The National Forum
On Line Opinion
Refresh this page
Forum Main Page
When I broached the subject of the September 11 Truth movement on the Forum "Winning the War in Iraq" at
I seemed to have touched a few raw nerves.
One poster dismissed me as a conspiracy nut. Another wrote:
"Its not about my tone but the horrific premise you are giving legitimacy to
You have to consider what it means when your views have not a shred of
credence, decency and humanity, and where it places you - it does not get
lower. Grow up and face reality - start by fasting and begging forgiveness
from the souls perished and their families for your atrocity."
What this poster overlooked is that it is many friends and relatives of those who perished in the terrorist attack who are behind the 9/11 truth movement.
I will include part of my post at
"It pretty soon became obvious that the 9/11 attacks succeeded
to the extent that they did because the Bush administration was,
at least, grossly negligent.
"Others have since arrived at the conclusion that there exists a
prima facie case that the attacks were an inside job.
"I would honestly feel a lot better if someone could satisfy me
that that were not the case. As poorly as I have regarded the U.S.
Government I had not been prepared, until about a year ago, to
contemplate the possibility that they were prepared to commit such
a monstrous crime against their own people.
"So, if you can find me a resource on the web that comprehensively
demolishes the case of the 9/11 truth movement, I would be most
"I would be most interested to know if there are any plausible
theories which explain how the third building, which was not even
hit by the terrorist attack, managed to collapse completely in a
matter of hours - surely one of the greatest failings of modern
So, I am in the opinions of others, including whether if, indeed, any discussion at all on this topic is appropriate. Some resources include
, Monday, 22 September 2008 4:29:43 PM
You seem to be a tad obsessive lately, James. However, this 9/11 conspiracy crap is completely off the wall, even for you.
, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 7:49:52 AM
you read Others Unknown the Oklahoma bombing case and Conspiracy, but get first edition, because they then even bought Jones off so he removed his mentions of bin Laden
this was the warm up for 9/11 where they experimented in taking out columns, but it didnt work so they went to planes
, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 10:01:26 AM
Yeah, snore. Heard this endlessly for the last 6 years.
, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 10:07:31 AM
Isn't it fascinating, this dogmatic outright rejection of the very right of questioning whether, in relation to events of the like of the '9/11' terrorism, everything is necessarily as it seems.
Is it because of the sheer scale of the act that people reflexivly reject even the possibility of its having been deliberately brought about by interests other than, or additional to, the one to which it has been attributed?
Prior to '9/11', is there anything to indicate the recognition, within or near to the US executive government, of a perceived need for the US to have secured a source of crude oil of the order of size of that available in Iraq?
In the absence of '9/11', do you think it conceivable that the US would, or could (in relation to the securing of the approval of Congress) have undertaken the war in Iraq?
If the answer to the first is a convincing 'yes', and to the second an equally convincing 'no', then there exists the environment for believability of motivation on the part of interests within, or capable of influencing, the US executive government toward the taking of such a course.
Which of course in no way amounts to proof of any such involvement.
Approach the dismissal of the right, or even propriety, of questioning an event of this nature under the categorization of such as amounting to 'conspiracy theory' from a different perspective. Consider how you would (or perhaps already have) regard the speculative history set out in this post (
) and following posts of mine in the thread. Seems to fit the now known apparent facts of history, does it not?
Consider how the thesis would have been received had it been put in 1942!
It seems to me that many persons who might otherwise be thought to be intellectually pretty sharp seem to need to take refuge in a dogma that large scale impropriety capable of influencing national policy, be it here or overseas, 'just can't happen'.
, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 11:06:23 AM
(This is a response to Paul.L's post on the thread "Winning the war in Iraq" at
I listened to the radio debate (labeled "Were the World Trade Towers brought down by controlled demolition?" at
), as did the presenter with an open mind (whether you accept that or not) and was convinced of the case put by Richard Gage representing 475 architects and engineers (
) who dispute the Bush administration's explanation of September 11 attacks (as opposed to the few dozen who have been prepared to publicly state that they accept that explanation).
I listened because I truly wanted to satisfy myself, one way or the other, as to whether the 9/11 Truth movement (
) had a case. Having done so I am convinced that they do. Prior to listening to that debate I had some respect for Michael Shermer the renowned supposed 'skeptic' who attempted to debunk Gage's case, but no longer do.
I don't ask people to take my word for it. I ask them to listen themselves. I think they will find that that is the quickest way to make to make sense of all the claims and counter-claims. If they have more time, then I urge them also to look at the other material both for and against the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement referred to by yourself and myself.
, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 11:25:09 AM
But Forrest, when the tapes were shown and the enquiries were made and the court cases were done, the holocaust was shown to have occurred, becuase there was a ton of evidence.
The enquiries have been made, the experts have given their opinions and verdicts, the computer model reconstructions have been done.....and the verdict is all the same: no conspiracy (except by the attackers themselves).
Unless of course you believe that all the 'independent' researchers and investigators are on the take as well. In which case, you are a nutbag and there is no use in even bothering to convince you of what reality is, you have decided that for yourself and no one will take that away from you
Can we please stop wasting time and energy on this crap?.
, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 11:32:33 AM
I dont think youre a conspiracy nut daggett.
We all tend to believe in the sinfulness of man.
People are always plotting against other people...in families, in offices.
Its the way of fallen man.
For conspiracies to have foundation there really needs to be proof though.
Someone has to come out and blab about such a surrepticious plan for it to be real.
For years I believed the CIA/US Defense etc assassinated John Kennedy to get rid of him or to get the US into Vietnam...but there was never any evidence.
A few years ago I saw a computer graphics re-enactment of the shooting and the author was correct when he calculated all angles. One man had done the shooting. There was no second shooter. I then became convinced that it was Oswald as was originally suspected.
What would it benefit US intelligence to be part of a conspiracy to destroy the Twin Towers? Would they do it to start a war with Iraq to get at the oil? Its been proven that the US doesnt really want the oil and is slowly handing Iraq back to the Iraqis. Besides theres so much non-oil tech hidden away or being presently worked on to replace oil that soon oil may not be all that important...I believe it.
In the end God Judges all men.
"It is appointed for man to die but once and then the Judgment".
It all gets balanced out.
If we look at Mary K. Baxters divine revelation of hell...we see where the bad boys go.
, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 11:35:21 AM
Could you please myself and other OLO users as to what you mean by the term "obsessive" and also how I might be able to avoid being labelled as such by you from now on?
Why it is obsessive for someone to raise issues on OLO of obvious relevance to the international political controversies of the day and to properly argue against those with contrary views? (Others may choose to look at daggett's recent contributions at OLO:
"Winning the war in Iraq" at
"Was the subversion of democracy in the 'free world' necessary to fight the 'evil' of 'communism'?" at
"Australia and Canada: what cost cultural diversity?" at
"Australia exports its draconian immigration system" at
"1942, Australia’s greatest peril" at
... and form their own judgement.)
Having started this thread, I may not be able to personally participate further for a few more days.
I urge people to look at the evidence as cacofonix has urged. If anyone has an hour to spare, I believe that listening to the radio debate (labeled "Were the World Trade Towers brought down by controlled demolition?" at
) would be well worth their time.
Other documents or web sites arguing for and against the 9/11 Truth Movement include:
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics at
"How Skeptics Confronted 9/11 Denialism" at
"Book Review: Debunking 9/11 Myths, by Popular Mechanics" at
"Popular Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES" Straw Man" at
, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 11:48:41 AM
There should probably be another thread for my comments here, but Gibo, I look forward to our non dependence on oil. With the technology that has gone into making quick recharge, long lasting lightweight batteries, I wonder why we aren't seeing so many electric cars. The technology is now available to make and electric car that is capable of freeway speeds and long range, complete with passenger comforts such as CD player & air conditioning. I hope to be driving one of these in the not to distant future, and recharging this at home when I have solar panels. You're right about the technology that's there and being worked on Gibo, but what about the Oil Companies? Are they going to allow this to happen quickly?
, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 11:53:55 AM
The 9/11 Truth movement has shown that a lot of glaring holes in the government's case and have shown that a lot of evidence which contradict the government's case was not acknowledged by the first 9/11 commission.
I don't recall the precise amount but less that US$1 million was spent on the 9/11 Commission. In contrast US$40 million was spent investigating the Monica Lewinksy scandal.
If a commensurate amount were to be spent on a new commission then we would be able to learn the answers to many of these questions one way or the other.
, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 11:55:38 AM
There is something extremely suspicious about the attacks. And I think that is an understatement.
People who 'dismiss' it as a conspiracy seem to do so because they believe no conspiracies exist in the real world, when in fact they are common.. Adam Smith, for example talked about conspiracy against the public:
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
Now you substitute trades interests with global powers that want to survive at any cost and you have very wealthy, powerful and desperate incentive.
, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 1:19:30 PM
What procedures would you advocate for this new commission, daggett?
This is how they conducted their interviews for the first one:
"The Americans tortured him for eight hours at a time, tying him tightly in stressful positions in a small chair until his hands feet and mind went numb. They retied him in a chair every hour, tightening the bonds on his hands and feet each time so that it was more painful. He was often hooded and had difficulty breathing. They also beat him repeatedly, slapping him in the face, and deprived him of sleep.
"When he was not being interrogated, the Americans put Majid in a small cell that was totally dark and too small for him to lie down in or sit in with legs stretched out. He had to crouch. The room was also infested with mosquitoes. This torture only stopped when Majid agreed to sign a statement that he wasn’t even allowed to read. But then it continued when Majid was unable to identify certain streets and neighborhoods in Karachi that he did not know."
Or do you see something a little more... persuasive?
, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 1:19:39 PM
Bugsy's post provides a perfect illustration of this seeming addiction to unqualified acceptance of the 'official line' on the part of many who participate in discussion of such events. A symptom of this addiction seems to be an accompanying need to launch into the labelling of any questioner of any 'official line' as being 'off the wall', 'obsessive', 'a nutbag', 'a waster of time and energy', and such like.
Let me make it quite clear that I have no firm view one way or the other as to whether there was another dimension to the 9/11 events beyond what we were all able to see from the television footage. I do not pretend to have even considered any evidence as to whether or not the building collapses were in any way assisted beyond the effects arising from the aircraft impacts. I have no need to believe any one scenario over another.
That is not what I think this thread is about.
It is obviously about the apparent prevalence of 'raw nerves' that seem to be so easily touched, not so much by the taking of a particular position pro or con a proposition, but by the very suggestion that there might even be an alternative view to the accepted or official one. I don't see daggett as promoting any 'conspiracy theory'. I do see him having reviewed some seemingly conflicting evidence or claims, and being prepared to keep an open mind. He has given links pro and con.
Contrast with the exercise, in relation to an event displaced in time by nearly 70 years from the present, that I suggested in my first post, Bugsy's response given before he could possibly have done as suggested. If he had read my first post in the instant of its posting, he had at most 21 minutes within which to read and digest the thread I suggested, then compile his own post. I have difficulty believing he read it at all.
Seems some posters feel threatened by evidence of the existence of an enquiring mind.
What's their problem?
, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 2:34:25 PM
The problem Forrest, is that when so much time and energy that has already been expended on topics such as this, and the conclusions soundly drawn from the real evidence, and they resurface all the time and never die because of some obscure flaw in human nature that has to keep rehashing the same crap and hope against hope that there's something else behind it.
This is by no means exclusive to the 9/11 attacks it applies to many other conspiracy theories and psedoscientific mumbo jumbo. Frustrating to say the least.
You can argue that any belief in things like Intelligent Design, homeopathy, CIA participation in the Kennedy assassination, US government complicity in the WTC & Pentagon attacks or whatever are all valid concerns/beliefs and have a right to respect. You can argue that. I beg to differ.
, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 3:01:10 PM
Bugsy wrote "...the conclusions have been soundly drawn from the real evidence, ..."
They have not, Bugsy.
We are told that the aircraft hit the Pentagon at ground level. As the engines hang lower than the body of the aircraft, then there should have been furrow marks on the lawn outside the Pentagon. Where are they? Where are all the parts of the plane which supposedly flew into the Penatagon? (They did recover all the Pan Am aircraft which was blown up over Lockerbie, didn't they?)
Within 5 minutes of the Penatagon being hit FBI agents were confiscating all video footage of the impact and none have since been released to the public.
Both the above facts were put by Gage but were not challenged by Shermer on the radio debate at
Also, If you consider that too much time has already been spent wasted discussing issues such as this, then why are you here?
Could you either engage with the facts or else go elsewhere?
, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 3:23:12 PM
Just to please you cacofonix, I will no longer waste my energy on it. I already did that years ago after the loose change video came out, I looked. I questioned. I'm done. Good luck with whatever it is you think you're achieving.
, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 3:28:10 PM
It's surely an intriguing question.
1/ I hear a lot about 'Many of the hijackers were found alive in their own countries.
COMMENT But I've yet to see a live interview with any of them. If anyone knows of one.. please supply a reference.
2/ If those flying the planes were not those named, then.. who were they ? I've not seen any suggestion as to who, nor any evidence about a)Who
b)Their motive to die.. (economic reasons?)
Surely, if some were not the Arab Islamists, they must have been others who would have backgrounds which included some shred of evidence about what might have motivated them. I've heard nothing.
3/ All the mention of huge companies making huge profits from the war...
Were in business before 9/11 and the reasons given for 9/11 were to justify an invasion of Iraq, the goal of which was 'control' of Iraq's oil, but Iraq seems to be in control of it's own oil.
4/ The Caspian basin is said to be the 2nd largest oil/gas reserves, and that the US needed an excuse to gain control of Afghanistan to ensure it could 'get' this.
On May 13, the BBC announced that: `Afghanistan hopes to strike a deal later this month to build a $2bn pipeline through the country to take gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India. Afghan interim ruler Hamid Karzai is to hold talks with his Pakistani and Turkmenistan counterparts later this month on Afghanistan's biggest foreign investment project.
"India and Pakistan"...... how does the USA benefit from this? Will they make it a 'toll' pipeline?
, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 4:17:13 PM
Forrest I've appreciated your comments on this thread. My mind baulks at the idea that Bush and or others would knowingly do this to their own people and at the scale of the coverup required if it happened.
If nothing else an ongoing willingness to review the official line, to question the findings of official enquiries might keep those with a mind to a big scam on the back foot.
Smaller less structured deceipts have been gotten away with for a period of time, anybody remember "children overboard" and the claimed impact on a federal election.
, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 6:43:35 PM
I am not sure what you were intending to prove with points 1, 2 or 4.
Regarding your point 3, I would suggest that the thread "Winning the War In Iraq" is a more appropriate place to argue that. In fact, GrahamY has already put that argument and it has been responded to at
The biggest hole in the U.S. government's case would appear to be the spectacular sudden collapses of Towers 1 and 2 and 7. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth (
) have shown that there in no plausible explanation for this other than controlled demolition A lot of eye-witness accounts back this up.
All the steel from Tower 7 was quickly carted away as scrap and put into blast furnaces before it could be examined. No explanation for the collapse of Tower 7 was proved in the 9/11 Comission report.
A very useful largely graphical presentation of this can be found at
It is entitled The "World Trade Center Demolition - Exposing the fraud of the government's story"
BTW, have any of those unquestioning believers in the official U.S. Government version of 9/11 listened to the debate between Shermer and Gage at
, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 11:58:02 PM
Ok, just one link then.
Now I'll leave you inquiring minds to it then.
, Wednesday, 24 September 2008 12:52:44 AM
Ae911truth responded to the NISTC report referred to by Bugsy in "Architects, Engineers, and Scientists Analyze Failings of NIST's WTC 7 Final Report" at
Here are some excerpts:
For the first time in history, normal office fires have created a total progressive collapse if the report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) can be believed, said Richard Gage, AIA. Office fires can not melt steel, Gage claims, and NIST has neither explained the mystery of molten iron at the World Trade Center site nor considered other evidence that also suggests the use of thermate incendiary charges to cut the steel framework of 47-story Building 7.
NIST's vaguely worded presentation was "absurd on its face," contended Kevin Ryan, and differed completely from the story they had previously told Popular Mechanics. Though NIST claimed to hold scientific attitudes about alternative theories, they never responded to multiple invitations to discuss them, Ryan complained. NIST's disregard for chemical evidence of explosive nanothermate must be considered in the light of Ryan's findings that NIST has been studying these materials for almost ten years, and several of NIST's WTC investigators are experts in them.
NIST's only discussion of incendiaries was to dimiss them, observed Tony Szamboti, and they ignored tiny iron-rich microspheres found in the WTC dust by the USGS and by Dr. Steven Jones. These can only have been generated from molten metal, Szamboti argues. British fire resistance tests show steel framing to be far more enduring than NIST's collapse theories maintain, Szamboti adds, and while steel samples from the British Cardington test were preserved, the WTC steel was destroyed. We should ask "severe questions," Szamboti said.
... Many columns must be cut simultaneously to drop a building straight down, he pointed out. FEMA report 403, Appendix C, recommended further study of evidence of liquid steel that could be related to the cause of the collapse, Donly comented, but NIST ignores this information.
Gage asked that NIST release to independent researchers the thousands of photos and videos in its WTC archives.
, Wednesday, 24 September 2008 1:09:09 AM
"1/ I hear a lot about 'Many of the hijackers were found alive in their own countries.
"COMMENT But I've yet to see a live interview with any of them. If anyone knows of one.. please supply a reference."
To get a seat on an airline a photo ID is required. The passenger manifests of the four aircraft involved contained none of the names of the alleged hijackers. So what was the source of these names?
"4/ The Caspian basin is said to be the 2nd largest oil/gas reserves, and that the US needed an excuse to gain control of Afghanistan to ensure it could 'get' this.
On May 13, the BBC announced that: `Afghanistan hopes to strike a deal later this month to build a $2bn pipeline through the country to take gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India. Afghan interim ruler Hamid Karzai is to hold talks with his Pakistani and Turkmenistan counterparts later this month on Afghanistan's biggest foreign investment project.
"India and Pakistan"...... how does the USA benefit from this? Will they make it a 'toll' pipeline?"
The construction firm Halliburton which was to build the pipeline had reached an impasse in negotiations with the Taliban prior to 9/11. That impediment has now been removed.
, Wednesday, 24 September 2008 2:12:40 AM
So Symp....ur saying that it's all about Haliburton making a pipeline which will benefit no one but Haliburton in the USA ?
Kinda stretches the cred a tad you know. There are so many other factors to consider.
WTC 7.... can someone just mention the "concluslion" of that technical briefing?
It strikes me as most odd that such speculation surrounds this. I would think 2 building the size of WTC1 and 2 could easily undermind the foundations of adjacent buildings and the weakest one went down?
"Controlled demolition" for WTC 7 again stretches Cred.. there was no plane involved so.. if that's the case why use planes at all for the others if you are going to expose your true method in building 7.
It is a separate building..so there was no plane allocated to targe that structure.. it just sounds too.. wayyyyy too fantastic that this could be a controlled demolition thing.. how in the world could they guarantee that the evidence would be removed withOUT a HOST of people able to testify to all that?
, Wednesday, 24 September 2008 7:12:02 AM
Poly, You asked, "how does the USA benefit from this? Will they make it a 'toll' pipeline?" and I answered "...Haliburton...".
To which you respond:
"So Symp....ur saying that it's all about Haliburton making a pipeline which will benefit no one but Haliburton in the USA ?
Kinda stretches the cred a tad you know. There are so many other factors to consider."
Actually I was not saying that it was "all about Haliburton", but the fact that the former CEO of that corporation was one of the decision makers in initiating the war on Afghanistan is significant.
Nor was I saying that the pipeline would "benefit no one but Haliburton in the USA", as you well know. Haliburton is only one of the corporations to benefit, along with the oil companies extracting, refining and distributing the oil, all well represented in the Bush/Cheney cabinet.
I suppose you accept the line that it was all about saving the poor people of Afghanistan from the dreaded al Qaeda/Taliban dictatorship?
, Wednesday, 24 September 2008 1:24:45 PM
daggett: << Others may choose to look at daggett's recent contributions at OLO...
I urge people to look at the evidence as cacofonix has urged. >>
James, I tend to think you're getting obsessed when you trot out your "cacofonix" sock puppet in order to back up what "daggett" is arguing, particularly when it involves a far-fetched conspiracy that's been well and truly debunked.
It's a pity, because you often raise good points and then go and blow your credibility by raving on about some conspiracy or another, more often than not deploying one of your sock puppets to try and support your ideas.
, Wednesday, 24 September 2008 2:21:02 PM
CJM to me it is your own credibility in question. You are the sockpuppet. You are the raving lunatic who is opposed to any further exposure of the attacks.
Whether you are naive, ignorant, or simply fearful of the implications, I'm not sure, but it's a disservice not to demand the truth and nothing but the truth that many of these facts (granted some are probably inaccurate, but do you really expect a conspiracy theorist to be 100% accurate when all intelligence agencies allegedly failed to detect the attacks, and crafted lies about the Iraq War?).
It sounds like you need to read this a bit and learn something about history, abuse of power and governments, and the people in them:
Do I need to even mention that the Iraq War was a TOTAL FABRICATION of Western govenrments (inluding intelligence agencies) and the media?
, Wednesday, 24 September 2008 2:47:08 PM
It is no coincidence that most of those conspiracy theorist who think somehow Mr Bush had something to do with 9/11 are also strong believers in global warming (sorry climate change). And to think that they are the first to mock creation. Just hilarious! Next you will be arguing that the dope you have been smoking has not affected your rationality.
, Wednesday, 24 September 2008 5:38:01 PM
A detailed examination of the claims in Loose Change and where they fall short.
I think that may be sufficient.
, Wednesday, 24 September 2008 8:26:53 PM
I will leave other users an form their own judgments as to whether or not 'cacofonix' (i.e myself) like at least two other OLO user accounts, is a fictitious invention of daggett, as C J Morgan has alleged.
If people conclude that it is, then they should also ask themselves if it is likely, as C J Morgan implies, that daggett, having little credibility of his own on OLO, found it necessary to invent at least three other accounts to shore up his shaky credibility, particularly in order to peddle crank conspiracy theories that would otherwise receive little hearing.
I would suggest that even to pose that question would show up C J Morgan as, at best, being illogical and paranoid. Given that there have already been at least two long-winded and time-consuming arguments over this started (in my view with malicious intent) by C J Morgan including the one at
is it really conceivable that daggett would have thought that he could have pulled it off, given that C J Morgan had already jumped in to denounce daggett's initial contribution as "conspiracy crap" which is "off the wall"?
If anyone were to choose to examine the thread referred to above they would find that another user openly admitted to having set up a second account.
Even if it were to be found that daggett was guilty of having committed that same heinous crime, I would suggest that it may have been for motives, less sinister than what C J Morgan has implied, for example, to get around the OLO limits in order to provide useful and timely contributions to the discussion. Indeed, even C J Morgan himself at one point during that marathon argument curiously acknowledged the value of my contributions.
, Wednesday, 24 September 2008 10:49:34 PM
Of course, having more than one account technically that breaches OLO's rules and whoever is found to have done so faces the prospect of being penalised by the OLO administrators as C J Morgan attempted to have them do to daggett.
However, I would suggest that far worse abuses of OLO occur all the time and quite within the rules of OLO - abuses regularly committed by the likes of C J Morgan: personal attacks, repetition of arguments without acknowledgment of responses to those arguments, etc.
Even though those abuses don't breach OLO rules, I, nevertheless, harm this forum in many far more substantial ways. I know of a number of people who simply don't bother to contribute any more to OLO because they are sick and tired of having to deal with the likes of C J Morgan.
I suggest to anyone who may be concerned at these allegations against daggett to look at the totality of his contributions as well as articles written by him for OLO, as James Sinnamon, as well as the relatively few I have made and ask whether they have caused harm to OLO or have enhanced its value.
I would also suggest that they look at C J Morgan's contributions to OLO and decide for themselves whether they agree with me that even thought they may not formally breach the rules of OLO, they do, in fact detract substantially from OLO.
Some may find useful a summary daggett wrote of C J Morgan's early contributions to that abovementioned forum at
, Wednesday, 24 September 2008 10:51:04 PM
Honestly, if the those people you know who no longer post to OLO because of CJM were of your calibre cacofonix/daggett/James, I would say that the tone of the place is much better than it would otherwise have been. And I would have to thank CJ for his diligence and influence.
Now will you care to join your friends?
, Wednesday, 24 September 2008 11:00:03 PM
daggett's posts contain a lot more than the single link to loose change, Agronomist (even then a good part of the link you've provided is opinion)
, Wednesday, 24 September 2008 11:12:40 PM
James Sinnamon/daggett/cacofonix/et al protesteth too much, methinks.
If you don't want me to alert people to your use of sock puppets, James, just don't use them.
, Thursday, 25 September 2008 6:01:01 AM
C J Morgan/Bugsy wrote "Now will you care to join your friends?"
No, thank you. It seems that a few others around here appreciate my contributions, even if you don't.
Now can I ask you as I did before: Are you intending to either engage with the facts or will you go elsewhere as you promised when you wrote:
"Just to please you cacofonix, I will no longer waste my energy on it."
"Now I'll leave you inquiring minds to it then."
If you intend to engage with the facts, could you please explain why you accept the nonsense at
that 475 Architects and Engineers and architects and engineers, represented by
, reject? Do you think it likely that a fire that we are told started at one end of the building and spread throughout would have suddenly produced such a uniform smoothe collapse of the whole of WTC7 at barely less time that what it would have taken for an object to free fall free the height of the building, when nothing like that has ever occured, except in controlled demolitions, before or since?
Do you believe in the laws of physics?
C J Morgan/Bugsy wrote "If you don't want me to alert people to your use of sock puppets, James, just don't use them."
Do as you wish, C J Morgan/Bugsy, but don't assume that I will be wasting any more of my time engaging with you.
, Thursday, 25 September 2008 8:00:52 AM
One of my senior Pastors would say that "conspiracy theory" is demonic and established to destabilise world society so that people no longer trust good governments.
He would be right. If you knew the evil spirit realm as many committed christians do, you would also agree.
Theres simply no eye witness testimony to a group of conspirators in the US government off in a back room somewhere planning to get some Islamic named guys into planes to crash them into New York buildings.
It might have made sense if JFK had been a target of a conspiracy, he sure stirred up a lot of people, but really whats the point of a small group of Americans killing a larger group of Americans.
All a "9/11 conspiracy theory" will do is twist the brain and screw the heart and create a whole world of anxiety and frustration for those who dance with it.
, Thursday, 25 September 2008 8:19:24 AM
James Sinnamon/daggett/cacofonix/et al: << Do as you wish, C J Morgan/Bugsy, but don't assume that I will be wasting any more of my time engaging with you. >>
That's fine by me, James - but don't assume that because you feel entitled to break the forum rules by using several sock puppet accounts that I do too.
I have no idea who Bugsy is in real life, but he usually makes a lot more sense than you and doesn't need to to tell lies to do so.
, Thursday, 25 September 2008 9:11:54 AM
To those who suggest that no possible motive for figures in the U.S. government to commit such a crime against their own poeople, I refer them to reasons 32-34 of "The top 40 reasons to doubt the officialstory of September 11, 2001" at
32) Attacking the Constitution
a. The USA PATRIOT Act was written before 9/11, Homeland Security and the "Shadow Government" were developed long before 9/11, and plans for rounding up dissidents as a means for suppressing civil disturbance have been in the works for decades.
b. 9/11 was used as the pretext to create a new, extra-constitutional executive authority to declare anyone an "enemy combatant" (including American citizens), to detain persons indefinitely without habeas corpus, and to "render" such persons to secret prisons where torture is practiced.
33) Legal Trillions
9/11 triggers a predictable shift of public spending to war, and boosts public and private spending in the "new" New Economy of "Homeland Security," biometrics, universal surveillance, prisons, civil defense, secured enclaves, security, etc.
34) Plundered Trillions?
On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced a "war on waste" after an internal audit found that the Pentagon was "missing" 2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted assets. On September 11th, this was as good as forgotten.
I refer them also to Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine". Whilst Naomi Klein has not personally taken a stance on the claims of the 9/11 Truth movement, abundant abundant evidence of the existence of motives for the attacks can be found in its pages.
Chapters 14 to 20 show how wealthy corporations and in some cases U.S. government figures personally including Donald Rumsfeld, profited masively at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer and from countries conquered by the U.S. following the 9/11 attacks.
, Thursday, 25 September 2008 12:41:29 PM
If 9/11 is/was an inside job.. a false flag operation....
would anyone like to have a dabble into the 'One World'/New World Order scenario which certain high profile and very very rich Americans seem to think we need ? :)
If it was not what it is purported to be (An Al Qaeda/Islamist attack) then the other option is rather more scary.
, Thursday, 25 September 2008 1:23:27 PM
Come on people, we all know the American government ALWAYS tells the 100% truth, acts only for the good of all humanity and is incorruptible.
Gee, I believe EVERY word they say about 9/11. They're such good guys! Just ask 'em, they'll tell ya!
, Thursday, 25 September 2008 1:36:04 PM
C J Morgan/Bugsy,
I note you have dodged answering the question in a previous post, so I will ask it again: "... is it really conceivable that daggett would have thought that he could have pulled it off?"
Anyway, my other question was: Why should I care what you think?
The fact that you have failed to provide any substance to back up your assertion that "this 9/11 conspiracy crap is completely off the wall" (in other words that you uncritically accept the US government's explanation) would confirm that personal attacks such as this are intended to divert people's attention from this fact.
If there happen to be any structural enginers around, they should have a look at
# The total collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 where the largest failures of engineered steel structures in history.
* No one anticipated such buildings could fall from fires.
* Fires have never leveled steel-framed buildings.
* Only severe earthquakes have caused total collapse.
# If official explanation is correct then:
* Existing engineering theory is invalidated. A new phenomenon -- progressive collapse -- has to be invented.
* No steel-frame building is safe -- Isolated fires can cause total collapse.
* Billions of dollars in retrofitting will be required.
* Firefighters should no longer enter burning buildings.
Then they should have a look at examples other far more severe high-rise fires in which the buildings were NOT pulverised and flattened at
Check out "Some Proofs of Demolition in regard to the twin towers at:
1. The towers' concrete was pulverized in the air.
2. The steel superstructures of the towers provided no more resistance to the falling rubble than air.
3. The expansion rate of the dust clouds produced by the collapses indicates heat energy far in excess of gravitational energy.
4. The South Tower's top shattered before falling into intact structure.
So, can anyone show me where these specific arguments have been refuted?
, Thursday, 25 September 2008 3:08:30 PM
I for one would like to know why anyone would need to use more than one user name? Do you decide that your reputation is so poor that you need a new user name.
Personally, I, and I imagine MOST people with any integrity, respond to the ideas posted and not to the person posting. I certainly have more than once unintentionally offended a poster whom I had previously had cordial agreement with, when they ventured a view I am vehemently opposed to. I generally try and comment on the ideas rather than the person.
I can think of a few people who may be typecast, but they can do something about that if they want. However, I'm suggesting that ANYONE who uses more than one user name immediately revert to their old username and apologise to the rest of us, or face more outing, CJ Morgan style.
Perhaps those in the know might even start a list somewhere of those people who are using more than one user name. A wall of shame.
, Thursday, 25 September 2008 3:09:35 PM
Paul.L wrote, "I imagine MOST people with any integrity, respond to the ideas posted and not to the person posting"
I would go further. I would suggest that ANY person with any integrity would respond to the ideas posted.
If my name is to be put on a "wall of shame", then I would like the right to create another "wall of shame" to which names of those who habitually engage in personal attacks whilst adding little of substance to these discussions (or, in the case of this discussion, nothing of substance).
Anyhow, Paul.L, you're also free to show me and everyone else why the 9/11 Truth movement are wrong.
Have you listened yet to the debate on
? Do you believe that Micchels Shermr acquitted himself well?
, Thursday, 25 September 2008 4:23:05 PM
James Sinnamon/daggett/cacofonix/et al: << "... is it really conceivable that daggett would have thought that he could have pulled it off?" >>
Well, if he hasn't, it certainly isn't for want of trying! One thing about James and his sock puppets - they certainly "pull" together.
, Thursday, 25 September 2008 7:17:11 PM
Princess Diana did it.
, Thursday, 25 September 2008 7:50:13 PM
If that’s the name your using for the moment, how about you apologise for deliberately misleading everyone here by posting under another username.
I see your post is pretty much lifted whole from the “IDIOTS GUIDE TO 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORY” AKA the 911 Research website. You really can’t be serious. The site has NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE of any kind. Go see a debunking site and NOTE the massive difference in supporting evidence and intellectual rigour.
You say >> Existing engineering theory is invalidated. A new phenomenon -- progressive collapse -- has to be invented.
Mate this is bullsh!t on a basic level. For starters engineering theory is NOT invalidated. In any case there is really no such thing as ENGINEERING theory, there is Statics, Dynamics and Physics in general.
"The WTC was constructed in quite a unique manner. The towers were designed as framed tube structures, providing tenants with open floor plans. The World Trade Center had a steel facade, with 59 perimeter columns on each side of the building, that were designed to resist lateral and gravity forces. The interior core was designed only to carry gravity load."
See here for details and pictures of the construction of the WTC.
Timeline of the north tower collapse
NYPD helicopters report deteriorating conditions of the North Tower.
• At 10:20 a.m., the NYPD aviation unit reports that the top of the tower might be leaning.
• At 10:21 a.m., the NYPD aviation unit reports that the North Tower is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south.
• At 10:27 a.m., the NYPD aviation unit reports that the roof is going to come down very shortly.
• At 10:28 a.m., the NYPD reports that the tower is collapsing.
you say >> “No steel-frame building is safe -- Isolated fires can cause total collapse.”
Again more rubbish. Each building needs to be assessed on its own merits. Those buildings like the WTC may be at risk from catastrophic fires. Isolated fires? You mean 10-20 stories completely ablaze.
, Thursday, 25 September 2008 11:14:55 PM
”The aircraft, traveling at 470 mph, hit the building at the 94-98th floors. The aircraft was carrying approximately 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, which is less than half of capacity. At impact, the aircraft was banked 25° to the left, cutting a gash that was over half the width of the building and extended from the 93 to 99th floor. 15-18 perimeter and 5-6 core columns were severed at the 95th/96th floors. A large section of the 96th floor slab, 40 ft wide and 80 ft in depth, was destroyed upon impact. Insulation was knocked off nearly all the core columns and 40 foot portion of the floor trusses on the south side of the tower. Twelve perimeter columns were severed on the 97th floor. In all, 35 perimeter and six core columns were severed. Fireproofing insulation was stripped off of 43 out of 47 core columns, as well as floor trusses covering 60,000 ft2 of area.
* Firefighters should no longer enter burning buildings.
What?? Do you really WANT to be taken seriously, whatever your name is?
You say >> “... other far more severe high-rise fires ”
Has it even occurred to you to compare the construction methods, design and materials to see if these examples have ANY relevance? Also, did a 315,000lb aircraft fly into any of those buildings at 3/4 the speed of sound? Think about what a couple of ounces of lead can do at the speed of sound, ie bullets.
You say >> “ The steel superstructures of the towers provided no more resistance to the falling rubble than air.”
You don’t need to look very far to find the debunking of the “free-fall-theory”
Here are pictures to help you understand,
You say >> “The towers' concrete was pulverized in the air.”
You don’t think a couple million tonnes of steel and concrete might pulverise some concrete? Or maybe you are talking about the “puffs-of-dust” theory which has also been THOROUGHLY debunked.
you should have a look at what this structural engineer had to say
or this one
, Thursday, 25 September 2008 11:20:03 PM
I can see that I have been again arguig with someone who is either a moron or who chooses to act like a moron for reasons known only to himself.
I certainly won't be holding my breath waiting for him to explain to us, amongst other things, where the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement have been "been well and truly debunked".
, Thursday, 25 September 2008 11:33:15 PM
Whether it was a conspiracy or not, as far as the aims of PNAC were concerned, it was certainly the right thing happening at just the right time.
The situation was also made much worse by a peculiar series of coincidences.
Most major items can seemingly be explained away but there are still many smaller unresolved but significant items still outstanding.
Like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the sinking of the Lusitania and more recent revelations about Pearl Harbour, things will eventually reveal themselves.
, Friday, 26 September 2008 1:56:27 AM
No, I won't be apologising, Paul.L for reasons I will explain below and if the allegations were true I would certainly not confess to them in these circumstances for reasons which should be understandable to anyone capable of reason.
Obviously it is beyond my own control whether or not this inquistion is to persist, but if it does, it will clearly be difficult for much progress to be made in discussing the topic at hand, which I believe is clearly the intention of a number of people here.
If you had read the posts you would have understood the point (which CJ Morgan is pretending not to understand), that is, if I had intended to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, then why would I have done it in a forum in which CJ Morgan was contributing, given that he has already blown the whistle on me a number of times before?
I would suggest that a possible motive may have been to test whether or not CJ Morgan was still as apparently as malevolent as he has been on past occasions.
That question has obviously been answered.
I point out again that CJ Morgan has yet to make single substantive contribution to this forum. His first contribution was an attack upon myself. I asked him to substantiate his claim against me even before cacofonix contributed and he failed to do so.
, Friday, 26 September 2008 2:01:21 AM
Paul L. has listed a few "debunking 9/11" sites.
David Ray Griffin has written a comprehensive debunking of the 9/11 debunkers. Here is a sample:
Far from being "comprehensively debunked" the 9/11 Truth Movement has been the debunker of the official conspiracy theory and its in-house 'experts'.
, Friday, 26 September 2008 4:44:43 AM
My point, James Sinnamon/daggett/cacofonix/et al, is that by recalcitrantly lying about your habitual use of multiple sock puppet identities, you 'demolish' any credibility you might otherwise have had.
This plays into the hands of wingnuts like Paul.l, particularly when you do it to promote crackpot ideas like the 9/11 conspiracy crap.
You really don't do your cause any favours, and this annoys me when you're spouting forth about real issues that actually matter - unlike this topic.
, Friday, 26 September 2008 8:12:45 AM
As much as I am offended by dagget's deliberate deception, and by his BLIND acceptance of this particularly distasteful conspiracy theory, I think HE at least has a reason to be here.
I can think of NO reason whatsoever why you should be allowed to continue to post. It is clear from your posting history that your NUMBER ONE goal on OLO is to abuse and denigrate, without any discussion of the topic. You add NOTHING of any value to any discussion. So why don't you go away you sad little man.
, Friday, 26 September 2008 9:13:49 AM
Humpty Dumpty: << It is clear from your posting history that your NUMBER ONE goal on OLO is to abuse and denigrate, without any discussion of the topic. You add NOTHING of any value to any discussion. >>
Good to see I'm still getting up your wingnut nose. However, as you well know, I often contribute substantive comments in discussions that are being conducted by rational and reasonable people - in which case, you're a liar too. You and James are flip-sides of the same coin.
<< So why don't you go away you sad little man. >>
I'm neither sad nor little, and one reason I don't go away is that I derive much amusement in pointing out bullsh!t, hypocrisy and hate-speak that comes from nasty little wingnuts like you.
Why don't you go away, you sad little engineering student?
, Friday, 26 September 2008 9:27:39 AM
Whilst we have mostly diametrically opposed political views and whilst I don't even consider some of your debating tactics (as you would probably say of me), we still seem to share some basic values of online decency, so, thank you.
If you feel that you have been deceived, then I apologise. However, I ask that it be judged in the light of the malicious flaming I have been made to endure in the past.
If I had been blatently abusing a second account, I fully expected to have been called to account for it sooner or later by even reasonable OLO contributors, and I had also not ruled out the likelihood that I would be outed again by CJ Morgan, regardless.
I believe I have sufficient credibility in my own right not to have to resort to the use of second accounts, so I think that most will accept that my motives were far more pedestrian.
Anyhow, as anyone who does look at my home page will appreciate, I do have a life outside OLO, so if the worst were to come of this, I would still have plenty of avenues left for self-expression.
The initial transgression that CJM blew the whistle upon was clearly not, contrary to CJM's claims, an attempt to deceive OLO users about the origins of the material, even if it appeared to transgress an OLO rule. However, my subsequent attempts to reason with him over this came to nothing. Instead of allowing the issue to blow over, he chose to create an acrimonious witch hunt atmosphere in which I was singled out even though another OLO user openly admitted to having done the same. In that atmosphere it would have been very difficult to admit to the allegation either explicitly or with a nod and a wink. Of course, denying the truth of his accusations made my alleged crime even more heinous in CJM's lurid imagination.
, Friday, 26 September 2008 3:29:05 PM
I don't think anybody is in any doubt that your motives were pedestrian, daggett. That you have ben caught and then point the finger at someone else as doing the same thing in order to somehow justify your position, well that just doesn't wash. Imagine saying "but he did it too, your honour!". Now the weasly justifications and attempts to undermine your accusers start, it's just sad really.
, Friday, 26 September 2008 4:02:45 PM
The first sentence of the previous post should have read: " ... whilst I don't even consider some of your debating tactics [fair] (as you would probably say of me) ..."
You are plainly feeling smug and self-satisfied from what you hold to be your own alertness and brilliant detective work, however, it seems to me that what you have really done is to have outed yourself as the narrow-minded pedant and sanctimonious two-faced hypocrite that you are (but you are probably too stupid to realise that).
So, do me a favour. If you must maintain your presence on the same forums as me, please don't ever pretend to be any different from what you have shown yourself to be here.
For me, that would be vastly preferable than having to continue to cope with your recurring, insincere and patronising attempts to ingratiate yourself with me.
Welcome back, Bugsy.
(But hadn't you promised twice already to leave this forum?)
I expect that you would be the kind of person who could proudly boast that he has never taken a day off sick in his working life without being actually sick and would condemn without reservation anyone else who would ever contemplate doing so.
This time I have decided not to cram every possible word into this particular post. As other means to discretely contribute to this discussion in the immediate future are obviously not available any more without risking the outbreak of yet another hysterical witch hunt, I won't be making the effort to further contribute in order to respond to Paul.L's post for at least another day.
Perhaps, either Bugsy or CJM could make use of the opportunity to introduce some actual substance into the discussion, for a change, in order to maintain its momentum.
, Friday, 26 September 2008 4:35:15 PM
>>Perhaps, either Bugsy or CJM could make use of the opportunity to introduce some actual substance into the discussion, for a change, in order to maintain its momentum.<<
All that happens here is that folk trawl through the internet to find the latest conspiracy or rebuttal.
Original thought: nil.
, Friday, 26 September 2008 5:31:55 PM
Don't hide your light under a bushel. Regale us with your entirely original ideas on this subject. We wait with bated breath.
, Friday, 26 September 2008 7:35:53 PM
There there, James - like I said, if you don't use your sock puppet/s I'll stop lampooning them. As I implied early in the thread, my main reason for outing you was that you appeared obsessed with this claptrap, to the point where you obviously feel entitled to use sock puppets in order to proclaim the paranoid ideas that you imagine the whole world is on tenterhooks to hear.
You have every right to indulge whatever paranoid conspiracy fantasies you like, but in this forum it's cheating if you do so using sock puppet accounts to increase your posting limits. Imagine if every other nutbag who rants and raves on here felt the same as you do and simply disregarded the rules so they can get around the posting limits? Cripes.
Since I originally outed James and his sock puppets, I've been mostly amused at their regular, if sporadic appearances in various debates. Some are downright funny:
<< I would less charitable in regard to Saddam Hussein. bla bla bla... Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 9:47:51 AM >>
Followed 15 minutes later by
I agree with your post, except that I don't think rache was being any more charitable to Saddam Hussein than you were. bla bla bla...
Posted by cacofonix, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 10:01:20 AM >>
What a fascinating conversation to have had with yourself, James - and it's by no means the first time that your subterfuge has exceeded "pedestrian" frustration with posting limits, is it?.
However, a cursory glance at "cacofonix"'s posting history shows that the appearance of such gems leapt from a couple a month to 13 in the last 3 days - which is of course why I thought "cacofonix" needed to be outed again as one of James Sinnamon/daggett's sock puppets.
That the topic is shite just means that I'm not disrupting any kind of serious discussion.
, Friday, 26 September 2008 8:20:14 PM
I never "promised to leave this forum", you're just making things up.
I do recall saying that I wouldn't expend any more energy thinking about this 9/11 crap. I think I've delivered on that one so far (apart from posting a link of course, but I didn't have to think about conspiracies to do it).
, Friday, 26 September 2008 8:48:25 PM
daggett, cacofonix, Sympneology and Steel, (have I missed anyone here?). A few more resources for you.
I think all of these sites contain proper scientific discussion of the issues and will answer most of your questions on the topic.
Happy reading one and all.
I really don't know why I am doing this, I am sure it is a total waste of time. Perhaps if only to let you know how easy it is to see through the conspiracy theory.
, Friday, 26 September 2008 10:07:11 PM
I'm sorry, but I presumed that not wasting any more of your time thinking about this issue implied that you would not be posting to this forum.
After all, Bugsy, what possible value to people who do wish to discuss a subject would be a post on that subject by someone who had not given it any thought?
Do you understand why others might consider someone who posted comments into which they had not put any thought would be considered a nuisance?
As for CJM's latest post, if it is still there, I have requested that it be removed.
I asked that it be removed on the grounds that it is not in any way addressing the topic at hand.
At the end of his post he stated:
"That the topic is shite just means that I'm not disrupting any kind of serious discussion"
I would say that it makes CJM's attitude crystal clear. CJM doesn't consider this discussion to have any worth, so he believes that he is entitled to be as disruptive as he pleases without any regard to the wishes of those who do wish to discuss this issue.
I see no reason why the presence of a person with such an attitude should be tolerated for a minute longer on this forum, or indeed on OLO at all.
(In case CJM's post has disappeared by the time you read this, I have kept my own copy of it, should anyone wish to see it for themselves.)
, Saturday, 27 September 2008 12:59:28 AM
Agronomist those links are mostly a mixture of opinion and conjecture. I hope you realise that while nitpicking the conspiracy theories may highlight inconsistencies or inaccuracies here and there, it does not offer any explanation. in other words, these sites are only as narrow as the frameworks of the objects of their derision. And these sites you've linked to are weak in that offering an explanation is much harder (especially from a viewpoint of obscurity and distance, such as are the conspiracy theories) than nitpicking propositions.
, Saturday, 27 September 2008 1:08:57 AM
Your selection of sites offering "proper scientific discussion of the issues" in fact answers none of my questions on the topic.
The first in essence bears out the main criticism of the NIST report in that it deals only with WTC 1 and 2 and does not deal with WTC 7 which was of an entirely different construction. It also affirms that the flames from the aircraft fuel could not melt steel so does not explain the molten steel found under the rubble.
The second site complains about AE911Truth authors writing "outside their area of expertise". It is written by someone who describes himself as a "live speech writer and actor". Obviously an expert!
The third has a whinge about the producers of the 911Mysteries video "stealing" their video and adding explosions and police radio calls to it. Thanks to their showing the two versions over and over it became obvious that these were two different videos. In the one they claimed was their original is something that does not appear in the "copy" - an explosion of flame coming from one of the floors just below the level of the collapse.
The fourth is just a long PDF of the 911 Commission Report, which has been well and truly debunked.
I don't agree that you were wasting time. Your contribution has shown just how easy it is to expose the weakness of the official conspiracy theories.
, Saturday, 27 September 2008 4:38:58 AM
Sympneology “so does not explain the molten steel found under the rubble” Doesn’t have to. Remember the pile remained hot for a very long time after the collapse with the overbearing material keeping the heat in.
If you really want engineering information that describes how the collapses happened go to these:
When you have read all these come back and have a chat about the building collapses.
For the moment, I can comfortably ignore Steel. All writing that Steel doesn't agree with will be dismissed as a mixture of opinion and conjecture.
, Saturday, 27 September 2008 1:13:12 PM
You say >> “.I hope you realise that while nitpicking the conspiracy theories may highlight inconsistencies or inaccuracies here and there, it does not offer any explanation”
Are you serious? Did you miss the two 315,000lb planes flying into the twin towers at mach 0.75? They were the root cause of the collapse of the WTC1 and WTC2. As for WTC7. It was hit by massive pieces from the collapse of the twin towers. See
Frankly, the fact that WTC7 collapsed is evidence that this was not a conspiracy. I can understand placing explosives in buildings which you had idiots intending to fly into, but bringing down a building not hit by planes using explosives would be entirely unrealistic.
I went to the site you posted.
There were no scientific facts introduced at all. This is typical of conspiracy nut websites these days because all their original claims have been comprehensively debunked.
The “9/11 truth movement”, surely an ironic misnomer if ever there was one, now suggests that the real evidence for the conspiracy theory is Motive and Capability. Ie the US gov’t had a motive and they had the capability.
So please show me the physical evidence which proves that the WTC 1,2 and 7, were demolished using explosives.
BTW, The implication must be that every scientist/engineer who has examined the evidence and agrees with the official explanation, must be part of the conspiracy.
Maybe those on OLO are conspirators as well.
, Saturday, 27 September 2008 2:22:18 PM
Agronomist and Paul.L - you're completely on the money here. Kudos to you for bothering to refute this nonsense (for the umpteenth time in the blogosphere, as well as more serious forums). As should be obvious, I'm not inclined to give this "9/11 Truth" crap any oxygen at all.
As should also be obvious, "sock puppets" are a pet hate of mine and I delight in outing them. I have this thing about honesty in discourse, a concept that doesn't seem to be shared by some people who post regularly to OLO. It's quite satisfying to expose lies when they are deployed, particularly when it's done by those who invite robust responses by their manner of articulating their opinions.
James Sinnamon/daggett/cacofonix/et al - my post's still there. On re-reading it, I still think it's a quite reasonable response to your antics here. Apparently, the moderator agrees - indeed, I would have been surprised if your smug use of multiple identities would have been supported, given your open flouting of the forum rules.
However, as I've said, so long as you keep your sock puppets in the drawer I won't draw attention to them.
, Saturday, 27 September 2008 5:18:24 PM
'Sympneology “so does not explain the molten steel found under the rubble” Doesn’t have to. Remember the pile remained hot for a very long time after the collapse with the overbearing material keeping the heat in.'
Yes, it does have to. Remember that the report said that the burning fuel was not hot enough to melt steel. So while the overbearing material kept the heat in that does not explain how the steel melted in the first place.
, Saturday, 27 September 2008 5:58:04 PM
I am surprised you folk are even bothering to give this thread space and time.
Most "conspiracy theories" are the ravings of minds with more time to spare than jobs or purpose to fulfill or the small minded envy of under achievers, as an excuse for their personal failings.
The idea that 9/11 was due to CIA/FBI US Government incompetence would be laughable if it were not so offensive a suggestion.
Better leave the feeble minded to play with their conspiracy theories and pull their welfare cheques, at least we can keep an eye on them and be ready when their paranoia gets out of hand(like lab rats).
, Saturday, 27 September 2008 6:22:41 PM
Sympneology, Ignorance is indeed bliss. Is that the best you can do?
Who said the metal melted in the towers?
The data in this paper
concludes that the evidence is metal removal from the beams occurred after the building had collapsed and while the beam was exposed to the fire in the rubble pile.
The first reports of molten steel under the towers came 6 weeks afterwards in the American Free Press.
, Saturday, 27 September 2008 6:28:04 PM
I went to the site you posted.
There were no scientific facts introduced at all. This is typical of conspiracy nut websites these days because all their original claims have been comprehensively debunked."
No scientific facts were intended to be introduced, just a pointer to the fact that your claims to have "comprehensively debunked" the 9/11Truth movement have been themselves debunked.
"So please show me the physical evidence which proves that the WTC 1,2 and 7, were demolished using explosives."
Molten steel for a start. Only explosives like thermate are capable of producing the molten steel found, not aviation fuel in WTC 1 and 2 nor office fires in WTC 7. If not by explosions, how did the steel melt?
"The implication must be that every scientist/engineer who has examined the evidence and agrees with the official explanation, must be part of the conspiracy."
Not necessarily. Most people find it very hard to contemplate the dreadful implications of accepting the culpability of the US Government in committing such an atrocity. Much better to scapegoat a few aliens.
, Saturday, 27 September 2008 6:32:45 PM
CJM wrote: "Agronomist and Paul.L - you're completely on the money here. ..."
That's a stunning contribution!
It seems that those of us who judged CJM as having no ideas of his own were way too quick off the mark.
CJM wrote: "As should also be obvious, 'sock puppets' are a pet hate of mine and I delight in outing them. ... It's quite satisfying to expose lies when they are deployed, particularly when it's done by those who invite robust responses by their manner of articulating their opinions."
So who needs to argue the facts with achievements like that under one's belt?
CJM wrote, "... Apparently, the moderator agrees ..."
I am still awaiting his response. If he sees nothing wrong with the way you have conducted yourself, I would be astounded.
Anyway, anyone wanting further lessons in "honesty in discourse" stay tuned to CJM's posting history at
, Saturday, 27 September 2008 7:09:55 PM
It seems that James Sinnamon/daggett/cacofonix/et al is more interested in protecting his sock puppets than defending his preposterous thread. From my perspective they're equally bulldust, but I guess James feels he needs to prioritise his formidable credibility.
Thanks to James for directing readers to my posting history. Those who follow the link will see that I delight in lampooning frootloops and bullsh!t artists, not to mention those who promulgate fear and loathing in the community.
James and his sock puppets fit well into that range of deserved targets of derision.
I await James Sinnamon's next tightly packed 350 word missive in defence of his entitlement to flout the rules under which the rest of us mere mortals engage in debate at OLO.
, Saturday, 27 September 2008 7:57:11 PM
Agronomist, That site reinforces the argument for controlled demolition, i.e. the office fires in WTC 7 could not have melted the steel sufficiently to cause the building to collapse at near free-fall speed.
For a good look at the physics involved see:
, Saturday, 27 September 2008 10:22:26 PM
I am not an expert and I still have a long way to go to understand all the claims and counterclaims. However I thought it was necessary to have a proper discussion of this on OLO, and thanks to a few people more knowledgeable than I, this is beginning to happen.
As I made clear, essentially from watching or listening to others argue over this, I can't accept the official U.S. Government conspiracy theory.
One thing that threw me a few days ago was learning that well known 'skeptic' Michael Shermer had embraced the official conspiracy theory and hade denounced the 9/11 Truth movement. However, listening to the radio debate on
quickly made it clear that Shermer's word should not be considered final on this.
As I learnt from one of the links above another famous skeptic has also come out against the 9/11 Truth movememt. That person is James Randi who, from the 1970's, exposed Paranormals such as Uri Geller as frauds.
No doubt having such celbrites in the camp of the supporters of the official conspiracy theory will have caused many who would have been more open minded to dismiss the alternative conspiracies theories out of hand.
Anyhow, here is what I found to be an intesting article about James Randi's stance on 9/11 by someone who had otherwise had a great deal of admiration for him:
, Sunday, 28 September 2008 1:10:51 AM
What a fascinating thread this has become!
daggett (who has always made clear his real identity as James Sinnamon), in his opening post, claimed to have somehow touched raw nerves in raising the issue of the '9/11 Truth Movement' in another discussion. He made it, in my view, reasonably clear that he felt no compulsion to embrace either position in relation thereto. He just seemed disquieted. The existence of raw nerves has clearly become more evident as the thread, and latterly, the discussion, has proceeded.
As one who was not even aware that WTC 7 had come down, let alone had any active interest in the controversy, I was fascinated to read, in the link provided by Sympneology in his post of Friday 26 September 2008 at 4:44:43 AM, this quote from David Ray Griffin:
"To be a credible, responsible defender of either the official or alternative theory about the WTC collapses, one need not have a degree in physics, engineering or any other technical field. What one needs is the ability to read with comprehension, to evaluate evidence, and to draw logical conclusions from that evidence. Our entire judicial system depends on the ability of laypeople - judges and jury members - to evaluate the testimony of competing experts."
Could not encapsulate my view better!
I note Sympneology's views expressed in this post:
. I think it to be potentially relevant to this controversy. Since one picture is better than a thousand words, here are a number of pictures in that vein:
. One at least relates to 9/11.
Without wishing to divert the discussion, I would be interested in Sympneology's view as to why this post has appeared to be a thread-killer:
Refocussing upon the WTC events, these thoughts may have some potential relevance:
All in all, a fascinating insight as to what OLO is all about.
, Sunday, 28 September 2008 7:33:15 AM
Thanks, FG for showing your appreciation for the fact that I had set up this thread.
In fact, I was bracing myself for no responses other than disinterest, dismissal, derision or even more hysterical self-righteous moral indignation, an example of which I showed at the start of the thread. The fact that the person who told me that I should beg "forgiveness from the souls perished and their families for (my?!) atrocity" hasn't said anything similar here shows that at least that much ground has been conquered.
Thanks also FG for drawing people's attention to the fact that 'daggett' has never concealed his true identity (and I don't, in general, judge others who choose to post anonymously). I was once accused by a person well known to all of us here of having done that when commenting on one of my own articles, even though the link to my own home page was at the bottom of every post. It seems that some people believe that once someone appears to be guilty of having broken one rule, then they have the right to hurl any other accusation they choose regardless of the substance.
Anyhow, as people have unfortuntley witnessed, it is futile to attempt to reason about these questions. If anyone wishes to discuss further what has been said of me I can be reached through the link to my home page.
At the moment the threat of being suspended from OLO for a month is hanging over my head. At least if that occurs, some will be happy to know that I won't be the only person who is to be suspended.
I pointed out to the moderator that when I made the complaint, that being suspended myself is one outcome I had anticipated. Nevertheless, I thought that the issues I raised were sufficiently serious towarrant my taking that risk.
If I suddenly vanish from OLO (and I pointed out to the moderator I might not bother to return if the problems I have faced on OLO continue), I may choose to say more about this at
, Sunday, 28 September 2008 10:35:27 AM
You say >> “No scientific facts were intended to be introduced, just a pointer to the fact that your claims to have "comprehensively debunked" the 9/11Truth movement have been themselves debunked”
I BEG YOUR PARDON?? ?? The entire proof that Popular Mechanics and 911 Debunked have been themselves debunked, consists of a nitwit on a website who says so. That’s your proof?
Worse, I go to the site you directed Agronomist to see the “physics” evidence,
There I read this >> “What struck me first was the way the second plane hit WTC2, the South Tower. I noticed that this plane, United Airlines Flight 175, which weighed over 160,000 pounds and was traveling at 350 mph, did not even visibly move the building when it slammed into it. How, I wondered, could a building that did not visibly move from a heavy high speed projectile collapse at near freefall speed less than an hour later? “
Highly scientific this bloke.
Claims – This is the first time a steel framed building collapsed ever,
The response - In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Note the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. … In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.
, Sunday, 28 September 2008 12:25:06 PM
Claims - Towers fell at free fall speed.
Response - The towers did NOT fall at freefall speeds. You can see from the pictures that debris is falling faster than the building itself. Real engineer/physicists calculated that the time needed for a top floor to collapse was approximately 1/10th of a second, although this time decreased dramatically as the building fell, and greater forces were applied to each floor.
See this conspiracy nut footage of the twin towers falling. In the first minute you see towers 1 and 2 falling, and you can clearly see large chunks of debris falling much faster than the buildings.
Pictures of the same can be seen here
Claims - WTC7 mysteriously imploded and fell to the ground in an astounding 6.5 seconds.
Response - According to NIST analysis of WTC 7 video, the building collapsed 18 stories in 5.3 seconds. If the building exhibited free fall, this process would have taken just 3.9 seconds. The actual collapse time exceeded the free fall time by 40 percent.
Organisations involved in the NIST report: Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).
I suppose they are all IN on the conspiracy as well?
Here is NIST’s response to many claims made by conspiracy theorists
You say >> "Only explosives like thermate are capable of producing the molten steel found, not aviation fuel in WTC 1 and 2 nor office fires in WTC 7. "
Thermate is not an explosive.
for a full discussion of molten steel hypothesis
, Sunday, 28 September 2008 12:39:27 PM
I know I said I wouldn't waste any more time on it but Forrest, you normally sound quite reasonable, so this for you.
Consider these two scenarios:
A relgious fanatic terrorist organisation decides to plot one of the biggest acts of terrorism in history on what they think are their biggest enemies. They have a history of attacking military and civilian targets like battleships and embassies.
They realise that to make any kind of impact, they need to do it with multiple people and multiple targets, because all theor previous plots involving only one target have either been stopped or fail to make much impact.
(Multiple targets, multiple cells get through- this is now the satandard mode of operation Al-Qaeda.)
Now, they plot and plan in secret over several years in small groups for the attack that will happen by surprise all at once on one single day.
Other Muslim terrorist organisations that they have links to have hijacked planes before and they know what works and how to do it, this is likely one of the techniques that is taught in the camps in Afghanistan, or previously Libya. Lots of Libyan-sponsored terrorists used to hijack planes.
In one hour they manage to be spectacularly successful because it comes as a complete surprise. Job done. America is seriously butthurt and commences a campaign of war and retribution that engulfs the Muslim world and enables them to call for jihad to anyone who will listen.
In this scenario, the american government acts opportunistically and encourages jingoism so that they can deliver their package of pain to their enemies wherever they are and seriously think they can change the world for the better by hard military action, lack of which by the previous administration they believed caused the problem in the first place.
, Sunday, 28 September 2008 2:47:36 PM
Elements of the American government/corporate/military (mix and match as you wish) secretly plots to gain for themselves more power and influence, or just want an excuse to start a war and make money.
So they engineer a massive demolition involving the three towers, a missile strike on the pentagon and a crashed jet in Pennsylvania.
This they do in total secrecy, without anyone coming forward, anonymously leaking details or anything like that. They lay hundreds to thousands of explosives charges for the demolition under the cover of secrecy in exactly the right spots, then wait until the time is ritght and they can crash the planes into the buildings and set off the charges. I goes off perfectly, the towers come down killing a couple of thousand civilians, the third tower gets pulled after seven hours and the Pentagon gets hit with a direct missle strike that does the job and nobody sees exactly what it is. This they are able to do in front of thousands of witnesses, with video and photogrqphs from every angle from all the news channels streaming live.
Now, the real work begins. They have to make sure that everyone involved doesn't tip off anyone else not involved, even anonymously.
They have to pay off and/or influence all the official investigators that will be commissioned to do the reconstructions and make sure that no explosive residues are tested for or found by cleanup crews. Not only do they have to seriously pervert the course of a massive investigation involving thousands of agents from law enforcement and intelligence organisations, but they have to be able to pin it on a known terrorist_group and make it stick. This they have done for years and must continue to do forever.
Which one is more likely?
I'm not saying that it cannot happen, but to have so many individuals involved that were all so amoral as to be involved in it for money or political reasons and to not have ANY of them sell out their co-conspirators nor have a twinge of conscience about it?
, Sunday, 28 September 2008 2:58:52 PM
Do you believe in coincidences?
The 9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers maintain that the collapse of the twin towers can be explained because:
1. a 767 had never been flown into such a building before, and
2. the construction was radically different from anything else before.
Yet WTC7's construction was far more conventional and no 767 had been flown into that (as I believe someone pointed out earlier).
It strikes me as too great a coincidence that WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 all happened to collapse on the same day in ways that looked exactly like controlled demolitions, when no similar phenomenum that hs not been a controlled demolition has been observed before or since.
If you read the 9/11 Truth literature you would see that they also had to grapple with the awful implications of their theory being true.
Given the enormous deceit that U.S. has engaged in before, including its fraudulent case for the invasion of Iraq, it would not seem completely improbable that some would have been prepared in 2001 to take things a few steps further.
It is not necessary for thousands to have knowingly participated in the conspiracy. To have convered up for it as most of the 9/11 did woud have only required acceding to pressure to not probe too deeply as the link to the story provided by Pericles at
about how the 9/11 commission used evidence obtained under torture in their report.
Those who took away the steel from the collapsed WTC7 so fast need not have been in the know, even if they participated in the cover-up.
, Sunday, 28 September 2008 6:45:55 PM
The thing is, while the people participating in any cover-up do not have to be 'in the know', they do have to be kept from finding anything incriminating. You don't just have to make sure there's no evidence left, you have to make it fit the story. This doesn't just make the job harder, but exponentially so.
This doesn't just go for tower 1, 2 or 7. It goes for the Pentagon clean-up, it goes for the downed plane in Pennsylvania and subsequent clean-up and media coverage(or did that just 'not happen' as some were given to thinking). Independent researchers and investigators have to be kept from discovering anything that doesn't fit, because if they do, they need to either be eliminated or paid off right?
At the end of the day, all you have is a puddle of 'molten steel', and an observation of "that looks like a controlled demolition". Weak, mate, real weak.
Back to coincidences, the US administration us now fond of telling us that "the terrorists only have to get it right once, we have get it right 100% of the time". To flip it around a little, what's more likely, terrorists being lucky for a couple of hours or so, or a gigantic conspiracy that noone can seem to name being lucky for more than 7 years and counting. Until you brainiacs came along of course.
, Sunday, 28 September 2008 7:59:28 PM
I can see why you might go for a conspiracy theory like this, when you seem to believe that capitalism is a huge conspiracy perpetrated upon an unsuspecting public by the US gov’t.
You say >> “The 9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers maintain that the collapse of the twin towers can be explained because: 1. a 767 had never been flown into such a building before, and 2. the construction was radically different from anything else before.Yet WTC7's construction was far more conventional and no 767 had been flown into that (as I believe someone pointed out earlier).”
The twin towers fell only after fires weakened enough of the remaining columns to lead to total collapse. Those fires took only 56 and 102 minutes. WTC7 burned unattended for something like 9 hours. It also got sideswiped by 110 stories of the North Tower. There was a massive hole in WTC7 20 stories long caused by that collapse.
You say >> “Given the enormous deceit that U.S. has engaged in before, including its fraudulent case for the invasion of Iraq,”
Iraq had WMD even if they did not have them at the time of the invasion. The fact that Saddam continually thwarted the inspectors attempts to properly survey the country led to this mistake. The suggestion that this was a conspiracy is nonsense. In any case, even if it was it pales into absolute insignificance when compared with the groundwork and the number of people needed to pull off 911.
Can you tell me why Dagget, the Gov’t would choose to demolish WTC7 with explosives when no plane had flown into it? Or why they chose not to pull down 3,4,5 and 6 which were all much closer. Can you tell me how they managed to get the north tower to fall such that it caused fire and damage to WTC7.
, Sunday, 28 September 2008 8:14:32 PM
You say >> “It strikes me as too great a coincidence that WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 all happened to collapse on the same day in ways that looked exactly like controlled demolitions,”
Sorry what? The planes crashed into WTC1 and 2 on the same day. Those towers fell within 1.5hours and the north tower caused damage to WTC7 which in turn suffered a catastrophic failure 9 hours later.
Tell me why the US gov’t would demolish the buildings in a manner which looked like controlled demolition? They obviously didn’t care at all about casualties, why not put all the explosives on one side and make it look nothing like a controlled demolition? And Please don’t pretend for a second that they didn’t hav the capability. You conspiracy nuts whole case is built upon this idea that the US gov’t had UNLIMITED capability.
Finally, please tell me why these “conspirators” didn’t just detonate a dirty bomb, or even a small nuke? There are one hundred far easier ways to arouse the anger of the American public, that would have been far easier to carry out, far less costly in human lives, and far easier to cover up.
All this was carried out in full view of thousands of witnesses and hundreds of cameras. You suggest that not a single camera captured unequivocal evidence of demolition. How can that be. Its so unrealistic as to beggar the immagination
, Sunday, 28 September 2008 8:20:48 PM
Here is an explanation for the collapse of WTC 1&2 by a British scientist:
What I find problematic with his theory is that even if the loss of insulation made the steel deformable at less than 1500 degrees, that still does not explain the rapid collapse of the lower floors that were not affected by the flames.
, Monday, 29 September 2008 2:50:59 AM
Paul.L wrote, "The entire proof that Popular Mechanics and 911 Debunked have been themselves debunked, consists of a nitwit on a website who says so. That’s your proof?"
No it is not. Try reading what I wrote before shooting your mouth off. A pointer is just that, it points to something, in this case to David Ray Griffin's book "Debunking 9/11 Debunked". I recommend that you read it.
"Claims – This is the first time a steel framed building collapsed ever.
The response - In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses."
Here you go again, misquoting in order to demolish a straw man.
The claim was that it is the first time ever that a steel framed building has collapsed in seconds as a result of office fires. It referred to WTC7 which was not hit by a plane and did not have its fire-proofing removed.
"For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Note the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash."
The floors on fire were middle storeys, which were partly burnt out before the collapse. The Madrid/Windsor building had 29 floors above ground and burnt for 26 hours during which time the parts of the building which were not part of the concrete core sagged and fell at different times, not all at once in all parts simultaneously like WTC7.
, Monday, 29 September 2008 2:52:53 AM
"Claims - Towers fell at free fall speed.
Response - The towers did NOT fall at freefall speeds. You can see from the pictures that debris is falling faster than the building itself."
Again that is not the claim, he said "near freefall", read the article again. He says that Building 7 fell in 6.5 seconds which is 0.5 seconds longer than free fall in a vacuum. Quote: "The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum."
"Claims - WTC7 mysteriously imploded and fell to the ground in an astounding 6.5 seconds.
Response - According to NIST analysis of WTC 7 video, the building collapsed 18 stories in 5.3 seconds. If the building exhibited free fall, this process would have taken just 3.9 seconds. The actual collapse time exceeded the free fall time by 40 percent."
Heller was calculating the speed of fall of all 47 storeys, not just 18 of them. Even so, for 18 floors of a steel framed buildig with only two of them on fire to collapse in 5.3 seconds is still pretty incredible. Heller has degrees in physics and architecture and is entirely independent of the US administration.
, Monday, 29 September 2008 2:54:15 AM
What a shame, we'll miss you.
, Monday, 29 September 2008 10:16:46 AM
If buildings collapsed this beautifully and cleanly without a single explosive charge or similar device, then they wouldn't need demolition teams to implode buildings. Nor would it require the whole buildings to be rigged and preped.
Secondly there are signs that certain groups knew about the attacks beforehand....it's literally unbelievable that the CIA failed to detect and US internal security failed at precisely the right time.
, Monday, 29 September 2008 1:02:25 PM
You're right. We would be much better off flying 767's fully loaded with people and fuel into buildings we want demolished
, Monday, 29 September 2008 1:05:09 PM
“Steel “it's literally unbelievable that the CIA failed to detect and US internal security failed at precisely the right time.”
I recall the CIA did not even realize, back in 1989, that the USSR was about to “implode”.
, Monday, 29 September 2008 1:59:09 PM
The television interview with Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth is worth look (labelled "AE911 stuns Vancouver with local TV interview") lasting 20 minutes near the top left of the
is worth a look. Many of the sorts of questions being asked here were asked of Richard Gage.
, Monday, 29 September 2008 9:11:01 PM
They couldn't even keep the bugging of the watergate hotel secret.
How are they going to keep the total wiring of three massive buildings with 1000's of explosive charges, secret.
Nothing is secret anymore. No one takes their secret to the grave.
That there are people out there who believe that the US gov't could convince enough people that it was a good idea to blow up the WTC's, the pentagon, etc, and carry it out, just astounds me. There is no precedent for this kind of evil.
Can those who believe that the US gov't wanted to go to war, tell me why they couldn't have engineered a "tonkin gulf" type incident.
I mean, a small dirty bomb blowing up in the no-fly zone would have precipitated an invasion of Iraq. In fact why did this same gov't which perpretrated this great evil on its own people, let the fact that there were no WMD's in Iraq at the time of the invasion get out? Surely if the could pull off the greatest conspiracy ever, they could find some pretend WMD's to keep the public happy?
, Monday, 29 September 2008 9:49:10 PM
Be careful not to create a strawman conspiracy theory. There are many differeing theories about the extent and degree of complicity by various agencies.
Also I think my prior comment already questions your interpretation. If the buildings fell due to an uneven fire on 1-2 levels of a building, then you would only have to lay charges on one level of the building to collapse them.
, Monday, 29 September 2008 10:58:25 PM
The site for that video of the Richard Gage interview is
It is well worth watching.
, Tuesday, 30 September 2008 3:13:33 AM
'You say >> "Only explosives like thermate are capable of producing the molten steel found, not aviation fuel in WTC 1 and 2 nor office fires in WTC 7."
Thermate is not an explosive.
Wikipedia says: "Thermate is a variation of thermite and is an incendiary pyrotechnic composition that can generate short bursts of exceedingly high temperatures focused on a small area for a short period of time. It is used primarily in incendiary grenades."
So it "can generate short bursts of exceedingly high temperatures focused on a small area for a short period of time", i.e. it is a type of explosive.
Note that the "full discussion of molten steel hypothesis" only refers to thermite, not thermate which also contains sulfur.
, Tuesday, 30 September 2008 4:08:27 AM
Without entering into the controversy (I haven't read myself in yet) as to whether the WTC collapses were essentially controlled demolitions, I have gained the impression that a possible role of thermate, should it have figured in the events, is somewhat misunderstood.
My reading of the Wiki article informs me that thermate is an enhancement of thermite, thermite being incendiary in nature more so than explosive.
Typically the thermite reaction is used to weld, in situ, large structural steel components. Railway line joins are a common example. The reaction both heats up the abutting structural components to what, in forging terms, would be described as welding temperature, and also deposits molten iron produced by reduction in the thermite charge into the gap. The molten iron is retained in the gap by what amounts to a foundry mould built around the joint, and the molten iron from the charge intermingles with the melt achieved on the ends of the structural members, thus effecting the weld. The joint is not required to bear load until cooled.
I should imagine that if sufficient thermite, or thermate, was to be ignited adjacent to a load bearing steel column, a sudden failure would shortly ensue. Whether such failure would be accompanied by explosion-like noise I am unsure, but I suspect it might be.
I also suspect that it may be possible to apply, or emplace, thermite to a vertical column in a manner somewhat like the operation of a thermic lance. Thermic lances are used, for example, to cut (by melting) channels in solid granite beds in the process of quarrying the stone.
I don't know whether that helps resolve anything.
Also, should it be that a controlled demolition did occur, is it a necessary corollary that it would have been effected by 'black ops' agencies of the US government?
BTW, interesting to see that it was daggett that copped the claimed suspension. I had gained the impression that it was he who had acted appropriately in seeking a new topic, and had posted consistently to it subsequently. Other things involved, perhaps.
, Tuesday, 30 September 2008 6:24:06 AM
Just by way of further clarification to my last post regarding the assisted failure of load-bearing columns via the use of thermate, I suggest it may not be necessary to melt the whole cross-section of a column to produce a failure.
I do not pretend to any engineering qualifications, nor to knowledge of the precise design of the columns in question, but it strikes me that if only sufficient of the metal and/or concrete constituting the column was melted to reduce its remaining strength to less than that required to sustain its share of the load, then there would likely occur a catastrophic failure of the remaining unmelted part of the section.
That might mean that significantly less thermate may have been required in any such scenario than might otherwise have been imagined. It would be interesting to have civil engineering views on this possibility.
I have already obliquely referred, by means of this link (
) in a previous post, to the earlier supposedly terrorist attack upon the WTC some years before 2001. It seems appropriate to now bring it to mind explicitly in this thread, as not all viewers follow all links given. Indeed, I myself have not yet done so.
I should imagine that at least parts, if not all, of the WTC would have been on that earlier occasion evacuated and treated as a crime scene. The issue of any perpetrators of a controlled demolition having had sufficient access to the structure to emplace their preparations has legitimately been raised by other posters in this thread. I question whether the earlier incident could have constituted such opportunity.
Was I a juror, and this controversy the evidence in a trial, I would be beginning to have reasonable doubts as to whether responsibility for the event had been properly allocated.
BTW I note daggett's topic has now reached the ton in regard to the number of posts. Not that I am trying to suggest that quantity equates necessarily with quality.
Have a restful productive suspension, daggett.
, Tuesday, 30 September 2008 10:40:29 AM
Sorry about the bad link, and thanks for giving the correct link.
It would be interesting to see if any of those who agree with the US government position are able to present their case as well in an interview as did Richard Gage.
Are there any other videos or audios on 9/11 that you would particularly recommend? There certainly seem to be a lot.
To go off-topic, has anyone seen Michael Moore's "Sicko"?
I wouldn't want to spoil it for anyone who has not seen it, but one of the topics dealt with is the poor treatment of many of the 9/11 rescue workers.
, Tuesday, 30 September 2008 10:59:03 PM
I am a mother, farmer, potter , have a Science degree from 25 years ago. I have believed 911 was an inside job for about 7 years. Have seen city people become extremely disconnected from nature and the bush in the last 10 years. I thought during the '90s that it was really strange where city people's thinking was going - and now we have arrived where city people believe in many lies of the criminals in the Liberal, Labor. Greens, and Nationals.
I thought the Iranian taxi driver in New York I heard as reported on AM on the 12th September 2001 was right when he said it was the work of the CIA/Mossad.
Today things got even more ludicrous when Garnaut was stating on the country hour on ABC that we should graze kangaroos instead of cattle. My husband and daughter were both laughing as they were just about to shift some cattle in the truck and they were imagining shifting hopping kangaroos.
The ABC is in bed with Garnaut and the whole global warming government garbage. They are trying to get rid of little farmers like us and sell us out to big coal and gas corporations. They will have to shoot us , we will never sell out.
I saw this this morning - Howard and Harper of Canada made exactly the same speech to kill a million many of them innocent Iraqis - we all have blood on our hands for allowing that to happen - we should be very ASHAMED.
, Wednesday, 1 October 2008 2:11:38 PM
This post, the one hundred and fourth that has been made to this thread, but now appearing as the one hundred and third to the OLO viewer, is made as a matter of record.
It is a 'carcase post'.
It takes note of the fact that for a brief period earlier this morning a post by the Lord High Dymo, Scourge of all the Sock-Puppets, Thread-Labeller-in-Chief of OLO, once appeared in this place.
It would be useful to know, in the interests of encouragement of more courteous and constructive discussion on OLO generally, whether the brevity of this appearance was due to a post deletion request by a user, an unsolicited one-off moderation decision, or because a temporary suspension had been somehow evaded before the post was noticed by the OLO administration.
I have been of the understanding that in the case of a suspension the subject userID is automatically blocked by the site software. Is that truly so, I wonder?
I'm not attempting to call into question this moderation decision. My own mouse cursor was at one time hovering over the post deletion request button, but I restrained my index finger, not wanting to be mean. In the interests of better opinionating, can we have some explanation for the removal of the Lord Dymo's post, if that can be productively done without generating contention?
Welcome to OLO, Von. Try not to feel too ashamed on your own behalf about the war in Iraq. Australia's participation might have been seen as necessary Wergild for Pearl Harbour. See:
and subsequent posts in the thread.
, Thursday, 2 October 2008 9:08:10 AM
Ya better watch out, Graham's got an itchy trigger finger lately.
, Thursday, 2 October 2008 9:33:58 AM
Some say 9/11 was an Islamist_attack.
Others say it was an inside_job/false_flag operation by CIA/mossad etc.
Still others, while not denying either of the 2 above, claim it was the judgement_of_God. They extended this by connecting it to, among other things the gay and Lesbian movements and tolerance of them.
I wish to explore the possibility that whoever is behind it, it may indeed consitute some of the characteristics of divine judgement/wakeupcall/reminder.
When a nation becomes so obsessed with greed and gluttony, with materialism and moral miopia, they fall into the category of the Israelites when the prophets such as Isaiah addressed them.
15) When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even if you offer many prayers,
I will not listen.
Your hands are full of blood;
One prophet who stand out not by the length of his oration/prophecy, but by its nature is Habakkuk.
Just 3 short chapters (compared to Isaiah's 66)
He writes: (Ch 1)
4 Therefore the law is paralyzed,
and justice never prevails.
The wicked hem in the righteous,
so that justice is perverted.
