NASA Director and Engineering Executive for more than 37 years speaks of 9/11

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

It's not 'evidence'... it's ok, we got a bunch of people saying something LETS FIND OUT FOR SURE.

Upon which you find out the vast majority of them are not saying bombs ... we have their FULL words available so why would they need be further investigated.

Here I asked you previously if you were capable of further research or even interested and gave you a list of eyewitness claims of explosive type noises and sounds and asked if you could find out in full what they were talking about ... as expected you have failed to so so ...

It is relevent here for it shows that NIST did NOT need to investigate further for a simple reading of their WHOLE testimony shows they were not talking about bombs ... as well as that if you were truly interested in looking deeper into this you would have looked into it and had an answer for me.

The predicted dodge of that it is not so important or relevant, but it does show where truthrers fail, in that the entire crux of truther claims lies in the ability to "prove" explosives present.

Explosives are germaine and at the heart of the whole controlled demolition claim ... without that you truly have nothing ... no explosives = no demolition !!!

So for you to avoid such more detailed research says more about how little you really care about the event itself and instead use it as a sounding board for various hang-ups and whines you have instead ... do you not think ???

Here is the list again many of whom have been used by truthers in "support" of explosives ...

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas

Care to tell me why these testimonies should be taken as describing "bombs" ... for proper research shows this to be very much NOT the case.

Or shall I just have to do your homework for you instead ???

~~~~~~~~~~

B'mans Homework

What are they describing, to you B'man undoubtably it must mean "bombs", but to other more sagacious individuals whom look to the WHOLE testimony in context find out those people were actually describing bodies hitting the ground !!!

"Didn't come through, but it sounded "like a bomb" had gone off but it was a body hitting this glass"-Keith Murphy FDNY
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110238.PDF
(Page10)

"I remember hearing popping sounds,one of my partners was asking what's that, I saw the people falling and "exploding" on the ground"-Alwish Monchery EMT
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110127.PDF
(Page4)

"We kept hearing these large boom,boom and what it turned out to be, it actually was people jumping and hitting on the glass awning that was outside the lobby there" –Rosario Terranova Lieutenent EMS
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110168.PDF
(Page )

"Looking up at the tower, people were jumping from the tower and the "explosion" type sound were their bodies hitting the pavement below" –Anthony Fitzgerald
NY B30 PA Police Reports 1 of 2 Fdr- Fitzgerald- Lt Anthony

"So we start walking up the bike path and the whole time you are hearing boom, boom, boom, you know more ****ing bombs, what the hell is this, They kind of sounded like blockbusters or something. We were walking and I'm like what the **** is going on. More bombs going off? As we are walking, we see a detective looking, everybody is looking up and we are kind of looking forward walking, you know, heads up guys, we got jumpers. That's when I look up and see all these people" –John Murray Fire Marshall FDNY
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110407.PDF
(Page4)

"You could hear explosions or thuds on the roof. I turned around and where the glass was clear I heard another "explosion" and I turned around and looked at the glass and there was just chunks that were splattered with blood. There were actually chunks of I guess human flesh was just dripping down, I looked and the person that landed there just exploded like a watermelon" –Richard Smiouskas Lieutenent FDNY
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110210.PDF
(Page8)

""You could hear the loud "explosions" and it was people hitting the veranda right above our heads" -John Morabito
FDNY Ten House of Heroes

To be completely honest B'man regarding this you NEED to look to other more logical explanations to eliminate them BEFORE just wildly claiming those people were talking bombs and only bombs ...

Why do you not see this ???

In the oral histories there are around twenty accounts which when fully read through are clearly taking about "explosions" as being the horrific end of people whom chose to jump rather and face what was up there ... and not bombs.

Which, IF truthers were truly honest, they would look through and withdraw from their claims and videos, eliminated and never used as bomb evidence ever again ... so let's do the same with ALL other eyewtiness accounts of bombs ... guaranteed that on proper full reading bombs will again be discounted as what they were describing.

Do you not also see that in lessening the numbers of eyewitnesses by examination of their testimony to eliminate them, as they are mostly referring to other causes and their testimonies have been heavily mined than it LESSENS the likelyhood of legitimate testimony for bombs too ... can you not see this ???

If you have any honesty and integrity you will look through these and read FULLY all testimony for then you will see there is very little eyewtiness evidence in favour of explosives ... are you up to the challenge ???

Oral Histories From Sept. 11 Compiled by the New York Fire Department - The New York Times

(0 /10 because you got someone else to do it ... back of the classroom for you)

~~~~~~~~~~

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

The universe we live in where there was NO TESTING FOR explosives in the first place.

So what, there were none there !!!

A VISUAL examination IS NOT equivalent to a proper test for explosives...

And what expertise leads you to this ... or are you just making **** up again ???

For after EVERY single explosive action there is ALWAYS a visual inspection carried out ... because in the real universe explosives ALWAYS leave behind bits of BRIGHTLY COLOURED detonation cord, physical parts of blasting caps and wrapping, as well as other known recognizable detritus ...

High

A VISUAL examination is, therefore, PARAMOUNT ... once again you are arguing from ignorance ... it is not a good strategy !!!

It doesn't matter how many people walked their dogs past the debris it was NOT included by NIST. REGARDLESS if it came out positive or negative.

Without that positive identification of explosive debris and left-over the explosives did NOT exist in the first place.

BBC News - Forensics machine to boost hunt for bomb fragments

http://www.admlc.org.uk/documents/ADMLC20043.pdf

ALL explosives leave physical debris and evidence behind ... period !!!

Seriously B'man, go talk to a Fire Fighter or a Sapper in the military about this ... there is ALWAYS left-over debris physically present and easily recognizable !!!

So it DOES matter how many people walked their dogs past ... not one single dog picked up traces of explosive anything ... and it DOES matter that a detailed FINGERTIP examination ALSO failed to find one teeny-weeny tiny wee bit of explosive material !!!

There was NONE there ... that is why !!!

Army Media Player

Corps of Engineers finds, destroys World War II ammo in North Carolina

No, but you'd send him to the hospital to get his leg checked if him and other people are talking about how beat up his leg got...

As said in my second sentece which you convienently left out ... for I clearly said you do NOT examine for something for which there is no physical evidence of ... *tsk *tsk* ... more than a little dishonest of you B'man ... again !!!

"Do you test for a broken leg when examining your dental patient ???

So, no, you still do not examine for things without signs of physical injury to that leg you don't !!!"

Clever twist...

How so ???

Todays Flat Earthers are wrong and so are you !!!

What I'm saying is that if you look at ALL THE EVIDENCE and treat it all equally, there's not a reasonable person in the world that won't see that the government violated their trust... AT BARE MINIMUM.

And, like as Chomsky said, you have no idea of what constitues genuine and legitimate evidence ... your understanding of proof is extremely low if you think all evidence is equally valid.

Some has huge relevance and some can easily be discounted ... and so far what truthers have presented as "evidence" fails utterly at every step !!!

You don't seem to realize that by denying the existence of literally dozens of different potential cover-ups, etc, by the government...

I realize more than you think ... I realize fully what human beings are capable of ... but my standards of proof are so high that I demand MORE than supposition and possibility.

Suspicion of government alone is not enough to show they did it ... THAT is what you utterly fail to realize, your resentment, suspicion and misgivings of them is not enough to show complicity.

You need MORE than just "potential" ... do you have anything more real than that ???

you not only accept that this is somehow 'normal',

The failures of humanity are "normal" ... no-one is super-human and above such flaws and failings ... governments are peopled with humans ... humans make mistakes !!!

but deny the ever increasing odds required of so many independent and coinciding coincidences...

What ever increasing "anything" ... you've got some very, very, very, very loose connection that you have to do Olympian leaps to connect ???

No B'man, what you have is a suspicious and paranoic minset that leads you to see coincidences where none exist.

You see conspiracy everywhere ... that is indicative of a more psychological issue !!!

With your laser gun type denial powers

Or maybe just reality B'man !!!

 

[mike2810]

Blue:
Very good post #26. Early in the debate on 9/11 (other threads), it was brought up that people explain things in words/terms they know. I have investigated accidents on wildfires where witnesses stated things like, it sounded like a "jet", "train", "bomb". as the fire got very active. It has been brought up the need to look at the context in which something was said. Same goes for looking at vids or news clips. Your statement of "you NEED to look to other more logical explanations to eliminate " is what investigators do.

 

[Whovian]

outstanding post #27 Blue... but I think it's wasted on some here. How sad for them.

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Blue:
Very good post #26. Early in the debate on 9/11 (other threads), it was brought up that people explain things in words/terms they know. I have investigated accidents on wildfires where witnesses stated things like, it sounded like a "jet", "train", "bomb". as the fire got very active. It has been brought up the need to look at the context in which something was said. Same goes for looking at vids or news clips. Your statement of "you NEED to look to other more logical explanations to eliminate " is what investigators do.

Thank you mike and a nice (sorry its only virtual) dram coming your way ... but it is so that eyewitness testimony can not be taken as gospel because of the very real reliance people have on metaphorical language and hyperbole to describe extraordinary events.

I usually use eyewitnesses from Mount St. Helens whom described "explosions", "blowing up", "like nuclear blast" when describing an entirely natural event that they witnessed ... my daughter is studying Geology and she says there were no explosives or bombs there, for some strange reason I kinda believe her

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

outstanding post #27 Blue... but I think it's wasted on some here. How sad for them.

Sad indeed ... and another wee dram your way too ... enjoy !!!

 

[BmanMcfly]

Wow... going for the record length of post...

How so ... for not only is there the ...and that several people, including KSM have ADMITTED they were behind it.

Not familiar with the martyr videos, so this is just specifically the OBL footage.
1 - His first 'admission' wasn't even an 'admission' as much as saying he 'approved' of the attacks... that's if you look at the actual translations of what he's saying... but more importantly,
2 - SpyTalk - CIA unit's wacky idea: Depict Saddam as gay

The agency (CIA) actually did make a video purporting to show Osama bin Laden and his cronies sitting around a campfire swigging bottles of liquor and savoring their conquests with boys, one of the former CIA officers recalled, chuckling at the memory. The actors were drawn from “some of us darker-skinned employees,” he said.

So, they admitted to making fake videos of Saddam and Bin Laden. Therefore NONE of the videos of bin laden post 9-11 have at best questionable validity, especially when you consider that Bin Laden video and audio tapes ALWAYS pop up when it's politically helpful...

We have numerous pieces of evidence, physical and metaphorical, linking ...
U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia

That's NOT evidence of 'al-quaida'.

There is, in the real world, ample evidence which has already passed the scrutiny of law.

Then... oh ya, we didn't maintain the rule of law and have bin laden officially charged for his perpetration of 9-11 because he's already a wanted man. And further. the 'number 3 of al-quaida' at the time well, it's come out that :
YouTube - Anwar Al Awlaki Terrorist? Or Pentagon / CIA Asset? YOU MAKE THE CALL!

You see B'man, this is where you and Gage are wholly wrong for Gage ...ignored, for if he had to deal with them then his whole theories would be shown for the idiocy they are !!!

You're missing the point of my statement, but then demonstrate the point that I was making. You MUST attack Gage as the head, then you deny the existence of supporters by insinuating that it's ALL fake... as a tactic to avoid what, NOT GAGE, BUT THE ACCREDITED engineers have to say about it.

Do you never wonder why Gage never gets involved in the Pentagon or Shanksville side of things ... he stick rigidly to the WTC ... and yet IF they were deliberate then so should the others !!!

Because he's still an architect, so he has an understanding of the principles at work... SO, he would definitively be speaking beyond any expertise if he talked about those.

Seems he also is making a tidy sum from ae911 ... having no job now he is funded entirely by donations ... last year garnishing $75,450 for "personal" salary which works out at 21% of all revenues recieved.

