Red pills and white rabbits: Truth and Shadows turns five


 

The-Matrix-Wallpaper-the-matrix-6100553-1024-768

August 18, 2015

By Craig McKee

Five years ago, I stopped peeking down the rabbit hole and jumped in. Well, climbed in.

On this date in 2010, Truth and Shadows published its first article. The one you are reading now is number 172. Over the course of those years, I have learned more about how the world is run than in any comparable period in my life—or in all periods put together. But more than that, I’ve learned that there is so much more to know.

The central focus of this blog from the beginning has been the so-called “terrorist attacks” of Sept. 11, 2001—the greatest deception of our time. Today I am more convinced than ever that 9/11 is our best opportunity to pull back the curtain and reveal to people how misdirection, propaganda, and thought control are much more the norm than most of us dare to believe. The trick is getting people to question the comfortable (if sometimes bleak) view of the world they absorb from the evening news.

Exploring the depth of the rabbit hole has led in many directions and to many connected events that I and other writers have addressed on this blog. I must include those who have contributed invaluable ideas to the comments section that follows each article. For the most part, the caliber of those comments has been exceptionally high. I offer my thanks to all.

Among the events I refer to are psy-ops and false flags operations like the Kennedy assassination, the Sandy Hook “shooting,” the Boston Marathon “bombing,” the Oklahoma City bombing, Operation Northwoods, London 7/7, Aurora, Charlie Hebdo, and Ottawa. Among the issues illuminated by these events are the anti-democratic nature of “democratic” governments, the suppression of truth by the corporate media, and the disguised propaganda in Hollywood movies and television. With these, you have a recipe for a truly Orwellian world.

I have reported (with a fair amount of optimism) on a number of initiatives directed at awakening the public to the lies that make up the official story of 9/11, and one could argue that most of these have not been successful. But I believe every bit of fight we have in us is worth channeling into some kind of action. It has already been a long struggle, and the gains have been achingly slow to come, but we have to keep at it and not become discouraged.

Beyond being a fight against governments, news media and the powerful elites they represent, the battle is to awaken our friends, family, colleagues and neighbors to how we are being manipulated and virtually indoctrinated into a mindset based on lies. The deeply ingrained resistance from so many people to rethinking their view of the world in the light of new evidence is, for me, the most distressing and difficult thing we must overcome. And I know I’m not alone in feeling that way.

People who are otherwise intelligent (at least superficially so) and apparently well read and well informed, simply cannot apply reason to the question of whether powerful interests use their wealth and influence to manipulate events and public perceptions to serve a greater agenda of obscene profiteering, social control, and cruelty on a devastating scale.

The arguments these “intelligent” people make about “conspiracy theories” are so childish and empty that I can’t help but be shocked that they continue to repeat them—even when the vapidness and inaccuracy of their statements is pointed out. I’m not talking about why Anderson Cooper or Bill O’Reilly or Rachel Maddow or any number of other mindless media hacks want to convince us that “conspiracy theories” are the creations of kooks in tin-foil hats, I’m talking about regular people who seem to actually believe that what they are saying is reasonable. Is this a case of successful conditioning by the propagandists through endless repetition or some fundamental flaw in the human psyche? Or both.

Unfortunately, my views—particularly the ones that have emerged since I began to study 9/11—have isolated me from a number of friends (some of them now former friends) and ex-colleagues who must think I’ve made some bizarre left turn into fantasy. To me, I’m turning away from the fantasy that I have lived in much of my life.

Despite all this frustration, plenty of good things have come from my plunge into this awareness-raising effort over the past half decade. I’ve been lucky enough to have some people who I respect enormously contribute pieces to this site. More than any other, my fellow Canuck Barrie Zwicker, author of Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11, has been an important part of whatever has been accomplished. His support, encouragement and counsel—always freely given—have helped more than I can express. With the experience of several decades as a journalist and activist, Barrie brings a thoughtful and informed depth to anything he writes.

Other respected writers and researchers have also contributed pieces in recent years. Paul Zarembka, editor of The Hidden History of 9-11; and Graeme MacQueen, author of The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy, have produced original articles for the site (MacQueen’s was a collaboration with Zwicker). Three others who have earned solid reputations for their contribution to the Truth Movement—Adam Syed, Sheila Casey, and Shelton Lankford—have contributed excellent pieces and have become trusted allies.

In addition to those already mentioned, I’ve had the opportunity to exchange ideas (either privately or through interviews) with some of the best known figures in the 9/11 Truth Movement over the past five years: David Ray Griffin, Niels Harrit, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, Kevin Barrett, Craig Ranke, Elias Davidsson, Dwain Deets, Barbara Honegger, Massimo Mazzucco, Aldo Marquis, Elizabeth Woodworth, Cynthia McKinney, Rob Balsamo, Jim Fetzer, Jonathan Cole, Joshua Blakeney, Frances Schure, and quite a few others.

Some I agree with on most issues, others I have significant differences with (I was told  “Not interested. Please stop writing” by David Chandler after I asked him to contribute an answer to my article When did they know? 36 Truth leaders on how they awakened to the 9/11 lie. Chandler is a plane-hit-the-Pentagon person. I got a somewhat more polite rebuff from Judy Wood for the same article.).

I think I would be remiss if I did not make a particular point of expressing how important the work of David Ray Griffin has been to my 9/11 education from the beginning. Among other things, his books offer an invaluable record of the thousands of anomalies, inconsistencies, misleading claims, and outright lies that saturate the official “explanations” of what happened on 9/11.

Oh no! It’s the Pentagon!

I can’t look back over five years of Truth and Shadows without mentioning the subject that I feel is the key to proving that 9/11 was an inside job involving, at a minimum, agencies of the U.S. government. What happened at the Pentagon has been the subject of a fierce disinformation campaign and ongoing efforts by a minority of truthers to convince the rest of us that an essential part of the official story—that a 757 crashed into the building and essentially disappeared—is true. Fortunately, most truthers aren’t buying it.

In the early weeks of my involvement in the Truth Movement, I was soaking up a lot of information, and I came across the video documentary National Security Alert by Citizen Investigation Team (which at the time was Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis). The film showed a number of on-camera interviews with credible witnesses who are very clear about what they saw. All described a large plane flying towards the Pentagon on the north side of the then Citgo gas station, which was located just to the west of the Pentagon.

I was blown away by the implications of the evidence presented in the film, which were that unless all the witnesses were lying or mistaken in unison then the plane didn’t cause the alleged damage path (five downed light poles, C ring “exit” hole, damaged trailer, etc.). And if it didn’t do that, then this “damage” must have been staged.

But it became clear very early on that there was a perplexing, if small, segment of the movement that has devoted a disturbing amount of time to attacking CIT and their conclusions and trying to convince us that a plane hit. These efforts have only done damage.

There have been a number of parallel efforts for me, including becoming a regular part of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth writing team over the past 16 months. This has brought me together with some really dedicated truthers. (Besides Richard Gage, of course, I would like to mention Kelly David, Sandra Jelmi, Ted Walter, Andy Steele, Michael Cook, and Jeff Long—among others). For the past couple of months I’ve been involved in a very interesting AE911Truth project called Beyond Misinformation that will be out next month. More about this and many more topics in future posts.

Thanks to all for dropping in, whether you’re a veteran truther, a curious newbie, or making an established living as a troll for the NSA. You all play your part.

406 comments

  1. Well done Craig and thanks for your determination and hard work. I agree on all counts of your false flag listings and would add one event of our neighbor to the south, maybe there greatest achievements in mind control and media deception, the NASA Apollo moon landing hoax. all the best. Glenn Bolder Rosseau Ont.

    Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:47:47 +0000 To: gbolder321@hotmail.com

        1. I’m glad I still have the power to flabbergast. I seem to be slipping in so many other areas. I don’t know if I’ll write about this someday. We’ll see. But it’s not a priority just now.

          1. Craig, you say, “I don’t know if I’ll write about this someday. We’ll see.”
            Perhaps if you take an in depth look at the thread on my blog to do with this subject you will find reasons to dissuade you from going there. The argument for a hoax turns out to be quite flimsy.
            \\][//

  2. Thank you for this candid article. I’ll respectfully offer a constructive criticism over one paragraph: “Beyond being a fight […] I’m not alone in feeling that way.”
    If this was “a fight against governments, news media and the powerful elites they represent,” it may have been won a long time ago. The fight for 9/11 Truth is a fight against civil engineering faculties who stay blissfully ignorant of the three televised criminal controlled demolitions, against Muslim institutions who preach the self-defeating mantra that “Christian islamophobia is understandable but most Muslim fundamentalists would never terrorize,” against anti-war scholars who exhort their gullible followers to preach dozens of reasons to end 9/11-inspired wars while ignoring the one reason that even conservative Republicans would effortlessly understand, against etc. A unique blessing of 9/11 is precisely the obviousness of the permanent commitment of anti-neoconservative opinion-makers of all kinds, all around the globe, to carefully beat around the 9/11 bush.

    I’ll also propose that equating 9/11 work to a fight is an error. Fighting against the immense and remarkably well organized 9/11 censorship is futile. A much more promising strategy is to ride on it. Simply propagating Building 7’s mythical destruction by an office fire while regretting that TV did not duly and properly inform the public on this extraordinary accident happens to be an effective wake-up tool. It affirms the 9/11 myth while pushing the 9/11 hysteria beyond the Master 9/11 conspirators’ comfort level. Partisans of the myth who argue against it are easy to ridicule, it forces ordinary people to harbor some discomfort over TV, and it frames 9/11 within its fundamental essence, which is epistemological.

    Love,

  3. HAPPY ANNIVERSARY TO TRUTH & SHADOWS

    And Congratulations to Craig McKee!

    I have considered T&S the number one 9/11 site on the Internet since I fell into Craig’s rabbit hole some four years ago. In that time it has only gotten better and better.

    ~Willy Whitten – \\][//

  4. “I’m not talking about why Anderson Cooper or Bill O’Reilly or Rachel Maddow or any number of other mindless media hacks want to convince us that “conspiracy theories” are the creations of kooks in tin-foil hats”

    You forgot Jonathan Kay!

    Congratulations on 5 years of fine articles and many more to come. I would definitely recommend Truth and Shadows to anyone interested in the truth movement.

  5. Congrats on the half-decade mark Craig!

    Your blog and your voice were sorely needed at a time when the infil-traitors had succeeded over time in turning 911blogger from a dynamic site to the laughing stock of the truth movement, and for several years now a veritable ghost town.

    I love how you can recognize disinformation and are not afraid to tell it like it is – I think in particular of your words “propaganda team” regarding the Pentagon. Speaking of Chandler telling you to “please stop writing,” was this before or after your first article to name him as part of that team?

    This past June marks my 10 year anniversary of being a committed 9/11 activist. In 2004, Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, while not actually a real 9/11 truth movie, did nudge open the door of skepticism. While Moore overtly postulated that Bush accidentally allowed 9/11 to happen because he was taking too many fishing vacations and “ignored warnings,” but then took political advantage of the tragedy after accidentally letting it happen, this was where I started to become skeptical of the official 9/11 story. Even a few days after 9/11 when Bush’s approval rating went to 91%, I could see that this was a political wet dream for the administration. However, at the time I subconsciously dismissed any notion of an inside job. But after Moore’s “incompetence theory” movie, the door was nudged open to a LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) scenario for me. During the first half of 2005 I read David Griffin’s New Pearl Harbor and watched his famous Madison WI speech (introduced by Kevin Barrett). But the final fuel that turned me into an activist was watching the videos In Plane Site and Painful Deceptions. I wouldn’t recommend either of those today, but they represented the best of what had been offered up to 2005.

    Since then it’s been quite a wild ride; I was at Ground Zero on the 5th anniversary; I was active with Cincinnati 9/11 Truth, which, at its peak, had a weekly show on Public Access as well as the 11th-of-month street actions. I miss the Media Bridges studio. One of my best friends and comrades in the struggle is another person mentioned in Craig’s article, Mike Cook. Mike and I met Richard in Cincinnati in 2008 and afterwards became a volunteer for AE; I was part of the credentials “verification team,” though my job was easy since I was tasked with verifying the “other supporters.” (But I still had to look for red flags in both names and personal statements.) In June 2009 Mike Cook and I went to DC and participated in both the Pilots for Truth – CIT joint conference, and also the annual AIA convention to join AE911Truth. I was a founding member, and first coordinator, of Actors and Artists for 9/11 Truth and had the distinct privilege of working closely with David Griffin in that regard. Last but not least I’ve written two articles for Truth and Shadows. Okay, Craig, I’ll hand the microphone back to you now.😉

    Wow. Holy crap. A decade. And for half of that I’ve been participating here. Life is moving fast indeed. Kudos once again Craig and don’t go anywhere anytime soon.

    1. Thanks, Adam. And there’s lots I can relate to in your journey, although you were involved well ahead of me. I was a big Michael Moore fan, and I think you are right when you say that it opened that door a bit even though he doesn’t go nearly far enough. I think Moore has helped a lot of people to open up to the idea that the world portrayed by the mainstream media isn’t the real story. Of course, I wish he’d get into 9/11, but I imagine he is concerned about his career.

      Thanks for participating and for your two excellent contributions. Maybe you should start thinking of an idea for number three?

      1. I’ll be delighted to write a third piece for you, Craig.

        Don’t forget, in 2004, the prevailing atmosphere in the USA was still mostly Bush-supporting and right wing. The shock and awe of 9/11 was still not that far in the distance, and many in the USA felt that since it was a time of war, it wasn’t the right time to be asking questions or being critical of the Administration.

        Some theaters in the heartland, owned by republican voters, refused to show the film.

        In other words, just suggesting mere incompetence was enough to cause all the brouhaha at the time that it did, with many Bush supporters feeling that even the incompetence suggestion was virtual treason. If Moore had gone further and outright suggested a LIHOP scenario, that the Bush administration deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, the likelihood is that no mainstream movie theaters at all would have shown it; it would have been relegated to the internet just like In Plane Site and Loose Change.

  6. Wow Craig, superb piece of writing. From your lead: “stopped peeking down the rabbit hole and jumped in,” to the close: “making an established living as a troll for the NSA,” this article sings.

    And I wholly agree that “The deeply ingrained resistance from so many people to rethinking their view of the world in the light of new evidence is, for me, the most distressing and difficult thing we must overcome.”

    Prior to finding out about 9/11, I thought I was like most other people. Now I often feel like some alien who thinks, feels and functions very differently than most others I meet. I just cannot fathom how people can, for example, look at the collapse of building 7 and believe it came down because of debris from the towers. Or can look at the amazing Penta-lawn with no significant plane wreckage, and believe that a plane crashed there.

    Especially living here in the belly of the beast as I do, adherence to the official story is, at least publicly, very strong. I am so grateful for my highly intelligent, courageous and principled truther friends like you and Adam. Without at least a few people unwilling to agree that 2 + 2 = 5, the world would be a pretty lonely place.

    1. I’m so tired of this “discredit” argument as an excuse to whitewash the truth. Code Pink and other anti-war organizations won’t touch 9/11 for the same reason. Many truthers won’t admit that they don’t believe real planes hit the towers, or that the plane seen that the Pentagon flew over, again, not wanting to be “discredited.” Where does it end?

      The only safe and true course is to tell the truth as you see it, as accurately as you can, and let the chips fall where they may. This rabbit hole goes deeper than many truthers realize, and each successive level down seems progressively more “out there” to the uninformed.

      1. I wouldn’t want to start an argument with sweet little Sheila, but some “successive levels down seem progressively more “out there” to the” … richly informed and critical thinker.

        I am not at all concerned with ‘consensus’ or ‘discrediting’ any but my own sense of what is correct and rational. I find some of the nuevo 9/11 theories to be entirely illogical and fanciful, based entirely on supposition, conjecture, and speculation.

        Being specific, I hold these issues to be promoted by charlatans out to drag red herrings across the trails of valid research: “DEW” – “Nukes” – “Video Fakery” – “No-Planes” (at WTC) – and the loopy “Holograms” idea.

        I have not dismissed a single one of these propositions without a thorough study of the points given by the promoters of them. And I have given complete arguments as to why I disagree with such ideas.

        14 years is a lot of time to get the story straight on 9/11. Delving into science fiction and fantasy out of some jejune sense of boredom only blemishes ones own epistemological make up.
        9/11 was a PSYOP, the WTC taken down by explosive demolitions, the Pentagon was a magic act with a plane flying over the building through a smoke screen. Shanksville was another staged burlesque. The perps were the global military industrial complex in league with a global Public Relations Regime.
        \\][//

    2. Greg, if you want an indication of where minds that dismiss NASA will eventually lead to check out this site:

      200 Proofs Earth in NOT a Spinning Ball
      “This should greatly assist those seeking veracity and confirmation we’ve been lied to on a massive scale for the past 500 years as to the heliocentric round ball earth theory vs. geocentric flat stationary earth theory.
      http://aplanetruth.info/2015/08/04/200-proofs-earth-in-not-a-spinning-ball/comment-page-1/
      \\][//

      1. “Minds that dismiss NASA”? Willy, this comment is so far below your usual high standard. Are you sure a “debunker” didn’t slip behind your computer when you weren’t looking?

        1. Hi Craig,

          I think my comment above at August 19, 2015 at 10:06 pm, should act as an answer to this question. I am sorry if you think my standards are slipping. I have some criticisms of NASA, and especially their beginnings with Nazi scientists. But the issue of the moon landings being a hoax is a joke in my opinion.

          The expectation that we will agree on every subject is a bit high, we will not, we do not. You know I have high regard for you and your views, but we do disagree on this topic, as well as the Laurel Canyon rock-star thing being a CIA op.

          I have been outspoken about this on other threads, I don’t know why it surprises you now?
          \\][//

          1. Willy, if you’ve really looked into the moon landing issue extensively, you know what the primary evidence is proving a hoax (even though you don’t find it persuasive).

            Can you name the top five reasons why so many of us believe the Apollo missions to be faked? If not, you have more studying to do.

            1. Sheila, rather than get into it here, I left the link to my blog page dealing with the issue of the “moon landing hoax”
              But if you want to list the five top reasons here, I would be glad to address them here.
              \\][//

                1. Sheila, I thought you were going to list them and I would address those on your list. Do you claim that there is a standard top 5? If so, you list what you think those are. As I said above:
                  ‘But if you want to list the five top reasons here…’

                  You see Sheila, from my perspective there are no valid “pieces of evidence demonstrating that the Apollo missions were faked.” So I am not going to second guess what you think are valid.

                  But to chose one myth that is often sited, I will go with the Van Allen Belt myth:

                  Call this; Moon Hoax’ argument #1: The astronauts would have died from radiation exposure
                  This is probably the most common ‘Moon hoax’ claim that I’ve seen: The astronauts would not have been able to survive the trip because they would receive a lethal dose of radiation, both from passing through the Van Allen radiation belts and from being beyond Earth’s magnetic field and on the Moon’s surface.
                  . . . . . .

                  “The truth is, for their entire trip to the Moon and back, the astronauts only received a dose equal to around one-tenth of one per cent of the radiation needed for a lethal dose (their total exposure was roughly 11 millisieverts and a lethal dose is at 8,000 millisieverts).

                  The reason for this is that the harmful effects from radiation are based on strength of the radiation and the time of exposure. You’d need to spend nearly four months inside the Van Allen belts to accumulate a lethal dose. The astronauts passed through them in roughly one hour. As for their time spent beyond Earth’s magnetic field, where they were exposed to cosmic radiation, as I discussed back at the end of May, an astronaut could make a one-way trip to Mars and not receive a dose that exceeds NASA’s lifetime limits (and those don’t even come close to lethal levels).”~ Scott Sutherland

                  These calculations come Van Allen himself.

                  “The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense.” — Dr. James Van Allen

                  “Each astronaut wore a personal dosimeter. The accumulated dose for each astronaut was regularly reported to Mission Control over the radio.”

                  http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html
                  \\][//

                  1. I know you and others here will be insulted by the term “conspiricist” used at the Clavius site. Unfortunately if you want to confront the real science here you are going to have do deal with it.
                    \\][//

                    1. I’m not insulted by the term. The term is what debunkers like Jonathan Kay use to attack the messenger while not responding to the message. Anyone who uses the term has no credibility with me.

                    2. “…to attack the messenger while not responding to the message.”~Craig
                      But the Clavius site does respond in detail to the ‘message’.

                      “Anyone who uses the term has no credibility with me.”~Ibid
                      So you will ignore the science because you don’t like the term ‘conspiracist’ – is that your position Craig?
                      \\][//

                    3. Of course not. But I don’t think we’ve established that your side of the debate represents the scientific view while mine does not.

                      The term is disinformation, in my opinion. That doesn’t mean it’s always used deliberately to deceive; some people who are honest will fall for this bogus “scientist/conspiracist” contrast. But it’s like people who mock positions by trotting out the “conspiracy theory” label. They might be correct in one statement or another, but an argument that employs these labels is suspect.

                    4. Frankly Craig, I don’t think there is any reason to continue this discussion on this thread.
                      If the term “debunkers” is acceptable, while the term “Conspiracist” is verboten, then we will simply spin in a vortex of rhetorical semantics.

                      I am a conspiracy theorist, regardless of the attempt to slur that term. I am not quailed by the term conspiracist. I am not quailed by the term debunker. I am interested in the substance of a proposition or a critique.

                      So far I have encountered little substance but rather arguments over language on this topic.
                      \\][//

                    5. Willy, you are not obligated to continue with any thread, of course. That’s your call. What I choose to comment on is my call.

                      I don’t see the vortex you speak of. I reacted to the term in question (because I believe language is very important, particularly in the “conspiracy” area), and you engaged me on that. And I don’t see the relevance of the comparison with “debunkers.” No one, to my knowledge objects to that term. “Conspiracist” is not verboten; that is not what I said. But it is a made-up word used to take attention off of what is being questioned and onto the person doing the questioning.

                  2. Sorry Willy, but at this point I’ve lost interest in communicating with you about this. I was very clear in my request, ie:

                    “Willy, if you’ve really looked into the moon landing issue extensively, you know what the primary evidence is proving a hoax (even though you don’t find it persuasive). Can you name the top five reasons why so many of us believe the Apollo missions to be faked? If not, you have more studying to do.”

                    That you would pretend to misunderstand a very clearly stated request, saying that you thought it was I who would provide the list, does not bode well for future discussion.

                    You again are dishonest in replying to Adam Syed, in asking for context to the statement of the “challenges needing to be faced before man can pass through the Van Allen belts”. The context was already provided.

                    I don’t suspect you to be an infiltrator or a paid NASA disinformation specialist, but you are behaving like one, and it’s simply tiring.

                    1. “Sorry Willy, but at this point I’ve lost interest in communicating with you about this.”!Shiela

                      No doubt! Lol
                      The record of our conversation is right here on the thread, your characterization is your own.
                      \\][//

          2. It doesn’t surprise me, and I have no problem that you take the position you do. I object to the comparison between those who question the Apollo missions and people who believe the Earth is flat. It really sounds more like an ad hominem attack.

            1. The reason I brought up the flat earth subject is because I came across that site from a YouTube video trying to debunk the new findings on Pluto, that was mainly a full frontal attack on NASA. The person that posted that video is the same as the one with the flat earth site.

              Perhaps it is because I was so interested in astronomy as a youngster, and have studied it and space travel from an early age, that I have a fuller understanding of the science involved in this issue. And yes, I was very much interested in science fiction in the same era when growing up. Perhaps that is why I find it easy to distinguish between fact and fiction on these matters.

              Some may fault me for “trusting NASA” on this topic. It is not a matter of “trust” it is a matter of basic knowledge of physics, and astronomy. I think there are problems when it comes to NASA revealing what they have found in their space explorations as pertaining to ET’s. I do believe they are hiding what they have actually discovered on the Moon and Mars and perhaps elsewhere.
              \\][//

                1. Quarantined by ET? That would be speculative. I can’t say definitively. I doubt it.

                  I think it is more to do with funding. War is more profitable to the military industrial complex. Near earth orbit is all that is needed for military control of of the planet (the High Ground).
                  \\][//

  7. Thank you Mr. McKee

    After being crudely handed my hat during the 9blogger purge (and several other much higher profile forums, and losing business partners and the business itself, and my home at the time), not only did I stop participating in dialogue with people (any people), I was delighted to find truthandshadows with such excellent articles and vibrant dialogue here in the comments below.

    Not yet feeling ready myself to free dive back down the rabbit hole, I do so thank you all (even you pesky little counter-intel twerps) for sending up your reports and comments that I can read and re-read them here.

    Thank you again Mr. McKee

  8. yep. congratulations. no doubt all and each and everyone/anyone that has fallen into this vast rabbit hole has had bites taken out of them by now. [ you go through the mirror, you get cut by the glass ] Al Martin, who wrote the darkest record of deepstate activities through Irran/contra (The Conspirators) called it ‘the vortex of the way things are’. no escape. And when I think about it, is the original Orwellian rat cage. The thinking processes and consequences of studying or being drawn through this miasma of shit called ‘covert’, is a rats cage around and in and out of our thinking ‘. The outrages to humanity it exposes is a torture. to humanist thinking. To love., the 911 conspirators are malevolent beyond description and consequences of their acts, a new dark age..so. I don’t know what drives anyone and everyone has a different way to cope with the madness found here, but will say this. Whatever personal opinions of David Chandler, PENTBOM not the finest hour for many; I give him credit for displacing official 911 creatioNIST report to actually acknowledge FREEFALL in the record.
    It was Chandler that fcked Sunder up. This evidence of demolition is one of the CRITICAL power entry points into breaking the OCT. 81 columned steel framed structures in sudden symmetric free fall, is the rose bud of truth in a canker BUSH of thorns.
    Anyway. Keep at it Craig.
    best wishes.
    rogermorris.

  9. The continuing irresolution of what happened on September 11, 2001 is a cancerous, divisive and dangerous condition for humanity, and can only be successfully treated if the truth becomes known around the Earth. As the truth continues to be concealed, the cancer, the collective negativity in all of its forms, remains and inflicts harm on the grandest of scales.

    In a 2-hour video production, over 400 men and women could appear for 15 seconds each, delivering a one-sentence message that finishes the words/thought: “Humanity must know the truth about September 11, 2001 because…” Professors, retired military, actors, professional athletes, engineers, former politicians/public figures, religious leaders, and so on.

    Such a film would become the most watched film in human history, and, most importantly, have historic and positive consequences for this and future generations.

  10. My big fear is that the powers that be will clamp down on the internet and sites such as this under the pretext of public security, fighting hate speech, combatting anti-Semitism, and other such nonsense. My other fear is that there is no shortage of fools who would welcome this.

    1. Kevin Barrett is already experiencing this in Canada. Second time. First time he was refused entry at the border. This time…

      Out of uniform and posing as ordinary audience members, the Hate Police officers watched my book talk. During the intermission between my lecture and the subsequent presentation by University of Lethbridge professor Anthony Hall, the officers flashed their badges and identified themselves as members of the Hate Speech Squad. They said they had received a complaint referencing “conspiracy theories” and “anti-Semitism.” (How a scholarly book that includes essays by several highly accomplished and reputable Jewish contributors, as well as one by an even more Semitic Arab Muslim, can be called “anti-Semitic” is a mystery.)

      The lead officer told me: “I didn’t see any problems with anything I heard during your lecture.” On behalf of the Department, he accepted an autographed copy of We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo dedicated “To the Edmonton Police Department Hate Speech Squad – thank you for thinking freely.” The officer said the book will be placed in the Departmental Library.

      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/08/17/canadian-police/

      (Disclaimer: Yes, I know VT is a dubious source, with the senior editor admitting that he puts out 30-40% disinfo. However, it’s where Barrett chose to publish this account.)

  11. Thanks so much Craig for your work, and your continuing commitment to truth in all its forms. I have been down this rabbit hole since reading Thierry Meyssan’s book in early 2002, but actually even earlier, starting on the day of the event, when I was shocked to see the second WTC come down in the manner that it did, and then the next morning, when the NY Times cover photo of the Pentagon did not contain any evidence of the large jetliner that I fully expected to see. My visceral sense of the WTC was that it was not possible for that to have happened in that manner based on airplane crash, jet fuel, and office fires.

    Since then it has been a wild ride, and I agree that David Ray Griffin’s books are the best all around information source. I also agree that the ridiculous Pentagon dispute has caused much dissension and controversy in the “movement” and I am often astounded when serious truth researchers adopt the position that a large jetliner impacted that building that day.

    And as to the other topics, I agree with the proposition that all the false flags you listed, and even the Moon Landings, were indeed false flags.

    You always seem to write in a cogent and clear manner, making good points and valiantly attempting to awaken people to reality. I particularly enjoyed the satirical article on the Pentagon that some truthers could not understand; it was a great way to highlight the absurdity of the LJAP arguments.

    So keep it up, thanks again, and I look forward to more in the future.

        1. Yes. Here is how he introduces my post to the members of 9/11 Truth Movement Facebook group:

          “Craig McKee writes on a disinformation blog, and wrote a new article about how to make this group look fake. He tells his readers ways to ‘debunk’ us, and how to spread disinformation about missiles and holograms. Craig McKee and the CIT (citizen investigation team) are not real researchers, but rather a group of people who memorize whatever Craig and the leaders of CIT say…. They want to promote missiles and no-planes, and hologram crap because it makes it easier to make 9/11 truthers look stupid. Don’t spread disinformation about ‘missiles’ and ‘hologram planes’ or this group is not for you. In order to promote the ‘missile theory’, one must ignore THOUSANDS of pieces of debris, numerous witnesses, and a huge damaged section to the Pentagon which was over 120 feet long…. Don’t let Craig and the other people publish disinformation and trick all of us.”

          This person is an infiltrator, period. Besides misrepresenting my article, he outright lies about what I believe. I don’t know if he is collecting a paycheck as an agent or he is just doing everything he can to sabotage the Truth Movement (the movement, not the group), but he is no truther.

            1. Well even that group couldn’t stand him anymore; he was kicked out, unceremoniously, not for his contrary views about the Pentagon, or CIT, or Craig’s writing, or his extremely antagonistic and insulting manner, but because he got into it with Ken Doc about Chemtrails, no less.

              1. Interesting. I knew he’d been given the boot finally, but didn’t know what it was about. Chemtrails, huh?

                Ken Doc said he always considered Mike a friend, and vociferously defended him from those who were accusing him of being a troll. With the Pentagon, when communicating with Josef Hanji (of Denmark 9/11 Truth and close colleague of Niels Harritt), Doc said something to the effect of “Mike Collins is not a troll. He’s a very smart young man who demands very high standards of evidence which is why he isn’t convinced by the Pentagon no-plane/CIT theories.”

                I guess it took Mike being an a-hole to Ken himself to snap Ken out of it.

                1. All you have to do – and all Ken had to do – is look at the fact that Collins lies over and over. The fact that he refused to do that does not reflect well on him at all.

                  1. I agree with that. He was given much more latitude than anyone else, and he took full advantage. Anyone getting into a discussion with MC who took a contrary position was almost immediately attacked personally; I felt his nastiness myself, when I told him during some discussion that although I am not a scientist, I am a trial attorney, and as such used to evaluating evidence. He then replied that “you [I] must not win many cases then” without knowing anything of my practice or whether I am considered good at what I do. He turned off many innocent if naive novices by his brusk, insulting, downright nasty manner, using the term “retard” so many times you thought you were dealing with a teenager in high school. What finally did it for me was his racist rant (he’s from Florida) about black people not working and just living off government handouts, in some post about protesters.

                    1. Peter Pike I have to wonder if martial law will be enacted in Baltimore given the situation . Could this be the trigger to get started ? I agree Mike , it won’t be long .
                      5 hrs · Like
                      Mike Collins It already did get enacted unofficially as a “state of emergency”.
                      Wait until more of these riots occur, then some hacker attacks to some banks to cause more civil unrest, then some ISIS attacks, etc…
                      4 hrs · Like
                      Mike Collins Educate others now
                      4 hrs · Like
                      Peter Pike I do Mike . It’s not easy . Everyone is so content in Pleasantville !
                      4 hrs · Like
                      Mike Collins Lets just hope that not too many people are dumb enough to join those riots besides welfare cretins or gang members who steal, loot, and do gang murder. If them military takes them out, its all good lol
                      4 hrs · Like
                      Joe Haley “welfare cretins”
                      4 hrs · Like
                      Peter Pike I call them band wagon riders myself
                      4 hrs · Like
                      Mike Collins Lol by ghetto welfare cretin, I mean:
                      “The fat woman named Shananiqua, who is unemployed but has a gold watch, and gets a monthly welfare check, plus a housing allowance for a government owned apartments building, plus food subsidies, plus free education for her five children, plus free healthcare, and makes approximately 55,000 dollars per year because she doesn’t know any of the fathers names of her children”….
                      We all know em.
                      I see them everyday at Publix using welfare to buy food, and cash to buy liquor and lotto tickets. Black, white, purple, whatever colored skin…just trashy leeches
                      4 hrs · Edited · Like
                      Peter Pike Damn , she don’t leave any room on the bandwagon
                      4 hrs · Like · 1
                      Mike Collins Lol
                      4 hrs · Like
                      Joe Haley well I am on foodstamps and someone I know a whole lot is on disability, neither of us have children, but I don’t think we’ll be looting anytime soon.
                      4 hrs · Like
                      Peter Pike I’ve been off work 1 year on a disability . Got hit last year in my jeep coming home . It’s been tight to say the least
                      Peter Pike’s photo.
                      4 hrs · Like
                      Mike Collins Yeah those programs are good for people to use! I’m glad you are on them. but some people purposely abuse them endlessly and they train their kids how to do it….
                      I also work on the south side of Jacksonville Florida, lol which is a ghetto and industrial area lol
                      4 hrs · Like
                      Joe Haley ouch, pete, glad you got better.
                      4 hrs · Like · 1
                      Peter Pike doing better now . crap still hurts but life must move forward .

                    2. Thanks Niko.

                      With him being in Florida, it’s a nice feeling to know that I’m at the polar diagonal opposite end of the country, in Seattle.

  12. Willy,

    I have been someone who, for the past several years, has been undecided on the moon hoax issue. I haven’t been impressed with the physical arguments myself. To me, it’s the circumstantial evidence and the geo-political goings on of the 1960’s that make me skeptical.

    But I’m not sure I buy the argument about the Van Allen belts giving the astronauts a negligible amount of radiation.

    Having no expertise in science in general, and certainly not radiation in particular, I MIGHT buy this argument: “(their total exposure was roughly 11 millisieverts and a lethal dose is at 8,000 millisieverts)” IF it weren’t for recent endeavors by NASA itself, regarding sending unmanned probes up there, super-resistant to radiation, in order to study the belts and gather data about the belts, this very decade. Why the need to do that if normal spacecraft and humans so safely passed through the belts in 1969-1972?

    This is a 2012 press release from NASA itself.

    http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/aug/HQ_12-272_RBSP_L-14.html#.VdaGv_lVhBc

    The RBSP spacecraft are designed to fly and operate in the heart of the most hazardous regions of near-Earth space to collect crucial data. The data will help researchers develop an understanding of the Van Allen radiation belts, two rings of very high energy electrons and protons that can pose hazards to human and robotic explorers.

    And what about this?

    3:02 “As we [meaning the unmanned Orion rocket] get further away from earth, we’ll pass through the Van Allen belts, an area of dangerous radiation.”

    “…Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice.”

    “But Orion has protection. Shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space.

    Right from a NASA engineer.

    1. The commentary appearing in the little blurbs are essentially bullshit. If you would read the Clavius site you will understand that the Apollo craft had adequate shielding for the moon journeys.

      “Having no expertise in science in general, and certainly not radiation in particular”~Adam Syed

      Well all I can say is you can choose to remain ignorant or you can read the science tutorials on space radiation and the Van Allen Belts on the Clavius site:
      http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html
      \\][//

      1. I wasn’t interested in the little blurbs from the video uploader. I am interested in the NASA engineer’s comments, particularly “We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space.”

        1. “We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space.”

          Well Adam, what is the context of this statement? Do you think this statement necessarily means that they didn’t solve those challenges for the Apollo flights and presume this is an “admission” by a NASA engineer that the flights did not take place? That is what the title the person distributing this clip wants you to believe.

          The Orion missions are obviously going to be different than the Apollo missions. It is likely the missions will be tasked with spending more time in the Van Allen Belts. Each mission is obviously going to concern itself with the particulars of that mission.

          Again, referring to Clavius:

          “Soviet cosmonauts have been quoted as saying radiation was a very grave concern.” ~Moon Hoaxers

          “And NASA officials have been quoted as saying essentially the same thing. Radiation is a very great concern, but there’s a vast difference between a “concern” and an insurmountable obstacle. The Moon Hoax argument relies on the radiation problem being insurmountable, and nothing said by either NASA or cosmonauts conveys the notion that these problems couldn’t have been solved.”~Clavius
          . . . . .

          Now this is the last comment I will be making on this thread on the Moon Hoax topic. If you want to discuss it further you are invited to my blog to do so. I will get a google alert if you make a comment. I just approved Craig’s first comment there. Once one is approved, you are ready to go for as long as you like.
          \\][//

  13. You know Craig, when I see the title of this article, “Red Pills and White Rabbits,” my nerdy music brain can’t help but put it to the first six notes of “My Favorite Things.”

    1. I hear “One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small, and the ones that Mother gives you, don’t do anything at all…” But perhaps that is obvious.

        1. You gave yourself away, Adam, at least as to your youth. The Jefferson Airplane was an iconic band from the hippie days of the 1960’s in San Francisco; I saw them many times. White Rabbit, which I do believe was Craig’s meaning, was a song about those days and the dysfunctional society in the US, with reference to Lewis Caroll’s books about Alice in Wonderland, psychedelics, and fantasy. The biggest hit for them was “Somebody to Love” and they played Woodstock, 46 years ago last week.

          1. Yes, Alice in Wonderland, White Rabbit, and the Matrix are all part of the mix. By the way, I had the dubious distinction of seeing Jefferson Starship – minus Grace Slick – perform at the half-time show of the (now defunct) World Football League’s championship game a bunch of years ago.

            1. I saw the original Jefferson Airplane in Houston in 1967, of course they did ‘White Rabbit’. It was always my favorite tune of theirs, being a big fan of Louis Carroll.
              \\][//

  14. I want to address the issue of language here a bit further without linking it specifically to the other topic I wish to drop here.

    Mr. McKee made this comment to me:

    “I don’t see the vortex you speak of. I reacted to the term in question (because I believe language is very important, particularly in the “conspiracy” area), and you engaged me on that. And I don’t see the relevance of the comparison with “debunkers.” No one, to my knowledge objects to that term. “Conspiracist” is not verboten; that is not what I said. But it is a made-up word used to take attention off of what is being questioned and onto the person doing the questioning.”

    I think language is important as well, and we have discussed this topic many times on T&S. I am a great fan of the “predictive programmer” George Orwell [that comment should be read as satirical by the way].

    I am well aware of Newspeak, and the rhetorical uses political language is put to. I am well aware that the term “Conspiracy Theorist” was ‘weaponized’ by the CIA in it’s attempt to blunt criticism of the Warren Report around the time of Garrison’s trial against Shaw.

    Personally I have taken back the term “Conspiracy Theorist” and claim to be one with pride; in the context of using the term “theorist” in it’s technical meaning.

    Although the term ‘debunker’ as used as general characterization doesn’t set my hair on fire. But I may be a bit concerned should close colleagues accuse me of being a ‘debunker’ or on the ‘debunkers side”. And that is the point I want to make here. All of these language issues must be put in proper context.

    Using the term “conspiracist” isn’t NECESSARILY done to degrade. It is a term to speak to the views of a certain group, and is a streamline way of addressing that group without using bulky language in identifying them each time they are mentioned.

    I don’t think it is productive to have a dogmatic approach to which words are proper in all conversations, we must pay attention to the context of what is being said. I think it is important to try not to be too sensitive, and take insult or affront so quickly.

    I hope this clears things up here some. If I have just confused the situation more, I apologize.
    \\][//

  15. Craig said “I’m not insulted by the term. The term is what debunkers like Jonathan Kay use to attack the messenger while not responding to the message. Anyone who uses the term has no credibility with me.”

    And when “conspiracist” isn’t enough, when you want to kick it up a notch, there’s “anti-Semitism”. I just finished reading an article on the Anti Defamation League website about anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and the anti-Semitic conspiracists who promote them. The article describes the theories but presents no opposing arguments. I guess it’s all self evident? It does however use the term anti-Semitic/anti-Semite 62 times.

    1. The post – holocaust sympathy much of the world has felt toward the Jewish people gets milked for all it can by the Zionist lobby. They use that sympathy, and the concept of “Jews as victims,” to infer that every Jew everywhere is as pure as snow, and that no Jew could do any wrong… and we know that because The Diary of Anne Frank! and Schindler’s List!!!

      Notice also the feminization of Israel. When speaking of other countries, politicians will refer to the country using the pronoun “it.” But politicians from Obama to McCain will talk about how “Israel has a right to defend her self.”

      1. This is so moronic and creepy I thought I’d say nothing but I couldn’t let it go. People died. Lots of them. They were murdered. And who are you attacking? A lobby that represents the victims? Yes, moronic and creepy. I mean, whom are we truthers lobbing for if not the victims of 9/11? Your post is as snarky and ignorant as any take your pick of 9/11 truth naysayers. If only we had a 9/11 Ann Frank or Schindler to dramatize and make known the crimes of 9/11. Please, Adam, this post is not right.

        1. No, I think you’ve missed the point of my post. Israel uses the Holocaust as a get out of jail free pass.

          Far from being a “lobby that represents the victims,” the Zionist movement pre-dates the holocaust by decades. I believe Theodore Herzl founded the movement in the 1890s, from what I recall. And it’s about establishing, maintaining and expanding a Jewish state in Palestine.

          And we do have our own Anne Franks with 9/11, in the form of Willam Rodriguez and firefighters who testify to the explosions and molten steel. We also have the NoC witnesses at the Pentagon, who, if subpoenaed into court, would stand by where they place the plane regardless of the implications.

  16. Well as to the moon landing hoax idea I will have to say at this point that I believe the moon landings were indeed a hoax. This is not a conclusion I came to lightly or based upon scant research. I looked into the issue in depth and I even started into a debate with HR1 about it which I admit I abandoned. I want to explain why I abandoned that debate and also express my respect for Willy. I abandoned the debate because I know Willy is extremely intelligent and very thorough and I know that I could not put in the time or effort necessary to offer a strong rebuttal to his arguments. I am weary from 14+ years of argument and debate about 9/11 and Sandy Hook and Boston and and and… So the truth is I just don’t have the energy to put up the argument Willy deserves and a half effort would surely not suffice.

    I will say this however about the moon landing hoax issue, it is surprisingly emotional for Americans old enough to have seen the events live. I find with my friends, one in particular, that it is a VERY touchy subject, even more so than 9/11. For him the moon landings are the greatest achievement of mankind and the crowning jewel of what America is all about. When I argue with him and present what I consider to be strong evidence of a hoax he reacts very emotionally to it and he even admitted to me that he doesn’t want to believe me no matter what I show him or say. It has been a long and ongoing point of contention between us and when I started getting into the debate with Willy I felt the same sort of strong emotions coming from him. This is not to say that Willy is offering an emotional argument because he isn’t. Willy is presenting what he considers to be strong evidence that the hoax arguments are bogus.

    What I am saying though to you Willy is that I believe you have a powerful emotional investment in the idea that man went to the moon. I think it is a source of pride for you and many many people. The arguments that the landings are a hoax trample on that pride and threaten to expose the person as a sucker or chump of some kind. So for me it is a lose lose to get into another argument about another conspiracy an perhaps alienate yet another friend. I do not consider your arguments to be emotional ones Willy, they are not, many of them are logical and rational arguments but I simply do not find them persuasive. For example the argument you presented for the astronaut himself being the second light source in the photos was a well considered argument however failed to convince me for various reasons. The bottom line is that I consider the photos demonstrating multiple light sources to be very strong evidence of a hoax that has not thus far been effectively refuted. I conducted my own experiments by the way after I watched the video you offered Willy and found that reflected light off the space suit would have been extremely weak compared to the Sun. So weak comparatively that it would not have been capable of casting a second shadow let alone a shadow just as dark and defined as one caused by the Sun. In my view the photos show two light sources of relatively equal strength.

    Anyway I don’t consider the photos to be the strongest evidence of a hoax but rather just one of many proofs that the moon landings were indeed a hoax.

    1. “What I am saying though to you Willy is that I believe you have a powerful emotional investment in the idea that man went to the moon.”~Adam Ruff

      First of all, thank you for your respectful attitude towards me in your response here.

      However I dispute the contention above. Rather than an emotional investment, I have a powerful intellectual investment in critical thinking. I have spent considerable time studying the sciences. And most importantly to this discussion – which I am entering here just this on time more to respond to Mr Ruff; is that the assertions I have encountered from the promoters of the Moon Landing Hoax, are absurd. Every single assertion is mortally flawed and cannot stand up to critical evaluation.

      I will leave this topic now with that.
      \\][//

      1. I am like Adam R. in a couple of ways. First, I do not wish to make the time commitment to get into a serious debate about the Moon, at least not at this time. I would not get into it without a complete effort, and I have far too much on my plate these days to do that. But I must also say that I am troubled by your approach to those who do not believe the Apollo missions were what was claimed. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I fail to see why legitimate questions and legitimate points must be described as “absurd.” That is an indirect attack on those who raise those questions. And it weakens your credibility on the issue, in my opinion.

        Were questions about the lack of dust on the legs of the LM or a blast crater below it really “absurd”? Are questions about why no human has travelled more than 400 miles from the Earth’s surface in 43 years absurd? I think it’s a damn good question. And chalking it up to a lack of funding verges on the absurd to me. Is it absurd to question why NASA to this day appears quite concerned with overcoming the dangers of radiation to astronauts who will have to travel through the Van Allen belts to go to Mars?

        Is it absurd to wonder about why some shots of the lunar rover appear to missing tire tracks both in front and behind the wheels? And what about the footage that shows an astronaut appearing to be lifted to his feet by some unseen force? No, I’m not getting into making a detailed case for anything just now for reasons already stated, I am just saying that there is a real discussion to be had. You may feel you have logical, “scientific” explanations for all of these, but the questions are, I feel, very reasonable, and serious doubts about this supposedly miraculous event in human history are anything but absurd.

        1. “but I fail to see why legitimate questions and legitimate points must be described as “absurd.”

          Craig I make that statement because I don’t find any of the questions or points to be “legitimate”. It is as simple as that. Every one of these “questions & points” I have investigated have turned out to be based on fundamental misunderstandings of science and data.

          “supposedly miraculous event in human history”~Craig

          No one is framing this event as “miraculous” except those who argue that the lunar landings were impossible. The event was achieved by scientific endeavor, no ‘miracles’ are sighted for the success of the missions.

          I am trying very hard to let this issue go here. If you want to discuss it, you have the opportunity to comment on my blog entry on the issue. That is up to you.
          \\][//

          1. Indeed, it is up to me whether I accept your invitation to debate on your blog, and perhaps I will do that at some point. But it is also my choice whether to comment on anything said on this blog, including your previous comment. When I respond to your characterization of these questions as absurd, you have the choice whether to “let the issue go here” or not.

            1. Craig,
              If you would rather I will let the issue go here. If you wish no more responses at all, say so. If you want to discuss the issue here on this page, say so.
              My sole purpose in trying to disengage here is so that this page is not hijacked by a separate issue from the one you posted this page about.
              It is your call.
              \\][//

              1. Willy,

                I don’t want you to do anything in particular. I won’t tell you not to respond, but I did feel it necessary to respond to your use of “absurd.” I’m quite happy to leave it there for the time being. I appreciate your concern about hijacking the thread.

        2. I know we agreed to drop this and, if interested, continue it at Willy’s blog, but I do have one final thought that just occurred to me: the “lack of funding” argument falls flat on its face in light of the fact that we’ve had seven unmanned Mars landings, not to mention the craft that has now gone past Pluto and outside the solar system. Are we to believe that sending people beyond 400 miles would be astronomically more expensive? That seems “absurd” on its face, to me.

          I now match Willy in declaring this will be my last moon post here. Willy, if you want to respond to this, just let me know in your response that you’re leaving a comment addressed at this point on your blog, and I’ll happily go there.

          1. I actually don’t have a problem with the topic, and I don’t mind you raising this or any other point at all. Personally, I just don’t want to have to commit to an intensive and time-consuming debate on the subject unless I have the time to do it justice. Your point is a good one, I think. The fact that we haven’t left lower Earth orbit since the last Apollo mission is damned odd and hard to explain for those who believe we actually went. I think we might learn a lot more in the next couple of decades about our ability to go to the Moon.

            1. “I actually don’t have a problem with the topic..”~Craig,

              Okay then I will say this much more:

              Mr Syed’s point was about lack of funding. I addressed that in the link to comment # 8302 in the link above.

              There have been no manned flights beyond lower Earth orbit since the Apollo missions, but radiation has dire effects on electronics as well, and plenty of spacecraft have made it through the Van Allan Belts since that time.
              \\][//

              1. Well, the NASA engineer shown in the video previously linked to specifically says that the Mars Orion craft has shielding to protect the electronics from the “extreme radiation.”

                “Shielding will be put to the test as Orion cuts through the waves of radiation.” But he adds that taking humans safely through the belts is something else altogether.

                “We must solve these challenges before we take people through this region of space.”

                What’s to solve if passing through the belts is safe? Why are they worried about it now when they didn’t appear to be back in 1969?

                1. I addressed this in a comment to Mr Syed here already Craig.

                  As you yourself point out the NASA engineer was addressing the Orion project. His comments had nothing to do with the Apollo missions.
                  If you will read about the shielding used in the Apollo missions you will see they were specifically designed for the time spent in the Belts for those particular flights.
                  This idea that feet of heavy lead shielding would be necessary is based on ignorance of the different types of radiation encountered in space compared to that used to shield against atomic blasts.
                  Again The Clavius site has the factual answers to these questions.
                  \\][//

                  1. “Government is a racket” . . . except for NASA?! Say it isn’t so!

                    Coming from someone so experienced in the study of global platonic theater, your staunch defense of the common knowledge understanding of the Apollo missions is especially perplexing to this student.

                    Seems to me this example of the language from the Clavius site you refer us to reeks of blatant disinformation:

                    http://www.clavius.org/why.html

                    Are you playing a joke on us Willy?

                    1. “Seems to me this example of the language from the Clavius “~Sherif Shaalan

                      Get over the term “conspiracist” and read the science.

                      No I am not playing a joke on anyone Sherif. If you don’t want to confront the information that is your choice.
                      \\][//

                    2. It’s more than just the term “conspiracist,” that Sherif refers to; it’s a whole page on your favored web site that talks about why there are so many darned conspiracy theorists and how flimsy their evidence usually is. Regardless of the scientific claims (this is a separate point), this is exactly the kind of disinformation so commonly found in the mainstream media.

                      From the page: “Real life is boring. We constantly seek to embellish it, whether formally through media such as motion pictures or fictional literature, or informally through the exaggeration of our personal experiences. It’s more exciting to believe that strange lights in the sky are visiting aliens and not an airliner’s landing lights. As astounding as the moon landings were, it’s even more astounding to suppose that the entire thing was falsified.”

                      I hate arguments like this. And, whether rightly or wrongly, they make me question the site. I will read more from it, however.

                    3. The gambit about reality being boring, and how belief in a conspiracy is more exciting, is exactly the same kind of rhetoric that anti-9/11 truth hatchet job pieces lob again 9/11 truth activists and seekers.

                  2. Yes, he was commenting about Orion and about the challenge of getting astronauts through this area of extreme radiation. I will certainly explore this further but I’m not sure I see why it would be a greater challenge now than it was for Apollo. And I’m certainly curious to find out why the time spent in the belts by the Apollo astronauts would be not apply to those travelling on Orion. I’ll check to see if your site has these answers.

                    I will also see if I can find the quotes I remember from at least one of the astronauts that the Apollo crafts had no radiation shielding at all. That NASA engineer in the video also said that unmanned missions would be equipped with sensors so that radiation levels can be studied by scientists. I guess they don’t know everything about the levels, even now.

                    1. Polyethylene is the choice of particle shielding today, and various substances were available to the Apollo engineers to absorb Van Allen radiation. The fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls of the command module was likely the most effective form of radiation shielding. When metals must be used in spacecraft (e.g., for structural strength) then a lighter metal such as aluminum is better than heavier metals such as steel or lead. The lower the atomic number, the less Bremsstrahlung.
                      . . . .
                      Bremsstrahlung defined

                      Bremsstrahlung is a German term that means “braking rays.” It is an important phenomenon in the generation of X-rays. In the Bremsstrahlung process, a high speed electron traveling in a material is slowed or completely stopped by the forces of any atom it encounters. As a high speed electron approaches an atom, it will interact with the negative force from the electrons of the atom, and it may be slowed or completely stopped. If the electron is slowed down, it will exit the material with less energy. The law of conservation of energy tells us that this energy cannot be lost and must be absorbed by the atom or converted to another form of energy. The energy used to slow the electron is excessive to the atom and the energy will be radiated as x-radiation of equal energy.

                      If the electron is completely stopped by the strong positive force of the nucleus, the radiated x-ray energy will have an energy equal to the total kinetic energy of the electron. This type of action occurs with very large and heavy nuclei materials. The new x-rays and liberated electrons will interact with matter in a similar fashion to produce more radiation at lower energy levels until finally all that is left is a mass of long wavelength electromagnetic wave forms that fall outside the x-ray spectrum.
                      https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/HighSchool/Radiography/bremsstrahlung_popup.htm

                      If you don’t get why this is important information for shielding in the Van Allen Belt, it means that heavy metal shielding will actually produce more harmful X-rays by the Bremsstrahlung process. This is why they are still using Polyethylene in modern spacecraft design.
                      \\][//

    2. Adam’s post and the subsequent discussion indirectly show one decisive advantage of activism on 9/11 as opposed to other conspiracies. The 9/11 conspiracy is self-evident, as a summary objective observation of the Twin Towers’ motion yields clues that overwhelmingly favor their controlled demolition over their belated obliteration by Osama bin Laden’s airplanes. Yet the Master 9/11 conspirators have managed to keep almost all opinion-makers in all disciplines, all around the world, acting as if they believed in the latter. As a result, relatively few people understand the former, even though it was televised live to the entire world.

      Assuming the moon landing is a hoax, this is not nearly as trivial to demonstrate as the Twin Towers’ controlled demolition. Therefore, should this idea gain traction and should the Master moon landing conspirators determine that they want to preserve the myth, they will simply ask the Master 9/11 conspirators to instruct their above-mentioned opinion-makers to add the moon landing to their list of myths to keep alive.

      Accordingly and ironically, activists who wish to unmask the moon landing hoax may consider that the swiftest way to accomplish their goal is to forget about it and instead focus on unmasking the 9/11 censorship.

      Love,

  17. Craig, keep up the great work. Willy, does it seem likely to you that NASA just happened to lose all the original footage? ‘Cause that is the claim… I find that to be absurd.

  18. Well there is another really big issue with the moon landing story and that has to do with heat. When the astronauts were standing on the surface of the moon in the sunlight it is my understanding that it would have been so hot as to be unlivable unless they had some sort of cooling system built in to the suit. Was there such a cooling system in the suits and was it capable of keeping them alive in the extreme heat? Secondly the LEM was also exposed to this same heat from the sun and would have to have some sort of cooling system to keep the inside of the LEM at a livable temperature. Was there such a cooling system in the LEM and in the suits? How about when the astronauts are shown in the sun without the gold UV filter down? Wouldn’t they have problems with their eyes being burned?

    http://www.space.com/71-suit-suite-cosmic-apparel-over-the-years.html

    The claim is made that the suits have a liquid cooled inner layer and several layers of insulation built into them and that the outer layer is highly reflective. However we learn from this site http://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html that temperatures can reach as high as 253 degrees on the sunny side of the moon and as low as -243 degrees on the dark side. So my question here is how did the faces of the astronauts not get burned since they had no liquid cooled protective layer over them and no insulation? Particularly how did they not get burned or damage their eyes when the gold UV filter was not down as in the photos posted below.

      1. Note that you can see his face and the gold UV shield is not down.

        I see that the face is tented amber, which would indicate the UV shield is indeed down.

        Go to google images and type in ‘Apollo astronauts face shots through face shield’. there you will find that almost all of the photos show them with the UV shield down.
        \\][//

  19. “I hate arguments like this. And, whether rightly or wrongly, they make me question the site. I will read more from it, however.”~Craig

    I am no more fond of general conspiracy bashing than you are. But there are some goofy “theories” out there. I have pounded on “other conspiracy theorists” that I disagree with, and you have too. We have many differences with people who do not hold the same “conspiratorial view” that we personally hold to.

    You know I have had strong disagreements with many people on this site, that the mainstream would lump in with my own views. I distinguish between what I find reasonable arguments and what I find to be spurious arguments. I agree the labels are unproductive. But we can often draw from sources that we have some disagreements with.

    The main point I want to make is, you MUST understand your opponents arguments to successfully counter those arguments. Whether we like it or not, the best arguments I have found on space science is found in articles on space science! And to be able to tell the difference from a bogus argument and a rational one is to get grounded in the basics of whatever field you are going to involve yourself with.

    As I have indicated, I have been into astronomy and space studies since I was a kid. Out of my own curiosity I dug into this stuff. I know a lot about it now.

    Of course one can make the counterargument that I have been “brainwashed” from an early age. But I will counter here and now, that I would not be here on T&S now, if I couldn’t see through such programming. And I am not making a “hey you know me” argument here. I am just trying to explain my perspective and why it is different from so many that are the regulars here.

    Lastly let us not be dogmatic and insist that we all maintain the “proper” attitudes of a Truther. We already know that the consensus formed is temporary, that views will inevitably vary from topic to topic. You Craig, have suffered from slurs and defaming remarks by those who disagree with the Pentagon event.

    Whether you come to understand my point of view on the moon landings, we will always have Paris.
    \\][//

    1. I don’t have a problem with anything you’ve written here. And I agree that allegiances will change as the topic changes. But I don’t think it is dogmatic to vigorously criticize trite arguments about what makes conspiracy theorists tick. And I believe we have to have a consistent approach and consistent standards whether we are touting a theory or attempting to debunk it.

  20. Back to 9/11 and all the expertise everybody is expending. I’m just a truck driver and considering what it takes to haul explosives of any type is a big job with special tickets and special trucking and special insurance not to forget mentioning you have to order them in advance and have authority to do so.

    Larry Silverstein decided in the afternoon of 9/11 to “Pull it” for building 7. Considering every emergency vehicle was in Manhattan blocking all the streets and all the bridges were locked down, how did they get a transport 53 ft trailer into Manhattan a block away from the two towers unload all the explosives with all the electronic lines for control and take it to every floor and attach it to every covered beam and bring it down in a couple of hours. The stuff is made in Missouri. but first it has to be put together before you can pick it up. I’m not a scientific expert like Rodrigeze thinks he is, how do you logistically accomplish this enormous problem? They don’t have a Quick Service 1Store of explosives in the suburbs just in case you need it quickly.

    Also, if there was molten metal as they said there was, how can workers with ordinary work boots stand above this extreme heat and not cook their feet never mind their bodies. And using cutting torches above this extreme heat stringing the hoses as if there wasn’t any heat. Turkey cooks in 350 degree heat yet these guys can walk over 2,000 degree heat and only their soles got damaged???????

    Do you know what it takes to haul steal all bent and twisted? You first have to cut it up and they do have big hydraulics that are called shears to cut it in managible sizes so it don’t go through the floors of the trailers. But they said they hauled out 120 loads the first night. Really????

    Now if it was controlled demolition all that metal weighing 40 tons a peice should be scattered all over the place but outside Tower One an ambulance is sitting there with no debris on it except dust and it is 30 feet from where the front doors were. Where did the Tower go. It certainly wasn’t on top of the ambulance nor on the main floor.

    A transport can only carry a certain weight considering the number of tires under the load. An eighteen wheeler can only carry 25 to 30 ton depending where you can drive. If heavier you have to start adding wheels especially if you are going over bridges. The main core beams are 50 ton and with straight metal you can do it providing you have the wheels under it. But when it is twisted you are in for a big surprise because the pieces will go through the deck on the first load.

    All this crap about absurd and all the fine language letting on you are smart, explain some of these problems.

    1. “Larry Silverstein decided in the afternoon of 9/11 to “Pull it” for building 7. Considering every emergency vehicle was in Manhattan blocking all the streets and all the bridges were locked down, how did they get a transport 53 ft trailer into Manhattan a block away from the two towers unload all the explosives with all the electronic lines for control and take it to every floor and attach it to every covered beam and bring it down in a couple of hours.”~Roger Gloux

      Obviously building 7 and the towers were prepped for demolition long before the event occurred.

      If you have problems with the logistics of the clean-up, take that up with the government, that is their story not ours.
      \\][//

    2. The particulars of the World Trade Center’s criminal controlled demolitions are largely unknown and some of them are mysterious even to experts. But this does not affect the controlled demolitions’ self-evidence, the transparency of their cover-up, and the remarkable effectiveness of the censorship thereof.

      Unless of course you would have an alternative explanation to the controlled demolition that would be technically possible. But given your modest introduction, I gather that you are not one of those technical troglodytes who troll the web preaching the mythical attribution of 9/11 to Osama bin Laden’s hijackers, at the risk of ridiculing themselves.

      Incidentally, don’t worry about your qualifications. Engineering professionals do understand the controlled demolitions quicker than lay people, but even individuals with an average intelligence are capable of absorbing and teaching the analytical demonstration of the controlled demolitions. Anyone capable of understanding that there is a strong video resemblance between Building 7’s destruction and a controlled demolition can spread 9/11 Truth.

      Also, do not extrapolate Silverstein’s quote by affirming that he actually suggested the pull. There is a distinct possibility that his “pull it” sentence did not reflect what he actually did. Besides, Building 7’s controlled demolition is a scientifically established truth, irrespective of what he did and did not say.

      Love,

  21. Adam Syed said:

    “The gambit about reality being boring, and how belief in a conspiracy is more exciting, is exactly the same kind of rhetoric that anti-9/11 truth hatchet job pieces lob again 9/11 truth activists and seekers.”

    Or if you believe Jonathan Kay, we’re all a bunch of middle aged puzzle-solvers!

    One could easily argue that the official conspiracy theory of 19 hijackers armed with box cutters defeating the most sophisticated air defense systems in the world and causing so much damage is way more exciting than an inside job.

    1. Yes, exactly. David Griffin made that point when refuting John McCain’s foreword to the Popular Mechanics book. He made the point that if such a story (the official one) had been taken to Hollywood, it most likely would have been rejected as being too fanciful or too unbelievable.

        1. Sherif,

          Let’s suppose for a moment that the webmaster of Clavius is indeed a sex offender. Does that make his arguments about the moon landing incorrect? I am curious about the connection you are trying to draw here. Personally I do not think it is relevant to the question at hand. A lawyer once asked why it was that a witness had to have bad eyesight because she was a prostitute?

          1. Our last comments crossed, Adam. Ha ha.

            I feel some trepidation in mentioning this because I don’t want to advertise it, but our Manny Badillo in the 9/11 truth movement is also on that offender list. Obviously that does not prove wrong the arguments of the truth movement, but it has been jumped on by anti 9/11 truth blogs like screw loose change.

            1. Like the TSA no-fly lists of Homeland Security, it is easy to get on such a list by mistake and much harder to get removed from one.

              But the points both Adam’s made of the irrelevance to the moon landing issue is most important.
              \\][//

          2. Of course not.

            Conversely, nor should the arguments about the moon landing by those who desire; to account for variations in observation, entertainment, to seem intelligent, to be “on the inside”, to express distrust for authority, be necessarily disqualified as incorrect.

            1. “Does that make his arguments about the moon landing incorrect?”

              Of course not.

              Conversely, nor should the arguments about the moon landing by those who desire; to account for variations in observation, entertainment, to seem intelligent, to be “on the inside”, to express distrust for authority, be necessarily disqualified as incorrect.

        2. Sherif Shaalan,

          Do you realize that Jay Windley the webmaster of the Clavius site, cannot be located by google under the name “Jay Paul Windley”?

          How did you happen on this information? Did you even attempt to verify they were one and the same person before posting this?
          \\][//

            1. Yes Shaalan, I just came from there myself. It’s the same person. But as I said in agreement with the two Adam’s, it is irrelevant to the moon landings issue.
              \\][//

                1. “his derogatory statements about those of us “conspiracy theorists” who sincerely question that issue.”~Sherif Shaalan

                  I haven’t read any derogatory statements by Windley on the Clavius site.

                  “For ease of discourse, we have adopted the term “conspiracist” to refer to those who formulate or advocate a conspiracy theory. This should be carefully distinguished from “conspirator”, meaning someone who participates in an actual conspiracy.”~Windley

                  The term is used for ease of discourse. What other generic term would you use if you were in his place?

                  I don’t want to be combative here with you Shaalan, but I notice you have yet to make any substantial argument for the moon landings being faked. You are intent on language and personality issues. You haven’t showed up on T&S in a great long while, and it seems curiously coincidental that you do now, when you find I am in the middle of a debate with some of the regulars as well as Craig the owner of the site.

                  Do not think that I have forgotten our first encounters with each other here Sherif. You were lobbying Craig to ban me after having posted on T&S less than four times. I suspected then, and I remain suspicious of your true intents here. So is that all you are going to talk about here? Personalities and language issues? Where are you really coming from Mr Shaalan?
                  \\][//

                  1. Yes, Willy. I love reading through my daily e-mail notifications from Truth & Shadows on almost a daily basis for years now, and have great respect for the regular contributors including yourself, I have great appreciation for what I’ve learned here in the process; both by the articles and comments posted, and by the fruitful interaction between posters when it happens. However, I simply have do not have the desire nor the patience to participate in keyboard combat, and lost interest in reading through such battles long ago. For one, I hate typing!

                    Still, I think it would be fascinating to see all of you together in person, in the same place at a live debate/discussion.

                    It would be pointless for someone like me to wade through the voluminous and detailed rebuttals at Clavius as I am not an expert in anything. However, thanks to superb blogs like this one and much of YOUR writing, I’ve gotten a lot better at detecting the stench of disinformation. And that is why I am still puzzled by the exemption you seem to give NASA from your most accurate observation that “Government is a racket”.

                    Did I mention I hate typing?

                    1. “And that is why I am still puzzled by the exemption you seem to give NASA from your most accurate observation that “Government is a racket”.”~Sherif

                      I give no wholesale exemptions nor condemnations, but attempt t judge each issue on the merits.

                      And it is not essential that I persuade each and every reader of my position, only that I am satisfied that I have made the best case I can.
                      \\][//

                  2. Dare I drop in to make another comment on language? Yes, let’s throw caution to the wind.

                    On the subject of the term “conspiracist.”

                    “The term is used for ease of discourse. What other generic term would you use if you were in his place?”-HR

                    I would say that it is not necessary to come up with a single word to describe someone who uses research to challenge the official version of an event. Not for ease of discourse or for any other reason. Should we call someone who really likes television a televisionist? The word “conspiracist” is insidious because it implies that there is something different about those who question – perhaps different on a psychological level. This plays right into the dominant mainstream view about those who believe in conspiracy theories. It’s attacking the messenger; it’s a way of marginalizing dissent. Like you, Willy, I think that we believe in theories that are backed by evidence.

            2. Actually, I happened on the information by Googling for any specific commentary he may have made on 9/11 as my own personal litmus test – and the homefacts.com link showed up WAY down in the results.

              1. Interesting question: Should Jay Windley’s stance on the common knowledge understanding of 9/11 ever change my opinion of his moon landing arguments?

                Perhaps I was discriminatory in attempting to apply my 9/11 litmus test.

                1. You were not discriminatory at all. A conspiracy theory analyst who is too ignorant, too dumb or too hypocritical to unambiguously identify 9/11 as a false flag shall not be trusted to determine if any other conspiracy theory is true. One of 9/11’s many blessings is precisely the litmus test that people who give credibility to its mythical attribution to Osama bin Laden’s hijackers are not to be trusted on more complex sociological questions, meaning just about all sociological questions.

                  There go the overwhelming majority of talking heads, not only within the media and the politicians, but also in political, religious, professional organizations of all kinds. So many sources of information to label as doubtful…It sure makes life simpler!

                  Love,

                  1. “It sure makes life simpler!”~Daniel Noel

                    Any form of dogma makes life simpler Daniel.
                    You just apply your little rule and don’t have to think about it.
                    \\][//

                    1. Of course it would and should. Should Windley blame Osama bin Laden’s fanatics for 9/11, he would automatically be disqualified on the much more complex question of the moon landing fakery. It bears repeating that 9/11 uniquely allows to summarily mistrust the large majority of opinion-makers who appear to live the official superstition as an absolute truth.

                      Love,

                    2. “Would and should his stance affect your view of his moon landing arguments one way or another?”~Sherif

                      No they wouldn’t change my view of his moon landing arguments in any way.

                      Now whether they “should” effect my views is going to be judged by others besides myself.

                      I am assessing my views on the information on the Clavis site according to the reasonableness of the arguments and the clarity of the evidence provided. Any issues to do with another topic can have no legitimate bearing on those factors.

                      I have to say that I already disagree with his general propositions to do with ‘conspiracy theory’ as being to broad and conformist. So I would make the same arguments in favor of the 9/11 issue to him as to anyone else who wishes to debate the issues and facts.

                      As is likely obvious, I don’t go for the “litmus test” dogma that Mr Noel posits, and that I think quite a few here would defend as well. I am not afraid of being in the minority in any situation.
                      \\][//

                    3. “Of course it would and should.”~Daniel Noel

                      Oh horseshit Daniel, that is dogmatic nonsense.

                      “Love”? What smarmy saccharine crap.
                      \\][//

      1. And yet so many people dismiss the idea of an inside job as preposterous but have no problem swallowing the official story!

        1. This is precisely a major achievement of the Master 9/11 conspirators. They have managed to televise live to the world the terrorist controlled demolition of the Twin Towers while convincing it that it was the obvious result of Osama bin Laden’s airplane attacks. Ironically, very little analysis has been done on this amazing topic. Sociologists for 9/11 Truth, anyone?

          Love,

  22. Sherif Shaalan,

    Ahh yes the sublime words of Les Visible, one of my favorite poets! Mix that together with the seductive tones of the magical voice of Patrick Willis, and who would not be enchanted with the message?

    And yes there are points well made there that I can agree with – up to a point. And that point is intellectual discrimination, the demanding discipline of keeping every consideration in its unique perspective. Like I have mentioned before, and as Mr Noel notes, it is easier to make a judgement when a ‘rule’ is set and accepted. And when no exceptions to the rule are allowed? Well that is generally referred to as “intolerance”, and the temperament of intolerance leads to a policy known simply as “dogma”, a state of ultra-conformity, a mental state that is certainly abhorred when noted in “the other”.

    So…in accepting this dogmatic stance, how are “we” any different from the ‘debunkers’, and ‘go-along-to-get-along’ sheep of the general population that don’t want to think on their own?

    Oh well, one way is to not ‘call it’ “dogma”, “because when we do it, it is not dogma, it is ‘principle’!” Hmmm,… and Hmmm indeed.

    Please excuse me from that party.
    \\][//

      1. No, not necessarily, it again depends on specifics. Beginning with proving the charges true. And then distinguishing whether the one charged being an “internet debunker” has any relevance to the charges of “enticement”.
        \\][//

          1. In the first place Sherif, I do not know if the man is guilty as charged. and in the second place it has not bearing on the scientific facts presented on Clavius.

            Now I have grown ‘bored’ with this chatter on language and personalities, Take it up with the coach.
            \\][//

  23. Hybridrogue you said…… Obviously building 7 and the towers were prepped for demolition long before the event occurred.

    If you have problems with the logistics of the clean-up, take that up with the government, that is their story not ours.

    That sounds like a politician answering with a non-answer. It is impossible to move the equipment in when the whole of Manhattan congested with emergency equipment like fire trucks and ambulances. What kind of tractor trailers do you think it takes to move heavy weight. The point is they didn’t move anything because it wasn’t there. I bought Dr. Judy Woods book and here in Canada it cost $60.00 where you guys in the states pay $40.00. The Book is appropriately called,” Where did the Towers go?”

    I have hauled all sorts of steel in all sorts of sizes and hauled demolished building material but looking at the pictures the very same day the Towers and other buildings of the complex were destroyed, there wasn’t any material to speak of considering the size of the buildings in question. Outside Building 7 people are shown coming out of their hiding places and were standing on the pavement with no debris on the ground, when there should have been a broken up building there..

    Your “kiss off” reveals you are stumped as to what I said in my previous post.

    And it is not obvious the buildings were prepped long before the event occurred. That’s a foolish statement made without thinking from an obviously bright guy. Take a look on-line to see what it takes to prep a building of that size, string all the wires for detonation in sequence while the building is occupied????? You have to strip the building to see how it is all hooked together and then set all the charges to cut all the girders in the right places. What are you smoking? Suppose it was thermite or thermate, how do you set it on the girders when all of it is covered? Never mind stringing the miles of wires required to set it off at the proper “minute second” so it can fall in its footprint while the people are still working in the building?????.You can’t do that kind of work while the building is occupied. It didn’t hit the ground. So Where Did It Go?

    You can’t haul what is not there. Your reply is foolish or you can’t reply because you have no clue.

    And. the girders that were there couldn’t have been hauled out the same night. They were there for weeks and months. But not enough of them to say it was all there is.

    You “kiss off” the ambulance sitting right outside the front doors not damaged from any debris including the main floor. It should be covered with broken concrete and re-bar sticking out of it…. yet there was none there. People are standing on the pavement when it should be covered with steel girders and re-enforced concrete.

    And it didn’t go down in the basement because the stores are still there with the T-bar ceiling and tiles strewn about.

    So where did all that material go?

    1. Roger Gloux,

      This thread has already been waylaid by a complex topic that has led the commentary far afield from the topic Craig posted his article about.

      If you want to celebrate the pseudoscience of Judy Wood, be my guest. I have burnt out on the topic after so many years. But I will offer this article by a qualified physicist that you might perhaps at least attempt to understand:

      The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, February 2007

      http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf

      Good luck Roger. I will give you a break and save actually saying, “kiss off” until you have adequately provoked me.
      \\][//

  24. The particulars of the World Trade Center’s criminal controlled demolitions are largely unknown and some of them are mysterious even to experts. But this does not affect the controlled demolitions’ self-evidence, the transparency of their cover-up, and the remarkable effectiveness of the censorship thereof. – Daniel Noel

    Why is it a controlled demolition?

    It is not self evident because there isn’t enough of the buildings on the ground. When you see the material that is there, it don’t equate to the size of the building or better yet, the tonnage. Everything in those buildings was hauled to the site on trucks in clean neat packages. I-beams all nice a straight. Now jumble the whole works up in demolition style and you don’t have the volume necessary to equate what was there.

    How many truck loads of sinks and toilets would it take to cover each 110 ft buildings? Whatever your answer is, not one toilet was found and don’t tell me they burnt up in fire because the paper in the buildings was not affected. Only one melted metal cabinet was found.

    Just figure out the tonnage each truck can carry into 500,000 tons of one building. Lets be generous and say fifty tons per truck load on a tractor trailer tridem. Now put that tonnage in a pile and see what you have in comparison to what was actually there after the destruction on the same day. There isn’t enough material there. It couldn’t have been controlled demolition because there isn’t enough material on the ground.

    I saw the squibbs just like everybody else and it looks like control demolition but it doesn’t equate to what was there. Something else happened. As a trucker who hauled all sorts of things in construction,this doesent make sense to see so little on the ground. Controlled demolition doesn’t turn steel into dust. I used to own a scrap business and hauled scrap steel from old buildings and none of it was turned to dust, but in these towers it did because the volume wasn’t there.

    It couldn’t be controlled demolition because the evidence is not there.

    1. You seem to rule out a controlled demolition as the process of the Twin Towers’ destruction. You base this on your analysis of the debris it left. You are offering here a synopsis of your analysis.

      It would appear that you do not believe in the official superstition. You seem to agree with the basic premise of 9/11 Truth, which is that the Twin Towers’ destruction was technically independent of the aerial attack, that it was an act of terror on its own, and that the real 9/11 terrorists are the individuals who destroyed the Twin Towers on camera. If so, your argument is that the process that was used to destroy the Twin Towers was very different from that of a controlled demolition, to the point that it is an error to call it a controlled demolition.

      In this case, the argument you and I are starting may be easy to cancel: just replace “controlled demolition” with something generic enough (“the human-made process that destroyed the Twin Towers?”) in the statement of mine you quoted.

      It bears repeating that the competition for the prettiest and best controlled demolition scenario is interesting, but relatively unimportant and certainly not essential. The finding of the controlled demolition–or whatever all-encompassing phrase you would propose–leads straight to the essential finding of a cover-up by a large number of public agencies, complete with Osama bin Laden’s air show and transparently fraudulent technical reports, which is a much larger and much more disturbing conspiracy than the Twin Towers’ terrorist destruction. The cover-up in turn leads straight to the yet more alarming finding of the 9/11 censorship, the process by which the Iranian theocrats, the Russian mass media, the European pacifists, the Chinese civil engineering professors, etc., have been living the official myth as an axiom. Accordingly, activists who understand the controlled demolition have much bigger fish to fry than compete over its specifics. A friendly competition for the best way to teach the 9/11 censorship to the general public would be much more productive.

      Love,

      1. Roger,

        Judy Woods theory has been thoroughly debunked and two links were provided above by HR1 to a small sampling of those debunks. I will add to that however by pointing out a false belief you have expressed here twice already. You insist that controlled demolitions would have to employ miles of wire to set off the charges when that has been proven false. Radio controlled remote detonators not requiring any wiring could have been used and were available in 2001. This has long been known yet years after this was proved here you are still pushing the misinformation that the explosives all had to be wired. This is also the problem with Judy Wood supporters they continue to repeat misinformation years after it has been exposed as such. It becomes an endless merry go round where Wood supporters repeat again and again long debunked material.

        For example: If a DEW were to have destroyed the towers how could the particle beam or energy beam or whatever kind of beam NOT destroy the top floor first and instead skip 20+ floors and destroy it from the middle? (Provided it was a space based DEW) Same question applies if it was a ground based DEW except the question becomes how could the DEW destroy all four sides simultaneously instead of first slicing through or disintegrating the closest side first and blasting through to the other side? A beam is a beam after all and it cannot pass through some material while destroying the same kind of material behind it. It cannot logically work no matter how you look at it.

        Greg Jenkins also exposes another massive issue with the DEW theory which no one has ever addressed to my knowledge and that is the massive power requirements for such a weapon. Where did the enormous energy needed to power such a weapon come from? Especially if it was a space based weapon, where did the power come from? Do you have any idea how much power would have to be pumped through such a weapon in order to “dustify”(not a real word I know but Wood uses it) the towers? Too much! and neither Wood nor you have any explanation for what provided the power to such a weapon. On and on the issues with the DEW theory pile up and Wood supporters never address them but rather just keep coming back again and again repeating the same claims and never addressing the problems with the theory.

        By the way just saying “Hutcheson effect and hurricane” does not address the question of where the energy came from to power the supposed DEW that Wood claims destroyed the WTC. That is a bogus argument since she cannot and does not explain what the “Hutcheson effect” is or how it works.

      2. This is exactly how I feel. I encourage anyone to do whatever research they wish on the destruction of the towers but it is hardly central to the issue – as you point out.

  25. This thread has already been waylaid by a complex topic that has led the commentary far afield from the topic Craig posted his article about. – hybridrogue1

    Seems to me he mentioned 9/11 and you think this is all talked out because of ……what? YOU.

    If you want to celebrate the pseudoscience of Judy Wood, be my guest. I have burnt out on the topic after so many years. – hybridrogue1

    Why is it pseudoscience? Did you read the book? Your burnt out in more ways then one because you spout off as if your an expert and when you look at it more closely your like a politician answering with non answers. Buy the book and look at the pictures of what happened and what is there. Buildings don’t free fall as if they are in a vacume I’m sure your a graduate in something but it sure “ain’t” in logic.

    The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, February 2007 – hybridrogue1

    Where did you get this “beam” thing from? Whatever the energy is, it was obviously under control because it turned steel into dust but not the street or the main floor. It didn’t bust the tub the complex was in. It is 70 feet under the Hudson River yet it wasn’t damaged at all. Not even a crack. None of the buildings speared down into the basement. So if it didn’t go down into the basement levels and it sure wasn’t above because there is nothing on the sidewalk outside the front doors of Building One. Focus on what I just wrote and look for yourself at the pictures that were taken on the same day it happened.

    There is nothing there. I don’t care what you think of this woman but the pictures tell it like it is.

    This story about the building is mostly air space don’t hold water because just the steel alone is such a big pile of metal and all supposedly cut, yet it isn’t there. Sure we see a few pieces but not the amount that was in the building. Go to a Steel outlet and look at the yard and see how much space it takes to put the steel in and the steel in the building is much bigger and heavier then what you see in those yards. That kind of weight would spear through down to the seventh basement level…..l but it didn’t, because it is “MISSING”.. Like DR. Judy Wood said, “Where Did the Towers Go?

    I know you are not going to look because you are a glib armchair expert and got it all figured out. The funny thing though you don’t answer the questions and I can’t wait to see what you say to this.

    Look at the pictures or borrow the book from Craig.

    You said…. Good luck Roger. I will give you a break and save actually saying, “kiss of” until you have adequately provoked me.

    Well buddy I’m provoking you, buy the book and look at the pictures. If your broke borrow it from Craig.

    1. Roger Gloux,

      I have the BOOK. I have read every article on her web site, I understand the case Wood makes. Her proposition of a directed energy device as the mechanism of destruction is bogus.
      That is what “pseudoscience” is, bogus science.

      While there are many outright falsehoods you repeat here, I will not address them again. I have been at this for at least 8 years of counter argument. If all you want to read is things that reinforce your biases, then by all means handwave Dr Jenkins, Dr Jones, Dr Niels Harrit, and many other physicists. By all means ignore my page on the demise of the WTC. Because frankly I don’t care what people like you think.

      So to close, you charge: “I know you are not going to look because you are a glib armchair expert and got it all figured out.” Is not so, I have looked, and my opinions are formed by knowing the argument Wood makes, and my counterarguments reflect that. If you aren’t going to actually read my counter argument, then don’t fuss with me here. I have said what I have to say in print, in public, on view at my blog. I refuse to repeat it here.
      \\][//

    2. Roger you are making all sorts of false claims in your post. Here are some of them:

      “Whatever the energy is, it was obviously under control because it turned steel into dust” – False the steal was NOT turned to dust.

      “It didn’t bust the tub the complex was in. It is 70 feet under the Hudson River yet it wasn’t damaged at all. Not even a crack.” – False the bathtub was damaged.

      “None of the buildings speared down into the basement.” – False much of the basement was filled in with debris from the towers.

      “just the steel alone is such a big pile of metal and all supposedly cut, yet it isn’t there.” – False the steel is there both in and around the WTC complex.

      This is why it is so difficult to deal with Wood supporters because they make so many false statements about what actually happened that to address those alone would take an entire discussion unto itself. Nothing “dustified” at the WTC it was simply blown up and much of the softer material were blown into small particles we call dust just like in ANY controlled demolition.

  26. ruffadam you said….. “Roger you are making all sorts of false claims in your post. Here are some of them:

    “Whatever the energy is, it was obviously under control because it turned steel into dust” – False the steal was NOT turned to dust.”

    Well… I believed the pancake thing but that was not true. then I believed in the “control demolition” because it sure looked like it. Heh…. I’m not an expert on demolition but when someone said the picture on the front cover isn’t demolition but more like a “frothing” it sure looked like it and that picture was taken by the Police “chopper.”. So being I’m not an expert I wanted to see what control demolition is all about including thermite and thermate use in these cases. Once I did that it didn’t equate to what was presented in front of our eyes.

    Just like “smoke and mirrors” … that guy cut a girl in half right in Lost Vegas.

    What it looks like and what actually happened is two different things.

    So I bought the book.

    Now I’m just a simple truck driver who hauled all sorts of steel and “demo” material from job sites after the building is destroyed. I see this ambulance in front of where the doors of Tower One used to be, and it isn’t damaged at all. Now tell me how a building that is 110 stories tall can come down and miss…. totally…. the ambulance and nothing on the pavement between the ambulance and where the building was.

    You said…. ““It didn’t bust the tub the complex was in. It is 70 feet under the Hudson River yet it wasn’t damaged at all. Not even a crack.” – False the bathtub was damaged.”

    Your saying it…. but I’m thinking if it was damaged as you say it was, Manhattan would be flooded because of the train tunnels under the complex are like giant pipes with no way to block the water from the Hudson River. It didn’t happen. In fact the only damage to the “tub” was when an excavator went over the edge on the top in clean up. On top of that the outside part of the building that was still remaining after the destruction was very carefully “PULLED DOWN” so as not to cause any damage to the “tub”. If that is the case certainly steel I-beams weighing fifty ton a piece riveted together and coming down from the top of the building would spear through anything in it’s way including the “tub”. But it didn’t. Take a look at the picture after they clean everything out of the basement, the floor wasn’t damaged neither the walls of the “tub”.

    You said…. ““None of the buildings speared down into the basement.” – False much of the basement was filled in with debris from the towers.”

    Well explain how the firemen are walking in the stores and hallways bellow the main floor.

    In fact the lights are still on under buildings 4 and 5 where the delivery trucks drive to make delivery to the complex….and they are color coded so the driver knows where he is at. Not a single piece of debris never mind a steel beam in the place. Considering they are right next to the Twin Towers you would think there would be steel beams sticking through the main floor into the garage used for delivery…. but nata, NOTHING. Building 6 is hollowed out and nothing in the hole and only the outer walls still standing with offices and their contents still there but the core of the building is gone…. kaput in any language. If this is what you call FULL you’ve never been near a truck loaded with cargo. It would take thousands of truck loads to fill the place but nothing to take out. Now consider what was said… 120 truck loads of material was taken out less then 24 hours after the Towers were destroyed. What kind of trucks were used?

    You can’t load twisted steel into dump trucks that are not designed to do this. Not only that we have buildings that are not big as for circumference but very tall. There is the problem of backing all these truck into a very small place to get loaded. They didn’t just start digging with excavators as if it was a dirt pile because there are supposed to be bodies in there. These trucks have rubber tires and one small piece of steel will render that truck useless. Yet logistically you are trying to say they just back in side by side as if there is a big parking lot, never mind trying to maneuver these rigs out of Manhattan with all the emergency vehicles in the way. But they did haul dirt into the site… over several days…. and spread it on the debris that was there.

    Also look at concrete strengthen with re-bar. If the material is broken as when it is done with control demolition, there is huge chunks of concrete with all sorts of re-bar sticking out that would go through any steel truck box (you can’t use aluminum boxes) so every piece of re-bar has to be cut so as not to cause any damage. And don’t forget… re-bar comes in forty foot length’s..and longer so the concrete chunks have every length of re-bar sticking out of it. Then all the cut pieces go into a demolition box designed for that purpose. Remember you don’t have a parking lot you have maybe one lane cleaned up so you don’t get any flats. Logistically this don’t cut it.

    But you don’t see that in the pictures on the first day.

    You said….. ““just the steel alone is such a big pile of metal and all supposedly cut, yet it isn’t there.” – False the steel is there both in and around the WTC complex.”

    Yeah right….. a thousand truck loads. Sure there is steel there but not the quantity that these building had in them. Take a look at the steel core….

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtccons2.html

    … everything is crossed braced and welded together. This is covered in concrete so to get at them you have to jack hammer the concrete out then place thermite or thermate charges and hook them all together to a computer while the building is occupied so as to bring it down in its footprint. Yeeeeeaaaah right. Do you see steel from the core with cross bracing like you see in this picture when they were building it? This is just the view of one floor now add another 109 floors to this picture and then tell me this is what you see on the ground the same day the Towers were destroyed. But don’t forget the smaller steel covered with aluminum cladding on the outside. ANNNNNDDD there were two buildings this size.

    Of course i all went into the “tub” but didn’t damage it.

    You can’t put this on the street as people were standing on the pavement outside these building on the first day they were destroyed along with the ambulance that doesn’t have a dent in it. You and hybrid rocket must live together.

    You said…. “This is why it is so difficult to deal with Wood supporters because they make so many false statements”

    Not false, pictures don’t lie. You got something in your head and regardless someone show you you are not going to change. I don’t care if she isn’t a glib talker like “hybrid rocket” but she is the only one who did a forensic study and took and gathered all the pictures that are in the book. I don’t agree with every single detail but I’m now convinced it wasn’t controlled demolition because the material of those buildings is not there on the ground nor in the 7 story “tub”. The parkade is still in tact so it obviously didn’t crash down into that either.

    You need to get the book. Buy the book.

    You said…. “Nothing “dustified” at the WTC it was simply blown up and much of the softer material were blown into small particles we call dust just like in ANY controlled demolition.”

    hehehe (just chuckling) “dustification eh?” Well at least your starting to get it.

    I hauled a lot of drywall (I think you guys call it wallboard) and it don’t completely “dustify” when bringing a building down. You strip it out of the building first along with all the other materials covering the beams and support system. This is the only way you can “pull it” so it can go exactly where you want it to go……. Since this is a specialty job, what Company did they use to “pull it”.

    Now look at the inside of the building they are going to bring down……

    and this Loizeaux Company or CDI does 70 % internationally because they are the best.

    Who rigged the building at WTC?

    After all this would be good advertising except for the loss of life.

    Either the planes brought it down or it was controlled demolition, which????

    Or was it something else that destroyed the complex?

    1. “Either the planes brought it down or it was controlled demolition, which????”~Roger Gloux

      Controlled demolition.
      \\][//

  27. hybrid rocket said….. “By the way Roger, Kiss Off!
    grin”

    hehehe (just chuckling) You already said that in your first post to me. It don’t matter how you convey it. Your setting up your own image.

  28. Picture of tub undamaged with parkade in corner and all underground level

    Note if steel beams speared through the basement why is there no evidence of it in the concrete floor?

    1. “Note if steel beams speared through the basement why is there no evidence of it in the concrete floor?”Note if steel beams speared through the basement why is there no evidence of it in the concrete floor?~Roger Gloux

      Much of the core metal collapsed into the basements. But these were 7 stories deep.You have visual evidence right there that the bathtub was only damaged slightly with cracks in the wall, that were then braced after clearing the rubble to the point that it could be accessed: The level you are looking at in the photo is ground rock level.

      “Damage to the slurry wall was a concern in the wake of the attack. A breach in the wall and flooding of the bathtub would not only complicate rescue and recovery efforts; it might flood other adjacent below-grade structures, such as the Path tunnels that passed into the bathtub. Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers (MRCE) took a leading role in compiling information about and assessing the condition of the slurry wall. Inspection of different portions of the wall began as soon as access was possible, and monitoring continued with the instrumentation of the wall with inclinometers, survey points, and monitoring wells.

      This photograph shows the bathtub wall after most of the rubble from the 9/11/01 attack was removed. Portions of basement floors are visible in the right-hand side of the photograph.
      Most of The central portion of the wall’s south side (bordering Liberty Street) was unsupported by intact sub-basement walls or debris, and it had moved inward more than 10 inches. This and other portions of the wall were re-habilitated as necessary. The tieback tendons were replaced throughout most of the southern half of the wall.”

      \\][//

  29. I saw Building 7 get destroyed just like everybody else and it appeared like controlled demolition yet in the following picture these people are standing on the street looking at where the building was…..

    It was 47 story building made of steel and concrete. Do you see the steel?????

  30. For all the comments about the buildings all going down into the basement, explain why these train cars that go under the Towers in the basement don’t have dents on them…..

    1. Roger,

      Your guru Judy Wood’s most infamous comment in 2007:

      “I’m not saying there was absolutely no debris because someone may have had pennies from the windowsill that were falling down.” Wow, Just wow.

      Go to 31:27. Steel. Tons of it.

    2. Furthermore, both Wood and Fetzer back in 2007 were citing the following clip as evidence “steel turning into dust! steel turning into dust! steel turning into dust!” as Fetzer chanted over and over as the clip looped.

      However, this is an illusion based on that camera angle and the quality of the zoom. The steel is not at all “dustifying.” To the contrary the dust created by the explosive demolition has caked itself onto the spire, and when the steel spire gives way and starts falling, this causes it to release dust into the air and cloud the steel, thereby giving the optical illusion of “dustification.” If we look at this alternative angle, we can see that the steel is merely falling and the dust from the concrete is dissipating into the wind.

      Disinformation, easily debunked.

      1. Ok, say some of them were, why are they burnt. The cop car is burnt but the plastic lights on the roof is still there. You think they pulled all those cars out of there???? What about the parking lot with the cars all burnt two blocks away. And on top of that are you saying all those cars were parked on the street outside the Complex? In all the no parking zones?????? Who set them on fire????????

        1. Roger, you are the one making the argument that they should have been damaged, so it is up to you to prove the specific area these train cars were from to make a firm point.
          You are grasping at straws here, and there is a rational answer to your every question. But you don’t want rational answers, you want to argue for a proposition that is simply absurd.

          Judy pointed to the cars lined up on FDR Drive as her evidence that cars at that distance were effected by her silly DEW machine. She cropped the “evidence” to remove the evidence that those cars were towed there. If that isn’t classic tampering with evidence then what is?
          She has been caught talking total nonsense, she has been caught misrepresenting evidence, and she has been rebuked by the majority of physicists to review her claims.

          You are floundering here, and I know you are loath to admit it. Until you rebut the arguments that already cut your knees from under you, it is futile to continue this carousel of nonsense with you.
          \\][//

  31. Makes no different what you think of her, explain why there isn’t a mountain of steel where the buildings were. Also, if the building was “rigged” why was that 70 story high steel column standing there??????????? And note the weight of that steel spire is a lot more then you can put on a transport truck. If that didn’t turn to dust, it had to have speared right through to the bottom level…… but it didn’t as evident in the picture where the 53 foot flat deck trailer is, inside the “tub” and on the floor of the bottom level. The max that tandem trailer you see can carry is about 30 ton. That spire is more then 400 ton.

