"Loose Change" filmmakers debate Popular Mechanics debunkers

[CollegeDUer]

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203


Amy Goodman rarely gives conspiracy theories the time of day, but I'm glad she let these two groups go at it. Good stuff.

[John Q. Citizen]

1. Thanks for posting this. I am listening as I type. I saw this was

scheduled but I didn't hear it live.

Vey cool.

They got the big guns from PM.

And Amy screwed up on her intro to the Loose Change Clip. She said it was on the Pentagon, but it was on Shanksville. opps!

[John Q. Citizen]

2. The Loose Change Crew is doing very well. PM keeps saying.

well we talked to experts and this is what they told us. And PM doesn't answer the questions being asked, they answer the questions they want to answer.

[Kingshakabobo]

3. So far the Loose change guys are acting jerkish....

talking under their breath and snickering.

The guy is all wet on the cell phone issue - making a big deal out of the fact that the phone companies spending "10s of thousands of dollars" to facilitate phone conversations. Confusing two issues - "avionics safety and phone call reliability versus the ability to make a call "at all."

[kerstin]

5. I agree. The kids are alright!

I'm unable to watch it, but I did read the transcript of the first part. Sounds like PM is pretty much resorting to name-calling!

[John Q. Citizen]

7. Yep, they (PM) are reduced to defending their argument by

calling doubters "conspiracy theorists" oh my! "anti semetic" and such.

They tried for the "disrespectful to the victims gambit" and the Loose Change Crew responded well by asking how looking for the truth was disrespectful.

All in all, pretty good.

Kudos to Amy at Democracy Now! for presenting this.

[Nozebro]

10. Typical RW "debate" style. I hope they reach(ed) a large audience. nt

nt

[greyl]

125. Your reply is false.

They weren't "reduced" to defending to their argument, they included knowledge about conspiracy theory sites in their response which centered on the evidence.

The PM guys explicity said that they are all for asking questions and looking for answers.

[John Q. Citizen]

149. a shame all they could do was to use the "experts say" argument instead

of answering the questions asked.

PM looked pretty bad.

[Ka hrnt]

176. You want to talk about looking bad....

...look at my other post (145):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x115510#117316
EDIT: Fixed link.

Looser: "Blah blah blah this happened, that happened, here are the facts."
PM: "Um, no, actually, that's wrong."
Looser: "Oh, okay."

P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C.

[dailykoff]

180. And the dishonoring-our-fallen-heroes argument

and the holocaust-deniers argument. Pretty lame.

[whistle]

190. Popular Mechanics guys just keep harping on the evidence

....but they don't actually produce any, just talk

[dailykoff]

179. Yep. David and Goliath is what I heard.

The LC guys had the facts and the PM guys had the well-rehearsed talking points you can hear on any TV "news" show, LOL.

No contest IMHO.

[kerstin]

4. I would hope that it is pointed out that

Popular Mechanics had been subjected to a hostile takeover and their writers and editors replaced some time prior to their initial hamhanded article slamming 9/11 "conspiracy theories." Also that the lead researcher for that piece was no less than Benjamin Chertoff, cousin to Michael Chertoff.

[whistle]

192. Bingo!

[Brainster]

6. Bermas is Such a Jerk!

Best quote from the Loosers' main researcher:

"I'm not calling anybody a liar, I'm calling you a liar."

Anybody remember the Loosers at Ground Zero (at 10:00) last year, with Bermas claiming that he wasn't there with anybody else, that he didn't know "one person here"? Meanwhile Dylan Avery's standing right next to him and Korey Rowe's filming it all.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. That was great. Calling the guy out on his lie was awesome.. Now if we

can get more of our Dems to do that with the Repo slime we will be getting somewhere.

Get up stand up, Stand up for your rights!

Jah man!

[Nabia2004]

9. Your kidding???

...but thanks for the link.

[John Q. Citizen]

11. He's not kidding, he's just fuming upset that people don't buy the BS

[greyl]

131. I'd call him a "total fucking asshole"

if I was sure I shouldn't be pitying him for having a mental illness.

[John Q. Citizen]

150. There's an intellectual argument. Bravo, So rational and "skeptical."

[greyl]

152. It wasn't designed to be an argument.

I was just expressing myself to a loved one. Sorry, meister cybercop.
If I'm arguing with you, you'll know it.

[John Q. Citizen]

154. That should have read "skepticish"

[whistle]

193. Can you please explain what that has to do with this? Thanks

[MoonRiver]

12. Makers of Loose Change and Popular Mechanics writer debate 9/11

"conspiracy" theories. Right now on Democracy Now!

[StClone]

13. I hate to say it

But regardless the observations made by the Loose Changers they come off as outsider conjecturists, hyperventilating non-experts on the verge of anxiety attacks. I was not impressed by what appears amateurish and anecdotal augmentation. I felt I was watching Anti-Evolutionists fighting for recognition, not a substantiated well-crafted counter-interpretation refuting the accepted view which sides with mountain of evidence.

It is more a question of how we got to 9-11 rather than the mechanics/physics of it. The only outlandish thing is old #7 coming down.

[MoonRiver]

14. I can't grasp how this could have been fabricated.

There were too many people in the planes, for one thing. Are they all being held in a secret undisclosed location with Darth?

[StClone]

15. I for one have many questions

But it is more logical and reasonable to set them aside and join the accepted view rather than develop a parallel one hinged on many observation that "appear" odd. Talk to a car accident investigator sometime they see the odd stuff all the time but don't yield to reinventing things to make sense of some accident scenes.

[Blackthorn]

19. That's ridiculous.

How is it more logical and reasonable to just ignore your own opinion, in favour of some mindless group think. This world would be a fucking lot better if people stopped and thought about things occasionally instead of swallowing soundbite after soundbite of fucking propaganda. Glad to see we have progressives here actively encouraging the very mindset that allows people like Bush to manipulate the populace for their own gains.

I'm MIHOP well and truly. But I don't care if people here think I'm some kind of crackpot. I've done my own research and formed my own opinion that I can fully justify in my head. That's all that counts.

[WilliamPitt]

22. "That's all that counts"

Really? Even when handed information that contradicts your conclusions?

I'm not saying this interview did that. I can't; I didn't hear it. This is just a general question.

[DemInDistress]

54. Will Pitt...see post 41 and tell me what you see, please. nt

[Blackthorn]

61. Not necessarily...

If I happen upon information that contradict my conclusions, I try to research it so I can put it into context and verify it. If I think it's turd, then its gone. If I think it's valid, then there's a reshuffling to accomodate it.

My point is, I decide what I think for myself.

I believe George W. Bush is not human, that he has reptilian DNA and is the current frontman for an enormous conspiracy that has been defrauding the world for millenia.

You might think that is the whack. However, from all my reading and research, those descriptions best fit the world I see.

I mean, if I didn't believe something, or did believe something, simply because other people did or did not, then I'm nothing but a fucking sheep and I might as well line up for a lobotomy and become some kind of science experiment because that would put my brain to much better use.

[BestCenter]

90. You're free to your opinion

But it's that sort of thinking that gets Intelligent Design instituted into the biology curricula of our nation's public school systems.

[rinsd]

141. Holy shit...another one!

"I believe George W. Bush is not human, that he has reptilian DNA and is the current frontman for an enormous conspiracy that has been defrauding the world for millenia."

[Exiled in America]

28. conspiracy theorists engage in just as much group think

They exchance one form for another - nothing more.

[porkrind]

100. What are you talking about?

"... it is more logical and reasonable to set them aside and join the accepted view rather than develop a parallel one hinged on many observation that "appear" odd."

I don't think that makes any sense at all! You are telling us that groupthink and conformity are more important than using your own wits? So you suggest we just follow the herd no matter where they are going. Nice plan.
:banghead:

[davidwparker]

18. Why not? But, that's not the point. I don't say that the govenment,

knowing that attacks were coming as they had been warn multiple times by multiple people, didn't augment the effect with some demolition of their own. For instance, everyone knows OJ killed his wife. LAPD didn't have to beef up the case by moving evidence.

I don't know what happened to the people or if they are the actual planes carrying them that went into the buildings. This gets into speculation, which jeopardizes believability of an alternative views. http://physics911.net">You can use science to be skeptical of the official story. And, one should use that only, rather than go off into speculation.

[MoonRiver]

24. These people's families have been interviewed.

Their loved ones are GONE. I don't know how even the BFEE could have pulled off disappearing so many people and pretending that they went down in planes. And btw, I subscribe to the LIHOP theory of 9/11. But fabricating the whole (9/11) thing is simply too over the top for me.

[mhatrw]

57. Yes, their loved ones are dead.

How does that say anything about the exact method of their demise?

And even if these folks died exactly as the government claims, how does that explain the USAF standown that morning and the complete inaction of Bush, Rumsfeld and General Myers during the entire crisis?

