Open mike 22/11/09

183 comments on “Open mike 22/11/09 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. travellerev 1

   22 November 2009 at 8:17 am

   Wow,

   Who would have thought? Little old New Zealand.

   I’m proud of you.

   After the dismal interview with Kim Hill 750 people turned up to hear what Richard Gage really had to say. We only had place for 300 but te Papa installed a screen in the Oceania room to accomodate another 300 people and we “only” had to turn a 150 peope away.

   50% came to hear Richard because the were sceptical or unsure but our of those 150 (I don’t have the figures for the upstairs room yet) only 3 remained unconvinced.

   This was the most visited presentation Richard Gage has ever done. Little old New Zealand, awesome.

   You have another chance to meet with this man in Auckland on the 30th of November.

   Be there! Especially the sceptics.

   Oh, and a big thanks to Gosman, who I have to say showed himself for the coward he is by not showing up, did arouse massive interest with his hate campaign against Janette Fitzsimmons online.

   Cheers mate.
   • Gosman 1.1

     22 November 2009 at 1:33 pm

     Ummmm….. I was there Travellerev. Didn’t you hang around at the end?
     • travellerev 1.1.1

       23 November 2009 at 11:00 am

       Where you that young idiot with the leather head screaming that if it was a “conspiracy” somebody would have talked dude with the silly Aussie hat?

       If so get therapy my man.

       And why did you not introduce yourself so at least we could have shook hands before battle eh?

       An apology? I don’t think so. If you had introduced yourself I would have perhaps done so but you stayed incognito. The cowards way.
   • Gosman 1.2

     22 November 2009 at 10:04 pm

     BTW do I get an apology from you for claiming I was a coward for not showing up?

     Oh wait…. that is right you’re a Conspiracy theorist so you don’t even acknowledge you could be wrong.

     LOL!
2. RedLogix 2

   22 November 2009 at 9:26 am

   Well done travellerev, and congratulations. Those numbers are fantastic. You’ve achieved far more than any of us sitting on our butts typing.

   I made the choice not to attend in the end mainly because I had a feeling that there would be a big crowd and while I’m sure that Richard would have had some interesting details to add… sometimes there’s not a lot of point in preaching to the converted. (I can’t prove this claim at all, but in January 2002 I emailed a 911 guy called ‘PlaugePuppy’ with the idea that thermite may have been involved and for all I know that may have been one of the first mentions of this idea anywhere.)

   Perhaps the most persuasive evidence, for me personally, of ‘something not right’ was the thermal satellite images, taken in the weeks after, showing ridiculously large hot spots in the wreckage. When videos clips finally surfaced clearly showing tons of molten metal pouring out of the collapsing building… it was game over. There was for a while the sensible counter-argument that these gushes of bright cheery red metal would have been molten aluminium from the aircraft bodies, but it turns out that uniquely among all metals, aluminium does not glow red/white when molten.

   And this is just one of dozens, if not hundreds, of pieces of evidence that do not fit with the ‘official story’… which in itself is the most feeble ‘conspiracy theory’ ever suckered onto us.

   Equally it is also vital to set aside all the many unsupported speculations that have flourished around 911. There are without question numerous cranks, unbalanced people and disinformation agents who must be ignored. Their mixing of valid information with false or speculative ideas is distracting.. and the resulting strawmen just invite debunking and ridicule.

   All that is asked for is a proper investigation, one that attempts to honestly answer these many, many questions. (The 911 Commission has already been repudiated by it’s own members as ‘set up to fail’, and ‘repeatedly lied to’.)

   Now if it turns out that all these many items of contradictory evidence can be unequivocally explained by the actions of the remarkable Mr bin Laden, who organised all these things while rotting in a cave in Afghanistan (and on kidney dialysis).. then so be it. But I wouldn’t bet much cash on it.
   • travellerev 2.1

     23 November 2009 at 11:02 am

     Bugger, I would have liked to have met you. LOL
     • travellerev 2.1.1

       23 November 2009 at 11:17 am

       By the way. It was the Wellington activists who achieved this feat not me. Not me at all.
3. truthwillout 3

   22 November 2009 at 10:42 am

   It’s only a matter of time before the real story comes out.

   The most rational explanation for what really happended that I’ve seen is that the spaceships from Area 51 actually ray gunned the Towers down while the populace of NYC were held in time stasis, and all those Jews were fudging up dodgy swap default instruments.
   • RedLogix 3.1

     22 November 2009 at 11:00 am

     You think you are being funny, but that kind of transparent, derivative drivel is just sad.
     • Scott 3.1.1

       22 November 2009 at 11:04 am

       Maybe so, but it’s not much less preposterous than the conspiracy theory believed by most truthers.

       I took the time to listen to Richard Gage on Radio NZ yesterday. I don’t understand the science behind his claims, because I’m not a scientist. But I’ve read enough online to know a number of reputable scientists and engineers have taken issue with his findings.

       But what gets it for me is the preposterous conspiracy theory you have to accept for Gage’s findings to be true. Gage himelf admits hundreds of people had to be in on the conspiracy. And his explanation for why nobody has yet gone to the media is entirely unconvincing. If the “mainstream media” won’t listen, why has nobody gone instead to Richard Gage? Or to any of the other “truthers”?

       And if the US government/New World Order/Reptilian elite are so intent on keping this conspiracy secret, and have killed people to keep it silent, why haven’t they killed Richard Gage and people like him?

       That’s where the whole thing falls over.

       I won’t be going on the 30th – not just because I have other things on that day, but also because I’ve seen and heard enough to recognise this as just another crazy conspiracy theory.

       I’m sure many people were convinced by the “evidence” Gage put forward yesterday. That proves nothing. It was a one-sided presentation. If you fill a room with people who are undecided on the issue and then let a 911 debunker do a two-hour show in front of them, I bet almost all of the audience will be convinced the 911 conspiracy is a joke.
       • NickS 3.1.1.1

         22 November 2009 at 11:18 am

         What Scott said. Also, there’s way to many parallels with other forms of denialism for me to actually take truthers seriously….
       • Zorr 3.1.1.2

         22 November 2009 at 11:23 am

         Also, if you desire to be a “911 Truther” your theory has to trump one giant card in the deck of all the people against you. You have to prove that the Bush administration was competent enough to pull this off with zero leaks over the next 8 years. Too bad there are plenty of examples of them failing to pull off the small intrigues without leaks to completely undermine this.
         • travellerev 3.1.1.2.1

           23 November 2009 at 11:05 am

           We don’t have to prove anything. What you are saying amounts to saying to the family of a murder victim, you have to prove he is murdered.

           We have proven that the official story sucks and we demand a new and independent new investigation. Not to much in light of the wars and deaths that occurred as a result of the events.
           • Geek 3.1.1.2.1.1

             23 November 2009 at 11:17 am

             That’s nothing like what he is saying. He is saying you have to prove guilt. Every one accepts that thousands died. you are trying to prove that the majority of scientists have been convinced to lie about what happened by the least liked and frankly dumbest president in US history and that he managed to convince every one of them to stay silent about it for 8 years. That’s a pretty big stretch. Almost along the lines of proving that global warming isn’t real.
           • Gosman 3.1.1.2.1.2

             23 November 2009 at 11:23 am

             You haven’t proven anything of the sort Travellerev.

             The mainstream scientific position is consistent with the Official version of what happened on September the 11th. The studies suggesting Active Thermite was present in the debris have been discredited. The NIST reports have dealt with the claims that the buildings were brought down by Controlled Demolitions and found that the evidence for this is extremely weak to non-existent.

             Now don’t you think the mainstream scientific consensus is something we should interest ourselves in when determining the validity of claims or do you just cheery pick the studies to suit your prejudiced views?
           • TrubbaMan 3.1.1.2.1.3

             25 November 2009 at 3:44 am

             Gosman: ACTUALLY, NIST PREVENTED investigation into the use of explosives when it categorically “ruled out” explosives beforehand, without ever having tested for them or actually considering them as the force that brought down WTC7. Furthermore, this wording of yours – “…[NIST] found that the evidence for this is extremely weak to non-existent” – is basically how the 9-11 Commission Report’s characterised NIST’s own conclusion about the probability that fire could have brought down the building. You have it completely backward.
       • Erik Larson 3.1.1.3

         24 November 2009 at 4:48 am

         Scott- “And if the US government/New World Order/Reptilian elite are so intent on keping this conspiracy secret, and have killed people to keep it silent, why haven’t they killed Richard Gage and people like him?”

         Why would they risk killing people? You, like many people, have apparently been socialized to automatically believe “big lies” and dismiss contradictory evidence as “conspiracy theory”. The fact that you also cite “Reptilian elite”, something which hardly any, if any, real people believe, is evidence of this.

         And what’s the incentive for whistleblowers to come forward? If they were part of the plot, they may be subject to prosecution for mass murder/treason, losing wealth/social standing. What’s the incentive for a reporter/journalist in the MSM to try and do a story, when their editor/publisher is likely to kill/twist the story, and they will be ostracized as a “conspiracy theorist”? Yet, even so, stories are being done. The Establishment has sold itself to the official conspiracy theory, it’s going to support it as long as it can.

         Scott- “I’m sure many people were convinced by the “evidence’ Gage put forward yesterday. That proves nothing. It was a one-sided presentation. If you fill a room with people who are undecided on the issue and then let a 911 debunker do a two-hour show in front of them, I bet almost all of the audience will be convinced the 911 conspiracy is a joke.”

         Certainly, logical fallacies do fool people some of the time. This explains why the official story about ‘collapse’, that plane damage, jet fuel/office fires, building mass and gravity caused 110 story skyscrapers to pulverize into huge clouds of dust, “essentially in free fall” (NIST NCSTAR 1, Section 6.14.4), has been accepted by so many people. I accepted it w/o question for nearly 4 years.

         Zorr- “You have to prove that the Bush administration was competent enough to pull this off with zero leaks over the next 8 years.”

         Who said it was Bush, or simply the Bush Administration? 9/11 has been used to justify an endless ‘war on terror’, subversions of the Constitution, massive increases in funding for the military-industrial complex, invasions of geo-strategic countries and institution of a domestic surveillance state. The reaction of Congress and the public to the ‘shock and awe’ of the failure of the intelligence and defense establishment to stop even a single hijacked plane and the total destruction of the WTC towers was entirely predictable. With all these people who benefited, why are you saying it was just Bush? Bush sat in the classroom for 7″ after they ADMITTED they KNEW the nation was under attack- but the Secret Service left him at the elementary school- just miles from an airport- for nearly HALF AN HOUR after they admitted they knew.
         • Edward_the_cat 3.1.1.3.1

           25 November 2009 at 11:34 am

           > the Secret Service left him at the elementary school- just miles from an airport- for nearly HALF AN HOUR

           This much at least does admit a rational explanation. Under the circumstances of a terrorist attack such as 911 the Secret Service would have the responsibility to anticipate a potential assassination attempt on the POTUS. In such a context they couldn’t just blindly rush him out without first making sure the route was secured. Keeping him there while they checked the surrounding area was perfectly within the line of responsibility of the Secret Service.
       • Marian 3.1.1.4

         24 November 2009 at 7:20 am

         Scott,
         Let’s see why this “conspiracy theory” is preposterous. It is based on two pillars, as I can see it. One, you do not believe Mr Gage’s science – you are not scientist. But you can very well decide his science is not worth much, because of other “reputable” scientists. Of course, you don’t know if those others scientists are really reputable – you are not a scientist, again. To know they are truly good you must depend on … what? Other reputable people, I suppose. See, how easy it is? How a perfect scientific explanation turns into nothing – “preposterous”. (And it is scientific- I am a physicist). Mr Gage talked directly to you – to your personal understanding. If you are not going to hear him out and seeing for yourself, why waste the time?
         The other thing that makes this “preposterous” and “crazy” is that you can’t answer why Mr Gage is still alive and such. You surely remember about things improbable vs impossible – Sherlock Holmes explained that to Dr Watson. And you find this theory improbable. But if you were a scientist you would know that that the government-NIST theories are simply impossible. As a matter of fact, they cannot really be called “theories”, because no official scientific explanation of the destruction of the three towers is availble to public.Scientific is not “Popular Mechanics”, of course, but peer-reviewed journal.
4. NickS 4

   22 November 2009 at 11:26 am

   Oh joy, here cometh the moron noise machine;
   Hackers target leading climate research unit

   And to see it in full spin mode, read the comments:
   The hacked climate science email scandal that wasn’t

   Cue Wishart et al making morons of themselves in 5, 4, 3…
   • Andrei 4.1

     22 November 2009 at 12:26 pm

     I can smell your panic from here

     From: Kevin Trenberth
     To: Michael Mann
     Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
     Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
     Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

     Hi all
     Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in
     Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We
     had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
     smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
     record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
     baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
     weather).
     Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global
     energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
     doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
     from the author.)
     The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
     travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
     shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
     system is inadequate.
     That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a
     monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
     change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with
     the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since
     Sept 2007. see
     [2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c
     urrent.ppt
     Kevin

     Never mind
     • NickS 4.1.1

       22 November 2009 at 12:37 pm

       Blawl.

       Of course, taking this out of teh long term context of climate change will make it seem like a zomg! moment Andrei, but sadly one cannot expect you to actually think. Since if you could, you’d realise that anomalies a) occur and b) need to actually long term, rather than a year to 3 years in order to pick up long term trends. Because it’s quite easy to produce any old trend line taking short term data in a noisy data set.
     • NickS 4.1.2

       22 November 2009 at 12:53 pm

       And the context of Ternberth’s email courtesy of RealClimate:

       [Response: Trenberth is talking about our inability to be able to measure the net radiation balance at the top of the atmosphere to the requisite precision to be able to say on short time scales what the energy budget is doing. The observations are inadequate for that – not sure who is saying otherwise. – gavin]

       I so love quote mining by denialists.

       captcha: steal
       Nice…
     • Andrei 4.1.3

       22 November 2009 at 2:31 pm

       You are clutching at straws there matey as are the people at RealClimate – also revealed by the E-mails to be no more than a propaganda machine for the “we must act now” brigade.

       And as for “quote mining” I purposefully included the entire E-Mail not just cherry picked sentences.

       Unlike the sorry bunch of so called scientists who have been revealed as cherry picking their data to delude the gullible as well as the unscrupulous who will seize any opportunity to make a quick buck or increase their political power.

       Hand waving and double talking just ain’t going to cut it this time

       Sorry ’bout that
       • BLiP 4.1.3.1

         22 November 2009 at 2:50 pm

         That one email you quoted came from a pile of how many?
       • NickS 4.1.3.2

         22 November 2009 at 10:56 pm

         Missed this…

         You are clutching at straws there matey as are the people at RealClimate also revealed by the E-mails to be no more than a propaganda machine for the “we must act now’ brigade.

         Yes, because explaining issues in climate science and refuting denialist bs automatically makes one a “propaganda machine”. Hell, I guess it’s the same with all those evolutionary biology sites that refute creationist bs, or sceptic blogs that pull apart “vaccines cause autism” bs.

         See, what makes a statement propaganda, is if it lies about what are evident truths for political gain. Something that is somewhat lacking from RealClimate and rather more common with the “global warming isn’t happening 1!!!111, etc etc” crowd, r.e. anything the Heartland Institute puts forward on climate change.

         And as for “quote mining’ I purposefully included the entire E-Mail not just cherry picked sentences.

         Missing of course that it’s missing the context of not only the conversation, but also the actual bloody science. Which, without renders it pretty damningly clear quote mining. Then again, you’re not known for your critical thinking skills.

         Unlike the sorry bunch of so called scientists who have been revealed as cherry picking their data to delude the gullible as well as the unscrupulous who will seize any opportunity to make a quick buck or increase their political power.

         Yeap, because being a climatologist will make you stinkin’ rich and political powerful maaan…
         /sarcasm

         And do I see a conspiracy allusion there? Oh yes I do.

         Hand waving and double talking just ain’t going to cut it this time

         Sorry ’bout that

         Ignoring of course any context of Ternberth’s email provided on RC, that thus makes your claims rather stupid.
5. RedLogix 5

   22 November 2009 at 11:46 am

   Scott,

   Like most people you are making assumptions which do not stand much scrutiny.

   1. You are assuming that all people who question the official story also believe all the ‘conspiracy theories’ . We don’t. In fact I agree with you, many of them are quite outlandish… so much that you really have to question the motives of the people who promote them. As I said above, all they invite is ridicule.

   2. You assume that in fact we have any ‘theories’ at all. I personally don’t… I have no evidence to suggest who may or may not have been involved. I am after all just an ordinary person in a far off country from the USA with no special access to any information other than what is in the public domain.

   3. You assume that most people want to know what actually happened. Well in fact most people don’t. They much prefer the comfortable muddle of nonsense the media has peddled to them, because alternative explanations do have unpleasant, discomforting consequences. As with most controversies, ‘business as usual’ is the preferred option.

   4. Most people make the mistake of thinking that ‘someone must have blown the whistle by now’. This is based on assumptions we make from our ordinary experiences in civilian life. But the USA is not like NZ; it is the largest economy in all history and it spends 45% of all it’s tax revenue on the military and covert defense institutions. This is a world entirely different to the one you or I know. This is a world that routinely undertakes covert operations…and knows how to keep secrets. And while Richard Gage acknowledges that a few hundred or so people may have had particular roles, only a few dozen or less need have had complete and incrimimating knowledge.

   5. Finally you assume also that if such a whistleblower went to the media that they would get a fair hearing. You only have to recall the treatment Scott Ritter got when he said Iraq had no WMD’s to realise how easy it is to shut someone down. The media is really more like a vast filtering operation, truth and reality has very little to do with it.

   I appreciate your admission that you don’t understand the science. I more or less do, I’m an engineer by vocation and although I’m not a professional structural engineer…. as with all engineers we do common courses in fundamental mechanics, materials and structures. I can assure you is that if the official story of 911 is correct, as regards to why the Twin Towers and WTC7 collapsed… then every other multi-storey steel framed building in the world is also a death trap and should be demolished.
   • Daveosaurus 5.1

     22 November 2009 at 11:54 am

     Multi-storey steel framed buildings aren’t designed to have a bunch of wankers fly fully-laden jet aircraft into them. WTC7 wasn’t designed to have massive amounts of debris dropped onto it. How hard is all this to understand?
     • RedLogix 5.1.1

       22 November 2009 at 2:05 pm

       Multi-storey steel framed buildings aren’t designed to have a bunch of wankers fly fully-laden jet aircraft into them.

       Well actually they are. For buildings of this height it is an obvious hazard. WTC1&2 were designed to be hit by the largest planes in existence at the time they were built. (DC707’s from memory). You may recall the bomber that hit the Empire State Building during WW2, so there was good reason to appreciate the precedent for this sort of event.

       WTC7 wasn’t designed to have massive amounts of debris dropped onto it

       WTC 7 was not hit by massive amounts of debris. Video footage from the day, from various angles, show a fully intact, undamaged structure. I’m not fully up to date with the latest information, but I believe the latest NIST reports have acknowledged this point.
     • Joseph Ciolino 5.1.2

       23 November 2009 at 12:25 pm

       Yes, they are. How can you not know this?
   • Draco T Bastard 5.2

     22 November 2009 at 12:16 pm

     The media is really more like a vast filtering operation, truth and reality has very little to do with it.

     Watch Peace, Propaganda and The Promised Land and you’ll get some idea of just how big a filter it is. Very little truth comes through the MSM.
   • gitmo 5.3

     22 November 2009 at 12:18 pm

     I have a theory

     A couple of fuel laden jets were flown into the towers by some nutters causing fires and catastophic structural damage causing them to collapse – I challenge anyone to provide a more compelling theory.
   • Scott 5.4

     22 November 2009 at 12:59 pm

     “But the USA is not like NZ; it is the largest economy in all history and it spends 45% of all it’s tax revenue on the military and covert defense institutions. This is a world entirely different to the one you or I know.”

     This is the same secret service that couldn’t manage to smuggle any WMDs into Iraq so as to justify the invasion of that country. And yet they can manage an enormous conspiracy and ensure not one single person involved comes forward. Unlikely.

     The world you describe is indeed different to the one you and I know – it doesn’t exist.

     As for Scott Ritter, he was pressured to stay silent – but he still managed to write a book and has had much media exposure. So where are the ‘I was behind 911″ tell-all books? If the MSM won’t listen to these people, why don’t they set up their own websites or talk to the 911 “truthers”?

     “I can assure you is that if the official story of 911 is correct, as regards to why the Twin Towers and WTC7 collapsed then every other multi-storey steel framed building in the world is also a death trap and should be demolished.”

     Only two towers have ever been hit by fully fuelled jumbo jets. I’m not sure the consequences of those actions would justify knocking down every steel-framed highrise building in existence.
     • RedLogix 5.4.1

       22 November 2009 at 1:39 pm

       This is the same secret service that couldn’t manage to smuggle any WMDs into Iraq so as to justify the invasion of that country.

       Again a false assumption. By that stage any WMD’s discovered would have been subject to quite intense scrutiny, especially in a Europe that was very sceptical about the invasion. It would be actually quite hard to manufacture, transport and ‘discover’ such plants, in a way that would not be likely blown.

       Besides there was no need to risk such a plant job. The objective, to invade Iraq, had been achieved… why bother with an unnecessary complication that could easily backfire catastrophically?

       The world you describe is indeed different to the one you and I know it doesn’t exist.

       Well it does. It’s a world in which over $2 trillion can be ‘lost’ and unaccounted for. (As Donald Rumsfeld himself announced on 9/10.) It’s a world in which people are born, live and die completely off the radar of civilian life, it has it’s own jargon, protocols and culture… and it is utterly enormous. The only glimpse I had of it was second hand via a person I worked for some years ago. This man held (and again I’m being deliberately vague)… an exceedingly responsible and highly technical role in one of the Services (think to the max here.) The small amount he told me, in general terms only, was chilling.

       Not for an instant do I imagine that ordinary line of command military people were involved in 911, but there exist people and entities that are most definitely not line-of command.

       Only two towers have ever been hit by fully fuelled jumbo jets.

       They were not 747’s, rather smaller planes, not that much bigger than what the buildings were actually designed to survive. (Which incidentally they did for up to an hour or so.)

       Your answer deliberately ignores WTC7, not hit by any planes, nor by much debris, nor especially on fire.
       • Quoth the Raven 5.4.1.1

         22 November 2009 at 4:56 pm

         Have a look here Red – Structure Magazine, a well respected magazine for structural engineers, has come out with a probable collapse hypothesis. “Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7” points out that the failure of column 79 in the lower levels will create the very effect we see in videos.
6. gitmo 6

   22 November 2009 at 12:20 pm

   So the planes that flew into the buildings were actually a diversion for the preplanned demolition with explosives well Yes I can see how that makes perfect sense.
   • RedLogix 6.1

     22 November 2009 at 12:24 pm

     Well yes. I guess if you are going to illegally demolish some large buildings with people still in them… then a cover story would be logical.

     Think of it as a conjourers act, making everyone look one one way, while they are doing something else in plain view. It’s a routine trick really.
     • gitmo 6.1.1

       22 November 2009 at 12:33 pm

       Phew it’s a lucky thing the planes flew into those buildings as they wouldn’t have had a cover story.
       • RedLogix 6.1.1.1

         22 November 2009 at 1:16 pm

         Once more round this loop, and you will vanish up your own fundamental.

         All I have ever suggested is:

         1. There is a bunch of solid public domain information and evidence that contradicts the official story. For instance, why the billions of iron micro-spheres found in the dust that day? Open flame non-stochiometric liquid fuel fires don’t do that to steel.

         2. All the attempts to review the evidence so far have been notably flawed. For instance, how can anyone continue to believe the results of the 911 Commission, when it has been repudiated by it’s own members?

         3. That most people will not to examine the open, unequivocal evidence with an open mind. They much prefer to ridicule and kick over irrelevant strawmen than honestly re-evaluate the story the media originally told them. This thread is perfect evidence of that behaviour.

         4. This behaviour is actually quite predicatable, and for this reason can be easily exploited by people who understand how to manipulate subconcious motivations in the mass of people.

         Think ‘Shock and Awe”. Think why the footage of that day was repeated on TV news channels, not a few times, but in the US at least… hundreds of times that day. This was not about informing people of events; it was done to create a window of emotional trauma that can be used to create a false narrative to which people become deeply attached.

         This story has rabbit holes leading off in dozens of directions. Many of them likely dead ends. Years ago I realised that until we had an investigation that could authoratively establish what actually happened that day, that it was pointless speculating on ideas that had no solid evidence to support them.
         • gitmo 6.1.1.1.1

           22 November 2009 at 1:40 pm

           “Years ago I realised that until we had an investigation that could authoratively establish what actually happened that day, that it was pointless speculating on ideas that had no solid evidence to support them.”

           As I said above ..A couple of fuel laden jets were flown into the towers by some nutters causing fires and catastophic structural damage causing them to collapse ….but I guess there are some people who will not accept that this was the cause of the collapse and that other nefarious forces were at work.
         • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.1.2

           22 November 2009 at 2:07 pm

           but I guess there are some people who will not accept that this was the cause of the collapse and that other nefarious forces were at work.

           That’s because, under normal circumstances, those planes would not have been able to hit those buildings. It takes the US Air force about 10 minutes to intercept a civilian aircraft after they’ve been notified that a hijacking has taken place. A couple of more minutes to try to communicate with them, determine possible causes/end scenarios and then shoot them down.
           • prism 6.1.1.1.2.1

             22 November 2009 at 3:45 pm

             If worn out with trying to process the data on 9/11, Mythbusters have lots of explosions showing them using thermite vs ice and On a Frozen Lake on You Tube. It won’t help to find the truth but provides some short brain diversion.
           • Quoth the Raven 6.1.1.1.2.2

             22 November 2009 at 4:48 pm

             Draco – I didn’t expect truther stuff from you…. anyway:

             FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. “They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us,” says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked — the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

             Why couldn’t ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes’ transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country’s busiest air corridors. And NORAD’s sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. “It was like a doughnut,” Martin says. “There was no coverage in the middle.” Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn’t prepared to track them.
           • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.1.2.3

             22 November 2009 at 4:59 pm

             Quoth, that’s shows a different time line from what I’d previously read. I stopped watching 9/11 coverage about 5 years ago with the general assumption that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to show that another investigation should take place. I’d also concluded that it was probably too late to achieve anything.
           • Edward_the_cat 6.1.1.1.2.4

             24 November 2009 at 10:12 pm

             > It takes the US Air force about 10 minutes to intercept a civilian aircraft

             In reality, the Payne Stewart interception took about 76 minutes. Of course the USAF has upgraded procedures since 911, but that’s a different issue.

             > and then shoot them down.

             Shooting hijacked planes down was not a customary procedure before 911. In those daya it was more standard to assume that hijackers were going to issue demands somewhere, rather than crashing the plane into a building.
           • TrubbaMan 6.1.1.1.2.5

             25 November 2009 at 4:05 am

             EdwardT.Cat.– I can’t let your comment stand for its gross distraction from the truth, but someone else may be interested in finding the exact numbers. I have them somewhere in books, and they are no doubt easily corroborated online. Your time for the interception of that small Stewart jet is not doubted (though there were mitigating circumstances on that I seem to recall) but you failed to note the dozens of interceptions done in 2001 (prior to 9/11) that were ALL accomplished in under 10 minutes, the standard time.
           • Edward_the_cat 6.1.1.1.2.6

             25 November 2009 at 7:03 am

             The Payne Stewart case is distinctive precisely because it took place inland, just like 911 did. The mitigating circumstances in that case were precisely that it was inland. The typical intercepts prior to 911 were offshore intercepts. Procedures have been changed since then.
7. RedLogix 7

   22 November 2009 at 1:56 pm

   A couple of fuel laden jets were flown into the towers by some nutters causing fires and catastophic structural damage causing them to collapse

   How about thinking about this:

   1. The buildings actually survived the kinetic impact of both jets. They were designed to.

   2. The subsequent fires are less significant than most people imagine. Jet fuel is really just a form of kerosine; it’s not magical. Sure it burns really hot in the controlled air/fuel ratio, properly atomised conditions of a jet engine. But if you take a big bucket of kerosine and throw it on a fire, all you get is a large blow out of a low temperature flame that goes out in a matter of minutes as all the liquid fuel is vapourised. You get a lot of heat, but not a temperature high enough to damage steel. Certainly not hot enough to melt tonnes of the stuff to a white hot liquid as captured on film.

   3. People like Richard Gage, and numerous other engineering professionals who design buildings like this, have examined the official explanations for the collapse mechanism itself and reject them. This gets us onto quite technical grounds that Gage and others can better address than me… if you wish you can find their discussions on the net quite readily and take up any points you might have with them. Better still the guy is even in NZ and giving talks.

   4. Oh and BTW… even the FBI no longer confirms the identity of the hijackers supposed to have been on those planes.
   • gitmo 7.1

     22 November 2009 at 2:09 pm

     ” if you wish you can find their discussions on the net quite readily and take up any points you might have with them. Better still the guy is even in NZ and giving talks.”

     No thanks I find my version of events to be compelling.
     • RedLogix 7.1.1

       22 November 2009 at 2:12 pm

       That’s fine… I do understand why you find them compelling. One day you might too.
   • Gosman 7.2

     22 November 2009 at 3:42 pm

     So do you also believe, like Richard Gage, that NIST is in on the cover up?

     If so does this mean we can’t trust Government funded research Scientists to give us independent and unbiased research on Science?

     Who funds most of the Scientists contributing to the IPCC again?
     • RedLogix 7.2.1

       22 November 2009 at 4:05 pm

       That’s a pointless argument that cuts both ways.

       Fascinating how so those who deny any possibility of any conspiracy on 911, are the same people who insist that thousands of scientists in hundreds of institutions world wide are all in a conspiracy to hoax the world about AGW. (NIST by contrast is just one institution.)

       In fact all these accusations about ‘conspiracies’ are a pointless distraction. You’ve only got a conspiracy … about AGW or 911… if and when you have the evidence for one. Until then you do the basics, you learn the science, you gather the data and you do real work to prove your case.

       From that perspective the IPCC process is orders of magnitude more robust and credible, than the 911 Commission process that has been largely repudiated by it’s own members. Yet Mr Gosman… I’ll will attempt a prediction of which one you will believe in:

       911 Commisssion Report = Business as Usual = Gosman believes it as Gopsel.

       IPCC Reports = Need to Change our Business Model = Gosman believes it a Hoax Conspiracy.

       Who funds most of the Scientists contributing to the IPCC again?

       Dunno you tell me. There are thousands of them, they go through the most unbelievably rigorous review and consultation process to get anything published. Most of them will be paid by University or Research Institutions.. but the vast majority will have a secure tenure of some description, and zealously guard their academic independence.
8. Quoth the Raven 8

   22 November 2009 at 3:23 pm

   It’s interesting to know about some of the deserving nobel peace prize nominees who lost out to that shameful messianic ruler – How NOT to Win the Nobel Peace Prize
   • gitmo 8.1

     22 November 2009 at 5:01 pm

     Unfortunately the Nobel Peace is a politicised award and the domain of the “famous”.

     There’s no doubt Mortenson is the type of person who should win the award and have his story and work advertised as an example of what can be achieved to the world at large.
9. toad 9

   22 November 2009 at 4:23 pm

   Nothing from The Standard’s authors on the Supercity proposed boundaries???

   Looks like a massive gerrymander favouring the centre-right that even Joh Bjelke-Petersen would have been proud of, according to our toad.

   I think I agree.
   • lprent 9.1

     22 November 2009 at 6:45 pm

     I’m getting to it (in between other things). I’m pretty sure that there is quite a lot of work going on it by others as well.

     But it is a week topic rather than a weekend – which is why it released on a friday.
10. Gosman 10

    22 November 2009 at 5:33 pm

    I asked you about the NIST reports Redlogix not the 9/11 Commission.

    Considering you think there are significant scientific errors in the official version I presume you must have read the NIST reports on the collapse of the three buildings then?

    A simple Yes or No will suffice.
    • RedLogix 10.1

      22 November 2009 at 6:59 pm

      A simple Yes or No will suffice.

      You mean this meter high document? No. Very few people have. (I could ask if you have read all of the IPCC Reports.. but that wouldn’t take us very far either.) On the other hand they do have a useful FAQ section on the same link which covers most of what most people want to know.

      It includes this remarkable statement:

      Does this mean there are hundreds or thousands of unsafe tall buildings with long span supports that must be retrofitted in some way? How would you retrofit a building to prevent this problem?

      While the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a rare event, NIST strongly urges building owners, operators, and designers to evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of structural systems. Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following characteristics: long-span floor systems, connections that cannot accommodate thermal effects, floor framing that induces asymmetric forces on girders, and composite floor systems, whose shear studs could fail due to differential thermal expansion (i.e., heat-induced expansion of material at different rates). Engineers should be able to design cost-effective fixes to address any areas of concern identified by such evaluations.

      Umm well that pretty much covers all steel framed buildings. In fact this idea that one long beam end connections failed in thermal expansion alone and this brought down the entire building like a deck of cards is entirely novel and pretty much invalidates the design methods used on all tall steel-framed buildings. Oh well back to the CAD terminal.
      • Gosman 10.1.1

        22 November 2009 at 7:17 pm

        So your asertion, like Mr Gage’s, is that NIST is also in on the conspiracy?
        • RedLogix 10.1.1.1

          22 November 2009 at 7:41 pm

          What do you mean by ‘in on the conspiracy’?

          You, Gosman, are adamantly insistent on the truth of the official version of events. If, hypothetically, you were an engineer or technician working for NIST you would produce exactly the same report, ie one that started with a pre-determined outcome, selectively addressed evidence and proposed an entirely novel, hitherto unprecendented ‘special case’ mechanism to explain the otherwise inexplicable. No other outcome would be possible.

          Would that make you ‘in on the conspiracy’? No. You may be an unwitting actor in it yes.. . but so are all of us in life’s great delusions and follies.

          Just because I’m unconvinced by NIST’s assertions and conclusions, just makes them wrong in my view… not criminal.
11. Gosman 11

    22 November 2009 at 7:53 pm

    Quite incorrect. That completely ignores how scientific investigation’s a carried out. Any decent investigation like the NIST investigation actually publishes the experimental protocols and also subjects itself to peer review. This is exactly the same sort of stuff that is performed for studies that feed in to the IPCC. If you are unaware of this fact then it is quite sad.

    Following you logic anyone who disagrees with the Official version is also ‘cooking’ their investigation to draw the opposite conclusions. Essentially you are saying Science is worthless because there is no way you can carry out studies without a preconceived outcome. So why bother carrying out Scientific investigations at all on anything RedLogix ?
12. RedLogix 12

    22 November 2009 at 8:05 pm

    Any decent investigation like the NIST investigation actually publishes the experimental protocols and also subjects itself to peer review.

    Well yes, I guess that is the point. The peer review ain’t happy.

    It’s how science is done.
    • Gosman 12.1

      22 November 2009 at 8:35 pm

      And yet here is a n analysis of a study which disputes that Active Termitic materials were discoved in the dust debris after September the 11th http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-cla imed-in.html
    • Gosman 12.2

      22 November 2009 at 9:32 pm

      And here is another website that debunks many of the 9/11 Truthers Conspiracy theory claims.

      http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc

      This deals with many of the misrepresentions of Science that Mr Gage and his supporters, like Ms Fitzsimmons, have about aspects of the case such as the Active Thermite in the debris dust.
      • RedLogix 12.2.1

        22 November 2009 at 9:54 pm

        Any fool can googlemonkey. Do some thinking for yourself for a change.

        In all your commenting here you consistently defend the status quo, the conventional wisdom… so probably I ask too much.
        • Gosman 12.2.1.1

          22 November 2009 at 10:08 pm

          Oooooohh errrrrrrrr!

          I didn’t need to do a Google, Muppet!

          I just went to the Skeptics Bible, Jref.. But then again if you want to believe in the existence of Big foot, the Loch Ness Monster, Alien visitations, and of course Psychic ability go ahead and be my guest 😉

          LOL!!!
          • felix 12.2.1.1.1

            22 November 2009 at 10:23 pm

            You’ve already pretty well demonstrated your lack of psychic ability today Gosman. No need to labour it, it’s a bit embarrassing for the rest of us.
            • Gosman 12.2.1.1.1.1

              22 November 2009 at 10:26 pm

              Sad Felix, oh so sad. Please, please don’t give up you day job if you want to become a stand up.

              Do you have anything worthwhile to state here BTW?

              [OK this flamewar is over.. I’m moderating any further comments in this vein.. RL]
        • Gosman 12.2.1.2

          22 November 2009 at 10:08 pm

          BTW these people are all part of the conspiracy right?

          Just wanted to get that clear.
        • RedLogix 12.2.1.3

          22 November 2009 at 10:27 pm

          That’s ok Gosman, I tugged a little on your chain and it came loose. Time to call it quits, this ain’t going anywhere constructive anymore. Goodnight.
          • Gosman 12.2.1.3.1

            22 November 2009 at 10:42 pm

            Oh Redlogix, I think we all know who came out the better of this one don’t we. You had to resort to the tried and trusted formula of the left of cenorship. I’m cool with that. It at least allows me to know where I stand.

            LOL!

            [ You used the always stupid tactic of putting false words into your opponent’s mouth. It starts flamewars, and you were clearly, politely asked to stop. I even offered you a simple face-saving exit.. but you missed that too. Now it appears you cannot tell the difference between censorship and moderation. You have of course been perfectly at liberty to express your views here all afternoon… but start a flamewar and you get timeout…RL]
            • Gosman 12.2.1.3.1.1

              22 November 2009 at 11:02 pm

              Ummmmm…. where have I put false words in someone else’s mouth?

              I just stated if someone wanted to believe in some wacky way out stuff like the Loch Ness Monster it is their choice.

              Did I state they actually believed that stuff?
            • RedLogix 12.2.1.3.1.2

              22 November 2009 at 11:20 pm

              Technically known as ‘weaselling out of’. The only point of making such a statement about Loch Ness monsters, etc… is to directly imply that is the sort of thing I believe. Your constant references to me promoting ‘conspiracies’, when I’ve made it repeatedly clear that I’m not all that interested in them is also putting words into my mouth.

              Besides you left out the faked moon landings… I’m quite offended by that.
            • Gosman 12.2.1.3.1.3

              23 November 2009 at 5:23 am

              It is quite clear that you do believe in the possibility of a Conspiracy theory Redlogix, possibly the largest ever in the history of the world, and no amount of denial will change that.

              It was one of the points that Mr Gage conceded on Kim Hill’s show and also in questions at the seminar he gave. He is a Conspiracy Theorist.
            • RedLogix 12.2.1.3.1.4

              23 November 2009 at 7:17 am

              It is quite clear that you do believe in the possibility of a Conspiracy theory

              I might equally suggest that you believe in one too. You know, the rather farfetched one involving 19 Saudi Arabs who could barely fly Cessna’s, who may or may not have hijacked four large planes with box cutters, who flew around unmolested by the Air Force for up to several hours, who succeeded in hitting three buildings with rather remarkable precision, which then caused the unprecedented collapse of two of them, plus another they didn’t hit. All organised by a guy hiding in a cave in Afghanistan while he was on kidney dialysis… who despite this hasn’t been caught yet. That’s ok, I’m not knocking it, as CT’s go its not as silly as the alien ray gun theory.

              In other words, tossing about the term ‘conspiracy theory’ really doesn’t take us anywhere anymore. It’s a meaningless phrase hacked to death years ago.

              Point is Gosman, neither you nor I are going to ‘win’ this debate here. It’s one that’s been thrashed out in a million threads for years, by people who know far more about it than either of us. There’ve been many mistakes and misinformation, lots of dead-ends and false starts… but there remains in my mind at least a number of open questions about 911 that are still reasonable to ask. In the absence of a narrative that makes sense, that addresses all the evidence and or an investigation conducted by a body that is trusted… and with passing of years… it is increasingly unlikely they will ever be answered with satisfaction.

              And that’s it from me… this isn’t a weekday topic and I’ve work to do. Feel free to have the last word if you must.
            • Gosman 12.2.1.3.1.5

              23 November 2009 at 9:13 am

              Thanks for giving me the last word Redlogix, I don’t mind if I do take it.

              This issue is about consistency in using scientific evidence to back up your claims.

              If you are going to denounce climate change skeptics like Ian Wishart and Lord Monckton as misrepresenting the science and using dodgy studies to back up their claims you can’t expect to be taken seriously when you then use the same sort of tactics to support claims around the September the 11th attacks.

              Mainstream science is solidly behind the official version of how the three WTC buildings collapsed. You might dredge up some largely discredited studies which you might calim suggests otherwise ,however it does not mean the Science is still undecided on this issue.

              Given the Science is solidly behind the mainstream version then you should realise how repugnant and ridiculous the implications of the 9/11 Truthers actually are. A massive conspiracy by elements of the US administration which has been phenomenally successful at first pulling it off, and secong keeping it quiet as well as fooling, or controlling the mainstream scientific community.

              If you truly believe that then noone is going to take you seriously if you try and push a science based approach to anything ever again.
13. outofbed 13

    22 November 2009 at 9:36 pm

    Newtongate
    http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/
    • NickS 13.1

      22 November 2009 at 10:19 pm

      F*ck that’s brilliant.
14. gingercrush 14

    23 November 2009 at 12:08 am

    I don’t know why elements of the right are getting so excited over these leaked emails amongst anthropogenic scientists (is anthropogenic the right word?). What it shows is well nothing. Its people taking few pieces of information and ignoring all the other information. In selecting a few pieces from those emails they’re guilty of the same shit they’re accusing the scientists of.

    I’m rather skeptical of global warming myself. But for so many to be so excited from well bullshit is rather pathetic.
    • NickS 14.1

      23 November 2009 at 8:27 am

      Much like the bulk of young earth creationists, the bulk of climate change deniers tend to be prone to moments of burning stupid, like proclaiming conspiracy where none exists…

      Which actually happens to be one of the characteristics of denialism.
15. Cincy911Truth 15

    23 November 2009 at 12:58 pm

    To Scott and similar morons,

    You admit you do not understand the science. So let me help you out. This really isn’t that difficult to understand. Simple science proves the inside job aspect of 9/11. Both WTC towers fell at near ‘freefall acceleration’. Freefall acceleration is described as the time it would take to drop an object a given distance until it reaches the ground with only gravity as the downward force. Ex: the time it would take to drop a baseball off the top of one of the 110 storey World Trade Center buildings until it hit the street below with only air as the resistant force. (About 9.2 seconds.) Therefore, as each tower collapsed, how is it physically possible for them to collapse at this speed with all of the massive steel and concrete support structure below giving NO RESISTANCE? Also, what was the energy force that caused massive multi-ton steel support columns to be ejected laterally outward up to 600 feet embedding them into nearby buildings? What was the energy force that caused all of the concrete to be pulverized into a fine powder covering all of lower Manhattan? The Physics Law of Conservation of Momentum does not allow for this. You can’t have it both ways. If the Official Government Conspiracy Theory claims that the weight of the part of the building above the plane impact area crushed the lower structure how can it also have the energy to eject the steel outward and pulverize the concrete too? Simple answer. It can’t.

    It’s simply science. The only way the three WTC buildings could fall at this rate is that the structure columns were being removed (demolished using explosives) as the buildings fell causing no resistance. The laws of physics don’t/can’t lie. Governments and their paid propagandists can and do.

    When you delve into speculation about “nobody has talked or if would have taken X number of people” you completely ignore the scientific evidence that cannot be dismissed. Molten metal found in the basement of WTC 1, 2 and 7, near freefall acceleration of collapse, lateral ejections of multi-ton steel support columns, eyewitness accounts of explosions, the violation of the Physics Law of Conservation of Momentum, even NIST admitting freefall collapse of WTC 7 for 2.25 seconds as well as the peer-reviewed paper “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” that appears in the OPEN CHEMICAL PHYSICS JOURNAL.

    All of this evidence cannot be dismissed because you or I cannot speculate on the number of those involved.

    Your ability for logical thinking is severely impaired. Consider educating yourself before you brazenly show your ignorance!
    • Gosman 15.1

      23 November 2009 at 1:14 pm

      Nice personal attack on people Cincy911Truth. It doesn’t mean your ideas are any more valid.

      You are entitled to believe your wacky Conspiracy theory but don’t try and claim that it is supported by Science when it is plainly not.

      Do you bother to read any of the criticism of the so called Scientific studies that you use to ‘Prove’ that September the 11th was an inside job?

      Are all the people who don’t agree with the conclusions put forward and point out the multiple flaws in the arguments all part of the Conspiracy as well?
      • felix 15.1.1

        23 November 2009 at 2:05 pm

        Perhaps if you explained what’s wrong with Cincy’s ideas rather than just dismissing them you might get somewhere.

        You won’t change anyone’s mind by calling them names. Quite the opposite.

        “…how is it physically possible for them to collapse at this speed with all of the massive steel and concrete support structure below giving NO RESISTANCE?”

        Cincy offers you an opportunity to show why he/she is wrong and you are right. Seize it. Explain the problem with Cincy’s idea about freefall, in your own words.

        Convince us.
    • Edward_the_cat 15.2

      26 November 2009 at 12:32 am

      “What was the energy force that caused all of the concrete to be pulverized into a fine powder covering all of lower Manhattan?”

      Well even Steven Jones has had to take issue with this truther claim:

      http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

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

      It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise “has been slow to understand’ that the WTC dust particles in greatest abundance are the “supercoarse’ variety rather than “fine’ particles, and that significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC rubble.
      —–
16. Gosman 16

    23 November 2009 at 2:22 pm

    Have you not read the copious amounts of evidence I have posted which highlights the serious Scientific flaws in the asertions made by the 9/11 Truther movement?

    Take a look at the current Open Mike thread, read the detailed critiques of the so called Scientific studies used by people like Cincy, and then make you comments.

    As for suggesting people won’t change anyone’s position by calling them names, perhaps this would be better directed at Cincy as I believe he/she started her posting by calling those who disagree with her Morons. Frankly my reply to him/her was positively restrained in comparision. Is this another example of double standards here?
    • felix 16.1

      23 November 2009 at 3:01 pm

      I’ve seen you posting links – I haven’t seen any discussion from you about the content of them though.

      I strongly suspect that you don’t really have a clue about the science and are just picking fights to fill in your waking hours.
17. L_D 17

    23 November 2009 at 3:00 pm

    Well done Wellington, as an ex-pat Kiwi I feel pride in what you’ve achieved, it’s a rare feeling in this day and age of almost universal deceit which unfortunately NZ is a participant of.

    It’s fantastic to see the alternative media gaining so much traction, there is no stopping you now. I am particularly pleased for Clare Swinney, after reading her story she must feel a great deal of satisfaction with what herself and others have achieved here.

    It is important that everyone reading this thread has knowledge of the collapse of the third highrise that fell on 9/11, if you haven’t already seen it then please have a look at this youtube clip and make up your own mind, controlled demolition or not?
18. tanabear 18

    23 November 2009 at 3:12 pm

    The 9/11 Truth Movement has done a good job over the years of showing the falsity of the official account. At this point, the official story stands on nothing more than pillars of nonsense and propaganda. All lines of inquiry point away from the official explanation and point to science based evidence uncovered by the 9/11 Truth Movement.

    – WTC7 did enter a period of free-fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds or 8 stores(105ft)

    – The sulfidation of the a steel beam from WTC7, “”Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.”
    Appendix C of FEMA report

    – Extremely high temperatures found in the WTC dust: “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation
    of spherical particles due to surface tension ”
    RJ Lee report

    – No impact of the upper block onto the lower block for WTC1: ‘We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9 stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion of the building, which was undamaged by fire”
    The Missing Jolt: Szamboti, MacQueen.

    – There are no examples of a total progressive, complete, top-down collapse of a steel-frame highrise due to fire, as was the case in WTC1,2. Or a steel-frame high-rise being destroyed via thermal expansion, as in the case of WTC7.