    Laugh all you want but think…… a spear that heavy will go down to bedrock on which the towers were built. It didn’t happen. You laugh at “they turn to dust they turn to dust” but you don;t explain why that spire wasn’t cut in the first place….. all 70 story of it. Did they go for lunch when they should have set “charges” on that column? it should have toppled over like a tree instead of going straight down in appearance, but then it did disappear right in front of your face. I bet you figure they really cut the girl in half.

    And your trying to explain it was controlled demolition??????

    1. Yes you are just a simple truck driver Roger, you are going on your subjective opinion of what the visual evidence shows. The forensic science in the dust evidence proves there was no substantial amount of iron in the dust.

      “As we can see, 1.6 +/- 0.7% is consistent with the 1.2% iron content expected from the
      bulk concrete aggregate contribution.
      We can calculate how much structural steel may have been turned into dust based upon
      the USGS findings:
      (1.6 +/- 0.7% – 1.2%)/38% = 1 +/- 2%

      Proponents of DEW-demolition claim that the initial above-grade steel ‘missing’ from
      the WTC rubble is obvious to the point of being self-evident based upon photographs of
      ground zero (GZ).2

      This claim is in direct contradiction with the quantitative data: no
      significantly elevated levels of iron are found in the dust, and the level is consistent with
      what is found in the concrete aggregate.”~Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins
      http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Fe-DustStudies44.pdf
      \\][//

    2. Look Roger, we have all seen the photos of huge mounds of twisted steel blown all over the WTC acreage in the aftermath. We have seen the huge box columns buried in the sides of buildings across the street from the WTC complex. If it wasn’t explosives that blew all of this heavy structural steel all over and documented by photo evidence; then why did your DEW only dustify some of the metal?
      \\][//

      1. In all, 25 buildings in Lower Manhattan were badly damaged including all the WTC complex buildings, the nearby Marriott Hotel, and St. Nicholas Greek …

        \\][//

    3. “Makes no different what you think of her, explain why there isn’t a mountain of steel where the buildings were.”

      That is because the twin towers were EXplosions not IMplosions. By contrast WTC7 was an implosion. And yes, there’s a nice pile of rubble, including steel, within the footprint of WTC7. By contrast, the towers laterally ejected steel as much as a football field away, some beams embedding themselves into neighboring skyscrapers.

      ” Also, if the building was “rigged” why was that 70 story high steel column standing there???????????”

      Hah, your question is made so much more potent with the sheer number of question marks.

      Go to YouTube and watch some acknowledged controlled demolitions. Some individual members of the buildings/stadiums do stay standing slightly longer than the rest, before finally losing integrity and falling. In fact, try looking at some videos of failed demolitions.

      I never said I was laughing at you, but I notice you don’t acknowledge the simple fact that the claim of the spire turning to dust in mid air was refuted.

      With that, you can have the last word because I don’t have time for any more of this nonsense.

  32. When you hear an explosion what makes you think it is a bomb? Did you ever hear a steam tank let go? How about an oxygen bottle the firemen use when the air is toxic. Just because it goes “boom” doesn’t mean it is a bomb.

      1. I supposed it’s my fault for allowing the Moon discussion. That’s why people think there’s no problem with switching to Judy Wood. There is a Judy Wood thread, and comments on the subject are welcome there – although I’d be surprised if something can be added that isn’t already there.

        But on this thread it’s enough. I’m not blaming anyone for responding to Roger’s points, but I’m asking all to either drop the subject or move the discussion over to the other thread. Also, no ad hominem insults please. And no fuck offs. Thank you.

        P.S. Since it’s my blog, I’ll allow myself this one remark. If we all agree that the towers were intentionally destroyed by other than plane impacts and office fires then is it really worth fighting (and I mean fighting not discussing) over how they were brought down? What concerns me is how we can awaken people to the fact that the destruction of the towers was a deception and that it was not achieved by terrorist pilots with excellent aim.

  33. I agree with you Craig McKee 100 % when you said… “the towers were intentionally destroyed by other than plane impacts and office fires” . I didn’t know there was a separate “Judy Wood” thing. I’m only responding to what “the experts” are dishing out. Hard to swallow.

    So if Dr.Judy Wood’s forensic information is not allowed what exactly are we discussing. The deception made by Government???? Since this thread is supposed to be on 9/11 if the fires were so hot in the Tower, why is it a woman is standing in the gaping hole of the explosion.

    We know it is an explosion because we see the damage, Since there is no proof a plane hit the Towers even when we all see the same picture on every News Channel as if sent by e-mail like you do on this subject when you send it to all of us.

    If you want to find information that planes hit the Towers, you can focus just on that subject.

    If you want to show only the interviews, you can focus just on that.

    If you want to focus just on iron and aluminum in the dust we can talk about that.

    I like to know the details if we are going to discuss this subject. What deceptions are we going to talk about, the 2,000 degree heat in the pile of rubble that the firemen are walking on and in the gaping hole where a woman is waving her coat? Like you said, ” it was not achieved by terrorist pilots with excellent aim.”, especially when professional pilots say it is impossible to do.

    So that closes the door to any more discussion.

    1. I don’t believe I closed any doors. I said we have a Judy Wood thread with more than 500 comments (I think comments may be closed on that because the number of comments was making the page load very slowly) where all the forensic evidence has been discussed at great length.

      Just because this thread is about 9/11 does not mean that I want one element of 9/11, especially one so thoroughly dealt with on other threads already, to dominate the current one. When this comes up, it usually ends up being a battle between two people while everyone else tunes out because they have seen the same debate played out many times. I have yet to see a strong argument made for why this debate is of value. I hesitate to automatically call it disinformation, as many have, but I don’t see why it should be a priority for the movement to fight acrimoniously over which means were used to blow up the towers.

  34. Craig,

    All I can say is I find the persistence extraordinary. I thought you were clear on your request, but maybe something has gone over my head here?
    \\][//

  35. My pal was a Navy SEAL and when I’d bug him to tell me a military secret, just a teeny one, of course, he wouldn’t. But once he told me about a detonation cord or rope which when laid out on the ground could instantly create a tank trap, a meter (I really don’t know) deep and however long the cord was trench to keep tanks back or to protect troops. Whatever, it was an interesting device which I’d never heard of and said to me that the military probably has all kinds of secret or semi-secret clever explosives and toys, one or two of which were possibly deployed on 9/11.

  36. From the very first day it happened we were deceived into thinking what we saw on TV was what actually happened and slowly people who are specialist in every field come out and say this, that and the other thing is a lie.

    Now that’s a deception on a grand scale.

    Craig you created this format to find out more “stuff” and you are categorizing things on what can and cannot be talked about. That’s like putting a leg brace on a marathon runner. Can you imagine a cop trying to find out who killed a person but not being able to look at every possibility because it is too volatile to look at? How was the person killed? Not allowed to think the person was killed.

    Oh!

    You said….. “I don’t see why it should be a priority for the movement to fight acrimoniously over which means were used to blow up the towers.”

    Why do you think the Towers were blown up? You can only say they were destroyed.

    Oh!

    Besides, no plane hit the towers.

    1. Roger Gloux,

      It is disingenuous for you to pretend that you haven’t noticed that this is a 5 year anniversary thread. By that I don’t just mean it is the topic of the thread, I am also pointing out that in those five years there have been countless threads and topic addressed on those threads.
      The onus is therefore upon you yourself to go through the titles of past T&S articles and see for yourself how the topics were addressed by Craig’s initial article, and who had what views on the topics, and what the arguments were that have already been hashed out here.

      It is a sign of ignorant arrogance for you to come on here as a newbie criticizing Craig for you being allowed to come on and criticize him. It is rude and unacceptable in my personal view.

      You Roger, take umbrage at this from Craig:

      “I don’t see why it should be a priority for the movement to fight acrimoniously over which means were used to blow up the towers.”

      I have a different view myself personally, but it needn’t be made in the combative confrontational way that you use. I disagree with the whole concept of ‘consensus’, and the idea that there will be one central dogma that ALL TRUTHERS will come together on.
      I study the issues to find out the truth of what happened in every aspect of the events of 9/11.
      I don’t think a “Truth Movement” is ever going to convince the bewildered herd to give a damn about the truth. All they want is bread and circuses.

      Now you have come on here with hard nosed bluster about your views, which I personally find to be a product of scurrilous speculation and rhetorical nonsense, and you have now added to the anti another of these screwball ideas that have been argued to death on these pages; the –No-Planes gambit–, which then leads into the Video Fakery nonsense, and even the lunatic Holograms fairytale. You seem to come bearing the whole bag of tricks manufactured by some central scrip office.
      These pages on my own blog address some of these issues:

      https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/911-disinformation-no-planes-theory/

      https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/disinformation-video-fakery/

      And of course there are countless articles right here on T&S to go through.
      \\][//

      1. Willy,

        I agree that we don’t want a 9/11 dogma that all must follow. I also agree that anyone should feel free to pursue the truth wherever it leads. And I don’t think I was suggesting we must reach consensus on everything and toss out our best information. I said I didn’t see the value in fighting ACRIMONIOUSLY over something that virtually everyone in the Truth Movement agrees on – that the towers were blown up in some fashion and that the issue of planes was a trick to fool us into thinking that terrorists brought down the buildings.

        I am more optimistic than you are about getting to the masses with the truth. I couldn’t do this if I didn’t have hope it would lead to something. Otherwise, it’s just a hobby. If I am talking to a newbie (in the event that they are willing to listen for more than 10 seconds – a rarity) then I don’t say that we have lots of theories about the towers: thermite, nukes, directed energy weapons, and lots more, and we just can’t decide what the truth is. How would that help to open that person’s mind to the possibility that they’ve been lied to? I would point to the massive amount of evidence that explosives were used to bring down the towers. I don’t know what kind, although I do know that there is conclusive evidence that thermite or nanothermite was part of the equation. But even Niels Harrit makes it clear that this was a small part of what brought the towers down. Even he does not claim to know what type of explosive did most of the work.

        I don’t agree with the consensus approach when it means that we accept the lowest common denominator and toss out all the best information. That’s why I oppose this approach as it pertains to the Pentagon. The 9/11 Consensus Panel has failed to come up with the “best evidence” on the Pentagon, in my opinion. But with the towers, we have incontrovertible evidence that the buildings were blown up by other than planes and fires. Therefore, for me, it’s not the best use of my time to look for ways to undermine that evidence. That doesn’t mean that weaknesses should not be pointed out and that opposing views should be censored, but I always ask myself whether a looking at a particular subject might lead to increased understanding within the movement that might be used to raise awareness outside the movement. If not, then I choose to focus my energies elsewhere.

        Imagine if the vast majority of the movement that understands that an airliner did NOT hit the Pentagon spent all their time fighting over whether the plane that flew over the building was white or silver. Would that be worth the acrimony? Would that advance the cause in any way? I would say no.

        1. Thank you for your well considered reply Craig,

          I understand and have a great appreciation for your point of view.

          I don’t consider my position as that of a “hobbyist”, I think history is important for all of us to grasp, and I think a detailed and full an understanding of that history is essential. But in saying that, I also recognize that most people are not going to study history beyond what is fed to them on the plate of the “Official Narrative” — so alternative histories must be made available and maintained as long as they can be in this era of grand deceit.

          Whether our dissident views will last, or be wiped away by official censors is something only to be seen in the future. Until then I can only call it as I see it. I want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth as far as I can determine it to be.

          As far as the greatest danger, I see it as autonomous technology. That is Technology as a self directed entity beyond human control.
          See both Ellul, THE TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY, and Kaczynski, TECHNOLOGICAL SLAVERY. Also David Skrbina, The METAPHYSIC of TECHNOLOGY.
          \\][//

    2. Roger, I have to agree with Hybridrogue1 that you are being disingenuous. No one is stopping you from looking into anything you want to. You can do as I did and start your own blog for the purpose, if you wish. Or you can come here and participate in discussions that are already underway. There are many to choose from.

      I actually don’t have a problem with any subject as long as I believe the person bringing it to our attention is doing so sincerely and they are not trying to hijack a discussion that is otherwise moving along productively. Would you think you could go over to the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum and join a discussion about the Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder and then bring up directed energy weapons?

      Unfortunately, past discussions about Judy Wood and no planes always end up obliterating whatever else was being discussed. If I say no more on this thread, somebody will cry “censorship!” If I don’t, then others will question why I am allowing disinformation to be discussed or why I am allowing something that is off topic.

      This site is different from a general forum where you can start your own discussion thread. This is a blog where comments are allowed under each article. The idea is for people to discuss the actual topic addressed in the article. I do allow a lot of leeway, particularly if I find a side topic to be interesting. I guess that’s where it’s good to be king.

      So, to be clear, I did not create this format “to find out more stuff,” exactly, although I certainly do want all of us to learn from the experience. I created it in the hope that awareness would be raised about the most destructive deceptions that occur – like 9/11 – and the Matrix-like dream world that keeps us from seeing through those deceptions. I hope we all learn something. I know I have learned a tremendous amount, as I indicate in the article. But the articles must be more than just an excuse to bring up your preferred 9/11 subject.

      You’ve had an opportunity to express your views very freely, but I don’t want to continue down this road on this thread.

      Thank you.

      1. Hi everyone,

        How about a little intermission here.

        Just wanted to alert people, with intent of soliciting truth-telling comments at the articles, that there have been a couple of anti 9/11 truth pieces published in the last few days:

        The long read: why people believe conspiracy theories
        http://www.thenational.ae/arts-lifestyle/the-review/the-long-read-why-people-believe-conspiracy-theories

        (^ .ae is United Arab Emirates domain.)

        The Silly Conspiracy Theory that Flight 93 Got Shot Down
        http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2015/08/the-silly-conspiracy-theory-that-flight-93-got-shot-down/

        (Those come up on Google News searches for “9/11 truth” and “9/11 conspiracy.” That’s how I keep tabs with what’s being written about 9/11.)

        Incidentally, regarding the 2nd link:

        I’m not sure “Flight 93 was shot down” either, but from a whole different perspective. I think the entire thing might have been staged, with a flyover of an airliner plane in the area (continuing east over/past Indian Lake, thereby contradicting the official story; consider Indian Lake the Shanksville equiv of the other side of the Pentagon) and a military plane that perhaps dropped a bomb in the ground, or something. But many in the Truth Movement believe that there has been a coverup of a shootdown, so, from an OCT-supporting POV, the hit piece’s author derides that as “silly.” Her evidence: The transcripts at the Moussaui Trial confirm that terrorists hijacked it and that the passengers fought back!

        1. Thanks Mr Syed,

          I think it is very well established that there is no proof of any hijackers getting on any of those planes. I think it is well established that the planes involved in the 9/11 events were military craft switched for the official airlines at some point of their flight.

          As fro Flt 93, I think it had been landed at the NASA hanger (Minnesota if my memory serves me) and that the “dispensable” passengers from the other three planes were herded aboard 93. It was blown up by a bomb on the aircraft over Pennsylvania.
          This is just speculation on my part, put together from early newscasts from that day.
          \\][//

  37. Bringing down the WTC towers by cutting through the steel supports of the building would leave hundreds and hundreds of steel columns with cut ends. Where is the evidence for all this cut steel? There were hundreds and hundreds of people there for months afterwards , first responders , firefighters and demolition workers all over the site seeing all this steel with cuts caused by explosives at each end.

    1. “Where is the evidence for all this cut steel?”~Agent Wright

      You know as well as we do it was spirited off to China and melted down as scrap.
      \\][//

  38. Bringing down the WTC towers by cutting through the steel supports of the building would leave hundreds and hundreds of steel columns with cut ends. Where is the evidence for all this cut steel? There were hundreds and hundreds of people there for months afterwards , first responders , firefighters and demolition workers all over the site seeing all this steel with cuts caused by explosives at each end. It would be obvious to anyone looking at it.

    1. Look Wright, we have been over this same ground countless times. I for one am not going to engage in your endless carousel beyond this point.
      \\][//

    2. Indeed, Wright. “it” would be obvious to ‘anyone” looking at “it.” But someone who is incapable of using basic intelligence on the videos of Building 7 is not “anyone.” Accordingly, it is useless, as other commenters will find, to try to educate you on the steel cuts. Instead, keep watching Building 7’s destruction videos until you understand something.

      Love,

      1. @Daniel Noel Educate me on the cut steel. Where is it? If you think there is evidence of cut steel (I don’t mean steel cut after the collapse of the buildings by demolition crews , shown in the picture posted by Nikogriego) then you should tell AE911 Truth about it, as according to them
        ‘There is little or no evidence of cut steel at the WTC site, to say the least.’
        I asked Richard Gage if he had evidence of cut steel columns at the WTC site and he basically said he didn’t.

        1. “I asked Richard Gage if he had evidence of cut steel columns at the WTC site and he basically said he didn’t.”~Agent Wright

          No you didn’t. and no he didn’t.
          \\][//

            1. Agent Smith is a nom de plume of Colin Duran \, who is a manager at Dunkin’ Donuts in a small country in Central America. Supposedly this character was born in Moscow.
              \\][//

              1. Willy, you appear to be insinuating something by revealing who you think A. Wright is, but it’s not clear what you are insinuating or why you have stated this. People are allowed to use other names on the Internet to comment, etc., so why write this? Are you claiming that you have proved something about Wright not being who he claims? And the remark about Moscow seems to imply something, but again I’m clear on what. I’m inclined to remove these two comments, but I will give you a brief opportunity to explain why they should remain.

                1. There is only two sources on the internet that I have been able to locate that make the claim that Richard Gage said he had no evidence of angle cut beams. Those sources are A. Wright on this site, and Colin Doran on Kevin Ryan’s site – both using the exact same language as used by Wright here. Thus there is in fact a SINGLE source for this claim – as Wright and Doran are the same person.
                  \\][//

                    1. Sure Craig, the exact wording is near the bottom of Doran’s comment: http://digwithin.net/2015/02/15/science-died-wtc/#comment-19583
                      ” I asked AE911 truth what evidence they had for cut steel and was told
                      ‘There is little or no evidence for cut steel at the WTC site, to say the least.’
                      I asked Richard Gage if he had evidence for cut steel and he talked about these pictures with the big diagonal cuts but said they couldn’t say they were results of cutter charges as they could have been done during the clear-up of the site- which they obvious were. If all these steel supports were cut then they would be everywhere , cut. I see no evidence of it.”~Colin Duran

                      \\][//

        2. Educating you on the cut steel? Good idea, but very impractical. This is much too complex a topic for you, since you are incapable of using basic observation and logic on the videos of Building 7’s destruction.

          Keep plowing at the elementary concepts of 9/11. You’ll get to the steel cuts and the other fundamental concepts soon enough.

          Now, if you badly want me to educate you on the steel, I’ll gladly do so for an hourly fee, with the advance warning that you will be wasting your money, Contact me outside this blog for the details.

          Love,

          1. @Daniel Noel You should educate Richard Gage on it instead since he doesn’t have evidence of it. This is something that would be everywhere people looked and pointed a camera at the WTC site. Basic observation , looking at the end of a piece of steel would tell you it had been cut with explosives.
            .

            1. Thank you for your expert advice. I’ll sure tell Mr. Gage that he should know that box cutters can and will cut box columns.

              Keep in mind my offer to educate you on the steel cuts outside this blog, with the caveat that you will be wasting not only your time but also your money. I shall free a few billable hours just for you.

              In the meantime, your abilities to observe and reason shall be best focused on Building 7’s videos. Even you may be capable of drawing an intelligent conclusion out of this exercise. Try harder!

              Love,

              1. @Daniel Noel Do you have a problem because there isn’t evidence of cut steel or because your are being asked about it? As I said, I asked AE911 truth on their website if they had any evidence of cut steel columns of the WTC and got an answer from Tom Spellman who said
                ‘There is little or no evidence of cut steel at the World Trade Centre site, to say the least’.

                I also asked Richard Gage himself about it personally , at one of his presentations , and he couldn’t provide any evidence. All he said was that they had a picture on the AE911truth site of cut steel columns (similar to the one posted above) but that would have been done during the clean up. That was it – he moved on to the next question.

                1. “I also asked Richard Gage himself about it personally , at one of his presentations..”~Wright

                  I don’t believe you asked Gage himself. I don’t by your story because it is plain to see that you are a total tool for the System, a transparent disinformant parroting the official narrative; a narrative that has been shown to be preposterous on every level.

                  Furthermore, your proposition that there were no cut columns “before clean-up” is conjecture. You are dwelling on this one particular point because it can be framed as conjecture. All of the issues proving controlled demolition that are presented and beyond reasonable doubt are being ignored by you here, because you can make no successful arguments against them.
                  \\][//

                2. “Do you have a problem because there isn’t evidence of cut steel or because your are being asked about it?” No, my only problem is my inability to explain the cut steel evidence to someone who is mentally incapable of drawing intelligent conclusions from a cursory examination of the videos of Building 7’s destruction. But I have solved it. I’ll teach you as long as my billable time allows.

                  In the meantime, here comes my perennial advice to you free of charge: keep watching Building 7’s destruction. They are not more complicated than an TV commercial. Even you may be able to learn something from them. Try harder!

                  Love,

                  1. @Daniel Noel I’ll take that as there isn’t evidence of cut steel and that’s why you don’t like being asked about.
                    Saying that only the mentally incapable would not see that WTC7 was a controlled demolition is as good an argument against a planned clandestine controlled demolition as you could get.

                    1. “there isn’t evidence of cut steel..”~Agent Wright

                      This is not true at all. There is plenty of evidence of cut steel. The only dispute is whether all of the steel was cut during clean-up, or whether a great deal of it was due to explosive charges during the demolition.

                      Keeping in mind, that the vast majority of the steel that was forensic evidence, and was illegally sold for scrap after the event, it must be held in mind that those in authority already broke the laws of crime scene procedure. As did NIST for not investigating evidence for arson, which is a permanent mandate for any fire-scene-investigation.

                      You say this on Kevin Ryan’s site:
                      “Controlled demolition is not a structural explanation for the collapse of buildings it’s a non-structural one.”

                      Which is of course absolute nonsense. Controlled demolition is precisely used to destroy the inner structure of a building, thus controlled demolition is indeed a structural explanation.
                      \\][//

                    2. I don’t mind being asked about the Twin Towers’ steel cuts. I do mind educating on this topic someone who fails the elementary challenge of gathering meaningful macroscopic information from the videos of Building 7’s destruction. To repeat, I’ll gladly entertain this topic with you, but not here and not for free.

                      Quoting the latest output of your intellectual brilliance,.. “Saying that only the mentally incapable would not see that WTC7 was a controlled demolition is as good an argument against a planned clandestine controlled demolition as you could get.” You could be right on this one. “Saying that only the mentally incapable would not see that WTC7 was a controlled demolition” hardly reads like an argument, and can probably even be demonstrated to be false. But I am venturing again beyond what your brain can comprehend.

                      Keep watching the videos of Building 7’s destruction! It is not that hard, Even you may some day draw intelligent conclusions from this exercise, and perhaps even graduate from the elementary conspiracy class.

                      Love,

  39. “No building exhibiting all the characteristics of controlled demolition has ever not been a controlled demolition.”~David Ray Griffin

    ABSTRACT

    There are ‘Signature Effects’ to physical phenomena, and forensic science is put to analyzing the signature of specific characteristics to determine the cause and effects of events.

    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 any other mechanism would duplicate and mimic these very specific signature characteristics.

    10 Signature Characteristics of a Controlled Demolition:

    1. Each collapse occurred at virtually free fall speed;

    2. Each building collapsed straight down, for the most part onto its own footprint;

    3. Virtually all the concrete was turned into particulates and dust;

    4. In the case of the Twin Towers, heavy material was blown out horizontally for 200 feet or more;

    5. The collapses were total, leaving no steel columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air;

    6. Videos of the collapses reveal “demolition waves”, meaning “confluent rows of small explosions”;

    7. Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections that were no more than 30 feet long;

    8. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings;

    9. Each collapse was associated with detectable seismic vibrations (suggestive of underground explosions);

    10. Each collapse produced molten steel (which would be produced by explosives), resulting in “hot spots” that remained for months.

    [+] The combined points of evidence and deductive analysis thereof is then adduced as “Ultimate Fact”.

    Ultimate Fact

    [=] The combined evidence of the destruction of the towers is shown conclusively and beyond a reasonable doubt to be the result of a chemical-explosive controlled demolition .

    > NOTE: Any alternative theory as to the mechanisms of the destruction of WTC, will have to successfully dispute each and every one of these 10 points. Particularly troublesome for such theories are points 6 – 10.

    Aftermath

    A forensic study of the physical evidence, as much or little as there is known of in the public realm, as well as analysis of what the ‘government’ has revealed as can be determined in the text and subtext.
    ~Willy Whitten

    https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-911/
    \\][//

  40. “The official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The first is the simple fact that fire has never—prior to or after 9/11—caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse. Defenders of the official story seldom if ever mention this simple fact. Indeed, the supposedly definitive report put out by NIST—the National Institute for Standards and Technology (2005)—even implies that fire-induced collapses of large steel-frame buildings are normal events (Hoffman, 2005).[4] Far from being normal, however, such collapses have never occurred, except for the alleged cases of 9/11.”~David Ray Griffin
    http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
    \\][//

  41. Those arguing that NIST is a reliable source for the destruction of the WTC complex is ludicrous, because NIST themselves admit that they did not fulfill their mandate to explain why both towers suffered complete global collapse. As they explain, they only modeled up to the point of so-called “Collapse Initiation”. Their excuse was, “well everybody saw them collapse on national television, so we know they collapsed.”

    Yes as spurious as all of this is, it is so. That is the official position of NIST. Essentially they are saying we didn’t complete our official mandate that authorized the study, but tough luck, that’s our story and we’re stickin’ to it.” And THAT dear friends is hubris in the first degree.
    \\][//

    1. Good points. I’ll add that this is another blessing of 9/11. NIST’s half-page literary description of the “pile driver” operation and NIST’s affirmation that office fires alone could explain Building 7’s demise are so laughable that I have proposed the conspiracy theory that NIST’s experts knew very well what they were doing and made their cover-up as transparent as they reasonably could get away with. Ironically, while they are traitors and criminals against humanity for their complicity in the 9/11 cover-up, they are also unsung 9/11 heroes for making the technical cover-up as transparent as it is and getting the Master 9/11 censors to approve it.

      Since Craig’s article deals with the history of 9/11 Truth, I’ll remind readers that prior to NIST’s authoritative reports, the technical troglodytes who infest 9/11 discussions competed for the most convoluted scenarios of accidental destruction: in the case of Building 7, they concocted intricate mishmashes of the underground substation, the atrium, the back-up generator fuel tanks, the steel projections from the North Tower, the fires, and maybe more. I smile imagining the trauma our resident fanatic Wright must have gone through when (s)he learnt that if (s)he theorized Building 7’s destruction using anything beyond “ordinary office fires” from then on, (s)he would be mercilessly called a nutty conspiracy theorist.

      Love,

  42. The International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001
    (Also known as “The Toronto Hearings”)


    \\][//

    1. Yup Fremo, and here is a real quick review of the videos of #7, which even the commentators on TV that day could see clearly that it was a controlled demolition:


      \\][//

  43. Damn fckn right Willy !. not called the ‘creatioNIST’ report for nothing.!! NIST’s odious Pinocchio Sunder launched the “magic bolt” theory of FREE FALLING multi-columned steel framed high-rises due to ‘normal office furnishings fires’, creating but not perfecting a ‘new phenomenon’ quantum theory called the ‘speed of Deceit’.
    More Zelikow than Newton.
    The agnotological trip of the New American Century.

  44. “Oh no! It’s the Pentagon!
    I can’t look back over five years of Truth and Shadows without mentioning the subject that I feel is the key to proving that 9/11 was an inside job involving, at a minimum, agencies of the U.S. government.”~Craig McKee [this article]

    I notice that the article: ‘How we KNOW an airliner did NOT hit the Pentagon’ remains a constant favorite in the ‘Top Stories’ list here in the right margin. However I think it is far from the penultimate article Craig has posted on the subject on T&S. There are several others, including the one about Barbara Honegger that have much more information, as well as a hot and lively discussion in the comments section.
    Perhaps Craig can give a list of his articles on the topic of the Pentagon that he feels puts the issues needed to be understood in the best and most complete way[?].
    \\][//

    1. That’s a good idea. The article you refer to was one of my earliest ones. I wrote it before I really knew about how the no-impact position has been the subject of an aggressive disinformation campaign. I think the headline was an effective attention-grabber, and that’s why it remains so popular. I have learned much since then that makes the case that much stronger. You will be seeing more about the subject in the not-too-distant future. I plan to have a piece that is much more complete that will supplant the article you mention.

      1. Great Craig!

        I think the CIT, Pilots, info; buttressed by OSS’ fabulous and detailed analysis of the witness positions and testimony relevance, all combine to a beyond reasonable doubt conclusion.
        \\][//

  45. Any Mike Malloy fans here? (lots of YouTubes) Top notch angry liberal talker and while he’s not an expert on the details of 9/11 nor is 9/11 or other conspiracies the focus of his show, from time to time he does come down on the side of how the official story was a lie. Anyway, a regular contributor to his show, Bruce Enberg or “Prarie 2” who usually writes of financial matters called in the other day and spoke of how the Apollo mission was a fraud and encouraged Mike to see some videos for himself, especially where they supposedly placed a cardboard cut-out photo of the earth in the porthole of the capsule. Mike said he’d look (but he won’t, lol). Bruce is a stand-up, snarky skeptic of government financial policy and it was good to hear him dis the Apollo mission on Mike’s show. http://www.prairie2.com/

    1. “they supposedly placed a cardboard cut-out photo of the earth in the porthole of the capsule.” ~Jimbo

      Utterly jejune nonsense.
      \\][//

  46. I haven’t read all the posts since the inception of this site but I can see who dominates in this last part. The part I decide to step into the fray. Articulate verbal…. errrr expressions may intimidate some people but it don’t have that effect on me. The good part is I learn some new words.

    The Towers were destroyed as was building #7. According to most of the folks including Craig, they were ….blown up…. by using explosives of one kind or another. Most are now leaning to thermite or possibly thermate for cutting all the supporting beams of steel using radio signals to detonate everything in sequence. A few pictures show the odd beam in one photo cut in a slant showing it must be demolition yet all the other beams shown in the photo are not cut in a slant. Since all seven buildings of the complex were destroyed, what caused the damage to the other FOUR buildings? I am also aware that most of you who lead in the discussions say it all fell into it;s own footprint. If that be the case why were the other buildings in WTC destroyed as well? Building six is hollow leaving the external walls intact and hardly any debris in the hole.

    It also has been stated in this thread that steel beams of various sizes were ejected a block away by massive explosions.. So what is it? a demolition bringing it down into it;s own footprint or explosions sending the material outward a block or more away?The majority of the damage to the surrounding buildings is only part way up, why is it not all the way up since the Towers were twice the height and the adjoining buildings had very little damage to their roofs.?

    Regardless whether Dr. Judy Wood is accepted or not as a credible Scientist, there is a photograph taken from the street level outside the front doors of Tower One where an ambulance is sitting with a fireman walking on the pavement. The outside aluminum panels is sticking up on the opposite side of the building with virtually nothing in between where the front door should be and that back side.

    Dr. Judy Wood’s photo.
    Dr. Judy Wood

    Since the leading few of this thread keep talking of deception, I wonder what kind of deception you will say regarding this photo? What you see in this photo taken on or near the same day it was destroyed is aluminum cladding.

    It is as clear as mud for anyone to say this was controlled demolition when you look at this one photo on page 114 and Figure #109 in her book.

    1. Stumbled on this related mind-boggling list a few days ago.

      Estimated Missing Contents of the World Trade Center Debris Pile (WTC 1, 2, & 7):

      14,700 Toilets, Sinks, Urinals
      45,000 Desks
      45,000 Chairs
      245 Acres Of Carpeting
      40,000 File Cabinets
      40,000 Cubicles
      75,000 Telephones
      50,000 Staplers
      20,000 Miles Of Wiring
      300 Mainframe Computers
      45,000 Computer Monitors
      45,000 Keyboards
      45,000 Mice/Computer Periphials
      650 Fire Extinguishers
      3000 Copy Machines
      2000 Water Coolers
      3000 Printers
      20,000 Doors
      40,000 Door Knobs
      22,000 Stainless Steel Elevator Doors
      450 Refrigerators
      5000 Snack And Soda Vending Machines
      3000 Wallets & Purses
      3000 Employee Id Cards (Required After 1993 Bombing)
      3000 Employee Personal Cell Phones

        1. “Missing” in the sense that the destruction of these mostly inflammable materials was so thorough and complete — no identifiable macroscopic pieces — yet so much paper survived. Perhaps that’s exactly what’s to be expected from the mechanism of a controlled demolition, however, I have yet to find any specific information on that. In a controlled demlition, are planted explosives/thermitic materials designed to sever the buildings columns AND destroy the contents of each floor down to the last stapler?

          1. “no identifiable macroscopic pieces”~Sherif Shaalan

            This is simply not true. The WTC dust has a unique and peculiar composition of materials. Enough that it is a known signature characteristic that identifies the dust as genuine.

            See:

            WTC Dust Signature Report by RJ Lee Group, Inc. – Report Date: December 2003

            WTC Dust Signature Study: Composition and Morphology 130 Liberty Street Property
            [Prepared for: Deutsche Bank]

            “The distinctive composition, solid phases, and unique morphological features have allowed for the development of a “WTC Dust Signature”: dust containing particles that, when occurring together, can be considered to act as identifying source tracers. The WTC Dust Signature can be compared with dusts of unknown provenance using conventional source apportionment methodologies, forensic tags derived from microscopic observations, or statistical analysis.” — pg. 5.

            “As we examined the WTC-debris sample*, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form.”~Jones – Jan 2007.

            A previously published study of the WTC dust noted: “The environmental science community has been slow to understand that the acute health effects were attributable to a complex mixture of gases and particles and that the particles in greatest abundance (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-μmdiam) particles, not the fine (<2.5-μm-diam) or coarse (2.5–10-μmdiam)* particles that are typically measured.”

            Also See (which also means read the damn thing!):

            Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
            Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen Pp 7-31

            \\][//

            1. I meant “macroscopic” as in large recognizable pieces of an object well above the micron scale . . . like a refrigerator door. Is it unreasonable to imagine that a force that blew steel beams flying hundreds of feet beyond the foot prints of the building wouldn’t also send at least a few staplers and door knobs flying as well? I would like to know exaclty how the long list of things listed above are “destroyed” in a controlled demolition, and how all that paper exempt from such total destruction.

                  1. What is your point here, Mr. Shaalan?

                    Is it that there should have been more larger pieces of debris present?

                    Or is it that everything should have been blown to little pieces?

                    Because your link seems to support HybridRogue1’s initial response, that everything was blown to smithereens due to the powerful nature of the explosive devices used.

                    “Peter Tully, president of [Tully Construction], was, notably, the only person willing to speak openly with AFP about his work at the WTC site. … “Think of the thousands of file cabinets, computers, and telephones in those towers—I never saw one—every thing was pulverized,” Tully said. “Everything that was above grade—above the 6th and 7th floor—disintegrated . . . it was like an explosion.” Tully Construction specializes in concrete. AFP asked Tully if he had ever seen concrete pulverized as it was at the WTC. “No—never,” he said. [AFP]”

                    1. To answer your question Nikogriego, under the hypothesis of controlled demolition being the sole mechanism for destruction of the towers and their contents, I would expect, from my layman standpoint, much larger pieces of debris and much more of them.

                      While I agree that the observed phenomena of a controlled demolition would certainly explain much of what occured that day, I’m not convinced it explains ALL of it.

                    2. “I would expect, from my layman standpoint, much larger pieces of debris and much more of them.”~Sherif Shaalan

                      But Sherif, you were obviously ignorant of the visual record that already exists, and has for practically 14 years, of “larger pieces of debris”.
                      \\][//

                  2. Joe Casalinni is ONE responder who reports his own experiences. He didn’t see the entire debris field – no single person could have. He does in fact report finding a part of a telephone keypad, perhaps a quarter of one. That in itself belies the idea that nothing but microscopic dust was left.

                    Why would you doubt that these pictures are originally from WTC when they are posted as such? I will tell you why, because the images destroy your argument, so you would rather handwave them or cast doubt. There are countless photos of s similar nature, some shown in cases clearly stating they are from the debris of WTC.
                    \\][//

                    1. I’m not interested in winning an argument. I’m skeptical for the same reason I would and should be skeptical of pictures of an airplane engine on a street corner and a barely harmed passport.

                    2. “I’m not interested in winning an argument.”~Sherif Shaalan

                      Splendid, because you aren’t.
                      \\][//

                    1. Not necessarily because I’m not sure her hypothesis explains all the observed phenomena either. I suppose I’m open to the possibility of multiple mechanisms — like a murder victim who has been shot, poisoned, stabbed and suffocated. Which one was the cause of death?

                    2. “a murder victim who has been shot, poisoned, stabbed and suffocated. Which one was the cause of death?”~Sherif Shaalan

                      Yea Sherif, we read about such murder victims every day… Lol

                      You know that the sort of argument you just presented is known as “hyperbole”, don’t you Mr Shaalan.
                      \\][//

      1. So Mr Shaalan,

        So you find it surprising in some way that explosives with the brisence that would blow concrete to bits, the majority of it ranging in size from large gravel, to sand, to heavy dust, to fine dust; that it would not reduce these items listed to bits and pieces of the same relative size and nature?

        As is pointed out in the evidence, this explosive blew steel beams and partial box assemblies flying hundreds of feet beyond the footprints of the building. Which, before it is brought up, does not preclude much of the steel from the core columns from having fallen into the basements. The basements of not only the towers themselves but the basements of many of the other buildings on the site.

        After some 14 years of forensic investigation, there is simply no mystery as to what happened at the WTC. One can produce a mystery with empty conjecture and suppositions, but there is no evidence that can displace the finding that high-explosives blew up the WTC.
        \\][//

    2. “I wonder what kind of deception you will say regarding this photo?”~Roger Gloux

      I don’t have anything deceptive to say about your photo Mr Gloux. There is nothing to say to a true believer that they are going to grasp.
      \\][//

  47. One more time:

    As we examined the WTC-debris sample*, we found large

    chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was

    approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces

    of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the

    pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false

    premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder

    (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam

    destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the

    MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete

    and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form.”~Jones – Jan 2007.

    [*MacKinlay at 113 Liberty Street, just across from the South

    Tower.]

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/NoMini-nukes-AppA.pdf
    \\][//

  48. hybridrogue1 Well Mr. William Rodriguez you have everything to say about everything else yet one photo that shows there isn’t anything at ground level with an undamaged ambulance right outside where the front doors used to be and a fireman walking on the street reveals there is no material to say it was a controlled demolition using explosives.

    That leaves you speachless? You figure your a true believer. You appear to be a “spook” working for the Government trying your best with your articulate manner to ridicule everything that points to the truth.

    That photo you used to show there is some phones that didn’t get destroyed is a joke comparing the size of the towers and the three thousands cell phones of those who lost their lives. You can put that in a paper bag. And the photo with the computer on the desk is not from Tower One because of the Photo I showed is at ground level where everything above it disintergrated and there is nothing in the photo. Which building is that photo of the desk? Building Six. because the outside of the building is there with the remains of the offices, but the inside core is gone, with nothing in the hole and this wasn’t a building with supposed explosives for demolition.

    Also, if explosives were used where that desk and computer is, do you think it would all still be on the desk with all the paper files. Your a “spook” trying to ridicule the truth and coming up with silly ideas that don’t make sense.

    You said to Mr. Shaalan….. “Which, before it is brought up, does not preclude much of the steel from the core columns from having fallen into the basements. The basements of not only the towers themselves but the basements of many of the other buildings on the site.”

    If that was the case then explain why firemen are walking in the corridors of a Mall in Building Four with all the stores intact and all the goods still on the shelves just below the main floor. No steel beams there nor in the area where delivery vans use to access all the building on WTC.

    In the Book pages 188 and 189 reveal there are no beams under the main floor of those buildings. You are therefore not telling the truth.

    And a reply to your post about the rail cars under the complex, if everything went into the basement or in the tub as you say it did, those rail cars would have been crushed like a beer can when you jump on it. But as the photo shows there isn’t a dent in them and most of the windows are still intact. Again you tell an un-truth.

    1. “In the Book pages 188 and 189 reveal there are no beams under the main floor of those buildings. You are therefore not telling the truth.”~Roger Gloux

      In fact pages 188 and 189 show scenes from under buildings 4 and 5, not under either tower. You are therefore quite confused and making scurrilous allegations against me.
      \\][//

  49. Also… if the beams came down as you say, why are there 14 firemen in a stairway that lived through the destruction and looking upward saw the sky? Nothing fell on them.

  50. “And the photo with the computer on the desk is not from Tower One because of the Photo I showed is at ground level where everything above it disintergrated and there is nothing in the photo.”~Roger Gloux

    A huge leaping assumption, because your photo is from one particular angle with a limited width – and shows even from that there are higher piles of debris behind it, and further behind is obscured by smoke and mist.

    Your point about the rail cars is conjecture because as I pointed out, you cannot specify where those cars came from. You have this “all or nothing” attitude in your thinking, as if all of the core columns would have fallen to the bathtub level, rather than haphazardly falling in a tangled mess throughout the basement levels… you act as if everything was gently set in place while it is clear there was chaotic dispersion of this debris when exploded. And this is why I dismiss your simplistic arguments.
    \\][//

  51. Look at almost any photo of the aftermath of the WTC event and you will see huge amounts of metal strewn all about. If Judy’s DEW machine dustified everything including steel, why is there ANY metal left?

    Why would this weapon pick on the door handles and latches of cars while leaving huge piles of steel beams, which would have been the primary target?

    The answer is obvious, the cars were “roasted” by eutectic chemical reactions from the pyroclastic clouds produced by the tower’s demolitions. The beams were blown all over the trade center by high brisance explosives.
    \\][//

  52. hybridrogue1: Mr. William Rodriguez you are correct it is under Buildings 4 and 5. thank you for pointing that out but i see you told Mr. Shaalan….

    “The basements of not only the towers themselves but the basements of many of the other buildings on the site.”

    But now your back tracking because you see absolutely no damage under Building 4 and 5. The pictures tell it all. The very same pictures you poo poo before.

    You said….. “You are therefore quite confused and making scurrilous allegations against me.”

    Not “scurrilous allegations” when you put your own foot in your own mouth.

    1. “The basements of not only the towers themselves but the basements of many of the other buildings on the site.”

      Yes indeed, and many of the other buildings did have fallen debris from the towers. Again you are playing your “all or nothing” simplistic game here Mr Gloux. Building 6 was obviously the victim of a huge chunk of WTC 1, and had it’s basements full of metal from No. 1.

      My feet are flat on the floor Mr Gloux, it is yourself who is floundering.
      \\][//

    2. Mr. Gloux,

      Are you really such a jerk as to intimate that I am “Mr. William Rodriguez”?

      You have also made this ludicrous statement:

      ” You appear to be a “spook” working for the Government trying your best with your articulate manner to ridicule everything that points to the truth.”

      I have a high profile presence on the Internet under my true name, Willy Whitten, as an artist and special effects artist with a long career in special effects cinematography.

      It is easy to take your word for it that you are “a simple truck driver” so I won’t take you to task to prove it. And I certainly would not assert that you are a “spook”, but rather that you have simply been duped by spooks and charlatans because you are lite on critical thinking ability.

      It is up to you, but I would advise you stay away from you spurious allegations, and personal jibes.
      \\][//

  53. I have often offered the advice to my adversaries in debate to acquire this handy little jewel:

    A Rulebook for Arguments by Anthony Weston

    Hackett Publishing Copmpany, Inc.
    P.O. Box 44937
    Indianapolis, Indiana 46244-0967
    \\][//

  54. N CA Annual 9/11 Film Festival: David Chandler to spend 60 minutes arguing a plane hit the Pentagon

    Get a load of this: At the SF 9/11 Truth Annual Film Festival this year, David Chandler is going to spend 60 minutes arguing that a plane hit the Pentagon. (I presume this includes time for q/a.) This is after the 30 minute excerpt from Ken Jenkins’ upcoming film arguing the same position; the original idea was to show Ken’s finished product but… he hasn’t finished it yet.

    http://sf911truth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/2015FF-schedule.pdf

    I wish I could be there myself but I’m working. I hope there are some well informed people in the audience to ask some tough questions about the evidence he handwaves away.

    Not too many people have actually attempted to argue this position in a public conference venue. Legge did it at the Australian conference in 2009 and Deets did it in DC in 2013 – and the latter even admitted his case wasn’t strong.

    Thoughts?

    I’m guessing Chandler’s talk will be a real sirloin steak of material for Truth and Shadows!

    1. Thank you Adam!
      (to repeat my reply to you on my blog):

      So we are going to get another fusillade of bullshit from Chandler and his cohorts! It is tragic these so called “scholars” are so butt-headed and narrow minded. They have obviously rejected the CIT information with biased prejudice.

      I see they are also featuring the disingenuous Barbara Honegger at this same event. So it appears to be a mishmash of some good info by PD Scott, mixed in with misinfo garbage on the Pentagon event. Typical for the ‘Wondering Who’s’ of the “Truth Movement”.
      \\][//

      1. 60 minutes arguing that a plane did hit. How is he going to fill the time?

        I’m reminded of my school days when a teacher required that a paper be x number of pages long and I thought to myself, “how will I fill up the space?”

        1. “How is he going to fill the time?”~Adam Syed

          I don’t know, but I have read some of Chandler’s, Ryan’s, and Legge’s nonsense before, I imagine it will a be a reiteration of that bullshit. Hopefully we can get a record, video or text of what goes down there. I doubt if such will be for free however. I wouldn’t pay a dime for it.
          \\][//

    2. What would we do without members of the Truth Movement telling the rest of us that significant parts of the 9/11 official story are true. Incredible. There’s a whole story behind all of this that I will share with readers after this event is live-streamed on Sept. 10.

      By the way, there is a video conference organized by Canadian truthers that can be viewed on Sept. 11. It is organized primarily by Adnan Zuberi, a University of Toronto professor who made the film 9/11 in the Academic Community. The event will feature participation from people like Graeme MacQueen, Barrie Zwicker, Kevin Ryan, Cynthia McKinney, James Corbett, Anthony Hall, and David Johnson. For more details go to https://rethinkseptember11.wordpress.com/

      1. Craig,

        Thanks for the heads up on the other conference! Having not heard of David Johnson until today, I typed his name in my browser and came up with this very interesting and well written letter to Journal of 911 Studies. He certainly has the educational background to speak on the structural issues of buildings, and is clearly a free thinker:

        9/11: A Personal Odyssey
        David Johnson is Professor Emeritus of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of
        Tennessee. A Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners, he served with the US Army Corps of Engineers, and was a planner on the staffs of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, theWashington National Capital Planning Commission and the Regional Plan Association of New York.

        http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2012-September—Johnson-letter.pdf
        \\][//

        1. A nice letter but he does use the term “collapse” all through the letter. I would simply say to speak the truth that the towers were brought down with controlled demolitions, they were blown up, they were demolished! Say it like it is already! It has been 14 years STOP SAYING THE TOWERS COLLAPSED!

          1. “The photo on the cover reminded me of why I had doubted the official story practically from Day One. The cover shows WTC-1 at the beginning of the collapse of the top portion of the tower just above the impact zone. Cascades of banana peel-shaped debris are falling on all sides of the top section of the tower. Quite clearly,this is not a building simply collapsing, but a building being destroyed by powerful internal explosives. Soon after the photo was taken, the top portion of the tower disintegrated into great clouds of pulverized dust. A building simply falling through structural damage wouldn’t do this.
            Could anything be clearer? The visual evidence is all that is needed to indict. But of course now there is far more additional evidence of a criminal act and a cover-up.”~David Johnson

            I would say that is pretty clear and direct.
            \\][//

  55. Thanks for the info Craig. I want to see everything people have uncovered. It truly is fascinating how the folks who delve into this realize it wasn’t Arabs or the first or second backup story or the next that destroyed the Towers.

    Everybody is trying to figure out how it was done.

    It seems there is a leader or spokesman to every “truth” group that keeps deflecting any progress.

    Then you go into WHY the parties that were involved had orchestrated this disaster, the extent they went to covering it up. It was to cover up what they did. A lot of money disappeared and the people who are at the controls what it kept unseen.

    Building seven was where all the information concerning Enron was and the 2,300 or so cases ready to go to court. A lot of people lost everything they owned in the Enron “hyst” or was it a “bust”, which was supposed to be a secured investment.

    The Towers had the chief dealers in the Stock Market as tenants and what better way to cover the thefts then to bring down the Towers to cover it up. They were loosing money on the place anyway and had to take it apart. But… it was covered in asbestos a very costly endeavor to remove. It had to be a conspiracy because one guy can’t do it all.

    Regardless how they destroyed all seven buildings, it was a complete job to hide what they did.

    1. “Everybody is trying to figure out how it was done.” Not quite. The “how,” “why” and “what for” of the World Trade Center’s destruction will be fodder for many PhD theses once this 9/11 conspiracy is over. However, in the meantime, the questions that yield the juiciest reflections are others:
      * how did “they” dare televise live to the entire world the Twin Towers’ terrorist controlled demolition–or whatever you want to call it–and present it as the natural result of Osama bin Laden’s aerial attacks?
      * how did “they” come up with a technical cover-up so easy to see through?
      * how is it that opinion-makers in all disciplines, all around the world, have essentially been living the official 9/11 myth as an axiom in spite of the above?

      These questions have no straightforward answers, but raising them leads straight to a call to analyze the possibility that there could be a 9/11 censorship conspiracy, which in turn could deserve much more attention than the comparatively puny conspiracies of the cover-up and of the false flag itself. This, incidentally, makes 9/11 unique among the numerous false flags that have probably taken place in modern history.

      Love,

  56. Anyone who has not yet this response from Craig Ranke to the Chandler-Cole nonsense should do so – it is detailed and complete and some of the best argumentation I have read on any subject by any researcher on any topic:

    CIT’s Response to David Chandler and Jonathan Cole

    The following is a response to the “joint statement” about The Pentagon issued by David Chandler and Jonathan Cole around January 1, 2011. The full text of Chandler and Cole’s essay appears in light brown boxes. Comments from Craig Ranke of Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) appear on the white background.

    http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/cit-response-to-david-chandler-and-jonathan-cole-pentagon-statement
    \\][//

    1. It should be noted that this carefully considered response by Craig Ranke of CIT was published on February 3, 2011. There has still not been a single word made in counter response by Chandler or Cole. The fact that Ranke’s response devastates their position surely accounts for this silence.

      That Chandler and Cole have been disingenuous is plainly clear, that they have been willfully so is now beyond a shadow of a doubt.

      ~Willy Whitten \\][//

      1. I echo your words here about the CIT response devastating Chandler and Cole’s sloppy paper. I agree 100% that their complete lack of response to it speaks volumes! What amazes me is that Chandler is still apparently respected by many even though he has CLEARLY lost the debate about the pentagon due to forfeit. He made his points in his paper, CIT smashed them utterly and decisively and now Chandler and Cole haven’t a word to say about it but rather flee from any and all debate. David Ray Griffin and the consensus panel should really consider long and hard if someone like Chandler belongs on the panel at all. He refuses to acknowledge the truth so what is he doing on a 9/11 truth panel huh?

        I’ll tell you what he is doing he is black balling the pentagon evidence which in my book is about the worst thing a truther can do. He needs to grow the hell up and acknowledge that his position on the pentagon is untenable and CIT debunked it with authority.

        So think about what Chandler has really done here, or better yet I will offer this analogy to what he has done.

        Suppose I disputed Chandlers calculations on the free fall of WTC 7 and I said well X, Y, and Z, clearly show that WTC 7 did not come down at free fall. Next Chandler writes a detailed response debunking all three of my points decisively. He shows my contention X to be false, he shows my contention Y to be false, and then he shows my contention Z to be false. Now how about if I refuse to acknowledge that he proved my contentions false and instead go on a truth tour giving presentations about how true X, Y, and Z are while the whole time pretending he never debunked them?

        Well THAT is exactly what Chandler is doing and I think it is despicable to the extreme. DRG tolerating this so called truther on the consensus panel really irks me to no end. If Chandler was a truther he could debate the pentagon in the open like a man.

        1. “DRG tolerating this so called truther on the consensus panel really irks me to no end. If Chandler was a truther he could debate the pentagon in the open like a man.”~Adam Ruff

          I am afraid that i have to agree to your point about DRG as well. As I have previously argued, I think that the idea of “consensus” itself is flawed. I won’t repeat my argument here as I have done so many times in the past; other than the central point: Consensus is by its very nature temporary and fleeting.
          \\][//

          1. Yes the whole idea of a consensus panel is essentially a popularity contest and an appeal to authority about truth. Truth is still truth even if the consensus panel votes against it.

        2. I am quite surprised he is going to argue this position “in the open.” The question is, in person at an event, how will he handle it if indeed some tough questions and challenges are put to him?

          1. Yes Mr Syed, if Mr Ranke should show up incognito and suddenly rise to ask a few “clarifying questions” would be most interesting. Wouldn’t it?
            \\][//

            1. They’d recognize him and likely not let him in, lol. Someone else who’s more under the radar but who knows the subject really in depth and how to counter the disinfo arguments would have to be present.

              I also wonder how protective the organizers are going to be about anyone other than the organizers filming the event. You have to make a donation to see the live stream. I’m sure that one thing they don’t want to have happen is for Chandler’s session to go badly and blow up in their faces, with the YouTube getting out there. Only if Chandler gets enthusiastic applause and no hard questions are put to him would the organizers feel comfortable doing an official upload of the talk to YouTube.

        3. A joint statement by David Chandler and Jonathan Cole

          CIT (Citizen Investigation Team)

          “It is sometimes hard to tell the difference between simply foolish theories and intentionally planted foolish theories. The difference is generally speculative. The wisest policy is to avoid foolish theories altogether.

          The generally accepted story regarding the Pentagon is that American Airlines Flight 77 was hijacked and flown to Washington DC, did a very difficult downward spiral maneuver, approached the Pentagon flying essentially eastward along Columbia Pike, descended to very low altitude, knocked over several light poles, damaged a generator sitting on the Pentagon lawn, crashed into the west face of the Pentagon at ground level, at very high speed, and created a trail of damage inside the outer three rings of the Pentagon in perfect alignment with the exterior trail of destruction.

          Enter CIT, the Citizen Investigation Team. This grass-roots-sounding organization consists essentially of two individuals from California who fly back to Washington, conduct interviews with a number of witnesses on video who reconstruct the flight paths (from memory, years after the event) as being significantly further to the north than the generally accepted flight path. A north flight path is inconsistent with the trail of damage, both inside and outside the Pentagon, so this flight path would require that all the damage was intentionally and elaborately faked. CIT then asserts that since the north flight path is inconsistent with the damage in the building, the plane did not actually hit the building. Instead it pulled up and flew over the Pentagon perfectly timed with an explosion set off in the Pentagon. The plane was hidden by the explosion as it flew off and blended in with general air traffic.

          Interestingly, nearly all of the people they interview are certain that the plane hit the building and none directly confirm the flyover hypothesis. The best they can do is elicit sketches of northerly flight paths that actually differ significantly from each other. They compile their thirteen interviews in a feature-length video called “National Security Alert” (with an eyebrow-raising acronym shared with the National Security Agency: NSA), then further cherry-pick their witnesses and present the four who are most in agreement with their own views, and add a musical sound track for a second video they call their “Smoking Gun” version.”
          http://911speakout.org/?page_id=219

          Now, after reading the Chandler-Cole representation of CIT, read, the rebuttal by Craig Ranke, and discover how grossly Chandler & Cole misrepresented CIT:
          http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/cit-response-to-david-chandler-and-jonathan-cole-pentagon-statement

          \\][//

          1. Speaking of the Consensus Panel, I remember really trying, and failing, to get through to the organizer of that panel, Elizabeth Woodworth, about 4 years ago. I had previously worked with her and DRG as coordinator for Actors and Artists for 9/11 Truth, so I had a friendly relationship with her and I thought that would help, but it didn’t.

            Woodworth was one of those kinds of people who regarded individuals such as Kevin Ryan and David Chandler to be sacrosanct, and infallible.

            In one particular group email, she really started twisting logic into pretzel form to try and convince us that there was no cognitive infiltration going on, and that everything was just an honest difference of opinion among a cast of entirely well meaning researchers.

            Her reasoning: there’s GOT to be some degree of legitimacy to the Chandler/Cole position because… doggone it, David Chandler is just so damn smart! The wise old sage with the grey beard! The high school teacher who heroically got NIST to admit freefall!

            As a matter of fact, let me dig up the email…

            “Isn’t this the crux of the problem?, she goes out of her way to italicize.

            No, Ms. Woodworth. The crux of the problem was that there was a feces bucket of disinfo arguments that the infiltrators were using to muddy the NoC evidence, but because those disinfo arguments were being put forth by the sacred David Chandler, the wise old sage with the gray beard who got NIST to admit freefall, you just can’t begin to imagine that the wise old guru could be so wrong. (In another email, she got livid with me because I suggested that Chandler had been, and I quote my words verbatim, “co-opted by the forces of dark.” Her response to that was basically that I was being disloyal to the movement. And she told me that herself and DRG have worked in person with Chandler, and he’s a lovely lovely lovely lovely lovely human being, and how irresponsible and divisive it was of me to suggest he’s been compromised.)

            And it was truly maddening to those of us who had had much more of a front seat (if not absolute front seat as could only be experienced by Ranke and Marquis) in dealing with the disinfo arguments on various forums, that Woodworth was insisting, in her matronly librarian tone from her ivory tower were she had a back row seat to the disinfo campaign, that this whole brouhaha was nothing more than a heated yet honest difference of opinion

            1. Yes, I know of this frustrating episode of the Fart Wars! There is indeed a great bit of naivete in both Woodworth and DRG. An appeal to authority by someone so supposedly sophisticated in critical thinking as Woodworth is mindboggling.

              And although she will drop into T&S from time to time she has NEVER responded to any of our questions on this matter.
              Ivory Tower indeed!
              \\][//

              1. She also admonished me for taking Richard Gage to task. She said, “To suggest that Richard has been duped by operatives is to deny the intelligence you once attributed to him.”

                1. Lol, that is pretty funny Mr Syed! I mean to equate naive as “unintelligent”; one does not necessarily invoke the other.
                  \\][//

              1. And although Agent Wright will drop into T&S from time to time he has NEVER responded to any of our questions on this matter.
                \\][//

  57. hybridrogue1: “Are you really such a jerk as to intimate that I am “Mr. William Rodriguez”?…. I have a high profile presence on the Internet under my true name, Willy Whitten, as an artist and special effects artist with a long career in special effects cinematography.”

    I had to pick a name for “Willy”. It took you long enough to come forth with the “high Profile” thing. I guess your important where you come from. Not from where I come from. I just see how you talk to others in this Blog and thought I should talk to you in the same way. If I was to come up where you set yourself i would get a nose bleed. That’s OK I’ll talk from way down here.

    You said…. “It is easy to take your word for it that you are “a simple truck driver” so I won’t take you to task to prove it. And I certainly would not assert that you are a “spook”, but rather that you have simply been duped by spooks and charlatans because you are lite on critical thinking ability.”

    Well I have an idol in you, but then again I hauled most every kind material that went into the Towers and adjacent buildings and I have to say your really “precious” when you come out with some of the shit you come out with. You realize of course that the word “shit” is an acronym and not meant as the jargon of the streets.

    I look past your articulation and see a guy who wants to be important and figures he can pull it off. I don’t buy it.

    For example…. “Building 6 was obviously the victim of a huge chunk of WTC 1, and had it’s basements full of metal from No. 1.”

    You got the book Willy, look at the pictures. That’s one building that can’t be explained by guys like you. Look at page 202 – 205 and you see two men standing in the basement looking at the remains of the walls with the offices still attached to them. Anybody can go on line and look at her facebook page to see all the pictures. Are you going to stand there with your face hanging out and say this building is full of debris from Tower One? It’s totally empty with two guys standing there. Not only is a big chunk of Building One not there , neither is the interior of Building Six because it is empty.

    You quoted me and said….. “” You appear to be a “spook” working for the Government trying your best with your articulate manner to ridicule everything that points to the truth.”

    “It is up to you, but I would advise you stay away from you spurious allegations, and personal jibes.”

    Well is Building Six got a big hole in it down to the Basement or not? Answer the question because anybody reading this can go online and see for themselves…. page 205 picture 202.

    And you queried as to where the undamaged rail car came from?

    At the loading platform under the complex shown in this photo…

    Only a spook would say the opposite of what these pictures say.

    All I can say to the others who read this blog…BUY the Book and see what the pictures say.

    1. “Well is Building Six got a big hole in it down to the Basement or not? Answer the question because anybody reading this can go online and see for themselves…. page 205 picture 202.”
      ~Roger Gloux

      Yes Building Six has a big hole in it down to the Basement, and as I have pointed out that hole is filled with metal debris from Bldg 1.

      I know it is going to aggravate the hell out of you Roger, but when I read a sentence such as this: “Well is Building Six got a big hole in it down to the Basement or not?” that is presented as something written by a literate adult, it really makes me sad. Why, because an even nominally literate person would write: ‘Well, does Building Six have a big hole in it down to the basement or not?’

      While it is true that sentence structure and proper use of language is not the essential measure of whether your argument has merit or not, it nevertheless gives insight to the level of discourse you are in the habit of making. And this indirectly gives and insight on your reasoning abilities. Particularly your reliance on a “Picture Book” which is what is offered by Judy Wood, although she claims it to be a “text book”. No it is not a text book, it is a picture book made for juvenile individuals to form jejune concepts based on pictures.

      You will not or cannot grasp a sophisticated textual argument such as the essays I have attempted to get you to confront. You have hand-waved every technical argument put to you, and want to “look at the pictures” — surely under Rod Stewart’s refrain: “Every picture tells a story don’t it?” Oh yes, “a picture is worth a thousand words” IF they aren’t viewed selectively, IF you have not been led by subtle suggestion to see what the author of a picture book wants you to see, IF they show the ENTIRE PICTURE.

      This is the way media works Mr Gloux, through subtle suggestion and selected imagery: it happens on TV every hour of every day!

      Perhaps you have impressed some of the readership here with your splendid skills in argumentation, and your outstanding visual acuity. If that is the case I applaud you. As for myself I have had entirely enough of our conversation.

      Thank you very much, Willy Whitten \\][//

    2. Roger here is the problem with your selective picture analysis. Tell us where exactly “under the complex” this “loading platform” is. Be precise. Also how long after 9/11 was the picture taken? Be precise. Was it a month after? Did work crews have time to remove debris and clean up the area?