Sounds like a litigeous and greedy society to me.. Wall Street by any chance?
Gods response is that Judgement is coming.
6 I am raising up the Babylonians,
that ruthless and impetuous people,
who sweep across the whole earth
to seize dwelling places not their own.
One might be tempted without further reading to think that God saw some righteous quality in the Babylonians which suited them to be the 'stick' in His hand.. Habbakuk even asks God this
12) O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment;
O Rock, you have ordained them to punish.
Why are you silent while the wicked
swallow up those more righteous than themselves?
Indeed...why use people worse than the Israelites to punish the Israelites? Reason...they were mean't to be the source of salvation and righteousness to the world in God's name.
It was not that the Babylonians (or Saudis in the planes) were more righteous than the Americans.. but that America simply needed judgement.
, Saturday, 4 October 2008 10:30:38 AM
That settles it then - God did it!
, Sunday, 5 October 2008 8:15:15 AM
....and the CIA are his Chosen People...
, Sunday, 5 October 2008 8:52:57 AM
Thank you for an interesting thread Daggett.
I'm not sufficiently researched to make much comment, however, I remain intrigued over the BBC's lame excuse for their pre-empted reporting of Building Seven's collapse.
What do you make of that Daggett:?
, Sunday, 5 October 2008 1:35:06 PM
Thank you Dickie, Forrest Gump et al.
It's gratifying to know that some who are posting to this forum take the issue seriously independently of the issue of myself having been accused of having broken an OLO rule.
I have been suspended as FG correctly deduced, but at least I was not the only one. So, even if the suspension was not applied as diligently to all parties and even if the lengths of suspensions turned out not to be equal, contrary to what had been implied, then at least some good has come of it.
If suspension for one week is the price on has to pay around here for having stood up to bullying and trolling and for having referred to a moron as a moron, then fine.
PolyCarp, I really fail to see how introducing religious views into this discussions helps us to sort out whether or not the official US government explanation of the 9/11 attacks can be believed.
Gotta go now :( Will be back later this week.
, Monday, 6 October 2008 3:16:28 PM
well.. all I'm doing is giving a perspective.
You might call it 'what goes around comes around'.... on steroids.
CJ might be right "God did it" :)
But I take this rather 'outer limits' perspective because this thread might have been better termed "9/11 misinformation" mainly because we are all so distant from the events and can only go by the info we glean from many sources. Some or all of which might be deliberately set up to produce a predictable outcome.
To me.. the idea of a grand CIA/usa Conspiracy to do this is so beyond absurd that it defies description. You would expect a government to approach such a thing in a MUCH MUCH better, more controllable, tighter manner where there is no room for speculation.
The amount of planning that such a conspiracy of this scale would entail is gainormous/humungous and ..just plain over the top.
There was sooooo many loose ends to tie up... it would have been SOO much cleaner to arrange a different approach.
Next we will be hearing how the first attempt to blow up the WTC was ALSO a CIA conspiracy... wont we?
We are wasting our time trying to be judge jury and executioner of the US government here. I just ask 'who benefits' from that line of enquiry?
That kinda says it all
, Tuesday, 7 October 2008 3:57:39 PM
Just briefly, I believe that the blackmail used against US Gongressmen recently in order to have the US$700 billion bailout legislation rushed through Congress after it had been rejected once is not altogether unrelated.
Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich contrasted the atmosphere of fear and panic that was used to stampede the Congressional Representatives into voting to hand across US taxpayers' money to the Wall Street Corporate criminals to the words of President Franklin Roosevelt back in the 1930's, when he said that "We have nothing to fear but fear itself". There's some very good YouTube broadcasts on this. (I haven't time to get them right now. My apologies.)
is worth a look.
, Thursday, 9 October 2008 11:23:50 AM
Perhaps when you have time you (or one of your sock puppets)could also illuminate us about such related conspiracies as the faked NASA Moon landing, the Mafia/CIA assassination of JFK and the abduction by a Chinese submarine of Harold Holt?
, Thursday, 9 October 2008 1:20:57 PM
Oh Lord High Dymo, doeth not thou this skating upon thin ice. Prithee, think but of the hearts in the mouths of the lookers-on. For the text thou hast chosen for this lesson is surely the text thou chose but few days past, when thou causest some to look daggets at thou.
Breathless, the cloud of OLO witnesses look on, horror struck.
Waiting for the axe to fall upon thy Lordly neck.
Hark, is that not the echo of the measured tread of Moderation that we hear?
I pray thee, Lord Dymo, take down thy post and walk.
Show the unbelieving that thou canst manipulate which posts stay, and which be taken down.
By all the Sock Puppets, I wouldst not have thought to see this day!
Oh give not cause for this wordly blood-sport, Lord Dymo, to claim thy head. Label forthwith for us the sock puppet that has caused this dread to come upon the Forum. Yea, verily we shall all gang up upon the wicked one(s). Give but the word that truly thou only knowest: out Damned Spot.
Can we not cast ducks' guts upon the pavement in propitiation for this thy bold and daring deed?
Leave us not in this way, unlabelled and adrift in the ocean of our own opinionating, unguided in our thoughts.
, Thursday, 9 October 2008 2:26:58 PM
Sign of the cross: "Spectacles, testicles, wallet and watch" and Amen to that FG!
, Thursday, 9 October 2008 2:43:16 PM
Very droll, Forrest.
I thought I was being nice, in inviting James to exercise further his lively imagination.
, Thursday, 9 October 2008 10:16:00 PM
"It was not that the Babylonians (or Saudis in the planes) were more righteous than the Americans.. but that America simply needed judgement."
Babylon is not in Saudi Arabia, it is in Iraq, and the idea that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 has been exposed as just another one of the Bush/Cheney lies designed to advance the PNAC agenda by panicking the people into supporting the illegal invasion of Iraq.
I am still puzzled as to how 19 Islamist terrorists managed to board the four aircraft without any of their names appearing on the passenger manifests. Don't they have to show a photo ID at check-in?
, Friday, 10 October 2008 12:59:31 AM
Thanks for the link to
I ask the supporters of the official conspiracy theory on this forum: How else can these words by Sliverstein, be explained other than than with knowledge that WTC7 had been prepared for demolition?
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they weren't sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. And I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And then they made that decision to pull -- and then we watched the building collapse."
The facts that Larry Silverstein owned WTC7 and that only a "mere two months before 9/11, he bought the entire complex; all seven of the buildings. Then he immediately took out a record insurance policy on them for over $3.5 billion, which he has since been paid" are yet more of the phenomenal number of coincidences related to the 9/11 attacks.
A good, but very long video presentation on the coincidence theory necessary for the official conspiracy official theory to stand up versus the alternative conspiracy theories can be found in the broadcast at
In that you will learn that all kinds of very well credentialed people of most kinds of political persuasions reject the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks (See also
mentioned above by Sympneology). These include William Christisen who worked as a CIA analyst for 28 years and Colonel Robert Bowman USAF. His details are:
Colonel Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force [ret] - Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech)
, Friday, 10 October 2008 12:59:01 PM
Colonel Robert Bowman said:
"A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It's impossible. ...
"I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover-up, is that they were aware of impending attacks and let them happen. ... that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder."
Another very satisfying broadcast is about the phony 9/11 hero and U.S. Republican Presidential aspirant Rudy Giuliani running from firefighters in Des Moines at
I note that CJ Moron has yet to demonstrate any comprehension whatsoever of the case against the official explanation for the 9/11 attacks.
, Friday, 10 October 2008 1:00:55 PM
James Sinnamon et al: << CJ Moron >>
Now James, nowhere in our fascinating conversation in this thread have I called you names, although many have come to mind. I have no intention to respond in kind to your attempt to rekindle the flame war that got us both suspended for a week, but I do want to reiterate my opinion that I think that your 9/11 conspiracy fantasy is rubbish.
Of course, that's why I mentioned categorically similar conspiracy theories in my last post. As a former anthropologist, I've long been fascinated by conspiracy theories and urban myths, of which the "9/11 Truth" is shaping up to be something of a classic.
I have absolutely no objection to you raising the topic for discussion in this forum, however silly at may be. Indeed, I find the sheer elaboration of the paranoia quite fascinating. There's quite a corpus of academic literature about these kinds of conspracy theories and the kinds of people who subscribe to them.
That doesn't mean, however, that it's worth playing tedious evidential games where tendentious rants from aggrieved nobodies are accorded equivalent weight with the bulk of the credible evidence. As we all know, the Internet is replete with spurious "evidence" to support anything - and it seems that lots of people who know no better are prepared to accept it as authoritative.
I don't know why you feel the need to use sock puppets, and I don't really care. However, I think that by trotting out the "cacofonix" sock puppet identity and calling me a moron, you're trying to pick a fight again.
I'm not going to play, but I still think your premise is rubbish.
, Friday, 10 October 2008 10:48:26 PM
CJ Moron wrote: "That doesn't mean, however, that it's worth playing tedious evidential games ..."
I ask again: So, why are you here?
CJ Moron wrote: "I don't know why you feel the need to use sock puppets, and I don't really care. ..."
So, why are you here?
CJ Moron wrote, "... However, I think that by trotting out the "cacofonix" sock puppet identity and calling me a moron, you're trying to pick a fight again."
But it takes two to make a fight, doesn't it?
All you needed to do was to have walked quietly away from this forum, which you still insist is a complete waste of time, or better still, not have bothered to post that first comment accusing me without any substantiation, of being "a tad obsessive", and there could not possibly have possibly been a fight.
The reason I choose to address you as "CJ Moron" and not as "CJ Morgan", is, as I put it to you earlier, either you are a moron or you are pretending to be a moron. As I can't be completely sure that the former is not the case, I feel that I am entitled to assume the former until such time as you can demonstrate to me that you were only pretending to be a moron.
A good way to convince me that you were only pretending to be a moron would be to demonstrate a comprehension of the evidence presented in this forum against the official U.S. Government explanation of the 9/11 attacks and show me why you think it is wrong.
, Friday, 10 October 2008 11:38:20 PM
As daggett/cacofonix/whatever wrote just now:
"But it takes two to make a fight, doesn't it?
"All you needed to do was to have walked quietly away from this forum, which you still insist is a complete waste of time, or better still, not have bothered to post that first comment accusing me without any substantiation, of being "a tad obsessive", and there could not possibly have possibly been a fight."
The above was posted not in order to cause a fight with you, but in spite of that risk in order to post something of use to the discussion -- something you have proven yourself either incapable of doing or unwilling to do on the "9/11 Truth" forum.
, Saturday, 11 October 2008 12:20:06 AM
The above post was intended for the Forum "Australia and Canada: what cost cultural diversity?" at
and not for here.
, Saturday, 11 October 2008 12:28:34 AM
Sockpuppet 911 reporting for duty. Thought I would try a slightly different analytical approach (posted in two parts due to word limits):
Does anyone deny that there must have been a conspiracy by someone to fly those planes into the towers?
No. There had to be a plan and it had to be secret.
So, the only questions remaining are
- who originated
- who carried out
- the conspiracy
- and for what reason?
It seems that those who suspect the US government of having originated, or carried out, the conspiracy generally find it difficult to believe the explanation that the US government has authorized for the 9/11 incident. They usually find it difficult because they find either the motives, modus operandi or the identification of the guilty parties unbelievable for one reason or another.
They then tend to assume that, since the US government explanation for what happened fails to convince them, that the US government has fabricated the explanation. They then assume that the US had a motive to do so and that the US had a hand in carrying out the 9/11 operation itself and is now covering this up.
A motive most often assumed is the US desire to take control of Iraqui oil. One means of control would be through invasion. Another means would be by buying Iraqui oil.
, Saturday, 11 October 2008 10:42:14 AM
FLAW: It is not known why the US would not have chosen to buy the oil rather than to invade Iraq.
COUNTER: Such a query relies on US currency remaining competitive on the open oil market and that market remaining an open, global one.
Could be that private industry was seeking to expand into military operations and that all parties feared that the price of oil would go up or get beyond their control so they sought to be in a position to control oil and prices by force. This needs exploring and would take up a whole article in itself. Even though Iraq still owns its oil, I find no doubt that Iraq decisions on oil are dominated by the US or US contractors operating like a government.
But the US did invade Iraq. To be able to do this the US had to find a reason to invade Iraq, after having propped up its regime for a long time.
Why US conspiracy theorists find the US explanation and guilt assignment implausible:
The US uses the self-professed Islamic hatred and resentment of the West as the major explanation for a number of Muslims having purportedly flown planes into the two towers.
Why don’t people believe this? And why don’t they believe that the identified Muslims didn’t carry out this remarkable exploit?
Personally, I thought the whole thing had a distinctive Hollywood design, but I guess that such style is now international.
, Saturday, 11 October 2008 10:44:41 AM
Sockpuppet 911: << Personally, I thought the whole thing had a distinctive Hollywood design >>
Yes, it reminds me of Looney Tunes.
, Saturday, 11 October 2008 1:58:39 PM
Perhaps you would care to share your sick idea of a joke with US Army reservist and 9/11 first responder David Miller, now dying as a result of having ingested asbestos, PVC, mercury, etc, mixed in with the concrete pulverised by explosives planted and/or primed in the twin towers on the weekend before Tuesday 11 September 2001 (listen to IT worker Scott Forbes and others who worked in the towers on
At the end of a YouTube broadcast at
David Miller spoke:
"It's only been 5 years - 5 years of our family members watching us
drop dead - and every time Popular Mechanics (
calls the people of this movement 'nuts', these propagandists,
professional liars and tools, who cannot by any stretch of the
imagination be considered journalists, strike another nail into the
coffin of a rescue worker, and every time Time magazine dismisses
real hard physical evidence that a new investigation needs to be
launched into how concrete was pulverised - every time Time magazine
dismisses that evidence and instead writes a two page article about
the psychology of the conspiracy movement, they perpetuate this
build-up of people in very, very coordinated efforts to try to take
this movement apart. We, who are still dying from 9/11, who went to
those towers and into that pile, who now live with those buildings
in our lungs and our digestive systems and our blood, and if you
allow these scumbags to strip you and this movement of all of its
legitimacy, you condemn the first respondents to death."
... and while you're at it CJM, why don't you explain to him how you find "the sheer elaboration of the paranoia" so fascinating but regard his explanations of the physical evidence as a "tendentious rants" and why don't you tell him that you believe him to be an "aggrieved nobody"?
However, if you find that you don't have the courage of your convictions, CJM, then why not, instead, crawl back into the hole from whence you came and leave the rest of us in peace?
, Saturday, 11 October 2008 4:00:00 PM
Nobody likes being called a nutbag, especially when you are.
Hey, being a "first responder" gives ones views no more legitimacy than say, being a failed political candidate or online ranter. All sorts of people can get angry, and everyone is legitimately angry. However some are not legitimately angry at the right people for the right things. It is one thing to be angry at the Bush administration for being politically opportunist in invading Iraq, it is quite another to accuse them of engineering the original attack to do so.
I will call you a nutbag, because denying the truth in favour of some fantasyland pipedream makes me angry at the complete disrespect you show for the victims, the agencies and agents charged with obtaining the truth and protecting us. CJ Morgan is quite correct in thinking that you are in total denial of reality and recruiting the words of other nutters that happened to be on the scene does nothing for the credibility of your argument.
I suggest you take your own advice James.
, Saturday, 11 October 2008 4:27:20 PM
(Firstly, whoever it was who posted under the account 'cacofonix' recently was neither daggett posting as 'cacofonix' nor cacofonix himself. I will come back to those posts later.)
Actually, I consider it a complement to be labelled a 'nutbag' by the likes of yourself and CJM. All the same, personal attacks are no substitute for discussing the evidence.
Obviously, being a 9/11 first responder, even if one is dying as a result, does not give one unchallenged authority, but I would at least suggest to you that if you had any streak of decency or compassion within you, you would at least make the effort to demonstrate comprehension of the case David Miller is trying to put before implicitly pronouncing him a 'nutter'.
Do you also hold that Colonel Robert Bowman or William Christisen, mentioned above, are nutters? Or all those others referred to in the article linked to by Sympneology at
Do you happen to also label all the people listed in that article as 'nutbags'? And the 503 qualified architects and engineers who endorse
? Do you also consider the 51% of the US public who want congress to question Cheney and Bush over the 9/11 attacks to be 'nubags'? or perhaps just the 30% who want Bush and Cheney to be immediately impeached (
So, have you yet listened to the debate between Michael Gage and 'skeptical' proponent of the US government Conspiracy theory Michael Shermer at
If you had listened you would have noticed that Shermer managed to avoid discussing much of Gage's evidence by claiming that Osama bin Laden's supposed confession made such discussion unnecessary.
Funny how the 9/11 attacks are not listed amongst the crimes of which bin Laden has been accused. Why don't you check it out for yourself, Bugsy, at
Now, why do you think that is, Bugsy?
If you listen to the presentation on 9/11 coincidences at
you will learn that the FBI doesn't consider that it it has enough evidence to charge Osama bin Laden with this crime.
, Saturday, 11 October 2008 6:33:20 PM
Yes, James, insults are complements, black is white, up is down, and the American Government is responsible for 9/11.
That bit about you not being able to control your own sockpuppets was spooky though. Multiple personality disorder is a very scary situation.
I think I had better stop now, as I will probably end up being accused of mocking someone with a mental illness. I think a media student from QUT tried that recently, not a good look.
, Saturday, 11 October 2008 8:58:56 PM
Indeed, Bugsy. Truly bizarre - pathological MPD does seem to fit.
Best treat the poor chap/s gently, I think.
, Saturday, 11 October 2008 9:19:17 PM
OK, I will take being called a 'nutbag' as an insult, if it makes you feel better, Bugsy.
Thanks for having responded to all of my all arguments.
, Saturday, 11 October 2008 11:12:16 PM
Congratulations Mad Dog. You've manipulated yet another thread into a vaudeville show with reams of stupefying swill - totally irrelevant to the topic - bravo Morgan!
From 23 September to 11 October you've constantly dribbled your way through a bucket load of invective! If you believe you are divinely guided in all matters known to man, why not at least debate analogically or deductively?
Or at least keep both hands on the keyboard, in consideration of other posters - please!
, Sunday, 12 October 2008 12:31:12 AM
Apologies on my part, Dickie, for having allowed people, whose motives for participation in this discussion are plainly disingenuous, to have gotten to me in the way they obviously have.
I will try to make up for this by publishing a summary of only the useful parts of this discussion on the web site
, Sunday, 12 October 2008 10:41:32 AM
dickie: << You've manipulated yet another thread into a vaudeville show... >>
It was already a freak show - I just added some sanity and humour.
, Sunday, 12 October 2008 7:47:27 PM
I note that the mad dog in our midst has ignored yet another request to enlighten the rest of us as to how he just happens to know that people such as Colonel Robert Bowman and William Christisen are wrong.
Has anyone else other than myself made a complaint to the moderator? What else does it take to rid these forums of the presence of people who clearly have no desire to contribute to these discussions and who have no respect for the wishes of others?
, Monday, 13 October 2008 8:13:00 AM
James Sinnamon: << (Firstly, whoever it was who posted under the account 'cacofonix' recently was neither daggett posting as 'cacofonix' nor cacofonix himself. I will come back to those posts later.) >>
James, we're still waiting for you to "enlighten the rest of us" as to how your 'cacofonix' sockpuppet apparently escaped your control the other night. I know - the CIA hacked into your account and posted some idiotic comments to further diminish any credibility you might still retain. Or is there a more subjective explanation?
It's your pathology James, not mine.
, Monday, 13 October 2008 8:32:26 AM
CJM wrote: "James, we're still waiting for you to "enlighten the rest of us" as to how your 'cacofonix' sockpuppet apparently escaped your control the other night...."
Could you please enlighten the rest of us as to how that is relevant to the topic at hand?
, Monday, 13 October 2008 8:51:36 AM
daggett "Relevance", like "intelligence" is a word which have no meaning or substance when considering the ravings of CJ Moron.
He is like a nasty case of tinea,
you think he's gone away but just overnight, you find him, once again, lurking down there, between the toes.
, Monday, 13 October 2008 9:11:38 AM
There's some most interesting YouTube resources from Canadian Journalist Barry Zwicker on the net.
He challenges left gatekeepers such as Noam Chomsky whom he had previously respected to take a stance against the cover-up of evidence of US government complicity in the 9/11 attacks.
Incredibly Chomsky, previously a harsh critic of US foreign policy stated on a YouTube broadcast at
“it doesn’t have any significance” if it was indeed the Bush administration that planned the 9/11 attacks.
Barry Zwicker had previously been a great admirer of Chomsky and a proponent of his ideas. In a YouTube broadcast at
he describes the confusion that Chomsky's denial of the evidence of a cover-up had caused himself. He considers the role of people like Chomsky to have been very harmful to democracy in North America.
Interestingly, in correspondence with Kim Bax an Australian supporter of the 9/11 truth movement, Phillip Adams used Chomsky's authority to justify his view that the views of the 9/11 Truth movement were 'utter nonsense', 'bul**i*t' and 'nuts'. (See
It would be interesting to know if Phillip Adams agrees with Chomsky's view if that what they were to accept as incontrovertible proof of the US Government's complicity in these attacks were to emerge, that it would be of "no consequence". (Indeed I have e-mailed Phillip Adams to put that very question to him.)
Does anyone else here happen to agree with Chomsky that it is of no consequence whether of not the Bush administration was not complicit in the 9/11 attacks?
I suspect that an examination of the role played by such left gate-keepers might go some way towards explaining why those in this country demanding a proper investigation of the 9/11 attacks (see
) have, at least up until now, been marginalised. (See also "Left Denial on 9/11 Turns Irrational" of 6 May 05 by Jack Straw at
, Monday, 13 October 2008 9:23:48 AM
James, since it was you who wrote
<< (Firstly, whoever it was who posted under the account 'cacofonix' recently was neither daggett posting as 'cacofonix' nor cacofonix himself. I will come back to those posts later.) >>
surely it is relevant to the thread you started. Also, you implied that you'd explain how this strange turn of events came to pass. I hypothesised that the CIA had hacked your "cacofonix" sock puppet account, so that would be relevant to a thread that attempts to implicate that agency in the 9/11 terrorist attack if it was true, wouldn't it?
Personally, I'm with Phillip Adams in his characterisation of the 9/11 Truth nutters. That page of Kim Bax's is very revealing of the degree of obsession that some poor fools suffer in relation to this frootloop conspiracy theory. I'm sure Adams is used to receiving unsolicited emails from any number of nutbags, and his response to Kim Bax seems pretty mild to me.
As for Chomsky, I have no intention wasting bandwidth to watch a YouTube video in order to validate your crackpot ideas. Give it a rest - get help.
, Monday, 13 October 2008 6:17:34 PM
9/11 'truth' is like the "Oklahoma City Bombing truth" nutters....
No matter how much fact is placed before them..they can still become polemical Lazarus's and rise up again sprouting the same rubbish.
OKLAHOMA claims "Because the explosion was not symetrical extra explosive MUST have been used on some structural pylons"
Even a General, a defense expert on ordinance was adamant that it HAD to be extra explosives.
OKLAHOMA TRUTH.. Tests were conducted to simulate the force of the truck bomb and analyse the way the structure collapsed.
Long story short, independant laboratories completely vindicated the official version...and showed what a pack of loonies these so called truth seekers are.
Now..that's the point where Polemical Lazarus get's another life and they start whispering about "Men in black who intimidate the indepenant labs" :)
Bottom line..if u want to believe something.. forget about the facts, you want consider them anyway.
Have fun :)
, Monday, 13 October 2008 7:46:42 PM
CJ Moron wrote, "I hypothesised that the CIA had hacked your "cacofonix" sock puppet account, so that would be relevant to a thread that attempts to implicate that agency in the 9/11 terrorist attack if it was true, wouldn't it?"
Yes, CJ Moron, if it was true that the CIA had hacked my "'cacofonix' sock puppet account" then I guess that it would be relevant, however that is not what happened, so it is not relevant.
, Tuesday, 14 October 2008 12:41:25 AM
James Sinnamon: << if it was true that the CIA had hacked my "'cacofonix' sock puppet account" then I guess that it would be relevant, however that is not what happened, so it is not relevant >>
They didn't organise the 9/11 attacks either, but that doesn't you from babbling on about it.
So if it wasn't the CIA who took over your sock puppet, who was it? You seem pretty definite that it wasn't the CIA.
Can you prove this?
, Tuesday, 14 October 2008 6:22:16 AM
CJ Moron wrote, "So if it wasn't the CIA who took over your sock puppet, who was it?"
If it wasn't the CIA, then (I ask again) what relevance does it have to the topic at hand?
CJ Moron wrote, "They didn't organise the 9/11 attacks either, ..."
CJ Moron, do you also happen to believe that the CIA didn't organise coups in Guatemala, Iran, Greece, Zaire, Indonesia, Chile and hadn't interfered in most other countries across the globe, including Australia?
Anyway, If you had been paying attention, you would know that I hadn't named the CIA, because I don't pretend to know for certain which US Government agencies were responsible.
(Funny how CJ Moron demands answers of everyone else, no matter how irrelevant to the topic at hand his questions are, but adamantly refuses to answer questions put to him by others.)
CJ Moron continued, "... but that doesn't you from babbling on about it."
Well, I thought it was our right to "babble" on an OLO forum about whatever we chose to "babble" about that is relevant to the topic at hand.
It would appear that CJ Moron has, from the outset, decided that we don't have that right and that he is entitled to do whatever it takes to prevent others from holding that discussion.
It would seem that CJM would allow us to discuss ib these forums, are CJM's judgements of anyone who disagrees with him as being "patholog(ical)," "paranoid", "frootloops", etc.
CJ Moron wrote "... I have no intention wasting bandwidth to watch a YouTube video ..."
Why am I not surprised?
It's plain to everyone here that CJM has not bothered to view any of the evidence, written or video, made available by the 9/11 Truth movement.
, Tuesday, 14 October 2008 9:52:13 AM
Yes, Col Rouge, I had on a few past occasions caught bad cases of tinea, but never as bad as this.
I would appreciate it if others would also prevail upon the moderator to rid this forum and, hopefully OLO altogether, of this particularly virulent case.
I would be most interested if others could tell me why the moderator can't see why someone who shows absolutely no regard for the wishes of others and who has contributed nothing of substance to the the discussion at hand other than personal abuse should be be allowed to continue to use an OLO account.
Polycarp, I fail to see the relevance of what you have written about the Oklahoma City bombings of 1995 to the topic at hand.
To many your religious views would seem rather odd, to put it mildly, so if I were you, I would be very careful before I started referring to others with whom you disagree as a "pack of loonies".
, Tuesday, 14 October 2008 9:53:13 AM
Correction to the 4th last paragraph of 2nd previous post:
It would seem that [all] CJM would allow us to discuss in these forums, are CJM's judgements of anyone who disagrees with him as being "patholog(ical)," "paranoid", "frootloops", etc.
, Tuesday, 14 October 2008 9:58:23 AM
As I have mentioned earlier in this thread, I had been unaware of the destruction of the building WTC 7 until this discussion occurred. I was also only vaguely aware of the existence of some contention as to the accuracy or completeness of official explanations relating to the destruction of the WTC in what the world saw on its TV screens. I guess I felt that the visual record was sufficient explanation.
This contention takes me back to 1980 and the Chamberlain case.
It is now a matter of record that a massive miscarriage of justice occurred in respect of the convictions recorded against Lindy and Michael Chamberlain. What is significant is that it was only an amorphous gradually accreting body of public concern as to the safety of the convictions that provided any impetus to what, as it turned out, needed to be a sustained appeal and review process.
Given that the matter proceeded to indictment, what did stagger me was the apparent official determination to proceed in the seeming absence of all the factors typically necessary for the obtaining of a conviction: no body, no opportunity, no motive, no believable weapon, no witnesses pointing toward guilt; whilst concomitantly seemingly refusing to address in a thorough and imaginative way the claim of the only witness to the event. My concern was not as to pretending the utter impossibility of guilt of those charged, it was as to the safety of the verdicts, and from everything I ever subsequently read as to the evidence and the proceedings, all I can say is that had I been a juror 'reasonable doubt' would have existed in my mind until the cows came home.
I see parallels between the seemingly compulsive need to brand any persons mentioning apparent inconsistencies in the official findings re 9/11 as 'fruitloops', 'conspiracy theorists', 'nutters', etc, and the seeming official determination, in the face of the available evidence concerning the dissappearance of Azaria Chamberlain, to force a miscarriage of justice.
If the 9/11 concerns are rubbish, the supporting evidence will soon reveal its quality through discussion.
, Tuesday, 14 October 2008 10:39:11 AM
For those who are interested in the sociopsychological phenomenon of 'conspiracy theories' per se, I think that this is a well-balanced introduction to the subject:
People can assess for themselves where James and his sock puppets would fit in that general description.
, Tuesday, 14 October 2008 11:33:36 PM
If CJ Moron is so fascinated by the "the sociopsychological phenomenon of 'conspiracy theories' per se", then why doesn't he offer us some of his own theories of this phenomenon, preferably on another forum?
I would suggest to CJ Moron that if he were to choose to do so then perhaps there may need to be more substance to his theories then simply labelling the objects of his 'investigation' as 'patholog(ical)', 'paranoid', 'frootloops', 'nutbags', etc.
Perhaps he could also tell us what he learnt from that scholarly work that he commended so highly to the rest of us that we didn't already know.
, Wednesday, 15 October 2008 1:04:10 AM
Now James, I think your continual references me to me as a "moron" constitute flaming. I've called you no such names.
You appear to be angry that I don't take your crackpot ideas about the supposed 9/11 conspiracy seriously, and you obviously resent my effort to locate these ideas within a well-established milieu about which much has been written from a social psychological perspective.
I think that I'm at least as entitled to identify what appears to be a classic example of a populist conspiracy theory as you are to rehash crackpot theories that have been rejected by virtually every serious commentator and analyst, including those from the Left. You don't like that, but so what?
Also, we're still waiting for you to explain why you posted this
<< (Firstly, whoever it was who posted under the account 'cacofonix' recently was neither daggett posting as 'cacofonix' nor cacofonix himself. I will come back to those posts later.) >>
as you promised. If it wasn't the CIA, who was it? And more to the point, how do you know?
, Wednesday, 15 October 2008 9:34:44 AM
I have explained earlier why I believe that referring to someone who is behaving as a moron, as a moron, does not constitute flaming. I am happy to put that argument to the moderator should he/she raise this with me.
As I wrote, if you want to begin a serious discussion about conspiracy theories "from a social psychological perspective" then why not do so?
However, this is a forum to discuss the evidence or lack of evidence for complicity of the US Government in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US and not a forum to examine the psychology of those of us who question the US Government's explanation.
CJ Moron wrote, "(alternative 9/11 conspiracies) have been rejected by virtually every serious commentator and analyst ..."
So could you tell the rest of us why you don't consider Colonel Robert Bowman, William Christisen and all those listed in the article at
as as "serious commentators"? Could you tell me why you choose to disregard the testimony of William Rodriguez (
), who risked his life defying firemen's orders to leave the building, and was subsequently decorated by George Bush himself?
The authority of Noam Chomsky, is one which is cited by Australian 9/11 deniers such as Phillip Adams as I have shown above.
What sort of credibility does a man who has stated openly that even if what he were to accept as evidence of US Government complicity in the 9/11 attacks were to emerge, "it doesn't have any significance" (
I ask again, CJ Moron, do you agree with Noam Chomsky that "it doesn't have any significance"?
It's a simple enough question to answer, I would have thought. If you disagree with Chomsky, then please explain to the rest of us why you still consider Chomsky a "serious commentator and analyst".
, Wednesday, 15 October 2008 11:11:56 AM
Chomsky also pronounced that it was of no consequence it it were to be found that Lee Harvey Oswald did not murder President Kennedy on his own and, besides, sees nothing suspicious about the way Oswald himself was murdered so shortly after. Chomsky has also declared proper investigations into the murders of other US political figures of the 1960's to be unwarranted. In the early 1990's he carried out a largely successful disinformation campaign to discredit Oliver Stone's meticulously produced "JFK" which Phillip Adams passed on to his believing listeners, including myself, uncritically.
As Barrie Zwicker explains in a 45 minute interview at
whilst Chomsky has produced tomes of works which are ostensibly critical of US foreign policy, he has, by aiding cover-ups of the assassinations of JFK, MLK, Malcolm X, Robert Kennedy and now the 9/11 attacks, acted as if he was a paid US Government agent for all of those years, whether or not he actually was.
Barrie Zwicker describes Chomsky's technique as "bait and switch". The "bait" is eloquent writing against crimes commented by the US government often years after the events are of any great immediate consequence. The "switch" are the other ideas espoused by Chomsky, which serve the interests of the US oligarchy, which those who hold Chomsky in high regard feel bound to accept.
CJ Moron, I stated that the person who made those two posts to OLO using the account 'cacofonix' was neither myself nor cacofonix as a courtesy to others who might have otherwise found the posts confusing.
CJ Moron, please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that everyone who posts to OLO is entitled to anonymity, so what possible business is it of yours and what possible relevance does it have to the subject at hand?
, Wednesday, 15 October 2008 11:14:15 AM
James Sinnamon/daggett/cacofonix: << this is a forum to discuss the evidence or lack of evidence for complicity of the US Government in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US and not a forum to examine the psychology of those of us who question the US Government's explanation >>
<< I stated that the person who made those two posts to OLO using the account 'cacofonix' was neither myself nor cacofonix as a courtesy to others who might have otherwise found the posts confusing. >>
Like I said before, how do you know? You appear to be having something of an identity crisis on top of everything else, poor chap.
As I also said before, get help.
, Wednesday, 15 October 2008 11:48:03 AM
I note that CJ Moron has not uttered a word in defence of Noam Chomsky.
Presumably, at least CJ Moron now agrees with me that Chomsky is not a "serious commentator and analyst ... from the Left".
It would be interesting to see if CJ Moron is able to name any other "serious commentator and analyst ... from the Left" who, like him, unquestioningly accepts the official US Government explanation of the 9/11 attacks.
CJ Moron wrote, "Says who?".
CJ Moron, do you or don't you agree that we should stick to the topic at hand?
The topic, as I understand it is "9/11 Truth". I thought that that made it pretty clear the purpose of this discussion.
CJ Moron wrote: "Like I said before, how do you know?"
As I already wrote:
"CJ Moron, please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is
that everyone who posts to OLO is entitled to anonymity, so what
possible business is it of yours and what possible relevance does it
have to the subject at hand?"
CJ Moron wrote, "As I also said before, get help."
Since you claim to be so knowledgeable of psychology, why don't you offer your help?
BTW, as I have now seemingly been transformed by CJ Moron into an object of his pity, rather than someone seeking to perpetrate fraud and deceit on an unwitting audience of OLO visitors, I wonder if this means that his objection to being referred to as "CJ Moron" no longer stands?
, Wednesday, 15 October 2008 2:24:32 PM
I agree that there's more to the 9/11 attacks than Al Qaeda. For me, the most interesting co-event was the van full of Mossad boys filming the twin towers as the planes came in - as reported by that well-known stronghold of left-wing conspiracy nuts, the New York Police Department.
That said, daggett, by writing "CJ Moron" in every line you're making yourself look like a tragic and hopeless basket case and a debater of no merit whatsoever.
, Wednesday, 15 October 2008 2:40:41 PM
Sancho "That said, daggett, by writing "CJ Moron" in every line you're making yourself look like a tragic and hopeless basket case and a debater of no merit whatsoever."
I disagree, as I recently pointed out to CJ Moron himself, he is giving morons a bad name.
, Wednesday, 15 October 2008 2:56:02 PM
Sancho: << ...by writing "CJ Moron" in every line you're making yourself look like a tragic and hopeless basket case and a debater of no merit whatsoever >>
Indeed, and I'd suggest that the same principle applies to Col Rouge, who seems lately to be allying himself increasingly with the OLO frootloop fraternity - if only to spit some bile.
Sancho - undoubtedly there's more to the story than the 'official' line, but of course that doesn't mean the 9/11 Truth nutters actually have a case.
, Wednesday, 15 October 2008 4:33:56 PM
Why do you see the splinter in Daggett's eye but fail to see the plank in the eye of the Moron?
So Sancho pray tell, which description in the Moron's limited vocabulary would most appeal to you?:
"Fruitloop, wingnut, freak show, nutbags, liar, Humpty Dumpty, bull sh**t artist, looney tunes."
Feel free to add to the Moron's list. His repetitive and moronic hyperbole has grown rather tedious!
Err.....just a reminder Sancho if you intend responding. Unlike the Moron, could you endeavour to stay on topic.....there's a good fella!
, Wednesday, 15 October 2008 5:10:05 PM
I'm most interested in your point about the Mossad agents. Were they wearing ID badges that said SECRET AGENT? Or can a New York cop spot a "kike" at 30 paces?
, Wednesday, 15 October 2008 5:21:18 PM
Paul, I found a version of the Mossad story at
I saw similar elsewhere but this was the most detailed I found in a quick scan. If anything it backs much of the official line on the attacks.
, Wednesday, 15 October 2008 8:58:25 PM
The 9/11 Truthers might be on to something after all:
<< New Oliver Stone 9/11 Film Introduces 'Single Plane' Theory.
'World Trade Center', which stars Nicolas Cage as a dedicated Port Authority officer who stumbles on secret evidence amid the rubble and carnage of the terrorist attack, tells a story quite different from what Stone called "the official government line" about the event. According to the film, at 8:46 a.m., a lone commercial airliner flew diagonally through the North Tower of the World Trade Center, maintained a circular holding pattern for approximately 17 minutes, then struck the South Tower before heading to the Pentagon.
After its collision with the center of American military operations, the so-called "magic plane"—which variously and ingeniously identified itself to air-traffic controllers as "American Airlines Flight 11," "United Airlines Flight 175," "American Airlines Flight 77" and "United Airlines Flight 93"—took to the skies once again, landing at a top-secret "black-ops" Air Force base in West Virginia, where it was reloaded with a group of clones from another shadowy government program that Stone described as "shocking."
Stone, who said he did not have time to explore the clone angle in the three-and-a-half-hour film, plans to do so in the sequel, 'September 12'. >>
On the other hand, Al Qaeda aren't happy:
dickie: << Fruitloop, wingnut, freak show, nutbags, liar, Humpty Dumpty, bull sh**t artist, looney tunes >>
You must be feeling right at home then. And how exactly did your comment fit James' very strict parameters for discussion?
, Thursday, 16 October 2008 7:41:12 AM
"And how exactly did your comment fit James' very strict parameters for discussion?" (CJ)
Rather than ambushing someone else's thread CJ, why not analyse what is being said by other posters? Had you taken your hand off it for a brief second, you would have noticed that I had excused myself from debate:
"Thank you for an interesting thread Daggett.
"I'm not sufficiently researched to make much comment," (Dickie Sunday, 5 October 2008)
Nevertheless, I remained interested in reading the theories of others but alas I have been force-fed a dunny-truck load of unprovoked, hate-based invectives, passed off as factual, which leads me to an accurate conclusion on your reasons for "engaging" in this debate!
, Thursday, 16 October 2008 10:26:36 AM
I would have thought that Oliver Stone's "single plane" theory would have made perfect sense to a "magic bullet" believer such as CJM.
, Thursday, 16 October 2008 11:20:09 AM
dickie: << a dunny-truck load of unprovoked, hate-based invectives, passed off as factual >>
Actually, that's a pretty good description of most of James' posts to this silly thread, not to mention what one reads on the various "9/11 Truth" frootloop sites. You should check some of them out - they're quite scary.
On the other hand, you might feel right at home there too.
, Thursday, 16 October 2008 11:25:04 AM
It's hard to know what to make of Christopher Ketcham's article about Mossad agents at
It implicitly the huge mountains of evidence pointing to prior knowledge of the impending attacks by the US Government, but makes a big deal of evidence pointing to Mossad's prior knowledge of the attacks.
