Here is the question. All of us are dedicated to promoting the truth about 911. That means combating disinfo wherever it occurs ... but most especially in venues where it can have a more negative effect. OpEdnews is read by many many people. Care to defend the cause?

Anybody up to it? Defending what we believe. Fighting the 'Employees'......?

Debunking the Controlled Demolition Theory

by Arthur Scheuerman Page 1 of 2 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com

This article is from my book "Fire in the Skyscraper"

After following the developing rift between Kevin Barret and Ann Althouse, I decided it was time to send her an email. If you feel so inclined you should send her one as well. Here it is:

Ms. Althouse,

I've updated my article about Hani Hanjour's flying skills and the impossibility that he piloted Flight 77.

You can find the old version here:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3550&hl=

Part One goes deeply into all accounts on Hanjour's piloting skills, including all debunking points, and shows that he was in fact a weak pilot.

Changes in this part have been made mainly on those two entries (and the summary):

June/Juli 2001 - Caldwell Flight Academy Fairfield, New Jersey
August 2001 - Congressional Air Charters Gaithersburg, Maryland

In Part One I go then into the maneuver of Flight 77 and show that this maneuver was far beyond the capability of Hanjour. I also included all debunking points.

Here, I added more statements by pilots confirming the difficulty of the performed maneuver, and that it requires advanced skills to do so.

I also have a look into the hijacking scenario on Flight 77, point out inconsisties and contradictions. I added two new sub-section to this subject, "Was there a fight going on?" and "The conflict of the official account with crash site observations".

Well, folks, in addition to being targeted by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Ae911truth.org now has inspired the "debunker" side to do an evil twin: ae911truth.info, apparently run by a guy named Joseph Nobles. It is under construction but the core of the site consists of attempted rebuttals to Richard Gage's powerpoint presentation.

Just the first page of this is pretty infuriating to read:

"This is the home page of AE911Truth.info, a site dedicated to exposing the lies and mistakes of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. AE911Truth claims to be an advocacy group for engineers and architects who question what they call the "official story" of the 9/11 attacks, but it's really just a front organization that's being used for PR purposes. They pretend to be spreading real and valuable information. Actually their website and presentations are filled with misinformation and lies.

Somebody should stop them, and I take great pleasure in being able to do my part in stopping them. The events of 9/11 are too important to be lied about, and AE911Truth do this again and again.

By Nicholas Levis

October 12, 2007:

Today many of us received a long e-mail addressed to "Dear 9/11 Truth Movement Member," purporting to be from an anonymous "psychology student in the New York City area" (911survey@gmail.com). It asks for participation in a "9/11 Truth Movement Survey" consisting of 80 mostly multiple-choice questions that will eat up a good part of your day. Among its stated goals, the survey is aimed at finding out "Who the TM members are and how they gather and communicate information," "What attracts people to the TM," "Why they stay involved and become activists," and "Why they drop out."

I am urging everyone not to fill out this survey and not to forward it to anyone else - except perhaps as a warning - and in general, never to respond to anonymous requests for personal information.

However, if you feel so inclined, since the sender already has your e-mail, perhaps you should respond to urge him or her to announce an immediate cancellation of the survey. In that case, you can include a link to this article.

Here are a few of the problems to consider:

We've written a large article, the result of a year of work: Debunking Conspiracy Myths, which addresses all the platitudes repeated by the media, such as 'conspiracies assume the involvement of a large number of people'. So it dispels virtually all anti 9-11 myths, but it has merit in all other areas of truth-seeking too.

We want to spread this out and make it viral!

Digg It

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=38591
About the Author: Will Stape has written for newspapers,magazines & television, most notably for "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and "Deep Space Nine." He lives in the NYC area.
....................
The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon were brainstormed, arranged and executed by dark, shadow agents of the American government seeking to throw us into shock, horror and then rage. Their ultimate goal was US military action in the Middle East.

Theories like the above are all over. Not only do books, magazines and websites spout them, but home brewed films like Loose Change, seek to "uncover truth" about that Tuesday morning in September of 2001. Hollywood celebrities like Charlie Sheen and Rosie O'Donnell have even embraced 9-11 conspiracy theories.

The 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction

A History Channel Special

A Detailed Review by Tony Biviano - tonybiviano@hotmail.com
www.myspace.com/unclesam9112001

Please Digg:

digg_url='http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_johndora_070910_the_suppressed_septe.htm';
digg_title='The Suppressed September 11th';
digg_bodytext='This article will refer the reader to some compendiums of credible news reports concerning the attacks of 9/11. Most of these news stories were mentioned briefly, and then conspicuously forgotten about by news organizations, by purported investigators, and even by the general public.