      I am betting the area depicted in that photograph was NOT in a spot hit by a particularly large amount of falling debris OR it was protected from damage by structures above it that survived complete destruction. Or both. This picture proves NOTHING other than that this particular spot didn’t cave in or get filled with debris.

      This is the whole issue with Wood herself, she makes claims based on nebulous information and guess work. Her work and unfortunately yours is full of logical fallacies. For instance, it is a fallacy to suggest that because the area depicted in your picture above did not cave in or get filled with debris that the entire basement of the WTC complex therefore did not suffer cave ins or get filled with debris. Even though it is clearly false logic you are using here you keep on doing it as though it isn’t. It is really tiresome to keep pointing this stuff out to Wood supporters over and over again.

      Your logic goes something like this: Well because William Rodriguez survived even though he got out of the towers after people who perished he must have been in on the whole thing and had a special hideout purpose built to protect him. It is ridiculous.

      I expect you to either acknowledge my points here Roger or drop it completely because I am NOT getting on the merry go round again where you simply ignore valid counter arguments and just keep on spouting logical fallacies on and on and on.

      1. Those who refuse to answer direct questions should be scrutinized closely. I notice A.Wright and other trolls refuse to answer direct questions, they simply deflect, ignore or redirect the conversation so that they ask all the questions and answer none from others.

        Direct questions for Roger:

        1. Where did the energy to power the supposed DEW which Wood contends destroyed the towers come from?

        2. How did Wood measure (quantify) the amount of debris left in and around the WTC complex in order to come to the conclusion that steel and other debris was “missing” that should have been there? Please explain how she accurately accounted for all the debris? Explain how much is “missing”.

      2. Adam, I think it is pretty clear by now that these people who have fallen for Wood’s pseudoscience are suffering from the same cognitive defects as other “True Believers” who have formed cults of blinded fanatics. The special insider language; “Dustificaton”, “it went poof!”, etc. and of course the evangelistic fervor to convert others to Woodism. All the classic signs.

        It is highly unlikely that we could ever get one of these types to actually accept and make rational arguments. Even the members of the priesthood, like Andrew Johnson, adhere to the blither blather lexicon, generating huge volumes of rhetorical jabberwacky. Whether they have developed secret handshakes and such is not yet revealed.
        \\][//

  58. ruffadam
    September 1, 2015 at 10:46 pm….You said…. “Roger here is the problem with your selective picture analysis. Tell us where exactly “under the complex” this “loading platform” is. Be precise. Also how long after 9/11 was the picture taken? Be precise. Was it a month after? Did work crews have time to remove debris and clean up the area?

    The selective picture was in response to hybridrogue1 questionong where it was, so I produced the picture that shows it was at the platfom under the complex. That platform is where the people that worked in thr building got on and off. I have no idea where it is situated. Under the complex. When you look at the maps of the rail line it comes right under the complex so the Platform it was parked at is on that rail line. When someone says everything went down into the basement because there isn’t enough material above ground I then look underground to see if that is so. There is nothing under Buildings 4 and 5 below the main floor as our illustrious hybridrogue1 finally had to admit, and there isn’t enough material in Building Six to say a large chunck of Tower One came crashing in as hybridrogue1 said and nothing to speak of of that Building itself. I know what buildings look like when they are demolished because I hauled material like concrete with rebar still inside and the steel to scrap yards. There isn’t enough material left after the destruction and the only person that came up with anything to explain why there isn’t is Dr. Judy Wood. I don’t agree with some of the things in her book but I do see the pictures that exibit what is there and it don’t equate with controlled demolition. And a lot of those pictures come from fema library as well as other sources.

    The point of the picture of the rail car was there wasn’t anything that crushed it or dented it, and regardless as to when the pictures were taken, nothing damaged it from the day the destruction took place. So…. the point is if all these surrounding buildings were not affected below the main floor but most of the material above the main floor is missing, where did it go? There is not enough material there to equate what was there above ground level before the destruction.

    You said….. “I am betting the area depicted in that photograph was NOT in a spot hit by a particularly large amount of falling debris OR it was protected from damage by structures above it that survived complete destruction. Or both. This picture proves NOTHING other than that this particular spot didn’t cave in or get filled with debris.”

    EXACTLY

    And add to that nothing under Buildings 4 and 5 as hybridrogue1 saw in the book. As well there is parts of some buildings still standing so nothing under those places. So we are narrowing this down to a very small area for those HUGE Towers to disappear in. I suggest go buy the book it is only $40 bucks in the US or $60 bucks in Canada. If you can’t afford the lousy $40 bucks look at her facebook Page. How can you argue the point if you have no idea what is there?

    You said…. “This is the whole issue with Wood herself, she makes claims based on nebulous information and guess work. Her work and unfortunately yours is full of logical fallacies. ”

    It’s only illogical to people who don’t look at the pictures of what is actually there in the whole complex, not just one specific spot. The point is there is not enough material there after the destruction to compensate what was there before the destruction. There is some material but nowhere near enough.

    And the photos show the surrounding buildings don’t have enough material on them to make up the difference. Some with only aluminum cladding on them. Look at the pictures for free and see for yourself. One huge piece of steel hit the building across the street leaving a gaping hole it it. Where is all the other steel? Are you going to show me “one” picture to prove your point? Because that is what you are saying to me. So far we have eliminated a large area where nothing went below the main floor.

    Is that nebulous information?

    You said….. Your logic goes something like this: Well because William Rodriguez survived even though he got out of the towers after people who perished he must have been in on the whole thing and had a special hideout purpose built to protect him. It is ridiculous.”

    That is a foolish statement and beneath you. There are fourteen firemen that survived in a stairwell and that area had nothing go down pass them and there was blue sky above them and people perished in the stairwell that was above them. Explain that.

    I picked hybridrogue1 because of the manner he is using as if anything that comes out of his mouth means it is absolute truth. He may be an expert in his field but he sure aint when it comes to destruction.

    You said…. I expect you to either acknowledge my points here Roger or drop it completely because I am NOT getting on the merry go round again where you simply ignore valid counter arguments and just keep on spouting logical fallacies on and on and on.”

    It’s not a merry go round . That “kiss off” is like a spoiled brat that is incapable of seeing the pictures that say the opposite. If you can’t explain the pictures your retort is “logical fallacies”.

    1. “There is nothing under Buildings 4 and 5 below the main floor as our illustrious hybridrogue1 finally had to admit”~Roger Gloux

      Bullshit Roger, that is only as per those specific photographs. It is the fact that certain photo’s are cherry-picked and then held up as representative of the complete picture that despoils your gross generalizations.

      “If you can’t explain the pictures your retort is “logical fallacies”.~Gloux

      YOU are the one who has not adequately explained the pictures. As stated above, you point to one or two photos as if they are representative of the entire scenario:

      YOU admitted, ” I produced the picture that shows it was at the platfom under the complex. That platform is where the people that worked in thr building got on and off. I have no idea where it is situated. Under the complex.”~Gloux

      There it is Gloux, you ‘have no idea where it is situated’.

      “So far we have eliminated a large area where nothing went below the main floor.”~~Gloux

      The photo’s you have presented show perhaps 100 ti 200 sq ft of a 16-acre complex. How can you say with a straight face that this ” eliminated a large area where nothing went below the main floor.”? That is simply balderdash Mr Gloux.

      “It’s not a merry go round”??? Utter horseshit, your nonsense has been adequately disputed for many years now.
      \\][//

    2. Now, Mr Gloux is attempting to frame this argument from his and Wood’s perspective, attempting to have us explain what he presents as “evidence”. In fact it is Mr Gloux’s responsibility to explain ALL OF THE EVIDENCE – not just his cherry-picked examples.

      So let us inquire of Mr Gloux if he understands what ‘Ultimate Fact’ means. does he understand how Ultimate Fact is derived?

      [+] The combined points of evidence and deductive analysis thereof is then adduced as “Ultimate Fact”. [=] The combined evidence of the destruction of the towers is shown conclusively and beyond a reasonable doubt to be the result of a chemical-explosive controlled demolition.
      Any alternative theory as to the mechanisms of the destruction of WTC, will have to successfully dispute each and every one of these 10 points. Particularly troublesome for such theories are points 6 – 10.

      See: https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-911/
      \\][//

  59. Radar loss on 9/11 by Paul Schreyer

    The radar coverage of the United States airspace is nearly complete. In particular the
    northeastern area, where all four hijackings took place on 9/11, has no “gaps” whatsoever in
    radar coverage. Nonetheless there was radar loss on 9/11 with respect to the third hijacked
    plane, American Airlines Flight 77, which was reported to have hit the Pentagon.
    American 77 took off at 8:20 a.m. EST and was hijacked more than half an hour later. It began
    to change its course at 8:54 and, while slowly turning to the left, its transponder was switched off at 8:56. Until then it had been displayed on the radar scopes of air traffic control via the Higby radar site. This was a “beacon-only” site, meaning a site that could only display transponder signals. When American 77´s transponder was turned off, the plane was no longer visible to Higby radar.

    Nonetheless the area was covered by additional radar sites.3 Several sites that were not “beacon only” tracked American 77 after its transponder had been turned off. However the plane was lost to controllers because of the way computers processed the radar data – and because of an *unexplained wide-ranging radar failure*.
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2013SchreyerVol37Apr.pdf
    \\][//

  60. hybridrogue1
    September 1, 2015 at 8:33 pm You said…. “Yes Building Six has a big hole in it down to the Basement, and as I have pointed out that hole is filled with metal debris from Bldg 1.

    I’m looking at what you just said, “Yes Building Six has a big hole in it down to the Basement”
    and by definition empty to the basement, but you then say, “filled with metal debris from Bldg 1” I know my grammar isn’t up to snuff but “cannot grasp a sophisticated textual argument” either a hole is empty or it is full. It can’t be both. Either the piston is in the cylinder or it is not.

    Your pointing it out with your mouth but the picture says otherwise. There is very little debris in that hole and considering Building Six is not part of the Controlled Demolition, the hole is straight down on all sides, down to the basement. OK… suppose the little bit of debris is from Tower One, where is the debris of the building itself?

    Photo 202 shows two men standing under the part that was not destroyed looking into the hole and you can see the other side of the building. There is no debris in the way to obscure the view to the other side. And photo 201 b is a shot into the hole and you can see all floors to the basement.

    Either your blind or your a spook. Or maybe your to caught up with yourself and your sophistication.

    You said…. “use of language is not the essential measure of whether your argument has merit or not, it nevertheless gives insight to the level of discourse you are in the habit of making.

    “Nothing but the facts mam nothing but the facts” as the famous Sargent Friday used to say. If you think your egotistical jibes are going to dissuade me from saying the truth and using photos that speak for themselves, your truly mistaken. Photos don’t lie but fools say they are not evidence. Either the hole is empty or it is full and I know you see it is empty right down to the basement as you said.

    You said…. “No it is not a text book, it is a picture book made for juvenile individuals to form jejune concepts based on pictures.”

    hehehe (just chuckling) I had to look it up, ..jejune” simplistic”. I suppose the word really makes you “high class” sheesh…… anyways….the book is full of complex scientific information, not just pictures. Possibly this is why you can’t understand what it says. Even with by base education I understood it. Like Mr. Ford said to an inquisitor who was trying to ridicule his education, “I can acquire any information I want by pressing a button on my desk and summon any expert to explain to me the stupid questions you are asking ”

    Sir, you are appearing more stupid as we go along, you tell us an empty hole if full.

    You said….. “Oh yes, “a picture is worth a thousand words” IF they aren’t viewed selectively, IF you have not been led by subtle suggestion to see what the author of a picture book wants you to see, IF they show the ENTIRE PICTURE.”

    By your own admission you said you didn’t look at the whole book which explains the whole picture. You rather are selective in your points and denigrate everything that contradicts what you see as a valid point even to the point of saying an empty hole is full.

    You said…. “This is the way media works Mr Gloux, through subtle suggestion and selected imagery: it happens on TV every hour of every day!”

    I agree and that’s what your doing with your glib articulation. Considering all the people you choose as experts the list reveals your much like a spook who is trying to deflect any information that has truth in it.

    You said…. “Perhaps you have impressed some of the readership here with your splendid skills in argumentation, and your outstanding visual acuity. If that is the case I applaud you. As for myself I have had entirely enough of our conversation.”

    Good then keep quiet. I’m beginning to feel like “My Cousin Vinny”

    1. “I’m looking at what you just said, “Yes Building Six has a big hole in it down to the Basement”
      and by definition empty to the basement”~Roger Gloux

      You claim that the word hole is by definition empty. Not so Gloux; an “empty hole” is by definition “empty”, a hole that contains material is a hole that has been “filled with something.”
      A hole is simply an opening, what it opens onto is a matter for further refinements in the definition. That the hole in building 6 was not an original part of the building, the hole is then correctly surmised to have been caused by other forces that changed the the original configuration.

      The fact that we can see from aerial photographs of this new hole and note that it is filled with steel members. So it is “by definition” not empty. What we see in that hole is certainly not simple the remainder of the roof and original stories of #6. Something obviously crashed down on the top of the building to cause the hole in the first place. Stand to reason here. That crushing material would not have simply vanished at that time, anymore than it would simply vanish in your DEW scenario.If the DEW machine “dustified” the original building – No. 1, then the material filling the hole would simply be dust. It is obviously mangled steel beams, not dust.

      I will keep quiet Mr Gloux only when you refrain from addressing my arguments by name. Only when I do not have to return to point out that you have misrepresented what I do say.

      “By your own admission you said you didn’t look at the whole book which explains the whole picture.”~Gloux

      There is not a single photograph used in ‘the Book’ that isn’t part of the imagery known to the larger 9/11 community. And there is in fact much more imagery available that is NOT presented in ‘the Book’; so in fact your ‘Book’ does NOT explain the whole picture.
      . . . .

      So now Mr Gloux, Do you understand what ‘Ultimate Fact’ means. Do you understand how Ultimate Fact is derived?

      Do you understand what ‘Signature Characteristics’ means in forensics?

      Can you address the 10 Signature Characteristics of a Controlled Demolition that are listed in the Abstract of my article on the Demise of WTC?

      Can you address the points, 6 through 10, in an honest and rational manner?
      \\][//

  61. Burning vehicles
    A minivan fire in a K-Mart parking lot illustrates several pertinent points common to
    vehicle fires:

    • The pavement underneath the minivan is ablaze.
    • The car in the immediate vicinity of the minivan catches fire demonstrating how
    an entire parking lot or underground parking garage of cars parked close together,
    as is the case in NYC, can burn serially.
    • The driver-side front tire of the minivan is completely burned off.
    • The driver-side door handle is missing.
    • The burnt minivan resembles many of the same characteristics as burnt vehicles at
    ground zero including missing headlights and deformed hood.
    Many of the above characteristics are claimed as proof of DEW-demolition, but are
    common in vehicle fires.
    The idea that vehicles which have been smashed and then moved is vividly illustrated by
    the analysis done by ‘totovader’ showing the Ladder 3 fire-truck crushed by debris at
    ground zero (and shown below).ii However, Dr. Wood on her website asks “Why would
    the front of this fire truck wilt?” implying that it was not crushed by debris and moved to
    a new location. The videos were released last year, yet the obvious misinterpretation
    remains on her website among a litany of other discredited items.

    \\][//

        1. May I point out here at this time that Roger has not answered the following direct question from my previous post:

          “2. How did Wood measure (quantify) the amount of debris left in and around the WTC complex in order to come to the conclusion that steel and other debris was “missing” that should have been there? Please explain how she accurately accounted for all the debris? Explain how much is “missing”.”

          This is an ongoing theme with Wood and her supporters, they make unsubstantiated claims such as there is material “missing” yet they refuse to answer as to how they know that and how they measured the material that is there and how much is “missing”. The whole basis of their flim flam is that there is something “missing”. So answer the above question or quit bothering us with unsupported (by evidence) claims. When you can prove there is a large amount of material “missing” I will reconsider your DEW theory. Until then it is pure BS based on speculation that isn’t even grounded in reality. I am tired of it frankly.

    1. Reply to Reynolds & Wood
      by Steven E. Jones 8/25/2006,

      Ad hominems/false accusations in the R&W essay

      R&W write: “Jones champions peer review, yet he has never presented his 9/11 paper at a scientific conference despite at least one invitation, and his journal is not peer reviewed by scholars in the same discipline.”

      NOT TRUE! I did indeed present my paper (as much of it as I had time for) at the Utah Academy of Sciences in April 2006, a fact which is announced on the very first page of my Answers to Questions and Objections (AnsQ). Much of the specific, scientific data given in AnsQ was presented at the Utah Academy of Sciences meeting. My abstract for the meeting was submitted, reviewed and accepted for presentation at that meeting. The data are now in the public domain.

      R&W’s final statement quoted above, is also not true: “his journal is not peer reviewed by scholars in the same discipline.” First, how would they know that, since by long-standing convention in scholarly journals, reviewers are not named? The fact is, we the editors do invite reviewers in the same discipline to do reviews. One of these reviewers is a member of our Editorial Board — Joseph Phelps, who is a Charter Member of the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Two reviewers on recent papers are Ph.D. physicists at a major University who are not even listed among the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, but they were willing to do reviews of papers submitted to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and they performed admirably. And of course, it is not accurate to speak of “his journal” as they do – there are two editors and neither of us owns the journal.
      See more at:
      http://stj911.org/jones/Jones_Replyto_Reynolds_Wood.html
      \\][//

  62. Mr. Willy Whitten you use the picture of
    hybridrogue1
    September 2, 2015 at 11:16 pm…. and say “Just some of the steel that the DEW people say does not exist:”

    Very clever, but not a person ever said there wasn’t any steel to be seen, but instead, there isn’t enough debris which includes the steel in the photo to compensate for the amount that was in the building. But you did say it all went into the basement including the other buildings in the complex.

    So far we have you saying there isn’t anything under the main floor of several buildings which already minimizes the area where this heavy debris is hidden. Including the area where the rail cars are at the platform under the complex. Not forgetting the tub that the whole complex is built into and nothing went near the tub to cause any damage to cause a crack or hole…. proof to the fact there is no water from the river went into the area including the flooding of Manhattan itself. So that narrows it further to the area the steel could be hidden in. AAAANNNNDDD the buildings that still remain or partially there also proves ii isn’t under those since they are still there. We are getting to a very small size.

    Now building six with the vertical hole going all the way down to the basement that you have already agreed to is now supposedly full of debris from Tower One. Yet anyone who looks at the pictures can say it is empty all the way down with very little on the floor so as to be able to see to the other side of the hole.

    Way to go “Joe”…. I mean Willy.

    I know you got the book and a few others here as well, looking at Page 206 Figure 203 is a shot inside Building Six. Only a spook would say this is full of debris when you can see all the floors except half of the first floor. That little bit of material is what is left of Building Six yet your trying to tell these folks who are reading this Blog it is full up with Building One.

    All I can say to these folks is buy the Book and see what this spook Willy Whitten is saying.

    You said….. “You claim that the word hole is by definition empty. Not so Gloux; an “empty hole” is by definition “empty”, a hole that contains material is a hole that has been “filled with something.”
    A hole is simply an opening, what it opens onto is a matter for further refinements in the definition. That the hole in building 6 was not an original part of the building, the hole is then correctly surmised to have been caused by other forces that changed the the original configuration.”

    The hole is not the original part of the building? So your saying there was a building there but now there is a hole in the middle of it that wasn’t there before and the only part left are the four exterior walls with offices attached to it. You can see inside all those offices because the rest of the building is gone.

    Now we got other forces that changed it? That’s what I said, something made it disappear and now we can see a vertical hole going the whole depth of the building.

    Well now your saying what I said. You can’t have it both ways. It certainly wasn’t controlled demolition. There isn’t enough material on the floor to say this was a building of eight stories high never mind with your cacamaymi story part of Building #1 fell in it.

    You said…. “The fact that we can see from aerial photographs of this new hole and note that it is filled with steel members.”

    “Au contraire” the aerial photo reveals very little on the floor and not sufficiently high so as to block the view from one side to the other as picture #202 reveals.

    You said…. “Something obviously crashed down on the top of the building to cause the hole in the first place. ”

    Supposition. I’m glad your admitting there is a huge hole. Your trying to come up with some answer as to why the hole is there. That’s what I’ve been saying only I don’t know what caused it, just like you don’t know and are trying to make parts of another building having done it. The problem is, there isn’t enough material there.One of the Towers was right next to it and there is very little left of the Tower. Same thing inside the hole of Building #6.

    You said…. “There is not a single photograph used in ‘the Book’ that isn’t part of the imagery known to the larger 9/11 community. And there is in fact much more imagery available that is NOT presented in ‘the Book’; so in fact your ‘Book’ does NOT explain the whole picture.”

    I’m only using the Book because it is all categorized with numbers so as to be able to go to each photo. Very professionally done. She has a lot more pictures but the book is very costly to produce because of the pictures already in it. Nevertheless what is there is sufficient to reveal to anyone who reads it there wasn’t any controlled demolition. Now you have the Book and by your own admission didn’t read it except to look at a few pictures dismissing it because you have some other agenda.

    So far you have been backtracking because you can’t explain why there isn’t the evidence you say there is, when the pictures are saying the opposite of what you say. Amazing that the lights are on in the basement of Buildings #4 and #5. as you pointed out above in another post, there isn’t any steel below the main floor.

    You queried…. “Do you understand what ‘Signature Characteristics’ means in forensics?

    The term “forensic” means simply, “having to do with the law.” I’m glad we are getting to that, so as to clarify further what we have been dissecting.

    You asked…. “Can you address the 10 Signature Characteristics of a Controlled Demolition that are listed in the Abstract of my article on the Demise of WTC?”

    I’m going to get to that because that is very interesting. The one photo above of the Loiseaux family show what is necessary to prepare a building for demolition.You seem very proud of your achievement but sorry I see some problems, I’m trying to correspond all the while taking care of personal things that are very time consuming. But don’t go away. I’m also passing this on to others who want to see what you have to say. I was interested with what Craig Mckee was doing but had no intention of writing anything, until i bumped into you. Something about this guy stinks, so I jumped in.

    You asked…. “Can you address the points, 6 through 10, in an honest and rational manner?”

    I definitely can and will. Hang on.

    1. Roger,

      I have been following your passionate defense of “The Book”.

      If I may ask a peripheral question, what exactly is the idea behind capitalizing the B of the book? Are we giving Wood’s book a biblical emphasis? Or, is it to specify that this book is THE definitive book about the subject?

      Also, just out of curiosity, are there any other books, papers, or any other analysis that helped shape your understanding of and opinions about 9/11?

      Lastly, and I am sorry if you have already specified, did you say you actually hauled scrap off ground zero, or is it your general experience of trucking similar materials which shapes your analysis?

      And, on a friendly note… I would really avoid repeatedly saying “buy the book, it is x dollars”…. Although I have a feeling it is not your intention to do so, it does come off as a bit on the peddling side.

      Thanks.

    2. “So far we have you saying there isn’t anything under the main floor of several buildings which already minimizes the area where this heavy debris is hidden.”~Roger Gloux

      No you have not have me saying anything of the sort Gloux. I agreed that there are photos of specific areas that show areas that have no large amounts of debris at that spot.

      “So far you have been backtracking because you can’t explain why there isn’t the evidence you say there is, when the pictures are saying the opposite of what you say.”~Gloux

      Bullshit Gloux I have not been “backtracking” that is rhetorical nonsense touched upon in my first remark here. Look bub, we are going to have real problems here if you are going to keep up these obvious misinterpretations of what I say here. I have backed off of nothing I have said, and have only attempted to clarify your misunderstandings. But it is becoming apparent that this is futile.

      A more full and proper definition for Forensic:
      forensic
      [adjective]
      1. of, relating to, or denoting the application of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of crime.
      “forensic evidence”
      noun
      1. scientific tests or techniques used in connection with the detection of crime.

      That part is simple, my question is: Do you understand what, ‘Signature Characteristics’ means? Do you know what a “Profile” is in forensics?
      . . .
      “Well now your saying what I said. You can’t have it both ways. It certainly wasn’t controlled demolition. There isn’t enough material on the floor to say this was a building of eight stories high never mind with your cacamaymi story part of Building #1 fell in it.”~~Gloux

      Jeeeeeeeeeeezuss Keeryst Gloux!!! You know anyone else reading this exchange can read the bullshit you are spouting and see that it is utter nonsense. I didn’t say anything remotely close to what you are saying! You are so utterly confused that you should give your brain to Good Will and get an upgrade.

      “All I can say to these folks is buy the Book and see what this spook Willy Whitten is saying.”
      You should have left it at that, because that is all it takes to prove you are out of your mind.
      \\][//

    3. Adam Ruff asked this straightforward direct question of Roger Gloux;

      “How did Wood measure (quantify) the amount of debris left in and around the WTC complex in order to come to the conclusion that steel and other debris was “missing” that should have been there? Please explain how she accurately accounted for all the debris? Explain how much is “missing”.

      Roger begins his rambling non-answer with this: “If you look back at what I wrote, it is from the perspective of a truck driver who is familiar with what should be there but isn’t…”…bla bla bla bla bla…ad infinitum…

      Roger went into this stream of flatulence because Roger doesn’t understand diddly squat about physics or chemistry…he knows how to drive a truck. So Roger gloms on to Judy Wood, who is called a “physicist” by many laymen, but does not even come close to fooling other scientists. And now Roger appeals to her dubious “authority”, and has become a true believer in her unscientific bullshit. And by the Goddess of Judy Woowoo, if you don’t believe her wank then you are surely a “spook”.

      Anyone that can draw any sense from the jumbled jive he has been posting here is welcome to it. I am not going to waste my time countering his bullshit point by point, because his every point is bullshit. But that doesn’t mean I won’t be making anymore comments here on this topic, so don’t get your hopes up Gloux.
      \\][//

    4. “Very clever, but not a person ever said there wasn’t any steel to be seen, but instead, there isn’t enough debris which includes the steel in the photo to compensate for the amount that was in the building.”~Roger Gloux

      Judy Wood said the steel was “dustified” – well dude, there’s the steel. So Judy’s dustifier DEW machine “dustifies” selectively? Lol, just like Judy and her followers chose “evidence” selectively. Indeed.
      \\][//

  63. In your post …..
    ruffadam
    September 3, 2015 at 1:24 am You said….. “May I point out here at this time that Roger has not answered the following direct question from my previous post:

    “2. How did Wood measure (quantify) the amount of debris left in and around the WTC complex in order to come to the conclusion that steel and other debris was “missing” that should have been there? Please explain how she accurately accounted for all the debris? Explain how much is “missing”.”

    If you look back at what I wrote, it is from the perspective of a truck driver who is familiar with what should be there but isn’t. What peaked my interest was she as a Scientist with the expertise of analyzing photos and videos in detail, stated there isn’t enough material. Due to the fact she taught in University about this specialty I had to check it out. I know what it takes to haul straight steal and I also hauled demolition steel. There isn’t enough there to equate what was there before the destruction. As I pointed out to Willy Whitten aka hybridrogue1, the photo that is pictured above with the ambulance outside the front door of Tower One hasn’t a dent on it. If a 110 story building is coming down in controlled demolition it would have crushed this Ambulance. All we see it a beam near it and nothing behind it. The front doors are gone but not the Ambulance. And that photo was taken the same day the Towers were destroyed.

    You said…. “This is an ongoing theme with Wood and her supporters, they make unsubstantiated claims such as there is material “missing” yet they refuse to answer as to how they know that and how they measured the material that is there and how much is “missing”.”

    First of all, have you got the Book? If you don’t, you are hardly a candidate to say there is enough material there to equate what was in those Towers. Look at the Ambulance above and explain why you don’t see a mountain of steel? Building #7 had more debris then the two Towers yet they were over twice as high. And the pile that was Building #7 hasn’t enough material to equate what was there before the destruction. You don’t seem to come up with any logical sense concerning these things except to stand behind Willy and support his ridiculous comments.

    You said…. “When you can prove there is a large amount of material “missing” I will reconsider your DEW theory. Until then it is pure BS based on speculation that isn’t even grounded in reality. I am tired of it frankly.”

    You don’t want proof, you already made up your mind without looking. If you don’t want to buy the Book to at least educate yourself Abe Rodriguez has all if not most of the information including the pictures. Frankly your only tired of it because your to lazy to investigate.

    You haven’t explained the photo with the Ambulance above.

  64. Mr Whitten aka hybridrogue 1 revealed proof to the depth of the debris in the post……
    hybridrogue1
    September 2, 2015 at 5:52 pm

    Your endeavor to prove steel was there is very good if you don’t look at the details in the pictures in the URL……

    https://citizenfor911truth.wordpress.com/the-wtc-was-not-destroyed-with-directed-energy-weapons/

    You shot yourself in the foot genius. The photos reveal the covered bridge that crosses over the street has no damage at all and is higher then the debris, indicating the debris is below the bridge that used to be attached to two buildings that are now not there.

    Also, the columns that surrounded the main floor area are shaped differently then the rest of the building above it and they are visible above the debris. Not forgetting to mention they would have been crushed if the building was demolished by Control Demolition. Instead they are sticking up above the debris undamaged.

    Also, the picture with the flag indicates the firemen are not affected by the supposed 2,000 degree heat crawling over the debris. Also the main floor columns of the main floor that are visible in the background are higher then the debris. Annnnd there is lacking steel in the debris considering it used to be 110 stories high. Also what you are calling steel is corrugated aluminum cladding, which is also on top of surrounding buildings leaving very little damage.

    The Verizon building across the street had a big piece of steel stuck in it causing damage on the front of the building and that was only one piece. Are you going to say this is all there is of the building that caused damage on that side?

    You have to be more selective with your photos if you want to impress the readers of this blog.
    You better read the Book Willy. You got it for nothing so make sure what you present doesn’t make you look like a fool.

    1. “You shot yourself in the foot genius. The photos reveal the covered bridge that crosses over the street has no damage at all and is higher then the debris, indicating the debris is below the bridge that used to be attached to two buildings that are now not there.”~Roger Gloux

      The photo Mr Gloux refers to [2nd from bottom] is obviously a shot taken quite some time after the clean-up was under way. The crews are clearly working in an area at the edge of the pile that has been laid out in an orderly manner, if you look beyond the foreground, in the background of this photo you will note there is still a mountain of debris higher than the area that has already been worked on.

      Your further suppositions in your post are spurious.
      \\][//

  65. Solving The Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence
    By Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins

    DEW-demolition proponents claim that massive amounts of steel were implausibly
    turned into dust or aerosols. Estimates from different proponents of DEW-demolition
    vary, but the stated missing amount material is always over 50% and is usually more in
    the vicinity of 80%.
    Each and every supporting reason cited has been extensively
    repudiated: erroneous scaling arguments applied to seismograph readings and the
    naturally resulting non-catastrophic damage to the bathtub, impulse damage to
    surrounding buildings from falling debris, the amount of debris expected from collapsed
    and partially collapsed WTC buildings is consistent with observation, inconsistency with
    observed damage from all known DEWs, astronomical power requirements, and other
    peripheral arguments.

    DEW-demolition proponents often cite photographs and videos as proof of their claims.
    Unaltered photographs and videos do represent factual evidence. However, the
    interpretation of photographs and videos can be highly subjective. Interpretations should
    not be conflated with factual evidence. For instance, videos of the North tower core
    column “spires” which were standing for multiple seconds after the collapse immediately
    before their own subsequent demise are often interpreted by observers in one of two
    ways: 1) the spires fell while dust and debris were generated by crumbling concrete and
    wallboard which were built into the core as well as the liberated remnant dust which had
    settled upon the spires, or 2) the steel spires themselves turned to dust. I believe that all
    people who interpret the videos report what they observe. However, I do not conflate
    interpretations with facts. My personal observation, as well as many other witnesses, is
    that the spires fell. Other people observe spires spontaneously turning to dust. All
    observers are credible and report what they observe. The data is inherently ambiguous
    since it may be interpreted in more than one way. This is the definition of ambiguous
    data. Usually the demise of the spires is cited as the strongest evidence by DEWdemolition
    proponents, but the interpretation is hopelessly ambiguous as can be gauged
    by the people who report what they observe.
    A second example of ambiguous data used to support the claims of DEW-demolition
    proponents are aerial and surface photographs of ground zero (GZ) after the collapse of
    the towers.
    Some people interpret the photographs as evidence that only a tiny fraction
    of the debris is present at GZ since, they argue, little debris is observed on the surface
    compared to the total amount of material comprising the building. However, surface
    photographs taken before debris removal are ineffective in gauging the amount of debris
    which may reside in the sublevels. The interpretation of these photographs as proof that
    little debris was present after the collapse is inherently ambiguous. The methodology is
    explicitly flawed since the amount of debris which may reside in sublevels can not be
    gauged.
    […]
    Quantifying iron found in dust samples

    Amount of steel above grade in the towers
    Quantifying iron found in dust samples
    Part I: USGS dust study results
    ……………………………………………………………………
    Part II: McGee et al dust study results8
    ………………………………………………………….
    Part III: EPA dust study results7
    ………………………………………………………………….
    Part IV: Summary of all three dust studies
    Quantifying iron found in aerosol studies
    Part I: EPA12 and UC Davis11
    …………………………………………………………………….
    Part II: OSHA.

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Fe-DustStudies44.pdf
    \\][//

    1. I would like to interrupt this familiar discussion to ask some questions of all participants (particularly Roger). I would like answers to these questions before I decide whether to end further discussion of the topic on this thread (which I already did some time back). And I would like answers before anyone else goes back to pushing The Book. Or challenging it. (The exception I will make is if Roger wants to directly answer the questions put to him by Adam Ruff – how he and Judy Wood know what was “missing” from the rubble, etc.)

      Here goes:

      How do debates, discussions, fights, and attacks on the subjects of DEW or nukes at the WTC help us all with our goal of waking up the public to the fact that 9/11 was an inside job? How does an endless battle over HOW the towers were brought down (what type of destructive mechanism was used) help us advance the cause? And how do attacks against people like Steven Jones, Richard Gage, and others help us with exposing this crime against humanity?
      I’m anxious to know what everyone thinks.

      Please respond to this before any more DEW diligence is done.

      1. Hi Craig,

        My opinion is that it is well established that the DEW issue is bogus, and is meant as a distraction as it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition.

        And as a addendum to this opinion I think that enough has already been said on this site to establish my point. Adding to that I think it is futile to argue with a “true believer” such as the one gaming us here today.

        So to sum up my thinking, enough is enough, call off this DEW conversation.
        \\][//

            1. Nor was I saying “on we go” with the discussion. I was asking specific questions about the value, or lack of value, of having the discussion to anyone who is willing to answer them.

          1. Obviously Lilaleo!

            There are two choices when a fanatic comes aboard. Ignoring him and hope that he goes away. How many times have you seen that work Lilaleo?
            \\][//

          2. The ignoring thing has been working splendidly with A.Wright… But, even then, I don’t really see this as a two-choice proposition, and I believe there is a very wide spectrum between ignoring, and fighting feverishly.

            Personally, the first thing I focus on when I read comments that I don’t agree with, is not really to determine whether the author of the comments is right or wrong, but whether they are sincere or not.

            For example, Roger here seems to be a nice chap in general, and not much of what he has been saying leaves me with the impression that he has an ulterior motive. Whatever his personal journey or qualifications may be, he has come to the conclusion that there simply is not enough rubble to account for the materials that would result from a controlled demolition. And, since that seems to be his starting point, in my opinion, he has fallen victim to confirmation bias, and found the answers he was seeking in “The Book”.

            So, unless you sense a calculated move on his part, I really don’t think a full-on assault on his comments is the way to go. He seems stubborn enough to give back as hard as he receives. But the real point here is that, hammering Roger for every word on these pages is not unlike having a shoot out with a street corner drug dealer, who will be replaced with another one by the cartel as soon as this one is dead or arrested.

            Whereas, the Wood “cartel” is a massive one. I have not been following it closely, but she seems to have a relatively large following, enough financial backing to keep her story going, and even though she does not seem to have much support from legitimate scientists, by surrounding herself with a cabal of bogus professors and such, she has managed to gain some traction. If anything, all this energy that the distractions suck up needs to be directed at the source of the distraction machine. A truther-DEW, if you will.

            Folding all this into Craig’s question of “How does an endless battle ….. help us advance the cause?”, I will quickly answer “It does not at all!” and state that, although I don’t agree with anything Roger says and how he says it, and although I consider Wood&Gang a deceptive and dangerous entity, until I sense that Roger is a paid foot soldier, I would consider him myself on the same side of the battle… Even if he claimed towers were brought down by space canons shooting Mountain Dew.

      2. Come on, Craig! The best way to get the public to accept the WTC’s destruction as a false flag is, evidently, to excoriate all the alternative analysts who do not subscribe to a theory close enough to the Truth. Just like the best way to get the heathen to embrace Christianity is to excoriate any Christian who is not a Methodist…I mean, who is not a Lutheran…or is it Baptist?

        Oops…I forgot who holds the Truth.

        Seriously, just like the intra-Christian wars induced by the Reformation did not do Christianity much good, intra-9/11 wars mostly distract 9/11 activists away from the terrifying problem that the public has been horribly disinformed. They profit primarily to the Master 9/11 conspirators.

        The job of mocking shaky WTC destruction scenarios can safely be left to the professional 9/11 censors. Trust TV to churn out a hit piece against 9/11 activists who could be proved to ignore macroscopic evidence, the state of technology, or the laws of physics. Activists will learn and the soundest theories will eventually prevail.

        Love,

        1. Daniel, I think we agree on this subject. I think these fights do benefit the conspirators. I feel the same way about the Pentagon in that the attacks by the minority that pushes “official story lite” (a plane impact) does great harm to the cause by creating a contrived “controversy” and contrived “division.” I do vigorously fight back on this issue but that is because I don’t see a choice. The Pentagon evidence is crucial to exposing this false flag, and for some reason people like David Chandler want to create the perception that this evidence is not as strong as it actually is. I wonder why they would do that…

          1. “I do vigorously fight back on this issue but that is because I don’t see a choice. The Pentagon evidence is crucial to exposing this false flag”~Craig

            I feel the same way about the WTC demolition evidence. ..for some reason people like Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds want to create the perception that this evidence is not as strong as it actually is. I wonder why they would do that?
            \\][//

            1. I don’t know why they would do that. But I do think there is a difference between the two. We all agree that the towers were destroyed by some means that does not include plane impacts and jet fuel. The perpetrators blew them up as demonstrated by the lateral ejections of steel beams hundreds of feet among many other things. Given that we all agree on the broad strokes, it seems unproductive to me to spend large amounts of time fighting over the details.

              The Pentagon is something else because it is crucial that the building was not hit by a plane. If a plane crash was faked at the Pentagon, as I believe the evidence shows it was, then having a small clique of truthers come along to try to convince everyone that the plane really did crash is a direct assault on what most of us are saying to the world, and it makes it harder to expose the official story for the lie that it is.

      3. My purpose for entering into the DEW discussion is twofold.

        1. To expose the fact that Wood’s DEW theory is a bogus theory based on speculation and very poor analysis of the evidence and to make sure that people reading this discussion can see that some of us in the truth movement are exposing it as such. Mainly I am concerned about this aspect for people new to the truth movement who may be drawn in by Wood’s baffling buffoonery as Jesse Ventura unfortunately was. I want to nip that in the bud and prevent future truthers from falling prey to this misinformation. I consider it very likely but not 100% certain that the whole DEW meme is intention disinformation put out by professionals for the express purpose of weakening, dividing, and confusing the truth movement. From that standpoint I think it does help the truth movement to some degree to have people like myself and Willy counter this crap when it comes up. At least it is in print that we countered the spin. At least I challenged the basis for the whole thing which is the supposed “missing” steel. There is a danger though that engaging with disinformationists may accomplish one of their peripheral goals which is to derail productive discussions and slow progress in other areas. This has happened many times and is difficult to avoid because to do so we must necessarily allow the disinformationists the last word because they will not stop until they get it.

        2. I like to allow for the possibility that people like Roger are genuine truth seekers who have simply been sucked in by clever disinformation. He may “come around” and see it for the disinformation that it really is if my points are made well enough. I admit this is a remote possibility though and I am probably pissing in the wind. So the “benefit” of continuing these discussions may be little to none, you will have to judge that for yourself Craig. Sometimes I doubt the “benefit” myself as I do in this case with Roger. I seriously wonder in Roger’s case if he is a genuine truth seeker or not. When I see the characteristics of an OCD personality show up out of the blue and start down the DEW path I have to wonder if this is just another identity for someone like Senior El Once still attempting to accomplish his/her/its mission of diluting the quality of T+S.

        I am loth to censor anyone unless I am absolutely convinced they are NOT genuine truth seekers. In my own way I am trying to develop a test of sorts to identify the genuine people and expose the operatives. In the case of the DEW disinformation the test I have come up with is the question/challenge about the “missing” material. How a person responds to that speaks volumes about their authenticity. An honest truth seeker when asked that question about quantifying the “missing” material would have to respond that it is impossible to quantify how much material is in and around the WTC site and it is therefore impossible to say that any material is missing. A dishonest person or an operative will not admit that fact because it goes to the very hart of the entire disinformation meme. In other words admitting that truth that they have no way of quantifying the material that is there destroys their whole meme. An operative will not allow that to happen and CANNOT admit that fact. A genuine truth seeker can admit it. So my question is a litmus test of sorts. It is a way to identify the bad guys while not resorting to overt censorship which I detest. See now we can press Roger to answer the question OR admit that he has no idea how much if any material is “missing”. Once he admits it the DEW meme is destroyed. If he refuses to admit it there is a basis to remove him from T+S that is fair because he is then being disingenuous and not debating in good faith.

  66. hybridrogue1
    September 3, 2015 at 11:04 am You said….. “Judy Wood said the steel was “dustified” – well dude, there’s the steel. So Judy’s dustifier DEW machine “dustifies” selectively? Lol, just like Judy and her followers chose “evidence” selectively. Indeed.”

    Considering you have a good command of the English language you are really silly in your answers. The vast majority of the steel disintegrated into fine dust, because it isn’t there. The little bit that is there doesn’t equate to the amount that was the main support for the structure.

    Also do you know the difference to corrugated aluminum cladding and steel “I beams”? You look at aluminum cladding and call it steel. I guess we can excuse you since it isn’t your trade.

    Are you grasping at straw now, because your ship is sinking.

    1. “The vast majority of the steel disintegrated into fine dust, because it isn’t there. The little bit that is there doesn’t equate to the amount that was the main support for the structure.”~Roger Gloux

      You have not proved that assertion. It is a subjective opinion simply looking at the photo’s and claiming that it “doesn’t equate to the amount that was the main support for the structure.”

      Dr. Jenkins and other physicist have shown that no appreciable amount of steel is “missing” from the site in the aftermath. But that is science, and you won’t deal with that.

      Yes I know the difference between the aluminum cladding and the steel. Do YOU realize that the aluminum cladding fits over steel of the exact same shape and configuration of the aluminum facade?

      “Are you grasping at straw now, because your ship is sinking.”~Gloux

      This type of empty bravado is really trite in these circumstances.
      \\][//

      1. Willy, I asked for my questions to be addressed before anyone goes back to the Judy Wood debate. You want that debate to end but you are the one who resumes it 26 minutes after I asked for a halt. Was I not explicit enough?

        1. “Was I not explicit enough”
          No Craig, in fact you said you weren’t asking if the debate should be stopped.
          \\][//

          1. “And I would like answers before anyone else goes back to pushing The Book. Or challenging it.”

            No, I wasn’t asking whether the debate should be stopped. But I thought I was being clear in saying that I wanted the questions addressed before any further discussion on the merits, or lack of merits, in Judy Wood’s DEW position takes place. I guess I should have been clearer. I just find it surprising that you have asked for the discussion to end but you were the one who got right back into it minutes after I had asked for a (possibly temporary) halt. Why would you do that?

            1. ” Why would you do that?”
              Because I simply misconstrued what you were saying.
              And I will have nothing more to say on the subject — until you say I am free to do so.
              Thanks, Willy

  67. Sure.
    You asked…. “How do debates, discussions, fights, and attacks on the subjects of DEW or nukes at the WTC help us all with our goal of waking up the public to the fact that 9/11 was an inside job?”

    Those of us that investigated know it was an inside job.

    The majority of the public could care less what happened and many refuse to discuss it. You can’t go to the Media to reveal it because the owners are part of the cover up as people like Jesse Ventura knows very well and other renegades. The News Anchors read what they are supposed to say and will ridicule anyone stepping forward to reveal what has been found out. They have the power just like you have the power to pull the pin on anyone in the forum or shut the whole thing down.

    Now we have several different groups claiming the destruction was such and such. That fact alone undermines revealing it to the public. Who do you believe? Most people wont devote the time to check it out.

    You asked…. “And how do attacks against people like Steven Jones, Richard Gage, and others help us with exposing this crime against humanity?”

    You may be enamored with them but a lot of folks think they deflect what could be revealed. The head of each of these groups attack everybody else and appears to be a ploy to deflect the truth. I at first thought the Construction Engineers would reveal what happened and I believed it was Controlled Demolition like Willy does. Then Dr. Judy Wood comes along and I see there is merit in what she is revealing. I just happen to know what steel is as I hauled it on flat deck trailers and know what a pile of steel looks like. From steel studs to heavy “eye” I beams. I see what she is trying to covey because I’m familiar with it.

    So I bought the $40.00 book which cost $60.00 here in Canada.

    I actually read it straight through.

    If I recall correctly you didn’t read it through as Willy didn’t either.

    I actually was excited to the detailed information explaining what everything is about. I go to my neighbors and try telling them and they don’t get it so I loan them the Book and they come back just as excited as I was.

    What are you going to tell the public as to how the Towers came down if it wasn’t Arabs flying planes into the Towers or pancake theory?. You have to have some credible answer so they can look it up to check it out. They then will see the morass of different views which leaves most people bewildered, much like the Kennedy assassination. ” I haven’t got the time” is the answer because people have different interests.

    Kevin Costner played a very good part in the movie that said more then the editorials around the country which is enough for some people to start checking it out. They also left it up to you to come to your own conclusion rather then point the finger.

    I saw your “space” and read some of the information and wanted to see what else you will find so got you to send me the info but was not interested in getting into discussions because I already made investigations into every perspective and didn’t want to waste my valuable time. That is until I read what Willy was saying. Kinda irked me so I jumped in.

    If we can’t iron out the details of how the WTC was destroyed, who is going to believe you when you say it wasn’t Arabs that took us into war while destroying the evidence of trillion of dollars being stolen on the Stock Market.

    It was a superb deception and cover up.

    But let’s say it was Controlled Demolition and we proved it, who are you going to tell? Regardless to whatever subject or topic you look at, you will always find the groups who come up it was aliens or the earth is flat.

    Mark Twain said….. “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority it is time to pause and reflect.”.

    I read what you wrote about the how the Pyramids were built and that one day you will check it out. hehehe (just chuckling) how serious are you? the majority say they drag it through the sand for hundreds of miles and yet there isn’t enough space between the block to squeeze a piece of computer paper. Nobody cares but someone told me it is manufactured stone or like a concrete. OH yeah Prove It. I bought the Book.

    Mark Twain was right don’t look to the majority look for the thinker.

    So now you are wondering… are you shutting this down or shutting me down or what?

    1. I think that assuming the majority is always wrong is just as bad as assuming it is always right.

      I am not enamoured with anyone; I was asking how we benefit from them being attacked. You say they are engaging in a ploy to distract everyone from the truth but I do not see how. Why should I see you as sincere and them as dishonest? Just because they don’t believe in what Judy Wood says?

      “If we can’t iron out the details of how the WTC was destroyed, who is going to believe you when you say it wasn’t Arabs that took us into war while destroying the evidence of trillion of dollars being stolen on the Stock Market.”

      So how many years should we spend “ironing out” the details, exactly? It seems to me that if there is one thing we should all be able to get behind it’s that the towers were brought down with some type of explosives. People like Gage, Jones, and Harrit don’t even say what type of explosives did most of the work. They do say that nanothermite was part of the equation.

      We have so much work to do to expose the 9/11 false flag, and this discussion seems to be to be a great time and energy suck for little if any benefit. That does not mean I think you should not do your research or write your own book or have a web site or whatever you want to do; I don’t believe in censorship. But arguing about DEW vs. thermite vs. nukes is not getting us anywhere in my opinion.

      As for the pyramids, I did not say one day I would check it out. I have read a great deal on the subject already and would love to read lots more. I agree with you that the majority is wrong about how the pyramids got there and when they were built. I thought that when I started the blog in 2010 that I might get into writing about this kind of thing because it intrigues me, but I chose to focus on 9/11.

      By the way, what’s your answer to Adam Ruff’s question?

  68. Craig you said…. “And I would like answers before anyone else goes back to pushing The Book. Or challenging it. (The exception I will make is if Roger wants to directly answer the questions put to him by Adam Ruff – how he and Judy Wood know what was “missing” from the rubble, etc.)”

    I thought that was very precise but look at the response of Willy with his deductive capacity…..”No Craig, in fact you said you weren’t asking if the debate should be stopped.”

    Craig, regarding your question I might add the debris of Building #7 is higher then that which is at the Towers. Considering the Towers were over twice as high as Building #7 why is the pile of the Towers only 1/3 of of the height of Building #7? Now consider something else, there is 500.000 tons of varying materials in the Towers and consider also a Truck is loaded with 30 to 50 tons because that is all your allowed to haul on city streets depending on the number of tires under the rig..

    Now look at the pile of debris consisting of a mix of gravel, concrete, steel of various sizes, aluminum, drywall desks and toilets etc etc…. gotta picture? Now eliminate all the desks and steel cabinets and toilets because none were found. Also a very small amount of steel girders is found as well, and comparing to the volume that was there, it is a small fraction in comparison. Go to a big scrap yard and look at the pile of steel and iron and see what you have. Now compare that to the pile at the destruction zone which is mostly none steel items and debris.There is a lot of T-bar grid that hold the ceiling tiles in place and water pipes but what is astonishing is the lack of volume of the big steel girders.

    Now you have Dr. Woods, book look at the section regarding this subject.

    I used to own a scrap yard back in the sixties and was the last man allowed to burn out cars for sale of clean steel in the Vancouver area. A cup of gas on the seat with closed windows and in fifteen minutes the car is gutted, ready for market. These burnt out cars were then torn apart by a grapple and but in a crusher and baled into solid blocks to be able to ship over seas.

    The piles of debris at the Towers have a mix of everything in it looking like black dirt with a certain mount of steel in it. There isn’t enough steel there with all the dirt mixed in. They couldn’t have pulled it out because they were searching for bodies and body parts. They took it apart slowly and people were taking photos, including ‘fema”. Dr Judy Wood went and collected those photos and put them in category and anyone who looks at it like a text book can see what she is saying. For the most part she is right.

    I certainly don’t want to be duped by a crack pot or a spook who is working for the Government because there is a lot of it when you start investigating. That’s why the investigators come to the conclusion it is an inside job.

    I don’t know how else to put this to you except read the book.

    1. Roger, I think your recommendation offers us an ideal point to suspend this discussion on this thread. I think it is important that the opportunity exists for other topics to be discussed, and this one has received plenty of leeway.

  69. We wrote at the same time and missed your last post, you said….
    “We have so much work to do to expose the 9/11 false flag, and this discussion seems to be to be a great time and energy suck for little if any benefit. That does not mean I think you should not do your research or write your own book or have a web site or whatever you want to do; I don’t believe in censorship. But arguing about DEW vs. thermite vs. nukes is not getting us anywhere in my opinion.”

    I agree it is futile and is the reason why I stopped getting involved. That is until I saw what Willy Whitten was saying.

    I already have a web site regarding a different subject.

    I as well have read a lot of information about the Pyramids and now know how they did it. Who the hell are you going to tell? It’s much like your Blog here on 9/11.

    I can now see why Dr. Judy Wood turned you down, no offense intended.

    The first Pyramid was the Step Pyramid built by Imhotep, the Prime Minister of the Pharaoh Djoser. There are over 120 Pyramids but the famous one is that of Khufu at Cairo or anciently Ramses. Considering they had the “know how” the reason why they discontinued that style is an eye opener.

    Anyways, maybe later.

    1. “I can now see why Dr. Judy Wood turned you down, no offense intended.”

      You’ll have to explain this, because I don’t know what you mean. It sounds to me like you’ve made an assumption based on nothing, but I’d like you to clarify.

      When I contacted Judy Wood I doubt she had ever heard of me. She told me she didn’t consider herself to be part of the Truth Movement because she doesn’t want to be part of “groupthink.”

    2. Oh hey! I have an idea, why don’t we stop talking about it by continuing to talk about it? Works for me! How ’bout you Roger? Craig?
      WTF?
      \\][//

      1. WTF indeed. The last comment that referred to the evidence, which is what I asked us to stop discussing, came at 6:54 EST. And your comment comes at 9:09. Instead of poking something with a stick that is already dead, why not take the opportunity available for more than two hours to move the discussion on to something productive?

        1. We are in different time zones. Your latest comment is timed at 10:16 pm. I see it at 9:16 pm. And I am flat out of ideas…sorry. 9:29 at the tone here.
          \\][//

  70. Okay, to break the ice for a new day here, I thought I would bring this dialog from a YouTube forum that took place this morning:

    Rabbit Snare 2 hours ago
    “+Willy Whitten Well … I was just trying to be helpful. No original thoughts, huh? Funny – most people who know me say that I have nothing but original thoughts. Then again, you don’t know me. Have you ever heard of Noam Chomsky, Willy? He’s a rather famous MIT professor, scientist, social activist and political commentator. Professor Chomsky is a lot smarter than both you and me combined. Anyway, Professor Chomsky said – very clearly – that a 9-11 conspiracy would have been both really stupid and impossible. I am not qualified to argue with a guy like that. Neither are you – you’re just a former special effects guy who still wets his bed.”
    ….
    Willy Whitten 1 hour ago
    “I am not qualified to argue with a guy like that [Chomsky]. Neither are you.”~Rabbit Snare,
    I agree that you are not qualified to argue with Chomsky, however I am vastly more qualified to address 9/11 than Chomsky because I have studied every detail of the events, and he has admitted himself that he has not. As is the profile of a stooge for the system, you again make an “appeal to authority” which you SHOULD KNOW is a logical fallacy. You are obviously obsessed with bed wetting, that is a good indication that you are suffering from the problem yourself. Go suck your girlfriends pussy and piss on yourself.
    \\][//
    ….
    Rabbit Snare 1 hour ago
    ” +Willy Whitten LOL! I love you guys. Now we’re getting into critical thinking, huh? Dude, every argument will fall into some fallacy. If you’re going to dismiss every position simply because it meets the criteria of a fallacy then you’ll never have an opinion on anything. So you think you’re vastly more qualified to address 9/11 than Chomsky, huh? You’ve studied every detail? Okay, then answer this question: Bush was the President of the US and he was already very wealthy – he was, arguably, the most powerful man in the world and he was loaded – so risking the death penalty for mass murder and High Treason could not have been a particularly good motivation for doing this crime. So what was his motive? Why did he do it? Oil? Nah – that falls into the money thing and America has plenty of oil. His buddies told him to do it? Well, it would be the greatest betrayal of the office in history so I doubt there’s anyone who might ask him to risk a firing squad for just so they can get rich. So, Mr Vastly More Qualified, why did Bush do it?”
    ….
    Willy Whitten 1 hour ago
    “why did Bush do it?”~Rabbit Snare, Bush did not do it. Bush was too stupid to be let into the loop. As far as anyone in these high position in government or finance, they have all been shown to have utter impunity. Who is going the prosecute these people when the whole system is rigged? The judicial branch is no less corrupt than the executive or legislative branch. All are owned by high finance, which also controls media and what is said in education – “The winners write history” and the International Bankers won a long long time ago.
    \\][//
    ….
    Rabbit Snare 1 hour ago
    ” +Willy Whitten Okay. Bush didn’t do it. Who did then – the bankers? If you have proof you should provide it to the FBI and let’s see those big bad bankers arrested. And exactly how do International Bankers manage to convince Arabs to do a suicide attack for them?”
    ….
    Willy Whitten 43 minutes ago
    “Bush didn’t do it. Who did then”~RabbitSnare,
    the military under the direct command of Dick Cheney {under ‘continuity in government powers*} Rumsfeld and Condi Rice were in on it, as well as all the co-signatories of the PNAC document that made the recommendation for such an op to go forward. Of the twenty-five people who signed the PNAC’s founding statement of principles, ten went on to serve in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz…report titled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century. Citing the PNAC’s 1997 Statement of Principles, Rebuilding America’s Defenses asserted that the United States should “seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership” by “maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces.”] The report’s primary author was Thomas Donnelly, and Donald Kagan and Gary Schmitt are credited as project chairmen. It also lists the names of 27 other participants that contributed papers or attended meetings related to the production of the report, six of whom subsequently assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the Bush administration. A section of Rebuilding America’s Defenses entitled “Creating Tomorrow’s Dominant Force” this passage suggested that the transformation of American armed forces through “new technologies and operational concepts” was likely to be a long one, “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” So it can be shown by close study of the details of the event and the build up to it, that 9/11 was a classic PSYOP, (psychological operation), and can also be termed a “False Flag”. Of course the cover-up is always the final proof of an operation of this kind. And the rhetorical bullshit from the 9/11 Commission, and the pseudoscience nonsense from NIST, and the collusion of the mainstream press & media put the finishing touches on the Mythical Burlesque of social engineering that was 9/11.
    \\][//
    ….
    Rabbit Snare @10:28 AM
    “+Willy Whitten Uh-huh. Willy, you watch far too many movies and television shows. For this to be a government plot, you would need thousands of people to be in on the secret: military pilots, crisis actors, media outlets from all over the world, air traffic control, etc. JFK couldn’t keep his affairs a secret. Nixon had to resign because some idiots broke into his opponent’s hotel room and he tried to keep that a secret. Clinton got a High-Level Blowjob in the Oval Office – and he couldn’t keep that a secret. Dude, this would have been the biggest plot ever. And all those people who knew – now 14 years later – and not one of them has had a crisis of conscience and stepped forward with evidence. Your theory is a childish fantasy Willy. Nothing more.”
    ….
    Willy Whitten @ 10:47 AM
    “you would need thousands of people to be in on the secret: military pilots, crisis actors, media outlets from all over the world, air traffic control, etc”~Rabbit Snare,
    Yours is a jejune argument that fails to take into account “Need To Know” and the compartmentalization of all operations. Only a few individuals in key positions need to have full knowledge. Other individuals having only partial knowledge may be able to figure it out after the fact, but they are faced with the fact of complicity, making whistle blowing a dangerous prospect. You forget the benefits of going along to get along – and the penalties for bucking the program. You can keep your job or loose your job simply on your views about the legitimacy of government, and whether you support whatever the official narrative of the day is. You obviously haven’t much expertise in sociology and the behavior of crowds and the irrationality of the “mass mind”. You clearly have no knowledge of the Public Relations Regime and the works of Edward Bernays, Walter Lippmann, et al. For an academic you have a very stunted education – which is of course the whole goal of modern schooling. Again for the benefit of readers with the ability to think for themselves: https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/compulsory-schooling-indoctrination/
    \\][// 

  71. It’s fucked up how after all these years we truthers still don’t know who did it or how it was done. Shit, we don’t even know why. Space beams, nukes, nano thermite, Cheney, Wolfowitz, oil, arms sales, Israel … No wonder the official story holds sway with the minions. It’s got all the answers. What still works for me however is seeing those buildings fall as oddly as they did.

    1. :It’s fucked up how after all these years we truthers still don’t know who did it or how it was done.”~Jimbo

      The only thing I am not clear on is who “we truthers ” actually are … [??]

      I for one think that the major puzzle has been solved rather conclusively. I think we do know how it was done and who did it, as well as how it was done.
      \\][//

    2. Jimbo said:

      “It’s fucked up how after all these years we truthers still don’t know who did it…..”

      Cheer up, Jimbo…..we know exactly who did it and why.

      “When an event occurs that that fundamentally changes the dynamics of global geopolitics, there is one question above all others whose answer will most assuredly point to its perpetrators. That question is “Cui bono?” If those so indicted are in addition found to have had both motive and means then, as they say in the US, it’s pretty much a “slam-dunk”.”

      And so it is with the events of 9/11.

      The proof(not evidence, but proof) of who did it is obvious, overwhelming, monumental and conclusive.

      If you will read Christopher Bollyn’s book and check out his website, the scales will fall from your eyes.

      http://www.bollyn.com/solving-9-11-the-book/

      https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it

      https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:Making_sense_of_the_media_cover-up_of_9/11

  72. Listening to a debate about DEW vs thermite vs nukes is like listening to people argue about what kind of cheese the moon is made of. They do agree on one thing though, that we need to campaign and wake people up to the fact that the moon is made of cheese. No it’s not. It’s made of rock, not Roquefort. There was no deliberate demolition of the buildings in New York on 9/11 , they collapsed due to structural failure. The idea that they was a deliberate demolition is maybe one of the most inane ideas I’ve come across in my adult life because it involves an inane, pointless harebrained plan. A plan should make sense – that is the point of a plan in the first place. As for a plane not hitting the Pentagon, that would be an even more inane plan. A theory that depends on an inane plans is an inane theory.

    1. “There was no deliberate demolition of the buildings in New York on 9/11 , they collapsed due to structural failure.”~Agent Wright

      So you are still peddling that inane theory, aye Wright? I see that “inane” is your new pet word.
      That’s great because it actually describes you quite well.
      \\][//

        1. But “Bin Ladin’s plan” is inane as well. Step 1. Train these guys to fly. Step 2. Get through security and onto the planes. Step 3. Take over the planes. Step 4. Fly them through the most secure air paths. Step 5. Crash them into the buildings killing yourselves in the process. What could possibly go wrong? Wouldn’t it have been simpler and just as provocative to strap on suicide vests and blow up a K Mart or two?

          The truthers’s version. Ahhh, yer right Wright. It is inane. Some super-secret cabal plot to wire famous buildings with explosives timed to go off after remote controlled planes crash into — or fly over — these buildings in order to persuade the US public to go along declaring war on Afghanistan.

          Qui bono? Not Bin Ladin or any Iraqi or Afghani. . Not I. Not Israel. (What, like the billions the US gives them would be cut off sans 9/11?) Not Bush or Cheney. (What a headache that whole mess must have been.) Arms merchants and their auxiliaries did all right, I suppose.

          But man, look at how those buildings fell. Look at how the skies were cleared of security. Look at the cover up and the suspicious activity of Bush and Cheney and co. Look at all the evidence that shows what happened on that day is not what the 9/11 Commission said happened.

          Inane indeed.

        2. Wright, you are right! The obvious Twin Towers’ controlled demolition and the amateurish technical cover-up thereof would shatter your worldview. Therefore, you have to view them as inane ideas and make great efforts not only to not understand them, but also to keep genuine 9/11 skeptics from understanding them. Fortunately for you, you are smarter than most of your fellow 9/11 fanatics and quite capable of succeeding in both endeavors.

          Incidentally, nurture your fear of Building 7’s video record. Never let yourself be cornered into confessing a resemblance with a controlled demolition.

          Love,

          1. @Daniel Noel My ‘world view’, as you put it, is that people are not stupid enough to plan and carry out an obvious, pointless, controlled demolition and then to, compound the idiocy of it, plan an amateurish technical cover-up , to cover it up. I think that’s inane. Unfortunately like many others you think 9/11 was an inside job and so, working backwards, any inane idea that has to believed in order to preserve your belief, will be believed. Simple. change your ‘world view’ until the implausible and inane becomes credible. Critical thinking and logic and common sense be damned.
            The resemblance of the collapse of Building 7 to a controlled demolition is that the building fell down due to gravity. A controlled demolition is a gravitational collapse. It’s gravity that brings the building down , not explosives. The explosives compromise or remove the structures that are holding the building up. Gravity brings the building down. Where the resemblance ends is listening to the collapse of WTC7. No sound of explosions. Amazingly 83 steel columns cut simultaneously without a sound. And after the building collapses there is no cut steel. There would be cut steel of course if the steel was cut, it would be everywhere everyone looked.

            1. “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
              \\][//

            2. Thank you for building up on my point, quoting…”Where the resemblance ends is listening to the collapse of WTC7.”

              Keep fearing the beginning of the resemblance, Building 7’s video record! Flee rather than being trapped into adjudicating whether its motion resembles a controlled demolition’s.

              Love,

              1. @Daniel Noel I have watched 23 different videos of the collapse of WTC. Hardly a sound to be heard. You need to distinguish between the words ‘resembles’ and ‘is’.

                1. “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”― Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda
                  \\][//

                2. Wright, please explain why someone who believes the 9/11 official story, which is maintained by virtually every mainstream media entity in the Western world, would spend YEARS on a blog like this telling people their “theories” are inane, blah, blah, blah. Tell me why I should believe that you are anything but a troll. And tell me what is to be gained by me allowing you to continue regurgitating your disingenuous crap.

                  1. Wright probably does not have the proper answer to these questions, simply because, as this blog’s readers have known for a long time, (s)he does not understand how her/his brain works.

                    Wright appears to be a 9/11 fanatic. (S)he was traumatized so badly by 9/11 that (s)he suffers at the mere thought that people may dissent from the official myth. Hence her/his drive to fight anything that threatens the myth. (S)he lives under the permanent terror that some day (s)he may have to abandon the worldview that (s)he magisterially described on “September 6, 2015 at 5:42 am.”

                    Wright and her/his fellow fanatics viciously attack 9/11 dissidence, confusing and cowing the public away from 9/11 Truth. As they do so, they often risk ridicule, sometimes unconsciously. In their skewed mind, such risks are a small price to pay for the preservation of their cherished superstition. They are the Master 9/11 conspirators’ first line of defense. On the other hand, if and when 9/11 activists learn to systematically and successfully expose the 9/11 fanatics for the technical troglodytes and useful idiots that they are, their outreach will become significantly easier.

                    You are welcome to ban Wright. Thinking of it, this idea may deserve its own post and discussion. Wright contributes to this blog in the following ways:
                    * Wright reminds the readers of the existence of 9/11 fanatics and the very good sophistry of some of them.
                    * Wright’s comments invite readers to reflect on how (s]he may influence a 9/11-skeptic–i.e. an individual who believes in the myth but would be willing to reject it if compelled to do so by simple observation and logic.
                    * Wright challenges the 9/11-cognizant commenters to expose her/his ignorance, stupidity or hypocrisy in a way that the above-mentioned 9/11 skeptics will accept effortlessly.

                    If you determine that these contributions add no value to your blog, by all means ban Wright. But I respectfully propose that it was an error to ask for her/his arguments. Her/his inability to apply minimal intelligence to Building 7’s motion amply shows the limits of her/his mental abilities. Her/his opinions on any more complex topic–including your questions–are worthy of very little consideration.

                    Love,

                    1. @Daniel Noel Was that a free psychological consultation or am I going to be billed for it? Your lessons on cut steel seem to be charged at an hourly rate…

                    2. Agent Wright has posted a new comment on September 7, 2015 at 7:39 am, in that comment he has failed to answer a direct question from Mr McKee, which remains, “..tell me what is to be gained by me allowing you to continue regurgitating your disingenuous crap.”
                      I suggest that you answer that question Mr Wright. And until you do, I think anything further you say here should be sequestered until your do.
                      \\][//

                    3. @A.wright, quoting…”Was that a free psychological consultation or am I going to be billed for it? Your lessons on cut steel seem to be charged at an hourly rate…”

                      1. My above comment could indeed be construed as a psychological consultation, from an armchair psychologist of course. But it was not for you. To repeat, make no effort to understand anything that is not specifically directed at you.

                      2. Would I accept to teach you about the cut steel if you paid me an hourly rate? I might. Contact my outside this blog for details. I’ll warn you that you will be wasting not only your time, but also your money, as your failure to understand the elementary conspiracy class disqualifies you from entering the fundamental 9/11 class, where the steel cuts belong.

                      3. To repeat, keep fearing a cursory evaluation of the video record of Building 7’s destruction. You correctly believe that it could unravel the worldview you value so highly.

                      Love,

                  2. @Craig McKee Since you have moved on to this new thread maybe I should answer your questions here rather than on the previous one thread- which I will do later today, as I was unable to up to now.

                3. Thank you for building up my point, quoting…”I have watched 23 different videos of the collapse of WTC. Hardly a sound to be heard.”

                  Keep watching Building 7’s videos. But keep doing it your way: observe keenly the sound, but not at all the motion. And never let yourself be cornered into adjudicating whether the latter suggests a resemblance to a controlled demolition. This would be the beginning of the end of your precious worldview or the beginning of your exposure as a middle school dropout. You would not want either, would you?

                  Love,

      1. NIST’s WTC7 Report

        Seven years after the attack, NIST issued it’s Final Report on WTC7. In 2006 point man Shyam Sunder had told a New York Magazine reporter in 2006 that “We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7”. 1 Now, in a press conference to wrap up their multi-year “investigation”, Sunder emphasized how “comformatable” they were with their new theory — a theory that is breathtakingly innovative in distancing itself from facts. Cast aside are the diesel fuel, which had been the key ingredient of collapse explanations since 2001, and the severe structural damaged that NIST’s earlier reports made so much of. All of that could be forgotten along with the expeditiously destroyed steel with NIST’s new “elegant” theory, in which a single beam, heated by fires, broke loose of its connections and took the whole skyscraper down with it. No need to investigate further, according to Sunder, because their results are “incredibly conclusive”. And certainly no need to test for explosives because such testing, according to multiple statements* of NIST “would not necessarily have been conclusive”.
        http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosives_evidence_timeline.html
        \\][//

        1. I’ll add a point that is, unfortunately, little understood in the 9/11 community. It is unthinkable that Sunder and his accomplices were too stupid to understand that they were covering up very dangerous criminals. They did not have to come up with the laughable “office fire alone” scenario. Our resident fanatic Wright and her/his colleagues had been showing them the way: a thick ratatouille of Diesel fuel, subterranean substation, atrium shape, plus whatever ingredients they may imagine. One can wonder how the Master 9/11 conspirators allowed NIST to publish its transparent cover-up.

          Hence the conspiracy theory that NIST’s experts deliberately adopted the strategy of formulating a cover-up as transparent as possible while keeping the approval and the trust of the Master 9/11 conspirators. Under this hypothesis, they were professional, smart, courageous, and successful. They may legitimately believe that they have contributed more than their fair share to 9/11 Truth and that if the American people can’t see through their fraud they deserve to lose their republic.

          Isn’t it funny how 9/11 criminals against humanity may double as unsung 9/11 heroes?

          Love,

  73. NIST’s Evasion

    NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology) was given a budget of tens of millions of dollars to study the collapses of the World Trade Center skyscrapers. Yet it avoided that charge in any meaningful sense. Its final report admits that it didn’t even attempt to model the collapses.
    The first of the specific objectives of the NIST study was to “[d]etermine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.” These questions are not answered for simple reasons:

    Incredibly, the progressive collapse of the Twin Towers has been left out of the computer models used: “The global models of the towers extended from several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure.” Thus the structurally intact floors 1-91 of WTC 1 and floors 1-77 of WTC 2 were excluded from the so called “global” models of the towers.

    Correspondingly, the temporal dimension was cut short as well: NIST gave itself the task of finding out “[t]he probable sequence of events from the moment of aircraft impact until the initiation of global building collapse.”

    In other words, “Even without the modeling of the progressive collapse we had to postpone the publication of the reports four times so we just didn’t have time to do that. And besides, the lower parts of the buildings simply did not slow down the collapse, as everyone could see on TV, so why bother?”
    \\][//

  74. NIST’s Inane Excuses

    “To shield the reader from the evidence of controlled demolition, NIST fills hundreds of pages with amazingly realistic plane crash simulations, tedious details about fire tests and simulations, and long lists of recommendations for improving building safety. It calls its event narrative of each Tower, which starts with the jet impact and ends at the point that “collapse ensued,” the “probable collapse sequence,” but it is neither probable nor a collapse sequence.

    NIST’s misleadingly named “probable collapse sequence” is a mirage, masking the explosive reality of the collapses with a cinematic account of the crashes and fires. NIST’s theory stops at the moment that the “upper building section began to move downwards,” thus avoiding the longer timeline of the truss-failure theory and any overlap with the time span in which the demolition-like features appear. Despite NIST’s theory being even more incredible than its predecessors (with spreading “column instability” triggering “global collapse” in an instant) it works better as a mirage because its timelines stop short of the collapses.

    NIST’s Report states that its first objective is to “determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed.” The Report does not fulfill that objective, and hides that failure with misleading headings and disproportionate, misapplied technical detail. Its authors should admit that they have failed to explain why and how the Towers collapsed, and should call for an investigation that will address rather than avoid the issue.”
    http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/
    \\][//

  75. Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics
    By David Chandler
    The roof line of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared. A downward acceleration of the falling upper block implies a downward net force, which requires that the upward resistive force was less than the weight of the block. Therefore the downward force exerted by the falling block must also have been less than its weight. Since the lower section of the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper block, the reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to crush the lower section of the building. Therefore the falling block could not have acted as a “pile driver.” The downward acceleration of the upper block can be understood as a consequence of, not the cause of, the disintegration of the lower section of the building.
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf
    \\][//

  76. Anyone who has actively, coherently, objectively – independently – studied the creatioNIST reports, knows absolutely the Free fall of # 7 is demolition. That NIST has not in ANY way satisfied any other possibility than demolition.
    Practically knows, that’s all it could/can be.
    We know the ‘new phenomenon’ offered by NIST is an untested Hypothesis and its base model inputs flawed and fabricated-as NIST’ notes itself. We are told by experts in the field the model has not been contested by its peers because its algorithms remain a state secret and knows that is an unconscionable abnormality; knows that, absent that specific ‘due diligence’ – and by historic precedence; demolition of the World Trade Center complex remains the only viable cause and option.
    If I understand the strategy of doubt/tension,as identified by CIA documents vis-a-vis ‘controlling the illicit transformation of probability into certainty’; any internet character, in opposition to questioning the nature and seriousness of the official narrative conspiracy, has only to throw a possibility of doubt into the mix to swing it.
    I think that is the ‘inane’ pill.

  77. Rabbit Snare: Web Disinformant

    Modern Popular History Prevails Against All Evidence — Coincidence Theory — Incompetence Theory — Blowback Theory

    It is asked: “Now Willy, why would I be interested in the amateur babblings of another wanker who thinks he’s a scientist?”

    Note that nothing specific is offered here. What scientist is Wanker Rabbit referring to here? How does his Incompetence Theory stand up against the facts of the case? I have in fact offered a series of factual and substantive comments in this thread, while our furry little plush-toy, anonymous commentator “Rabbit Snare” has offered nothing but inane general and unfocused assertions with absolutely no substance or proofs behind them.
    Consider how this Wanker Rabbit defeats his/her previous and quite recent assertion that “no one is reading this conversation” by taking the time to attempt to win his/her unwinnable position.
    Notice how when it is convenient for his/her argument, the wondrous system that he/she is so proud to defend is suddenly framed as “incompetent”, and amateur, lacking skills and professionalism. But then of course at his/er disingenuous convenience he/she accuses the experts that make proofs against the official narrative in the same way as he/she has moments before framed those who have made the official narrative.

    NOW — This thread, this conversation between my plush-toy adversary and myself has, with the comments of just a few others, grown to more than a hundred comments. The readers are invited to review the material above, and the further commentary I have added below, and decide for themselves if there is any merit to ‘Rabbit Snare’s’ convoluted coincidence theories.

    I think a candid world will recognize that our little Rabbit character has to be included in the ranks of incompetence that he/herself has just promoted.

    [Excerpt from comments section on YouTube titled: Dr. Reynolds exposes 9/11 TV fakery on FoxNews]
    \\][//

    1. Over on the Democratic Underground site there is a segregated comment site in their “basement” called Creative Speculation where 9/11 truth views are welcome. One guy Wildbilling (?) puts up a good fight for our side but there is a Wright-type of guy, Segar (I think) who is a formidable foe. A big part of his skepticism is derived from the no explosive sounds indicative of a controlled demolition were heard on 9/11. Wildbilling has reached out to other sites asking for a good counter argument for this dearth of the typical boom boom boom boom of controlled demolitions. As Graham McQueen has showed us there are many witnesses who heard explosions but very few, if any heard the the typical controlled demolition sound. Since we seem to insist it was a controlled demolition Segar says no it wasn’t. This is where a Judy Wood or the nuke argument would help. I would speculate that there was some exotic device used that day.

      1. It is not true that there is a dearth of evidence for the sounds of explosions during the demolitions. In fact it has been shown that NIST edited the sound out of the videos that did have clear soundtracks of explosions. Further NIST made this spurious statement in the faq on Questions and Answers: “In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building’s critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings.” — The fact is that the sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB would be at the source of the explosion and wound fall off substantially at half a mile from that source.

        225 decibels — Deafening — 12″ Cannon @ 12′ in front and below

        Q. So who was 12 feet away from the detonations in the towers when they went off?
        A. Dead people. They are always deaf.

        140 dB – Deafening — Artillery fire

        –”The investigation cited as evidence the claim that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse [of WTC-7] and that no blast was reported by witnesses, stating that it would have been audible at a level of 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile.”
        –The conclusion from NIST

        This is nonsense; this sentence would only be true if restated: ‘At a level of 130-140 decibels at source, it would be audible at a distance of half a mile.’

        –“How many survivors and up-close witnesses suffered severe hearing loss on 9/11? Many first responders were all easily within 1/4 mile of the towers. None of them mention deafening noise or pain as a result of hearing the destruction.”–Max Bridges

        This assertion is based on the misconception offered by NIST. Consider the table offered at the URL above; even at 225 decibels a 12″ Cannon is deafening at 12 feet away in front or below the blast.Anyone that close to a demolition blast would not only be deafened, they would be killed. Even being some block or so away the volume of the blast would attenuate significantly. The loudness of dB falls off exponentially by distance.[*]

        The assertion that none of the first responders reported explosive blasts is simply a lie, as has been gone into in great detail.

        –“None of them mention deafening noise or pain as a result of hearing the destruction” Because no one close enough to one of these blasts to be deafened survived to report it.

        The claim that “no blast was audible on recordings” is also untrue, as the recordings finally released by NIST due to Freedom of Information suits, clearly have such audible sound tracks on many videos.

        “Intensity and Distance
        • Sounds get quieter (less loud) the further you get from their source
        • Easy to see that in a free field, the power per unit area falls with square of
        the distance
        • Or in decibel terms, falls by 6dB every doubling of distance.

        Summary
        • Objective and subjective scale of sound quantity
        • Sound Pressure Level scale (dBSPL)
        – logarithmic ratio scale
        – with a reference at the threshold of hearing
        – which is convenient, standard, and closer to our perceptions of loudness.”
        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
        It is also the case that dB cannot be measured from a sound recording:

        It is IMPOSSIBLE to measure dB from a sound recording. One can only measure the decibels of a live sound. Anyone that doesn’t get this is simply ignorant of the mechanics of sound recording.

        It is in the nature of any recorded medium, that it is in fact an artifact, it is not the thing itself. This artifact has only the relations to other artifacts contained in the medium the record was made in.

        With a sound recording these relationships are set and cannot be separated. The loudness or dB will then depend solely on the playback mechanism, the VU meter registering the settings on the playback. In a studio recording gleaning the true loudness of the drums compared to a guitar is impossible once the recording is mixed. One would have to then refer to the premix recording to adjust the levels.

        In a field recording where there is only the mix created by the circumstance of the set relationships at hand at the moment a recording is made, there is nothing but a mix recording to refer to, the levels are set and the dB of the entire recording is set in those relationships.

        One more thing about sound recording; those who have seen the films, ‘The Conversation’ or ‘The Good Shepherd’, may have seen the way EQ can be used to play with frequencies in a sound recording to mask or enhance a sound in a recording. These tricks are available to a talented recording artist. But it must be understood that
        ‘frequencies’ and ‘decibels’ are separate issues. Thus, assuming that the dB is somehow being manipulated by such techniques in in error, what is manipulated is the frequencies.

        Again, it is IMPOSSIBLE to measure dB from a sound recording.


        \\][//

        1. HybridRogue1 why not go over to that forum and lend your expertise to counter Seger’s nonsense? He states he can show many films of controlled demolitions that have explosive sounds. He is a committed agent.

          ” William Seger (6,546 posts)
          5. I can show you plenty of evidence

          … that you don’t need to be inside or immediately next to a building to hear demolition explosives. I can show you plenty of evidence that virtually all videos of actual demolitions capture those distinctive sounds. Furthermore, I can explain to you in very few words why that should be expected from explosives powerful enough to cut through heavy steel columns: because an explosion is a pressure wave and a pressure wave IS a sound. If any of the buildings were destroyed by explosives, everyone in Manhattan would have known it. No, this video does not defend its bullshit, and neither do you, because it’s indefensible.

          This is why the “truth movement” died, wildbill.”

          http://www.democraticunderground.com/113510486

          1. Nikogriego,

            Thanks for the link to the democraticunderground site. I attempted to sign up, and as is usual, there is interference with this process that has something to do with my prior accounts in my name, that have my old email address. And I can’t get over that technical hurdle.

            Perhaps Jimbo could persuade the amazing William Seger to join us on Truth & Shadows.
            What I read of that thread, and Segar’s remarks there didn’t impress me as having much substance whatsoever. He says “I can explain to you in very few words why that should be expected from explosives powerful enough to cut through heavy steel columns” And then those few words are:

            “because an explosion is a pressure wave and a pressure wave IS a sound.” ~WS

            Well this is elementary, but what does it prove as far as the specific explosions that took down the towers?

            Mr Magical Debater then goes on to say: ” If any of the buildings were destroyed by explosives, everyone in Manhattan would have known it.”

            And that is pure hyperbolic bullshit. As anyone who has taken the time to read the my blog page knows, there were hundreds of ear witnesses who reported hearing explosions.

            Again: https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/wtc-1-2-reports-of-explosions-after-impact-and-during-collapses/

            It is obvious to me that Mr Seger is an amateur in the topic of sound recording. He is mainly a fair rhetorician, but certainly not an expert in argumentation either. He may be able to talk circles around amateurs, but I see nothing particularly formidable in his arguments. Some, like Jimbo may have a bias that makes it easy for them to conclude that Seger has more than he actually has in his arguments.

            Now, like Wright hyperventilating on “angle cut beams”, other issues must be included in any discussion of the destruction of the towers; the other conclusive evidences of explosive demolition.
            \\][//

            1. Agreed. He is used to having his way with people who don’t have all the facts at their fingertips and can’t argue convincingly therefore.

              Another place you may want to exercise your rhetorical skills, and where they are needed, is on a FB group called “911 Debates”:

              https://www.facebook.com/groups/602197473157395/

              There are those on that group who are just intellectually dishonest and painfully limited in their thinking, but convinced of their righteousness. I gave up over a year ago. Watch out for Elizabeth Tague, Keoki (now Torres, but before something else), Sam Haschets, Ron Morales “Ron Morales- Silent explosions is a contradiction in terms. Explosions involve the rapid expansion of gasses, which subsequently push air away quickly, which subsequently causes loud sounds.” and a few others.

              One of the good guys who is really creating problems for them is Michael Woon.

              You will have lots of fun as long as you don’t use insults, as they are very thin skinned.

              1. Nikogriego,

                Thank you for your seeming confidence in my argumentative abilities. However, I am not now, and will never get involved with Facebook. I do not like their policies. I am sorry to disappoint.
                \\][//

      2. That Segar is a formidable foe only to those who let her/him. With no offense meant, 9/11 activists will make little progress until they factually accept the background of 9/11’s teaching:
        * The Master 9/11 conspirators’ most formidable accomplishment is neither the technical prowess of the World Trade Center’s controlled demolition, nor the remarkable inter-agency cooperation into a complicated but transparent cover-up with Osama bin Laden’s air show and fraudulent reports. It is the poorly acknowledged process that has convinced the Syrian TV, the Russian professors of metallurgy, CodePink, the OathKeepers, etc., etc., to live the official 9/11 myth as an axiom.
        * As such, 9/11 Truth’s acceptance comes with the uncomfortable corollary of the commitment to the 9/11 censorship of just about all sources of information one has trusted. This is the unspoken meaning of the simplistic “but someone would have talked” argument.
        * Therefore, skeptics will be extremely reluctant to accept 9/11 Truth. They will–usually unconsciously and desperately–seek and cling to any reason to reject it.
        * 9/11 censors understand the above. So do 9/11 fanatics, albeit to a lesser extent. Accordingly, they try to debate 9/11 on topics where they can confuse the audience out of studying 9/11. Hence their obsession with secondary evidence like the acoustic noise.

        There may be a way to demonstrate the controlled demolitions based on the study of the acoustic noise alone. But even assuming that this is the case, the demonstration will be much too complex to be teachable in the midst of the 9/11 censors and the 9/11 fanatics, who hold all the bully pulpits denied to 9/11 scholars. It is usually an error to entertain an argument on this topic. Much more effective is to decline to enter it unless the other party has completed a cursory analysis of the video record, which inevitably yields overwhelming evidence to accept the criminal controlled demolition and reject the accidental destruction. At this point, the purpose of the noise analysis is to simply look for a compelling way to doubt the controlled demolition, along these ideas:
        * If it was a criminal controlled demolition, there would be thousands of explosions over the 10 seconds or so of destruction.
        * These thousands of explosions would yield explosive noises.
        * The demolition engineers may have taken some unusual–and presumably expensive–precautions to muffle these noises to some extent.
        * TV may have taken precautions to attenuate these noises in their records.
        * Witnesses may have been “convinced” to not spread their recollection of the noises.
        * Still, there would be some trace of these noises. A detailed analysis of sound records or a review of witness statements shortly after the buildings’ destruction would hint at explosions.
        * Therefore, if we find that the analysis of audio records shows no trace of explosive sounds and that almost all witnesses affirm in unison the absence of explosions, we will have, at last, a reason to doubt the controlled demolition. This would not disprove the controlled demolition, but call for a more detailed analysis.
        * The rest is straightforward.

        Love,

        1. Daniel Noel,

          It is already straight forward, right above you have a video with the actual sounds of explosions, you have videos of Firemen saying they witnessed explosions. At my blog I have page after page of hundreds of reports of explosions by ear witnesses, firemen, policemen, reporters and civilians near the site.
          \\][//

          1. Explosions are one thing, and your site shows that there were plenty which right there exposes the lie that it was only the planes and fire but if you look at a Las Vegas hotel going down you hear a staccato of boom-cracks which so far I have not heard on any 9/11 video. The firefighters in the video above talk of “floors popping out” and the “boom boom boom” a guy does mention seems more like the sound of floors coming down in a staccato way but no Las Vegas boom-crack boom-crack boom-crack boom-crack. The nano thermite found in the dust makes me think that there were these charges set at critical joints to fizz away with super-heat and super-speed rather than go boom. The random explosions we can hear in the video above maybe only aid in the destruction like William Rodriquez’s actual WTC basement explosion and the firefighters’ explosions in the lobby. In other words it looks like a typical controlled demolition but it doesn’t sound like one. And by no means would that deter me from believing it was a controlled demolition but the evidence tells me it was just not a typical one. It is too bad we don’t know for sure.

            1. Let me add Jimbo, that on the Controlled Demolition Inc. web site there is – or was, an explanation of how the company produced videos of their demolition, both for records, and as promotional materials.

              These productions are designed to present a totally professional presentation. The camera’s are set up at various distances and angles, with zoom and telephoto capabilities. The sound is produced separately using special shotgun mics that can be calibrated to capture a clear and finely equalized signal, so that every sonic detail is captured. The video and sound is edited together all synced to a time code for a pro production.

              And it is this difference in quality that makes the difference in what you here from news camera’s that are mainly designed to capture the dialog of the newsman on the scene. he is close to the mike and it is set to pick up his voice at conversational levels. the mics for such productions are attenuated to protect the diaphragm, and unexpected loud noises will drop out for the purpose of not causing diaphragm damage. Most commercial mics are set at a range of attenuation circuitry that drops out automatically when there are strong spikes in dB levels. This is why capturing the sound of thunderstorms can be difficult without specially attenuated mics.

              I used to do field recording when I was doing sound design to go with ambient music. I had spotty successes, ones that could be used with editing together the sounds and cutting out the dropouts when a surprise strike of lightning would hit nearby. It would take several seconds for the sound to fade back in after such events.

              And the point of this ‘tutorial’ (of sorts), is that it is not surprising that the sound in the videos from 9/11 have picked up spotty sound tracks during the bomb events. Many shots were from fairly good distances and would only pick up the reflected sounds produced in the “canyons” of buildings and streets. At great distances using telephoto lenses, very little to nothing would be picked up. At mid distances, fairly distinct sounds could be captured. At closer distances, the attenuation situation would occur and dropouts would be present.

              There are however several videos that were just at the right distance and settings that picked up good clear recordings of the explosions. On of them is posted on this page. Another is of a female reporter talking about secondary explosions on camera and they can be heart distintcly in the background. There is of course the video of the firemen at a phone booth making calls to their homes, when there are suddenly booms that totally freak them out.

              All together, with these recordings, plus the hundreds of ear witness testimonies, it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that explosions are what took down the towers and #7.

              You may still have doubts Jimbo, you have the right to your own opinion just like anyone else does.
              \\][//

              1. Unless it was space rays or a nuke, as has been proposed by some in the movement, I will agree that explosions are a good bet on what brought down the buildings but until we can find the smoking whatever, as long as we insist it was a “controlled demolition” we will be derided by skeptics. For if, as we like to say, a steel frame building has never been brought down by fire, Mr. Segar will counter and say that there has never been a more silent controlled demolition. Could it be that the buildings were brought down by some “secret weapon?” I know that sounds conspiracy-nutty but there are secret weapons are there not? My Navy SEAL friend confirmed this. Yes, turn the sound off and you get a reaction like that Dutch demolition expert Danny something who with one look knew it was a controlled demolition. Sound on and we hear deep rumbling and screams but no boom-crack. Maybe the typical controlled demolition sounds are muffled beneath the deep rumbling , hard to mike on an average video camera as you say, Hell we can see those squibs David Chandler shows in a video, the ones running down the edge of the building but do they have sound? Until we can isolate that sound then the skeptics will continue to say they’re air blasts.

                Indeed, just about all the sound from 9/11 sucks. (Turn your ear buds up for this.) So you could be right and the crack crack crack controlled demolition sound was wasted on the randomly placed lo-fi mikes.

                I don’t mean to be contrary but every time I go to that Democratic Underground site which is loaded with good American liberals (who locked me out ages ago) who should but don’t buy the 9/11 truth line, this Segar guy does a good job of making us look dumb, especially when it comes to the demolition of the buildings. Arguing that mikes were not placed well enough to hear every sound probably won’t cut it with him and his followers. Frankly, I get your point and maybe the demolition sound was lost, but I would need a stronger argument than this to confront Segar (if the bastards ever let me back in).

                1. “this Segar guy does a good job of making us look dumb..”~Jimbo

                  Well maybe that is not entirely Segar’s doing.
                  \\][//

                2. That “Donny something” was one of the leading experts of large scale controlled demolitions in the whole wide world. You, or I, or the millions of ignorant (for the most part) “truthers” like us could not even begin to comprehend what Mr. Something was seeing in that “one look”. I doubt that anything this segar person can say could possibly trump that observation, especially in the absence of a similarly qualified CT expert who has come out and officially stated that it was NOT a CT.

                  Sadly, Donny Jowenko’s expertise is now in the past tense, as he was killed when his car collided head on to a tree on his way back from church. He was a brave an honest man , who simply could not and would not stay quite when he saw what he saw, while many out there were (and still are) silenced simply with a threatening phone call or a quick visit to let them know what would happen to them and their loved ones if they keep talking.

                  Please provide links for some examples of Segar’s arguments. I’d be very interested in reading a few.

  78. Jeb Bush’s 9/11 problem
    Posted on September 4, 2015 by Daniel Hopsicker

    “According to Sergeant Marty (Mike) Treanor and other law enforcement officials in Sarasota Florida, the files pertaining to 9/11 hijacker pilots Marwan Al-Shehhi and Mohamed Atta from Huffman Aviation Flight School in Venice Florida were loaded onto two Ryder trucks and driven onto a C-130 cargo plane which left Sarasota the day after 9/11,” began newly-minted radio talk show host Mike Jackman, who with his brother comprise a media outlet pols this election season can ill afford to miss appearing on called Jackman Radio.

    jackman-bros“Is it true that you were onboard the C-130? And, if so, can you tell us what became of the files?”

    According to those who were there, a certain amount of discomfort ensued. Bush, who has appeared as limp as overcooked spaghetti on the campaign trail, visibly stiffened.
    “No. Not true,” he replied. Then, as an aside to those sitting in front row of his town hall meeting, he said, “How weird.”

    Bush began taking another question, then stopped. His voice rising slightly to convey indignation, he said, “I was in the Emergency Operations Center trying to make sure the state of Florida was safe… trying to work with local officials to figure out how to make sure another attack wouldn’t hit and devastate our economy…That’s what I did.”

    “So, that was kind of a weird… (question.)”

    222ddNo, Governor, not really. What would be “weird” would be if you could back up your off-the-cuff and very startled assertion that on the day after 9/11 you were in the Florida Emergency Center with anything like proof. Because there are a number of people who know you can’t.

    Jackman’s question refers to evidence uncovered during my investigation into the activities of the 9/11 hijackers in Venice. And somewhere in there Jackman had also referenced Wally Hilliard and Rudi Dekkers, the principals in Hoffman Aviation. When he did, one observer noted, Bush seemed to freeze slightly.

    Perhaps that has something to do with the little-known fact that a Learjet belonging to Hilliard, who owned the Venice flight school that trained both pilots who flew planes into the World Trade Center Towers, had been caught carrying 43 pounds of heroin by DEA agents in July of 2000.

    Just weeks earlier, Jeb Bush’s Secretary of State, the infamous Katherine Harris, had heaped praise on Hilliard’s start-up commuter airline, Florida Air…..
    Read more at:
    http://www.madcowprod.com/2015/09/04/jeb-bushs-911-problem/
    \\][//

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