The article appeared originally (
) on the site of ostensible leftist Alexander Cockburn, who, together with Noam Chomsky, disgracefully smeared Oliver Stone in 1992 (see "Alexander Cockburn and Noam Chomsky vs. JFK: A Study in Misinformation" at
) and who continues to smear the 9/11 Truth Movement (see "Debunking the Myths of 9/11" at
"How They Let the Guilty Parties of 9/11 Slip Off the Hook -The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts" at
One possible explanation for the article is that it may be a fall back position for 'left' 9/11 deniers who may feel a need to erect a facade of critical-mindedness towards of the US Government in order to revive their dwindling credibility.
, Thursday, 16 October 2008 1:56:01 PM
The sentence in the second paragraph should have been:
"It implicitly [denies] the huge mountains of evidence pointing to prior knowledge of the impending attacks by the US Government, but makes a big deal of evidence pointing to Mossad's prior knowledge of the attacks."
, Thursday, 16 October 2008 1:58:24 PM
An excellent rebuttal to Alexander Cockburn's abovementioned smear of 9/11 Truth activists is
"Into the Ring with Counterpunch on 9/11: How Alexander Cockburn, Otherwise So Bright, Blanks Out on 9/11 Evidence"
of 16 Dec 2006 at
This article includes a quote from the abovementioned Colonel Robert Bowman. I will include a part of it here:
"As a combat veteran, I will not stand idly by and watch our
security destroyed by a president who went AWOL rather than
serve in Vietnam. As one who's devoted his life to the security
of this country, I will not stand by and watch an appointed
president send our sons and daughters around the world to kill
Arabs for the oil companies. [".] I joined the air force a long
time ago to protect our borders and our people, not the
financial interests of Folgers, Chiquita Banana, Exxon,
and Halliburton. We've had enough corporate wars! No more Iraqs,
no more Kosovos, no more El Salvadors, no more Colombias! These
are not isolated incidents of stupidity; they're part of a long,
bloody history of foreign policy being conducted for the financial
interests of the wealthy few. [".]
"As a pilot who flew a hundred and one combat missions in Vietnam,
I swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States against
all enemies, foreign and domestic—and that includes a renegade
president! It's time for George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald
Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and the whole oil mafia to be removed
from office and indicted for treason."
, Friday, 17 October 2008 2:58:33 AM
I think the quote above from Bowman is a good example of a "tendentious rant from an aggrieved nobody". So he's a former combat pilot who's belatedly realised that he was little more than a hired gun for the world's most powerful thugs - how does this prove anything other than that he has an axe to grind?
, Friday, 17 October 2008 6:29:16 AM
Finally, after 27 posts, a response that actually acknowledges the content of my own posts.
I think CJM should take a bow.
It seems that he is not quite as stupid as he usually seems (just as even George W Bush, himself, has been known to display signs of intelligence from time to time).
CJM wrote, "So he's a former combat pilot who's belatedly realised that he was little more than a hired gun ..."
I read here the stirring words of a militant and fierce opponent of Bush's New World Order.
I am sure that Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn, who would also dismiss Bowman's demands for a proper investigation into the September 11 attacks, whilst also telling the world that there was nothing suspicious about the assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X and that the 2000 elections were not stolen by George Bush, could learn a thing or two from you.
So, CJM, can I take it that that is your complete response to my above query:
"Could ... you tell the rest of us why you don't consider Colonel Robert Bowman, William
Christisen and all those listed in the article at
as as "serious commentators"? Could you tell me why you choose to disregard the
testimony of William Rodriguez
who risked his life defying firemen's orders to leave the building, and was subsequently
decorated by George Bush himself?"
Also, again: Are you prepared to name any of the other "serious commentator and analyst(s)" of the left who, like you, unquestioningly accept the US Government's explanation of the war?
Also, again: Do you agree with Noam Chomsky that even if evidence that would satisfy him of the guilt of the Bush administration were to emerge, that it wouldn't "have any significance" (
, Friday, 17 October 2008 12:31:32 PM
James Sinnamon: << can I take it that that is your complete response to my above query >>
<< like you, unquestioningly accept the US Government's explanation of the war >>
I've never said that I "unquestioningly accept the US Government's explanation of the war". Rather, I don't accept the crackpot conspiracy theories of those like you who claim that the US Government orchestrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks against its own people.
, Friday, 17 October 2008 12:58:27 PM
Can't you see that there is no way of proving to those who deny the official version of 9/11, that it is true and accurate.
Can you not see that there are people who belive in UFO's and no matter what others say, will not be disuaded.
Some people believe in fairies, others believe in ghosts, and billions believe in a supernatural being who created the earth and the heavens.
Don't you ask yourself, what could THEY possibly have to gain. And given the few answers to this, wasn't there far easier, safer and more effective ways to achieve those aims?
Noam Chomsky is a loony lefter from way back. He never had any real credibility in the first place. His opinions on 9/11 are irrelvant.
Clearly it would make a very big differnce if the US gov't carried out the attacks. But don't let the fact that they didn't, get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
You seem to have a penchant for these conspiracy theories. Seems everyone is out to get you Dagget.
Have you heard of Occams Razor Dagget? I suggest you look it up if you haven't because it seems to be a tool you don't have. The ability to look at something and immediately jump to the most convoluted, complicated and far fetched explanations is not a skill or ability, it is an affliction.
I notice none of the conspiracy theorists responded to my question about whether the MOSSAD agents were wearing their SECRET AGENT badges?
Where is the healthy skepticism that all analysts should have. The conspiray guys seem to believe any half baked "evidence" presented by their one of their own.
, Friday, 17 October 2008 12:59:13 PM
In fact, as I have shown, Noam Chomsky's authority has been effectively used by people like Phillip Adams to discredit people such as, for example, those trying to make known the truth about the assassination of JFK and who, who unlike Chomsky, do pose a threat to the US oligarchy (again, see "Alexander Cockburn and Noam Chomsky vs. JFK: A Study in Misinformation" at
). The fact that he has been known to talk frequently like a 'looney lefter' --- as do some contributors to OLO --- should not fool anybody.
The question about what they could have gained has been answered over and over and over again. On the The New American Century web site they state:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor." (
You asked earlier: Why they didn't simply pull another "Bay of Tonkin" style stunt? I think to ask the question, practically answers it: Most people would have seen through it immediately. (At least you seem to be further conceding that the justification for the Vietnam war was a lie (some discussion at
). So some progress seems to be being made, here.)
In order to be able to shock US and world public opinion into meek acceptance of their plans, something far more dramatic and more terrible was needed.
, Friday, 17 October 2008 4:10:31 PM
(And I have to say that it sure fooled me. Sad to say, I cheered on the US when it invaded Afghanistan and was almost convinced to support the invasion of Iraq. For years, I believed that David Hicks and the other Guantanamo Bay internees had largely brought the situation upon themselves, little realising that it was, in fact, Bush, Cheny, Rice and Rumsfeld that deserved to be incarcerated there.)
I believe I well understand the principle of Occam's Razor.
Now how about showing me an explanation of the sudden and complete collapses of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 which is simpler than the controlled demolition theory? (And please don't give me links to arcane wordy technical pdf documents. If the explanation is that simple, then it should be possible for someone to render it graphically in ways that we can easily understood.)
I need to make it clear that I opposed the war in which Colonel Robert Bowman fought as a pilot as I have said often on OLO and even thinking about the harm he would have inflicted upon fellow human beings who would have otherwise bore him no malice in his 101 combat missions is a terrible thing for me to contemplate.
Whilst Bush's own motive for dodging that conflict appear to have been a combination of laziness and his wish not to have his easy and privileged life disrupted by a tour of duty in Vietnam, I would hope that Bowman would not condemn others who, unlike Bush, refused to fight because of principled opposition to that war.
It seems likely to me that Bowman's motives for having served in that conflict, although misguided, would have been honourable.
For being prepared to stand up and oppose that war machine being used to inflict further bloodshed and destruction shows immense moral courage on Colonel Bowman's part, even if CJM seems incapable of understanding that.
, Friday, 17 October 2008 4:11:26 PM
you ask for a more simple explanation. How about what actually happened. WTC1 and 2: Two half million pound aircraft filled with fuel flew into those buildings as 3/4 the speed of sound. Almost as fast as a subsonic bullet. Those buildings were structurally weakened by these events and subsequently collapsed.
WTC was hit by large pieces of rubble from the collapsing towers, and fires burned for most of the day uncontrolled. This wekened this building to the point that it collapsed.
Now lets look at your explantion.
These towers were loaded up with explosives, but no one noticed (ever seen a building wired for demolition?) Then the gov't had some flunkies fly passenger jets into these buildings. They then detonated their explosives to collapse the towers, without allowing fire fighters to evacuate everybody they could.
They then pretended to highjack 93, sent jets after it, then either shot it down or suspiciously called them off (depending upon what denier site you belong to). Then they shot a missile at the pentagon, which looked like a passenger plane that was hijacked.
Foreign gov't agents were in the know about this plot beforehand, but funnily enough no ones come forward with anything but circumstancial evidence. The most massive and succesful conspiracy ever carried out.
And all under the command of that great BOOB George Bush, the lefts favourite dummy. In his daytime job, he can't do anything right, but at night, in his secret cape he can change the world.
I wonder how you think it helps your case that a member of the US military believes the conspiracy theories? The US military is 1,000,000 strong, there are bound to be a few headcases in amongst them.
, Friday, 17 October 2008 4:46:24 PM
I concede that your explanation is simple, but it also needs to be complete.
It needs to take account of the failure of all the supporting structures on every floor of all three buildings, even those which were not touched in any way by the the burning aviation fuel and it needs to explain the near free-fall speed of the collapses, how all of WTC1 and WTC2 were pulverised and how WTC7 fell so cleanly and within its own footprint and how this has never happened before 11 September 2001, and never since .
What nearly every independent engineer and architect expected to have happened was something a lot closer to what we see in
or had the towers somehow, against the expectations of the designers, collapsed completely, then something closer to the examples shown at
The only theory which comes remotely close to providing a complete explanation for what we see at
is the controlled demolition theory.
Paul.L wrote, "These towers were loaded up with explosives, but no one noticed."
In fact, a good many extremely suspicious happenings were noticed prior to and immediately after the 9/11 attacks, including mysterious workmen with large cases coming into the Twin Towers on the weekend of 8 and 9 September prior to Tuesday 11 September.
I suggest, again, you check out the testimony of decorated 9/11 hero and last person out of the twin towers William Rodriguez and at
and the testimony of Scott Forbes at
Also, it has been shown again and again that the supporting structures of WTC1 and WTC2 were capable of absorbing the impact of a 767 and still be capable of bearing the weight of the building. The designer of the towers had considered the possibility of a 707 aircraft, which is roughly comparable to a 767, crashing into one of the towers and had concluded that they would be capable of withstanding that impact (see
, Saturday, 18 October 2008 11:22:09 AM
Paul.L wrote: "I wonder how you think it helps your case that a member of the US military believes the conspiracy theories? ..."
Where did I ever claim that the whole case of the 9/11 Truth movement rested on the authority of Colonel Robert Bowman alone?
My point was that many credible people, both military and civilian, and not just Colonel Robert Bowman, reject the official explanation for 9/11. I made that point because a number of people, including Phillip Adams and at least one poster to the forum, have attempted to avoid discussing the evidence by claiming that the claims of the 9/11 Truth movement have been rejected by all credible commentators and analysts.
As I have already asked several times here, please explain to us why you don't think Colonel Bowman and all those others listed at
are credible people?
If we agree that a good many credible people do support the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement, then the evidence of the 9/11 Truth movement should be at least discussed and not dismissed out of hand.
CJM, I meant to write that you:
"unquestioningly accept the US Government's explanation of the 9/11 attacks."
... and not that you:
"unquestioningly accept the US Government's explanation of the war."
As you have not questioned the US Government's explanation of the 9/11 attacks anywhere in this forum, then I would consider the first of the above two statements to be accurate.
In regard to the latter, I have no way of knowing whether or not it is true. However, if it was, I certainly I never heard a peep out of you in the forum "Winning the War in Iraq" at
Paul.L (earlier) wote, "Iraq had WMD even if they did not have them at the time of the invasion."
This totally specious justification for the invasion has been comprehensively refuted in the abovementioned forum "Winning the War in Iraq" and many other places.
, Saturday, 18 October 2008 1:31:30 PM
Firstly, once the buildings started to fall, there was no stopping them. So we don’t need complicated explanations about why floors that were not burned failed. They failed because 30 then 31, then 32 etc stories smashed into them after accelerating for 3-4m at 9.8m/s/s.
You keep saying the buildings were pulverised, have you ever seen a building collapse before? How do you know it doesn’t look exactly like the WTC1, 2 and 7.
Demolition of buildings by explosives doesn’t pulverise the building either, they seek to bring it down in a controlled manner in manageable pieces. Explosives sever the supports and gravity brings down the building. See here for an explanation on pulverised concrete.
>> “Just a few numbers that make 9/11 conspiracies nearly impossible:
J.L. Hudson’s in Detroit, Michigan, the tallest building ever razed, was 439 ft. (26 stories)
WTC 7 was 570 ft. (47 stories) 1.3 times the height of the J.L. Hudson.
WTC 1/2 was 1,368 ft. (110 stories) 3.12 times the height of J.L. Hudson.
So, on 9/11, three buildings were razed with perfect precision. One was 131 ft. taller than the record tower and the other two (minus cell phone antennas) were 929 ft. taller than the record holder. The Hudson Building “ … took us 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives…” James Santoro – Controlled Demolition Incorporated"
The free fall stuff is a lie. No one has an accurate idea of exactly how long the building took to collapse, but here are pictures of rubble falling through the air, ahead of the collapsing floors. Ergo, the building must be falling slower than freefall.
The “never before in history” nonsense ignores completely the unique construction of the building. No ‘tube in tube’ building over 40 stories has ever been damaged like the WTC. NONE. The reason the building fell mostly within its footprint is intimately related to the construction of the building.
Tell me dagget, why the gov’t would try and ensure the building did fall within its footprint?
, Saturday, 18 October 2008 2:03:40 PM
It would have been far easier to demolish the buildings without it looking staged. One of the MOST difficult aspects for demolition experts’ bringing down a building isn’t making sure it collapses. It’s making sure it collapses in a controlled manner. If all they needed to do was demolish the building they could use far less explosives and less expensive time delay hardware. What interest would a gov’t prepared to sacrifice thousands of people have in ensuring a controlled demolition? Have a look at the video on this page.
Against my better judgement I checked out the story of William Rodriguez, an ex-magician, exposer of faith healers and currently on a highly lucrative world speaking tour. Rodriguez doesn’t understand how people on the ground floor could be burned when the plane crashed 80 stories up. I wonder if anybody ever told him that jet fuel, like everything else, obeys the laws of gravity. Burning jet fuel poured into the elevator shafts and exploded out of anywhere open, including on the ground floor lobby. He has NO evidence of ANYTHING. NOTHING AT ALL.
The 9/11 truth movement are forever moving the goalposts. At one stage they believed that the planes which flew into the WTC1 and 2 were not passenger planes at all. They argued that it was a missile that hit the pentagon. They said that flight 93 was shot down. And there are a hundred other claims, none of which stack up.
I also had a look at the 911 special interest group site. The theoretical tests, based upon a 707 (which is a smaller, slower aircraft) flying into the twin towers, neglected entirely, the consequences of a full load of aviation fuel dumped inside the building. That fuel or more specifically the fires it started, was an essential component of the collapse of WTC1 and 2
No one claimed that the impact alone caused the collapse. Funnily enough, on the picture on this site you can see debris falling, and it has clearly travelled faster than the collapsing floors.
, Saturday, 18 October 2008 2:08:23 PM
Paul.L wrote, "Firstly, once the buildings started to fall, there was no stopping them. ..."
This is neither an explanation of why the buildings fell in the first place nor why, once they had started to fall, the collapse had to be complete instead of partial and had to occur close to (and no-one claimed at, Paul.L) the speed of a free fall as attested to by incontrovertible video evidence in the case of WTC7 and at least the estimates of eyewitnesses in the case of WTC1 and WTC2.
Paul.L asked, "... have you ever seen a building collapse before?"
Why don't you show me a single building collapse anywhere that was not a controlled demolition and which looks anything like WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7?
(From here on, the arguments just get plain silly.)
Paul.L, why don't you take your own advice and apply some "healthy skepticism" to these insane theories you have presented here, whether they have been concocted by yourself or borrowed from someone else?
Just ask youself: If, as the US Government insists, the collapses were unplanned, do you think it would have been:
A) more likely; or
B) less likely
... that the collapse would have been so complete and have fallen so neatly into the respective footprints of the three buildings?
Paul.L wrote, "The 'never before in history' nonsense ignores completely the unique construction of the building. ..."
And why do you continue to ignore my point that the construction of WTC7 was entirely conventional?
The various often mutually contradictory attempts to claim that the twin towers were somehow particularly fragile because the construction was different is comprehensively demolished at:
The justification for the controlled demoltion theory cann be found at:
The page at which the above presentation commences is "The World Trade Center Demolition
Exposing the fraud of the government's story" at
, Saturday, 18 October 2008 5:25:21 PM
I think my initial comment that poor old James seems obsessed by this "9/11 Truth" crap was pretty apposite, after wading through a couple of the URL's that constitute the major part of what he considers to be evidence for his conspiracy theories.
<< ...apply some "healthy skepticism" to these insane theories you have presented here, whether they have been concocted by yourself or borrowed from someone else >>
Pot, meet kettle. I don't think it's Paul's arguments that are "insane" here. However, it's nice to see that James has someone who's willing to play with him according to his rules.
I'm going bush for a week or so, so I'll leave you chaps to it. Do have a lovely time.
, Saturday, 18 October 2008 6:23:34 PM
The presentation "NIST's WTC Investigation: Mockery of Science" at
and the accompanying article "Building a Better Mirage NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century" at
looks very useful although I haven't had time to look at it myself.
I would ask Paul.L: If a complete and at least equally simple explanation, which shows how the towers could have collapsed as they did without the assistance of explosives, exists, then wouldn't you suppose that it could be rendered as lucidly as the above presentations?
If so, then where do you suppose that that presentation is to be found?
Paul.L wrote, "It would have been far easier to demolish the buildings without it looking staged," and before that, "... why the gov’t would try and ensure the building did fall within its footprint? ..."
Why not use use a little imagination, Paul.L? If explosives had been employed, but the demolition had been less complete, and there had been twisted steel beams and smashed concrete lying everywhere, do you think it woud have been
A) easier, or
... to conceal the evidence of the crime?
The video at
is a joke.
Paul.L, had you noticed in the simulation of the 'pancake' collapse theory that for the theory to have worked, the central supporting column had to be left behind as the 'pancakes' successively fell faster and faster under the impact weight of the cumulative falling 'pancakes' from above?
Now what do you suppose would have happened to the central column after the collapse? Do you think it would have:
A) stood standing, of
B) buckled and twisted under its own weight and fallen over?
In either case, don't you think some more substantial and more intact remnants of that column would have been found at
So, where are they?
, Saturday, 18 October 2008 8:09:14 PM
Do you even hear what you are saying? They brought the building down like a controlled demolition to HIDE the evidence. They made it look like it was planned, to avoid any evidence of it being planned. Don't you understand how insane that is?
Once the collapse had started, with thousands of tons of building smashing onto each floor, it was not going to stop. No partial collapse was going to happen because the weight smashing into the floor below increased every time another floor fell.
I’m glad you finally accepted that the buildings were not falling at freefall speed. I wonder what speed you imagine a building falling under the weight of gravity falls though? How long do you imagine it takes thirty stories of steel and concrete falling 3-4 metres to smash a floor?
I have some pictures for you of these so called pulverised buildings.
You ask me whats more likely? Is it more likely that these buildings, two of them 3 times higher than any building ever demolished before, were brought down by chemical or explosives that nobody heard, nobody saw, and of which no traces were left, by people nobody saw. A substance no one on the denier’s side can actually name? And both began to collapse at the exact point of impact?
You’re saying that things are getting silly? That really is the pot calling the kettle black.
Its funny, the photograph you posted shows the remnant of the central core, as well as large pieces of the exterior structure.
I’m not going any further with this, because there are only so many ways you can explain the truth. And you just don’t want to believe it. It fits neatly with your world view that the US gov’t is the ultimate source of all the world’s problems. It wouldn’t matter what evidence I put before you, you’d prefer to believe the bizarre allegations of a bunch of fruit loops, over peer reviewed science.
You clearly are very easily led. UFO's and ghosts beware. Dagget is on the prowl.
, Saturday, 18 October 2008 10:16:30 PM
I note that that fine upstanding polemicist, scholar and Queensland Greens Party activist CJ Moron has informed us that he is going to deprive us of his inspired and enlightened presence for a "a week or so".
Let's hope that when he returns he will finally deign to inform the rest of us, how he just happens to know that Colonel Bowman, US Greens Party Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader, William Christisen, Gore Vidal, Daniel Ellsberg, etc, etc, etc, etc, are all so wrong about this.
Or would he consider that "play(ing) with (me) according to (my own) rules"?
, Sunday, 19 October 2008 2:45:57 PM
I ask people to look at
We see what looks like fires in both towers which appeared to have dwindled and lacked visible flames moments before collapse.
Here's a transcript of a portion of the radio communication with Chief Oreo Palmer who reached the 78th floor of the South Tower (WTC2):
Battalion 7 Chief: Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-40 Code Ones.
Ladder 15: Floor 78?
Battalion 7 Chief: Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here.
Battalion 7 Chief: I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam, stairway to knock down two fires. We have house line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, kay.
It just defies logic and the imagination that scene in which the firemen present clearly believed that the situation to be well under control could have been turned moments later into
... unless there were explosives planted.
, Sunday, 19 October 2008 11:31:54 PM
I will restate more correctly the last two paragrapsh of the previous post:
It just defies logic and the imagination that that scene, in which the firemen present clearly believed the situation to be well under control, could have been turned moments later into
... unless there were explosives planted.
Firstly, Paul.L, you seem to have dodged a very simple question. I will ask it again:
If, as the US Government insists, the collapses were unplanned, do you think it would have been:
A) more likely; or
B) less likely
... that the collapse would have been so complete and have fallen so neatly into the respective footprints of the three buildings?
Paul.L wrote, "I’m not going any further with this, ..."
Suit yourself. This discussion can continue with or without you.
Paul.L wrote, "Do you even hear what you are saying? ..."
The point I was trying to make seems to have gone right over your head.
Obviously having the buildings collapse in a way the looks like controlled demolition is evidence that suggests that there was a controlled demolition. My point still stands that they needed to do that in order to reduce the likelihood that other, far more incontrovertible evidence of the crime would have subsequently been recovered as investigators would have searched through the twisted mangled steel beams and girders and broken concrete in order to understand how the buildings collapsed.
Also, it seems less likely that such a collapse would have been anywhere near as psychologiclly devastating as the actual collapses which occurred.
So, it makes perfect sense to me that the people who planned the attacks would have demolished the buildings in the way that they did.
(So much more I could add, but I need to call it a night.)
, Sunday, 19 October 2008 11:37:50 PM
Another discussion on 9/11 can be found in article "16 May 2008,
Unanswered 9/11 questions" of 16 May 2008 at
, Monday, 20 October 2008 2:55:46 PM
Bugsy wrote, "you are ... recruiting the words of other nutters ...".
It's clear that Bugsy was referring, amongst others to 9/11 hero David Miller, who, as I pointed out, was dying of Mesothelioma from having inhaled asbestos, PVC, mercury etc from the twin towers.
Funny how this discussion started because I was accused of being heartless towards the victims of the 9/11 attacks.
I guess it's good in a way that Bugsy is prepared to be so cruelly insulting and dismissive of such a person without having even bothered to demonstrate any understanding of what he had said.
At least it shows up for all to see the moral depravity of many of the 9/11 deniers.
By having judged 9/11 William Rodriguez, whose life expectancy will almost certainly have been dramatically shortened as a result of his heroism Paul.L has acquitted himself little better than Bugsy IMHO.
, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 1:12:07 AM
I haven't posted in this stupid thread for 10 days. Yet it's clear that you want to provoke me into rejoining it. Very well.
It's a bit late for you to take the high moral ground argument now dagget. Your reasoning is clearly faulty, you and your ilk do not want the truth, you want confirmation of the evil that lurks within the US military-industrial complex that planned and coordinated the attacks. You won't find it. It doesn't exist.
Now f@ck off and leave me alone, you raving nutter.
, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 8:28:41 AM
Bugsy wrote, ''... it's clear that you want to provoke me into rejoining it."
That was not my intention. I think my intention was self-evident.
No-one asked you to even read this thread in the first place, let alone engage in the vicious nasty personal attacks that you have, not only upon myself, but upon the victims and heroes of 9/11.
Because you have done so, I believe that I am perfectly entitled to draw the attention of others to that fact so that next time anyone attempts to start a calm and rational discussion on this issue, the likes of yourself and CJM will think twice before behaving in the despicable way that you have.
Bugsy wrote, "Now f@ck off and leave me alone, you raving nutter."
If you want to be left alone, here's my advice:
1. Click on the "Email Alerts" button at the bottom of the page which will take you to
2. Click on the "Cancel email alerts" button.
Bugsy wrote, "Your reasoning is clearly faulty, you and your ilk do not want the truth ..."
Yeah, right Bugsy.
, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 9:32:41 AM
Now, if you want the truth would you then care to explain to Ellen Mariani, whose husband Louis Mariani was said to have been killed on flight 175 on 11 September 2001, why she is not entitled to answers to the following questions that she asked in an open letter to President Bush in 2004:
"We the families of 9/11 victims need to have answers to the following questions:
"1. Why were 29 pages of the 9/11committee report personally censored at your request?
"2. Where are the 'black boxes' from Flight 11 and Flight 175?
"3. Where are the 'voice recorders' from Flight 11 and Flight 175?
"4. Why can't we gain access to the complete air traffic control records for Flight 11 and Flight 175?
"5. Where are the airport surveillance tapes that show the passengers boarding the
"6. When will complete passenger lists for all of the flights be released?
"7. Why did your brother Jeb (the Governor of Florida) go to the offices of the Hoffman
Aviation School and order that flight records and files be removed? These files were then
put on a C130 government cargo plane and flown out of the country. Where were they
taken and who ordered it done?"
If you don't want the truth, then follow the advice I gave above, sod off and never again show your face on any forum on which I am present.
, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 9:33:06 AM
Ooooh look at you, King of the Forums now. All bow to dagget.
You can have this pissy thread, but I'm staying in the forum.
One last thing: all events are exploited for political gain. Do not confuse exploitation for creation. Howard did not create the SIEVX, the US religious right did not create Terry Shiavo, noone created Hurricane Katrina and George Bush (or insert conspiracy of choice here) did not plan 9/11.
, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 10:08:18 AM
(This replaces an earlier post, which I will ask to be deleted, because I mistakenly gave Ellen Mariani's late husband's name as 'Louis' instead of 'Neil'.)
Now, if you want the truth, Bugsy, would you then care to explain to Ellen Mariani, whose husband Neil Mariani was said to have been killed on flight 175 on 11 September 2001, why she is not entitled to answers to the following questions that she asked in an open letter to President Bush in 2004:
"We the families of 9/11 victims need to have answers to the following questions:
"1. Why were 29 pages of the 9/11committee report personally censored at your request?
"2. Where are the 'black boxes' from Flight 11 and Flight 175?
"3. Where are the 'voice recorders' from Flight 11 and Flight 175?
"4. Why can't we gain access to the complete air traffic control records for Flight 11 and Flight 175?
"5. Where are the airport surveillance tapes that show the passengers boarding the
"6. When will complete passenger lists for all of the flights be released?
"7. Why did your brother Jeb (the Governor of Florida) go to the offices of the Hoffman
Aviation School and order that flight records and files be removed? These files were then
put on a C130 government cargo plane and flown out of the country. Where were they
taken and who ordered it done?"
If you don't want the truth, then follow the advice I gave above, sod off and never again show your face on any forum on which I am present.
Bugsy wrote, "Do not confuse exploitation for creation. ..."
It had never occurred to me until now that GWB was not the (direct) cause of Hurricane Katrina or the Boxing Day 2004 Tsunami. And as he clearly was not it also logically follows that his administration could not possibly have carried out the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks.
, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 3:27:06 PM
GWB obviously didn't gain much from Hurricane Katrina, so was quite unlikely to have wanted to plan it but you can ask yourself: who stood to gain the most?
It's pretty obvious that the Democrats have made the most mileage out of that particular disaster, therefore that establishes a motive. The levees were rigged with explosives. Someone reckoned they saw it and that there was explosive residue found at the scene.
Then again, there are a lot of oil refinieries near New Orleans, so it could have been a GWB plot to increase the price of gas or the property developers that wanted the poor districts. Whatever.
All we need to do now is figure out just how they did it.
, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 3:56:59 PM
If anyone's wondering why the first of the two almost identical posts above have not been deleted, it's because Graham Young declined my request for him to delete my own post. He castigated me thus:
There is a limit to how much I am going to do to clean-up others mistakes.
In this case I'm going to decline.
I have to say, I am a bit mystified as to what other mistakes he has been cleaning up. Looking back there seem to be a lot of abusive posts from people who've explicitly stated they had no intention whatsoever of treating this discussion seriously.
And I have been told by a number of people that Graham's overall diligence in either cleaning up such messes or preventing them from being made in the first place has been such that they don't even bother with OLO
It seems as if Bugsy's erstwhile righteous indignation ("Now f@ck off and leave me alone, you raving nutter.") at my having allegedly provoked him into returning to "this pissy thread" has quickly dissipated.
Furthermore, he appears to have turned the tables on me by having employed humour.
Bugsy has pretended to take seriously what I intended as sarcasm in order to show up the sort of logic that someone like myself, who holds to the deluded notion that the the US Government must have carried out the September 11 attacks, would have applied to the Hurricane Katrina disaster.
I feel devastated.
I don't know if I will ever be able to hold my head high on this forum again.
, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 1:29:52 AM
Bugsy wrote, "George Bush ... did not plan 9/11."
Bugsy knows this because Bugsy has personally looked at the airport surveillance tapes that George Bush has refused to release to Ellen Mariani and has seen with his own eyes Ellen Mariani's husband Neil Mariani and all the other passengers that George Bush told us boarded the doomed flights 11 and 175 boarding the planes just as George Bush said they did.
And Bugsy has personally obtained copies of the passenger lists for the doomed flights that George Bush has refused to release to Ellen Mariani and seen with his eyes that the passengers who boarded those flights are exactly the same passengers that George Bush told us they were.
And Bugsy has personally viewed all the complete air traffic control records for Flight 11 and Flight 175 that George Bush has refused to release to Ellen Mariani and verified that the flights flew exactly in the same manner that George Bush told us they had. (see again
Newsflash, Bugsy: A lie repeatedly stated doesn't suddenly become the truth.
Actually Bugsy, as George Bush is widely understood to be the front man for Dick Cheney who makes all the real decisions, I would concede that George Bush probably did not personally plan the 9/11 attacks, but he had to have known about them in advance.
How else is George Bush's bizarre behaviour upon learning of the attacks to be explained? Why did he and his security agents depart from standard procedure and not immediately take him away from a location that was known in advance to the public and hence to the terrorists who were carrying out the attacks the time? Why did he continue to read nursery rhymes to children unless he already knew that he was not a target?
, Thursday, 23 October 2008 12:59:13 AM
I watched some of the movie "United 93" shown on free to air television last night. It purported to tell the story of how the passengers in the hijacked Unite Airlines flight 93 overpowered the hijackers and prevented them from reaching its target, that is the U.S. Capitol building. This motivated me to read the chapter in the PDF (1.7MB) version of David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor" (2004) at
The chapter presents very compelling evidence that suggests that Flight 93 may have been deliberately shot down at the point which the passengers were taking control of the aircraft back from the hijackers. Had the passengers gained control of flight 93, there is every reason to expect that the qualified pilot amongst the passengers would have been able to land Flight 93 intact and there would have been a live hijacker to be interrogated.
On the strength of that chapter alone, it is worth purchasing a hard copy of that book.
If anyone knows where David Ray Griffin's hypothesis has been refuted, please let me know.
, Saturday, 25 October 2008 12:27:12 PM
Further to my above point that George Bush and his security agents departed from standard procedure after being told that America was under attack, see the stills from the video of George Bush reading a children's story at
A truncated version of this footage that has been available online since June 2002 shows Bush for only 2 minutes, 10 seconds after being told. This new footage more than doubles this length of time.
As one blogger commented recently: "The leaders were warned repeatedly that such attacks were coming, yet chose to do nothing -- even during the actual attacks -- as Bush sat reading about a goat rather than responding as 'Commander in Chief' to a coordinated attack on the nation. This was treason, in plain sight (thanks to the personal camcorder of one of the teachers at Booker elementary school)." (
, Saturday, 25 October 2008 10:44:51 PM
I see, dagget, you are now conducting a conversation with yourself. I am continually amazed at the nonsense you will regurgitate. Is there anything you are actually ever skeptical about, besides of course the official version (which is always false because THEY are all liars)?
Are you prepared to believe EVERY conspiracy theory, now matter how bizarre and unsupported? Or have you actually encountered an idea that even you find a little far fetched?
We get that you don't like George Bush, hell who does? Not even his dad it seems. But are you seriously suggesting that you can deduce Bush's complicity in these attacks from his initial reaction to the news?
It seems you are in urgent need of a bullsh!t detector. In fact I'm surprised someone hasn't convinced you that the CIA is listening to your thoughts and that your posts here are putting you in mortal danger.
Does it never strike you as ironic that people believe just as fervently in UFO's or fairies. Has it occurred to you that there is NO WAY of convincing those people that UFO's and fairies don't exist, even though they are clearly NUTS.
I have a question for you.
Why would a gov't which was so capable and so evil, allow themselves to look so bad by telling the truth about the lack of WMD's in iraq after the invasion? Surely such capable and evil people, who could pull off the largest and most complex conspiracy in history, could come up with some fake WMD's? And don't even suggest for a minute that they couldn't do it, because your whole conspiracy depends upon their ability to do ANYTHING
, Saturday, 25 October 2008 11:07:17 PM
I note that you have still not answered the question which I put to you twice and therefore have failed to acknowledged the logical absurdity of your own implied positions that it is more likely that the twin towers and WTC7 would have collapsed so symmetrically and neatly if it had not been a planned controlled demolition.
What is far more bizarre than anything I have written is the official explanation for the 9/11 attack which, amongst other things, as I said, rejects the laws of physics and current structural engineering knowledge.
It is odd that you don't also find Commander-in-Chief George Bush's seemingly serene behaviour, as the rest of the country was in turmoil for 20 minutes after he had admitted knowing that he had learnt of the initial attack had and five minutes ofter he had been informed of the second attack occurred, bizarre.
It is bizarre to imagine, as depicted in the Movie "United 93" that neither the President nor the Vice President could be reached for all the time after the first of the hijackings was reported at 9.19am. It is bizarre to imagine that it was not possible for the pilots of United Airlines Flight 93 could not have been warned of the other hijackings and the attack on the first World trade Center Tower at 8.46am before the terrorists/patsies in their own flight acted at 9.15am.
All this can be confirmed by viewing the time line of the 9/11 attacks at
It is also bizarre that absolutely no-one was found to be at fault for the most spectacular and complete failure of the most formidable national defence system on this planet that occurred on 11 September 2001.
As I said, I can manage with or without your participation in this forum. I know that other people are reading this even if they don't post.
Even to the extent that this forum has been deliberately spoilt by trolls I think it remains a useful resource even if no-one else contributes from now on.
, Sunday, 26 October 2008 11:11:02 AM
You really are sad.
I've said numerous times that I think that the manner of the collapses of the three buildings on 9/11 does not provide a case for your ridiculous notions.
The is "it more likely or less likely" is just stupidity on your behalf. The likelihood of an event occuring in a particular manner is not evidence of anything. How likely is it that someone wins the lotto? ! in 500,000,000. Yet it happens. How likely is it that the US gov't would deliberately kill thousands of its own citizens to further its own ends, but be so honest that they would actually admit that there were no WMD's left in Iraq?
I see you refused to answer my question. I assume its because you can't really answer it. Which isn't surprising.
, Sunday, 26 October 2008 6:50:18 PM
Paul.L wrote, "You really are sad.".
Don't you think there has been more than enough ad hominem attacks by now?
How about just addressing the arguments and looking at the evidence?
You attempted to refute my argument that the collapses of the twin towers and WTC7 had to be controlled demolitions by claiming that no building as tall as the twin towers had yet been demolished in that way.
My simple point was that your argument that it would be so difficult to achieve such symmetric and neat collapses using planned demolition then that would surely be even more applicable to unplanned collapses.
Why is that "stupidity"?
Paul.L wrote, "I see you refused to answer my question. I assume its because you can't really answer it. Which isn't surprising."
The fact that I don't immediately follow each and every rabbit you set free down all the burrows doesn't mean that I am incapable of eventually doing so.
I would suggest to you that there are a good many more of my own arguments of my own that you have failed to respond to.
I don't consider your argument about WMD's in Iraq:
"How likely is it that the US gov't would deliberately kill thousands of its own citizens to further its own ends, but be so honest that they would actually admit that there were no WMD's left in Iraq?"
... to be a serious argument. The WMD lie had well and truly served its purpose by the time the U.S. was finally forced to admit there were no WMD's. That they admitted that at that point, rather than take all the political risks entailed in planting evidence to 'prove' that the WMD program did exist, is a strange concept of 'honesty' IMHO.
They lied through there teeth over the Iraq War and they lied through their teeth over the September 11 attacks.
, Sunday, 26 October 2008 10:34:17 PM
The fact is that the evidence that you have largely avoided discussing points overwhelmingly to the likelihood that senior figures in U.S. administration did indeed plan to murder thousands of their own citizens. The only way that they can possibly hope to clear themselves of any suspicion of having committed that crime is for a proper enquiry to be held and for all of the evidence that has been suppressed by the Bush administration, including those airport surveillance tapes demanded by Ellen Mariani be released.
Paul.L wrote, "Does it never strike you as ironic that people believe just as fervently in UFO's or fairies. Has it occurred to you that there is NO WAY of convincing those people that UFO's and fairies don't exist, even though they are clearly NUTS."
Of course one can't prove that "UFO's and fairies don't exist", but that is beside the point. There is no evidence of which I am aware that proves their existence.
In regard to the 9/11 attacks, there is abundant evidence that proves the official explanation cannot possibly be true, or that the probability against it being true is so extremely high that, for all practical purposes it has to be discounted.
, Sunday, 26 October 2008 10:37:03 PM
You say >> "They lied through there teeth over the Iraq War and they lied through their teeth over the September 11 attacks."
And yet they told the truth about something which damaged them badly. If they could have found WMD in Iraq,
1) Bush would have been a hero, his place in history assured
2) Support for the war would have stayed higher for longer
3) The case against Iran would be that much stronger.
4) American policy of preemptive intervention would have prevailed
There are one hundred reasons for "finding" WMDs in Iraq. On the against side, being found out. If we follow through with your hypothesis that the US has unlimited capability and can keep a massive conspiracy secret, why would they come clean?
There was no real upside, and the downside was spectacularly bad.
By the way, I noted that you were sad because if you go back over the posts we have discussed ad nauseam your question about "what was more likely". Secondly I only put one question to you and you avoided it. You put two hundred and then get huffy when I neglect to respond to all of them.
, Sunday, 26 October 2008 11:37:05 PM
If they had 'found' WMD's in Iraq and not had allowed the WMD's to be independently verified by UN inspectors, who, apart from you, would have believed them?
Paul.L, "You ask me whats more likely? Is it more likely that these buildings, two of them 3 times higher than any building ever demolished before, were brought down by chemical or explosives that nobody heard, nobody saw, and of which no traces were left, by people nobody saw. A substance no one on the denier’s side can actually name? And both began to collapse at the exact point of impact?"
This is garbage! Many witnesses testified that they heard explosions. I've seen firemen at the scene on a YouTube broadcast saying so.
