is giving his opinion. It is impossible - without building another WTC and crashing planes into it - to know exactly what happened."

Then another investigation is a waste of tax payer money...

"I've read stuff like this before (pancake theory, etc.) and I've read demo explanations that sound just as rational to me. "

They IS no SCIENTIFIC demolition theory. It would have to fit the photographic evidence. THey only say "It must have been explosives" without saying how many and where. That's not a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. There is a difference between SCIENTIFIC THEORY and THEORY. One os assumption while the other is testable and falsifiable. Jones and crew make WILD assumptions while the NIST uses facts.

I'm not trying to change your mind. You're on a public board talking about an issue I want to address. If you don't want people like me to address the issue don't post on the issue. That simple.

The reason I defer to a consensus of civil engineers is precisely because I'm not one. The letter I gave you is not just an opinion. It's the knowledgible opinion of one of the professors at Jones own university. He can't even convince the CE in his own university! That doesn't give you pause? Loose change is a farce and Jones is a snake oil salesmen and it doesn't bother you? Maybe you think Jones is an archaeologist?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext and figures.htm

http://www.debunking911.com

 
At 02 June, 2006 13:09, Blogger LT said...

we don't claim to be "experts". Just sensible...

 
At 02 June, 2006 13:12, Blogger debunking911 said...

"But, Markyx, haven't you even seen a video of a controlled demo? They look so similar."

Yes and no. It fell quickly but it also peeled open. That's how it hit buildings 400 ft in all directions. It didn't ALL fall straight down. Only the floors fell straight down.

Proof is here...

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/collapse.htm

You're being hoodwinked.

 
At 02 June, 2006 13:17, Blogger entropicalia said...

Well, debunking911, I must say that the site you just posted has come closest to convincing me that I may be being mislead, so far. I'll have to read it more closely. Believe me, I'd LOVE to be convinced that our government would never do such a thing.

Do you at least think that the government knew about the attacks and failed to prevent them? It seems implausible that our government could unintentionally be as incompetent as they were that morning.

Another question I have is, if I'm being hoodwinked...what is the point? What do people putting these theories out there have to gain? And, please, no "they're just plain crazy" responses, that answer doesn't fly.

 
At 02 June, 2006 13:26, Blogger Chad said...

Another question I have is, if I'm being hoodwinked...what is the point?

Entro, that's the million dollar question. Conspiracy theories have been around probably as long as people had imaginations. Personally, I don't feel that the people spreading these theories really have much to gain (unless they're making a profit from the sale of, say, a DVD). Aside from the hope of maybe spreading enough doubt and distrust to cause anarchy, I can't see what their point is either.

I honestly think it's more of a psychological thing for them. But that's just my opinion.

And I apologize for my comment earlier about the retard. I get carried away sometimes and name-calling does nothing to further any conversation.

 
At 02 June, 2006 13:27, Blogger undense said...

Another question I have is, if I'm being hoodwinked...what is the point? What do people putting these theories out there have to gain? And, please, no "they're just plain crazy" responses, that answer doesn't fly.

The point is that there are paranoid people in this world. Most of the folks who think the government is behind 9/11 think that because they started out with that preconceived notion or a belief, a paranoid one, that the government is always up to devious things. So the thought of the government being behind 9/11 fits comfortably in their worldview. Then they use that preconceived notion, of which they are firmly convinced, to find "evidence" that they can shoehorn into what they've already decided.

The entire problem though is that they don't have one iota of solid evidence. The truthers don't have one single piece of undeniable proof that's directly connected to 9/11 to put out there and make people go "hmmm." Everything they count as "evidence" is either innuendo, anecdotal, bad science, or plain misinformation and blatant intellectual dishonesty.

Why do they do it anyway? Because birds of a feather... They see validation all hanging out in their little group.

And believe me, LC is not gaining any real steam. For every 1 person who joins the ranks, there are 1000 who think they're insane. A bit of temporary recognition is not momentum, it's just a blip. This will die eventually and be as scorned as Fahrenheit 911, which got far, far more publicity and backing than LC ever will.

 
At 02 June, 2006 14:20, Blogger debunking911 said...

Entro, I KNOW from a republican senator that they KNEW about AN attack which was supposed to happen on 9/11 but didn't have any real time or place. They were told at a meeting on the 10th. I also think the changes they made after Clinton left office (Removing Clark from the loop and putting Ashcroft in) helped terrorist without knowing it.

Without changing the subject to much let me say Bush handled terrorism like he did everything else in life. In that there is plenty of evidence. He put the wrong people in charge like Ashcroft who two FBI agents said didn't want to hear about terrorism. I could write a whole web site on his incompetence but it would just be a mirror of hundreds of others. It's this incompetence that makes a conspiracy of this size unbelievable. Why would so many people want to hide the mass murder of 3000 people for BUSH? Why would they risk prison or even the death penalty? And who does this conspiracy theory help? You think it helps people who are against Bush? Why is tucker Carlson putting Jones on his show? What about Morgan Reynolds who used to work for Bush and is now one of the scholars? How is chopping up the vote in November helping? Some of the people in the truth movement are helping third party candidates. They say the democrats are "in on it".

Now I sense some of the people on the right on this board are chomping at the bit but I didn't come here to talk about politics. Lets just say we are on the same side on this issue. The truth is more important than party. The dead people of 911 are no longer republican or democrat. Personally I'm an independent because I don't trust either of them.

So entr, while I feel strongly that people are misusing the tradgity of 911 for personal gain, to say I am not a fan of Bush is putting it mildly.

Liberals are to eager to frame Bush as a murderer. It didn't work for republicans during Clinton when they said he murdered Brown and it's not going to work for us now. We can't frame Bush the way Bush framed Saddam. Of that there is plenty of evidence.

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/conspiracy.htm

Evidence FOR explosive is 0. You are left with "She killed him for the insurance money" nonsense. That kind of evidence isn't good at a murder trial unless there is more to go with it.

 
At 02 June, 2006 14:25, Blogger debunking911 said...

Chad, they are making a profit from DVD sales. Some are selling DVD's for 17 dollars and some are writing books. Others are getting clicks to their sites. Then there are the donations. Others are using this for political gain (Vote for this third party candidate and he'll force an investigation) Jones ends his lecture with Mormon preachers. Everyone's getting a piece of the pie.

 
At 02 June, 2006 16:00, Blogger Chad said...

Debunk, I'm sure there are individuals and small groups that look at conspiracy theory as a means to acheive some goal, whether it's financial or political.

But, IMO, the majority of them just need to not trust the government for whatever reason.

 
At 02 June, 2006 18:00, Blogger shawn said...

Entro, if you can say that the towers falling looked exactly like this without joking, you're insane.

Controlled demolition

 
At 02 June, 2006 18:11, Blogger MarkyX said...

Yep, the infamous landmark tower. Took 4 months to take that baby down.

Speaking of implosions..

http://www.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm

Demolitions start from the bottom and than to the top. The way two towers fell down would void the theory of CD, since the building fell from the top, not the bottom. Demolitions do not work any other way.

 
At 02 June, 2006 20:47, Blogger insidejob said...

eehh, the cutter charges normally proceed from the bottom up (although they don't have to), but that doesn't mean the building will collapse from the bottom up - that would take an extraordinary defiance of this thing called gravity. and what about WTC 7? the controlled demolition of building 7 is pretty obvious to any objective observer.

here are a couple of good web pages that make strong arguments that both Loose Change and In Plane Site were part of a deliberate disinformation campaign - they blend false claims with true claims in order to discredit the truth movement. there is very strong evidence that 9-11 was an inside job, and a lot of serious researchers are putting it together, and Loose Change and In Plane Site both ignore most of the real evidence, while blending in a lot of false claims. mixing false claims with true claims is a common disinformation tactic. the cover of the Loose Change DVD actually sandwiches 2 false claims with 2 true claims. the websites below give strong evidence that both videos were intended to throw people off the scent of the real evidence of an inside job. the author of the first site writes "if it (Loose Change) is not naive, foolish, uninformed and ignorant, then it is the work of a calculating mole or at best a naïf who has been used by such." in other words, the authors of Loose Change may be trying to throw us off from the real evidence of an inside job, or they may have good intentions but have been fooled somewhat by, for example, the maker of In Plane Site:

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/2005_07_21_Michael_Green_Loose_Change_analysis.htm

http://www.oilempire.us/loose-change.html

Rumsfeld's "slip-up" about a "missile" hitting the Pentagon was an intentional part of the Flight 77 red herring (Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, but they are intentionally perpetuating the red herring to throw people off, make us argue, and discredit us, and I think the whole hoax probably originated from Rumsfeld and others as a deliberate tactic.

People are right to debunk Loose Change, but 9-11 was definitely an inside job.


There are disinformation websites out there: The site www.911myths.org claims to be an objective website, saying that it only wants to show that some claims are without merit, but the site seems to me to be a deliberate disinformation website. They cherry-pick the claims that they can most easily cast doubt on, and they never mention the numerous and damning true claims – the real evidence. They don’t allow people to contact them to refute their claims (and thus test their objectivity), and their dishonesty is often obvious. For example, in “debunking” the claim that progressive collapse hasn’t happened before, the website mentions L’Ambience Plaza and the Ronan Point apartment building. They expect website visitors to not actually look into what actually happened in these 2 incidents:

L'Ambience Plaza was still in the early stages of construction and was using a special construction method – the lift-slab system – and wasn’t doing it properly. the Ronan Point incident, which happened in London in 1968, is most often cited by disinformation websites, although they don’t tell you what actually happened - this incident actually consisted of one tiny corner of balconies, and the collapsed balconies were short cantilever sections supported by the building's main structure - so there were no steel beams to prevent this little corner of balconies from collapsing progressively. To use these incidents to “debunk” the clear evidence of controlled demolition, without mentioning what actually happened, shows deliberate dishonesty.

first, my humble assessment of what happened: hijackers were involved, but they were puppets of Washington insiders, without knowing it. Pakistani intelligence agency (ISI) was the middle-man. Israeli intelligence agency (Mossad) and Israeli government knew the attacks were coming, and may have been directly involved (note - this isn't saying 'the Jews did it.' there are many many Jewish people who oppose the Israeli government, including Israelis). Flight 77 definitely hit the Pentagon, and the missile claim was a deliberate red herring to discredit the truth movement. the CIA recently released videos, but they don't show anything more than the 5 previously-released frames, and this is more bait, considering that they definitely have videos that clearly show Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon (such as from the Sheraton Hotel). they may be planning to later release the videos that actually show Flight 77 at some point and say, "look fools. here's flight 77 hitting the Pentagon." The war games on Sept.11, under the direction of Cheney and Rumsfeld, were a smokescreen and an excuse to explain why the Air Force did not respond for over an hour. Finally, without a hint of uncertainty, WTC 1, 2, and 7 were definitely brought down by controlled demolition. WTC 7 is the most damning:

(1) WTC (a) WTC 1, 2, and 7 were the first 3 steel-frame buildings in history to (allegedly) collapse due to fire. Several steel-frame skyscrapers around the world have had huge fires that burned throughout several floors for several hours, and none of these buildings collapsed. The official explanation of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 claims that the impact of the aircrafts weakened the structures (which of course they would have to some degree), but NIST actually admits to fudging its models to make them more plausibly (to the casual researcher) explain the collapses, and it also simply lies and contradicts itself. For example, they alter the path of flight 175 so they can argue that it damaged the core columns. The report is misleading in many other ways. much more here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

The NIST Report completely ignores building 7, saying it will be considered “at a later date.” The Bush-appointed, 10-member corruption-squad known as the 9-11 Commission also ignored building 7 - most Americans don't even know about building 7, because the media have ignored it. Also, if you look at the video of the North Tower’s collapse, you can see that the top portion above the impact zone actually collapses in on itself from the bottom up, before the rest of the collapse proceeds (b) WTC 7 is the most obvious - no jet hit this building, and although some mention that the fuel tanks in the building may have contributed, FEMA said they were all intact, and, as already noted, fires do not make steel-frame buildings collapse, and random fires could not, by any stretch of the imagination, make a steel-frame building collapse so methodically into a neat little rubble pile within its own footprint, maintaining perfect radial symmetry all the way down, and falling at freefall speed. This only happens with controlled demolition. Unfortunately, most people are unaware of building 7, but the word is spreading thanks to many serious researchers. FEMA was actually able to obtain sections of the steel beams from WTC 7, and it found sulfidation in combination with rapid corrosion – a trademark of the use of thermate (the military version of thermite) cutter chargers – the presence of sulfidation and rapid corrosion can only be explained by the use of thermate. the fires in WTC 7 were only on partial sections of 2 floors, and even if the fires had engulfed the building for days, it would not have collapsed. Silverstein's slip-up about 'pulling it' also gave it away. his publicist later claimed that Silverstein meant 'pulling' the firefighters out of the building. 'pulling' is a term commonly used to refer to controlled demolition. FEMA has actually admitted that it cannot explain the collapse of building 7 (b) the official explanation ignores the thermal conductivity of steel. There would have been a massive heatsink from the steel beams, and the heat would have spread to other parts of the steel-beam mesh, rather than weakening nearby beams (b) the 'Pancake Theory', used to describe the collapse mode, has never existed as a collapse mechanism theory in structural engineering prior to 9-11. ‘Pancaking’ has happened before, but to one building (L'Ambience Plaza) that was still in the early stages of construction and was using a special construction method – the lift-slab system – and wasn’t doing it properly, and what happened wasn’t called ‘pancaking’ before 9-11. the term 'progressive collapse' has been used before, but no steel-frame building has ever collapsed due to this mechanism. the Ronan Point incident, in 1968, is most often cited by disinformation websites, although they don’t tell you what actually happened - this incident actually consisted of one tiny corner of balconies, and the collapsed balconies were short cantilever sections supported by the building's main structure - so there were no steel beams to prevent this little corner from collapsing progressively. (c)'squibs', a trademark of controlled demolition, can be seen in the videos of the collapses, and are especially obvious in WTC 7. the offical story attempts to explain them away as concrete dust and debris being pushed out of the windows by the force of the collapse, but they occur much below the level of collapse, and they occur just prior to the initiation of collapse in WTC 7. (d) Marvin Bush's contract with Stratesec(Securicom), the company that provided security for the WTC, United Airlines, and Dulles Internation Airport, was set to end on 9/10/01, the day before 9/11. (e) I've verified that there were several unexplained evacuations in the WTC towers in the weeks prior to the attacks: Ben Fountain, a financial analyst with Fireman's Fund, was coming out of the Chambers Street Station, headed for his office on the 47th floor of the south tower. "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on." (Source: People Magazine. Sept. 12th 2001). (f) Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer had reached the 78th floor of the South Tower by 9:48 -- 11 minutes before the explosive collapse began -- and reported via radio "two isolated pockets of fire." (g) all three buildings maintained prefect radial symmetry as they collapsed – if the buildings had collapsed due to randomly-placed fires (which simply doesn’t happen – even full-fledged infernos don’t make steel-frame buildings collapse), they would not have fallen straight down into their own footprints (h) as Professor Steven Jones of BYU points out, flowing pools of molten steel were reported by eyewitnesses – impossible with hydrocarbon fires, but easily explained by the use of thermate cutter charges (i) the temperatures simply were not hot enough, and weren’t sustained long enough, to weaken the steel, let alone melt it, in such a short period of time, especially considering the thermal conductivity of steel (j) the explosive force of the collapses cannot be explained by mere gravity – debris was ejected out several hundred feet – huge steel beams were found 300 feet away.


Pakistani Intelligence Agency (ISI, which was founded by the CIA and still has close ties with the CIA, like Al Qaeda) was the middle-man between Washington insiders and the clueless terrorists:

October 9, courtesy of the Times of India:
"While the Pakistani Inter Services Public Relations claimed that former ISI [Pakistani intelligence] director-general Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad sought retirement after being superseded on Monday, the truth is more shocking. Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday that the general lost his job because of the 'evidence' India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Center. The U.S. authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by [Omar Saeed] at the instance of General Mahmud [Ahmad]."

September 9—two days before 9/11 — Karachi News made the following observation:
"ISI Chief Lt-Gen [Mahmud Ahmad's] week-long presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council . . . What added interest to his visit is the history of such visits. Last time Ziauddin Butt, [General Ahmad's] predecessor, was here during Nawaz Sharif's government, the domestic politics turned topsy-turvy within days. That this is not the first visit by [General Ahmad] in the last three months shows the urgency of the ongoing parleys."

Israeli intelligence agency (Mossad) and government insiders knew the attacks were coming, and may have been involved in them:

Mossad agents were filming the towers before the airplanes even hit them, and began dancing and celebrating when the planes hit and when the towers collapsed :
This is a link to the article originally published by ABC News:

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/noframes/read/1405

Source: ABC News, Saturday, June 22nd, 2002.

“A counterintelligence investigation by the FBI concluded that at least two of them were in fact Mossad operatives, according to the former American official, who said he was regularly briefed on the investigation by two separate law enforcement officials.”

Source: The Forward, March 15th, 2002

This has been reported on by several mainstream media outlets, but has simply been forgotten

Larry A. Silverstein – signed a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center 6 weeks before the attacks. A $3,500,000,000 insurance policy, specifically covering acts of terrorism, was included in the lease. This lease was an unprecedented privatization of the WTC complex. After 9/11, Silverstein demanded $7 billion, claiming that the two planes constituted two separate acts of terrorism.

Larry A. Silverstein is a close friend of Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Ehud Barak: “Shortly after the events of September 11, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called Larry Silverstein, a Jewish real estate magnate in New York, the owner of the World Trade Center's 110-story Twin Towers and a close friend, to ask how he was. Since then they have spoken a few more times. Two former prime ministers - Benjamin Netanyahu, who this week called Silverstein a "friend," and Ehud Barak, whom Silverstein in the past offered a job as his representative in Israel - also called soon after the disaster.”

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=97338&contrassID=3&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0


Flight 77 and the Pentagon:

JUNE 2001: The Pentagon initiates new instructions for military intervention in the case of a highjacking. these new instructions state that, for all "nonimmediate" responses (whatever that means), the Department of Defense must get permission directly from the Secretary of Defense (Rumsfeld).

Source: Joint Chiefs of Staff Document:

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf
http://www.911review.com/means/standdown.html



October 24, 2000: the Pentagon conducted the first of two training exercises called MASCAL (Mass Casualty), which simulated a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon.

Source: The U.S. Army Military District of Washington (MDW)

Charles Burlingame had actually retired 20 years earlier, but he still participated in the MASCAL exercise at the Pentagon, a year before the attacks:

Charles F. Burlingame III was the pilot of flight 77. He was an F-4 pilot in the Navy, and as his last Navy mission, he had helped craft Pentagon response plans in the event of a commercial airliner hitting the Pentagon.

Source: Associated Press. August 22, 2002

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pen08.html

Barbara Honegger, who worked in the White House under Reagan, points out another coincidence. Researching press reports, she found a 9/16/01 Washington Post story about the pilot of AA flight 77 that, on the morning of 9/11, was said to have crashed into the Pentagon.

Here's Barbara Honegger:

...the main pilot of the 9-11 Pentagon plane, former Navy and then Navy Reservist pilot Charles Burlingame, had recently, in a Reserve assignment at the Pentagon, been part of a Task Force that drafted the Pentagon's emergency response plan on what to do in case a plane hit the building - which his own plane then did. It is therefore very possible - in fact extremely likely, if not certain - that this 'task force' that Flight 77 pilot "Chick" Burlingame was part of was the Cheney counterterrorism preparedness task force, and that the Pentagon plane pilot, therefore, directly knew and even worked with/for Cheney. and

Burlingame's 9-11 Pentagon plane not only hit the Pentagon that morning, it struck a Command and Control center for that morning's counterterrorism "game" exercise, killing most, if not all, of the "players". We know this because Army personnel from Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey were on special duty assignment at the Pentagon that morning for an emergency response exercise and were killed when Burlingame's plane hit. Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey also happens to be the headquarters for White House/Presidential communications, including therefore probably also for Air Force One (this is discoverable) -- and recall the warning "Air Force One is next" and the 'secret code' which was called into the White House that morning which WH press secretary Ari Fleischer revealed as a means of explaining why Pres. Bush left Florida for a military base and did not return to the White House. This "warning" was probably called into the White House, if true, by either the Ft. Monmouth White House communications headquarters and/or the Ft. Monmouth counterterrorism exercise "game" players temporarily at the Pentagon that morning.

This means the pilot of Flight 77 participated in MASCAL in October of 2000, an exercise which simulated a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon.


Flight 77 hit the one and only section of the Pentagon that had been renovated to withstand just such an attack:

"Luck — if it can be called that — had it that the terrorists aimed the Boeing 757 at the only part of the Pentagon that already had been renovated in an 11-year, $1.3 billion project meant to bolster it against attack. That significantly limited the damage and loss of life by slowing the plane as it tore through the building and reducing the explosion's reach." Source: USA Today (1/01/02)

“Not all the offices were occupied that morning because of the renovation. In addition, the outer ring had been reinforced by floor-to-ceiling steel beams that ran through all five floors. Between them was a Kevlar-like mesh, similar to the material in bulletproof vests, which kept masonry from becoming shrapnel. Together, the beams and the mesh formed a citadel that kept the top floors from collapsing for about 35 minutes, time enough for some people to escape. New blast-resistant windows above the crash site didn't shatter. A new sprinkler system kept the fires from consuming the entire place.
When the plane hit wedge 1, workers were just a few days away from completing a three-year renovation of that section."

Source: USNews (12/10/01)


“The Pentagon has been undergoing some structural upgrades and retrofits, including new blastproof windows made of KevlarT that were, fortuitously, in place on the side of impact. This reinforced section of the building had a significant effect on reducing the extent of damage.”

Source: Fire Engineering Magazine (11/02)

"The 1,000,000-square-foot wedge was five days away from completion when it was struck by hijacked American Airlines Flight 77." Source: Annual Status Report to Congress (3/01/02)


FAA delayed reporting the hijackings for an hour, whereas it was bound by law to report them. The top FAA officials were appointed by Bush, and were close friends of Bush.

Norad (Pentagon) response was delayed, once FAA finally reported.

The jets that responded would have made it in time if they had flown at full speed. Why didn’t they fly at full speed? The Pentagon (Norad) must have given this order.

Several war games had been planned by Rumsfeld and Cheney on September 11th, in which most American fighter jets were off fighting imagined enemies. A particularly telling detail is that the CIA was conducting an exercise on Sept. 11th, under Cheney’s direction, that simulated a plane hitting NRO (National Reconnaissance Organization headquarters (near Dulles Airport, Virginia) - this was not a "terrorism" exercise but it did result in the evacuation of most NRO employees just as the "real" 9/11 was taking place, making it more difficult for the nation's spy satellites to be used to track the hijacked planes.


Terrorists were given visas based on incomplete forms. President Bush appointed James Ziglar commissioner of the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) one month before September 1lth

 
At 02 June, 2006 20:49, Blogger insidejob said...

oh and Chad, you asked about the point. the point is to stop this country from descending into fascism, which is what is happening. the "war on terror" is simoly a blatant power grab, for both control of domestic politics and control of Mideast Oil.

 
At 03 June, 2006 04:39, Blogger Chad said...

the cutter charges normally proceed from the bottom up (although they don't have to), but that doesn't mean the building will collapse from the bottom up

Really? They don't have to? Kinda defeats the purpose of a controlled demolition if you have no control over it.

there is very strong evidence that 9-11 was an inside job...

Uhm, no there isn't.

... and a lot of serious researchers are putting it together, and Loose Change and In Plane Site both ignore most of the real evidence, while blending in a lot of false claims.

Wait, so Avery is on OUR side? Doesn't take much for you guys to turn on each other does it?

FEMA said they were all intact, and, as already noted, fires do not make steel-frame buildings collapse, and random fires could not, by any stretch of the imagination, make a steel-frame building collapse so methodically into a neat little rubble pile within its own footprint, maintaining perfect radial symmetry all the way down, and falling at freefall speed.

This entire statement is a patent lie. I have the FEMA report on WTC7 printed out in front of me right now. Go grab yourself a copy off INTERNET and give it a read.

The rest of your post has already been debunked countless times on this and many other sites. And just to be clear, I never asked "What's the point?" Entro did. So much for your reading comprehension skills.

 
At 03 June, 2006 09:59, Blogger shawn said...

the "war on terror" is simoly a blatant power grab, for both control of domestic politics and control of Mideast Oil.

hahahahahahahahha

Insidejob did you just ignore my link? It shows what an actual demolition looks like, nothing like WTC7 collapsing. And, no, you've mistaken the terms objective and subjective. To an objective observer it's obvious it wasn't brought down with a controlled demolition. To the subjective moron (you, in this case) it was taken down, and no evidence to the contrary will even take root in that pea-sized mass of pink flesh you call a brain.

 
At 03 June, 2006 10:00, Blogger shawn said...

make a steel-frame building collapse so methodically into a neat little rubble pile within its own footprint

Well first, it didn't just fall into its footprint. Secondly, since the building was 95 percent air it could ONLY fall straight down.

 
At 03 June, 2006 18:16, Blogger insidejob said...

"Really? They don't have to? Kinda defeats the purpose of a controlled demolition if you have no control over it."

are you a professional nitpicker? I may have been wrong on this point, but because the buildings collapsed DOWNWARD (like the law of gravity would have them do) doesn't mean controlled demolition wasn't used, sherlock.

"Uhm, no there isn't."

Uhm, yeah there is.

"Wait, so Avery is on OUR side? Doesn't take much for you guys to turn on each other does it?"

I made it clear that I wasn't sure whether Avery and his buds were simply misled by "In Plane Site," or were part of that disinfo campaign. after thinking more about it, I think they probably had good intentions. one of them fought in Afghanistan, and Avery is in Chicago right now at the international 9-11 conference, "9-11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming our History"

"This entire statement is a patent lie. I have the FEMA report on WTC7 printed out in front of me right now. Go grab yourself a copy off INTERNET and give it a read."

uhh, it is a fact that randomly-placed fires and even a full-fledged infero could not have done that. also, the whole FEMA investigation was a half-baked farce. as for the fuel tanks, FEMA did claim that a ruptured fuel pipe contributed to a fire on Floor 5, but the tanks were all intact.

"The rest of your post has already been debunked countless times on this and many other sites. And just to be clear, I never asked "What's the point?" Entro did. So much for your reading comprehension skills."

as for this claim, bullshit, and does you nitpicking have no end? so you were quoting what Entro said. who cares. I only glanced at the post when I was reading another one.

 
At 03 June, 2006 18:35, Blogger insidejob said...

"hahahahahahahahha"

what's so funny to you about the fact that the war on terror is a farce and a power-grab for mideast oil? my uncle is a Colonel in the Marine Corps and is in Iraq right now risking his ass. he himself told me that these wars are about oil.

"Insidejob did you just ignore my link? It shows what an actual demolition looks like, nothing like WTC7 collapsing. And, no, you've mistaken the terms objective and subjective. To an objective observer it's obvious it wasn't brought down with a controlled demolition. To the subjective moron (you, in this case) it was taken down, and no evidence to the contrary will even take root in that pea-sized mass of pink flesh you call a brain."

no I didn't ignore it jackass. and I still haven't seen it. if you actually posted one, why not just paste it into your reply? and WTC 7's collapse, again, looked exactly like a controlled demolition, as did the collapses of the Towers. and you are the one confusing objectivity and subjectivity. the fact that you are so quick to get angry and sling mud and insults doesn't speak to your objectivity, nor does the fact that you continue to try (and fail) to poke holes in minor details, and ignore the vast majority of what I said.

"Well first, it didn't just fall into its footprint. Secondly, since the building was 95 percent air it could ONLY fall straight down."

yes it did. this is an outright lie. and all buildings are 95% air - that doesn't mean they will completely implode straight down in a methodical fashion. that simply DOES NOT happen with randomly-placed damage, as I said. the collapse would not have happended at all, disregarding the fact that it fill stright down without any part of it even tilting to one side.

 
At 03 June, 2006 18:57, Blogger Chad said...

but because the buildings collapsed DOWNWARD (like the law of gravity would have them do) doesn't mean controlled demolition wasn't used, sherlock.

... God this is too easy....

Well of course they collapsed DOWNWARD (buildings don't collapse UP now do they?). Thanks for putting that in all caps. I really don't see your point here. Because they collapsed it means it was CD? No... it doesn't. And yet you and other CTers constantly ignore the staggering lack of proof of explosives.

Does it not bother you people that not one legitimate structural engineer agrees with your crackpot CD theory?

Does it bother you that no company that specializes in CD (including the world's foremost controlled demolition company) doesn't buy the CD theory?

Maybe I'm just "nitpicking" again, but these would be good people to have on your side if you're gonna present a CD argument.

Here's a fun little fact. The record height of a building that was imploded via a controlled demolition was 439 feet, roughly a third of one of the towers. It took the company FOUR MONTHS to prep the building, 24 days to set the 4,118 charges, and ended up using 36000 feet of detonating cord.

Multiply those numbers by 3 and you'll have an idea of how long and how much it would take to bring down just ONE of the towers via CD.

Now, when you're done doing that math, explain to me how all that was done with not one employee who worked in the building noticing any of the 12,000 charges. And then walk me through how they mananged to plant them in that mysterious "power down" time frame.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home