Physicist Steven Jones "911 Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak out"

There's a simple alternate explanation. One that Jones has consistently ignored throughout his investigation.

A lot of evidence points toward a conspiracy around 9/11, but the thermate dust is a red herring.

There's a simple alternate explanation. One that Jones has consistently ignored throughout his investigation.

A lot of evidence points toward a conspiracy around 9/11, but the thermate dust is a red herring.

that explanation was to cover for thermite. The evidence the engineering report produced that the report you offered did not address was the abundance of Aluminum microspheres with sulfur molecules in the center, which is a signature for Thermate.

I've seen nothing to debunk that. I'd be glad to and get this out of my mind, but so far there is nothing published that would provide an alternate reason for this piece of physical evidence.

The element Sulfur was not even considered in the tract you provided, just the standard thermite chemistry, which wouldn't be hot enough anyway.

Got anything else? I'd be very happy to read some logical alternate explanation but I've never heard of one. I doubt a conspiracy, frankly, but the thermate evidence still leaves some door open, but damned if I know what door. It just doesn't add up.

Thermite is not explosive but it does ignite readily with a butane lighter and magnesium ribbon. . .

Thermite generates more than enough heat to melt steal beams but then again, it requires large amounts of mass, metallic aluminum is light but even the oxide of iron is heavy. Getting the heavy charges in place poses problems. Magnesium fuse...unimportant.

Ok guys, all of the steel columns in the building were surrounded by walls, offices, etc. and were essentially inaccessible. Add to that the fact that there is no method for using thermite or thermate to cut structural steel, and it becomes quite obvious that Dr. Jones is completely incorrect.

no method for using thermite of thermate to cut structural steel, and it becomes quite obvious that Dr. Jones is completely incorrect.

why do you all keep saying that? the commercial use of thermate is to cut structural steel in building demolition - exactly that. And the counter arguments don't any of them account for the signature of thermate present at building 7 - once again, Al microspheres with S internally. Nothing but thermate would leave that signature.

Fearless, I keep saying it because it's true. I challenge you to find even one example of the commercial use of thermate in cutting structural steel, just one. Not just in building demolition, but in any field.

Good luck with that.

@Fearless,

The element Sulfur was not even considered in the tract you provided, just the standard thermite chemistry, which wouldn't be hot enough anyway.

You should probably read the thing a little more closely: "Gypsum is hydrated calcium sulfate, CaSO4.2H2O. It is the principal ingredient of wallboard (75 – 90 wt %) but is also used as a binder or filler in fireproofing and insulating materials. Large quantities of gypsum wallboard, typically 5/8-inches thick, were used to enclose exit stairwells and elevator shafts throughout the Twin Towers."

it was thermate, not thermite and it's used to shear steel support columns in building demolition. blue rust, powdered aluminum and sulfur.

Is this thermate explosive? If not, how is the distinction relevant? Sulfur could have come from a bunch of sources, such as jet fuel.

Jet fuel contains sulfur? But it comes from oil, which is a hydrocarbon, right?

Is this thermate explosive? If not, how is the distinction relevant? Sulfur could have come from a bunch of sources, such as jet fuel.

I suggest you go read about it. Jet fuel is kerosene, carbon and hydrogen, no sulfur, and that wouldn't put it in the center of Al microspheres. You can't bluff up an answer to anything without familiarizing yourself with thermate, which doesn't explode but expand through a slotted container that makes a light saber out of the slosh that comes out, and that stuff shears steel girders at a temperature much higher than jet fuel combustion.

Stop trying to wing it and go drop some knowledge on top o yourself. this isn't that hard to grasp even with just high school chemistry.

All materials in concrete contain small amounts of explosives just from the mining of the raw material, not all explosives ignite during the blast and mix in. Portland cement contains Gypsum which is Calcium Sulfate with 2) H2Os bound in the molecule. I have heard all this from my brother who believes in the conspiracy, no matter how much I explain even this point to him. He says he has video evidence that a missile was shot out from the jet just as it hit, which I would ask "what good would that do?", besides a jet entering the building at that speed would cause heat at impact enough to ignite the aluminum in the jet to cause the flash. And to bring the buildings down all that needed to happen was the fire inside the buildings to reach sufficient temp to warp the cross beams causing the floors to pancake and the expansion deforming the outer shell once this happened the shell could no longer support the buildings above the impacts. Simple no conspiracy.

The aircraft fuel did have sulfur present in 2001 and before. The current refinery parts per million American limit is 15. We do pick up more sulfur as the fuel travels through pipelines, storage tanks, tankers. Usually see more than 500 ppm in fuel and our EPA makes us be capable of handling much more for cleaner air.

by now, we should be able to simulate a cubic zone of the world trade center, preferably near an important steel juncture, with temperature, stresses, tensile and shear values and all elements found on various surfaces.

The WTS structural engineer was interviewed for one hour on PBS about three years ago and said there were no planes that large to plan for when he was calculating the structures. He lied because the B52 could have served him as a design aide for his model. Not that he had to, but he should have considered events possible out to about 10 sigma.

Very happy he is not an ASME pressure vessel engineer or nuclear engineer or involved in health care products.

Knowing something about draft I have concluded that a fire in the elevator shaft could have created sufficientheat to soften steal beams, yet I question the reason that Cheney let this happen. Buildings don't fall straight down simply because steal beams soften so we are back to thermite beam cuts.

The aircraft fuel did have sulfur present in 2001 and before.

how did it get into the center of aluminum spheres? Know how much heat that takes? More than enough to melt steel.

Jet fuel combustion won't melt steel. neither will thermite, but the commercial use of thermate is to melt steel instantly.

this isn't something you can wing your way through, for the second time. This requires a metallurgical explanation and there's been none forthcoming.

There actually was, if you heat a beam unevenly it will expand unpredictably and could easily snap the bolts holding the beam in place.

When the WTC’s South Tower collapses, Father John Delendick—one of New York Fire Department’s chaplains—runs down a ramp to the garages below the nearby World Financial Center, to escape the dust cloud. He speaks there with Fire Chief Ray Downey, and asks him if the jet fuel from the plane had blown up, causing the collapse. [CITY OF NEW YORK, 12/6/2001]

Ray Downey is in fact a renowned expert on building collapses. Robert Ingram, a battalion chief in the New York Fire Department later refers to him as “the premiere collapse expert in the country.” [US CONGRESS. SENATE. COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 10/11/2001 ] 9/11

Commissioner Timothy Roemer calls Downey a “very, very respected expert on building collapse.” [9/11 COMMISSION, 5/18/2004]

And Fire Chief Mike Antonucci, who is a best friend of Downey’s, says he “was probably the most knowledgeable person on building collapses there was. That was his [hobby], to study building collapses—what affected the engineering of buildings, how they [would] weaken and how he could respond and stay safe.” [INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN, 9/7/2006]

In response to Delendick’s question, Downey replies that, “at that point he thought there were bombs up there because [the collapse] was too even.” [CITY OF NEW YORK, 12/6/2001]

Earlier on, Downey told other fire chiefs responding at the WTC that he was worried about “explosive devices” in the Twin Towers “that could hurt the firemen” (see (9:20 a.m.) September 11, 2001). He is killed when the North Tower collapses at 10:28 a.m.

I have concluded that a fire in the elevator shaft could have created sufficientheat to soften steel beams, yet I question the reason that Cheney let this happen.

None of you "truthers" (read denialist crowd) seem able to answer this simple question:

Has any commercial aircraft loaded with fuel ever crashed into a skyscraper before or after 9/11? Not a pee wee plane, but a jumbo jet.

If such an event had occurred, the world would have heard about it within hours of the 9/11 attacks.

Someone somewhere in the world would have said something, but it's over 9 years later, and the silence is deafening.

Here is what we all saw: Two jumbo jets crashed into the Twin towers and exploded on impact.

Essentially, the aircraft acted as giant fuel bombs that triggered the buildings' collapse less than two hours after exploding.

Unlike the conspiracy crowd, I'll just have to trust my lying eyes :P

it was thermate, not thermite and it's used to shear steel support columns in building demolition. blue rust, powdered aluminum and sulfur.

No it isn't. The only people who claim that are WTC conspiracy types. There's no method of using thermate or thermite to cut steel support columns, it's made up BS.

To further confuse the issue, I thought it was

nano-thermite.

how did it get into the center of aluminum spheres? Know how much heat that takes? More than enough to melt steel.

Y'know what happens when tons and tons of metal and concrete collapses down on itself at free fall speeds? Lots of energy, some of which is converted into heat.

oldecrankeyman:

it was thermate, not thermite and it's used to shear steel support columns in building demolition. blue rust, powdered aluminum and sulfur.

No it isn't. The only people who claim that are WTC conspiracy types. There's no method of using thermate or thermite to cut steel support columns, it's made up BS.

There are more than 1,300 experts here

www.ae911truth.org

who seem to agree with the WTC conspiracy types.

Oh, and they are taking NIST to court for lying in its report.

Hope they bring their tin foil hats with them ... Maybe that's were they keep their licenses to practice engineering and architecture?

Anyway, I'm sure they'd all appreciate it if you could go to their site and set them right. You could save them a lot of time and trouble, you know.

I didn't see anything saying that thermite/thermate is used to sever steel columns in building demolition, BECAUSE IT ISN'T. That's made up BS.

If you can find even ONE source from the demolition industry that says that it is used for that purpose, I'll eat my computer.

oldecrankyman:

Check this out.

http://www.911truth.org/article_for_printing.php?story=20090525150347423

Melting holes in tanks is not cutting steel beams. The contention has been made that it's used for cutting steel columns in the demolition business. That's BS, plain and simple. Not true.

oldecrankyman:

The contention has been made that it's used for cutting steel columns in the demolition business.

Why is this point so important to you?

Are you saying that Thermate is not capable of cutting through steel in a controllable fashion, irrespective of if it might or might not have been used in the demolition industry?

If we turn your logic on its self, then we can also say that planes have never been used in the demlition business, either, so there is no way they could have brought the buildings down, right?

I think the point at issue is that we need a definitive explanation for the following:

1. Is the claim of the presence of Thermate supportable?

2. If so, is Thermate capable of doing what it is claimed that it has done, irrespective of whether or not it has ever done that thing before?

3. If Thermate was present, and it is capable of doing what it is claimed to have done, then did it actually do what it is supposed to have done on 9/11?

Simply repeating the claim that it is not used in the demolition business -- whether that statement is true or not -- does not answer the bulk of these questions.

Also, even if it could be proved that Thermate was not present, that does not preclude all of the other good evidence of controlled demolition.

I think you need to broaden your perspective if you are going to effectively present your case.

Just a thought.

Upswing, the main claim in all of this is that there was thermite present in the ruins, and that thermite is used in the demolition of buildings.

Since thermite is NOT used in the demolition of buildings, that claim is groundless, and since the rest of the case is built on that foundation, the case then becomes pretty much wrong.

That's why I keep repeating the truth, it's not a claim, it's the TRUTH.

3. If Thermate was present, and it is capable of doing what it is claimed to have done, then did it actually do what it is supposed to have done on 9/11?

You forgot:

4.Was this thermate/thermite reaction the natural consequence of combining tons of molten aluminum with a slurry of water, gypsum and rust?.

Not saying there wasn't a conspiracy in the US government - I think the evidence for that is pretty strong. But all you need is the molten aluminum to trigger violently explosive exothermic chemical reactions with the WTC contents. It's horribly nasty stuff.

oldecrankyman:

Since thermite is NOT used in the demolition of buildings, that claim is groundless,

But this just isn't logical.

Your claim that, as far as you know, thermite has not been use in demolitions does not mean that it can not be used in demolitions.

Right?

Like I said, by your logic, since planes aren't used to demolish buildings by the demolition industry, then we must conclde that planes did not bring down the WTC buildings.

Just because something hasn't been used to acheive some effect, that doesn't mean that it CAN not be used to acheive that effect.

Personally, I think that the finding of large amounts of ANY explosive substance in the dust from 911 needs to be investigated. I guess I'm a little confused as to why you wouldn't find that an important matter.

LamontCranston:

I'm all for making the list of questions abut ALL of the aspects of 9/11 as long as they can possibly be.

The problem isn't that we don't have enough questions -- the problem is, we have more questions than the official account gives us useful answers for.

The more questions we address about 9/11 the better, as far as I'm concerned.

I didn't read the article. I got this from an engineering report on building seven published a short while after the act. I bookmarked it at the time but not on the computer I'm using.

The signature was for thermate, Fe2O3 + Al + S as a mixture. It's commonly used to slice through girders in those spectacular building demolitions.

The signature was for thermate, Fe2O3 + Al + S as a mixture. It's commonly used to slice through girders in those spectacular building demolitions.

Wrong. Give us an example of your claim.

Thermate is used to blast holes in tanks. Tanks are thick steel. So are girders. Do the math.

Thermate is used to blast holes in tanks. Tanks are thick steel. So are girders. Do the math.

The claim was that thermate is used in building demolition, which is totally false. Thermate is also not used to "blast holes in tanks". The military uses thermate in incendiary grenades to start things on fire, not to attack armored vehicles. Your claims and points are BS, which pretty much ruins your theory on how the WTC towers were taken down.

How does that relate to 9-11?

He's saying this is a wacky conspiracy theory.
Remember that seed where the 9-11 commission members basically said that the entire report was fabricated? Is it really that ridiculous?

Was there a grassy knoll near by?

How does that relate to 9-11?

It doesn't. It's the standard answer when someone's frightened of finding out the truth.

If it was in a different topic, he/she/they would believe Obama was born in Kenya.

But I don't believe Obama was born in Kenya.

Your "theory" fails

Green, it was a tie in to the comment above me regarding wacky conspiracy theories, nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly, they don't want you to believe in 9-11 theory but they want you to believe Obama was born in Kenya. That's the point I want to point it out, Green.

Regarding 9-11, just youtube WTC7 video and see what do you think ?

I find it telling that nobody's addressed my point.

The report revealed how the 10-member commission deeply suspected deception to the point where they considered referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.

The fact that they didn't should be considered a crime in and of itself.

Oh good grief.

How long did the White House keep Watergate a secret? A year and a half tops?

And Watergate was a "third rate burglary" to quote then President Richard Nixon.

A government incapable of hiding a scandal like Watergate would have no shot in hell of keeping a 9/11 caliber conspiracy secret for very long.

Way too many people involved (i.e. three or more) translates into someone letting the cat out of the bag.

But it's 9 years later and no one has said a word.

Once again, the silence is deafening.

I think it would help to have mainstream media report on all these troubling issues regarding 9-11.

How is anyone going to be heard if there is no media receptivity or whistle blower protection?

Whistle blowers are usually treated with great hostility.

Take Anthony Schaffer or Robert Wright or

Michael Springmann, all took a lot of heat and abuse for trying to do their jobs according to the law.

Whistle blowers are usually treated with great hostility.

By their former employers, absolutely.

By the media, no way.

Have you never watched an episode of 20/20 or 60 minutes?

Thanks, Green Dolphin.

All of that only adds up to questions of competence. I agree they covered up the fact that the Bush administration sucked at national security. Where is the evidence that it was an Inside job? It's not just about being open minded, you see evidence of a cover-up of something and jump to an illogical extreme. The Bias accusation is off base.

Your welcome!

I have to remember that I too used to shake my head at anyone who questioned 9-11.

Then one day a very intelligent friend of mine said "you might want to do a little research on that, there's more to the story than we have been allowed to know"

It may not be an "inside job" but the job clearly wasn't done by the people they said did it. And they refuse to investigate further. To me, that suggests they know who did it, but are scared witless to tell the truth. Why? Because the truth would be extremely damaging to someone we'd rather protect. In other words, our gov't would rather look like THEY were complicit rather than let the guilty party take the heat.

It may not be an "inside job" but the job clearly wasn't done by the people they said did it.

Other than the nutjob leader of Iran, who really believes that?

What were those 19 characters doing at flight schools in Florida? You know, the ones who repeatedly mentioned they had no interest in taking off or landing but just wanted to steer the plane when it was airborne?

Much to the chagrin of the 9/11 deniers, the perpetrators were terrorists on a suicide mission.

For some bizarre reason, some people cling to the delusion that suicide attacks only happen in the Middle East and Europe.

On 9/11, America found out how utterly false and dangerous this naive belief is.

For those of you unfamilar with this site re 9/11:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

BJK:

Much to the chagrin of the 9/11 deniers, the perpetrators were terrorists on a suicide mission.

Can you offer a single piece of hard evidence to support any part of this claim? Just one.

Thanks.

Can you offer one piece of hard evidence to refute that claim?

oldecrankyman:

Can you offer one piece of hard evidence to refute that claim?

That isn't how logic works.

It is the responsibility of the person making the claim to support it,

It is illogical to make a claim and then demand that someone else disprove it, and then claim it to be a true statement when that person fails to disprove it.

For example:

Two Geisha girls stopped by my house yesterday and we partied all night.

If I asked you to provide evidence that this isn't true, what evidence could you provide to disprove it?

None, right?

However, if I made the claim

Two Geisha girls stopped by my house yesterday and we partied all night with your brother, Mike.

Then you could go ask Mike it this happened or not. If he said that it did not happen, then you would have evidence that it did not happen.

And the reason you would have evidence that it did not happen is because, in the second statement, which included Mike, I offered you a verifiable statement.

i.e. I said it all happened with Mike, which you could check.

So, when someone says

Much to the chagrin of the 9/11 deniers, the perpetrators were terrorists on a suicide mission.

they are making a claim similar to my first claim about Geisha girls -- i.e. a claim that comes with no evidence/verifiable statement. (This is called a bald claim) so it is impossible for anybody to prove it wrong.

And, since it comes with no evidence, there is also nothing supporting the claim that it is true. It is simply an unverifiable statement offered without any indication of its truth or lack of truth.

So, the only way to address this statement's authenticity would be for the person making it to offer some evidence to support it. (e.g. "with Mike-type evidence")

So, logically, before we can discuss the truth or otherwise of the statement

Much to the chagrin of the 9/11 deniers, the perpetrators were terrorists on a suicide mission.

BJK needs to offer some evidence/a verifiable statement supporting its truth, which we can investigate and challenge

Otherwise, it's just a bunch of words.

Right?

That's pretty much true. The point being that he was challenging the official story, so it's up to him to disprove the official line. Right?

oldecrankyman:

The point being that he was challenging the official story, so it's up to him to disprove the official line. Right?

But the person challenging the official account needs to be given something to challenge -- some evidence or some verifiable claim.

Making a statement that something simply is, without producing any evidence that it is, is not an argument. It is a bald claim.

An argument is a series of claims supported by something and presented to someone.

What BJK is doing is, in effect, simply saying This is true because I say it is.

Why would anyone accept that as an argument?

Would you?

I wouldn't.

So, if someone is not presented with an argument, how can they offer a counter argument?

Oy, this case is based on thermite being found in the ruins of the WTC, and that thermite is used in building demolition. Thermite is NOT used in building demolition, period. So the claim is wrong, which means that the case that it's built on has no foundation, so is also wrong.

Upswing is so in love with conspiracy crowd nonsense, he'd rather trust them than his/her own eyes.

But for the record:

1. Commercial aircraft crashing into the WTC towers caused them to collapse.

Invoking some bizarro theory requiring hidden explosives in addition to hijacked planes is as hollow and nonsensical as it gets.

2. None of the terrorists who hijacked those four planes has ever been seen alive again.

Because all of them died in the suicide attacks.

Until the denialist crowd can disprove both of these statements, they have no logical argument.

Gozo, the energy released by buildings that size falling is tremendous. There's no mystery there.

Old cranky one,

The energy from the explosives required to bring those buildings down was tremendous.Just watch this short video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8&feature=player_embedded%3E">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8&feature=player_embedded <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8&feature=player_embedded>

oldecrankyman:

Oy, this case is based on thermite being found in the ruins of the WTC, and that thermite is used in building demolition.

No. It's based on the claim that thermite was used to demolish the WTC buildings not that it is used in the demolitin industry.

BJK:

Upswing is so in love with conspiracy crowd nonsense, he'd rather trust them than his/her own eyes.

I trust evidence and science. Nothing else.

Until the denialist crowd can disprove both of these statements, they have no logical argument.

Your demand is itself illogical.

1. Commercial aircraft crashing into the WTC towers caused them to collapse.

LOL! Right.

I agree about Bush. I think it was shock, mixed with fear. I think he may have had an inkling AT THAT POINT.

He was probably quite aware of what was going on.
Patty Casazza, one of the initiaters of the 9-11 Commission, said the Jersey girls were approached by whistleblowers that stated that:
"The government knew other than the exact moment, they knew the date and the method of which the attacks were supposed to come ... And none of this made it to mainstream media, none of it made it into the Commission"
check her statement at 19:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rukxI_GLc3w
If there is anyone who has some authority on the truth and lies of 9-11 it's these four women that initiated the 9-11 Commission.
Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Lorie Van Auken, and Mindy Kleinberg.

Why exactly would those 4 women have any authority on the truth of what happened? Sheesh.

You have to ask why?

You don't know?

Do you know anything about 9-11?

Do your research, your speaking from a position of GREAT ignorance.

Sheeeesh.

I researched who they are, and none of them has any expertise in structural engineering. The fact that they were on TV doesn't make them any sort of authority on building collapses.

Fail.

You did 10 minutes of research and now your an expert on 9-11?

Everything you've written screams "I have no knowledge of 9-11 but I am good at insults!"

You sure are.

green dolphin, pointing out the illogic of your posts isn't being insulting, sorry.

Why would you think those women have any understanding of what brought down the WTC towers? What sense is there in that claim?

Your comment made me laugh! Thanks for "injecting" some humor into the awful realizations that are upon us...

Rumsfeld and Cheney go waaaaay back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ford_meets_with_Rumsfeld_and_Cheney,_April_28,_1975.jpg

OK, if thermite can't cut a steal beam tell me why it is used to weld rails on train tracks?

That comment says a lot about why you believe in Dr Jones' goofy theory. Welding and cutting are quite a bit different, welding rails together requires melting a very small amount of metal, while the structural columns in the WTC at the 80th floor were 2'x2.5'. There's no mechanism for attaching and focusing thermite to cut structural steel. In theory, it could be done, but nobody has ever tried it, because the amount of thermite/thermate required would be prohibitive. Thermite/thermate is mostly used in military incindiary grenades. In controlled demolition, they use explosives, NOT thermite, OR thermate.

There's no mechanism for attaching and focusing thermite to cut structural steel. In theory, it could be done, but nobody has ever tried it, because the amount of thermite/thermate required would be prohibitive.

oldecrankyman,

I'm sorry, just in case you mis-heard what's being said----

It is CONCLUDED that the thermite and thermate was found. Chemical analysis and images including electron Micrograph images confirm that. (Links available)

IE.. This is Past Tense as in -- No one is still trying to analyze the dust samples to confirm the thermite. This work is COMPLETE!

That you are suggesting that the thermite found is in itself some sort of conspiracy theory makes you a conspiracy theorist since you are basing that on no known facts. IE.. You have no bases on which to dispute the chemical or micrograph images and characteristics of the confirmed thermite. In order to confirm the identity of the items in the dust samples they handed the work to the experts------ and the work is done.

If you are suggesting that NIST is the expert then you are ignoring that NIST misrepresented the facts about WTC 7 and we know that almost every single sequence of event offered as their narrative of 9-11 is by all accounts and even by their own admission on some issues scientifically improbable,, and they (NIST) have lost all credibility as a reference for SCIENCE and REASON.

This daunting reality hangs over NIST and cannot be ignored so please don't go on with assumptions that have NO SCIENTIFIC BASES.

FACTS:

1. Thermite chips WERE found and confirmed in all samples of WTC dust

2. Hundreds of firefighters and other witness reported molten metal "like a foundry" at ground zero and burning for over 3 months later, consistent only with superheated fires.

3. Characteristic red-orange-incendiary-like burning is seen in all WTC videos

4. Characteristic shape-charge is seen in several photos taken shortly after the demolition

5. Characteristic micro-spheres consistent with thermite super high temperatures were also found in the dust

6. Capability of and use of thermite well known and taught by experts all over the world

7. A super-heating compound like thermite would have been needed to reach the temperatures that were reached and consistent with the pulverization of 3 skyscrapers at freefall speed.

8. All three buildings have been confirmed to have been destroyed by controlled demolition- as confirmed by the hundreds of eyewitness testimonies of explosions, WTC videos showing the hundreds of squibs well before the collapse and the movement of the crush zone.

9. Thermite use fits in perfect with the already established controlled demolition

If you are selling or pushing the old 'box-cutter-theory' you are PAINFULLY behind on world events and need to turn off your TV set. There is no one out there still trying to prove that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. IE... All the work is DONE.

The only MYSTERY (Halloween music please-----) is the decision the mainstream media has made to NOT report this established finding. Furthermore the collapse of the towers as explained by NIST entirely VIOLATE NEWTONS LAWS - And NIST has never addressed this in a true honest and empirical manner. This can be shown in an easily reproducible experiment.

If you have any evidence to the contrary please provide that too. I'll post all the educational videos to start your education process. I'm speaking to you from a purely scientific point of view and not with any political or religious agenda. I hope you are too.

Of course I'll warn you now,,, I've not yet ever heard anyone try to explain the Bush version of 9-11 and stick to straight simple SCIENTIFIC principles. After all, if NIST departed from those principle and admitted it,,, how can someone argue their case with that confidence required to assert something SCIENTIFICALLY.

Finally, please don't waste either of our times asserting things that are highly improbable. In case you don't know,,, one must not confuse things that are 'possible' with things that are 'probable'. Also, there is a difference between explaining something with a clear and reproducible experiment carefully ensuring that one is keeping with scientific principles, versus JUST CLAIMING THAT SOMETHING IS... without the application of the above mentioned scientific method -----

Rules again--

Just Claiming something IS = Not scientific

Claiming something and cross-referencing it with scientific principles and laws = Very Scientific!

Oh, and - Name calling = Not scientific

Okay, I would say these are very good sound criteria to base an argument on, wouldn't you?

No. None of your statements are factual or scientific.

Nano thermite or thermate ( as you prefer ) is very difficult to manufacture, very very expensive to acquire, and thus is very rare. It is only available to highly sophisticated groups capable of manufacturing it and paying the costs to do so. Therefore it is generally only going to be used by large well funded military organizations and government organizations. Its presence at the WTC sites therefore raises some very important questions which deserve answers. Why was it there, how did it get there, and who put it there? Did the terrorists load it onto the planes before crashing them into the buildings or was it in the buildings before the planes hit?

Residue from other controlled demolition sites has not produced any traces of this particular compound. It has so far only appeared at this particular site. So, like so many other great mysteries of the past, there are way too many unanswered questions to ever call this a closed case. The events surrounding Pearl Harbor, the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy, the dealings that went on in the Iran/Contra affair, the assassination of the Chilean President, the many attempts on the life of Fidel Castro, all of these point to the level of subterfuge that goes on in our political system. We have the "visable government" that serves as our spokesperson and national image and then we have our "hidden government" that takes care of all of our dirty work and responds to perceived threats from outside sources. So it is not hard to imagine that on occasion this same hidden government uses various techniques to manipulate us. And the sanctity of human life is miniscule when compared to the ultimate goals of the endeavors of this hidden government. Because of their secrecy they simply are not bound by public opinion or common human decency. They are capable of unspeakable attrocities all in the name of getting the job done what ever that may be.

Do I believe all of this? Absolutely. Can I prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt? Nope. Would I want to be able to? Definitely not. I enjoy living too much. LOL Is this something new to society? Not at all. This has been the history of the human species ever since we formed into tribal groups and picked up the first rock and killed another human being with it over some stupid thing or another. It has been "king of the hill" ever since and every social group has its share of intrigue. There are those in the know and then there are the rest of us acting as the sheep in the flock. As a famous news caster used to say "and that is the way it is."

So what do you do about it? For me I choose to simply bob and weeve and stay out of the line of fire. I avoid joining any particularly partisaned groups because that can get you killed or maimed for life. Politics and religion are dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. If I don't like being around it or feel threatened by it I would not hesitate to just pick up and move somewhere else. I treat everyone I meet with courtesy and respect but I also realize that any one of them could be a fringe area lunatic so I am wary as well.

There are many reasons that this condition is becoming so much more apparent in today's world. The first is the state of our communications technology. Today if the premier of North Korea spills soup on his tie at lunch, chances are there will be a little news tit bit in some newspaper or news blog in the middle of the Okeefenokee swamp and there will be all manner of speculation about what that soup spill means to the rest of the world. LOL Secondly is our population. We are approaching the practical limits of our planet's ability to sustain us as a species. We are packed into increasingly dense urban environments and are becoming so specialized in our abilities that we are nearly incapable of surviving in a primitive and hostile environment. In short we are becoming victims of our own success as a species. Our future depends entirely upon us. We get smart and learn to survive or we stay stupid and slowly become extinct.

No. None of your statements are factual or scientific.

oldecrankyman

By simply stating this you are ALREADY violating the principles we've set forth as the guidelines for this conversation.

What is it with you box-cutter-theory guys and your defiance for pure, simple, honest reproducible scientific principles. IE.. WHATEVER you say should be confirmed by standard methods of science- Chemical analysis and electron micrograph analysis in this case.

The brave scientists and engineers who discovered the thermite followed these principles why can't you? If you have something to provide on this thread that points to a 'architects and engineers/physicists CONSPIRACY' please provide it to us.

Just claiming that something is not true because NIST didn't say it is disingenuous of you and a departure from scientific principles.

Have you ever watched an episode of 'cold case files' or 'forensic files' on TV? Have you ever seen someone convicted based on made up science? Of course not. Then why would you expect the narrative of 9-11 to be based on assertions simply MADE UP by NIST?

Every component of the science of 9-11 is straight forward and easy high school physics. It's the NIST-BCT-Bush-NWO-Zionists who keep working overtime at fuzzing up the science in hopes of making it sound 'really confusing' to make everyone think that you somehow need a special degrees and credentials to understand this.

They wanted everyone to say "whoops we better let NIST do the thinking"

As it turns out, NIST will never again regain their credibility. They backed themselves into a corner with lies and they're exposed.

Here's that John Gross video again that someone posted on another thread. Watch him nervously squirming and fidgeting on his words as he is challenged about the known Molten Metal (another definitive characteristic of super-heated fire)

Now if these NIST liars stuck to basic scientific principles and the scientific method, guys like John wouldn't have anything to be so nervous about don't you agree?

AlphaDogReporter:

The thermite conspiracy has been thoroughly busted.

I couldn't find any debunking of the peer researched paper released by Neils Harritt et al that thoroughly analyzed the dust and determined that nanothermite was present in it.

http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Did I miss this debunking?

Or wasn't it there?

Thanks.

Upswing, find one example of thermite/thermate being used in building demolition. Just one.

oldecrankyman:

Upswing, find one example of thermite/thermate being used in building demolition. Just one.

The 3 demolished WTC buildings ... which, technically, is three, I suppose.

Who defines open, transparent, and best minds, you?

Al Quaeda took credit for the attack and the explanation of the structural defects in the WTC buildings was convincing. NOVA did a show on it and after watching that show I see no reason to look for an inside job explanation. Our time is better spent worrying about the Koch brothers and the Supreme Court.

Oh I see who I'm dealing with.

Somebody who specializes in insults and value judgements.

"open" look it up

"transparent" look it up

"best minds" nobel prize material. the worlds top 1000 scientists.

bring it on I say. what have you to hide?

I don't have anything to hide, or axe to grind. I haven't made any insults, just observations and honest questions.

Who defines the terms of your new investigation?

"Just observations and honest questions"

Yaaaahhhhhhh sure.

My last note to you because we are both seriously entrenched in our points of view and it is a waste of my time arguing with somebody who refuses to be honest or do the research.

First of all it is not my investigation.

Since the 9-11 Steering Committee never had 70% of their questions answered by the Commission, THAT is one starting point.

ciao

Gulliver's Island:

and the explanation of the structural defects in the WTC buildings was convincing.

Which one?

NIST changed its story significantly many times.

Would it make any difference to you to know that NIST, FEMA and the co-chair of the 9/11 Commission report all say that more investigation is needed to determine how the buildings actually collapsed?

How about the knowledge that NIST didn't even investigate the actual collapse of any of the three buildings -- they stopped investigating at the point of collapse, which means that they did not forensically examine ANY physical evidence from the debris of the collapse.

How about knowing that, despite national fire standards which, as a matter of course, require an investigation into accelerants and explosives at such a fire/collapse, no such investigation was ever done at the WTC, much to the chgrin of the firefighters on the scene?

And what if you knew that the reason NIST automatically discounted the possibility of explosives in the building without ANY investigtion into even the possibility of there being any is that NIST that there were no significant explosive sounds reported before or during the collapses?

Of course, the news footage of the day has literally hundreds of people reporting multiple and very loud explosions -- these are people such as firefighters, EMTS and others who know from explosions.

Would knowing any/all of this make you ceven a little urious as to why you would believe what you do, when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that belief, and when there is so much evidence that undermines that belief?

My guess is that the only reason you believe what you do is because it's the first explanation you heard.

I could be wrong, though.

Since the 9-11 Steering Committee never had 70% of their questions answered by the Commission, THAT is one starting point.

That may very well be, but the fact that 4 women from Jersey didn't get all of their questions answered has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the contention that thermite/thermate was used to bring down the WTC towers, do you get that?

First of all. the new owner, larry Silverstein had taken out terrorist insurance which would pay him billions when the towers were demolished. The towers had asbestos insulation which would cost a fortune to remove. The buildings were not as profitable as other buildings in NY. There was a security lockdown in the weeks before 9/11 where a lot of workmen were allowed in at night. Bush's brother Marvin was on the board of the security firm that handled the towers.

The reason you hear so much about the towers is explained in my post below. You can prove it is a lie by simply studying the videos.

As far as the people involved not being able to keep it a secret--if you were involved in murdering 3000 people would you confess? Knowing about it and not speaking up would make you an accessory and just as guilty. And if you did want to confess, who would you confess to? The FBI? the CIA? the local police? the media? Congress? Most likely you would disappear without a trace.

Larry,

I see. Well, I confess I still don't buy into the theory, but I thank you for your considerate reply! I just wanted to understand where you were coming from. Have a good one.

nightbreeze:

Serious question: Have you ever heard of WTC7?

Thanks.

Hi up. I had actually spent a lot of time at the WTC when I worked in Manhattan and lived on Long Island (until about 20 years ago). I knew that particular building (although I had never been inside 7). Why do you ask? BTW, I would never have a problem with any additional investigations being conducted. I've just yet to see anything I find compelling enough to justify it, though I'll admit I've never given the consiracy theories about 9/11 much serious thought.

Nightbreeze:

Why do you ask?

Because it fell down at freefall speed after its owner admitted that he made the decision to purposely demolish it, and without a plane ever hitting it. Oh, and its owner insured it specifically for terrorist attacks and he was on the phone all day while it was still standing, arguing with his insurance company about them paying him for its destruction.

You should check out the footage of the collapse on YouTube. It's actually pretty impressive the way they so expertly brought it down.

Another YouTube clip, which is pretty funny, actually, is of a BBC reporter on the scene describing in detail -- at 5 p.m. -- how WTC7 collapsed due to fire or some such, when the building didn't collapse until 5:20 p.m. ... and the really funny part is that, while she is describing the collapse of WTC7, WTC7 is clearly seen -- still standing -- behind her.

Her satellite feed suddenly went dead, so nobody called her on it at the time -- nor did anyone question to news ticker below her reporting the collapse of the still-standing WTC7.

Personally, I'm not claiming any conspiracy story to challenge Bush's official conspiracy story put out by Phillip Zelikow under the 9/11 Commission's name.

I'm simply interested in seeing an explanation -- ANY explanation -- of what happened on 9/11 that is supported by hard evidence -- ANY hard evidence.

So far, nonesuch has ever been presented to us.

upswing,

I've always respected your posts, so I decided to do a bit of preliminary research (I'll continue to look at this). Here's an interesting link which supports a different set of opinions on what happened. Check out the first link in the body of the text (from Structure Magazine) and make sure to read the acknowledgements section near the bottom of the discussion at the magazines article - this is a reputable publication. Even this magazine offers the scenario they present as simply a plausible one based upon structural engineering. As for the page I found it on, it's interesting, but in the interest of full disclosure, it's a site which apparently does nothing but attempt to refute the arguements made by proponents of the demolition theories. I think you'll find it a good read though.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

I will butt in here. that is a lot of material to discuss.

From the top (big breath)

1. the "pull it" comment, I never attached much importance to it. He would never confess publicly unless he was nervous and "slipped up." Kind of like Rumsfeld when he said the plane in Pennsylvannia was "shot down"

2. He was talking to the fire commander. I am going to do research on this.

Which fire commander was he talking to? Can someone else do some research too?

that's all for me now

Nightbreeze:

Thanks for the kind words and the link.

I'll check it out.

I'm completely open to any and all hard evidence in this matter, whichever way it takes me.

Nightbreeze:

I checked out the structural magazine link

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

and I can't figure out if they are simply restating the NIST account, or if they are offering a subtle tweak to it.

Help? :-)

The NIST account, and this article, are not offered as definitive explanations. Indeed, the final of the many NIST accounts even has a disclaimer (#4) which says that the explanations they offer are not to be taken as definitive, since NIST did not have any god idea of what condition the buildings were in before the collapse.

Also, you didn't respond to the BBC reporter's report of the collapse before it happened.

What do you make of that?

Up,

The article appears to explore a single scenario relating to the outcome of the postulated collapse of a particular column (based upon photographic evidence). It doesn't appear to merely be a regurgitation of the NIST. As to the report of the collapse before it happened. I can only say that WTC7 was not only expected to come down on its own, it was being discussed by all the covering news agencies that afternoon.

On 9/11, I was still working as a pilot. As all flights were cancelled that day, I spent it in the pilot's lounge with my coworkers all day watching the coverage. There was a lot of false reporting and subsequent retractions that day on a lot of different aspects. I honestly cannot speak to the BBC report you refer to, but given the number of erroneous reports made on live TV, I would not surprise me in the least that someone accidentally reported an event had happened prior to the actual occurrence - especially when it was being anticipated all day. It was a bad, confusing day for the police, the FD, the media, everyone.

If one looks for absolute proofs as many seem to, I think that remaining frustrated is inevitable. There are correlations and there are causal factors. Distinguishing between the two can be difficult; I believe there will always be educated speculation by structural engineers regarding this. This particular case was off the radar with no precedent to fall back on to assist with the engineering analysis. Makes it tough.

Nightbreeze,

Apt name. You probably just started your shift.

If you really were a pilot you would know that the official story is hogwash. You would know that an airliner could not have flown the path to the Pentagon described in the official story.

You would know that the wings and engines of flight 77 could not have passed through an 18 ft wide hole. You would know that an airliner could not penetrate three rings of the Pentagon, leaving a small round missile-like hole in the third ring.

Most pilots have some common sense. If you did, you would realize that fires on the lower floors of WTC7 would not weaken the upper floors. If it were possible for the building to collapse because of the lower floors being weakened, the top portion would have remained as one piece. Photos are available of the fires in WTC7. They were small fires. Almost invisible.

The only reason the building came down was because there was some evidence inside the building that would be incriminating to those who attacked us that day--and it wasn't Muslims.

'If I was really a pilot' eh? Lord, you just love to stick your foot in your mouth don't you, genius. You couldn't even tell me the first thing about aerodynamics or aeronautics... perhaps you can enlighten us as to the checklist procedures for a B-767? Or for that matter a Cessna 172?! And you think your comments are based upon ... what? Experience, scientific knowledge, what? Go ahead and wow us. I'd love to see you try! LOL

As anyone can see from my posts here, I've been completely respectful to everyone on this thread and was engaging in intelligent conversation. As this concept is evidently completely beyond your capabilities, don't bother. You are one of those pathetic characters who simply want to receive affirmation and have no desire to actually exchange thoughts or even admit the possibility that you could learn something from someone else. You're just embarrasing yourself. I'm a nice guy and I always treat others as they treat me, but I waste no time on losers like you. People like you who launch immediately into attack mode have no credibility whatsoever.

Larry,

The more I read your comment above, the more incredulous I grow. Be honest, you couldn't describe the flight characteristics of any aircraft could you? So how could you possibly know what is possible and what's not - and you obviously don't. Forgive me if I choose to doubt your expertise in structural engineering as well. You're simply parroting what you've read on conspiracy sites aren't you? Don't believe everything you read youngster. Try contributing something original - if that's possible.

Larry, I just went to your page. I had to see who you were. I was surprised in the extreme when I saw your picture. I had pictured someone much, much younger... living in his parent's basement.... Sorry I got the age wrong. As for the rest...

Bush's brother Marvin was on the board of the security firm that handled the towers.

And?

The more people involved in a conspiracy, the sooner it will come to light.

From the nonsense I've read so far, the 9/11 conspiracy and cover up involved:

Pres. Bush

VP Cheney

Donald Rumsfeld

Marvin Bush

The security team at the WTC

NORAD

The CIA

The Mossad

Scrap metal dealers in India and China who disposed of all the evidence after the attack.

This adds up to hundreds if not thousands of people.

And none of them has breathed a word in over 9 years,

It would make a great novel or movie, but that's about it.

Nightbreeeze,

First of all, I am suspicious of anyone who posts here and doesn't have the courage to use their real name. If you are a pilot, why not post your name and pilot license number so we can verify if you are telling the truth on that.

Your posts are much like others who make light of those of us who seek 911 truth, you don't offer any arguments that make sense because there aren't any facts that support your case.

As far as my expertise in structural engineering, I have worked closely with architects and architectural engineers for the past 15 years.

The fact that you don't have anything to refute what I say except personal attacks tells me you have an agenda.

Sorry I didn't turn out to be some adolescent working in a basement. As for the way I picture you . . . I see you in in a large room filled with people at computers, possibly located in an NSA bunker. Or you could be in the same type of environment as far away as Tel Aviv.

Crankyoldeman could be on the computer to your right, LamontCranston could be on the computer to your left. BJK-798627 could be looking over your shoulder. You guys must copy each other because you all sound the same.

We all sound similar because we're all trying to make the same point: a convoluted mega-conspiracy theory falls flat when a little logic is applied.

Not that it matters one iota, but I don't know Nightbreeze and oldecrankyman, they don't know me, and they probably don't know each other either.

Similarly, I don't see what difference it makes if larry payne is your real name or if you know Bernard and/or upswing.

It does matter whether you know the other posters here who lamely try to defend the official government conspiracy theory. I am sure you are aware of Obama appointee Cass Sunstein's paper in which he suggests infiltrating the Truth Movement in order to disrupt and weaken the Movement.

An article in the Wash. Post recently revealed that close to a million people in this country have high level security clearance. Many of those are involved in secret operations of which the public has no knowledge.

We can't be sure you are paid to post your tripe, but the style all of you use is so similar that it is very likely.

I am sure you are aware of Obama appointee Cass Sunstein's paper in which he suggests infiltrating the Truth Movement in order to disrupt and weaken the Movement.

Nope. I wasn't even aware Cass was a male name.

An article in the Wash. Post recently revealed that close to a million people in this country have high level security clearance.

1 in 300 people sounds a wee bit exaggerated.

Many of those are involved in secret operations of which the public has no knowledge.

Since no one outside the White House, CIA, FBI, NSA, or Homeland Security has any say over it, about all most of us can do is shrug.

We can't be sure you are paid to post your tripe, but the style all of you use is so similar that it is very likely.

You got me.

I must admit I've made all of $6 since I joined Newsvine 2 years ago.

Since it will take several more years to hit the $25 mark, I simply donate the money to charity.

Take it easy.

Payne (now that's appropriate). You don't know jack. Listen you schmuck, I've had it with you. I was polite on this thread until you jumped in and attacked me for no apparent reason. Just look at this. This is your first post to me. I wasn't even talking to you. Now you tell me who started this thing.

Nightbreeze,

Apt name. You probably just started your shift.

If you really were a pilot you would know that the official story is hogwash. You would know that an airliner could not have flown the path to the Pentagon described in the official story.

I was polite until you jumped on and started attacking me with your sarcastic crap. You're just ticked off because you know you don't know the first thing about aviation - I called you out on it when you started insulting me and you refused to show us your supposed expertise in aviation. You didn't expect to get called out on this by a pro, did you? LOL You are caught trying to pass yourself off as knowledgable in a field you know absolutely nothing about. Go ahead, I invite you again - let's discuss aviation: aerodymics, aircraft systems, aeronautics, meteorolgy, ATC procedures, emergency procedures, instrument procedures - hey it's your choice. Be my guest. I DARE YOU! BRING IT ON!

Come on. I challenged you to tell us what you knew about aircraft and you couldn't respond with one single fact. Not one. But you know all about what flight paths are possible for a B-767 and what aren't. Yeah riiiiigghhhtt. Larry, I find it difficult to believe that anyone here thinks you're credible - and don't even try to kid me. I've been flying for over 25 years. So come on - let's see who know what they are talking about here. I DARE YOU!

I see, you worked 'closely with' architects and architectural angineers. That means you weren't either. It also means you could have been a janitor or a carpenter. Hardly compelling. And NSA? Are you a bit paranoid here?! Sure seems that way, Larry.

As for posting my license # online, that would be as idiotic as your posts. I have no intention of allowing wackos to get onto a database that has already been made public so some twisted conspiracy nut can send me an envelope of whatever in the mail (yes, I mean you). As for my name, it's like my handshake; I give that to friends, colleagues and respected aquaintences, but certainly not to people of questionable sanity. The fact that you are trying to entice/goad me into being stupid enough to give up personally identifying information on the vine is a violation of the CoH....

To everyone on this thread, I apologize for taking up space here defending myself from the attacks I've been getting from LarryPayne. If you read my posts, I was engaged in an intelligent, open-minded discussion with upswing - we were both trying to start to investigate what hard facts we could locate and share them when this guy jumped all over me for no apparent reason. I normally don't waste time with this stuff, but I'm frankly tired of being insulted by posters who immediately launch personal attacks instead of engaging in an exchange of ideas. Well, again, sorry folks, but I just reached my breaking point with this one.

Larry, I need to correct a statement I made above. The first post you made to me was actually 26.1

My response to you, 26.2, was competely polite:

Nightbreeeze

Larry,

I see. Well, I confess I still don't buy into the theory, but I thank you for your considerate reply! I just wanted to understand where you were coming from. Have a good one.

#26.2 - Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:16 PM EDT

So in response to this, you return insults. Your kind absolutely ruins the Vine for intelligent people and I'm sick of you people. If it were up to me, I'd have you banned for life. Now I'm done wasting my time. You're on ignore. Write whatever you want. You can never meet my challenge anyway and we both know it.

Nightbreeeze, don't you think you are overreacting a bit here? Three consecutive posts and I'll bet your blood pressure was rising with each one.

In your case, the truth is what has offended you the most.

Here's some advice you trolls use so much: Get some meds.

Gozo,

Regardless of how the buildings were blown up, the fact that it is obvious that they were blown up is proof that it was an inside job.

Since it was an inside job, the task before the world now is to find out who the guilty parties are. This is not necessarily a crime committed entirely by operatives in this country. I am sure operatives from other countries were involved.

That is why we need an International Court to take this on.

I think a certain Middle Eastern leader has suggested something along those lines.

The startling fact that most of the WTC buildings were pulverized into a fine dust, 20 microns in size or less, cannot be ignored.

Particles 20 microns in size are invisible to the naked eye. Most of the debris at Ground Zero is far larger.

That is why we need an International Court to take this on.

I think a certain Middle Eastern leader has suggested something along those lines.

Reason enough to reject this suggestion.

BJK,

Isn't it an odd coincidence that you and Nightbreeze and Oldecrankyman and Whatanodguy always post from 6pm CDT to late in the night. Does your shift start at 6pm? Are you all the same person?

That's not odd at all considering that I work during the day and only have time to blog on this site at night.

No, we're not the same person. I know far less about aeronautics then Nightbreeze and never claimed to be a pilot.

Go ask them if you don't believe me.

Also, it would be rather laborious for one person to log into newsvine under three different accounts :P

Larry, some of us work for a living. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that the WTC towers were "blown up".

Micro nukes....................that's a hoot.

Cranky,

Watch the North Tower being blown up.No one except a cover-up operative could deny what this video shows clearly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8&feature=player_embedded%3E">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8&feature=player_embedded <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8&feature=player_embedded>

I saw a building falling down, not getting blown up. What in that video shows explosives?

What a paranoid, moronic fool...

Tell you what Gozo, read the posts 26.2 through 26.11 and then follow all the exchanges to this point between myself, upswing and Larrypayne. You can see I was completely polite and open-minded. Larry began attacking me, not the other way around. So, did you miss this or is there another reason why you don't call out Larry for being sarcastic, insulting and violating the CoH? I mean after all, he started this nonsense, not me. However, I already apologized to the board in general. I apologize to you too. Now all I want to see is if you are going to reign Larry in or not. He has attacked me, called me a liar, a troll, and instead of exchanging thoughts simply attacks those who do not agree with him. So I am supposed to accept these attacks and insults without getting angry? I am sick and tired of people who spend their time on the Vine attacking instead of discussing as well as those who allow them to do so on these seeds. You are right - I crossed the line due to my anger and frustration at the way these sarcastic, vicious posts keep being allowed on these seeds as well as the way nothing is being done to curb it. But I am not the only one here who has crossed the line. So Gozo, show me where you stand on this please. In the meantime, I am sincere in my apologies to the other posters on this board and to you. However, I will not stand and be attacked like this without response. I am sick of it. I waited for you to enter this, but nothing happened. So I want to know - what are you going to do about the unwarranted attacks on me? Also, know that I have placed Larry on my ignore list as I recognize that he has angered me to the point where I allowed myself to contribute to this disruption.

Gozo,

Please go back to Nightbreeeze's comment 26.4. He admits that he has never given conspiracy theories much serious thought.

If he is telling the truth in that statement, then he is not qualified to argue any point on what actually happened on 9/11 because he has not researched beyond what the corporate-controlled media puts out.

If he does know about alternate theories in detail and would be able to carry on an intelligent conversation about them instead of going into insult mode, then why would he make such an inaccurate statement.

That is why I suspect that he is a troll.

I have researched 9/11 for 9 years now. I can discuss just about anything concerning the attacks. Nightbreeeze obviously only wants to disrupt the discussion.

See if you can find anything in his comments that indicate he is open to discussion and has something to offer other than insults.

I saw a building falling down, not getting blown up. What in that video shows explosives?

really oldcrankyman? You are watching the same video we are??

Please post what previous 'building collapse' video you used to firmly create that perspective. Conversely, can you explain how this explosive video is NOT explosive?

Only 2 rational possibilities here are:

a. u are completely delusional and disconnected from the physical reality around you to where you create your own perceptions completely independent of any scientific or physical laws. [I posted an incredible 'simple brain washing' video before. Watch it, learn and see for yourself what has happened to you] - or

b. u are a well paid shill

I'll go with B since I think you are smarter than that-

If you sent these guys a picture of an apple, they would reply, "Where's the apple?"

B is the correct answer.

If you sent these guys a picture of an apple, they would reply, "Where's the apple?"

This is exactly what we're dealing with larry,

It's a fictional almost magical world with no rules.

Makes me dizzy. To think before 9-11 no one would envision any scenarios where so called educated Americans are defying basic science and trying to prove Isaac Newton wrong actually believing spoof science like this.

Many people forget that this started out as a 'pancake collapse' conspiracy theory made up by NIST which some of these same shills here were defending last year.- This ridiculous theory proved too embarrassing to NIST given the known CORE structure of the building so they changed it to the 'global collapse' ---

Don't worry guys, this time we've got them cornered relying on blind assertions. This is why no one in the Bush-NWO-NIST camp is willing to entertain any public debate about 9-11

Bernard, if this thermate thing is the real deal, why would there be explosions? This whole theory is just plain nonsense. When a bigass building falls down, lot's of weird things happen, and without recreating it a bunch of times, we'll never really understand what happened.

That being said, I find the official story of the attack on the Pentagon very suspect, and WTC 7 is pretty suspect too.

Probably shouldn't have said that, oh well.

you said it! you said it! Careful ... it's a slippery slope :D

Nah just kidding.

I have not done a lot of research on thermite/thermate/nanothermite.

Does anyone have any good links and sources?

Here is a good interview, Jeff seems very open and honest in his description of his analysis.

Physicist Jeff Farrer - one of the scientists who found thermite
in the World Trade Center dust discusses in depth his process of discovery
using the scientific method.

Every S(s)tate law is suspect. Retroactivity. "There shall be no ex post facto law." They oft "jack" themselves to death into retroactivity. Sometimes they use a "little bag of tricks" (some little poisonous snake in a sack). No doubt most of the buildings were struck by airplanes; the doubt is about how they came down.

Nightbreeeze; How many definitions of "pull" are you going to pull a straw on? Cables? Removing troopers?

Bernard, if this thermate thing is the real deal, why would there be explosions?

This is not a scientifically sound question - Common now...

More like something out of the classic "25 ways to suppress the truth" link- no thanks

When a bigass building falls down, lot's of weird things happen, and without recreating it a bunch of times, we'll never really understand what happened.

Here's that video from before. Watch the explosions of the North tower over and over and over again until you are convinced. Recreating the event however, in a computer punching into the computer your desired outcome,,, now THAT'S nonsense but more importantly it is deceptive and disingenuous to the science and scientific method.

That being said, I find the official story of the attack on the Pentagon very suspect, and WTC 7 is pretty suspect too.

Probably shouldn't have said that, oh well.

OCM, welcome to the truth! You are officially a 'conspiracy theorist' according to the mainstream media and Hollywood for exercising common sense. Don't worry, the building 7 thing has that affect on a lot of people and is known as the definitive 'smoking gun'.

That was easy!

Bernard, I think it's a very valid question given the title of the seed. When I debunked the thermite/thermate theory, then there's explosions. There are too many people trying to make neat and tidy conclusions about what was a huge messy process with too many variables to be able to state anything with any authority except that planes flew into the towers and that they fell.

Bernard, I think it's a very valid question given the title of the seed.

oldecrankyman,

Sit back relax and LEARN from the experts who got their hands on the thermite and identified and tested it themselves- not people in a basement creating a computer model.

Definitive Evidence HERE

Hopefully this terminates all of your 'thermite wasn't there' conspiracies now that you understand what thermite is and how it was so uniquely identified in the WTC dust and tested.

Again, welcome to the Truth. Now that you know ask yourself what are you going to do?

You have an obligation to go back to all the threads that you spread dis-information and correct yourself just in case anyone actually believed anything you've been saying up to now.

Again OCM, Welcome to the Truth!

Bernard, if this thermate thing is the real deal, why would there be explosions?

Ok, I wanted to address this in a separate post:

Thermite is ADDED to an explosive situation (bombs) to LOWER THE MELTING POINT OF THE STEEL NOT AS THE SOURCE OF THE EXPLOSION.

It's an additive- like salt and pepper to a meal. Thermite itself does NOT GO -- BOOM!

Get it?

It causes an 'intra-granular' penetration and breakdown of the steel.

Chemical Engineer Mark Basile explains it very well. Watch the video over and over again until you are convinced.

Legitimate question deserves a legitimate answer.

Thanks oldecrankyman,, I respect you a lot more. Sorry I can't say that about BJK

Thanks GDS for the Jeff Farrer interview!

- It doesn't get more definitive that that

Thanks Bernard.

I think what strikes me about the Jeff Farrer interview is his apparent honesty and openess. Which is more than I can say for Shyam Sunder and John Gross who both display very defensive body language and refuse to engage openly.

He also sets aside his ego and is prepared to be wrong about something in order to be accurate. I also liked that he wanted to suss out Steve Jones for his attitude and motivations first before working with him.

All in all a very smart and honest man in my opinion.

On a separate note.

The NYC Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN) is launching a television ad campaign on Election Day in New York City calling for an investigation into the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7, the third building to collapse on 9-11. Building 7 came down at 5:20 in the afternoon although it had not been hit by an aircraft.

The ad, which is entitled “BuildingWhat?” and can be viewed at BuildingWhat.org , will air 350+ times from November 2 through November 10 and is estimated to be seen by millions of viewers in the New York Metropolitan Area, reaching core target audiences multiple times. The ad will appear on thirteen channels including MSNBC, CNN, Comedy Central, HGTV, Logo TV, Bio TV, Versus TV, MSG, Sports NY, VH1, HLN, CNBC and Bravo.

Nightbreeze:

I can only say that WTC7 was not only expected to come down on its own, it was being discussed by all the covering news agencies that afternoon.

Indeed, it was actualy reported b BBC and CNN as having come down while it was still standing.

I believe there will always be educated speculation by structural engineers regarding this.

I guess that's true in a way, since even the official account of the collapse of WTC7 doesn't commit to any particular explanation of cause.

Upswing,

I had hoped to enter into an open-minded discussion with you. I really did want to see what I could learn here when I first got on this seed with you before Larry started jumping all over me. However, what I learned here is that rather than try to educate me, to help me understand, people here only wanted to insult me. Even the seeder, Gozo looked at my home page description and opined that as I am a self-professed centrist who is tired of political polarization, I seem 'shifty'! (Real classy, Gozo.) I have been labeled a troll, although the only groups I could see that would pay someone to argue against the theories and statements here would have to be a government employee associated with some sort of coverup. I guess they believe me to be NSA or something.

Anyway, upswing, I always admired your logical and open-minded discussions and hope to engage you again on some other thread. I will not waste your or my time on this seed however. Doing so would only be construed as being 'disruptive'. (God forbid anyone discuss any scenarios other than the ones espoused by these guys.)

Gozo and Larry, you guys had a chance to convince someone of your reasoning here; I came seeking information. But all you could do was attack and posture. Haven't you ever wondered why after 9 years your opinions about 9/11 are still not shared by mainstream America? It's because of people like you who haven't the ability to convince anyone. Sorry guys, but you come off as being not at all credible and extremely paranoid. There's a reason why no more than the same dozen or so people show up on all these seeds - you guys chase everyone else away. So if you want to see the reason why people don't come to these seeds and immediately fall in line with your beliefs, look in the mirror. This seed is a perfect example of why people will continue to tend to classify you as conspiracy nuts in the same league as those who believe we didn't land on the moon. You have no one but yourselves to blame.

There's a reason why no more than the same dozen or so people show up on all these seeds - you guys chase everyone else away. So if you want to see the reason why people don't come to these seeds and immediately fall in line with your beliefs, look in the mirror. This seed is a perfect example of why people will continue to tend to classify you as conspiracy nuts in the same league as those who believe we didn't land on the moon. You have no one but yourselves to blame.

Nightbreeze

You are describing everything you FEEL when you read a thread like this. Thank you for sharing your own feeling since we know that YOU have NO WAY WHATSOEVER of knowing what other people feel about a thread exposing the official story. You do not have access to any reliable and statistically sound surveys that substantiate any of your assertions. In fact surveys have shown that a substantial percentage of Americans don't believe the official story and exponentially more people outside of the U.S. endorse this belief.

So, WHO are these people that we are scaring away? YOU? Who else? BJK?

The reason someone would be 'scared away' from discussing what happened on 9-11 and what evidence is available, is because they are AFRAID of what they are going to find out or they are AFRAID of being confronted to justify their belief system.

It's a natural defense mechanism. Do you see anyone afraid of jumping into a conversation about a celebrity gossip, or automobiles, computers, sports any other current event story?

It's like a battlefield. Are you kidding? Do you think EVERYONE wants to go out and fight? No way, nature has it that a certain percentage of people will always display the fear of the fight.

It's like Fight or Flight ----

Thank god all those Architects and Engineers and all the scientists and brave whistle blowers weren't afraid of the fight!!

By the way Nightbreeze,

Overwhelming evidence disputes the official story of 9-11. Evidence that shows that 3 WTC towers were destroyed by controlled demolition. You have an obligation to contact your elected officials and demand a true, transparent, scientific, genuine and independent investigation of 9-11.

The fact that this overwhelming evidence exists is in itself OLD NEWS.

IE.. No one is still studying the debris from the WTC and no one is still trying to figure out how the buildings came down. That work is already done.

The only mystery that remains is the DECISION THAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA HAS MADE TO NOT COVER THIS NEWS STORY!

Judging by your posts- I can SEE that you get your get your news exclusively from the Controlled Mainstream Media.

Look how many stories come out every day from news sources all over the world that are not covered by the controlled mainstream media!

On the other hand, I am well aware of mainstream media stories as they are also covered by alternative sources of news

That is all you need to know about WHO is covering the news and WHO is CENSORING it.

Nightbreeze:

Please keep your mind, heart, eyes and ears open, and you'll understand at the very least why so many ordinary and rational people believe that the ridiculous official Boxcutter Conspiracy Theory offered to explain the events of 9/11 simply isn't credible.

How you feel after receiving and absorbing that knowledge, of course, is a different matter.

Acknowledging the existence of this pervasive and rational disbelief of the ridiculous official Boxcutter Conspiracy Theory offered to explain the events of 9/11 is a gift that you and others truly seeking the truth owe to yourselves.

It can't accurately be called a "boxcutter" theory anymore because the FBI has admitted the alleged call from Barbara Olson to her husband, Ted Olson, never went through.

Barbara Olson's call that never happened was the only reference to terrorists with boxcutters on 911.

Odd coincidence that Ted Olson was Bush's Solicitor General appointed in June 2001. Olson was also instrumental in stopping the vote count in Florida before SPOTUS appointed Bush president.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514

larry payne:

It can't accurately be called a "boxcutter" theory anymore because the FBI has admitted the alleged call from Barbara Olson to her husband, Ted Olson, never went through.

The ridiculous official Boxcutter Conspiracy Theory offered to explain the events of 9/11 remains exactly that.

The fact that it is entirely unsupportable is exactly what makes it "ridiculous."

Right?

And, for the record, I do not trust you. I suspect that you are so quick to irrationally accuse others of being paid to impede the presentation of Truth regarding 9/11 because you, yourself, want to make those who do want the Truth to be known come across as being paranoid and "conspiratorial."

You may do with that information what you wish, but, as far as I'm concerned, Bernard's mediation notwithstanding, you're one of the bad guys when it comes to getting to the bottom of what actually happened on 9/11, and, frankly, I want nothing to do with you.

Not to disagree, which I don't, that would lead one to the conclusion that:

A. Ted Olson made up the story of the boxcutters and

B. He possibly had something to do with his wife's death.

Upswing,

Have I accused you of being a troll? I don't remember doing that. People who I suspect as trolls are the ones who pretend to know the facts and cannot intelligently discuss them when confronted. Or they make up ridiculous arguments that make no sense.

I don't think Gozo and Bernard see me as being paranoid. If I was paranoid I wouldn't use my real name, would I? As far as being conspiratorial, if we don't believe in conspiracies, why would we be commenting on this thread?

Maybe you are referring to the article where Grey Wolf and I disagreed. I posted something on an Article Grey Wolf seeded about the Stewart-Colbert rally that revealed Stewart's stance on 9/11. Grey Wolf attacked me for that, calling me "annoying." We had some exchanges that were slightly heated I admit. Grey Wolf accused me of attacking him/her when it was he/she who attacked me first.

Grey Wolf ended up removing all her/his comments and leaving mine without any context. The result of that is we are not connected as friends anymore.

If it was my exchange with Nightbreeeze that got you upset, then you are going to continue to be upset with me, because I can not tolerate people such as her/him.

larry payne:

Sorry I didn't turn out to be some adolescent working in a basement. As for the way I picture you . . . I see you in in a large room filled with people at computers, possibly located in an NSA bunker. Or you could be in the same type of environment as far away as Tel Aviv.

Crankyoldeman could be on the computer to your right, LamontCranston could be on the computer to your left. BJK-798627 could be looking over your shoulder. You guys must copy each other because you all sound the same.

...

We can't be sure you are paid to post your tripe, but the style all of you use is so similar that it is very likely.

...

Isn't it an odd coincidence that you and Nightbreeze and Oldecrankyman and Whatanodguy always post from 6pm CDT to late in the night. Does your shift start at 6pm? Are you all the same person?

This is paranoid, and it distracts from and it undermines the fact that we need to find out the Truth about 9/11.

Like I said, I don't trust you, and I want nothing to do with you.

Ignored.

Upswing,

The thing that got me started with Nightbreeeze was the exchange you were having with him while you were politely going along with a lot of his hogwash.

In #26.5 you said:

_________________________________________________________________________

"Personally, I'm not claiming any conspiracy story to challenge Bush's official conspiracy story put out by Phillip Zelikow under the 9/11 Commission's name.

I'm simply interested in seeing an explanation -- ANY explanation -- of what happened on 9/11 that is supported by hard evidence -- ANY hard evidence.

So far, nonesuch has ever been presented to us."

_______________________________________________________________

Those sentences are confusing because they could be taken to mean that the Truth Movement has not supplied you with any hard evidence.

At this point--9 long years after the event--with all the hard work the Truth Movement has done, including the 1350+ Engineers and Architects who have jeopardized their careers to come forward, I hope you are capable of seeing the hard evidence in the videos of the buildings being blown up.

Is that not hard evidence in your judgment?

upswing, #26.62

What has the discussion that we are having now got to do with getting the truth out about 9/11?

I never asked you to trust me or to have anything to do with me.

If you don't like the information I am providing, why don't you talk about that?

Bernard and upswing,

I thank you for your comments. I shall indeed keep an open mind about this. You are quite correct in that I have to date received all my information from controlled mainstream media regarding 9/11. It was my awareness of this fact which drew me to this seed in the first place. I am just beginning to look at this in all honesty - it is premature therefore for me to draw any hard and fast conclusions. I shall continue my research and continue to discuss this with others.

Nightbreeze:

I shall continue my research and continue to discuss this with others.

Cool! :-)

I thank you for your comments.... I am just beginning to look at this in all honesty

I'm very happy to see your humble attitude about searching for the truth Nightbreeze!

If you have any questions please ask-

Watch any controlled demolition of any large building and you will see this same type of rolling cloud of debris

You'll also NOT see pieces of the building flying hundreds of feet away, and the cloud is dust caused by the falling of the building, NOT the small amount of explosives used to make key components fail.

Explosions cause debris clouds. Floors collapsing or "pancaking" on one another do not.

So you contend that 100+ stories of concrete, drywall etc, etc falling to the ground wouldn't make a dust cloud? You've obviously never been around building demolition, and don't understand physics.

Has any steel framed building ever collapsed by pancaking?

The WTC was built quite differently from most steel framed buildings, and no other buildings have had 747s full of fuel flown into them deliberately.

The only structures still standing at Hiroshima after the A-bomb hit were steel framed buildings.

Totally different physics involved.

Steel framed buildings do not fall because of fire. Period.

And how exactly do you know this?

oldecrankyman,

In your second paragraph you inadvertently admit that the towers were demolished.

In your third paragraph you say that the WTC towers were built quite differently from most steel framed buildings. You are correct on that. They were built stronger specifically to withstand airliner collisions. The planes that were flown into the towers by remote control were 767s--not 747s.

As for the steel-framed buildings left standing at Hiroshima, you say "different physics involved." That's true. The force from the blast and fires from an atomic bomb are many times that of airliner impact and jet fuel burning.

I know that steel-framed buildings do not fall because of fire because they never have. Not before 9/11. Not during 9/11. Not since 9/11. Ask the 1200+ architects and engineers at ae911truth.

In your second paragraph you inadvertently admit that the towers were demolished.

What do you mean to imply by this? Are you seriously suggesting he's "in on it" just because he disagrees with you. Because he can't really admit anything he doesn't know.

I think that anyone who looks at the videos of those buildings coming down should be able to tell that they are being blown up. A building falling straight down only exerts pressure downward. When the buildings started to fall, the massive debris clouds formed immediately at the top and extended outward for hundreds of feet.

The only way the buildings could have fallen as they did would be to have the 47 massive interior columns cut by explosive charges into small lengths allowing the building to fall straight down.

Say hi to crankyoldeman if you aren't one and the same.

and no other buildings have had 747s full of fuel flown into them deliberately.

Larry - focus on this one sentence.

It blows your entire "theory" out of the water.

BJK-798627,

I don't know why I waste my time on people like you and others on this site who are so misinformed. Let me say it one more time . . . IT WASN'T 747s THAT HIT THE TOWERS. IT WAS 767s--A MUCH SMALLER AIRLINER. The towers were designed to withstand airliners of that size and I don't think the archititects forgot that they needed fuel to fly.

They were built stronger specifically to withstand airliner collisions. The planes that were flown into the towers by remote control were 767s--not 747s.

Prior to 9/11, the only airline collisions with skyscrapers involved small planes - we're talking one or two seater planes, not 767s or DC-10s.

Second, just because a structure can withstand a violent impact on paper does not mean the same thing will happen in real life.

The Titanic was supposed to be an unsinkable ship. Of course, on its maiden voyage, it hit an iceberg and we all know the rest of the story.

Beyond that, the claim that the planes were guided by remote control is sheer fantasy.

Unbelievable how uninformed you guys continue to be!

Have you not heard about the B-25 bomber that flew into the Empire State Building?

Check to see if that building fell.

Remote control is sheer fantasy? You don't explain why remote control could not have been used. Since many professional pilots have said the alleged terrorists could not have flown the planes into the towers, what other explanation could there be?

Have you not heard about the B-25 bomber that flew into the Empire State Building?

No. I vaguely remember reading that a small plane hit the Empire State Bldg. during the WWII era. But that's far smaller than a bomber.

Remote control is sheer fantasy?

In the case of unmanned drones, it is reality. Key word: unmanned

In the case of commercial planes, they are obviously piloted by humans. If planes were routinely guided by remote control, there would be no more plane crashes.

Also, there would be no need for human pilots except perhaps for transocean flights.

Since many professional pilots have said the alleged terrorists could not have flown the planes into the towers...

Who said that in real life (not on a conspiracy website)?

Out of curiosity, why do you think those hijackers took flying lessons for several months?

Hint: they had no intention of working for United Airlines or Fed Ex.

I was curious to find a motive for your defense of the MSM/gov conspiracy theory so I looked at some of the articles you have seeded and some of the comments you made in the comment section.

I see you are strongly pro-Israel.

Since there is so much evidence that Israel's MOSSAD was involved in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks, it is not difficult to figure out why you strive to strengthen the cover-up.

Since there is so much evidence that Israel's MOSSAD was involved in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks, it is not difficult to figure out why you strive to strengthen the cover-up.

Once again, you claim that "so much evidence" exists that the Mossad and myriad others were involved, but you never get around to posting any of it.

The more people and organizations involved in a real life conspiracy/cover up, the sooner it comes to light.

Since you bring up the Mossad, how is it that they could pull off a 9/11 caliber operation seamlessly, but practically bungled the assassination of one Hamas weapons dealer in Dubai?

Exactly.

Quite true.

Thanks, BLK, for asking. Here is some of the information you say I never get around to posting. I have posted it on other threads.

1. Zim Shipping, half owned by Israel, moved out of one of the Trade Towers 2 weeks before the attacks, forfeiting $50,000 on their lease. They moved to McClain, VA, home of the CIA.

2. Odigo, an Israeli company with offices in one of the towers received warnings to stay away on 9/11.

3. Zionist Larry Silverstein leased the towers only weeks before the attacks. He insured them for terrorist attacks and attempted to collect double claiming there were two attacks. He normally had breakfast every day in a restaurant at the top of one of the towers. His daughter also worked in one of the towers. Both found reasons not to be there on 9/11.

4. Silverstein said they decided to "pull" building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11. Wiring for demolitions takes weeks. Why would the building which offices CIA, Secret Service, Guiliani's Office of Emergency Management and IRS be pre-wired for demolition?

5. Five Israelis were arrested after filming and celebrating the towers coming down. Interrogation revealed they were Mossad agents. They were deported and one of them later said in a TV interview that they were there to film the event. Therefore, they knew well ahead of time that it was going to happen.

6. Hundreds of Israeli spies were rounded up right after 9/11. Many of them were posing as art students in the area where the alleged hijackers were training.

7. More than $2 trillion was missing from Pentagon accounting while Bush appointee Dov Zakheim was in charge of Pentagon accounting. The missing funds were announced the day before 9/11. No one brought it up in the aftermath. Zakheim is a Zionist and a dual U.S./Israel citizen. His former employment had been as vice president of a company that builds electronics for controlling multiple airliners from one location.

8. Many of the members of PNAC who signed the letter wishing for a new Pearl Harbor were
neocon Zionists including Dov Zakheim and William Kristol.

9. Almost all of the Mainstream Media in this country is owned by Zionists. The media will not allow any discussion of the unanswered questions of 9/11. Why are they aiding the cover-up?

If you want a list of who owns the media, I can supply that as well.

BLK,

As for Mossad bungling the murder of the Hamas leader--he's dead.

How many of them can you prove to be inaccurate?

So you can't prove any of them are false?

I'll take that to mean that you are too lazy to do the research.

By the numbers...

1. Zim Shipping, half owned by Israel, moved out of one of the Trade Towers 2 weeks before the attacks, forfeiting $50,000 on their lease. They moved to McClain, VA, home of the CIA.

Whether that's true or not, so what?

2. Odigo, an Israeli company with offices in one of the towers received warnings to stay away on 9/11.

Argument by handwaving, i.e. you're parroting a rumor concocted by anti-Israel groups throughout the Middle East. It took them a few weeks to come up with this crapola too.

3. Zionist Larry Silverstein leased the towers only weeks before the attacks. He insured them for terrorist attacks and attempted to collect double claiming there were two attacks. He normally had breakfast every day in a restaurant at the top of one of the towers. His daughter also worked in one of the towers. Both found reasons not to be there on 9/11.

Did he tell you all this? (I didn't think so). Also, since each tower was hit once, it stands to reason that insurance companies would not pay the claims twice. That part is simple arithmetic.

4. Silverstein said they decided to "pull" building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11. Wiring for demolitions takes weeks. Why would the building which offices CIA, Secret Service, Guiliani's Office of Emergency Management and IRS be pre-wired for demolition?

It wasn't. Luckily, it was evacuated prior to the fires that led to its collapse.

5. Five Israelis were arrested after filming and celebrating the towers coming down. Interrogation revealed they were Mossad agents. They were deported and one of them later said in a TV interview that they were there to film the event. Therefore, they knew well ahead of time that it was going to happen.

So...they were Mossad agents but went on an Israeli talk show to discuss their adventure. Secret agents do this all the time. NOT.

6. Hundreds of Israeli spies were rounded up right after 9/11. Many of them were posing as art students in the area where the alleged hijackers were training.

Now there were hundreds of Israeli spies. Did they also go on talk shows in Israel following their release?

7. More than $2 trillion was missing from Pentagon accounting while Bush appointee Dov Zakheim was in charge of Pentagon accounting. The missing funds were announced the day before 9/11. No one brought it up in the aftermath. Zakheim is a Zionist and a dual U.S./Israel citizen. His former employment had been as vice president of a company that builds electronics for controlling multiple airliners from one location.

One person is in charge of Pentagon accounting? Don't kid yourself. If $2 trillion had been "misappropriated" from Pentagon funds, there would have been a full Congressional investigation soon after.

8. Many of the members of PNAC who signed the letter wishing for a new Pearl Harbor were neocon Zionists including Dov Zakheim and William Kristol.

Don't forget Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld (as Wolfowitz's best friend, he probably converted :), Colin Powell (rumor has it he speaks Yiddish), all their friends at the Masonic Lodge, and whoever else did or did not sign some letter that doesn't make an iota of difference in real life.

When this cabal meets, do they also stab voodoo dolls with pins?

Magical thinking is a poor substitute for logic.

9. Almost all of the Mainstream Media in this country is owned by Zionists. The media will not allow any discussion of the unanswered questions of 9/11. Why are they aiding the cover-up?

LOL. This is the easiest one to debunk.

For starters, shareholders of all races, religions, shapes, and sizes "own" some or most of these corporations. It doesn't much matter who the CEO is or who started what a century ago.

That argument is as silly as saying that since Larry Page and Sergei Brin started Google, ergo Google is "controlled" by Jews/Zionists/The New World Order.

At any rate, here is a partial list of TV networks and their ownership.

1) Walt Disney Corporation owns ABC and ESPN. Yet, EPCOT does not feature Israel in its world showcase. Is that because Walt was a notorious anti-Semite???

Maybe. Or maybe because there are almost 200 countries in the world but only room for 15 or so at EPCOT. The world may never know...

2) CNN is definitely not owned by Zionists. Same with MSNBC. I seldom see a pro-Israel news story on either network.

3) Fox is run by Rupert Murdoch. Jewish, no; Zionist, perhaps.

4) NBC is pretty much run by Comcast, following a merger in the last year. Comcast is a publicly traded stock, much like the other networks. They charge through the nose for cable, BTW, so switching to Direct TV is mighty tempting.

5) CBS was once owned by Viacom/Westinghouse. There are several conflicting sources about who controls what today, but they mention CEO Phillipe Dauman and Sumner Redstone.

6) Oprah Winfrey owns Oxygen and her own magazine as well. Although she's not Jewish, she once did an extensive interview with Holocaust survivor Elie Weisel.

That must make Oprah a Zionist :P

If you want a list of who owns the media, I can supply that as well.

I think the above list is a good start.

Shareholders have no power over corporations unless they own a majority of the stock. That never happens.

Here is a pretty good list of Jewish owners and Jewish personalities with considerable influence in the media.

Sumner Redstone's family name was originally Rothstein. He is Jewish

MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, owner of NY Daily News, US News & World Report and chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups.

LESLIE MOONVES, president of CBS television, great-nephew of David Ben-Gurion, and co-chair with Norman Ornstein of the Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers, appointed by Clinton.

JONATHAN MILLER, chair and CEO of AOL division of AOL-Time-Warner

NEIL SHAPIRO, president of NBC News

JEFF GASPIN, Executive Vice-President, Programming, NBC

DAVID WESTIN, president of ABC News

SUMNER REDSTONE, CEO of Viacom, “world’s biggest media giant” (Economist, 11/23/2) owns Viacom cable, CBS and MTVs all over the world, Blockbuster video rentals and Black Entertainment TV.

MICHAEL EISNER, major owner of Walt Disney, Capitol Cities, ABC.

RUPERT MURDOCH, Owner Fox TV, New York Post, London Times, News of the World (Jewish mother)

MEL KARMAZIN, president of CBS

DON HEWITT, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes, CBS

JEFF FAGER, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes II. CBS

DAVID POLTRACK, Executive Vice-President, Research and Planning, CBS

SANDY KRUSHOW, Chair, Fox Entertainment

LLOYD BRAUN, Chair, ABC Entertainment

BARRY MEYER, chair, Warner Bros.

SHERRY LANSING. President of Paramount Communications and Chairman of Paramount Pictures’ Motion Picture Group.

HARVEY WEINSTEIN, CEO. Miramax Films.

BRAD SIEGEL., President, Turner Entertainment.

PETER CHERNIN, second in-command at Rupert Murdoch’s News. Corp., owner of Fox TV

MARTY PERETZ, owner and publisher of the New Republic, which openly identifies itself as pro-Israel. Al Gore credits Marty with being his “mentor.”

ARTHUR O. SULZBERGER, JR., publisher of the NY Times, the Boston Globe and other publications.

WILLIAM SAFIRE, syndicated columnist for the NYT.

TOM FRIEDMAN, syndicated columnist for the NYT.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post. Honored by Honest Reporting.com, website monitoring “anti-Israel media.”

RICHARD COHEN, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post

JEFF JACOBY, syndicated columnist for the Boston Globe

NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Inst., regular columnist for USA Today, news analyst for CBS, and co-chair with Leslie Moonves of the Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers, appointed by Clinton.

ARIE FLEISCHER, Dubya’s press secretary.

STEPHEN EMERSON, every media outlet’s first choice as an expert on domestic terrorism.

DAVID SCHNEIDERMAN, owner of the Village Voice and the New Times network of “alternative weeklies.”

DENNIS LEIBOWITZ, head of Act II Partners, a media hedge fund

KENNETH POLLACK, for CIA analysts, director of Saban Center for Middle East Policy, writes op-eds in NY Times, New Yorker

BARRY DILLER, chair of USA Interactive, former owner of Universal Entertainment

KENNETH ROTH, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch

RICHARD LEIBNER, runs the N.S. Bienstock talent agency, which represents 600 news personalities such as Dan Rather, Dianne Sawyer and Bill O’Reilly.

TERRY SEMEL, CEO, Yahoo, former chair, Warner Bros.

MARK GOLIN, VP and Creative Director, AOL

WARREN LIEBERFORD, Pres., Warner Bros. Home Video Div. of AOL- TimeWarner

JEFFREY ZUCKER, President of NBC Entertainment

JACK MYERS, NBC, chief.NYT 5.14.2

SANDY GRUSHOW, chair of Fox Entertainment

GAIL BERMAN, president of Fox Entertainment

STEPHEN SPIELBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks

JEFFREY KATZENBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks

DAVID GEFFEN, co-owner of Dreamworks

LLYOD BRAUN, chair of ABC Entertainment

JORDAN LEVIN, president of Warner Bros. Entertainment

MAX MUTCHNICK, co-executive producer of NBC’s “Good Morning Miami”

DAVID KOHAN, co-executive producer of NBC’s “Good Morning Miami”

HOWARD STRINGER, chief of Sony Corp. of America

AMY PASCAL, chair of Columbia Pictures

JOEL KLEIN, chair and CEO of Bertelsmann’s American operations

ROBERT SILLERMAN, founder of Clear Channel Communications

BRIAN GRADEN, president of MTV entertainment

IVAN SEIDENBERG, CEO of Verizon Communications

WOLF BLITZER, host of CNN’s Late Edition

LARRY KING, host of Larry King Live

TED KOPPEL, host of ABC’s Nightline

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN Reporter

PAULA ZAHN, CNN Host

MIKE WALLACE, Host of CBS, 60 Minutes

BARBARA WALTERS, Host, ABC’s 20-20

MICHAEL LEDEEN, editor of National Review

BRUCE NUSSBAUM, editorial page editor, Business Week

DONALD GRAHAM, Chair and CEO of Newsweek and Washington Post, son of

CATHERINE GRAHAM MEYER, former owner of the Washington Post

HOWARD FINEMAN, Chief Political Columnist, Newsweek

WILLIAM KRISTOL, Editor, Weekly Standard, Exec. Director
Project for a New American Century (PNAC)

RON ROSENTHAL, Managing Editor, San Francisco Chronicle

PHIL BRONSTEIN, Executive Editor, San Francisco Chronicle,

RON OWENS, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)

JOHN ROTHMAN, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)

MICHAEL SAVAGE, Talk Show Host, KFSO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco) Syndicated in 100 markets

MICHAEL MEDVED, Talk Show Host, on 124 AM stations

DENNIS PRAGER, Talk Show Host, nationally syndicated from LA. Has Israeli flag on his home page.

BEN WATTENBERG, Moderator, PBS Think Tank.

ANDREW LACK, president of NBC

DANIEL MENAKER, Executive Director, Harper Collins

DAVID REMNICK, Editor, The New Yorker

NICHOLAS LEHMANN, writer, the New York

HENRICK HERTZBERG, Talk of the Town editor, The New Yorker

SAMUEL NEWHOUSE JR, and DONALD NEWHOUSE own Newhouse Publications, includes 26 newspapers in 22 cities; the Conde Nast magazine group, includes The New Yorker; Parade, the Sunday newspaper supplement; American City Business Journals, business newspapers published in more than 30 major cities in America; and interests in cable television programming and cable systems serving 1 million homes.

DONALD NEWHOUSE, chairman of the board of directors, Associated Press.

PETER R KANN, CEO, Wall Street Journal, Barron’s

RALPH J. & BRIAN ROBERTS, Owners, Comcast-ATT Cable TV.

LAWRENCE KIRSHBAUM, CEO, AOL-Time Warner Book Group

JON STEWART (leibowitz), The Comedy Channel

The list is long enough without Oprah.

Larry, I'm with you brother, there are Jews everywhere!!!!! I'm sure that chicken soup took down the WTC towers, and we've got to make people understand that!!!!

Oh wait, I don't watch TV, gave up hallucinogens a few decades ago, and pretty much side with most sane people who have decided that Hitler was a bit out of the mainstream of political thought, never mind.

Can I have a hit off what you're smokin?

Shareholders have no power over corporations unless they own a majority of the stock. That never happens.

The finer details of mergers or hostile takeovers aside, shareholders do have a say and can vote members of a corporation's board of trustees out of office.

Then you gave a laundry list of people, many of whom are Jewish, but most of whom have no more "control" over the media than you or me.

One name stuck out, however.

LLYOD BRAUN, chair of ABC Entertainment

Wasn't Lloyd Braun a character on a few episodes of Seinfeld???

Ah hah!!!

Also, Michael Savage is Catholic, and Katharine Graham of Washington Post fame had a possibly Jewish father and a Lutheran mother (which makes her non-Jewish at least according to Jewish law).

Not that it matters, but adding a comedian like Jon Stewart to the list is really grasping at straws, don't you think?

larry; They are the "Chosen Ones." Don't get too worked up about it. Many of them were killed in prior Time(s) when the towers were hit. A problem is that they were above the second floor! The reason they stayed home THIS Time is because they had enough brains to ReMember to stay home. It all came down do to retroactivities.