NYC CAN chooses new angle to force city to investigate Building 7 ‘collapse’

High Rise Safety Initiative cropped
By Craig McKee
Many in the 9/11 Truth movement feel that demanding a new investigation into the crimes of 9/11 is doomed to fail.
We’ve seen numerous legal efforts to break through on 9/11 run head on into a combined brick wall of officialdom and the mainstream media. We saw Ellen Mariani’s legal case end in disappointment with the judicial deck stacked against her, not to mention any other victims’ family members who wanted their day in court.
April Gallop’s attempt to sue George W. Bush and company for being complicit in the 9/11 crimes ended in front of a judge who just happened to be the former president’s cousin.
The 2009 ballot initiative by the New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN) went down for a number of legal reasons (after the city fought the initiative at every turn).
And, of course, the Citizens’ 9/11 Commission efforts to raise money to get a new investigation on to the ballot in several states turned into a debacle after former Senator Mike Gravel departed with most of the money, which he then donated to an organization that he founded and that doesn’t deal with 9/11 (This plan had serious problems before Gravel put the final touches on things).
So, should we keep looking for chinks in the armor of the establishment? And if we give up on this approach, do we have something better?
NYC CAN president Ted Walter says his organization has learned from its defeat in 2009 and has come up with an approach that it believes will work this time. The group has a new ballot initiative, called the High-Rise Safety Initiative, that is aimed at using existing state law to amend the New York City charter to make it mandatory for its Department of Buildings to investigate all future high-rise building collapses as well as those that took place on or after Sept. 11, 2001.
“They would have to conduct a real investigation,” Walter said on the Feb. 26 conference call of the 9/11 Truth Teleconference.
NYC CAN has learned some valuable lessons from the failure of its 2009 ballot initiative that was deemed legally invalid after a City of New York court challenge. With its new effort, Walter says the group has addressed all the issues that tripped them up the first time.
In a follow-up interview, Walter said there are five elements to the plan:

  • The fundraising: $250,000 has to be raised by June 1 to pay professional petitioners.
  • The signatures: 75,000 names must be collected by July 3 and another 35,000 by Sept. 5 (The actual legal requirement is 30,000 and 15,000 respectively, but Walter says at least double the required number have to be collected to ensure the minimum number is reached after any signatures are challenged and found to be invalid. If the city council doesn’t act on the first set of signatures, then NYC CAN can force the petition to go on the ballot by submitting the second set.)
  • The legal fight: The group must respond to any legal challenges the city launches.
  • The campaign: Once the question is on the ballot, a campaign must be fought to win the November vote.
  • The follow-ups: If the vote succeeds, then the group must follow up to ensure the city does a proper investigation of Building 7.

Excluded from this would be the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Included would be Building 7, which fell at 5:20 p.m. that day in 6.5 seconds (2.25 seconds of that at freefall acceleration), without being hit by a plane.
Excluding the towers may on the surface seem like a major concession, but it may actually be the shrewdest part of this plan. By leaving the twin towers out, a number of objections that voters may have to reopening the subject of 9/11 can be avoided. One obvious objection people might raise concerning the towers would be that both were hit by planes, and therefore these would reveal little about conventional building safety. It would also be harder to conduct a fraudulent investigation of Building 7 because this building destruction looks so much like a controlled demolition.
Walter suggests that Building 7 could be a “less painful” and “less controversial” topic for many people, and he’s right. Building 7, of course, was not hit by a plane. Also, no one died in Building 7’s “collapse” (at least no one we’ve been told about), which avoids the objection that reopening the subject would be disrespectful to the victims who died that day.
The report on Building 7 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology attributed the destruction of the building to a “new phenomenon” – thermal expansion leading to a progressive collapse due to fire. As Massimo Mazzucco points out in his new film September 11: The New Pearl Harbor, this new phenomenon, if it were true, would have necessitated the rewriting of building codes all over the world, because any high-rises could be vulnerable to collapse in the event of fire.
But, of course, there have been no such changes to how high-rise buildings are constructed.
This is where the “safety” angle only adds to the prospects of this initiative being successful. This is because the initiative will appeal not only to those who seek an investigation into what happened to Building 7 on 9/11 but also to members of the general public who are concerned about the safety of high-rise buildings in general and who think the city investigating collapses just makes good common sense. Saying no to the initiative will be that much harder.
“It comes down to being pragmatic about what the voters of New York City are likely to support,” Walter said on the conference call.
But what if the city doesn’t conduct an honest investigation? Or any investigation at all?
Walter says there would be tremendous scrutiny of these investigations of future – but particularly past – building failures.
“It would be very hard for them to lie about the collapse of Building 7.”
To avoid the legal problems that blocked the project in 2009, NYC CAN seeks to create new powers and new responsibilities for the Department of Buildings, Walter says. With this attempt, NYC CAN is not seeking to create a new commission (with powers that go beyond what the law allows) as it did in 2009. Instead, it is attempting to amend the existing city charter rather than going beyond its scope (and into federal jurisdiction).
A required financing plan has also been created. The petition proposes a 0.9% surcharge on the cost of building permits in the city that would raise an estimated $1 million per year to operate the program. The surcharge would be suspended once the amount in the fund reaches $3 million and would be reinstated should the fund drop below $1 million.
Of course, even if everything goes perfectly and the petition makes it on to the ballot, and the vote is successful then NYC CAN still has to follow up to ensure that the city does what it is legally required to do. If they do not, Walter says, or if they just defer to the NIST report, then a lawsuit will be launched to force them to follow the law.
Is it worth the time and money it will take to get this on to the ballot in November? That’s impossible to say with any certainty. But what I like about this plan is that it doesn’t demand a new investigation, it seeks to legally force one. And while that would be far from a guaranteed success, there could be some real benefits from the publicity and from any actual investigations – even if they are shams.
So far, the fundraising campaign has raised just under $24,000 of the $250,000 required. The effort is getting support, fundraising and otherwise, from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Anyone interested in learning more about the High-Rise Safety Initiative or contributing to the fundraising campaign can go to their web site.


  1. Lovely plan. Given the way that even someone decapitated can be called a suicide (I am thinking of a specific case to do with Mena Arkensas CIA drug running), however, I don’t have a hope that they won’t say something ridiculous and close it. Nevertheless, in any investigation new information comes out, which “they” (whoever is covering up at the time) hate, any info can be used to wake people up more. Sorry to be flat about this.

    1. You’re right that there are lots of ways this could fail. But there is always the chance it could lead to something positive. Even if they did an investigation that was bogus, it might raise suspicions in some people. I think it’s better than not doing anything.

  2. craig,
    thanks for this excellent article and your positive approach.
    i would add a few more points to the scenario:
    (1) After the first submission of signatures, the City Council (with whom NYC CAN has made significant inroads) can choose to vote the proposed charter amendment into law, or vote to place it on the ballot. If the council does not cooperate, then the Initiative will need to submit a second petition of at least 15,000 signatures, which then forces the City to either (a) include the measure on the ballot, or (b) challenge the legal sufficiency of the initiative itself. (2) an unknown at this point is whether the deblasio law department would challenge the legality of the petition, as the bloomberg law department did so forcefully. (3) if there is no challenge to the initiative, or if there is a challenge that is defeated in court, and the initiative does end up on the ballot, all steps would have to be taken to try to insure that an honest election tally is made — no small task.
    a longshot? obviously. but a real chance as well. i don’t see how any real truther would not spring for a few bucks to see if this can actually work.

    1. “Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”~The Serenity Prayer

  3. “They would have to conduct a real investigation,” Walter said on the Feb. 26 conference call of the 9/11 Truth Teleconference.
    “It would be very hard for them to lie about the collapse of Building 7.”
    . . . . . . . . . . .
    I know Dennis is going to start despising me, but….both of these statements are belied by everything we have seen “official agencies” do in the last dozen plus years concerning 9/11.
    Sorry to be the wet rag, the party-pooper and balloon popper…but this will be another tempest in a thimble.
    Nevertheless, I wish you all the luck in the world.

    1. I think a little optimism wouldn’t go astray here. It’s not as if the Truth movement has so many other ideas up its sleeve that there isn’t time for this initiative. If we all agree that we’re in this for the long haul, then this kind of effort could bring more awareness and attention to the subject. It doesn’t mean we’re putting our faith in the government to investigate itself, it means we’re trying to force one government to do something they otherwise would never do. Who knows where it will lead? I say why the hell not.

      1. Craig,
        I certainly won’t advise to forgo this effort by those who choose to do it.
        “Force the government to do something”? Like I said, good luck.
        And I won’t add anything else here. I don’t enjoy being a downer, and others don’t appreciate either.

    2. willy,
      re: “both of these statements are belied by everything we have seen “official agencies” do in the last dozen plus years concerning 9/11.” those would be federal agencies. time to give nyc a chance.

  4. I like the optimism Craig.
    Those of us who’ve been in this for a long time (me since 2005), have indeed experienced the feeling of being jaded, as activists.
    Over 60 million like Candy Crush Saga, yet only 35,000 in the 9/11 Truth Movement. (On Facebook.)
    The apathy among the masses.
    The previous “official” farces.
    Et Cetera.
    However, the NSA’s pimps who’ve been assigned to read this and other 9/11 sites would surely be slapping high fives to each other to read comments in which so many 9/11 activists admit to feeling jaded or hopeless. To those people, I say: Yes, it’s been a discouraging battle much of the time. But there have been bright spots, moments I thought would have NEVER happened. Most especially, the FOX News Geraldo segment that featured Bob McIlvaine and Tony Szamboti.
    Furthermore, there have been many moments in history that were a long shot, that nonetheless happened. Like this:

    1. I have an idea. Have one of your cult’s crack scientists face a real scientist or structural engineer in open debate. If the usual disaster can, through powerful magic, be avoided, you will reap the PR benefits.

        1. Craig, in case you’re not aware, Pomeroo is historically a notorious anti-truther named Ronald Wieck. He’s so nasty he got banned from his home turf, JREF, which is obviously no friend to 9/11 truth.

      1. That is hardly an original idea from Pomeroo, it is the typical narrow minded anal hurlant one gets from the cattle who only know how to follow the herd.
        Wieck is actually part of the largest crisis cult ever assembled under one PR regime, who vibrate like voodoo mama’s little girls with the whites of their eyes flashing in the torch lights of hysteria, dancing in the ashes to the beat of their shaman Bernays.
        Yes a TV Zombie, one of the legions of the walking dead.

          1. “I will cheerfully take on any conspiracy liar who grows a sack.”~Pomeroo
            If we amend your use of the word “liar” from the quote above as a requisite qualification, then your opportunity for cheer has arrived.
            >Explain the mechanism by which the WTC towers were destroyed.
            >Use your own words where you can.
            >Only use links for back-up to concepts you have already summarized in your own words. I want some indication that you, yourself understand what you are talking about, and that you are not just repeating the mainstream script.
            Do not answer questions with questions other than to ask for clarification.

          2. The impacts of the planes severed load-bearing perimeter and core columns. The resultant fires further weakened structural steel until the perimeter columns started bowing inward, as shown in many videos and still photos. Eventually, the inward bowing caused the floor trusses to fail.
            Your turn: tell us why the real engineers are wrong.

          3. As you have only addressed the upper portion of the Trade Towers that had damage from the plane impacts, and experienced some fires, but certainly no raging inferno:
            By what mechanism was the remaining portion of the building weakened?
            We all already understand the jet fuel is simple kerosene Pomeroo, we all already understand that the largest portion of that fuel was blown out the other side of the buildings as seen in the videos.
            We all already grasp that NIST did not address the global collapse of the towers, but only spoke to what they referred to as the point of “collapse initiation”, which does NOT deal with the intact massive steel structures below the impact area.
            Why is it that NIST failed to deliver on their mandate to explain the complete “collapse” of these buildings? They are unique in all of the history of high-rise steel structures to have supposedly “collapsed” from the effects of fire — and extraordinarily in less than a couple hours each.
            I notice your charge is: “tell us why the real engineers are wrong.”
            I will gladly tell you “how” the “real” engineers are wrong. But first , as to your concern of “why”. They are wrong because they are politically compromised and have a conflict of interest with the authorities they are beholden to.
            Now as to “how” the official story is wrong:
            First; NIST committed a scientific fraud, so it is not merely ‘wrong’ it is a crime.
            You mentioned the many videos. What is clear from those videos is that the towers did not simply “collapse”, they blew up. And this is verified by further investigation taking into account all of the vast amounts of evidence and testimony that they were destroyed by explosive demolition.
            So Pomeroo, like every other steel framed high-rise to be destroyed in the past hundred or so years, they succumbed to controlled demolition, exactly like it looks.

          4. Please explain the total absence of significant dissent from NIST’s conclusions in the worldwide community of structural engineers. You fabricate nonsensical charges to slander the structural engineers, physicists, fire scientists, metallurgists, demolition professionals, chemists, and computer programmers with whom NIST consulted, but you have no technical background whatever. Who are you to pit your ignorance against their professional expertise?
            There isn’t a single demolition professional who swallows your cult’s snake oil. NO evidence for explosives–physical, seismic, or auditory–was found anywhere in the WTC complex.
            NOBODY thinks the towers collapsed solely from the fires. For some reason, your cult tends to overlook the role played by the PLANES.

          5. >”Please explain the total absence of significant dissent from NIST’s conclusions in the worldwide community of structural engineers.”~Pomeroo
            This is hyperbole. There is not verification that “the worldwide community of structural engineers.” concur with the findings of NIST.
            >”There isn’t a single demolition professional who swallows your cult’s snake oil. NO evidence for explosives–physical, seismic, or auditory–was found anywhere in the WTC complex.”
            More hyperbole Wieck, there is simply no consensus report from every “single demolition professional”, that you will be able to cite to back up this ridiculous claim.
            Furthermore there is only rare physical evidence remaining due to the illegal tampering with the crime scene – but that which does survive does indeed have many indications of explosive demolition.
            Every single thing that was effected by the destruction of the WTC on 9/11 was evidence. Not just the remains of the towers, not just the steel, but the dust, the fragments, the cars and other vehicles that were effected__EVERYTHING. All of this was ‘crime scene evidence’ in a legal sense.
            What little of this evidence remained after the WTC was wiped clean is only that which slipped through the fingers of the perpetrators controlling their own crime scene. Whatever cursory ‘investigation’ was made, was more in fact to make assurances that suspicious evidence never saw the light of day.
            This is part and parcel with the fact that no chains of possession of such evidences in the entire case have ever been revealed.
            In a case so bereft of any solid physical evidence, the importance of what little there is and what it proves is of paramount import, the visual, and testimonial evidence becomes critical.
            Early on: ‘FEMA investigations as a half-baked farce’, Fire Engineering editor WiIliam A. Manning wrote in the January 2002 issue: “…the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.”
            Forensic Metallurgy
            Metallurgical examination of WTC steel suggests explosives. The severe corrosion, intergranular melting, and abundance of sulfur are consistent with the theory of thermite arson.

          6. >>The eutectic in the steel was not from melting, it was corrosion. <<
            Which also would corroborate why the towers were taken down.
            Excessive corrosion from the mating of steel and aluminum throughout the structure. Completely unrepairable, either take them down by law one floor at a time costing tens of billions of fake a terrorist attack and make billions in insurance plus the justification to invade whole countries..
            Then give trillions to the banks to cover their losses.

          7. Hey, is this that gubmint plant I saw on the streets that day, the fake Harley guy that used 3$ college words, man if that wasn’t an obvious tip off this whole thing was a setup. Building 7 is our best chance to prove this was an inside job

          8. Again Wieck/Pomeroo,
            I will only repeat my questions to you one time after the first. So this is your second chance to answer this one put today at 10:22 AM. Should you choose not to answer, it will be taken as a proof that you have no proper answer, and you forfeit that point.
            As you have only addressed the upper portion of the Trade Towers that had damage from the plane impacts, and experienced some fires, but certainly no raging inferno:
            By what mechanism was the remaining portion of the building weakened?

          9. that statement makes no sense what so ever. People shouldn’t be allowed to post on things they know absolutely nothing about 😉 A gravitational collapse takes more than 9-10 seconds, a gravitational collapse does NOT hurl steel tonnage 600 yards horizontally, a gravitational collapse does NOT turn concrete into .10 micron dust
            Need to study more there poomeroo because you’ve miserably failed this test…better luck next time

    2. adam,
      thanks for that. i would point out too that the “FOX News Geraldo segment that featured Bob McIlvaine and Tony Szamboti” you mention (see ) was part of NYC CAN’s “Buidling What?” campaign, which in turn, like the current HRSI, also grew out of the 2009 petition effort, see DRG’s article here –> .

          1. Yes Wieck/Pomeroo,
            You are going to need much more than expletives and hyperbole to pass the tests you are about to be given here. If you have enough in your “sack”, stick around and I’ll crush it for you.

  5. …Awesome. Just what we need – another investigation. Because the last couple worked a treat…
    Do you trust NYC to do an investigation? OF course not. Do you trust the federal govt? Nope. The corporations? Nope. So who do you trust? Do you get Russia and China to send their people over to do the investigation? Well the chances are it’d turn out more honest than if the USA did it, but we know that would never happen…
    At the end of the day if NYC do another investigation and it backs up the last investigation, then all it will do is make you, me, and every other truth-supporter out there say the same thing we said about the last one: it’s all bullshit.
    So yeah, no. Let’s not get another investigation going. What we need is to get prominent political figures to stand with us and demand a real investigation. figures who can cross-check the facts and make sure it’s done on the books.

  6. pomeroo is actually a kangaroo’s arse. Its a southern thaing.
    anyone willing to take on the machine at this real legal/political level….good on them. I’ll throw a tenner at it.
    But that ‘the machine’ don’t have several more judge Johhny WALKERS and Alvin Hellersteins up its sleeve is fait accompli.
    They will fuck it any way they can.
    And if we get past this latest US provocateuring by McCain and Nuland in Kiev telling Putin to ‘not interfere’ with a nazi revolution right on his doorstep
    well. Maybe WTC7 free fall can fuck the machine…

  7. This thread is about investigations and/or Building 7. Mr. Pomeroo, if you want to talk about the towers or the Pentagon, why not go to the previous thread? And I sure hope you’ve got more than attitude.

      1. Alright Pomeroo,
        You want to forego the discussion on the towers for the time being we can address the demolition of No.7 here on this thread.
        What NIST “got wrong” is again a misnomer, NIST continued to maintain its whitewash and cover up that began with it’s first reports on the WTC Towers. And the disinformation involves the lack of mention of the bolts and support braces of the actual construction of No.7.
        I will go into the details of this, if you wish to switch topics of debate midstream.

      2. Here is the crux of the matter concerning the NIST Bldg 7 Report:
        McAllister et al. (2012 and 2008) made numerous references to “walk-off” failures due to thermal expansion.
        The technical paper states:
        “Under elevated temperatures, a beam could lose vertical support at its ends through
        connection failure, including walk-off of a beam support seat. Walk-off failure is
        attributed to either (1) movement along the axis of the beam resulting from sagging of
        beams or girders, or (2) lateral displacement of a girder resulting from thermal
        expansion of beams framing into the girder. Gravity loads in a beam are transferred to
        the bearing seat from the bottom flange of the beam near the web. Therefore, when the web was no longer supported by the bearing seat, the beam was assumed to have lost support, as the flexural stiffness of the bottom flange was assumed to be insufficient to transfer the gravity loads. Under such a condition, the beam was removed. Although axial walk-off was possible, the computed connection failure was in all instances by lateral walk-off.” ~McAllister et al.
        . . . . . . . . .
        “Axial walk-off was NOT possible. The maximum vertical deflection (sagging) of the W33x130 girder was less than two inches (51 mm) due to service loads including dead load plus 25 percent of the office-floor live load, so the resulting axial movement due to sagging was practically zero.
        This deflection calculation includes a stiffness reduction for elevated temperature up to 1,200 degrees F. (650 degrees C.) The critical girder was also restrained from excessive axial movement between the web of column 44 (drawing 9102, Frankel Steel 1985b) and the flange of column 79 (drawing 9114, Frankel Steel 1985b). An axial displacement of 6.25 inches (159 mm, McAllister et al. 2008) leading to “walk-off” was simply NOT POSSIBLE.
        The technical paper lacks any discussion of the LS DYNA partial-floor model that was used to develop possible failure modes of floor framing and connections.
        McAllister et al describes how thermal expansion caused high-strength bolts to shear off at each end of the critical floor 13 girder and how the girder elongated enough to bear against the north face of column 79. This girder was restrained from excessive lateral displacement at column 44 by the column flanges as shown in fabrication drawing 9102 (Frankel Steel 1985b). Was the girder also restrained from excessive lateral displacement at column 79 by the side plates projecting past the column flange as shown in fabrication drawings 1091 and 9114 (Frankel Steel 1985b)?
        McAllister et al. 2008 lists observed failures in the partial-floor model, but lateral “walk-off” of the girder from its seat is not listed. The authors need to clarify how lateral “walk-off” occurred considering these physical restraints at both ends of the girder and how “walk-off” was verified as a possible failure mode.”~Ronald H. Brookman, M.S., S.E.1

  8. “No building exhibiting all the characteristics of controlled demolition has ever not been a controlled demolition.”~David Ray Griffin
    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 Center. It is pure pretense and conjecture to propose any other mechanism would duplicate these very specific signature characteristics.

  9. There isn’t a single demolition professional who swallows your cult’s snake oil.
    That’s a lie. Just off the top of my head, I can think of Danny Jowenko and Tom Sullivan. The latter appears in “Experts Speak Out.” That’s just off the top of my head, I know there are more.

    1. Here’s a blog I wasn’t aware of, good to know:
      Now, watch Wieck/Pomeroo move the goalposts from “there isn’t a single demolition professional,” to: “Those people represent 0.000000000000001% of all demo experts in the world.”
      Even if thousands of demo experts question 9/11, all Pomeroo will do is take away a few zeros from that percentage.
      Pomeroo must be getting paid well to shill it up and down like a slug at sunset.

      1. Mr Syed,
        Yes the fact of the matter is that the assumption that any engineers and architects who haven’t spoken out in questioning 9/11 are automatically in agreement with the government position. There is no possibility of coming to that conclusion by any rational thought process. And in debate, it is false argumentum, this ‘Appeal to the Crowd’, which closely resembles the ‘Appeal to Authority’ argument that Pomeroo has spewed thus far.

        1. Your uninformed slanders of real engineers discredit YOU and your evil cult. You are an anonymous troll infesting the bowels of the internet because you have NOTHING that can stand scrutiny.

          1. More of your hyperbole. It will get you nowhere. Or more accurately it will leave you in nowhere, as it is obvious where you are coming from.
            Let’s have some substance.
            Your term “evil cult” is such trite ‘bumper sticker’ bullshit. Dealing with oinkmeisters such as yourself is quite amusing.
            You speak of “scrutiny” and yet you haven’t scrutinized and put that analysis in text. All you have given us so far is hyperbolic rhetoric. Your choice of “real engineers” remains a mystery, but they are certainly the toadies of the official inquiries.
            Who is a “real engineer” to your thinking my yapping Pomeranian?

    2. Danny Jowenko, as you know, stated that the collapses of the towers looked nothing like demolitions. He was sold a bill of goods by conspiracy liars regarding the collapse of WTC 7. When I spoke with him over the phone, it turned out that he had not seen photos of the 20-story gash in the south side of WTC 7. For whatever reason, he never recanted his error. The liars don’t much like to talk about his opinion of the towers’ collapses.

      1. So you spoke to Danny Jowenko on the phone and he recanted “his error” … to you personally, but then you go on to say, “For whatever reason, he never recanted his error.” which logically would be to say he told you privately, but no one else was ever told this.
        I have to say that taking your word for this is practically impossible Pomeroo.
        Let us have some specific quotes from Jowenko on his opinions about the towers, and a link to those quotes to check on whether you take him out of context or not.

  10. Not understanding the sudden total FREE FALL of an 81 columned 47 storied steel framed high rise straight down into itself- all concrete pulverized in mid-air to the numerous eyewitness reports of explosions in the building and evidence of the sulfidation attack on steel grain boundaries accelerating the corrosion and erosion of the steel. molten and actually evaporated steel – not understanding this as evidence of classic demolition,
    is agenda driven.
    The “new phenomenon” as presented by Pinocchio Sunder: that free-ranging ‘normal office furnishings fires’ on ONE floor, with burn time in any one spot of 20minutes, already OUT at point and time of hypothesised HEAT induced critical fail – at ONE girder/column seat at the very point where two other-side girder connections secure that column from any possible flex even if the impossible ONE girder between columns 44 and 79 could possibly ‘walk’ off, drop and create the split second internal cascade completely disintegrating complex 24 columned core structure dropping the penthouse in classic demolition KINK 35 floors above…in 4 seconds….having all that happen after the engineering fail safe as revealed by gerrycan from WTC7 plans; is an insult to engineering and science.
    NIST report is hypothesis. A THEORY which FEMA found had a ‘low probability of occurring’ – a computer driven data-set controlled by NIST which has no practical application because It has not been peer reviewed nor allowed proper contest in any cross-examinational form.
    Like an International criminal court of law where 911 truth could nail the bastards.
    The evidence of ‘data-bend’ by the creatioNISTs is legion. a ‘New phenomenon’, developed by secret algorithm, that has unheard of catastrophic – instant – sheer stud breaks right down lengths of girders/beams to allow the steel to ‘walk’ – not SAG – data that had to have heat turned OFF the concrete in the model while amping up the HEAT on the steel TOUCHING it to create the stress enough to facilitate this unprecedented sheer-stud the model….WHY the International Engineering and High rise architectural community are not up to this is beyond me. We waited 4-5 years before the first Engineer/Architect group found it out anyway, so the silence of the rest of the lambs is hardly surprising. The presentation “911 in the Academic Community” confronts the very question ‘WHY’ academia and professional Engineering groups have not taken this on board. People compartmentalize their thinking and interests . Walk away from the big ones. Its a rare personality actually recognizes the implications of all the data streams pertaining 911 and turns to face it.

    1. The 2.25-second period of free fall within the entire collapse period of WTC 7 was explained by NIST. Perhaps you should make a minimal attempt to learn something about the science you want to criticize.
      I offered many of Gage’s frauds and fools the opportunity to face a real structural engineer on ‘Hardfire.’ It seems that all of them needed to study the subject a bit more…

      1. You must believe in miracles. Tell us what law of physics applies when a building falls symmetrically for 100 feet at free fall acceleration, and hence all the supporting structure gives way. Answer the question!

  11. Pompous Pomeroo proclaims:
    “The 2.25-second period of free fall within the entire collapse period of WTC 7 was explained by NIST. Perhaps you should make a minimal attempt to learn something about the science you want to criticize.”
    And yet he does not explain the explanation that he claims is adequate.
    I have just written a section of an article that proves to any rational thinking being that the NIST Report on WTC7 is bogus, totally fraudulent beyond reasonable doubt.
    If our pompous visitor is not capable of making specific arguments to specific points, but would rather preach his arrogant rhetoric, he is going to make a bigger fool of himself than he already has.
    So far we have nothing but this argument from authority from Wieck/Pomeroo. Unless he can address the failure of NIST to include the actual construction plans used in the building of No.7, and make a reasoned argument sans lame excuses, he will again prove himself a mediocre hack.
    This boasting about ‘Hardfire’ and this “real engineer” is nothing but self promotional grandstanding, and tells us nothing but his limp opinion. There is no substance coming from this pretender. We are getting the same sort of jabber we get from A. Wright, the duck and weave cha cha. And this gets really boring after all these years of dealing with this kind of half-ass bullshit.
    Does Pomeroo have any idea of the physics, and engineering issues involved in this case?
    He has not illustrated any knowledge of such whatsoever. So how are we do take his word for it when he uses the term, “real engineer”? The proposition is ludicrous. Does he understand what Fremo was referring to as to the obvious fudging NIST did in their computer model to create a differential in the temperatures of the Steel attached to the concrete floor. They claimed that the steel got hot and expanded, while the concrete remained cool, a physical impossibility as both materials have equal heat sink values. The length of time for the fires burning at that junction are fraudulent as well. NIST themselves note in another section of their own report that the fires were not steady in any one area but ranged in a travelling burn.
    Coupling just these two three issues, the lie about the heat differential, the lie about the length of heating time, and the disingenuous lack of accounting for the actual methods used to construct the building, gives us the three-strikes-and-your-out formula of game theory, and the rational sense it is based in.
    At this point in time it is reasonable beyond a shadow of a doubt that the NIST Reports on all of the 9/11 events are pseudo-scientific frauds. Those who promote such frauds are accessories after the fact, and are charlatans as well.
    I suggest that Pomero consider long and hard his next comment to these pages.

    1. I have pondered.
      You are an ignorant fraud who will never face a real engineer or attempt to publish in any engineering journal.
      As you enjoy slandering your superiors, why not take the NIST to court? Surely you have nothing to fear from the real science? After all, you have all that silly rubbish you fabricate to oppose to it.

    2. A quick demonstration will settle this matter definitively.
      Conspiracy liars have ranted mindlessly for years about their magic soundless explosives. When real shaped charges are attached to structural steel and detonated, they leave behind a chemical signature. ALL metallurgists and demolition professionals can immediately state what that common substance is. NO conspiracy liar has yet been able to pass this test.
      Let’s see how this crowd of geniuses fares: WHAT would we expect to find on the recovered steel?

      1. “magic soundless explosives…” – Pomeroo
        The following URL links to the testimony of many firemen and other first responders that prove this “soundless” assertion completely without merit:
        “When real shaped charges are attached to structural steel and detonated, they leave behind a chemical signature. ALL metallurgists and demolition professionals can immediately state what that common substance is.” – Pomeroo
        NIST did not test for explosives, and has stated this fact several times over. They’re excuse? “There were no explosives used, so it is futile to look for explosive residue.”
        Both the steel and the dust from WTC has a specific and unique signature, that is unlike any before encountered in a simple fire emergency. As described by Lioy et al.
        . . . . . . . . .
        Then there is this from the FEMA Report on the condition of the WTC steel:
        FEMA’s investigators inferred that a “liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur” formed during a “hot corrosion attack on the steel.” The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it “susceptible to erosion.” Following are excerpts from Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination:
        “Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.

        The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.

        The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.

        liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.

        The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.”

        1. Nothing was more certain than a trapped fraud’s feeble attempt at evasion.
          Let us note that you proved utterly clueless about the substance EVERY metallurgist and demolition professional can identify.
          We all get the idea that people heard stuff blowing up in the fires. The characteristic sounds of controlled demolition were CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT on 9/11. They were neither heard nor recorded.
          It is 2014 and you still haven’t bothered to read Dr. Frank Greening’s paper on sulfidation and sources of sulfur in the towers. As I find you a rather dull-witted fraud, I feel no urge to spoon feed you.
          NIST did not test the recovered steel for explosives because OVER FIFTY FORENSIC TEAMS FROM THE FBI and teams of metallurgists from various universities (the Lehigh team was led was led by Emeritus Professor of Metallurgy Dr. Alan Pense) DID test for explosives residue and found NONE.

          1. So…here it is again:
            “I spoke to Stacey Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition”…and she said that they said, and that they heard it from someone else that maybe but you know; but she said,
            “Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.”
            Then you said, “I can’t reveal all the details of our conversation, but more will be made clear in the near future.”
            So now, perhaps you will supply the forum with a link to Dr. Alan Pense’s metallurgy report on the WTC steel. What tests were done for explosive residues? Are you aware of tagants? Do you seriously believe the perps would have used a commercial explosive with a telltale tagant in it?
            I see you complain that some in the truth community suspect Loizeaux of involvement in the wiring of the WTC complex. What is it that puts this well connected contractor beyond reproach? They made a whole lot of money in their contracts to clean up the complex. How do we know that they weren’t part of the operation to take down the buildings? Cui Bono? is one of the staples of criminal investigation. Motive and means are also suspect as far as many of the contractors involved in the cleanup operation.
            It’ stands to reason that such an operation would be handled by trusted confederates.
            Again, this pose of naivety, taking authority’s word at face value is extraordinary, given the sequence of discoveries and how FEMA was so puzzled as first to investigate, and how this was “cleared up” later by subsequent “investigation”
            You quote Ms Loizeaux as saying that thermite is not used in the industry. But nanothermite is present in the dust. Where did it come from?
            I have read the disingenuous arguments that the specific spectrum for solgel manufactured thermate could be mimicked by some natural process of mixing during the collapse, and it is nonesense.

  12. Not “explained by NIST” at all……the 2.25 second free fall of the 81 columned 47 storied steel framed high rise WTC7 was NOT “explained by NIST”. Thats what I’m trying to tell you. The ‘explanation’ did not ‘explain’ the observed and forensic evidence of Demolition at the site. The report was constructed around a public myth to avoid ‘explanation’ of observed and forensic evidence of demolition. CreatioNIST science. Agnotology.
    The absurdity of the argument is breathtaking.

    1. Does your crap really work in the schoolyard? Well, we understand why you’re an anonymous troll.
      The “observed and forensic evidence of Demolition at the site” was NONEXISTENT.
      There is a reason why NO–ZERO–demolition professionals swallow your cult’s snake oil.

          1. “We” ARE the educated portion of society. You don’t know us, but we’re out there.” ~Pomero
            The fact is that you are the indoctrinated portion of a pathological society. And we do know you very well, your profile is unmistakable, your subtext revealing.
            The history of the insertion into the Amerikan “education system” of the Prussian school of factory style indoctrination known as Kindergarten is well understood and has been discussed here on this blog in great depth.
            And speaking of ‘depth’ you are way out of your depth in these discussions. This is one of the reasons for your arrogant attitude, your persistence in making insults, and your overall lack of self confidence, which your diatribes attempt to cover over with thuggish bluster and hubris.
            Mr McKee has a point when he comments on your nasty attitude and approach here. That this is the typical posture of toadies for authoritarian cultures is one of the glaring aspects of your personality and thus our assessment of it.

    2. Actually NIST didn’t explain the 2.25 second free fall, NIST only ADMITTED IT, after Professor Graham McQueen proved it and put their back to the wall.
      >”We all get the idea that people heard stuff blowing up in the fires. The characteristic sounds of controlled demolition were CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT on 9/11. They were neither heard nor recorded.”~Pomero
      Again I give you the Explosive Testimony of the first responders and firemen present at the demolitions:
      >”It is 2014 and you still haven’t bothered to read Dr. Frank Greening’s paper on sulfidation and sources of sulfur in the towers.”~Pomero
      But indeed I have read Greenings paper, and I also read the rebuttal by Gordon Ross, ME, [August 2006], that cuts it to pieces.

  13. Pomeroo,
    I have run out of patience with your condescending attacks that are based on nothing. Anybody who uses terms like “twoofer” and “evil cult” is a shill who isn’t worth the time of day. Go troll somewhere else.

  14. NIST WTC Investigation Objectives
    • Determine:
    • why and how the WTC Towers collapsed following the initial
    impact of the aircraft, and
    • why and how the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed
    [SEE: PDF above]
    . . . . . . . . .
    As noted before and admitted by NIST, they did not determine “why and how the WTC Towers collapsed following the initial impact of the aircraft.” They modeled by computer to, in their own words, “the point of initiation” of the “collapse”. Their excuse for not modelling the complete global destruction of the towers was that, “everyone knows that the towers collapsed, we saw it on TV.” This is spurious nonsense. They failed in their stated aims, and that is the crux of the whole fraud they committed.

  15. Following the argument/counter argument history of Bazant and Mackey vs the Controlled Demolition side.
    One of these is Anders Bjorkman
    “No structure of any kind collapses from top down! It is always from bottom up.”
    ~Anders Bjorkman M.Sc
    I would note however that a structure can indeed be blown up from the top down in a sequenced demolition.~ww
    Anders Bjorkman, with more than 40 years experience in steel structural design and structural damage analysis
    WTC 1 – Introduction – Learning from Ship Collisions by Anders Björkman (M.Sc), updated 2 February 2009 —
    Bjorkman is quite obviously a good scientist and able structural engineer. He has one critical fault however; he hasn’t a clue as far as photography or cinematography are concerned and he makes the foolish mistake of buying into the September Clues, Simon Shack tripe of “video fakery”
    Bjorkman’s article is very well written as far as his explanations of the crash physics, and his refutation of Bazant, et al. It is a real shame that he wasted the beginning of this article on the “fake picture” angle. If this wasn’t part of the paper I would give him an A+,
    As it stands he gets a C+. Quite a shame.
    Quite so because his whole discussion of the so-called “Fake Pictures” is irrelevant to his technical arguments. As I noted above; ‘I would note however that a structure can indeed be blown up from the top down in a sequenced demolition’. Arguing that the pictures are fake because of the way they are ‘described’ in the counter literature, is an error because if viewed for what is really there in the imagery, what we see is clearly a top down explosive demolition. Hand waving this pictorial evidence out of ignorance of special effects cinematography is a deep taint on this particular essay by Mr Bjorkman.

  16. I think it is worth some commentary to assess and review our present situation on a constant basis. We are living in extraordinary times, each day the world seems to spin out of control as the full spectrum dominance of a new and virulent global totalitarian regime.
    We experience aspects of this in our daily lives, and are aware of those encroachments.
    One of the most obvious is recounted on this very page, and another on the page just previous to this.
    We were treated to a lesson in spin and arrogance that is in harmony with this totalitarian structure. The pathology displayed in this encounter are stark and painfully obvious.
    We can learn much from the experience by analyzing the language in the dialog of these counter parties to our positions. Dismissing the arrogance for a moment, we can serenely consider the assumptions displayed in the subtext of such commentary. Any statement carries an assumption, whether acknowledged openly or acting as a subliminal cue for the speaker making the statement.
    We, most of us, have become attuned intuitively to bullshit. It is good to call it what it is directly, and that is Bullshit. But it’s techniques vary into all sorts of subtle colors when sussing an MO. To make any references to the current examples here isn’t necessary, as any reading and understanding what I am talking about here are capable of their own assessments.
    It can be a surreal experience to encounter such apologies to psychopathy, but it can also give us the insight as to how to deal with it, both within ourselves and our strategies for countering insane arguments.

  17. Willie. we are left dead every-time engineering, science, forensics, expert knowledge based argument/papers are coupled with extreme theories. I fear a Sunsteinian type ‘countermisinformation’ technique, producing coherent engineering analysis only to curse it with the space beam. So that before it even gets into the water, it is weighted with its own drowning. Whether deep interference or not, it will be utilized to undercut serious contention.

    1. “..producing coherent engineering analysis only to curse it with the space beam…”~Fremo
      Yes this phenomena is fairly rampant. I have found the sublime mixed with the absurd in too many instances.It pronounces something ominous for the human race. It is a great puzzle to put solve.

    1. Thank you Mr Syed.
      Well the host’s bias is certainly driving this program.
      Having read Bazant, Mackey, Greening and others, I can tell you that they are simply wrong in their analysis. The critiques given on Journal of 9/11 Studies are thorough and refute the entire fallacious story these three and others.
      But the host mentions a name, and they briefly discuss something this professor said, utterly out of context . That scientist is Anders Bjorkman, and the following is from the paper that they were discussing. And this is the reason the two authoritarians wanted to bring him up – to dismiss him in a spurious manner:
      “It is furthermore not the total kinetic energy of the upper part C that is applied to the underlying storey – only the forces applied by upper part C columns are locally damaging, fracturing the underlying floor. At the same time the columns below apply forces on and start to destroy the upper part C bottom floor in the same manner. To fracture, punch through or slice a floor requires energy. Locally damaged floors would then get entangled into one another, huge friction forces would develop and arrest further destruction. No impact! To suggest that the load can increase without bounds due to a layer of rubble is nonsense. Bazant ignores local damages to the floors, all fractures that develop and the huge friction between these locally failed floors as the main factors arresting structural destruction. The loads and forces are actually reduced, mostly by friction! And collapse arrest should soon follow!”~Anders Bjorkman M.Sc
      . . . . . . . .
      This is part of the Bjorkman document that shines…where he is in his element. He can explain things in straight foreward English as well as give you the technical details and formulas. By the end of the paper he has destroyed the official narrative in toto, and of course Mackey, who is complicit in this little slight of hand to dismiss Bjorkman as a quack.
      Another thing Mackey described is misleading to the point of fraudulence, and that is the crane dumping a load of sand that has an impact equal to if it were contained as one mass.
      This is misleading as it is not an analogy of what is seen in the imagery of the buildings being destroyed, the materials are in fragments even beams are dismembered and blown beyond the perimeter of the footprint, we see clearly the exploding upper stories as they reach the stories below. They have turned into clouds of fragmented debris . There is NO solid block that falls through the building.
      I have studied these videos and images for a decade, and it is obvious that the buildings are exploding and not “collapsing”. All one has to do is believe ones own eyes rather than the hypnotic mantra chanted by the mainstream.
      And finally Mackey’s term, “irreducible delusion”, which ironically fits him and his confederates to a tee. It is more than ironic, it is projection of ones own shortcomings on others. It is like the host calling us a cult, when he is part of the largest crisis cult on the planet, the National Security State and it’s hysterical quest for ‘security’ above any other concern, spawning the strategy of ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’ – just another way of saying “Totalitarian”.
      It is the state and the statists who are insane, not us.

  18. Ok since that comment went right up no problem I will post an abridged version of what I said now.
    I have found that JREFers and (OCU) official cover up loyalists such as yourself do not debate in good faith. People such as yourself refuse to support their statements with actual references but instead just claim this that and the other thing is all supported usually by “everyone”. You also tend to make very insulting and belittling comments with little to no substance. This tells me that your actual argument is very weak and based on emotion rather than logic and research. This common approach used by JREFer OCU loyalists is actually a well known disinformation tactic:
    “5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.”
    In a real debate such tactics are forbidden as are the other disinformation tactics described here:
    In a real debate you must refrence your statements and rebut the statements made by your opponent or you simply lose the debate. Since people like yourself refuse to adhere to reasonable rules of debate no actual debate is possible with you. Because of that and because you have been booted off this forum for excessive use of disinfo rule #5 I will restrict myself to one rebuttal of one of your statements.
    You said above on March 1st 9:40AM:
    “The impacts of the planes severed load-bearing perimeter and core columns.”
    This statement is partially true in that there is video evidence that the planes severed load bearing perimeter columns, however there is no evidence whatsoever that the planes severed any core columns so that part of your statement is totally unsupported by the evidence.
    You go on to say in the same post:
    “The resultant fires further weakened structural steel until the perimeter columns started bowing inward, as shown in many videos and still photos. Eventually, the inward bowing caused the floor trusses to fail.”
    This statement is also very problematic simply because you have no evidence whatsoever that the fires reached a high enough temperature to weaken the steel significantly. In fact the evidence shows the fires were small and oxygen starved shortly after the initial explosions. The thick black smoke is evidence of this fact. Neither yourself nor NIST has shown ANY evidence whatsoever that any columns were exposed to temperatures high enough to weaken them. But the final nail in the coffin for you is the following video where one of the builders of the world trade center explains why the towers could probably sustain multiple jetliner impacts.

    1. The perps not only destroyed his towers they killed deMartini doing it. But Lucky Larry, ah no…he just happened to skip is usual breakfast get together. How very strange and coincidental. Aye?
      Yes, the towers tube design is brilliant, and the redundant load bearing structures fully capable of withstanding the hits they sustained. And as you mentioned the fires were not that hot. Even NIST explains that in the body of the report. The real fraud is in the summation of that report that NIST offers, as it is actually refuted by much of the technical material of the report itself.
      I have to say; I have been on this 9/11 issue for 13+ years, and our latest visiting troll was the stupidest person I have encountered in all that time. Sure I have tangled with arrogant A-holes plenty of times. But arrogance mixed with pure stupidity, that is the worst.

    1. If you have used the screen name of our latest troll that may be your problem, with the longer posts you lost.

  19. Yes, that’s what happened. Sorry, Adam. I didn’t realize your comment had gone into my spam folder. I’ve fixed that now. But anytime you mention someone I’ve banned, the comment will not automatically appear until I approve it.

    1. Hahaha…Goldstein is still tuning in here.
      “..scrupulously left out,”? This seems to imply that Craig made a conscious decision to leave out mention of the Wood case. I will leave it to Mr McKee to speak to that himself, but I somehow doubt that he left it out for any hidden intent.
      But as we discussed that last times you visited this forum Mr Goldstein, there are substantive differences between the other cases and Ms Wood’s.
      Are you guys all sitting in some office taking numbers as to who’s up next for a trolling expedition here? It’s kinda like “speak of the devil” sort of coincidence magical reality.

    2. Mr Goldstein,
      It may be that in all fairness, the Judy Wood court case should be counted as a 9/11 court case that was not allowed to go forward. So if you would care to add any detail and fill out your argument here, I would not object.

  20. hybridrogue1,
    It’s good to know you understand the importance of Dr. Judy Wood’s legal case. You can play with each other now because I’m leaving this sand box for the gym. Play nice and don’t kick sand! 😉

    1. Lol Mr Goldstein,
      Don’t pull any muscles while you are away from “the sandbox” as I am not fully aware of the ‘importance’ you attach to the case. As I said before there are substantive differences there as far as the reasoning for the dismissal.
      We did discuss this before. Is there anything new you would like to add to your arguments?
      By the way, I hate it when a guy winks at me.

    2. So Goldstein,
      This thread is more or less dedicated to WTC7. Is it your high priestess’ contention that the rayguns brought down this building as well?
      I ask because it looks exactly like a classic explosive demolition to me.
      Any thoughts on this?

      1. The Star Wars Beam Weapons and Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW)
        (A focus of the Star Wars Program)
        by Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Morgan Reynolds (originally posted: October 17, 2006)
        * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
        Mr Goldstein,
        Having read your and other supporters of Wood make the claim that it is a misrepresentation to use the term “Star Wars Beam Weapons” to describe the theory she is espousing. I would like you to comment on this page on Ms Wood’s own web site:

      2. Scientific Critique of Judy Wood’s Paper “The Star Wars Beam Weapon”
        By: James Gourley
        A. Introduction
        “This paper critiques the work and thesis of Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds
        suggesting that a “Star Wars” beam weapon was used in the destruction of the World Trade Center towers (referred to herein as the “WR thesis” or “WR paper”). The WR thesis is presented in a web-based paper entitled “The Star Wars Beam Weapon”, which can be found here. The central claim of the WR thesis is that the phenomena observed during the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 are only consistent with the use of some type of directed energy weapon, either originating from outer space or reflected from outer space (thus, it is referred to herein as a “space beam weapon”). The main arguments in the WR thesis are examined in this paper and a case is made that the WR thesis and its supporting paper contain several scientific flaws, including, the use of corrupted data, ignoring data that contradicts its claims, not considering more reasonable explanations for observed effects, and, in the case of the Kingdome demolition, incorrectly comparing data.”

      1. To make the point above more explicitly:
        “The Richter reading is an indication of the energy magnitude for an earthquake, but not an indication of the total GPE of a building for a building implosion.”~Gourley

  21. You know I was just thinking about a way my pessimism about the safety initiative could actually turn out to help us achieve something important with it. How so you might ask? Well it is no secret that I for one think the government including the NYC government is too corrupt to allow any sort of legitimate investigation of 9/11 to succeed. I therefore believe the safety initiative will be blocked or nullified in some disgusting way by the corrupt government I mentioned above. So all and all a very pessimistic view right? Yeah it is but I think my reasons for pessimism are solid and firmly based on a proven track record of corruption, especially in NYC. So how can we use this bleak scenario to gain something important for the truth movement? Here is how, we document on film the entire process of the effort to get the safety initiative passed and painstakingly document all the blockades, hurdles, and stone walls they throw up in the way. We document who refused to return calls, who hinders the effort, who does illegal things to block it or derail it. In short we document hopefully in a full length well produced documentary the entire corrupt process of the NYC government scuttling the initiative like Michael Moore did with Roger and Me. A well made documentary exposing this type of government and MSM corruption would be a major coup for the truth movement and would strike a powerful blow against them. Hell if it is popular enough it might even break open the whole thing and force the truth of 9/11 out into the open for everyone. It is just a thought I hope someone follows up on. I would do it myself but I am a wage slave right now and I live in CA well away from all those involved. I couldn’t afford to do it I would end up broke and living on the street.

    1. I second your devotion…er, I agree with Adam about Adam’s idea about a documentary on this attempt to get the initiative passed.
      I hope Dennis is still reading the thread and takes this idea up.

      1. I couldn’t go to NY for initial videotaping, but I could help with editing. If someone wants to put together a group to realize the project Adam Ruff proposed.

      2. yes, willie, i am still reading this thread. thanks for your offer to assist in the documentary.
        adam r,
        we’d not thought of the idea of documenting the HRSI effort. i think it’s a good one, tho borne of (understandable) pessimism. “take a sad song and make it better.” the idea will be brought up to a trusted nyc film maker this week. i will also pass along your and willie’s volunteer offerings. thanks much.

        1. Thanks for getting back to us Dennis. With one foot in the pessimist corner and the other stepping out regardless. I think Adam’s suggestion covers a base that could have a pot of gold under it.
          “Every move you make, every step you take, every vow you break, every breath you take – we’ll be watching you” …

    2. Dear Mr. Adam Ruff,
      I love your idea of the documentary in the corrupting of the NYC safety initiative.
      Maybe it could get some extra gravitas by enlisting an alumnus of “The Daily Show” or “The Colbert Report.”

  22. I would be willing to participate as well it is just that I am not in a position to devote too much time to it because of my wage slave status. I could do editing, video taping, graphic design, photography or whatever was needed pre or post production. I just don’t want you all to think I just dropped an idea out there I am not willing to be part of myself. Anyway I hope it does happen and I will help as much as I can if it does. I am particularly good with graphic design and that is something I could do from home to contribute. If this project were funded and I was given enough to just pay my bills and expenses etc I would be all in and ram rod the whole production. Believe me when it was done the NYC government would remember us all and if they did block the initiative somehow they would rue the day they did.

    1. BTW Mr Ruff,
      I got a 2 terabyte back-up HD to help solve the problem I was telling you about.
      A Toshiba USB connected one. It is no larger than a wallet – amazing, aye?
      Now I can purge the main drive of rarely used files — like the 6 gigs of 9/11 stuff, and access it from the outboard if I really need something.
      I have 19 songs on SoundCloud now too.
      But the point for this page is, I can get back into video production.

  23. So, to switch subjects again (what the heck, the comments are in the triple digits again): Are people aware of all the brouhaha surrounding Abby Martin the past several days?

    1. “..the brouhaha surrounding Abby Martin the past several days?”~Adam Syed
      No Adam, what’s the scoop on Abby Martin?
      BTW, it looks as if Craig is having a problem figuring out why the thread before this closed to comments. He didn’t do it – or not on purpose…so it’s now supposed to be down and hopefully it will be restored and comment-able.

    2. Re: Abby Martin
      Are you talking about her refusal to go to Crimea? That she condemned Russian military action there? Who doesn’t like her choices in that?

    1. I emailed her and asked her if she said that, and she was kind enough to respond to me:
      Yes. I think it’s irresponsible to assert something that is impossible to prove, considering how we do not have access to the evidence. I point out weekly on the show glaring inconsistencies with the official story and remind people to question the event, but I think saying it’s an “inside job” does nothing but hurt the credibility of the truth movement. It’s been a co-opted phrase used to discredit critical thinkers, which is why I have distanced myself from the term over the years.
      I responded:
      Okay Abby, thanks for clarifying. I think that’s a fair approach for strategy’s sake. Some people on Facebook were questioning the validity of the Daily Banter and wondering if the quote was fabricated. I myself didn’t think so. I do believe that controlled demolition has been proven six ways to Sunday, so I’m not as unfond of the ‘inside job’ expression as you are. That being said, it could still be an inside-but-outsourced job too, i.e. if Mossad agents in collusion with Silverstein rigged the buildings!
      She responded:
      Thanks for understanding my position Adam. You know I would never throw the movement under the bus, ever.

      I then responded, and this is where it stands so far, as she hasn’t responded. (I bet some at this blog would say I’m actually being too nice.)
      I do understand. Some individuals in the movement get overly paranoid over another person’s innocuous actions. I realize your choices of words are not just strategy based, but also a matter of picking and choosing your battles wisely.
      Here is where the concern is arising, I think: With many folks, “controlled demolition equals inside job.” (When someone accepts this, they can no longer accept an “incompetence” or a “deliberately let al Qaeda attack us” interpretation of 9/11.) And this aspect of 9/11 truth is proven beyond a shadow of doubt and has the support of thousands of expertise-relevant individuals. As such, some might interpret your statement as: “I’ve gone back to believing the official version of how the buildings came down.” This is why a some individuals are wondering out loud: “Is she going Veitch on us?”
      (Don’t get me wrong: I agree with Jon Gold and many other activists who do emphasize that there’s more to 9/11 truth than just about how the buildings came down.)
      And it is being spun this way. Ben Cohen’s follow-up piece describes you as a “former member of the 9/11 truth movement in her early 20s.” As someone on a Facebook thread said a few minutes ago: “Let’s see if she answers that to say she still is a truther.”
      Perhaps when you have a free minute amongst all this surreal hecticness (word?) you must be going through right now, you could make some follow up comments to clarify your position. (Perhaps a good intra-movement venue would be Kevin B’s show.)
      All that said, given the pounding your inbox must be taking right now, I’m humbled and grateful that you responded to my letters at all, let alone twice.
      Keep up the great work Abby! And FYI, any time offer criticism, it’s meant to be constructive!
      Solidarity back atcha,

      1. Adam,
        These words of wisdom are for the sweet peach Ms Martin;
        When one is not a qualified Ninja and one finds oneself walking on rice paper, the wise will abandon stealth and let’er rip. Get to the target swiftly and surely. A waffle is sure death.~Magus Maverik

      2. 9/11 an “Inside Job”?
        It is a matter of the sophistication with which we define our terms. To be simplistic and simply ‘bullhorn’ that “Bush did it” is worthless. But to consider a well defined meaning of “Inside Job” buttressed by a finely tuned argument is an entirely different matter.
        First of all the official narrative is found absolutely untenable. Are “insiders” promoting this untenable position? Without the slightest doubt. It is in fact the gross and obvious cover-up and whitewash by these systemic insiders that make the strongest case that it was an “inside job”.
        Speaking to the wider history, this “inside milieu” is not mysterious, nor without a penumbra of proofs defining it. The inside we speak of is a vast and mythic paradigm, a product of deep conditioning to accept falsehoods as truths. And the fact that this can be articulated in great detail, presenting a watertight case is now undeniable.
        So yes, 9/11 was an “Inside Job” by any reasonable standard. Distancing oneself from fanatics with bullhorns however, is a wise decision. But there is the baby and bathwater allegory to consider as well.

      3. @Adam Syed
        What I would like to know is how controlled demolition was achieved at the WTC without cutting the structural steel.

  24. Well Abby 9/11 was indeed an inside job and bet your bottom dollar it would be proven as such in a court of law if there were any legitimate courts of law in this nation that would hear the case. Your stance on 9/11 is no longer solid nor is it based on the truth, it appears to me to be based on political concerns of your own. I am sad to see that since I know you personally and organized the first SoCal 9/11 truth convergence with you and Bruno and Drew. I am sorry but I just don’t think any job is worth compromising the truth. I personally quit a good recruiting job because I found out they were doing recruiting for blackwater. Anyway good luck trying to ride the line between the truth and what RT wants.

    1. Mr Ruff,
      Didn’t I see you briefly in a video of Abby being interviewed on the street while carrying a sign in a demonstration?
      I don’t know how recent the video is but it was up on the web again recently.

      1. Yes you probably did see me in there as I was an organizer for WAC LA and we got together with the San Diego group a few times and Abby was an organizer there. It is an old video probably more than 5 years old.

  25. There are questions that need proper framing. When the question is framed properly, the answer is almost always apparent. Such as a recent asked question on this thread.
    That question should be framed more universally, as such:
    ‘How did global destruction happened at the WTC without cutting the structural steel?’
    This question posed in this way contains the obvious answer:
    It is impossible for the top of a structure to fall through an intact lower structure without first removing that lower structure [Physics 101 and Common Sense] – thus the structural steel HAD TO BE “cut” or blown away by explosives. This is the point intelligent observers noted immediately.
    NIST, having a political agenda, rather than a sincere scientific agenda, dismissed the obvious question and it’s attendant obvious answer, by refusing to consider or look for evidence of the use of explosives. However, other researchers found extensive evidence of explosives in their studies. This evidence is well known by any who have studied these issues.
    It has been more than a decade now and the obvious is still staring everyone in the face; the WTC complex was blown up explosively.

    1. @Hybridrogue1
      I put a question on the AE911Truth website and they said that the steel was not cut so this method was not used, according them.

      1. Cite your source and their answer Wright. Why would anyone here take your word for anything?
        Again it depends on definitions and specific terminology. DET Chord “cuts” steel columns “explosively”, not with a blade or torch. Thermates “cut” steel in essentially the same manner. These are internal jobs in a demolition that is followed by concussive explosions to finish the dismemberment.
        There are two different demolition techniques on display at the WTC. The towers were dismembered internally with a bottom up sequence, then they were blown up by concussion in a top down fashion.
        Building 7 was a classic ‘implosion’ style demolition – dismembering all of the structure in a bottom up fashion and letting gravity take it down.

        1. Wright,
          Just use your browser and look up: “cutter charge – demolition”
          Is it not in your face obvious that the term “cutter charge” is derived from the word “cut”?

        2. @Hybridrogue1
          That query I put on the AE911Truth website
          Me: Hi, I am looking for evidence of structural steel at the WTC with diagonal cuts at each end, either in the form of photos or accounts from the hundreds of people who handled the steel at the site after the collapse of the buildings. If you could direct me to that evidence I would appreciate it. Regards
          AE911Truth: Yes early on when folks were sure that conventional controlled demolition methods were used they were looking for the angle cuts. There are not very many to say the least so that method was not used.
          What is critical is that there is more than enough evidence of explosives being used ie the symmetrical collapse of WTC 7. I am sure that you know of the others. If you have the symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 you do not need the angle cuts and again it seems that they were not used. Peace -Tom Spellman
          Me: Hello Mr. Spellman,
          thanks for the reply.
          I don’t understand what you are saying about angled cuts. Are you saying the steel was cut straight or that is wasn’t cut at all? Are there photos of steel cut straight at each end and not cut at an angle?
          You say ” If you have the symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 you do not need the angle cuts and again it seems that they were not used. ”
          Does that mean that CD companies don’t need to cut steel columns at an angle to produce a symmetrical collapse of a building and they don’t even have to cut the steel?
          If the steel was not cut how could the building collapse? According to all the engineers and architects in AE 911 truth in order to make the building collapse all the supporting structural columns have to be removed with explosives. What did the explosives do? If this was done with thermite or thermate or controlled demolition charges then it has to do something to the steel columns of the building in order to make the building collapse. If the steel wasn’t cut what did all this thermite do to the steel exactly? If someone says that a building was brought down by controlled demolition then the evidence of that would be on the steel. It would be seen by the people who were there and it would be available everywhere to be photographed. If anyone was going to bring down a building by controlled demolition then they would know that this would be the case. They would know the evidence would be there for everyone to see. It couldn’t be hidden. A plan to use controlled demolition to bring down a building without the evidence for it being obvious in the aftermath would not work since the evidence would be obvious in the aftermath.
          You don’t need to reply to this email but I been listening to this controlled demolition theory for years without ever seeing any attempt to examine the logical conclusion of it i.e. that the evidence for it would be everywhere in the aftermath. I have yet to see anyone produce it or explain it’s absence.
          Tom Spellman: Sorry I was not clear The “cuts” are of no consequence They are a side show. The symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 says it all as do a number of other absolute proofs. I am sure that you would be aware of them since you are so detailed on the “cuts”
          Peace Tom Spellman

          1. Wright,
            “Tom Spellman: Sorry I was not clear The “cuts” are of no consequence They are a side show.”
            Spellman is a PR guy for the group and obviously understands controlled demolition less than you do. Unless his comments are meant to address the back and forth debate on what pictures of angle cuts show the initial aftermath or whether these were cut by torch during the clean-up. Yes that would be a side-show.
            There are standard techniques for controlled demolition, as I described above.
            The angle cut by a shaped charge or DET Cord is in fact the standard manner to achieve dismembering of the support columns. The cross columns can simply be blown apart by concussion.
            You have a problem with a lack of physical evidence that is the fault of the authorities that despoiled the crime scene illegally. However that which does remain has indications of explosive demolition in the signature of many of the samples.
            And when the physical evidence is so lacking, the visual imagery, and the testimonies of witnesses take on a critical importance. Denying explosions at WTC at this point is futile.
            I would have to cross examine Spellman myself personally before I would come to a final decision on whether he knows what he is talking about, or if he still hadn’t explained himself thoroughly. I will point out that he is not a structural engineer nor a demolition professional. Neither am I but I have studied this long enough to know what I am talking about.

          2. @Hybridrogue1
            I don’t know what Mr. Spellman’s role is on the site but I would have thought if someone puts a question on their site , on their contact page ,that the reply would be from someone who is a member of AE911Truth and has therefore looked at the evidence himself and is familiar with it. I did send a further email to him but got no reply.

          3. I would posit Mr Wright, that Mr Spellman was blowing you off, and trying to be polite about it.
            You should also be careful in the assumptions you make. Spellman is a member of AE911Truth. Regardless, he is giving you his opinion, as to his understanding of whatever ‘consensus’ AE911 may have reached.
            The facts regarding explosive demolition are clear. Not being a member of AE911Truth myself, I do not know if they have a theory of some unique manner that the buildings were taken down. I don’t really follow them, and I don’t much care one way or the other what their position is regarding such details.
            I will say that Mr Spellman is correct in saying,
            “The symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 says it all as do a number of other absolute proofs. I am sure that you would be aware of them since you are so detailed on the “cuts.”
            And it is true that you “SHOULD be aware” of the penumbra of absolute proofs. Whether you are parading your ignorance here, or just being obtuse only you know for certain.

  26. @Hybridrogue1
    I’m pretty sure Mr. Spellman was ‘blowing me off’ , because he didn’t seem to be able to answer the question I asked and seemed to be indignant that I even asked it. Surely AE911 truth have all these structural engineers etc. they should have some idea about this and should be able to give some kind of an answer to it. I presume they have thought about it. If they are saying that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings then it is a question they should be asking themselves and one they should have no problem answering. It’s like saying you have proof that someone was shot – the victim didn’t have any bullet wounds but we have a penumbra of absolute proofs that they were shot – so stop asking awkward questions…

    1. Mr Wright,
      I am not going to dismiss the entire AE911 organization on your impressions of one of the members you spoke to.
      I reject your analogy to the shooting victim entirely. It does not represent the situation at all.
      You choose the “angled cut” as a “bullet wound” in your analogy out of mere whimsy, as a rhetorical game, as if such angled cuts are missing from the photo record in its entirety. This is not the case, there may not be many, as Spellman intimated, but lack of photo’s from an area that was controlled in such a way as to keep anyone but vetted personnel away, does not mean that such physical evidence didn’t exist in abundance. What it means is that the photos that were gotten out are an exception to an attempt to hide any and all telltale signs of what had really happened to create that crime scene.
      So getting back to your faulty analogy, there may have been a body riddled with bullet holes, but the autopsy doctors claim no such wounds were present and that the victim died of natural causes. Nevertheless, the public knows that the victim was covered with blood, many witnesses described the volley of gunshots, the victim was seen in a puddle of hot blood, etc…
      As you see, we can all play the analogy game to create a story beneficial to our argument.
      What you are failing to address is the large amount of real evidence in the actual case before us.
      If you are actually curious as to what that evidence is, you can review this thread; as it was given in response to another shill that has since pass on. On this very thread Wright. So don’t play dumb and try to narrow things to your own game plan here.

      1. @Hybridrogue1
        Tom Spellman:” Yes early on when folks were sure that conventional controlled demolition methods were used they were looking for the angle cuts. There are not very many to say the least so that method was not used.”
        ‘That method was not used.’
        The question again is, if explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings then they would have to do something to the structural steel columns since these are the structural components that hold the building up. Controlled demolition would consist of cutting through all these supports with cutting torches initially, leaving them partly cut, then attaching angled cutter charges to the remaining intact surfaces and kicker charges to get them moving after the cutter charges have cut through the last sections. All of this would be obvious on each piece of steel after the building collapsed. Both ends of the steel columns where they were cut, would be cut. There were hundreds and hundreds of people at ground zero from the minute the dust settled until many months afterwards, first responders, firefighters, recovery workers. To clear the debris from the site all the steel would have chains attached to them, a crane would lift them onto the back of trucks, the trucks driven through the streets of NY , unloaded at the jetty and put on barges, brought across to the dump site and unloaded and stored there. All of the people involved in rescue and recovery work would see the cut ends of each piece of steel. I have yet to see or hear of any evidence of all this cut steel. AE911 truth don’t seem to have evidence of it and obviously think I shouldn’t ask these awkward questions. It seems you don’t either.

        1. Now, we shall witness Wright switching the goalpost from arguing there are no images of these angle cuts to a dispute as to whether these cuts were as found, or done by torch during cleanup.
          Steel workers will tell you that the slag would be on the inside of a torch cut piece.
          Cleanup crews remarked that the majority of the steel was already in transportable lengths [just coincidentally, of course]. Yet those who have studied the imagery of the towers exploding can plainly see the steel members blowing laterally from the towers in the clouds of dust.
          Wright can claim one side of this controversy for himself, but that does not address the other evidence for explosive demolition. So adding that other evidence to these images would suggest that these are as found, and the result of explosive demolition.

          1. @Hybridrogue1
            I don’t think I need to argue that these columns were cut during the clean-up since you already know they were. There are videos of them being cut by the clean-up crews. If this is what the cuts on the columns would look like though then there would be hundreds and hundreds of examples of them from the top all the way down to the bottom of the building. The clean-up crews who said the steel was already in transportable lengths would then have seen the steel – did they say there were angled cuts at each end of them like the ones in these photographs? I think they would have noticed.

          2. “I don’t think I need to argue that these columns were cut during the clean-up since you already know they were.”~A.Wright
            Don’t tell me what I think when you know very well that I don’t think they were cut during clean-up.
            As I have said before Wright, this is only one part of a larger case. Considering the heavy weight of the other evidence, it is most likely that these images show the result of cutter charges.
            You asked yourself at the beginning of this particular discussion, a question that cuts both ways. Essentially that question is: ‘How does an upper part of a structure fall through an intact lower structure?’
            Every sane and honest person knows the answer to that question Wright. It is impossible — unless that lower structure is removed.
            Again we get to the point of going in circles with you Wright. Your questions aren’t awkward Wright, given the full spectrum of evidence in this case they are ridiculous and a terrible bore.

          3. [AWright] asked … at the beginning of this particular discussion, a question that cuts both ways. Essentially that question is: ‘How does an upper part of a structure fall through an intact lower structure?’

            “… at near gravitational acceleration” is a key phrase that needs to be added to the question.
            Failing this phrase, certainly an upper part of a structure could fall through an intact lower structure (assuming no CD), decimating both down to a certain level, but it would not be at near gravitational acceleration. It would be much slower, and the intact lower structure might just arrest a good deal of the decimation at some level still dozens of stories above the street.
            It is the observed “near gravitational acceleration” that informs the science literate of the world that energy was added.

          4. The fact of the matter Wright, is that you have done exactly what I predicted; moving the goal post. You claimed that there were no images of the angular cuts. I brought forward pictures of the angular cuts, and you dispute that this is evidence of a cutter charge.
            I say it is blatant evidence of a cutter charge.

  27. By 1945 Allied HE bombs had increased in power five-fold. Early British incendiaries filled with thermite—a mixture of iron oxide and powdered aluminium—produced great heat but this dissipated quickly and was confined to a small area. The Germans overcame this with their highly effective 1 kg. (2.2 lb.) bomb by making thermite its primary igniting substance and metallic magnesium the principal incendiary material. This made it burn with great heat for a long time and it could not be doused with water.

    1. It is redundant for those paying attention, but this video showing evidence of cutter charges is produced by AE911. The very organization that Mr Wright is claiming do not believe such charges were used on 9/11.
      This is part of the cumulative argument of which the controversy of the angular cuts fit. It adds weight to the assertion that such angular cuts are indeed evidence of cutter charges.
      Of course further points of evidence continue in the same direction. Such as the witness testimonies of the sounds of explosives going off during all three events, 1, 2, and 7.
      Another in the stack of evidence for explosive demolition is the finding of Harrit and Jones, of nanothermate sol-gel in the WTC dust.
      Another is the analysis of the NIST Reports, showing scientific fraud in their findings.
      The following link is a paper detailing the fraudulent nature of the NIST WTC7 Report:

      1. @Hybridrogue1
        If there were cutter charges then the steel would be cut. I don’t see any evidence of it. It would be there for everyone to see from the minute the dust settled. The reply from AE911 truth says the steel wasn’t cut to bring down the building. If he had evidence for it he would have presented it. If the steel was cut there would be hardly a piece of structural steel in the entire area without a molten diagonal cut at each end. What did the thermate do to the steel columns? What did the little red chips do to the steel columns?

        1. “If there were cutter charges then the steel would be cut. I don’t see any evidence of it.”~Wright
          Willful blindness in face of the obvious.
          You are spinning in circles again Wright, that is why all the dizzy responses here from you. You cannot address the angled cuts in a vacuum – you must address the entire chain of reasoning wherein that is just one integer.
          If you can watch that video and turn around and claim that that building is “collapsing” when it is prima facea obvious that it is EXPLODING, there is no hope for you.

          1. Exactly Ruffadam,
            Wright’s incredulity is unfounded by logic. He sees the angled cuts as the weakest link and attacks it with vim and vigor, not grasping that this link in the chain of the overall argument is redeemed by the rest of the evidence that backs it up.
            Yes it does annoy me, dealing with obvious toady-boys and shills like Wright. The ridiculous obstinate twaddle is simply intentional harassment.
            “The lack of coherence and cohesion of data is entirely deliberate.”~J. Ellul, PROPAGANDA {p. 53}

        2. Wright, if you come on this blog spewing your screwy crap one more time, I am simply going to refer to this thread. Herein it is adequately shown that you have nothing of substance, just rhetorical junk and spin.
          Don’t think that just waiting for a time again is going to solve this for you.

    2. See this page as well. This is where the video above was copied from:
      “Because of fuel and time constraints welders would have used a cutting torch to cut the shortest distance possible – straight across the beams. Also, cutting torches cut by forced oxidation, therefore the large amount of once liquid metal congealed on the beam would not be present.”~Article

  28. “What did the thermate do to the steel columns?”~Wright
    It ate them, then flew to China’s shipyards and shit it out in nice straight beams.
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    Satire of course, but no less fanciful than the official narrative.

    1. You know, I can see why someone might want to school A. Wright for the effect of the Hegelian dialect; however, the law of diminishing returns would seem to mean the effect fizzles out.
      The towers didn’t collapse; they exploded. I seems to me that some are promoting the former, which in my opinion, is a faulty view. Is my perception of this correct?

      1. One does not counter propaganda in order to change the propagandists mind, but to reveal to the larger audience the techniques and methods that the propagandist uses.
        Your construction of your first sentence referencing the Hegelian dialect isn’t clear to me. Perhaps you can clarify just what you mean by that.
        “Collapse” is a troubling term only in that there are attendant assumptions attached to the term as used by the mainstream. However, technically speaking the term can be said to describe the towers if we add a fuller explanation as we have.
        The material exploded does collapse to the ground when something is blown up. Thus the distinction I make is for clarity between a simple gravity ‘collapse’ as the official narrative promotes, and an explosive demolition; which is found to be the case.
        Full Definition of COLLAPSE from Merriam-Webster:
        intransitive verb
        : to fall or shrink together abruptly and completely : fall into a jumbled or flattened mass through the force of external pressure
        : to break down completely : disintegrate
        : to cave or fall in or give way
        : to suddenly lose force, significance, effectiveness, or worth
        : to break down in vital energy, stamina, or self-control through exhaustion or disease; especially : to fall helpless or unconscious
        : to fold down into a more compact shape

        transitive verb
        : to cause to collapse
        : condense
        — col·laps·ibil·i·ty noun
        — col·laps·ible adjective
        . . . . . . . . .
        2. collapse – noun
        : a situation or occurrence in which something (such as a bridge, building, etc.) suddenly breaks apart and falls down
        : a situation or occurrence in which someone suddenly falls down or becomes unconscious because of being sick or exhausted
        : a situation or occurrence in which something (such as a system or organization) suddenly fails : a complete failure or breakdown
        . . . . . . . .
        From the Latin, collapsus, past participle of collabi, from com- + labi to fall, slide — more at sleep
        First Known Use: 1732
        ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

        1. For utter clarity of my position; First and Foremost the Towers “exploded”, they “collapsed” as a result of the explosions. This is why simply referring to ‘collapses’ is not acceptable to me.

        2. Dialect: Thesis, antithesis = synthesis. Yes, I see you want to show the world that A. Wright is very wrong but I think a big dose of ignore is better. The longer you rebut his counterpoints, the longer he has the microphone to keep making counterpoints. You give him the opportunity to spout the propaganda you so desire to squash.
          Unless one is parroting, the propagandist is actually rather intelligent, sophisticated and clever. Other than in trace amounts, I don’t see this in the alleged propagandist.

          1. “Unless one is parroting, the propagandist is actually rather intelligent, sophisticated and clever. Other than in trace amounts, I don’t see this in the alleged propagandist.” ~Dsn6
            “..the propagandist”? You may be describing the general profile of the ideal propagandist Dsn6, but practically speaking and in the living breathing real world there are a great variety of aptitudes, talents and traits among individuals in every endeavor.
            For instance Dsn6, you may fancy yourself as being “rather intelligent, sophisticated and clever”. Perhaps sufficiently so to act as a propagandist yourself. You might even have the brazen egotistic desire to attempt to stir this particular pot again.
            To re-introduce yourself in barely covered snide arrogance.
            As to that, would you rather I take your advice given as to how to best deal with A. Wright? Should I ignore you Dsn6? Or should I point out the flaws that already begin to show in your trite attempts at argumentation?
            No do not answer questions that are put to you that are obviously rhetorical and meant to make a point. For you know very well that I wouldn’t take advice from a clumsy novice such as yourself.

          2. “Dialect: Thesis, antithesis = synthesis.”~Dsn6
            A dialect is a regional variety of language distinguished by features of vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation from other regional varieties, etc.
            The term “dialect” is distinct from the term “dialectic”, and has an entirely different definition. Furthermore Dsn6 should well know that I am likely the one who introduced the subject of dialectics to this particular forum. I am therefore in no need of instruction as to its definition nor its modes of construction.
            So, your purpose for joining in this discussion at this late date is, exactly what Dsn6?
            The WTC dust had settled as per dealing with A.Wright. And you come on mentioning his name again, saying he should best be ignored. Do you not see the irony here?
            And for you to do such in the manner of an ignorant klutz adds humor to the thread which is clearly not your intent.
            Are the ToadyBoyz gathering for a bonfire?

  29. Former NYPD Officer Craig Bartmer:
    “I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn’t see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn’t hear any… I didn’t hear any creaking, or… I didn’t hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming ‘get away, get away, get away from it!’… It was at that moment… I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself… Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit’s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you’re hearing “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.” I think I know an explosion when I hear it… Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they’re saying… Nothing to account for what we saw… I am shocked at the story we’ve heard about it to be quite honest.”
    Excerpt taken from “SPEAKING OUT: An interview with Craig Bartmer”

  30. 911 was – and is a continuing – false flag attack.
    The object was – and is – to deceive. Obscure. Obstruct. To keep the deception alive by projecting doubt onto any thought – or conversation – that it was CD : so, to control the cia defined “illicit transformation of probability into certainty” in the public and private mind that it WAS Controlled Demolition; would be the purpose of the arguments leveled against CD in this post…. gaming the conversation.
    We saw the buildings explode. We heard the buildings explode. Watched the gigantic expanding mushroom clouds of heated gas and debris 6% by mass molten steel spit turning into Fe spheres; firing heavy steel sections up and out in great exploding arcs; the energy stripping everything to bare steel fragments, pulverizing 110 acres of concrete per-tower mid-air in 12 seconds. Dropping complex 81 columned 47 storied steel framed high-rises AT free-fall into own plan areas. The debris field and forensics all pointing DIRECTLY to explosive ‘controlled’ demolition. Directly at False Flag terror attack.
    Reporters reported the buildings exploding, heard the steady boom boom boom boom behind them as they ran for their lives. We had no doubt they exploded. Witnesses told us they exploded before during and after plane-strike. Dozens and dozens of witnesses.
    But we were told it wasn’t one and, by argument designed to create and utilize doubt, to rest the entire case on doubt as if ‘doubt’ was, or is, the argument. As if the doubt of the one part can vaporize – in the same manner steel at WTC was vaporized – the entire evidence field of the other. Argument designed to react negatively against certainties individuals hold in recognizing what they first saw as demolition – because that is first cognition – that the buildings exploded .
    Whereas all is needed is a properly constituted court of Law where evidence can be fairly presented and open to cross-examination. Imagine that. In the land of Lincoln. In the land of Richard Secord and JJesus Angleton.
    Anything NYCCAN does to get this matter into the court is e-fcking-ssential. And god bless ’em for keeping at it. Prouty wrote to Garrison the importance the conspirators place on cases NOT getting to court. That is what is in play here. Keeping things out of court.

  31. “911 was – and is a continuing – false flag attack.
    The object was – and is – to deceive. Obscure..”
    “We saw the buildings explode. We heard the buildings explode. Watched the gigantic expanding mushroom clouds of heated gas and debris 6% by mass molten steel spit turning into Fe spheres; firing heavy steel sections up and out in great exploding arcs; the energy stripping everything to bare steel fragments, pulverizing 110 acres of concrete per-tower mid-air in 12 seconds. Dropping complex 81 columned 47 storied steel framed high-rises AT free-fall into own plan areas. The debris field and forensics all pointing DIRECTLY to explosive ‘controlled’ demolition. Directly at False Flag terror attack.
    Reporters reported the buildings exploding, heard the steady boom boom boom boom behind them as they ran for their lives. We had no doubt they exploded. Witnesses told us they exploded before during and after plane-strike. Dozens and dozens of witnesses.”

  32. “Anything NYCCAN does to get this matter into the court is e-fcking-ssential. And god bless ‘em for keeping at it. Prouty wrote to Garrison the importance the conspirators place on cases NOT getting to court. That is what is in play here. Keeping things out of court.”
    I agree with you here Fremo, for even the kangaroo court sessions, and the kangaroos met along the way of the petition process, will be further exposition of the fraudulent nature of the system. This is why it is essential to document this project fully every step of the way. And every misstep taken by the authorities must have spotlights showing their devious ways.
    It is still important to emphasize such blatant past examples of such official malfeasance:
    Prima Facea
    >“The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached”…(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12)
    Again, on page 142, NIST admits that their computer simulation only proceeds until the building is “poised for collapse”, thus ignoring any data from that time on.
    >”The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. ..”.(NIST, 2005, p. 142)
    This is utter rubbish of course, and prima facea evidence to charge NIST with scientific fraud.
    From NIST itself we have this mission statement:
    NIST WTC Investigation Objectives:
    • Determine:
    • why and how the WTC Towers collapsed following the initial
    impact of the aircraft, and
    • why and how the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed
    This is what NIST was charged to explain – and DID NOT. It is malfeasance and fraud. But this is just the tip of the issue, for even the assertion that “the building became unstable i.e., was poised for collapse. ..” is not proven. In fact NIST tells us that they tweaked the computer model until achieving the desired result of an “unstable” situation as to the effected floors. The whole story coming out of NIST is bullshit, an insult to intelligence and the name of science.

    1. “If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I’d be asking for a refund!… The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it’s not capable of being verified or negated!”~Dr. Frank Greening

  33. Not called the creatioNIST or illusioNIST report for nothing, it redefines the whole nature and scope of bullshit.. Presented as a ‘new phenomena’ in physics and building science – a ‘new phenomena’ not cross-examined by expert testimony in any court, its Modelling algorithm states secret-for our safety no less!! – given the degree of destruction due to ‘normal office furnishings fires’ you’d argue necessitates full disclosure ‘going forward”at the end of the day’ so that high-rise structures can assimilate the secret building flaw NIST uncovered, instead, with all forensic/eyewitness evidence of explosive events before during and after airstrike left out of the record…Sunder presents it as authoritative…final….’no mystery’.
    No clues there for any skeptic.
    The ‘probable collapse sequence’ actually refers to the ‘probable collapse sequence’ in the brain of humankind properly contending with the degree of bullshit presented by State as bona-fide investigative work, while the evidence of cover-up drips from the sides of the bat cave.
    ‘poised at collapse initiation’…the greatest steel framed structures in the world disintegrate in 12 seconds – the third high-rise at 47 stories and 81 columns actually AT free fall….and the official report ends “poised’……
    As we do. Poised on the edge of reason.
    They turned the heat off the concrete flooring in the WTC7 model, ramped it on the steel girders/beams the floor sat on to create the stresses allowing the unattainable to be attained – the new phenomenon – sudden break of all shear-studs to get the beams go walkies..not saggies…but walkies. ‘Walking beams’.
    Thermal conductivity was not a factor in the ‘thermal expansion’ model of shyam Pinocchio Sunders great illusion.
    But, borne by lies, into lies, the extent of criminal duplicity – inversion of reason – constructing the 911false flag science, is only surpassed by the amount of hate delivered upon the world by it.
    Force is being used to make it stand.

  34. Follow the implications of 9/11 as a false flag terror attack perpetrated by insiders within the USA power structure. Follow those implications to the logical conclusion and see where we really are as a nation and as a world. We are living a lie, a lie that will and is destroying us all. We are living the lie that our government is legitimate, it isn’t. We are living the lie that the war on terrorism is justified somehow, it isn’t. We are living the lie that homeland security is somehow legitimate and necessary, it isn’t. DHS is nothing more than an invading army built by us with our own money designed to destroy us and our beloved country. Our rights are being stripped and our Constitution is being burned because of the 9/11 lie. Humans are dying in droves because of this war on terror spawned by the 9/11 lie and the bill for all that death and destruction has come due and it is more than we can pay. The economic destruction spawned by the 9/11 lie will kill yet more droves of people from starvation and deprivation.
    Follow the implications of the 9/11 false flag event, follow them to the conclusion and you will see that the conclusion is vast unimaginable deprivation, destruction, and death. The implications are so severe in fact that living with the lie that is 9/11 is akin to signing your own death warrant.
    We are all being destroyed now, here, today as a result of the 9/11 lie. Do not kid yourselves many millions have already died for the lie and millions are starving and soon to die because of the lie. The consequences are real and they are now. Millions can no longer afford to eat let alone afford shelter because of the 9/11 lie. My own bother lost his home, my sister in law can no longer afford hers and she is such a special and good person. I myself can’t afford to pay my bills, nor can most of my friends. The life is being squeezed out of me, out of humanity, and out of everyone I love. People are dying because of this lie! Real people with the spark of genius are dying, kids, women, men, elders, everyone. Have we already killed the next Gandhi or Einstein or the person who will create clean free energy for all?
    Live with this lie one second more? NO! I REFUSE!
    9/11 was an inside job!
    The towers were blown up with explosives!
    The pentagon crime scene was staged!
    The US government is currently engaged in an ongoing criminal cover-up of mass murder and they are ALL COMPLICIT IN THAT COVER-UP!
    The US government is destroying our Constitutional republic and replacing it with a fascist dictatorship soon to unleash open democide on America, I will be among the first they come for.
    The US government is engaged in worldwide genocide and imperial conquest based on the lie of 9/11.
    Americans who tolerate all of this are complicit in all of these crimes against humanity and will suffer the terrible consequences regardless of their stubborn denial of the truth. That means you A.Wright!
    Americans within the government who know the truth will see themselves and their families suffer and die because of this lie as well and the shame is on them for not having the courage to expose the truth. When you look your children in the face remember you could have done something to save their future and you didn’t because you were cowards.
    That is the truth of 9/11. The truth is we should all have been in open revolt a long time ago and the shame is on all of us that we aren’t. Today I am filled with shame and disgust that I am part of the human race that lacks the courage to save itself.
    I will go to my grave shouting from the rooftops that 9/11 was an inside job!

    1. It was an inside job assisted by the Zionist network of an outsourced security apparatus from Israel. But there are those here, specifically those that like to toot their horn who seem to want to shield the blame away from Israel when they ignore that tritium was 63 times background level. Radioactive isotopes all over the place. gypsum found in large quantities. Reeks of a nuclear blast of some sort.

      1. C’mon Dsn6, grow a pair of balls. Don’t be coy and speak of “”those here”, as though it is some mystery or national security secret that you cannot divulge, to whom your bluster is aimed.
        And what is this jumbled, quickly spurted construction you put here about Israel and tritium? You are in such a hurry that your heart races and it shows in the throat of your subtext. Your attempt at brevity leaves a string of insufficiently connected dots dancing to different rhythms and staring off in different directions.
        A lousy composition Dsn6.
        You have inadvertently boosted the figure for tritium from the alleged 55 times to 63 times. Do you even know what the “background level” of tritium should be?
        “gypsum found in large quantities,” you say Dsn6….Lol
        Concrete is gypsum. Do you not recall that the buildings had substantial amounts of concrete and wallboard? In fact the amount of concrete was measured in thousands of tons. So the ‘gypsum’ is about as mysterious as drinking a six pack of beer and needing to piss.
        And while you are reeking of a nuclear blast, lets have some specifics rather than “some sort”.
        Is this really the way you wish to spend your day ‘Disinfo No.6’? Eggshell in your hair, yoke streaming down your cheek… Hmmm?

      2. I have yet to read a critique of the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’, that actually addresses what the text says. And I would assert that anyone who has actually read the text will recognize very readily that it is a blueprint for world conquest that has indeed taken place, in every particular. It describes the world as it is today. That is not “prophesy”, that is engineering.
        Those who presume that the ‘Elders of Zion’ are simply Jews, have no concept of the nature of political power, nor the breadth of the “Might as Right” doctrine. It is this doctrine that is shared by elites worldwide that is at the core of the ‘Protocols’. One need not be a Jew to embrace this doctrine.

        1. First off, I don’t mention DEW; secondly, why are you conflating me with Judy Woods? Your article in no way, shape or forms disputes the level of radioactive isotopes found at ground zero. I think the only thing absurd is your response.

          1. Dsn6,
            As I suggested that you read the commentary as well as the article, I will only suggest you check back and read: My comment of December 3, 2012 at 3:13 am;
            THE PRAGER PSYOP
            No I do not conflate you with Judy Wood. I address both issues, DEW and Nuclear as is indicated in the title of the thread.
            I am not going to transport that section here for your convenience Dsn6. This entire topic is secondary and a distraction from the main thrust of the article that begins this page. But I will say that I do not dispute “the level of radioactive isotopes found at ground zero.” What I do dispute is your’s and other’s grotesque misinterpretation of those levels.

          2. Just a small clue for you Dsn6, as to the minute amount of tritium even 55 times the amount as asserted by those promoting this nuclear nonsense:
            1 curie (Ci) = 37 gigabecquerel … (µCi) = 37 kilobecquerel (kBq) 1 nanocurie (nCi) = 37 becquerel (Bq) 1 picocurie (pCi) … 0.000 000 001 = 10^-9 = 1 billionth.

          3. Just to make the point absolutely clear:
            Paul Lioy reports: 0.14 pCi. So even at 55 times this figure, you are still billions of becquerels lite of any substantial radiation. This is an infinitely small amount.

  35. Those who cannot grasp the case of what and how of 9/11, can never reach the why and who. The rational mode of investigation is grounded in certain fundamentals; MO, Motive, Means and Opportunity, and especially Cui Bono?
    Those unable or unwilling to apply these standard tools of investigation have had their thinking short circuited, because the 9/11 case is so blatantly a PR Circus. We’ve spoken to the frauds that “officialdom” has squatted to produce for us; the “Commission”, FEMA, NIST, all layers of the so-called “Federal Government” and their ties to the Military Industrial Corporations.
    The system of political power is interlinked as a grid, a matrix. And it has gained “full spectrum dominance” as a direct result of the heavy trauma induced by 9/11. As the Native American’s say; it was “Powerful Medicine”.
    Mr Ruff’s commentary is spot on. The New World Order is and has been here. This is the medium in-which we travel. The “average man” is skating along the breach of the abyss now. The psychosis of this culture is peaking red on any awareness-meter.
    A whole lot of people had better wake up and get their bearings real fast, because the window of opportunity closes as that abyss widens. Homo Vishnu Ignoramus could very well be at the end of their line.
    Then it will be the Free Men against the Terminator. Thus ye shall have bequeathed to your children and their’s for generations to come. This is not a path gone unanticipated by aware thinkers. Nor the ‘In-betweeners” that inevitably steal all ideas for their own vile ends; the drones are off the drawing board and in the field, and the war-zone is Planet Earth in its entirety.
    This much is clear, and the truth about 9/11 is entry level learning to get to the bottom of this and grasp what I just outlined.

  36. I think I am rather clear here. If you can’t read between the lines without me holding your hand through life, than you’re more of a lost cause than I thought.

    1. You may notice that I removed the endearing terms “dickhead” and “douchebag” from your comment. Just calling someone a name is not allowed. I’m not saying I have always removed these types of references, but I’m doing it now. Please save me the trouble and don’t use them. Thanks.

    2. “I think I am rather clear here.”~Dsn6
      Well in a backhanded way you are clear here Dsn6, you make it crystal clear that you do not know what you are talking about, and you can’t even formulate that in clear English.
      I see your low regard for me as more vindication than a curse, rather unintended praise put through the tormented syntax of your distorted view of things.
      You also confuse the terms “then” and “than”. One uses “then” when “it follows”… as your sentence; “..than you’re more of a lost cause than I thought.” The second use of the term is correct.
      This rather than “that”. If you need more help than this, look up the distinctions of the uses of the two terms on the web.

  37. Toadyboyz pretending at being “Truthers” have a tough job. They have to promote bullshit that they very well know to be just that. It certainly must be aggravating and stress inducing.That is why so many seem so high strung, and apt to loose their temper and go off in hot rages of name calling and being just generally pissy.
    Surely we can all get frustrated at times and get hot under the collar. But for those who have to promote some half-ass jive it must be that more problematic to keep ones emotions under control. Both extremes of disinformationists [upfront apologists, and covert actors pretending a “Truther” stance] face the same thing from one degree or another.
    Shall we have pity on their souls? Personally I will leave that up to the gods, whoever they may be.

    1. My feeling about the toady’s is that karma is real and everything counts. They will have to face their punishment for being traitors to humanity one way or another. Karma is a bitch.

        1. Yeah they have but you know as far as I am concerned it is a sign that this blog is doing some real damage. You know when you are catching flak you are over the target.

          1. Wright,
            You still have never given this forum an adequate explanation as to why you are here shilling for the warmongering evil Amerikan Empire. All of us here are aware of your motives and spurious techniques. You aren’t fooling anyone here. Doesn’t it seem rather futile and foolish to continue in such a manner?
            As I have pointed out, your own core self-interests are sabotaged by such short sighted activities. It is a form of suicide to try to protect this psychotic system. You have put all your chips on a loosing hand. It is just a matter of time before the cascading collapse hits and you are flushed down the toilet with the rest of us.

          2. @Hybridrogue1
            The sum total of comments on this forum that I have posted:
            -pointing out that CIT and people who think they have conclusively proven that a plane did not hit the Pentagon are deluding themselves and others because they are using patently illogical arguments. Apparently if I think people are using illogical arguments to make illogical accusations against others I should be silent about it. Or maybe go along with them on the basis that illogical accusations are ok as long as they are made against those you want to accuse.
            -pointing out exactly why their arguments are illogical.
            -defending people who are publically accused of complicity in multiple murders on the basis of illogical arguments. Apparently people are not entitled to a defense.
            -pointing out the spurious and inaccurate information presented by people like Barrie Zwicker and the accusations made against others on the basis of them – should I not point out misleading and inaccurate information? Should the person who presented it not correct it? Apparently not.
            -asking how a controlled demolition of a building using explosives could be done by not cutting the steel – should I not ask that question? Apparently not. When a member of the Board of Directors of AE911truth says the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition explosives but the steel wasn’t cut, I think that question should be asked. Some honest attempt to answer it would be good.
            This is my charge sheet in the trial for crimes against humanity… I am sure I will get a fair trial before judge Ruffadam and the impartial, objective jury of Onesliceshort and Hybridrogue1 & co.

          3. Wright,
            That was a lot of disingenuous rhetoric that STILL does not answer WHY you put so much effort into defending those who are clearly warmongers and liars.
            What is your personal motivation for this campaign of yours? For the sake of “justice”?
            Is that really going to be your claim Wright? The bad men won…they don’t need a defense from some snake charmer on the web. As you know they have an army of agents and private contractors that do this sort of propaganda for them – for pay.
            And again, you speak of “logic”, when you haven’t shown any talent or aptitude in any of your commentary – just the empty use of the term. As if saying it makes it so.
            Why are you doing this Wright? Why would you do it for free when you could be making blood money for it? You rap is highly suspect in light of all I have seen from you here.
            And don’t kid yourself as far as your “charge sheet” … no, you become complicit in all of the crimes of this criminal state acting as an apologist. Those charges are grave. You clearly delude yourself posing as an innocent.

          4. What we are going to do here Wright, is let the candid world judge for itself whether you are logical or spurious in your argumentation.
            And what I mean by ‘candid world’ is, those who can think independently, holistically, and forensically. It may be rare in these days of mass Brainwashing, 24/7 lollipop mainstream media bullshit, and overarching pathological paradigm – but such free thinkers are out there. And despite your type of static of cognitive dissonance, they are beginning to wake up to the dangers of this totalitarian corporatist regime that has us under it’s thumb.

          5. Lol…speaking of the dev…er…toady.
            I’ll be danged if it isn’t Mr Wright returning for another chance to make a limp comment using the Nomenclature of Shillville.
            Beware of the Droids of March.

  38. How to Steal an Airplane: From 9/11 to MH370
    “Question mark headlines musing about the possibility of such a “cyber hijacking” serve to obscure or even deny a very important point. The first such “cyber hijackings” most likely took place over 12 years ago, on September 11th, 2001 using technology that was tested, proven and available long before that infamous date.”~James Corbett

  39. It is surreal comedy noir, your pretensions to logic and reason Wright. What is confounding is that you would think you can be taken seriously. After all that has been revealed of the national security state – that you would brush it all aside, as if none of this blatant prima facea evidence exists is astounding. You are a burlesque, tacky theater; and ridiculous, like some absurd caricature out of Kafka.
    This is not simple ‘insult’ Wright, it is a frank assessment of your turgid rank appeals to nonsense.
    So let us just take two examples of the perpetrators that Wright is defending by his so-called rational analysis; Condolisa Rice and Philip Zelikow:
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    “we never dreamed of planes flying into buildings”~Condi Rice, at 9/11 Hearings
    But of course they “dreamed of planes flying into buildings”, they are the ones that dreamed the whole scenario up. And this statement by Rice is utterly discounted by the fact of the known history of “threats made” thereof and contingency planning to blunt such situations.
    And I shouldn’t have to explain this information to anyone who claims to have a thorough grasp of the issues surrounding the events of 9/11. That Rice was lying through her teeth is without question. Her work with Zelikow was in the very topic of the creation of social myths.
    As we all [should] remember, there were numerous military “exercises” taking place the morning of 9/11/2001. Among these were exercises dealing with planes crashing into buildings. There had been such scenarios “dreamed of” for quite a few years prior to the events of 9/11, and in fact the pilot who supposedly was flying Flt 77,Charles Burlingame was among the participants of these previous exercises.
    The two chairs of the 9/11 Commission itself, complained of, and considered filing charges against the military commanders who gave obvious and glaring conflicting and false testimonies to the panel. Wright continues to deny that there was no air response until after the Pentagon event took place, and continues to charge Barrie Zwicker with lying about the almost 2 hours it took to see any military response. He does this by misrepresenting the issue of the Payne Stewart Lear jet incident.
    I shouldn’t have to give digests of all of the issues we have gone round and round with Wright here on this forum. They are documented on many of the past threads here. And Wright knows very well that his showing has been far from adequate in all of these debates.
    What I have asked of him here is very simple. I ask for what it is that motivates his continued and harassing participation in these discussions. What is his motive? I am not asking for him to reiterate any of his arguments, nor to go on and on with his patent bullshit. I just want a simple explanation as to WHY. He is obviously loath to answer that in any honest way.
    I know that I am not the only one here who is fed up with Wright. And he should accept that the longer he squats here with his putrid gas leak, the more hostile this forum will become to his presence.

    1. @Hybridrogue1
      quote” Wright continues to deny that there was no air response until after the Pentagon event took place, and continues to charge Barrie Zwicker with lying about the almost 2 hours it took to see any military response. He does this by misrepresenting the issue of the Payne Stewart Lear jet incident.”
      ‘The Great Conspiracy’ :
      Barrie Zwicker says Payne Stewart’s jet, in 1999, was intercepted 21 minutes after the first indication there was a problem. It was actually one hour and 21 minutes. It was four times longer that Barrie Zwicker said it took to intercept it.
      Barrie Zwicker says the first hijacking on 911 occurred at 7.45 am and it crashed into the WTC an hour later. The first hijacking occurred at around 8.14 am. He is 100% out in his timing.
      Barrie Zwicker said that by 8.46 am George Bush would have known that four planes had been hijacked and that one had already crashed into the WTC. At 8.46 am there was no indication that any other plane had been hijacked.
      If Barrie Zwicker had been trying to present a more distorted and inaccurate picture of what happened on 911 , and prior to 911, he could hardly have done a better job. But presenting distorted and inaccurate information is one thing, not correcting it when he has had ample time and opportunity to do so is another.
      And now we have more distortion, ‘there was no air response until after the Pentagon event’ .

      1. I cite my comment of March 23, 2014 – 3:34 PM {and the other posts of equally substantial remarks}, as a sufficient rebuttal to Wright’s assertions in his comment of March 27, 2014 – 6:24 PM
        And remind once more that Mr Wright is dealing out bullshit, and he has had ample time to correct his position.

      2. I will make one additional point. This is the last time Wright gets even a slight response beyond reminding that he is full of shit, as he continues to make commentary here without answering the most basic question of all – WHY he is making these spurious arguments. And now the question is even heavier as his refusal to answer for such a length of time becomes the most suspicious of all of his unsavory attributes.

    2. As this issue of the Payne Stewart Lear Jet has been debated to exhaustion on another thread, let me put this as simply as possible:
      Wright is focused upon a footnote. He is stressing his interpretation of the data as if there is no controversy of the actual time. But there is controversy as to which time zone to consider if we look at it from the responding fighter jets originating time zone, or the time zone of the sighting. This is where complexity arises. But as I point out, this is a trivial matter regardless, it was not a national emergency situation. The matters of essence are the events that actually took place in the lack of air response on 9/11.
      As is outlined here in several of my postings, I will only point out that Wright avoids taking those points for dispute, but remains fixated on the Stewart flight. It is this sort of handwaving and cherrypicking what he will and will not address, his continued melodramatic rhetorical garbage, and his lack of a statement of purpose that make up his MO. Clearly the MO of a corporatist stooge.

      1. @Hybridrogue1
        You are the one who brought up the Payne Stewart incident again. Barrie Zwicker is the one who brought it up in his webcast , to illustrate what happened pre-911, and then to compare it with what happened on 911. There is no controversy about the time it took to intercept Payne Stewart’s plane. It took one hour and 21 minutes.
        As you can see he also presented inaccurate and distorted information about what happened on the day of 911 itself.

        1. For the Benefit of The General Readership of this Forum:
          Loss of Oxygen Cited as Possible Cause of Jet’s Wayward Flight, Crash
          Lynn Lunsford
          KRTBN Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News: The Dallas Morning News – Texas
          Copyright (C) 1999 KRTBN Knight Ridder Tribune Business News; Source: World Reporter (TM)
          “MINA, S.D.–A Dallas-bound Learjet carrying U.S. Open golf champion Payne Stewart knifed nose-first into a grassy field southwest of Mina, S.D., on Monday after a ghostly ramble across America with no one at the controls….
          ….There was some speculation Monday that the military jets were prepared to shoot down the Lear if it threatened to crash in a heavily populated area. But officials at the Pentagon strongly denied that possibility.
          Shooting down the plane “was never an option,” Air Force spokesman Capt. Joe Della Vedova said. “I don’t know where that came from.”
          Instead, according to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact.
          An F-16 and an A-10 Warthog attack plane from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., took up the chase a few minutes later and were trailing the Lear when it climbed abruptly from 39,000 to 44,000 feet at 9:52 a.m. CDT.”
          ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
          Again the proximate source of this report:
          KRTBN Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News: The Dallas Morning News – Texas Copyright (C) 1999 KRTBN Knight Ridder Tribune Business News; Source: World Reporter (TM) – Staff writers Terri Langford, Kathy Lewis and Richard Whittle and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
          . . . . . . . . . . . .
          Clearly this report does not originate with Zwicker, or Griffin, or Webster Tarpley, or Nafeez Ahmed – but in fact with Knight Ridder Tribune Business News.
          Clearly there has been a revision to the story at some time later. Which story are we to trust, the original reports? – with the military itself claiming “an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact.
          Or a later version? One I would point out is not easily found or the date it first appeared verifiable; as the incident only took on greater importance after 9/11, how can it be proven that the revision didn’t take place later in a “Memory Hole” operation by the ‘Ministry of Truth’?
          To blithely claim that there is no controversy here is disingenuous. To blame Barry Zwicker of deceit for reporting from sources considered ‘papers of record’ is underhanded bullshit. To automatically assume that the historical revision is the correct version is a matter of bias.
          AND; one last time, regardless of all else – this issue is but a footnote, a peripheral matter, as it is not part of the actual 9/11 military response timeline. It is those issues that are of the essence.

          1. @Hybridrogue1
            The NTSB report into the crash of the Learjet was completed in Nov 2000. In ‘The Great Deception’ Barrie Zwicker refers to the NTSB report and he shows it on the screen where you can read it. It says the pilot failed to respond at 9.33 EDT and the plane was intercepted at 9.54 CDT , which is not 21 minutes later, but one hour and 21 minutes later. Mr. Zwicker also puts on screen a report that is apparently a press report, where he has partly underlined
            ‘Pentagon officials say the military began it’s pursuit of the ghostlike …aircraft at 10.08 am.’
            Beginning their pursuit at 10.08 am they couldn’t intercept it at 9.54 am unless it refered to CDT. The 9.54 time is CDT as it says in the NTSB report ,and not EDT. The plane failed to respond at 9.33 EDT (= 8.33 CDT) and was intercepted at 10.54 EDT (= 9.54 CDT). It took one hour and 21 minutes.

          2. The KRTBN Knight-Ridder Tribune report was the very next day after the crash, 10/26/1999. This conflicts with the Nov 2000 NTSB report. That is what is called controversy. The first report is called proximate information and has weight because it states first responses. The second report by NTSB can be said to have weight because it has gathered more information in the interim. But that interim may have had political considerations that can only be guessed at, but nevertheless cannot be automatically discounted.
            So, we are left with a controversy {which you deny} that must be resolved by our experience with investigative bodies, the fairly regular political influences, and a paradigm constructed on the deceit of a national security state.
            However, if for the sake of argument, I propose that it is possible that the NTSB Report is on the up and up…then what? As I have noted before, this is not an incident that happened on 9/11 – it is a footnote of history and nothing more than that. You still have to account for the utter failure of air response on 9/11. This is the meat of the issue.
            You may not make unfair charges against Mr Zwicker and others who cited Associated Press. If you have a problem with their initial report, complain to them and Knight-Ridder.
            >>Do not take this post as abdicating my position on the Stewart Learjet – I said “for the sake of argument” – I mean nothing more than precisely that.
            Now, you have at this very moment your very last chance to make an explanation for your efforts here. What do you gain in all of this effort? It has already been observed that the bulk of your argumentation is simply rhetorical bullshit. So don’t give us any of that in your answer as to why you are here Wright. And make that your next post if you wish to have any more responses from us here.

          3. @Hybridrogue1
            Barrie Zwicker was not referring to press reports. As you can see from ‘The Great Deception’ he was referring to the NTSB report. He put it up on screen and it can be read there. He misread it, as did the author of that other article, thinking the 9.33 time and the 9.54 time were from the same time zone.
            Barrie Zwicker is the one who attached significance to the Payne Stewart incident, citing it as an example of what would happen prior to 9/11 and how quickly and efficiently the military would normally respond. He then goes on to 9/11 and contrasts that with the response on that day. He got the Payne Stewart details totally wrong. He was then under the false impression, a false impression he relayed to his viewers, that there was some major contrast with what happened on 9/11. He then compounded that by mis-describing what happened on 9/11, with this mantra he keeps repeating that ‘In a drama in the skies that lasted almost two hours, not a single U.S. interceptor turned a wheel, until it was too late’, and ‘There were not jets at all. It’s a matter of historical record’. Those are totally misleading and inaccurate statements. The minute the military were informed about AA 11 – thanks to an ATC supervisor speeding things up by bypassing the normal procedures- pilots were told to suit up and get ready for a scramble order. As they went to their planes the battle stations order came in. The scramble order arrived a few minutes later, before the WTC1 was struck. They were in the air and heading for New York , trying to find a plane that was no longer there , and unaware there was another plane suspected of being hijacked, when that plane hit the other tower. There was nothing anyone could, or should, have done about the first plane , and nothing that could have been done about the second one either. To describe that as ‘not a single U.S interceptor turning a wheel until it- was too late ‘ is a misrepresentation of the facts. Given the outright accusations he levels at people on the basis of those misrepresentations of the facts then any good journalist should first of all get their basic facts right and then not misrepresent them to others.
            I never said Barrie Zwicker was lying or trying to deceive people.
            Barrie Zwicker is the one who should at least be addressing this and he has the opportunity to do so on this forum.

          4. Ahh…so A Wright has chosen once again to give us a load of bullshit.
            So be it, it is now cemented, Wright is full of shit.
            “Hasta la vista, baby” ~ The Terminator

  40. I was fed up with Wright a long time ago and want nothing to do with him/her/it. All I have to say AGAIN is karma is real and everything counts. He/she/it will answer for complicity in the criminal cover-up of 9/11 and the price will be high!
    As far as his/her/its BS arguments from incredulity and disingenuous stream of verbal vomit, he/she/it can stick it where the sun don’t shine. Anyone who can’t or won’t adhere to any sort of debate rules on a forum like this is not worth the time to read. Refuse to answer our questions or adress our arguments in a meaningful way then I refuse to acknowledge that you even exist A.Wright. I am NEVER going to play your shitty little game.
    You are a disingenuous troll here to waste our time and spread disinformation on behalf of mass murderers. That makes you about the lowest form of life on the planet and a traitor to humanity in my estimation. Next time you look a child in the face remember that you betrayed that child and helped the killers of millions of children to cover-up their crimes so they could continue commiting more. You disgust me A.Wright in every way possible.
    If you are getting paid to do this then please extend to your employers my sincere ill will towards them and let them know I will work til my last breath to bring them down. If you are not getting paid to do this then please accept my sincere ill will towards you and know I will work til my last breath to bring you and your kind down. Tell the Amazing Randy and Penn and Teller to kiss my ass next time you are on JREF and let them know they are cowards for refusing to publicly debate 9/11. Absolute cowards and traitors to their fellow humans.

    1. Summary
      “September 11, 2001, was a quite remarkable day for the air defense system of the United States.
      The key people responsible for managing a hijacking were absent from their command posts right in the crucial hours.
      Important telephone and radio connections didn´t work until after the attacks were over.
      A hijacked plane disappeared in a radar gap, and nobody is willing to explain.
      A wargame projecting a hijacking was taking place simultaneously.
      The airbase that should have protected the capital was not able to send fighter jets within an hour of time.
      Interceptors from alert bases were scrambled with unexplained delays and then diverted several times.In short, a whole set of highly improbable events occurred simultaneously on that morning.”
      Absence of command authority
      The specific people who should have managed the air defense on 9/11 were absent precisely while the attacks were occurring. Even though they were available in the days before and after the attack, they were missing exactly in the crucial hours of the hijackings.
      For better understanding, this is what the protocol said before 9/11 in case of a hijacking:
      The air traffic controllers realizing the hijacking would inform their superiors, who in turn would alert the Hijack Coordinator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Hijack Coordinator would call the Pentagon, more precisely the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO) in the National Military Command Center (NMCC). The DDO in coordination with the Secretary of Defense then would give orders to NORAD, which would scramble fighter jets to intercept the hijacked plane. 1
      So the top people responsible would be:
       the FAA´s Hijack Coordinator
       the DDO in the NMCC
       the Secretary of Defense
      On 9/11 all three were absent from their command posts in the crucial hours between 8:14 a.m. (first hijacking) and 10:03 (last crash).
      Michael Canavan, the Hijack Coordinator of the FAA (and former Special Forces General) was not in the office but had flown to Puerto Rico;
      Lynne Osmus, his Deputy, arrived in the office only after all the planes had crashed
      General Montague Winfield, the NMCC DDO (who in 2012 became Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense), was not at his post between 8:30 and 10:00 a.m.; Captain Charles Joseph Leidig, his Deputy, had just qualified for being DDO one month before; General Winfield had asked him the afternoon before if he would sit in as DDO from 8:30 on; Winfield returned to his post only after all planes had crashed.
      Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stayed away from the NMCC, too, and arrived there no sooner than 10:30 a.m., after all planes had crashed.
      This seemingly well-timed absence of key people is still unexplained. It obstructed the air defense effectively.”
      ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
      Why was there no air response on 9/11? Yes there are conflicting stories claiming various responses. However none of these add up, nor do they matter as none were effective, even if they did occur. What is most obvious to the diligent researcher is that the air response was purposely interfered with and conflicted by the high military command.

  41. @Adam Ruff
    I see you don’t think much of me for defending people falsely accused. I see you also don’t think much of the idea that people accused -falsely or otherwise- are entitled to a defense. Thank you Judge Ruff. You would have been in your element in former centuries where people were placed before a court with just a prosecutor accusing them and no one to defend them. And a jury and a judge hand picked for their prejudice. You would fit the bill perfectly. And you fit in perfectly today with the 911 ‘Truth’ (as opposed to truth) Movement where people are publicly accused of complicity in mass murder ,on the internet, with the very idea that anyone would actually present a counter argument, regarded as reprehensible. Not only reprehensible but regarded as evidence of their guilt! How awful to spoil your freewheeling lynch mob mentality. Lynch mobs hate it when someone in the crowd says something other than what the mob are saying. They hate that. They usually turn on the people who say it (see your obnoxious cretinous post above). I also see you know nothing whatever about me but, well, accusing people without evidence comes as second nature to you. As long as it preserves your self-image as the knight-in-shining-armour titling against the nefarious windmills. I realise that’s the most important thing for you.
    You may now get back on your high horse and ride back onto the moral high ground with your pompous nose in the air, but take care you don’t strain yourself patting yourself on the back for being such a moral paragon.

    1. “I also see you know nothing whatever about me but, well, accusing people without evidence comes as second nature to you.”~Wright to Mr Ruff
      What in the *fuck are you talking about Wright? What do you mean that Adam knows “nothing whatever about” you whatever? That is as wanky a load as you have ever spewed here. Certainly, we know your MO as an apologist for the warmongering state. What? do we need to know your height, weight, the color of your eyes? Only the arresting parties would need that information Wright.
      {* ‘If you can’t say Fuck you can’t say, Fuck the government.’~Lenny Bruce}
      Accusing you “without evidence”? This blog is full of your sick apologia for the mass murdering bastards that did 9/11.
      And throughout all of this continued blather you puke here, you STILL will not give a valid reason for your continuing presence here. You are the one that knows what your motivation is. Are you then going to claim the “knight-in-shining-armour” pose you just laid on Mr Ruff?
      You say that these people we are accusing of planning and carrying out 9/11 are “innocent”. That is a stretch, a spurious claim in view of all of the evidence so far compiled against them. This is not a court of law Wright. This forum is composed of an investigative committee, not prosecutors. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a standard reserved for courts of law, not blog sites. All that is demanded here is reason, and rational argumentation. Both of which have been sorely missing in your commentary.
      You open with “I see you don’t think much of me for defending people falsely accused.”
      How do you KNOW that these are false accusation Wright? Where does such certainty arise in your mind? Who appointed you as ‘public defender’ in this case? That is the issue we are trying to discern here hot shot.
      If we assume you have a job, that leaves just your off hours for this petty propaganda campaign you are waging here. But you put a lot of effort into all of this – years according to my experience in dealing with you. This is why it is natural to suspect that you are in the pay of the corporatists. Although you aren’t capable of making a reasonable argument, you are still quite handy at your rhetorical shitcraft. That is just the type of operator that gets the types of job, doing ‘Cognitive Dissonance” distraction PR.
      So; who appointed you public defender Wright?

    2. You are a brazen disinformationist A.Wright I will say that about you. Lloyd England has every opportunity in the world to defend himself. He was not falsely accused of anything troll, he hung himself with his own words. His story doesn’t add up at all and all CIT did was expose that. You are a disingenuous scumbag for trying to paint that guy as an innocent victim; he was CLEARLY in on the plot to stage evidence at the Pentagon. You are absolute scum for trying to twist the truth to that degree and your crap doesn’t wash AT ALL. Lloyd England can contact anyone he wants, press or lawyers or otherwise, to clear his name. The reason he doesn’t do it is because he is involved in the staging of evidence and he got caught. He got caught because of his own big fat mouth and his own stupidity. If Lloyd was brought into a court of law and forced to explain his impossible story under oath he would go straight to jail for perjury.
      Why don’t you take us truthers to court for slander against Lloyd huh, why doesn’t Lloyd? You could defend him yourself or get a lawyer for him to sue us all. See how long you stand up in court smart ass. Neither you nor any of your JREFer scumbag traitor friends will start up a defense fund for poor old Lloyd, why not huh? Surely you could prove slander in court right Wright? Give it a try big shot, see how well your phony indignation plays out in a real court where we get to speak and show the evidence. I got news for you troll, it is never going to happen because Lloyd’s story is as bogus as a three dollar bill. Hell Lloyd’s story is about as believable as you are as a “truth seeker”. Oh one tip for your case against us Wright in order to prove slander what we say about Lloyd has to be a lie.
      Your phony indignation is laughable troll, absolutely laughable.

      1. That confirms what I suspected – that you think
        1: it is reprehensible to defend someone publicly accused of involvement in multiple murder – only a scumbag would stoop to such a thing.
        2: Adam Ruff & co. can accuse people of involvement in multiple murder, but only a scumbag would present evidence that they are not.
        3: You think ,as CIT do ,that someone can be declared guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in a public forum , without the evidence that they are not guilty being presented to those judging the evidence, or ‘the newbees’ as Adam Syed calls them. How dare they ‘muddy the waters’.
        4: A court of law consists of presenting a prosecution case
        5: In a court of law a witness who contradicts other witnesses is therefore guilty of perjury.
        6: Proving something involves taking evidence for it and then dismissing the evidence against it on the grounds that it has already been proven.
        If Lloyde england was brought before a court of law , what evidence would the jury be allowed to hear? Would they be allowed to hear all the evidence from all of the witnesses or would that evidence be withheld from them, only hearing the evidence chosen by you or Craig Ranke? Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard used in a court of law. It is also the standard used in National Security Alert. The same standard of proof, but NSA contains practically none of the evidence that would be presented to a jury. That tells you everything you need to know about it. NSA presents a case to ‘the newbees’ watching it and not only ignores 95% of the evidence but doesn’t even think it needs to suggest that the evidence even exists. Talk about misleading people.
        p.s. Why don’t you make a citizen’s arrest of Lloyde England?

        1. “2: Adam Ruff & co. can accuse people of involvement in multiple murder, but only a scumbag would present evidence that they are not.”~A Wright
          No this is not the case Wright. You have in fact presented zero evidence that they are not guilty. You have offered rhetorical nonsense and call it “evidence”. You also ignore the prima facea evidence that we have supplied in abundance here, presenting no sensible counter argument. And reiterating the details of this must at this point come to an end. For too long we have suffered your blithering bullshit. The time has come to simply leave it at that; you have nothing to offer here but bullshit.

          1. Let it be noted Mr Ruff,
            That Wright steadfastly refuses to answer the question of why he is here doing this pro-totalitarian propaganda. He continues to spew essentially the same bullshit over and again. A blatantly obvious PRbot who won’t admit he has been pegged.

  42. At 9:36 NEADS received the message that a plane was 6 miles from the White House. That was the plane that would crash into the Pentagon in the following minute. According to the 9/11 Commisson Report Major Nasypany discovered only then and „to his surprise“ that the Langley fighters had flown in the wrong direction for already 6 minutes. 44 When his Weapons Controller Steve Citino then tried to call them directly, he was unsuccessful. Allegedly they were out of reach over the ocean.
    At 9:37 one of the Langley pilots contacted NEADS and asked for confirmation of the (wrong) course to the east. 46 That meant „Giant Killer“ had definitely not forwarded the requested redirection – for unknown reasons. NEADS instantly gave the correct heading to the Langley pilots (call sign: „Quit“) but got only this response from a nearby flying refueling tanker plane: „We are relaying to Quit 25, they can´t hear you.“ Only at 9:38 could a radio connection be established between NEADS and the pilots – precisely one minute after (!) the crash at the Pentagon. Only then the pilots learned that they should have flown to the Washington area right from the beginning – and finally turned.
    Major Nasypany had a hard time understanding all this. „Why‘d they go out there?“, he asked his people, according to the tape recordings. One of his controllers answered: “Because Giant Killer sent them out there.“
    [See: NEADS Tapes, Channel 2, 9:39; „NYC Box 3 Neads-conr-norad Fdr- Transcript- Neads Channel 2 Mcc Upside 006“, p. 37
    “Giant Killer“, the responsible control facility, deleted all its tapes from the communication on 9/11. This was done routinely, as Commission staff member Miles Kara claimed.
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    No, what is done routinely is to present these blatantly obvious obstructions as plausible. As if it is conceivable that anyone would view the events of 9/11 as in any way “routine”. As if it is remotely possible for anyone directly involved to simply erase the record of their participation in the events of that day – and claim it was just routine.
    And this is just another in the countless loads of bullshit the authorities have shoveled out in their ‘official narrative’.

  43. What I have related above is not all of the “coincidences” occurring in the time frame of the 9/11 events.
    It should be more than obvious that anyone swallowing the official narrative is much too reliant on ‘Coincidence Theory’ – in fact, to the point of statistical absurdity. The official story is “the dog ate my homework” repeated countless times with the smiling hypocrisy of hyenas.

  44. Anticipating the angle of “Plausible Deniability” that Wright is bound to use as an excuse for haunting 9/11 sites, which would be that he is simply doing it for the sake of justice, and to “defend the innocent”; is not a convincing proposition.
    At the core of this position would be that these so-called “innocent” parties would be in someway dissuaded from their agenda. But that is one of the material evidences against these people; the fact that their stated aims for producing a “New Pearl Harbor” was to effect the results we see today. There has been no hindrance to their agenda in any way whatsoever.
    So what is the point in seeking “justice” wherein those who enjoy the success of their adventures already?
    And what are the results of such successes by the PNAC group and their associates? The brutal “constabulary duties” as envisioned in their planning document is and has been borne by the contrived enemies chosen for their full spectrum domination. And those “enemies” of this state are not only those in foreign lands, but the domestic western populations as well.
    It is therefore quite obvious that the “justice” that our visiting stooge is speaking to is the inverted Orwellian version of Newspeak and Doublethink.
    This too shows that we are dealing with the classic totalitarian paradigm of Orwell’s 1984, and Wright is playing a bit part as one of the legions of stooges and thugs attempting to break the bonds of dissidents.
    This leaves Wright little wiggle room, to narrow the issues to this rational analysis. Wright is a insignificant PRbot, a cog in a larger machine burying the planet in bullshit.

    Let’s return to Dr. Garcia’s physics tutorial. In the section called “Problem 1 Force
    Balance” he considers the force due to the “upper block” of a WTC tower (defined as the
    part of the building above where the airplane struck) pushing downward on the rest of the
    building. He uses Newton’s 2nd Law of motion (F = ma, where “F” is force, “m” is mass,
    and “a” is acceleration) to set up equations for the dynamic force that would be imparted
    to the lower part of the building in the event that all vertical support members between
    two of the floors (nominally at the airplane-strike level) should instantaneously lose all of
    their strength. He concludes this section with a tautology: “Clearly, the lower structure
    will crumble when F is greater than the maximum force it can support…”
    Clearly. But what IS the maximum force the lower structure can support? Dr. Garcia
    never tells us, and I suspect he doesn’t know. This is a classic prelude to a “proof by
    ~David L Griscom Ph.D. in Physics, Brown University, 1966.
    Fellow, American Physical Society.

  46. Now, I want to finalize this dissertation against the oinkage presented by A Wright on this forum. And I want it understood, that the final assessment of this provocateur is simply;
    “A. Wright is full of shit.” It may sound crass, but it is so. As the argument becomes complete, there will be no reason to say anything more to Mr. Wright than the final assessment.
    So let it be understood that the investigation into 9/11 cannot be undertaken in a vacuum, as if each element is not linked directly to all others in the case. Nor can an argument be said to be reasonable if it does not factor both history and consequences as aspects that bear on the case.
    In 2005, a full three years before my first encounter with A. Wright, it was determined with finality that both the NIST Report, and the 9/11 Commission Report were politically motivated frauds – dissembling whitewashes of systemic complicity in the events of 9/11.
    My first arguments with Wright began on COTO2 in 2008. His argumentation was the same dizzy bullshit as we have encountered here. By this time this much was crystal clear since 2005, by these admissions from NIST:
    “Objective 1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft (p xxxvii/39)”
    The extent of NIST’s explanation for the totality of the collapses and their many demolition-like features is simply that the total collapse was “inevitable” once a collapse event was “initiated”. A footnote in the Executive Summary reads:
    The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p xxxvii/39)
    The footnote is a re-worded version of a paragraph in the text of the Report’s Draft, which read:
    “… although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p xxxvii/39 of Draft)”
    That adjustment reflects the addition of a half-page section entitled “Events Following Collapse Initiation,” that combines a vague rendition of the pile-driver theory with incomplete, circular, and straw-man arguments against the demolition hypothesis. The addition of this section does not change the fact that NIST did not attempt to model, or characterize in any meaningful way the collapses.
    For simplicity let us just put these two short items, directly from NIST itself:
    >“Objective 1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft (p xxxvii/39)”
    >“… although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p xxxvii/39 of Draft)”
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    It is clear to any sane individual that NIST did not fulfill Objective 1.
    Any claims that this was a full and complete scientific investigation are utterly without merit.
    To the contrary, NIST produced a pseudo-scientific fraud of criminal proportions, and those who propagate this fraud are complicit in this criminal enterprise.

  47. As an addendum to my closing remarks above, I added this comment to a reposting of those remarks on my own blog. And as predicted, Wright has responded as I anticipated:
    . . . . . . . . . . . .
    >And now, after posting this on Truth and Shadows, we leave Wright with only one avenue of escape, a narrow alley really. All he has left to mew is more of the same type of melodramatic twaddle such as he wrote to Adam Ruff earlier in the tread. Blooming rhetorical turds, empty of all substance. Or perchance one of his sudden disappearing acts.
    . . . . . . . . . . . .
    You would be better off with a disappearing act Wright, the melodramatic twaddle has grown stale.

  48. Isn’t Amerika lucky that the Soviets never attacked? The multi-billion dollar defense system showed how utterly incompetent it was on 9/11. At least that is the tale told to protect the conspirators from one side of their mouths. It is called “plausible deniability” … but then there is the other side of the mouth with it’s jingoberry flag waving “greatest country on earth” bullshit – and through cognitive dissonance the twain shall never meet.
    But at some point the rational person must ask, “which is it?” Is Amerika led by idiots that can barely chew gum and walk at the same time? Or is Amerika ruled by crooks who make up any story to fit the circumstance of the day to their favor?
    I would say that the bank accounts and power of influence of Amerika’s rulers should tell us rather decisively which is the truth of the matter.
    Now, my last entry as per the issue of the Payne Stewart Lear Jet:
    We have yet one more coincidence to add to the pile, in that the original press reports claim a 20 minute military response time. The The NTSB report now available on the web was archived on February 15, 2004. The 9/11 Commission {which cites the NTSB report briefly} was issued in July of 2004. As there are so many known shenanigans committed by the commission, it is hardly a stretch to posit that this NTSB report on the Stewart crash was tampered with and revised sometime in 2004 as part of the rest of the manipulations manufactured by the authorities.

  49. There comes a point in investigation where ‘circumstantial evidence’ combines into such weight that it becomes ‘substantial evidence’. The context entails reckoning with long strings of ‘coincidence’ that become simply impossible statistically.
    9/11 is such a case, wherein coincidences are piled to the rafters. Adding the weight of these to the weight of actual substantive evidence produces a case that is in fact beyond the jurisprudence of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ to the point of near certitude that the official narrative is simply a tissue of lies.
    Having taken it upon myself to follow and study these issues from the very day that the events took place, I have come to such a conclusion of near certitude; for all practical purposes I am indeed certain that the events of 9/11 were the result of systemic forces, and that these forces remain and grow more dangerous each day.
    As I argued as long ago as 2008, there is no debate. The debate is over. All of the arguments and apologies for the official story have been destroyed. It is now up to the deluded now to open their eyes to see this.
    Of course, attendant to this logic, comes the realization that the so-called “War on Terror” is in fact a hoax, that it is a War Of Terror by those who propagate this hoax. And this is a very thinly veiled prospect considering the openly disclosed agenda of ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’.
    So to all the chumps out there wallowing in their cognitive dissonance, all I can say is: Welcome to the New World Order.

  50. Wright asks the question – “If Lloyde england was brought before a court of law, what evidence would the jury be allowed to hear? Would they be allowed to hear all the evidence from all of the witnesses or would that evidence be withheld by you and Craig Ranke” –
    Wright asks as if we, the jury, hadn’t already heard enough to know the commission most certainly ‘withheld’ evidence countering England and OCT.
    Wright suggests that evidence would have to be withheld from ‘the jury’ for any prosecution of England as a professional liar to succeed. Rather than the other way round.
    ENGLAND’s narrative only stands as anything atall BECAUSE evidence to contest it has been ‘withheld’ by the conspiracy state. England’s narrative is current only because it is protected and remains uncontested in any court.
    Just as the creatioNIST ‘normal office furnishings fires/FREE FALL’ agnotology contested by the NY initiative, is protected : “input and all results files of the ANSYS 16-story Case B collapse initiation model, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file and all spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities” : have been WITHHELD from independent and 911court scrutiny.
    Lloyde England’s narrative would be heard with ALL evidence; most especially with respect to evidence of North of Citgo Flight path and dissected as part of PENTBOM conspiracy narrative.

  51. The real issue that can be proven is the structural core was misrepresented to everyone.
    A mock up of the newsweek page before an infiltration into newsweek falsified the truth.
    The safety report on the WTC site from a structural engineer certified in 12 states.
    The last analysis of “collapse” from Bazant et. al. Where they finally, at least, get the right core structure mentioned in the report.
    Communications with Ted Walter’s regarding the last referendum.

    1. Ahh but every night and day I sarute the frag and say, thank you Jesus ’cause I’m…
      I’m a secret Asian man!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *