By Craig McKee
Sometimes it seems like it takes more energy to understand the 9/11 Truth movement than it does to understand 9/11.
While you often see contentious and aggressive debates on line between truthers and those who support the official story, you’re just as likely to get such exchanges between two people who claim to believe 9/11 was an inside job.
Understandably, science is often touted by truthers and official-story-believers alike as being essential to evaluating 9/11 evidence. And this makes perfect sense. Why should we accept someone’s gut feeling when we can quantify something?
Looking at melting points, collapse times, and jet fighter velocities are what’s going to dazzle the millions of regular people who are just waiting to hear the latest 9/11 research. Right? We wouldn’t want to say anything that can’t be verified scientifically, would we? We mustn’t question any word out of a witness’s mouth unless it’s to apply a mathematical formula to it.
There are many people in the 9/11 Truth movement who possess real scientific knowledge that is vital in trying to find the truth. Their knowledge of physics and chemistry far exceeds my own. My training and experience are not in the field of engineering but rather in the field of journalism.
As a journalist, I have had to cover stories on a wide variety of topics. It was my job to learn enough to ask the right questions and then to try and put all I’d learned into some kind of perspective. I was used to dealing with people who had agendas, and who weren’t always telling me the truth. Gut feelings were actually pretty important. Of course, I couldn’t base an article just on a feeling, but I could pursue a line of inquiry based on a feeling that the truth was being hidden.
If you don’t have any instincts about what you’re being fed by people who claim they have the truth, you’re toast. No journalist can function without some ability to assess what they’ve learned and to help their readers to understand it.
Then we come to 9/11.
I began this blog very conscious of wanting to help people who weren’t experts on the subject to better understand what happened. If possible, I wanted to open their eyes to what I’d come to believe. I also wanted to be able to advance the story even for those who have followed the research for years. This is a work in progress; I’m learning something new every day.
I’ve come to suspect, however, that most of the people who read this already know what they think. But that’s okay; writing for them gives me a challenge. I know that anything I say that is incorrect will be pointed out immediately. Kind of exciting, actually.
But if you accept what a lot of people say on web sites and forums about 9/11, you’d think that you’d better be a scientist or else you should pack up and go home. I really think this is wrong. I think we need the scientists as well as the people who can look at the big picture – maybe even provide some political analysis.
Barrie Zwicker’s book Towers of Deception is a great example of a piece of work that may not break any new scientific ground, but which provides an analysis that advanced my understanding of the mechanisms behind 9/11 significantly. You don’t need a computer to understand what he’s saying, you need an open mind.
This idea that if we say anything controversial about what happened on Sept. 11 we’re making the movement look ridiculous is way overstated if not completely wrong. Some people believe God lives in a spaceship. Does that make your local minister, priest or rabbi look like a fool?
Sometimes science is used in 9/11 Truth discussions disingenuously to block debate about events when common sense is what’s needed.
One of the elements of the official story of the alleged Pentagon plane impact is the propelling of a light pole into the windshield of Lloyde England’s cab after the pole was supposedly struck by Flight 77, a Boeing 757 that is supposed to have gone on to hit the Pentagon.
On the 9/11 forum 911oz.net, I had an exchange with someone about the believability of England’s story, which doesn’t seem to have been witnessed by anyone (witnesses are vital when they support your side of the story, but not so important when there aren’t any).
Was I at the Pentagon that day? Nope. Do I have video tape showing what happened to the cab that day? Nope. Do I think that pole went through that windshield? Not a freaking chance.
Can I explain why it’s impossible the way a physics professor would? Maybe not, yet. I may not fully understand why gravity works the way it does, but I know I’m not going to float away anytime soon. And after watching Mr. England interviewed in the film Eye of the Storm by Citizen Investigation Team, I don’t think he’s telling us the whole truth.
I don’t think Mike Walter is telling us the whole truth, and I don’t for a second believe the 757’s wings “folded in” and followed the rest of the plane into the Pentagon. The idea that the plane hit the building is absolutely ridiculous based on the available information. If I’m wrong, let’s see those video tapes.
I think there’s something very fishy about Theresa Renaud, wife of a CBS producer, saying to Bryant Gumbel on 9/11 that she didn’t know if anything hit the North Tower and then seconds later saying that another plane hit another tower. Do I need a lie detector test before I can be suspicious?
I’m not saying verifiable proof isn’t the best confirmation of something, I’m saying it shouldn’t be used to block discussion and exploration of what happened. To say the Truth movement should ignore the Pentagon because we don’t know what happened is nuts in my book.
Some contributors to 911 forums demand scientific proof when it helps them to deflect attention from a valid question. Then, when it suits them, they tell us what they THINK. Double standards abound.
***
I know I said last week I would write about the David Chandler and Jonathan Cole attack on CIT, but my schedule just didn’t allow me to give this the time that it deserves, especially in light of the statement by architect Richard Gage that he no longer supports CIT’s research. I’ll try to address both in my next post. Promise.
Tuesday 2/15/11 Richard Gage from architects for 911 truth
http://www.ae911truth.org/ will be joining Doc on Hardtail News 6pm pst at
9 est http://www.thewatchmen.FM to discuss 911 events and building 7 collapse and its cover up …
Richard Gage has appeared on 151 radio networks and many speaking
engagements the mission of ae911truth.org is Architects & Engineers for
9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is a non-profit corporation. We are a
non-partisan association of architects, engineers and affiliates
dedicated to exposing the falsehoods and to revealing truths about the
“collapses” of the 3 World Trade Center high-rises on September 11,
2001.
Our organization is devoted to:
¦ Dispelling misinformation with scientific facts and forensic evidence
¦ Educating and motivating thousands of architects and engineers and the public at large
¦ Procuring a truly independent 9/11 investigation with subpoena power
¦ Achieving 9/11 Truth mainstream media coverage
A lingering technical question about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks still haunts some, and it has political implications: How did 200,000 tons of steel disintegrate and drop in 11 seconds? A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center
join us
Craig, if Lloyde was a plant put in place by a military psy-op to lend credence to the notion that the plane hit the light poles, then why did they give him an unbelievable story? Couldn’t the sophisticated script-writers at the Department of Homeland Disinfo have done a better job? Or is there some reason they want to leave clues all over the the citizen investigators to grab on to?
If you look at the structure of the wings, it’s obvious that they will fold up. When the shoulder of the wing hits the wall, the two main spars are taken out. That leaves only one spar, which does not alone have the lateral strength to prevent the wing from folding.
By all means, deconstruct Ms. Renaud’s statement. But just on the face of it I can explain it like this: She saw an explosion at the north tower but did not see the aircraft. Then she saw the aircraft approach the south tower, saw a similar explosion, and revised her position to conclude that the first explosion was an airplane too. Running around accusing all the witnesses of being conspirators makes us look like knee-jerk conspiracists. In general I avoid accusing witnesses of lying unless I can prove it.
I don’t know why the whole England thing was cooked up. Is it possible not everything went as planned?
You said: “Or is there some reason they want to leave clues all over the the citizen investigators to grab on to?”
That sounds like you’re agreeing it could have been a fabricated story. Did I misinterpret? And wouldn’t that make Lloyde untruthful?
Sorry, it’s anything but obvious to me that the wings will fold. In fact it makes no sense. In fact it sounds like a joke. I think you’re just saying this to back up Mike Walter. If he hadn’t come out with this bizarre claim (which initially he said he couldn’t see clearly because of trees), I doubt you’d be arguing it now. You haven’t explained why Dewdney and Longspaugh’s analysis of the wing impact is nonsense.
On Ms. Renaud. Have you seen the footage? There’s no way what you’re suggesting is true. She says she doesn’t know “what caused it or if there was an impact” about the North Tower impact (DIDN’T KNOW WHAT CAUSED IT). At that precise moment the South Tower is hit. She immediately exclaims, “Another plane has hit another building. Explosion.” No time to “revise.”
And I didn’t say anyone was a conspirator. I said I didn’t believe her account. I still don’t. I don’t believe England’s either. I’m not saying I can read minds, just that I don’t believe them. And there’s a big double standard when it comes to witnesses. People who defend the official-story witnesses no matter how unlikely their stories don’t mind attacking other witnesses like William Lagasse and Barry Jennings. Lots of double standards in the Truth movement.
Mr. Good wrote:
Good point, Mr. Good.
However, a good script can still be messed up with the performance of less skilled actors. Everybody being polished and professional giving their scripted lines without flaws can be just as abnormal.
As you know, I believe 9/11 was a nuclear event. The clues are all over the place for rational people to see. Although it could be argued that many of the side-effects and unforeseen destruction couldn’t be mitigated or removed, maybe there really is a message being sent. To those smart enough to connect the dots the message is a big middle finger in the face.
It is a circular point that Mr. Good makes. If England’s story is so unbelievable then no one would believe it, and therefore it would never be created. But Mr. Good DOES believe it, as do so many of the CIT-haters. So they think it IS believable. With any operation like this, there will be tons of clues, tons of things that didn’t go exactly as planned. The question is, are we looking for these things or are we blindly accepting what we’re fed? The higher these criminals shoot, the more they risk exposure. That’s why this event is more than just a false-flag operation; it is an exercise in mass delusion (almost hypnosis). And the more people who accept major chunks of the official story, the less important will be their opposition to part of it. What CONVINCED me that 9/11 was an inside job was an accumulation of things that couldn’t be true. Not just one would have been enough. This is why the idea that we don’t need the Pentagon as long as we have the demolition of the towers is nonsense.
Look, you get a bunch of child molesters hanging on the corner of a school yard and a kid goes missing, the kids underpants are found near the molesters club house. Are you gonna waste time debating the finer points or string em up ? We have our dual citizen patriots fingers all over 911, and they are the benefactors. Why is there a 10 year debate ??? Get out the hemp rope.
A little tongue in cheek here? Nobody’s going to be strung up as long as the guilty people are running the show. And your rope imagery has some pretty grim connotations given the history of the U.S. Maybe it’s better to stick to the tone of your previous comments.
read history – that is what we do to traitors.
If you read history you’ll find that the traitors often get away with it, too. Anyway, it’s not the individuals that are important. It’s exposing that this pattern continues generation after generation because average people don’t pay attention.
There’s some Brian Good logic for you there Craig.
“Craig, if Lloyde was a plant put in place by a military psy-op to lend credence to the notion that the plane hit the light poles, then why did they give him an unbelievable story? Couldn’t the sophisticated script-writers at the Department of Homeland Disinfo have done a better job? Or is there some reason they want to leave clues all over the the citizen investigators to grab on to?”
So in Brian’s world, the more believable the story, the more likely it didn’t happen. And if Lloyd’s story is so unbelievable, why haven’t some mainstream media folk asked some questions about it? And if it is so unbelievable, why do so many so called truthers have no issue with it at all? It is indeed a strange world we live in and it is getting stranger by the day.
KP
Beautifully put. You’ve given me my first laugh of the day (“So in Brian’s world, the more believable the story, the more likely it didn’t happen.”)
And you’ve pointed out two of the most important questions regarding Mr. England. The fact that the media have not looked into this is further proof that they are not really interested in the truth. This is how they’ve treated all the anomalies of 9/11. But your second question (“And if it is so unbelievable, why do so many so called truthers have no issue with it at all?”) is even more telling. The willingness of some truthers (particularly the ones who seem to hate CIT) to accept the Pentagon official story is just plain bizarre. I don’t know if CIT is correct about its conclusions, but those who oppose them the most are doing more to harm the Truth movement than anyone. Their reasoning is beyond me. And the England story in particular makes me suspicious of some people’s motives. Thanks for your great comment.
“I know I said last week I would write about the David Chandler and Jonathan Cole attack on CIT, but my schedule just didn’t allow me to give this the time that it deserves, especially in light of the statement by architect Richard Gage that he no longer supports CIT’s research. I’ll try to address both in my next post. Promise. ”
Craig, just wanted to make sure you saw this:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/2/CIT-responds-To-An-E-mail-Re-Richard-Gages-recent-Withdrawal-of-Support-statement.html
Thanks for the link. It will be part of my next post for sure.
Craig, yes I agree Lloyde’s story could have been fabricated. But if somebody was going to fabricate a story, why would they fabricate a questionable one? And no, “could have been fabricated” does not equal “untruthful”. One involves reasonable doubt, the other requires affirmative proof. I never said I believed Lloyde’s story.
I simply don’t find the claim that his story was fabricated convincing. All this harping about the undamaged hood. Well, King Harald was shot in the eye in 1066, and nobody worries about whether his nose was scratched. I don’t blindly accept Lloyde’s tale, nor do I blindly accept the testimony of CIT’s witnesses.
If you would bother to draw the wings with the two forward spars and the single trailing spar, then sever the forward spars at the shoulder you would see that there’s nothing to stop the wing from folding up.
With respect to Ms. Renaud, there is certainly time to revise if she saw the second plane approach. She honestly said she did not see what caused the first explosion.
If she then sees a second plane hit, she revises her opinion about the first explosion, instantly. That’s not rigorously logical, but it’s certainly reasonable.
I don’t defend unlikely stories–except from unreasonable attacks. Barry Jennings’s story, for instance–that they were trapped on the 8th floor–makes no sense. Why didn’t they just use the other stairwell? His claim that he stepped over bodies without looking at them makes no sense. How can you step over them without looking at them?
KP, you still can not refute any of the points I made, most importantly the facts that 1) CIT has not one flyaway witness and refuses to go out and look for any and 2) their unethical treatment of cooperating witnesses is a disgrace to the truth movement and 3) CIT’s own witnesses say the plane hit the building. Instead you must resort to a silly straw man argument. I never said anything as silly as what you claim. I never said Lloyde’s story was unbelievable.
You’re completely inconsistent. You criticize Barry Jennings story without any proof that his account was false but you won’t allow anyone to do the same thing with Lloyde England. You say Jennings claims “make no sense” based on the question of why they didn’t use the other stairwell. Are you (serious? You think this is a valid reason to doubt Jennings’ (and let’s not forget Michael Hess; was he lying, too?) account but the idea of a 20-foot curved light pole sticking in England’s windshield without damaging the hood is reasonable? You said: “I don’t defend unlikely stories–except from unreasonable attacks.” What the hell does this mean?
Back to Ms. Renaud: Have you listened to her interview with Bryant Gumbel? It’s easy to find on YouTube. She says, “I DON’T KNOW WHAT CAUSED IT…” and virtually immediately sees the second impact and says, “ANOTHER PLANE HIT ANOTHER BUILDING.” No, she did not revise her opinion in a fraction of a second. Even if the second impact caused her to question the first explosion, she would not come back with that comment right away without hesitation. I’m sorry if this offends the sensibilities of some of you but I DON’T BELIEVE HER. Is that mean? Too bad.
I don’t think that me bothering to draw wing spars is going to lead to scientific proof of your contention that wings can fold. You’ll have to give me more than that. As of now, I still think this is joke, and I think the only reason you’re claiming this is that there’s nothing else that can explain the absence of wing wreckage outside the Pentagon. Of course, the other explanation is that no 757 hit the building. This is what I believe. And I can separate this from flyover. I think the flyover idea explains a lot and is very compelling despite outstanding questions. But I don’t hesitate in saying that I don’t believe the official story nonsense that so many “truthers” are pedalling.
It sounds as though he finally got something right, since “no-planers” are the bottom of the heap, but I think it’s time to investigate some of the bizarre and absurd claims made by Richard Gage, not the three WTC hi-rise collapses on 9/11, which have already been thoroughly investigated by much more qualified, competent, and honest people. The NIST scientists and engineers were only able to time the top 18 stories, or 242′, of the collapse of WTC 7’s facade, and determined that it took 5.4 seconds, yet Gage and others in the 9/11 “truth movement” claim that the entire 610′ collapse only took ~6.5 seconds. Did the other 368′ fall in just over 1 second? How is he even able to give us a time to the nearest 1/10 of a second for the entire collapse when NIST couldn’t because buildings in the foreground blocked the view of video cameras?
How can he claim that the towers nearly free fell when the loose, airborne debris from their upper stories was obviously falling much faster than the collapse zones, and began hitting the ground while at least 40 stories in each one were still intact? The North Tower was only down to the height of WTC 7 when debris from the upper stories first hit the ground. Was g miraculously increased on 9/11? They fell in ~15 and ~22 seconds respectively, nowhere near the ~9.25 seconds that free fall would have taken:
http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/40/qLShZOvxVe4
yet he begins every presentation with his near free-fall claim. He’s also claimed that the dust clouds from the collapses were “pyroclastic,” but there are no reports of anyone’s skin being instantly peeled off, and he’s claimed that the fires in WTC 7 were minor, totally contradicting these NYC eyewitnesses:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc
How could his claim that 400,000 yards of concrete were turned to fine powder be true, when there was less than 100,000 yards of concrete above grade in both towers combined? Does he know how to turn 400,000 yards of concrete to fine powder with explosives without leveling NYC?
Has he ever seen a controlled demolition that left molten metal in the debris for months? Has he ever seen one that didn’t leave even one explosively-cut column in the debris? Since he claims that explosives were planted in the core columns to start the collapses, and that it was done from elevators shafts, has he even looked a floor plan of the cores above the 78th floor sky lobby? There were only 6 regular elevators above there, plus a freight and 2 express elevators, and they were only near 6 of the 47 core columns. Several of those were in the paths of the planes, and the perimeter columns collapsed first, so he’s not even making sense, especially considering the fact that 30 or more stories of core framing stood 15-25 seconds after each tower’s main collapse was over.
We should investigate the nonsense coming from Richard Gage, as well as his “engineers.”
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3834688&postcount=12
Mr. Albury-bot wrote above:
Right on this very blog under the forum Giuliani knew twin towers would collapse, firefighters not warned, Mr. Albury-bot wrote:
Despite my admission that I am a “no-(commercial)-planer” and thus fit into Mr. Albury-bot’s category of being somewhat repugnant, that didn’t stop the bot from futilely arguing with me there.
Where that thread has relevance to this, is that Mr. Albury-bot is posting here the exact same dubious and distracting points — as if a copy-and-paste job from a database entry — pertaining to his (unwarranted) accusations of dishonesty in the 9/11 Truth Movement’s leadership regarding total collapse times. Of course, what makes his copy-and-paste job so funny and disingenuous is the fact that within the last few days the Mr. Albury-bot repeatedly “agreed that collapse times are irrelevant.”
Because you exhibit all of the characteristics of a bot, Mr. Albury, why don’t you take a lesson from your very programming. “Never repeat code when a function call to common code is so much more elegant and efficient.” Because this red-herring is so important to you that you try to derail threads with it, kindly establish your own blog and post it there. Then in your postings here if your bot algorithms deem them relevant, one tiny URL “function call” to your blog ought to cover it.
And by the way. It is amazing what one can observe from a position at the bottom of the heap and looking up.
The Mr. Albury-bot defies a rhetorical rule of thumb by asking questions he should know the answer to but doesn’t.
Mr. Albury-bot asked:
Stages. Separate the total collapse event into distinct stages. Explain your observations.
Mr. Albury-bot asked:
Mr. Chandler, the high school physics teacher, made some interesting observations about the demolition of the upper floors of the tower. The roofline suddenly accelerated (e.g., increased speed) down to the impact point at (2/3)*g, which is slower than free-fall. According to equal and opposite forces of Newtonian Physics, this can only be possible if those upper floors had their internal strength (or resistance) reduced to 1/3 of their normal strength.
I propose that one way to achieve this sudden weakening of the tower is with, say, a milli-nuke. But Mr. Albury-bot does make a good point that in the world of exotic weapons (and his sci-fi fantasies) that increasing g would be another option.
Mr. Albury-bot asked:
Ho-hum. The undamaged bathtub of the WTC went down 70 feet. With milli-nukes turning concrete into fine powder, you could fit many yards of it there.
Mr. Albury-bot asked:
We don’t know what he knows, but Milli-nukes can turn 400k yards of concrete into fine powder without leveling NYC.
Mr. Albury-bot asked:
Trick question on many levels. Who knows what he has seen? You imply conventional controlled demolitions. Milli-nukes aren’t typically used in conventional controlled demolitions. But milli-nukes can leave unspent but fizzling nuclear material to burn foundry-level hot for months and would leave molten metal in the debris.
Mr. Albury-bot asked:
Another trick question with the unwritten framing of conventional controlled demolitions. Expand your thought to unconventional demolitions controlled by computers and funded by very deep pockets with access to state of the art weapons beyond anything the public has been made privy to.
Mr. Albury-bot wrote lots of errors into this sentence fragment:
I believe you are referring to the spire. First of all, this was only visible on WTC-1’s demolition and was taller than the 47 story WTC-7 (by 20-30 floors). It wasn’t a core but a corner of the outer structure. It stood for more like 5-10 seconds before it turned to dust.
Mr. Albury-bot exposes his agenda:
Attack the messenger and not the message.
Mr. Albury-bot wrote:
Mr. Albury-bot wrote similar words not all that long ago that were addressed here:
10 ways I got sucked into buying the 9/11 cover story
Mr. Albury-bot wrote here:
Mr. Albury-bot wrote similar words not all that long ago that were addressed here:Giuliani knew twin towers would collapse, firefighters not warned
Bots don’t tire of repeating themselves. They don’t tire of ignoring answers. They don’t tire of being wrong repeatedly. They don’t tire of not understanding. They are programmed to be wrong and spread their lies without feeling.
Mr. Albury, if he’s not a bot, is encouraged once again to establish his own blog to show-case his database entries and alleviate him from having to copy-and-paste them everywhere. Blogs are easy to create and afford limitless opportunity to defend the OGCT and caste doubt on all other theories. Hours of good clean fun.
“yet he begins every presentation with his near free-fall claim. He’s also claimed that the dust clouds from the collapses were “pyroclastic,” but there are no reports of anyone’s skin being instantly peeled off, and he’s claimed that the fires in WTC 7 were minor, totally contradicting these NYC eyewitnesses…”~Alburied and dead
“pyroclastic” is a term also used in oceanography to describe flows of thick particulate materials suspended in fluid. It has been expanded to explain a certain characteristic of fluid dynamics.
Your attempt to take the prefix, “pyro” as meaning the term indicates a temperature is spurious and dishonest in the extreme…which characterizes just about EVERYTHING you have to say on these 9/11 forums–which appears to be your full time job.
Have a relationship with these people shill?
Redundant Mud: Cognitive Dissonance and the Oinking Shills
Cass Sunstein, “regulatory czar”, heads up the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled “Conspiracy Theories,” dealing with the risks and possible government responses to false conspiracy theories resulting from “cascades” of faulty information within groups that may ultimately lead to violence. In this article they wrote, “The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be.” They go on to propose that, “the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups”,[22] where they suggest, among other tactics, “Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.”[22] They refer, several times, to groups that promote the view that the US Government was responsible or complicit in the September 11 attacks as “extremist groups.”
Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of recruiting “nongovernmental officials”; they suggest that “government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes,” further warning that “too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed.”[22] Sunstein and Vermeule argue that the practice of enlisting non-government officials, “might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts.” This position has been criticized by some commentators,[23][24] who argue that it would violate prohibitions on government propaganda aimed at domestic citizens.[25]Wikipedia
I just gave you more than a dozen instances of outright lies from Box Boy Gage, a top “researcher” in your 9/11 “truth movement,” Senor, so I can certainly understand why you’re trying to make this about me. I did c&p it, but also wrote it several months ago. Oddly enough, no one’s interested in addressing any of the points in it.
Mr. Albury-bot wrote:
No, you did not. What I recall are instances of you skewing, spinning, misrepresenting, misunderstanding, purposely not understanding, and framing. But if I missed something, how about you putting these imagined instances of outright lies into a neat numbered list so your credibility can be trashed even more thoroughly number by number.
Mr. Albury-bot wrote:
Yes, as I tack “bot” to your name, I make it about you, your antics, your intelligence, your morals, and your agenda.
Mr. Albury-bot wrote:
Kindly post the URL to the blog where you posted this.
If you don’t already have a blog, no better time than the present to ramp one up and get some of that Home Court advantage for yourself. I look forward to seeing the body of your work posted there.
Mr. Albury-bot wrote:
In debating you, I’ve discovered that your (unwritten) agenda is a foundamental feature of all your points and seems to encourage you not only to include flawed data and flawed conclusions but also to ignore where these blatant flaws are pointed out. Your agenda makes you incapable of correcting mistakes, particularly if they will necessitate correcting conclusions.
So what is your agenda here? What was your assignment?
Let me save you the effort of turning this around. My written agenda starts with getting to the truth of 9/11, a truth that remains valid in physics and math no matter what angle is used for observation. It then continues and suggests that public revelation of 9/11 truth should be the catalyst for major changes in society, in our government, and in business & commerce. And I posit that such radical changes are mandated, because 9/11 was a scripted nuclear event that hinged on media manipulation of the public’s perceptions that continues to this day with Sunstein-esque infiltration of — oh, I don’t know, say — blogs and other Internet mediums where thinkers are discovering the depth of the deception and how deep those major changes will have to cut.
Craig, of course I’m inconsistent. The evidence is contradictory, and we don’t have all the information we need. Reality is inconsistent: I was hungry, then I ate a sandwich and now I’m not. Get used to it.
I don’t need any proof that Jennings’s story is false to point out that it made no sense. Why did they stay in a building building when all they needed to do was take the other stair? I asked Dr. Griffin that and he said debris blocked the way. OK, then why didn’t they go up to the ninth floor and cross over and take the other stair down? Ask Hess? Do you know where Hess works?
The idea that a lightpole spears the car and doesn’t damage the hood is more reasonable than the idea that someone would invent such a tale as part of a psyop.
Why is Ms. Renaud’s lack of hesitation suspect. Someone could just as well be saying at 10:03 “We don’t know if the plane hit the tower by accident or not” and then the second plane hits and they say, unhestitatingly, “The WTC is under attack!”
I don’t intend to provide scientific proof that the wings will fold, because I am not an aeronatical engineer. It is you that is making the extraordinary claim that they will not fold, and you refuse to even expose your argument-from-incredulity to a 3-second thought experiment with a pencil and a piece of paper. Take out the two forward spars and how does the aft spar alone prevent folding? It can’t. You might as well argue that you can use a pencil for a jack handle.
Now I think you’re pulling my leg. Your arguments are descending into the absurd. Your sandwich analogy does not apply because you’re describing change not inconsistency. Your way of handling facts should not change to suit your preconceived conclusions. I am glad you state that the evidence is contradictory; that at least agrees with me that the official version is full of doubts and holes. With contradictory evidence, how could it be otherwise?
Again, the Jennings/England comparison exposes how weak your arguments are. Where Jennings is concerned, proof is not needed? All we need to know is that it makes no sense to you? Jennings and Hess were trapped in Building 7 for several hours. Does anyone dispute this? The whole landing gave way below them. There were no lights apparently. And you think he should just have taken other stairs. I don’t take this seriously.
England, on the other hand, tells a story that makes no sense and appears to also be scientifically impossible. I’ve made my point there.
On Renaud again: You seem to be deliberately twisting this around. Your example is ridiculous and offers nothing to the debate. I will once for the final time: she said one second she didn’t know what caused the first explosion and the next second she said ANOTHER plane hit another tower. Her account sounded phoney from the first second. She sounded coached, although not coached well enough.
And my last word on the folding thing: you say you believe the story that the wings folded. You don’t need to prove this. I don’t believe it, but I DO need to prove this. Hmmm. I’m going to skip the paper and pencil experiment because it has nothing to do with the question at hand.
I’m still inclined to believe you’re not seriously making these arguments because they are getting more and more silly as you go. I’m glad you feel you can accept something because the government tells you its so without questioning the “contradictory” evidence. I prefer to use my own brain.
On Brian “truebeleaguer” Good’s inconsistency(ies), didn’t B”tb”G recently inquire on another of Craig M’s posts:
B”tb”G: “So aircraft are built to shed wings for what reason? Is this an original theory or do you have actual expert statements on the issue?”
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/02/06/the-assault-on-cit-who-is-really-undermining-911-truth/#comment-523
One minute the wings fold & “shed,” then the next minute they don’t. Don’t fret though- my experience with Brian “Watson” Good is that he will say ANYTHING (even self-contradictory things) so long as it is anti-CIT. That is the TrueFactionista agenda (although more recently, they appear to be targeting David Ray Griffin with their 911blogger smear ‘campaign’).
http://preview.tinyurl.com/LarsonNukesDRG
I believe that several others at 911oz (onsliceshort, KP) reached the same conclusions after reading months of “Watson” Good’s anti-CIT trolling of the 911oz forum (where he was twice banned). Before “Watson” Good links again to his “10 holes,” it is worth reading Stefan’s refutation threads of those:
A summary of Brian Good’s Failed Defence Of Point 10
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=7307
Brian Good’s Failed Defence Of Point 6
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=7330
Brian also likes to forget that Craig Ranke responded to those 10 “holes” back on 10 Mar 2010 (although I’ve repeatedly seen Brian claim that Craig Ranke “ran away like a bunny”):
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=33900&postcount=248
I’ve seen it all before- but enjoy “TrollTalk” with your ‘special’ guest Brian “truebeleaguer” good… :rolleyes:
The wing folding thing is hilarious to me. I think it only surfaced to explain the lack of wing damage to the building – not because it’s even remotely plausible. And, of course, with that astute journalist Mike Walter’s first-hand observation of the “folding” phenomenon, there is a need for others to echo the idea.
Very briefly (unusual for me) on the wing folding front. I’ve cornered Mr. Good on this before, I believe.
If the wings folded on the Pentagon (brick & steel), how come they didn’t fold on either impact to the towers (steel)?
Trick question, but it exposes inconsistency and at least one lie.
It is a trick question, because I’m a “no-(commercial)-planer”. I can concede that one or more of the targets were hit by flying objects, but they weren’t commercial aircraft. In the case of the towers, pixels of commercial aircraft covered over the true cause. In the case of the Pentagon, they haven’t ever released anything conclusive. In the case of Shankville, come on! A friggin’ hole in the ground without bodies, without seats, without luggage? Missiles (or military planes) were the likely flying objects.
Wings didn’t fold on any of the “commercial” airplanes hitting the tower, because the pixel simulation of that, as well as any believable crash physics, would have been too hard to model.
I agree completely. I believe the film September Clues shows the “plane” hitting the south tower and going right in just as Mike Walter tries to explain how the wings would not go straight into the building. I almost feel silly arguing this with people because it’s so obvious. This is one of the reasons I can’t take the anti-CIT crowd seriously.
I sometimes ask the “folding wing” gang WHAT PART(S) of the aircraft it is/are that generates the lift force for the ~>= 240,000 lb maximum takeoff weight of a Boeing 757-200 AND holds it aloft during the entire flight:
http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=101
A review of the “four forces” often cited in aviation is helpful:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/forces.html
maybe even a picture:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/Images/forces.jpg
The illustrious Wiki tells us that:
“Aerodynamic lift is commonly associated with the WING of a fixed-wing aircraft…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_%28force%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_flight_mechanics
But the anti-CIT ‘debunkerists’ and Mike Walter apparently want us to imagine a scenario similar to this at the Pentagon:
http://www.lisashea.com/japan/origami/sales/cards/card-goldcrane.jpg
Hmmm….
Just like “Watson” at 911oz “do[es]n’t need evidence,”[*] Brian Good “do[es]n’t need any proof that Jennings’s story is false…”
It’s almost like they are the same ‘person…’ :rolleyes:
[*]See the “Watson” quote in my signature that I used at 911oz:
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=47521&postcount=23
I’ve discovered the depths of the deception too, Senor, and really should start a blog, since I’m banned on most “forums” run by your 9/11 “truth movement.” Instead of obfuscating with off-base speculation about my motives for pointing out the blatant dishonesty of your “researchers,” please feel free to address some of my numerous problems with the absurd claims of Richard Gage.
The Albury-bot wrote:
I assume you’re referring to the org chart of the NSA Q-Group that employs you.
The Albury-bot wrote:
Yes, yes, yes. It is a win-win-win situation! You’ll be able to write on whatever you like, and build up a body of work that will at least be representative and could put you in the history books. Your devotion to your own blog and its constraints on your time will improve Mr. McKee’s, so he and I will be early fans.
The Albury-bot wrote:
What a relief! It all makes sense now. Your disinfo posting efforts this last week has been your swan song, your begging and pleading to be banned, so that you can proudly put another notch in your bedpost!
I recommend that you turn your multiple banishments into a marketing ploy for your website.
I repeat, though. What a relief! Now that I know you are used to being banned and even expect it, it’ll make it easier on my conscience to ask Mr. McKee to not publish subsequent postings from you that clearly go into la-la-land of lies and smear. Such a tiresome merry-go-round game you have been playing!
The Albury-bot wrote:
I look forward to reading on your brand-new blog how you obfuscate your motives.
The Albury-bot wrote:
Your pointing has missed the mark and is in the wrong direction. I’m not saying that those people are perfect. But the case of their dishonesty isn’t made with the weak “evidence”… *cough* “lies” & “disinfo”… that you have presented. Try again on your blog.
If you asked for my 2 cents, the case for their dishonesty — or rather “hesitation” & “overly measured words” — is to be found in their reception to 9/11 being a thoroughly scripted live-action nuclear event that was made-for-TV in more ways than one. They circle around the massive energy requirements of the WTC complex destruction, but aren’t willing to commit to the obvious nuclear nature of it.
The Albury-bot wrote:
With pleasure… On your soon-to-be-real Albury-Bot Blog once it is available… assuming you don’t ban me from the get-go! LOL!
Craig, eating a sandwich is not change. Its effect is only temporary. A few hours later I’m hungry again. That’s how life is. Sometimes it’s dark outside, sometimes light.
I dispute that Jennings and Hess were trapped. The second stairway was fine. Jennings’s claim that he could step over bodies without looking at them is nuts.
My example on Renaud is not the least bit ridiculous. That’s how most reasonable people reacted–first plane hits, you think it’s an accident; second plane hits and you know it’s not. Same setup with the explosion. First explosion happens and you don’t know what caused it. Second explosion caused by a plane, and you assume the first was a plane too.
The paper and pencil experiment has everything to do with the folding wings question. You seem very sure of yourself in saying the wings will not fold (not” even remotely possible”) but you will not rigorously examine the basis for this belief.
Compare the three-spar wing to a three-leg stool. Obviously if you remove two of the stool’s legs, it’s going to surrender to gravity and angle down. The forces on the wing were lateral, not axial, but in exactly the same way when two of the three spars are removed, the wing angles back in response to the imposed force of the wall.
Mrboz, for me to rhetorically entertain the notion that the wings would be shed, entertaining it for the purpose of asking why aircraft are built to shed wings (whuch question was never answered) in know way contradicts the observation that disruption of two of the wing’s three longtitudinal spars would remove its lateral stability.
Craig Ranke’s evasions and lies in response to the “10 Holes” post were ludicrous. I forget the exact numbers, but I think that at one point he lied 8 times in 12 sentences.
El Once, the wings did not fold at the towers because the structural challenge they faced there–13″ box columns built of 3/8″ or 1/4″ steel plate–was completely different from the 24″ bomb-proofed masonry wall at the Pentagon.