';
digg_topic='politics';

The Suppressed September 11th

Recommended Reading Concerning 9/11

(This article will refer the reader to some compendiums of credible news reports concerning the attacks of 9/11. Most of these news stories were mentioned briefly, and then conspicuously forgotten about by news organizations, by purported investigators, and even by the general public.

Hi all,

I checked out JREF for the first time in awhile today, and finally their own Ryan Mackey has offered an answer to David Ray Griffin's latest book - at least the NIST chapter. It's an MS Word document totaling 198 pages.

I've read the first several pages where he gives a general overview. I don't have the time or energy to get into it in depth tonight (or for that matter this whole weekend). I would like to read it all, but perhaps some of you can beat me to it. I am open to all sides of an argument and this would indeed be the first lengthy critique to any aspect of Griffin's book. That being said, much of what I've read so far isn't impressive; he basically says, (in a long-winded way designed to fill up space), that "YOU are claiming controlled demolition, so the burden of proof is on YOU, not on NIST."

Anyone out there want to help me out? I'm interested in what people think are the paper's strong points and flaws. I think it's important that Truthers and Debunkers put their strongest stuff out in the open to be examined objectively.

I know some of you believe this is a no-brainer. You might say, "oh, well Mark Roberts is a schill or an idiot" but consider for a minute that he is another human being like all of us. (and for the record I am not a Mark Roberts apologist) However, I just spent well over 5 hours (more than I would have liked to really) reading over his material and I have a simple question; How is Mark Roberts wong? Please do not come at me with disinfo non-sense or any sort of character assault. I have read his material and have my own opinions on the matter. However I am interested in what other people think. If you have never read a word from him, DO NOT RESPOND. I am not interested in immature name calling or unsubstantiated claims. If you do have solid evidence that might be of interest to us all, please share but please do not throw out inflammatory comments that do nothing to address the issue at hand. And to make sure I am making myself absolutely clear. This is not an attempt at Debunking! I am simply encouraging critical thinking and investigation. So please if you would humor me...How is Mark Roberts wrong?

Crimes of the State

Longtime international journalist Robert Fisk has entered the debate over September 11th 2001. Immediately, he was pounced on by CounterPunch for voicing his concerns.

One might ask why CounterPunch sees it as a high priority to attack those who voice skepticism of the government's account of 9/11?

Manuel Garcia Jr., whose actual career has included work on more advanced weapons of mass destruction (WMD's) for the US government, has written some questionable papers about the New York building "collapses" of 9/11. Garcia no longer includes his Lawrence Livermore Laboratory resume at the end of his articles, for some reason, but this is what he told us originally:

"[Garcia's] working experience includes measurements on nuclear bomb tests, devising mathematical models of energetic physical effects, and trying to enlarge a union of weapons scientists."

While establishing some level of expertise, the elephant in the room would be the morality of someone, at this late stage of our MAD evolution, helping build more effective nuclear bombs. And, if one has no reservations about vaporizing thousands to millions of humans, in a single blast, what's a little disinformation on the morality spectrum?

I watched the History Channel program "The 9-11 Conspiracies" and it was one of the more wide-ranging 'debunking' efforts so far. This is a good sign. One guy ludicrously dropped 'theory' from its normal place in the epithet, and would just talk about the conspiracies abounding on the internet- 9-11 Blogger's not laundering drug money is it? They even brought up Mineta's testimony, about which Coburn from Popular Mechanics had no flippant response to other than wishing there would soon be some official response to it. We all know that there won't be until there are indictments and summonses.

This is a good piece, worth sending to friends who are still dubbing around trying to be "balanced," or whatever the excuse. Alvin
___________________

(original: http://americanjourney.blogspot.com/)

June 09, 2007

I just came across this article 'debunking' the 911 Truth movement- amazingly dimissive, uninformed, and evident of conclusions written inside the bubble of the United States propaganda machine.

In the spirit of DRG's latest book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking", i thought i would put together an article for those to help out with the most common so-called "Debunks" of our work.

Claim - There are No pilots at pilotsfor911truth.org

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

All above names who are pilots certified by the FAA can be cross referenced here...
https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/

Claim - The FDR is missing 2-6 seconds of data

FDR Recorders built to .5 sec lag maximum standard
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=7152

Radar Altitude Confirms too high
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=4801

Claim - There is altimeter lag in the animation and csv file due to flying outside the aircraft envelope.

Airdata Calibration and Measurement
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=103

FDR Vertical Speed - Altimeter lag issues Addressed
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=73

Radar Altitude Confirms too High
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=4801
more below...