    The evidence is running strongly in our favor.
    • Edward_the_cat 18.1

      26 November 2009 at 4:10 am

      > – WTC7 did enter a period of free-fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds or 8 stores

      However, that 2.25-second period did not begin until the collapse had been in motion for 11.75 seconds already. The collapse first became externally visible from the point of view of the eastern penthouse. It later spread to the northern face. All of this about 2.25 seconds of free-fall relates to the period when the northern face was in the process of collapsing. Of you go back and review the taped record

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G86yuunRBIw

      what you’ll find is that if we take into account the entire period starting from just before the eastern penthouse showed the occurrence of the collapse then we get 10 seconds counted before the northern face begins to display collapse. So now we count 1.75 seconds into the tape of the northern face’s collapse and call this Stage 1 the way NIST did. The completion of that Stage 1 puts us 11.75 seconds into the full span of the collapse. Now we get 2.25 seconds where, as NIST puts it, “the north face descended at gravitational acceleration.” The end of that span puts us 14 seconds into the total collapse-time and 4 seconds into the time from when the collapse started to visibly spread to the northern face. Then the rest of the collapse finishes itself in the remaining 2-4 seconds. Wht should it be so shcoking that a building which has been in the process of collapse for nearly 12 seconds will suddenly show an appearance of free-fall? It isn’t.
19. Reaper 19

    23 November 2009 at 3:32 pm

    Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.
    Don’t believe or don’t want to believe ?
    The simple truth about 9/11 is we still don’t know the truth.
    • Gosman 19.1

      23 November 2009 at 3:35 pm

      There already has been an investigation into what happened on September 11th 2001. In fact there are three separate official investigations. Just because the Truthers don’t like the outcome doesn’t mean that they should be humoured.

      Also what new evidence is meant to be investigated? That Active Thermite was present in the debris? I have shown that the studies which suggest that are seriously flawed as well as being promoted by people with a particular agenda i.e. not independent Scientists. Perhaps it is that Controlled demolitions are the only way to explain how the three buildings fell? Didn’t the NIST report deal with this?

      What new scientific evidence that is credible is going to be investigated ?
      • Reaper 19.1.1

        23 November 2009 at 3:41 pm

        Oh yeah The 9/11 commission . And popular mechanic’s backed it up.
        Seriously It obvious that you haven’t looked into all the unanswered questions.
        Evidence?…….. All you need is common sence
        N.I.S.T didn’t look for explosive evidence.
      • tanabear 19.1.2

        23 November 2009 at 4:24 pm

        Gosman: “There already has been an investigation into what happened on September 11th 2001.”

        “The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper in the U.S. or in Afghanistan that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot.”
        Robert Mueller, Director of the FBI

        Looks like the FBI’s PENTTBOM investigation didn’t come up with much. Osama bin Laden is not listed for being wanted in the 9/11 attacks. Maybe they were digging in the wrong place.

        Gosman: “Didn’t the NIST report deal with this?”

        No.

        “For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.”
        NIST Final Report

        In other words, the NIST report is primarily a pre-collapse analysis.
        • Gosman 19.1.2.1

          23 November 2009 at 4:31 pm

          Can you deal with the issue regarding the weakness of the science supposedly ‘proving’ that Active Thermite was present in the debris rather than constantly shifting the goal posts and creating bizarre strawmen arguments about why the FBI is or is not doing something.

          BTW why would the NIST report be interested in what the FBI are doing in the way of investigation on Osama? It’s brief was to investigate the structural failings of the three WTC buildings, including if they may have collapsed due to a Controlled demolition?
          • tanabear 19.1.2.1.1

            23 November 2009 at 5:24 pm

            You mentioned that there were investigations into 9/11. These investigation would include the FBI’s PENTTBOM investigation, the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry, the 9/11 Commission report, WTC investigations(FEMA, NIST, Weidlinger Associates), ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report etc. Some of there reports contradict each other, none can be considered conclusive. The purpose of these previous “investigations” was only to justify the official story and to provide a narrative for it, not to get at the truth. Hence, an actual investigation is needed.

            Gosman: “Can you deal with the issue regarding the weakness of the science supposedly ‘proving’ that Active Thermite was present in the debris…”

            I can, but you have to start off by telling me where you think it is weak?
            • Gosman 19.1.2.1.1.1

              23 November 2009 at 5:37 pm

              Ummm… I have told you some of the reasons why it was weak.

              Steven Jones methodology is not available for peer review, neither are a wide selection of people able to retest his samples, and his studies aren’t properly published in an independent peer review journal that doesn’t either charge for the priviledge (highly irregular apparently) or that him and his mates set up specifically to push this stuff.

              On top of that the actual results of what he supposedly found are highly questionably, including the possibility of contamination of samples, and his results seem to be at odds with the data he presents i.e. he draws hard and fast conclusions about what must have been the cause of what he found rather than taking into account other possible causes. In a sense he fits what he finds to the result he desires.

              This information is all in the numerous links that people have provided you and you ilk.

              If you disagree with the analysis provided please tell me why it is incorrect rather than trying to say that everybody is mistaken and we shouldn’t trust the Government and Big lies are better than small ones yada yada yada.
    • Edward_the_cat 19.2

      26 November 2009 at 4:18 am

      “Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.”

      Well that could certainly be made to apply to a lot of truthers. Rember the old proverb “Cast not the first stone”? Truthers forget it quite easily.
20. Edward_the_cat 20

    23 November 2009 at 3:47 pm

    > Ex: the time it would take to drop a baseball off the top of one of the 110 storey World Trade Center buildings until it hit the street below with only air as the resistant force. (About 9.2 seconds.)

    The collapes took about 17 seconds:

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/ntc_frames.html

    You’re underestimating the collapse-time.
21. Gosman 21

    23 November 2009 at 3:52 pm

    Let’s just take the so called evidence for explosives shall we?

    Some of the key evidence presented for the supposed presence of Active Thermite in the debris of Spetember the 11th is meant to be ‘scientific’ studies performed by Steven Jones.

    Here is a link to an article which highlights the serious problems with Steven Jones research into this area.

    http://ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Steven+Jones

    Please note the following passage

    “Steven Jones has been pushing his theories since 2005. But he gives us only bits here and pieces there without any continuous transparency regarding his tests and methods. And nobody outside his camp has ever had access to his dust and metal samples in order to test or verify his claims.”

    and also this passage

    “However, it has been quite obvious from the very beginning, that most of the so-called peer-reviewers are none other than other members of the same organization. In other words, they are peer-reviewing each others’ papers.”

    If this information is correct, then how is this good Science?
    • Quoth the Raven 21.1

      23 November 2009 at 4:07 pm

      Here’s a bit on Steven Jones:

      Steven E. Jones is a professor at Brigham Young University. He has created the paper which has created the ground swell around the 911 conspiracy theories. His paper was peer reviewed but not by a civil engineering journal. One would think a serious professor would get his paper peer reviewed by a scientific journal which specializes in the field they are writing the paper on.

      But is Professor Jones qualified to create a paper which says the towers must have fallen due to explosives? He is a physics professor but what experience does Jones have in building collapse forensics? He has none. His other peer reviewed papers consist of cold fusion technology. He conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Nothing in his background would suggest he is qualified to write a civil engineering paper on the infinitely complex building collapse of the towers.

      and the only properly peer reviewed paper on the issue was against the conspiracy theorists claim of demolition.

      Gosman you shouldn’t waste your time on this truther nonsense. It’s like arguing with birthers. I’m not going to. It would be more enlightening to argue about the colour of oranges.

      BTW Here’s the freefall fallacy covered. The truthers claims have been debunked time and again and they will just keep shifting their stories so there’s really no point in arguing with them.
22. Reaper 22

    23 November 2009 at 3:53 pm

    Our government would never lie to us.
    • Gosman 22.1

      23 November 2009 at 3:58 pm

      That is not an answer to those serious allegations against the Science that supposedly “proves” Active Thermite was used to bring down the buildings Reaper.
23. mosh 23

    23 November 2009 at 5:16 pm

    Scott and Gosman don’t seem quite capable of any individual thinking, merely mouthing official propaganda. It is true then, what Hitler said: that a big lie is easier to believe than a small one. We tell small untruths here and there, so are perfectly able to see others can do the same. Here, the sheer enormity of the lie would threaten one’s perception of the world to such a painful extent that the first response, upon being informed of the lie, would be one of complete denial… this CANNOT be!

    Some people manage to shake off the shackles of ingrained disbelief, this prejudice towards the status quo. Others will fight tooth and nail to hold on to their security blanket.

    There is no use citing any real evidence to the sheep because they have had their minds made up. They are grateful for any rubbish that official and mainstream media proffer, because it justifies them. They do not question it nor try to apply critical analysis to it; it is accepted because it seems to validate who they are.
    • Gosman 23.1

      23 November 2009 at 5:27 pm

      A number of posters here have provided links to where the so called Science of the 9/11 Truther Conspiracy Theories have been comprehensive debunked.

      Even if you don’t accept all the arguments contained in the debunking articles and still prefer the dodgy ‘Science’ of people like Steve Jones you are still left with the fact that the argument is not as cut and dried as people like Richard Gage make out. In short the best you can argue is that perhaps there is a possibility that your position is correct, not that it is a slam dunk.

      Given the rather far fetched implications if the ‘Science’ was correct then you have an extremely weak case pushing for a reinvestigation. It would be like someone arguing that the Moon landing should be investigated because they saw shadows at the wrong angle in the video footage and the flag was flapping.

      It just isn’t going to happen.
24. Chris Sarns 24

    23 November 2009 at 7:59 pm

    In a technical briefing on 8-26-08, lead investigator for NIST, Shyam Sunder, stated:
    “a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”

    In other words, the NIST progressive collapse hypothesis does not include a period of free fall acceleration because there is always structural resistance.

    NCSTAR 1A pg 45 [PDF pg 87]
    In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible* support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft)[3]
    *Negligible: too small to be worth considering

    NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 588 [PDF pg 250]
    the entire building above the buckled-column region moved downward as a single unit

    A building cannot fall at free fall acceleration and crush structural steel at the same time.
    The only way to get a building to fall at free fall acceleration is to remove all the supporting structure simultaneously with explosives.

    WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.
    • Gosman 24.1

      23 November 2009 at 8:39 pm

      I think you will find that a number of people have established that the WTC7 did not collapse in free fall.

      In fact the only ones who seem to think it did are the 9/11 Conspiracy theorists.

      Check out some of the analysis of the collapse of the building here http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html.
    • Quoth the Raven 24.2

      23 November 2009 at 8:42 pm

      I know I shouldn’t waste my time with truthers but anyway. Your claims have been debunked time and again Those quotes you provide simply do not contradict each other – it only went for 8 stories. The whole collapse didn’t occur at free fall speed. See this.

      Claim
      7 World Trade Center fell in 6.8 seconds — in free fall speed.

      Fact
      The collapse did not occur at free fall speed. It took 16 seconds, with the east mechanical penthouse beginning to collapse 8.2 seconds before any more obvious signs of total collapse (as seen on videos).

      That’s on video plain as day for any one to see. Follow the links in my above comment – it links to an article on a structural engineering magazine on WTC7:

      Structure Magazine, a well respected magazine for structural engineers, has come out with a probable collapse hypothesis. “Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7” points out that the failure of column 79 in the lower levels will create the very effect we see in videos.

      You know that WTC7 would have been the tallest building ever demolished. The Hudson building (smaller than WTC7) was the tallest here’s a quote:

      The Hudson Building “It took us 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives ‘ James Santoro Controlled Demolition Incorporated”

      To you that would have went on either unnoticed by other people in the building or they were all in this vast conspiracy…
      • gitmo 24.2.1

        23 November 2009 at 9:21 pm

        “I know I shouldn’t waste my time with truthers but anyway.”

        Sometimes it’s best just to walk away. The thing that fascinates me the most is why people are so desperate to believe in anything apart from the most obvious explanation.
        • Chris Sarns 24.2.1.1

          23 November 2009 at 9:31 pm

          When you have nothing of value to offer, it is best to walk away.

          The most obvious explanation for the implosion of WTC 7 is controlled demolition. A child can see that.

          
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o
    • Edward_the_cat 24.3

      24 November 2009 at 12:04 am

      “In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration”

      In other words, they’re saying that once the collapse had been in motion for some time it began to approach a pattern of free-fall since the underlying structure had by then disintegrated. Nothing odd about that.
    • Edward_the_cat 24.4

      24 November 2009 at 12:24 am

      “In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration”

      Stage 2 means that the collapse has already been in motion for some time. At that stage it’s not so odd to see something approaching free-fall since the underlying structure has been giving out for awhile by now.
      • Chris Sarns 24.4.1

        24 November 2009 at 7:32 am

        The first stage lasted less than 2 seconds. The roof line descended about 7 feet and then it transitioned to free fall acceleration. This free fall continued for about 100 feet. Any amount of free fall proves controlled demolition as all the supporting structure must be removed with explosives for this to occur.

        You did not understand what Shyam Sunder said. Please read my first post again. The NIST progressive collapse cannot and does not have a period of free fall.
        • Edward_the_cat 24.4.1.1

          24 November 2009 at 12:35 pm

          > The first stage lasted less than 2 seconds.

          The collapse had been in motion for at least 8 seconds before the north face began to visibly show that it was collapsing.
        • Edward_the_cat 24.4.1.2

          24 November 2009 at 1:49 pm

          > The first stage lasted less than 2 seconds.

          The collapse of WTC 7 was halfway over before it became outwardly visible on the northwest side. More than 2 seconds.
25. Chris Sarns 25

    23 November 2009 at 9:05 pm

    Gosman,
    Actually, there are none. NIST confirmed free fall acceleration.
    Please read the post again slowly so you can understand what it says.

    Quoth.
    You are both blowin’ smoke.
    Please post this evidence that WTC 7 did not fall at free fall acceleration or stop making those claims.
    • Edward_the_cat 25.1

      23 November 2009 at 11:59 pm

      “Please post this evidence that WTC 7 did not fall at free fall acceleration”

      The full collapse time of WTC 7 according to seismic readings was 18 seconds:

      http://www.firehouse.com/tech/news/2002/0121_terrorist.html

      Film clips allow one to detect about 16 seconds of this collapse-time:
      • Chris Sarns 25.1.1

        24 November 2009 at 7:38 am

        According to NIST, the entire collapse sequence lasted about 18 seconds but that is irrelevant. It’s that 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration that cannot happen in a progressive collapse.

        Free fall for 100 feet can only result if all the supporting structure is removed on 8 floors within 2 seconds. This can only be accomplished with explosives.
        • Edward_the_cat 25.1.1.1

          24 November 2009 at 12:03 pm

          The proclaimed 2.5 seconds of free-fall occur after the collapse has been in motion for about half of the time. At that point the appearance of free-fall is no longer surprising, as the entire structure has been giving way for some time now. It’s too unpredictable at that stage to say that collapse should or should not appear to be occurring at free-fall.
        • Edward_the_cat 25.1.1.2

          24 November 2009 at 10:40 pm

          > According to NIST, the entire collapse sequence lasted about 18 seconds

          In reality the collapse-time of 18 seconds comes from seismic readings which were available almost immediately after 911. The relevant issue of FIREHOUSE magazine which carries this report comes from 2002:

          http://www.firehouse.com/tech/news/2002/0121_terrorist.html

          One doesn’t need to depend upon NIST for facts like this. The film clips also allow us to verify that the collapse took at least 16 seconds showing on film:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G86yuunRBIw

          One can verify all of this without holding one’s breath waiting to hear what NIST says. NIST is just one more source. The collapse of WTC 7 took significantly longer than truthers are willing to admit. That’s a fact.
          • quenchino 25.1.1.2.1

            24 November 2009 at 10:53 pm

            The ‘free-fall’ argument turns out to be a little more complex than simply measuring the time from the very start of the fall to the very end. It appears to have three phases:

            1. A relatively slow start were the building is still mostly intact and still resisting motion.

            2. The bulk of the building then collapses at a rate almost exactly free fall.

            3. As the sheer mass of debris compacts towards the end, the rate naturally slows down again.

            In this scenario simply measuring the overall time for the all three phases of the collapse gives a misleading answer.

            The observed first and third phases of the collapse can be reasonably explained; it is the second phase, where the bulk of the buildings are collapsing at free fall speed that is curious-making.
            • Edward_the_cat 25.1.1.2.1.1

              25 November 2009 at 2:17 am

              > The ‘free-fall’ argument turns out to be a little more complex than simply measuring the time from the very start of the fall to the very end.

              On the contrary, there is nothing odd about appearing to see debris falling at what looks like free-fall or near to it at certain points in the collapse. Once a structure has begun giving out, what happens from there on is inherently chaotic. It is only with reference to the overall collapse-time that one can make a credible assertion that this should be greater than a purely free-fall time, as indeed it is. If the total collapse of WTC 7 had occurred from beginning to end in under 7 seconds, as is claimed by truthers, then that would indeed point to some form of demolition. But it didn’t and so what we’re left with is people pointing to specific moments in the midst of a general collapse and trying to argue that things seem to be coming down a bit too fast for a couple seconds while the whole thing has been caving in for awhile already.
            • Edward_the_cat 25.1.1.2.1.2

              26 November 2009 at 12:58 am

              “It appears to have three phases”

              Be careful of taking words out of context. On pages 44-5 of this text (which are registered as pp.86-7 in PDF terms)

              http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

              they mention that they’re “using a video of the collapse…” However that video does not capture the full collapse, but only a portion of it. This video

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G86yuunRBIw

              carries the most complete set of pictures captured on tape of the collapse, and is consistent with the seismographic readings which reported a collapse-time of 18 seconds:

              http://www.firehouse.com/tech/news/2002/0121_terrorist.html

              The NIST report is intended to study the collapse, and so there is nothing wrong with them going to a video which offers an incomplete picture of the total collapse and attempting to study that video for information. However truthers have made a practice of misinterpreting the words which follow as if the 3 stages which NIST is describing on page 45 (87) are supposed to be a breakdown of the full complete collapse of WTC 7 from start to finish. They are not described as such. NIST is describing 3 stages of what can be seen in a particular video, which itself offers only an incomplete picture of the collapse. NIST is fine when examining such a partial video for the purpose of gathering information about the collapse. But truthers who wish to say that the collapse happened too quickly need to look beyond that video at the full collapse. When NIST refers to a stage taking 1.75 seconds that is only a stage defined in reference to this video. It does not mean 1.75 seconds into the onset of the collapse as a whole.
    • Gosman 25.2

      24 November 2009 at 12:06 am

      Ummmmmmm….. Where EXACTLY did NIST confirm free fall acceleration of WTC7?
      • Chris Sarns 25.2.1

        24 November 2009 at 7:42 am

        NCSTAR 1A pg 45 [PDF pg 87]
        http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1Aindex.htm
26. Fred 26

    24 November 2009 at 1:20 am

    “the preposterous conspiracy theory you have to accept for Gage’s findings to be true”

    You ‘re turning the world upside down, the findings ARE true. So what about the conspiracy? It is true. Is it elaborate? Maybe. Maybe not.
    • Gosman 26.1

      24 November 2009 at 2:19 am

      Repeating the matra over and over doesn’t make it more likely you are correct. How about you present some actual credible evidence and not regurgitate the dodgy ‘science’ of people like Steven Jones
    • Chris Sarns 26.2

      24 November 2009 at 7:49 am

      The preposterous conspiracy is the one about 19 crazy guys getting by the world’s most sophisticated military 4 times in one day and crashing a plane into their headquarters.
      • Chris Sarns 26.2.1

        24 November 2009 at 7:58 am

        Repeating the mantra about “conspiracies = nutjob” has successfully brainwashed most people into believing it when at the same time they have been sold a nutty conspiracy theory.

        Conspiracy: a secret plan or agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal or subversive act.

        Any crime committed by two or more people is a conspiracy.

        Bil Laden is charged with conspiracy to murder Americans OUTSIDE the U.S. but he has NOT been charged with 9/11 because there is no hard evidence that he was involved.

        This does not mean he wasn’t involved, it just means that the Official Story is a conspiracy theory.
        • Gosman 26.2.1.1

          24 November 2009 at 8:02 am

          How about you start posting some actualy facts and figures instead of avoiding dealing with the mountain of evidence that people are putting up against your views?

          For example people hlike you have argued that the latest NIST report now states that the WTC7 fell fully in free fall. It would help your case immensely if you just posted a link to the report which states this.
        • Edward_the_cat 26.2.1.2

          24 November 2009 at 12:13 pm

          > Bil Laden is charged with conspiracy to murder Americans OUTSIDE the U.S. but he has NOT been charged with 9/11 because there is no hard evidence that he was involved.

          While that’s true as far as it goes, it doesn’t add up to all that one might want it to. Al Capone was never charged with anything worse than cheating on his taxes, because there was no hard evidence that he was ever involved in the Chicago mob. Everyone knew that he was a top mobster of course. But trying to make a legal case about that where witnesses come in to testify was next to impossible. So the FBI just slammed him for taxes.
27. johnny 27

    24 November 2009 at 2:14 am

    i cant be buggered searchng for it,but it is true nist admit a partial freefall for building 7 an amazing admission………
    • Gosman 27.1

      24 November 2009 at 2:18 am

      You can’t be buggered searching for it?!?!

      Why do you expect to be taken seriously again?
28. Gosman 28

    24 November 2009 at 2:26 am

    Here you go johnny, just because you ‘can’t be buggered ‘ apparently.

    Here is What NIST has to say on the claims that the building collapsed at free fall velocity.

    “In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
    In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.”

    Please note the key passage ” This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions.”

    Read all about it here http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html
    • Chris Sarns 28.1

      24 November 2009 at 8:20 am

      NIST lied about free fall in their draft report as you have noted.

      In a public hearing on the draft report they were confronted by a high school physics teacher who had proven that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 2.5 seconds using an online program he has his students use.

      NIST repeated the analysis using a different spot on the roof line and different software and came up wit 2.25 seconds. That is scientific conformation of free fall acceleration for about 100 feet.
      See page 45 [PDF pg 87]
      http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1Aindex.htm

      Here is the video that sums it all up.
      
29. ccc 29

    24 November 2009 at 5:57 am

    I’m not going to get too much into this, but you should know you’re quoting an out of date “draft” report. NIST admitted to freefall later in Dec. 08 due to public scrutiny of that statement you just quoted. I’ll let you do your own research on that.

    Regarding your comments about peer review, yes, everyone agrees all science should be peer reviewed, including the NIST report, which was not. The reason is because not many scientists care enough to study 9/11 as a real issue. Most people including scientists simply accept what they heard about it, understandably because no one really wants to think about such an emotional event (and actually very few laymen, including scientists, knows about WTC7 at all, I work with them trust me). The study of 9/11 is not a branch of science, like say global warming. There’s a huge problem in equating the two things because of the fact that the study of climatology and global warming is a field of science, while the study of 9/11 is not. Therefore you cannot equate the denouncing of a scientific field of study (i.e. global warming, evolution) with the denouncing of the official story of a single event which has only been really studied by either a: politically motivated groups of people (i.e. 9/11 commission, look up quotes by the members themselves, see how reliable they themselves even think the commission was) or b: random people on the internet (i.e. truthers and debunkers). BTW, I’m not talking about the science here, obviously NIST has studied it as well, but if even if they are right, which I’m very unsure of based on footage of the conference I’ve seen, there are still numerous issues non-scientifically related that are worthy of concern.
    • Gosman 29.1

      24 November 2009 at 6:27 am

      “NIST admitted to freefall later in Dec. 08 due to public scrutiny of that statement you just quoted. I\’ll let you do your own research on that.”

      LOL!!!

      I just love the fact that the only ones providing anything in the way of facts here are the people who don’t believe in the wacy conspiracy theory while those who claim that the science supports them somehow expect others to do the donkey work.

      I believe the emphasis is usually on those making the claim to try and disprove it not the other way around.

      If you have evidence which equates with what you are saying then provide the link.
    • Gosman 29.2

      24 November 2009 at 7:15 am

      Here is the final NIST report on the the collapse of WTC7 dated November 2008.

      http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

      I don’t see any major differences there regarding the supposed free fall of the building.

      This is what it has to say on the issue

      “The time that the roofline took to fall 18 stories or 73.8 m (242 ft) was approximately 5.4s. The theoretical time for free fall (i.e., at gravitational acceleration) was computed from … [Basic math equation] … This time was approximately 3.9s. Thus, the average time for the upper stories to collapse, based on viseo evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time”

      So unless you have another document from NIST detailing otherwise I don’t see how your position on this is sustainable.
30. travellerev 30

    24 November 2009 at 7:04 am

    For those of you who are new to the fact that there was a third building which collapsed in New York on 9/11 this is a 6 minute segment from an Italian documentary (in every country other than the Anglo Saxon countries mainstream TV senders air documentaries which openly question the official Conspiracy theory) which questions what happened to WTC 7.

    WTC 7 was a highly secured building twice reinforced to withstand a nuclear blast. It contained Giuliani’s emergency control centre which was especially build there in case of a terrorist attack happened and Giuliani needed a save place to conduct his emergency operations from. It is very unlikely that a building build to withstand a nuclear blast would collapse in 6 or 16 seconds (Which makes the discussion about whether it fell in freefall speed or slightly slower that freefall speed rather ridiculous. It should not have fallen at all)

    The place according to two witnesses was deserted before any of the twin towers collapsed. By the way the witness in the video died under mysterious circumstances last year.

    The Italian documentary shows material in which the explosions that brought down the building are clearly audible. What’s more the fire fighters are aware that the building is going to be blown up clearly indicating foreknowledge.

    As far as the personal smear attacks on professor Jones are concerned that is also a discussion that is neither here nor there as it is not just professor Jones but a team of scientists and laboratories who are working together around the world.

    This is what Nano technology specialist and team member Niels Harrit has to say about Building 7 on Danish mainstream TV

    Also the Debunking 911 site is a site which is thoroughly debunked and exposed as a neocon shill site so quoting from them is just a tad sad.
    • Gosman 30.1

      24 November 2009 at 7:27 am

      The same criticism that could be directed at Steven Jones can pretty much also be directed at Niels Harrit especially considering Steven Jones was a major contributor to Harrit’s study.

      See http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/04/final-word-on-niels-harrit-nanothermite.html for a critique of Harrit. I especially like the following passage:

      “It’s hard for me…or anyone with a modicum of common sense to take this report seriously when the items they based this report on were given to them by residents of Lower Manhattan almost SIX YEARS after the Towers fell. These samples were not kept in sterile environments by any stretch of the imagination and were handled by ordinary, non-scientist New Yorkers.”

      Is this your definition of good science Travellerev?
      • travellerev 30.1.1

        24 November 2009 at 7:32 am

        Ron Mossad? LOL.
        F*&kin hell you are scraping the bottom of the barrel there, Gossie.
        • Gosman 30.1.1.1

          24 November 2009 at 7:36 am

          If you don’t like him then what about http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
        • Gosman 30.1.1.2

          24 November 2009 at 7:40 am

          And here is another very thorough analysis of the supposed good scientific studies showing Thermite in the debris

          http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html
    • Gosman 30.2

      24 November 2009 at 7:33 am

      By the way this ‘team’ of people you mention are the same small number of Scientists led by Steven Jones.

      They usually publish their stuff in their own ‘peer reviewed’ journal. Which essentially means they end up peer reviewing each others work. Hmmmmm is that good science? I think not.

      The only external peer review journal that I am aware of is the one that travellerev has posted. The interesting thing about this one is that you have to pay several thousand dollars to publish there, which is not normally the done thing. While it is out of order it should ring some alarm bells if you are looking at whether someone is performing good science.

      Why can’t the 9/11 Truthers get their stuff published in an independent peer reviewed journal where you don’t have to pay thousands of dollars for the right to do so?

      Perhaps the wider scientific community is in on this Conspiracy as well?
      • travellerev 30.2.1

        24 November 2009 at 7:47 am

        Sad, real sad.
        • Gosman 30.2.1.1

          24 November 2009 at 7:59 am

          You going to answer the questions that have been posed travellerev?
          • Chris Sarns 30.2.1.1.1

            24 November 2009 at 9:21 am

            Deniers attack the messenger and ignore the message.

            Steven Jones PhD was a professor of physics at Brigham Young University for 20 years. He was doing cutting edge research on cold fusion. BYU knows that Prof. Jones is a highly qualified professional or they would not have funded his research. The childish attacks on him only reflect on the person making them.

            Prof. Jones was forced to retire after questioning the official explanation for the collapse of the 3 skyscrapers on 9/11. This is another example of the sad truth that the first casualty of the “War on Terror” was our right to question this “war of Terror”.
    • Edward_the_cat 30.3

      24 November 2009 at 10:53 pm

      “the Debunking 911 site is a site which is thoroughly debunked and exposed as a neocon shill site”

      Whatever the truth about 911 may really be, this type of crap makes you sound like an old Stalinist hack going off about “Trotskyite-fascists.” The Debinking 911 site is not neo-conservative in political orientation and you just expose yourself as an illiterate moron by spouting claims that it is. You’re too dumbified to know anything about politics so just avoid using big words like “neo-conservative.”
    • mick 30.4

      25 November 2009 at 9:58 pm

      Hi your link to the Italian show needs redirecting.
31. Bloggulator 31

    24 November 2009 at 8:04 am

    Why are so many people quick to defend the indefensible, the official, ridiculous conspiracy theory with so many obvious flaws, preferring to ignore its mountain of errors, inconsistencies, unlikelihoods and impossibilities? The Bush Administration lied or misrepresented themselves serially: the environment, education, the economy, national security, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and more. Considering this consistent track record of dishonesty and misleading the people, it is inconsistent and illogical for anyone to expect them to be the “the supreme example of honesty” regarding 9/11…. but that is what the corporate media would have us believe. As someone asked in another forum: “What is so dangerous about 9/11 that the mainstream media refuse to host rational discussions on the subject, and always defer to 5th grade style name-calling”?
    • Edward_the_cat 31.1

      24 November 2009 at 11:03 pm

      911-activists would do better if they learned the difference between “official story” versus “orthodox history.” The official story promoted by the Bush administration said that Saddam Hussein had a hand in the whole thing. That official story has since been discredited. The orthodox history of a certain event is something a bit broader than just an official story. There are debates which can still go on in history departments around the world where someone may seek to challenge the orthodox history of Ancient Rome. That is not a matter of questioning an official story about anything, because orthodox history (even when it may sometimes turn out to have been seriously flawed and influenced by biased sources) is something a bit broader than an official story. In the years since 911 an orthodox history of this event has been slowly taking shape, and the NIST reports are part of that process. Maybe that orthodox history will eventually be revised. But for starters one should stop repeatedly characterizing it as an official story. It’s broader than that, whether you like it or not.
32. outofbed 32

    24 November 2009 at 8:07 am

    get a room u 2
33. Chris Sarns 33

    24 November 2009 at 8:40 am

    Controlled demolition deniers flood blogs with posts in an effort to bury the truth.

    Here again is the proof of free fall and the fact that NIST lied about it.

    In a public hearing on the draft report NIST was confronted by a high school physics teacher who had proven that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 2.5 seconds using an online program he has his students use.

    NIST repeated the analysis using a different spot on the roof line and different software and came up wit 2.25 seconds. That is scientific conformation of free fall acceleration for about 100 feet.
    See page 45 [PDF pg 87]
    http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1Aindex.htm

    Here is the video that sums it all up.
    
    • Gosman 33.1

      24 November 2009 at 12:04 pm

      What a Muppet! I have already quoted that section and shown that it stated no such thing as you claim.

      “Thus, the average time for the upper stories to collapse, based on viseo evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time’

      When did 40 percent longer than free fall become equal to free fall in your world?
      • Chris Sarns 33.1.1

        24 November 2009 at 1:22 pm

        In the real world where people tell the whole truth, where people don’t intentionally mislead people with half truths.

        You quoted from NCSTAR 1A pg 45 [PDF pg 87]
        http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1Aindex.htm
        The next line is:
        “A more detailed examination of the same video led to a better understanding of the vertical motion of the building in the first several seconds of descent.”

        Further down on that same page is this:
        “In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.”

        WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet. That is an established scientific fact, discovered independently of NIST and confirmed by NIST.
        • mick 33.1.1.1

          25 November 2009 at 10:03 pm

          check and mate
          • BLiP 33.1.1.1.1

            25 November 2009 at 10:40 pm

            Hehehe!!

            I’m actually against the smacking of children but, on this occasion, its quite nice to see Secret Agent Gosman get spanked.

            🙂
            • Gosman 33.1.1.1.1.1

              26 November 2009 at 12:59 am

              Ummmmm……You are cheery picking the data again.

              In the final report NIST stated that there was three stages to the collapse. The total time for the building to fall was 40 percent greater than free fall speed. That is the key finding that NIST highlights.

              In Stage 2, of the three stages they have broken the collapse into, the building did approach free fall speed but that was because of what had happened to the structure in the preceding stage.

              This is also not taking into account what had been happening internally in the building prior to the collapse actually starting. Remember the NYFD Acting Chief Daniel Nigro had taken the decision to evacuate his fire teams from WTC7 because he was of the opinion the building was in danger of collapsing. This was the famous ‘Pull’ order that many in the 9/11 Truther community try to argue proves that a decision was made to blow the building up (interestingly Richard Gage avoids making this claim, possibly because he knows it makes his case look even flimsier).

              Now NIST probably was influenced by some people in the 9/11 Truther Conspiracy Theory movement to clarrify the issue around the free fall times. This to me is evidence that NIST is taking in to account evidence presented by both sides of the debate. However, as with any denier movement (a nod to NickS’s excellent link herehttp://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php), the 9/11 Truther’s choose to believe this is something more sinister.
34. kameelyun 34

    24 November 2009 at 9:26 am

    Methinks Gosman is getting paid to shill for the official 9/11 story. Either that or way too much free time. He/she sure has a HECK of lot of time to devote to defending the official conspiracy theory.

    The Active Thermitic material paper was published in a peer reviewed, scientific journal.

    “Debunking911.com,” “911myths.com,” the article from Propaganda Mechanics, and the pseudoskepticism forum at JokeREF are NOT peer reviewed scientific journals, so as another poster said, referring fence-sitters to those sites is, well, just a tad sad.

    Until an actual peer reviewed article refuting the Thermitic Paper comes out, then the Thermitic Paper remains formally unchallenged in the science community.
    • Chris Sarns 34.1

      24 November 2009 at 9:58 am

      Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for the NIST report on WTC 7, lied to Popular Mechanics Magazine when he said: “On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building WAS scooped out.” [emphasis mine]
      http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

      Popular Mechanics Magazine then lied about seeing a photo of this huge gouge in in this interview:
      http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060826165457842

      In the NIST final report NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1, on pages 183 to 187 [PDF pg 227- 231], they have graphics showing where the debris damage from WTC 1 was. There is NO such damage.
      http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1Aindex.htm
    • Edward_the_cat 34.2

      24 November 2009 at 11:17 pm

      > The Active Thermitic material paper was published in a peer reviewed,

      No it was not. Tell us a bit about the review committee please. Who were its members? There hasn’t been much indication that this ever was reviewed prior to publication.
35. tanabear 35

    24 November 2009 at 3:01 pm

    NIST, in their Final Draft Report, released in August of 2008 wrote,

    “Assuming that the descent speed was approximately constant, the two quantities were (1) a length that some feature of the building descended and (2) the time it took to fall that distance…The time the roofline took to fall 18 stories was 5.4 s.”
    http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

    In other words, they originally stated that the descent speed was constant and WTC7 did not enter free-fall. In their Final Report, released in November of 2008, they revised the fact that the descent speed was constant and came up with the three stages of collapse. Here they admitted that WTC7 did enter free-fall for 2.25 seconds. This was something that they originally denied.

    However, David Chandler has shown that NIST used an artificially early start time to get the 5.4 seconds for the roofline to fall 18 stories. The NIST report is full of fraudulent details.
    • Gosman 35.1

      24 November 2009 at 3:18 pm

      You are misrepresenting the information presented by NIST here. This is something that people pull up somebody like Ian Wishart and Lord Monckton all the time when it comes to Anti-AGW studies.

      Just as it is extremely bad form to cheery pick data such as using a start point like 1998 for Global tempratrures and draw the conclusion that average temp has fallen in the decade since then, you can’t say that NIST agress that the building fell at free fall speed when they state the complete opposite when looked at the enire time it took the building to collapse.

      On top of that you are now arguing that NIST is DELIBERATELY falsifying their study, thereby also implicating them in the giant Conspiracy you are postulating. Possible, but your Conspiracy just got a little bigger and wackier.

      BTW I’m still waiting for someone to dispute the criticism’s of the theory that Active Thermite was definately found. All I have got so far is attempts to discredit these allegations without dealing with the Science. I thought you guy’s were all about the Science?
      • Chris Sarns 35.1.1

        24 November 2009 at 4:14 pm

        No, you are the one who deliberately misrepresented the facts people by leaving out the statement acknowledging free fall. Who do you think you are kidding?

        “On top of that you are now arguing that NIST is DELIBERATELY falsifying their study”

        Correct. The facts speak for themselves. NIST lied about WTC 7 falling at 40% of free fall. They acknowledged free fall in the final report.

        This is just one of many falsifications in the NIST reports. Blind faith in our government reports is neither warranted or wise.
36. John Medeiros 36

    25 November 2009 at 8:03 am

    Gosman is a paid [deleted]

    [lprent: Highly unlikely bearing in mind that he has been hanging around here for a wee while talking on a range of topics. However unless you actually can make a case for that rather than simple assertion it will get zapped and you will get banned. ]
    • gitmo 36.1

      25 November 2009 at 8:07 am

      Is this a magnificent piss take or are you serious.
    • John Medeiros 36.2

      25 November 2009 at 8:14 am

      Zap it and ban me
    • gitmo 36.3

      25 November 2009 at 8:17 am

      No fair that was one of the funniest things I’d read in a long time – you should’ve kept it for posterity.
37. John Medeiros 37

    25 November 2009 at 8:51 am

    I am glad you can retain your sense of humor but you still haven’t zapped me yet.
38. rahool 38

    25 November 2009 at 11:21 am

    The best Kim Hill Richard Gage interview had me rethink my attitudes on 911.

    I have always had the greatest respect for miss hills interviewing and assumed this interview might lead us to her asking gage about what kind of country the USA has become in his mind, and that would probably the best that could come from an interview such as this.

    Gage clearly states he doesn’t know the answers to why and how and that’s why a new investigation is needed, miss hill just doesn’t get it, and that fact is incredible.

    My new found interest has led me to the must see arty film about 911 conspiracies ‘Who Killed John ONeill’. http://wkjo.com

    Having gone through something similar myself I was totally blown away by the movie.

    There are some real gems in this lot of comments but having to trudge through grossmans shilling really is tiresome, a nice example of the amateur shill tho. (and of course like kim shill he doesn’t know it).
    • Gosman 38.1

      25 November 2009 at 12:59 pm

      Nice to see some people are paranoid enough to actually claim I am part of this conspiracy

      LOL!

      There is no need to reinvestigate this problem because there is simply no credible new evidence that the 9/11 Truthers are putting forward.

      The studies performed by Steven E. Jones and his merry band of Conspiracy Theorists are incredibly bad science. Iprent has been going on about CCD and how the studies they put up as evidence in their favour are low quality science based on a number of criteria such as lack of rigorous peer review mechanism. These same criticism’s are just as valid, if not more so, when applied to the evidence for Controlled Demolitions.

      On top of that it seems quite plain that the 9/11 Truthers won’t accept the result of any investigation except one which comes to the same conclusion as theirs. All you need to see this is look at the responses to the NIST report.

      Firstly they misrepresent the NIST report regarding whether WTC7 fell in free fall. The final NISTreport stated that the building fell 40 % slower than free fall speed yet somehow the 9/11 Truther’s cheery pick quotes from this to suggest NIST no supports the free fall hypothesis.

      Secondly they argue that NIST is deliberately ignoring the overwhelming evidence supporting the Controlled Demolition hypothesis thereby implicating them in the massive conspiracy covering up the ‘real’ reasons for the attack.

      They also claim that NIST refuses to even talk to them, which is a bit unusual considering I have come across numerous submissions from people like Steven Jones and Richard Gage on the official NIST website (see http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AE911Truth-NIST-Written-Submission12-18-07.pdf). What their problem is is not being ignored, it is not being taken seriously.

      So pandering to the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists calls to reopen the investigation won’t resolve anything. If, as seems likely, the new investigation confirmed the official version of what happened all that will happen is this new investigation will be painted as being part of the cover up as well, just like NIST has been.
      • travellerev 38.1.1

        25 November 2009 at 4:12 pm

        Tell that to the 80.000 New Yorkers who petitioned for a new and independent investigation and got shafted.

        Or the Jersey Girls

        Or the 70.000 first responders and New Yorkers who are sick or dying because the breathed and swallowed the dust on that day and who are denied any help they may need.

        This isn’t just some academic exercise you fuckwit. This is about real people who really lost loved ones and who all want to know what really happened.

        And while Mr. adolescent here, who thinks he can out think some of the smartest minds involved in this movement while wanking over his keyboard, gets his rocks of responding with more drivel why don’t the rest of you read what these fire fighters and pilots have to say about the OCT.
      • mick 38.1.2

        25 November 2009 at 10:57 pm

        Howdy Gosman ,I’m new to this site and don’t have time to more than skim read the post.And you seem to be a “debunker” as seriously as I am a “truther”.I work in engineering and have worked metals of all description .I work with exotic materials in my current job.Materials like Mylar,Kevlar,titanium,carbon fiber, sapphire,silver,gold,etc .Now constructing devices the above material (and others) means you get an understanding of how materials behave.What compression does as opposed to tension, what extreme heat does a opposed to extreme cold ,what pressure does as opposed to vacuum,etc.
        My statement is this…”I can not except that three steel framed buildings for the first time in history before or since 9/11/2001 collapsed symmetrically into there own footprint.As a result of asymmetrical damage.And that that damage was relatively localised with regard to the size of the three buildings.”

        Can you explain how this was possible ?
        Like I say I’m a “tool user” so be as technical as you like but your words not links.
        mick
39. Chris Sarns 39

    25 November 2009 at 3:43 pm

    “OBL and 19 hijackers did it.” is a conspiracy theory.

    You are a conspiracy theorist.
    • Gosman 39.1

      25 November 2009 at 3:58 pm

      No, I am Spartacus. 😉
      • lprent 39.1.1

        25 November 2009 at 5:12 pm

        ….and looking for the same fate of crucification?

        Ummm sorry – couldn’t resist that
40. Chris Sarns 40

    25 November 2009 at 6:22 pm

    Who are we to believe?

    A PhD professor of physics for 20 years at a prestigious American university and a PhD professor of chemistry for 20 years at a prestigious Danish university,
    or
    Some anonymous poster running his mouth on the web?
41. tanabear 41

    25 November 2009 at 6:37 pm

    Gosman: “they misrepresent the NIST report regarding whether WTC7 fell in free fall. The final NIST report stated that the building fell 40 % slower than free fall speed yet somehow the 9/11 Truther’s cheery pick…”

    You seem to be having trouble with some basic concepts. NIST’s Final report on WTC7 doesn’t say that WTC7 fell at free-fall acceleration for the entire duration of its collapse. They state that it did descend at free-fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds or 8 stories(105 feet). Shyam Sunder and NIST in their Final Draft report denied that WTC7 entered free-fall at all. They had to revise their assumptions through the work of David Chandler. The NIST model does not allow for free-fall. It is therefore invalid and the their investigation flawed.

    Gosman: “There is no need to reinvestigate this problem because there is simply no credible new evidence that the 9/11 Truthers are putting forward.”

    The NIST reports on WTC1,2 and 7 cannot explain the complete destruction of these towers. NIST admits this. NIST: “We are Unable to Provide a Full Explanation of the Total Collapse.” An investigation that can explain these structural failures is required.

    However, the controlled demolition hypothesis put forward by the 9/11 Truth Movement can better explain the destruction of these towers than any other current explanation.
42. Daveosaurus 42

    26 November 2009 at 4:23 pm

    I see that a massive archive of text or pager messages sent at the time of the September 11th attacks has just been published on Wikileaks. One would expect that, if there really was any sort of conspiracy involved, that at least one of the archived messages would make some reference to the alleged plans. So I look forward to seeing any analysis of these messages from the Truther camp.

    (Yes, I realise that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but when a theory is as lacking in any reputable scientific basis as the “9/11 was an inside job” or “controlled demolition” theories are, then it really behoves the proponents of the theory to prove their claim rather than demanding others disprove them).
43. mick 43

    26 November 2009 at 7:41 pm

    Have you watched the footage of WTC 7 ?

    “Multi-storey steel framed buildings aren’t designed to have a bunch of wankers fly fully-laden jet aircraft into them. WTC7 wasn’t designed to have massive amounts of debris dropped onto it. How hard is all this to understand?”
    This is just intellectually lazy .Are you a builder or maybe an engineer or is it an architect ?
    “Multi-storey steel framed buildings aren’t designed to have a bunch of wankers fly fully-laden jet aircraft into them.” in fact these building s where designed for just this happening…If you read the writings of the actual designers.
    “WTC7 wasn’t designed to have massive amounts of debris dropped onto it. How hard is all this to understand?” ” WTC7 WAS NOT DAMAGED BY “massive amounts of debris” WTC 5 and 6 were and they did not collapse into their own footprint.
    Science is hard for a lot of people ,they lack experience when it comes to cause an effect .And “critical thinking” seem beyond them.
    • Edward_the_cat 43.1

      27 November 2009 at 12:21 am

      > in fact these building s where designed for just this happening If you read the writings of the actual designers

      In reality, Leslie Robertson reported things a bit differently to the New York TImes of September 8, 2002:

      —–
      Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber… Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost — he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study.
      —–

      Even assuming that some calculations were made, the state of the arts back then for modeling the effects of a fire was too primitive to be of much use in retrospect.
44. travellerev 44

    27 November 2009 at 8:17 am

    This a video interview with Demartino he managed the construction of the WTC. He died in the attacks.

    This is what Skilling had to say about planes flying in the buildings.
    • Edward_the_cat 44.1

      27 November 2009 at 9:18 am

      Informal statements of this type are of only tertiary value. 6 years ago it might have been interesting to see a little film clip of someone casually asserting that the Towers could absorb hits by planes. At this point today, if this is going to be made into a serious part of any type of case, then one needs to find or determine as accurately as possible the precise mathematical calculations which formed the basis for such casual statements alleging that the Towers could absorb a hit. We do have it coming clearly from Leslie Robertson that none of the calculations performed in the modeling process assumed more than a low-speed hit resulting from a plane being lost in fog. But we’re also told that no one can find these original calculations and some of the people who should have been involved in the process claim to not remember ever having done such calculations. Now if the band of truthers wish to claim that this is all some kind of cover-up then it is first of all their responsibility to study all of the remaining records of the original models of the Towers and produce real substantial evidence to the effect that these models really were prepared to handle such crashes. Just tossing out a few flashy media quotes from some professionals involed in the construction without any hard technical details doesn’t mean much anymore.

      Frankly, I don’t that even the most thorough study of the records of the WTC construction process will provide any real evidence to substantiate your claims. The fact is that all forms of modeling were relatively primitive at the time of the WTC construction. Computers were in a relatively early stage of development and that meant that many of the modeling processes which we take for granted today were in their stage of infancy at that time. Fire-prevention systems were just being developed and it’s not likely that these effects would have been seriously considered in any model. If you wish to rebutt that then you have to do the work in producing the real records of how the building was designed and why this design should be expected to cope with certain types of disaster. Don’t bother endlessly posting links to clips of informal interviews. The difference between someone making such an informal statement to the media where they assert that the building should be able to withstand a plane impact versus publishing a design analysis in a refereed engineering journal where they analyze the likely effects of a plane crash is like the difference between testifying out of court versus under oath.

Links to post

1. Buy Porn Movies: posted on 22 November 2009 at 7:40 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS