9/11 military tapes released - Pentagon lied to the 9/11 commission

[editor]

I have a pair of eyes, and am honest enough to admit the footage of the building coming down looks exactly like many other videos of controlled demolitions.

I'm honest to admit that you look like yet another utterly clueless, evidence-free conspiraloon who wouldn't know how to research a subject using credible sources if you tried. Does that make me right?

That popular mechanics magazine is just not credible, especially when we take into consideration their love affair with UFOs.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/search?searchKeywords=ufo

Err, you haven't actually followed the links on that page, have you?

Conspiraloon in "unable to research links to provide a meaningful point" shocker!

So exactly why are you ignoring all the credibly sourced information contained in my links, by the way?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I have a pair of eyes, and am honest enough to admit the footage of the building coming down looks exactly like many other videos of controlled demolitions.

More of the moronic crap again. It looks nothing like them if you know what to look for, or can even think about the subject for a second.

The "explosions" are too small, there are too many of them, the propigation rate is too slow, the pattern illogical and impossible to wire up safely. Christ there's so many things wrong with that theory it's painful.

 

[look again]

look again: A hint for the future, if you make a stupid comment and someone pulls you up on it then you might want to back down rather than support it.

First you attempt to insult me, now you are trying to tell me what to do, just because you haven't got a leg to stand on. Not my problem if you haven't got the ability to defend your weak position.

While technically you may be right it's pretty damned clear what you meant and it wasn't arse covering.You found a line and tried to twist it to mean only one thing, instead of seeing it as a rather non specific comment, resulting in you reading the document to find that it does not support your fruitloopery.

The 25 former US government employees were the one's who used such a strong choice of words not me. What part of this do you think is unclear?

motives other than the security of the people of the United States.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

motives other than the security of the people of the United States.

Now, prove that that can only mean treason. Please.

 

[look again]

I'm honest to admit that you look like yet another utterly clueless, evidence-free conspiraloon who wouldn't know how to research a subject using credible sources if you tried. Does that make me right?

You don't know the meaning of using credible sources. You tried to quote your bible 911myths, which is written by some no mark, and stated that the collapse of the WTC took 15 seconds. When I countered it with evidence from the 9/11 commission which stated the south tower collapsed in 10 seconds you ignored it. So does that mean you think the 911myths.com is more credible than the 9/11 commission?

Now that is laughable.

Err, you haven't actually followed the links on that page, have you?

The magazine has a fascination with UFOs, so how can it be credible?

So exactly why are you ignoring all the credibly sourced information contained in my links, by the way?

Information does not equal evidence.

Why don't you use specific information from some proper credible sources like the 9/11 commission and the NIST report to try to support your position?

 

[laptop]

Information does not evidence.

Word salad eaten owls.

 

[editor]

Why don't you use specific information from some proper credible sources like the 9/11 commission and the NIST report to try to support your position?

So what information contained in those two reports supports your insistence that the towers were brought down by a controlled explosion, please?

And if you can find none, what credible sources can you cite which *do* support such an assertion?

<editor pulls up chair and strokes owl>

 

[look again]

More of the moronic crap again. It looks nothing like them if you know what to look for, or can even think about the subject for a second.

For a start I was talking about building 7, but acording to an expert the WTC coming down looked exactly like a controlled demolition.

http://www.freepressinternational.com/discovery.html

"If you've seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a building and they cause it to essentially to fall vertically because they cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's exactly what it looked like and that's what happened."

This coming from a guy who apparently supports the fire theory.

The "explosions" are too small, there are too many of them, the propigation rate is too slow, the pattern illogical and impossible to wire up safely. Christ there's so many things wrong with that theory it's painful.

Are you an explosives expert?

Well this guy is and according to his initial statement, explosives were planted in the towers.

http://www.world-action.co.uk/explosives.html

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse”

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that”

"It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points.”

A few days later he retracted his explosive statement, without explanation.

 

[look again]

Now, prove that that can only mean treason. Please.

What else could it possibly mean?

 

[look again]

So what information contained in those two reports supports your insistence that the towers were brought down by a controlled explosion, please?

You really have no idea how a cover-up works, do you?

And if you can find none, what credible sources can you cite which *do* support such an assertion?

http://www.attackonamerica.net/proofofcontrolleddemolitionatwtc.htm

<editor pulls up chair and strokes owl>

Stroke away, if it makes you feel good.

 

[fela fan]

...but as yet there is little or no evidence of something like that happening so while we want answers to the same questions, unlike say Jazz, or Fela or Squegee I for one would be more interested in actual evidence and answers rather than reams and reams of extrapolation, bad science and speculative nonsense that makes some of the Kennedy conspiracies look positively convincing.

You speaking for me again? Becoming my spokesperson? If you are, do a better job and stop getting it wrong. Pah, as if i don't want answers to the questions that naturally crop up due to the version of events given out by the USG being extremely dodgy. That's what i've always wanted. I've always had questions, and i've linked to only pages that use mainstream stories. Your obsession with me consistently leads you to crapping on stuff about me that is simply not true.

But i've also been of the opinion that we're unlikely to get those answers, certainly not until bush's watch is over.

Meanwhile i reserve the right to make my decision that elements of the US elites were involved in the attacks, based on various other reasons in the absence of any evidence.

 

[laptop]

What else could it possibly mean?

I've never typed "BWAAAHAAAHAAAHAAA" before. Is that how it's spelt?

Motives other than the security of...

• Laziness.
  
• Art. (see Karlheinz Stockhausen.)
  
• Surrealism.
  
• Psychotic episodes.
  
• ...many more...

If you really can't see any other motive you really should seek professional help.

 

[editor]

Are you an explosives expert?

Well this guy is and according to his initial statement, explosives were planted in the towers.

http://www.world-action.co.uk/explosives.html

That'll be the same expert whose sole connection with the WTC was seeing a video of the collapse, yes?

And the same expert who retracted his statement a few days later, saying - quite emphatically - "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail"?

Now tell me why we should take the (ever changing) word of this guy over the person who actually engineered the fucking towers?

 

[fela fan]

If you've nothing useful or relevant to offer, kindly keep your pointless pearls of wisdom to yourself please.

Yet you then write relevant and useful contributions such as:

"I'm honest to admit that you look like yet another utterly clueless, evidence-free conspiraloon who wouldn't know how to research a subject using credible sources if you tried."

And that was in reply to someone who is doing a very good job on this thread. Yet instead of debating with them, you use your usual language of derision, seemingly to make them go away.

Yer a bully editor.

 

[editor]

http://www.attackonamerica.net/proofofcontrolleddemolitionatwtc.htm

Could you tell me about "Jerry Russell, Ph.D"s specific engineering qualifications in relation to demolition and structural engineering?

Oh, hold on. I've found it.

He's got a Ph.D in Psychology from the University of Oregon.

Bwahahahahahahahaha!

 

[editor]

And that was in reply to someone who is doing a very good job on this thread. Yet instead of debating with them, you use your usual language of derision,

He's just tried to back up his his wild claims about the supposed controlled demolition of the WTC citing someone with a Ph.D in Psychology - while completely ignoring every single piece of expert analysis from people actually qualified to comment! Priceless!

So I was right first time. He's a conspiraloon and rightly deserves derision for his arrogant bullshit.

 

[fela fan]

He's just tried to back up his his wild claims about the supposed controlled demolition of the WTC citing someone with a Ph.D in Psychology - while completely ignoring every single piece of expert analysis from people actually qualified to comment! Priceless!

So I was right first time. He's a conspiraloon and rightly deserves derision for his arrogant bullshit.

But what about your ufo sites you linked to? Were you being serious man?!

 

[editor]

But what about your ufo sites you linked to? Were you being serious man?!

The article I linked to was the result of a consultation with "more than 300 experts and organizations" investigating 9/11 conspiracy theories - you can see them listed here.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=9&c=y

Be sure to run through the list and stop acting like a prize fuckwit.

Here's just a handful of names to get you started.
And look! They have real names and real qualifications!

Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D. senior engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction
David Biggs, P.E. structural engineer, Ryan-Biggs Associates; member, ASCE team for FEMA report
Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd.
Glenn Corbett technical editor, Fire Engineering; member, NIST advisory committee
Vincent Dunn deputy fire chief (Ret.), FDNY; author, The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety
John Fisher, Ph.D. professor of civil engineering, Lehigh University; professor emeritus, Center for Advanced Technology; member, FEMA Probe Team
Ken Hays executive vice president, Masonry Arts
Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D. professor of computer science, Purdue University; project director, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University
Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E.
CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC; chief structural engineer, Phoenix project; expert in blast recovery, concrete structures, emergency response

 

[fela fan]

The article I linked to was the result of a consultation with "more than 300 experts and organizations" investigating 9/11 conspiracy theories - you can see them listed here.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=9&c=y

Be sure to run through the list and stop acting like a prize fuckwit.

Here's just a handful of names to get you started.
And look! They have real names and real qualifications!

Experts?? How does one qualify for this label?

Is it the fbi man, or the freelance photographer, or the staff writer on the pittsburgh review, or the politics editor on the pittsburgh gazette, or the senior writer, or the executive vice president of masonry arts?

That's one dodgy website.

 

[look again]

Could you tell me about "Jerry Russell, Ph.D"s specific engineering qualifications in relation to demolition and structural engineering?

Oh, hold on. I've found it.

He's got a Ph.D in Psychology from the University of Oregon.

Bwahahahahahahahaha!

The author has a master's degree in Engineering from Stanford University, and a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Oregon.

What made you think you could get away with such blatant disinformation?

 

[look again]

That'll be the same expert whose sole connection with the WTC was seeing a video of the collapse, yes?

Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing
Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.

His expertise doesn't get any more relevant than that.

And the same expert who retracted his statement a few days later, saying - quite emphatically - "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail"?

You don't think it's very possible he was gently encouraged to re-evaluate his position?

http://infohost.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2002/4june02.html

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Pete Domenici today reported that Van Romero of Socorro has been appointed by President Bush to serve on a White House commission aimed at closing the educational achievement gap for Hispanic American youth.

Domenici confirmed that Romero, vice president for Research and Economic Development at New Mexico Tech, has been selected to serve on the President’s Advisory Commission on Education Excellence for Hispanic Americans. Bush created the commission by executive order on Oct. 12, 2001.

So less than a month after his retraction he finds himself working in the Bush administration.

Now tell me why we should take the (ever changing) word of this guy over the person who actually engineered the fucking towers?

Because this guy knows much more about explosives, and his initial statement was his honest opinion.

 

[look again]

If you really can't see any other motive you really should seek professional help.

We don't all live in the land of make believe.

Another whistleblower who was brave enough to speak out was Sibel Edmonds, but she was soon hit with not one, but two gag orders.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1266317,00.html

A fourth witness is Sibel Edmonds. She is a 33-year-old Turkish-American former FBI translator of intelligence, fluent in Farsi, the language spoken mainly in Iran and Afghanistan, who had top-secret security clearance. She tried to blow the whistle on the cover-up of intelligence that names some of the culprits who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, but is now under two gagging orders that forbid her from testifying in court or mentioning the names of the people or the countries involved.

She has been quoted as saying: "My translations of the 9/11 intercepts included [terrorist] money laundering, detailed and date-specific information ... if they were to do real investigations, we would see several significant high-level criminal prosecutions in this country [the US] ... and believe me, they will do everything to cover this up".

 

[editor]

You don't think it's very possible he was gently encouraged to re-evaluate his position?

Got a shred of evidence to support that claim?

No. Thought not. But - he! - don't let a trifling matter like a complete absence of proof get in the way of your beliefs!

 

[editor]

The author has a master's degree in Engineering from Stanford University, and a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Oregon.

What made you think you could get away with such blatant disinformation?

Be sure to point out where I have posted up 'blatant disinformation' or apologise, please.

 

[RaverDrew]

Got a shred of evidence to support that claim?

No. Thought not. But - he! - don't let a trifling matter like a complete absence of proof get in the way of your beliefs!

You must admit that it looks pretty suspect from an outside view ?

 

[editor]

You must admit that it looks pretty suspect from an outside view ?

Only if you completely discount the overwhelming mass of expert analysis and opinions of a host of world-class, highly qualified engineers, demolition experts - and the guy who helped build the WTC in the first place, of course.

But only a fool would do that, yes?

 

[kyser_soze]

I'm not interested in evidence, have no need to be interested in it.

*chuckles*
First time I've mentioned you for some time fela, and quotes like this pretty much sum up your whole approach.

And for anyone else on the 'demolition' tip, please can you answer my quesiton on post 419 and/or take up Crispy's challenge

Ed - I think LA is referring to your dismissal of Jerry Russel for only having a psychology phd and no relevant engineering experience...

 

[editor]

Ed - I think LA is referring to your dismissal of Jerry Russel for only having a psychology phd and no relevant engineering experience...

Has this bloke ever worked in engineering then?

 

[WouldBe]

Well according to tests carried out by NIST, which found that of the 16 perimeter columns examined, “only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250˚C [482˚F],” and no evidence that any of the core columns had reached even those temperatures.

That should be "16 perimeter column sections" of which there would be over 1000 in each building so the fact that only 3 showed signs of low heating doesn't mean that all 1000+ were not subjected to heating.

Only 3 central core sections were examined out of the 100's used in each tower so again the fact that these 3 show no signs of heatind doesn't mean that none of the sections were subject to heating.

instead concentrates on speculating that the fireproofing was removed by the impact. No evidence that this even happened,

The fireproofing was a spray on foam. What do you think happens to this weak foam when hit by 80 tonnes of aircraft? If you think it happily sits there abd resists the impact your dafter than you sound.

 

[Jazzz]

The article I linked to was the result of a consultation with "more than 300 experts and organizations" investigating 9/11 conspiracy theories - you can see them listed here.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=9&c=y

Be sure to run through the list and stop acting like a prize fuckwit.

Here's just a handful of names to get you started.
And look! They have real names and real qualifications!

Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D. senior engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction
David Biggs, P.E. structural engineer, Ryan-Biggs Associates; member, ASCE team for FEMA report
Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd.
Glenn Corbett technical editor, Fire Engineering; member, NIST advisory committee
Vincent Dunn deputy fire chief (Ret.), FDNY; author, The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety
John Fisher, Ph.D. professor of civil engineering, Lehigh University; professor emeritus, Center for Advanced Technology; member, FEMA Probe Team
Ken Hays executive vice president, Masonry Arts
Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D. professor of computer science, Purdue University; project director, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University
Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E.
CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC; chief structural engineer, Phoenix project; expert in blast recovery, concrete structures, emergency response

This is very misleading. The article drew on those guys, but that doesn't mean that they are co-authors. Like, I may link to some article as part of a post but that doesn't mean that the guy who wrote the article necessary would say the same.

The popular mechanics article is a 'straw man', selecting weak arguments to knock down.

It's claimed that Benjamin Cherthoff - who did author the piece - is a cousin of Michael Cherthoff.

You won't a rebuttal of anything Steve Jones has written in there.