No, if you say you don’t know what caused the explosion, you don’t assume it’s a plane instantly after the second plane hits. You’ll never convince me on this.
Why not do it right here, Senor, since Craig has been kind enough to post my opinions of your 9/11 “truth movement”? My February 16, 2011 comments at 8:47 AM should be sufficient to start the discussion.
OK Craig, in recognition of your hyper-objectivity I’ll admit that logically there is no connection between the WTC1 explosion and the second WTC2 strike. As a pragmatic issue, I don’t think that’s a very convincing argument.
I hadn’t heard of this Theresa Renaud before so I looked it up on Youtube and heard this woman describing what she could see of the WTC. Luckily it was a Youtube video that had written comments on it laced with inuendo and barely disguised suspicions that this woman is an accomplice to mass murder. When I heard she was the wife of a CBS producer it all became so obvious. Why has this woman not been indicted for the crime of mass murder? Where is the justice …where ? where?
A message to Mrs Renaud, in the unlikely event that you are reading this, I can only sympathise that specious absurdities like that video would be presented about you by anyone. They consider themselves to be openminded but the trick is not to be so openminded that your brains fall out.
You’re quite the bundle of debunking energy all of the sudden, aren’t you? Your comment on Ms. Renaud is hardly worth responding to since you basically ignored the point. You subscribe to the idea that if you can’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that something in the official story is false, you shouldn’t question it at all. Nice tactic.
Boy oh boy Craig…it sure takes a lot of patience to run a blog on this subject doesn’t it.
Although I disagree with Señor, on the “no planes” theories, at least he is forthright in his rational arguments.
As far as Brian and Albury, I think they have a thing for cognitive dissonance, either personally of professionally.
I am sorry I discovered this blog so late. I could have warned you about Albury Smith earlier.
I have crossed swords with this character many times. I will even say that he is a liar. He was never banned at Coto…he simply ran out of juice after the squeezing.
He is trying to play to your sense of fairplay by going on about being “banned on Truth sites”, although he has no sense of fairplay himself as a professional debunker.
ww
It does take patience but that’s the nature of the beast, isn’t it? As to Mr. Albury, I was cautioned about him by another contributor to this site, but I gave the benefit of the doubt for a while. He has sent me a comment that won’t be posted questioning whether I just assumed that Judge Walker was Bush’s cousin because he has the last name Walker. This is not even worthy of responding to and certainly reinforced my decision to ban him. Glad you’ve begun contributing to my blog.
Mr. hybridrogue1 respectfully wrote:
Technically, it isn’t “no planes”; it is “no (commercial) planes”.
And even with this hair-splitting description, really each of the four instances of reputed aircraft needs to be validated independently.
For example, what hit the ground in Shanksville? It has more the appearance of a cruise missile being fired into the ground than of any type of aircraft, let alone commercial passenger jet.
Another example is the first airplane strike on WTC-1. The number of eye witnesses to this is so tiny, and the French brothers’ film has issues. This would have been a good candidate for simply no plane whatsoever, setting artistic explosive devices within the building face to burn the outline of a plane, and then to let pixels from the French brothers’ film carry out the rest of the illusion.
The Pentagon plane? Yes, even the CIT premise has sufficient eye witnesses to there being a plane. The initial issue is, did it really hit the Pentagon or were explosives set to fake this out? And if a flying object really hit the Pentagon, is the debris consistent with a commercial aircraft?
The strike on WTC-2 is the one that most people are familiar with, because it is the footage that gets replayed over and over. Sufficient credible eye-witnesses convince me that people really did see a flying object, but owing to the distance from their vantage point and its speed, they really didn’t know what it was. Cruise missile with wings? Small military aircraft? Or actual commercial jet?
Keep in mind that only one shot of the 2nd impact was broadcast quasi-live (17 seconds delayed); it was repeated over and over to psych everyone out; and this footage has issues and glitches. Throughout the course of the day and week, other shots were manipulated and made available. Again, these other shots have issues, like having flight paths that are inconsistent with one another. None of them model crash physics; they do a fake “Road Runner” outline into the building face.
The speed of the 2nd aircraft is a major issue. When the speed of the pixels representing the 2nd aircraft is calculated, it exceeds the maximum rated velocity of the designated commercial aircraft when flown at altitude. There is no way that this velocity could be achieved and controlled at sea level in the aircraft we are led to believe hit the tower.
A cruise missile or a military jet could fly that calculated speed at sea level, but such an image couldn’t be presented to the public, now could it? Use computers to place the pixels of a commercial jet over what really was flying and the message can be controlled.
What has been interesting has been the framing of the debate. Debunkers want nothing better than to wrap all instances into a single “no planer theory” and then trash “no planers” by stating “even CIT believes some plane was involved at the Pentagon” or “many eye witnesses did see a plane strike the second tower.”
I believe the salient point in “September Clues” is that we cannot trust what was broadcast on 9/11. It goes beyond the pixels of the aircraft and shows how the official govt story was planted within the earliest minutes, right on down to: who did it (Osama bin Laden); how jet impacts, jet fuel fires, and gravity destroyed the towers; and how it wasn’t a controlled demolition.
I can be convinced of errors in my beliefs individually by plane… But it hasn’t happened. The damning evidence that establishes that any of the planes were commercial planes hasn’t really been forthcoming.
I, too, do not trust the TV images from that day. This is the issue that no one talks about, but I think that an examination of the video evidence from that day has a lot to tell us about the illusion of a terrorist attack. At the very least, I would urge everyone to watch September Clues (you can get it on You Tube) and judge for yourself.
I also agree that each “plane” impact must be evaluated separately. The thing that I keep thinking is that if an aircraft other than a commercial airliner was going to be used, there could not be any identifiable wreckage that would be understood to have come from another kind of craft. Having a big piece of a Global Hawk lying on the lawn of the Pentagon would be a bit of a problem for the official story.
Mr. McKee wrote:
As we reverse engineer the whole 9/11 event into probable objectives and methods, destroying the evidence comes up in more than one place. Certainly it was evident in how material was carted off and recycled before it could be independently analyzed; in how FAA tapes were destroyed; in how govt reports and analysis were delayed and skewed; in the whole black box controversies. On this front, an overly energetic destruction of buildings would also serve this purpose.
The overkill exhibited in the pulverization (or dustification) of the towers was always a red flag to me that this was an inside job. Why would (foreign) terrorists be so thorough? Their supposed aims are achieved with an uncontrolled, chaotic, chunky, and even incomplete destruction of any single building.
(Domestic) terrorists, however, would have many overlapping motives that would necessitate being thorough… as thorough as several milli-nukes from their deep-pockets and arsenals can allow them to be. As seen above, it removes lots of evidence. The created dust covers over lots of evidence, like how the destruction in the form of a WTC-6 crater, WTC-5 cylindral bore holes, and the leveling of the WTC-4 edifice were caused.
But hey, I have to give credit where credit is due, even if the two sources are widely dismissed as disinformation: Dimitri K. (a Russian agent whose name I am too lazy to look up) and Dr. Judy Wood. Together, they provide a piece of the puzzle regarding motives for why certain nuclear methods were deployed.
Recall that in order to build the WTC, they first had to demolish and clean out a well-established and popular area of town known as “Radio Row”. If demolition of the old was happening then (mid-1960’s) to make way for the new (WTC), then one day this process would happen again for the WTC. Mr. K. reveals two nuggets of truth (?): (1) building permits in the mid-1960’s particularly for such large structures required approved demolition plans; (2) the demolition plan for the towers involved nukes. Recall that the Davey Crocket nuke was tested in 1960, so small nukes weren’t Buck Rogers fiction.
Of course, Mr. K. goes on to speculate that massive underground nuclear demolitions took out the towers. Dr. Judy Wood in her new next book presents seismic data, images of the near pristine bathtub, and information about the minor damage to the subway. Note that this debunks Mr. K.’s nuclear premise from the get-go, as well as the fact the demolitions observably happened top-down
The bathtub that Dr. Wood calls our attention to is a major piece of (domestic) terrorist motivation. Recall that the bathtub keeps out the Hudson. Were the bathtub to have been broken or even slightly cracked, the basement levels of the WTC and most of the buildings in the area would have been flooded; the subway would have been out of commission everywhere. If the (domestic) terrorists had a goal of rebuilding on the WTC site at a reasonable cost, the bathtub would have to be saved. It would have to be protected from pile driving blocks and large pieces of building falling from great heights.
As probably specified in the demolition plan, milli-nukes pulverize content and structure from early stages; dust spreads out in a manner to significantly reduce and distribute the energy from the falling mass and how it impacts the bathtub. … And relating this back to the theme, milli-nukes at the same time destroy significant pieces of evidence of other elements of the ruse, such as aircraft (or the lack thereof), smoke machines, tower occupancy, anything constructed to channel the energy of the milli-nukes in a useful direction,… [Smoke machines, you ask? Billowing smoke was required to mask mushroom clouds, even if such clouds were distorted by detonation point(s) of the tower falling.]
Fusion triggered fission milli-nuclear devices can explain the measured tritium levels as well as fizzling nuclear material under the rubble burning foundry-hot for months. As well as…
9/11 firefighters ARE getting cancer at a faster rate than others, chief medical officer reveals
Just like to say Hi to Brian and Craig. I think there needs to be more questions asked about the strange case of Barry Jennings.
The story we have is this:
Jennings has been trapped in WT7 for some hours, surviving “explosions”, collapsed structures, scrambling through rubble, being soaked by fire sprinklers (according to Michael Hess), and breathing in a potpouri of toxins, and suffering shock.
He reports in a latter interview that his knees are so swollen that he can’t run, even to save his life — so he crawls on his hands and knees.
So what happens when he gets out. Ambulance? Hospital? First Aid? No, he waits around for a WABC-TV interview whose interviewer clearly presents him as a ‘Twin Towers’ survivor and clearly asks him what happened at the moment of impact (plane impact). Jennings does not correct this or qualify that he’s in WTC7. Jennings appears to be moving about ok — given that a short time before he couldn’t run for his life. And he doesn’t look all that dishevelled. Jennings talks of crying and even starts to break down when relating thinking of his family. So what does he do after this ordeal on conclusion of the interview? He goes back to work where he says that ‘secretaries’ cleaned him up.
Jennings never names who called him or who he called, meaning who got him into the building and who got him out. And why isn’t he suspicious (especially years after) that he and Hess (a legal boy on Giuliani’s staff) were led there in the first place when everyone else was evacuated? And why, if the building had been evacuated, were police so helpful in letting them back in — even showing them the service elevators when other elevators couldn’t deliver them to their dire destination.
And one last question: In all these suspect dealings why does Jennings come back years later and gullibly give his story to YouTubers — then cooperate with the BBC (known government propogandists) to discredit his own story? And on the stepping over dead bodies statement, he said, “…And we were stepping over people– you know, you can feel when you’re stepping over people.” So he never looked down — like turned off his peripheral vision. Try it and tell us what you see.
Science cannot obfuscate what happened on 9/11. But some people who think they are smart can use distorted science to confuse people who know less than they do.
Let’s just concentrate on the twin towers and face some simple facts.
#1. Skyscrapers have to hold themselves up even before they are hit by airliners. The designers knew that in 1960. They had to figure out how much steel to put where. You do not want to try and build a 110 story building and get to the 80th floor and go:
Uh oh, we didn’t put enough steel in the basement!
So why don’t we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the buildings.
#2 There were horizontal beams in the core on every level connecting the core columns. How many feet of steel was that on each level? Did those beams get thicker down the building? By how much?
So why haven’t physicists been asking this for over NINE YEARS. What happened on 9/11 may not have been the fault of physicists but it is certainly their fault that this has not been resolved in nearly TEN YEARS.
http://psikeyhackr.livejournal.com/1276.html
.