Pushing the boundaries of truth: 9/11 Vancouver Hearings embrace controversy


By Craig McKee

In Toronto, we saw the conservative approach to examining 9/11 evidence. In Vancouver we’re going to see something quite different.

In stark contrast to last September’s Toronto Hearings into the Events of September 11, 2001, the 9/11 Vancouver Hearings will pursue the truth wherever that leads, according to co-organizer Joshua Blakeney. The stated mission of the hearings, which start tomorrow, is to “push the boundaries of 9/11 truth.”

In an interview this week, Blakeney, Canadian correspondent for Press TV and staff writer at Veterans Today, said the Vancouver Hearings will explore a number of areas that Toronto wouldn’t touch or only briefly addressed.

One is the question of whether a plane crash was faked at the Pentagon. Another is whether there is merit in some of the more controversial areas of 9/11 research, namely the possibility of video fakery and the use of directed energy weapons. The role of the media in the deception of 9/11 will also be explored.

Some in the Truth movement are dismissing these hearings on the basis that some highly contentious (some would say discredited) areas will be explored. The thinking seems to be that if some of these angles are acknowledged let alone addressed it will invite criticism and ridicule from the media and public.

I know truthers who feel this way, and very strongly so. And I understand their concern, up to a point. I have to say, though, that I don’t buy the idea that we have to avoid controversial positions to gain credibility. I’m looking forward to the hearings and what we’ll learn. That doesn’t mean I’ll be happy with each of the 19 presentations; I may absolutely reject some of them. But I’m not afraid of having the discussion, and I don’t think the Truth movement should be afraid of it either.

“Unless we entertain all hypotheses, how can we come to a truthful conclusion?” Blakeney asks. “Are we going to be a cult or deal with compelling issues?”

Blakeney explains that a fundamental difference in the philosophy of these hearings as compared to Toronto is that getting the approval of the mainstream press isn’t an objective. In Toronto, he says, organizers were pleased that the Canadian newspaper the National Post wrote something that wasn’t a “hit piece.” He suggests that this was because the hearings had tried so hard to be respectable and non-threatening.

“The mainstream media is allowing this false paradigm to seep in the public consciousness and is therefore complicit,” Blakeney says. “We should only care about media in so far as we’re exposing them.”

A key question the hearings will consider is who was responsible for the false flag operation and why. Blakeney himself will make a presentation on what he believes was the role of Israel’s Mossad in planning and carrying out the crimes of 9/11. He says it’s not enough to simply show that the official story is false; you have to go much deeper to really understand what was done and what the objectives were.

The Toronto 9/11 Hearings addressed the “least controversial” 9/11 evidence (its own web site specified this). Most of the time was spent on the science of what brought the twin towers down, and it stayed mostly away from the question of who was behind the crimes. The hearings also devoted very little time to discussing the Pentagon and Shanksville events.

Blakeney and co-organizer Jim Fetzer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, approached a number of 9/11 researchers who declined to speak in Vancouver. Blakeney says invitations were extended to Richard Gage, Niels Harrit, Judy Wood, Barrie Zwicker, Citizen Investigation Team, and others.

“I would like CIT to have come but unfortunately they don’t like Jim Fetzer for some reason.”

Following the keynote address by Canadian activist Splitting the Sky (who attempted a citizens’ arrest of former U.S. president George W. Bush in Calgary in 2009), we’ll see six sessions and 19 presenters (only Barbara Honegger also spoke in Toronto).

Here is the program (for bio information on each speaker, check http://www.911vancouverhearings.com):

Session 1: The Pentagon, the Witnesses, and the Passengers

  • Enver Masud, “What didn’t happen at the Pentagon”
  • Barbara Honegger, “Behind the Smoking Curtain: The Pentagon attacked Itself”
  • Dean Hartwell, “Planes and passengers: What became of them?”

Session 2:  How were the Twin Towers destroyed? Part 1

  • Nicholas Kollerstrom, “The Nine Keys to 9/11”
  • Charles Boldwyn, “Why the Twin Towers could not have collapsed”
  • Jeff Prager, “Proof of Ternary Fission in New York City on 9/11″

Session 3:  How were the Twin Towers destroyed? Part 2

  • Donald Fox, “Mini-nukes used at the WTC and the real ‘untold story’”
  • Clare Kuehn, “Were DEWs used to decimate the Twin Towers?”
  • Dwain Deets, “Assessing Alternative Theories about the Twin Towers”

Session 4:  Who was Responsible for 9/11 and Why?

  • Susan Lindauer, “Confessions of a CIA Asset”
  • Kevin Barrett, “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”
  • Alan Sabrosky, “Genesis of Deception:  Israel and Its Friends on 9/11″
  • Joshua Blakeney, “The Likudnik Origins of 9/11”

Session 5:   The Fabrication of the Atrocities of 9/11

  • Christopher Holmes, “Fabled Airplanes and Scripted Witnesses”
  • Dennis Cimino, “The ‘official account’ of flights on 9/11 is a fantasy”
  • Jim Fetzer, “Fakery and Fraud in the ‘Official Account’ of 9/11”

Session 6: The Media, the 9/11 Myth, and the Message

  • John McCarthy, “US government involvement in 9/11 is no surprise”
  • Webster Tarpley, “From 9/11 to WIKILEAKS and ‘The Arab Spring’: Covert ops in our time”
  • Anthony Hall, “How the Media have Failed us All”

One the two judges is Connie Fogel, former leader of the Canadian Action Party (which challenges the official story of 9/11) and currently a lawyer with the Defence of Canadian Liberty Committee. The other is Alfred Lambremont Webre, who was a judge on the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal and who submitted a memorandum to the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate 9/11.

The Vancouver Hearings have a similar structure to Toronto in that each “witness” makes a presentation to these judges who will then ask questions. Later, they’ll produce a written report evaluating the evidence they heard.

One advantage of these hearings for anyone wanting to attend is that a pass for the whole weekend is just $50 ($25 for one day). And there’s lots of seating, as the event is being held in the 552-seat Denman Theatre. Toronto charged $200 for the full conference and seating was limited (in fact it sold out weeks before the hearings started). Toronto recently released a five-hour DVD package of testimony.

As with Toronto, the Vancouver Hearings will be streamed live on the Internet. Blakeney said he wasn’t sure whether the sessions would be available for later viewing as well.

For all the details on the program and the link for live streaming, go to the Vancouver Hearings web site, http://www.911vancouverhearings.com.

325 comments

  1. Upon reading your excellent and well-balanced article, I have half a hankering to go. Let us see what they bring.

  2. Wow! A whole new world of controversy awaits us. Fresh new meat to carve. Should keep us busy for months. But as we seek to bring to an end the Decade of Deceit.

    1. Well, CIT was invited and declined. Aldo Marquis told me before any invitation was offered, that he would not go even if asked. He thinks that things like video fakery are disinfo and only damage the movement when they are taken seriously (I hope I’ve characterized your view fairly, Aldo).

      The funny thing is that Blakeney and Fetzer don’t believe a plane hit the Pentagon. Blakeney (as quoted in my article) is quite positive towards CIT, and he regretted they couldn’t be there to present. Interesting that we have Toronto, which would not invite CIT, and we have Vancouver, which they wouldn’t accept an invitation from.

      On top of all that, CIT and Barbara Honegger are totally at odds, and Barbara is presenting in Vancouver. But that’s a whole other topic…

  3. I myself (i.e. back in 2008) used to be more “conservative” myself, and have become more liberal/tolerant/whatever over the years. I’ve come to rethink the whole “damage by association” thing. Whether it’s CIT turning down this invitation, or whether it’s the people who opposed Gage/Ryan speaking at the NOI conference, I’ve become convinced that limiting one’s message based on “perceived credibility” only serves to limit the scope of the ripple effect. Had I been a member of CIT, I would have accepted the invitation, and in my speech, I would not only present the NoC evidence, but also would carpe the diem and tell the auditorium exactly why Honneger’s presentation is flawed, and I would also use the opportunity to let the audience know that I staunchly oppose the video fakery and DEW disinfo. If I (Adam Syed) were invited to speak at a KKK rally about 9/11 truth, I would accept, and in my speech, I would begin by denouncing the group and the racism they stand for. If I were to not get booed off the stage or eggs thrown in my face, I would then proceed to explain how 9/11 was a false flag op. I have my serious reservations about Fetzer also. My $0.02. Fair and balanced, Craig. Well written.

    1. Adam (Syed),

      I agree with where you are now. I think the guilt by association thing is way overblown. In fact, I’d go so far as to say the fight among truthers over how to stay credible has caused more problems than any “crazy” theory has. I also think it would have been amazing to see Craig or Aldo present the CIT evidence to this conference.

  4. I am 100% for this conference and think that it is a good thing it is taking place. I am pleased that the organizers are promoting discussions of all kinds to take place at the hearings and pleased that they are totally rejecting the MSM. That in itself places these hearings on much firmer ground than the Toronto hearings which were more concerned with PR than the truth. Toronto also had the fatal flaw of ignoring the pentagon and the evidence collected by CIT and P4T. In my opinion the Toronto hearings were a failure because of the way they were run and because of who they ignored. To their credit the Vancouver organizers are allowing all kinds of discussions to take place regardless of how “controversial” they are.

    That having been said I have some serious concerns with this conference. Number one on the list of concerns is Jim Fetzer who as some of you knows has posted on this blog and “debated” some of us here. The problem is I do not believe Mr. Fetzer “debates” in good faith. In other words he does not directly address and answer questions put to him but rather tends to use avoidance tactics and unfortunately insults to skirt issues. I personally found him to be deceptive and very hard to pin down as to what exactly he believes or rejects about 9/11. Since Fetzer is involved at the top level of organizing this conference and is a speaker at it I have serious concerns.

    Some of the speakers I am confident will be superb while others are clearly promoting theories that in my view have already been thoroughly and effectively debunked. Video fakery and DEW’s top that list of items that have been convincingly debunked already. I don’t mind having the discussion about those topics however I am concerned that the “judges” who will be writing the report resulting from these hearings may not be aware of these solid debunks. My question is will all the presenters be questioned by people familiar with their material? If that questioning process is limited or conducted by only few select “judges” I have serious concerns that the result will be a skewed report indicating that DEW and Video fakery scenarios have merit which they absolutely do not.

    Another concern I have with these hearings is that Barbara Honegger will be a presenter. Much like Jim Fetzer I have found Barbara to be a very slippery individual. I have gone back and forth with Barbara via e-mail and found her to be extremely evasive when questioned. Frankly I don’t trust her one bit and I think her material is based on very little hard evidence. I hope she is questioned vigorously by someone who really knows her material.

    On the positive side of things several presenters are outstanding and will surely open a lot of people eyes about things the Toronto hearings wouldn’t touch. I think this conference will be an excellent opportunity to explore powerful evidence that is being actively suppressed by some alleged truthers. I think it will also be an opportunity to once and for all put to rest some theories that have no merit at all. Even if the “judges” are not familiar with the debunks of video fakery and DEW theories, we who are familiar can use the conference videos to do the job later. All in all I think this conference will be a good thing even though some misinformation and outright disinformation will be presented. I for one am not afraid of disinformation or the people who promote it because it simply provides an opportunity to expose it as such to a wider audience. People are smart and will be able to sort out the good from the bad especially if we experienced and knowledgeable truthers do our part. The truth will prevail.

    1. Adam (Ruff),

      I support your open-minded position on this. And I share some of your concerns. As for debunking, I don’t know that I hold out a lot of hope that judges at any of these conferences will really get the whole story. They aren’t chosen (same with Toronto) because they know all the material; they are chosen, I imagine, because their experience makes them good at evaluating information presented to them. But it’s not a debate, it’s a series of individual presentations. So we probably aren’t going to get the kind of analysis of the different positions that we’d like to get. I don’t think we’ll get that from the Toronto final report either (if that ever comes out).

      Honegger says she has been working on a paper (intended to be part of the Toronto final report) that has turned into a book. She said at the end of February that she’d have it done in a couple of weeks. Still no sign of it. Now she’s doing another presentation. It would have been great to see CIT present and comment on her Pentagon position. On Fetzer, he participated in the Richard Gage interview thread, which ended up being mainly about no planes and swelled to 875 comments. When you read those you get a pretty good idea about his debating methods.

    2. How can anyone at this point in time not know my positions about 9/11 across the board? I have more than 40 articles at Veterans Today, close to half of which have to do with 9/11. A sampler:

      “Thinking about ‘Conspiracy Theories’: 9/11 and JFK”
      http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm

      “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”
      http://www.amfirstbooks.com/IntroPages/ToolBarTopics/Articles/Other_Topics/9-11_Anomalies/Dr._James_H._Fetzer_2008-04-22_9-11_and_the_Neo-Con_Agenda.html

      “Is 9/11 Research ‘anti-Semitic’?”
      http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-9-11-Research-Anti-Sem-by-Jim-Fetzer-090615-95.html

      “20 Reasons the “Official Account” of 9/11 is Wrong”
      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/10/20-reasons-the-official-account-of-911-is-wrong/

      “An analysis of the WTC on 9/11”
      http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread662308/pg1

      “Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots”
      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/14/peeling-the-911-onion-layers-of-plots-within-plots/

      “Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op”
      http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/07/wikipedia-as-911-disinformation-op.html

      “The Debate over 9/11 Truth: Kevin Ryan vs. Jim Fetzer”
      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/06/the-debate-over-911-truth-kevin-ryan-vs-jim-fetzer/

      “9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery’”
      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/

      “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”
      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/01/reason-and-rationality-in-public-debate-the-case-of-rob-balsamo/

      Not to mention hundreds of public lectures and interviews, where the most recent on 9/11 is

      “False Flag Terrorism and the Rise of the Global Police State”

      And of course my latest presentation will be posted at http://www.911vancouverhearings.com
      There is no conceivable reason for anyone to not know where I stand across the board on 9/11.

  5. First time I’ve seen your site. Quite friendly, as is your bio. I wish i could be there for the event(s). I live in Cincinnati where we have an active 9T group. I’ve been to Vancouver once. What an incredible city. I attended a small house party with Fetzer and he was horribly rude to people who were open to the truth. I think he turned them off. I was in NYC for the tenth anniversary and saw Honneger and Tarpley at a big presentation there. Both were quite impressive. Good luck. I’ll try to stay up on the events by accessing your site–Jim

  6. The danger of truthers losing credibility by association has not only been overblown, it has been hyped by the most active infiltrators in the truth movement as a reason to avoid discussion of information they prefer to suppress. When last I checked Victoria Ashley’s bio on 911blogger, it positioned her as a sort of policewoman of the truth movement, scouting out and exposing disinfo where ever it may be found. Well, we all know how that works in her case — it means vicious attacks on and false accusations of anyone exposing the proof of a faked plane crash at the Pentagram.

    So I am all for events that aren’t afraid to be controversial. If the story doesn’t add up, such as Honegger’s claims of interviewing the “famous cabbie,” most of us will note it and turn our focus elsewhere.

    When I took the red pill 5 years ago, I found 911blogger and innocently raised questions, only to be told that discussion of those topics was not allowed because the ideas had no merit. But I was a brand new truther — they hadn’t been debunked for me, and I do my own thinking. I don’t believe ideas can be inherited like Grandma’s silver platter. So many sacred cows have fallen in my world in the past 5 years that I fully expect that more are to follow. IOW, don’t hold too tightly to any one belief, especially if vigorous discussion of that idea has been discouraged. We live in a mental prison and only the most energetic and courageous of us have managed to escape and see the world as it is.

    There is no free press in the USA but there should be the principle of a free press in the truth movement, ie, let all ideas have their say and let the cream rise to the top.

    1. Sheila,

      You said: “The danger of truthers losing credibility by association has not only been overblown, it has been hyped by the most active infiltrators in the truth movement as a reason to avoid discussion of information they prefer to suppress.”

      Right on the money. Your description of your experience with 911blogger when you were a new truther mirrors my own, although I got involved later than you did. Same deal, though. I was told what I couldn’t mention, and then I was attacked when I expressed my Pentagon views. Then I was banned, as so many others have been.

      I totally agree that we should not be afraid to hear any opinion. If it’s wrong, we’ll find out. If we could eliminate the idea that we can’t risk discrediting the movement by expressing honest opinions then we’d all be better off and so would the movement.

  7. Thanks for the article Craig. This website really is the new home of the Real 9/11 Truth Movement.

    Very impressed to see the line-up – especially Alan Sabrosky.

    However, as a supporter of Citizens Investigation Team, I am very disappointed that there will be no representation from CIT. I am also unimpressed with the reason behind their non-attendance. Unfortunately, it is the exact kind of “reasoning” I would expect from the Fake 9/11 Truth Movement.

    Best of luck to Joshua and everyone at the Vancouver Hearings from your many supporters in Australia. Will be watching the live stream. Hopefully the sessions will be available for later viewing as well.

    Cheers
    Naomi, Sydney

    1. Hi Naomi,

      I understand your disappointment, and I share it. I support CIT on so much, but I don’t agree that discussing these more controversial issues will harm the cause.

      I’ll be watching, too (as much as I can). Until today, I didn’t realize there was a charge for the live streaming ($20) or I would have mentioned that. While I know they have to pay the bills, it is too bad that it can’t be free on the Net to give the hearings the widest possible exposure.

      I appreciate your comment about this site’s place in the Truth movement. If this is true to any degree, it is due to the thoughtful, intelligent and sincere people who contribute their comments here on a regular basis.

  8. Hello all,

    You may find this interesting…

    http://www.truthnews.com.au/web/radio/story/david_chandler_and_john_bursill_address_the_fringes_of_the_truth_movement

    We talk about this event in this radio broadcast at length and its destructive aims.

    I’ll dedicate my post here to Naomi who made a statement she believes I am an agent as does Damon Crowe, very disappointing indeed😦

    Regards John

    From the show notes…

    Today John Bursill takes the helm as guest host.

    John is joined by two excellent guests who have become known within the 9/11 Truth Movement as two of it’s most wise and reasonable voices. We warmly welcome Ken Jenkins in the first hour and David Chandler in the second. Also we are very lucky be joined by film maker and expert on the Oklahoma City Bombing Chris Emery.

    On today’s show John takes a look a the current state of the 9/11 Movement and the evidence that conspiracy paranoia and unfounded theories are taking back ground within the alternative media circles and bloggs.

    John Bursill: “Many highly dedicated and educated advocates have provided so much solid evidence that the official account of 9/11 is false, it would be a shame for that work to now be destroyed in the public by outspoken uneducated folks simply because they decide their opinion is more important to be heard than facts and the science.”

    I hope you enjoy the show!

    1. John,

      With due respect, not interesting at all – you long ago forfeited any right to speak on behalf of anyone on the subject of 9/11. Your arrogance astonishes me to be honest.

      KP in NZ.

      1. John Bursill is one of the 9/11 truth movement’s internecine warriors, committed to attacking fellow members of the community if he doesn’t like their opinions. He has been a long-time outspoken opponent of CIT and he collaborated with Frank Legge on a paper that proposed the hypothesis “there is no evidence a Boeing 757 didn’t strike the Pentagon” … that tells you something about the intellectual caliber of this combative 9/11 activist.

    2. John,

      Even if your premise is correct that the Vancouver conference has “destructive aims” it does not justify censorship of the event. In fact John I cannot think of a valid justification for censorship at all. Now if there is misinformation and/or disinformation presented at the conference which I think there will be I am confident that it will be exposed as such and debunked in short order. There is no need at all to censor this event or for you to continue to behave as a credibility cop. In fact credibility cops are vastly more destructive to the unity of the truth movement then disinformation is. Most truthers can determine just fine all on their own what is true and what isn’t. Credibility cops assume that most truthers are idiots and cannot spot misleading or false information on their own. Incredible and unjustified arrogance is the hallmark of credibility cops such as yourself John and THAT is what drives people away from the movement. I have a news flash for you John, you are NOT smarter then most truthers, and you are NOT better informed about 9/11 either. You are therefore NOT qualified to police the truth movement.

      I will judge for myself what is true and what is false coming from the Vancouver hearings. As to your guest David Chandler he has a lot of misinformation to answer for himself. His pentagon paper has been completely and utterly debunked by CIT and he has not to my knowledge responded to that debunking, retracted his misinformation, or debated the issue in public. His misinformation is still posted. Why don’t you be a real truther and invite Craig Ranke on the show with Chandler and facilitate a discussion? If you are really interested in the truth that is what you would do and if Chandler were really interested in the truth he would have addressed this long ago:

      CIT response to David Chandler & Jonathan Cole’s, Joint Statement about Pentagon Attack
      http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1646

      Instead of acting like an arrogant credibility cop John why don’t you expose the truth about 9/11 no matter who’s feathers you ruffle. Man the hell up and face the truth that CIT’s evidence is compelling and important and that your side has been wrong all along about the pentagon. A REAL TRUTHER can and does admit when he/she is wrong. Until you and the anti-CIT cabal admit your mistakes you will continue to lose whatever credibility you have left with some truthers. You, Chandler, and the little Stalinist purgers over at 911Blogger have zero credibility with me but you may salvage some with those who don’t know what you all have been up to for the past few years attempting to supress pentagon evidence.

      Much like Chris Sarns and Gregg Roberts recently who did drive by troll droppings on this blog I expect you will not address any of your critics here either. No I think the strategy now is to sprinkle your droppings as widely as possible and never actually face us in the open. Sad but your camps aversion to open debate does tend to expose the weakness of your pentagon position.

      1. Adam Ruff wrote:

        Most truthers can determine just fine all on their own what is true and what isn’t. Credibility cops assume that most truthers are idiots and cannot spot misleading or false information on their own. Incredible and unjustified arrogance is the hallmark of credibility cops such as yourself John and THAT is what drives people away from the movement. I have a news flash for you John, you are NOT smarter then most truthers, and you are NOT better informed about 9/11 either. You are therefore NOT qualified to police the truth movement.

        Adam, you’ve illuminated the core of this problem perfectly. These supposed truthers claim they’re saving the movement from ridicule by themselves ridiculing everyone who doesn’t agree with them. Their “policing” of the rest of us does more damage than any theory or position on any aspect of 9/11 ever could. This seems so obvious that it becomes increasingly difficult to believe these “police” are sincere in their claims to be fighting for the truth.

    3. The interview on 2 June 2012 is way more interesting.

      Naomi

      http://www.truthnews.com.au/web/radio/story/conspiracy_theory_exploring_the_outer_limits_with_damon_crowe

      “Conspiracy theory – exploring the outer limits with Damon Crowe”

      Please enjoy this interview with owner of 911oz and Truth News Radio Australia, Hereward Fenton, and awesome Australian 9/11 Truth Activist, Damon Crowe, concerning cognitive infiltration of the Australian 9/11 Truth Movement.

      The discussion regarding cognitive infiltration of the Australian 9/11 Truth Movement starts in Hour 2 as follows:

      4:00 – “John Bursill is an agent” briefly mentioned.
      7:40 – Discussion concerning cognitive infiltration of the Australian 9/11 Truth Movement.
      9:40 to 10.40 – Discussion concerning Cosmos the Fake.
      26:45 onwards – Dr Judy Wood, Dimitri Khalezov (“The Third Truth”), nano-thermite, problems with peer reviews, John Bursill, cognitive infiltration.

    4. Hey John,

      Nice dump and run (as usual).

      First off, as Adam and Tamborine Man said, you must be still dizzy from the schooling Craig Ranke gave you on the Pentagon. In fact you walked away from the debate claiming that theNOC evidence is “strong”.

      Secondly, a lot of the fantastic work Chris Emery has done on the OKC bombing is based on witness testimony. Do you regard the witness testimony in Oklahoma as fair game for the type of crap you and others have been pushing against the NOC witnesses?

      Would you point to the OCT in Oklahoma as a reason to reject these witnesses?

      The witnesses saw the Murrah Building blow up but the physical damage contradicts the use of ANFO. That the alleged culprit, the Ryder truck, couldn’t have caused the damage.

      Even John Doe #2’s existence was denied despite multiple witnesses pointing out that he was there.

      The removal of explosives, not only testified to and documented but broadcast by the whore media, was denied. 
      Just as the media, NORAD and ATCs testified to  a bastardized version of the NOC flightpath.

      The video of the detonation of the Ryder truck was withheld even though an alleged still from the same “missing” footage was used at McVeigh’s trial.
      As with the proven manipulated and stolen Pentagon footage.

      The major difference between the OKC and Pentagon operations was that a stationary Ryder truck was seen blowing up and an equally deceptive device in the form of a low flying aircraft was the apparent source of the Pentagon explosion.

      Do you see the double standards John?

      As for the “paranoia” label, yes, I’m actually very paranoid and disturbed that you are in a gatekeeper position arm in arm with “former” 9/11 victim family member Cosmos.

      And that you, Frank Legge and Chris Sarns are “on the same page” as long as the aircraft entered the building whether quoting the OCT or pushing the “NOC impact” crap.

      Naomi has you well pegged.

  9. Craig,

    I remain more open-minded than I was but also I know whose judgement I respect and whose I don’t. I am pleased that a collective of the rational has gathered here including Sheila, Naomi, the Adams, CIT, OSS etc (apologies for those I missed out).

    The mainstream media is totally controlled yet it remains largely untarnished in the eyes of most people. Our main conundrum is how to break the spell that the mainstream media has and I fear we are a long way from that.

    KP

    1. KP,

      I’m also very pleased to see so many people whose views I respect and agree with contributing here. And sadly, I agree that the media is at the core of our dilemma. People may be willing to believe the media could get this wrong or that wrong, but they’re extremely reluctant to believe they are feeding us nothing but propaganda. It is indeed a steep hill to climb.

  10. I agree with those who laud Craig McKee for this piece. It’s non-confrontational reportage and analysis, typical of this blog in general. The blog is technically and aesthetically welcoming but it’s Craig’s “approach” of radical informational democracy that I most appreciate. He’s more embracing than oppositional, inclusive rather than exclusive, even-handed and civil without pretending there ever can be such a thing as objectivity.

    The approach of Josh and Jim Fetzer to the Vancouver Hearings is likewise “the free marketplace of ideas” so that is likewise to be lauded but to say this is not, for example, a complete endorsement of each presenter, nor of the format in all respects. There’s never going to be a perfect conference – on anything. But this is especially true on the issue of 9/11.

    For the record I was invited originally, by Joshua Blakeney, to participate in the Hearings as a presenter on the criminal complicity of the media. My initial response, based heavily on my high respect for Josh, was very positive. But I said I’d have to mull over all aspects. I’d promised my wife and myself not to undertake any more activism until the book I’m working on is finished, but began to cave in.

    To make a long story short I eventually (after considerable back ‘n’ forth) declined, for the aforesaid personal reason, that in turn boiled down mainly to time. Within the time consideration was my expectation that I’d want to go beyond my duties as a presenter and be in Vancouver a week in advance helping to “sell” the radical open-minded approach of the Vancouver Hearings as much as I could on mainstream and alternative media.

    At the same time I cannot honestly say that I was untroubled by some of the presenters nor that I was decided about the true nature of Jim Fetzer. So my declining was 90% based on the personal and 10% on what it was that I’d be a prominent salesperson for. For the record, here is what I offered the Hearings organizers by way of an endorsement if they wished to use it:

    “While I have had to decline, mainly for personal reasons, a generous invitation to participate in the Vancouver Hearings, I want to say that in my view they hold promise of expanding the conversation about the terror fraud of 9/11.

    “The roster of speakers and subjects, as it stands, shows courage on the part of the organizers. Some points of view will be expressed that will be considered controversial or extremely controversial by many members of the general public. Almost equally certain is that some points of view will be deemed controversial within the ‘9/11Truth community’ – those of us who have compiled a mountain of evidence that whatever happened on 9/11, it was, incontrovertibly, not what lying officialdom and the complicit mainstream media have maintained for more than a decade.

    “To anyone, whatever their degree of knowledge or concern about 9/11, I would say this: discussion of any grave matter, in fact democracy itself requires, in the words of US Chief Justice Hugo Black, “diverse and antagonistic voices.” The best medicine for the ills of free and open debate, is even more free and open debate.

    “Mainstream media, for more than a decade now, have stifled such discourse concerning 9/11 through omission, disinformation and promotion of official lies, and through words and phrases such as ‘the terrorist attacks of 9/11’ that are tightly condensed lies, and through the marginalization and demonization of anyone daring to question the official lies of 9/11 — and through repetition of all these informational crimes of complicity.”

    Finally – sorry this post is so long – a word for anyone who’s inclined to be quickly judgmental about such-and-such a person being on a conference roster, or so-and-so not being on the roster. Speaking from my experience as director of the six-day International Citizens’ Inquiry Into 9/11, held in May 2004 at The University of Toronto (with 40 presenters from three continents), let me tell you it’s no picnic even knowing who’s available to invited, let alone deciding on whom to invite, let alone dealing with those who accept and decline, let alone trying to determine the degree of accuracy and authenticity of each and every potential presenter.

    It finally cannot be an “objective” exercise and the planners are in the conflicted position of being open-minded but not so open-minded as to be flat-headed.

    I agree with Craig, the two Adams and others who are open-minded on 9/11Truth. At the same time organizers of any conference must wrestle with time, finances, logistics, critics and not least the regrettably large number of government agents assigned to infiltrate, disrupt and undermine genuine efforts to arrive at 9/11Truths.

    1. Barrie,

      Thank you for the remarks in your first paragraph. I couldn’t be more pleased to read those coming from you. And I love “radical informational democracy”!
      I appreciate your even-handed assessment of these hearings. You have some reservations and yet you retain an open mind about what might be accomplished. I’d rather see one presentation that I don’t find convincing than see a critical piece of evidence censored.

      What I’m hearing on this thread is that we (all of those who are willing to give these hearings a chance) are not afraid of the free exchange of ideas even if some of those ideas turn out not to be credible. We have faith in the intelligence of the authentic members of this movement to separate the solid from the flimsy.

  11. “weakness”! mr. ruffadam!

    No, you’re wrong there. It’s worse than that! Mr. Bursill recieved such a knock-out punch from Craig Ranke, that he’s only now very slowly waking up, at this particular moment in time, from that horrible blow to his ‘snout’.

    ‘Weakness’ hasn’t set in yet. He’s still bewildered and confused. That’s why his speech sounds like “slurry”, with no real ‘substance’ behind it! ;o)

    I’ve been there myself, so i know what it feels like.

    We can only hope that he will return back to normal one day – as i ‘allegedly’ did it!

    Cheers

  12. Like you Craig, I think free and open debate on any idea is valid. I am curios to read what the presenters have to say at this conference.

    I am also in agreement with all of those who don’t give a damn about what the stinking mainstream press thinks – it is naught but a Public Relations Regime built for perception manipulation, and has no interest in truth, but only an interest in political power.

    I can however understand CIT balking at the presence of and fact of Fetzer’s involvement in organizing this event.

    I would also mention that I doubt if the judges on this panel have a deep enough grasp on physics to make reasonable judgments as to the evidence that might be presented. So I am more interested in judging the merits of each presentation for myself. I hope a fair representation gets beyond this conference and out to the general information flow.

    So keep us up on as much as you can Mr. McKee, and thanks for another fair and balanced piece of reporting.

    ww

  13. Mr. ruffadam,

    You expressed concern that someone at the Vancouver “event” was presenting DEW disinformation and that the judges might take it seriously. You need not worry. The whole point of having Ms. Kuehn promote disinformation about Dr. Wood’s work is to appear to debunk it by debunking disinformation about it. And the “Judges” surely have their assigned task of declaring DEW “debunked.”

    The problem will be that Dr. Wood’s work will not be debunked in it is misrepresented. And, as seen on the previous blog page, nothing in Dr. Wood’s book has been refuted. In their desperation to appear to debunk Dr. Wood’s work, debunkers promote false propaganda about Dr. Wood’s work and then debunk their own propaganda (e.g. falsely claim that Dr. Wood says the towers were “vaporized” and then debunk “vaporized,” but that does not debunk ”dustification”). Another form of false propaganda is to claim Dr. Wood refers to “Direct Energy Weapons,” such as “space beams” or “laser beams from space.” This is disinformation and is promoted for the sake of easy debunking. Dr. Wood’s book is indeed irrefutable which is why such a large-scale disinformation campaign has been necessary.

    If you don’t want the truth of 9/11 to be known, you will be quite happy with the outcome of Mr. Fetzer’s efforts at muddling up the disinformation. The truth is known, but most want to keep it covered up. Those looking for the truth and who can think independently have most likely read Dr. Wood’s book. Those who are dependent on what others think have likely formed their “beliefs” through rumors promoted by group think, led by their keepers.

    1. Tom,

      You mention the former thread here, where you have made a few comments as well. All similar to this one here, full of generalities and unfounded assertions. When you are invited to address the actual substance of the discussion there, you simply disappear.

      You said you were “thinking about buying” Wood’s book on your first entry. Well, did you buy it?
      Has it arrived? Is it now in your possession? And you are now going to say, if it is true it has arrived, that you have seriously had the time to study it?

      And if you have, and you have digested the whole thing so quickly – remember the former post is still active, and you are again welcomed to join in and explain the physics that those disagreeing with Wood have gotten so wrong.

      Mr. Zarembka is hoping that a Wood supporter will step up to the plate to explain that Wood has the ‘seismic argument’ right – be the hero on a charging stallion, rescue Mr. Zarembka from his perplexed state; explain the seismic argument to him.

      ww

      1. Thank you for your reply and for your concern at my being away from the thread for a bit.

        I have been working in my garden, and I have just a spectacular feast awaiting me this summer !

        YES , I have the book. Actually I bought several copies to give to friends as well. My concern on this little chit chat line is the no-where direction that it seems to be going. I actually lost some interest in the thread, as the book is very fascinating and informative. I highly recommend it !
        Never the less, I stepped away from my garden and the book to come in and stroke the keyboard for a bit.

        Perhaps Mr. Zarembka is hoping that someone can think for him because he apparently cannot think for himself. But it seems more likely that Mr. Zarembka wants to pit one person against
        another.

        This thread reminds me of the classic high school girly-girl or boy drama (and arguing about Dr. Wood’s evidence is rather silly). Here is a simplified story for example on how the argument might work :

        Let’s say that YOU and I are best friends. We have been friends since the first grade and now WE are in high school. But lo and behold a new friend comes into the picture , and HE now wants to be MY best friend. HE then (the 3rd person) will come up and whisper in my ear a lie stating that YOU hit on my girlfriend. I then become angry at YOU, as I can’t imagine that YOU would deceive me in such a manner. So, I decide that I no longer want to be friends with such a liar as YOU. Now, Guess what ? The NEW person (#3) comes running to my side and says ” Well, I will be your best friend since your previous friend wasn’t trustworthy”.

        The 3rd person has now come between YOU and I , and achieved HIS objective.

        Please keep in mind that this is a story as I do not know you or know anything about your friends. I am just using it to convey my point🙂

        It is rather easy to fill in the blanks on how this same idea might be used in the 9-11 cover up and how the details of 9-11 are perceived.

        The truth is known. There are those who want to know the truth and there are others who do not and there are those who wish to subvert. This is how a cover up is held in place. I have been studying how the Hegelian Dialectic is used to control public perception. I don’t need to read Dr. Wood’s entire book (today) to recognize what is at play here. It’s clear to anyone with their eyes open. What the previous blog page does more than anything else I’ve seen is to convey just how important it is to cover up the information in Dr. Wood’s book and how scared the leaders of the cover up must be.

        The previous blog page conveys this rather nicely.

        I however, rarely get scared as I believe that it is important to know all the truth we can about our world and the events that shape our lives. I would also imagine that the families and victims of 9/11 are also owed at least this much.

        Now, back the book and the garden. …And in that order.

      2. tom says on June 18, 2012 at 12:40 am:

        Ahh..what exactly does he say??? No matter as it is irrelevant *bantersnatch.

        However I would like tom to explain how it is that practically every Wood supporter to visit that thread is such a nitwit that they couldn’t tell a seismograph from a fax machine.

        And as far as your dig at Paul Zarembka, and characterizing his simple questioning as indication “that Mr. Zarembka wants to pit one person against another.” is pure in-your-face bullshit.

        If you Tom, are serious about understanding “The Book”, you would do well to study the various sciences addressed therein from objective sources – rather than naively accepting it all as gospel and becoming another “true believer” in holy mother Judy.

        {“Bantersnatch” ; a snatch of banter here, a snatch there with no connective tissue.}

        ww

    2. Tom,

      I personally debunked Judy Wood and the DEW theory several years ago and spent far too much of my own time doing it. I assure you her work is full of gaping holes, her photo analysis is very poor to say the least. Your assertion that nothing in her book has ever been refuted is laughable.

      I am NOT going to put money in her pocket by purchasing her book which I know from many long drawn out debates is disinformation filled crap. I do not intend to even look at the DEW presentation at the Vancouver hearings. I have done my time, years ago now, dismantling Judy Wood’s garbage. I trust in the smarts of my fellow truthers to come to their own conclusions about Judy Wood.

      I will offer one small debunk of Wood right now for the record though.

      The title of her book is “Where Did the Towers Go.” The title itself is misleading because it suggests the towers disappeared. The towers did not disappear as her unfortunate title suggests. To answer the question begged by the title of her book though I will say this:

      The towers fell straight down to the ground because of a controlled demolition. They ended up as a big pile of rubble and dust which was dispersed over a wide area. The towers did not disappear.

      1. You Sir are mistaken, as I am quite sure that the towers are not still there.

        They turned to dust in mid air and the debris pile that you speak of is not there either …..

        And NEVER was.

      2. Tom,

        I think you just cleared up this whole thing in one swift motion. You say:

        “You Sir are mistaken, as I am quite sure that the towers are not still there.

        They turned to dust in mid air and the debris pile that you speak of is not there either …..

        And NEVER was.”

        I think there was in fact a rubble pile and I also think I have lost interest in talking more with you.

      3. ruffadam says ” I also think I have lost interest in talking more with you”.

        No problem mate !

        That gives me extra time to study the work written by a person with the academic qualifications of Dr. Wood. You need not worry that I choose to study rather than listen to claims of someone who has a rather inflated ego to assume *debunking power* of anyone’s professional work..

        I believe that I am educated enough to come to my own conclusions as to what happened on 9-11. Geez, with all the negativity directed at those reading Dr. Wood’s book one might get the impression that the information that she presents is 100% accurate and that directed energy was used to destroy all 7 buildings at the WTC complex🙂

  14. In my opinion you guys are missing the forest for the trees here in the name of being “open minded”. I think that the “Vancouver Hearings” (VH) are the opposite head of the same dragon of the “Toronto Hearings” (TH) and that Honegger’s disinfo is the common thread.