You will have to show me what you mean when you say "A substance no one on the denier’s side can actually name?"
I have heard them name Thermite on a number of occasions. Can you show me where that is disputed?
, Sunday, 26 October 2008 11:58:51 PM
“If they had 'found' WMD's in Iraq and not had allowed the WMD's to be independently verified by UN inspectors, who, apart from you, would have believed them?”
Even if they had found WMD, and those WMD had been verified by independent experts , it would have made no difference. It would have taken the left about three months to find some or other pretext to revert to their rabid anti-Americanisms.
, Monday, 27 October 2008 5:51:48 AM
You say >> "If they had 'found' WMD's in Iraq and not had allowed the WMD's to be independently verified by UN inspectors, who, apart from you, would have believed them?
Why would they not allow them to be independently verified?
Your whole case that the US govt was behind the 9/11 attacks assumes that they have UNLIMITED capability. That ANYTHING is possible. Therefore, with this unlimited capability they could produce real WMD's for independent analysis. It would not have been a problem of anywhere near the complexity of organising this conspiracy on 9/11.
Firstly thermite does not explode. It is a chemical which burns rapidly at a very high temperature. However it could not be used in building demolition because compared to shaped charges it is very slow and unpredictable. See these videos. I imagine it will be the first time you have ever seen thermite. Demolishing a building roughly inside its footprint requires that the members be cut at exactly the right time. There is no way to guarantee with thermite exactly when, after you have initiated the burn, the steel will be cut.
compare this with a shaped charge which cuts almost instantly, and with a very big bang.
, Monday, 27 October 2008 9:40:22 AM
Paul.L's WMD argument is ludicrous and appears to be designed to waste my time and divert people's attention from the physical evidence and the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that shows that the Bush cabal almost certainly orchestrated the attacks. No-one claimed that those within the Bush administration who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks had unlimited resources.
Those prepared to look, unlike Paul.L, will see huge and gaping holes in the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks. Clearly, whilst massive resources would have been necessary to stage these attacks, they still would have had vastly less than what would have been necessary to completely conceal the evidence that the U.S. Government had orchestrated the attacks everybody.
Likewise with the WMD's I don't see how it would have been possible, even with the massive resources which would have been available to the U.S., to plant evidence of a substantial WMD program in Iraq in such a way that WMD inspectors and other expert observers would not have seen through it.
I don't have time to immediately unsplit every hair that Paul.L has split, but I commend the blog entry (
) of Kevin Ryan (
) the celebrated whistle blower, who was sacked for publicly criticising his employers 'investigation' into the causes of the collapses of the WTC buildings, which is further evidence that explosives must have been used.
It includes photos of roasted cars in the WTC basement, the non-metallic parts of many of which had been completely vapourised.
A fireman said of the man who gave him the photos, "I asked him if he saw any molten metal, he told me there were pools of molten metal under the pile and in the basements. He even said that there were spots that water had pooled up and was just bubbling like a pot of boiling water with molten metal underneath, like in the Nat/Geo movies of underwater volcanic lava flows."
The person who took the photos is now dying of cancer as a result of having breathed in so much concrete, asbestos and other poisons which had been pulverised by the explosions.
, Monday, 27 October 2008 2:37:53 PM
After humouring you for all this time I find it rather offensive that you would suggest that my contention was ludicrous. Every time I shoot down one of your stupid arguments you ignore it as if it never happened and move on. So in your latest rant we hear nothing about thermite? Why?
In my latest posts I have 1 point, so unsplitting hairs or your supposed difficulty in responding to ALL my points is just RIDICULOUS.
You say " No-one claimed that those within the Bush administration who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks had unlimited resources."
This is absolute BULLS!T. All of the conspiracy NUTS theories RELY upon the fact that ANYTHING they think of could be carried out by the US gov't.
For example the building demolitions. No civilian contractor could have done this without months of preparation time, mountains of explosives, and even still the evidence that the building was demolished would be OBVIOUS. YET you conspiracy nuts conclude that the US gov't could have done it because you assume they have capability that no one else has.
I contend that the capabilities to find fake weapons in Iraq and have them independently verified is a FAR, FAR easier task than hijacking four jets, and killing or hiding their passengers, Demolishing three massive buildings, smashing the pentagon, and have NO REAL evidence show up. So WHY wouldn't they do it.
There IS NO actual evidence of gov't involvement, merely variations on the "the possibilities of it happening this way are remote". Of course that is an entirely subjective judgement, as many people have no problem with the manner in which things occurred, even after reading the nonsense put about by the loonies.
They say 1 in 4 Americans believe in the conspiracy. what a surpise that this number also coincides with the number of retards.
, Monday, 27 October 2008 4:35:24 PM
Paul.L wrote, "So in your latest rant we hear nothing about thermite? Why?"
I didn't write anything about thermite because I simply don't have time to get my head around every imaginable technical aspect related to 9/11. Whatever you imagine you have proven by writing about thermite, there are abundant records of eyewitness accounts of explosions prior to and during to the collapses of the twin towers and WTC7. Here are just some, including actual recordings of explosions:
"9/11 witness heard explosion before south tower collapse" at
"WTC 7 Explosion on Audio (heard by firemen)" at
"9/11 - Explosion witness Compilation" at
"9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!" at
(10 min - incorporates some of the other broadcasts)
The broadcast "9/11 Key Witness Barry Jennings Murdered?" at
decribes the case of Barry Jennings who was interviewed for "Loose Change" and subsequently asked that his interview not be included as threats against his job and other unspecified threats had been made against him. On 19 August just over two months ago he died under mysterious circumstances at the age of 53.
On top of the evidence of explosions, there is abundant evidence of the existence of large pools of molten steel underneath the wreckage of the twin towers for days after the collapse. I gave some evidence of this in my last post and you have not acknowledged that.
Paul.L wrote "They say 1 in 4 Americans believe in the conspiracy. what a surpise that this number also coincides with the number of retards."
I am sure that the proportion of U.S. citizens who believe that the Government was behind the attacks is closer to 50%.
Tell, me Paul.L, do you think that for up to half an our after George Bush admitted he learnt of the attacks (
), he acted as:
A) a 'retard'; or
B) someone who had foreknowledge of the attacks?
, Tuesday, 28 October 2008 2:31:52 AM
1) you were the one who brought up Thermite. I merely pointed out to you that Thermite doesn’t explode.
2) Just because people thought they heard explosions, doesn’t mean the building was demolished. There are a lot of things which can sound like explosions when millions of tonnes of steel is raining down. When very large things like steel beams break they make a big bang, funnily enough. There were also transformers in the building and UPS which could easily have exploded. However seismic recorders situated nearby picked up no evidence of the sort of explosions necessary to drop a building.
3) ALL demolitions of large buildings take the lower floors out first to get the building moving. The collapse of WTC1,2 began at the points where the damage was done. How were the explosives on those floors able to withstand the collision of the jets at 800km/h and the 1100 degree fires which ensued?
4) No structural damage occurred on the floors below the collapse until the falling floors above reached them. This does NOT occur in controlled demolition.
5) Molten steel. Where is the evidence? Certainly no molten steel was retrieved from the site. Secondly there were a lot of other metals on site which could have been in a molten state.
Here is the best article I’ve found so far that deals with your pseudo-scientific claims. READ IT please. It covers ALL of the arguments you have used on this site and answers ALL of them.
You have offered NO actual evidence, only hearsay, speculation and the “how could it have happened like that” pseudoscience of the uneducated or ill-informed.
Bush's reaction proves NOTHING. It certainly doesn’t prove foreknowledge and even suggesting it is SO preposterous that I am wondering if there is ANYTHING you won’t believe/repeat. Just in case you are so obtuse that you think I’m avoiding the question, I think the way George Bush acted for however long it was, was intended to demonstrate that he wasn’t panicking. But regardless, drawing conclusions like this is PURE speculation and has NO MERIT
, Wednesday, 29 October 2008 11:41:18 PM
Paul.L wrote, " I merely pointed out to you that Thermite doesn’t explode."
See "Theories that Aluminothermic Reactions Were Used to Destroy the Twin Towers" at
"Basic thermite preparations can be modified and augmented in
various ways to change their properties. The fineness of the
aluminum powder determines the speed of the reaction. The use of
ultra-fine aluminum powder gives the reaction an explosive quality,
resulting in 'super-thermites'. The addition of sulfur in
preparations called thermates enhances the ability of the reaction
to cut through steel."
To view more evidence in support of the controlled demolition hypothesis, I suggest that others visit the site "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" at
and follow the links on the right hand side about the collapses of the twin towers and WTC7.
To view more evidence that there were tonnes of molten steel, some of which remained red hot for weeks after the collapses under ther three towers, visit
, Thursday, 30 October 2008 11:53:32 AM
Paul.L wrote, "Just because people thought they heard explosions, doesn't mean the building was demolished. ..."
This ignores testimony and direct acoustic evidence of explosions in the YouTube broadcasts I listed above. It also ignores testimony of Barry Jennings (
) the Deputy Head of Emergency management of New York City who died just over two months ago under mysterious circumstances just as pressure for New York City to hold its own inquiry into the 9/11 attack. He clearly clearly testified that he heard numerous explosions in WTC7 even before the collapse of the first of the Twin Towers.
"I know what I heard. I heard explosions. The explanation I got
was that it was the fuel oil tank. [shakes his head] I'm an old
boiler guy. If it was the fuel oil tank, it would have been one
side of the building. "
If nothing else, I think others are entitled to conclude that just because Paul.L tells us that he doesn't see the evidence, this proves doesn't prove that the evidence doesn't exist.
To view overwhelming testimony from firefighters that they heard explosions which can't be accounted for by the explanations that Paul.L has offered visit "Reports of Sights and Sounds of Explosions in the Oral Histories" at or download the primary document "118 Witnesses: The Firefighters' Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers" at
, Thursday, 30 October 2008 11:54:52 AM
Paul.L wrote, "... I think the way George Bush acted for however long it was, ..."
As Barrie Zwicker said:
"That famous whisper in the ear must be put into context. It takes
place at 9:05 am. That's one hour and five minutes after the first
hijacking – forty-five minutes after the FAA is aware of multiple
errant airliners, 20 minutes after the first aircraft smashes into
the Trade Center; 18 minutes after CNN breaks into regular
programming. In other words, a torrent of hot water churns under the
bridge before whisper time." ("The Great Conspiracy" (transcript at
Paul.L continued, "... was intended to demonstrate that he wasn't panicking. ..."
George Bush had already, by his own admission, witnessed the first crash supposedly on an ordinary television broadcast even though no footage of the crash had been broadcast by any television station until the next day, and had claimed to have thought it must have been an accident. As Bush said in response to a child's question on 4 December, "I used to fly myself and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot and I said it must have been a horrible accident, ..."
So, when he learns of the second tower being hit, he sits there reading a story to a child FOR ANOTHER FIVE MINUTES just to demonstrate to the whole world "that he wasn't panicking" as those responding to the attacks are paralysed because standing orders changed weeks earlier by Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld prevent them from acting until they are able to contact the President, the Vice President or the Secretary of Defence, who are all uncontactable (as depicted on "United 93" shown on TV last Friday)?
I think we can safely conclude that Paul.L's willingness to accept, as within the bounds of understandable human behaviour of someone with no prior knowledge of the attack, what we witnessed of George Bush on 11 September 2001 proves that nothing will raise in Paul.L's mind any suspicions about the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks.
, Thursday, 30 October 2008 11:56:28 AM
What do I need? Some actual evidence of explosives, or someone admitting they were involved in planning these attacks. Something other than a bunch of half-smart conspiracy nuts making claims way above their level of understanding.
You have nothing. Just "what about the things that sounded like explosions" or " how could three buildings collapse like that" or " look at the way george bush acted".
NOTHING. I see you didn't bother to read the one link I gave to you. Its clear NOTHING will convince you because you are determined to believe the worst about Bush and the US gov't because it fits neatly into your warped worldview.
Evidence from the website you posted.
>> "“I was kind of in disbelief that the building was actually collapsing. ... I couldn’t believe that the entire building was going
to collapse in one heap.”(Captain Charles Clarke, 9110250)
Thats it. Statements of surprise made AT THE TIME of the collapse. Frankly anyone who wasn't a little shocked on 9/11 isn't human. The events were MAMMOTH in their proportion.
No one actually saw any explosions and as we have already established thermite does not explode. It initiates very rapidly but it does not explode. Just because people heard, or thought they heard explosions is evidence of nothing. No explosives residue was found.
Tell me Dagget how this explosive material survived the impact and inferno created by the jets flying into the towers? No explosives can withstand burning jet fuel.
More " evidence ",
>> "Date molten metal was observed: "more than a month after the collapse" up to 10/11/01"
Funnily enough the type of molten metal is NOT named. It could have been any of a number of metals which burns at temperatures much lower than steel.
The standard of scholarship of the conspiracy theorists is SO POOR, its no wonder that only the half-smart believe their nonsense.
As for your determination to draw a conclusion from Bush's behaviour ... why do we need lie detectors when dagget can tell what you know by your body language. Spooky.
, Thursday, 30 October 2008 2:55:54 PM
It's Moonbat vs Wingnut!
Quite delightful really, from a purely Schadenfreude perspective.
Hilarious. Keep it up, lads.
P.S. I actually agree with Paul's salient points, but I don't understand why he continues to argue with poor old James. Remember the old saw about arguing with a fool?
, Thursday, 30 October 2008 9:02:30 PM
CJ, The Champion of PC, the voice of "the worrying" class, he's BAACK! For some reason, can't really tell why, I recall the "empty vessels" idiom every time I see one of your posts.
Aren't you being missed at the loony-lefts annual self flagellation benefit?
Great to see that you AGAIN have something valuable to contribute on a discussion which doesn't involve fighting for your right to see naked children.
Please, Please, can we hear more of your harping and whining? I mean, actually discussing issues is clearly NOT a goal which should be pursued on OLO.
I know you and a lot of others on OLO only want to pat each other on the back over how "concerned" you are about PC issues, which is why you prefer talking to people who share your soft-left ideological beliefs.
Well, I'm not interested in chasing the warm glow of fraternal approval. Thats why I prefer to engage with people who disagree with me and you'd prefer to stand on the sidelines and snipe.
I'm glad you're getting some amusement out of this argument. We all know what they say about the easily amused and in your case it is especially apt.
, Thursday, 30 October 2008 11:37:04 PM
Paul.L wrote, "Tell me Dagget how this explosive material survived the impact and inferno created by the jets flying into the towers? No explosives can withstand burning jet fuel."
I suggest you use your imagination. Surely, whoever set up the charges would have been able to find ways to have shielded them against burning fuel on the floors close to where the impact was expected.
Paul.L wrote, "... we have already established thermite does not explode."
No, we haven't.
I will repeat part of my quote from "Theories that Aluminothermic Reactions Were Used to Destroy the Twin Towers" at
"The use of ultra-fine aluminum powder gives the reaction an explosive quality,
resulting in 'super-thermites'."
Paul.L wrote, "Molten steel. Where is the evidence? Certainly no molten steel was retrieved from the site."
Check out these images:
... to be found in
Paul.L, I am getting weary of your pronouncements that no evidence exists when not only does it exist, but it is almost impossible for anyone who has visited the links I have given to miss.
I will return some other time in order to set the record straight on the rest of the disinformation contained in your recent posts.
, Friday, 31 October 2008 1:30:05 AM
You say “ … use your imagination. Surely, whoever set up the charges would have been able to find ways to have shielded them against burning fuel ...
I know using your imagination forms the main approach you take to this whole issue. The rest of us want evidence, we don’t want to pretend or imagine. Secondly, you again prove my point that the conspiracy theorists believe that the US gov’t can do ANYTHING they(the nuts) can think of.
I don’t think you have ANY idea of the layout of the building and the placement of the steel columns. Have a look
Please tell me how these exposed columns were rigged with the tonnes of thermite necessary to cut them. Even when thermite is altered so that the speed of burning is increased, it is still NOWHERE near the speed of an explosive cutting charge. Hundreds of kilos of thermite would be needed to cut each of these beams in the period required, with excess thermite spewing everywhere. Furthermore thermite can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Even if this was reduced to seconds, an improvement of 6000%, it would still be far too slow to demolish a building sucessfully.
NIST says >> “Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile (weeks) than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.(minutes)
But you don’t show molten steel, you show red hot steel. I know you will struggle with the difference, but molten steel means steel in liquid form and it isn't picked up by the pincers of a crane.
Normal fires like the hydrocarbon fire caused by burning jet fuel will turn steel red hot and reduce its strength to less than 10% of its normal value.
, Friday, 31 October 2008 11:36:12 AM
Just to let others know:
I asked the moderator, who turned out to be Graham Young, to delete a post above which addressed me, yet again, as 'wingnut', on the grounds that it was insulting to me, clearly intended to further disrupt the discussion and added nothing of substance about the topic at hand.
Graham Young's response was:
"Come on James."
My response, in turn, was:
"What I have complained of is clearly harassment.
"I can only presume that your continued refusal to treat the complaints of
myself and others seriously is because it suits you to have discussions of
topics, that you feel uncomfortable about, disrupted."
, Friday, 31 October 2008 11:58:56 AM
This looks like a very thorough debate over the 9/11 issue:
"The Ultimate 9/11 'Truth' Showdown: David Ray Griffin vs. Matt Taibbi" at
It's attracted a huge number of comments.
David Ray Griffin is the author of the abovementioned "The New Pearl Harbour" at
and a number of other books which demolish to official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory.
, Friday, 31 October 2008 3:17:01 PM
Come on, James - I called you a moonbat, not a wingnut.
If you're going to continue to spruke crackpot conspiracy theories, you'll need to develop a thicker skin. I imagine that "moonbat" is one of the milder appellations you attract.
, Friday, 31 October 2008 3:38:27 PM
Graham Young has yet again declined a request to have a post deleted. He assures me that the sound of barking in our midst "is well within the ambit of what appears on blogs and discussion threads." So I will do my best to ignore it.
Paul.L wrote, "Funnily enough the type of molten metal is NOT named. It could have been any of a number of metals which burns at temperatures much lower than steel."
Then Paul.L wrote, "The standard of scholarship of the conspiracy theorists is SO POOR, ..."
Poor enough for them not to understand the difference between metal burning and metal melting, perhaps?
Paul.L wrote, "But you don't show molten steel, you show red hot steel. I know you will struggle with the difference, but molten steel means steel in liquid form and it isn't picked up by the pincers of a crane."
Actually, I didn't have to struggle to hard to appreciate the difference between molten steel and red hot steel. In fact, it was only marginally more difficult for me than understanding the difference between metal burning and metal melting
Had you noticed that the caption to the first of the two images (
"Some beams pulled from the wreckage are still red hot more than 7 weeks after the attack, and it is suspected that temperatures beneath the debris pile are well in excess of 1,000°F."
So, if we have photos of red hot steel 7 weeks after 11 September, it seems highly likely to me that there would have been some substance to the eyewitness accounts (one of which was referred to above) of there being pools of molten steel under the wreckage immediately after the attack.
Anyway, I will return to tackle the rest of the disinformation in Paul.L's posts at some other later point.
, Saturday, 1 November 2008 1:41:45 AM
You say >> So, if we have photos of red hot steel 7 weeks after 11 September, it seems highly likely to me that there would have been some substance to the eyewitness accounts (one of which was referred to above) of there being pools of molten steel under the wreckage immediately after the attack.
You just don't have a clue do you. There is NO WAY that steel is still red hot 7 weeks after 9/11, because of heat transferred on the day of the collapse. The rubble piles were on fire for weeks after the collapse. That is what caused the steel to be red hot.
How is it that all of this molten steel was not photographed when it was finally removed from the site? I mean it didn't reform into 'I' beams after it cooled down did it? Like the guy in the terminator.
Why have you provided no evidence of molten steel except hearsay. And I went back to the conspiracy site you posted above and the first witness Peter Tully, saw molten metal a MONTH AFTER the collapse.
If you respond to ONE question from this post, then let it be this. How did they cut all the exterior columns with thermite, without any of the thermite or the molten metal spewing out everywhere?
They somehow cut them without there being any evidence of their being cut on the outside. Interesting.
BTW Disinformation? You must be joking. I think it might be a quicker task to idenitfy those people who you believe aren't part of the 9/11 conspiracy.
, Saturday, 1 November 2008 10:49:18 AM
(Whatever else I have written I certainly concur with Paul.L's observations about the easily amused and people who prefer to snipe from the sidelines and not take a stance of their own.)
Paul.L wrote: "No one actually saw any explosions ..."
"That's when it went. I looked back. You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down."
Note the use of the word 'see', Paul.L.
Also check out the frame at 7.00 into the broadcast "9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!" at
after the fuel would surely have burnt out.
What is the bright orange flash, if not an explosion?
Then check out the frame at 09.59 at the start of the collapse of one of the towers. What, other than an explosion, would have suddenly pushed the side of the tower at the point of the initiation of the collapse?
Then check out :South Tower Coming Down" at
Here is some of what I have transcribed of reporters narratives from the YouTube Broadcast "9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!" at
"... and every few minutes, you will hear a rumbling sound, almost like an explosion ..."
"When you ... down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions, going off every 15 or 20 minutes."
"There's a real sense of caution here on the part of police. I spoke to some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me that they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the World Trade Center, aside from the ones that made by the impact of the plane with the building may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some kind of explosive device in it, so the fear is that there may have been some explosive devices planted in the building or in the adjacent area and that's why they are being so cautious."
Paul.L wrote: "That's it. Statements of surprise ..."
No, that's not 'it'.
Below is some of (tobecontinued...)
, Saturday, 1 November 2008 11:46:58 AM
(...continuedfromabove) the recorded testimony of firefighters who say they heard explosions in
"... I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions..." - Richard Banaciski
"I'd say we were in the 30th or 31st, 32nd Floor, or something like that, and a few of the guys were lying wiped out on the floor, you know, taking a break with their masks off and lying in the hallway when there was a very loud roaring sound and a very loud explosion, and the--it felt like there was an explosion above us..." - Brian Becker
"We had our backs to the tower and under that pedestrian bridge walking south, myself, Eddie Kennedy and the officer, when you heard the crackling. You looked up and you saw the one floor explode on itself and the top start to slide." - Richard Boeri
"We heard -- I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center." - Gregg Brady
"... we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down." - Edward Cachia
As I wrote, no-one should assume that just because Paul.L says that the evidence does not exist, that it doesn't exist. I therefore suggest that people look for themselves and not take Paul.L's word for it.
The above is far from a complete expose of all the illogicalities and denial of evidence that clearly does exist in Paul.L's posts.
Paul.L, before I proceed to get my head around the technical arguments about thermite/thermate, I would need some reassurance that what I write will not go in one ear and out the other.
An acknowledgement that you were wrong to assert that very strong evidence of explosions does not exist would go some way towards assuring me that I am not having a conversation with the deaf.
, Saturday, 1 November 2008 12:01:33 PM
I have waded through this link that daggett posted, "The Ultimate 9/11 'Truth' Showdown: David Ray Griffin vs. Matt Taibbi".
What I find so striking about it, as one who is not yet well 'read in' to this whole subject, is the prevalence of 'argument by abuse' as a tactic adopted by those (in this particular case Matt Taibbi) seemingly opposed to the very idea of calling the official story into question.
Argument by abuse has certainly so far been a characteristic of many posts to this thread on OLO.
I can only wonder why such posters feel so threatened by such questioning. Is it that some status they imagine themselves to have in the eyes of OLO viewers will be diminished if the argument that explanation of some of the events of 9/11 prove to be significantly different to the official record is sustained?
For me, the maintaining of an open mind as to what explanations really lie behind the events of 9/11 is made easy when it is remembered that the entire US electoral process is now conducted electronically, and thus, by definition, without the possibility of effective audit or independent scrutiny.
Elections are about power, and there are some persons who will stop at nothing to obtain power.
I have posted this link earlier in this thread, but I think it may have been effectively buried amongst other links. It is about the US electronic voting system. Since one picture is better than a thousand words, here are a number of pictures illustrating aspects of that eminently fraudable system:
. One at least relates to 9/11.
If it is possible to ensure malleable persons get declared to have been elected, it is but one more step for those who display such apparent 'knowledgibility' of the electoral process to lean upon what are effectively their own creatures to then make desired appointments of officials in the apparatus of government: it would be from among such that the doers of dirty work would come.
E pluribus dud 'em.
, Saturday, 1 November 2008 1:48:06 PM
Paul.L (26/10/08) defended the US government’s plausibility on the 9/11 incident by suggesting that the US demonstrated willingness to admit it was mistaken in alleging the presence of WMDs in Iraq. He suggested that the US could have simply planted the WMDs to be found by the weapons inspectors in order to retain a motive to invade Iraq. He argued plausibly that planting WMDs in Iraq would have been far easier than organising 9/11 to look like a Muslim conspiracy.
Then again, you might consider that, to better retrieve its reputation and retain the right to invade Iraq, the US ‘bully’ also needed to become a‘victim’. Muslim attacks on the US could give it this status.
But the 9/11 event actually achieved so much more than simply justifying invasion of Iraq; it created a completely new paradigm. The remarkable, cinematic destruction of 9/11, plus the explanation quickly supplied by the US government, convinced the public and much of the world, not only of the need to invade Iraq, but of the need to jettison important elements of democracy. In this paradigm, any Muslim nation would have difficulty in asserting a right to manage its own affairs if the ‘international community, the US, and global commerce, deemed it to be harbouring terrorists.
One could point to growing US debt post 1973 and erosion of the formerly glorious energy and material endowments that underpinned its giant economy and the credo of manifest destiny. The US is struggling unsuccessfully to maintain its post-WW2 hegemony and domestic harmony. It does not seem impossible that some mad part of the regime could have resorted to stage-managing world perception in order to bolster position.
On one thing we are all in agreement: 9/11 required an elaborate conspiracy and complex engineering - by some agency - so bold that it is almost hard to believe the event was possible.
, Saturday, 1 November 2008 3:30:54 PM
The you tube video “Total proof that bombs were planted” is the worst I’ve yet come across. They have deliberately melded quotes and events out of context. For example when the firefighter says clear out there is a bomb in the building, they are at bomb hoax at Stuyvesant high school 5 blocks away from the WTC.
Of the 118 witnesses you are referring to, (which comes from Graeme McQueens paper )
what you don’t realize is that NONE of them believed they were experiencing actual bombs. The quotes are ALL taken out of context. Of the 31 first responders (fireman and the like) who used the word ‘bomb’, 30 are referring to the collapse of the buildings, not bombs. Of the 81 who used the term ‘explosions’ over half are again referring to the collapse. NOT ONE of these people actually believed they had seen or heard bombs. See here for the extent that these nuts will go to, deliberately misleading the viewer/reader
Here is a building being demolished. Note the building collapses because the columns at the base of the building are cut.
Compare this with the close up of the twin towers collapse, which clearly collapses, starting at the impact point, one floor at a time.
In any case, in a 100 story office building there are a lot of things which can explode, Transformers, photocopyers, diesel generators UPS’s. Furthermore 16 first responders referred to the sound of jumpers hitting the pavement as like a bomb going off.
Do me a favour, if you watch one of these links make it this one.
You say >> “What, other than an explosion, would have suddenly pushed the side of the tower at the point of the initiation of the collapse?”
You really are exposing your total lack of understanding of engineering here. Explosions don’t PUSH buildings 500,000 tonne buildings, and thermite sure as hell doesn’t either. If the supports collapse on one side, and not on the other, the building will lean a little in that direction.
, Saturday, 1 November 2008 4:26:35 PM
You have misunderstood my point regarding the WMD’s in Iraq. My point was that IF you are going to go to the extreme lengths of killing thousands of your own people in order to produce a casus belli, why on earth would you significantly damage this narrative of victimhood you have crafted, by being honest about not finding WMD in Iraq?
Finding WMD in Iraq after 9/11 would have immeasurably strengthened the hand of these 9/11 conspirators Among many other things, it would have undoubtedly meant that support for an attack on Iran would have been forthcoming. The NeoCon doctrine of premption would have been lauded as good policy and the Republicans wouldn’t be in the mess they are in today.
You say >>” In this paradigm, any Muslim nation would have difficulty in asserting a right to manage its own affairs if the ‘international community, the US, and global commerce, deemed it to be harbouring terrorists.’
Are you seriously suggesting that they planned 9/11 so they could oppress muslims?
Frankly, in this day and age, when the president can’t keep a blow job secret, there is just NO WAY, that such a conspiracy could be kept quiet.
Not ONE of the thousands of people who would’ve had to be in the know, has since become disillusioned and confessed? How is that possible?
, Saturday, 1 November 2008 9:53:13 PM
Paul.L wrote, "... what you don’t realize is that NONE of them believed they were experiencing actual bombs."
Were you able to read their minds or do you have evidence for this assertion?
Paul.L wrote, "The quotes are ALL taken out of context."
Why not provide concrete examples of how the quotes I gave above were taken out of context?
In regard to the footage of the bomb hoax at the Stuyvesant School incuded in "9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!" at
, it appears foolish on the part of the producers of that broadcast to have included that. Whether it was an honest mistake or deliberate, I can't be sure, but I would, nevertheless challenge Paul.L to show how the rest of the broadcast, particularly the quotes I have transcribed are out of context.
Having said that, having a bomb hoax, shortly after the terrorist attacks drawing emergency workers away from the WTC, seems yet another of many curious coincidences on top of the 54,000,000 to one probability that the official 9/11 Commission Report gives to the complete failure of the whole of the American air defence system that made possible the success of those attacks.
I would also challenge Paul.L to tell me what part of the 9:51 minute interview "HIGHLIGHTS : Interview with John Schroeder 911 FIREMAN" at
, which further confirms what I have written above, is out of context.
Paul.L wrote, "Note the building collapses because the columns at the base of the building are cut. ... Compare this with the close up of the twin towers collapse, which clearly collapses, starting at the impact point, one floor at a time. ..."
This is another of those recurring non-arguments of Paul.L's which prove absolutely nothing.
If Paul.L had given this more than 3 seconds thought, I am sure it would have occurred to him that there is no rule set in concrete which prevents anyone from timing explosions to occur in whatever sequence they please.
, Saturday, 1 November 2008 10:03:05 PM
Paul.L, I note you failed to comment on the explosion as evidenced by a large bright orange flash partially obscured by black smoke shown at 7:00 minutes into the abovementioned broadcast at
, long after all of the fuel should have burnt. Curiously that explosion occurred at the precise moment and precise location that the tower began to collapse.
How do you plan to explain away this?
Here's Graham Young's latest response to my complaints about the disruption caused by some 'contributors' to this forum:
"I didn't respond because it really does deserve a response. It's pretty
obvious that I publish a lot of material that I personally disagree with and
I deal with everything fairly.
"If you think the forum is biased then perhaps you should find another one.
"I don't have limitless time to deal with baseless complaints, so frequently
I do not respond to them."
, Sunday, 2 November 2008 2:38:37 AM
I notice you didn’t respond to
1) the video which EXPOSES the LIES and the LIARS in the so-called truth movement.
2) my point that building aren’t pushed anywhere by explosive cutting charges or thermite.
3) my point about the missing “molten steel” and why no one saw any cooled puddles of steel?
4) my point about how the exterior beams were cut without the hundreds of cameras catching it.
There are many more but I can’t be bothered going further back. Every time I make a point you can’t explain you move on. As if it never happened, yet when I don’t answer one of your silly questions you get whiny.
You attempt to cover for the LIARS who made the video, “Absolute Proof” is pathetic. They knew exactly what they were doing. AND YOU KNOW IT, Just rewatch the video.
John Schroeder is the ONLY first responder in the group of 118 witnesses referred to by Graeme McQueen, (that you didn’t even realize you were quoting) to actually suggest that the explosion sounds, might be explosives.
After watching the video provided, Schroeder is clearly NOT a complicated man, and I think that is putting it nicely. His contention that he was thrown about like a rag doll on the 26th Floor when the second plane hit is flat out contradicted by the evidence. There is NO WAY he and his crew had suited up, left their base, got to the trade centre, unpacked their gear and walked up to the 23rd floor in 17 minutes. What he was actually experiencing was the south tower coming down which was actually at 9.59am (his timeline is out by about 56 minutes). He has admitted that he had great difficulty in accurately remembering the events of that day. See
Schroeder doesn’t understand how people were burned on the ground floor when the jet hit the 80th. See the explosions from jet fuel 15 seconds into this video and realize that jet fuel obeys the laws of gravity and would have poured down the elevator shafts.etc
, Sunday, 2 November 2008 3:48:21 PM
As for McQueen and his 118 witnesses that you have referred to
>> MacQueen states, "The oral histories show that many people who originally thought they had witnessed critical explosions were later persuaded that they had not, and it appears that the pancake hypothesis was the main alternative they were offered." The oral histories show no such thing. MacQueen offers no evidence – none – to support this assertion. Like Jason Bermas of Loose Change, MacQueen is content to publicly state that because all these FDNY first responders do NOT support the conspiracist claims, they all must have succumbed to "persuasion" to change their minds about what killed 343 of their brothers and friends and to never speak of it again.
You say >> If Paul.L had given this more than 3 seconds … there is no rule set in concrete which prevents anyone from timing explosions to occur in whatever sequence they please.
If you had half a brain you would know that building demolition occur with a SET sequence of initiations. You can’t just explode things in any order you please and expect the building to collapse in an orderly manner. You really have NO IDEA about any of this do you. Have a look at the science of building demolition before you start shooting your mouth off.
I watched the “south tower coming down” video. Tell me where are the supposed explosions which started the first floors collapsing? Why is it only the lower floors that have “so called” explosions occurring? See here for evidence of floors collapsing into one another
It collapsed 4 stories of concrete and steel into a three foot high lump. It comes from the site which rebuts ALL of McQueens claims
, Sunday, 2 November 2008 3:49:35 PM
Re comment by Forrest Gumpp on electoral fraud - quoted below:
"Elections are about power, and there are some persons who will stop at nothing to obtain power. I have posted this link earlier in this thread, but I think it may have been effectively buried amongst other links. It is about the US electronic voting system. Since one picture is better than a thousand words, here are a number of pictures illustrating aspects of that eminently fraudable system:
. One at least relates to 9/11."
Proof of gross electoral fraud is rapidly materialising. This has great relevance to the 9/11 debate as it:
- is itself an activity many would find not possible to conceive of as being able to be perpetrated by the persons and positions being accused of it'.
- demonstrates that ambition knows no bounds or borders when adequately inflamed and intoxicated.
Check these video excerpts:
So where should cynicism end?
In reality or in naivete?
, Sunday, 2 November 2008 6:00:16 PM
WELL SAID, Paul.L.
Keep it up - both of you.
, Sunday, 2 November 2008 6:35:43 PM
Paul.L, your response to the eyewitness accounts is nothing more than further time-wasting sophistry combined with I consider at least one inexcusable ad hominem attack.
So what if John Schroeder got some of his recollections mixed up? They clearly corroborate with a whole lot of other eyewitness accounts which confirm the controlled demolition theory.
Here are some firefighters talking shortly after the collapse. I am sure that this broadcast (
) will already be familiar to many:
1st firefighter: "We made it outside. We made it about ablock ... "
2nd firefighter: "We made it at least two blocks, and we started running."
1st firefighter: (gestures with hand moving quickly back and forward whilst descending mimicking sequence of observed explosions in synch with sounds) "Pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh ..."
2nd firefighter: (making roughly similar gesture with clenched fist) "Floor by floor they started popping out."
1st firefighter: "It was as if they had detonators ... "
2nd firefighter: "Yeah, detonators, planted all the way down."
1st firefighter:"...planned to take down the whole building." (gestures with hands again to mimic succession of descending explosions in synch with sounds) "Boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom"
2nd firefighter: "All the way down. I was watching it and running."
There were two other firefighters in that group who clearly accepted the veracity of what was said.
Paul.L, you have failed to show where any of the quotes I have given have been taken out of context. All you have done is quoted Graeme McQueen out of context in order to misconstrue him.
If so many firefighters had been misrepresented by Graeme McQueen, why haven't they stepped forward to say so?
Paul.L wrote, "... building demolition occur with a SET sequence of initiations."
As I said the "SET sequence of initiations" can be in any order that the person setting up the demoliton chooses.
As it happens, Matthys Levy, author of "Why buildings fall down" (1998) happens to think that the Twin Tower collapses were controlled demolitions and European demolition expert Danny Jowenko beleives that the collapse of WTC7 was a controlled demolition (
, Sunday, 2 November 2008 9:49:09 PM
Paul.L wrote, "I notice you didn’t respond to"
"1) the video which EXPOSES the LIES and the LIARS ..."
When you quote from that video on this forum I will respond.
Paul.L continued, "2) my point that building aren't pushed anywhere by explosive cutting charges or thermite."
I was referring to the frame at 09.59 of "9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!" at
It shows clearly the walls of one of the towers suddenly being pushed out in both directions at an explosive speed at the initiation of the collapse. Whether this was caused by thermite or something else is beside the point.
Also you have still dodged responding to the following:
Paul.L, I note you failed to comment on the explosion as evidenced by a large bright orange flash partially obscured by black smoke shown at 7:00 minutes into the abovementioned broadcast at
, long after all of the fuel should have burnt. Curiously that explosion occurred at the precise moment and precise location that the tower began to collapse.
How do you plan to explain away this?
Paul.L continued, "3) my point about the missing 'molten steel' and why no one saw any cooled puddles of steel?"
How do you know that nobody saw "any cooled puddles of steel?"
Paul.L continued, "4) my point about how the exterior beams were cut without the hundreds of cameras catching it."
Can't find it. You will have to post it again or show me where it is.
As for the video, "Absolute Proof", I don't justify what they seem to have done. If they did it intentionally, then I think it was a dumb thing to do. In any case, how they would have expected not to be caught out is beyond me.
Thanks FG and wallumi for the most interesting links about vote rigging in the U.S. It's a wonder that both of you have not also been denounced as "conspiracy nuts" for doubting the good intentions of those charged with running the U.S. Presidential ballots.
, Sunday, 2 November 2008 10:25:40 PM
I know YOU are impressed by the fact that PERSON A or PERSON B believes in the conspiracy, but it is of absolutely no relevance to me or the issue. There are plenty of BOOBs out there who believe in UFO’s and fairies who have real jobs and titles, its NOT NEWS.
Graeme McQueen used the quotes from the firemen to suggest that they believed that they experienced explosions caused by explosives planted in the building. That is NOT the case. Only one of this group of 118 witnesses has come forward to suggest such a thing and he is clearly a very confused man. In many instances he gets his facts plain wrong.
Where have I misquoted McQueen?
Next, your fireman quote is irrelevant. There were hundreds of cameras and observers there and not only did the cameras not pick up these explosions , but neither did seismographs. Nor was any evidence of explosive material found.
All you have presented so far is
1) it looked like a controlled demolition
2) people heard noises which sounded like explosions
3) george bush acted funny
4) someone said they saw molten metal
1) Explosive noises doesn’t equal cutting charges
2) Molten steel doesn’t equal thermite controlled demolition
3) Bush acting funny doesn’t equal foreknowledge
Next, controlled demolitions of large buildings occur from the bottom up. Not the top down. There is a lot of science behind this choice and it is not the result of someones' whim on the day. The set sequence of initiations CANNOT be in any order if you want a controlled and effective demolition.
I notice you have again failed to answer the four points I put to you in my last post. Nor did you respond to my point about the “Absolute Proof” misunderstanding, clearly being an attempt to mislead.
How about you reassure ME you actually look at, at least one of the links I provide to directly rebut your claims. Because if you don’t, this just isn’t worth continuing
, Sunday, 2 November 2008 10:59:14 PM
(I just hope site visitors are a little more sophisticated than to assume that whoever gets in the last word or whoever acts the most morally indignant must have won the debate, otherwise, I really have my work cut out for me, over the coming months.)
Paul.L wrote, "How about you reassure ME you actually look at, at least one of the links I provide to directly rebut your claims. ..."
