This is utter lies:

"They aren't truth-tellers looking to save the world," she says. "They're con artists hoping to sucker conspiracy-theory paranoids or anti-government malcontents into shelling out their hard-earned dollars."

I never had to pay for Loose Change, and I never had to pay for any other information about 9/11. The truth comes for free.

Sorry terrence. As Matthew just stated yours is a glaring lie. Thanks for highlighting the lie.

Hey Terrence, regarding
your view that were all con artists, liars and tinfoil hat idiots:

Would you mind telling that to the face of General Wesley Clark, Reagan chief economist Paul Craig Roberts, Bush econcomist Morgan Reynolds, director David Lynch, actress Janeane Garafalo, former Clinton prosecutor David Schippers, FBI agent Robert Wright, House Reps Cynthia Mckinney-Dennis Kucinich-Curt Weldon, 27 CIA veteran Ray Mcgovern, former Bob Dole adviser Stanley Hilton?

Maybe youd want to tell that to
FBI translator Sibel Edmonds,
Advanced Space programs/Reagan DOD
head Robert Bowman, FBI agent Samet,
the architect of the World Trade Towers, the head of the company that
oversaw the steel in the WTC,AND
HUNDREDS of 9/11 families and survivors. I can provide ya email for a lot of these people if you want to call them conartists and tinfoil looneys.

The people who run these 9/11 conspiradroid sites all seem to have something to sell. Meanwhile, those of us who are outraged at the perversion of the truth are selling nothing on our blogs.

Sounds like a conspiracy to me...

"The people who run these 9/11 conspiradroid sites all seem to have something to sell."

How many worthless neocon and Bush worshipping blogs are there selling something ?

"those of us who are outraged at the perversion of the truth.."

Terrence, as far as I can tell you haven't yet had a truth, it's something the world is still waiting for. The 9/11 Commission was a disgrace and sham and an insult to the familes.

Intead of writing here Terrence, why don't you campaign for a new truly independent (perhaps international) investigation into 9/11 ?

There is also the claim that because jet fuel burns at up to 1,500 degrees and steel melts at 2,750 degrees, the World Trade Center's infrastructure could not have been brought down by the airliners. However, as reported by the Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, steel loses 50% of its strength at 1,200 degrees, enough for a failure

Here the article implies that flame temperatures and steel temperatures are synonymous, ignoring the thermal conductivity and thermal mass of steel, which wicks away heat. the highest recorded steel was 650

This article is great news. Loose Change is mainstream.

As to the substance, what kind of complicated explanation for 9/11 is 19 Arab hijackers run by a man in a cave in Afghanistan? The writer has a lot of contempt for the American people.

You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Looks like we're in the last phase.

ahern29,
I agree with your post 100%. United 93 is bringing 9/11 back up to the public conscience. Unless they have another anthrax scare to divert everyone's attention, people are ready to do look at things more critically. The heroes story from Flt 93 is of a piece with the Jessica Lynch story: way overdone.

Its like the Blackhawk Down movie that the military must have thought would be a recruiting tool for them. But it was the opposite.

Look at the end of the story, remember this is just a story portrayed as truth.

Contributing: Oren Dorell, Kasie Hunt in McLean, Va.

Dorell and Hunt are CIA media plants.

Where is the Central Intelligence Agency's headquarters? Is it in Langley or McLean, Virginia?

Technically, you could say CIA headquarters is in both. "Langley" is the name of the McLean neighborhood in which the CIA resides.

The town of McLean was founded in 1910, but before then, the area where CIA Headquarters is located was known as Langley.

In 1719, Thomas Lee purchased a tract of land from the sixth Lord Fairfax (for whom Fairfax County, the county in which McLean is located, was named), and he named it "Langley" after his ancestral home in England. Though Lee never lived on the land, the Langley area soon became home to many European settlers. A few were wealthy people whom England had granted land, and they established large plantations in the area.

During the War of 1812, President James Madison and his wife Dolley fled the British siege of Washington to the safety of family and friends in Langley. Langley was a Union stronghold in Virginia, a southern state, during the Civil War and had two forts, Camp Griffin and Camp Pierpont, which housed soldiers who helped protect Washington.

With the building of the Great Falls & Old Dominion Railroad, 1903 was a defining year for Langley. John McLean, president of Washington Gas Light Company and, later, editor of the Washington Post, and Senator Stephen B. Elkins of West Virginia collaborated on construction of a railroad which would bring vacationing Washingtonians to nearby Great Falls and provide people who worked in Washington the choice of living outside of the city. In 1906, the railroad began operating, and the population of Langley and nearby Lewinsville quickly grew. In 1910, the post offices of these towns closed and, named for the man who helped the area grow, a new post office named "McLean" was opened. In 1959, the Federal government broke ground for the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters. Construction was completed in 1961, adding another chapter to McLean's long history.

Despite the name change in 1910, the name "Langley" still lingers to describe the McLean neighborhood where the CIA is located.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/faq.html#11

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Contributors/Laila%20Yaghi/Laura%20Bush,%2070...

Here is a good example of a CIA media plant

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-03-08-orkut-al-qaeda_x.htm

"911myths.com is dead."

Hardly. Solid facts backed up by evidence from people who actually saw it. Categorical. Name something on his site that is inaccurate.

Kasie Hunt is on the Elliott School Of International Affairs Dean's Honor List

http://www.gwu.edu/~elliott/studentservices/honorlistspring05.pdf

http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/23836.htm

Arianna Huffington is getting slammed by truthers on her own blog re: her rave review of Flight 93!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/on-fearlessness-courage...

Arianna is friggin blind.

"911myths.com is dead."

Hardly. Solid facts backed up by evidence from people who actually saw it. Categorical. Name something on his site that is inaccurate.
Terrence | Homepage | 04.28.06 - 10:44 am | #
then why is the guy who runs the site so deathly afraid of debate? he cant be that "solid" if hes such a coward.

It takes too much courage. Denial is fervent and poisonous. Like ufos, for some this is too much too handle. Brains break under less.
Press on nonetheless. I have been pushing shirts questioning 9/11 for a year and a half. If you want to wear it. I can help.

USAT:Professors and researchers of film and politics say the Internet is making it far easier to spread such theories because the traditional media are losing their hold on the news.

RP-"Thats because we have years and years of proof that they lie and distort. Sounds like good news for democracy and critical thinking,but bad news for media monopolies and their manipulators in power. "

USAT:The immense coverage of controversies and accusations surrounding the war on terror has created fertile ground for people who assign their own interpretations to photos, footage, eyewitnesses, investigations and newspaper accounts of what happened, they say.

RP: ' Oh my God! People are thinking for themselves and calling us on our lies and distortions. The citizens are actually becoming involved! Newspaper profits are down! We better stop this tide before we have a real democracy with intelligent citizens, accountable leaders and a free press."

USAT:"The information revolution now gives us access to too much information," says Jonathan Taplin, who teaches at the Annenberg School for Communications at the University of Southern California. "Our problems are that we're just overwhelmed, so in some sense we just basically don't even know where to turn."

RP:" Please tell us where to turn. Protect us from any distrurbing revelations from open and honest inquirery into the news. How about stories of simple good and evil, and we're on the good side. That we make us all feel better."

USAT: "You would say, come on, I can't even buy that as a movie script," Smith says. "All of this feeds this readiness for paranoia."

RP: "Or it could feed a readiness to openly question the official version and all of the wars and fascist policies upon which it is based.'

USAT:Conservative writer David Horowitz, a former 1960s radical, says conspiratorial thinking can offer a world view that is somehow less scary than reality.

RP: Oh yes.....believing our own Government would kill its own citizens for geo-political gain, is much less scary than believing in that man in the cave in Afganistan with his soldiers armed with box cutters'.

USAT: "Conspiracy theories are a kind of secular religion," he says, adding that campus faculties sometimes encourage anti-government feelings. "People feel great anxiety ... by the thought that nobody's in control."

RP: Mr. Horowitze, what about the vast liberal conspiracy to take over our universities which you have been promoting and personally fighting against for years now? I guess you can stop now David and go see a therapist for those 'anxiety' issues which motivated you".

USAT:People believe in conspiracy theories because the truth "is either too simple or too remote," says sociologist Clifton Bryant of Virginia Tech University, who has made a study of "deviant logic" and behavior.

RP: "deviant logic' = ' logic not officially approved by those in positions of power. i.e. thought crimes. He's not saying its not logical just dangerous to our accepted beliefs and the powers that rely on them. To suggest that skeptism of the official 911 story is some how connected to "deviant logic and behavior almost makes us sound like deranged perverts.....Wait...all those truth bloggers on 911 spend alot of time on the internet and we know what people do on the internet....look at child porn sites!......OH, it looks like the government is already exploiting this angle to stop all this 'deviant logic' from spreading.

"We're always ready to believe something about which we know nothing," he says.

RP: We've been saying this to people who believe the official version of 911 for years!!!!!!!!!!

It's interesting that this movie about flight 93 has focused the media on the alternate theory. (Which means that you guys are doing a great job for simply showing that there is an alternate theory that has gained viewership and even more incredibly, they are stating unintentionally I'm sure, that this low budget movie is somehow running neck in neck and worth comparing to this Hollywood movie). Keep it up.

PT Barnum said (and I'm paraphrasing) all publicity is good publicity as long as they spell my name right.

"911myths.com is dead."

Hardly. Solid facts backed up by evidence from people who actually saw it. Categorical. Name something on his site that is inaccurate.

Ok. He inaccurately described the conflicts of interest within the 9/11 Commission...

Oh wait, he didn't talk about the conflicts of interest within the 9/11 Commission.

How convenient for him.

He inaccurately portrayed Sibel Edmonds' story.

Oh wait, he didn't talk about Sibel Edmonds' story.

How convenient for him.

He inaccurately explained Norman Mineta's testimony.

Oh wait, he didn't explain Norman Mineta's testimony.

How convenient for him.

I like how in the "Foreknowledge" section they list, and debunk each of the MANY warnings received by foreign intelligence.

Oh wait, you say he didn't do that.

How convenient for them.

I could go on and on Terrence.

The fact that no one within that organization is willing to debate the people they're trying to discredit shows that they themselves have NO CONFIDENCE in the information they post.

9/11 myths is pathetic. Of course, it has to be. Whatever group is responsible for writing it can't change the laws of physics.

this is major

how many people in airports buy the usa today

i hope the truth spreads like bird flu

Kasie Hunt is listed in the March 10, 2006 issue of the Daily Alert prepared for the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

http://www.dailyalert.org/archive/2006-03/2006-03-10.html

http://www.jcpa.org/

Maybe the Presidents Conference needs a little 9/11 truth: info@prescon.org

i got my usa today

big feature on page 3a, just open the front page and boom there she was

my sanity is now being restored

It's better than nothing.

The 93 flick may even start forcing the mainstream media to address the 9/11 issue seriously and if that becomes a trend they may even be forced to consider how a B-757 was supposed to have zoomed into the wall of the Pentagon at 530 miles per hour virtually hugging the ground. Maybe the Baltimore Sun could check the photo at its web site and explain the extremely light damage at the scene and total lack of any plane debris and pristine lawn after that 757 crashed into the wall at virtually ground level at 530 miles per hour.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2001-09/634945.jpg

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2001-09/634698.jpg

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/200109114a.jpg

At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.61 All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

Funny how the name Kasie Hunt is associated with the CIA.

Scroogle "Kasie Hunt CIA"

http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm

it is not unusual in American history either to offer simplistic explanations or demonize opponents.

***

Wow, they get it finally. That's exact the way they did with Osama!

Offer no evidence, just show the picture of the mad-man over and over again, and the attacks seem so reasonable!

Arianna Huffington is blocking my 9/11 truth post to her blog! (Probably doing this to many other truthers too!)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/on-fearlessness-courage...

Since no one can offer up any evidence that the facts of 911myths are in doubt - I assume you agree with what he says.

If you cannot, name something on his site that is inaccurate.

Funny how the name Oren Dorell is associated with the CIA.

Scroogle "Oren Dorell CIA"

http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm

Terrence, S. King:

Why did Bush remain surrounded by children, in his previously publicized schoolhouse location, long after it was clear that 2 planes had struck the WTC & America was under attack???

Why did WTC-7 implode in a controlled demolition, despite the facts that it was 350 feet from the nearest tower, had very little damage, & a few scattered fires??? Why did Silverstein, the leaseholder, when confronted with this inexplicable “collapse”, claim that he & the Fire Dept. pulled it???

Because 9/11 was an inside job, that's why!

Ok Terrence...

ItÂ’s claimed that many of those named as hijackers are still alive

"Once the FBI released their official list of hijackers, complete with photographs (on the 27th September), these stories disappeared."

The list of hijackers was released on 9/14/2001, not 9/27/2001, and those stories did not disappear, they were just never mentioned again by the media.

Obviously, if I'm able to still post story, it has not "disappered".

Also, I see NO retraction in the story.

That's just ONE inaccuracy, misleading statement Terrence... there are a MULTITUDE of others that I would have been MORE THAN HAPPY to point out in a debate. Unfortunately, he was too afraid to do so.

Here's the story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

Great info Jon!

Yeah, they had all these specific details on the "hijackers" 3 days after 9/11, yet they had no clue that they would crash planes into buildings!

Has it been confirmed that this article is actual in the newspaper and not just on the web site?
I hope it is, because it is an open door to rebut their "obvious evidence". They don't even try to answer our many questions. The steel example is classic. Just quick and misleading facts to make the general public, which might be questioning 911, feel comfortable and reassured.
Once again, looking at what and how the MSM attack and attempt to discredit :and what issues they avoid is the best indication of where we should focus our energies to expose 911.

So Terrence, how did that 757 manage to approach the Pentagon virtually hugging the ground at 530 miles/hr. (around 800 feet per second) before hitting the wall of the Pentagon at virtually ground level at 530 miles/hr.? Since the govt. is unable to explain exactly how that was supposed to have happened maybe you can help them out.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/medi...1-09/ 634945.jpg

http://www.newsday.com/media/pho...1-09/ 634698.jpg

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/.../ 200109114a.jpg

At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.61 All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/ re...1Report_Ch1.htm

I mean, it's not like the media doesn't follow up on BIG NEWS...

Kasie Hunt is listed on this page too.

http://www.tbe.org/site/sog/060311.htm

If the media went after 9/11 with the veracity that they covered the "Swift Boat Veterans", this would have been over a LOOOOOONG time ago.

The name Kasie Hunt appears again

President Bush begins a two-day focus on national security with his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Sharon at the Crawford ranch.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7430007/

On the hijackers: The 9/11 Commission just used the original list unchanged complete with those still alive. That is an absolutely disgrace.

Not only was Bush not evacuated, but what about the failure to evacuate the entire Booker school? Hijackers are targeting buildings, it is known the president is to be there, and they don't even evacuate the school and the kids? Even after Bush left, they still should have evacuated it, since how would some hijacker piloting a plane know he had left?
More gross negligence.

More CIA propaganda by Oren Dorell

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-03-29-laura-bush-afghanista...

Terrence: "The only thing they (the filmmakers) seem to have gotten right about the Sept. 11 attacks is the date when they occurred," says Debra Burlingame, whose brother was the pilot of American Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon.
Do we see conspiracy? I do! The sister of the pilot who just retired from the USAF a year before and had just completed an excercise where a plane crashed into the pentagon. Then his plane is hijacked and flown into the pentagon? Yes I see conspriracy. And why is she the only one I ever read about in mainstream from that day??

Melissa Lafsky's Flight 93 blog on HuffPo is being blocked just like Arianna's! (Unlike Arianna, Lafsky makes comments that indicate that she may well be a truther!) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-lafsky/tribeca-panel-series-act_b_...

geggy:

...NIST still has not come to a conclusion as to why it collapsed....

Any guesses as to what they will come up with to explain the collapse? Can they really blame it on fire ?

Regards.

Man, I'm sorry guys. If I'd known it was a hit piece I wouldn't have said a damned thing. At least they just quoted me on something retarded :

WTC7 collapsed because of its sympathy for its brethren. It simply committed suicide. Many people would rather believe in complex conspiracy theories than except simple answers. Its too hard for them to accept that solid steel structures can simply collapse into white powder.

Ask people: "When did the lying begin?"

I think this article is a very good thing. They can no longer ignore this story so their new tactic is trashing the truth. Obviously they won't write a fair even handed article about it becuase their not concerned about being good journalists. The truth is spreading fast and they are looking for new ways to surpress it. I think their latter strategy of ignoring it would be better than trashing it. Some people will read this article and watch the video for themselves. This is a sign of desperation.

AVIRIS,

They will blame it on the debris hitting the building and blowing off the fireproofing - I kid you not.

There is a video no 911podcasts about WTC7 that was aired on some tv channel recently, and they said all the fireproffing was blown off when it was hit by debris from WTC1.

"I'm not a scientist and hardly ever took any science courses..."

Yet like the rest of the conspiradroid nation, you think you know more than people who actually took a few science lessons and saw the evidence close up.

And you folks wonder why you are still on the fringes...

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia (CNN) -- The judge in the sentencing trial of al Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui reminded jurors Friday to avoid looking up words in the dictionary after learning a juror looked up the definition of "aggravating" on an Internet dictionary.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/28/moussaoui.trial/

The Judge better pray the jurors aren't using google!

anonymous, sadly I'm not even surprised. One does expect pretty much anything from the Bush Gang and those it controls.

Well, something has been holding them up for years now though as WTC-7 is concerned.

I heard they had a competition where the public could suggest theories about the collapse and that is no joke apparently... :-)

"Yet like the rest of the conspiradroid nation, you think you know more than people who actually took a few science lessons and saw the evidence close up.

And you folks wonder why you are still on the fringes..."

I know more than you do. A LOT more than you do.

Terrence, you actually believe this:

At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.61 All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

resulted in this:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2001-09/634945.jpg

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2001-09/634698.jpg

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/200109114a.jpg

which makes you excessively gullible to put it mildly. Viewed in this light your contentless hubris is comical and that's all. :-)

It never ceases to astound me that many activists actually believe that any media attention is better than no media attention. What is this opinion based on (or are they government agents trying to dupe others into actually believing that?)

There are respected people in this movement who have been warning about this very scenerio. These mischaracterizations will continue as long as Loose Change and the no planers are allowed influence in the very big tent.

How anyone can think that the truth is best served by giving the media tools to successfully paint 911 skeptics as unintelligent whackos is beyond me. Far better to let americans draw their own obvious conclusions on a slow path.

As for myself, I would rather stick with sound science information like Hoffman's (who seems to have cancelled his appearance at 911Truth's Chicago event after getting more details).

dena,

i hope hoffman didn't cancel :(

interesting story from rawstory:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/4/28/131139/561

apparently flight 93 ads were bought on all of the 'conservative' blogs, and not a single 'liberal' blog.. jeez.

Hoffman believes that this:

At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.61 All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

resulted in this:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2001-09/634945.jpg

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2001-09/634698.jpg

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/200109114a.jpg

which puts him in the club of the excessively gullible alongside f.ex. Terrence. :-)

It's really a shame since Hoffman has made some good points regarding WTC. But as the Pentagon is concerned he has no clue at all which makes him somewhat suspicious.

Check out my correspondance with the author of the Loose Change hit piece at newtimes.com

mr. white, no problem. thanks for the thoughful note. just needed more
to go on for the letters page. thanks again. rick

>>> Andy White 04/28/06 12:23 PM >>>
Yes I did attack your article. Just like your article attacked Loose
Change. While Loose Change is not my favorite 9/11 documentary, it
contains alot of relevant information. I appologize for being so rude
with my first e-mail. To be perfectly honest I did not expect you to
respond. So I hope you accept my appology for that. But I think you
are overlooking the contents of Loose Change, namely the part about
World Trade Center Building 7. This 47 story skyscrapper was never hit
by a plane and collapsed in less than 7 seconds onto its own footprint.
This is the objective of a controlled demolition. Heres what FEMA
said about this collapse.

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the
building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel
fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best
hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research,
investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue." (FEMA,
2002, chapter 5)

The 9/11 Commision report which proceeded the FEMA investigation did
not even mention this building. As if a 47 story skyscrapper
collapsing for no reason isn't a big deal. This has never happened in history
outside of a controlled demolition. So how is it crazy to ask
questions about this building. My objective isn't to get you to run my
letter, you can if you like, I just want you to be skeptical of both what I
am saying and to the same degree what the government is saying. I
garauntee if you do your research you will come to the same conclusion.
9/11 Revisited is in my opinion a better film about 9/11.

Again, I appologize for my rudeness, it wasn't necessary. Thank you.

Andy

Rick Barrs wrote:lies? you must be either
stupid or high. do you actually believe that the whole 911 thing was
made up by that idiot bush and his butt-buddies? that's just crazy. as
much as i'm against the iraq war, that just doesn't make sense. in fact,
it would be impossible. explain to me why that film, by a bunch of
naive kids, is true? have you even seen it? send me a real letter and
i'll run it, but your stupid little attack doesn't suffice.

>>> Andy White 04/28/06 11:22 AM >>>
Whats the matter? Is it too hard to answer this question? When your
advocating lies thats generally the case.

Rick Barrs wrote: get back on your meds...

>>> Andy White 04/27/06 11:28 PM >>>

SENT FROM:
phoenixnewtimes.com

DATE/TIME:
April 27, 2006, 11:28 pm MST

SUBJECT:
Goofball Shockumentary

LETTER:
This article is disgusting. Absolutely sickening. Nice straw man
attacks, thats hard to do, not. If their so wrong surely you can write
another article explaining why World Trade Center building 7 collapsed.
Heres my e-mail, I'll be waiting for it.

You gotta read bottom to top

As a result I recommend Hoffman be assigned to the sidelines at least until he has displayed some understanding of the pentagon incident.

Pentagon is actually the soft underbelly of the official theory which is why some people try very hard to distract you from it.

AmandaReconwith,

NIce work on Kasie Hunt in McLean, VA. Knowingly or unknowingly, she is clearly working for the CIA, and "oh my gosh" right here at home no less (whoops, there not suppose to be doing that). I wonder if they still have those "blind" vendors selling hot dogs at lunch or are things a little less dramatic in Langley/Mclean these days. Here's a quote to ponder...

"The CIA, after all, is nothing more than the secret police of American capitalism, plugging up leaks in the political dam night and day so the shareholders of US companies operating in poor
countries can continue enjoying the rip-off."

-former CIA Agent Philip Agee in his 1974 book
"CIA Diary"

They had a team of people put this hti piece together, I had TWO seperate 20-25 minute interviews with another male reporter which covered a GROSS amount of detail. In a sense I'm glad they didn't quote me on anything important if they're just going to make fun, but we covered a fuckton of material which didn't get published in any sense.

"As a result I recommend Hoffman be assigned to the sidelines at least until he has displayed some understanding of the pentagon incident.

Pentagon is actually the soft underbelly of the official theory which is why some people try very hard to distract you from it."

In my opinion AVIRIS, I feel that there isn't enough evidence to conclude either side is right. I dont think a plane hit it, or a missile, or either, I just don't know. I wasn't there to witness it and I haven't seen the footage and until I do so I will not have an opinion on this. To me it doesn't make sense to argue this because we don't have the footage. We have lots of footage of WTC 1, 2, & 7 and thats why we know it was a controlled demolition.

Hoffman seems to have some understanding of energy sinks as per his WTC dust cloud theories but that goes straight out the window when he deals with the Pentagon and suddenly he appears totally clueless:

At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.61 All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2001-09/634945.jpg

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2001-09/634698.jpg

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/200109114a.jpg

Terrence,
I don't think we are on the fringes. Theres a lot of unease in this country about all the lies. Did you ever see a poll on the Kennedy assassination? Most say they don't believe the official version.

The Warren Commission had scientific "experts" behind that magic bullet theory, too.

Andy, you just have to explain how that 757 was supposed to have approached the Pentagon at 530 miles per hour to hit the wall virtually at ground level. Since there are both entry and exit holes and they are horizontal it follows that what hit the building flew into it horizontally i.e. was virtually hugging the ground at 530 miles per hour. If you can, fine, I can´t wait to hear it. Otherwise we should be discussing executions of lots of people. Remember that only one part of the official needs to be disproven and it's off to the gallows for the criminals.

The siteowner has asked that speculation on 9/11 be taken to another site. You will find that there are many to choose from.

It is the siteowner's right to determine content of his blog. No amount of insults to him or other posters will persuade him to change his mind.

Please keep your posts respectful to other commenters.

Thanks for your cooperation.
Site Monitor | Homepage | 04.28.06 - 12:09 pm | #

i got banned yet again for dicussing 9/11 on CrooksandLiars.com says a lot about the owners of C&L.cowards.

The ISSUE is whether the official theory about the events of 9/11 2001 is true or not. It's as simple as that. As a result we need to attack it's soft underbelly, the most nonsensical part of the fable and it's without doubt the Pentagon.

im hearing that Jon Bolton got screamed at by a reporter today, and she was yelling about PNAC and lies. anybody got the video?

[deleted]

Site Monitor here: You have repeatedly ignored the siteowner's request to not discuss this on this blog and further, you have repeatedly insulted the siteowner for this request and others who don't share your view. You are banned.

Edited By Siteowner
Chris | 04.28.06 - 9:01 am | #
not only banned, but they purged the section of all of the 9/11 truth related comments i put up.fuck C&L.

I've never piloted a 757 so I wouldn't say what it can or can't do. Theres a site I saw a while ago of a guy whos trying to get the footage released through the freedom of infomation act. If I myself were to spend time researching the pentagon I'd spend the time trying to get the government to release this footage.

AVIRIS,

I hope you will re-check out Hoffman's pentagon research, I believe he updated it 2-3 weeks ago.

The pentagon is not a case closed, but it is a division point, and I fully understand both sides of the arguement. Hoffman's work does a great job showing how 77 may have hit the pentagon, just as other's work do a great job making the counter-arguement.

the point is, there are a lot of people whom I respect on opposite sides of the discussion, so don't be so quick to throw out Hoffman because of his opinion based on his research - he very well could be correct - or incorrect ;)

And why is she the only one I ever read about in mainstream from that day??
SS | Homepage | 04.28.06 - 11:56 am | #
i often ask myself the same thing.where are the family members that took those phone calls?

This is a crime scene:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2001-09/634945.jpg

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2001-09/634698.jpg

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/200109114a.jpg

This is what created that crime scene,
according to the official theory:

At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.61 All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

Well, the theory obviously does not fit the crime scene so that theory would be thrown out of any court immediately. In fact no prosecutor with a modicum of self respect would present such bunk at any court. :-)

Chris,

don't piss the C&L guys off too bad, maybe when it finally does break into the mainstream they will have the balls to cover it ;)

Since Hoffman writes about energy sinks he needs to explain why he believes that such ridiculously light damage was caused to the Pentagon by a 100 ton plane hitting its wall at 530 miles per hour. Otherwise he doesn´t have any credibility at all.

ahern29 wrote,

" This is a big break of the truth movement. This article no matter what it said, will bring our cause more into the mainstream. I believe it will generate more intrest into the facts of 9/11."

The problem is that your "movement" has a high disregard for the facts and evidence. The more 9/11 is discussed, the more that fact becomes apparent.

"And eventually cause the majority of America to question the offical version given by the goverment."

That is a standard evasion. As I have long told you all, the government never had control of all the evidence to begin with. It never had control of the eyewitnesses. It never hid the evidence from independent investigators.

You're going to have to do a lot better than that if you think you have any evidence to offer.

fuck C&L, you should hear the policy over there. you cannot even QUESTION the official story without getting the comments deleted. its the worst i have ever seen. worse than even rightwing sites.

Q. Why haven't we heard cockpit recordings nor seen the flight-data recording from the other three flights?

A. Government agencies have insisted that the "black boxes" (actually orange) found at the Pentagon were too badly damaged, while the four in New York were never recovered, which was a first.

However, the Daily News reported in 2004 that two Ground Zero rescue workers claimed they helped the FBI recover three of the four "black boxes" there. Last year, Philadelphia free-lance writer Dave Lindorff reported that a National Transportation Safety Board source told him: "Off the record, we had the boxes. You'd have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here."

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/14439058.htm?template=contentModul...

Be back on later.

To anyone who believes a plane hit the Pentagon:

Where are the titanium engines that measure 9-feet in diameter? Where did the engines hit the building? Where is the wreckage?

"I will tell you what every structural engineer will tell you".

I'll ask again....

Hey S. King,

Since your speaking for every structural engineer, How many structural engineers are there and how do you know what they would all tell me? and why aren't all these structural engineer's listed on your website so i mail e-mail them and ask? There must be thousands at the very least in the U.S. alone. That's a pretty BOLD and REACHING claim don't ya think?

Poor ol' Jon said:

"I KNOW WTC 7 was controlled demolition."

Yet he cannot seem to find a single structural engineer anywhere in the US (or anywhere else for that matter)to agree with him. Does that give him pause? Of course not - Jon is a "true believer"...

A logical person would ask themselves; "given the evidence could I be wrong?" But not our Jon -to him 9/11 "truthing" is like a religion - in spite of the lack of evidence, faulty logic or one single conspiracist talking - our Jon is still a believer.

He "KNOWS"...LOL...

anonymous wrote,

"Why did WTC-7 implode in a controlled demolition, despite the facts that it was 350 feet from the nearest tower, had very little damage, & a few scattered fires??? Why did Silverstein, the leaseholder, when confronted with this inexplicable “collapse”, claim that he & the Fire Dept. pulled it???"

The real question, anonymous, is why you believe you need to repeat debunked nonsense.

Jon Gold wrote,

"I just heard that Professor Jones challenged Frank Greening from 911myths.com to a debate, and he refused.

"911myths.com is dead."

LOL, Jon.

It's actually good news for the truth. Like with your need for a debate, Jones now admits he needs one too!

As we know that you can't refute 911Myths.com, we now know Jones can't refute Greening - months after Dr. Greening showed the physics and math that the WTC 1 & 2 could easily collapse without the need to introduce "controlled demolition." Not that it matters since structural engineers already knew that.

You realize, of course, that we have been asking Jones and Fetzer for months to refute Dr. Greening on the physics and they have refused.

That Jones wants a debate is a definite sign of weakeness for a professor, just as it is for you, Jon.

i always like it when people just wave their hands like their batting flies and say "oh, that stuff has all been debunked."

Show me the debunking and I don't want to see another explanation about how people can't accept the simple answers.

show me another building like WTC7 that fell straight down.

come on, be a man or a woman or whatever you are.

links please!

"You claim the government was behind the 9/11 attacks. I say: prove it with scientific evidence."

We are just normal people, we don't have access to subpeona and examine the evidence of that fateful day.

We do know that most of the evidence was destroyed.

We know the 9/11 commission was a sham.

Here's a link showing how the members of the commission were BRIBED:
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060313/asp/nation/story_5962372.asp

We do know that Bush and his cronies repeatedly lie.

We know that everything they do is because we live in a "post 9/11 world" and "oceans no longer protect us".

Oh yeah, and we also know they would LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE and to the world in order to START A WAR IN ORDER TO ENRICH THEMSELVES AND THEIR CRONIES.

They've used 9/11 over and over again for their own political gain.

To me the main pentagon story is that some kind of aircraft was allowed to hit the pentagon in the first place. The secondary story is whether or not it was the passenger jet. So even if videos to be released in the future might show that it was flight 77, the main issue is still, why was it allowed to hit the pentagon at all.

S. King, you ignored my question again, and did exactly what I said you would do. Thanks.

Chris wrote,

"then why is the guy who runs the site so deathly afraid of debate? he cant be that "solid" if hes such a coward."

Jon Gold knows that asking for a debate is a true sign of weakness. Remember, Jon hasn't been able to refute 911Myths.com. Neither has Jones been able to refute Dr. Dr. Greening.

Scientists don't debate. They write papers. Dr. Greening has done so. Jones refuses to rebut him.

Dr. Greening knows that Jones is in a weak position scientifically. If Greening can write a scientific paper on the physics of the collaspes, then Jones can very well write one presenting his evidence too.

Debating is a political tactic, not a scientific one.

"Jon Gold knows that asking for a debate is a true sign of weakness."

S. King knows exactly what goes through Jon Gold's head.

Challenging someone to a debate shows strength.

Don't put words in my mouth shill. I don't like the way shill words taste.

Dodging and ignoring someone's question, now THAT'S a definite sign of weakness.

Jon Gold wrote,

"The fact that no one within that organization is willing to debate the people they're trying to discredit shows that they themselves have NO CONFIDENCE in the information they post."

LOL. I just put that canard to rest.

The fact that you can't rebut 911Myths.com sticks out like a sore thumb.

hdog wrote,

"9/11 myths is pathetic. Of course, it has to be. Whatever group is responsible for writing it can't change the laws of physics."

It doesn't.

It reaffirms the laws of physics that no one here understands.

"The fact that you can't rebut 911Myths.com sticks out like a sore thumb."

I have. Shill.

Answer my question Shill.

Loose Change will be on CNN Situation room tonight at 7pm. This may be a hit piece!

Isn't the Situation Room Tucker Carlson?

situation room is with Wolf Blitzer.

Jon said:

"Tell me AVIRIS... if a missile hit the Pentagon, then how was this "Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia Student Identity Card" that supposedly belonged to Moqed found in the rubble, and PLEASE tell me it's fake."

Jon, I never stated that a missile hit the Pentagon just trying to get you believers of the official Pentagon theory to explain to me 1. how that plane got to the building at 530 miles per hour virtually hugging the ground and 2. why the damage at the supposed crash site isn´t in any way consistent with a crash of a Boeing 757 coming in at 530 miles per hour. I´m not picking any fights but if people believe something they should be able to argue for that belief. If they can´t, well..that does raise some questions about that belief and its foundations, doesn´t it?

Jon Gold,

"That's just ONE inaccuracy, misleading statement Terrence... there are a MULTITUDE of others that I would have been MORE THAN HAPPY to point out in a debate.

Unfortunately, he was too afraid to do so."

Imagine Jon needing a debate to refute 911Myths.com.

You can refute everything right here, right now!

Unfortunately, you aren't even trying. I wonder why.

google video: 9/11 fireman, "Bomb in the building, start clearing out."

__Days before official investigation begun:__
Titanic sinking - 6 days
Pearl Harbor - 9 days
JFK assassination - 7 days
Space Shuttle Challenger - 7 days
9/11 - 411 days

ahern29,

there is 'the situation room' with wolf blitzer (on now), and 'the situation with tucker carlson' (11pm EST)..

any reference you can post?

"Jon, I never stated that a missile hit the Pentagon just trying to get you believers of the official Pentagon theory to explain to me 1. how that plane got to the building at 530 miles per hour virtually hugging the ground and 2. why the damage at the supposed crash site isn´t in any way consistent with a crash of a Boeing 757 coming in at 530 miles per hour. I´m not picking any fights but if people believe something they should be able to argue for that belief. If they can´t, well..that does raise some questions about that belief and its foundations, doesn´t it?"

Not really. I'm not a pilot. I know very little about planes in general. I do know that the Pentagon has defenses capable of taking out whatever tries to hit it. It's only the base for the ENTIRE United States Military, OF COURSE they have defense systems.

I'm trying to get you people who are trying to figure out what hit the Pentagon to focus on how a plane, monitored by Dick Cheney, 34 minutes after the Second tower was struck, can still manage to hit the Pentagon.

THAT'S what I want to know...

Bronco wrote,

"So Terrence, how did that 757 manage to approach the Pentagon virtually hugging the ground at 530 miles/hr. (around 800 feet per second) before hitting the wall of the Pentagon at virtually ground level at 530 miles/hr.?

Well, Bronco, I already asked you if you had checked with the hundreds of people who recovered the wreakage. Did you? What did they say?

What really brought me into the fold of 911 Truth was the mainstream media. I'd recognized for several years now that it's all "aruba" and no "downing street memo". What I hadn't really considered was how long the media had been fellating the rightwing... but that was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Back in Sept of 01, I had no reason to question the MSM.

Now I have very good reason to do so. I don't think it's a stretch to believe that the MSM pumped the "19 hijacker" theory while glossing over naysayers.

You can see, though, that much of the television and print media had decent coverage of this event as it happened. Loose Change v2 (and i'm sure other videos) shows the abundance of TV crews covering explosions in the towers and more... It was just that after the official version came out, the media stopped asking questions and starting spreading rumors.

Admitting that you, yes smartest one in the room you, may have been tricked into believing a falsehood. It has happened in the past.

Jon Gold wrote,

"If the media went after 9/11 with the veracity that they covered the "Swift Boat Veterans", this would have been over a LOOOOOONG time ago."

Gosh, I thought that was your job, Jon.

I wonder why it's not working.

As for shill... answer my question.

The plane supposedly hit the wall of the Pentagon at 530 miles per hour. This according to the official theory. Since what hit the Pentagon wall did so horizontally as evidenced by entry and exit holes at the scene it follows that what hit the building approached it horizontally and since those holes were basically at ground level it follows that what hit the Pentagon approached the building basically at ground level
at 530 miles per hour.

So, we have a Boeing 757 basically hugging the ground at 530 miles per hour approaching the pentagon. If you have any problems with the above arguments then do present them. If you can not I will continue this thought in a minute otherwise I will deal with your counter argument.

From Dylan's Blog...

This should be interesting.
Ok, this deserves it's own post.

CNN, The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, 7 PM tonight.

I believe we have a 45 second "Internet Spotlight" segment, or something to that effect. Jackie the producer chatted with me for a half hour, and just called to ask permission to show clips of the movie.

So we shall see. I asked her straight up if it was a hit piece (meanwhile voicing my disdain for the USA Today article's "debunking" efforts), and she said, "Oh no, I'm a reporter, first and foremost."

We'll find out what that means tonight.
posted by dylan avery at 1:43 PM

Bronco wrote,

"Where is the wreckage? Where is the damage from a 100-ton plane crashing there at 530 miles per hour?

"Look Terrence, we're talking very serious business here."

So are we, Bronco. Why do you repeat the canard there was no wreakage nor damage?

Haven't you checked with those hundreds of people who recovered the wreakage yet?

Did you lose their contact info? I'll be happy to provide it again.

What counter argument? I'm done AZIRIS... this is "infighting", and I don't do infighting.

Answer the question Shill King.

I'll be over at my board Shill King... if you have an answer, let me know.

Okay, in order for that plane to hit the wall of the pentagon at 530 miles per hour basically at ground level horizontally it has to approach that wall basically at ground level at 530 miles per hour (at 800 feet per second).

If you have any counter arguments here please present them otherwise I will continue this thought in a minute or if you are able to bring any counter arguments I will address them.

S King - the NIST report is bieng proven to be inadequate. it definately wouldn't hold up in a court of law.

The NIST had found themselves in quite a pickle after the NIST's Metallurgical Results had attested to temps of less than 250c in Oct of 2004. The reason: the findings had contradicted their initial findings that the steel was adequate (representative) for the needs of the investigation (whole technical investigation), and more importantly, at the same time the findings had contradicted their "Fire Weakening" hypothesis.

So what did the NIST do?

Magic.

They, with a slight of hand, had changed their "adequate steel sample" from being adequate for the investigation (whole), to it only being adequate in determining the quality of the steel (final report).

The NIST did this even though in June 2004, before the "Steel temperature results" the NIST had clearly stipulated..

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter2.pdf

The collection of steel from the WTC towers is adequate for purposes of NISTÂ’s investigation (i.e., chemical, metallurgical, and mechanical property analyses as well as a substantial damage assessment and failure mode examination) to examine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the impact of the aircraft and ensuing fires.

As you can clearly see above, the NIST clearly states, the collection of steel was adequate for the needs of the investigation (whole) - Chemical, Metallurgical,and Mechanical property analyses as well as a substantial damage assessment and failure mode examination.

Moreover, the NIST details exactly what the Metallurgical Investigation consists of in other papers describing their investigation..

http://www.nist.gov/testimony/2002/wtcplan.html

Collection and Analysis of Forensic Evidence: structural steel, material specimens and other forensic evidence to the extent they have been collected or are otherwise available; metallurgical and mechanical analysis of steel to evaluate quality and estimate maximum temperatures; analysis of fire and elevator control panels.

Hence, "The collection of steel is considered adequate for the needs of the investigation above"

Just in case more evidence is needed to ascertain the details of the investigation...

http://www.aws.org/conferences/abst...4/papers/2A.pdf

NIST is implementing its technical plan to address these issues (see http://wtc.nist.gov/). A primary objective of the investigation is to determine why and how the towers collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft. As part of this investigation, the Materials Reliability and Metallurgy Divisions in MSEL are studying more than 200 structural steel pieces from the WTC site. Progress in this study is outlined here..............

.......Task 3: Property data to support studies of structure performance and airplane impact modeling. Fourteen grades of steel were specified in the design of the WTC towers. All grades have been characterized for room-temperature mechanical properties, and initial high-temperature test results are complete. Testing at high strain rate is underway to determine the effects of strain rate on the mechanical properties of the outer columns, the inner columns and the spandrels. Chemical composition and metallographic examinations have been completed on the majority of the steels. Creep, or time-temperature-dependent behavior of some steels will be studied after the high temperature properties are developed.........

Task 5: Metallographic analysis of steel to estimate temperature extremes. Microscopic, macroscopic and metallographic analyses are under way to determine the maximum temperature excursions seen by the steel.

Hence as was stated before regarding task's 3 and 5...

---The collection of steel is considered adequate for the needs of the investigation above"---

So, as you can clearly see, the Metallurgical aspect of the investigation which the steel was adequate for, had consisted both of determining quality, and determining steel temperatures.

Last but not least, lets turn to the NAIL in the coffin.
The "Nail in the coffin" is evidence of the fact that the NIST had actually discussed changing their initial findings from the steel being adequate for the investigation to it being adequate to only part of the investigation (determining quality).

Note, this discussion had taken place on the very same day the results of the steel being less than 250c had been presented - Oct 19th 2004.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncstmin_oct19-20.htm

C: As John Barsom said, the statement is not accurate. The validity of the model question from yesterday speaks to this issue. I do not believe that we have enough forensic evidence. It may be okay to establish steel quality. There was no effort by the Building Performance Study team to systematically look at the steel.

C: The use of the term “adequate” needs to be revisited. There is no core column test to support the hypothesis. The floors came down, the slabs were pulverized. This was unprecedented. Exterior columns and core remained. The floors group will attack this finding.

In summary, the NIST had only focused on one, and only one conclusion throughout its entire investigation, and that one conclusion being the assumption that fires were the cause of the two buildings collapsing.

geez, do I smell or something?....S. King answers everybody's questions but mine. I'm hurt. Perhaps the question is so ignorant and newbie as to be beneath him or maybe he just prefers the big time, duking it out with Jon Gold. In any event, I'll give it one more shot and see what happens, here's my wee little questions in reponse to a comment by S. King that began..

"I will tell you what every structural engineer will tell you".

Hey S. King,

Since your speaking for every structural engineer, how many structural engineers are there? (i've oftened wondered), a worldwide figure would be great but if you only know the U.S. total, that'll do (i'm guessing in the thousands at least). Secondly, How can you prove that all______of them would tell me what you're saying they would tell me. Did you survey them or ask each one individualy? If so, where are the results and how can I confirm via contact at least a dozen of them on my own. I don't think you've named any on your website. Don't you think your statement is just a wee bit ..er...reaching? Thank You.

ps. whoever did the condi/remix mp3, nice job!

hey where'd S King go. hahaha...effin shills.

The article says that eyewitnesses saw a jet strike the Pentagon. But Gerard Holmgen has analysed the eyewitnesses,and NONE can be found who reported the jet until AFTER it had appeared in the news. So there has been contamination of so called 'eyewitness' reports.

Note that the USAtoday article does not raise the issue of the Gas station and Sheraton security videos!

I suggest that people email the evidence to the authors, which they seem to have left out!

Why does this excerpt from the USA Today article claim that the flight recorder from AA77 was found???

..."Among the assertions in Loose Change is that a missile hit the Pentagon even though eyewitnesses saw the jet, numerous pieces of wreckage were found including the flight recorder, and those on the flight and in its path at the Pentagon are dead."...

Oh, sorry. AA77 flight recorders were supposedly found, but data is still being withheld.

dz wrote,

"I am not trying to start anything here, I am really just wondering your theory on it - i do look at everything i come across believe it or not."

I don't have a theory on it, dz. It could be any number of things.

I look at ALL of the evidence.

Chris wrote,

"and S.King, you still didnt explain why you spend so much of your time with us here. its pretty pathetic that you simply feel like a "teacher" and thats why you come here every day to "refute" us. i dont buy it for a second."

I thought I explained quite clearly, Chris.

But then you believe in conspiracy theories so I'd expect your reaction.

Boast wrote,

"S King - the NIST report is bieng proven to be inadequate."

By whom?

Certainly not the world's hundred of thousands of physicists, structural engineers, chemists, and forensic scientists, all of whom have had the freedom and opportunity to blast the NIST report if they disagreed with it.

Brian wrote,

"The article says that eyewitnesses saw a jet strike the Pentagon. But Gerard Holmgen has analysed the eyewitnesses,and NONE can be found who reported the jet until AFTER it had appeared in the news."

That's a real funny statement!

Mr. A. sees a Boeing 77 hit the Pentagon. He is an eyewitness.

Mr. B. is a reporter. He finds Mr. A. talking with others about what Mr. A saw.

Mr. B. interviews Mr. A. "What did you see, Mr. A?"

Mr. A. states, "I saw a twin engine jet with American Airlines markings hit the Pentagon."

Mr. B. records Mr. A's statement.

Mr. B. submits Mr. A's interview to AP.

The next day, Mr. B's interview of Mr. A. appears in newspapers nationwide.

Gerard Holmgren, having read the news story, looks for Mr. A and finds him.

"Aha!", Gerard Holmgren realizes that he found Mr. A AFTER the story appeared in the news.

THEREFORE, Mr. A could not be a credible eyewitness.

GOOD thinking, Brian.

Now for the eyewitnesses. Anyone is welcome to refute them: They saw AA77

pockybot wrote,

"How come Terrence and S King only argue about the towers and pentagon theories, but not th eprovable foreknowlege and other CLEAR signs of complicity?"

So, pockybit, are saying that there is no way that the towers could have come down except by controlled demolition?

I asked Jon Gold the same question and he evaded it as usual.

Why don't you answer it?

Jon Gold wrote,"

"I KNOW WTC 7 was controlled demolition. Anyone with half of a brain can see that."

I have a whole brain and I know for a fact that you do not have any evidence for controlled demolition of WTC 7, Jon.

And I know for a fact you can't prove it.

So you've got a big problem with your statement, Jon.

I thought I explained quite clearly, Chris.

But then you believe in conspiracy theories so I'd expect your reaction.
S. King | Homepage | 04.29.06 - 9:30 am | #
nope, as usual you didnt.

"I have a whole brain and I know for a fact that you do not have any evidence for controlled demolition of WTC 7, Jon."

Larry Silverstein told me.

A while back, on one of these threads here, I made a long post directed to Terrence about the depth and breadth of issues re: 9/11. Yes indeed, there are a lot of people who want us all to get hung up on debating the minor specifics, but they can't provide any kind of coherent answer regarding some basic truths.

For example:

Bush and Cheney did everything in their power to delay, avoid or obfuscate any meaningful investigation.

To this day, no one in the Federal government can or will answer direct questions regarding any of the many issues.

Countless questions and issues were specifically disregarded in the 9/11 Commission process and report.

Evidence was destroyed.

Extensive efforts at misinformation and disinformation, some by the government itself, have been undertaken and are still ongoing.

And, as has been pointed out by others, "the dog did not bark".

Woof, Terrence. Woof woof.

Mssr.Jouet wrote,

"A while back, on one of these threads here, I made a long post directed to Terrence about the depth and breadth of issues re: 9/11. Yes indeed, there are a lot of people who want us all to get hung up on debating the minor specifics, but they can't provide any kind of coherent answer regarding some basic truths."

So we can all breath easier that the destruction of the WTC towers and the Pentagon is only a minor issue for you 9/11 conspiracists.

Given that Jon, Chris, Pockybot, and the whole 9/11 Denial Movement has painted themselves into a corner on that issue, unable to provide evidence for controlled demolition, I can understand why you're engaging in a little historical revisionism now.

S. King,

I don't know Jon, Chris, Pockybot and others, and I'm not denying anything. Nor am I here to sell a theory about anything having to do with planes or no planes, or pods, or holograms, or building collapses vs. the use of explosives. Like many people, I'm still looking at the arguments, the "evidence" or what is purported to be evidence, the essays, the articles, the books, and a lot of web sites.

The point of my post is simply this: There seem to be a lot of people who are ignoring the irrefutable facts that elements of our government have gone to great lengths not to let anyone look at the evidence, or the issues, or to determine the facts. There is a very long and irrefutable record which indicates massive FBI interference with pre-9/11 investigations. There is a very long and irrefutable record which indicates warnings that were apparently ignored, side-tracked, etc. There is a very long and irrefutable record that our government (military and others) were conducting "exercises" pre-9/11 built around scenarios of commercial hijacked aircraft being flown purposefully into buildings as terror attacks. Even Burlingame, the pilot of Flight 77, testified before Congress that he appreciated that a commercial aircraft loaded with fuel was, in essence, a missile. Furthermore, the well-documented problems with the 9/11 Commission's process and product are troubling.

So my question for those who are active in "de-bunking" theories is this:

Why don't you put your energy into examing the conspiracy theory about 19 Arabs with box-cutters?

Why don't you ask your government and the media about the myriad of unexplained and unanswered questions?

Why don't you ask who was in charge of the war games?

Why don't you ask why Chertoff and Frances Fragos Townsend helped derail investigations into terror financing?

Why don't you inquire who gave the order to have the WTC steel removed and melted down?

If you are not busy asking these types of questions, or providing answers for them, then your efforts can only be construed as further disinformation, cover-up, or ad hominem attacks on people who ask troubling questions. Your efforts actually only go to prove what many suspect... that there is a continuing and massive effort to hide the truth from the American people.

Why?

Mssr.Jouet,

"If you are not busy asking these types of questions, or providing answers for them,..."

I have been asking all along for the 9/11 Denial Movement to back up their assertions with evidence.

You believe you have "questions." But you forgot to ask yourself whether those so-called "questions" have any validity when you can't produce evidence.

Sorry, I'm way ahead of you.

S. King:

Where do you think there is a lack of evidence for the following:

-- agencies, representatives and key leaders of our government have gone to great lengths not to let anyone look at the evidence or conduct an inquiry or answer questions directed to them;

-- massive FBI interference with pre-9/11 investigations;

-- warnings that were apparently ignored, side-tracked, etc.;

-- our government (military and others) were conducting "exercises" pre-9/11 built around scenarios of commercial hijacked aircraft being flown purposefully into buildings as terror attacks;

-- the well-documented problems with the 9/11 Commission's process and product;

-- the existence of a documented and concerted effort by agents of the government to plant misinformation and disinformation.

This is still the root of the 9/11 experience. How can you ignore these matters?

Make a case within these areas for support of the US government and its "official story".

As before, the burden of proof is not on me, or Jon, or any other individual involved in researching 9/11. The burden of proof is on the US government because it has used this event as the reason for a war that has cost us $275 billion, 2400 soldiers' lives, countless Iraqi lives, and the loss of our rights under the Constitution.

As before, your energy is misdirected. If you have any "proof" or "evidence" that can illuminate the above issues, please share it. Otherwise, STFU.

But you forgot to ask yourself whether those so-called "questions" have any validity when you can't produce evidence.

I would point you to the thesis provided by Steven Jones.

IMO, he successfully questions the validity of the WTC NIST report to the point where not conducting an independent investigation should be considered obstruction ofjustice and very likely insurance fraud.

Most of the people I meet who insist on insulting those of us who have questioned the oficial 9/11 story seem to base their position on the fact that we are loons or nutcases.

If you are in agreement with the NIST models used to support the theory that the towers fell due to fire, you should state that, then state why you disagree with Jones that these modelas were tweaked in order to come to a pre-determined conclusion.

I'm guessing you've never put more thought into it than calling people morons.

well loosechange is a killer movie, Ive seen it plenty of times. I burn the movie and pass it on, all i ask for is a "Dollar for the Truth" to cover costs of the dvds and the cases. Im not looking to make any money and either are the guys that made this sweet movie. There just looking for and looking too, spread the truth.

i just saw loose change last night. at my house - paid $17.95 for the cd. never watch movies - did not even know how to work the player - my son had to put it on. he watched, it was a real eye opener for him.

my hope is that the young men who did this wonderful film end up running this country some day. what incredible excrement my generation ended up producing. hopefully those who are profitting from their evil will soon find themselves and their families punished - no money - no property - jail time for those who actually did the dirty deeds. watch the film - and see if you attitude doesn't change. i dare you.

Below is an interesting e-mail exchange I had with JOM about the USA Today quote about the Steel. After I got this response, I e-mailed the author of the JOM article (Eager) and asked him if he still stands by his article given the research done by Prof. Steven Jones. He hasn't responded yet and that was about a week ago.

Dear Ms. Newhall,

The JOM article referred to in the USA Today was "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation" by Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso, from the December 2001 issue of JOM. However, it is important to note that this article was misquoted by USA Today. (See the section headed "The Fire," in particular the second to last paragraph, for more accurate information.) The original article can be found at the following web site:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Thank you for your inquiry.

Regards,

Kelly Roncone
News Editor, JOM
_____________________________________________-
Phone: (724) 776-9000, ext. 224
Fax: (724) 776-3770
Address: 184 Thorn Hill Road, Warrendale, PA 15086-7514
Web: www.tms.org/jom.html

Wendy,

I read the JOM article.

According to it's theory, if I lit a Kerosene Stove what would happen is this. The top of the stove would melt, and 'pancake' down into stove's own footprint, and would do this at the speed of 'free-fall'.

Obviously 911myth would say that the WTCs were completely different to Kerosene Stoves. But I say that steel is steel, kerosene is kerosene, oxygen is oxygen, and air is air, and physics is physics, and chemistry is chemistry.

I noticed that the JOM atricle didn't mention very much about the fully-clothed and still-very-much-alive people, standing in the impact scar, and looking down.
Perhaps some theory about how heat can buckle steel, whilst leaving cotton and flesh undamaged would be in order?

Information seeking from the experts.
Most Americans and Canadians believe that only two wtc towers collapsed. When they are informed that there were three,they give you the evil eye-as a nut case.
Watching the video,the two towers hit by planes--fall from the top. however WTC 7 crumbles from the bottom--what gives??
any experts comments-please!

it is ironic that those responsible for making loose change are the ones doing the investigating and the reporting, and the writer from usat who is supposed to be a reporter, is essentially publishing propaganda with the purpose of debunking the conspiracy theory/theorem. No real investigating on his part. Just some explaining away of the movie and those who might buy into it. Dylan should be writing for the usat, and the usat "reporter's" work should be found only on his blog.