[John Q. Citizen]

65. How what could be fabricated? The Debate? Your comment makes it

sound like you didn't hear the program.

Edited to add - Oh, I see you may be a hit and run poster. Make a comment and don't respond to other peoples reponse to your comment.

That's classy.

[Chemical Bill]

172. Why would they have to still be alive? n/t

[Astrad]

17. I agree

They undermined their own case by their self-righteous puffery. And their 'in your face' name calling just made them look foolish and defensive. Unfortunate.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. Of course they sound like anti-Evolutionists.

I don't see why anybody would expect anything else.

[MadHound]

29. Could be because 911 "conspiracy theorists"

Base their conclusions on sound science, valid physics, hard knowledge of how both physical and governmental entities work. This is completely unlike the anti-evolutionists who base their conclusions upon their faith in a religious deity:shrug: Thus, not only is your quaint comparison invalid, it is also quite insulting. But hey, we're used to that from people who don't want to open their eyes, something you have in common with the anti-evolutionists:shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Hmm, no they don't.

Well, OK. 9-11 is a big tent. There's people who believe Bush was incompent and ignored the warnings, and therefore is responsible.

And then there's the people who believe there was no Flight 77 and that the WTC was brought down by missles.

The latter are very much like creationists. Their conclusions have nothing to do with sound science, valid physics, or hard knowledge. They're based on pseudoscience and blatant ignorance; it's not just comparable to Creationists, but holocaust deniers.

If the latter are insulted, they've only themselves to blame.

[MadHound]

37. And then there are many people like myself

With a solid grounding in physics(used to be a Sr. Lab rat at a nuke plant) with a background in fire fighting and other such destructive persuits. I know what I'm talking about, and while I could expound upon the physical impossibility of the official story, that would get this thread sent to the dungeon.

Yes, I agree however that there are many cranks and uneducated people out there expounding theories that are quite radical. That was also the following that surrounded the serious scholars of JFK's assasination also. But there are also many grounded, intellectual, and knowledgable people investigating this issue, and our conclusion is that the official story of 911 is a pantload, and we can show why it is such.

Lumping us all together simply discredits the real research going on in this area and hinders our progress towards the truth. I would appreciate it you would refrain from doing so in the future.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. Yeah, yeah.

There's plenty of creationists with degrees in chemistry.

[MadHound]

44. Yes, but the vast majority of creationists don't have a chemistry degree

And vast majority of chemists aren't creationists. Pointing to abberations and then touting them as the truth is what is known as a strawman arguement. It is illogical and contributes nothing useful to the discussion. Try avoiding it in the future.

[BestCenter]

91. But you're BLATANTLY ignoring the fact that

the vast majority of nuke scientists and people who have a background in fire-fighting and other such destructive pursuits don't subscribe to any 9/11 theory other than the official story.

[mhatrw]

58. Who exactly argues like this?

"All those against the Iraq War are love terrorists."

[Taxloss]

39. The troubl is, pointing out the flaws and inconsistencies in the

official version of events is all very well and good - the official version of events is flawed and inconsistent. But most CTers then make a vast leap in logic from that into believing the only other option is MIHOP or LIHOP. It is not a simple choice between the official story and M/LIHOP, far from it, but that is the way M/LIHOPers choose to present it, and that destroys what credibility their critique of the official version might have otherwise had.

[Nozebro]

41. Then tell us what it is, if it isn't M/LIHOP. EOM

nt

[Taxloss]

42. A terrorist attack facilitated by governmental paralysis. n/t

[Nozebro]

45. What is that supposed to mean? (gov'tmental paralysis) n/t

n/t

[Taxloss]

48. Command paralysis. Nobody knew what to do.

America's domestic defences failed, dramaticaly; they were not fit for purpose, they were not ready, they responded poorly if at all, preferring to move responsibility rather than take independent action. What could have made a difference was action at the top, from Bush, and we saw what he did, or didn't do. He sat there, helplessly. I appreciate that that reaction can be attributed to LIHOP, but if the attack was expected by the administration, the administration's reaction in the earliest moments would have been considered as part of the plan - to me, the MY Pet Goat moments speak of no planning or preparation at all.

So it was more than incompetence, it was outright failure. The president's inaction should have been blasted at the time, and I doubt Bush could have recovered, but no one was in the mood for that. Also, the USA had bought the myth of its own security, its own impregnability - even the conspiracy theorists talk like the most pro-military hawks when referring to the mightiness of NORAD and the air force. That security was an illusion. It might have been good against a Soviet missile strike, but even then you have to remember that it was designed to provide a warning, not a response.

[Nozebro]

49. Okey dokey, so you're a variation on the incompetence/negl. hang-out

n/t

[BootinUp]

52. Sure there was that.

But paralysis or no, you ain't stoppin a plane from crashin if the pilot wishes to crash it. The military didn't get notification in time from the FAA to even get close. If they did get close they would have followed them in, not knowing the intention of the pilots to crash into a building until the final seconds. Then what should we shoot it down over populated areas? People are off their rockers if they think this kind of attack can be stopped in air.

[tabatha]

87. no, but because of specific warnings

that a large attack was to be perpetrated on the US, and that planes would be involved - airlines could have been warned. If cockpit doors had been secured - hijackers with box-cutters would not have been able to hijack planes. Even if cockpit doors had not been secured, agents on planes could have been on the look out and easily have foiled box-cutter touting hijackers.

If as much fuss had been made about these warnings as had been made with the very "non-imminent" London "bombers" - Sep 11 would never have happened. But there was not so much as a whisper to the airlines, and Bush continued whacking brush instead of whacking terrorists.

List of warnings here:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&warning_signs:_specific_cases=foreignIntelligence

[BootinUp]

89. You're talking incompetence/negligence

what cha doin down here in the nuthouse? :)

I agree with you, when I said can't be stopped in the air, i really meant once they controlled the plane.

The other interesting thing to note, is that once the passengers knew the intentions on F93 (it took off an hour late), they prevented a greater tragedy.

[mhatrw]

59. So how come nobody has been fired or disciplined as a result of 9/11?

Why don't we know SPECIFICALLY who and what screwed up our military response to these attacks some five years later?

[Taxloss]

69. Because it was a systemic failure.

Distribution of blame would have to start in the office of the president, and work downwards - that wasn't going to happen, for a start. Whole systems failed, not just individuals. There was no desire for that in the US for months, blaming people other than the terrorists, it just wasn't an issue.

So, we get the whitewash that is the Kean report, which is meant to settle everything, no harm, no foul. It's a crock, people need to be fired, starting with Bush. There WAS a cover-up, and there MUST be a fresh investigation, free from political influence - I agree totally with you guys on that, the Commission report is NOT the end.

[mhatrw]

71. The same exact rationale works if it was an inside job at the very top.

They'd have even more reason to whitewash it, and they could simply pretend they were doing so to their underlings because of your "systemic failure." And what's the real difference anyway between lying to us to cover up criminal negligence and lying to us to cover up complicity?

What I don't understand is why anybody who doesn't support the completely destructive "9/11 Changes Everything" meme and all the heinous crimes that have been committed in its name would want to waste his or her precious time "debunking" any even halfway rational argument seeking to cast doubt on the official version of the events of that day for any reason whatsoever.

What is your motivation for opposing what you call "conspiracy theories" about 9/11? Why is it so important for you to proselytize your faith that BushCo would never do such a thing?

[Taxloss]

73. First, I think that BushCo may well be morally capable of

faking a terror attack on this scale - I think they are utterly practically incapable of it, though. It would involve too many people, all of whom would have to be equally blackhearted.

However, I think the admin that invaded Iraq on such a slender basis demonstrates inherent moral corruption at the top, and could attack its own people without qualms if the risks of discovery were lesser. It seems to me that there are a number of different attacks that would be considerably less risky to fake, such as a Beslan-style school massacre or a subway atrocity, which would achieve the same results.

But what's my motivation?

Firstly, I think many MIHOPers are unknowingly legitimising and advancing a very, very sinister ultra-right hard core. Alex Jones, Rense, Tom Flocco, these are NOT nice people, they have a very specific and very harmful agenda.

Secondly, I think that MIHOPers do great damage to the cause of re-opening the 9/11 investigation. The investigation should be re-opened, and MIHOP-promotion damages that by making it easy to dismiss the whole case for re-opening as a bunch of kooky conspiracy theories. As I said earlier in this thread, the 9/11 commission version of events needs to be re-examined, and I wish that everyone pushing MIHOP would put aside that agenda and focus on campaigning for unbiased re-opening, not re-opening slanted towards assumption of guilt.

Thirdly, I think that this obsession with MIHOP lets the very, very real terrorists off the hook, and I don't think that should happen.

Fourthly, academic interest. I wrote my dissertation on how differing interpretations of historical evidence and versions of events are used and abused politically - in short, I studied how the 14th- and 15th-century English political establishment used and abused conspiracy theories, astrology, pseudoscience, prophecy and lunacy in the service of competing political and non-political agendas. It gave me a lasting interest in conspiracy theories and the like. (I studied history, with a particular emphasis on the middle ages, historiography and the history of political thought, at Cambridge University.)

Fifthly, professional interest. I worked for a weekly construction and engineering news magazine at the time of the attacks. We looked into how they happened in considerable detail.

Sixthly, personal reasons.

[mhatrw]

104. I still don't get it.

How many people are in the Bush administration vs. the number of people needed to pull off 9/11? You think 19 Arabs pulled off 9/11. Why would it take significantly more powerful insiders to pull it off than it would ragtag outsiders?

It seems to me that there are a number of different attacks that would be considerably less risky to fake, such as a Beslan-style school massacre or a subway atrocity, which would achieve the same results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

Firstly, I think many MIHOPers are unknowingly legitimising and advancing a very, very sinister ultra-right hard core. Alex Jones, Rense, Tom Flocco, these are NOT nice people, they have a very specific and very harmful agenda.

All of these except perhaps "libertarian" Jones are recognized disinformation artists. Jones is perhaps merely an entertainer, giving him the benefit of the doubt. Of course any "movement" like this that so radically challenges the status quo is rife with disinfo artists. That doesn't reflect one way or other on its overall merits.

Secondly, I think that MIHOPers do great damage to the cause of re-opening the 9/11 investigation. The investigation should be re-opened, and MIHOP-promotion damages that by making it easy to dismiss the whole case for re-opening as a bunch of kooky conspiracy theories. As I said earlier in this thread, the 9/11 commission version of events needs to be re-examined, and I wish that everyone pushing MIHOP would put aside that agenda and focus on campaigning for unbiased re-opening, not re-opening slanted towards assumption of guilt.

That's like saying let's have a homicide investigation, but take murder off the table. The hard questions need to be asked, and they will only be asked if innocence is not presumed as it obviously was by the 9/11 Commission even when the folks appearing before them were obviously lying.

Thirdly, I think that this obsession with MIHOP lets the very, very real terrorists off the hook, and I don't think that should happen.

Don't make me laugh. Perhaps 10% of the nation at most believes MIHOP. Meanwhile, only a single person has been tried in our US courts in regard to their association with the 9/11 hijackers, and that person was already in jail that day and did not actually know or materially aid the hijackers. Both Osama Bin Laden and the anthrax killer are still on the loose. But the "obsession with MIHOP" of a few people on the internet is what lets terrorists off the hook?

What's the difference between MIHOP and LIHOP and even criminal negligence anyway except as a disinfo divide and conquer technique?

Fourthly, academic interest. I wrote my dissertation on how differing interpretations of historical evidence and versions of events are used and abused politically - in short, I studied how the 14th- and 15th-century English political establishment used and abused conspiracy theories, astrology, pseudoscience, prophecy and lunacy in the service of competing political and non-political agendas. It gave me a lasting interest in conspiracy theories and the like. (I studied history, with a particular emphasis on the middle ages, historiography and the history of political thought, at Cambridge University.)]

Now I'm laughing. Perhaps you should consider applying your "academic interests" to the political abuse of the "9/11 Changes Everything" meme instead?

Trying to shut down any rational, legitimate questioning of the event of 9/11 is doing Rove's work for him. Look what the "9/11 Changes Everything" meme has wrought: the Iraqi invasion and occupation, a state of never-ending warfare, a "Bush doctrine" of military pre-emption, a culture of authoritarian secrecy, an assault on our Bill of Rights, a crisis of Constitutional separation of powers, the alienation of most of our former allies and the complete loss of our nation's credibility with the rest of the world. And that's just a partial list. Meanwhile, we simply haven't taken any of the obvious, concrete steps that would help to secure our nation against the threat of Muslim fundamentalist terrorism. What could possibly be the explanation for this?

Fifthly, professional interest. I worked for a weekly construction and engineering news magazine at the time of the attacks. We looked into how they happened in considerable detail.

And what did all of you conclude? That the building had pancaked? If not, why didn't you speak out against this obviously flawed and patently impossible theory that stood as the "official explanation" until NIST finally scrapped it over three years later?

[Taxloss]

120. Hmm.

How many people are in the Bush administration vs. the number of people needed to pull off 9/11? You think 19 Arabs pulled off 9/11. Why would it take significantly more powerful insiders to pull it off than it would ragtag outsiders?

Even LIHOP requires an order of magnitude more people who would have to have knowledge of what was planned, and whose silence afterwards could be assured. MIHOP, another couple of orders of magnitude, I would say. They're all looking at the results of their actions now, and not one of them feels moved to come forward; this from the leakiest administration since Nixon.

All of these except perhaps "libertarian" Jones are recognized disinformation artists. Jones is perhaps merely an entertainer, giving him the benefit of the doubt. Of course any "movement" like this that so radically challenges the status quo is rife with disinfo artists. That doesn't reflect one way or other on its overall merits.

It's not so much that SOME of them are dodgy, it's that the huge majority of them are dodgy - Steven Jones is OK, but sites like whatreallyhappened are full of shit. You may consider it unfair for me to taint the whole MIHOP movement by this association, but it is the movement that is doing the associating, but linking to these sites and repeating their content.

That's like saying let's have a homicide investigation, but take murder off the table. The hard questions need to be asked, and they will only be asked if innocence is not presumed as it obviously was by the 9/11 Commission even when the folks appearing before them were obviously lying.

No it isn't. It's saying "let's have a homicide investigation without assuming guilt right away". Nothing would be "taken off the table" because nothing would be on the table in the first place. You have a choice - the investigation that presupposes your conclusions, which isn't going to happen, or an investigation that might actually happen, and expose in greater detail what occurred that day. That would aid the attribution of guilt. I would like the investigation that actually has a chance of happening - the neutral one.

Don't make me laugh. Perhaps 10% of the nation at most believes MIHOP. Meanwhile, only a single person has been tried in our US courts in regard to their association with the 9/11 hijackers, and that person was already in jail that day and did not actually know or materially aid the hijackers. Both Osama Bin Laden and the anthrax killer are still on the loose. But the "obsession with MIHOP" of a few people on the internet is what lets terrorists off the hook?

What's the difference between MIHOP and LIHOP and even criminal negligence anyway except as a disinfo divide and conquer technique?

Of course there's a difference. What you are saying, however, is "ignore the terrorists". I don't think that's the right thing to do.

Now I'm laughing. Perhaps you should consider applying your "academic interests" to the political abuse of the "9/11 Changes Everything" meme instead?

Not familiar with the concept of intellectual curiosity? The "official" meme is just the other side of the same evidential coin. Historiography is the interrogation and evaluation of sources, and the study of how interpretations are built. The interest lies as much in the NIST report as it does in the DU 9/11 forum. You should be flattered that I'm evaluating both on the same terms.

Trying to shut down any rational, legitimate questioning of the event of 9/11 is doing Rove's work for him.

Who's shutting anything down? I'm asking questions and discussing it with you. If you're not prepared to have your interpretation challenged and interrogated, then you're going to get nowhere.

I would say that devoting valuable time and resources to promotion of competing flavours of MIHOP within this forum is a waste that aids Rove.

Look what the "9/11 Changes Everything" meme has wrought: the Iraqi invasion and occupation, a state of never-ending warfare, a "Bush doctrine" of military pre-emption, a culture of authoritarian secrecy, an assault on our Bill of Rights, a crisis of Constitutional separation of powers, the alienation of most of our former allies and the complete loss of our nation's credibility with the rest of the world. And that's just a partial list. Meanwhile, we simply haven't taken any of the obvious, concrete steps that would help to secure our nation against the threat of Muslim fundamentalist terrorism. What could possibly be the explanation for this?

The post-9/11 agenda is as deplorable as it was predictable. It's a disastrous, failed ideological experiment; why does that suggest the attacks were an inside job?

And what did all of you conclude? That the building had pancaked? If not, why didn't you speak out against this obviously flawed and patently impossible theory that stood as the "official explanation" until NIST finally scrapped it over three years later?

Well, I stopped working for the magazine in 2002 so I couldn't tell you what the editorial line is now, but I'm fairly sure it isn't MIHOP.

One thing I remember very clearly from the day of the attacks themselves is the fact that the technical editor said that he thought the fire would bring down the towers before they actually failed. We had the plans of the buildings, and his opinion was that the towers were doomed. That isn't proof of anything, other than the fact that it didn't strike him as a surprise that the towers fell, and he had all the engineering background and qualifications. FWIW.

A big question is, what happens next. I am hoping that a Democratic house re-opens the investigation - that seems to be the most likely and desirable outcome right now. On that, I'm sure that we can agree.

[mhatrw]

138. Yes, on that we most certainly agree.

To be clear, I think all MIHOP level 6 vs. MIHOP level 3 and MIHOP vs. LIHOP arguments are ridiculous. The majority appear to me to be purposeful disinformation ("divide and conquer") meant to exploit the differences in different individuals' unhelpful and unnecessary (but natural) speculations about the actual "hidden" events of that day.

NORAD (and the 9/11 Commission and the new VF-release tapes) have offered seven different stories about the air response that day. So we know for sure that we are being lied to without consequence. The only open question is why, and the best way to pressure for another investigation is to assume the worst until proven otherwise.

When over 50% of American believe MIHOP or LIHOP, then and only then will our government be forced to "come clean" with the truth (or whatever incompetence-based limited hangout they have prepared to fall back on) about the events of 9/11.

[Nozebro]

81. Maybe it's a required project for a course they're taking? Homework?

They might be required to submit proof of how many messages they've posted. (come to think of it, if I was paying someone to have to suffer thru the agony of spending so much time trying to distract people whose views I detest, I'd probably HAVE to pay them for each post they write)

[Taxloss]

85. More like a hobby.

My original responses were to the thread when it was in GD. If I just ignored the responses received after it was dungeonised, I would have been accused of not having any answers and running away. By sticking around and playing, I get accused of being a disinfo agent. Nice little trap you've built there.

[BestCenter]

92. Well said.

While I believe that BushCo would have certain qualms about actually killing people or directly letting people die in the inferno of 9/11 (though the raging deluge of Katrina, on the other hand...), they wouldn't have done such a thing since they could never have covered it up as well as the MIHOP and LIHOP'pers are claiming, and they would have known that they would be literally LYNCHED if the truth was uncovered.

The American public, when awakened, will act greatly. We destroyed Nixon just because he had some people break into a hotel room. BushCo knows that they'd have no chance against us.

[Nozebro]

122. That's terribly naive. Read & study more & I'm sure you'll change.

N/T

[BestCenter]

160. Yes. All it does is to reinforce the ideas that

people who claim that BushCo did horrendous things like let 9/11 happen or made it happen are letting them get away from crimes they actually commit, not to mention discrediting everyone who's against Bush.

Not to mention being unsupported by the entire scientific and engineering community. Which spans the whole world. And has no objections to the gist of the official story.

[Ka hrnt]

143. Finally...

...a voice of sanity. Yes, it certainly seems we were all caught with our pants down. This was even worse for the Republicans, what with their historical advantage on "national security". Had we all started pointing figures rather than rallying, I doubt Bush would have even bothered to run for a second term as his approval ratings would've been in the teens.

[MadHound]

43. The thing is we're not just looking at "flaws and inconsistencies ",

We're looking at down right physical impossibilities, for example like I pointed out down thread, steel weakening at temperatures too cool to do such. This isn't a flaw, this is a lie, a big one. Much like the Kennedy assasination, the official story for 911 asks for any knowledgeble person to stop thinking and ignore the laws of physics. Sorry, but I can't do that, and neither can many others.

[John Q. Citizen]

76. That won't stop them from asking. It's the Big Lie technique at work.

The public is asked to believe that;

America has no air defense.

Three buildings all completely collapsed in a stagnated manner on the same day from 3 separate random events.

Don't believe the eye witness testimony which contradicts the official story.

Fanatical Islamic Religious extremists drink, hang out at strip clubs, do drugs, and leave Korans behind everywhere they go.

Your government is too dumb to hurt people or pull this off.

The air is fine at ground zero and nearby.

Huge put stock options on negatively effected businesses that suggest fore knowledge are all innocuous.



The Big Lie technique isn't designed to stop critical thinkers from thinking critically.

The Big Lie is designed to stop non- critical thinkers from starting to think critically.

It works pretty well.

[Nozebro]

123. You're a fine citizen, John Q. Extremely well put. EOM

n/t

[whistle]

194. I 2nd that and would like to add that any independent thinkers who

...begin probing for the truth and asking a lot of questions that threaten the official story, are immediately attacked and discredited with more lies, rather then expose the official story to further scrutiny and investigation. This video demonstrates that technique very well.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

164. And Make7 showed that you were wrong about steel. NT

[Taxloss]

33. Oh come on, most MIHOPers learned physics from Road Runner cartoons.

Thermite that goes sideways, actions without reactions, zero concept of metallurgy or kinetic energy, it's hilarious.

[MadHound]

40. Most, maybe, maybe not.

However at the core of MIHOPers is a group of learned, scientifically minded, well grounded individuals who have come to the conclusion that the official story is a load of crap. Just for instance, since you brought up metallurgy, please explain to me how a fire, with maximum possible temperature of 900 degrees F(and probably much less given the enviromental retardants such as fire resistant fixtures, coverings, and foam around the steel members) cause the structural steel to collapse, even though said steel's minimum temperature for weakening the least little bit is 1100 degrees F?

Yes, there are groups of crackpots and cranks in the MIHOP community, most such issues have them. But to lump us all together is doing those who are serious researchers a great disservice, and providing cover for those who actually did perpetrate this horrendous crime. The Bushco disinformation service thanks you:eyes:

[Make7]

51. The assumptions you have made in your question appear to be incorrect.

MadHound wrote:

Just for instance, since you brought up metallurgy, please explain to me how a fire, with maximum possible temperature of 900 degrees F(and probably much less given the enviromental retardants such as fire resistant fixtures, coverings, and foam around the steel members) cause the structural steel to collapse, even though said steel's minimum temperature for weakening the least little bit is 1100 degrees F?

Well, according to the following source, steel begins to weaken at 572ºF. (Note: I have added the temperatures in Fahrenheit.)

Reasons for fire damage

All materials weaken with increasing temperature and steel is no exception. Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300ºC (572ºF) and increases rapidly after 400ºC (752ºF), by 550ºC (1022ºF) steel retains about 60% of its room temperature yield strength. This is usually considered to be the failure temperature for structural steel.

http://www.azobuild.com/details.asp?ArticleID=3621

The temperature given by this source for what is considered the failure temperature is about the same temperature that you claim as the "minimum temperature for weakening the least little bit". Perhaps you could explain the basis or give a source for the temperature that you cited.

Regarding the fire temperature, in this paper there is a chart near the end that gives a few time vs. temperature curves. One curve is "based on temperature measurements acquired in experiments involving office furnishing conducted by DeCicco, et al., (1972) in the Hudson Terminal Building (30 Church Street, New York)". The developed fire temperatures on that curve range between 600ºC (1112ºF) and 800ºC (1472ºF). These measured temperatures are much higher than the "maximum possible temperature of 900 degrees F" that you posted concerning the World Trade Center. Can you explain why the temperature that you have given is so much lower than actual temperatures measured during an office fire experiment?

I also cannot help but notice that the temperatures measured during the 30 Church Street experiment are higher than what "is usually considered to be the failure temperature for structural steel."

- Make7

[MadHound]

62. You are trying to compare apples and oranges here

The source you cited is dealing with a completely different grade of structural steel. Here is a link to the NIST report concerning the grades of steel involved in the construction of the WTC<http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-3A.pdf> I will leave it to you to look up the various temperatures at which these steels weaken and buckle for I am currently away from my reference books and don't have the time nor energy to go cruising the web for such information. However the fact remains that the point at which these steel members begin to weaken is much higher than the temperature of the fire inside the WTC.

Also your reference to the office furnishings experiment is vague at best. Were these experiments carried out with real world office furnishings, ie furnishings that had been treated with fire retardents as is the law in NYC? Were they performed with 20-25 gallons of water/minute being sprayed on the furnishings, as witnesses have attested was occuring inside the WTC?

Oh, and one other observation for you to ponder, the WTC fires were observably cool burning fires. How do I know this? Because of my years of experience as a fireman. If you notice, the smoke that is coming from both towers was think and dark. That means that it is full of unburnt fuel, it is a rich fire. You can observe this phenomenon on any campfire. Throw a little water on a campfire and note how it puts out some thick, dark smoke. Fuel rich smoke which means that the fire is relatively cool. This is born out by both the firemen on the scene and other eyewitnesses. In fact the first firemen on the scene were calling for only three lines to put out the fire in the North Tower. I'm sorry, but I don't care if they're calling for two inch lines, the fact that they're calling for only three of them means that the fire isn't that great and can be controlled.

Another item for you to ponder. The Towers fell within 56 and 89 minutes respectively, the first steel structures in history to collapse due to fire. Yet other steel structures endured much more without collapsing. In 1988, a fire in the First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles raged for 3.5 hours and gutted 5 of this building’s 62 floors, but there was no significant structural damage (FEMA, 1988). In 1991, a huge fire in Philadelphia’s One Meridian Plaza lasted for 18 hours and gutted 8 of the building’s 38 floors, but, said the FEMA report, although “beams and girders sagged and twisted . . . under severe fire exposures. . . , the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage” (FEMA, 1991). In Caracas in 2004, a fire in a 50-story building raged for 17 hours, completely gutting the building’s top 20 floors, and yet it did not collapse (Nieto, 2004). Yet we're supposed to believe that in less than two hours, both of the Towers collapsed due fire. Sorry, I'm not buying it. As I've said before, what we saw that day was the Big Lie, wrote large on the New York skyline. Don't fall for it.

[Make7]

79. Would this be an apple or an orange?

From your previous post:

...please explain to me how a fire, with maximum possible temperature of 900 degrees F(and probably much less given the enviromental retardants such as fire resistant fixtures, coverings, and foam around the steel members) cause the structural steel to collapse, even though said steel's minimum temperature for weakening the least little bit is 1100 degrees F?

You provided no basis for the temperatures that you used above. Since you are the one that claimed that these are the temperatures that should be used, I hope that you will at least have the courtesy to provide some basis for your figures since they appear to be in dispute.

I'll assume the following is the information that you requested I look up for you from the NIST report:

I guess the problem with the information above is that it shows that the yield strengths of the different steel grades all show drastic reductions in strength at 1100ºF (593ºC). Apparently this is not the data you had in mind, so why don't you just provide a source that the "steel's minimum temperature for weakening the least little bit is 1100 degrees F"? What I found seems to only corroborate the information in my last post.

I guess once we reach some common ground on the yield strengths of the steel at elevated temperatures we can move on to your still undocumented claims regarding the maximum possible fire temperature.

- Make7

[BestCenter]

99. Why is it that

NO NYC firemen have expressed disbelief over the officially accepted story about how the fires burned?

[Kingshakabobo]

47. "Road Runner cartoons" is a good description of how some CTers...

....think when it comes to discussing the pentagon crash and the hole produced in the side of the building. I guess they would feel more comfortable if the hole was shaped EXACTLY like the outline of the aircraft. Kinda like when Road Runner runs through a wooden door and leaves an EXACT outline.

[Nozebro]

50. If you have some credible evidence that FL 77 crashed, bring it on.

Then go back to watching your cartoons.

[Taxloss]

67. Where is the plane and its passengers?

What happened to them? They took off, and ... where did they go?

[Nozebro]

124. WHAT plane? FL 77? Didn't fly that day. Some1 checked BTS records

and FL 77 wasn't even scheduled to fly on 9/11. Now, I understand someone has either doctored the BTS records or else you can't locate them - but there was no FL 77 that day. Besides, the regular plane used for that particular run is a big B757, and it couldn't have fit in the tiny entry hole at the Pentagon EVEN IF it had wanted to. The "Nobody Knows What The NOZE Knows Cone" is made of aluminum & couldn't have gone thru the reinforced Pentagon outer wall.

Do some research. It's surprising how quickly you'll come to realize there's no way the OCT could even possibly be true. Totally IMpossible. 9/11 was an inside job that did NOT involve ANY airliners crashing into buildings. The whole thing was a False Flag operation blamed on a man that lives in caves in a remote part of ReallyReallyBadistan.

[Taxloss]

126. No planes were involved AT ALL?

So what did I watch on TV?

What did the good people of New York watch happening on their doorsteps?

[Nozebro]

132. You are misquoting what I said, which was that no planes CRASHED

into any buildings on 9/11 and FL 77 was found to NOT be even scheduled that day.

As far as why YOu watched on TV, I don't know. Rush Limbaugh, maybe? What most people saw (myself included) ON TV was most likely a pre-made video using CGI to make it look like planes crashed into the WTC. They may also have seen actual planes and helicopters flying around/near the WTC too.

I'll get a link to an article about planes/WTC that you might enjoy reading.

[Taxloss]

137. Believing actual planes were used = Rush listener?

:eyes:

... And the eye-witnesses?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

139. If I was to do a send-up

of the archetypal "conspiracy nut" I would just copy and paste what you wrote. Although I might be accused of being "over the top."

[BootinUp]

169. .

ditto as in I agree with your post.

[rinsd]

140. Ooooo-dee-lolly

"What most people saw (myself included) ON TV was most likely a pre-made video using CGI to make it look like planes crashed into the WTC. They may also have seen actual planes and helicopters flying around/near the WTC too."

I thought the more "respectable" foilers had silenced the impudent ones with their fervent imaginations.

What luck.

[hpot]

167. Discredit 9/11 truthers

We can't stop all the attempts to discredit and make us look like whackos. Interestingly, I doubt it is all unintentional and unorganized.

If you stick around here long enough, you will see for yourself.

[mhatrw]

56. Kill the messenger. PM takes on a few teenagers.

How about PM takes on David Griffith or Paul Thompson or any other educated adult?

[John Q. Citizen]

63. The kids did alright. PM had to resort to name calling, ie

conspiracy theorists (a Neocon meme) anti-semitic (a Neocon meme) and more.

PM didn't answer the questions they were asked, they answered the questions they wanted to.

Dylan and the boys held their own, IMHO.

PM used to subscribe to the "pancake theory." Are they still pushing that now that NIST has abondoned it?

[Sir Jeffrey]

170. Yeah, I was expecting a "stern talking to" ...

from the rich white asshole elites. Boy was I pleasantly surprised!

They tried to do it but got their ass handed to them on the facts. Every time they started discussing a specific point, the PM guys would avoid the specific question and step back into the "Weeeelllll....these CONSPIRACY THEORIES can't hold water because they avoid evidence and blah blah blah..."

In the meantime, the head researcher for Loose Change came off as the most informed of the group by far, which is surprising. If they were trying to kill them off, they failed miserably.

And I think you may have inadvertantly made a critical point re 9/11: IF PM can't adequately discredit a group of 20-somethings with minimal resources to allocate for research, then how in the hell can anyone take PM's claims seriously?

[FoxOnTheRun]

103. Well this dutchman says it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqrn5x2_f6Q

[davidwparker]

16. just got finished seeing that and came here to post.

Link -> http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203

on edit: added link

[DinahMoeHum]

20. I, for one, am glad the "Loose Changers" got eviscerated. . .

I watched the whole video of it last night.

Conspiracy theories are for losers. I've heard a whole ton of them since the JFK assasination when I was seven. They all go in one ear and out the other.

"Never attribute to conspiracy that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Robert A Heinlein

"Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."
Napoleon Bonaparte


:evilfrown:

[MadHound]

21. Funny you should mention the JFK assasination

Yes, the people who didn't believe in the Warren Commission Report, or the lame Magic Bullet theory were labeled as cranks, crackpots and conspiracy theorists too. Fortuneately, they were vindicated in 1979 when an unwilling and uncooperative House Select Committee on Assasinations was force by an overwhelming moutain of credible, expert evidence and testimony had to finally conceed that yes indeed, JFK's assasination was the result of a conspiracy, not a lone gunman.

Sadly though, after those findings were published and nothing was done as a followup.

And I imagine that the investigation into the events of 911 will proceed much the same way as the assasination of JFK did. Those who cast doubt upon the official story will be ridiculed and reviled. But as increasing amounts of true information are brought to light, as more and more questions pile up, as more and more evidence that contradicts the official story is unearther, more and more Americans will come to disbelieve the official story. And some day in the future, the public outcry will become large enough to force the government to reopen the case, albeit reluctantly. And again, much against their will this government agency will be compelled by a mountain of evidence to declare the official story null and void. And sadly, once again, the matter will be dropped.

Face it friend, what we all saw on 911 was the Big Lie in action. Don't fall for it. Do your own research, come to your own conclusion. Don't swallow the official pabulum as truth.

[DinahMoeHum]

25. Did I say I believe in the official version? No, I did not. . .

So don't put words in my mouth, OK ??????


:grr:

[MadHound]

26. What words am I putting in your mouth?

I'm responding to your previous post of "Conspiracy theories are for losers.", and pointing out that those "losers" were eventually vindicated by the US government itself. I'm also advising you to not swallow the official story of 911 hook line and sinker:shrug: I fail to see how that is putting words in your mouth.

I think that you are taking offense where there is none:shrug:

[BootinUp]

46. Some more research...

http://shopping.discovery.com/product-56798.html?jzid=40587982-0-0

the show above goes about as far as possible in answering questions people have on the single bullet. Have you seen it? It was broadcast a year or so ago.

[Joanne98]

55. I agree!

[dionysus]

23. yes cause you know, never in the history of mankind have a group

of evil people conspired to do dirty deeds :eyes:

[Taxloss]

31. Nice strawman. n/t

[Junkdrawer]

35. I, for one, will not reject facts because someone labels them...

as a "Conspiracy Theory".

PS: I don't think they lost at all. When cornered, the ME guys simply lied.

I don't think the Pentgon hole is 90ft in diameter:

[Taxloss]

36. Actually, facts are the components of a theory, not the same thing.

And a theory based on facts can still be utterly inaccurate.

[mhatrw]

60. "Never analyze with logic what can be dismissed with aphorisms."

DinahMoeHum

[Taxloss]

30. First Keith O's commentary, now this.

My cup runneth over.

[Cameron27]

34. ROFL Taxloss

:thumbsup:

[DemInDistress]

53. here's a couple more facts...

notice the flash 12-15 floors above the impact zone.












and this video clip, what do you see? http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem3/911.wtc.2.demolition.east.5.enl.slow.2.wmv

I see well placed explosive charges. I can't stop you from believing the OCT all I can say is "its sad" that you do.

[Taxloss]

66. If there were explosives, why bother with the planes? n/t

[Nozebro]

68. Do some research. You might be surprised at what you can learn.

If you don't know by now why planes were used, it's time to cut your losses and do some research. Then, when you return maybe your opinions will be taken more seriously.

[Taxloss]

70. Oh, please, what a cop-out. Answer the question, or is that what you're

going to tell everyone who asks that question? That's a really quick way to convert folks, that.

On edit: And this is one of the many, many problems with MIHOP - which flavour of it should I research? Because they all contradict each other. If you had a consistent theory, it would help.

[Kingshakabobo]

77. My my, you get testy when you have no argument.......nt

[mhatrw]

72. Because you would never be able to explain how terrorists

got the access to plant explosives so extensively.

[Taxloss]

74. No explosives were planted.

How could they have been, without anyone in the tower noticing?

[mhatrw]

95. Because it was a weekend, and the people were assumed to be

regular maintenance?

[BestCenter]

96. Assumed by EVERYBODY?

The rank and file office drones, the supervisors, the security guys, the regular maintainence workers, everybody? No one made a peep to their families or friends or ANYBODY?

[mhatrw]

97. Who comes to the WTC on weekends?

Do you work in an office building?

How many supervisors and office drones are around on weekends?

How many maintenance workers say anything about anything to anyone?

[BestCenter]

98. So, you're saying all the security guards never work on weekends?

That no one ever works overtime and on weekends? That maintenance workers are soulless automatons who never remark about the "odd new temp workers" to their families?

[mhatrw]

102. So a few maintenance and security workers saw some temporary

maintenance workers.

Is that a news story? Are you going to put that on page one?

[BestCenter]

158. No, but

They sure could have mentioned it to someone before 9/11. And then those people who heard would have been sure to make some noise.

But so far, there's never been any story, any rumor, any legend that mentions anyone mentioning any mysterious personnel in WTC pre-9/11.

[Will Scoffield]

181. Lots of people.

The towers were full of businesses, many high powered businesses, and lots of people worked on weekends. Take a look at the tenant lists some time and see for yourself.

I find it a bit odd that conspiracy theory believers say "nobody was around on weekends" but simultaneously quotes people who were working on the weekend as evidence of a "power down", etc.

I also find it odd that conspiracy theory believers talk as though there was no security in the towers, but they never seem to know anything about how security in the towers actually functioned. After the 1993 bombing, the security systems in the towers were upgraded to make them probably the most secure office buildings in the world (not counting military buildings, etc.)

[Nozebro]

185. Even in your OCT, the WTC buildings were "military/intel" centers. You

mentioned that there were "many high powered businesses" in the WTC. Yes, yes there were. Co's like MARSH. You know all about them, right? You didn't just wake up yesterday and decide to become an OCT'er here at DU. You "know some stuff", so the company "MARSH" isn't something you've never heard of in OCT-land, is it? WTC-7? Military/Intel?

Can you name a WTC building that DIDN'T have any military or intelligence-related tenants?

[Will Scoffield]

187. Perhaps you are confused about the subject matter of my post

which was that lots of people worked in the towers on weekends, and that they had very high levels of security.

[rinsd]

144. Why didn't the charges go off in the fire?

Are there explosives for demolition(or any prupose for that matter) that are heat resistant?

Would they be able to remain so for the 45 minutes or so the buldings were on fire?

[hpot]

106. Bombs in the elevator shafts

Maybe they placed the explosives in the elevator shafts.

How many people would be suspicious about 1 closed elevator under "maintenance"? The schematics (currently top secret) may not be available, but last I checked, the core columns are part of the elevator shafts.

[Will Scoffield]

182. A few questions.

How would "they" gain access to elevator shafts?

By what means would "they" place explosives in those elevator shafts?

How would "they" gain access to the core columns via the elevator shafts?

Upon how many floors and at what levels would "they" have to place these explosives?

What type of explosives would "they" have to use and how many pounds or tons would be required?

How long would it take to set all of those explosives?

Who is "they"?

[Will Scoffield]

188. Psst. Still waiting.

Just a nudge because I don't know of any other way to encourage a response to these straightforward questions.

Hello?

[FoxOnTheRun]

75. Especially building 7

with cia, fbi and secret service in it

[DemInDistress]

80. 6 days before 911 Marvin Bush head of security had the bomb

sniffing dogs pulled out of the building. WHY? http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/preparation.html

[Nozebro]

83. Afraid the bomb-sniffing dogs would get spooked when the planes came?

N/T

[BestCenter]

93. But there WERE bomb-sniffing dogs in the towers on 9/11!

http://911myths.com/html/wtc_bomb_sniffing_dogs.html

[Wednesdays]

156. Those poor dogs...

tumbling down the elevator shafts!

[BestCenter]

159. Now, that's just impossible

No Americans would be so cruel to mistreat dogs like that! So obviously either Islamic terrorists or Swiss mercenaries did it.

[BestCenter]

161. But seriously,

That kind of takes the steam out of "there were no dogs because they would had found the bombs!" argument.

[Will Scoffield]

183. That is not true.

Marvin Bush was never "head of security" at the World Trade Center.

[DemInDistress]

78. you can't detonate explosives without cover.. and by chance

2 commercial jets happen to come along and crash into both buildings. WOW. Planned? you bet.

what did you think of that video taxloss? also, what about those flashes 12 floors above the impact zone.

check this out: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem3/911.wtc.2.demolition.east.5.enl.slow.1.wmv

look closely, this portion of collapse is 12-15 floors above the impact zone. misplaced and exposed explosives
still believe fire alone brought down the WTC?

[Taxloss]

82. It's very hard to tell exactly what I'm looking at.

I'm not casting doubt on the film in itself, but it would be good to see a version that does not zoom in - do you have one?

Also, I still don't see why both the jets and the explosives would be needed - why did the towers HAVE to fall? Hundreds of people would still have died if they did not. The political value of the day would not be diminished in any meaningful way.

And how were the explosives planted without anyone noticing?

[DemInDistress]

88. your looking at the upper floors of WT2..far above the impact

zone. If you look closer you'll see 2 errant explosive flashes. Sad day for the people when folks like yourself refuse believe their lying eyes.


sad indeed !!

[Taxloss]

101. There must be dozens of videos that are not zoomed in that close,

from that angle. I want to see the entire top of the tower, in context, for scale; where is the original, unedited film? This was one of the most filmed events of all time, and that grainy square is the best you've got?

(Hey, you guys demand higher standards from film. I don't see why I shouldn't.)

[hpot]

105. Step back and look at the complete picture

Also, I still don't see why both the jets and the explosives would be needed - why did the towers HAVE to fall?

For maximum casualties, effect, and support of political agendas.

And how were the explosives planted without anyone noticing?

Based on witness testimonies, we know there were electrical shutdowns before 9/11. The shutdowns are significant because avoidance of all electrical fields is critical to demolition wiring jobs. A stray electrical field can easily detonate bombs prematurely.

Wiring and drilling can be accomplished on any regular day. Everything can be done in phases for highest efficiency. The last phase (placement of explosives) would have required power shutdowns.

So far, there are reliable independent reports implicating Pakistan Intel (ISI) and other groups.

References:

( 9/11 Press for Truth - See 1:02:00 for ISI implications)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083

(Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6757267008400743688&q=gotta+911

In addition, I doubt the black ops mission would be possible without involvement from individuals responsible for WTC security.

[rinsd]

142. So let me get this straight

They had to shut the power down because of the possibility of accidental detonation but slamming two planes and starting a huge fire didn't set them off?

Do I have that correctly?

[hpot]

151. Not all explosives react the same to fire

There are many explosives with various physical properties. For example; you can shoot at C4 and even light a match under it without detonation because C4 requires an electrical spark to go BOOM!

Reference: Procedures are listed in the Army field manual under demolitions.

[rinsd]

163. So which explosives can withstand the sustained heat?

We're not talking a match, we're talking a full on fire fueled by jet fuel and office furniture.

[hpot]

165. Many explosives can withstand sustained heat without detonation

Tolerance and threshold can vary depending on the ingredients contained. It would be useless to make a complete list since there are many examples. In this case, the main concern should be what the physical evidence can corroborate.

Thanks to Steven E. Jones, we know the physical evidence collected from WTC molten debris contains sulfur, aluminum, and iron mixed together. This is highly characteristic of thermite type high explosives. Here are a few other references that may interest you.

1.) Video of molten steel falling from WTC tower
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774&q=wtc+thermite

2.) Here is Professor Jones discussing what it is and what it isn't...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6023596331085044923&q=wtc+thermite

3.) Workers Reported Molten Steel in Ground Zero Rubble
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

4.) Regular thermite requires a high temperature of 2500 Kelvin (4000 °F) for ignition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

I believe the demolition hypothesis is plausible based on the physical evidence gathered. What are your thoughts and ideas on this issue?

[rinsd]

166. Sorry my man. Capt. Thermite is full of it.

From the dubious manner in which the supposed evidence was aquired to the simple fact that something like Thermite hasn't been used in demolition even.

Also from your link: Another method of igniting is to use a common sparkler to ignite the mix. These reach the necessary temperatures and provide a sufficient amount of time before the burning point reaches the sample.

This is discussed because other methods for igniting thermite are considered difficult at best.

So why use an explosive that has traceable elements, that is difficult to ignite and that has little if any experience in demolition?

And last but certainly not least, thermite doesn't explode so the so called squib points must be from something else.

This is a video (from your wio=ki link) of US soldiers putting a thermite grenade on a safe. No explosion and look how brght it burns.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2289367460324643450&q=grenade

Why wasn't that what we saw if thermite was the explosive?

[hpot]

171. Ingredients are important

From the dubious manner in which the supposed evidence was aquired to the simple fact that something like Thermite hasn't been used in demolition even.

Dubious manner? Can you elaborate on that? There are variants of thermite which can be used in demolitions. Where are you getting your "facts"?

Also from your link: Another method of igniting is to use a common sparkler to ignite the mix. These reach the necessary temperatures and provide a sufficient amount of time before the burning point reaches the sample.

This is discussed because other methods for igniting thermite are considered difficult at best.

As I stated before; it depends on the ingredients contained. Furthermore, ignition is not even an issue if you have the right tools, ie: proper blasting cap.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion2.htm

So why use an explosive that has traceable elements

The elements by themselves are not traceable. Thermite is perfect because aluminum and iron are common in many building materials. The criminals involved should know that and probably assumed a clean getaway. They overlooked one minor problem. The molten metals can be examined to determine formation and content. Knowledge of metallurgy is necessary to examine the physical evidence and form a conclusion. Have you read Jone's paper?

And last but certainly not least, thermite doesn't explode so the so called squib points must be from something else.

You made a very good point. Thermite is great mainly for cutting steel and as an incendiary. I'm open to the idea of a secondary type of explosives used on 9/11 but fact is; you can make anything explode with the right ingredients.

Why wasn't that what we saw if thermite was the explosive?

There are videos and witness testimonies of flashes originating from the building.

References:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/basementbomb.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4731051210315608217

[rinsd]

173. Sigh.....

"There are variants of thermite which can be used in demolitions"

Okay. What are they?

"They overlooked one minor problem"

They were able to wire the building in secret in a manner allowing for a controlled demo do all of the other bullshit and no one in the planning said, ya know we should avoid thermite because it tends to produce molten iron?

"The elements by themselves are not traceable."

Except for the sulphur cited by Jones.

"Knowledge of metallurgy is necessary to examine the physical evidence and form a conclusion. Have you read Jone's paper?"

Jones has no experience in such manners. He deals with physics.

Obviously I will not be able to convince you.

I want a new investigation. I certainly believe that there has been some whitewashing.

But the controlled demo, no plane theories just do not work.

[hpot]

174. Cheers

I want a new investigation. I certainly believe that there has been some whitewashing.

I'll drink to that! :toast:

[rinsd]

175. Cheers to you as well

:toast:

[Nozebro]

84. There are none so blind they cannot ssSPIN. EOM

n/t

[DemInDistress]

86. wow...what a profound statement.. care to make some sense? nt

[BestCenter]

94. THAT's your explosive charge evidence?

More like pareidolia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

[John Q. Citizen]

64. I thought they debated yesterday. That's when i heard the show. Is this

part 2?

[pberq]

107. 9/11 Debate: Loose Change Filmmakers vs. Popular Mechanics Editors

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203

The PM editors give themselves away as being a cover-up team for the official story at several points. Here are just a few samples:

1. After Jason Bermas of Loose Change makes a particularly strong point about the Pentagon hit, one of the PM guys says, "JAMES MEIGS: Yeah. We didn't fact check every detail of Loose Change, but what we did do was look at the broad cross-section of conspiracy theories."
So if the Loose Change guys make a point, then we can't accept that now can we?

2. "DYLAN AVERY (of Loose Change): I would just like to quickly jump in and ask what your guys’ explanation is for Willie Rodriguez's testimony that he heard, experienced, and his co-workers were actually burned, by an explosion in the basement of the North Tower, prior to the plane hitting? And this has been verified by at least twenty different eyewitnesses."
James Meigs of PM proceeds to answer by talking about what happened AFTER the plane hit, completely ignoring the fact that Rodriquez's testimony has to do with BEFORE the plane hit.

3. Another tactic of the PM guys is to use the "conspiracy theory" epithet over and over. Never mind that the world's greatest conspircy theory is the "official" version of 9-11.

[greyl]

108. Video links:

part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4

A pathetic display by the loosers.

[pberq]

110. Thanks for posting those links -

The Loose Change guys did an excellent job considering the limited time.

[John Q. Citizen]

109. Conspiracy theory is as American as apple pie. The use of the term to

discredit people with opposing views is a Neo-con invention, similar to their partially successful transformation of the word "liberal."

One easy quick way to spot a Neo-con in the press, is to see how they mis-use the the terms 'conspiracy theory,' or 'liberal.'

People on this site who parrot the Neocon use of the term "conspiracy theory" are either ignorant of the Neocon attempt to transform the language or are willing participants to that agenda.

[Nozebro]

128. It's got to be the latter. They're smart & trained in forensics. They

know exactly what they're doing. That's why THEY're DOING what they do.

[pberq]

111. another example that exposes the PM guys as frauds

In this part of the debate, Jason Bermas brings up the tape of Cheney giving the stand-down order. The guy from Popular Mechanics immediately tries to change the subject to the physical evidence, and then later tries to justify the stand-down by saying that it ". . .it was total chaos that day. Nobody knew where the planes were."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203

. . .JASON BERMAS: Ms. Goodman, I'd just like to address the fact that they have claimed that they have 84 videos through a FOIA request pertaining to what did strike the Pentagon. But the bottom line is, nothing should have struck the Pentagon. We know through the 9/11 Commission testimony that Norman Mineta, the head of the Transportation Department, was in a bunker with Cheney prior to the Pentagon strike. Now, this is the only three-and-a-half minutes out of the hundreds of hours that’s been censored by C-SPAN. Why? Because he says he's in a bunker with Cheney, and an aide walks in and says, “Sir, the plane is 50 miles out. Sir, the plane is 30 miles out. Do the orders still stand?” Cheney snaps his head around and says, “Of course, the orders still stand.”

By the time it was ten miles out, it was too late, and the Pentagon was struck. That is a direct stand down order. And if you listen to the NORAD tapes, later on some of these people are actually tracking these planes, asking to shoot them down, and they’re getting a negative shoot-down order. Why is that significant? Well, in June of 2001, Cheney signs a DOD memo putting shoot-down orders in his hands, Rumsfeld' hands and Bush's hands alone, where it was standard operating procedure if colonels were to intercept these planes and they saw a threat, they could do the shoot-down order.

JAMES MEIGS: Let's back up a little bit.

AMY GOODMAN: Jim Meigs of Popular Mechanics.

JAMES MEIGS: We started talking about physical evidence for an aircraft hitting the Pentagon, that an aircraft was seen by hundreds of people, eyewitnesses. The wreckage was removed from the Pentagon. The bodies were removed from the Pentagon and identified. None of those people have materialized to explain that this was a conspiracy.

[John Q. Citizen]

112. Yep. PM Not answering the question but instead

side stepping the question.

Also, they go through the litany of how many pages some BS reports are, how many hours spent preparing BS reports, and constantly using the "expert" propaganda technique. "Experts say...."

They also actually criticise Loose Change for using early eye witness remarks, early press reports, early video, as if somehow getting peoples later recollections and later reports are somehow superior.