Paul.L, I have looked at just about all the links you have given me. I don't think they have much merit. As I wrote, if you want me to respond, then I suggest that you quote from them on this forum. I am not going to do that work for you.
Paul.L wrote, "... Because if you don't, this just isn't worth continuing."
As I wrote earlier, I can continue with or without that participation, although, obviously, at the moment, I would prefer the latter.
Unless, you are prepared to give specific examples of quotes having been taken out of context, I still consider your argument about Graeme McQueen and the witness statements to be sophistry. If they have been misrepresented, why haven't any of them come forward to say this is the case. To others, I suggest that your read for yourself
and view the YouTube interviews of firemen and other witnesses including Barry Jennings.
Paul.L wrote, "All you have presented so far is
"1) it looked like a controlled demolition
2) people heard noises which sounded like explosions
3) george bush acted funny
4) someone said they saw molten metal"
, Monday, 3 November 2008 2:10:27 AM
No, that's not 'all' I have presented.
As anyone who makes the effort to look back through this forum can easily see for himself/herself that this is not the case, I can only presume that you are hoping that at least some forum visitors won't bother to do so and will simply take your word for it.
Let's remember that the attacks could not have succeeded in the first place without the complete failure of the world's most formidable air defence system. Even the official 9/11 Commission Report puts the probability of that having occurred at:
54,000,000 to 1.
In other words, the probability that the attacks should not have succeeded at all that day should be very close to 1.
On top of that we had the extraordinary coincidence on the same day, of three unprecedented engineering failures that have never occurred before and have never occurred since. I have cited at least two authoritative experts as well as the 521 qualified architects and engineers who have, so far, signed the petition at
, who believe the collapses to have been controlled demolitions.
The above far from exhausts the list of extraordinary coincidences on that day as you should easily have been able to see for yourself.
On top of that, we have the cover-up of the evidence of the crime, including the astonishingly fast removal of the wreckage of WTC7
Paul.L wrote, "All you have presented so far is ... 2) people heard noises which sounded like explosions"
That's a lie, Paul.L, and you know it.
I showed you a clear image of a large orange flash on one of the towers at the precise time and location that the first collapse occurred at 7:00 minutes into the abovementioned broadcast at
and you have repeatedly ignored my invitation to explain that.
That could not have been left-over aviation fuel, which would surely have burnt out long before then.
, Monday, 3 November 2008 8:24:41 AM
Where are the quotes taken out of context.
You quote part of Lieutenant Brian Becker’s oral testimony to the FDNY.
… after that , but that is not as accurate in my mind, that I'd say we were in the 30th or 31st, 32nd Floor, or something like that , and a few of the guys were lying wiped out on the floor , you know, taking a break with their masks off and lying in the hallway when there was a very loud roaring sound and a very loud explosion, and the -- it felt like there was an explosion above us, and I had a momentary concern that our building was collapsing. Looking up, guys were diving in to the stairway, and then it was like -- everybody was very scared by then. I'm talking the firemen, and then we were very worried about what was going on. We didn't know, but apparently that was the other building falling
I have shown you where the "absolute proof" people have deliberately lied to make things look the way they want. I have showed you McQueens quote where he acknowledges that all of the fireman (bar Schroeder) whose quotes he uses to make a case for explosives, don’t accept his version. I have shown above that at least one ( I didn’t have time to look for anymore) of these quotes are used in a selective manner which changes the intention of the speaker.
You say >> “If they have been misrepresented, why haven't any of them come forward to say this is the case”
How do you know they haven’t? How do you know if they know what McQueen is doing with their words? It is your job to show us that these people actually believe the nonsense you and the conspiracists are peddling.
You say >> “When you quote from that video on this forum I will respond.”
I already did. "Of the 31 first responders (fireman and the like) who used the word ‘bomb’, 30 are referring to the collapse of the buildings",
, Monday, 3 November 2008 12:38:57 PM
For starters I’ve already shown you that the makers of the clip you are referring to have deliberately manipulated images to mislead the viewer. So if you don't mind we won't be using ANY of their material. Here is a close up of the collapse of wtc1.
If you look at it closely, what you will see is that the building is already moving well before we see the orange flames shoot out. The floors at the impact site were thoroughly on fire. When the 30 stories above the collapse point start coming down, where does the fire go? Of course it goes in the only directions it can, which is out, or down. Clearly the flames shooting out (ala explosions) are not the cause of the collapse.
You say >> “On top of that, we have the cover-up of the evidence of the crime, including the astonishingly fast removal of the wreckage of WTC7”
What? The fast removal of debris is evidence that the buildings were demolished? Really?
You say >> “On top of that we had the extraordinary coincidence on the same day, of three unprecedented engineering failures that have never occurred before and have never occurred since”
On the same day we had the unprecendented occurrences of two massive jets full of fuel flying into these building as 700km/h. When these buildings collapsed they rained their approximately 1,000,000 tonnes of concrete and steel on the surrounding buildings and the streets below.
Richard Branaciski >> “They ...were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. ”
Where is the 54,000,000 to 1 quote please? Because it is flat out ridiculous.
, Monday, 3 November 2008 4:01:48 PM
Paul.L wrote, "For starters I’ve already shown you that the makers of the clip you are referring to have deliberately manipulated images to mislead the viewer. ..."
You haven't shown anything of the sort.
The film clip "9/11 Debunked: WTC Accounts of Bombs & Explosions Explained" at
that you say 'proves' deliberate manipulation lasts all of 14 seconds and consists of 4 discontiguous parts with respective lengths 3 seconds, 3 seconds, 2 seconds and 6 seconds.
The fact that they have not shown more of the clip that they claim was manipulated makes me more than a little suspicious.
In contrast, the clip in "9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!" at
lasted 30 seconds and was contiguous.
Given the near certainty that such misuse of a video clip would be detected I think that, until some more substantial evidence is produced, we can assume that there is a very high likelihood that it was an honest mistake.
In any case, what you have accused them of seems no more dishonest to me than your own debating techniques on this forum, including these clearly false statements:
"Thats it. Statements of surprise ...", "All you have presented so far is ...", etc.
Paul.L continued, "... So if you don't mind we won't be using ANY of their material. ..."
It seems to me that you will use any excuse to avoid confronting evidence that conflicts with your case. This is far from the first that you have chosen to ignore.
If any of the rest of that broadcast had been doctored in any way I am pretty sure we would have heard about it by now.Whilst I grant your explanation of fire having been pushed down seem superficially plausible, it strikes me as odd that the timing of the orange flash precedes so neatly the explosive like expansion of the mass of the building material. The commentary also includes the words, "we saw just some kind of explosion"
, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 1:49:57 AM
You say >> “Whilst I grant your explanation of fire having been pushed down seem superficially plausible
Superficially plausible? Please tell me how it is substantially implausible?
You say >> it strikes me as odd that the timing of the orange flash precedes so neatly the explosive like expansion of the mass of the building material”
Sorry What? The “orange flash” precedes the expulsion of the building debris, because they are caused by the same thing, the building collapsing.
Clearly the building is moving well before the orange flash. Please tell me how a so called “explosion” which is supposed to cause the collapse, isn’t visible until well after the collapse has begun? Have a look at an actual demolition and note that you see the explosive flashes BEFORE the building starts to move.
There is NO explosive like expansion. Explosions eject material FAR FAR faster than that ejected by the building collapse. I have yet to see any of the truth sites point out the “orange flash” as evidence of demolition, because it is OBVIOUS to all but the determinedly obtuse, that the 80,000 tonnes of steel and concrete had to push the fire somewhere.
You say >> If any of the rest of that broadcast had been doctored in any way I am pretty sure we would have heard about it by now”
WHAT? That’s your basis for trusting what these people say? Go to the original material yourself and check it out.
You are apologising for the LIARS of the so called “truth movement” even after claiming you wouldn’t. Has it occurred to you yet that many of the people behind the “truth movement” are making a lot of money from this conspiracy? Books, tshirts, merchandise etc.
Are you seriously suggesting that in their POLEMIC designed to convince the half-smart, they accidentally included a clip which purports to show their point? Really?
You just don’t want to believe it Dagget. I show you a lie and you pretend it doesn’t exist. Are you denying that the clip shown took place at Stuyvesant high school?
, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 11:33:12 AM
Paul.L wrote, "Superficially plausible? Please tell me how it is substantially implausible?"
See "Concrete Pulverization - Twin Towers' Concrete Turned to Dust in Mid-Air" at
"Mushrooming Tops - The Twin Towers' Tops Mushroomed As They Fell" at
"Vast Volumes of Dust - Dust From Collapses Expanded to Many Times The Towers' Volumes" at
It concludes: "Such behavior clearly indicates the input of huge quantities of heat far in excess of what the friction of a gravity-driven collapse could produce."
"Volume of Dust - Volume of Dust Clouds Proves Demolition" at
I also commend the 9.31 minute broadcast "9/11 Official Pancake Theory Debunked" at
To remind others, the "Pancake Theory" is what Paul.L offered above as his explanation of how the two towers were able to collapse to dust without any explosives having been used. To paraphrase Stephen Jones, you can't have it both ways. If the floors collapsed solidly on top of each other you would expect to find a solid pile of floors on the ground and a huge solid spindle in the middle, whether erect or having toppled over to one side.
You would not expect a pile of dust.
Your near-hysterical focus on the inclusion of material allegedly from the Stuyvesant school bomb hoax in that broadcast seems to be an attempt to distract the attention of others from the gaping holes in your own case and from the vastly greater deception by those who are pushing the Official Conspiracy Theory, including your own. I have already dealt with this question and am not going to discuss it further.
Paul.L wrote, "Where is the 54,000,000 to 1 quote please? Because it is flat out ridiculous."
Why is it ridiculous?
So, what is your own figure for likelihood of the complete failure of the world's most formidable air defence system on that day?
Barrie Zwicker cited the figure from the 9/11 Commision Report it in his documentary "The Great Conspiracy" at
, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 12:43:33 PM
Paul.L is clearly clutching at straws in his claims that the testimony of firefighters has been taken out of context. He has only attempted to demonstrate that one was out of context and ignored the rest. Somehow, omission of the word 'bomb' in all of those eyewitness accounts, which clearly attest to the occurrence of explosions not accounted for in the official account, somehow proves that nobody believed that bombs were planted. No corroborating evidence fro this has been provided.
Presumably Paul.L would also insist that those four firemen I referred to above who referred to 'detonators' and did not use the word 'bomb' also don't believe that bombs were planted.
In regard to the testimony of Lieutenant Brian Becker, Graeme MacQueen wrote, "I am interested, in this paper, in direct perception and immediate interpretation. I want to know what witnesses saw, heard and thought on 9/11 at the scene of the crime."
The inclusion Lieutenant Brian Becker's words:
"... and a few of the guys were lying wiped out on the floor, you know, taking a break with their masks off and lying in the hallway when there was a very loud roaring sound and a very loud explosion, and the -- it felt like there was an explosion above us, ..."
... in the way that they were included was clearly appropriate, even if he subsequently said, in the light of a very incomplete understanding of the events of that day:
"We didn't know, but apparently that was the other building falling."
It seems more likely to me that what Lieutenant Brian Becker had heard was indeed an explosion within the building he was in and I expect that he would agree with me. Certainly, he has not since come forward to complain of having been misrepresented by Graeme MacQueen as far as I am aware.
As I wrote, this is the only testimony that Paul.L has attempted to demonstrate was out of context. He has been silent on nearly all the rest.
Furthermore, if you had read on, you would have read these words:
, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 1:38:12 PM
"So, we ran as a unit to the overpass, and we took a look up, and it was like one -- it was like, holy 5h!t. It was like -- I guess the building was kind of -- I don't remember specifically, but I remember it was, like, we got to get out of here. Some I think that the building was really starting to melt. We were -- like the melt was beginning. The collapse hadn't begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like -- it was like that -- like smoke explosions on a tremendous scale going on up there."
Note the word 'explosions', Paul.L.
Had you failed to notice this in your close scrutiny of the document to find evidence to back up your claim that Becker had been quoted out of context?
So, when do you intend to retract your misleading statement "No one actually saw any explosions ..."?
Of course, I won't hold my breath waiting.
, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 1:43:47 PM
Tell me HOW the theory, that it is the upper part of the building pushing through the areas on fire that caused the orange flash, is substantially implausible. Waving websites at me will only lead me to do the same. Duelling websites, POINTLESS.
I haven’t offered the pancake theory. I have however shown you some evidence of floors compacted together. If you had a clue you would know that NIST threw out the Pancake theory. Its not news. Their theory, and it has been accepted in PEER REVIEWED engineering journals everywhere, is
>> that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
Here you go with another lie,
You say >> “ Even the official 9/11 Commission Report puts the probability of that having occurred at 54,000,000 to 1.”
Really? It wasn’t Barry Zwicker who put that number forward was it? Here’s the 911 Report
where is it?
Your problem, Dagget, among many, is that you refuse to go to the PRIMARY sources. You prefer your conspiracies tales spoon fed to you on the alternet and you therefore are stuck with trusting the people who’s stories you want to spread. But we’ve caught them out lying already.
You quote Becker >> “The collapse hadn't begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like -- it was like that -- like smoke explosions on a tremendous scale going on up there."
That isn’t evidence of explosives, or explosions. Notice the keyword like, he doesn’t say it was explosions and he is clearly referring to the fires. And your pathetic attempt to suggest that Becker agrees with the conspiracy nut jobs is HOLLOW. McQueen used Beckers testimony in his 118 witnesses paper. He later admitted that all of them, bar Schroeder, believed the official story and he suggested that they had been “gotten at”
, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 12:04:28 AM
Paul.L, in regard to the 54,000,000 to one figure, you are right in one sense. I had rashly assumed that when Barrie Zwicker said,
"That could happen only two ways. Either it was staggering multiple
simultaneous coincidental incompetence at all levels in many agencies,
defying known laws of averages, a 54-million-to-one chance, which is
the 9/11 Commission official story. ..."
... he had obtained the figure directly from the 9/11 Commission.
Paul.L wrote, "Your problem, ..."
Why don't you get off your own high horse and acknowledge your own dishonesty, which I have already drawn to your attention more than once, not to mention your constant shifting of goalposts?
For my own part, I haven't intentionally lied once in regard to the facts of the 9/11 controversy.
Paul.L wrote, "Duelling websites, POINTLESS."
It's not about duelling websites.
You were shouting and screaming at me as if your novel explanation of fire having been suddenly pushed out, that had not occurred to any observer at the time as far as I can tell, was the only possible explanation that could be countenanced. I was pointing out that that the alternative explanation, that it was an explosion, as attested to by observers, was born out by solid evidence and scientific reasoning.
In any case, are you also going to insist, contrary to the recorded evidence, that no explosions were observed immediately prior to the collapse of the first tower, WTC2?
Paul.L wrote, "(Graeme MacQueen) later admitted that all of them, bar Schroeder, believed the official story ..."
Where did he admit that? I certainly couldn't find it. Are you going to present the PRIMARY sources for this assertion? Are you going to insist that all those four firemen I quoted above accepted, and accept to this day the official explanation of the collapse?
Paul.L wrote, "I haven't offered the pancake theory. ..."
Well, you sure fooled me
, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 8:29:34 AM
Constantly shifting goalposts? It’s you that is shifting the goalposts every time I rebut one of your simplistic assertions.
Eg. Molten steel – you have provided no evidence except hearsay – you even had the temerity to post a photo of red hot steel and claim it to be molten.
How is it that all of this molten steel was not photographed when it was finally removed from the site? I mean it didn't reform into 'I' beams after it cooled down did it? Like the guy in the terminator. If it was molten at some stage it would have lost ALL of its shape and there would be great globs of it solidified.
How were the external columns ( you know the ones on the outside of the building which everyone could see) cut by this “super thermite” without it being visible?
You said >> “What, other than an explosion, would have suddenly pushed the side of the tower at the point of the initiation of the collapse?” – you haven’t acknowledged that explosive cutting charges don’t PUSH buildings anywhere.
You said >> Curiously that explosion occurred at the precise moment and precise location that the tower began to collapse. – But it clearly didn’t occur at the precise moment of the collapse. It occurred well after the building was moving.
You said >> If Paul.L had given this more than 3 seconds … there is no rule set in concrete which prevents anyone from timing explosions to occur in whatever sequence they please. – Yes there is if you want to demolish the building in a controlled manner. You can’t just wing it.
You say >> “Note the word 'explosions', Paul.L.” - 16 First responders used the term “explosions” to describe the impact of jumpers hitting the ground. Do you actually think that they were suggesting that the jumpers were filled with explosives?
Here is a video which shows half a dozen tall buildings being demolished, go to 2.5 minutes in, after the “truther made” doctored collapse video which has had audio of explosions added.
, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 12:02:34 PM
The video you pointed me to at
clearly showed a simulation of the pancake theory as I pointed out (although, curiously, it seems to have since been removed as if someone there had woken up the stupidity of what was being depicted). You didn't take the opportunity then to renounce the 'pancake theory'. Instead, you absurdly tried to defend it, stating:
"Its funny, the photograph you posted shows the remnant of the central core, ..."
... but ignoring my point that the pancake theory required ALL of the central core to be there whether erect or at least toppled one way or the other and not just a 'remnant'.
Whatever theory you now support, there is certainly none, other than the controlled demolition theory, which can possibly explain how the whole of both towers fell to the ground as dust in, at most, 15 seconds, in the process, crushing and pulverising the whole solid inner core as well as the outer supporting wall.
I note Paul.L's further hysterical rant just now.
If he can't see evidence of molten steel in
linked to from
let's hope he never obtains employment as a forensic scientist.
The crime rate in this country would surely soar.
Paul.L wrote (earlier), "Here is a building being demolished. Note the building collapses because the columns at the base of the building are cut." (
So, when were you intending to acknowledge that the observed collapse of WTC7 exactly conforms to what you insist is the only possible way a building can be demolished?
Also, as you are adamant that there is some laws of physic that states that, somehow, if detonations occur in a different order that the demolition cannot be as smooth, clean and symmetrical as we observed with the twin tower collapses, then we will have to agree to disagree and leave it to others to decide which of the two of us is more objective and more rational.
I may have to leave it to others to spot the remaining illogicalities in Paul.L's posts for now.
, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 1:27:14 PM
Posted in this thread by daggett on Friday, 31 October 2008 3:17:01 PM, was this link:
It is a link to a site from which you can download, as a PDF file, a copy of the complete book "The New Pearl Harbour", by David Ray Griffin. It is a 1.7MB file. The electronic book consists of 110 pages in 10 chapters, each with copious footnotes and references as to sources.
I have now read this book.
I recommend it.
These are its concluding paragraphs:
[An early Presidential nomination candidate] "... a Republican named John Buchanan,has said in a stump speech:
"I stand here as a 9/11 Truth Candidate and some may thus dismiss me as a single-
issue candidate and in a narrow sense that is true. But if you consider that 9/11
has led us into fiscal ruin, endless war and constitutional twilight, my issue is the
mother issue of our age."
Saying that "[w]e have all been lied to about 9/11," Buchanan recited many of the facts reported
in the present book. He then closed his speech by urging his hearers to support Ellen Mariani as
"one of the heroes of this cause" and to read Nafeez Ahmed's The War on Freedom and Paul
Thompson's 9/11 timeline. >65
Buchanan is highly critical of the mainline press for not questioning "the scores of 9/11 lies and
contradictions" or even telling the public that there are "still unanswered questions." This same
press may now be reluctant to tell the public about the existence of "a 9/11 truth candidate." But
his very existence, combined with the fact that millions of Americans will know about him through
other sources, provides yet another reason for concluding that a full investigation, one that
examines the evidence for official complicity, is a necessity."
Hardly a nutcase, wingnut, moonbat, or fruitloop, I would think, even if he did not win the nomination.
Hopefully President elect Obama will duly institute such proper inquiry.
, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 10:41:38 PM
So I'm conspiring against you now by referring to videos which never were. You really are in danger of believing all these fairy stories you find for yourself. Tell you what, wait outside tommorrow night and the "resistance" will pick you up for training.
You're again taking things out of context to make your case. I referred you to the site
to demonstrate that the building was not falling at freefall speed. Nothing to do with the pancake theory.
You argued that they demolished the building so that it would get rid of any evidence that the building was demolished. That just there is insane enough in and of itself. however you went further to say
>> Why not use use a little imagination, Paul.L? If explosives had been employed, but the demolition had been less complete, and there had been twisted steel beams and smashed concrete lying everywhere ... yada yada.
What are these then? Ham samwhiches?
you say >> "we will have to agree to disagree".
After all your muck raking you couldn't find any evidence of a building being demolished from the top down could you. And yet your whole claim that the building looks like it was demolished glosses over the fact that no-one demolishes buildings like that.
I notice you have now moved on from the orange flash, which was SO important to you for the last week. Have you finally realised that explosions happen before things start moving, not after.
you say >> there is certainly no [theory], other than the controlled demolition theory, which can possibly explain how the whole of both towers fell to the ground as dust in, at most, 15 seconds,
We've already dealt with all of those issues and you decided against pursuing them at the time. As an expert, I wonder what YOU think a building, which has suffered a progressive collapse due to extensive damage by a four hundred thousand pound jet flying at 700km/h and the subsequent fires initiated by 50,000 gallons of jet fuel, looks like. I'm all ears.
, Thursday, 6 November 2008 12:55:10 AM
Molly the dog was running as a candidate for the 2008 presidential election. Should we take her seriously as well?
How many inquiries do you people want? It wouldn't matter what an inquiry found, to the conspiracy nuts. If the new inquiry found that it happened exactly as 9/11 commission and NIST has suggested, they would just squeal "whitewash" all over again.
I would suggest you be very careful reading anything from the so called "truth movement". In my short period looking at this issue I have come accross "truthers" deliberately misrepresenting facts, figures and videos to make their case seem solid.
What evidence do you believe exists that hasn't been properly explained?
Dagget also believes that just because a lot of people believe some of the nonsense spread by the truth movement, that has some bearing on the validity of the claim. If that is true then the truth movement really are stuffed because out of the millions of engineering and architectural professionals, only a handful have signed their petition.
But I don’t consider that relevant. There are huge numbers of people who believe in ghosts, fairies, ufos, unicorns and even God, with NO EVIDENCE whatsoever.
If you are at all interested in the truth, I would suggest you read the rebuttal to Griffin’s claims. See
, Thursday, 6 November 2008 1:15:57 AM
I wasn't going to say anything more after what woud have been an excellent concluding post, but as Paul.L has decided to add yet more noise to this discussion in a seeming desperate attempt to have the last word, I feel bound to continue.
Paul.L wrote, "So I'm conspiring against you now by referring to videos which never were."
No-one accused you of conspiring against me and no-one even implied that.
When I first looked at the
... It had a simulation of the pancake theory superimposed onto a the video of the tower collapsing. I wrote about it and you didn't dispute that it was there. In fact, you seemingly attempted to defend the pancake theory at that point.
When I last looked, I could no longer find the "pancake" simulation was no longer there. That is the simple fact.
It seems as if Paul.L is pretending not to understand arguments I made previously in order to avoid having to deal with them. For now, I won't respond to all of his straw men tactics.
Paul.L wrote, "After all your muck raking you couldn't find any evidence of a building being demolished from the top down could you"
So what you seem to be saying is that because it hasn't happened before, it can't happen?
It's odd that Paul.L thinks that it is impossible to cause such a smooth symmetrical demolition with the use of explosives, if the detonation sequence is not from bottom to top, but, somehow, the same effect can be achieved with an unplanned collapse.
, Thursday, 6 November 2008 3:02:51 AM
I don't agree with you that my last post would have been a good concluding post for this discussion. I certainly was not trying to make it so. In my opinion the real discussion is just beginning. The train of thought contributed to by many may well have emerged from the tunnel of darkness, in which many seeming attempts to derail it have been made using the 'argument by abuse' technique, into the light.
When you opened this discussion you wrote of your having "... touched a few raw nerves". The significant thing is not that YOU touched them, but that they were there and raw to touch. It is easy to underestimate the significance of John Buchanan's criticism of the 'mainline press' as to both its breadth and applicability. A somewhat less noticed corollary of the applicability of such criticism is as to the importance of forum discussions on fora such as OLO as both one of the few means to filling that journalistic void, and as an early warning system for those wishing to suppress discussion.
Do not let the now very obvious, and repeated, attempts by some posters to provoke you on a personal level distract you from presenting what you see as inconsistencies or unanswered questions.
Allow also that GrahamY may to some extent be effectively a prisoner to the wishes of the sponsors of OLO with respect to moderation policy. Any such 'imprisonment' could conceivably take many, and subtle, forms. The sort of moderation a topic of this nature may be thought worthy of, if it has been targetted by extra-fora agents of disinformation, may well require resources beyond that which GrahamY has available. Ride with it.
The 9/11 events may well have been an as yet unrecognized failed attempted coup from within the executive arm of US government directed against the legislative arm of US government and the US Constitution.
Barak Obama's election was on the Fifth of November 2008, Australian time, remember. Remember that date. A similar event also occurred on that very date, some years ago now.
, Thursday, 6 November 2008 9:31:45 AM
you say >> So what you seem to be saying is that because it hasn't happened before, it can't happen?
Your point from the very beginning has been, to use your words,>> " ... too great a coincidence that WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 all happened to collapse on the same day in ways that looked exactly like controlled demolitions, when no similar phenomenum[sic] that hs[sic] not been a controlled demolition has been observed before or since."
But even you can now agree that controlled demolitions don't look anything like the collapse of the WTC.
Right at the beginning of this thread you said >> "I would honestly feel a lot better if someone could satisfy me that that were not the case. As poorly as I have regarded the U.S. Government I had not been prepared, until about a year ago, to contemplate the possibility that they were prepared to commit such a monstrous crime against their own people.
That was a load of rubbish though, regardless of the numerous flaws in the conspiracy nutjobs case which I have pointed out, you still have no real familiarity with the explanation put forward by NIST, and the 9/11 commission. You prejudged the whole issue.
But you can rejoice, there is someone who believes the conspiracy extends even further than you do.
Forrest (Run Forrest, run) appears to be suggesting that I am a disinformation agent, part of the conspiracy, although errors during translation of his post are inevitable and he might be talking about gardening, its hard to know.
Lord give me STRENGTH.
, Thursday, 6 November 2008 12:16:22 PM
Paul.L's argument against the controlled demolition theory to explain the collapse of the twin towers (but not about WTC7, about which he still remains silent), is:
No controlled demolition has apparently occurred in that way before. Therefore it could not have been a controlled demolition.
Paul.L earlier tried to imply that the fact that the building is taller than any other building that has so far been destroyed by controlled demolition and the unconventional order in which the floors collapsed make it extremely unlikely that those who had planned the demolition could have caused the buildings to collapse in the neat, symmetrical way in which they did and into dust.
Paul.L can't have it both ways.
If he truly believes that such collapses that we have observed could have occurred without their having been planned, then he would surely have to agree that if it have been easier, and not more difficult, for the collapses to have occurred neatly if they had been planned, regardless of the order in which the detonations had occurred.
Similarly, if Paul.L insists that the mere burning aviation fuel is capable of having so thoroughly caused the destruction of virtually all of the concrete and steel inside the twin towers, then why not thermite/thermate? And let's not forget that in the case of WTC2, the first to collapse, in spite of having been the second to have been hit, most of the aviation fuel appeared to have ended up being spectacularly ignited in the air outside of the building.
If others see Paul.L's arguments as more logical then mine, then, by all means, please continue to pay heed to what he writes and ignore my posts.
, Thursday, 6 November 2008 1:43:55 PM
Those who insist that those who reject the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks have a psychological predisposition to embrace each and every conspiracy theory, should read the words of David Ray Griffin in the introduction to the New Pearl Harbour" at
"Until the spring of 2003, I had not looked at any of the
evidence. I was vaguely aware that mere were people, at
least on the Internet, who were offering evidence against
the official account of 9/11 and were suggesting a
revisionist account,according to which US officials were
complicit. But I did not take the time to try to find their
websites. I had been studying the history of American
expansionism and imperialism quite intensely since 9/11,
so I knew that the US government had fabricated 'incidents'
as an excuse to go to war several times before. Nevertheless,
although the thought did cross my mind that 9/11 might
likewise have been arranged, I did not take this possibility
seriously. It seemed to me simply beyond belief that the Bush
administration -- /even/ the Bush administration -- would do
such a heinous thing. I assumed that those who were claiming
otherwise must be 'conspiracy theorists' in the derogatory
sense in which this term is usually employed -- which means,
roughly, 'crackpots.' I knew that if they were right, this
would be very important. But I was so confident that they
must be wrong -- that their writings would consist merely of
loony theories based on wild inferences from dubious evidence
-- that I had no motivation to invest time and energy in
tracking these writings down. I fully sympathize, therefore,
with the fact that most people have not examined the evidence.
Life is short and the list of conspiracy theories is long, and
we all must exercise judgment about which things are worth our
investment of time. I had assumed that conspiracy theories about
9/11 were below the threshold of possible credibility."
Of course, he eventually changed his mind in regard to 9/11, but that was still four years before I properly woke up to what had happened.
, Thursday, 6 November 2008 2:25:14 PM
You say >> Paul.L earlier tried to imply that the fact that the building is taller than any other building that has so far been destroyed by controlled demolition and the unconventional order in which the floors collapsed make it extremely unlikely that those who had planned the demolition could have caused the buildings to collapse in the neat, symmetrical way in which they did and into dust.
No I didn’t dagget. No wonder you are having so much trouble with this issue. I merely rebutted YOUR point that “ WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 all happened to collapse on the same day IN WAYS THAT LOOKED EXACTLY LIKE CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS”. I merely pointed out that they did NOT look like controlled demolitions. I have posted a video showing more than half a dozen ACTUAL demolitions jobs on tall buildings, in all of which
1) the sound of the explosives are louder than the actual building collapse
2) the explosive flashes are unmistakable
3) the flashes occur well before the building starts moving
4) the demolitions all cut the building columns at ground level and collapsed the building from the bottom up.
That point, at least, has been made without doubt. The mere fact that you no longer use the “they looked like controlled demolitions” is evidence enough.
I have posted photos clearly showing that the WTC were not crumbled into dust. You have offered nothing to rebut that. Furthermore, controlled demolitions don’t explode buildings into dust either. Dagget continually shows he is well out of his area of expertise (wherever that is). Demolitions use the minimum explosive necessary, by “surgically” cutting columns and allowing gravity and the buildings inertia to carry out the demolition. Cutting charges don’t push buildings anywhere, they take out the supports from underneath the building. To explode the whole building into dust would take a small nuclear weapon, and the material would have been sprayed for kilometers.
, Friday, 7 November 2008 11:17:18 AM
Real engineers explain the collapse.
>>”The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total. Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down. This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.”
This is a peer reviewed structural engineering journal. If you knew anything about scientific journals you would know that articles are not just accepted without the results to back up their claims. Furthermore, scientists make a habit of testing the work of their colleagues to see if it is correct. When it is not, they publish themselves and the process continues. That is REAL academia. Not half smart money grubbing liars who can and will say anything to make the facts fit their pet theory. Or are the whole worlds structural engineers in on the conspiracy as well?
You say >> “Similarly, if Paul.L insists that the mere burning aviation fuel is capable of having so thoroughly caused the destruction of virtually all of the concrete and steel inside the twin towers … “
No dagget, I never said that. Clearly you are now flailing around looking for any excuse to hold onto your pet prejudice.
You say >> Paul.L's argument is No controlled demolition has apparently occurred in that way before. Therefore it could not have been a controlled demolition.
No dagget, you really are reaching now aren’t you. Why don’t you give up if you’re going to get silly about this?
, Friday, 7 November 2008 11:19:26 AM
A proposed discussion topic "Who is really behind the bloody sectarian killings in Iraq?" starting with the following has just been rejected:
In another discussion on "Winning the War in Iraq" it was written by a critic of the war:
"Since then the coalition forces have been used to stop the stupid Iraqis from killing each other over religous differences." (
Elsewhere (I can't locate it) it was claimed that Iraqis themselves were responsible for more killings than the occupying forces and that, by comparison, the outrages at Abu Ghraib were minor.
Up until recently, even I did not challenge this view, although I pointed out that the outrageous anti-democratic policies of Paul Bremer of privatisation and impoverishment of the Iraqi population at the start of the occupation had probably started the chain reaction.
In fact it seem likely that many of the bloody sectarian attacks may well have been 'false flag' attacks, similar in a sense to what many believe the 9/11 attack to have been (see discussion of "9/11 Truth" at
). I had totally missed the significance of a story of September 2005 "British 'Undercover Soldiers' Caught driving Booby Trapped Car":
Why were undercover British "soldiers" wearing traditional Arab headscarves
firing at Iraqi police?
The incident took place just prior to a major religious event in Basra.
The report suggests that the police thought the British soldiers looked
"suspicious". What was the nature of their mission?
Occupation forces are supposed to be collaborating with Iraqi authorities.
Why did British Forces have to storm the prison using tanks and armoured
vehicles to liberate the British undercover agents?
"British forces used up to 10 tanks "supported by helicopters" to smash
through the walls of the jail and free the two British servicemen."
Was there concern that the British "soldiers" who were being held by the
Iraqi National Guard would be obliged to reveal the nature and objective
of their undercover mission?
, Friday, 7 November 2008 12:54:35 PM
A report of Al Jazeera TV ... suggests that the riots directed against
British military presence were motivated because the British undercover
soldiers were planning to explode the booby trapped car in the centre of
The response from the moderator was:
Your general discussion thread entitled "Who is really behind the
bloody sectarian killings in Iraq?" has been rejected by the moderator.
I can't see this going anywhere that the previous thread didn't.
As the "Who is winning the Iraq War" thread has been closed, it seems that the moderator has decided on our behalf that all that needs to be discussed about the Iraq war has been discussed.
I don't know about others, but I call this censorship.
If anyone else disagrees with this decision as strongly as I do, I suggest they let the moderator know and also draw it to the attention of others that OLO is no longer the free and open discussion forum that it would have them believe that it is.
I note Paul.L's recent and rather unimaginative personal attack upon Forrest Gump. (I will deal with Paul.L's more recent hair-splitting effort some other time.)
Does this mean that those others on this forum who have not yet come out and stated their agreement with the case of the 9/11 Truth movement can expect to be similarly attacked when and if they decide to do so?
I agree with FG, that the discussion is barely beginning. However, as this forum will have reached 263 posts with this post, it may be time to start another, say "9/11 Truth continued". As another request of mine has just been rejected, someone else should consider doing it for me.
, Friday, 7 November 2008 12:57:10 PM
Griffin claims it to be anomalous that three aircraft that should have been intercepted and shot down were not, whilst one, Flight 93, that should not have been after being re-seized by passengers, was.
United Airlines Flight 93 is claimed to have departed Newark 41 minutes late, at 8:42 AM.
Had this aircraft departed on time, and its flight path and hijacking timetable been the same as was revealed by events up until its re-seizure by passengers, but without such re-seizure occurring, at what time would it have been expected to have been crashed into the Capitol building?
I get the impression, although it seems Griffin does not ask this question in 'The New Pearl Harbour', that the answer might have been 'around 9:40 AM'.
Since there was always going to be a risk of the news of the 8:46 AM and 9:03 AM WTC kamikazes spreading in the way it actually did to Flight 93 passengers, by mobile phone conversations, and since the hijack would have been effected by 8:38 AM if the flight had been on time, there was always going to be a risk of a passenger uprising on this flight under the spur of a suspicion of it by then being considered to be on a suicide mission.
Such assessment of risk to hypothetical orchestraters of a coup could well explain the fortuitous presence of a fighter aircraft in the vicinity of Flight 93's flightpath unconnected with any other scrambling, or failure to scramble, of interceptors in the face of an emergency of then unknown extent. The shooting down of Flight 93 may always have been a 'Plan B' in antipation of any passenger uprising occurring and succeeding. It would require no collusion in any planned coup on the part of the fighter pilot involved: a shootdown order was standing operational procedure and only to be eventually expected in event of interception of a hijacked flight.
A successful 9:40 AM crash into the at that time unevacuated Capitol would likely have crippled the US legislature.
, Friday, 7 November 2008 3:19:45 PM
Forrest Gumpp to take on the biggest loser.
, Friday, 7 November 2008 8:52:01 PM
Did you just make those figures up, CJM, or did you arrive at them through some objective process, presumably entailing, on your part, comprehension of the arguments put?
Paul.L wrote, "I merely rebutted YOUR point that 'WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 all happened to collapse on the same day IN WAYS THAT LOOKED EXACTLY LIKE CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS'".
Well, perhaps I should have said, then, in regard to WTC1, and WTC2 "in ways that looked strikingly similar to controlled demolitions".
The essential point is that the collapses looked controlled and not unplanned for reasons that have been covered exhaustively here and elsewhere.
It may well be that no other building in the world has ever been demolished in such a fashion. If you insist that therefore the remarkably symmetrical, neat and complete collapse of the twin towers must have been uncontrolled, then, as I said, fine, let's agree to disagree and let others from their own conclusions as to which of the two of us is the more objective and rational.
Anyhow, Paul.L, I am still waiting for you to acknowledge that the WTC7 collapse looked exactly like a conventional controlled demolition, even if the other two did not.
Paul.L wrote, "I have posted photos clearly showing that the WTC were not crumbled into dust. You have offered nothing to rebut that."
I consider this time-wasting pedantry.
Obviously some of the structural steel on the outer wall of the very bottom of the buildings held together.
The rest of the 100+ stories including all the concrete did crumble to dust.
, Saturday, 8 November 2008 1:55:43 AM
"Run, Forrest, run!" says Paul.L
Alright, I'll run this past viewers.
"What evidence do you believe exists that hasn't been properly explained?" asks Paul.L
This question is a little difficult to answer for grammatical reasons. Nevertheless I shall attempt it.
I believe there exists evidence for the world having been and remained surplus one substantially complete* set of Boeing 757 aircraft components above all accounted for production, as adjusted for all documented losses up until 9:38 AM US EST on 11 September 2001, since that date. You will note the cut-in point for the surplus corresponds with the claimed loss of American Airlines Flight 77 in crashing into the Pentagon at 9:38 AM on that day. As to where those components ended up is a challenge for investigation.
Griffin, on page 36 of 'The New Pearl Harbour', harmonises several theories that account for the seeming absence of evidence that it was a Boeing 757 that struck the Pentagon. Griffin says:
"Eastmans theory, in other words, is that an American Airlines plane was putting on an attention-
getting exhibition to draw all eyes to itself. Then it flew towards the Pentagon while the missile
was heading in the same direction — too close to the ground for most witnesses to see it even if
they had not been distracted by the airliner. Then the airliner veered off at the last second,
disappearing behind the immense cloud of smoke produced by the crash. It then landed unnoticed
at Reagan National Airport, which was only a mile away in the direction it was headed. >57"
This bald outline, one that is capable of being seen to be consistent with all the seemingly contradictory witness testimony, is, in my opinion, also capable of being rationaly integrated with co-ordinated intended suicide attacks upon not only the WTC, but also the Washington Capitol building. It is this last failed attack that would have made possible an effective coup.
*Missing perhaps only a set of flight recorders subsequently claimed to have been found in the damaged section of the Pentagon.
, Saturday, 8 November 2008 5:16:33 AM
You say >> “I consider this time-wasting pedantry.”
I consider almost ALL of the arguments you have put forward as such. Very few had any validity.
You have not once put forward ANY evidence showing this “crumpled to dust” theory. I have SHOWN you pictures of the massive amounts of steel left in the rubble pile. I have shown you pictures of floors compacted so tightly that four stories were now 3 feet high. Furthermore, the WTC were somewhat unique in having a tube in tube design. A lot less concrete was used in these buildings. In any case, thermite does not cause concrete buildings to crumble to dust.
That’s the problem with the truthers, one minute their saying that it was “super thermite” which caused the collapse and created “rivers of molten steel”, next their saying that the building was “exploded” into dust using explosives.