    It’s just like the right/left false paradigm of mainstream politics. The TH’s “conservative” approach promoted a limited hangout while the VH’s more “liberal” approach is promoting blatant disinformation. Neither of these approaches are good and both are well known counter-intelligence tactics to manipulate the masses AWAY from the truth. Furthermore the primary organizers of both events are shady characters with an long established history of fostering division, unprovoked attacks, and/or promoting disinformation (Fetzer/Ryan). I’m not advocating “censorship”. Canada is still a free country and they should be allowed to have their events. But I do not see how it makes sense for honest truth advocates who are aware of all this to “applaud” or “promote” either event in any way shape or form given the established track history of those involved and the known fallacious nature of the information presented. If anything efforts should be made to expose this false paradigm which I believe was designed to completely co-opt the movement from both angles.

    Furthermore for anyone to accept an invitation to present at either event would obviously and fairly be perceived as an endorsement of that event. On the flip side to go there to “challenge” people would be obviously be perceived as disruptive.

    I think this previous report by McKee regarding the TH helped explain why it’s a good idea to boycott such controlled and dubious events:

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/cit-would-have-likely-have-said-no-to-%E2%80%98fixed%E2%80%99-toronto-911-hearings-ranke/

  15. Mr. Bursill,

    I listened to your entire show with Jenkins/Chandler yesterday. I left the following comment at 911oz: I will add boldface for this paste.

    *

    At roughly 26:45, John Bursill deceptively conflates the research of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, which showed that the speeds of the WTC aircraft were above the max operating limit for STOCK COMMERCIAL 767s, with the video fakery/no planes claims. Bursill says, “We all saw the aircraft hit.” Pilots for 9/11 Truth do not claim that no planes hit the towers. They are claiming that because these planes were going too fast, at such a low altitude, for a stock 767, that these planes were likely souped up, military 767s, which are more advanced and can go faster at low heights. This conclusion would be completely consistent with an Operation Northwoods type scenario. It is because of this kind of conflation/deception on Bursill’s part — equating the Pilots work with “no planes” (a classic disinfo technique: pair legitimate information right next to obvious disinformation) — that has made some people’s eyebrows raise over him.

    ETA: He does it again at 34:08.

    …and also, obviously, my rejection of, uh… the Pilots for Truth argument about impossible speeds, um, with the aircraft we saw on 9/11, or, the “no plane” arguments.

    I’m also😀 over his claim about “scientific papers” that “prove” a plane hit the Pentagon. LOL.

    ETA 2: 54:30 I call BS on Bursill’s claim that the “scientific papers” that argue a plane hit the Pentagon have “not been contested.”

    “There is nothing wrong with this paper that a trip through a shredder, and a sincere apology to CIT and the 9/11 Truth community could not cure.”

    – Shelton Lankford, upon reading the Chandler/Legge paper. (Lankford, of course, is an actual pilot.)

    Frank Legge Begging for Peer Reviewers for Pentagon Paper, gets deleted at 911blogger
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21569

  16. And by the way Bursill, if you are the “real deal” like Chris Emery says you are, then why do you recommend proven disinformation like the Legge/Stutt paper over the work of REAL aviation experts? If you are a real truther, why did you concede defeat in a debate with Craig Ranke and promise to stop attacking CIT, only to start attacking again a few months later? You left that debate admitting the NoC evidence was “strong,” yet after about 3-4 months of silence, you went on the attack against CIT and pretended the debate never happened.

    That was a really amazing point made by onesliceshort, when he said:

    Secondly, a lot of the fantastic work Chris Emery has done on the OKC bombing is based on witness testimony. Do you regard the witness testimony in Oklahoma as fair game for the type of crap you and others have been pushing against the NOC witnesses?

    Would you point to the OCT in Oklahoma as a reason to reject these witnesses?

    Indeed, if you were to oppose the veracity of those eyewitnesses, and if you were to loudly declare Emery’s film to be damaging to the cause of truth, as you have with National Security Alert, Emery’s perception of you as “the real deal” would probably go downhill rather quickly.

    John, if your feelings are punctured like a balloon right now over being called an “agent,” if you’re feeling sad and wanting to cry like that little first grader on the playground who was just called a mean name, I’m afraid I can not offer any sympathy. Peoples’ suspicions of you have been thanks to your own doing. A REAL TRUTHER will man up and admit when he’s been conned, as you clearly were for years with fake 9/11 family member “Cosmos.”

    On a completely different note (addressing the whole community), while I’m typing away: I am speculating here, but I have an idea of why Dr. Judy Wood declined to appear at this presentation, and it’s a completely different reason than why CIT declined. I think she knows that her theory is bogus and has no legs to stand on, and she is afraid of a free and level Q&A session in which a few honest, logical questions (and her answers or non-answers to them) would expose the emperor as being naked, i.e. her DEW theory would fall flat on its face. She does not want to have a repeat moment of when her hollow arguments were destroyed by Greg Jenkins in a free and open discussion format in 2007. If she indeed is a knowing disinfo agent, she will not want to openly face opposition to her disinfo, much like the anti CIT cabal.

    1. So, Mr. Syed. You are claiming that Dr. Wood declined to attend Fetzer’s party because it is a legitimate meeting, yet CiT declined Fetzer’s party because it is not a legitimate meeting. Huh? Do you realize this is a “double standard”?

      But let us consider what you are really saying here, shall we?

    2. Hello Adam,

      Thanks for doing your best to put words into my mouth again….”no planes” has many meanings in the 9/11 Truth circles including swapped and missing,

      Pilots for truth have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE A STOCK 767-200 CAN NOT ACHIEVE THE SPEEDS THEY DID ON 9/11. Of this there is simply no argument. They have one poorly founded analogy of one aircraft accident of which the plane was nearly at the speed of sound before it broke up and the opinion of pilots that have absolutely no experience of maximum possible speeds of 767’s or 757’s. Rob “tends towards planes” Balsamo has indirectly support all sorts of theories with this bunk, period. This all started with John Lear and his holograms which drove Balsamo to assist him with his impossible speed claims, imo from the chain of events.

      You as usual knock yourself out proving I’m an agent by pulling apart every word I say; meanwhile the scientific consensus continues to build that you are wrong about the Pentagon and impossible speed.

      Thank goodness both you and CIT(who I did not mention once in this broadcast) realize that Fetzer is a fool and this conference is a circus.

      Have fun now…but hey I know you know I’m a good guy and as hard as you try to convince yourself I’m an agent you won’t🙂 The way it’s going you’ll be the only non-agent about soon…

      Best John

      PS – Trying to enlarge my knowledge of the 9/11 boundaries but alas I got con out of 20USD it appears…

      1. Pilots for truth have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE A STOCK 767-200 CAN NOT ACHIEVE THE SPEEDS THEY DID ON 9/11.

        Readers can judge for themselves, John.

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed
        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20178

        A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
        Dwain Deets
        NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service – retired)
        AIAA Associate Fellow

        The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?

        Who is Dwain Deets?

        Dwain Deets
        MS Physics, MS Eng
        Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
        Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
        Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
        Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
        Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
        Associate Fellow – American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
        Included in “Who’s Who in Science and Engineering” 1993 – 2000
        Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
        – Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
        Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
        37 year NASA career

      2. John,

        Why not debate this statement you just made with Rob Balsamo?

        “Pilots for truth have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE A STOCK 767-200 CAN NOT ACHIEVE THE SPEEDS THEY DID ON 9/11. Of this there is simply no argument.”

        Too busy being a credibility cop to back up what you say John? Or perhaps you are reluctant to engage in anything more then hit and run trolling here because your opposition has not been gagged and banned at this venue like they have at that stink hole 911Blogger?

        It is easy to say anything you want John what is hard is backing it up when challenged. That is where you drop the ball completely. You talk a lot John but you don’t engage in any true back and forth discussion with your critics or with the people you critique. Why is that?

        Surely you could back up what you said (quoted above) if it were true right? So why don’t I just forward this to Rob Balsamo and invite him to discuss it here with you and see who shows up and who doesn’t. Sound fair John? You are prepared to back up what you said right? We will all see soon enough. I will send this to Rob right away.

        Sincerely,

        Adam (RUFF) <<<< Different person than Adam (SYED) although we are friends and do agree on many things.

      3. Bursill

        You as usual knock yourself out proving I’m an agent by pulling apart every word I say; meanwhile the scientific consensus continues to build that you are wrong about the Pentagon and impossible speed.

        I’ll do you a favour and explain what your catchphrase “scientific consensus”, which you keep inserting in your dump and run posts, trying to add an aura of authority to your drivel.

        Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.

        Wiki

        So exactly who are the “scientists” qualified to “debunk” the findings of the only section of the “truth community” that consist of pilots? An alleged chemist? An alleged chemist who can’t find a single pilot (even among his alleged “pilot” friends at JREF) to endorse his nonsense? 

        You??

        In a debate with Craig Ranke on the subject of impossible speed which you hastily closed at 911Oz you said (as Rob Balsamo has pointed out below)

        I maintain that .86 is the Mach Speed “Operating” limit at all altitudes in respect to the “Mach Effects” as I have said many times. I agree absolutely that the pressure on the airframe changes massively at low altitude as Balsamo states and that the effective “drag” and “air pressures” are equivalent to super sonic speeds at 510 Knots at sea level yes, but this pressure is only a catastrophic structural problem when the aircraft is changing direction

        The aircraft that struck the South Tower wasn’t “changing direction”?

        Not only was the aircraft changing direction but it had to pull up. The same ridiculous manouevre that we’re meant to believe another alleged transporter category 757 pulled off at the Pentagon.

        And the issue of controllability could never be replicated in your alleged sim joyride. Could it?

        You’ve a lot of retracting to do after just one day posting here Bursill. You’re no better than Fetzer.

      4. John Bursill says:

        “Thanks for doing your best to put words into my mouth again….”no planes” has many meanings in the 9/11 Truth circles including swapped and missing..”

        Actually John, speaking to the English language and not Newspeak, “no planes” has one meaning and only one: NO PLANES.

        This was an issue of contention between Fetzer and I on a blog here not long ago. This BS of creating special lexicon and code language is pure cultism and must be rejected by rational thinking human beings.

        Have you ever thought that this might be a big reason that the 9/11 Truth movement is going in circles?

        ww

  17. I am attempting to watch the live streaming of the Vancouver Hearings and nothing is happening. The circle in the middle of the screen keeps turning but no picture. Is anyone else attempting this with or without success?

    1. Hi Craig, I haven’t tried the Vancouver hearings on the live feed – but what you describe is exactly what occurred when I attempted to check in on the Toronto conference. Same thing with the occupy live feed deal. It’s a funky system, or we have personal funky systems that aren’t capable of getting over all the new hurdles set up on the Internet.

      Also a reply to Adam Syed’s last comment about Judy Wood refusing attendance at these hearings. I would propose the same thing that he is saying. She seems to only attend controlled venues, where her and Johnson can monitor the goin’s on. Playing with a stacked deck seems their game to me.

      ww

  18. Hello all,

    It’s not rocket science; Fetzer has been lying, deceiving and disrupting the movement for 7 years now. He is behind this event and will again allow and assist theories to be put forward that were debunked many, many years ago. He is a regular guest on Press TV and is co-organising with an Iranian Press TV Journo; this will once again make us all look like the idiot extremist enemy they wish to portray us as.

    I organised a rally to raise awareness of the Iran war build up a few months back. I support Iran in it’s stand against the US.

    Any that think this event will help our cause imo are missing the point completely. Being open to new ideas is great, but continuing to support ones that many consider insane and are shown to be without evidence after all these years, shows a determination to destroy credibility.

    Fetzer when pushing his holograms sights opinion as fact and has failed to get a peer reviewed paper produced after all these years. Experts have de-bunked him time and time again but still he continues without ever mentioning any research that has demonstrated his opinion and his sources are flawed.

    He should not matter…but because of you few here he still does. Just as he help eventually destroyed the JFK movement he will ours to, with your help.

    It simply blows my mind that many here will now list Ryan, Legge and Jones the editors of The Journal of 9//11 Studies as agents simply because they follow the scientific method and aim to gain credibility for the 9/11 Truth Movement. You also would claim myself, Chandler and Jenkins agents with similar reasoning despite a clear dedication to awakening 100’s of millions to the demolition of the WTC and the complete lie of the 9/11 event?

    The one good thing about this Vancouver Event is the C.I.T decision on not going, good on those two. Yes their theory failed in the scientific community to gain credibility but it did cause much more analysis of the Pentagon. They have shown that they are wise enough to not get tied up with this circus, which will see them in a much better light. It’s good to know though although the “the flyover” caused much disruption the 9/11 Truth Movement the two pushing it genuinely believed in it and still have the ethics to stay clear of this fiasco 😉

    Best John

    1. John,

      Other commenters here, myself included, do not feel too cozy about Fetzer. I’ve been in the movement since before Fetzer came along. I’ve been in this cause since the days where the world’s most visible advocate for controlled demolition was Eric Hufschmid.

      My take is this: if Fetzer, a disruptor, is co-organizer of a significant conference, then as many truthers as possible should go to that conference and challenge him on the BS he’s caused; overwhelm him on his own turf! Take lemons and make lemonade!

      Where has anyone here called Kevin Ryan or Steven Jones an agent? (I leave Frank Legge’s name out of that question since it is a confirmed fact that Frank is an agent of disinformation, whether he’s getting paid or not.)

      Here’s Craig McKee’s position, from two blog entries ago, and it sums up my sentiments, too:

      So, why are these researchers so determined to steer us all away from the Pentagon? Is it because the Pentagon offers the weakest evidence or the strongest? Is it because some of them operatives? Dupes? Or just misguided? We can all draw our own conclusions. One conclusion I find inescapable is that their efforts are co-ordinated.

      And John, you have some answering to do:
      https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/pushing-the-boundaries-of-truth-911-vancouver-hearings-embrace-controversy/#comment-6499
      https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/pushing-the-boundaries-of-truth-911-vancouver-hearings-embrace-controversy/#comment-6500

      I must say, I can’t help but note the sheer irony in the fact that, so far, John Bursill is the one commenter here who applauds CIT’s decision to not attend the conference.

      1. I am not so familiar with John Bursill, I am however intimately familiar with Fetzer and Legge.

        I can agree with Adam in his assessment of both of these characters – deep sate moles. Both poles apart, creating a dialectic between them. This is certainly a thesis/antithesis pincer movement being worked against the truth movement.

        I do not see where Bursill gets that Balsamo champions holograms. Our conversations showed him to favor the CIT take on the Pentagon. And Balsamo is as dead set against Fetzer as anyone else who has spoken against him here.

        Knowing the history of Scholars, I think Jones was tricked by Fetzer into going in on that project to begin with. It didn’t take him too long to figure that out and disengage, starting Journal. At that point Legge stepped in and ingratiated himself with Journal. His campaign against Jones was much more subtle, and finally led to Jones’ “retirement”…[Baslamo has some inside info on that last sequence of events]…this was just at the time Legge was putting together his first paper on the Pentagon, steering it towards the official story. Jones was more dubious than is generally known over this development.

        At any rate, I would point to three central figures involved in the fragmentation of the movement. This would be Jim Fetzer, Frank Legge, and Morgan Reynolds. Triangulated Crossfire…a killing field for the Truth.

        ww

    2. Read a few posts up John.

      You’re contribution here is as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit.

      Your “scientific method” is a complete acceptance of the unverified OCT “data”. Pilotsfor911Truth provided an in-road to raise public awareness and demand answers to legitimate questions regarding the flawed, unregistered “FDR data”. Legge blocked that route aided by government loyalists at JREF while other friends of yours ran another disinfo campaign with regards to the witnesses. Witnesses who you claim “don’t matter”.

      So I’ll ask you again. The Oklahoma bombing OCT is contradicted by the witnesses in that area too. Would you use the Oklahoma OCT to dismiss the witnesses there too?

      Would the same disinfo tactics used against the NOC witnesses be tolerated by Chris Emery?

      Acceptance of the word of the perps as being “evidence” that “Flight 77” crashed at the Pentagon (unregistered FDR that doesn’t add up to impact, unidentified plane parts, etc) is not scientific. Especially when the lab has been doctored by those you claim to be against.

      On another note, just a few posts up, Adam Syed pointed out your lies about Pilotsfor911Truth using the impossible speed data to promote NPT. The same lies you’re posting now about anybody here accusing Chandler, Ryan and Jones of being “agents”. What’s even more crass about that statement is that your buds at TruthAction have been insulting the crap out of the latter two for months now!

      Twit.

    3. How do you figure Fetzer has ANY impact on the credibility of the truth movement? He does not reflect on me or you or anyone other then himself. Your whole premise for behaving as a credibility cop is bogus as hell. Fetzer does not make the truth movement look bad, if anything when he spouts bogus garbage or uses disinformation tactics he makes himself look bad. He has no more impact on the real truth movement then you do concerning the pentagon and CIT. ZERO.

      As I said before John we don’t need or want credibility cops.

  19. As an audio/video professional, I’m especially underwhelmed. Hopefully, it won’t be this bad for the whole thing.

      1. Hey John, while you’re waiting for the laughs, check this out (then go away)

        It simply blows my mind that many here will now list Ryan, Legge and Jones the editors of The Journal of 9//11 Studies as agents simply because they follow the scientific method and aim to gain credibility for the 9/11 Truth Movement

        john Bursill

        Your friends at TruthAction…..

        http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=48939#48939

        “The ripple effect of Kevin Ryan’s disinformation; a comment on Russ Baker’s blog”

        http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=48942#48942

        “More evidence of the consequences of Ryan’s disinformation”

        http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=48028#48028

        “3000 people died on 9/11, nanothermite research is dead”

        http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=48070#48070

        “Steven Jones has no scientific credibility. And frankly, I think he’s shady as he’s been totally dishonest and unresponsive around the concerns people have with his conclusions and behavior. Same goes for Gage and Griffin. All the prominent “scholars” have greatly undermined this movement. One, maybe two exceptions. “

        http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=48234#48234

        “Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:08 pm    Post subject:
        Hey Steven (Fallonguy), would you mind telling your nano-thermite buddies to stop using the sick and dying 9/11 First Responders to sell your nano-thermite claims? Thanks.”

        Run along now.

  20. The seller can not be contacted, auto no-reply. I have lodged a dispute with PayPal which I suggest you all do as my attempts to contact provider by phone have failed also.

    1. Bursill…

      http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21015

      6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
      Example: “This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black helicopters.” Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won’t seem curious if the author is never heard from again.

      Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these matters. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 – hit and run)?

  21. Someone has to tell the speakers they need to speak directly into the microphone. I can barely hear Barbara Honegger, but occasionally she puts the microphone in the perfect spot and then you can hear her. Sigh.

  22. Bursill says –

    “Pilots for truth have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE A STOCK 767-200 CAN NOT ACHIEVE THE SPEEDS THEY DID ON 9/11.”

    Hey John, there is also no evidence that Santa Claus does not exist. I suppose you still believe in Santa?

    Your argument is a classic logical fallacy and has been proven time and time again to be an argument from ignorance.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21025&view=findpost&p=10793817
    (See response to question 8).

    What we do have at Pilots For 9/11 Truth is numerous verified aviation experts, data and precedent to support our analysis.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed_part2.html

    You have provided nothing to support your claims. In fact, you have refused time and time again to answer questions on the topic.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=19288&view=findpost&p=10785014

    If you wish to review our stance on NPT and Fetzer, you may actually want to keep yourself informed and up to date.

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/01/reason-and-rationality-in-public-debate-the-case-of-rob-balsamo/

    Be sure to note the author of the above article, click through the links sourced, and perhaps actually read it before you make yourself look more a fool for claiming P4T support NPT.

    “I agree absolutely that the pressure on the airframe changes massively at low altitude as Balsamo states and that the effective “drag” and “air pressures” are equivalent to super sonic speeds at 510 Knots at sea level yes, but this pressure is only a catastrophic structural problem when the aircraft is changing direction.” – John Bursill

    John, do you feel the aircraft in question was not “changing direction”?

    Why have you refused to answer this question and many others put forth to you… for nearly 3 years? I’ll tell you why, it is because you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about in terms of aerodynamics.

    Finally, there are several P4T Core members in which Fetzer invited to his “Conference” including me…. all of us declined.

    Bursill, you really need to do your homework before spouting falsehoods and logical fallacies, but hey, at least you been consistent for years in your approach.

    Anytime you wish to answer my questions which have been pending for nearly 3 years, feel free. Here is the link again…

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=19288&view=findpost&p=10785014

  23. At this point in time, the 9/11 movement reminds me of rock’n’roll…

    Once you have bought into ‘pop’ sensibilities, the soul of the music dies. It is commercialized, homogenized, diluted and enfolded into the mainframe paradigm. It actually began with ‘branding’ it.

    “9/11 Truth Movement”, logo’s T-shirts mugs banners…all the typical habits applied to everything humans do in postmodern culture.

    Just another product stream to the landfill.

    ww

    1. I agree. Especially when something as is now common as a webcast is totally botched. I often doubt if there exists any effective mobilization vehicle for us truth-seeking sheeple anyway. Short of someone coming forward with a new video clearly showing a US missile striking the Pentagon or something, it appears 9/11 will be secure atop the heap of history’s other unsolved mysteries. For certain, the next False Flag operation will completely eclipse it’s relevance.

      1. Whattaya know ’bout that Sherif, we agree on something {grin}.

        In my view everything proceeding from 9/11 is a false flag operation, this expansion of empire, now moving from the Middle East into Africa – all of it built upon this “Responsibility to Protect” [P2P] is a fraudulent ‘false flag’ assertion, as is the whole fraud called “The War on Terrorism”.

        The major false flag running on Amerika at this time is attrition – euphemistically referred to as “austerity”…it is a long rolling wave of destruction of the economic well being of the common people. It is a centuries old project, but the booster shot came in 2008 with the so-called ‘bailout’ of the criminal syndicate banking houses that run this agenda of warfare via economic attrition.

        If one is looking for the core perpetrators of 9/11, it is the nest of international bankers running this agenda of the New World Order.

        If I may ask; What is your position, or specialty as an audio/video professional?

        ww

      2. @Willy, We also agree on the perpetrators of 9/11 and their larger objectives, which doesn’t require too much advanced scientific knowledge to identify.

        As primarily a musician, I now employ a lifetime of varied training and experience in creative endeavors – ranging from music performance/recording to television/video production – in a very modest home studio environment where I produce short videos for local clients while continuing to do a variety of freelance work. http://www.sherifshaalan.com/

        What you won’t find there are other “controversial” projects I’ve contributed to, inspired by the tragic death of my brother, addressing the perpetrators you mention – done entertaining a former fantasy about avenging my brother’s death and somehow being a part of the ultimate and definitive 9/11 documentary that would conclusively explain what really happened and expose who did it.

        Instead, I now just read blogs like this for continuing education of the subject, and watch “Monk”.

      3. Many things in common Sherif. Until very recently I had a home studio based around a Kurzweil, K-2000 linked into a Sonic Foundry software system with a Lexicon Omega…some nice condenser mics for vocals {I was a lead vocalist in groups until almost 30 – when I went into special effects cinema}…

        Anyway, all that is in a storage unit now, along with my digital art and video stuff…

        I went rogue – so to speak…Lol

        ww

  24. HR,

    (in response to his 1:35 a.m. comment; I’m putting this at the bottom because there’s no reply button on his comment; plus more people will see it at the bottom ;))

    I agree with you; “pincer attack” is a good word to describe it. As someone who has been in this since 2005, I am profoundly suspicious of Fetzer’s motives, though I know nothing about co-organizer Josh Blakeney. I remember Fetzer rising to prominence and giving some very charismatic speeches in 2006, and some impressive appearances on Fox News where he forcefully challenged the official story. For just a short while, he was many peoples’ favorite truther, perhaps because of his speaking charisma. But then when he did a 180 and became extremely insulting, rude, and divisive, in addition to promoting shaky theories, he be came suspect in many peoples’ eyes. This is why even though I ultimately disagree, I do have some sympathy as to why Pilots, CIT, and others turned down invitations. If I suspected someone was a deep agent of the state, I wouldn’t want to be “gotten to” by going to his event, lol.

    The “pincer attack” concept has been going on for years now, and whether or not various individuals actually are agents of the state, or whether there are other reasons (i.e. people being duped or just not very bright/discerning), we have seen this pattern over and over again; extremes of the poles closing in on the sincere people in the middle who just want truth.

    On the outermost sphere, you have the full blown anti-truthers from Screw Loose, JREF, Popular Mechanics and the like; these people oppose the truth movement in its entirety and insist we’re insulting the victims and families, and America itself, that we’re paranoid nutters who need treatment, etc.

    Then, you have the individuals like Mike Ruppert, John Albanese and Jon Gold, who were on the scene very early in the movement; these guys profess to be on the side of truth but who are openly opposed to controlled demolition (and other Mihop evidence), and insist that it’s a speculative theory and that promoting it as “fact” damages the movement.

    Then you have the individuals like Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley and Frank Legge, who heartily promote controlled demolition, but passionately argue in favor of the official scene, physical evidence wise, at the Pentagon, as well as the OS of the alleged phone calls. They loudly insist that promoting a no-PentaCrash scenario damages the movement, and they seem hell-bent on the idea that the govt is definitely going to release a clear video showing the impact someday, in order to make us look like idiots. They pose themselves as being “responsible” truthers whose duty it is to critique others in the movement and eliminate shaky info before the JREFers do it for us. (Sometimes this crew collaborates with the JREFers against us.) While many of us can see through this schtick, a few have been taken in by this “responsible truther” mask, particularly Richard Gage, whose mind was successfully cognitively infiltrated by this crew. This was evidenced by his recent comment to McKee that “both sides” of the Pentagon debate are “compelling.” This reminds me of what someone said in the doco “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism.” He said: “What these republican right wingers do is, they don’t have to win every argument. But if they can muddy the argument, if they can turn it into a draw, that to them is a victory, because it denies the other side a victory.

    Then, there are people like Brian Good, who support controlled demolition and in his case, even volunteered for Gage to the point of having a desk in the same office as Richard; while he promotes CD, he attacks WTC heroes like William Rodriguez, in addition to Pentagon researchers, Carol Brouillet, Kevin Barrett, etc.

    Then, you have people like SnowCrash and jimd3100, who used to seem to be cool with controlled demolition and whose main objectives seemed to be to vilify Pentagon researchers (or anyone who dared question the official line about the alleged phone calls). Once the purges at 911blogger were complete, after which several “movement leader” statements came out from Ryan, Chandler, Cole and Gage, condemning CIT and boldly declaring a plane hit the Pentagon (receiving nothing but kudos and vote-ups thanks to the purging of dissenters, creating a fake “consensus” to onlookers), these same individuals (SnowCrash, jimd3100 etc.) felt that they had successfully marginalized CIT and P4T; so next, they began to zero in on Richard Gage, AE911Truth, the nano-thermite paper, and controlled demolition itself. Recent threads at truthaction confirm this. Myself and several others predicted that this would happen, back in 2010 when CIT and supporters were the target. A classic example of “First they came for the communists, but I did not speak out because I was not a communist…” You know how it goes.

    And on the other extreme, you have the people who are not just rude and disruptive, but promote the most “out there” theories w/r to holograms, missiles-cloaked-to-look-like-planes, energy weapons and the like. And yes, these “out there truthers” and the “responsible truthers” play right off each other, the synthetic yin and yang, a real cancer whose aim is to destroy the healthy host body known as the Real 9/11 Truth Movement.

    1. @Adam

      Right on the money mate.

      The “republican” analogy of muddying the waters was never more clearly seen as in the 911Blogger thread where Sarns and Legge were “debating”, in the loosest sense of the word, whether the Pentagon aircraft “impacted” from the (OCT) south or the witnessed north. Bursill’s interjection that they were both “on the same page” sums their grubby little campaign up.

      And it’s no coincidence that Bursill, 3 years later, is still trying to connect Pilotsfor911Truth with NPT, just as Fetzer recently attempted, to beef up these hearings.

      That the only organizations that put their neck on the line and came up with tangible proof of what did and didn’t happen that day, CIT and Pilotsfor911Truth, have come under constant attack from the umbrella of supposedly varying viewpoints you listed above even more than the “out there” theorists, speaks volumes. Especially seeing as how they’ve completely exposed themselves.

      1. The “republican” analogy of muddying the waters was never more clearly seen as in the 911Blogger thread where Sarns and Legge were “debating”, in the loosest sense of the word, whether the Pentagon aircraft “impacted” from the (OCT) south or the witnessed north. Bursill’s interjection that they were both “on the same page” sums their grubby little campaign up.

        That needs reiterating. Are you reading this Bursill (and Sarns and Legge)?

        The REAL 9/11 truth movement finally has a solid new anchor station at which to counter your disinfo, and the recent drive-by trollings tell me you guys consider this blog a threat to your agenda.

  25. Well, I’m back online watching the live stream from Vancouver. It seems they’ve worked a lot of the technical problems out. Some of those, such as putting the camera in a location where the screen behind the speaker couldn’t be seen, should have been pretty obvious. But they’ve got it now. One remaining problem is that we can’t hear any of the questions during the Q & A – only the answers. Even if host Jim Fetzer (who takes as many questions as the rest of the panel) were to repeat the questions, we’d know what they were. But it’s getting better.

    They have been discussing the possibility that nuclear devices were used in the towers. This is, of course, one of those supposedly “debunked” theories. I’m listening anyway.

    1. As to the question of nuclear destruction of the towers, Ed Ward was one of the early proponents of this theory. He asserted that Tritium levels were 55 X the normal in the debris. The last thing I can find on this is from 2007, when he had a laboratory set up to test and verify his assertions.

      I can find no postings in a web search of what the results were from this laboratory testing.
      Perhaps another of our commentators here has an update, or further information on this..?
      {Señor ???}

      Last entry I have found:

      By Ed Ward, MD – 6-15-7
      Verifying the Source of Tritium Levels 55 X the Normal Environmental Amount
      Certified Laboratory Testing of WTC Debris Currently In Progress.

      At: http://www.rense.com/general76/wtc.htm

      ww

  26. I’ve been diligently enduring this webcast and probably will until the end. So far, I wanted this to be so much better than it is. I really did. Yes, I’ve heard and learned quite a few things I didn’t know previously, however, this form of disseminating information is like reading a book in a dust storm. Technical issues aside, the quality of the presentations and the (well-intentioned) speakers leave a lot to be desired.

    1. The good news is the sound is now excellent. And you can sort see the overhead projections (although not really read them). It’s hard for a non-scientist to evaluate, but it’s interesting to hear the nuke point of view and then directed energy with the speakers disagreeing with each on some points and agreeing on others. I don’t know if anything they’re concluding is true, but it’s still interesting to hear about unusual effects that accompanied the towers’ destruction that can’t be easily explained by conventional explosives or thermite. So far, nothing I’ve seen is going to lead to heaps of ridicule for the Truth movement – maybe heaps of disagreement with what has been said, but that’s okay.

      1. Craig,

        Maybe you can arrange to get transcripts of the presentations from this hearing.

        Having the time to analyse these might be more productive than even good quality audio visual recordings. Well, personally I have always preferred analyzing text, with imagery left as back-up for it.

        ww

  27. Dwain Deets just evaluated nine points of WTC evidence and how each fit with the major theories like explosive demolition, nukes, and DEW. And nukes won! This is fascinating since so many truthers ridicule the idea. And Deets is a very solid, mainstream figure in the movement. Wow.

    1. I ended up on the phone with someone before he got to the nukes. Hm. Will have to watch the whole thing. I spent considerable time with him in San Diego in January. He’s a humble and soft spoken guy.

    2. “And nukes won!”

      Yes, fascinating indeed. I am going to have to hear this, or get the lowdown on this for myself.
      I have been totally dubious as per nukes personally. If he really has solid evidence for this I have to see it.

      ww

      1. He’s not saying he has evidence for it being nukes, exactly. He chose nine major pieces of evidence and evaluated which theory fits the evidence best. Different evidence favoured different theories, but on balance the nuclear one explained more than the others.

        He actually believes that it’s more likely that at least two were combined (nukes, explosive demolition, DEW, etc.) than just one being responsible for the entire destruction. The DEW hypothesis had the lowest rating on his scale.

  28. Stayed up late to specifically hear Alan Sabrosky only to find out at the last minute, that he is a no show.

      1. In the middle of Blakeney’s brilliant presentation the audio began continuously cycling off and on every second, making his presentation completely unintelligible. (You hear two words, then silence for the next two words, ad nauseam.)

  29. I missed the name of the person who spoke in Alan Sabrosky’s place – Greg (something). Can anyone help me?

  30. So considering the quality of the webcast I would say all monies must be returned as the weekend for many has been destroyed…?

    I’ve tried numerous times and only actually saw half of Deets’s “ball game” analogy of what he says are the standing demolition theories. It’s his opinion and non-scientific mostly…pointless and fails to address any of the holes in his theorizing? There was no radioactivity at Ground Zero period…

    Deets like Wood has now finally shown fully what he is about, opinion and his own beliefs. Attacking nano-thermite’s explosiveness (which was never the point of the paper and which has never been claimed to have brought down the towers by the authors) is completely out of order! Then rating the nukes as best theory when there is no direct evidence outrageous!

    Regards John

    1. John,

      If you only saw half of Deets’s presentation, how can you say what it didn’t address? I’m not sure what’s wrong with someone expressing their opinion; isn’t that what you do?

      1. Deets is highly qualified so his opinion has power, this is why him pushing/supporting de-bunked theories. Yes I don’t know what he said in his first two rounds…so I saw most of it and his summary.

        Did he explain that no unusual radioactivity was found at Ground Zero Craig?

        I new Deets was bad news when he would not admit to Mach Effect is the biggest risk to 767 rather than airspeed/pressure…because he knows 100% that’s true and he would not state it, imo because it weakens his arguments about a/c possible speed.

        Deets needs to produce his analysis to the Journal for review…

        Best John

        PS – Enjoying Susan’s comments…

    2. Dear Mr. Bursill writes:

      There was no radioactivity at Ground Zero period…

      Is that so?

      Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center [PDF]

      Why was Dr. Jones called in to write his “no-nukes” paper that accepted these findings unchallenged and then added his own scientific slight of hand with a blatant logic errors and re-definition of trace levels to be 55 times greater than previously?

      If there was no radiation, then there would have been need for the govt & Dr. Jones to sully their reputations with these juking efforts.

      1. You still baffle me with this mantra Señor El Once:

        “Why was Dr. Jones called in to write his “no-nukes” paper that accepted these findings unchallenged and then added his own scientific slight of hand with a blatant logic errors and re-definition of trace levels to be 55 times greater than previously?
        If there was no radiation, then there would have been need for the govt & Dr. Jones to sully their reputations with these juking efforts.”

        I have been asking you for some time for proof of this assertion. Disambiguate if you would.

        Who said that Dr. Jones was called on to write this paper? Show us proof of this assertion.

        You question Jones intent, simply for his reliance on the “government produced” paper – while in fact all of his work debunking NIST, relied on their report to debunk it.

        In what is there “blatant logic errors and re-definition of trace levels to be 55 times greater than previously?”

        Where is your proof of “trace levels to be 55 times greater than previously”?

        And if you can challenge the “Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center”; then let us have that argument as well.

        ww

      2. Señor Rogue,

        You are cranking up the carousel not me. You start it with a hair-split.

        Hyperbole from me that Dr. Jones was called in, you no likey? Okay-dokey. Dr. Jones, nuclear physicist that he is, took it upon himself to step in to the 9/11 limeline (when damn few other nuclear physicists or college professor types stepped in, because they know which side their research funded breat is buttered on) and to accept the govt’s report on radiation unchallenged so that he could juke it some more.

        What makes this noteworthy are the fact that he laments the veracity and reliability and slow-walking of many other govt reports within videos and articles that he has written, but he doesn’t do it prior to his acceptances of their tritium report.

        Señor Rogue, I am getting tired of your unfounded accusations that seem to center around your faulty memory. The basis for my accusations can be found by going to various Truth & Shadows articles and searching for “Dr. Jones” within postings from me. [If you give me any backtalk on this along the lines that I am too lazy to provide links, Señor Rogue, I am going to rub your nose in it ruthlessly, because I know & remember that you & I have discussed it several times and you & I know that I can cough up the links easily and it won’t be pretty for you.]

        You write:

        You question Jones intent, simply for his reliance on the “government produced” paper – while in fact all of his work debunking NIST, relied on their report to debunk it.

        At least with the other NIST reports, he pointed out where they were being disengenuous. He didn’t take it all at face value.

        This is not the case where he wrote his “no nukes” paper.

        A reminder for your faulty memory. The logic error from Dr. Jones is saying (paraphrased according to an Odell’s Double Pilsner on Father’s Day): Three known nuclear weapons X, Y, and Z have radiation signatures respectively A, B, and C. Becaused we measured D, not only were these exact three known nuclear weapons X, Y, and Z not used, but no friggin’ nuclear weapons were used of any sort or manner. As long as you are swallowing this bunk, I won’t entertain any speculation into what could cause radiation levels D. And you will believe me, because I am a friggin’ Bee Why You nuclear physicist who was involved with cold fusion in a nefarious way in 1989.

        You write:

        In what is there “blatant logic errors and re-definition of trace levels to be 55 times greater than previously?” Where is your proof of “trace levels to be 55 times greater than previously”?

        Señor Rogue, you are indeed playing games. I am NOT going to answer this straightforward owing partly to the Double Pilsner but mostly to the fact I have done that many times. All you have to do is go to threads where we had previous debates and search for “55”.

        Hint: the original finding belongs to Dr. Ward. It comes from the high school math and from Dr. Jones waving off measured tritium as being at trace levels (his words) so are therefore of no concern for human health. The issue is when you look at what trace levels were pre-9/11 as opposed to what the measurements (supposedly) say and there being 55 times the difference post-9/11.

        And if you can challenge the “Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center”; then let us have that argument as well.

        Yep. I haven’t found the errors; haven’t even look for them closely. However, given the source and their agenda, I’m sure we’ll find them at this later period. And even if we don’t, is the onus really on us to rely on the veracity of govt reports in the light of those great baseline-settings-into-scientific-honest that the NIST reports are?

      3. As to what Señor El Once says, June 17, 2012 at 7:24 pm:

        Señor, this is a circle. The width of the circle has no bearing. The fact that it is a circle is what is of import here.

        You again have said a lot of nothing with a whole lot of words.

        You say:

        “At least with the other NIST reports, he pointed out where they were being disengenuous. He didn’t take it all at face value.”

        Perhaps that is because there was nothing he saw that was disingenuous in the tritium report.
        As you haven’t read it yourself – you don’t know do you?