Anybody who pays attention knows that at a crime scene, investigators want eye witness reports ASAP because those are the most reliable. As time goes by, peoples memories become fainter about events. Newspaper reports are often scubbed to reflect prevailing views instead of the unfiltered news that usually comes out immediatly.

I thought Loose Change did better than PM in the debate, they were more believable.

[greyl]

113. Not so at all.

Bermas's statement "That is a direct stand down order" is not based on fact. It is pure speculation. Don't forget that Bermas just changed the subject from "Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon" to "nothing should have hit the pentagon".
It's incredible, really. First Bermas argues that a missile hit the pentagon, not Flight 77, then in the next breath he argues that Cheney let Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

The looser's conspiracy is incoherent garbage.

[FoxOnTheRun]

114. Cheney let the thing hit the pentagon

and Mineta lost his job because Fetzer mentioned it on fox news

[greyl]

115. Bermas and Avery were arguing that an airliner did NOT hit

the Pentagon, then when asked to consider the facts, they totally change the subject.
They suck.

[FoxOnTheRun]

116. Didn't the PM guy change the subject, too?

[greyl]

118. No. nt

[Nozebro]

130. Saying that no plane should have hit the Pentagon wasn't changing

the subject at all. The OCT'er is just desperate to find something, ANYTHING s/he can use to try and make it seem as if the PM guys were at least consistent even if they WERE totally wrong.

[greyl]

133. If not changing the subject, it was providing a clue that

the loosers' theories have no coherence. Tell me, were they saying that there was a plane or not?

[Nozebro]

127. The FACT is, no airliner crashed at the Pentagon. Maybe, maybe a

missile did - if you believe Donald Rumsfeld.

[greyl]

134. The confidence with which you make a statement doesn't

magically turn it into a fact.
You are arguing a fact which is not in evidence. In fact, all the evidence points to Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. Zero evidence for missile.

[FoxOnTheRun]

136. He certainly knows what happened, but won't tell you

[Sven77]

117. 9/11 Panel - Norman Mineta's Testimony

MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7Vs7KNlpXU

[greyl]

119. And? nt

[Nozebro]

129. Surprisingly weak, weren't they? I hope a lot of people heard/saw the

program. Amy G. did her subtle best to elevate the stature of the PM flacks by constantly saying "Executive Editor of Popular Mechanics" - but by the end of the program, I'd bet those guys wished she hadn't done that. After all, trying to defend a lie isn't easy for anyone to do, much less a couple of right-wing flacks from Popular Mechanics magazine.

[greyl]

135. Can you add anything to your ad hominem attack?

You know, like a quote from the show?

[greyl]

121. The first contradictions:

Bermas: "We have a crater and no plane."
"There were reports that this was strewn out over 8 miles."
"We have videotape of smaller pieces of debris."
"There's nothing there that looks like a plane."

He's contradicting himself. What is he trying to say?

Then Avery starts in that cell phone calls were impossible, while admitting that most of the calls were placed using airphones. Then, when Goodman changes the subject, avery and bermas both laugh appreciatively, and avery says "the cellphones aren't the best evidence - we have better evidence". Bullshit, he's lying and/or deluded.

These guys do not have a coherent pov.

[Ka hrnt]

146. Nope.

"These guys do not have a coherent pov."

They're irrational. Their standard of proof is "Does it fit our theory? Yes? Then it's a fact."

[Bolo Boffin]

148. Is that their POV?

I thought it was, "Does it look wicked cool on video and help us score serious rebellious-chick tail? Then it's in."

I keed. I agree with you completely. In fact, the term "incestous amplification" summed up their POV nicely, don't you think?

[Ka hrnt]

177. Yes, yes it does. EOM.

[zforce]

155. Sadly I must agree...

...a very sad presentation by the loosechange boys.

Hopefully, the next time such an opportuinity arises they'll be smart enough to let someone a bit more capable(actually alot more capable) of explaining and rebutting the official story take their places.

What even makes it worse is how terrible the PM guys were, yet the loosechange boys came out even looking worse.

Urgg..

[Ka hrnt]

145. This is hilarious.

Wow...this transcript is hilarious.

DYLAN AVERY: Well, real quick, I just want to jump in and say, Kevin Ryan has been open about his statement. He has always been public about the fact that he worked for the -- I don’t remember the exact name, but it was a subdivision of Underwriters Laboratories, which did water testing. But it was the fact that he got the higher-up from -- he got the word from his higher-ups that they actually had certified the steel and, I mean, his science still adds up.

DAVID DUNBAR: In fact, Underwriter Laboratories does not certify structural steel.

DYLAN AVERY: Oh, okay.

:rofl:

[greyl]

153. Yeah, that was an odd moment. It must have been like when Avery

was first told that babies breast feed.

DYLAN AVERY: "Oh, okay. Yeah, right."

[Ka hrnt]

178. Yeah.

Honestly. He's blowing hot air, he must know he's full of it, then when confronted with an actual factual fact (as opposed to whatever he's referring to as "facts"...), all he can do is give up with a hilariously pathetic, "Oh, okay." Seriously--that was one of the funniest things I've seen here in The Dungeon, and that's saying something.

[Sven77]

147. Yellow Journalism

One of the most infamous yellow journalism publishers was William Randolph Hearst, whose New York Journal (later called the New York Journal-American) published wild exaggerations and false stories to increase circulation.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/tabloid3.htm

Popular Mechanics
http://www.hearstcorp.com/magazines/

[BootinUp]

168. I think you are taking things out of context

The link you provided wasn't talking about everything published by the Hearst company. Rather a particular type of magazine that is easy to identify. Do you have anything specifically discrediting the Popular Mechanics, how many decades has that been published? Surely you have something that discredits that publication?

[greyl]

157. 9/11 Myths contributor Vs. an asshole DJ on radio. :

caller Pete: What about the 7 hijackers, 7 to 9 hijackers that were reported in the British press, who came forward and said "we're alive". What are we doing on the FBI's list of so called hijackers, we're alive and well. How do you explain that one?

Davin Coburn: Actually, my explanation for that is that've I have read that one BBC report that claims that-

Pete(interrupting): There was more than one BBC report-

Davin Coburn: But actually, it's not. That's the one thing that we've found, and that was absolutely one of those things that we looked into, I promise you. I mean that would be

Pete(interrupting): Are you saying that's false?

Davin Coburn: I am saying that is false.

Pete: Ok, how did you verify that?

Davin Coburn: Have you seen any other reports beyond-

Pete(interrupting): Let me ask you my question again, how did you verify it's false?

Davin Coburn: Because-

Pete(interrupting): Just because you don't to want to believe it's true-

Goyette(interrupting): Stop, stop, stop, stop, Ok Pete, you asked him a question, now let's find out what his answer is. Real simple question. How did you verify that the story, the British story, was false?

Davin Coburn: The remains of the hijackers who have been widely understood to have been on those planes have been-

Pete(interrupting): What remains?

Davin Coburn: There was DNA evidence collected all over the place-

Pete(interrupting): The building was incinerated, the concrete turned into powder, there were molten pools of steel in the bottom of the building that were still...hot... weeks after, and they were able to do autopsies on bodies? Are you crazy? Are you insane?

Davin Coburn: Have you seen photos of these hijackers that you're talking about-

Pete(interrupting): Where are the autopsy reports you're referring to, on the hijackers. Where are those reports? I haven't heard anything about autopsy reports.

Davin Coburn: Particularly, out of the Pentagon actually there-

Goyette(interrupting): Well I wanna know, even if we presume that you're correct that they recovered the DNA of the 19 hijackers from the rubble, where did they get their original DNA against with to match it.

Davin Coburn: My point-

Goyette(interrupting): No, don't go to your point, go to my point. Where'd they get the original DNA of a bunch of middle-eastern, uh, Islamic madmen. Where'd they get the DNA, had they submitted the DNA before they uh, I mean where the hell'd they get it? You're not even talking sensibly with me.

Davin Coburn: Off the top of my head I don't know the answer to that but I'll look-

Goyette(interrupting): Of course you don't.

Davin Coburn: I'll get back to you with it.

Goyette: Is that a promise?

Davin Coburn: I will do my best.

Goyette: People all across the state of Arizona now, are hearing Davin Coburn say on the show that he's gonna find out how they got that DNA checked against those Islamic terrorists who had shaved their bodies naked....


--Shortly, Goiter asks Coburn the same DNA question again.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=110531

[rman]

162. To bad DN picked the weaker one of the 9-11 truth crowd

will Amy ever invite Paul Thompson to discuss "9/11 Press for Truth"?
www.911pressfortruth.com

[greyl]

184. Would Paul Thompson ever defend Loose Change? nt

[Nozebro]

186. No. He's part of the fake opposition. Just a milder version of an OCT'er

Not as aggressively obnoxious.

[whistle]

191. Email her and request it, she'll respond to her viewers I am sure

[whistle]

189. This was great, watching now, thanks for posting