But Dagget, explosives don’t crumble buildings into dust either. You still haven’t done any of your own research on the basics of demolition, have you. Certainly columns and other supporting structures are cut with explosive cutting charges, but the idea isn’t to explode the building into a cloud of dust. In order to do that, massive quantities of explosives would be needed and the shrapnel would go everywhere at 50,000m/s. Absolutely unmistakeable, that’s for sure. No, demolitions use gravity and the inertia of the building to force it into smashing itself into pieces
>> “The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.”
, Saturday, 8 November 2008 12:15:50 PM
You say >> “. If you insist that therefore the remarkably symmetrical, neat and complete collapse of the twin towers must have been uncontrolled, then”
You STILL don’t get it, I introduced that evidence merely to show you that it did not look like a controlled demolition, NOT to prove that it happened the way it actually happened. In terms of proving that it did happen the way NIST explains it, all I can do is point to
1) the jets
2) the fires
3) the actual collapse
4) the PEER REVIEWED scientific reports
5) the claims of responsibility by Osama and Al Qaeda.
WTC7 certainly looked more “like” a controlled demolition than wtc1 and 2. So what? Expert structural engineering reports agree that WTC7 fell in the manner that NIST suggests.
How about you answer a few simple questions for me.
Why would they demolish a building whose collapse was not ostensibly caused by the jet impacts?
Why would they demolish a building which suffered less damage from the WTC1 and 2 collapses than those closer, like wtc 4 and 6?
How did the “pre planted” explosives survive the hours and hours of uncontrolled fires?
, Saturday, 8 November 2008 12:17:31 PM
Paul.L wrote, "I have posted photos clearly showing that the WTC were not crumbled into dust. You have offered nothing to rebut that."
Then daggett wrote, "I consider this time-wasting pedantry."
Then Paul.L wrote, "I consider almost ALL of the arguments you have put forward as such. Very few had any validity."
Of course, Paul.L would say that, wouldn't he?
I accuse him of being a pedant. Then he accuses me of being a pedant, in turn, and no progress is made.
Why I accuse Paul.L of being a pedant is that he is nit-picking over literal meanings of words I use as shorthand. I use shorthand expressions because I don't have time to spell out every aspect of my case to 100% literal accuracy, and if I did, that would necessitate myself breaking the rules of OLO either literally or in spirit (and that, of course, would provide the lunatic in our midst yet another excuse to stick his nose in again).
Instead of writing,
"The twin towers collapsed to short lengths of steel, with some of the outer lower 6 floors supporting structure is still holding together with 4 out of the 110 floors compacted together and the rest to dust"
I wrote "... the two towers ... collapse(d) to dust ..."
Then Paul.L says,
"Aha! Look at that picture over there.
"I see lengths of steel. Lengths of steel are not dust!
"Daggett must be pulling the wool over our eyes!"
The 9/11 Truth case doesn't insist that every last piece of the twin towers was literally transformed into dust.
Paul.L, if you want to accuse me of pedantry, then show me where and don't just make blanket accusations.
Paul.L wrote, "WTC7 certainly looked more 'like' a controlled demolition than wtc1 and 2."
Well, I would say its about time that important detail was acknowledged after all the carrying on about how the twin tower collapses supposedly looked nothing like controlled demolitions.
, Saturday, 8 November 2008 8:52:04 PM
In fact, Paul.L, I would suggest to you, that it looks exactly like a controlled demolition and not just "more 'like'" a controlled demolition". How much more 'like' a controlled demolition could any collapse possibly be?
Paul.L continued, "So what? Expert structural engineering reports agree that WTC7 fell in the manner that NIST suggests."
And other peer-reviewed structural engineering reports say that the explanation is rubbish. The 9/11 Truth movement also published lots of peer-reviewed articles. Just check out
Even the NIST supposed simulation of the collapse at
, as far as it goes -- which is not very far -- substantially differs from the actual observed collapse, particularly the simulation in the simulation labelled "WTC 7 Collapse with No Debris Impact Damage – Physics Based Model"
I could not find any reference to the 'peer reviewed' article you refer to at
... nor could "Winter Patriot" at
Initially the BBC misleadingly claimed that the article had been published. Then it changed that to:
"The findings are to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics."
However, a search of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics at
will not uncover any trace of the article.
So, it seems that, once again, you have misled this forum and wasted my time.
I think it's time we left behind those incapable of acknowledging the mountains of clear evidence pointing to the complicity of the Bush administration in the 9/11 attacks and moved on to the real discussion.
Forrest Gump, I note your observations about Flight 93. Even all those years in which I accepted the Official Conspiracy Theory, I found that story quite uplifting if sad.
In all probably what the uprising of the passengers on Flight 93 would have prevented a coup on 11 September 2001.
, Saturday, 8 November 2008 8:56:31 PM
Had the Capitol building been hit and a significant number of US legislators killed it is not hard to imagine how, just as Hitler suspended the German constitution after the Reichstag Fire, the PNAC cabal would have attempted to do the same on 11 September 2001. As bad as things turned out, it could easily have been so much worse.
We should not take it for granted that countries like the U.S. and Australia will always remain democracies.
In regard to the Pentagon attack, you may be interested to know there are people within the 9/11 Truth Movement who accept that it is possible that an airliner hit the Pentagon as unlikely as it appears to me from the photos and other evidence.
Howevere, whether it was a 757 a cessna, a cruise missile or whatever, the crucial question remains how it was possible for anything at all to hit the most heavilly guarded building in the world.
Lastly, I note that, once again, CJ Morgan has shown himself to be either incapable of answering a simple straigtforward question, or unwilling to answer.
, Saturday, 8 November 2008 8:58:12 PM
You are such a MORON.
Dagget says >> “So, it seems that, once again, you have misled this forum and wasted my time.”
Firstly I have never misled this forum. Dagget is the one who has been parading about under false pretences, actually having conversations with himself under his various pseuonyms. Nor have I introduced “evidence” which was actually fabricated to make a point. It’s a shame Dagget can’t say the same.
Secondly, here is the reference Dagget couldn’t find and then accused me of lying about.
This says EVERYTHING about Daggets standard of scholarship and his propensity to believe that EVERYONE is conspiring against him. Seeing conspiracies everywhere is the first sign of schizophrenia, I would get myself checked out if I were him. Believing the IDIOTS who post on the web, over a fact checked, highly acclaimed newspaper is typical of Dagget, who seems to believe that if it's on the “truther” websites, it must be true. Pity he didn’t check for himself. But that’s been his problem all along.
So I have shown Dagget that McQueen has only John Schroeder (not doubt a brave man, but not a very sophisticated one) from his 118 first responder witnesses who actually believe his “theories” on the collapse.
Dagget has finally agreed that the building WTC1 and 2 did not look like controlled demolitions.
His “orange flash” which he held was the cause of the collapse, was shown to occur well after the building began collapsing.
His “exploded into dust” nonsense required months to expose, even though I supplied evidence to refute it early on.
Dagget says >> The 9/11 Truth movement also published lots of peer-reviewed articles.
What a JOKE. The journal of 9/11 studies is NOT a peer reviewed scientific journal. It is a homepage for the half-smart, pseudo-scientific or self deluded. The issues surrounding the collapse of the towers are significant engineering events. The fact that these “truthers” would prefer to publish in a mickey mouse journal instead of a real science journal speaks VOLUMES.
Your just not very bright are you mate.
, Sunday, 9 November 2008 12:55:24 PM
Am I the only one here to detect ever-increasing signs of desperation on the part of Paul.L?
Not only does he call me also a MORON, but now he wants to dredge up the well-and-truly-worn distraction of daggett having been accused of having made use of other accounts in this discussion.
Perhaps, Paul.L was too quick to rebuke the (original) Moron earlier on in this discussion. He should have better appreciated his value in being able to railroad thie discussion into bitter acrimonious personal exchanges.
I note that the much ballyhooed peer-reviewed paper by Keith Seffen does, in fact, exist after all.
Well, silly me for believing the BBC!
When they initially reported that the paper had been published in September 2007, but subsequently changed that to "The findings are to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics", I expected it at least to be published before the end of 2007 and not February 2008, so I only searched for the year 2007 (but, one can't help but to suspect that maybe they delayed its publication in the hope that nobody would be looking when it did eventually get published).
Anyway it appears, from all accounts, to be a crock.
People can judge for themsleves by viewing
and reading the above links.
As for the rest of Paul.L's posts, I am sure we've all been there before and it ahs all been rebutted.
I will have to leave it to others to sort it out until I find more time.
, Sunday, 9 November 2008 2:02:14 PM
This is what happens every time I prove Dagget wrong. He runs and hides.
he says >> "Am I the only one here to detect ever-increasing signs of desperation on the part of Paul.L?"
Desperation? I've just shown you up, AGAIN. I've caught you out in a MASSIVE mistake, and worse, you actually accused me of trying to mislead people about it. You have EGG all over your face and you call me desperate?
If you will recall Dagget, you have labeled me a pedant for actually believing the things you have said. Being precise about what you are saying is VITAL in a online debate, furthermore I simply don't believe you when you say you didn't mean that the buildings had been exploded into dust. You have said may things which were equally as silly before, indeed the whole of the WTC conspiracy stuff is silly.
But you also called me a liar and a time waster, for reasons only known to yourself, when in actual fact it was your own poor research abilities which befuddled you. I felt it important to point out that it was NOT I who has a history of seeking to mislead others. When you accuse me of lying why would I not bring up your history of actual lying. What a normal person would have done was ask for evidence of this document. That way you don't end up looking so much like an absolute amateur.
I notice that even after Winter Patriot has led you astray, you go back and refer to his opinion regarding the Professors work. Try and find an actual civil/structural engineer to rebut Seffens case, not some half-smart blogger with a grudge against the govt.
Its actually typical dagget, who goes back to the LIARS who produced the "absolute truth" video after I show him their DELIBERATE attempts to mislead.
If anything Dagget, it is you who are getting hysterical, I am prepared to take as long as is necessary to show you how wrong you are.
, Sunday, 9 November 2008 3:46:21 PM
This is a link to a page on the complete 9/11 Timeline site titled 'Other pre-9/11 events':
The third last item on the page, headed 'September 10, 2001: Rumsfeld Announces Defense Department Cannot Track $2.3 Trillion in Transactions' is most interesting.
The thing that attracts my attention is the size of the apparent discrepancy when compared to the size of the recent bailout, at US taxpayers' expense, of failing financial institutions. Is there any connection between this, at the time eclipsed, announcement of a failure to account for defence expenditure and the 2008 financial crisis, I wonder?
Was evidence as to the possible unlawful diversion of funds from approved defence projects to unapproved projects or black operations known to be about to come to light as a consequence of US Defense Department audit operations? It is interesting that the very part of the Pentagon hit by whatever impacted that building on Tuesday 11 September 2001 contained at least part of that audit function's records and personnel. Such coincidence is suggestive as to that specific part of the building having been chosen for deliberately planned destruction by interests knowledgeable as to what may have been about to be revealed by audit.
Going further, was the timing of the 2008 US financial crisis itself contrived as part of a cover-up or large scale diversion of public attention relating to the events of 9/11? If what we saw on 9/11 was a failed coup, rather than simply a large terrorist attack, would not funding of the order of size of the claimed discrepancy have been needed as 'bridging finance' by the US executive (or what was left of it) to run the functions of coup government IT wanted operational until such time as it could have a compliant replacement legislature elected to restore the appearance of (nationally enraged) normalcy?
Did that part of the Pentagon have to be hit with precision on 9/11?
, Monday, 10 November 2008 12:54:33 PM
As the document referred to by Forrest Gump states, "... The Department of the Army will state that it won't publish a stand-alone financial statement for 2001 because of 'the loss of financial-management personnel sustained during the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.'" (
Interesting observations, Forrest, except I don't think it was likely that the financial meltdown was contrived.
It was a predictable consequence of the deregulation of the US financial but I think it unlikely that anyone would have been able to pull strings sufficiently in order to make the meltdown happen when it did, that is, unless you can point to an article that could show how that might have happened.
, Monday, 10 November 2008 2:23:32 PM
Paul.L "I've just shown you up, AGAIN. I've caught you out in a MASSIVE mistake, ..."
What? believe the BBC and expecting that Seffen's paper was published in 2007?
Anyhow, I also note that Paul.L has again made use of the lie that Osama bin Laden confessed to the crime of 9/11 ("the claims of responsibility by Osama and Al Qaeda.") when, in fact as I pointed out at least twice, he denied responsibility and even the FBI doesn't believe it has sufficient evidence to charge him as his wanted poster (
For more hilarious details about the 'hunt' for Osama bin Laden read:
"Would the Real Osama Please stand/Where in the world is bin Laden" at:
"Meet the fake Laden" at
, Monday, 10 November 2008 3:39:46 PM
Dagget whines >> "What? believe the BBC and expecting that Seffen's paper was published in 2007?"
Your mistake wasn't not being able to find the article. Your mistake was insisting it didn't exist and suggesting I was misleading people and wasting others time.In actual fact it was YOU who was the time waster, you who was misleading people.
Your problem all along has been that you don't go check out the sources for yourself. You just went to the idiot "winter patriot"s website where you saw this claim, and you repeated it without looking into it yourself. For some reason you think that these idiots won't lie to you even though I have shown you at least 1 indisputable example of them doing so.
Osama didn't confess? Really?
I suppose he didn't organize the attacks on the American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya?
I know, maybe they were training runs paid for using the secret slush funds the CIA have from the missing trillions from the defence department which they tried to cover up using the recent bogus financial crisis.
The Bali bombers weren't really shot either, they were body doubles and the real criminals were flown by helicopter to their new home with big foot the sasquatch, who they'll be training as a terrorist. " Silence, I KILLLL YOUUUUU!!"
I suppose I should find it encouraging that you don't immediately accept 'Run Forrest Run's bizzare and ridiculous flights of fancy. You haven't yet sailed off the edge of our square earth.
, Monday, 10 November 2008 5:20:58 PM
Timeline for a Financial Meltdown?
Pre 2000. US financial sector is progressively deregulated. Electronic voting is introduced. Defense funds commence being unlawfully diverted into various bank and non-bank accounts.
Nov 2000. US Presidential election. Electronic voting produces the results for which it was designed.
Sep 2001. Attempted coup in USA. Pentagon targetted in audit section. Records destroyed. Many key audit staff killed. Claim that up to three trillion dollars is not accounted for in defense expenditures. Islamic terrorists blamed for the part of the attempted coup that succeeded. National attention diverted to a War against Terrorism. US Defense spending boosted. Announcement that US Army would not be able to produce expenditure statement for 2001 due to loss of key staff in strike against Pentagon. Up to three trillion dollars salted away throughout the US financial sector, perhaps even world-wide.
2001. US enters into constitutional twilight. US and allies militarily involved in Afghanistan. Turkmenistan - Pakistan oil and gas pipeline project proceeds.
2003. Iraq attacked and occupied. Ministry of Oil preserved undamaged by shock and awe. Military industrial sector enjoys boom times. More funds get diverted?
Nov 2004. US Presidential election. Unauditable electronic voting does its job again.
2007. Peak oil talked up with a vengeance. Crude oil prices hit record high. Predictable consequences of deregulation of the financial sector start to emerge. Sub-prime market crisis.
2008. Withdrawal of salted-away diverted funds produces progressive liquidity problems for financial sector?
Oct 2008. Accelerated withdrawal of remaining diverted funds produces a full-blown financial crisis? Share prices collapse. Diverted funds used in part to buy up selected shares at fire sale prices? World-wide self-funded retirees and superannuation funds make disastrous losses. Embezzlers of US defense funding acquire select productive assets at bargain basement prices, and stand to make huge financial gains, either individually, or as an interest group? US taxpayers restore liquidity to financial sector.
Nov 2008. US Presidential election. Record voter turnout. Barak Obama becomes President-elect. Will he make it alive to his inauguration in January?
Is this what happened?
, Monday, 10 November 2008 5:21:40 PM
At least the "idiot" on the Winter Patriot web site, was pepared to make readily available, the document that Paul.L claims shoots down the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement in flames, something, neither Paul.L, himself, nor the BBC were willing or able to do.
Paul.L wrote, "I suppose he didn't organize the attacks on the American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya?"
Why would I claim that, Paul.L?
I showed you the FBI wanted posted poster at
which does include those charges, but no charges relating to the September 11 attacks.
Clearly, even the FBI understands, even if you don't, that the 'confession' tape, conveniently timed to help George W Bush get re-elected in 2004, was probably a fake.
Also, see "FBI says, 'No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11'" at
Anyhow if Paul.L is intent to continue to clutter up the discussion with posts purportedly exposing daggett's dishonesty and proclaiming his victory, I can't really stop him, can I?
Clearly Paul.L won't be able to stop anyone who is determined to wade through this from learning the truth, but, no doubt, a good many others, with less perseverance, will go away confused.
To help people get more easily to the bottom of this I intend to write my own guide to this discussion. In the article intend to deconstruct the attempts by others to prevent them from understanding the issues.
It is not yet finished, but in case the discussion is closed prematurely and I don't get another chance to post a link, the beginning of the article is now at
, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 12:02:17 PM
Such a drama queen.
You say >> At least the "idiot" on the Winter Patriot web site, was pepared to make readily available, the document that Paul.L claims shoots down the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement in flames”
I never said anything like that.
My purpose in this debate has been to show you that the 9/11 truthers are liars or at best seriously misguided. I can’t prove what actually happened, we all saw it. So what I set out to do was show you that the 9/11 truthers case was completely flawed.
You say >> “Anyhow if Paul.L is intent to continue to clutter up the discussion with posts purportedly exposing daggett's dishonesty and proclaiming his victory, I can't really stop him, can I?”
What? You accuse me of time wasting and misleading people; and all along it was actually you, and you’re now whining about it? Are you kidding?
You say >> “Clearly Paul.L won't be able to stop anyone who is determined to wade through this from learning the truth, but, no doubt, a good many others, with less perseverance, will go away confused.”
Couple of issues here. You always imagine there are masses of people who are waiting on your every post. I suppose anyone with a vanity blog, like yourself, needs to believe other people are listening.
But this debate has been a perfect place for someone beginning to look into the “9/11 truth” farce. You’ve put your best arguments, I’ve put mine, well let them decide.
So you go ahead and publish your fairy tales on your own, forget about inconvenient truths which render your theories farcical.
You aren’t interested in debate are you dagget, you’re another of the pathetic types who just wants to be patted on the head by those with similar views.
By the way, what actually would convince you that the collapses occurred as per the official story?
, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 3:03:35 PM
I somehow suspect that if I was making such a complete idiot of myself and if no one was reading this discussion, Paul.L would have departed a long time ago.
Even if it is true, that no-one is reading this discussion, as Paul.L claims, it does, in my view constitute an important record, if a badly spoilt one.
As at least one user has complained that this thread has been largely turned "into a vaudeville show with reams of stupefying swill ...", then I think it makes sense for others to try to salvage the worthwhile parts of this discussion and attempt to omit the stupefying swill.
You are welcome to attempt to do the same, Paul.L, that is, unless you don't believe that there is any stupefying swill in this discussion in it.
FG, thanks for the timeline.
It's interesting, but I don't see how the financial collapse was contrived. A lot of the wealthy lost money (at least for a while). I think it started when desperately poor people, unable to pay their mortgages, just stopped doing so. No great manipulation there I would have thought.
What I objected to, as did most US citizens, is the way the Wall Street gamblers and criminals blackmailed the US legislators into passing the bailout the US$700billion after it had been rejected the first time round.
George W Bush made a thinly veiled threat that martial law would result.
It is worth reading what people like Naomi Klein (
) and Michael Moore (
) have to say about all this.
Michael Moore said that they should let the stupid paper economy collapse in a heap and put the $700billion towards rebuilding the real economy.
, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 3:44:49 PM
you say >> "I somehow suspect that if I was making such a complete idiot of myself and if no one was reading this discussion, Paul.L would have departed a long time ago."
You just keep getting it wrong. It might be an idea to keep your half baked assumptions to yourself.
I do this becuase I enjoy forming an argument, and debating people. I don't visit conservative websites to chat with other people who have views similar to mine. I don't look for pats on the head, and I sure as hell am not so arrogant as to suggest that anyone should be listening to me for advice or edification. Get over yourself.
, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 5:29:37 PM
*I don't look for pats on the head, and I sure as hell am not so arrogant as to suggest that anyone should be listening to me for advice or edification. Get over yourself.*
You've summed it up very well Paul. Daggett seems to be well known
on OLO for his delusions of grandeur. I just don't have your
, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 7:28:38 PM
I have decided, for the time, being to not spent further hours of my days composing responses to such obviously stupid statements as:
"What? The fast removal of debris is evidence that the buildings were demolished? Really?"
"Molly the dog was running as a candidate for the 2008 presidential election. Should we take her seriously as well?"
"How many inquiries do you people want? It wouldn't matter what an inquiry found, to the conspiracy nuts. If the new inquiry found that it happened exactly as 9/11 commission and NIST has suggested, they would just squeal 'whitewash' all over again."
"The mere fact that you no longer use the 'they looked like controlled demolitions' is evidence enough."
"Dagget has finally agreed that the building WTC1 and 2 did not look like controlled demolitions."
... and a lot more statements which are equally stupid, if less obviously so.
If I find more time, I would prefer to spend it writing elsewhere (
) succinct deconstructions of the nonsense written by you and similar nonsense, for the benefit of others.
If you therefore think that you are entitled to crow about your supposed intellectual triumph and offer me gratuitous advice about how to get along better in life, then be my guest.
BTW, Paul.L, do you still insist that you can't see evidence of molten steel in
, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 12:46:55 AM
I note that Yabby has seen fit to peddle the lie on another thread (
) that I am excusing Osama bin Laden on this thread. ("... so after Daggett fails to convince anyone that Osama is an angel ...")
If he had bothered to read properly what I had written, he would know that that is a lie. I had merely pointed out that there is no evidence that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 as attested to even by the FBI.
Naturally, Yabby didn't include any direct quote of mine to back up his filthy libel.
This is the sort of smear that one should come to expect from such a two-faced sociopathic hypocrite, when he is backed into a corner created as a result of his own self-contradiction.
, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 11:43:09 AM
Corners Daggett? Hehe, you are as silly as Nicky :)
I've never seen one yet.
One of the many videos that came out after Afgahnistan
was overthrown, was a video of Osama explaining to
some Mullahs, how it happened and was planned etc.
All interesting stuff, for anyone to see.
But stick to your whacko beliefs, it keeps you occupied
and some of us amused, when we read your garbage
occasionally for a bit of a chuckle.
, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 1:18:25 PM
note that Yabby has neither substantiated his libellous accusation against me nor withdrawn it.
If Yabby had read and comprehended what was written in this forum, he would know that the supposed "Confession video" by Osama bin Laden was almost certainly a fake. If Yabby examined the face of "Osama bin Laden" as it appeared in the supposed confession tape at
he surely could not fail to notice the striking differences between the actual Osama bin Laden and the Osama bin Laden on the tape.
Perhaps, he would then understand why even the FBI acknowledges that it does not have enough evidence to charge Osama bin Laden with the crime of orchestrating the 9/11 terrorist attack, and that is why that crime is not listed at
And if Yabby had any intellectual sophistication whatsoever within him he would understand that there is a difference between on the one hand pointing out that no evidence has been produced that links Osama bin Laden with the crime of September 11 and on the other approving of Osama bin Laden.
But, then again, being able to pretend to be a stupid ignoramus with no capacity to understand the words staring you in your face serves a useful purpose on forums like this.
It would serve to make the making of false and libellous accusations against others less reprehensible than it in fact is.
, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 2:20:56 PM
Ah, but what our Daggett clearly overlooks, is the fact that the
photo on his conspiracy website could well in fact be a fake,
and not from the alleged video at all! The one that I saw
on tv certainly was Bin Laden and looks nothing like the
Next we have had Bin Laden confess on Al Jazeera, we have
had Zawahiri admit the role of Al Queda, etc. etc.
Fact is that Daggett doesent have a clue as to what evidence
the FBI do or don't have against Bin Laden, for he has never
seen their files and mountains of evidence. All the rest is
It is common practise in criminal cases of complexity, where
a bundle of crimes have been committed, to simply focus on
a few of them. Perhaps the FBI have not even decided yet,
what crimes he would be charged with, should he ever be
caught. It really does not matter, he could be hauled
in for a traffic offense. The problem is catching him if
he is still alive, not what he will be prosectuted with,
for there is clearly a mountain of evidence. So that little
conspiracy theory, based on an FBI webpage, goes completely
out the window.
There you go Daggett, given that you have time to waste on
this stuff, that website should keep you busy for days.
, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 8:16:12 PM
Yabby wrote, "... So that little conspiracy theory, based on an FBI webpage, goes completely out the window."
Because Yabby, it would seem, happens to know better the reason that the 9/11 attacks are not included on the 'wanted' poster than Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, who, on 5 June 2006 sated:
"The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no /hard evidence/ connecting Bin Laden to 9/11." (
Perhaps Yabby imagines that the FBI has not yet seen 'Osama bin Laden's' 'confession'.
Perhaps Yabby should contact the FBI and tell them that he can personally vouch for the authenticity of 'Osama bin Laden's' taped 'confession'. I am sure that they would listen and in no time at all the 9/11 terrorist attacks will be listed on Osama bin Laden's 'wanted' poster at
Anyway, Yabby, the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement does not rest solely on that fact alone. There are mountains of other evidence which implicate the White House in the 9/11 attacks.
, Friday, 14 November 2008 1:47:53 AM
Daggett, last time I remember, the US had a 50$ million bounty
on bin Laden's head. Do you really think that they do that
without evidence? This case involves international law,
so it becomes a bit more tricky when it comes to how to
prosecute somebody, under which exact law, if somebody is
not even in the US.
The last thing that the FBI or CIA are going to do is to
tell the public what exactly they know or don't know. Did
they say that those videos on Al Jazeera were all frauds?
Note your FBI source is the man dealing with "publicity".
In other words, tell the public as little as possible,
unless they really need to know. We had case here in
Perth of a serial murderer, where the police witheld
video information from the public for many years, for their
own good reasons, which they never explained.
Once again, the problem with bin Laden is not what appears
on a website, but catching him, if indeed he is still alive,
which is doubtfull.
But believe whatever you will, waste your time. When
I read that it was likely a Cessna that flew into the
Pentagon, I can only chuckle and head off to debate more
Some people simply can't help their own bad judgement.
, Friday, 14 November 2008 1:08:58 PM
This Bin Laden nonsense is just more of the same.
Whether the FBI have the evidence to charge bin laden or not doesn't have ANY bearing on whether the attacks were gov't organised. Its not even remotely evidence for your case.
Are you seriously suggesting that the FBI believes someone else carried out the attack, but is sitting on their hands?
If the fbi are in on the conspiracy then their is no reason for them not to accept bin ladens confession videos (note plural).
If they are not, why would they not leak their suspicions (as every other gov't bureaucracy does?
In simple terms how does the FBI's lack of evidence against Bin Liner prove anything about the gov't complicity in the attacks?
By the way I didn't realise you now had evidence linking the white house to the attacks. Or are you just ad libbing again?
Regarding the "mountain of evidence" supposedly collected by the 9/11 truth movement, the debunking sites thoroughly explain why the evidence is either entirely consistent with the official explanation of the events, or just plain misguided (eg. the many truther claims no longer pursued - a missile hit the pentagon, a cargo jet hit the world trade centre) etc
, Friday, 14 November 2008 11:34:25 PM
Yabby wrote, "... last time I remember, the US had a 50$ million bounty on bin Laden's head. Do you really think that they do that
How would I know?
All I know is that they haven't produced any evidence, which seems to me to be a gaping hole in the case of the US Government, when we consider that Osama bin Laden's presumed guilt was the legal basis for the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
In fact, it wouldn't have surprised me if evidence of Osama bin Laden's involvement in the September 11 attacks had been produced.
The patsies who hijacked the 4 aircraft were clearly motivated by jihadist beliefs similar to those (I believe were) espoused by Osama bin Laden. So it would not have been a great surprise to me if it had turned out that Osama bin Laden had put them up to it, or if not Osama bin Laden, then someone very similar.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that no evidence implicating Osama bin Laden in the 9/11 attacks has been produced, and the video taped confessions are clearly fakes (or do you still insist that
is for real?)
As I keep saying, if you think this debate is a waste of time, then you are not obligated to participate in it. The way I see it, half-baked contributions such as your last only serve to help waste more of everyone's time.
, Saturday, 15 November 2008 12:58:23 AM
there is more than one confession tape. he has confessed a number of times.
, Saturday, 15 November 2008 1:04:42 AM
Well, Paul.L, why not show us an authentic videotaped confession?
Did it happen to be any of these:
I would be interested to read Yabby's comments on:
"Coming Soon: New Fake Bin Laden Video--Just In Time For 9/11" at
I note he still hasn't taken the opportunity to reaffirm his statement "The one that I saw on tv certainly was Bin Laden ..."
More seriously, Osama bin Laden was a CIA asset from when he received material aid from the CIA to wage war against the secular modernising Government of Noor Mohammed Taraki in 1978 and was clearly one after the September 11 attacks as can be seen from the evidence in "The CIA met Bin Laden while undergoing treatment at an American Hospital last July in Dubai" at
"Dubai, one of the seven emirates of the Federation of the United Arab Emirates, North-East of Abi-Dhabi. This city, population 350,000, was the backdrop of a secret meeting between Osama bin Laden and the local CIA agent in July. A partner of the administration of the American Hospital in Dubai claims that public enemy number one stayed at this hospital between the 4th and 14th of July."
At the time Osama bin Laden was wanted by the FBI for other terrorist attacks listed at
He was also treated in a hospital in Pakistan, supposedly an ally in the "War Against Terror"
CBS News has been told that the night before the September 11
terrorist attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was
getting medical treatment with the support of the very military
that days later pledged its backing for the U.S. war on terror
, Saturday, 15 November 2008 1:28:57 PM
Pakistan intelligence sources tell CBS News that bin Laden was
spirited into this military hospital in Rawalpindi for kidney
dialysis treatment. On that night, says this medical worker ...
they moved out all the regular staff in the urology department
and sent in a secret team to replace them. She says it was
treatment for a very special person. The special team was
obviously up to no good. (from "Hospital Worker: I Saw Osama" at
"Bush Administration knew the Whereabouts of Osama by Michel Chossudovsky" at
I would suggest that the US Government has obviously no wish to capture Osama bin Laden alive and put him on trial, regardless of the truth of its claims (but not the claims of the FBI) that he masterminded the September 11 attacks.
As Chossudovsky's article notes,
"In the words of former CIA agent Milt Bearden in an interview with
Dan Rather on September 12, 2001, "If they didn't have an Osama bin
Laden, they would invent one."
, Saturday, 15 November 2008 1:31:06 PM
Daggett, nope, I don't rely on Utube for conclusive evidence,
but feel free to do so if you wish :)
It seems to me that you still don't understand the nature or
structure of Al-Qaeda. There is hardly any structure, it is
this loose knit group of religious extremists, with a common
cause of bringing down America. Much of the philosophy is based
on Sayd Qutb (or similar spelling) and his writings in books
like "Milestones" which is freely available on the net.
Bin Laden has mattered in all this, because he had by far
the biggest cheque book and money talks in impoverished countries
If you'd like to understand more about Al-Qaeda, read
Jason Burkes book called exactly that.
I have no doubt at all that Pakistan helped bin Laden. Their
secret service is loaded with Taliban sympathisers
, Saturday, 15 November 2008 1:42:57 PM
Yabby, who insisted that the phony Video taped confession at
was proof that Osama bin Laden masterminded the 9/11 attacks, wrote:
"I don't rely on Utube for conclusive evidence, ..."
So, it would appear that all the evidence that Yabby thinks he needs to win an argument lies within his imagination.
In any case, my previous post consisted of more than just links to YouTube videos as Yabby well knows.
As for what Yabby tells me Jason Burke's book, I fail to see what bearing it has on the points I made about Al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda was a creation of the CIA and remains an asset of them this day. To repeat what former CIA agent Milt Bearden said on September 12, 2001:
"If they didn't have an Osama bin Laden, they would invent one."
I commend a YouTube Interview "Aaron Russo: Rockefeller knew about 9/11 well in advance" at
Aaron Russo was a film maker Aaron Russo who died of cancer in August 2007. I have transcribed some of it and copied it to
Russo stated,"(Nicholas Rockefeller) told me, 11 months before 9/11 ever happened, that there was going to be an event - he never told me what the event was going to be, but there was going to be an event and out of that event we were going to invade Afghanistan, to run pipelines from the Caspian Sea, we were going to invade Iraq, you know to take over the oil fields to establish a base in the Middle East and make it all part of the New World Order, and we go after Chavez in Venezuela, and, sure enough, later then, 9/11 happened and I remember how he was telling me how we would see soldiers looking in caves for people in Afghanistan and Pakistan and all these places and there was going to be this war on terror of which there was no real enemy, and the whole thing was a giant hoax, you know, but it's a way for the government to take over the American people."
, Saturday, 15 November 2008 11:20:24 PM
says >> Al Qaeda was a creation of the CIA and remains an asset of them this day. To repeat what former CIA agent Milt Bearden said on September 12, 2001:"If they didn't have an Osama bin Laden, they would invent one."
There is just NO LIMIT to the rubbish you won't repeat.
So the CIA controls just Al Qaeda, or is it the whole Islamist movement? After all, Al Qaeda is the banner organization for a very large proportion of the movement.
So are the CIA behind the embassy bombings in Africa and the attack on the US Navy ship in Yemen or wherever it was. Al Qaeda operations after all.
I'm wondering about the reason the FBI are chasing Al Qaeda for those other attacks when you have only just recently told us that the white house is behind the 9/11 attacks (and your proof for that is that the FBI haven't charged Bin Laden)
And as for your "Rockerfeller knew in advance", transcript. You make the same mistakes every time.
Did you actually stop and think why THEY would tell Russo, a nutbag from WAY BACK. His recent film, "Freedom to Facism" is an exercise in psuedo intellectual self molestation.
Russo claims that there is NO law which requires Americans to pay tax, among dozens of other blatantly incorrect statements.
Russo also shopped around a TV series called "Aaron Russo's Mad As Hell". Their were apparently no takers, although clearly the title was bang on.
WHY WOULD THE CONSPIRATORS TELL THIS MAN?? ?? ??
Dagget seems to believe absolutely ANYTHING if it comes from a so called truth website, blog or you tube offering, no matter the standard of scholarship or evidence offered.
Why would an entertainer be shopping around a story like this? Maybe to help sell his movie? Considered that?
, Sunday, 16 November 2008 12:44:40 AM
Paul.L, how about telling us why you think the local CIA station chief met Osama bin Laden at the American Hospital in Dubai in July 2001 at time, when he had a multi-million dollar price on his head for his suspected role in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa that killed 224 people?
Why do you think he was allowed by Pakistan, a supposed US ally to leave a hospital after the September 11 attack?
"Inpatient dialysis treatment tends to be longer than 24 hours in
most American hospitals, which suggests that Osama would have been
discharged from the Hospital on or "after" September 11.
"If the CBS report is accurate and Osama had indeed been admitted
to the Pakistani military hospital on September 10, courtesy of
America's ally, he was in all likelihood still in hospital in
Rawalpindi on the 11th of September, when the attacks occurred.
In all probability, his whereabouts were known to US officials on
the morning of September 12, when Secretary of State Colin Powell
initiated negotiations with Pakistan, with a view to arresting and
extraditing bin Laden.
"These negotiations, led by General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of
Pakistan's military intelligence, on behalf of the government of
President Pervez Musharraf, took place on the 12th and 13th of
September in Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's office."
Your hysterical personal attack on Aaron Russo is, of course, unsurprising.
I don't agree with all of Russo's ideas, but he seemed to me to be honest, decent and well-meaning.
I don't see what motives Russo would have had to invent the entire story. Clearly Nicholas Rockefeller had hoped to recruit his friend to his side as Russo explained in a more complete version of the interview.
In Russo's case, he had miscalculated, but perhaps not altogether, as yet, disastrously as a compliant newsmedia has obviously succeeded in preventing Russo's testimony from becoming more widely known.
, Sunday, 16 November 2008 1:47:06 AM
Daggett, the "Al Qaeda" name has as much to do with the FBI as
anyone. Its about a simple name for a whole lot of diverse
radical islamist groups, most of whose names few in the West
could even remember. Their ideology is similar, but it is
not as if there is one major group, with bin Laden at the top,
as many Westerners think.
In other words, Al Qaeda is an ideological, political movement
of radical Islamists, with people like Syd Qutb as their
ideological drivers. bin Laden simply became their pin up
boy and mascot, as he was writing out the big cheques.
Of course the CIA encouraged these Islamists to fight against
the Russians. Nobody is denying that. Only the tables turned
on the CIA, when Qutb, through his bad experiences in the US,
convinced others that they should be the target, in fact all
in the "evil West".
Unless you understand the ideological background behind these
Islamist movements, you won't understand why 911 happened.
Sorry, but one eyewitness or one filmaker who clearly would
make money from all this, is not really convincing evidence.
But then you clearly have not shown the ability of good judgement,
no wonder that you fall for this rubbish.
, Sunday, 16 November 2008 2:19:22 PM
*If Gertrude wants to believe
in her conspiracy theories about MLA and Elders etc, frankly it’s not worth my time, to even bother. ….
*Meantime, I wish you and Gertrude or you and Dickie, every happiness
Naughty boy, talking about me in my absence.
It’s a matter of record each time I have raised issues, or put up an argument,( any argument) about MLA or Elders , AWB Landmark etc you ‘ignored’ it and changed the subject .
Of course you claim Gertrude doesn’t know what she’s talking about etc….
This is despite the the following people have us.
1 Head of Elders
2 Heads of MLA Live Exports (including a call from the MLA head in ME Ian Ross
3 Your buddy Peter AWB
4 The Minister for Agricultures advisor for Rudd ALP two weeks pre election.
Now before I go on, pls remember all of the above contacted us not the other way around. - But you ‘still insist I have no idea about these people.
You’re entitled to your opinion but let me ask you what ‘direct contact have YOU had with MLA heads Elders AWB, Landmark etc by comparison pls Yabby.
Saying you honestly think Gertrude is away with the fairies and calling me a liar are two different things.
Are you calling me a liar Yabby? If not why would I not be able to make an informed opinion after dealing direct with heads?
Why indeed would you ask people to accept your version but reject ours when you offer no proof I am incorrect.
*So please go out and generate some exports*….l
I am Yabby and certain people don’t like it.
Our organisation works with ALL regional area and especially aboriginal people.
It isn’t possible to separate people from Animals and I think the Animal organisations feel people need to also be aware animals suffer as much as people- often more.
People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming
, Sunday, 16 November 2008 9:03:41 PM
says >> It isn’t possible to separate people from Animals and I think the Animal organisations feel people need to also be aware animals suffer as much as people- often more.
Whoa steady their buddy, are you seriously suggesting that animals and humans should have the same rights?
should we be required to produce evidence that cows have been bad, before we can execute them?
It easily possible to separate humans from animals, unless your a complete nutter.
I have nothing against reducing/eliminating the uneccesary suffering of animals, but lets no pretend that animals are as important as people. We don't eat people.
, Sunday, 16 November 2008 11:42:01 PM
You say >> “Your hysterical personal attack on Aaron Russo is, of course, unsurprising.
Hysterical? You’re the one who believes in a global conspiracy in which the number of non conspirators are in the minority.
You say >> “In Russo's case, he had miscalculated, but perhaps not altogether, as yet, disastrously as a compliant newsmedia has obviously succeeded in preventing Russo's testimony from becoming more widely known.”
The news media are in on it as well? Who isn’t involved dagget, or can’t you be sure, after all anyone could be a conspirator.
It has clearly never occurred to you that the reputable news media don’t publish this type of nonsense, the type that you would often see in NEXUS, because they understand that it is absolute rubbish. They also rarely report on UFO sightings, fairies, pixies, trolls or ghosts.
Most normal educated people look at the evidence of 9/11 and come to the conclusion that there is NOTHING in the conspiracy stories which holds up. That’s why the news media don’t report it, not because they are in LEAGUE with the govt.
When a person like Russo claims to have been told something by someone, the character and history of that person are obviously important factors when deciding whether you can take them at their word. Clearly with Russo, taking his word for it (especially when he is claiming such outlandish things) would be a step TOO far for any normal person
You say >> “. Clearly Nicholas Rockefeller had hoped to recruit his friend to his side as Russo explained in a more complete version of the interview.”
I see; that’s how this complex conspiracy worked. THEY just walked up to people and told them the truth. And then if they (Russo) didn’t join, THEY (the conspirators) just went and looked somewhere else for help? Really?
As for the Osama fantasy, I’ll have to leave that for a later time, but please keep digging a hole for yourself on that issue. The ASSumptions which underpin your “evidence” really do make an ASS out of you and they.
, Monday, 17 November 2008 12:13:47 AM
What Paul.L is trying to do is deal with every argument I put in isolation and hope that people lose sight of the totality.
Then, at the appropriate time he makes sweeping pronouncements such as:
"All you have presented so far is
"1) it looked like a controlled demolition
"2) people heard noises which sounded like explosions
"3) george bush acted funny
"4) someone said they saw molten metal"
... knowing full well that that that, even as dishonestly put as it is, this is far from 'all' that I have presented.
In regard to Aaron Russo's statement, obviously it would count for little if we considered it in considered it in complete isolation from everything else, but I remind everyone that this is in addition to mountains of other evidence of others appearing to have been given advanced warning of the attacks.
On top of that his statements eloquently confirm the judgement that many other informed and credentialed people have come to on this matter, so I again urge others to view the testimony of the late Aaron Russo at
I remind others of the many highly credentialed and authoritative people who challenge the official 9/11 explanation at
"Regarding the 'mountain of evidence' supposedly collected by the 9/11 truth movement, the debunking sites thoroughly explain why the evidence is either entirely consistent with the official explanation ..."
"Thoroughly explaine(d)", Paul.L?
With statements like:
"What? The fast removal of debris is evidence that the buildings were demolished? Really?"
"Molly the dog was running as a candidate for the 2008 presidential election. Should we take her seriously as well?"
Perhaps you yourself could give a practical demonstration here of how "the evidence" is "entirely consistent with the official explanation" by addressing all of the evidence I have put, rather than just focusing on those parts which are relatively easy to superficially counter with specious arguments.
How about explaining Barry Jennings' evidence of explosions in WTC7 or the videotaped firefighters' evidence at
, Monday, 17 November 2008 8:36:24 AM
The fact is that the Australian public has been prevented from knowing that a controversy even exists, and they have been prevented from knowing this not only by the corporate newsmedia, but even by virtually all of the supposed alternative and ostensibly left newsmedia.
It is not much more than a year since significant doubts entered my head about the official story. The principle reason it took me so long to question the Official Conspiracy Theory was that I had assumed, wrongly as it turned out, that the alternative newsmedia in this country would have alerted me a long time ago if there was anything suspicious in the US Government's case.
In my opinion, whilst online journals such as
are entitled to publish or not publish what they choose, they are doing the public an immense disservice by deliberately concealing alternative views about 9/11 from them.
Not only do they not allow discussion of the issue on their web site, they even actively prevent their visitors from finding out for themselves about this by deleting links to web resources which question the Official Conspiracy Theory.
If you are interested to know why I have firmly changed my view on the 9/11 question in the last three months, I am happy to calmly explain why, possibly on the "9/11 Truth" forum at
Can I also suggest that you view such resources as:
Ellen Mariani's open letter to President George W Bush at
The speech "I call it Treason" by retired US Air Force Colonel Dr Robert Bowman at
Canadian journalist Barrie Zwicker's excellent 70 minute documentary "The Great Conspiracy" at
, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 11:58:43 AM
By way of explanation, my most recent post was meant to be posted to the forum "What's happening about the internet censor?" at
I would have asked the moderator to delete the post from this forum for the benefit of other OLO users, but he has been decidedly unhelpful when I have made similar requests before.
, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 2:46:29 PM
You say >> What Paul.L is trying to do is deal with every argument I put in isolation and hope that people lose sight of the totality.
What? The ONLY way to deal with so-called “evidence” of the conspiracy nuts is to examine each piece on its merits. That’s what I have tried to do, and seeing as none of the “evidence” that dagget has put forward has stood up to any kind of scrutiny, it is clear that his attempt to point to the overall conglomeration of fake or mistaken evidence is desperation on his part.
Dagget satys >> “In regard to Aaron Russo's statement, obviously it would count for little if we considered it in considered it in [sic]complete isolation from everything else, but I remind everyone that this is in addition to mountains of other evidence of others appearing to have been given advanced warning of the attacks.”
It counts for NOTHING as evidence. Russo was another NUT, with a record for stunts and a show business mindset. The “mountains of other evidence” dagget refers to have all been debunked. Which is why Dagget now refers more often to the totality of the evidence and not to the specific parts which supposedly are incontrovertible.
Dagget Said >>"On top of that, we have the cover-up of the evidence of the crime, including the astonishingly fast removal of the wreckage of WTC7"
Response >> "What? The fast removal of debris is evidence that the buildings were demolished? Really?"
It is clearly absurd to suggest that the “ astonishingly fast removal of the wreckage of WTC7” is evidence of anything, yet Dagget has attempted to make that link.
Run Forrest Run said >> “ … the existence of "a 9/11 truth candidate." BUT HIS VERY EXISTENCE … provides yet another reason for concluding that a full investigation …is a necessity...
Response >> "Molly the dog was running as a candidate for the 2008 presidential election. Should we take her very existence seriously as well?"
, Wednesday, 19 November 2008 12:24:17 PM
Point, just because there is a 9/11 truth candidate for the 2008 election doesn’t mean we should take them seriously. After all, Molly the dog ran and does anyone take her seriously? Maybe the conspiracy nuts do.
Dagget says >> I remind others of the many highly credentialed and authoritative people who challenge the official 9/11 explanation
Translation: don’t worry about the evidence you’ve seen, these important people believe it therefore it must be true. Which is just blatant stupidity.
You say >> “How about explaining Barry Jennings' evidence of explosions in WTC7 or the videotaped firefighters' evidence at
You have already shown firefighter evidence which was manipulated to purposely mislead the viewer. I have already explained a number of times that many firefighters did not see the planes fly into the buildings, and only knew that a terrorist attack was occurring, so its no wonder their explanations are in terms of explosions and bombs. The splattering of human bodies hitting the pavement at terminal velocity was described by many firefighters as explosions, or like bombs going off.
The ONLY firefighter that you have been able to find to back up this story is John Schroeder. I encourage people to see his video, the man is NOT persuasive. None of the other firefighters have come forward to suggest that there were ACTUAL explosives in the buildings. Don’t let ANYONE tell you that these people would be shy about coming forward if they had evidence that explosives killed hundreds of their brothers and sisters in the FDNY.
People need only look over the record of discussion to see the major points of the 9/11 truth movement discussed and debunked. Or if they feel the need to see it all in one place I would suggest
obviously there are hundreds more
, Wednesday, 19 November 2008 12:28:07 PM
Note how Paul.L has failed to explain the testimony of the firefighters at
which I transcribed above at
(Sunday, 2 November 2008 9:49:09 PM +10:00) and has failed to offer an explanation for the late Barry Jennings' testimony.
Note also how Paul.L has failed to tell us what he thought the CIA station chief in Dubai was doing when he met Osama Bin Laden in a hospital in July 2004 (
) in spite of his undertaking to do so.
The removal of the debris from WTC7 is obviously not proof in and of itself that the buildings was demolished and I never claimed it was.
That is why I listed his claim that I did as an example of one of Paul.L's many stupid statements.
However removal of evidence that would have either confirm that the building had collapsed as Paul.L had claimed it was or that it had been demolished looks like a coverup, especially given that the collapse looked exactly like a controlled demolition and (notwithstanding Paul.L's shrill assertions to the contrary) has not been explained.
Whether or not we agree that proof exists that the September 11 attacks were orchestrated from within the U.S. government, there was certainly a lot of suspicious behaviour on the day, particularly on the part of George Bush and many other senior US Government figures. One particular example of suspicious behaviour was Bush's claim on 4 Dec 2001, which he has never retracted nor explained, that he saw the first impact on 11 September 2001 before he met with school children that morning,when he could not have seen it on ordinary TV that.
Just because Paul.L aggressively insists over and over again that he has debunked all my arguments does not mean that he has.
What he has done, in my opinion, as I have said before, is, amidst personal attacks, engage in very elaborate sophistry, not all of which I have made the effort to deconstruct.
Until I complete the promised guide to this debate at
will have to unfortunately do it for themselves.
, Wednesday, 19 November 2008 2:26:59 PM
The following letter from American Actor Ed Asner is worth sharing:
October 6, 2008
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to thank Richard Gage, AIA and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth for presenting the scientific facts behind the unprecedented destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7. AE911Truth presents solid research that contradicts the official story of the building's destruction with the overwhelming evidence of explosive controlled demolition.
An accurate understanding of history is required to make good decisions in the future. Over and over again, history has shown that the first public perceptions of historical events are not always correct. I, along with millions of others, have serious questions about our country's recent history about 9/11.
I have signed the AE911Truth.org petition (
) calling for an unbiased investigation of the "collapses" of these three high-rise buildings. I encourage everyone to do the same, and also become a Sustaining Member (
) of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Paul.L wrote, "Translation: don't worry about the evidence you've seen, these important people believe it therefore it must be true. ..."
Paul.L knows perfectly well that that was not my point. My point was simply that if many credible and credentialed people reject the Official Conspiracy Theory, then people should take the time to consider the evidence for themselves.
If, to the contrary, few credentialed and credible people had taken that stand, then it would be understandable if most people here decided not to check the evidence for themselves.
One person who did look at the evidence from himself, who clearly had an open mind at the start of this discussion was Forrest Gump.
He made the effort to read David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbour". He read many of the links I gave including "The Ultimate 9/11 'Truth' Showdown: David Ray Griffin vs. Matt Taibbi" at
, Thursday, 20 November 2008 11:42:01 AM
After having done that Forrest Gump came to the same firm conclusion that I had (partly through having considered the quality of arguments in favour of it in this discussion), that is, that the Official Conspiracy Theory was rubbish.
For having done that Paul.L chose to insult Forrest, not once, but at least three times so far by my count.
It's clear that Paul.L doesn't want others to consider the evidence for themselves as Forrest Gump has done. He is clearly hoping that others not wishing to be labelled a wingnut/conspiracy nut/moonbat/fruit loop/nutbagrather will take his word that:
"... the major points of the 9/11 truth movement discussed and debunked" within this forum.
One particularly stupid argument that I can't let lie any longer is Paul.L's argument that because the collapses of the Twin Towers were not from bottom up like demolitions then therefore they could not have been a demolition.
The fact remains that the collapses displayed many remarkable features that could not possibly have been consistent with a collapse having been brought about about by fires fueled by aviation fuel having been splashed around the building.
As listed on
* Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets and 1000 people – mostly to dust
* Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
* Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves
* 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint
* Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
* Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 4 - 20 ton steel beams up to 500 feet
* Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.
* Tons of molten metal found by FDNY and numerous other experts under all 3 high-rises
* Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
* 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings
, Thursday, 20 November 2008 11:44:30 AM
If Paul.L insists that any of that has been explained by any theory other than the controlled demolition theory, then he is lying.
If it could be explained, then we would have expected to see lucid computer simulations of all three collapses and not just that concocted simulation of the WTC7 collapse that only purports to show up to the start of the collapse.
Furthermore, contrary to Paul.L's assertion, the buildings were designed to withstand an impact from a Boeing 707, which would have been the overall equivalent an impact of a Boeing 757.
, Thursday, 20 November 2008 11:45:58 AM
I'd hesitate to say that I have yet come to the firm conclusion that the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory is rubbish. I am, however, satisfied that David Ray Griffin's 'The New Pearl Harbor' does show that there are seeming inconsistencies as between official claims, and other matters of public record, in relation to this event.
A weakness leading to prejudice among people struggling in coming to a view with respect to this understandably disturbing event, is the event's depiction as being simply an act of terrorism. It may well have truly been that, but its being such does not necessarily preclude that terrorism having been premeditatively utilized to enhance the power of the executive arm of US government, or of instrumentalities or interest groups therein.
That is why I suggested the 9/11 events be looked at instead as a 'failed coup'. Some of the inconsistencies between the official view and other matters of public record seem more understandable in such a context. Many of these inconsistencies are highlighted in the Complete 9/11 Timeline. See:
I do not absolutely assert it was an attempted coup that we all watched unfold, but it is uncontested that flight UA 93, the only flight upon which there was a seemingly successful passenger uprising, was part of the 9/11 events and that its intended target was in Washington DC. Was that target to have been the US legislature (the Capitol building), and its mission to have been sucessful in crippling of that legislature, who can say as to what unprecedented action executive government may have felt free to take, and in the immediate aftermath, what the US public may have been prepared to accept in good faith.
Since the early hours of this morning I have been unable to select 'view 20 topics, one quarter back' and then display this list in order of post recency. Clicking 'last post' reverts the display to 5 topics only. Graham, via email, claims no difficulty in doing such display.
, Thursday, 20 November 2008 1:27:17 PM
You know you've already accused me of lying a couple of times now, yet you are the one who has been SHOWN to have misled this discussion on at least two ocassions.
Furthermore,I have never argued that it could not be a demolition. I have argued that it was not a demolition. I'm sure you'll have trouble with the difference.
All I did was show you that the building did not "look like a controlled demolition".
Originally, this was the strongest piece of evidence you had, and if you are honest you will acknowledge that the manner in which the building fell looked to you like a controlled demolition because you didn't know the difference.
I never said the building could not have been demolished because of the manner of collapse. You are flagrantly making things up, again. And only a week after you called me a liar, only to find out you hadn't done your research, AGAIN.
If people want to read why the building was not demolished using explosives they should read
Do you even know what a pyroclastic flow is dagget? The clouds of dust where just that, clouds of dust from hundreds of thousands of tonnes of concrete floors smashing into each other. The dust clouds enveloped thousands of people and they weren't burned.
The NIST report examines many of the more common myths of the "truthers".
Besides the so called journal of 9/11 studies, where have any of the truthers had scientific articles accepted?
On the other hand, the work of NIST and the actual collapse details have been published in academia and found to be consistent. Of course if you want to believe that the whole of the engineering and architectural communities are in on the conspiracy then there is no hope for you.
In a community as large as enginering/architecture 500 nutjobs is a VERY small minority, and no doubt is surpassed by the number of them who list JEDI as a religion, or who believe in fairies, ghosts or monsters
, Thursday, 20 November 2008 2:51:34 PM
Paul.L wrote, "You know you've already accused me of lying a couple of times now,"
This is a lie:
"Thats it. Statements of surprise made AT THE TIME of the collapse." ... when there was a lot more than that.
... and this is a lie:
"All you have presented so far is
"1) it looked like a controlled demolition
"2) people heard noises which sounded like explosions
"3) george bush acted funny
"4) someone said they saw molten metal"
For my part I have not intentionally misled anyone and, in particular, I have not intentionally misled anyone about the subject of this topic.
Where I have unintentionally misled this forum I have acknowledged that I have and have expressed my regret.
You have not.
The distinction you make between saying it was not a controlled demolition and saying that it could not have been seems fine to me.
Why then did you labour the stupid point that the collapse of the towers were different to standard demolitions when the motive for not having demolished the twin towers from bottom to top should have been so blindingly obvious that it would have been barely been worth the trouble of even considering?
FG, my apologies if I have misrepresented you. I think there are only three theories for 9/11 that could have ever been considered even remotely plausible:
1. Astonishing incompetence at every level in a number of US Government agencies combined with fantastic coincidences.
2. The US Government knew it was going to happen and deliberately let it happen.
3. The US Government orchestrated the attacks making use of deluded patsies to carry out the hijackings.
I have firmly arrived at the view that the first is impossible and the 2nd highly unlikely.
, Friday, 21 November 2008 2:34:03 PM
You say >> “This is a lie: "Thats it. Statements of surprise made AT THE TIME of the collapse." ... when there was a lot more than that.”
What absolute and unadulterated bullsh!t. You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel here Dagget.
I referenced the quote at the top of the page you posted, (the site has since been reorganized) and then suggested that if that’s all they had it was a joke. I don’t know why they would lead with something so weak, but they did. In any case, its not my job to go rifling through the websites of crackpots. All I was passing judgment on was the statement I posted, and you conveniently left out. You are being incredibly deceitful Dagget, and it is clear you are attempting to redeem your own tattered reputation by besmirching mine.
The next “so called” lie is an opinion Dagget. If you are suggesting that my interpretation of events is lying, then I could finish up the debate by saying you are an inveterate liar, because you are repeating the lie that is the 9/11 conspiracy.
You say >>” Why then did you labour the stupid point that the collapse of the towers were different to standard demolitions when the motive for not having demolished the twin towers from bottom to top”
Because you were SO lacking in understanding of the science involved that you were convinced by a bunch of crackpots and charlatans that the collapse “looked like a demolition,” therefore it must have been a demolition. That’s why I spent so much time showing you that the collapse didn’t look like a demolition.
To most normal people it is blindingly obvious that the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 are crackpot.Every single point you made I either explained, or forced you to reconsider. The Debunking movement has done the same to the 9/11 truthers/crackpots
, Friday, 21 November 2008 4:54:51 PM
Paul.L wrote, "In any case, its not my job to go rifling through the websites of crackpots."
Maybe it's not your job to read all the material, but when you wrote:
"Thats it. Statements of surprise made AT THE TIME of the collapse."
... you gave the misleading impression you had.
Paul.L wrote, "The next 'so called' lie is an opinion Dagget."
It's a lie to pretend that that was all the evidence I had presented, when, in fact I had presented a whole lot more (and, on top of that, a whole lot more exists which has not even been mentioned here as even you should have noticed).
My point about controlled demolitions seems to have gone right over your head.
An obvious objective of those who set up the demolition charges would have been to make it appear as if it had been caused in some way by the impacts of the aircraft and the (brief) ensuing fires.
If the detonation sequences had been bottom up, then who would have been fooled?
So why did the question of bottom up detonation sequences need to even come into the discussion of the twin tower collapses?
But as you had brough this into the discussion, at least you should have acknowledged that the WTC7 collapse looked exactly like a traditional bottom-up controlled demolition (see
). That you did not further confirms that you are only using arguments which can possibly be used to shore up your position, rather than trying to help us learn the truth.
, Saturday, 22 November 2008 2:05:08 AM
Paul.L wrote, "Do you even know what a pyroclastic flow is dagget?"
And why would you think I would not?
The reasons that the vast clouds of pyroclastic dust could not have been caused by gravity alone, or, as Paul.L puts it, "hundreds of thousands of tonnes of concrete floors smashing into each other," are explained in documents linked to (directly or indirectly) from the statement about pyroclastic dust on the rightmost column of
"Vast Volumes of Dust - Dust From Collapses Expanded to Many Times The Towers' Volumes" at
"Both Towers exploded into vast dust clouds, which photographs (
) show to be several times the volumes of the intact buildings by the time the destruction reached the ground. The dust clouds continued to expand rapidly thereafter, growing to easily five times the buildings' original volume by 30 seconds after the initiation of each collapse.
"Another feature of the dust clouds was that they upwelled in immense columns, climbing to over the height of Building 7 (over 600 feet) in the seconds immediately after each collapse. (see image
"Such behavior clearly indicates the input of huge quantities of heat far in excess of what the friction of a gravity-driven collapse could produce."
"Volume of Dust - Volume of Dust Clouds Proves Demolition" at
linked to from
"The North Tower's Dust Cloud - Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade" at
The mathematical analyses confirm what should be intuitively obvious, from the massive size of those pyroclastic clouds in those photos to anyone with a basic intuitive grasp of Newton's laws of motion and thermodynamics.
Paul.L wrote, "In a community as large as enginering/architecture 500 nutjobs is a VERY small minority, ..."
This is yet another example of Paul.L desperately clutching at any straw he possibly can. How many architects and engineers are listed as supporting the alternative denialist website
Whatever the number is, it seems to be a closely guarded secret.
, Saturday, 22 November 2008 11:50:27 AM
Says >> “My point about controlled demolitions seems to have gone right over your head. An obvious objective of those who set up the demolition charges would have been to make it appear as if it had been caused in some way by the impacts of the aircraft and the (brief) ensuing fires. If the detonation sequences had been bottom up, then who would have been fooled?
No Dagget, I knew you would have trouble with this. I’ll put it more clearly. You’re point initially was that the buildings LOOKED like they were demolished THEREFORE they WERE demolished. My point was that they did NOT look like demolitions.
On of your earliest explanations of why you believe the 9/11”truth” nutjobs is seen below
Dagget >> It strikes me as too great a coincidence that WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 all happened to collapse on the same day in ways that looked exactly like controlled demolitions, when no similar phenomenum that hs not been a controlled demolition has been observed before or since.
In other words, the collapse of these buildings is similar to the collapse of buildings being demolished, therefore the buildings must have been demolished.
But Dagget why would they would blow up the two twin towers from the top down, ( to hide the evidence of them being demolished) and then demolish WTC7 from the lower floors up? Why would they blow up WTC7 at all? It so stupid its mind bending.
I’ve heard conspiracy nuts suggest that they blew up WTC7 to destroy documents or evidence. Why would they need to blow things up to destroy evidence? According to the conspiracy theorists the same people were able to place thousands of kilos of explosives without the 50,000 people who worked in the buildings noticing, and they have successfully concealed the truth for nearly ten years.
, Monday, 1 December 2008 11:22:11 PM
Here are some lies.
1. I don't recall the precise amount but less that US$1 million was spent on the 9/11 Commission.
2. no plane hit the pentagon?
3. So, it seems that, once again, you have misled this forum and wasted my time.
4. Cacafonix: “I’m not Dagget. But if I were here’s how I’d do it”
Heres some rampant stupidity
1. Firefighters should no longer enter burning buildings.
2. Existing engineering theory is invalidated
3. No explanation for the collapse of Tower 7 was proved in the 9/11 Comission report. No it was in the NIST report
dagget says >> “The mathematical analyses confirm what should be intuitively obvious, from the massive size of those pyroclastic clouds in those photos to anyone with a basic intuitive grasp of Newton's laws of motion and thermodynamics.”
Pyroclastic clouds?? ?? ?? REALLY??.
Firstly, pyroclastic flows come from VOLCANOES dagget, Pretty sure there were no volcanoes around which blew up the world trade centre, although you conspiracy nuts do seem to believe that the US gov’t is capable of MOVING MOUNTAINS. And pyroclastic flows are HOT, between 100 and 800 degrees celsius. Enough to scald people to death.
If you had half a brain you would realise that the dust clouds enveloped the surrounding area when the buildings collapsed. I’ve seen footage of people enveloped by the dust clouds. But they weren’t burnt because the dust clouds weren’t hot.
Secondly, you don’t seem to have even a basic grasp of any of the natural laws. And that’s your problem, you’d rather listen to some half-smart moron who’s telling you what you want to hear, rather than the experts on these matters.
The idea that the collapse of half a million tonnes of concrete from a height of nearly half a kilometre wouldn’t create a dust cloud is simply PREPOSTEROUS.
Sorry you had to wait so long for this rebuttal, I've been busy finishing my exams and am now a FULLY minted ENGINEER.
, Monday, 1 December 2008 11:28:10 PM
I somehow pressed the 'publish' key by accident. So, I will have to start again.
Anyway, there seem to be lots of signs of desperation in Paul.L's last two posts: personal attacks, appeal to authority (his), dwelling on how certain words I may have used earlier in the debate might have been construed rather than the physical evidence in my more recent posts, a few straw men erected and then knocked down, a priori arguments, statements taken out of context, a long search through OLO to dig up any possible dirt on daggett, etc.
As for the term 'pyroclastic': So what if they borrowed the term from somewhere else (vulcanology) in order to describe the phenomena of rising clouds of dust observed during and after the collapses? Paul.L, perhaps you could suggest a better term?
Paul.L wrote, " I’ve seen footage of people enveloped by the dust clouds. But they weren’t burnt because the dust clouds weren’t hot."
Paul.L, doesn't hot air rise?
Anyway, where is Jim Hoffman's mathematical analysis "The North Tower's Dust Cloud - Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center" at
, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 1:33:44 AM
You confuse desperation with exasperation. Its tough going arguing with someone who fervently wants to believe in something.
You say >> “Paul.L, doesn't hot air rise?
You just don't have a clue at all do you.
Pyroclastic flows, flow DOWN mountains. They consist of very hot gases, ash and rock and they accelerate down the mountain.
I suggest that not only is the term "pyroclastic" completely inappropriate, no such hot gas/dust clouds actually occurred at the WTC.
Here is DR GREENINGS rebuttal of Hoffmans patently ridiculous claims.
No one who came into contact with 700 degree pyroclastic dust clouds Hoffman refers to would have escaped uninjured, NO ONE. Most would have died within minutes of being exposed due to massive burns.
It is clear you simply have NO idea about the science involved.
Firstly, the basis of Hoffmans thesis is that the dust clouds behaved like pyroclastic clouds – ie they did NOT rise, they fell.
Secondly – the 700 degree temps Hoffman refers to would have killed most of those exposed. However there are no reports of scalding dust clouds by those people who were enveloped.
By the way, wasn’t hoffman the bloke who denied that a plane had hit the pentagon? Guess he messed up there as well.
Finally, are you suggesting that all of your earlier claims can be disregarded? The ones which convinced you in the first place; you no longer believe? Sounds an awful lot like you FERVENTLY WANT to believe this nonsense.
, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 11:57:12 AM
The following is from a letter from whistleblower Kevin Ryan (
) to the National Institute for Safety Standards (NIST) on 11-Nov-04. He was sacked for having written that letter.
"... the company I work for (Underwriters Limited) certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings.
"We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
"The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to 'rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse.' ... Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
"This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company." (
See also "Three Years Later: Another Look At Three Claims from UL" at
The evidence that the spectacular structural failure could not have been caused by the fires was ignored in the NIST's report.
, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 12:13:05 PM
when I show you are wrong, you just move on to some other rubbish. How about you're comments on the "PYROCLASTIC FLOWS"
, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 12:59:09 PM
No-one has attempted to "move on" in this discussion, Paul.L, except you.
I only saw your last post after I posted mine.
However I do hope we can "move on" from silly semantic discussions about what we label the huge clouds of dust that formed after the collapses of the Twin towers.
How about showing the promised link to promised rebuttal of Jim Hoffman? The link you provided was only to an addendum, hadn't you noticed?
, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 4:14:49 PM
The addendum contains the rebuttal of Hoffman’s stupidity. The article itself is much more open in scope and deals with the collapses themselves and not some half smart pseudo scientist’s rantings. In any case here is the full transcript in case in your paranoid little world you imagine I had some sinister motive for not providing the primary document.
It is patently obvious that the duct clouds were NOT 700 degrees Celsius, or anywhere near that. Therefore the assumption made by Hoffman that all the air had to have come from within the building is clearly wrong. Indeed it was never a reasonable assumption to make in the first place.
The certified steel stuff has been so THOROUGHLY debunked it’s not funny.
There are a number of major problems with the material you have supplied above.
First >> “Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company."
This is just straight up LYING. The temperatures from jet fuel fires reached 1000 degrees Celsius in the twin towers. Whilst this is not hot enough to melt the steel, it is enough to reduce the strength of exposed steel to 1/10th its normal value.
Second >>"... the company I work for (Underwriters Limited) certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. “
NIST “UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.”
Third >> “The evidence that the spectacular structural failure could not have been caused by the fires was ignored in the NIST's report.”
Absolute unadulterated RUBBISH. Have a look at the NIST site.
, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 1:22:39 AM
Firstly, in regard, to
I would concede that this is, after all, a purported refutation of Jim Hoffman's "The North Tower's Dust Cloud ..." at
I was misled by the fact that the document was labelled an "addendum".
I have no doubt that further documents exist which would demolish this document, but I hope others will understand if I don't track them down immediately.
In regard to Kevin Ryan's claim that UL had indeed certified the steel used in the construction of the twin towers back in the 1970's, read the letter I have already provided link to at
"James Verhalen, chairman of the company that manufactured the fireproofing, United States Mineral Products, said that ''There is no reason for that product in a typical commercial environment to deteriorate,' because 'He said his product had been thoroughly tested and approved by Underwriters Laboratories.' "
"As for floor assemblies, those who have been following the NIST investigation, and various explanations, know that the current claim is that the floor assemblies used in the WTC were never tested for fire resistance. But the May 2003 NIST report says that, in 1970, UL actually tested a floor assembly that was 'similar to the WTC floor system'. It is important to note that the results produced in 1970 were the same as those from the August 2004 UL floor tests - only 3 inches of sagging after 120 minutes in the furnace."
"UL's own Tom Chapin, the chemist and manager of their Fire Protection division, with whom I was in contact, admitted to UL's involvement in testing steel (i.e. that which allowed the towers to stand) for the WTC by writing -- 'The World Trade Center stood for almost an hour after withstanding conditions well beyond those experienced in any typical fire. In that time, thousands of people escaped with their lives. ASTM E-119 and UL's testing procedures helped make that possible.' "
"... UL's CEO, Loring Knoblauch, made verbal statements to all staff at UL in South Bend on or about September 27, 2001. ..."
, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 1:12:26 PM
"... These statements included reference to UL having 'certified the steel used in the World Trade Center' and that, because of this, employees should be proud of how long the buildings stood.
"After being later asked for formal confirmation of such tests, Knoblauch repeated his statements again, this time in writing.
"'We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on, and it did beautifully.'
"'As we do not do follow-up service on this kind of product, we can give an opinion only on the test sample which was indeed properly coated.'
"'We test to the code requirements, and the steel clearly met [the NYC code] requirements and exceeded them.'"
Whilst these statements (wrongly, in my view) imply that the subsequent structural failures of the twin towers were to be expected, they nevertheless show the claims by NIST that UL was not involved in the certification of the structural steel to have been false.
Why would NIST wish to mislead the public in this way?
It is clear that they do not want the tests concocted by UL in the 1970's to see the light of day, because it would show their explanations of the collapses to be the hogwash that they are.
Would Paul.L have us believe that he failed to read this evidence, even though I supplied the link?
How many other "Silent Lies" has Paul.L committed in this discussion?
I note Paul.L still refuses to acknowledge the simple point that the WTC7 collapse looked exactly like a conventional controlled demolition (whether or not he concedes that it was).
I also not Paul.L has not responded to my point, "If it could be explained, then we would have expected to see lucid computer simulations of all three collapses and not just that concocted simulation of the WTC7 collapse (
) that only purports to show up to the start of the collapse."
, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 1:15:11 PM
Paul.L insists that all three tower collapses have been fully explained, yet, after 7 years, no one has produced any credible computer simulation of how those collapses have occurred and proceeded to completion.
Does this strike Paul.L as odd?
We simply don't know, because, as with any point he seems incapable of answering, he does exactly what he accuses me of, that is, he "moves on."
Paul.L wrote, "It is clear you simply have NO idea about the science involved."
I concede that I am not a qualified engineer and Paul.L is, but, whilst it may not be obvious to everyone else here, it is obvious to me that he is abusing his relative mastery of this subject matter in order to mislead others and this conduct does no credit whatsoever to his profession.
Other points from which Paul.L has "moved on" is evidence of a cover-up and highly suspicious behaviour on the part of George Bush and senior members of his administration.
Note how Paul.L has not commented on the fact that not one black box recorder was recovered from any of the four flights. Note, how is not bothered by the facts that airport surveillance tapes which would have shown people like Neil Mariani and Todd Beamer boarding their doomed flights, that the passenger lists and records of air traffic control communications have been suppressed, Bush's impersonation (
) of a severely emotionally and intellectually retarded child as the US was under attack on 11 September 2001 ("george bush acted funny," says Paul.L, and that's all that needs to be said, he would have us think), etc. etc.
, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 1:17:23 PM
Paul L. I have to admire your persistence on this topic - it is like trying to have a swordfight with an amoeba.
dagget, back at this post
(I hope the link works properly) I provided 12 references in real engineering jounals that had been checked by experts - not from trufer websites. These references cover the whole engineering issues related to the collapse of the buildings: including pictures and computer models. They are all you need to know on the topic. Now at the time, I suggested you and your alter egos should read these before commenting any further. 260 posts later and it is clear you haven't even bothered to look.
Oh and before you get yourself into another pyroclastic flow embarrasment, WTC7 only looks like a controlled demolition to those who have never seen a controlled demolition. Oh and the trufers, who suspend their critical thinking facilities because of their need to believe.
, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 3:43:58 PM
I note Agronomist's 'participation' in this discussion, thus far, has been to either snipe from behind the skirts of others and posting links other documents, but with little demonstrated comprehension of either what has been said here or on those links.
No, Agronomist, there was no "pyroclastic flow embarrasment" on my part. We have a document which Paul.L claims proves that the massive dust cloud was all caused by the friction of the collapse of the buildings. That issue is still under dispute.
So Agronomist assures us "WTC7 only looks like a controlled demolition to those who have never seen a controlled demolition."
So you are saying that the collapse of WTC7 looks nothing the controlled demoliton in
No doubt Agronomist has lots of examples showing similar collapses of tall buildings caused by fire alone ...
... or he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.
, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 4:46:57 PM
Dagget >> “I have no doubt that further documents exist ...I hope others will understand if I don't track them down immediately.”
Yet you have time to write 3 pages filled with issues other than the one I’ve just shown you is ridiculous. There isn’t going to be another document that will demolish the Greening article, for the simple reason that Hoffman’s assumptions don’t make sense.
CLEARLY the dust clouds were not 700 degrees Celsius. Or do you dispute that as well?
You say >> “I concede that I am not a qualified … it is obvious to me that he is abusing his relative mastery of this subject matter in order to mislead others … ”
Abusing? I’m not abusing anything. I like a lot of normal people believe that the buildings fell down because terrorists rammed planes full of fuel into them at very high speed. Because that’s what the evidence suggests. The truthers are abusing the trust of laypeople like yourself by writing seemingly scientific articles, which in fact are unadulterated wishful thinking.
Kevin Ryan LIED. He suggested that the temperature of the fires didn’t exceed 250 degrees Celsius. That is an outright lie. He suggested NIST “impli[ed] that “ 2000F would melt the steel.”
NIST did NOT say that the steel was melted. Its model showed the collapse of the structure due to the weakening (not melting) of the steel.
By the way, I suggest you have a look at some of the other material Kevin Ryan has written. WACKJOB!! !!
Here are some real scientific articles written by structural engineers. Ryans background is Chemistry, by the way.
Journal of engineering mechanics.
Heavy Engineering Research Agency
You will note that NONE of the “truthers” have managed to get a paper published in a respected science journal. Either the whole scientific world is in on the conspiracy, or, as in fact is the case, the “truthers” who make these far out claims are NOT experts in the fields they are making their claims in.
, Thursday, 4 December 2008 11:11:00 AM
Dagget >> “Whilst these statements (wrongly, in my view) … failures of the twin towers . ..expected, they nevertheless show the claims by NIST that UL was not involved in the certification of the structural steel to have been false.
Firstly, “wrongly in your view”? Please, you’ve already admitted you have no idea what you are talking about. What you mean is 'wrongly in their view' "their" being the conspiracy nuts.
NIST reports acknowledged that UL was involved in testing the floor assembly as a whole. What they denied was that the structural steel itself was individually tested and certified to maintain its structural integrity for two hours at 2000 degrees farenheit.
See >> “UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.”
Trying to link Bush’s behaviour after learning of the events to his knowledge of them is PATHETIC. There is NO evidence. Its all pure speculation. I know you believe that if enough people speculate that makes it relevant. It does not. Its still speculation. This is by far the WEAKEST argument you have yet put forward and thats really saying something.
Considering the hundreds of tangents you’ve gone down, the fact that I may have missed one or two is hardly surprising. Neither is it surprising that you would attempt to make something of this fact. You’re floundering
dagget >> "... claims the massive dust cloud was all caused by the friction of the collapse"
You really don't have a clue at all. I'll bet you didn't even read the addendum by Greening.
The main thrust of Greenings argument is that Hoffmans preliminary assumptions which underpin his theory are scientifically insupportable. Particularly the assumption that the dust clouds consisted entirely of air from inside the building, and not drawn in from outside.
, Thursday, 4 December 2008 11:22:17 AM
I notice that the above discussion has proceeded in a somewhat complicated way with long posts and many points in each with strong views presented on each side.
Here is a short post which makes only one claim, namely that WTC7 was brought down by explosives. This claim arises from the following:
1. The link below provides proof that the roof of WTC7 fell for part of the time at free fall acceleration, as near as could be measured.
2. Free fall acceleration indicates that no upward force was experienced by the falling section of the building.
3. No upward force implies that all support columns were simultaneously severed.
4. Similarly the fact that the building started falling with almost perfect verticality implies that the support columns were all severed simultaneously.
5. Fire, even if severe, cannot be expected to produce loss of strength in every steel column which is both total and simultaneous.
I trust that any reader who is an engineer or physicist or metalurgist would agree with those five points.
Here is the link in question:
Here is another link, perhaps a little less accurate in its calculation, which makes the same point, and provides more detail:
One has to ask if fire couldn’t do it what could?
, Thursday, 4 December 2008 10:29:05 PM
First post huh? How did you find this discussion? Its an amazing coincidence that seeing as Dagget has been pushed into a corner, you suddenly pop up out of the blue.
We have had this unfortunate bloke, mentioned above, using sock puppets when he exhausts the credibility of his existing login.
I'd suggest that if you are in any way, shape or form related to Dagget, Cacofonix or James you own up to this immediately as if you don't I will be pushing for your banning from the forum.
If on the other hand I'm way off, I apologize sincerely and welcome you to the forum. On the chance that the latter is the case here is my summation of your claims.
The evidence from you tube is completely irrelevant as it considers only those parts of the collapse which fit its case. The collapse began low down in the building and the interior columns of the building had already begun collapsing well before the exterior began to move. Here is video of the penthouse disappearing well before the exterior columns collapsed.
Initially, many of the interior columns collapsed, beginning under the penthouse. When the exterior collapse began nearly 6 seconds later the building then fell far more fluidly than it otherwise would have.
The NIST analysis shows that the building took 5.3 seconds to fall 18 stories. At freefall speeds this would have only taken 3.9seconds.
The “trufers” are well known for manipulating video images to fit their preordained theories. I just watched a “trufer” video claiming that no twin towers debris hit WTC7.
Why does the moron in the “you tube” video only refer to the two seconds immediately after the exterior corner of the building began collapsing? Because it is possible that one part of the building was in freefall for a short period of time.
, Friday, 5 December 2008 11:32:34 AM
The reason for this is simple. The building collapse began well before the exterior corner of the building began to fall. The exterior collapse began low down in the building, and the upper exterior fell at near freefall for two seconds until it met resistance. If you look at the video you supplied you will see that the building slows up dramatically at the three second mark.
You say >> 4. Similarly the fact that the building started falling with almost perfect verticality implies that the support columns were all severed simultaneously.
Absolute BULLSH!T. Fireman were telling their colleagues to evacuate the building because it was leaning and bulging badly for at least a half hour prior to the collapse. Furthermore, the collapse of the penthouse at least 6 seconds before the exterior collapsed demonstrates conclusively that the columns were not all severed at once.
You say >> 5. Fire, even if severe, cannot be expected to produce loss of strength in every steel column which is both total and simultaneous.
True and irrelevant. WTC7 was clearly NOT a simultaneous collapse. The redistribution of loads by structures like the twin towers meant that column and joist losses were not immediately fatal, thus preventing a progressive failure (as in the WTC7). It is only when the columns which carried the redistributed loads failed that global collapse began.
1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".
2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".
3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."
4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".
5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.
6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building 6 seconds later.
7) The collapse happened from the bottom.
, Friday, 5 December 2008 11:36:35 AM