AE911Truth.INFO » $75,450

Hate to break it to you, but we DO live in a capitalist system where people are allowed to make money for their efforts... He does alot of speaking, etc... so, let him make a bit of money... to my knowledge he's not a 501(c)3, so he'd still have to pay taxes on that.

But if you want to put it to the sense of 'evil money making'... what do you think the war contractors / mercenaries companies / military industries have made out of 9-11's reaction??? Probably in the 100's of billions of dollars by now. That's without need of getting into the crimes these mercs perpetrate on their own account.

And is comprable to what other architects earn ... $78,880 per annum ... so seems he is still as comfortable financially as before, fighting for Da Twoof has cost him nothing then ...

Architects, Except Landscape and Naval

Good, if he can make money fighting the good fight, then let him.

If incompetence is proven then they really are incompetent, guilty by association ... how is that demonization ???

They are respected professionals many of them and you just blanket slander them instead of reading their words, based off the slander of another man and call them 'associates'.... and fail to see the strawman I've been repeatedly trying to show you building.

If you can clearly show that someone FAILS in something ... pointing that out is not a smear campaign.

That's not what you're doing.

If you fail in an exam, you fail ... saying so IS a "truth" then and not some attempt at discrediting.

But failing the class because of 1 students results IS that attempt.

Come on here now B'man ... some simple old-fashioned common sense please ... failure IS failure !!!

Yes, and I'm saying for the sake of debate let's call him a failure and actually look at what the others are openly stating. The ones that ARE accredited professionals WITH relevant experience... but you're so busy maintaining this slander campaign that you don't notice that in the face of being called out on this tactic you use that same tactic in your own defense.

That show gross incompetence ... for if a flaw is pointed out and proven then the onus IS on you to correct it ... not correcting flaws shows a wilful incompetence.

Why are you so eager to tear down one sides incompetence, yet failing to acknowledge or even tacitly APPROVING of that incompetence when it comes out the other end??? At what point does this become hypocrisy? At what point does it become demonstrably intentional?

First point out to one single renowned engineer on his list ... bet you can't ???

I've done it for you before... there's was about 1-5 individuals from EACH major accredited organization you mentioned... in your previous attempts to claim 0. Not playing this game for you again with your over eager pushing of the 'deny' button.

But YES ... as a group they SHARE collective responsibility ... more so because they are supposedly engaged in some noble quest, where they SHOULD be able to demonstrate they are above and beyond reproach.

Oh I get it... so because of your opinion Gage's punching a hooker means that the whole group that share a singular belief of his should be thrown in jail as well... if that's not what you were intending to say, think about what you're saying first.

WHY would you not "expect" the highest of all possible standards from this group, considering what it is supposedly about ... the vast majority of people recognise that this group is nothing more than a "cash cow" for Gage to get his passport stamped and hotel living paid for ... but you think it some noble group fighting the good fight ... so they SHOULD be better and more competent and more professional and more accountable and more qualified and have higher quality of standards than they have so far demonstrated ... FOR YOU ???

ANYTHING to not look at what they say... I get it... and you've made my point.

Bollocks B'man ... do you suffer from some short-term memory problem, for I specifically remember doing a point-by-point debunk of their list of "claims".

Yes... and you maintained your strategy of using truth to tell lies. The whole way through as I recall... EXCEPT for 1 point... where you ACTUALLY made a good point that was relevant.

This discussion (here and now) is more about the principles of the group themselves ... for you to try to deflect from that by calling my arguments your regular "strawman" shows a certain desperation and weak defence ... as well as the supreme irony of you calling me out for this when your replies are mostly mired in a bog of esoteric psycho-babble which avoids direct answers to direct questions.

NO... the discussion NOW is about how IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT their principles are... you could have a group 'catholic nuns for 9-11 truth' and you would rip them apart saying that one of them one time missed a prayer session. And then you continue to build the strawman... which is My statement (Don't look at gage, look at the supporters statements WHO ARE accredited and experienced for what they say), WHICH YOU built into "because there's people that stole legitimate credentials to defraud the organization to get added to thier list that I don't have to discuss that but rather gage himself."

THAT is your strawman.

Why do young people do this ****e ... B'man I am a mother, grand-mother and with the benefit and hindsight of a career in a scientific/medical field there is simply NOTHING about human nature or scientific principles you can either teach me or that I feel "uncomfortable" with.

Your jejune understanding of the world holds no fear for me ... I am a wise old bird, with greater insight into this world than you presently have.

OnE day you may have developed the maturation of logic to see this ... but to me you are still like the child whom does not yet "grasp" how to tie his shoelaces !!!

Sorry B'man ... but I "fear" nothing, especially anything you have to say, you will provide no great insight or tutelage into the workings of this world or humanity ... you are commiting that great mistake of many young people in thinking that as you have learnt a little you "know" a lot !!!

Wow... that's what you took out of that... chalk this up to 'lost in translation.

And how so ... did I NOT qualify it with saying that they cherry-picked parts of a longer more explanative interview ???

Hence, the charge being out of context.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Do you even know which interview this came from ???

Yup

Nope !!!

Refresh my old memory !!!

We were discussing the Rockefeller quote from his book 'memoirs' where he ADMITS to being part of the cabal looking to create a one world government... and if that's the charge he stands proudly guilty. You claimed this to be out of context....

So, I linked to the chapter of the book... and then you made up some different context based on a previous 'cherry picked' statement... which ACTUALLY DID take things to a new context.

And once again B'man, HOW is using the event AFTERWARDS somehow proof of you doing it ???

It's not, and it's a twist on my words to say that this is my statement...

More importantly, how is taking advantage of a crime after the fact somehow not criminal in it's own right??? And why are you so eager to defend such criminality?

You keep (as usual) dodging questions asked DIRECTLY of you ... why ???

Do you just not have any good answer or is it, more likely, that in answering would mean you facing a few uncomfortable truths about yourself ???

Don't go senile on me here... I answer this EVERYTIME YOU ASK the same way...

I do answer my questions (call it A), then you read (B), or something that you have a prescripted novella as a debunk... and then I come back and point it out C, which you interpret as B and the cycle continues.

