Jonathan Kay, "Journalist", comes back for more 9/11 Truth - May 24th, 2009

Jonathan Kay of the National Post showed up at another 9/11 talk, in Walkerton, Ontario, May 24th, 2009, and got an earful from the speakers: Graeme MacQueen, Anthony Hall, and Michael Truscello.

Previously:

10.27.2008 - Jonathan Kay on the humbling frustrations of debating 9/11 "Truthers"

4.23.2009 - An evening in Montreal with Richard Gage, 9/11 Truth Movement prophet extraordinaire

5.6.2009 - Richard Gage, AIA - answers Jonathan Kay

(Please also see Anthony Hall's report: 9/11 Truthers Do the Clinton-Bush Event in Toronto )

BBC Telling What Caused WTC7 to Collapse...

before the collapse! "because the building has been weakened"..."falling debris"..."CONTROL THE SPIN"

This is the greater significance.

??!!

Why on earth isn't prof. MacQueen referencing his own paper: Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories ?!

This paper shows that most firefighters were told in advance that WTC 7 was going to come down

Therefore, it is likely that that is where CNN and the BBC got their information. WHY isn't prof. MacQueen referencing his own paper? I don't get it..

This appears to be Q&A session

It's possible MacQueen referenced his paper earlier?

That would be interesting

to know.. As I understand it, CNN and BBC got their information from Reuters, so we should be looking at Reuters instead. Who gave Reuters the information it passed on?

Does anybody here know the specifics on this?

In reference to firefighters being told early on WTC 7 would either 'come down' or be 'taken down':

Please watch the clip until the end.

Good to see that the proffesors are giving....

the media a serve here.

Accountability for their actions is something that they might have to start dealing with very soon!

Thanks to all involved.

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

WTC 7 warnings

"Therefore, it is likely that that is where CNN and the BBC got their information. WHY isn't prof. MacQueen referencing his own paper? I don't get it.."

I did reference it. You're seeing Q and A here, not my talk.

By the way, I don't think there's any good evidence the news channels got their information from the firefighters. I think it's more likely the firefighters and the news channels got their information from the same source or sources.

OEM

Good, because I think the paper is excellent, and covers very important ground. However, I seem to remember some of the early information regarding the 'stability' of WTC 7 emanated from the OEM. Unfortunately I can't remember where I read/saw this.

Question about the source(s)

Have there been many attempts, of which you are aware, to encourage firefighters and news channels workers to divulge the source of the foretold collapse of WTC 7?

Another Question--off-topic

There's a paper, which I believe you authored, as a rebuttal to a paper by Bazant et al. In it, you argue, convincingly, about details of the explosions that occurred during the apparent demolition of WTC 1 and 2. Bazant had claimed they were merely sonic booms, whereas you found his claim unlikely.

Am curious if that was your paper, or if I'm conflating memories with something else.

Thanks.

Superb work as always, Graeme

You and your colleagues are men of peace with spines of steel.

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

The one thing Jonathan Kay

The one thing Jonathan Kay should realize is that he has positioned himself with his work and actions to be considered an A lister in the group of cover up agents. When Justice is finally delivered for 9/11, he will be on a short list of individuals who will be targeted for prosecution for obstruction of Justice. Likely these individuals won't face the death penalty, more likely 10 year jail sentences. Scarier than that will be when he gets out of jail, when no jail is there to protect him. Then again, once in jail, I'm sure plenty of inmates won't like him too much either. In a nutshell, Jonathan Kay is playing with fire. The sad thing is, he comes across as some schlepp who doesn't even realize the ramifications and consequences that will be coming back his way.

Amazing exchange here

& that reporter got intelligently & rather passively called out, for being a irresponsible & destructive member of the media.

Thanks for posting this.

Talk about a dressing down.

Nicely done!!

questions raised

Hi, folks. Just a few comments on questions raised in this discussion. (By the way, I didn't even know the questioner was the journalist, Jonathan Kay. Tony recognized him and decided to take him on).

1. "I seem to remember some of the early information regarding the 'stability' of WTC 7 emanated from the OEM. Unfortunately I can't remember where I read/saw this."

Could be. I'd have to look through a lot of material to check. Certainly the information about the instability of the Twin Towers emanated from OEM and was transmitted to the fire chiefs in the lobby of the NT just moments before the ST started erupting.

2. "Have there been many attempts, of which you are aware, to encourage firefighters and news channels workers to divulge the source of the foretold collapse of WTC 7?"

It's a good question, and I'm afraid I don't have an answer. But I do think the firefighters, BBC, and CNN were independently given the information that 7 was coming down, because each has a different take on it. Both BBC and CNN report it as "breaking news"; and although BBC pulls the story CNN keeps it front and center for about an hour until 7 comes down. Many firefighters knew it was coming down long before either of these sources announce it (over 4 hours in advance).

3. "There's a paper, which I believe you authored, as a rebuttal to a paper by Bazant et al. In it, you argue, convincingly, about details of the explosions that occurred during the apparent demolition of WTC 1 and 2. Bazant had claimed they were merely sonic booms, whereas you found his claim unlikely."

This was actually a 2007 letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/SonicBoomExplanation3.pdf

4. Final comment on WTC 7: Let's not forget that OEM evacuated WTC 7 in the morning because of a report that a third plane was on the way. These reports of a 3rd plane were all over the place. Michael Fury and I were going to publish an article on it but I guess we got distracted with other things. Perhaps it needs to be a letter in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. I don't think the 3rd plane reports were just a mistake. I think it was either conscious misinformation or....well, it's been suggested that 93 may have been intended for that building. I just don't know.

Professor MacQueen, thanks

Professor MacQueen, thanks for the link. It was good to reread it. Your refutation of Bazant et al. is straightforward and readily demonstrable. "Of the 118 explosion references [in the FDNY collection], how many clearly refer to events in the last stages of tower collapse, the point where the 'crushing front' is 'near the ground'? The answer is none." The verbal responses "refer to explosions just before the collapse or at the beginning of the collapse. Such cases are, in fact, the rule, as anyone will discover who takes the time to consult the collections." (Thus you have refuted Bazant's argument that the explosions occurred only near the end of the collapse sequence.)

It is interesting to review from the Bazant paper the section subtitled, "Velocity of Air Ejected from the Tower". It is a veritable bonanza of misreasoning--or at least of leaping to conclusions from unsubstantiated premises. Just as his math often displays a disconnect with the external reality of the WTC catastrophe, so too does his English. In the aforementioned section, he repeatedly uses a strong imperative ('must") where a weak subjunctive ("might" or "perhaps") is far more appropriate. I mean this both in his specific language use, word-by-word, but also his overall approach to reasoning. For example, despite the many uncertainties, the falling debris "must" have led to sonic booms.

He admits to the porosity (i.e. shatteredness, non air-tightness) of the collapsing ceilings, but he does not know the degree of the porosity. How can he say there "must" be sonic booms, at any time during the collapses, if he does not know the degree of porosity of the ceilings, let alone his uncertainty about the complex convex/concave nozzling he says is required for the sonic booms? No ad hominem is required. It just comes across as bad science, bad English, and bad logic. He obviously possesses a high level of intelligence, so this calls into question the degree of his sincerity.

Anyway, much thanks for what you do. I'm tired right now, so if there are any blatant mistakes above it's probably due to that. Your work, along with that of your colleagues, is immensely appreciated.

So these explosion sounds are supposed to be 'sonic booms'?

Prof. MacQueen, in any case the Naudet clip of the South Tower collapse does unequivocally contain sounds of explosions. So Bazant contends these are sonic booms? Hmmmm...

I did get the subject of 'sonic booms' in physics, and what I don't understand is how a sonic boom can occur again and again,since the collapse front doesn't decelerate. Apparently this is due to alleged 'fluctuation' in air venting, but to me this sounds like nonsense, not like a sonic boom (pun intended)

So this is supposed to be caused by compressed floors then? So, if Bazant's 'tamper' hits a floor, doesn't that poke some air holes? Interesting, I was unaware of the sonic boom theory.

Dude...

I can't believe you didn't post this on my site. You know who you are. You bastage... :)

Great job.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?