        You have NEVER cited anything on the Tritium levels being 55 X the normal in the debris, except for the assertions of Dr. Ward. Where are his proofs? Cite his proof or drop it.

        ww

      4. Craig you say:

        “The tritium levels being 55 times normal was also mentioned in Vancouver, but I’m not sure by which speaker.”

        Yes, it is spread all over the internet, this assertion. What I am looking for is proof of this.
        Ed Ward claims this is true, as per Señor’s famous ‘high school math’ banter. And as you know I have been after him to explain this for countless threads now.

        All I am getting is a circle – the suggestion that I revisit all the chatter Señor has laid on me about this, all of it empty assertions and digs at Jones, who he claims was put on this case in some way, and then Señor waffles back as there is no proof to this assertion and says that Jones took it upon himself…Why? To cover up the big deal nuke thing that no one has proven. WTF?

        I’m sick of this rhetoric from Señor, I want simple citations to some real science here, not banter from some MD that I personally consider a whackjob. I’ve read many articles by Ward, long on rhetorical blab and zip on substance.

        ww

      5. Señor is suspicious as to why a test for radiation was seen as necessary in the first place, implying that this is some sign that they wanted to ‘juke’ and make a preemptive cover story because nukes were used to destroy the towers.

        However near the beginning of the Tritium Report it states:

        “We became interested in the subject of tritium at WTC because of the
        possibility that tritium RL devices could have been present and destroyed at
        WTC.”~[pg.4]

        https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf

        Ah but this is too obvious to be accepted at face value, and Señor is suspicious. I don’t blame Señor of being suspicious about anything to do with 9/11 – trepidation is indeed in order. But so is the need for empirical proofs to assertions made by any party.

        Again, if Señor has any proofs, beyond a stack of circumstantial innuendo, all I ask is for it to be exhibited.

        ww

      6. Dear Señor Rogue,

        Perhaps that is because there was nothing [Dr. Jones] saw that was disingenuous in the tritium report.

        Maybe. If memory serves me [and it might not in this matter], however, Dr. Jones was already active in the 9/11TM hot on the trail of that red molten stuff dripping from the corner of one of the towers when this tritium report hit the streets. Dr. Jones was already giving presentations regarding the implausibility of 9/11 being

        As you haven’t read [the tritium report] yourself – you don’t know [if it had anything disingenuous] do you?

        You like to play horse hockey, Señor Rogue. If anything, you haven’t read it. My exact quote was:

        I haven’t found the errors; haven’t even look for them closely. However, given the source and their agenda, I’m sure we’ll find them at this later period. And even if we don’t, is the onus really on us to rely on the veracity of govt reports in the light of those great baseline-settings-into-scientific-honest that the NIST reports are?

        Señor Rogue writes:

        You have NEVER cited anything on the Tritium levels being 55 X the normal in the debris, except for the assertions of Dr. Ward. Where are his proofs? Cite his proof or drop it.

        Get ready to have your nose rubbed into your horse’s hocky puck and the high school chemistry class you skipped in favor of art. Under something I’ve titled “agent trenchcoat exposing more than it should”, I wrote the following passage to you on 2012-03-05 a couple of threads over. You’ll note that this starts with a direct quotation from the Tritium report and specifies what the levels were on 2001-09-13. The 2001 normal background levels for tritium were around 20 TUs. It goes through some unit calculations and conversions to give the 55 times figure, and then quotes Dr. Jones with the phrase that pays [“these trace levels”] in his waving the 9/11TM away from mini-nukes.

        On the other theme: Dr. Ward’s writing can be somewhat muddled, so here is my edited version of Dr. Ward.

        From Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center which I believe is the document Dr. Jones gets his radiation measurements from:

        Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at the World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained (0.164±0.074) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L, respectively. These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure.

        => 1 [TU] = 3.21 [pCi/L], or 1 [pCi/L] = 0.312 [TU]

        Thus we have:
        => 0.164 ± 0.074 [nCi/L] = 164 ± 74 [pCi/L] = 51 ± 23 [TU]
        => 3.53 ± 0.17 [nCi/L] = 3,530.0 ± 170 [pCi/L] = 1099.7 ± 53 [TU]
        => 2.83 ± 0.15 [nCi/L] = 2,830 ± 150 [pCi/L] = 883.0 ± 47 [TU]

        In 2001 normal background levels of Tritium are supposedly around 20 TUs. Prior to nuclear testing in the 60’s, normal background tritium water levels were 5 to 10 TUs.
        http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2282.html

        => 20 [TU] = (20) * (3.21) [pCi/L] = 64.62 [pCi/L] normal high background/standard level

        Tritium level confirmed in the DOE report of traces of tritium was 3,530 ± 170 [pCi/L]. Using the mean of 3,530 [pCi/L], divide the reference lab value by the background level:

        => (3530 [pCi/L]) / (64.62 [pCi/L]) = 54.63

        Means that the measureed value was almost 55 times higher than the normal high tritium background level.

        Dr. Ward says (paraphrased):

        Thomas M. Semkowa, Ronald S. Hafnerc, Pravin P. Parekha, Gordon J. Wozniakd, Douglas K. Hainesa, Liaquat Husaina, Robert L. Rabune. Philip G. Williams and Steven Jones have all called over 1,000 TUs of Tritium, “Traces”. Even at the height of nuclear bomb testing 98% – after thousands of Megatons of nuclear testing – of the rainwater tests were 2,000 TUs or less.
        https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf

        Specifically, right below the quotation on measurements from “Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center” that Dr. Ward proved to be 55 times trace levels, Dr. Jones writes in his paper “Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers”:

        Tritium from a thermonuclear (fusion) bomb would be way above these trace levels of a few NANOcuries per liter.

        Maybe Dr. Jones was being a bit lazy when he wrote the characterization “these trace levels” to indicate what was measured at the WTC, particularly in comparison to the HTO levels that a fusion bomb would produce.

        However, Dr. Ward is correct in his hair splitting that what was measured was 55 times greater that the standard 2001 definition of trace level.

        I have issues with some of Dr. Ward’s other analysis and conclusions, and he has demonstrated that never-yielding, closed-minded trait of an agent.

        Moreover, I suspect Dr. Ward’s factor of 55 might be proven wrong, too,… as being an under-estimate of the re-definition, just like my 3,000 fps burn-rate analysis resulted in an under-estimate of the imaginary garden hose length. It boils down to whether or not we can trust the govt reports on measured radiation levels. Despite lamenting the viability of govt reports in other venues, Dr. Jones swallows this govt report on radiation hook, line, and sinker. For this sin, he could probably be forgiven, but not for the leaping to no-nukes conclusions nor for allowing 9/11 yeomen erroneously extrapolating nano-thermite to the duration of under-rubble fires.

        Therefore, when you write things like this, Señor Rogue:

        All I am getting is a circle – the suggestion that I revisit all the chatter Señor has laid on me about this, all of it empty assertions and digs at Jones, who he claims was put on this case in some way, and then Señor waffles back as there is no proof to this assertion and says that Jones took it upon himself…Why? To cover up the big deal nuke thing that no one has proven. WTF?

        I’m sick of this rhetoric from Señor, I want simple citations to some real science here

        I have to respond that — as proven above — you are the one purposely going in a circle. The simple citations to some real science that you crave were given to you before and again now. Yet you failed to acknoweldge it then.

        It is I who am sick of your rhetoric compounded by your bad memory, Señor Rogue. The discussion didn’t happen that long ago. My complaints against Dr. Jones’ “science” are 300% substantiated (because your horse hockey game has had me repeat myself again and again). I suggest you go to the “When did they know…” thread and search on Dr. Jones particularly within postings from me in response to you.

      7. I yield to the points on Tritium levels being 55 X the normal – {for the time being} – as pointed out by Señor El Once on June 18, 2012 at 10:23 am.

        And yet, regardless of the ABCs that Jones laid out, a central point is the blinding flash exhibited by any and all nuclear explosions plus the attendant radiation. New radiation going through signature nucleosynthesis.

        I don’t think the 55X tritium, is sufficient to make a case for nuclear explosions at WTC.

        Still I offer my apologies for ‘forcing’ Señor to present his case here where all concerned at this time can see.

        ww

      8. http://911review.com/errors/wtc/nukes.html
        e x c e r p t
        title: Testing the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers
        author: Steven E. Jones

        Empirical Facts: All nuclear weapons (especially FUSION/Hydrogen bombs) release copious high-energy neutrons which will activate steel and other materials. This is called neutron activation and cannot be avoided, and much of the induced radioactivity remains for decades.
        I have studied fusion for decades, and have made frequent measurements of neutrons (as well as charged particles).

        Several months ago, I tested WTC dust samples and a solidified metal sample for radioactivity using a Geiger counter: I found ZERO RADIOACTIVITY. This experimental evidence goes strongly against the mini-nukes hypothesis since neutron activation levels were zero.
        I also tested some sand gathered from a nuclear-bomb test site decades ago for comparison – and the Geiger counter showed hundreds of counts per minute. This also shows the long life of the radioactive residues due to nuclear bombs – the sand still yields high Geiger-counter readings decades after the nuclear bomb blast.

        Note that concrete pulverization is often achieved in controlled demolitions with chemical explosives, e.g., the Seattle Kingdome demolition.
        Mini-nukes are not needed for pulverization nor for “top-down” demolition as observed for the WTC Towers.

        Promoters of the mini-nukes idea have also supported their claim with news stories of nuclear contamination in landfills near New York City, ignoring the fact that the stories were about radium contamination from industrial equipment.

        A simple disproof of the idea that nuclear weapons were used to destroy the Towers is that all such weapons generate intense electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum. Onlookers would have been blinded had any such devices been used.

        ww

      9. Dr. Jones wrote:

        Empirical Facts: All nuclear weapons (especially FUSION/Hydrogen bombs) release copious high-energy neutrons which will activate steel and other materials.

        Note the framing into “all nuclear weapons.”

        Has he addressed where the high levels of HTO came from? No, he doesn’t address this. He also doesn’t discuss the haphazard way in which such HTO was measured with respect to lots of data points.

        Nuclear reactor, maybe?

        What the good doctor measured with one or more Geiger counters is dependent upon the reliability of the Geiger Counters themselves, the reliability of the samples, and the reliability of Dr. Jones to faithfully and truthfully record his observations and analysis. Let’s assume this is a given.

        I’m not arguing for nuclear weapons being deployed on 9/11.

        I’m arguing that much evidence seems to have a nuclear origin: HTO radiation readings, under-rubble hot-spots, hazmat procedures in the clean-up, ill-health of 1st responders, etc.

        If you had small nuclear reactors (like from the Navy) at your disposal, what would you power from your arsenal if you were going to destroy something in a “plausible deniable” [sneaky] manner?

        Dr. Jones wrote:

        Note that concrete pulverization is often achieved in controlled demolitions with chemical explosives, e.g., the Seattle Kingdome demolition.

        Misframe. The Kingdome was “cracked” by controlled demolition and then pulverized by gravity and the ground acting together. The towers, on the other hand, were pulverized from the earliest moments of their demise before gravity and “another hard object” were able to do their wonders.

        Dr. Jones wrote:

        Mini-nukes are not needed for pulverization nor for “top-down” demolition as observed for the WTC Towers.

        True, but to suppose that “controlled demolitions with chemical explosives” did this opens three can of worms. The first one is that in order to achieve pulverization in the early moments of their demise, quantities of said materials would need to be excessive and overkill and thereby risk exposure of the operation. The second & third can of worms is that “controlled demolitions with chemical explosives” explains neither the radiation readings nor the hot-spot duration.

        The following quote does not come from Dr. Jones but your posting attributes it to him:

        A simple disproof of the idea that nuclear weapons were used to destroy the Towers is that all such weapons generate intense electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum. Onlookers would have been blinded had any such devices been used.

        Not necessarily. Depends on where they were used and their design. Designed for limited yield and detonation within the towers changes how debris can be used to shield things.

      10. Señor El Once, you mention:

        “…hazmat procedures in the clean-up, ill-health of 1st responders, etc.”

        You know as well as I hazmat procedures are used for chemical – biological – as well as nuclear hazard response.

        The radiation readings are not high enough for a weapon…as far as the reactor thing, we are getting into speculation too far for my tastes.

        The hot spots as not being accountable from explosives is not thoroughly explored, and the hose calculations, again are simply based on false assumption of containment, rather than dispersal in a chaotic field.

        Now, this is too much to argue again here. I would rather not. If you insist…well…?? Then there is that, and what can I do, but answer. I prefer to attend to other issues here.

        ww

      11. You know as well as I hazmat procedures are used for chemical – biological – as well as nuclear hazard response.

        Carting in fresh dirt, spreading out, then a few days later scooping up and carting off. This is what they were doing at the WTC and of which Dr. Wood provides evidence.

        To absorb radiation, yes. For chemical and biological hazard response? I don’t know and even doubt.

        The radiation readings are not high enough for a weapon…as far as the reactor thing, we are getting into speculation too far for my tastes.

        First of all, you put a tad too much reliance on the radiation readings being truthful. I suspect they were juked down from the get-go (didn’t have the measurements recorded from any systematic grid of the WTC) so that they could sneak in the doozy about it being at trace levels.

        Secondly, even if we assume the radiation readings were accurate (and not high enough for Dr. Jones narrow comparison against three known nuclear weapons types), they have to be explained. They were not. They were explained away as no impacting health and being at trace levels (re-defined). Their cause? Their source?

        The hot spots as not being accountable from explosives is not thoroughly explored, and the hose calculations, again are simply based on false assumption of containment, rather than dispersal in a chaotic field.

        Complete and utter nonsense. How were the energetic materials “salted” throughout the pile that kept the hot-spots fairly localized and hot for many weeks? How much material are we talking about? Do the math, scholar.

        Oh wait! I already did the math and you couldn’t fault it. Even a salting representative of 1/1000 the calculations I made for a 3,000 fps slow burn rate (=> 884k miles) is still 800 miles of imaginary hose with unspent and overkill material. When you plug in burn rates for faster explosives (up to 29,000 fps), the hose grows again. Whether you figure a hose 1/8″ inside diameter or 1″, the amount of extra overkill unspent incendiary material is massive.

        And unlikely.

        We need to be looking at other sources for the hot-spots, and they might be related to the radiation.

        Now, this is too much to argue again here. I would rather not. If you insist…well…?? Then there is that, and what can I do, but answer. I prefer to attend to other issues here.

        Señor Rogue, upon deeper reflection of your participation in Truth & Shadows, it dawns on me that you have NEVER made a good argument for your destructive materials. You want readers here to believe that you have tiredlessly run through Señor El Once’s carousel, but the whole time you never put your foot down to stop it spinning and said: “Here’s my numbers, here’s my math and physics, here’s how all features are accounted for.” Nope, you haven’t and can’t do this (Dr. Jones and company haven’t done it), because that dog don’t hunt!

        The best you have been able to do is caste dispersion and claim what a carousel it is.

        The fact is, your math for your destructive materials doesn’t add up, and your spinning carousel has you implying it does, when clearly it doesn’t, hasn’t, and will never.

      12. Señor El Once,

        Here is my hypothesis {w/added notes from Mike Philbin} as to the destruction of the towers, with mention of both DEW and nukes as issues I do not abide:

        There are signature effects to physical phenomena, and forensic science is put to analyzing the signature of specific effects to determine the cause and effects of events. The known physical signatures of various types of explosions are well known, and that which distinguishes their differences and similarities. For example the signature of an explosion of a stick of dynamite is easily distinguished from the explosion of an electrical sub-station, and that to the explosion of a gas tank…etc.

        Explosive demolitions of structures have a known set of specific characteristics, and a set of these were in full display in the destruction of the World Trade Towers. It is pure pretense and conjecture to propose that a DEW would duplicate these very specific signature characteristics.
        But this is only the proximate point for the argument countering DEW. As has been detailed above, there are countless absurdities in the DEW hypothesis.

        As per the nuke hypothesis; there are obvious signatures, as pointed out above.
        So we are now to presume that mini-nukes were used to take down the towers…but they supplemented the nukes with some standard demo charges, for what reason? Oh, perhaps to throw researchers off the nuke trail?? No, the whole thing was staged to give the appearance that the planes and fires were responsible, not to mimic a controlled demolition. Any weapon on top of a nuclear one is just needless redundancy, and the show was obviously to blame the “terrorist hijackers”, not inside job pro demolitions. There are no nuclear weapons characteristics, other than blatantly hollow assertions.

        “Physics just doesn’t account for all the energy required to collapse the building while turning each story into dust while falling, plus the upward momentum and outward momentum of the debris, making it look like a fountain. I believe that a newly developed thermobaric explosive developed by the DoD prior to 9/11 (and put into official use in a weapon on 21 Dec 2001) was used by having insensitive polymer bonded explosives planted in the core section of each floor. They would have been very small packages of the explosive and easily placed during the work on the towers over the months previous to 9/11. Since this material is “insensitive” it was very safe to use and would not explode by shock, normal fire, or other normal influences.

        The explosives in the WTC towers were controlled from a control center in WTC-7. Then, after that was sucessful, the control center (WTC-7) had to be destroyed to destroy the evidence. As far as WTC 7 goes, more conventional explosives were used for it’s demolition.

        I believed they used thermobaric weapons that were loaded into the elevators and were exploded inside of the elevator shafts, to blow the building apart from the inside – out.

        Thermobaric explosives rely on oxygen from the surrounding air, whereas most  conventional explosives consist of a fuel-oxidizer premix (for instance, gunpowder contains 25% fuel and 75% oxidizer). Thus, on a weight-for-weight basis they are significantly more energetic than normal condensed explosives. Their reliance on atmospheric oxygen makes them unsuitable for use underwater, at high altitude or in adverse weather. However, they have significant advantages when deployed inside confined environments such as tunnels, caves, and bunkers.

        And this “significant advantage” would certainly apply to tall sealed skyscrapers as well. Aye?

        Like dispersing the fog through the AC and having ignition points at locations sequenced to go off in a downward cycle…

        It would certainly cut down on the need to ‘wire’ the entire building. Even though I do believe cutter charges were used to control the sequence and timing, to get the building to fall down the way they wanted it to.”~Mike Philbin

        ww

      13. Señor El Once says:

        “Oh wait! I already did the math and you couldn’t fault it. Even a salting representative of 1/1000 the calculations I made for a 3,000 fps slow burn rate (=> 884k miles) is still 800 miles of imaginary hose with unspent and overkill material. When you plug in burn rates for faster explosives (up to 29,000 fps), the hose grows again. Whether you figure a hose 1/8″ inside diameter or 1″, the amount of extra overkill unspent incendiary material is massive.”

        That is right Señor, I do not dispute your math, as I have said time and again, it is the faulty assumptions that you apply your maths to.

        Again, you apply these calculations to the material in a container wherein it is ignited and all goes off at once.

        I have attempted to explain that the materials were not blown at the same time, but were sequenced – as such, assuming varied charges, cutters, sprayed on sol-gels, and the thermobaric aerosols; we have a scenario where the redundancy likely sent a great deal of the materials unreacted into the pulverized dust clouds to accumulate within the debris pile, where there were active fires and smoldering…again a chaotic landscape stories deep, much of it oxygen starved, where these oxygen self-sufficient incendiary/explosives would be activated in a creeping manner throughout the pile.

        If you consider this oblique or ambiguous in presentation, I don’t know what is clogging your cognizance. You may disagree with me, but don’t tell me that I haven’t made a specific direct case.

        ww

      14. Dear Señor Rogue,

        [For the sake of brevity, when I write “material”, I am really referring to “incendiaries, explosives, sprayed on sol-gels, thermobaric aerosols, and any combination of these that you might be tempted to use to explain the demise of the towers.”]

        I’ll respond to you multi-cast in reverse order. I have edited out the ad hominem directed at you for this very stupid trick you play in assigning “faulty assumptions” to me. The assumptions below are all yours, so any fault therein are also yours. You write:

        I do not dispute your math, … it is the faulty assumptions that you apply your maths to. Again, you apply these calculations to the material in a container wherein it is ignited and all goes off at once.

        Container?! Ignited and all goes off at once?! WTF!

        Back up.

        Your premise is that a bunch of materials (as defined above) destroyed the towers and the WTC complex. Let us assume for the sake of discussion that this is so. Are unspent but overkill quantities of these materials also responsible for the hot-spots burning under the rubble at high temperatures for weeks?

        This is what you imply, and this is what I say: “No friggin’ way! Something else is causing the hot-spots, and if so, something else was probably responsible for the WTC destruction.”

        To back up my assertion, I simply ran the numbers on your materials using the simple metaphore of an imaginary garden hose. Why did I choose a hose instead of a box or tank? Because had the materials been deposited in any form of a pile or grouping and then ignited, the materials’ inherent fast burn-rate would have consumed them entirely in minutes (if not split-seconds.) Instead, we need to be thinking more in terms of a fuse so that a many week burn-duration would even be possible. Immediately, astute thinkers about 9/11 should be saying: “there was no fuse of material; there was no imaginary garden hose packed or salted with material and ignited at one end; thus, it is already improbable that the materials were the source of the hot-spots.”

        To further solidify the improbability of these materials accounting for hot-spots, I calculated how long the imaginary garden hose “fuse” would have to be using gross simplifications (e.g., only 1 hot-spot, duration of only 4 weeks, and a burn rate on the slow end): 884,000 miles long. Astute thinkers about 9/11 should saying that this is unreasonable even before contemplating the inside diameter of such a hose. The volume of material in a 1″ diamter hose 884k miles long is obscene, right? Well so is even a salted 1/8″ diameter hose. Maybe we should “salt” it further by saying the material was spaced 1/10, 1/100, or 1/1000 of a packed density. Doesn’t really matter. What is the volume of an 884 mile long 1/8″ diameter imaginary fire hose? Using the stated materials, how much does this volume weigh? Remember, this represents an overkill amount of material that was unspent in the initial pulverization and remained salted in the rubble (ignoring the fact that hot-spots did not migrate significantly, and certainly not 884 miles worth.)

        To dispell the first part of your malframing, an imaginary garden hose contains nothing except imagination and thought. Its purpose was not to be ignited all at once as you misframe, but to conceptualize volumes and quantities of material that would be required (not an option) to account for hot-spot duration.

        Your materials do not. [Let us ignore that your thermobaric aerosols require air, and thus could not burn under the rubble.]

        Your materials do not explain the anomalous radiation, either.

        In the following quotes, it is hard to know exactly what are exactly your words versus those of Mike Philbin’s. [What is your defect that your genius can’t figure out the HTML syntax for <blockquote> or how to efficiently copy & paste it from Notepad?]

        As per the nuke hypothesis; there are obvious signatures, as pointed out above.

        I’m not saying that nukes as most people understand them did it. I am saying that something nuclear was involved. The fact that something was measured, reported, and skewed (at the risk of Dr. Jones’ reputation) is a clue, although I don’t think we can rely on what was actually measured.

        One option — that is surprising that Dr. Wood didn’t even consider for powering DEW — is a nuclear reactor.

        Another option is to remember that nuclear devices can be tweaked in many different ways with regards to yield and side-effects. An SDI concept from the mid-1980’s involved detonating a nuke and channeling certain wavelengths (like X-rays to destroy missiles) before the blast & heat waves destroyed the portions of the device doing the channeling. Thus, nuclear concepts needing to be explored could involve a very low yield nuke in terms of blast & heat wave in exchange for electromagnetic energy at certain wavelengths that can be channeled (and in exchange for publicly unknown nuke radiation signatures).

        Nuclear devices don’t have to be all about flash, bang, torch, and blast.

        I believe that a newly developed thermobaric explosive developed by the DoD prior to 9/11 (and put into official use in a weapon on 21 Dec 2001) was used by having insensitive polymer bonded explosives planted in the core section of each floor. They would have been very small packages of the explosive and easily placed during the work on the towers over the months previous to 9/11. Since this material is “insensitive” it was very safe to use and would not explode by shock, normal fire, or other normal influences.

        I believed they used thermobaric weapons that were loaded into the elevators and were exploded inside of the elevator shafts, to blow the building apart from the inside – out.

        Thermobaric explosives rely on oxygen from the surrounding air, whereas most conventional explosives consist of a fuel-oxidizer premix (for instance, gunpowder contains 25% fuel and 75% oxidizer). Thus, on a weight-for-weight basis they are significantly more energetic than normal condensed explosives. Their reliance on atmospheric oxygen makes them unsuitable for use underwater, at high altitude or in adverse weather. However, they have significant advantages when deployed inside confined environments such as tunnels, caves, and bunkers.

        Yeah, yeah, yeah, I’ll bite. Maybe channeled electromagnetic rays from a nuke (ala DEW) ignited the thermobaric explosives. However, unspent thermobaric explosives can’t burn without oxygen from the surrounding air, so can’t account for under-rubble fires… or their duration… or the measured radiation…

        Señor Rogue writes:

        I have attempted to explain that the materials were not blown at the same time, but were sequenced – as such, assuming varied charges, cutters, sprayed on sol-gels, and the thermobaric aerosols; we have a scenario where the redundancy likely sent a great deal of the materials unreacted into the pulverized dust clouds to accumulate within the debris pile, where there were active fires and smoldering…again a chaotic landscape stories deep, much of it oxygen starved, where these oxygen self-sufficient incendiary/explosives would be activated in a creeping manner throughout the pile.

        Some creep to the fires? I can give you that. [Hyperbole] But 884 miles of creep within the WTC complex (as calculated for just 1 hot-spot burning 4 week at a slow burn-rate and salted by 1/1000 and again 1/8″ hose diameter)?!! No way.

        I don’t know what is clogging your cognizance.

        … that you can’t see the massively ginormous weaknesses in your destruction mechanisms. Involvement? Sure. But the unexplained evidence suggests that other sources of energy or destruction were involved. You make light of it. You ignore it. You argue the hardest of anyone else against this obvious fact (using as proven above “faulty” crap). Repeatedly.

        I [truly] don’t know what is clogging your cognizance.

        … But I can speculate.

        Like Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, and many others, you toe the “no nuclear (anything)” line, because this is the shock & awe revelation that just might turn the corner on 9/11 truth consciousness of the world, and as a result change the status quo and change the world.

      15. Señor,

        As you have made it clear enough to me that you are not grasping anything I say to you, I am going to simply leave this conversation at this time, other than to make it clear to you that I was not supposing that the Thermobaric materials were responsible for the continued burn.

        As far as ‘radiation’ – the amount of tritium is simply not sufficient in itself to postulate it’s cause is a nuclear device.

        You say I am at fault for the roundabout, I say you are the cause. Which ever it is doesn’t matter. I am sick of this jackass trip with you.

        ww

      16. One more thing Señor El Once,

        I am not scrolling up here to the upper middle of the thread anymore to read your responses.

        Anything further you wish to bring to my attention, make your comment at the current spot of the thread if you will.

        ww

      17. Dear Señor Rogue,

        The mark of an intelligent person is the ability to grasp new concepts and then to incorporate those concepts into subsequent actions. You write in an old school fashion:

        One more thing Señor El Once, I am not scrolling up here to the upper middle of the thread anymore to read your responses. Anything further you wish to bring to my attention, make your comment at the current spot of the thread if you will.

        Does not email trigger you that something is new within a thread that you might want to comment on? If so, study that email more closely. Whereas the line breaks in the email version of the comment might be all whacked to hell, what is not are the hyperlinks. In particularly, right next to the user name is a hyperlink on the word “commented” followed by a hyperlink on the title to the associated article. (At the bottom of the email are two additional links, one for “Reply” and the other for “Comments”. I personally never use these, because they are too early in my authoring process.) I use the “commented” link next to the author all the time, because it takes me directly to their posting in context.

        Follow this advice, and you won’t be “scrolling up here to the upper middle of the thread anymore to read my responses” anymore. You’ll be taken right there from your email program.

        So, consider this concept number 2 for you to incorporate into your actions. Concept number 1 would be effective use <blockquote> in your postings. When I code or write things, sometimes I’ll use a Notepad file with a whole series of code snippets for me to quickly highlight, copy, & then paste into the document in my editing tool. For my postings here, I do all my writing in a free HTML editor (called HTML-Kit).

        Concept number 3 relates to your statements:

        As far as ‘radiation’ – the amount of tritium is simply not sufficient in itself to postulate it’s cause is a nuclear device.

        Horse apples, Señor Rogue. If we assume the validity of the tritium amounts, they clearly indicate a NUCLEAR DEVICE. The nuclear device does not have to be a “conventional” (or known) NUCLEAR WEAPON. Please note the distinction.

        However, we have no reason to believe such an assumption is valid. You put probably too much faith and confidence in the govt report that documents the tritium levels. I don’t think we can trust the tritium levels to be what they stated.

        In my opinion, either they were were shoddy, unsystematic, and unscientific when they took the measurements not doing any systematic grid pattern and regular period in measuring, or measurements taken were not published in the report. Given the security imposed upon the WTC, we can suspect the former as being a true impact to their efforts; and notes in the report should have detailed when exactly they attempted and were denied access for this measurement task. Given the NIST reports and their slight of hands as well as the re-definition of “trace levels” within this very same tritium report, we can suspect that measurement data was withheld as well.

        I also find the narrow focus on tritium to be noteworthy, because I have seen no companion reports with narrow focus on alpha, gamma, etc. radiation, implying “ain’t nothing there.” This tritium report could very well be the magician waving his left hand for the audience to admire while something else gets “disappeared” from view.

        So when thinking about how you are going to apply concept 3 into your subsequent actions, it might behoove you to keep this radiation anomaly at the ready. As is seemingly your agenda, you are too quick to sweep postulation into nuclear devices off of the table when too many data points ARE SCREAMING that we look there — even Dr. Wood’s book in not so many words. (Radiation, hot-spot duration, hazmat procedures designed to absorb and dilute radiation at WTC, destruction of evidence including steel being shipped to china, security in even the transportation of scrap materials, failure by agency-after-agency to investigate the “crime scene”, 1st responder ailments, …)

        Your attempt at waving off the nuclear evidence? FAILURE.

        You say I am at fault for the roundabout, I say you are the cause. Which ever it is doesn’t matter. I am sick of this jackass trip with you.

        I guess in keeping with being old-school, green, and energy efficiency, every carousel needs a jackass to turn it. Due to your unfounded accusations and faulty memory that kicked off this detour on June 17, 2012 at 3:43 pm, due to the malframing and energetic wave-off’s of your postings, and due to your frequency in posting (regularly 2 posts from you to 1 from me), we come to concept number 4.

        You are under no obligation to respond to me.

        The mark of an intelligent person is the ability to grasp new concepts and then to incorporate those concepts into subsequent actions.

  31. Craig,

    Bursill is engaging in the “hit and run” and also the “sidestepping” disinfo tactics. Rob Balsamo has addressed him here and has refuted his claims. Bursill either needs to refute Balsamo’s arguments with better arguments, or, he needs to concede that Balsamo is right and that he (John) has been wrong for the last few years. Bursill has also not addressed the substantive points in my posts. His feet should be held to the fire regarding this.

    Adam

  32. The only testimony that is accepted as opinion on a court of law is Expert Witness testimony. Dwain Deets is not an expert on WTC Collapse, his expertise is in aviation… aerodynamics.. Flight Dynamics.

    If this were a real “Hearing”, the opposing side would have made mince meat of Dwain Deets during Voir Dire (google it), and objected to Dwain being called to the stand to testify well outside his area of expertise with regard to the WTC Collapse.

    The Judge would have had no choice but to dismiss Dwain on such grounds that he has no expertise whatsoever in Building Structures, and the rest of the court room (including the Jury), would be laughing at not only Dwain as he walked out, but also laughing at the person who called him to the stand outside of his area of expertise.

    Now the real question is, why wasn’t Dwain called to the stand to testify based on his real area of expertise, which is aerodynamics…..?

    The so-called “Hearings” are nothing more than a Dog and Pony show.

    With that said, unlike Bursill, we don’t feel such activities make us “look bad” nor do we feel the need to Police such venues. It only makes those who put their name to it… look bad. Good luck to them… lol… and good luck to Bursill.

      1. That’s because he is competely disconnected and is simply doing the sloppy work of an infiltrator who is just not on the ball.

        John Bursill is the Mr. Bean of 9/11 truth infiltrators.

    1. John,

      If you are so interested in facts, why have you refused to answer these questions for nearly 3 years?

      – Why are you using speculation to support the govt story of a “Hijacker pilot” regarding use of AP modes when you have no proof?

      – How much time do you have in a 767?

      – How much time do you have in an American or United Airlines 767 Simulator?

      – How much flight time do you have?

      – How much training/instruction do you have in aerodynamics?

      – Capt Kolstad has over a decade flying 767’s for American. Have you listened to him laugh at your sim experiment?

      – Capt Aimer has over a decade of experience flying 767’s for United. Have you listened to his statements?

      – Why do you claim all this analysis was only done by me and that i am being “misleading”?

      – Do you think Capt Ralph Kolstad, Capt Rusty Aimer, Aeronautical Engineer and Capt for Jetblue Jeff Latas are also misleading since they were the consultants of our analysis?

      – Do you know what “wrap-around” means in terms of an airspeed indicator?

      – Do you think the aircraft reported as N612UA was straight and level during its last minute while exceeding 510 knots?

      – Do you claim the aircraft which was reported to hit the south tower never “changed direction”?

      – Do you deny making this statement?

      “”I agree absolutely that the pressure on the airframe changes massively at low altitude as Balsamo states and that the effective “drag” and “air pressures” are equivalent to super sonic speeds at 510 Knots at sea level yes, but this pressure is only a catastrophic structural problem when the aircraft is changing direction. ”

      – How can you make the claim that we claim to have “hard evidence” if we feel the data can be fabricated as was stated numerous times in our presentation/analysis?

      – Can you quote where we make such a claim of “Hard Evidence”?

      – John, how can you debate the topic when you dont even know what has been analyzed and you’re just making up lies about what we said?

      – Do you feel that P4T support NPT? If so, have you read the latest article from Fetzer regarding the stance of Pilots For 9/11 Truth?

      – The aircraft that was observed to strike the south tower was changing direction during its last leg of flight right up till impact according to the data. It was pulling some pretty good G’s during the last leg according to the data. I actually did the calculations…. John, how can it still be flying if it were a stock 767-200 and you agree it should have had a “catastrophic structural problem” during this last leg changing direction and pulling G’s?

      – John, do you know what a Vg diagram is?

      – John, do you know what 1/2(pv^2) means?

      – John, why are you attempting to support the govt story with speculation and an argument from ignorance?

      – Do you feel Mach 1 at or near sea level has the same effects on an airframe traveling at Mach 1 at say… 22,000 feet?

      John, why do you refuse to answer?

  33. Adam, I have answered all the questions that Rob has genuinely asked years back. He, if you noticed did not say he has evidence of how fast a 767-200 can go, period, as I said which is 100% true. I am the only one that has done any actual real testing in a simulator and my findings are posted.

    I have considered his opinion which differs to mine…end of story. He is wrong on every point.

    Why you would modify a 767 to go a little faster anyway, it’s so silly…why bother it only went really fast for a few seconds…the whole idea is idiotic. The planes where 767’s they went that fast the whole argument is idiotic, why would I continue it?

    Different planes yeah who knows…

    Sorry no more for you and as far as I can see here I am not doing anything wrong and if I do not wish to talk to Rob or you so, I don’t have to, do I Greg?

    I came here because I got called an agent indirectly by one of your regulars…and I was interested in helping genuine people see what my knowledge and experience has taught me about 9/11 events which I’ve held many.

    BTW I’m without the use of my master hand…open to a call from Adam right now on skype. johnbursill911 as I’m laid up with a shoulder reco…

    Best John

    1. Sorry Craig I was mixing you up with a fella at blogger..and just a mistake with Deets thanks for the correction….posting is a real effort in pain one handed, please forgive me!

      1. John,

        What do you think of your buddies at true faction who are now attacking Gage and AE? They seemed to used to be cool with him and it, but now that they feel they’ve successfully marginalized Pilots and CIT, they’re going full throttle for Gage and controlled demo. What do you have to say about that?

        Sourced above.

        Adam

      2. John,

        Craig like most of us here has been banned from that garbage pit 911Blogger. No legitmate truther such as Craig would frequent such a discredited site so I find it odd that you would confuse him for anyone over there. Only cowardly so-called truthers who cannot face their opposition post at blogger. Well I suppose a few newbies, who don’t know blogger is censorship central, post there as well. Them I can’t blame. This blog is where the real truth movement meets to discuss issues these days.

    2. Bursill says – “Why you would modify a 767 to go a little faster anyway, it’s so silly…”

      Why would you modify any aircraft to go a bit faster or carry more weight for that matter?

      Aircraft are modified all the time for increased performance. I thought you claimed to be a 767 A&P (oh wait, you claimed to be an “Engineer” lmao…)? Certainly you would know that the 767 was modified from its prototype several times for increased performance? Maybe not…

      Bursill says – “…why bother it[sic] only went really fast for a few seconds…the whole idea is idiotic.”

      Clearly you haven’t reviewed any of the data as the aircraft in question exceeded it’s limitations, and those of it’s counterparts who suffered structural failure well prior, for more than just “a few seconds”. Think minutes Bursill.

      Bursill says – “The planes where 767′s they went that fast the whole argument is idiotic[sic], why would I continue it? ”

      And yet you also claim – ““I agree absolutely that the pressure on the airframe changes massively at low altitude as Balsamo states and that the effective “drag” and “air pressures” are equivalent to super sonic speeds at 510 Knots at sea level yes, but this pressure is only a catastrophic structural problem when the aircraft is changing direction. ”

      Apparently not only does Bursill not understand that the 767 has been modified several times since it’s prototype for increased performance, but clearly he hasn’t looked at any of the data.

      I agree with him, why would he debate any of it?

      The answer – because he hasn’t a clue how to debate any of it.

    3. How can John Bursill’s feet be held to the fire when he skips all posts that have exposed his double standards and lies and who refuses to answer specific questions? He’s just another Brian Good. Full of shit (ah well, seeing as how he’ll be allowed to post any irrelevant crap he likes and not retract the multiple lies on this blog).

      Best of all, like Legge, the alleged chemist, he actually believes his “opinion” on aerodynamics somehow supercedes those of experienced pilots.

      On another note (even though I know this Oz infiltrator will dodge and dance around the subject), what do you say to TruthActions attacks on Ryan and Jones?

      1. Just in case people think the above is out of order, remember that Bursill has been answered thoroughly throughout this blog, his accusations against posters on this blog and activists not here yet still insists that he deals in “facts”. Here are the real “facts” that you’ve ignored Bursill:

        Onesliceshort

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/pushing-the-boundaries-of-truth-911-vancouver-hearings-embrace-controversy/#comment-6543

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/pushing-the-boundaries-of-truth-911-vancouver-hearings-embrace-controversy/#comment-6526

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/pushing-the-boundaries-of-truth-911-vancouver-hearings-embrace-controversy/#comment-6523

        Adam Syed

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/pushing-the-boundaries-of-truth-911-vancouver-hearings-embrace-controversy/#comment-6499

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/pushing-the-boundaries-of-truth-911-vancouver-hearings-embrace-controversy/#comment-6500

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/pushing-the-boundaries-of-truth-911-vancouver-hearings-embrace-controversy/#comment-6537

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/pushing-the-boundaries-of-truth-911-vancouver-hearings-embrace-controversy/#comment-6521

        Rob Balsamo

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/pushing-the-boundaries-of-truth-911-vancouver-hearings-embrace-controversy/#comment-6536

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/pushing-the-boundaries-of-truth-911-vancouver-hearings-embrace-controversy/#comment-6577

        http://911blogger.com/news/2009-05-30/simulator-proves-%E2%80%9Cimpossible-speed%E2%80%9D-was-%E2%80%9Cprobable%E2%80%9D-flt-11-and-flt-175#comment-209100

        My time at 911Oz was partially spent exposing this fraud and he did the same thing. Dump and run.

        The question that needs to be asked is why he’s actually here. He claims that he’s answering claims of being a disinfo agent (and proving the very same accusation here!), but he could just as easily answer these accusations on his own turf:

        http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53049&postcount=2

        Why are you here Bursill?

    4. Can you provide a link to these alleged answers John? I am dubious that you actually addressed the substance of the questions or had any real substance in your answers. So provide a link, Rob did.

      As to my calling you on skype, I don’t have skype nor do I know how it works. I have a cell phone and that’s it. I also work long and unusual hours so timing of a call might be a challenge. The only stipulation I have before I will agree to talk to you is that the conversation be recorded and moderated by a neutral person who will enforce standard rules of debate. I won’t be fillibustered or evaded nor will I do either to you. We must have equal time to make our arguments and rebut the other person. In other words John this must be set up with legitimate debate rules that are enforced by a moderator. I will not engage in a free for all where any evasion or disinformation tactic can be used.

  34. John Bursill says –

    “I am the only one that has done any actual real testing in a simulator and my findings are posted.”

    Sorry, I must have missed your video of your sim experiment John, but here is ours. It was conducted with Capt Ross Aimer, a United Airlines 757/767 Captain who has time in the aircraft claimed to have impacted the South Tower of the WTC.

    Feel free to share your sim video and your “Expert”. So far, I have not seen any “real testing” done by you or any expert to support your claims. Nor have I seen you provide positive identification that the aircraft which was observed to impact the South Tower was a standard 767. All you have provided is innuendo, whining, logical fallacies, and “because the govt told me so…”.

  35. By the way folks, if you are interested, this is a blatant lie from John Bursill –

    ” I have answered all the questions that Rob has genuinely asked years back.”

    There is a reason why I have posted the questions perhaps 3 fold here on this blog, with links, and Bursill hasn’t so much as provided any source for his claims.

    Your mileage may vary…. but it is clear why Bursill has lost credibility over the years.

    Keep in mind, John Bursill has had an active account at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth forum for years as well. He has never answered my questions posed to him, which is why I repeated them above. The questions only get more detailed from there, which is why Bursill is now known for spin, evasion, and flat out lies… after all, he does admit he is former Army Intel. Not too good at it though….

  36. John Bursill, speaking to your post of, June 17, 2012 at 3:04 am:

    I have to say that your attitude here is highly reminiscent of my daughter when she was around 17, when all of her answers were, “yea, whatever”

    Frankly that really pissed me off.

    I notice a lot of people here seem to be pissed off at you. I think I am getting an idea of why that might be…but you know dude, like who the fluk am I anyway…right?

    My approach is to try to be cogent, on the ball, and attentive in any public exchange I have. If I dismiss someone’s remarks, I tell them why. If I disagree I explain why. If I visit a new blog, I give the owner/moderator respect due. I see it as no different than visiting someone’s home.

    I have my share of harsh critics too, in fact I would say a couple folks on this very blog downright hate my guts. So, pleasing everyone is not the point I am trying to make to you.

    You don’t have the responsibility to your critics to answer them at all – but it seems you would recognize that you have the responsibility to yourself to make an impressive showing for your own self anytime you interact in the public sphere.

    At any rate, you haven’t gained a fan here with myself. But I have taken the time to try to communicate with you nevertheless.

    BTW if you are on pain-pills, it could be your judgement is impaired….like driving, it might be a good idea to be careful of what you say in public under such influence [I’m referring to your hand pain, of course].

    ww

  37. HB1

    You don’t have the responsibility to your critics to answer them at all – but it seems you would recognize that you have the responsibility to yourself to make an impressive showing for your own self anytime you interact in the public sphere.

    That is the crux of the matter with these people Willy. They don’t care how they are perceived on blogs like this. His tactics are those of an agitant and disruptor. Tell contradictory, illogical and blatant lies here among the “uneducated folks” (which is a joke in itself seeing as he can’t spell and uses a question mark at the end of some of his statements..) and convey an air of authority and sincerity among the “elites” on controlled sites.

    Just look at his drivel on “scientific consensus” where I had to point out what the term actually means!

    The guy has keyboard Tourettes.

  38. Vancouver Video Fakery Presentation

    Craig, after initial deep cynicism concerning the “limited hangout” “controlled opposition” nature of most of the people involved in these hearings, and what I had assumed was going to be complete silence concerning the issue of the large amounts of accumulated evidence pointing to near 100% video fakery by the corporate media on that day and ever since , [including, but not limited to,100% prefabricated digital animations depicting planes magically gliding inside the towers like something out of a LooneyTunes or a Roadrunner cartoon; plus 100% prefabricated digital animations depicting almost free fall speed tower collapses broadcast as “live” footage on all US networks], I was pleasantly surprised [to put it mildly] to discover that Session 5: The Fabrication of the Atrocities of 9/11 opens with a presentation by Christopher Holmes [whom I was not familiar with], called “Fabled Airplanes and Scripted Witnesses”.

    Apparently Mr Holmes’ presentation is going to be an outline/introduction to the work of the renegade 911 researcher Simon Shack, http://www.septemberclues.info/ , whose research clearly demonstrates the almost complete fabrication of the “live” TV feeds broadcast that day, [ and will be, I assume, backed up by Mr Holmes in his presentation of Mr Shacks research.]

    Mr Holmes website is: http://www.zeropoint.ca/FabledAirplanes.html . You can read his own attempted outline introduction to Simon Shacks research there also.

    Regards, onebornfree

    I could not find a link to the live feed at the Toronto site. Hopefully the talks will be on Youtube at some point.

    1. “In my view, the September Clues series is one of the most profound documentary real investigative video series ever produced in the history of humankind.” ~Christopher P. Holmes, Ph.D. (Psych)

      “The book you hold in your hands is the most important book of the twenty-first century” ~Eric Larson — Forward to ‘Where Did The Towers Go’? by Judy Wood

      ~~~~~~~~~~~

      Hyperbole such as the two quotes above, is oft a sign to be especially cautious when entertaining what ever follows. Such “Greatest Show on Earth” rhetorical claims have been common fair since hucksters such as PT Barnum [who also noted that, “There’s a sucker born every minute].

      I have some hyperbolic praise as well, for two authors, Douglas Reed, and Antony Sutton.

      The first is author of, The Controversy of Zion. Which I believe is the most important history book of the 20th century.

      The second author is responsible for a huge body of work topped of by the book, Skull and Bones.

      It is interesting, the varied opinions of mankind. Is it not?

      Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once believed in fairies…he had seen photographic proof.

      Most of his fans would like to forget this part of his life. But perhaps Onebornfree could make hay of it, as it touches upon his favorite subject.

      ww

      1. It might be pointed out [referring to: Christopher Holmes] that Theosophy , is one of the most studied “mystery schools” entwined with the ILLUMINATI, and those who dabble in this cult, are the very soothsayers laying the foundation to the New World Order.

        Anyone interested in this should look into Madam Blavatsky and her work with a “dispossessed soul” in coming to her particular “illuminated state”.

        ww

    2. United Lodge of Theosophist Conference
      Christopher Holmes, Author, Psychologist & Mystic Scientist

      Nothing in his bio to indicate any expertise in digital photography or digital animation or CAD, or anything in the technological realm – just, you know…that “mystic awareness” of the “ghost in the machine”.

      A great deal of commentary could follow, however this is not the place nor time for that. And this burlesque of ‘Digital Fakery’ has been address on this blog before.

      At least Onebornfree is within the actual topic today.

      ww

  39. There was just a colourful argument between Barbara Honegger and Jim Fetzer during Q & A. Honegger brought up her theory that a second plane hit the Pentagon near the heliport. Fetzer pointed out that he wanted diverse speakers at the conference but then shot her down (no pun intended). He said: “Barbara, your evidence for a plane impact is flimsy and insubstantial. Your allusion to ‘confetti’ is ridiculous.” She got very angry, and he shot back, “Barbara, you’re being abusive!” Fascinating stuff.

    1. Ah yes, our boy Fetzer…fascinating individual — to say the least.

      Ex-Marine with the edge of a bar room brawler…he can’t “suffer fools” ya know.

      ww

      1. OSS you point out about Honeger and Fetzer:

        “And the two of them are fighting over their disinfo??

        Confuse the audience and crap all over solid evidence. Nice work.”

        The same theater is being played out between Tarpley and Alex Jones, about the stupid theater of “politics” — Ron and Rand Paul.

        Why the bumble bees tossed in our bonnets at this particular moment? Both Tarpley and Jones are zero, zip on zio. But the buzz is meant to distract from this, pumping everyone up and trying to make camps…another dialectical flimflam.

        Dreams within dreams within dreams…Chinese boxes…pealing the onion…Israel is not the core either…it is Zion at the money house…Israel is just an outpost garrison, just like Amerika is the main garrison, for a transnational authority of money changers. Of course Mossad was deeply involved, all western intel was in the loop one way or another, even the client Mid East states, like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan had a part to play. The panorama is there, it is in the deep history and in current affairs.

        ww

      2. Short Addendum to my last post:

        As a design and a plan, there is nothing new about the New World Order. It is in fact the propagation in a cyclic fashion of a very old world order: Despotic oligarchy and enforced feudalism, branded and rebranded in a roiling mythos sustained by symbolism and technocratic ritual.

        It is false assumption that ‘technique’ is something new, and not just the current version of artifact, tool making, and apologia for being ruled by the tool. That is at the base of the enchantment, the human race upon its knees to the god of Efficiency. A binary concept lacking appreciation for quality {of life}.

        This is a deep subject, and one must reference Jacques Ellul, and his brilliant exposition and grimoir, THE TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

        ww

    2. Honegger claims that there was a “second plane”?

      Somebody fill me in here.

      She claims that there were internal explosions at 09:32am. Correct?

      She claims that this “09:32am” aircraft flew over the building. Correct?

      She also claims that a second aircraft hit the building. When??

      Fetzer wanted to connect CIT’s work to NPT. He got the crucial flightpath witnessed wrong. As if it were irrelevant.

      Honegger is just making crap up as she goes along. Nobody witnessed what she’s describing.

      And the two of them are fighting over their disinfo??

      Confuse the audience and crap all over solid evidence. Nice work.

      1. Craig,

        Fetzer’s first post at Veterans Today:

        http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/

        “According to the official account, AA Flight 77 approached the Pentagon on an acute north-east trajectory, barely skimming the ground at over 500 mph and taking out multiple lampposts”

        then his attack on Rob Balsamo..

        http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/01/reason-and-rationality-in-public-debate-the-case-of-rob-balsamo/

        “I thought the article was very substantial and provided a devastating refutation of those who endorse the official account of a Boeing 757 approaching the Pentagon on an acute north-east trajectory”

        and finally, the Vancouver Hearings itself

        http://www.911vancouverhearings.com/

        “That the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757 that approached on a northeastern trajectory at around 500 mph and, just skimming the ground and taking out multiple lampposts, created a spectacular fireball and extensive damage, with 125 casualties at the building itself.”

        The official story has the aircraft coming in from the southwest. The NOC witnesses have it flying from the west.

      2. Craig, I should have added that this error in his first post at VT was pointed out to him at Pilots by me. And he still repeated it in a “rebuttal” to the criticisms of his piece. But to again repeat it in the ad for the Vancouver Hearings takes the buscuit.

        That’s why I wouldn’t want Fetzer or Honegger anywhere near the NOC evidence.

        1. Forgive me if I’m missing something obvious, but isn’t a plane coming from the southwest going towards the northeast? Doesn’t that mean he’s saying the same thing?

      3. Point taken.

        I owe Fetzer an apology. I’ve always described where the flightpath came from.

        Thanks for pointing that out Craig.

        1. Actually, from what I saw, Fetzer had nothing but positive things to say about CIT and the NoC evidence. And he really went after Barbara Honegger’s claim that a second plane hit around the heliport.

      4. Problem is that the negative NPT baggage which he demands be hooked on to the NOC evidence far outweighs anything positive he says.

        I’m still having trouble figuring out where this Honegger “second plane” fits into her equation…

  40. Webster Tarpley. Hmmm. His almost immediate assertion that Israel had nothing to do with 9/11 seems especially suspect in light of Greg Felton’s and Joshua Blakeney’s very strong presentations. Certainly, Alan Sabrosky would take strong issue with this assertion, perhaps explaining his absence.

    1. I guess that would explain Tarpley’s prominent Zionist owned and controlled mainstream media presence.

    2. Sherif,

      Webster Tarpley asserts that Israel had nothing to do with 9/11?

      Yes that is startling, and does cause some great amount of suspicion to my mind as well.

      As he has many outlets on the web as well, I hope to find this assertion at one of those soon.
      I’ve never heard him say that before in so many words.

      ww

      1. Tarpley says he has never received an answer to the question, “What did Israel actually do?” He says people point to the dancing Israelis and other seeming connections but not to what Mossad could have done to facilitate 9/11.

      2. Even more telling what he doesn’t say, never any mention of Israel/Mossad/Zionism at all in his highly detailed discussions of 9/11. Even upon a cursory review of the materials/videos he has out there, I notice that same conspicuous blind spot he shares with the likes of Alex Jones.

      3. Tarpley insinuates that the “dancing Israelis” are irrelevant? That they were admitted Mossad and had prior knowledge isn’t enough to implicate their involvement?

      4. I don’t think Tarpley denies Mossad involvement, but he doesn’t see them as the ultimate sponsors of the operation, which he identifies as the “rogue network” of Anglo-American financiers, the Eastern Establishment monied elite, operating through NSC, CIA and private intel and security organizations. In his conception, the zionist, neocon faction is more of a foil than MC.

  41. Anthony Hall took Tarpley on for mocking the idea that Netanyahu might have had something to do with 9/11. It seems to have taken him until the last five minutes of his talk to really get into something relating to the topic.

    1. This last minute thing of Alan Sabrosky dropping out has alarm bells ringing in my head…

      I wonder if he got “an offer he couldn’t refuse”…?

      I hope we find out how it is he didn’t show up.

      “Tarpley says he has never received an answer to the question, “What did Israel actually do?”

      Shadowing the alleged hijackers is certainly enough to cause suspicion. That – “we were there to document the event”, seems hollow enough, just for starters.

      That’s rich…as if a myriad of articles haven’t addressed this issue. Tarpley certainly can’t excuse himself as living in a bubble. Pretty ridiculous.

      I have had questions about Tarpley before, as he seems to steer away from a systemic answer to the 9/11 event, and tries to frame it as a ‘faction’ – which I have always seen as a modified limited hangout.

      Apocalyptic — veils lift, more each day…masks fall, mirrors crack and the mist clears.

      ww

      1. The explanation given to the other presenters for Sabrosky’s absence was for “health reasons”. Hard to be more vague than that.

  42. We’re pleased to announce the 18/06/12 arrival of 9-11GAB (9-11 Government Alternative Body)

    Newly self appointed President of the 9-11GAB is Australian, John Bursilly. (hear his latest “show” at TNR for more details)

    Those with 9/11 theories that stray from the official story, need to first run their theories past congress and the 9-11 GAB President.

    Those that don’t adhere (i.e CIT) to the newly set-up 9-11GAB will be smeared as anti-Semites..

    Shalom from Israel,
    Dominik Suter
    (catering to all your bomb moving van needs)

    whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html

  43. Rob, once again you display the reason why I don’t communicate with you any more. The amount of care required to comment to you means every sentence needs to be correct in any context…this on a blog for busy people is impossible.

    I am talking about using the industry simulator to test the top speed of the 767, not trying to hit targets. Yes we all know those tests have been done.

    When you admit that expert opinion based on an experience the expert does not have is worthless and that the Egypt Air crash was due in all probability to an uncontrolled descent hitting the sound barrier; only then as an aviation professional I will start the dialogue again.

    If you where genuine you would immediately agree you have, as I’ve said NO EVIDENCE THAT A STOCK 767-200 CANNOT DO THE SPEEDS SEEN ON 9/11.

    You and your pilot mates can speculate all you like about what you think is possible, but once you say things that happened are impossible without evidence you are simply now considered irrational and un-worthy of dialogue. Most of the core of the 9/11 Truth Movement figured out years ago and the many errors you have made are well known!

    At least we agree about Fetzer…small blessing are appreciated.

    This me and it tells you all you need to know Rob. My articles etc are all on my blog at that site and then you get a link to 911blogger for the other older articles I have written;
    http://visibility911.com/johnbursill/about-john-bursill/

    To all,

    Some may notice that I do not try to find tiny errors or quote people out of context as many do here, you may also wonder why I bother come here to be hit. Obviously it’s because I still care, because I and so many of my friends are tied to this campaign for 9/11 Truth and some of us are prepared to get hurt to protect the quality of its message.

    The idea that the majority of the 9/11 groups and academics have found Pilots for Truth (Rob) impossible to deal with is worthy of consideration.

    Being one of the only people strongly speaking against P4T is a very difficult position and I have over the years made genuine errors and typo’s as I have a job and a family etc, I have also naively thought that I would be quoted fairly by professionals and not systematically attacked in a way that makes one a little ill. Rob has always had the numbers on record supporting him, but please realize their opinion is only that regarding information that only Boeing knows. As many may not know Dr Bob Bowman 100% supports my position on impossible speed. He remains a member of Pilots and Fetzer’s Group as he prefer to not cause waves apparently. Pilots for Truth is full of good people like Bowman I am sure, I am positive many things Rob says they all would not agree with, his message is created by a small group unlike AE, S4TJ and The Consensus Panel who strive for accuracy and credibility.

    See for me it is so obvious the the claims of Balsamo regarding impossible speed are wrong and appear so to any in the industry person I talk to that fly and work on such, it is hard to endure this debate at all.

    The fight for winning the public opinion has always been about a simply well supported message that we had been lied to. Treating the issue as an opportunity to make unsubstantiated claims has NEVER HELPED!

    Regards John

  44. Btw…I make typo’s as I am human and this is a discussion blog, if you find this annoying sorry. Other sites allow you to correct here there is no such option? If you wish to make fun of it…enjoy🙂

  45. Here is me explaining the argument against the “impossible speed” claims of Rob and some at P4T. I am currently one handed so audio helps us understand my position with out having to write.

    This a ten minute Skype conversation with Paul from Artist for 9/11 Truth which we did spontaneously; http://www.911truther.com/audio/paul-and-John-for-truth-and-shadows-Impossible-speed-06-17-2012.mp3

    Paul puts out a challenge to people here also.

    Regards John

    1. John,

      I listened to your conversation posted above and I have to say I did not hear you say anything new. All you did was reiterate what you have already said here in your posts. I heard nothing which would refute what Rob has said about this issue. Your audio also contained a challenge to have a discussion about this and hash it out which is fine by me AFTER you answer the challenge I put to you previously which you ignored. You want me to debate you in a free for all venue controlled by you. I don’t agree to answer your challenge until you respond meaningfully to mine which I posed to you first. I will post that challenge again below and when you respond meaningfully to that I will agree to meet you in a debate CONTROLLED BY A NEUTRAL MODERATOR. I will NOT engage in a free for all where you can interupt me and disrupt the flow of my presentation. Real debates are controlled and have rules. Anyway answer my previously issued challenge and then I will answer yours.

      You said in your post of: June 17, 2012 at 3:04 am

      “Adam, I have answered all the questions that Rob has genuinely asked years back. He, if you noticed did not say he has evidence of how fast a 767-200 can go, period, as I said which is 100% true. I am the only one that has done any actual real testing in a simulator and my findings are posted.”

      I said in my post of: ruffadam says: June 17, 2012 at 7:36 am

      “Can you provide a link to these alleged answers John? I am dubious that you actually addressed the substance of the questions or had any real substance in your answers. So provide a link, Rob did.”

      I went on in the same post to explain the conditions by which I would agree to talk to you.

      “As to my calling you on skype, I don’t have skype nor do I know how it works. I have a cell phone and that’s it. I also work long and unusual hours so timing of a call might be a challenge. The only stipulation I have before I will agree to talk to you is that the conversation be recorded and moderated by a neutral person who will enforce standard rules of debate. I won’t be fillibustered or evaded nor will I do either to you. We must have equal time to make our arguments and rebut the other person. In other words John this must be set up with legitimate debate rules that are enforced by a moderator. I will not engage in a free for all where any evasion or disinformation tactic can be used.”

      Now I issued this challenge prior to yours and I insist that you respond to it BEFORE I will agree to respond to your challenge.

  46. John,

    Since it is clear you will need perhaps another three years to answer my questions, just answer these few….

    Do you know the exact effects of Mach? In other words, the answer is not “shock wave”. For clarity, what is the ultimate effect of mach on acting on the airframe? Do you know?

    Do you feel traveling Mach 1 at say 22,000 feet has the same effects on the airframe as an aircraft traveling at Mach 1 near sea level?

    Do you know why a manufacturer sets a Vmo and a Mmo?

    Do you know why an aircraft becomes Mach limited as it climbs?

    What happens to the Vmo pointer on the Airspeed Indicator as an aircraft climbs?

    John, can you provide one aircraft which has exceeded it’s limitations by more than 150 knots at any altitude and remained stable, controllable or held together?

    Do you know how to calculate Equivalent Airspeed (EAS) yet?

    Do you understand that Compressibility/Mach is taken into consideration when calculating an EAS up to nearly Mach 4?

    Why have you not endorsed/signed your name to the numerous papers Legge has written and/or his numerous revisions? Why can you not find one aviation expert to endorse any of your claims?

    John, you have failed to provide any evidence, data, precedent or expert opinion for your claims for over 3 years while we have provided numerous verified experts, data and precedent, and the list is growing.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

    Let us know when you have any evidence for your claims other than “the govt tells me so…”

    These are just some of the reasons you will never debate me nor are you ever able to find one aviation expert or aeronautical engineer to endorse your or Legge’s claims. You are unable to understand basic aerodynamics and quite frankly, I question your experience in your claimed field as an avionics tech as well when you make claims such as pilots do not use a Sensitive Pressure altimeter below 2500 feet when shooting an approach to a runway.

    Anytime you wish to get an education on the matter, feel free to stop by our forums at your leisure, your account is still active. I’ll reply when I have the time. I will copy and paste the above to the thread titled with your name, at our forum.

  47. John Bursill, You say:

    “Obviously it’s because I still care, because I and so many of my friends are tied to this campaign for 9/11 Truth and some of us are prepared to get hurt to protect the quality of its message.

    The idea that the majority of the 9/11 groups and academics have found Pilots for Truth (Rob) impossible to deal with is worthy of consideration.
    Being one of the only people strongly speaking against P4T is a very difficult position..”

    Shall I be frank and tell you how long I have been deconstructing such frames as you just put forward? Not to be cruel, not even to ridicule, but simply to point out that I understand.

    Are you somehow ‘special’? I mean in that contending with Homo Vishnu Neuroticus you are alone in dealing with their slings and arrows? And this in defense of “the quality of its message”…and that “quality” is defined by…who? YOU.

    Then there is that “majority of the 9/11 groups and academics.” which are bare of any enumeration, nor again is there are sufficient of what you consider proper “academic.”

    This frame is already a combination of appeal to sympathy entwined with an appeal to authority. And I have just made an example of three sentences.

    If you are unaware of neuromarketing rhetorical technique – how is it that you seem so proficient in its application? I suppose a certain amount, one does pick up a certain sense for this by osmosis in a culture so saturated in it. Nevertheless this is not how your profile is shaking out to be blunt. I read a more authoritarian bent, resting on arrogant certainty that your mere opinions are correct.

    This may be admitted to, I admit to near certainty on certain issues as well. But here is where we come to the crux – I will go toe to toe, when challenged, rather than handwave and say I have already covered that, other than being mindful to remaining to the topic of a thread.

    If you do not want to engage on a point, it is better to not speak to it at all. Once spoken too, you should be prepared to defend your point. And this is the obvious complaint here among the other commentators. It is clear that your apologia is not adequate in this circumstance.

    Certainty is a dead muse.

    ww

    1. Hi Willy,

      The only “academics” and “9/11 Truth Groups” that find me “impossible to deal with” are people like Frank Legge and those who support his confirmed disinformation.

      Bursill obviously finds me impossible to deal with because he clearly finds my questions asked of him, impossible to answer…

      Nuff said…..

      Real experts in aviation find Frank Legge, John Bursill, and the like… impossible to educate on the matter. This is why they are unable to find one aviation expert to endorse their garbage for more than 3 “papers” which have undergone many revisions… needing more.

      “There is nothing wrong with [Frank Legge’s] paper that a trip through a shredder, and a sincere apology to CIT and the 9/11 Truth community could not cure.” – LTC Shelton Lankford, Core Member of Pilots For 9/11 Truth

      Tell us Bursill, how many Scientific papers do you know where the author(s) intentionally leave inaccurate or erroneous references in their papers as a “Honey-Trap” for readers? How many respected Scientific “Journals” do you know where the Editors of such “Journals” will allow such blatant disregard for Scientific study?

      Only at the Journal Of 9/11 Studies….

      http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21569&view=findpost&p=10803456

      Hmm…. I wonder if this is one of the many reasons Steven Jones left the “Journal” so abruptly.

      http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21569&view=findpost&p=10800694

      1. Rob says,

        “Hmm…. I wonder if this is one of the many reasons Steven Jones left the “Journal” so abruptly.”

        I am certainly convinced that that is the reason Jones left. The timing is simply too coincidental for any other explanation.

        Like I said it was a pincer movement, deliberate and long set…from the Fetzer blow-up to the ingratiating infiltration of Legge.

        ww

  48. Well here is another blatant lie from Bursill –

    “As many may not know Dr Bob Bowman 100% supports my position on impossible speed.”

    Many do not know this because Bowman has never made that claim. In fact when I spoke to him on the matter (several times), he feels the speeds are excessive and should be investigated, which is one of the many reasons he is a Core member of Pilots For 9/11 Truth. Also keep in mind, Bowman hasn;t flown an aircraft in decades, nor does he have time in a 757/767. For those interested in opinions from more experience than Dr. Bowman on these matters, click here…

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed_part2.html

    John Bursill claims the speeds are insignificant, “nothing to see here folks, move along, it only makes us look bad if we question the speeds…”. Which is why Bursill has been attacking our organization and me personally for years, yet refuses to debate any of our analysis with us directly.

    For those who may not be familiar, this all stems from years ago when Bursill had emailed me many times demanding that we boot John Lear from our organization.

    Bursill told me that if I booted Lear, that he will then join our ranks….

    Of course my reaction was “Who the hell are you?”.

    We didn’t boot John Lear, Bursill got pissed, and he has been attacking us since.

    We have clarified John Lear’s position since, which only enraged Bursill more…

    Bursill somehow thinks that what one person or a group says a half a world away somehow reflects poorly on him and that he can dictate to others how to run their organizations and/or lives. I wonder if Bursill tries to get people fired at his company if he doesn’t like what they say or their opinions, or if Bursill thinks he should get fired because other people in his company may not agree with his stance on 9/11?

    Bursill will no doubt now continue his bogus claim that John Lear tried to get him fired. Well, I’ll nip this in the bud now… This is also a lie. All John Lear did was to call Bursill’s airline to get details on the alleged simulator Bursill used to conduct his little experiment.

    Cockpit simulators are not used for aerodynamic analysis, this is why multi-million dollar wind tunnels are built and used by manufacturers to set limitations. A concept Busill still does not comprehend. It is all covered in our presentation 9/11: World Trade Center Attack….

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19288

    ….as well as an interview with Capt Ralph Kolstad, 757/767 Captain from American Airlines.

    Listen to Capt Kolstad laugh at the claims made by Bursill….

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18114

    Enjoy….

    1. Rob, did you know that Bursill once claimed that he was open to the possibility of the aircraft being drones (at 911Oz?) given the accuracy and success of the hits that day.

      When I pointed out that this would be probable proof that the phonecalls were also faked he lifted his skirt and hightailed it. That is the real reason he’s gone on this little crusade.

      What was it Bursill? Did Victoria give you a dressing down in private? Was your alleged sim joyride that we only have your word for (and which we know isn’t worth jack here) an attempt to curry favour? Let’s not forget your whitewash debate with Craig Ranke around the same period.

      You can tell us.

  49. Bursill

    To all,

    Some may notice that I do not try to find tiny errors or quote people out of context as many do here, you may also wonder why I bother come here to be hit. Obviously it’s because I still care, because I and so many of my friends are tied to this campaign for 9/11 Truth and some of us are prepared to get hurt to protect the quality of its message.

    another generalized Bursill dump and run with a twist of victim card.

    Where were you quoted out of context?
    Who are your “friends” and what do you believe is the “strongest evidence”?
    I’ve left the same message over at 911Oz.

    The audacity of the guy repeatedly insulting our intelligence

    You want us to listen to a conversation with that whiney egomaniac Paul about Rob but you haven’t the balls to debate Rob yourself?

  50. Rob has refused an audio conversation with a neutral host with me, period.

    Get your loaf in order..oss. He says something about me being unworthy of his time?

    BTW I am not a victim of Balsamo I am a victim of giving a sh#t!

    John

    1. Bursill

      “Where were you quoted out of context?
      Who are your “friends” and what do you believe is the “strongest evidence”?”

      Are you going to retract your statement about posters here accusing Ryan and Jones of being “agents” when the truth is that the so-called guardians of “the strongest evidence” have been and are crapping all over these same people?

      It’s on record unlike your fly by dump and runs.

  51. Adam, I have no interest in debating you? That is Paul…

    I am happy to discuss things with you on skype…. johnbursill911

    All I wish to say is said! Your questions I do not have the time or desire to answer but I’m pretty sure they have been answered in most by me previously in other forums or numerous podcasts or interviews I have done.

    IMO this fiasco should of not happened as Fetzer is such an obvious and known disruptor not one genuine speaker should have attended his conference.

    I was never interested in coming here for interrogation, I just did it for the record to defend the soul of 9/11 research.

    Goodbye all.

    Best John

    1. I just can’t imagine someone boasting to a group of pilots who fly real Boeings, that you are the only on to fly a simulator of a Boeing.

      I do have some sympathy for your position, in that I think it is true that the speed limit is statutory, and although based on structural reasons to some degree, has more to do with passenger comfort and safety – even the statutes give leeway for test flights and note that the plane can go faster.

      John Lear flushed his own testimonial for Wood’s court case with a single sentence admission to this fact after 13 pages or so talking about architecture and physics in his deposition.
      **[There is that “voir dire” clause for expert witnessing again, aye Rob B.?]

      Anyway John, not being prepared for “interrogation” on any 9/11 blog seems pretty lame…it is one of the most contentious issues of modern times.

      ww

      1. Willy says –

        “… I think it is true that the speed limit is statutory, and although based on structural reasons to some degree, has more to do with passenger comfort and safety – even the statutes give leeway for test flights and note that the plane can go faster.”

        Aircraft limitations are not set due to passenger comfort… lol….safety, yes. But I suppose if an airplane breaks in flight, it might be a bit uncomfortable for the passengers.. so in that essence, yes, passenger comfort is a factor…🙂

        Aircraft limitations are set for structural, control, and stability reasons, which of course loss of control and stability can also lead to structural failure. Again, this is all covered in 9/11: World Trade Center Attack.

        The “statutes” (Pilots call them the FAR’s) allow for a margin of safety between Vmo and Vd. Any airspeed above Vd is considered the Structural Failure Zone for every aircraft on this planet.

        Vmo for the 767 is 360 knots.

        Vd for the 767 is 420 knots.

        Eqypt Air 990 (a 767) suffered in flight structural failure at 425 knots.

        The situation gets exponentially worse as speed increases.

        The govt wants us to believe that “UA175” flew at 515 knots True Airspeed, remained controllable and stable, and held together.

        The govt wants us to believe that an older airplane (UA175), outperformed Egypt Air 990 by more than 85 knots.

        It’s absurd.

        Many aircraft have exceeded their limitations in flight. 20, 40, 60 knots over. All of them either lost control or shed aircraft parts, some were able to be recovered once the highly experienced crew were able to slow the aircraft. None have been able to exceed such Vmo limitations by 150 knots and remain stable, controllable, or held together, except on 9/11, that is, if you believe what the govt tells you.

        The only way “UA175” could have achieved such performance exceeding it’s standard counter-parts by a wide margin, is if it were modified for increased performance. The only way to determine such modification is to examine and analyze the many parts recovered from Ground Zero.

        People like Bursill want you to look the other way.. nothing to see here folks.. move along.

        This list of people want answers…

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

        … and the list is growing.

  52. Adam said –

    “I will NOT engage in a free for all where you can interupt me and disrupt the flow of my presentation.”

    And this is the exact reason why John has refused to answer my questions for nearly 3 years and instead wants an “audio debate” in hopes he can provoke an emotional response.

    It’s all right here as to the reasons an “audio debate” with John on such a highly technical topic would be like debating a 15 year old on how to drive a car.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=19288&view=findpost&p=10785014

    With that said, I did give John Bursill my cell number last year with a week window to call me. He spent day after day writing emails and replies as to why he couldn’t call, made all types of excuses…. when his time could have been better spent answering my questions. He then called once, left a message, didn’t leave a return number, and never called again.

    John has all the time in the world to type convoluted attacks, evading all questions asked, but apparently never has any time to debate the actual information at his leisure, in writing for all to read. It is clear John Bursill is not interested in debating anything and clearly only wants to play games. Or perhaps he just needs a phone friend.

    John, perhaps you need another three years to contemplate the questions asked. When you’re ready, they will be here waiting for you. The next time you decide to write convoluted falsehoods, logical fallacies and blatant lies attacking me personally and our organization, why not use that time to try and tackle these questions?

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19288

    Perhaps you may then regain some sort of credibility that you once perceived to hold. Then again, maybe not.

  53. Rob, you say:

    “Cockpit simulators are not used for aerodynamic analysis, this is why multi-million dollar wind tunnels are built and used by manufacturers to set limitations.”

    Of course simulators are not used for aerodynamic analysis – but not programming the analysis done by multi-million dollar wind tunnels into the virtual reaction of the simulators would result in a pretty useless simulator.

    Wouldn’t it?

    As the video above shows, there is mechanical feedback to the controls simulating what the craft would be experiencing in reaction to the commands given by the pilot of the simulator.

    These are questions, not assertions.

    ww

    1. Yes, you are correct Willy. Most simulators are programmed with aerodynamic algorithms and crash logic. When a Level D simulator exceeds aircraft limitations, the simulator freezes and the screen goes red. Bursill claims he was able to fly at nearly any speed in his “simulator”, uninhibited by any aircraft limitations set by the manufacturer based on wind tunnel testing.

      Of course, all we have is the word of John Bursill on this subject.

      Again, this is all covered in our presentation 9/11: World Trade Center Attack.

      1. Rob, Seems to me;

        The Boeing wind tunnel statistics are proprietary and not in the public domain – is this not correct?

        If this is correct, then everyone is talking out of their own hat, as far as the actual structural integrity of the 757 and 767 at high speeds in the lower atmosphere.

        Personally I think the ‘attack planes’ at WTC were specially modified, hardened and had special fans for low altitude high speed performance, and were flown by remote control. But this is only speculation. One thing I think is beyond dispute is that real physical airplanes that had the appearance of the airliners crashed into the towers.

        ww

      2. HR1

        The following posts helped me understand that there are two schools of thought on the speeds reached by the aircraft on 9/11.

        The school of aerodynamics and scientific definition even in the face of Boeing censorship.

        Or the school of yeeha that Bursill and government loyalists espouse. As in “yeah, course you can fly a standard 767 at whatever speed at whatever height. Sources? I dun a sim test/I’ve heard (anonymous) pilots say so” — I’m not saying that you’re in the latter but if we can’t make decisions based on any censored govt data, the very least we can do is arrive at conclusions based on what we do know. Imperically, physically and logically.

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20969&st=0&p=10793146&#entry10793146

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed_part2.html

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21888&view=findpost&p=10803813

        Flutter (not Boeing — just to show that the laws of aerodynamics in action)

        Tour of NASA wind tunnels in which “terrabytes” of data are collected @$5000 per hour:

        “They are imposing features in Silicon Valley: the wind tunnels at NASA Ames in Mountain View. But did you know that they played a key role in the development of almost all commercial aircraft? Especially those made by Boeing? Here a 40-year veteran, Herb Finger, gives us a tour in three parts: outside, inside control room, and then Scott Rich, project manager, brings us inside the supersonic wind tunnel.”

        Boeing spokesperson 

      3. Thanks for the video lessons OSS,

        Points taken. As I have previously explained, I think we are dealing with modified jets, hardened and souped up, flying by remote control.

        I think real planes crashed into the towers, and ones as I describe above. Are we in agreement there?

        ww

      4. HR1

        “Thanks for the video lessons OSS,

        Points taken. As I have previously explained, I think we are dealing with modified jets, hardened and souped up, flying by remote control.

        I think real planes crashed into the towers, and ones as I describe above. Are we in agreement there?”

        You’re welcome Willy. Just sharing my layman notes that helped me get a (very) basic grasp.

        And yeah, we’re definitely on the same page about modified aircraft being used that day. 100%.

        i understand the hesitance given that I’m nearly positive you’ve done a few rounds with Fetzerites who used the impossible speed argument to push NPT. And a perfect example of why CIT and Rob objected to Fetzer’s smash and grab approach to their work.

  54. Craig McKee says: Tarpley says he has never received an answer to the question, “What did Israel do?”

    Seeing as how the entire 9/11 psyop was a totally controlled media event, or as Vancouver presenter Christopher Holmes puts it: ” … the major network news coverage was indeed completely pre-scripted and intentionally designed to deceive the public from beginning to end. Indeed, those within the corporate media are amongst those terrorists needing to be charged for these horrendous 9-11 events ..” ; and seeing as how both Hollywood and the corporate media organizations are seemingly dominated by those of the Jewish faith, and also that the Israel lobby in congress is so dominant, it is hard _not_ to come to the conclusion that some sort of direct Israel connection has to be there somewhere.

    The question is, does it really even matter? It was an inside job. Almost everyone here and as well as the majority of speakers in Vancouver already know that and can agree on that one simple fact .

    Why are they [and the majority here] all wasting their time squabbling over which of the multitudes of both governmental and quasi-governmental “special interest groups”[including but not limited to the Israel lobby], was/is primarily responsible, or about exactly how the towers were demolished, when none of that can be ultimately proven one way or another, is inconsequential, and is at the same time ultimately divisive?

    Or is that the intention of the hearings [to foster and ensure future division and prevent agreement]?

    Or of the posters here who endlessly pontificate about their their “almost irrefutable” “scientific conclusions”, based on their own “expert” analysis of video and photographic “evidence”; all of which “evidence” was/is derived _directly_ from corporate media sources [all of whom are major Pentagon contractors], and who on 9/11 intentionally broadcast “pre-scripted ” “news coverage” ” intentionally designed to deceive the public from beginning to end” [ as Mr Holmes outlines in his web presentation :http://www.zeropoint.ca/FabledAirplanes.html , and presumably did in his Vancouver presentation ], or was alternatively derived directly from the government itself ?

    Any ideas , Craig?

    Regards, onebornfree

    1. Certainly the one thing all 9/11 truth advocates can agree on is that the event was some kind of false flag attack, a sophisticated covert operation … but if we’re ever going to get beyond that realization and take measures to address the obvious problem, we need to figure out who sponsored the operation. This is the challenge we face and meeting this challenge now requires going beyond the evidence for controlled demolition at the WTC and staged events at the Pentagon and Shanksville. It requires scrutiny of individual players, connections, networks, associations and interests … it gets murky and complicated, as Kevin Ryan’s research amply illustrates, but this is where 9/11 research must head if we are ever going to clean up this mess.

      1. John Scrivener, you say:

        “It requires scrutiny of individual players, connections, networks, associations and interests … it gets murky and complicated, as Kevin Ryan’s research amply illustrates, but this is where 9/11 research must head if we are ever going to clean up this mess.”

        I am in absolute agreement with you on this. The matrix of associations and interests, has been my area of study for decades. Ryan’s research goes far as to creating a frame from the individuals as it flows from the event. It reaches only so far at this point…it is not at a dead-end, it simply hasn’t reached the point of connection to the historical knowledge of the next layer in the hierarchy – which means it has even more layers to delineate before reaching the pinnacle.

        Glad to have you here commenting. Please stick around, you have good input.

        ww

        1. Willy,

          If we’re waiting for Kevin Ryan to delineate all the layers, we’ll be waiting a long time. As I just wrote (I assume the appearance of my comment to John and yours is not just coincidental?), Ryan can’t even see a problem in calling 9/11 a terrorist attack. Even if he shows us some of the layers of the 9/11 deception, he also seems to be muddying the waters with his own murky references to defense “failures” and the like.

      2. John,

        You are quite right to say that understanding 9/11 requires much investigation and a willingness to go beyond the basics and beyond the obvious. I also agree that Tarpley wasn’t totally discounting Israeli involvement, but he did seem to be ridiculing the idea a fair amount.

        The only thing you wrote that raised a red flag for me was your reference to the research of Kevin Ryan. Indeed he shows the subject of 9/11 to be murky and complicated but I would argue unnecessarily so. He refers regularly to the “terrorist attacks” of 9/11 rather than calling the event – as you did – a false flag operation. Ryan believes a large plane hit the Pentagon despite the massive amount of evidence to the contrary. And he joins those who regularly attack the idea that the plane crash there was faked. He also seems to be in favour of the mass purges from 911blogger. I think you’re better off citing any one of a number of researchers who explore the depths of the 9/11 psyop. Ryan complicates things that don’t need complicating.

    1. Dean,

      Thanks for letting us know; I look forward to reading your reactions. I did not see your presentation because of the technical problems they were having with the live streaming. I hope that the Friday presentations were recorded through some other means.

      1. The technical gliches simply dumbfounded me. Could I have done anything about them, I would have. The live stream was botched on Friday but appears to have been fine Saturday and Sunday. I had asked for a simple arrangement with a lecturn where speakers could use their own computers to project their slides and Powerpoints, which I had been assured would be the case. But of course that turned out to be false. I was acutely disappointed with that, but I thought the quality of the presentations was uniformly high. Having open and real differences between speakers was part of the plan to confront controversies and attempt to resolve them, which I am inclined to believe was largely accomplished, even though there will always be those who dissent, regardless of the evidence and the reasoning that supports various positions.

  55. Hey Bursill, I’m still curious as to how you feel about your (former?) buddies at truthaction who are now attacking Gage and company, and controlled demolition, the way they used to (and still) attack Balsamo, Ranke, the NoC evidence, etc.

    “CD is bullshit. that’s my opinion after 8 years of observation and listening to all the opinions and facts. it is – to put it kindly – the excrement of a horned bovine creature. BUUUUULLSHIIIIIT. plant food. ”

    John Albanese

    http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=49383#49383

    A friend of mine in Washington took a screenshot of a similar comment Albanese made on facebook and sent it to me, because it was so blantantly offensive:

    Now Bursill, I have no doubt that when Albanese and others made equivalent comments about CIT, Balsamo, or Barrett, over at 911blogger, you instantly clicked on that “vote up” button.

    Onesliceshort has compiled more similar examples:
    http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53068&postcount=5

    WHAT SAY YOU BURSILL?

    1. John Albanese..

      I’d seriously like to invite 9/11 victim families involved with 9/11 truth to see what these guys are up to in their name. Well, apart from April Gallop as she’s in a lower league of victims according to them.

      Two quotes to show what the endgame is..

      Bursill

      “…the most powerful position to take is the reasonable one of supporting the official account until proven otherwise. This is now my view.”

      Snowcrash

      “And frankly, if the outcome of my 9/11 inquiries is that the official story is true then so be it. ”

      (Of course, Snowcrash has already accepted the Pentagon OCT with no evidence at all)

      Come to think of it, has anybody got email contact with Chandler, Gage, DRG, Jones? Sarns?

      If you have, drop that link. I’ve only scratched the surface.

      1. And just today, from Julian Ware aka “Truthmover” (and founder of the complete ghost town truthmove.org):

        Ae911truth has probably raised more money in donations than the total earned in sales of The Terror Timeline. And mostly from people who don’t know much about any of it.

        As far as I’m concerned Ae911truth might as well be a satellite operation of Alex Jones. The well funded core of CD activists is very apparently doing a great job of making what ever the movement was in 2004 look like something entirely different and less reputable.

        The further I get from the day to day of the whatever this movement has become, the more I realize that I REALLY care about it’s underlying principles and really DON’T care about all the well intended dupes that are wasting time chasing whatever pulls the most cash. Principle before association.

        Let that be enough and Ae911truth becomes simply a temporary impediment.

        truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=50502#50502

  56. The quality of thought from some of those here qualifies as obscene. I defined “video fakery” as any use of videos to convey a false impression, in this case, about the events of 9/11. Since Pilots has established that Flight 175 was in the air but over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was supposed to be effortlessly entering the South Tower, HOW CAN THE VIDEOS PRESENTED AS OF FLIGHT 175 ENTERING THE SOUTH TOWER NOT BE FAKERY? I made this point repeatedly on the tread devoted to Dennis’ work on the Pentagon. Why Rob Balsamo and others cannot grasp a point as simple as this suggests to me that there are those in positions of leadership who are completely unqualified for their position. Pilots ought to be the leading 9/11 research organization in the world, but allowing CIT and others to run the ship and stupidity about video fakery has made it impossible.

    1. Jim,

      First of all, congratulations on the hearings. There was plenty of interesting and important material presented. I also appreciated the diversity among the presenters (though some will see that as a negative).

      On the whole “video fakery” debate, I’d like to make a suggestion. Rather than being part of an endless semantic discussion about what video fakery means, why not use “fakery” to denote that the actual flights didn’t hit the towers (as you did with the name of your Vancouver presentation).

      I understand how you define “video fakery” but with that definition you are pretty much guaranteed to have arguments and confusion, because many people will assume it refers to the faking of the actual video images and sound. Not lying about what’s on the video, but actually manipulating the video to have it show something that didn’t happen.

    2. Jim Fetzer says:

      “The quality of thought from some of those here qualifies as obscene. I defined “video fakery” as any use of videos to convey a false impression, in this case, about the events of 9/11.”

      Yes Jim, and we went over this over and again in our conversation here.

      I doesn’t matter at all how YOU define “video fakery”, when in the real world beyond your Fetzerian Newspeak, the term means manipulating the imagery by video effects.

      And you repeat the same loopy argument here as you did back on the other thread:

      “Flight 175 was in the air but over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was supposed to be effortlessly entering the South Tower, HOW CAN THE VIDEOS PRESENTED AS OF FLIGHT 175 ENTERING THE SOUTH TOWER NOT BE FAKERY?”

      It isn’t “video fakery” if a substitute aircraft is the one presented in the video, and claimed to be Flt 175. It is simply a lie, common Public Relations BS. Which is why you don’t need to confuse words like “video” and “fakery” together to create your own personal style of BS.

      Maybe if you started using proper English you would communicate your ideas better.

      ww

      1. This is stupid. Any use of videos to mislead the public about the events of 9/11 is video fakery. The specific form of video fakery employed in this case seems to be real videos of fake planes.

  57. @ Dean Hartwell :

    A pity you walked out, I would have liked to have heard you talk on the planes/passengers.

    Dean, along with your observations concerning the poor planning of the event you attended, at your site you also say :

    “But worst of all, when we needed a demonstration of discussing differences of opinion politely, we received instead a display of bullying by the leader of the conference ”

    I am not at all surprised . You only have to skim through the comments by the various oversized personalities constantly on display here to witness the exact same behavior.

    So I would not count on any polite, respectful discussion to be held here either, if you are. Just sayin’🙂

    Regards, onebornfree.

    P.S. just witness the attacks on John Bursill. Mr Bursill apparently holds views diametrically opposed to my own, but at least he knows how to conduct himself reasonably well [as far as I can see] and has not stooped to the level of most of his detractors here. It’s like a bunch of ill tempered kids in a sandbox, or worse.

      1. Hi Dean,

        I just finished your Cleveland piece. Very good, I like your layout and framing and test hypothesis structure. The whole thing adds up and makes a lot of sense.

        I was real interested in the Cleveland landing and the NASA facility there, and came to the supposition that all of the passengers had been herded into that facility…

        But I have been more into the physics of it since that time and didn’t pursue the ideas about the passengers, other than noting the lack of chain of custody of the DNA and such, and that the government story has the solidity of flatulence.

        Good job, I think you have a very feasible abstract there.

        ww

  58. Jim,

    Your terminology in this case by claiming the videos are “fake”, is in fact misleading as the videos themselves can be absolutely genuine in the fact they depict an aircraft impacting the WTC.

    The videos presented are of an aircraft hitting the south tower. They are not positive identification of any aircraft as it pertains to tail number nor flight number. Those who claim the videos are of “UA175” have not proven it was in fact “UA175” nor “N612UA”. This does not mean the videos are “fake”.

    You are arbitrarily changing the definition of your own meaning to suit the fact that you have been proven to be completely and utterly wrong.

    If you wish to redeem any sort of credibility, you may wish to change your terminology to state, “The videos do not prove that the aircraft observed to impact the WTC was in fact N612UA or UA175”.

    Screaming “Video Fakery!” then changing the definition as you are refuted… is the reason you have not gained any support for your claims, and in fact have lost support.

  59. Willy says –

    “The Boeing wind tunnel statistics are proprietary and not in the public domain – is this not correct?”

    Yes and no….

    All aircraft limitations are set by the manufacturer based on wind tunnel testing. So in that case, yes, the V-speeds based on wind tunnel testing is public domain.

    With that said, Vd is not given to the pilots in any of their publications as the manufacturer does not want the pilots anywhere near Vd.

    Anything above Vd is considered the Structural Failure Zone, and is proven by precedent (see my comment above regarding Egypt Air 990 and other aircraft).

    Again, please review this article for a more in depth explanation.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed_part2.html

    If you have not viewed “9/11: World Trade Center Attack”, please do as it will answer many of your questions…

    Click here for full film… it is only 45 mins runtime. You can complete this in less time it takes for Craig to approve a post.. j/k Craig…

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19732

    If you still have questions after thoroughly reviewing the above links, I will be happy to answer. Feel free to email me directly as well.

    1. Dear Mr. Balsamo,

      I’m satisfied with your answer above Rob…as I said, I think it was a substitute aircraft at any rate, so any further clarification is beyond point.

      Thanks for the explanation.

      ww

  60. No, explaining what each of us means by special words and phrases is completely appropriate. It has nothing to do with meanings, since I spelled out exactly what I meant by “NPT” and by “VF”:

    (1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
    (2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
    (3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
    (4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.

    Each of those claims was proven to be the on the basis of documentary records and research findings, including Pilots own studies and evidence from the four alleged “crash sites”. My take is that, with regard to (1) and (4), we have real videos of faked planes, which, when presented as evidence that Flights 11 and 175 hit the North and the South Towers, qualifies as video fakery.

    But let me simply as the following: Do you agree with (1), (2), (3), and (4)? and if not, why not?

    1. Jim,

      This is all ground covered in the last thread we discussed this in. This same tired argument isn’t going to fly here any better than it did the last time.

      I’d suggest your not working yourself into the vapors again…{grin}

      Below you go into the same old song and dance, beginning with:

      “I believe you are ignoring the evidence and denying what I have proven again and again: NO REAL PLANE COULD HAVE ENTERED A 500,000-TON BUILDING WITH NO DECELERATION AND NO COLLISION EFFECTS.”

      No you haven’t proven anything “again and again” – in fact you haven’t proven it at all.

      We went over the Sandia information, and the physics of the center of gravity, and the fact that there WAS deceleration of the plane crashing into the tower. Which you dispute without the slightest scientific foundation.

      You deny the clear presence of ‘collision effects’ caught on video.

      We went through the entire physics of the crash, the whole time you denying the primacy of crash physics over the mass ratio of plane to building. You proved your almost complete lack of understanding of applied physics on that thread. I don’t know why you think a replay on this thread is going to leave you in any better shape.

      ww

      1. Willy says –

        “This is all ground covered in the last thread we discussed this in. This same tired argument isn’t going to fly here any better than it did the last time.”

        Yes, Fetzer is known for going round and round and round without any regard for rebuttals, expecting different results.

        I seem to recall Einstein had a definition for such behavior. Unlike Fetzer when he makes up his own definitions to suit his argument, Einstein had a point.

        Good luck Willy, you’re a better man than me if you wish to entertain such trolling.

    2. Jim says –

      “…explaining what each of us means by special words and phrases is completely appropriate. It has nothing to do with meanings…”

      That is almost as delicious as when Fetzer claimed that “No planes” do not mean NO PLANES!

      Someone needs to keep a record of these “meanings”, we can call them – Fetzerisms…

      lmao…

      1. “…explaining what each of us means by special words and phrases is completely appropriate. It has nothing to do with meanings…”~Fetzer

        Sans qualifiers:

        “..explaining what each of us means…has nothing to do with meanings…” ~Fetzer

        Hohohohehehehahaha…

        Did the qualifiers I cut from his sentence misframe it? No, I simply combined his assertion and summation. This is perhaps the most blatant doublethink statement yet from the dear doctor.

        ww

  61. Maybe Rob does not understand this simple point: the planes shown in those videos were performing feats that no real plane could perform, not simply in relation to the speed, which Pilots has shows was impossible for a standard Boeing 757 but, with regard to its impossible entry into the South Tower, for example, impossible for ANY REAL PLANE. It seems to me that the only way you can persist in this ridiculous charade is by ignoring the evidence: you appear to that that the laws of physics were suspended on 9/11! I believe you are ignoring the evidence and denying what I have proven again and again: NO REAL PLANE COULD HAVE ENTERED A 500,000-TON BUILDING WITH NO DECELERATION AND NO COLLISION EFFECTS.

    But no deceleration was present and there were no collision effects. Therefore, whatever effortlessly entered the South Tower was not a real plane. It LOOKED LIKE a real plane but IT WAS PERFORMING FEATS NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM. There is not excuse for ignoring what I have proven to be the case–again and again and again–which is why Pilots has made itself look at least faintly ridiculous. PILOTS SHOULD BE THE LEADING 9/11 TRUTH ORGANIZATION. Instead, you adopt the position that SOME SPECIAL PLANE COULD VIOLATE NEWTON’S LAWS. The situation is about as absurd as any I have ever encountered.

  62. Jim says –

    “the planes shown in those videos were performing feats that no real plane could perform,”

    Read these posts again Jim as clearly it did not sink in the first few times…

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804215

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804220

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804226

    Once again Jim, you are making up your own definitions to suit your own argument. When you claim, “The aircraft was performing feats that no real plane can perform” only makes you lose more support each time you repeat such nonsense.

    Of course a “real” plane can perform the feats observed. Many real aircraft can do it everyday and beyond, especially if modified for increased performance.

    If you wish to amend your statement to a definition that society accepts, you may want to say something like, “The aircraft observed was performing feats outside the capability of a standard 767”.

    Then perhaps I could support your claim. Until then, I am kind of partial to the definitions of the English Language that most can understand, not the definitions according to Jim Fetzer.

  63. Bursill, very glad you are leaving this website where onesliceshort so succinctly stated that you are about as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit. Can you also please stop leaving messages crying on my voicemail.

    Naomi

  64. J.Fetzer said: “My take is that, with regard to (1) and (4), we have real videos of faked planes, which, when presented as evidence that Flights 11 and 175 hit the North and the South Towers, qualifies as video fakery.”

    Jim, your conclusion of “real videos” that qualify as “video fakery” seems somehow a tad contradictory, or confusing, surely? [even though I understand what you are trying to say.]

    You apparently still believe that the videos that depict a plane image approaching and/or striking WTC1 or 2 [for example Fox 5 , CNN , CBS, ABC,Naudet Fairbanks, Herzekhani , etc.] depict a beamed holographic image of a plane performing the [agreed] entirely impossible physical feats of flying into/through towers without slowing down or parts breaking off at impact.

    You claim that because the plane images were real time holograms broadcast/beamed live in NYC, that that effectively explains the plane images [agreed] scientifically impossible behavior.

    You are on very firm scientific ground there [Newton’s 3rd law of motion], regarding what a real world jetliner could and could not do on colliding with WTC1 or 2,obviously.

    However, you are, as I have attempted to politely point out in another thread, on very unfirm, unscientific ground when, based on the entirely non cross-examined, none-verifiable, none background checked purported verbal “eye witness testimony of one “Scott Forbes”, [ who claims to have personally witnessed fl.175’s magical flight inside WTC2], you have to date erroneously concluded that the various videos depicting that same event are therefor in fact genuine; despite that fact that each show entirely contradictory course/trajectories🙂 ; despite the fact that you have never even attempted to determine whether or not it was actually physically possible to shoot the various videos of the event from the alleged locations; despite the fact that you have never done a background check on the alleged creators of any of these videos [let alone Mr Forbes] ; despite the fact that you have never bothered to try to accurately determine whether or not the physical features depicted in those videos [e.g. background, other buildings, cars, streets etc.] accurately match known, genuine real world photos of the same locations, nor even if the lighting conditions [i.e shadows, reflections etc.] on display in those videos are even close to expected , given the time of day they were allegedly shot.

    In other words, you have to date reached a “scientific” conclusion to date concerning the authenticity of all of the “plane into/through building videos” which appears to be 50% based on a completely unscientific assumption: that a verbal “eye- witness testimony” is genuine and “sounds” trustworthy [as you yourself have previously stated], therefor the various “plane into/through building videos” _”must” _ be genuine, and that they all [therefor] depict real life holograms broadcast that day live in NYC.

    Frankly I’m still more than a little taken aback by this wrongheaded methodically unscientific [as I see it] conclusion, even after learning of it about a month and a half ago. Since when is unproven, non-cross examined “eyewitness testimony” to be taken as scientific proof of anything?

    Regards, onebornfree.

  65. Rob Balsamo said: “Of course a “real” plane can perform the feats observed. Many real aircraft can do it everyday and beyond, especially if modified for increased performance.”

    So now we have “pilots” for “truth” willing to claim that aluminum cuts steel and therefor that jetliners can fly unobstructed through multiple steel columns simultaneously, virtually unscathed! Even the wing tips and tail sections cutting through steel columns. Gotta get me some of this superluminum! Hah! “Pilots For Truth” indeed! No wonder I never joined that site.

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. onebornfree makes these remarks,

      “So now we have “pilots” for “truth” willing to claim that aluminum cuts steel and therefor that jetliners can fly unobstructed through multiple steel columns simultaneously, virtually unscathed!”

      First of all Mr. science, Aircraft are not made of “beer can aluminum” – take note and try to comprehend this;

      Tensile Strength:

      > Structural Steel – yield strength: 250 – ultimate strength: 400
      > Aluminum Alloy 2014-T6 – yield strength: 400 – ultimate strength: 450

      Secondly, you say “virtually unscathed” whereas there is agreement all around {in lucid minds that is} that the impacts shredded the planes as well as the fascia.

      If you want some ‘super aluminum” just order a plate of Aluminum Alloy 2014-T6, it is commercially available.

      I understand they still stock books of physics at libraries in this country as well {hint hint}

      ww

      1. Yeah, Fetzer and his minions (who are now proven liars, see below) still cannot comprehend this concept. Clearly Fetzer et al has never hit a rock or a steel bolt with an aluminum baseball bat. Perhaps they should consult with their local little league teams up there in Wisconsin, or in the case of “onebornfree”, down there in Savanna, GA.

  66. onebornfree says –

    ““Pilots For Truth” indeed! No wonder I never joined that site. ”

    Hmm…..

    If you deny that being you above “onebornfree”, keep in mind Craig here can confirm you as a liar.

    Furthermore, you may want o actually review the physics that has been discussed ad nauseam at our forum and on this blog.

    Is it any wonder why I ignore nearly every one of your comments?

    lol

    1. Mr Balsamo, you are correct, I did indeed join the site , and too late[after posting] realized I had misspoken in my post. So technically speaking I did sign up for that site [it took what, 2 weeks to get confirmed?].

      What I _should_ have said is that I have never posted there after joining. So call me a liar if you will.

      Luckily for myself, in the interim period before being allowed to join , on reviewing the site more closely I was not at all impressed and chose not to actively participate.

      Yours and other PFT members various consistently inflammatory posts here, plus your now revealed opinion that aluminum does indeed cut straight through steel [ when any seasoned, honest pilot is fully aware that a single bird in flight in collision with the fuselage or the leading edge of a wing of an airliner in flight at cruising speed will almost fully penetrate that airliners fuselage or wings, or even that an airliner in transit at ground speed,{10-20 mph?}, in collision with a hanger, or with light poles, will be seriously damaged, each and every time, as thousands of photos on the web clearly demonstrate], has further confirmed the wisdom of my initial choice not to post there.

      You are either deliberately spreading disinformation regarding the very simple physics of plane collisions, or you have zero understanding of fundamental laws of physics, in this case Newton’s 3rd law of motion, but I’m not sure which.

      regards, onebornfree.

      Please feel free to ban me from your dreadful site. Regards ,onebornfree

      1. onebornfree, you make this statement to Rob Balsamo, after he nails you on making untruthful statements here – which you suddenly and conveniently recall, when revealed:

        “You are either deliberately spreading disinformation regarding the very simple physics of plane collisions, or you have zero understanding of fundamental laws of physics, in this case Newton’s 3rd law of motion, but I’m not sure which.”

        This statement by someone such as yourself who has consistently proven to be one of the most scientifically ignorant commentators on this blog…it is simply astounding, mind blowing and frankly idiotic.

        It reminds my of why the necessity for rubber rooms and straight jackets in some instances.

        ww

  67. onebornfree, I so much appreciate your latest post that I am not going to delve into the other except to say that there are a lot of videos out there and some of them display the kinds of video fakery that appear to interest you (fake videos of real planes or fake videos of fake planes). The ones that interest me involve (what appear to be) real videos of fake planes. But that the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth should embrace such physical absurdities has to give anyone second thoughts about the integrity and the competence of the organization itself. Thanks for implying that so well!

    1. Ha ha ha ha…yea Jim, your ‘one ditz to another’ comments are fun. Got anymore???

      Let’s hear the one about picking up one of the towers and swinging at a stationary plane and just how much that has to do with the price of microchips in China.

      ‘Mass differential mass differential mass differential – that is all there is to Newtonian Physics’

      Another bowl of steaming mantra please.

      ww

  68. Does anyone else find this just too coincidental?

    John Bursill comes here to attack those who support NPT, equating and attacking Pilots For 9/11 Truth… claiming that we support NPT.

    Many chime in with questions and sources that Bursill evades. Bursill tucks tail as usual and bails.

    Just a few hours later, Fetzer arrives attacking us for NOT supporting NPT and Video Fakery.

    Is this a bad B Movie or what?

    Has anyone ever seen Fetzer and Bursill debate each other?

  69. J.Fetzer says: “The ones that interest me involve (what appear to be) real videos of fake planes.”

    Jim , my point was that you have taken _none_ of the verification steps I had listed [there are actually more], to try to firmly establish whether or not the videos that you “believe” to “appear to be” “real videos” are in fact real videos or just fakes, but have instead relied solely on the verbal testimony of one person to reach your conclusion [i.e. that they are real videos of holographic images].

    As a non-scientist myself, I see your methodology there to be procedurally incorrect, as it relies 50% on hearsay “evidence”.

    Think about it, to reach your conclusion you are deliberately choosing to give exactly _equal_weight to the verbal testimony of a completely unverified, non-cross-examined “eyewitness” as you are giving to the “testimony” of the great scientist Sir Isaac Newton, whose laws of motion have stood the test of 300+ years of time.

    Isn’t that a little unscientific, or even, dare I say it, disrespectful?

    Regards, onebornfree.

  70. Rob Balsamo says: ” Clearly Fetzer et al has never hit a rock or a steel bolt with an aluminum baseball bat.”

    More to the point, Mr Balsamo, have you tried hitting the nose, fuselage, or leading wing-edge of a 767 with an aluminum, [or even a wooden], baseball bat? No cheating now! Full-out swing please🙂

    Regards, onebornfree

    p.s. After that experiment I suggest you try having a steel baseball bat specially made for you, and then use _that_ on the [plastic] nose or aluminum fuselage or leading wing edge of a 767 or similar. Again, no cheating now! Full-out swing please!

  71. Jim Fetzer says: “…there are a lot of videos out there and some of them display the kinds of video fakery that appear to interest you (fake videos of real planes or fake videos of fake planes)…”

    Jim could you give me an idea of which ones you believe to be, as you say, ” fake videos of fake planes”?

    Regards, onebornfree

    1. “Fake videos of fake planes”

      I want to see that Fetzerian definition!

      The saddest part? I know what he’s going to write….

      “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?… Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?… – Syme

      1984

      😀

  72. onebornfree said @ Rob Balsamo : “After that experiment I suggest you try having a steel baseball bat specially made for you, and then use _that_ on the [plastic] nose or aluminum fuselage or leading wing edge of a 767 or similar. Again, no cheating now! Full-out swing please!”

    And after _that_ little experiment, why don’t you try firing, or catapulting your all steel bat side-on at 500mph, or even at 250mph, directly at the nose, wing or fuselage of a 767?

    regards, onebornfree

    1. @onebornfree

      http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21992&view=findpost&p=10804770

      We have to remember that this aircraft was allegedly travelling at over 700 feet per second. Over 4 times its own length travelled in one second as it impacted the facade.

      The length of the fuselage from the nose to the wings is 60ft. The aircraft’s recorded speed would cover that 60ft distance in less than a tenth of a second.

      When the 60ft of fuselage appears to penetrate the facade, this could be down to optical illusion. The event was over in one tenth of a second.

      Here’s a video that’s as close as I could find to the collision of a hard steel object (steel sled) against a bulky object such as the fuselage. A car.

      See how the car appears to “melt” or “disappear”? The actual interaction was over in a fraction of a second.

      1. OSS,

        I have found it futile to make reasonable argument to counter the asinine blitherings of the one you have addressed in your post of June 19, 2012 at 11:49 am {just above here}.

        He is now speaking to the ruminations of a “Mystic” guru of the Theosophist school, who has as much knowledge of the technical aspects of digital imagery as the originator of this ‘digital fakery’ nonsense, Simon Shack – who is utterly incompetent in the technologies he attempts to speak to.

        ww

      2. I’m not clear how this helps. The car is being crushed between a moving sled and a concrete wall. Not really analogous, I don’t think. In fact, the fact that the car is obliterated kind of suggests, given what you’re comparing it to, that the plane should have behaved similarly when impacting the towers.

        And there were pieces of the car easily visible on the ground – pieces that you could see flying into the air then coming down. That didn’t happen on 9/11 to my knowledge.

      3. Craig, in the original link I state that the physical crash analogy isn’t the same but the visual effects most definitely are.

        The main point is that 60ft of fuselage disappeared in one tenth of a second. The alleged 155ft length of the aircraft would have travelled the length of itself (800fps) in @ one fifth of a second.

        Is there time for the impact to even register a visual reaction?

        If you follow the Pilots link, you’ll see that I’ve posted video evidence of aircraft parts raining down from the exit side of the south tower as it happens. There’s also visual evidence of debris, although I’ll admit, unidentifiable, falling on the impact side. I still haven’t found footage of the base of the south tower.

        My 2cents

        Jim Fetzer makes the assumption that “baggage, seats and bodies” would have fallen. My belief, based on the accuracy, success of the attacks and impossible speed registered for an alleged 767, is that this was a modified, possibly weaponized drone (based on the obvious interaction of some sort of appendage that I still haven’t seen explained) that didn’t have the usual paraphenalia of a passenger jet.

      4. OSS,

        The Sandia jet video might be more apropos for this occasion. With an explanation of the inertial speed of the aircraft being at the center point of its mass.

        In crash physics the object in motion does not slow in anyway whatsoever until the center of gravity of that object meets the point of impact. And at the speeds we are considering the slowing would be imperceptible to the human eye.

        As Fetzer argued, the Sandia jet stops at the impact point, but he assumes that it stopped in a single instant. This is not so, as the Sandia shot was taken in extreme slow motion, the analysis of the impact was able to be made of the split seconds it took for the entire plane to stop. Although they were split seconds – that is still time, not an instantaneous single moment. It was determined that this impact is experimental evidence of what is already calculated for in impact physics; that being that the center of gravity is the inertial point of the speed of an object in motion according to Newtonian physics.

        ww

  73. To try and stay somewhat on topic regarding the “no planes” theory with reference to the subject of this actual thread, here is a quote from Vancouver speaker Christopher Holmes, taken from his website at http://www.zeropoint.ca/FabledAirplanes.html .

    Presumably he made the same, or similar, statements during his presentation in Vancouver :

    ” Part C of September Clues also raises the important issue of how a supposedly real airplane with wings and a tail of aluminium was able to seamlessly enter right into the steel framed South Tower, so completely and without obstruction, such that it then completely disappeared from view. There are no photos of the hole in South Tower as showing any evidence of an airplane inside. Further, no parts of the airplane broke off and fell to the ground upon impact, as one would certainly expect of the weaker aluminium wing and tail structures. In fact, the motion of the airplane into the building shows no obstruction to its flight path at all! The ‘nose out shot’ discussed earlier showed the motion of the plane right through the whole building in a jiffy in a completely unobstructed manner. These are either instances of Divine Intervention, new methods of dematerializing material entities or more simply, half-competent video technicians.”

    “Most peculiar is one of the amateur videos depicting an airplane directly entering into the South Tower. On one frame of the video, the left wing has completely disappeared and yet there still is no hole there in the Tower. The timing is slightly off. …”

    Regards, onebornfree

  74. onesliceshort says: ” We have to remember that this aircraft was allegedly travelling at over 700 feet per second. Over 4 times its own length travelled in one second as it impacted the facade.”

    I see your point, but speed of object at impact is irrelevant to Newton’s 3rd Law, as is which object hits which.

    And Newton’s 3rd law must always determine the outcome of the entire alleged filmed event. It’s the law🙂

    At impact, the forces exerted on both plane and building at point of contact are always exactly equal and opposite, regardless of the speed of the incoming object, and regardless of which object is in motion and which one is stationary.

    Which means that if it were possible to exactly reverse the entire event , so that the plane was locked down firmly in a stationary position somehow, and instead, the building was somehow made to travel at 500 mph [or whatever] to hit that stationary plane; then the exact same equal and opposite forces should be generated as should have been operating in the video, and would act on both objects just as equally at impact , just as they would if the building is firmly in place and the plane flew into it at 500mph as is depicted in the videos.

    “for every action (force) there is an equal and opposite reaction (force).”

    In order for Newton’s 3rd Law to still hold up, the exact same result observed in the video[s] [i.e that the plane would still fully penetrate the building without losing any parts at impact and without slowing down when filmed with the exact same camera allegedly used in the “real” video, ] would have to occur, if in reverse, the plane were somehow made stationary and was struck by a flying 500,000 ton steel and concrete building [if it were even possible to arrange such an event🙂 ] .

    Now if you honestly choose to believe that a firmly rooted in place [by whatever means] 767 [140 tons] , is going to survive being hit by an object weighing 500,000 tons made of steel and concrete traveling at the same alleged speed as the airliner [i.e. 500mph], and not only that, but that the fixed in place aircraft would then fully penetrate the exterior of that building exactly as depicted in all of those [entirely fraudulent]”plane into building ” videos, then I have some “ocean front property ” in Nevada you might be interested in buying.

    From : http://www.physics4kids.com/files/motion_laws.html :

    “The third law says that for every action (force) there is an equal and opposite reaction (force). Forces are found in pairs. Think about the time you sit in a chair. Your body exerts a force downward and that chair needs to exert an equal force upward or the chair will collapse. It’s an issue of symmetry. Acting forces encounter other forces in the opposite direction. ”

    Regards, onebornfree

    For reference here is a link to the only recorded video [Evan Fairbanks] where the entire alleged event can be clearly seen in such a way that the number of frames and distance covered by the plane prior to impact can be easily counted and compared to the number of frames and distance covered by the plane post impact can be easily counted and compared: http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/air-versus-skyscraper-shortest-simplest.html

    1. So onebornfree,

      Besides repeating what you picked up on your physics site about Newtons 3rd law.

      Why don’t you apply that law properly and tell us what happens at the moment of impact?

      ww

      1. Now onebornfree,

        You have made responses here in-between my request, aren’t you apply that Newtons 3rd law properly and tell us what happens at the moment of impact?

        ww

    2. And onebornfree,

      When you have finished describing what the equal and opposite elements are at the point of impact – {remembering that the point of impact is to be considered not only the moment in time of the impact, but the precise point that that impact occurs. Yes?} – after you have that figured out, then tell me how it is that Fetzers little bird story actually defeats his own argument.

      A man of your obvious prowess in physics should have this figuring done in the amount of time it took the plane to enter the building.

      ww

      1. lol…. apparently, chairs never collapse according to some definitions given here….

        “Think about the time you sit in a chair. Your body exerts a force downward and that chair needs to exert an equal force upward or the chair will collapse. It’s an issue of symmetry. Acting forces encounter other forces in the opposite direction. ”

        OMG! Video Fakery! Newtons Third Law was violated!

        lmao…

        Why do you even bother Willy… onebornfree is a nobody, certainly hasn’t a clue regarding physics, and certainly will not get any support from anyone with an education above the 9th grade.

    3. That’s the beauty of the NPT argument OBF. You make a physical analysis of a video you claim is faked. You don’t see the contradiction in this?

      Here are two more physical analyses of another “fake video”

      1. onesliceshort says: “Here are two more physical analyses of another “fake video”

        Well you got that right. They are certainly fake [complete with concerned, “serious” sounding British voice over about his poor buddy “Ron”- what a joke].

        For one thing, just check out/compare the entirely contradictory trajectories of the plane parts exiting the building image in those videos [as compared to other videos]. Its like the magic bullet theory in the JFK assassination where the bullet changes course in mid air according to the official story!

        A good analysis of these blatant contradictions/impossibilities can be seen here: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1155&sid=c766d7fb1dc3c65734904eedb7b02d8e&start=120

        …starting with the post by reel.deal on December 11th, 2011, 8:14 pm , about halfway down the page. Enjoy!

        Regards, onebornfree

      2. onebornfree says:

        “For one thing, just check out/compare the entirely contradictory trajectories of the plane parts exiting the building image in those videos [as compared to other videos].”

        What a complete load of BS you try to unload as “analysis” onebornfree.

        In the first place, you cannot ‘compare’ the videos against one another without creating a three dimensional perspective grid by finding the vanishing point in each POV, and doing a layover of your imagery. You cannot simply use parallel lines of a two dimensional plain.

        Secondly, the analysis of the single videos stand on the proposition that there is nothing inside the building – that the material should shoot straight through on the trajectory of the plane, which is also misframed for the reasons stated above – but further as there were 47 steel box columns between one side of the building and the other, ricocheting and redirection would be the expected results of the impact, plus secondary explosions creating their own trajectories.

        To reiterate that this crew at CluesForum are clueless in video and image analysis is becoming exceedingly tiring. And this is likely the last time I will follow one of your leads to such garbage.

        ww

  75. Well Craig,

    As I recall onebornfree is playing his childish game of not reading nor responding to my posts.

    In the case of the last two questions I put to him, perhaps you are curious enough to what his replies might be to put the questions to him yourself…?

    ww

  76. LITTLE BIRD MEETS BIG JET PLANE
    [A Fetzer Fable]

    This is a tale told by Fetzer to buttress his mass-ratio assertions to the plane impacts on the WTC towers. As many of those arguments, he does not argue to mass-ration, but rather to crash dynamics and comparative materials strength. And he seems not to recognize this himself, as I have queried him on this myself extensively.

    Nevertheless the ‘Bird and Plane’ story is another instance of arguing material strengths and crash dynamics. However in this story he defeats his own mass ratio argument he plays to the crash into the towers. This story is actually an allegory to the building hitting a stationary plane; same dynamics: huge mass hitting tiny mass.

    First, ‘Comparative Materials Strengths:

    What do you suppose the tensile strength of a bird’s skull is? We are talking bone, at most two millimeters thick. The skull of even large birds can be crushed by a strong mans hand. The structural strength of the bones of the rest of the bird is even less than the skull. So in all, the structural strength of the entire bird is very small, birds are very frail in this regard. Now we go back to the airplane strikes bird story: How is it possible that a bird of such frail structure, and a mass thousands of times less than the airplane, is capable of penetrating metal that is stronger than industrial steel?

    To Mass-Ratio v Crash Physics:

    It is possible and has happened hasn’t it? Yes, and it has to do with speed, momentum and kinetics. Just like the impact of the jet into the towers – speed and kinetics and crash physics – not mass ratios; For what would you suppose is the mass ratio of our little bird and a 140 ton airplane? That mass-ratio would be just about 400,000 to 1. And the material strength ratio is literally inconsequential when one is comparing the crash physics of two metal objects to flesh, blood, and bones against metal.

    ww

    1. @ mr. hybridrogue,

      What! You’re only using a paltry little bird weighing in at a mere 350 gram!!
      Poor thing.

      Couldn’t you have used a bird a little bit heavier …..a Condor, for example?

      Cheers

  77. @Tamborine man

    I’m waiting for the day one of these “kinetics” illusionists attempts to fire or somehow catapult just one 10 ton steel beam, at 500mph, at a stationary [i.e. completely locked in place] 767, or, more reasonably perhaps [i.e. more immediately doable ], just tries beating real hard on the nose, fuselage or wings of said plane with a steel bar, or, as I suggested to Mr Balsamo , with a specially made steel baseball bat.

    Regards, onebornfree.

  78. Both the Boeing 757 and 767 have Kevlar wing fairings [edges].

    Aluminum Alloy 2014-T6 – yield strength: 400 – ultimate strength: 450, a tensile strength greater than industrial steel.

    It is a shame that there seem to be boosters for Ludwig Wittgenstein as yet still in the 21st century. Even on this thread you will find them with their magical mystical ideas and fairydust in their eyes…happy…as…clowns.

    ww

  79. Hi Rob,

    It seems to me that there are some similarities between Balsamo/Fetzer and Wood/Jenkins.

    Rob, we all know that you’re in complete agreement with Jim Fetzer’s 4 points, but refuse to say “yes” to them. Likewise, we all know that Dr. Wood of course is quite aware that debris were cascading out and down during the collapse of the towers, but she too refused to answer Jenkins’ question with a “yes”.

    (Guessing here, that perhaps both of yours and Judy Woods reluctance to answer in the affirmative, could lie in the fact that both answers belonged to the “bleeding obvious” kind, or something close to this)!
    But what if both you and Judy Wood had each swallowed your ‘pride’ instead, and for the sake of peace had been more forthcoming, what would have happened then, I wonder!

    Please let me draw a parallel between you v. Fetzer, with that of onesliceshort and myself. The matter between us regarding this topic is the same, except there’s no animosity present as far as I know!
    Here’s my take on it:

    When OSS looked at the Hezarkhani/Fairbanks videos, he must have got the impression that a plane, of one kind or another, had actually penetrated the tower as shown in the videos. OSS would have seen nothing that didn’t look right; nothing that he didn’t expect to see; nothing questionable; and nothing that ‘jarred’ with his powers of perception.

    Viewing the same, and contrary to the above, my first impression was that of incredulity and incongruity. To me it looked incredible false and staged ….and as it still does. There was no way my mind could ever take this impression of a plane gliding effortlessly through a building, as being that of a truthful event.
    Therefore it is rather evidently so, that OSS and i can and do perceive things differently as well as receiving different impressions of a same event.

    OSS could introduce to the board 10 ‘experts’ on physics, that all maintained the same as he, but this would not be able to alter one iota the impressions nor the power of perception that i hold, and I’m sure that if i should also bring 10 physic ‘experts’, being on my side, it would be equally impossible to convince OSS to change his impressions or power of perception.
    We have simply reached a ‘stalemate’ where no more moves are possible by either part, so the best thing to do of course, is to shake hands, smile, and thank each other for the fun little game of ‘winner-less’ “tug-of-war” we’ve had on this particular occasion!

    But this brings us to another occasion though. This time it’s the pentagon. Here, both of our individual powers of perception and our impressions, goes together ‘like hands in gloves’. Here, OSS and i can give each other ‘high fives’ instead, for seeing and believing the same things; and naturally this should take first priority, as agreements far outshines any disagreement we may all experience or encounter from time to time.

    So thank God for giving us something called “individuality” and “personality”. How absolutely boring life would be, without it!

    Cheers

    PS!
    We will probably never know, in our lifetime here on Earth, what really took place on 9/11, but that doesn’t mean we will never know how it all unfolded, and get to knowing too the true motivations behind this “historic and epoch-making crime”!

    I now ‘feel’ like elaborating a little bit more about this in a post to follow.

    1. A bit over 2 years ago i started a thread in the ‘Pilotsfor9/11truth’ forum, wherein i set out to prove once and for all, that all of mankind survive ‘death’, and consequently live on in a higher dimension (between their earthly incarnations), until the Earth is no longer needed as a means to further each individuals evolutionary progress and spiritual advancement through their journey out of Darkness.

      Since then the thread has now received 42000 clicks (obviously based on many repeats), but still a very good number, taking into consideration that in all this time the thread has received not one single attempt at rebuke; no rebuttals, no contradictions, no refutations, no criticism, no reproof, no scorn or slur either – none of the kind!

      This is why i now dare to promote this thread a little bit here in this blog, and why i dare to come out now and state categorically that the attempt seems to have borne fruit, and it all now must be considered an undeniable success!

      Readers here need only to take a look on the first page (out of a total of 43), to gain an understanding of ‘what’s it all about’! Readers who find an interest in “sacred geometry” or in geometric drawings, as referred to on page one, will find these drawings mainly from page 3 through to page 8. There’s a few others further on, i have also used as part of the “proof”!

      Following is an excerpt from the first post in the thread:

      “…….
      Any person – civilian or military – who praises, defends and glorifies war in writing or in speech, instead of evoking aversion to this deed of Darkness and enlightening his fellow human beings on the degradation and brutishness of war, is himself placing a heavy burden of responsibility on his shoulders and must, having ended his earthly life, render a detailed account to God of the motivations for his actions.
      …….”

      These accounts will be ‘publicly’ available to anyone who are searching for the Truth regarding 9/11, or whatever other subjects the individual might be interested in, when they return back to their homes (or abodes) in the spheres after the end of earthly life!

      (People who have participated in serious crimes either directly or indirectly, and have avoided being judged by ‘human’ courts, will undoubtedly be some of the human beings who will completely ignore this proof, or pretend it doesn’t exist, but also these people will one day be confronted with the sometimes ‘stark’ reality of true human “Life”, and its real purposes)!

      Any comment or question will be warmly welcomed –

      Cheers

      1. The Golden Bough Sir James George Frazer

        “Picture if you will” Serling says, introducing an episode never to grace TV:

        Just beyond that signpost; the Elysian Fields, where Aeneas and the Sybil now sit in conversation with Seth speaking to the nature of personal reality, are introduced to Hang Po who patiently explains that like is not. The Trojans are fascinated and wonder at the antics of Crazy Horse, seen in the distance chanting to the Great Spirit in ringing glossolalia.

        Seth laughs and takes the token just given to him by Aeneas and Sybil, and throws the Golden Bough into the sky above, where it bursts like fireworks, the scene implodes and the Universe begins anew at each and every moment that moment and the moment now.

        ~Ta Panta Nous

  80. @mr. rogue.

    Primal cosmos, is based entirely on the 4 primal powers of Light, Darkness, Thought and Will, and these primal powers have existed through all eternity.

    “…….
    Although Light existed only as a faintly sparkling core, surrounded everywhere by Darkness, the radiations of the two primal forces were of exactly equal strength.
    Between the two primal forces, on the boundary between Light and darkness, rested Thought and Will; although passive themselves, they were through all eternity subject to the equal influence of the radiations of Light and Darkness.
    After eternities of absolute inactivity, a change occurred in the static balance of the primal state, in that Thought and Will reacted with a slight agitation to the radiations of Darkness. This weak agitation was the first sign of the transition of Thought and Will from a state of passivity to a state of awakening activity, since this vibration brought the primal state out of balance.
    Gradually, through aeons of time, Thought and Will moved further and further away from the radiations of Darkness and in toward the Light, whose radiations assisted them with a steadily increasing attraction that drew them toward the poles of Light. Every time Thought and Will followed the attraction of the Light, the Light gained in strength and in volume. After unknown aeons of continued attraction, Thought and Will reached the poles of the Light, which at the moment of contact were awakened from their latent state. At the same time Thought and Will awoke to a fully conscious and willed activity and developed a mutual attraction, so that through countless aeons they slowly drew closer to each other.
    As the distance between them grew less the Light gained still more in strength, volume and radiation.
    Attracted and guided by the Will, the Thought strove onward, but in each advance lay a temptation for the Thought to cease the struggle before full victory over Darkness had been won. But due to the attraction of the all-powerful Will, the Thought did not cease its struggle forward toward the steadily approaching Will, and for this reason the Light constantly increased in strength and in brightness, until after further eternities – with the meeting and harmonious union of Thought and Will – the Light wrested itself free from darkness, raised itself victoriously out of and over it, so that the Light surrounded and enveloped the Darkness, which then slowly contracted, became denser and formed a dark core in the sea of Light.
    By the perfect and harmonious merging with each other of Thought (the female) and Will (the male), God arose as a personal Being, as the centre of the universe.
    …….”

    When primal cosmos went from a state of passivity to a state of activity, this can quite well be called a “moment”, but in reality quite meaningless as “time” was not yet introduced as a ‘concept’.

    As the ‘concept of time’ or ‘the rhythm of time’ (as we now ‘know’ it) is highly relative, we can not even now apply the term “moment” to anything ‘concrete’ or “real” within this reference.

    The closest we can ever come to the abstraction called “moment”, will come when we learn to realize that the highest speed possible is Zero. I.e., that it takes no ‘time’ to travel between A and B.
    Or, we might perceive this as a “moment”, when one day in the distant hereafter, the past one day becomes the future and the future becomes the past!

    In the meantime, all we need to know is that ever since primal cosmos was sat in ‘motion’, the only true reality that in this context will last throughout eternity is, “the sequence of events”!

    Cheers

    PS!
    Mr. rogue, i took it for granted that you’re not referring to the “moment’, as that captured by a photo!

    1. Tamborine man says:

      “Mr. rogue, i took it for granted that you’re not referring to the “moment’, as that captured by a photo!”

      You took for granted exactly correctly. The “Moment” I refer to is the Eternal Now.

      Time is Maya; that is illusion {Sanskrit} Material is Maya. Space is Maya. In other words the space/time/continuum is Maya.

      [ 1≡∞ ] – Paradox divides the whole – there is only ONE which cannot be divided.

      Ta Panta Nous

      Note: Tamborine man, this is my story, you can tell any other that you wish.

      ww

    2. Referring to my last post above:

      “…….
      This picture of the inert state and the struggle of Light, Darkness, Thought and Will must be understood as abstractions and not interpreted in terms of factual, earthly concepts of space, measure and time, nor in terms of known forms of radiation, inertia and motion. No explanation beyond the foregoing can be given regarding the presence through all eternity of primal Light, primal Darkness, Thought and Will; no further explanation can be given that could be understood by human thought at this time. Only this can be said: That Light, Darkness, Thought and Will were not ‘created’, but ‘existed’ through all eternity – a problem that cannot and will not be solved or comprehended by human thought in the present state of human intelligence.

      An earthly scientist could no more lecture on philosophy to a young child in the expectation of being understood than a transcendental being could advance a detailed explanation of the existence through all eternity of these entities in the hope of being understood by mankind. But when human beings have attained greater spiritual maturity, there is a possibility that one of God’s emissaries will undertake during an earthly life to explain the riddle of eternity and the mystery of the uncreated.

      (…….)

      Primal Darkness (i.e., chaos, or disorder and confusion) lacks its own guiding Will and creative Thought. It therefore acts at random and has become destructible as a result of the victory of the Light. The Light, on the other hand, is governed by divine Thought and Will.

      By Thought (i.e., logos) an infinite diversity of changeable forms of power and life are radiated. Above Thought, as the highest concentration of the Light, stands the Will – the supreme, fructifying and life-giving energy – for so long as the thought of creating or of acting is only thought, it has only the potential for life, it is coming to life. But the moment the Will begins to fructify, Thought unites with Will and changes from a state of ‘becoming’ to a state of ‘being’; it becomes concrete. However, the Will is ‘nothing’, so long as it does not have Thought as a constant basis for its activity.

      Thought is thus the primary abstract female concept: intuitive, formative and creative; and Will is the primary abstract male concept: fructifying, productive and dominant.
      …….”

      Hope these initial small excerpts will Inspire the readers (if any!), to further study the extraordinary and absolutely unique messages that has now finally been able come to mankind from the highest intelligences in the transcendental world.

      Cheers

  81. Everybody on the ground was hypnotised via subliminal memory and perception modifying pulse frequencies that they saw planes,and cg planes were edited live into the news coverage.Energy weapons shot the buildings down via satellite.

    1. Hohohohehehehahaha

      All with true vision know, that the towers were swallowed by Hoota the bamboo snake, who’s lair is an ancient pit, a meteor crater that lies beneath Manhattan. It was the enchantment of the Ring of Loch’ar the sorcerer that put the spell on the people and the cameras that mystical magic morning of 9/11 – bringing the age of Eiichee Tweiichee and the soon arriving Klavnershmicht Rulers of Galaxy’s Edge.

      \\||//

    2. Dear Lisa,

      it ‘spookily’ appear as if you and mr. rogue could be like a pair ‘made in heaven’!

      Hope you’ll ‘seize the moment’ …..

      Cheers

  82. Fetzer never commented on:

    LITTLE BIRD MEETS BIG JET PLANE [A Fetzer Fable]

    hybridrogue1 comment of June 19, 2012 at 9:44 pm

    I was so certain he would get a ‘kick’ out of that…but, I guess not.

    You wanted a bigger bird Tamborine, why don’t you check out Sesame Street? Stuff right up your alley there.

    “In every dream home a heartache” ~ Roxy Music

    \\||//

    1. @ mr. rogue,

      who write:

      “You wanted a bigger bird Tamborine, why don’t you check out Sesame Street?”

      A ‘little bird’ should have long ago whispered in your little tiny ear that, “the big bird in Sesame street is not really real, and cannot fly, and besides – speaks silly ‘english’ to boot”!

      You should really have been able to work this out all by yourself years back, shouldn’t you?

      And honestly, i think it’s now a little bit too late for you to blame your parents …..in all fairness to them …..

      Cheers

  83. As I suspected Onbornfree never responded to explain the physics at the moment of impact of the plane into the tower. So I will give a very short explanation here:

    Only at the moment and point of impact is there any momentum of any object but for the airplane.
    At that moment and point of impact, the momentum is then transferred as kinetic energy to the portion of the building directly struck – plus additional energy of the pressures of the ignition of the fuel ~ all creating forward motion ~ the shattered plane and the portions of the shattered building in the effect from the transferred kinetic energy.

    At no time was the entire mass of the building in a state of momentum.

    Momentum has three components: Mass | Velocity | Specific Direction

    For the building you have only one component – Mass [500,000T] as per Velocity=0 | Specific Direction=0 [vector quality]
    And this remains constant until the secondary of event of global collapse.

    At impact as is stated above, only a minute portion of the building incurs velocity and specific direction.

    There is however an effect to the rest of the structure – vibration. On impact the building shuttered, shook, oscillated, vibrated like a tuning fork. This is indeed movement, but vibration is omnidirectional movement, it is represented as a wave-form. As this movement is system internal, there is no specific direction, as per necessary observation.

    The import of this last observation must not be brushed aside – what this means is that the entire mass at no time experiences an induction of momentum, but only diffused energy in the form of oscillation – vibrations that occurred for an extended period of time.

    Anyone who has ever used a tuning fork knows that when the fork is tapped ie, ‘impact’- the fork rings in volume that diminishes at a certain curve. This curve is a representation of the element of time and the dispersion of the energy delivered at impact throughout that time.

    ww

  84. Señor,

    If I may return to you return to you with another attempt to clarify my position of the mechanisms of the towers destruction.

    You simply to not have the radiation signatures for your hypothesis to stand up. The tritium levels are inconsequential, and alone with no further proofs of nucleosynthesis; the detection of daughter elements signature to nuclear fission nor fusion. The nuclear hypothesis has no firm standing.

    It may be postulated that any radiation readings that would indicate the nuclear hypothesis might be suppressed and hidden. Maybe. There a lot of maybes going around – but no matter how many maybes you stack up, all you have is a stack of maybes.

    Compare this stack of maybes to the forensic analysis of the signature characteristics of controlled explosive demolitions and it is overwhelming that they indicate such a sequenced explosive explosive event. So you have a forensic profile that fits beyond reasonable doubt.

    This must be kept in mind as we move on to analysis of the effects indicated in the aftermath, and rubble pile hot spots and proofs of molten metal in the basement levels. There remains the same problem of lack of radiation. The same applies to the corrosion of metals including cars post event.
    These have the signature of chemical causes as well. Every anomaly I have confronted has proven a dead end to my satisfaction.

    So as it stands, first an argument must be made as to how any other mechanism beside controlled sequenced explosive demolition can mimic all of the details evident in the destruction of the towers – these must explain the photographic and video evidence, the sonic recorded evidence, the witness testimonies and injury profiles of survivors. And these should already be well known to any serious researcher.

    I will end with the point that I have yet to find anything compelling in your counter argument to date, for DEW, or nuclear, or combinations thereof.

    I know you disagree. However I don’t want to hear simply that you disagree, and have to go through the same arguments over again. If you have something new – something of substance to offer, I would be glad to consider it. As it is, it has been ‘reassertion’. Reassertion against reassertion is known as impasse. At that point all that is left between us is that we disagree. To do such over and again is a redundancy I refuse to partake in any longer.

    ww

    1. Let us be clear. A nuclear hypothesis includes publicly known nuclear weapons [whose radiation signatures don’t match the “published findings”], nuclear energy sources [to power other weapons], as well as exotic nuclear weapons [whose primary output isn’t “heat wave and blast wave” but electromagnetic energy at “useful frequencies” to be channeled & directed in “useful” ways, and therefore by design would produced vastly different radiation signatures.]

      Señor Rogue wrotes:

      You simply do not have the radiation signatures for your hypothesis [of the involvement of nuclear devices] to stand up. The tritium levels are inconsequential, and alone with no further proofs of nucleosynthesis; the detection of daughter elements signature to nuclear fission nor fusion. The nuclear hypothesis has no firm standing.

      Such a wonderful red herring you return to.

      Facts number 1 & 2. What radiation signatures were “measured” and “published” were not explained by your mechanisms of destruction nor were they explained adequately period.

      Fact number 3. The trend line was established by data points from the actions of other govt entities (EPA, NIST, FEMA, FAA, Military) regarding 9/11 that suggests their reports & statements cannot be trusted at face value. We do not know what was actually “measured”, if it was measured in a representative fashion, or that what was “published” was an honest analysis thereof.

      Fact number 4. Unlike other reports [from NIST] that clearly had purposeful skewing of their scope and easily spotted misleading statements by those versed in high school physics, the reports of nuclear findings were accepted without scrutiny even by those versed in nuclear physics (to whom the entire 9/11TM deferred judgement).

      Fact number 5. That same nuclear physicist is guilty of blatant omission and of allowing his discovery [super duper nano-thermite] to be extrapolated to explain aftermath features that it cannot.

      Fact number 5. Dog & pony shows are put on to cover over and distract, not to highlight.

      Compare this stack of maybes to the forensic analysis of the signature characteristics of controlled [chemical] explosive demolitions and it is overwhelming that they indicate such a sequenced explosive explosive event. So you have a forensic profile that fits beyond reasonable doubt.

      Such nice skew and nonsense, Señor Rogue. But the facts remain that the “chemical causes” you promote cannot account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots [the math adds up to ginormous quantities of unspent materials leftover from the original decimation] nor for the radiation signatures. So even if “chemical causes” could produce the decimated towers and adjacent WTC buildings, we are still left with these two pieces of evidence in the aftermath for which we must continue looking for a source.

      Let me circle back to the pyroclastic flow that you claim contained hot nanothermitic particles that resulted in the torching of cars. I’ve already pointed out how selective this pyroclastic flow was that it would attack metal in vehicles and not leaves on trees, trees, paper, flags, humans, and vehicles around corners or not line-of-sight with the towers. But another major piece of evidence is that many windows on adjacent office buildings were broken that allowed this “pyroclastic flow with hot nanothermitic particles” to enter where they would have encountered lots more highly flamable items (compared to sheet metal in vehicles) in the form of upholstry, office paper, carpeting, etc.

      Draw a line from the car park at Vesey St. and West St. where cars were toasted to the closest tower. (Or draw another one from the intersection of West Broadway and the cross street where the last car thereon was toasted to the closest tower.) This line represents a radius, and it just so happens that WFC-1, WFC-2, WFC-3, Bankers Trust, Millennium Hotel, etc. were all within the radius of a “pyroclastic flow with hot nanothermitic particles”, had broken windows through which the “pyroclastic flow with hot nanothermitic particles” would (and did) enter, yet had no how office fires as far as I know. We don’t even know if they triggered sprinklers. WTC-7 had its sprinkler system taken out of commission.

      This [forensic profile of chemical explosives] must be kept in mind as we move on to analysis of the effects indicated in the aftermath, and rubble pile hot spots and proofs of molten metal in the basement levels. There remains the same problem of lack of radiation. The same applies to the corrosion of metals including cars post event. These have the signature of chemical causes as well.

      You can’t say there was a lack of radiation, because there was a lack of reporting on the radiation and the EPA already proved itself capable of downplaying the toxicity of the dust. Moreover, 1st responder ailments mirroring that of Hiroshima survivors suggests otherwise.

      The corrosion of metals in the cars was due to having their paint and other protective coatings burned off followed by rain. Rust is the natural byproduct.

      You probably wrote imprecisely, but some readers could misconstrue that the cars had a problem of lack of radiation. Of course they would, even if a nuke were used, because the cause of their damage would have been electromagnetic energy, not radiation.

      Every anomaly I have confronted has proven a dead end to my satisfaction

      Except for the anomaly that radiation was measured at all, and they produced a dog & pony show to downplay it and minimize it (and that you continue to produce).

      To the satisifaction of a former boy genius in the field of art?

      I studied engineering, and to my satisfaction too many anomalies haven’t been addressed or have been addressed poorly as you continue to do.

      I will end with the point that I have yet to find anything compelling in your counter argument to date, for DEW, or nuclear, or combinations thereof.

      What page are you on in Dr. Wood’s book?

      Its purpose isn’t to provide definitive statements on what caused the destruction, but to present evidence and to open thinking into other destructive mechanisms.

      Here’s some additional information that should be considered a seed:
      Project Excalibur
      X-Ray Laser

      I’m not saying that X-Ray lasers did 9/11. I’m saying that we have to look at where the research and thinking were (e.g., 1977 before Star Wars and SDI) and contemplate where research was heading and where it might have gotten to in 20 years by 2001. We have to think out of the box. What is important about this X-Ray laser box is that the nuclear device was not intended to destroy missiles with a nuclear blast or nuclear heat wave or nuclear EMP; it would destroy missiles by channeling & targeting electromagnetic energy (X-rays) from the nuclear detonation.

      If you adjust the requirement of a nuclear component from being a destructive source to being an energy source for some other destructive mechanism, it changes the dynamics; hell, it changes the radiation signature.

      We both are open to a larger conspiracy with very deep pockets and a vast arsenal of destructive devices, many of which are not public knowledge except that Star Wars -> Strategic Defense Initiative -> National Missile Defense was not a job creation program for the overly educated with no expectation to produce useful weapons for the DoD.

      Why are you artificially limiting yourself to “chemical explosives”?

      From the deep pockets and deep arsenal perspective, it does not make logistics sense to go primarily with those chemical mechanisms of destruction. The quantities would be massive just to decimate the towers, but the hot-spots duration would indicate massively ginorous unspent quantities were present. They weren’t present in such quantities, and this is what the high school math sheds light on.

      And the radiation signatures — whether we put full faith into the actual numbers of the published reports or zero faith — is a major frigging clue that something else from the arsensal was at play.

      Combine this with everything else — security at the WTC, the line-of-sight vehicle damage, 1st responder ailments, etc. — and quite frankly, you give up too early. You too easily find “concensus” in lesser theories that blatantly ignore major swaths of evidence or inadequately explain them.

      In fact, your entire tenure on Truth & Shadows spanning half a year has been a jihad to take such “thinking outside the box” off of the table where it had found ground in my postings.

      I’ll spare you further “foaming at the mouth hot sauce from my bleeding frustrations and the bleating ululations of my hot boiling imagination” into your agenthood.

      1. Excellent Señor el Verbosogrande,

        I certainly expected nothing ‘less’ from you.

        I point to the forensic analysis of the signature characteristics of controlled explosive demolitions and it is overwhelming that they indicate such a sequenced explosive event. So you have a forensic profile that fits beyond reasonable doubt.

        But you take another dance through the rubble pile.

        Again, it is FIRST up to you to explain how any other mechanism can mimic the EXACT characteristics of sequential controlled explosive demolition.

        ww

      2. Señor,

        The following is a paragraph from a post on the next thread to Fetzer. I repost it here as it applies to you as well:

        It is too late for caveats or excuses from Fetzer as to the challenge I’ve put at the end of this thread, because he obviously has no idea as to what the brisance is for these sol-gel mixtures, because he can have no idea of their formulations. Nor can he have any idea of what their applications might be, whether as detonators for a thermobaric aerosol, as cutter charges, as plasma torches, etc.

        ww

      3. Dearest Señor Rogue,

        Your two postings to my one separated by less than twenty-five minutes might be representative of your “foaming at the mouth hot sauce from your bleeding frustrations and the bleating ululations of your hot boiling imagination”. At the very least, it gives me the opportunity to respond.

        You write:

        I point to the forensic analysis of the signature characteristics of controlled explosive demolitions and it is overwhelming that they indicate such a sequenced explosive event. So you have a forensic profile that fits beyond reasonable doubt.

        Only if you ignore the evidence of radiation, the under rubble hot-spots, the 1st responder ailments mirroring Nagasaki, etc.

        Or maybe “ignore” is too strong a verb.

        For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that lots of different mechanisms of destruction were used. As such, a case could be made as you do for the signature characteristics of controlled explosive demolitions.

        Fine. But you can’t stop there.

        Now account for the the evidence of radiation, the under rubble hot-spots, the 1st responder ailments mirroring Nagasaki, line-of-sight damage to vehicles, etc.

        Why is there a nuclear signature at all (assuming we trust what was reported)?

        What could have been its source?

        What purpose would it have served and what did it accomplish?

        If we have reason to doubt the validity of the nuclear signature (and we do), then which direction does it most likely error? How thorough and deep was the nuclear cover-up?

        You challenge me with:

        Again, it is FIRST up to you to explain how any other mechanism can mimic the EXACT characteristics of sequential controlled explosive demolition.

        Except that “the EXACT characteristics of sequential controlled explosive demolition” does not leave a nuclear signature of any kind. It can also not burn under the rubble for many weeks. It doesn’t require nuclear hazmat procedures.

        Maybe when you have finished Dr. Wood’s textbook, you will have your own theories in the matter.

      4. Señor El Once,

        I point to the forensic analysis of the signature characteristics of controlled explosive demolitions and it is overwhelming that they indicate such a sequenced explosive event. So you have a forensic profile that fits beyond reasonable doubt.

        To which you respond:

        “Only if you ignore the evidence of radiation, the under rubble hot-spots, the 1st responder ailments mirroring Nagasaki, etc.” — AGAIN.

        Let me clarify for you specifically ONE MORE TIME;

        FIRST, we must speak to the signature characteristics of the of the explosions of the towers themselves. You aren’t getting this because you can not seem to parse that there is an event, and there is an aftermath. Yes, one is the result of the other, and both must be understood in themselves and in the relation of cause and effect.

        EVENT — AFTERMATH.

        However, there are no signature effects in the actual event that indicate anything other than chemical explosive demolition.

        Why can’t you get this Señor? How many ways can I say this? There are ZERO nuclear characteristics to the event itself. There are countless signature characteristics of a sequenced blast scenario.

        SECOND, the aftermath: “the 1st responder ailments mirroring Nagasaki,” — they do not. They are indicative of exposures to highly toxic materials, such as asbestos, toxic dust fully profiled and NONRADIOACTIVE. The tritium readings are from water and air samples.

        Then you claim: “nuclear hazmat procedures” – In what is there evidence that these were in anyway connected to “nuclear”? Hazmat is applied to ‘Biological’ , ‘Chemical’ hazards as well as, Nuclear hazards.

        You ask:

        “Why is there a nuclear signature at all (assuming we trust what was reported)?
        What could have been its source?”

        There is one nuclear signature verified – tritium. It is inconsequential. It can be explained as is in the USGS report. It can also be explained as to leaching into the watertable from landfills, where regardless of laws against it, there are thousands of computers and other devices containing tritium.

        At any rate, the weakness of your argument lies in the inability to put a nuclear signature to the ACTUAL EVENT, which has countless signature characteristics of a sequenced blast scenario.
        There is physical evidence of thermitic material in the dust.

        [Read my further arguments to Fetzer on the next thread over]

        ww

      5. Señor Agent Rogue wrote:

        There are ZERO nuclear characteristics to the event itself.

        Not true. The cascading pulverization of content could be pretty indicative of that. Specially tweaked nukes don’t have to give off the tell-tale signatures of conventional nukes in the same manner (flash, bang, EMP, heat wave, blast wave, alpha radiation, beta radiation, gamma radiation, X-ray radiation, etc.) Unconventional nukes whose primary output is electromagnetic energy that is DEW targeted (like the X-Ray laser intended to take out missiles). An amped up microwave. It could turn residual water molecules in content into steam whose expanding volume pressure blew content apart.

        The issue with your chemical explosives is that they BURN. Why so little flaming falling debris? In fact, therein lies a major piece of evidence from Dr. Wood’s textbook. When you study images and videos of the destruction of the towers, you see pieces falling that seem to have smoke trails. Is it just smoke? Or is it primarily dust and steam? How did your chemical materials get materials turned to smoke without flames or red-hot metal? Why didn’t burning particles from your plastmastic flow clouds ignite many office fires in adjacent buildings, yet at the persistence to attack metal in cars to make them pop-off?

        Señor Rogue wrote:

        SECOND, the aftermath: “the 1st responder ailments mirroring Nagasaki,” — they do not.

        They do. Stop acting like a know-it-all. Do your homework. Look into what can cause teeth to fall out.

        On the Issue of Nuclear Demolition of the WTC and Radiation, from “Anonymous Physicist”

        It later became known that they found high levels of (asbestos, mercury and other) toxins shortly after 9/11, and yet told the world, and the responders, that “the “air was safe.” They lied, for quite some time, about what they had found in this sense. Now if the EPA tested for, and found, significant radiation, and/or radionuclides, and failed to tell the responders this; it resulted in the responders not wearing radiation-shielding, protective clothing. This would then likely lead to cancer and other illnesses. I note that there has been cancers, in 9/11 responders, and people living nearby; and asbestos is known to usually take far longer for its victims to get cancer. Could these cancers be the result of radiation? Cancer can be caused by even the very lowest levels of radiation. The father of the field of health physics, Dr. Karl Ziegler Morgan, has so stated.

        In a similar vein, is anyone foolish enough to trust a certain physicist’s alleged data on his tests of a single steel beam and a friend’s apartment? This is the same physicist whose alleged data shot down the whole field of cold fusion? … When this same physicist tries to shoot down the fact that mini-nukes were used to demolish the twin towers, he rightly knows that he has to address the issue of the evidence of EMPs (Electromagnetic Pulses). But he barely mentions it, and simply says that other factors could have caused the power outages. No mention of the toasted cars–and not people or paper right next to them. See Ondrovic’s statements already alluded to by me. Read how she was knocked down by the car door right next to her overheating from the EMP and exploding off the car and hitting her. … That physicist knows well that there is no other explanation for these events, except EMP, so he does not include this evidence of the toasted cars or Ondrovic’ eyewitness (heavily redacted) testimony. … When he mentions the high temperatures and molten steel, at the WTC, he bogusly writes about this as if this occurred only during the demolition or just shortly thereafter. He ignores (as he must) the fact that flowing molten steel, and extremely high temperatures were found days, weeks and months after 9/11. Does anyone believe his beloved, bogus thermite was still generating massive heat days, weeks and months later? Any heat generated by thermite would have been gone minutes or hours after the event.

        Also regarding the radiation issue, in this abstract of an article, a scientist, in 1969, published the following, “Nuclear device characteristics and the factors affecting radionuclide production and distribution are described along with some recent nuclear experiments conducted by the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission for the purpose of providing technical data on cratering mechanisms and special emplacement techniques which could minimize the release of radioactivity to the atmosphere.” This shows, even back in 1969, that the govt experimented with using nukes to construct canals. It shows that they worked on having nukes with blast effect, and little or no radioactive elements created. The article’s abstract hints at two methods for obviating atmospheric release of radioactivity. 1. Steering the device towards low radionuclide production and 2. “special emplacement techniques” which means place it where you won’t get much or any radiation released into the air. As this was back in 1969, they likely have perfected very low (or no) radiation nukes. There should be better, more recent articles on this topic, but I didn’t find any so far. Maybe I know why?! Could it be because they perfected this, and classified this, as they knew they would be using this on the “home front,” such as on 9/11? Could small nukes to be used for “construction,” have morphed into nukes used for “destruction?”

        Regarding 9/11, never forget that whatever radionuclides may have been created were sent to China, or otherwise were not allowed to be studied. This remarkable article states that before the steel was shipped to China, it was “first sent to be washed down”— a standard method of decreasing radiation levels! … The same demolition expert said of the 1993 nuke— after he examined the basement of that tower: “The particular type of construction type micronuclear device is mostly radiologically clean.” So, as I indicated in my WTC nuclear demolition article, recent nuclear devices can be designed to be “steered” towards blast capability, and away from any (significant) radiation release.

        For completeness, I note that if there was significant radioactivity released, some such elements have short lives both in terms of time and distance. Few, if any “citizens” right there had Geiger counters, most of which have serious limitations. These nukes went off basically inside steel boxes. The government’s own study found significant levels of tritium (a signature of a fusion device, and according to Tahil, if he is honest, even end-products of fission were found). But the govt study notes that they were “unable” to test at numerous places— but especially deep underground, which was where the high temperatures and molten steel were observed! Of course, there is the possibility (since this is the govt), that they did test at these places, and discarded anything that would have proved the case for mini-nukes. With other government “investigations,” whistle-blowers have revealed that often there is much evidence, but it is eliminated.

        Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia, a WTC responder, rescue worker, counselor, and FEMA consultant has made many remarkable statements related to the nuking of the WTC.

        They would tackle you and take your camera away. … When we first got there, we were told where we could go and where we couldn’t go. There were different places that you were not to go to. One of the things you were not to go to and they claimed it was for safety was down in the garages, the parking garages. They were very flooded. There were a lot of problems like that. All the apartments around there were all sealed off. A lot of things were very much sealed off. … The rescue people – when our clothes got so contaminated, we were told not to bring our clothes off that site. Don’t wear anything on the site you’re not prepared to leave there because it’s contaminated. … My teeth are falling out. … If you spoke to civilians, you actually were reprimanded by not being allowed to go back to the pile per hour, per occurrence. So if you talked to four people, they wouldn’t say anything to you on the pile. But when you got back, to come back and got ready at the Port Authority, got showered, dressed and ready to return, they’d say, “Tartaglia, you have to hold up a second, we need to talk to you for a second.” And then you would have nonsensical conversations for two or three hours. [AJ: AJ: Now we know that by day two, they arrested anybody with cameras. They said no over-flights, no cameras.] First of all they didn’t take cameras away from everybody. They took them away from people they couldn’t control. … Most everybody has chronic sinusitis. They have ringing in the ears. Some people’s teeth and gums are bothering them. In the last year, I’ve lost seven teeth. They have just broken while I was eating. I have three or four more teeth that are just dying. And my dentist says, “I’ve never seen anything like this in someone who’s healthy. There is something wrong with you but I cannot find what it is. And I can’t stop it either.” … The doctor said to me, I have – 97% of the population in American breathes more efficiently than I do. And that most of the people who are in that 3% are the people from Ground Zero. It’s this debilitating, death-bed type of lung problems.

        Did NYC Residents’ Geiger Counters Prove the Case? And then did NYC Criminalize Geiger Counters?

        Data on radiation taken at the WTC—with the exception of elevated tritium levels (which does arise from fission bombs)—has been tightly controlled by FEMA. Few responders had access to the deep underground regions that likely had the highest radiation readings.

        But then I have also detailed some strange happenings in NYC concerning a proposed law to ban private NYC residents from owning Geiger Counters. Owning a Geiger Counter was to become a misdemeanor.

        The alleged reason for this proposed foul legislation is that they claim many NYC residents had Geiger Counters that gave [allegedly] false positive readings! And then that local or more likely co-conspirating federal agencies (such as FEMA) spent a lot of money tracking things down and concluding the readings were false. [Naturally.] I note that calibrating Geiger Counters properly is not a difficult thing for the manufacturers of these devises to do.

        The legislation before the City Council was said to have been requested by Mayor Bloomberg, and done in conjunction with the Dept. of Homeland Security. (AKA the Gestapo.) Some researchers have detailed that the City Councilmen spearheading the effort are members of the CFR.

        The City leaders were saying that the police were spending too much time and money on all the residents who claimed either Geiger counters or toxin detectors had yielded positive results. As the NYPD is not likely to have been set up to do such detection, I am sure they would have called in federal agencies, such as the EPA and FEMA. The EPA, you can recall lied to the people and said there was nothing toxic released from WTC destruction in the days and weeks after 9/11/01. While the EPA, FEMA, DHS, etc will never release any true radiation readings, they may have taken at the WTC or nearby later on, some NYC residents know the awful truth.

        RADIATION CANCERS KILL 345 SO FAR (April 4, 2011)

        Firefighters who recovered bodies at Ground Zero are developing cancer at a faster rate than those who worked before the atrocity, medical officials have revealed.

        A seven-year study by the New York Fire Department has claimed that there are ‘unusual rises’ in the number of cancer cases among firefighters who worked in the aftermath of 9/11.

        Some types of cancer among 9/11 firefighters are even ‘bizarrely off the charts’, according to sources who have seen the as-yet-undisclosed federal-funded study.

        Dr. David Prezant, the Fire Department’s chief medical officer, has reportedly said that cancer cases across ‘all ranks’ of the FDNY who worked at Ground Zero are ‘up significantly’.

        From Thomas Pynchon: “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.”

        Then you claim: “nuclear hazmat procedures”

        Yep. They carted in fresh dirt, spread it around, let it absorb radiation, then scooped it together, and carted it off.

        Yep. They put copious amounts of water on hot-spots, yet still they burned. They washed steel with water before shipping to China.

        Here is how you wave-off the nuclear signatures:

        There is one nuclear signature verified – tritium. It is inconsequential. It can be explained as is in the USGS report. It can also be explained as to leaching into the watertable from landfills, where regardless of laws against it, there are thousands of computers and other devices containing tritium.

        Prove that the USGS report explains it.

        Contrary to your assignment to steer this forum, the tritium nuclear signature was not inconsequential. It necessitated a dog & pony show of a report to discuss it and re-frame trace levels to be 55 times greater than it should have been. It necessitated a dog & pony show of a report from Dr. Jones for more skewing away from any considerations into anything nuclear.

        The Final Word on The Tritium

        “Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center” by T.M. Semkow, et al. It was published at the 223rd American Chemical Society National Meeting, Orlando, FL, April 7-11, 2002. The article states that “This work was performed under the auspices of the United States Department of Energy by the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48.” (Note that this is the same lab that allegedly can create “super nano-composite thermite” that yields “unextinguishable fires,” and thus new laws of chemistry and physics as well as the first equivalent perpetual motion mechanism. [If only.] It’s also the same lab that is remasterminding Kennedy Assassination audio tapes. …)

        It should be noted that this paper contains several bogus and ludicrous attempts to account for the tritium at the WTC on 9/13. Mostly they allege that the tritium came from exit signs on the planes that “crashed into the towers.” The paper also alleges that tritium was in the sightings on the guns of police officers killed that day.

        The regime can and does refuse to release anything damning. So why did they release any data showing tritium at all, when they could have kept this under wraps, as I am sure FEMA is doing with WTC radiation readings? One possible answer is that it would provide a ruse for others to later claim the mythical 4th generation pure fusion bomb was used– thus obviating what was there in NYC for 6 months– the China Syndrome.

        the China Syndrome of great heat GENERATION from the remnants of the many fission bombs, as each used only about 1-6% of its fissile material. That is, pure fusion does not allow for the China Syndrome as any remnants of pure fusion components (such as deuterium or tritium) do not allow for this– only Uranium or Plutonium fissioning can. Note that a fission-triggered fusion bomb could still allow for the China Syndrome. Only the pure fusion scenario does not. So it is curious that the Finn immediately went with pure fusion, and not with the possibility of fission-triggered fusion. And the Finn based this on the tritium finding, and either did not know about, or chose to ignore, all the evidence of massive heat generation at the WTC for 6 months, and also the following matter.

        Now most fission reactions of Uranium or Plutonium are binary– they yield TWO large “daughter elements” (e.g., Barium and Krypton, or Strontium and Xenon), plus 2-3 neutrons, plus energy in the form of gamma rays. But since 1959, it has been publicly known, via this article, that ternary fission yields TRITIUM, along with its THREE daughter elements, plus the excess neutrons, and energy. And thus with the numerous fission bombs that were detonated, and with the additional possible factors of redundancy and fratriciding that my articles have detailed, we can arrive at perhaps the most likely source of tritium in the rubble– the fission nukes themselves. I have seen estimates for the percentage of tritium production from ternary fission ranging from 1% down to .005%. (There is the possibility of deliberate disinformation, in some matters of nuclear physics, so one cannot often trust public nuclear physics discussions.) Because of this, and not knowing what element(s) were fissioned, nor how much of each, it is impossible to know just how much tritium could have been produced by ternary fission in the numerous micro-nukes used to destroy the WTC. But it appears to be more than would occur from non-existent planes, or gun sightings; and the proven heat generation of the China Syndrome Aftermath belies the use of a mythical 4th generation pure fusion device.

        The most likely type of nuclear bombs used, was the type that could be made the smallest, and was the simplest, and most proven/dependable (compared to the others). This was the “good old” pure fission form of nuclear bombs. As I have shown, they’re even backpackable. And in the final analysis– given ternary fission– there never was any basis for claiming that the nuke(s) used at the WTC had to be 4th generation pure fusion, nor even that there was any fusion at all at the WTC. …

        So any tritium found on 9/13/01 at the WTC, was most likely from ternary fission, not fusion. But if you want one more, perhaps crucial, plausibility argument, here it is. Fusion bombs have a history of having a yield larger than expected. And the perps strenuously wanted NOT to blow through the building in an obvious nuclear manner. A nuke having a yield larger than needed could not be risked. This would have been visible to thousands, perhaps millions; and such knowledge would have been difficult to contain. (Whereas radiation findings were controlled by FEMA, and the Gestapo regime need only scream “national security” to prevent release of such data– including the tritium paper, if it had wanted to.) I have emphasized the need not to blow through the building in an obvious nuclear way, since my very first article herein. This is one reason why some conventional explosives may have been used during the destruction scenario, as I have also written.

        What the nukes were mainly for, in my estimation, was to vaporize INSTANTLY, and definitively, the necessary core structure for the TOWERS’ ENSUING RAPID, APPROXIMATE, FREEFALL RATE OF COLLAPSE! The PTB apparently intended to later push the impossible “gravitational pancaking” ruse, even though it violates numerous laws of Physics, and we can see the outer structure being exploded outward, by the overpressure within. (You can compare what happens during an actual gravitational collapse by seeing this.) The PTB clearly wanted to shove a physically impossible, evidence-opposing destruction “mechanism” down the throats of the masses. They know what it does to many peoples’ psyches. It induces denial, fear, schizoid behavior, and hopelessness– all good for the coming endless wars, and destruction of the American Constitution. Putting out a physically impossible and evidence-opposing “mechanism” for WTC destruction jibes with other events perpetrated by the American regime. With the American regime’s assassination of the Peace President, John Kennedy, the “official” scenario is that the fatal head shot was fired from behind, even though Kennedy’s body is slammed violently straight back–from the shot fired, from the front, by his Secret Service “protector”/driver. The ludicrous shot from behind violates the simple Law of Conservation of Momentum. As I have written, the WTC bogus scenario entails “pristine pancaking”– violating Newton’s Laws of Motion. Similarly the JFK Assassination had (future) Senator Specter’s “pristine bullet” that smashed into 5 bones, made turns on its own, hung out for 2 seconds and looked virtually like new– and violated the Momentum Conservation Law. The PTB want to put out these impossible “mechanisms” to dumb down, shock, or paralyze the people. Most people go into denial, and do not want to think about it, because their subconciousnesses know what is really involved. Those who can think and see, and have combatted the denial, are then further confounded with other limited hangouts put out by the Gestapo Regime’s hidden intel agents posing as “leaders” of the “truth movement.” These WTC hangouts included the evidence-free inanity of DEW, and the “thermite burns forever” impossibility. Both are easily demonstrated to be physically impossible to have caused the WTC destruction, and the CSA. All the regime’s hidden assets earlier inserted at the top of the “alternative” or conspiracy internet media, were then instructed to push these hangouts and avoid mention of the nuking and the China Syndrome Aftermath.

        Returning now to the fission vs. fusion issue. Blowing through the outer structure of the building with unnecessary fusion–either as the hypothetical pure fusion, or as a fission-fusion bomb– could not be risked, when pure fission micro-nukes were readily available. Fission nukes have a more “guaranteed” upper bound on their yields, and are more dependable as well, compared to either the alleged pure fusion or the fission-fusion bomb. In the final analysis, the release of the tritium data may have been a clever Intel Op to try to hide the China Syndrome Aftermath, and its nuclear fission cause. If there was tritium at the WTC, its most likely source was ternary fission.

      6. Señor El Once says:
        June 25, 2012 at 3:53 pm

        [To: “Señor Agent Rogue” — That’s it Once, I’ve had it with your shit. Don’t address me again.]

        First off Señor, Don’t you dare write me anymore books as a “comment” – I guarantee you I will totally ignore them.

        “Not true. The cascading pulverization of content could be pretty indicative of that. Specially tweaked nukes don’t have to give off the tell-tale signatures of conventional nukes in the same manner”~Señor

        >Prove this ‘tweaked nuke proposition.

        “you see pieces falling that seem to have smoke trails. Is it just smoke? Or is it primarily dust and steam?”~Señor

        >Primarily dust – I seem to recall there was quite a bit generated in this event.

        “Why didn’t burning particles from your plastmastic flow clouds ignite many office fires in adjacent buildings…”~Señor

        >Surely you jest? The adjacent buildings ended up burnt out, blasted out, and crushed husks.

        “The issue with your chemical explosives is that they BURN. Why so little flaming falling debris? ”
        ~Señor

        >If you would spend some time reading about sol-gel technology you would understand that the control of ‘burn’ can be adjusted in the mixture, cutting down incendiary effect and expanding pressure and brisance.

        “could these cancers be the result of radiation?”~Señor

        >A question is not an answer. As your quote reads it was found the EPA lied about the toxicity of the dust. There is nothing but supposition to the rest of it.

        “This shows, even back in 1969, that the govt experimented with using nukes to construct canals…. As this was back in 1969, they likely have perfected very low (or no) radiation nukes. There should be better, more recent articles on this topic, but I didn’t find any so far. Maybe I know why?!”~Señor

        >Señor, I don’t mind your speculating. Go ahead, but don’t use this empty bag as an argument to me. I have had enough of this. All of the “maybe maybe maybe”.
        And then you are going to complain that I won’t “engage” you in this argument…well that’s because you are grasping at straws to mix with your bullshit to make cook bricks with your hot-salsa dragon breath.

        ww

      7. I am amazed at how your super high intellect & exceptional computer skills still hasn’t figured out how to use <blockquote> to make postings more readable.

        If you are going to use the > symbol to flag someone’s writing, it should mark the person you are responding to (like email programs do), not the new text you are writing.

        And what is with your attributing to me words that I did not write?

        See more at June 26, 2012 at 11:25 am

  85. What in the world are you guys (TM and HR) talking about and how does it relate to the Vancouver hearings? I am just curious because I don’t follow what you are talking about at all. Perhaps I am just dense.

    1. Hi Mr. Ruff,

      TM wanted to ruminate on his conceptualizations of ‘The Magical Mystery Tour’ of human existence.

      It in fact has no practical relation to the Vancouver hearings. TM hasn’t the epistemic ability to differentiate between the bardos, or plains of the structures of thinking. Thus his theological template is applied in a haphazard manner over issues on which there is no practical application.

      My reply to Ms. Simpson was obviously simply a playful post – a jest, a gentle ridicule.

      “What does it all mean?” As Mr. Natural would answer, “It don’t mean sheet.”

      But I would point out, there are many techniques used to fragment and dilute a thread of commentary, and Tamborine, has his own special version of application, akin to those of Onebornfree and our new ‘Remote Viewing’ troll. Hand waving distractions.

      The continuing dilemma in this is the problem of whether or not to ‘feed the trolls’. If you don’t engage them, is this an indication that they are to be taken seriously? If you do engage them and point out their game is ludicrous, is that “taking them seriously”? I suppose these things can only be taken one blip at a time. There seems no constant to the equation.

      ww

  86. Ok HR thanks for the reply, I appreciate what you do here and I do read along. When I came across these posts that were basically flights of fancy wrapped in pseudo scientific, quasi spiritual, jargon that amounted to little more then incoherent babbling I was a bit irritated. Irritated that I spent my time reading and trying to make sense of them only to discover that I couldn’t AND to my dismay they had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic.

    1. Well Adam,

      We seem to be swamped in distracting woowoo critters, not only at the end of this thread, but the next one over, where the belfry boys have flown in on their leathery wings…Lol

      Irritated? Yes perhaps a bit light on the agitation scale. I would posit that someone wants to obscure the final decisive whack to a certain 9/11 “scholar” and he has sent a swarm of Ringwraiths to do the obscuring. We seem to have entered Middle Earth there…

      ww

    2. Hi ruffadams,

      You write:

      What in the world are you guys (TM and HR) talking about and how does it relate to the Vancouver hearings? I am just curious because I don’t follow what you are talking about at all. Perhaps I am just sense!

      And next:

      Ok HR thanks for the reply, I appreciate what you do here and I do read along. When I came across these posts that were basically flights of fancy wrapped in pseudo scientific, quasi spiritual, jargon that amounted to little more then incoherent babbling I was a bit irritated. Irritated that I spent my time reading and trying to make sense of them only to discover that I couldn’t AND to my dismay they had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic.

      Well, thank you very much for revealing your true self to all of us – in these two small posts.

      Thank you for letting us know how “superior” you think yourself to be, and thank you for thinking that all people participating in this blog (bar a few ‘unmentionables’ of course), are complete idiots. Thanks again for that.

      OK. To be honest, the reason why you cannot comprehend what this is all about, is simply because you seemingly cannot read between the lines. You cannot “see” that there are people here who ‘behave’ in exactly the same way as certain people behaved in the old city of Athens. In those days they were called ‘sophists’. In those days they roamed the streets, and the ‘squares’, and made life there not only unbearable and intolerable to the poor citizens, but to such an extent, that the citizens eventually found no other way than ask them to leave the city; or to be more precise: they did what they did in those good old days, which were to thrown them out, the lot of them, out through the city gates, and asked them never ever to return!

      These same people are now, in this day and age, making an asshole of themselves all over the net, and the time has again arrived to expose the lot of them.

      How they can be recognized is simply by this, that since those days they have hardly advanced at all. They still try to apply their old dirty tricks.
      But why they think that conceit, arrogance, self-satisfaction and self-admiration is a ‘good’ thing, and why it will win the day, is beyond the comprehension of the vast majority participating on this blog!

      Times has changed since then, and most people are now much more astute.
      You, dear ruffadams, judging from the above, seems to lack this extra power of perception, but hopefully you just need a bit of reminding!

      I’m been called away right now (forgot about the damn time!), but am still sending this, and will continue tomorrow …….

      Cheers

      1. Tamborine man says:

        “…and will continue tomorrow …….”

        Please spare us Tamborine, you have spewed quite enough jabberwacky to distract from the issues this thread is supposedly to do with. You are such a bore.

        ww

      2. TM,

        I now have even less of an idea what the hell you are talking about then I did previously. If you have a point to make I can not for the life of me see what it is. I know this much though, it has nothing to do with the topic I came here to read about. I can see you don’t like me much but your thoughts go in incredibly confusing circles and I cannot make sense of them at all. I don’t want to try and make sense of what you say TM. I want to come here and read thoughts about the topic that I don’t need to decrypt using some new language I don’t know. I will not be back to read any more from you TM and all future posts from you will be ignored. Sorry but I don’t have the patience to do the mental gymnastics required in order to understand you. I recommend for the sake of others that you talk about the subject or do us all a favor and don’t say anything.

      3. Adam,

        TM is saying the dumbfux Athenians were right to condemn Socrates to death for bugging them about being dumbfux. Which I spoze makes sense to other dumbfux.

        And it takes a LOTTA power of perception to be a dumbfux these daze. Got it?

        ww

    3. Adam,

      I wanted to say that I acknowledge your appreciation, and I am sorry for not doing so earlier in my haste to make other arguments on the board here. It is always good to know that others are engaged and following closely enough to have such an appreciation. Thank you.

      ww

  87. Checkmate Señor:

    You say:
    “I do not believe Dr. Wood has made a sufficient case for missing steel, gone missing via dustification or vaporization. The energy requirements for such would have been massive. Dustification of concrete is another matter and also requires lots of energy, but not as much as zapping steel would.” Señor El Once – June 13, 2012 at 4:17 pm

    Señor, You have dismissed Wood’s central thesis of total dustification of the Towers, which includes the steel.

    Now, you can refine your own hypothesis, but this does not adjust her thesis.
    You may not now change the debate to one addressing the Señor Hypothesis, under the same auspices as a debate addressing the Wood Hypothesis.

    You have conceded to the argument in fact, without an ADMISSION as to per addressing Wood’s Thesis.

    I would have left this point unmentioned, but for the fact of your continual badgering with reference to “Agent Rogue”.

    I am serious Señor, do not expect any further replies from me.

    ww

    1. Dearest Señor Agent Rogue,

      You seem a little touchy, no? Could it be because the aged former boy-wonder genius artist does not like to be proven wrong? Does not like the thinking in his noggin opened up to consider both the validity of other concepts and the invalidity of concepts he holds dear?

      I am amazed at how your super high intellect & exceptional computer skills still hasn’t figured out how to use <blockquote> to make postings more readable.

      If you are going to use the > symbol to flag someone’s writing, it should mark the person you are responding to (like email programs do), not the new text you are writing.

      And what is with your attributing to me words that I did not write? Back to your old agent tricks of shoving words into my mouth? Pay more attention in my posting to the massive double-quote marks, the indentation of text, and the linked titles before such references that specify the source.

      Across two postings (June 25, 2012 at 5:12 pm & June 25, 2012 at 5:44 pm) not even 35 minutes apart you write in response to being addressed as “Señor Agent Rogue”:

      That’s it Once, I’ve had it with your shit. Don’t address me again. … I am serious Señor, do not expect any further replies from me.

      WooHoo!!! How could I be so lucky?!

      Okay, I won’t expect any further replies. And if it happens, we’ll just have to chalk it up to your inability to be a man of your word.

      I have my reasons for badgering you as Agent Rogue? The leading one is that your agenda on certain themes [e.g., nothing nuclear can be considered in a serious light] has become clear and doesn’t contain human aspects of doubt, uncertainty, reconsidering, … Quite the contrary, your persona becomes more rigid, close-minded, and unwilling to accept how new information should lead to modifications to or wafflings on previously held opinions.

      Your first take on new information in these themes is to attempt to dismiss them. As but one of your earlier examples from 2012-01-25:

      I wanted to comment on Judy Wood because I think it is important to sift the BS from the honest effort.

      No need for me to expound on how many months you went on-and-on in your book report without the benefit of having read the book. {Speaking of which, how is your good, bad, ugly chapter-by-chapter book review coming now that I’ve assured a copy got into your hands?}

      With your skinny black tie tight around your neck, your sunglasses on, and from deep inside your undisclosed DUMB site, after your first attempts at a wave-off involving “loony” labeling, your second attempt goes after those themes by reaching into dubious sources. Greg Jenkins, Frank Legge, and John Bursill are but a few examples of support players you’ve relied on. [They have nuggets of truth, for sure, but when you reached for them, you were positioning them as the final authority, as if you were 100% their fan with no CYA words of caution. Did your agency managers tell you what sources to use?]

      The most dubious game I’ve noticed you play when you suffered a loss in an early round is to come back and claim in round n: “Carousel! Merry-go-round! Roundabout! I have addressed this before and therefore on the weight of that dismiss this yet again!” When it fact you didn’t. Very clever.

      You played the game of doubting whether I had the scientific chops to question the work of Dr. Jones. I did, but you didn’t which your “boojie woojie high school chemistry” from the JFK/LBJ era repeatedly proved. I left you with the Spring Break assignment of contacting the good doctor yourself with the concerns I outlined. You never did. Instead you went to Frank Legge and threw up documents from Kevin Ryan.

      Tell me, Agent Rogue. To what do we owe your frequency of postings? You’ve done a lot of steering of this forum. I’ve enjoyed your writings in other areas, but you went a little bit overboard in establishing and maintaining your truther legend by the faux battles you’ve stoked with Señor A. Wright and Señor OneBornFree. A couple of rounds you get for free, but n rounds? Shit, you’re so quick to [promise to] throw in the towel with me — a damned duped useful idiot with valid points –, yet you are so eager to keep getting it on with them again and again?

      You’ve played a lot of not-so-friendly debate games with me, like putting words into my mouth (see above for the latest example), building strawmen, clever ad hominems, and even outright lies. I have been very tolerant by not FRAMING them as LIES but as oversights. But they have been adding add up. Here’s a short list to refresh your memory: nuclear fizzle, Dr. Jones logic errors in his no-nukes paper, the 55 factor increase to tritium trace levels, the evidence of radiation as well as the reports that document it, etc.

      Here’s another good example. I wrote across two different postings (June 24, 2012 at 1:46 pm and June 25, 2012 at 3:53 pm):

      WFC-1, WFC-2, WFC-3, Bankers Trust, Millennium Hotel, etc. were all within the radius of a “pyroclastic flow with hot nanothermitic particles”, had broken windows through which the “pyroclastic flow with hot nanothermitic particles” would (and did) enter, yet had no office fires as far as I know.

      Why didn’t burning particles from your plastmastic flow clouds ignite many office fires in adjacent buildings, yet had the persistence to attack metal in cars [within that radius] to make them pop-off?

      What does Agent Rogue respond with?

      Surely you jest? The adjacent buildings ended up burnt out, blasted out, and crushed husks.

      Ah, to my knowledge, WFC-1, WFC-2, WFC-3, Bankers Trust, Millennium Hotel, etc. had windows blown out and parts of their fascade impacted with energetically ejected beams and external wall sections from the towers, but none of them “ended up burnt out, blasted out, and crushed husks.” They ended up dusty husks, for sure, but it was the very dust — according to you — that should have torched them like it torched cars. The dust didn’t, so maybe it didn’t torch the cars either and something more line-of-sight and electromagnetic did.

      The fact that a Tritium Report was written — let alone whether or not we can trust its contents — is a MASSIVE SMOKING GUN of nuclear hijinx on 9/11. The decade since 9/11 has seen govt institutions (EPA, NIST, FEMA, …) lying or misframing results or not doing their investigative job, which ought to be reason enough to revisit their reports on radiation and question their completeness and veracity. To further bolster this, I provided other seed articles into the theme.

      What does Agent Rogue do? His misattributes findings from these articles to me!

      Then “his quivering pointing finger wags as he bellows” an empty promise followed by an ad hominem:

      I have had enough of this. … You are grasping at straws to mix with your bullshit to make cook bricks with your hot-salsa dragon breath.

      With regards to the games Agent Rogue’s plays with his “Checkmate” posting:

      Señor, You have dismissed Wood’s central thesis of total dustification of the Towers, which includes the steel.

      Can you say: “Nuggets of Truth?”

      I’ve stated all along that I’ve been mining sources of (dis)information for nuggets of truth. I’ve got a track record of modifying my opinions based on new information and analysis that necessitated revisiting previously held positions. You and your agency agenda? Not so much.

      You act as if I held Dr. Judy Wood up as Mother Theresa and her textbook as the holy scriptures with your “checkmate” claim. Well, you can’t put me in checkmate, Agent Rogue, if you have been sitting in check yourself.

      When I put my money where my mouth was and purchased you your copy of Dr. Wood’s textbook, it was never about getting 100% acceptance of her work. It was always about nuggets of truth contained therein the must be saved.

      Were I to guess what disinformation purposes Dr. Wood was assigned when publishing her book (and website), it would have been to wrap together all evidence of 9/11 being a nuclear event (e.g., having nuclear sources involved and not limited to mini-nukes) and put a “Hutchison” spin on it and “free-energy from space”. A clue to this end is that she blatantly ignores the tritium report, downplays hot-spots, and when she mused about a potential energy source for DEW, she jumps to Teslian energy from space and/or Hurricane Erin.

      Yeah, well, my present bent is nuclear DEW as per Project Excalibur and X-Ray Laser with variations as per The Final Word on The Tritium.

      Whereas Agent Rogue is serious:

      I am serious Señor, do not expect any further replies from me.

      I am serious, too, and persistent, as truth doth require.

      25 Rules of Disinformation & 8 Traits of the Disinformationalist

      1. Avoidance
      2. Selectivity
      3. Coincidental
      4. Teamwork
      5. Anti-conspiratorial
      6. Artificial Emotions
      7. Inconsistent
      8. Time Constant

      Do I really harbor such views of Agent Rogue?

      For sure, I’m enjoying pushing his buttons with it. Get him out of his comfort zone.

      My desire is for Agent Rogue to reflect on his actions that could lead someone to such a conclusions of agency affiliation. Along those same lines and more importantly, he shouldn’t be throwing away nuggets of truth (evidence of nuclear activity) in his rabid support of Dr. Jones’ sol-gel super-duper nano-thermite, when this cannot explain: duration of under-rubble hot-spots, line-of-sight vehicle damage, the massive energy requirements, massive logistics, etc. For all his diversions into discussion about the real PTB and global agendas spanning centuries, then it is strange that the arsenals of the PTB aren’t given a closer look for (public and speculative) mechanisms of destruction that would have made the leveling of the entire WTC complex easier to carry out.

      I am serious Señor, do not expect any further replies from me.

      Yep, I’ll take that as victory. Better bow out now rather than suffer massive defeat to your “sol-gel super-duper nano-thermite” premise later.

      1. For those interested, here is the link to my June 13, 2012 at 4:17 pm comment on Dr. Wood referenced by Agent Rogue.

        This is yet another clue into the Rogue Agent. If his research was astute enough to figure out what I wrote about Dr. Wood on June 13, why did he forget the all important link particularly when it wasn’t in this thread?

        Just as importantly, why did he not post his reply there — a friggin’ Dr. Wood thread — where it might have been relevant?

        Why did he make a top-level posting in this thread?

        Given that he replied to that posting a scant 96 minutes later [where we also have to factor in moderation delays from Mr. McKee] with this June 13, 2012 at 5:50 pm posting, and then a few minutes after that with this June 13, 2012 at 6:04 pm posting… Well, why didn’t he bring up his (bogus) “checkmate” at that point in time under that thread?

        Because a blatant agent trick of Sr. Rogue is to mess up the comments sections to Truth & Shadows. Despite being an Autodidact Polymath with many years working artistic magic (presumably some of those years with computers) for “Disney, Universal Studios, Stan Winston Studios, and many others too numerous to mention”, Señor Rogue has the inconsistent traits of an agent in:

        – Not posting things where they belong. Too frequently, he would mess with the readability of an important thread by posting to the top-level, rather finding the appropriate “Reply” link that would put the posting next or close to where he was responding. This is a silly example of him completely missing the thread.

        – Not being able to figure out the HTML for <blockquote> to make his postings more readable when he quotes someone.

        – Not being able to link things.

        Here we have a rare instance of me making two postings in a row on a topic. With Agent Rogue, it has been a lot more common to the point of being overwhelming (e.g., flooding), which even full context of my June 13, 2012 at 4:17 pm posting brings to light.

        What does all of this agency suspicion mean for Truth & Shadows?

        I’m not saying he should be booted… NO, no, no!!! Better the devil that you know than the one you don’t. Agent Rogue writes well and makes many good points (when they aren’t dubious), which helps refine my own thinking and waffle-y position.

        If he could just act a little bit smarter with regards to the mechanics of how he posts (e.g., where, how frequently, using blog tools & HTML to its fullest) and act a little less like an agent (e.g., “lollipop dismissals”, games), why I’d be happy for his participation.

        Of course, I should “not expect any further replies from [Agent Rogue].” Something tells me I probably will.

      2. As long as I’m putting consecutive postings up to annoy subscribers of this thread — the last consecutive one, I promise –, statistics can be useful. With ~300 postings on this thread so far (including this one):

        Agent Rogue: 75 (25%)
        Craig McKee: 40 (13%)
        Señor El Once: 15 (5%)

        I leave it as an exercise for others to run the complete stats on this thread and on other threads. The trend-line will show since Agent Rogue’s debut here in early 2012 that his postings immediately started dominating over all other participants.

        I have to admit that it was both a shock to my ego and a relief when this started happening, because I was probably the most active participant on T&S until Agent Rogue’s output began consistently from thread-to-thread running over me and everyone else by a very wide margin.

        1. I have been considering imposing a limit, as suggested by Paul Zarembka. Believe it or not, the percentage of comments coming from Hybridrogue has gone down. At one point he had 38% of the last 1,000 comments. Now it’s around 33%. I would like to see it more in line with what others are contributing.

  88. Mr. McKee,

    You say:

    “I would like to see it more in line with what others are contributing.”

    While I would think that the quality of posts would have more bearing than quantity, I remain your guest here, and will follow whatever protocol you wish to establish.

    As is said, “your wish is my command.”

    ww

  89. Mr. suspected agent rogue is again making a total fool of himself by writing this inane drivel:

    TM is saying the dumbfux Athenians were right to condemn Socrates to death for bugging them about being dumbfux. Which I spoze makes sense to other dumbfux.
    And it takes a LOTTA power of perception to be a dumbfux these daze. Got it?

    Apart from the citizens of old Athens, both Socrates and Plato (as well as their many friends) not only detested the ‘sophists’ from a good heart, but also they found them all to be a complete pain in the ass.

    It was not the citizens who sentenced Socrates to drink the Hemlock, but around 350 members from the council of 500 it was, who came to this decision.
    Socrates was accused of “polluting” the minds of the young, by having the “audacity” teaching them to think for themselves!

    (In his then incarnation, in those days, mr. rogue could be found, not surprisingly, amongst these 350 members. Mr. rogue would of course have no recollection or memory of this today, but those willing and able to can obtain proof of this fact by a sincere and trusting address to the higher intelligences in the transcendental world).

    In the 2500 years gone since then, not one name pertaining to any ‘sophist’ from that era has ‘survived’, whereas the names of Socrates and Plato are growing stronger and stronger in step with mankind slowly progressing and evolving further. More and more people are waking up to the realization, that these two dear chaps were far ahead of their time!

    Craig McKee has a quote from Plato on his front page which is rather worth repeating here, as it obviously applies to people like mr. “dumbfux” rogue, and his ilk:

    ‘Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood let alone believed by the masses. – Plato’

    Cheers

  90. ruffadam wrote:

    TM,

    ‘I now have even less of an idea what the hell you are talking about then I did previously. If you have a point to make I can not for the life of me see what it is. I know this much though, it has nothing to do with the topic I came here to read about.’

    Well you must have missed my post to Rob Balsamo June 20, 2012 @ 10:53 pm. Where “the point” was first made.
    This was expanded upon in post June 21, 2012 @ 1:28 am, where i was referring to the final and irrevocable proof, that once and for all time will prove conclusively and totally beyond doubt, that all human beings survive ‘death’.
    This of course will have immense ramifications worldwide to how human beings conduct themselves in the future, and will naturally also have a great impact on our present ‘attitudes’ concerning 9/11!

    ‘I can see you don’t like me much but your thoughts go in incredibly confusing circles and I cannot make sense of them at all. I don’t want to try and make sense of what you say TM.’

    “I don’t like you much”, you say!! Who says that? Actually i don’t mind you at all, to be honest! What I’m against, is people who run with a half wind commenting about things they are pretty ignorant about (or in this case: “willful ignorance”, perhaps!!), and on top of that, “complain” about it not making any sense!

    ‘I want to come here and read thoughts about the topic that I don’t need to decrypt using some new language I don’t know. I will not be back to read any more from you TM and all future posts from you will be ignored.’

    My post of June 22 @7:18 am, was an answer to mr. s.s.a. rogue, who came with some ‘gibberish’ about his concept of ‘moments’ and of ‘cosmos’. On second thought I should probably just have ignored his post, and as I think you should probably just have done with mine as!

    So OK. This is not for you. That’s fair enough. I would venture a guess, that you’re probably joining around 6.5 billion other people around the planet, who in this case would think the same as you! So what? I will be very happy if just a measly 10 people ‘get it’, and it is to those i’m addressing what comes next! And yes, it has absolutely everything to do with the subject at hand of course, but only to the more discerning and astute!

    We see in many other forums and blogs people arguing endlessly, about ‘science’ and ‘physics’, back and forth, year after year, and getting nowhere. The same crap is recycled and repeated ad nauseum by the antagonists! The simple reason for this, is that the TRUTH about 9/11 is not to be found there. Science and physics as we know it today, is firmly rooted in the deepest of Darkness.

    ‘Science’ today is not “real science”. ‘Physics’ is simply a means to describe, name, observe, replicate, explain etc. etc. physical phenomenon and objects, but not a means to explain what in fact lies behind the existence or the formation of the physical, material 3-dimensional world we inhabit at ‘the moment’. A ‘new language’ is needed for this purpose, and thus is also needed to ‘explain’ 9/11!

    The little good so-called ‘science’ has done for mankind over the years, has been overwhelmingly overshadowed by the incredible destruction, mayhem, chaos, untold sufferings and miseries ‘science’ also has inflicted upon mankind over the many centuries.

    Hope I don’t need to mention here that “real science” and ‘technology’ are two separate ‘entities’, and has virtually nothing to do with each other! “Technology” can be used by both ‘science’ and ‘The Arts’ in equal measure, and for the benefit of both.

    My contention, or humble opinion therefore is, that it’s now time to move on from these two “baboons” causing all this endless time wasting …….

    Cheers

  91. PS!

    Just to be clear! It is ‘science’ and ‘physics’ i’m referring to as the “baboons”.

    One has to be careful these days, not to give reason to be misunderstood, or being misquoted!

    How i miss an ‘edit’ button sometimes –

    cheers

  92. “Just to be clear! It is ‘science’ and ‘physics’ i’m referring to as the “baboons”.~Tamborine man

    Unfortunately for you Tamborine man, like all of us here in time/space continuum, you are a spirit in this material world. The material world is defined by these ‘physics’ that you despise.

    You are caught in a trap of your own making. Your spirit was not forced to be born in a physical body. You may not recall, but you agreed to this. We all did and do, for as long as we remain here.

    But alas ponderosa, is there not some ‘theological’ or ‘metaphysical’ forum you can churn up with your magic blender blades? Why bring this here?

    9/11 did indeed happen on planet Earth, where all of these despicable physics maintain.
    Insisting on focusing on dreamtime while driving can be fatal, not just to yourself, but to your passengers and innocent bystanders.

    Do not cha cha at the square dance, you are liable to be wrangled and hogtied.

    ww

    1. Unfortunately for you Tamborine man, like all of us here in time/space continuum, you are a spirit in this material world. The material world is defined by these ‘physics’ that you despise.

      It seems to me mr. rogue that you just rave on for the sake of raving on. Nothing of interest or substance ever comes from you.
      “Time/space continuum” is a big con. As said earlier, “the concept of time” is absolutely relative and thus cannot be used in any meaningful way as far as ‘reality’ is concerned.
      And that i now “despise” physics!!?? most be ‘something’ you again have pulled from your, by now, pretty sore ass.

      Mr. s.s.a. rogue wrote:

      You are caught in a trap of your own making. Your spirit was not forced to be born in a physical body. You may not recall, but you agreed to this. We all did and do, for as long as we remain here.

      The law of ‘Free Will’ has been mentioned extensively on my thread referred to in the previous posts above.

      (Since i referred to the thread 21. June 2012, where i was happy to inform the number of ‘clicks’ had risen to 42000, it has now increased to nearly 45000 in just 14 days. An average of over 200 ‘clicks’ a day. It used to average around 50, so something extraordinary is taken place at the moment. The thread is not promoted anywhere at all, and i haven’t been contributing since may (and that was only with “small-talk”), so it seems that ‘words of mouth’ must be the only answer to this drastic increase in visitor numbers – and absolutely nothing to do with me personally, thank God)!

      The “message” in the thread is of course not for the “ordinary, average, mediocre” person, so obviously it’s not for you dear mr. rogue.

      But alas ponderosa, is there not some ‘theological’ or ‘metaphysical’ forum you can churn up with your magic blender blades? Why bring this here?

      Why don’t you join the jref and truthfraction brigade instead! They would absolutely ‘love’ you there.

      9/11 did indeed happen on planet Earth, where all of these despicable physics maintain.

      A victory beyond human understanding took place in the transcendental world in the earthly year of 1911.
      Sometimes, prior to this ‘jubilant’ event, 9/11 was planned in every details, and send out through the ether-waves as a future ‘happening’ to become a ‘reality’ in the physical world; made possible by the greed and lust for power of human beings. The same was the case with the 2 world wars, as well as many more destructive events that took place in the past, throughout the history of mankind.

      Insisting on focusing on dreamtime while driving can be fatal, not just to yourself,
      to your passengers and innocent bystanders.
      Do not cha cha at the square dance, you are liable to be wrangled and hogtied.

      Actually, the “dreamtime” stories told by the Australian aboriginals, have given me great pleasures over the years, and they were in any way, far from ‘fatal’.

      And i have told you this before mr. rogue: The dance is called the ‘cha cha cha’!

      Cheers

      1. “Just to be clear! It is ‘science’ and ‘physics’ i’m referring to as the “baboons.
        And that i now “despise” physics!!?? most be ‘something’ you again have pulled from your, by now, pretty sore ass.” ~Tamborine man

        Let’s see, I suppose this means that you love baboons, and do not use the term in denigration of ‘science’ and ‘physics’.

        Personally I haven’t a thing against baboons either.

        Yet if I were to say that Mr T-man were a baboon, or a jackal, say a skunk, or a snake…all creatures of nature that I adhore, I suppose T-man would take this as a great complement. Yes?

        Is this what you were really trying to say Tamborine man, when you say that; “It is ‘science’ and ‘physics’ i’m referring to as the “baboons.”?

        Try to say this is what you really meant Tamborine. Let the whole world see for themselves what disingenuous bullshit you spray here.

        ww

      2. @mr. rogue,

        “Just to be clear! It is ‘science’ and ‘physics’ i’m referring to as the “baboons.
        And that i now “despise” physics!!?? most be ‘something’ you again have pulled from your, by now, pretty sore ass.” ~Tamborine man

        Let’s see, I suppose this means that you love baboons, and do not use the term in denigration of ‘science’ and ‘physics’.

        Personally I haven’t a thing against baboons either.

        Yet if I were to say that Mr T-man were a baboon, or a jackal, say a skunk, or a snake…all creatures of nature that I adhore, I suppose T-man would take this as a great complement. Yes?

        Is this what you were really trying to say Tamborine man, when you say that; “It is ‘science’ and ‘physics’ i’m referring to as the “baboons.”?

        Try to say this is what you really meant Tamborine. Let the whole world see for themselves what disingenuous bullshit you spray here.

        The Intelligent and aware reader would of course have noticed that i wrote “baboons” with two quotation marks as shown just then.

        Apart from mr. rogue apparently, we all know that quotation marks, or inverted commas, can alter the meaning of words.

        From wiki: “Quotation marks can also be used to indicate a different meaning of a word or phrase than the one typically associated with it and often used to express irony.”

        Had mr. rogue – instead of attempting to score a cheap unintelligent point – asked me why i used quotation marks around this word, i would have told him this:

        The Danish word for ‘baboons’ is ‘bavianer’. The Danes use this word mainly to scold in a harmless and endearing way unruly and naughty children, like: “stop mocking around, you little ‘bavianer'” (‘baboons’), or words to that effect! Adults also use this word amongst themselves occasionally, pretty much in the same way and for the same reasons.

        Had mr. rogue not been so eager to again and again show his bad side, you the long-suffering reader and i, would have been spared his insidious and insufferable vitriol at last …..but alas!

        Cheers

      3. So Tamborine man is scolding ‘science’ and ‘physics’ “in a harmless and endearing way”…

        Lol…Whatever man…those naughty naughty science and physics…Hahahaha

        I think your a phony baloney zen pretender and apple polisher.

        ww

      4. @mr. rogue

        So Tamborine man is scolding ‘science’ and ‘physics’ “in a harmless and endearing way”…

        Lol…Whatever man…those naughty naughty science and physics…Hahahaha

        I think your a phony baloney zen pretender and apple polisher.

        ww

        In my younger days i became fascinated with “The scarlet Pimpernel” movies.

        It was from the dear ‘Leslie Howard’ i learned the ‘method’ by which one could make the villainous arrogant pompous git reveal his true nature; reveal his hidden dastardly ‘self’ for all to see.

        I shall spare you the ‘finer details’, dear mr. s.s.a. rogue!

        With regards to ‘physics’ and ‘science’, you’ll find that ‘wiki’ describes ‘physic’ as being a ‘natural science’ and used as to a ‘general analysis of nature conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves’.

        As human beings are part of ‘nature’, and therefore also ‘physical’ in appearance, it should go without saying that of course of course “physics” should be treated in a kind, humane, gentle, harmless and endearing manner, just as one would hope and trust that “physics” will treat all of humankind in return.

        Can naturally understand why you got problems with this mr. rogue, but unfortunately i can do little to help you with your plight.
        Albeit, as you too have been endowed with a ‘Free Will’, i can really only kindly suggest to you that you try to help yourself.

        In cases like this, i’ve been told that this is possible!

        Cheers

  93. Hi Craig,

    Love your new layout. It is very aesthetically pleasing!

    Thank you –

    cheers

    PS!
    Sorry about the little ‘glitch’ in my above post though!

  94. Hi Craig,

    you write:

    I have a love/hate relationship with secrets. I’m fascinated by things unknown and unknowable. Who really built the pyramids?

    If that is still the case, i think you might be interested to know that i have solved the ‘mystery’ about the Great Pyramid in Giza. All this i have presented in my thread over at P4T mentioned in above posts.

    I suspect this could be the main reason why the thread is experiencing such large visitor numbers. The word must be spreading!

    If you go there, you’ll find that i have also found the “secret chamber” everybody have been looking for over the years. Have also found the “missing capstone”.
    The extraordinary thing is that the Great Pyramid, built a little over 5000 years ago, is wholly based upon “The Power of Two”, and with the ‘Meter’ as the unit. (The meter wasn’t ‘discovered’ until 1793 by Napoleon’s servants)!!

    In the process, da Vinci’s “Vitruvian Man”, Le Corbusier’s “The Modulor” and Piet Hein’s “Supercircle”, as well as “The Philosopher’s Stone” all became perfected, and now all stand as rock solid accomplishes and invaluable helpers to the unraveling of this amazing and utterly unique “7th. wonder of the world”.

    I could tell you more to entice you to have a look, but hope this would be enough to stir your curiosity!
    You’ll find most of the drawings from page 3 to page 8.

    The Circle containing the Great Pyramid has a diameter of 308 meters. Mention this as the last post above had the number 308!!

    (Actually the true diameter = 308.025 mtr. = 555^.
    Now that i’m at it, the Pyramid’s slope length = 444^,
    and the base length of under ground foundation = 222^/2).

    Would love to hear a comment from you if you take a look one day?

    Cheers

    1. I definitely will. Ancient archeology is fascinating to me. I’m a big fan of the books of Graham Hancock. I’m a believer that the Sphinx was built thousands of years before the history books say.

  95. That’s so good to hear!

    Respect your views and ‘opinions’ greatly, so will look much forward to find out what impressions you got, and the initial reaction you experienced –

    Cheers

  96. Dr judy woods was tossed out of Federal court a her data is without any merit. She has failed to follow basic research rules in regards to time date location of the cars. She knowingly mislead people by creating her own truths without any facts to back them up.
    2243089690_63e034fdbd
    The photo taken on 91301 after the collapse of building seven shows no sign of controlled demolition or falling into its own footprint it fell across the street hitting the liberty building.
    2243348989_8b0a60a76f
    This photo shows that building seven rolled over after the con Edison substation caught fire due to the impact of south tower.
    2243080988_8c1be8cf46
    This is impact damage on the liberty building near the fire station. There is no evidence of Directed energy Weapons or EMP/EMF or and any electrolysis this means all of the claims to DEW are self created trues without facts to back them. This is why they were thrown out of court.
    911_invisable_army
    Shows not only the upper floors of south tower collapsing but is shows the point of failure at the impact floors so this concurs with the NIST findings and shows Thermite or DEW not the cause of the collapse but impact damage and secondary fire damage from the 767 that was the intercontinental configuration with the central belly tank normal for a plane going coast to coast. The load was commercial jet b aviation fuel not Jet a. Pilots for truth manufactured the flight descriptor sets for all FDRs so their findings are their own manufactured truths not factual data. The federal courts have not found any merit at the self created truths of Dr. James Feltzer or Dr Judy woods. Both misrepresented Cars placed in holding lots for transfer to fresh kills landfill and Statian island landfill All have an NYPD and NYPW GPS marker as well as a full report as to where they were moved from. This info is not given by Dr. Judy woods as it would invalidate her fictional DEW trues that she has bamboozled This falls under social entrepreneurship .

    1. WARNING: Moments after I clicked on Mr. Quinazagga’s images to have opened in individual tabs, my home network router lost its connection with the internet. I know that gmail can withstand no connection to the internet, but in this case, no go. Next thing I know, gmail is put into an unfriendly state. Then my virus protection software is telling me that Firefox is using too many resources, forcing me to kill its processes and start over.

  97. The false trues and self proclaimed experts negate the USGS reports on the dust and also the Vanity Bentham reports themselves are academic frauds they proved paint chips burn when placed in an acetylene torch also they prove that improper sample handling and alack of chain of custody of samples over two years old tested by bias researchers whom negated any factual data to com up with their own empirical philosophy based truth.
    “As I said before John we don’t need or want credibility cops” Yes you can have your own truths you just cannot manufacture your own facts.
    http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/
    this is the data set used by the report but never credited to USGS Check the spetography and the factual report out. Sorry but the mni-nuke fiction is not feasible or factual.

  98. Dear Mr. Quinazagga,

    I wrote up a detailed response to your postings. But the deeper I got into your hastily written prose, the less sincere and rational you became in my mind. This aspect is hammered home to me with your words:

    [The image] shows the point of failure at the impact floors so this concurs with the NIST findings and shows Thermite or DEW not the cause of the collapse but impact damage and secondary fire damage from the 767 that was the intercontinental configuration with the central belly tank normal for a plane going coast to coast.

    I guess you took your clues from NIST whose shoddy reports on the WTC ~stopped~ at the initiation of the collapse and did ~not~ analyze anything that was happening in the dust thereafter. El-Oh-El, they didn’t even try to explain how the top of the towers could hit street levels in a time that was within a couple of seconds of free-fall.

    Here’s what you are PURPOSELY missing.

    (a) The upper floors are leaning in that photograph. A correct interpretation of physics assuming gravity alone suggests that those upper floors should topple over into the path of least resistance. Instead, they are alleged to have plowed through the path of greatest resistance down to the ground.

    (b) The copious amounts of pulverization and dust were generated in the earliest stages of this tower’s “collapse” and is a huge energy sink that gravity can’t account for.

    (c)_ The images taken moments after your image show that block of upper floors disintegrating in on itself before it reaches 10 or 20 floors below the alleged impact level. The disintegration of those upper floors arrested its toppling, spewed pulverized content over the sides and horizontally very energetically, but also left much less that could construed as a cohesive pile driver that could continue plowing throw the path of greatest resistance at free-fall speeds. All this would not be possible unless HUGE AMOUNTS of energy were added to the equation.

    Or stated another way: when a pile-driver is assumed to be acting only under the forces of gravity as is alleged by the government, then the very acts of (1) disintegrating the upper floors, (2) spewing content over the sides and horizontally, and (3) destroying lower floors are all energy sucks that take away from the destruction being able to approach (4) free-fall speeds, if they didn’t arrest the collapse much sooner. The only way all four can be present and observable in the destruction is if energy is added… And it didn’t come from the airplanes or the resulting fires.

    This is key.

    Failure to acknowledge this is failure to agree with the laws of physics, and will be reflected poorly on either your intelligence or your allegience (to the PTB to keep the status quo and spin more disinfo.)

    Seeing how I’ve got it written, here’s part of my thrashing of the rest of your postings. You wrote:

    Dr judy woods was tossed out of Federal court as her data is without any merit.

    No, Dr. Woods was tossed out of Federal Court because she and her plantiffs had no standing to be making their whistleblower case. That is, they weren’t federal employees; they weren’t involved in the creation of the faulty reports. The court case never progressed far enough to determine whether or not her data had any merit. Big difference.

    You continued:

    She has failed to follow basic research rules in regards to time date location of the cars.

    Agreed. The police car was damaged first and then towed to the bridge; it wasn’t damaged at the bridge, which she implies in her book and website. She makes several errors of this nature. Whereas one can split hairs that damaged-at-the-bridge (Dr. Wood’s implication) is a completely different proposition than damaged-closer-to-the-towers, we must not lose sight of the fact that such vehicles were torched at all when other more combustible objects were not.

    You continued:

    She knowingly mislead people by creating her own truths without any facts to back them up.

    You’ll have to be more specific. I don’t find this to be the case. What I find is that (a) she relied too much on a government report on hot-spots with tainted satellite images; (b) she gave too much leeway to Hutchison; (c)_ she never proved that devices to snag Tesla energy or energy from Hurricane Erin were operational; (d) she gave the bum’s rush to nuclear devices; (e) thereby, she offered little but dangling innuendo to P O W E R her destructive mechanisms, and by her own words, it required lots of energy.

    You continued:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835357255/lightbox/
    The photo taken on 91301 after the collapse of building seven shows no sign of controlled demolition or falling into its own footprint it fell across the street hitting the liberty building.

    Let’s grant you that WTC-7 hit the Liberty Building. So what? Enough of its debris fell neatly into its own footprint. The points you are missing are that it shouldn’t have collapsed at all given the observable damage and fires (e.g., small and localized), that it shouldn’t have had 100+ feet of its collapse indistinguishable from free-fall, and that sufficient numbers of police, fire, and media had foreknowledge of exactly when it was going to come down. Ergo, your statement above about no signs of controlled demolition is nonsense, and puts you into a very bad light.

    You continued:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835357305/lightbox/
    This photo shows that building seven rolled over after the con Edison substation caught fire due to the impact of south tower.

    So what?

    You continued:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835501501/
    This is impact damage on the liberty building near the fire station. There is no evidence of Directed energy Weapons or EMP/EMF or and any electrolysis this means all of the claims to DEW are self created trues without facts to back them. This is why they were thrown out of court.

    Ah, now you’re showing something interesting! Get a load of what I call a “steel doobie” that stands almost vertical as the first large chunk of building debris towards the left in your image. The “steel doobie” (one of several I’ve seen) is a piece of external wall assembly from the towers. Normally, it consisted of three vertical steel beams that were connected by three horizontal steel spandrels or bands.

    What forces were at play that could get this wall assembly to wrap itself into a “steel doobie”? Hint: the normal forces acting on the wall assembly were primarily downward from the weight of upper floors. The “steel doobie” clearly shows that violent horizontal forces were at play, which resulted in both the rolling of “steel doobie” and its ejection so far away.

    Check out this illustration that is very analogous to electric-magnetic fields and waves:

    The picture you’ve linked to supposedly prove “no evidence of Directed energy Weapons or EMP/EMF” [or any other controlled demolition hijinx] does not prove such. In fact, the “steel doobie” proves otherwise even before seeing the parallels with how electric-magnetic fields could operate. Based on other evidence, I’m led to believe that the “steel doobie” was close to a heat source that made steel spandrels pliable and thus facilitated the ease with which horizontal forces could act on it.

    Therefore, your lame interpretation of your image could be a strawman argument for “no evidence of Directed energy Weapons or EMP/EMF”. The real evidence of EMP are the cars parked along West Broadway and in the parking lot caticorner from the towers, images collected and organized nicely by Dr. Wood.

    Read the following, which supports DEW but deviates from Dr. Wood:

    9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW Parts 1 and 2
    http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/
    http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/

    Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/

    I expect that you are a hit-and-run flamer. So this isn’t written for you but others.

    //

  99. Mr. Quinzagga,
    I have an unapproved comment from you that quotes Senor El Once’s comment but you don’t indicate whose words are whose. If you’d like the comment approved, please clarify which parts are quotes from the earlier comment and which are your response. Thank you.

  100. After reading Señor El Once’s replies I corrected his inaccuracies by showing the archival footage that is part of the New York

    Dear Mr. Quinazagga,
    I wrote up a detailed response to your postings. But the deeper I got into your hastily written prose, the less sincere and rational you became in my mind. This aspect is hammered home to me with your words:
    [The image] shows the point of failure at the impact floors so this concurs with the NIST findings and shows Thermite or DEW not the cause of the collapse but impact damage and secondary fire damage from the 767 that was the intercontinental configuration with the central belly tank normal for a plane going coast to coast.
    I guess you took your clues from NIST whose shoddy reports on the WTC ~stopped~ at the initiation of the collapse and did ~not~ analyze anything that was happening in the dust thereafter. El-Oh-El, they didn’t even try to explain how the top of the towers could hit street levels in a time that was within a couple of seconds of free-fall.
    Here’s what you are PURPOSELY missing.
    (a) The upper floors are leaning in that photograph. A correct interpretation of physics assuming gravity alone suggests that those upper floors should topple over into the path of least resistance. Instead, they are alleged to have plowed through the path of greatest resistance down to the ground.
    (b) The copious amounts of pulverization and dust were generated in the earliest stages of this tower’s “collapse” and is a huge energy sink that gravity can’t account for.
    (c)_ The images taken moments after your image show that block of upper floors disintegrating in on itself before it reaches 10 or 20 floors below the alleged impact level. The disintegration of those upper floors arrested its toppling, spewed pulverized content over the sides and horizontally very energetically, but also left much less that could construed as a cohesive pile driver that could continue plowing throw the path of greatest resistance at free-fall speeds. All this would not be possible unless HUGE AMOUNTS of energy were added to the equation.
    Or stated another way: when a pile-driver is assumed to be acting only under the forces of gravity as is alleged by the government, then the very acts of (1) disintegrating the upper floors, (2) spewing content over the sides and horizontally, and (3) destroying lower floors are all energy sucks that take away from the destruction being able to approach (4) free-fall speeds, if they didn’t arrest the collapse much sooner. The only way all four can be present and observable in the destruction is if energy is added… And it didn’t come from the airplanes or the resulting fires.
    **

    ◦This is key.
    ◦Failure to acknowledge this is failure to agree with the laws of physics, and will be reflected poorly on either your intelligence or your allegience (to the PTB to keep the status quo and spin more disinfo.)
    ◦*****
    ◦quinazagga
    ◦ my failure to acknowledge Misapplied elementary physics that exposes the truth about your limited understanding of physics and the WTC south collapse. It does show a technique called poisoning the well and attempt at a veiled personal attack
    ◦Free fall is a fallacy and so is the disintegration of the upper floors as thy impacted wtc 7, wtc 5, and wtc 6.
    19094956-O
    Shows Core components of south tower in rubble. This means they did not turn to dust.
    ◦Seeing that the argument you make is your own truth that has no physical facts to back it and based upon negating the physics of the collapse or collapse dynamics structural loading at time of collapse horizontally and laterally. Also, A lack of reading the
    http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909017
    Puts your commentary at an inability to be able to discuss the initiation of the WTC south tower or north tower collapse due to a lack of research you cannot discuss without placing misleading self-proclaimed truths and red herrings to distract from your lack of research.
    ◦*****
    ◦Señor El Once
    ◦Seeing how I’ve got it written, here’s part of my thrashing of the rest of your postings. You wrote:
    Dr judy woods was tossed out of Federal court as her data is without any merit.
    No, Dr. Woods was tossed out of Federal Court because she and her plantiffs had no standing to be making their whistleblower case. That is, they weren’t federal employees; they weren’t involved in the creation of the faulty reports. The court case never progressed far enough to determine whether or not her data had any merit. Big difference.
    ◦quinazagga
    ◦Not any difference you need to read and not cherry pick to back a false truth. I fact the court found her arguments without merit.
    The implausibly of plaintiffs’ theories warrants no further consideration by this Court
    beyond the insufficiency of the legal claims upon which plaintiffs attempt to advance those
    theories in their lawsuits.
    http://www.drjudywood.com/pdf/080626_Reynolds_07CV4612GBD.pdf
    ◦Señor El Once
    ◦You continued:
    She has failed to follow basic research rules in regards to time date location of the cars.
    Agreed. The police car was damaged first and then towed to the bridge; it wasn’t damaged at the bridge, which she implies in her book and website. She makes several errors of this nature. Whereas one can split hairs that damaged-at-the-bridge (Dr. Wood’s implication) is a completely different proposition than damaged-closer-to-the-towers, we must not lose sight of the fact that such vehicles were torched at all when other more combustible objects were not.
    ◦Quinazagga
    ◦So the vehicles were towed to the points by NYPW and then the paper swirled around them after so that proves that there was no DEW
    ◦Señor El Once
    You continued:
    She knowingly mislead people by creating her own truths without any facts to back them up.
    You’ll have to be more specific. I don’t find this to be the case. What I find is that (a) she relied too much on a government report on hot-spots with tainted satellite images; (b) she gave too much leeway to Hutchison; (c)_ she never proved that devices to snag Tesla energy or energy from Hurricane Erin were operational; (d) she gave the bum’s rush to nuclear devices; (e) thereby, she offered little but dangling innuendo to P O W E R her destructive mechanisms, and by her own words, it required lots of energy.
    ◦Quinazagga
    ◦What I find is she lied about the damage and cause of such on vehicles and then spouted off her own self truths coming from her own creation without facts to back them.
    Señor El Once
    So You continued:
    2243089690_63e034fdbd
    The photo taken on 91301 after the collapse of building seven shows no sign of controlled demolition or falling into its own footprint it fell across the street hitting the liberty building.
    Let’s grant you that WTC-7 hit the Liberty Building. So what? Enough of its debris fell neatly into its own footprint. The points you are missing are that it shouldn’t have collapsed at all given the observable damage and fires (e.g., small and localized), that it shouldn’t have had 100+ feet of its collapse indistinguishable from free-fall, and that sufficient numbers of police, fire, and media had foreknowledge of exactly when it was going to come down. Ergo, your statement above about no signs of controlled demolition is nonsense, and puts you into a very bad light.
    Quinazagga
    Actually, Your lack of research is astounding.
    wtc7_ss2001
    The fires involved full floors of the building and it was impacted by wtc south. There was no controlled demolition.
    Señor El Once
    You continued:
    2243348989_8b0a60a76f
    This photo shows that building seven rolled over after the con Edison substation caught fire due to the impact of south tower.
    So what?
    ◦Quinazagga
    Therefore, it proves there was no DEW or EMP/EMF.
    ◦http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835501501/
    This is impact damage on the liberty building near the fire station. There is no evidence of Directed energy Weapons or EMP/EMF or and any electrolysis this means all of the claims to DEW are self-created trues without facts to back them.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835357255/lightbox/This is why they were thrown out of court . http://www.drjudywood.com/pdf/080626_Reynolds_07CV4612GBD.pdf
    ◦Señor El Once
    Ah, now you’re showing something interesting! Get a load of what I call a “steel doobie” that stands almost vertical as the first large chunk of building debris towards the left in your image. The “steel doobie” (one of several I’ve seen) is a piece of external wall assembly from the towers. Normally, it consisted of three vertical steel beams that were connected by three horizontal steel spandrels or bands.
    ◦Quinazagga

    ◦We are talking about the damage shown in the photograph of the liberty building so now you are putting forth a red herring Since the Steel doobies are from recovered steel the question is what happened after they hit the ground to bend them or roll them. You negate the impact of building seven upon liberty building. In addition, it does not prove DEW or EMP or EMF propagation it negates them. The big chunk of building debris was caused by the impact of seven into the so this bent not rolled piece of steel happened because of the collapse.
    So if that is a part of WTC south are you now admitting that WTC south hit wtc 7 and that part that was pushed into the liberty building was actually imbedded in wtc7 before it impacted the liberty tower.
    Why not go into the Kinetic effects of a 2,000 foot building that is an acre across That collapses due to an impact of an aircraft combined with secondary fires initiated by a fuel air explosion of jet b aviation fuel. Or the implosive and explosive effects of such an collapse as well as horizontal and vertical loading during collapse and energy transfer through core elements into the fishbowl and into the base of the tower.
    ◦Señor El Once
    What forces were at play that could get this wall assembly to wrap itself into a “steel doobie”? Hint: the normal forces acting on the wall assembly were primarily downward from the weight of upper floors.
    So which wtc collapse are you stating this truth for?
    The “steel doobie” clearly shows that violent horizontal forces were at play, which resulted in both the rolling of “steel doobie” and its ejection so far away.
    ◦quinazagga
    ◦ collapse = Structural loading horizontal and lateral in the WTC south and north tower during collapse so there also is kinetic impact damage from falling derbies as well as the effect of that energy transferring along core elements into the subbasement levels.
    And it was not a neutron bomb or DEW because the lack of EMP/EMF and specific Nuclear signatures of radiation which would have prevented recovery operation like this.
    DCP_5643
    Additionally, the physical layout of North and south tower are different so it would help you to delineate between the two if you want to discuss the collapse initiators of each WTC tower
    ◦Señor El Once
    ◦Check out this illustration that is very analogous to electric-magnetic fields and waves:

    The picture you’ve linked to supposedly prove “no evidence of Directed energy Weapons or EMP/EMF” [or any other controlled demolition hijinx] does not prove such. In fact, the “steel doobie” proves otherwise even before seeing the parallels with how electric-magnetic fields could operate. Based on other evidence, I’m led to believe that the “steel doobie” was close to a heat source that made steel spandrels pliable and thus facilitated the ease with which horizontal forces could act on it.
    Therefore, your lame interpretation of your image could be a strawman argument for “no evidence of Directed energy Weapons or EMP/EMF”.
    ◦Quinazagga
    ◦It Could be but it is not since the steel doobie was caused by removal of wtc 7 debris and here is further proof of your self created truth being false
    2243317463_2dda0b1532

    ◦Señor El Once
    ◦The real evidence of EMP are the cars parked along West Broadway and in the parking lot caticorner from the towers, images collected and organized nicely by Dr. Wood.
    *
    Quinazagga
    O.k. you can stop right there because you already admitted the cars were placed there by NYPW so this is a red herring. You are obviously fabricating facts to back an self-proclaimed truth that is without any merit.
    16_BRmangled
    22378952ruCuEnEzmf_ph
    ◦Señor El Once

    Read the following, which supports DEW but deviates from Dr. Wood:
    9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW Parts 1 and 2
    http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/
    http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/
    Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/

    ◦Quinazagga
    ◦More red herrings and self-proclaimed truths that hold no place in facts of the physical data on site.
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf
    There are the facts about DEW
    Señor El Once said 2 days ago:
    WARNING: Moments after I clicked on Mr. Quinazagga’s images to have opened in individual tabs, my home network router lost its connection with the internet. I know that gmail can withstand no connection to the internet, but in this case, no go. Next thing I know, gmail is put into an unfriendly state. Then my virus protection software is telling me that Firefox is using too many resources, forcing me to kill its processes and start over.
    ◦Quinazagga
    ◦Well you just killed your credibility. You admitted in another article Firefox has issues with the new Flicker and that is known since Google took over the site. Your computer and lack of processing speed or memory issues or bandwidth issues are not any connection to the site they are limitations of your machine/software. Sounds like you are poisoning the well and attempting to scare people away from facts.

    1. Mr. Quinazagga,

      You can use a limited set of HTML mark-up in your responses. Something like <blockquote> <\blockquote> around my words would have done wonders for readers in comprehending who wrote what. Needless to say, I’m slightly annoyed at the way my words were munged with your words both here and on your home court.

      I wrote:

      Failure to acknowledge [several points relating to observable anomalies in the destruction] is failure to agree with the laws of physics, and will be reflected poorly on either your intelligence or your allegience (to the PTB to keep the status quo and spin more disinfo.)

      Mr. Quinazagga responded:

      [M]y failure to acknowledge Misapplied elementary physics that exposes the truth about your limited understanding of physics and the WTC south collapse. It does show a technique called poisoning the well and attempt at a veiled personal attack

      Very clever, Mr. Quinazagga, but just saying I’ve “misapplied elementary physics” without substantiation of the same does ~not~ make it so. Ergo, the projection of a “limited understanding of physics” seems to be coming from you onto me.

      “A veiled personal attack?” Not at all veiled. In fact, you are deserving of some choice demeaning names for having written:

      Free fall is a fallacy and so is the disintegration of the upper floors as thy impacted wtc 7, wtc 5, and wtc 6.

      With regards to the first half of your sentence, free-fall in WTC-7 is a fact that even Dr. Sunder of NIST and the NIST report acknowledges. Of the three stages of collapse covering the first 18 floors, stage 2 covering 100+ feet or 8 stories has an acceleration indistinguishable from free-fall (e.g., 32 ft/sec-sec.) If free-fall from a tower is 9.8 seconds, and if the towers according to NIST fell to street level in ~11 and ~13 seconds, then the 1-3 seconds difference is small enough and within the margin of error for the phrase “near free-fall speeds” to be applicable. Because this was obtained through the path of greatest resistance, energy had to have been added that your “elementary physics” is purposely not accounting for.

      With regards to the second half of your sentence, you seem to be saying that the upper floors of WTC-1 and 2 disintegrated as they impacted WTC-5, WTC-6, and WTC-7, right? The problem isn’t with this belief, but with the contradiction this causes in your other beliefs. In order for any of the mass of the towers to impact other buildings in the WTC, the mass had to be ejected horizontally. This requires energy, and if your “elementary physics” is going to say that it came from the potential energy of the towers under the force of gravity, it should (but apparently doesn’t) calculate the two-fold contradiction to physics: (1) anything that consumes energy in the destruction, such as pulverization and the forceful ejection of materials, makes that energy unavailable for the collapse to reach “near free-fall speeds” … unless energy is added; (2) when mass leaves the footprint of the towers in order to damage other buildings, that mass is no longer available in the pile-driver that is smashing lower flowers.

      Mr. Quinazagga continued:

      Shows Core components of south tower in rubble. This means they did not turn to dust.

      Don’t conflate my beliefs with Dr. Wood’s work, where often her brain-dead followers make inaccurate statements with regards to amounts of remaining steel and concrete in the pile (which then makes it easy for others to debunk in a strawman over-generalization.) The point is that dust blanketed NYC. Generation of dust of that magnitude is a large energy sink that cannot be met by “elementary physics” that assumes only the energy from the mass acting under gravity. Energy was added.

      Mr. Quinazagga wrote the following confusion:

      Seeing that the argument you make is your own truth that has no physical facts to back it and based upon negating the physics of the collapse or collapse dynamics structural loading at time of collapse horizontally and laterally. Also, A lack of reading the
      http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909017
      Puts your commentary at an inability to be able to discuss the initiation of the WTC south tower or north tower collapse due to a lack of research you cannot discuss without placing misleading self-proclaimed truths and red herrings to distract from your lack of research.

      I loved the clever projection of your attributes onto me in the first sentence, Mr. Quinazagga. As for the second and third sentence, I believe the true red herring is your desire to limit the discussion to “the initiation of the WTC south tower or north tower collapse.” The abstract of that report demonstrates some of its faulty reasoning:

      This report describes how the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires led to the collapse of the towers after terrorists flew jet fuel laden commercial airliners into the buildings…

      The government hasn’t proven that the airliners were commercial, which their speed a low-altitude counters. The government hasn’t proven that terrorists flew the airliners, which their accuracy at such speeds counters.

      Be this as it may, for the sake of discussion, let’s hold the above assumptions as true. In fact, let’s assume that the initiation of the collapse was a foregone conclusion. Does the rest of the collapse of structurally sound steel skyscrapers as told to us by NIST make sense? No, because NIST purposely didn’t go there.

      Mr. Quinazagga wrote the following confusion with regards to why Dr. Wood had her case thrown out:

      Not any difference you need to read and not cherry pick to back a false truth. I fact the court found her arguments without merit.
      The implausibly of plaintiffs’ theories warrants no further consideration by this Court
      beyond the insufficiency of the legal claims upon which plaintiffs attempt to advance those
      theories in their lawsuits.

      Nice spin, but your understanding of courts runs parallel with your “elementary physics”. The insufficiency of the legal claim with respect to the plaintiffs not having standing got them kicked out of court. The plaintiffs had plenty of evidence regarding how the official story defies “elementary physics” and merits further consideration regarding how only added energy makes sense, therefore validly questioning the NIST reports. Their case was largely already out-bound before they could present that, or any “implausible plaintiffs’ theories”.

      Mr. Quinazagga writes:

      So the vehicles were towed to the points by NYPW and then the paper swirled around them after so that proves that there was no DEW

      No. Not at all.

      The vehicles were damaged in various places, such as along West Broadway and a parking lot caticorner to the towers. Evidence and testimony puts this as happening during WTC-1’s demise (e.g., 2nd tower to fall). Loose paper was already everywhere from WTC-2 (e.g., 1st tower to fall); flags were flying all day long; trees had leaves).

      Well into the clean-up effort, damaged vehicles were towed to places like the bridge.

      As for your DEW comment, I doubt we’re even on the same page in even describing DEW. In my 9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW beliefs [Part 1 and Part 2], the directed energy was aimed out of the way (upwards) and essentially thrown away. Letting the highly energetic neutrons escape upwards not only helped reduce to a tactical level the blast and heat waves, but also directed those blast and heat waves in useful directions. The vehicles were not damaged directly by DEW, but by an escaping EMP from the energy source (e.g., a neutron bomb, which is a type of fusion bomb). The EMP snuck out through window slits and gaps in the falling debris. Also, my beliefs hold that multiple neutron nuclear DEV devices were deployed in each tower and some of the neighboring buildings (WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6).

      Mr. Quinazagga writes:

      What I find is [Dr. Wood] lied about the damage and cause of such on vehicles and then spouted off her own self truths coming from her own creation without facts to back them.

      What I find is that crafty Dr. Wood went out on a limb to call attention to the damage on vehicles and to help open our minds to other options into the cause of such damage. However, crafty Dr. Wood in her book offers very little speculation or conjecture to connect her data points or offer up conclusions.

      I wrote:

      The points you are missing are that [WTC-7] shouldn’t have collapsed at all given the observable damage and fires (e.g., small and localized), that it shouldn’t have had 100+ feet of its collapse indistinguishable from free-fall, and that sufficient numbers of police, fire, and media had foreknowledge of exactly when it was going to come down. Ergo, your statement above about no signs of controlled demolition is nonsense, and puts you into a very bad light

      Mr. Quinazagga lamely counters with:

      Actually, Your lack of research is astounding. The fires involved full floors of the building and it was impacted by wtc south. There was no controlled demolition.

      Non-uniform, non-symetrical fires scattered about 2 or 3 floors in a well-designed modern skyscraper such as WTC-7 cannot result in uniform, symmetric, free-fall through 8 floors, as observed from many different videos. The picture you offer as evidence only shows 1 floor burning, yet free-fall is documented to have happened through 8 floors. Not gradually. Suddenly. Only the sudden influx of energy via something akin to a controlled demolition (or more neutron nuclear DEW devices) can accomplish this.

      Mr. Quinazagga first wrote:

      This photo shows that building seven rolled over after the con Edison substation caught fire due to the impact of south tower.

      When asked its significance, Mr. Quinazagga responds:

      Therefore, it proves there was no DEW or EMP/EMF.

      No it doesn’t. The usage of DEW and the occurance of any EMP side-effects is not predicated on either of them being directly responsible for the Con-Edison substation fire. Your foisting up a logic error into a strawman. Maybe you’re correct that the South Tower fell on it causing it to burn. But it was multiple neutron nuclear DEW devices that caused the tower to collapse. (But based on other incorrect beliefs you harbor and arguments you make, you’re just as likely to be incorrect.)

      I wrote:

      Get a load of what I call a “steel doobie” that stands almost vertical as the first large chunk of building debris towards the left in your image. The “steel doobie” (one of several I’ve seen) is a piece of external wall assembly from the towers. Normally, it consisted of three vertical steel beams that were connected by three horizontal steel spandrels or bands.

      Mr. Quinazagga responded:

      We are talking about the damage shown in the photograph of the liberty building so now you are putting forth a red herring Since the Steel doobies are from recovered steel the question is what happened after they hit the ground to bend them or roll them.

      El-Oh-El. The question is most assuredly ~not~ “what happened after [the steel doobie] hit the ground to bend them or roll them?” And you for sure have no physics explanation, because they aren’t going to symmetrically roll up ~after~ they’ve augered themselves into the ground right next to the Libery building.

      Nope. The doobies were torched (to soften the spandrels) and rolled well before they hit the ground. And this highlights four aspects that should cause concern to your beliefs:

      (1) The only floors to have fires were high up in the towers, so were these torched pieces from that level? Probably not. So how could gravity have torched these pieces of debris?

      (2) How could gravity have heated the spandrels sufficiently enough to facilitate rolling in a very short period of time (milliseconds or less)?

      (3) Gravity is a normal or perpendicular force, yet the forces to roll such steel doobies is at worst orthogonal and at best radial to gravity.

      (4) How could gravity throw these doobies and heavy wall assemblies so far?

      Your steel doobie is not the only one found in the pile. Look where the man is climbing, and then note the steel doobie just under the beam he climbs upon:

      Mr. Quinazagga continued:

      You negate the impact of building seven upon liberty building.

      No I don’t. You conflate debris from WTC-7 with one of the towers. If the image you linked is depicting the Liberty building, then the debris in the form of a steel doobie came from one of the towers, not WTC-7.

      Mr. Quinazagga continued:

      In addition, it does not prove DEW or EMP or EMF propagation it negates them. The big chunk of building debris was caused by the impact of seven into the so this bent not rolled piece of steel happened because of the collapse.

      El-Oh-El and Huh? Your fantasy, Mr. Quinazagga. WTC-7 (as shown in this image) did not have wall assembles consisting of three vertical beams (3 stories in height) that were connected together by three spandrel pieces, but the towers did. Therefore, if we assume that the image is from Liberty, the pieces that inflicted the damage came from the towers, not WTC-7.

      Get out a map and calculate how far that is. Given that your “elementary physics” is so superior to mine, please indicate the force lines and the amount of energy required to throw the doobie that far. You should do the calculations at different heights.

      So if that is a part of WTC south are you now admitting that WTC south hit wtc 7 and that part that was pushed into the liberty building was actually imbedded in wtc7 before it impacted the liberty tower.

      I admit to nothing in your convoluted weasel-worded sentences. I’ve granted a big assumption from you that this image is the Liberty building, but I now ask that you provide a map pointing out where the Liberty building and specifically this damage were.

      The circus of Mr. Quinazagga continues:

      Why not go into the Kinetic effects of a 2,000 foot building that is an acre across That collapses due to an impact of an aircraft combined with secondary fires initiated by a fuel air explosion of jet b aviation fuel. Or the implosive and explosive effects of such an collapse as well as horizontal and vertical loading during collapse and energy transfer through core elements into the fishbowl and into the base of the tower.

      No, why don’t YOU go into the Kinetic effects? I’ll tell you why. Each and every instance of kinetic energy having been consumed by (1) violently horizontal ejection and (2) rolling into doobies removes energy (and mass) that the official story needs to attribute to a pile-driver smashing through the intact lower structures of the tower at near free-fall rates. Thus, the official story without any modifications that would add energy sources defies the laws of physics.

      The circus of Mr. Quinazagga continues:

      And it was not a neutron bomb or DEW because the lack of EMP/EMF and specific Nuclear signatures of radiation which would have prevented recovery operation like this.

      There was no lack of EMP: refer to the vehicles along West Broadway. There was no lack of a radiation signature. Refer to the tritium report; refer to first responder ailments. The radiation signature was different that your what your “elementary physics” can comprehend. Short lived, by design. Look up neutron bombs, but remove the framing. Read my articles.

      The recovery operations that you speak of involved carting in fresh dirt on one day of the week, spreading it out, then later in the week scooping up & carting out the same dirt. This is a typical technique for nuclear clean-up.

      I wrote:

      The real evidence of EMP are the cars parked along West Broadway and in the parking lot caticorner from the towers, images collected and organized nicely by Dr. Wood.

      Mr. Quinazagga replied:

      O.k. you can stop right there because you already admitted the cars were placed there by NYPW so this is a red herring. You are obviously fabricating facts to back an self-proclaimed truth that is without any merit.

      I admitted no such thing. You can stop putting words into my mouth. The vehicles along West Broadway and the parking lot caticorner from the towers were damaged ~BEFORE~ WTC-7 came down, and much pictorial evidence exists to this fact.

      Mr. Quinazagga wrote:

      You just killed your credibility. You admitted in another article Firefox has issues with the new Flicker and that is known since Google took over the site.

      Ho-hum. I admitted no such thing. [Provide a link to such an admission, and I’ll offer an apology.]

      Mr. Quinazagga, you have not (yet) been censored on Truth & Shadows, but this is indeed what my recommendation is to Mr. McKee going forward if you post more brain-dead dribble, stilting, and lies.

      You don’t add anything useful to the debate, and this stems in part because your understanding of physics just completely sucks and you gullibly believe every word of every report issued by the government just because it came from the government. (This alone should be reason enough for you to question it and validate it, which you have not done.)

      And if I error in this assessment, it will be because you are paid to be the idiot in these discussions.

      I have patiently spent more time countering your malframed coincidence theories than they deserve. I didn’t do it for you, but for latter-day lurker readers and for Truth. You mishandling of my words as well as your game of putting words into my mouth and the total nearly incomprehensible munging of postings already demonstrates your stewardship of truth and that it can’t be trusted.

      //

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s