That was just the name of the programme itself !!!

Yup

But the MSM is just my prescription "dose of reality", isn't it B'man, so what would looking over this show then ...:roll:

Press TV may not be perfect, but they are NOT MSM... if that's what you were saying.... it's a more independent variety.

Ah! Chomsky doesn't like to "ruffle" feathers which must be why he was severely castigated by many over his DENIAL of the Kymer Rouge regime and the "killing fields" of Cambodias very existance ...

Chomsky lies: denial of the Khmer Rouge holocaust in Cambodia.

Noam Chomsky on Cambodia

I never said he was perfect... but he is well researched, and has a bit of a following, but re-read that part of my quote again and you'll see that's not what I was saying.

Chomsky fully believes the US had no significant evidence to connect Afghanistan to 9/11 at the TIME of the invasion, but that there is ample evidence of it being an attack BY al-Qaeda ... he's just talking about what has been uncovered about the Al-Qaeda network after 9/11, and that it didn't really exist as a network prior to 2001.

He is saying that Al-Qaeda cells are really just individuals connected by an idea rather than a solid structure, that there's no "army" of terrorists.

Note that he isn't saying anyone other than Muslim extremists committed the terrorist attacks, just not the Muslim extremists in Afghanistan.

Chomsky, in effect says that, according to the FBI, the operational planning and preparation of 9/11 wasn't done by residents of Afghanistan, and that therefore the Taliban are not to be blamed with hosting that particular terror cell ... because that operational cell were residents of Germany and then the United Arab Emirates.

:shock: that's EXACTLY what he said, and nothing was taken out of context.... Thanks for proving my original point, this is still a step in the direction that 'Something stinks with the official version' crowd, and DOES suit what his followers want, while politically 'playing it safe'... he positioned himself 'on the fence'...

I know what he said before, and for a time I thought he was a bit of a sellout for taking that position given his previous commentaries / books... BUT the strict position he took falls right into his paradigm, so as an after thought and with this new statement I can at least agree and it puts greater perspective on his previously mentioned position.

"Oh! what a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to decieve"

But then you convolve the positions so much that you end up making my points... it's great, good laughs.

You are so,so, so, so wrong B'man, for Chomsky finds truther arguments entirely WITHOUT merit ... he does, strongly, make the case that trying to avoid examination of incompetance and failure is something that does need addressed without that meaning conspiracy is correct.

You can attempt to spin linguistically all you want B'man, but the simple reality is Chomsky thinks truthers are all nuts ... it takes a special kind of obtuse to spin that "into" support !!!

No, you spun just a touch too far... I wasn't saying supporting 9-11 truth ANYMORE then his position is certain specific points that are an affront to the official story. He's got a reputation to not be a 'conspiracy theorist'... and so he must maintain this reputation.... and this analysis falls completely in line with what... and that's pretty well what I said in the first place.

The man CLEARLY thinks your nuts ... how vapid is it to try to place yourselves in a positive of light from that ... he clearly and unequivocably says you FAIL to understand your case never mind present it properly.

Now you're the one spinning... I know exactly what I said, and that is NOT what he's saying... anymore then it reflects what I was saying.

How delusive does someone have to be to think that "support" ???

I said support OF SOME elements of 9-11 truth... those that have questions because of 9-11 being USED AS A PRETEXT AFTER THE FACT. Which is the VERY LEAST level of criminality that went on... regardless of 'justification', there was and IS a CONTINUATION AND EXPANSION of the criminality since. Just look at the TSA in america.

Chomsky clearly, unequivocably, indubitably, manifestly thinks truthers are wrong ... how can you twist it to make it different, what sort of convoluted mental gymnastics are required to justify within yourself that he is on your side ???

He's saying that I am wrong when I attempt to explain things scientifically... HOWEVER, since he now talks about how there's NO EVIDENCE of al-quaida as it's being presented, WHICH FITS the facts when you make the connection between Awlacki (A-lackey), who exchanges a few emails with a person that's crazy / half-retarded people that can't set off an explosive in Times square, New york... a guy so messed up that he can't blow up his own pants, a guy that perpetrated the fort hood shooting (that's an issue in itself in the details), and so on... THIS WAY in every attack there is that 'al-qaida' connection and a continued justification of the war...or to now give people the choice of either being pictured naked, or being groped publicly to travel.... at least in areas.

So, Chomsky in his words IS supportive ONLY in the sense that he can offer legitimate disagreement to the aftermath, but not to the event itself... that's fine. That works within his paradigm, which is NOT as a scientist ANYWAY.

And how so ... for year on year support is LESSENING ... internet traffic is FALLING ... even...e preserve of the disturbed and young rebellious teenagers for a while until they grow up.

This is different... this isn't like the 60's counter-culture to become the 70's drugged out hippies. What is now going on is SO MUCH BIGGER then 9-11... 9-11 was just the catalyzing event, the root of the issue of 'where we are today'.

Prove it ... bet you can't ... well, without those OLD and tired minor poll figures from years ago which have zero relevence to here and now, you can't !!!

Look at the US elections... this was NOT about simple 'republican vs democrats'... in the major races (not counting the cases of election fraud pending proper investigation), this wasn't the type of shift that was seen previous where people get pissed off at clintons democrats and elect Bush, then get sick of Bush and elect Obama... This is 'clean out corruption' efforts... then you look at what happened in states where the likes of Clinton and Gingrich offered support of certain candidates...

Oh! people certainly "grasp" this, it's just that as you get older and wiser you see it as having nowhere near the importance you, in youth and/or immature logic. "thought" it did !!!

No, like Zbigniew Breczinski pointed out a few months ago in a CFR speech
YouTube - Brzezinski & CFR afraid of global awakening

But the big problem you have there B'man is that Chomsky clearly believes al-Qaeda behind it ... originating from Germany and the UAE, but NOT from Afghanistan ... there is a difference !!!

Not the same difference that you think it is.

Why do you think we do not already know that government is a mix of good and bad ... and the need for checks and balances ... just like in the everday, there are good and bad people with good and bad intentions ... why do you think you are educating us with knowledge and insight we do not already possess B'man ???

You have an entirely and unjustified belief that we are all naive and ignorant of things ... it is not so !!!

Those checks and balances are losing their teeth...

Then why can you not prove this "hoax" then ... why so long after publication can you STILL not point out one single factual thing they got wrong ???

I told you 3.

How come you always avoid answering this ... how can truther groups not get together and pool resourses to fund an independant scientific inquiry to prove this "hoax" in another country ???

Because the opposition is Belief = quality, NOT evidence + facts = quality

How come you have not taken such a simple proposal to them ???

Lack of ressources to [perform adequate testing...

Your stubborness over-rides reason too often ... I do not need to embelish facts with garnish ... they stand on their own merit.

"Bull**** and you know it" - IGABS

*edited the straight insults*

Please don't ... for it will be the predicatably weak stuff like the Towers being used in movies ... it is infantile nonsense to think that the "ebil them" would waste time, money and effort into "pre-planting" imagery ... because if these people are so ebil, enough to do 9/11, they sure as Hades do not care enough to pre-plant anything ... that is comic-book thinking where the baddie always lets you know his ebil plan before annihilation !!!

No... what I'm saying is that pre-planting imagery and concepts to the public is used for even certain more mundane things. I couldn't explain the entirety of the concepts behind it, but the simple way I understand it is the principle that you see moving objects with your eyes that your mind simultaneously sees as an inanimate object and so confusing your mind with the decision of whether it's a 'fight or flight' decision in play...

 

[BmanMcfly]

Then prove it ... prove they said the report "itself" was unreliable ???

Again... keeping it short
Assumption a - the plane removed ALL the fireproofing. This assumption is false because a large portion of the fireproofing would be for all intents untouched.
Assumption b - The fires heated ALL the steel equally to the point of failure. False because the protected sections would be much less affected by the flames... and much of the fuel was admittedly burned in the first minutes.

Assumption c - That a failure of the clearly most damaged segments would CAUSE failures in other sections... this is false because it wasn't just failures at the most damaged section but failures throughout the structure.

Now, that's not saying the buildings would not collapse, that there was bombs, BUT I AM saying that given the reality of the situation, the collapse would have occured differently the the video suggests.

Bet you can't ... for every single member of that Commission SIGNED OFF on ..."itself" !!!

Yes, signed off the report knowing that they did their best and that it was at least in part based on lies, distortions, omissions, and if I remember one went as far as 'criminal coverup'... but you know, that's all 'reasonable petty corruption'. Even if that's the case it deserves investigation...

Prove it ... show where they do any such thing ... exactly ???

That's the key... they just don't mention the assumptions, they just use those assumptions. How is anyone going to disprove NIST's word on the condition, and how would they go about making such a case in a scientific way?? Especially when NIST is the source of the 'investigation'?

Seriously. WTF has any of that got to do with engineering principles, calculations and equations ???

Because they have to 'show their work'... like I said, they used truth to tell the lies, they didn't care about anything else but getting the story to work... they had to have a few revisions because the criticism was too strong... I think they are done with that issue now, so they don't care anymore.

WTF would a police radio report add to an engineering report regarding engineering ???

Oh just other bombs going off at roughly the same time as the towers being hit.,... that doesn't matter though. Nobody talks about that... or the Mossad agents that were tasked with 'documenting the event'... they were charged and then sent back to Israel.

Explain exactly how this infomation should have been part of a ...EQUATIONS, MATHEMATICAL DATA and FEA's???

Because when investigating forensic engineering, it seems appropriate to discuss all the known relevant facts and then working it out from there... but they started with the story and then used the needed facts to back it up.

Aside from the simple fact that he would NEVER come to the same conclusion as Gage ... because Bazant actually does know what he is talking about !!!

IT WAS DOOOMED!!! Ya... I'm sorry, but his 'simple analysis' well, not only did he mention a couple details that violated NIST's version... ummm... it was umm... he did use NIST's same hidden assumptions, but I'd have to read through it again...

All of these cities have a combined population of near NINE million and yet the level of support and/or action for 9/11 issues is shown to be negligable ... no-one is interested B'man, that is the reality !!!

Don't worry about the 9-11 support... that's not even a big enough gauge of 'waking up'... it happens in many different ways.

Hopefully you notice too how most of these groups are moving away ...fast !!!

I've tried to say that a few times, there are more pertinent and dire issues that require discussion... but 9-11 is at the root of so many of those issues it's worthy of discussion....now, people are waking up to the real world now.

Seriously B'man 9/11 truthers are wholeheartedly considered a joke and bunch of idiots ... a tiny flea on the dogs body of politics and world issues !!!

The thing is that now, it's just a case of 'everybody knows' and everybody still has that sense of powerlessness of what they feel they can do to oppose these things... and it's either making the tough choice to stand up now, or further down the road when things are worse, or stand up further up when it's worse... people are walking up... it's like the analogy of the damn breaking, you're seeing now is that the leaks are breaking faster and faster.... in a few years it will be understood the level of 'interesting times' that are coming.

That politics is a dirty business is not unknown to us or unexpected ... so how does any of this relate to the ebil gubmint doing 9/11 ???

Just read PNAC's Rebuilding america's defenses through and through... understand this was written PRIOR to Bush being elected, the unanswered allegations of voter fraud, etc... and after Bush was elected many of the co-authors took chairs in Bush's cabinet.

Do that, and if you read that without the debunkers book open for every sentence, then you'll see the importance when you consider world events in that time.

B'man it is easy to make claims against ...assume they therefore have a real good grip on how these things really work !!!

Look, really, if you're talking about Jones peer-reviewed paper, it's passed a peer-review, you think it's junk science, for you to make that clear, wouldn't that require a peer-review as well??? And you could even school him with a higher grade of equipment...

And that is blatant ignorance B'man ... so, remind me again of what tutoring ...scientific standard engineering report ???

The fact that my innate intelligence tells me when I'm being lied to... look, I know that IF block A is pulverizing lower block B that it will have to have it's accelleration rate reduced because of the 'work' going on... in all I do question WHETHER this is a physically viable question, if a simple 1-2 story drop would provide the results as was witnessed.

But mainly, I knew something was wrong with the official story when OBL was fingered as quickly as he was... they were still digging people up, nobody had done any PROPER investigating... but the war plans were written before the casualties were counted... That alone is questionable.

See this is where you go completely wrong too ... WTC 7 did not collapse within 3% of freefall ... a SMALL PART of WTC 7 did ... what part of small means the entire building ???

Show me the video that demonstrates that the building collapsed from 1 side progressively to the other side... That's not the case, of if it was the case, that's still a 47 story building essentially disintegrating... Now, if you drop a baseball off the side as it collapsed, the baseball would be slowed down by air resistance by comparable levels... 17 stories of the building disappeared... for all intents and purposed... the concrete was pulverized but the fact of the matter is that as 'work' pulverizing concrete is resistance working against it...

Yes, isn't it funny that there is no resistance after things BUCKLE, but there is just before ???

Then where is the SOUND of the buckling?? That ALSO makes some noise.

You should by now have learned enopugh about failure modes to ...a part inside buckled earlier than the rest

Luckily, in the real world, buildings don't collapse like that...

Why ... does eyewitness testimony supercede physical signs of explosives ???

It's not about superceding, it's about being THOROUGH.

Upon which you find out the vast majority of them are not saying bombs ... we have their FULL words available so why would they need be further investigated.

I understand that there was legitimate sounds that could be interpreted as explosions... BUT the extent of ALL of this talk of explosions, explosives, describing explosions, etc... REQUIRES, if you have any scientific scrutiny, that you at least TEST for explosives to 'rule out' that as a reason.

Now, no matter WHAT you say, nobody performed the test, so NOBODY can conclusively say one way or the other. Thanks NIST.

Why do you not see this ???

I understand completely, you're too scared to admit that TESTING and PUBLISHING THE RESULTS of the test for all intents and purposes SHOULD HAVE been performed. I know that there were alot of people that chose to jump... but that accounts for SOME of the eyewitnesses...

Which, IF truthers were truly honest, they would look through and withdraw ....were describing.

LET'S JUST CENSOR PEOPLE!!! Way to slip that one in there... and this AGAIN proves to anyone reading that you illogically lump thoughts together as a single unit... I'm saying let's look at ALL.... and as sad as the people choosing to jump, that's not ALL of what people were describing. So, to discount them all because of the SOME, is completely unjustified... and ALL I HAVE BEEN SAYING is that this requires a test, given the NUMBER of UNANSWERED eyewitness accounts of explosions / explosives, etc... that there was NO TEST ALONE shows the lack of scientific 'unbiased research' went into this.

Do you not also see that in lessening the numbers of eyewitnesses by ...of legitimate testimony for bombs too ... can you not see this ???

Yes... but you aren't taling about lessening numbers, but 'eliminating the rest' cause 'you explained some'...

So what, there were none there !!!

STOP LYING! IF YOU DID NOT TEST IT YOU CANNOT MAKE THAT CLAIM! End of story... and you call yourself a scientist?

And what expertise leads you to this ... or are you just making **** up again ???
...

A VISUAL examination is, therefore, PARAMOUNT ... once again you are arguing from ignorance ... it is not a good strategy !!!

Of course.... but NIST HAD EVIDENCE to suggest that this testing should be performed... it was not.

As said in my second sentece which you convienently left out ... for I clearly said you do NOT examine for something for which there is no physical evidence of ... *tsk *tsk* ... more than a little dishonest of you B'man ... again !!!

I had to shorten things as best I could... I repeated myself about 10 less times by cutting stuff out.

I realize more than you think ... I realize fully what human beings are capable of ... but my standards of proof are so high that I demand MORE than supposition and possibility.

No, your standard of proof is based on the letters preceding or following a persons name. But I don't 'trust experts' unless they've earned that trust...

Suspicion of government alone is not enough to show they did it ... THAT is what you utterly fail to realize, your resentment, suspicion and misgivings of them is not enough to show complicity.

Fine, don't believe that there was complicity... I don't care, that doesn't mean that you can LEGITIMATELY and HONESTLY say that the investigation was fully sufficient... it clearly was not... in any standard. In spite of your kind words towards corruption, something stinks about it and if we don't find out the truth... well, you'll be 'forced' to wake up at some point.

The failures of humanity are "normal" ... no-one is super-human and ab...make mistakes !!!

But you would oppose investigation of these individuals for their relevant failures??

No B'man, what you have is a suspicious and paranoic minset that leads you to see coincidences where none exist.

No, running into your friend walking down the street is coincidence. Having a friend call you when you think their name is coincidence.

You see conspiracy everywhere ... that is indicative of a more psychological issue !!!

No, I don't 'see conspiracy everywhere'... I just don't dismiss evidence on the merit that it requires a conspiracy... mind you, 2 people planning a home invasion is a conspiracy... so don't make 'conspiracy' to mean more then it means.

FINALLY...

 

[creativedreams]

outstanding post #27 Blue... but I think it's wasted on some here. How sad for them.

Sad indeed ... and another wee dram your way too ... enjoy !!!

So sweet to see the sheeple stick together.....I think I have a tear in my eye.....too bad so many prominent people in the world and such a large percentage of the population of the world would not have a tear in their eye because they believe a lot different than you sheeple's...

 

[505]

So sweet to see the sheeple stick together.....I think I have a tear in my eye.....too bad so many prominent people in the world and such a large percentage of the population of the world would not have a tear in their eye because they believe a lot different than you sheeple's...

Go make 15 threads about it. Don't forget the youtube videos.

 

[mike2810]

So sweet to see the sheeple stick together.....I think I have a tear in my eye.....too bad so many prominent people in the world and such a large percentage of the population of the world would not have a tear in their eye because they believe a lot different than you sheeple's...

and this debating?

 

[OscarB63]

and this debating?

it's all they've got.

 

[BmanMcfly]

it's all they've got.

Oh did you miss the 3 posts worth just prior??

I know it's long, but there's gotta be SOMETHING in there where you could add two cents to the discussion...

 

[mike2810]

Oh did you miss the 3 posts worth just prior??

I know it's long, but there's gotta be SOMETHING in there where you could add two cents to the discussion...

BM: You generally respond well for your views and treat others who may disagree with respect. CD seems to like to result to insults if you disagree with his views.

 

[BmanMcfly]

BM: You generally respond well for your views and treat others who may disagree with respect. CD seems to like to result to insults if you disagree with his views.

Thanks I try to, even though some people make it difficult.

But that wasn't even the point I was trying to make... which was more along the lines of 'rather then focusing on the posts that aren't contributing as much, try counter the legitimate posts...'

 

[MaggieD]

and I and I expect others, can bring up countless more who debunk much of the disturbing things. There is a huge difference of stating an opinion and stating facts that can be proven. I challenge the "truthers" to take their evidence and present it in court. When will the opinions be backed up with evidence that is shown to the public or in court?
By the way, what makes a former NASA an expert on controlled demolition? It is just another opinion.

It would be very difficult, if not impossible, for truthers to take their evidence to court. Number One, who has "standing?" Who sues whom for what??

 

[creativedreams]

CD seems to like to result to insults if you disagree with his views.

Sorry mike for the insults....I guess when I don't get the attention I want I resort to that....a personality glitch I guess that gets attention good or bad.

I actually respect you a lot and am sorry for being disrespectful....

 

[usda select]

It would be very difficult, if not impossible, for truthers to take their evidence to court. Number One, who has "standing?" Who sues whom for what??

Nonsense; I can file a complaint in court alleging that Dick Cheney caused me psychological harm by formulating the attacks seeking damages in the amount of ten billion dollars. It never makes it out of discovery if it even makes it that far. But filing a suit is absolutely no hurdle.

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Not familiar with the martyr videos,

All available on Al Jazzera and other Eastern networks ...

Raehatu Al-Misk

So, they admitted to making fake videos of Saddam and Bin Laden. ...

Why the "s" ... there was only ONE video ever made and the whole project was given up for being nonsense ... did you read the whole article you linked for it clearly shows this to be nothing more than ideas that were "shop-talked" before being binned ???

The very next sentences to the one you cut and pasted explains ...

"Eventually, “things ground to a halt,” the other former officer said, because no one could come to agreement on the projects."

They also faced strong opposition from James Pavitt, then head of the agency’s Operations Division, and his deputy, Hugh Turner, who “kept throwing darts at it.”

"The ideas were patently ridiculous, said the other former agency officer."

“They came from people whose careers were spent in Latin America or East Asia” and didn’t understand the cultural nuances of the region."

“Saddam playing with boys would have no resonance in the Middle East -- nobody cares,” agreed a third former CIA official with extensive experience in the region. “Trying to mount such a campaign would show a total misunderstanding of the target. We always mistake our own taboos as universal when, in fact, they are just our taboos"

That's NOT evidence of 'al-quaida'.

How so ???

Then... oh ya, we didn't maintain the rule of law and have bin laden officially charged for his perpetration of 9-11 because he's already a wanted man.

How so ???

You're missing the point of my statement, but then demonstrate the point that I was making. You MUST attack Gage as the head, then you deny the existence of supporters by insinuating that it's ALL fake... as a tactic to avoid what, NOT GAGE, BUT THE ACCREDITED engineers have to say about it.

And how exactly is attacking the FIGUREHEAD not also an attack on the organization ... Gage speaks as one voice for all ???

Because he's still an architect, so he has an understanding of the principles at work...

Sorry, but no ... architects have no-where near an understanding of physics and materials science that a structures engineer does ... architects "draw" stuff and it is the engineers expertise which works out the how to !!!

Remind me again of on which planet it is where a relatively unknown and mediocre architect can speak with greater understanding of structural analyisis than one of the most respected, acknowledged structural engineers ever ???

SO, he would definitively be speaking beyond any expertise if he talked about those.

Why so ... is the Pentagon also not a "building" ... is the Shanksville crash also not subject to many of the same laws and principle of physics as at the WTC ???

... to my knowledge he's not a 501(c)3, so he'd still have to pay taxes on that.

Wrong ...

"Also, AE911Truth has been approved as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit organization. Donations from U.S. taxpayers can be tax-deductible for our supporters."

Volunteers and Financial Supporters: The Foundation for Mission Success

http://www2.ae911truth.org/donations/taxdeductible.php

How do you not already know this B'man ... since Gage seems such a hero, you should know everytime the guy breaks wind ???

But if you want to put it to the sense of 'evil money making'... what do you think the war contractors / mercenaries companies / military industries have made out of 9-11's reaction??? Probably in the 100's of billions of dollars by now. That's without need of getting into the crimes these mercs perpetrate on their own account.

Why would you even need to ask, as a mother and grandmother I hate violence and war ... and how much money is wasted in such ???

But I do also accept (regretfully) that man is a violent creature and has not evolved enough yet to live life peacefully with all ... look back to history, even this now peaceful nation of Scotland had a long and bloody past, where violence, disease, death and suffering were the norm.

Good, if he can make money fighting the good fight, then let him.

How come others seem to fight their own "good fight" without earning a professionals wage ???

You have very lax morality and complete double-standards when it comes to your own heros it seems !!!

They are respected professionals many of them and you just blanket slander them instead of reading their words, based off the slander of another man and call them 'associates'.... .

Why do you think I have not read their words ???

And they are guilty by association for falling for the words of an obvious charlatan ... whether by incompetence personally or political bias or any other reason why people "fall" for things !!!

Does it not strike you as strange that these "respected professionals" have failed to do anything more in this beyond signing an online forum ... why have they done no "professional" analysis or presentation to the engineering communities ???

and fail to see the strawman I've been repeatedly trying to show you building.

No B'man ... that is your failing !!!

That's not what you're doing.

Yes it is ... the group demonstrate poor standards in many ways ... that I hold them collectively responsible is not a smear or demonization.

Clear your own house first ... they haven't done that !!!

But failing the class because of 1 students results IS that attempt.

B'man ... yes, you can in this case ... for this is just an ONLINE PETITION ... there are no requirements past signing for any further participation ... and unless you specifically request removal your name stays there forever ...which is probably how long this will be online for ... never presented ... never working towards anything.

Yet they are claiming professional levels of support and past putting your name up there there is not much more happening ... why do you not expect better from them ???

Why do you accept, and more telling, defend mediocrity ???

The ones that ARE accredited professionals WITH relevant experience...

Which ones ... name one accredited professional on that list with relevant expertise ???

Name one B'man ... for aside from putting their name on an online petition they have done NOTHING beyond that ... which considering how important this topic is and how being such experts and all I WOULD expect greater participation from them.

But apart from their name ... which (and let's be perfectly honest here) ANYONE and their dog could have put up names without their knowledge and permission and that there is zero further from them.

I would EXPECT a real engineering analysis from them ... why don't you ???

I would EXPECT further than them from their name on a list ... you are touting these accredited professionals ... so let's hear what they have DONE apart from a name on a list ???

WHY have they not got together and done something a bit more credible, professional and analytical than a PowerPoint ???

WHERE are the diagrams, the FEA's, the calculations ???

but you're so busy maintaining this slander campaign that you don't notice that in the face of being called out on this tactic you use that same tactic in your own defense.

It would be more correct to call libel, as that applies to the written word.

But why am I being libelous or slandrous for commenting on their known mistakes ... that their verification process is flawed is demonstrable ... that makes it FACTUAL.

That they have presented their claims in a failed and weak way and have studiously avoided legitimate peer scrutiny is demonstrable ... that is also FACTUAL.

That they cliam authority by claiming architects and engineers when a "ceramics engineer" is patenly unqualified to speak is demonstrable ... that therefore is also FACTUAL and in no way any defamation !!!

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Why are you so eager to tear down one sides incompetence,

Why are you so eager to DEFEND such easily fixed incompetence ???

Why do you let them fail you with such simple mistakes ???

yet failing to acknowledge or even tacitly APPROVING of that incompetence when it comes out the other end??? At what point does this become hypocrisy? At what point does it become demonstrably intentional?

What are you jabbering on about ???

I've done it for you before...

Where ???

there's was about 1-5 individuals from EACH major accredited organization you mentioned... in your previous attempts to claim 0.

Making up stuff again, are we ???

Show them then ???

Not playing this game for you again with your over eager pushing of the 'deny' button.

Reality ... reality will always out !!!

Oh I get it... so because of your opinion Gage's punching a hooker means that the whole group that share a singular belief of his should be thrown in jail as well... if that's not what you were intending to say, think about what you're saying first.

Oh! I get it ... rather than admitting the reality that there IS such a thing as collective responsibility I'll have a little whine instead !!!

ANYTHING to not look at what they say... I get it... and you've made my point.

ANYTHING to avoid admitting that they do let you down by failing to correct poor standards ... I get it ... YOU made your own point, not me !!!

Yes... and you maintained your strategy of using truth to tell lies. The whole way through as I recall... EXCEPT for 1 point... where you ACTUALLY made a good point that was relevant.

Except ALL my points were relevent ... that you just took one is not unexpected.

NO... the discussion NOW is about how IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT their principles are... you could have a group 'catholic nuns for 9-11 truth' and you would rip them apart saying that one of them one time missed a prayer session.

I rip them apart because they are wrong ... they cannot prove their case ... it has NOTHING to do with personalities, this is what you fail to understand.

It is because their claims, their science IS pure junk and has zero merit in reality ... that I ALSO point out flaws of administration and qualifications within the group is not an attack on personality.

I do not attack them just because I somehow don't "like" Gage ... I attack them because their claims are moronic with no basis in truth, that they are fronted by a grasping charlatan is PART of the wider issues with them ... Gage is speaking outwith his area ... that is a FACT ... not an attack on him as a person !!!

The group collectively and as individuals have got nothing ... it is a cash cow for Gage ... that is clear to anyone with a skeptical bone in their body, that they will NEVER present this illustrious "petition" is a given, as well as that they will NEVER present a proper engineering report of their claims to the wider engineering communities anywhere ... they will stick rigidly to their Powerpoint which is just technical sounding enough to fool the scientifically illiterate !!!

(Don't look at gage, look at the supporters statements WHO ARE accredited and experienced for what they say),

I have ... they have got nothing more than personal incredulity and supposition ... and parroting what Gage says ... pretty standard fare of twoofs !!!

I do not just look at Gage, but Gage is the frontline and figurehead, so like all such he will shoulder ultimate responsibility ... I have looked at the "others" and STILL find they have NOTHING valid to say !!!

WHICH YOU built into "because there's people that stole legitimate credentials to defraud the organization to get added to thier list that I don't have to discuss that but rather gage himself."

Who stole ???

How the hell can you "defraud" an online petition ... grow up !!!

And how is using the FIGUREHEAD Gage not also including the group he fronts ... see this is where you show naivety ... you need to condense your argument when it involves many people for it is impossible to include each and everyone individuality ... it would take until Hell freezes over !!!

So when taking about any organization in a collective sense you use the major figure, even when talking generally, Gage is the FRONT LINE.

Wow... that's what you took out of that... chalk this up to 'lost in translation.

No, not what I "took" but rather an addendum to ... us grannies often do that !!!

Hence, the charge being out of context.

I think you need look up the definition of "out of context" ???

For how is my statement referring to only one part of a far longer interview being me "out of context" ... here is my statement this response refers to, perhaps other readers might like to comment on whom here is genuinely "out of context" ???

"And how so ... did I NOT qualify it with saying that they cherry-picked parts of a longer more explanative interview ??? "