9/11 Discussion Thread

Mac: To debate you need evidence, without which are making up claims by hand-waving.
You have four central claims:

1) Occupied buildings were wired for controlled demolition.

TMP: No, wireless was probably used, with 7 years to do it.
2) Steel can't travel 400 feet from WTC 7 to an adjacent building.
Steel bams cannot fly sideways 600 feet from WTC 1 to the AmEx building without an explosive force.
3) "Freefall" means that the building how to have been demolished using explosives.
Steel and concrete columns at least slow the collapse. Free fall is an obvious signature of the use of explosives.
4) Some form of thermite was used in the controlled demolition.
Or some other high tech explosives
I'm asking you to provide some evidence for any one of these claims. Instead of providing it, you hand-wave me over to some paper about the ethics of NIST.
www.NielsHarrit.org - see peer reviewed, experiment based, study in 2009 that no one has been able to refute scientifically.
Do you recall you and I debating the ethics of NIST? I do not.
Dr. Sham Sunder of NIST has lied.
Is the ethics of NIST (which was a talk, not a paper), was given to a group of electrical engineers unqualified to make civil engineering determinations. Is this related any way, shape or form related to your 911 claims? No.

Your claims are about free fall and the movement of steel. Okay. Where are those peer-reviewed papers? Whether NIST is unethical has nothing to do with the movement of steel, your central claim.

www.911CA.org has a list of the papers in non-truther peer reviewed journals.
Some obvious question that need to be answered before you can debate anything.

1) How were occupied buildings wired without anyone noticing?

Ace Elevator Company covert operatives had from 1994 to 9/11/2001 to plant explosives in the shafts. Securacom "security guards" did nothing to stop them. None of them was interviewed or mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.
www.ANETA.org/ACE

How were the buildings brought down without removing the non-load balancing walls? How was entrance to the offices obtained? How was the wiring run?
No wires. Wireless.
How was the whole process completed in 8 hours each night and nobody questioned all the fresh paint and drywall?
"Building repairs" are not suspicious.
How could the wiring have been run? My understanding the lengths are precise and need to run diagonally through offices.
Wireless
2) The objection to your movement of steel have been explained many times, and you have no paper that even gives the basic calculations.
You have never explained it once. Even if you did, you have no qualifications. You have no PhDs in Physics willing to some forward and provide an explanation.
That's what I need to know. Are you just making all this up to fool people or do you actually have some calculations, some paper somewhere.
You are so fooled by the BS911, it is pitiful.

3) Where is it established that "free fall" means anything, and if it does, does that mean no explosives were used except in one tiny area at the top of WTC 7?

NIST admitted to free fall for 8 floors for 2.4 seconds, plus falling near free fall for the other floors.
Because only one small area of WTC 7 is in free fall. The rest is clearly not.

4) Where is the evidence for thermite? Where is the independent lab work? Why do all the pictures of steel not show cutting/burning at the edges? Why are there no iron and aluminum byproducts all over the place?

www.NielsHarrit.org had the study
Who says that you can use thermite, a substance which is reacts to slowly and can't---according to the Truther video you linked me out to--cut all the way through steel.
Nano-thermite, mixed with other chemicals. Plus other standard explosives and possibly new classified ones.
Let's have a debate in which you can't make crap up. Let's have an EVIDENCE based debate.
You can't make crap up, like the BS911.
And none of those articles you linked me to were peer reviewed. You challenged me to a bet that they were, and I'm willing to take you up on it. We can present your "papers" to Dr. Keith Snail and the loser writes a check to charity.
All 22 on this page were peer reviewed following standard procedures. www.911CA.org
Or do you just want to debate what you make up?

I have no interest in debating what you make up, again, with no evidence to support what you are saying.

You are the one who chickend out of a debate, because you don't have any evidence.
You have no PhDs in Physics willing to come forward and present evidence for the BS911 for the 2nd year.
 
Last edited:
I would encourage anyone interested in Judy Wood's ideas to first watch this interview she did with Greg Jenkins (a phycisist) in 2007. Afterwards she excused herself by saying she felt she had been sandbagged. I think she probably was, but I don't think that is an excuse for not being able to tackle critical questions pertaining to her research nor for her inability to coherently articulate her ideas.
I haven't read Woods' views in detail. However judging someone's ideas by their performance in an interview seems silly. There are people who get nervous, frazzled etc in interviews.

Also, I find it interesting that you give so much attention to attempting to discredit her views. That approach is always a huge red flag to me. People can read her views on her site and decide for themselves.
 
Has anyone noticed how much wreckage and footage of wreckage there is coming out of the French Alps from the crashed Lufthansa flight? Where is the similar footage for the downed plane from Pennsylvania on 9/11?
 
Has anyone noticed how much wreckage and footage of wreckage there is coming out of the French Alps from the crashed Lufthansa flight? Where is the similar footage for the downed plane from Pennsylvania on 9/11?
Yes, why didn't all the reporters in the world abandon coverage of the destruction in New York and Washington, and drive (they couldn't fly, remember?) to Pennsylvania to cover that crash?
 
Hijacked passengers of Flight 93 made phone calls on the ground not in the air!

Court recording of CeeCee Lyles on Flight 93 HEAR THE WHISPERS IN THE BACKGROUND
 
Such excellent points - from both sides. Let's continue the great discussion, with a lot of helpful views, on www.Skeptiko-forum.comRick / TruthMakesPeace


Kevin Ryan wrote a very detailed series of papers on how the Trade Towers were rigged under the guise of an elevator upgrade.

Demolition access to the WTC Towers Part 1 - Tenants: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090713033854249
Demolition access to the WTC Towers Part 2 - Security: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090813150853871
Demolition access to the WTC Towers Part 3 - Convergence: http://www.911blogger.com/node/22120

Chris S.


On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Frank wrote:

The problem is the utter lack of evidence for each of the 911 Truth claims. That, and 911 Truth's unwillingness to submit any of their claims to an outside, independent group for verification.

It is hard to see how building collapse claims are going to be taken seriously without the backing of a civil engineering firm. (There are 800 to choose from).

How do you take demolition claims seriously without having any contact with demolition companies for verification of the mechanics? Can you create a CD on any building without first removing non-load bearing walls? 911 Truth doesn't know. They've done no meaningful research.

A WTC demolition project would have required the outer perimeter exterior tower walls to be removed followed by the insertion of tens of thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms, all sneaked past the security stations, and placed inside hundreds of feet of walls on all four faces of three buildings. Office access would need to be obtained to enter locked offices and bypass cameras. Furniture, conduit lines, insulation, light fixtures all would need to be removed. Then walls would need to be closed up, offices repainted, light switches replaced, the smell of acetylene torches from cutting through steel beams masked---all within at most an eight hour night window.

And all this would have had to take place without attracting the notice of any of the thirty thousand tenants and workers and security guards in any of the buildings.

No witness has ever reported any such activity.

We need to see a white paper that explains this, not links to retired aerospace engineers or "technical directors." Not unresearched claims of Ace Elevator employees planting explosives in shafts. Not empty claims about the movement of steel into the Amex building.

Frank


On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Chris M <Chris M> wrote:

Putting aside our differences, I would say that there is a sociological process that makes an unpopular opinion gain traction. Look at the Gay Rights movement, for example. Different in many ways, but there are similarities too. Some brave thought leaders have to take a stand in favor for it to make it into the mainstream.
In the case of 911Truth, the thought leaders will actually be reputable scientists. They will have to do more than critique NIST; a major scientific institution with the credibility of Purdue or MIT will have to put out a thorough theory backed by evidence. So far, every major institutional technical study of the collapses has supported the major findings of the NIST Report. The individuals you mention are not enough for you to gain real traction, because every outlyer theory can find a handful of experts to support them. And remember, the existence of gorillas was an outlyer theory until someone caught one and brought it to London. I'm not dissing the experts you do have, but something bigger will have to happen for you to penetrate the resistance of the media etc. You need to build a technical base of information from people in mainstream science that you hire. I'm serious about suggesting you take your theories to Europe or Russia or somewhere outside the US.
When I hired Jim Millette to test the dust, I thought to myself, what if they're right and Millette FINDS thermite??? It was an exciting prospect, because I am mad enough at Bush/Cheney that I kind of revel in the thought of seeing them convicted of treason. And just in case you were right, the Millette Report COULD have been a good start in the right direction: positive evidence of CD from a reputable source. I don't see the 911Truth movement doing nearly enough to try to collect evidence from reputable sources and get the momentum going in your favor. And I don't see enough willingness among you to accept the results when one institution after another publishes material in support of natural collapse on 911. I was fully prepared to accept the Millette results either way, and BTW so were a lot of people in 911Truth (Fetzer, Snowcrash, kdub, Mark Hightower and many others). But you guys, less so I am sorry to say.
Chris M





On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 2:55 AM, John-Michael wrote:

William Binney– former NSA Technical Director-- signs AE911Truth petition
http://911blogger.com/news/2014-08-...-technical-director-signs-ae911truth-petition

60 Aerospace Engineers Call for New 9/11 Investigation

Dwain A. Deets, Former Aerospace Research Engineer. While at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, held positions of Chief, Research Engineering Division, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and Flight Research Program Manager.

60 Structural Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Demolition of Three WTC High-Rises
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/199-news-media-events-60-structural-engineers.html






On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Chris wrote:

Hi all,
If you have people from the White House and NSA, by all means get them on TV. Get top scientific instutitions to give this independent investigation you will never get from the U.S. Prove me and most of the world wrong.
Good luck,
Chris




On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 2:30 PM, Ziggi wrote:

Im with Chris on this one: f**k MENSA. I have never seen MENSA members publicly organize their supposedly respectable outfit for the good of any noble cause, be it the anti-war movement in general or the fight against any of the number of illegal and immoral wars in recent years, or fighting against the Patriot Act, or supporting Manning and Snowden etc etc...so I would not expect those people to break their tradition for 9/11 truth.

Besides, the only good forums can do in my opinion is to spread the word, and for that we need forums with the biggest audiences, not ones limited to about 2% of the population.

But forums may not be that much help anymore because it seems they are not garnering as much attention as before, and the main reason may be that internet forums in general have lost respectability and credibility when it comes to discussions about hot topics. With the JREF forum it got so bad the JREF had to get rid of it, which was an extreme example but still an example of what has been going on in general.

Time to move on not going back to more of those "skeptic" internet forums, in my opinion. These days we have top White House, NSA and NASA insiders speaking out on our behalf in public, and I am pretty sure we should focus on keeping that momentum going. Let´s get them on TV and Radio and conferences etc. The target audience is not hanging out on JREF/ISF type forums writing thousands of ranting posts each year about "twoofies"..



On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Chris wrote:

I passed a sample MENSA test in my single days back in the late 1970s, went to a couple meetings as a guest, but I had some bad experiences with Mensa (some overtly racist and many with an air of superiority) and am not interested in going back. Maybe I was just unlucky but it was not a good social experience for me.
Besides, I am even less interested in following you from forum to forum, looking for someone who won't kick you off.
And what if Frank or I or someone else takes the test and this time end up only in the top 3%? Win or lose I'd rather my IQ not be a debating point. Even more, I would rather not have other friends on either side by mocked when they fail the test. Nor do I want to be on a site where only people with genius IQs can participate in the future. I hope Frank and others will not participate in this sham either.
Sorry Rick but the way you are handling this is not something I want to participate in. It's offensive and mean-spirited.
Chris




On Monday, April 6, 2015 10:18 PM, TruthMakesPeace wrote:

Let's continue our discussion on the 9/11 threads on the Mensa Forum, such as
https://www.mensa.org/forum/lounge/politics/bin-laden-deadmy-view?page=3#comment-96143

We can debate fairly there. The Mensa Forum Moderator enforces the rules, stays neutral, and does not ban members for skepticism.

They have never banned me, or even warned me, since I joined in 2011, even though I write in the same way.
It's just that most Mensans there are skeptical of the Bush Story of 9/11 (BS911) and understand physics.
So it is a bit like "preaching to the choir".

Please join Mensa so we can have some 9/11 Falsers to debate with.
Here is the link to how to take the IQ test, join, and find the forum.
www.911Mensa.com

If you guys say you so smart, then you should be able to qualify with an IQ score in the top 2%.
http://us.mensa.org/join/testing

If you don't qualify, then I suggest practicing Transcendental Meditation for a few years.
www.TMensa.org

I'll be waiting to debate you on the Mensa Forum.

Rick Shaddock

Mensa Member #1088897
Association for Nine Eleven Truth Awareness
www.ANETA.org
Lobbying Congress and Law Enforcement for a new 9/11 investigation
 
Yes, why didn't all the reporters in the world abandon coverage of the destruction in New York and Washington, and drive (they couldn't fly, remember?) to Pennsylvania to cover that crash?
You may not be familiar with the East Coast of the US. Shanksville is 5 hours drive from NYC, 2 hours drive from Pittsburg, 4 hours from Philadelphia and 2 hours from Harrisburg, PA. Most decent size towns in Pennsylvania also have local daily and weekly newspapers.

I'm not sure what your point is.
 
MacLaugh>Good start. I am assuming Kevin Ryan has demolition expertise, because if he doesn't, I think you will agree there would be no point to those articles. Like reading about ice cream makers from somebody who has never made ice cream. A bit silly.

TMP: Kevin Ryan only needs expertise in the scientific method, and common sense.

>Presumably, Kevin is drawing on that expertise to provide examples to back up his claims. ("I know this will work because in 1994, we did 'this' on this project, and it worked.")

Underwriters Laboratories tried to replicate what happened to the steel, and could not, even by raising the temperature and keeping the fire for much longer duration. What Kevin claims is based on a scientific experiment, using actual steel (not computer cartoons with secrete data like NIST did). Kevin got fired for reporting the truth, and refusing to recant it

>Now that you have three papers what you need to have credibility with those papers is to take the papers and---instead of sending them to me because I have zero demolition expertise---send them to dozens of demolition companies and independent demolition experts to request that they verify the claims and accuracy of Kevin Ryan (price of some stamps).

Dan Jowenko immediately recognized WTC 7 as a controlled demolition - absolutely. This made him change his mind about WTC 1 and 2 as well, which he was not so sure about. If WTC 7 was a CD, then that means CD of WTC 1 and 2 probably was as well.

>Note that the demolition companies reviewing Kevin's papers don't necessarily have to agree with 911 Truth. We don't need that. We need them to analyze the individual statements Kevin makes, and agree that what Kevin suggests is possible for a controlled demolition of an occupied building.

ACE Elevator Company came out of nowhere, with no previous major jobs, got the world's largest elevator service contract, then disappeared after 9/11. They were not even mentioned in any of the 9/11 reports. This does not make you at least bit skeptical?

You can check this out for yourself. Just download the PDFs from the .Gov web sites and search. It is outrageous what they did NOT investigate. Not even Securacom the security guard company. Not even the primary financial beneficiaries: Larry, Roger, and Lisa Silverstein.


LVI Systems was also not even mentioned, even though their workers were above the ceiling panels, at the horizontal support beams, another important place to plant explosives.

>What if no demolition company responds to your mass mailing? Visit them in person. See what they have to say. Maybe Kevin is wrong. That is a possibility, correct? Even better, find two demolition companies and PAY for the analysis. That will be waaaaay cheaper than the $600,000 Richard Gage blew on NYC billboards and vastly more productive. And when you pay for research, the people taking your money tend to report back to you favorably. Human nature. No matter about that. I'll still accept any demolition company report as valid.

We don't have to pay anyone. Dan Jowenko, Thomas Sullivan (former explosives loader for CDI), and Jesse Ventura are trained demolition experts and have spoken out plenty enough to justify a new investigation. In courts of law, only 1 or 2 expert witnesses are enough There are 10 listed at www.911DemolitionExperts.com

Dr. Carl Sagan's wife Dr. Lynn Margulis Sagan has spoken out that "the most obvious hypothesis (CD) was not even mentioned". www.ANETA.org/Sagan


>BTW, the Ace employees who worked on the WTC elevators posed for pictures in the NY Post with their Port Authority on-site supervisors, names included. Big smiles. This is curious because if I were placing explosives in elevator shafts, I'd probably not want my name and picture to appear in a newspaper with a circulation of a quarter million. You'll probably have to eventually address that. You could interview the Port Authority supervisors, for example and see what their defense would be. Could mass murder have taken place on the elevators they were inspecting? They might have some reaction to that, as you would imagine.

I have asked you many times for this photo. You admitted it was not on 9/11. Of course Ace Elevator employees existed. Sure, they probably posed for a company photo. Many companies do this. So what is your point?

"Luckily" Ace Elevator Company had a union meeting that day, so fewer staff were at the WTC. They did not stay to help the firemen, as the Otis Elevator employees did, risking their lives, after the 1993 WTC 1 bombing. For more info, Google "Ace Elevator 9/11" to find
www.ANETA.org/ACE


>You will need to address the claim that a CD can't be done from elevator shafts, but you can do that while interviewing the demolition companies you'll be asking to back up your other claims.

Obviously controlled demolition CAN be done from elevator shafts, given enough explosive power, especially next to the vertical central columns that bear most of the load. Explosives can also be planted above the ceiling panels on the horizontal support beams.

There are zero CD experts who come forward saying CD could not do the job. After all every building has to be brought down eventually, and CD is how they do it. The logical place would be to put the explosives in the elevator shafts, next to the core columns.

Any objections you might have heard probably have to do with "how could they plant the explosives", not whether there was enough power. Few people have even heard of Ace Elevator's 7 years in the WTC shafts, plenty of time, with the perfect cover. As for the "not enough power" argument, just add more high tech explosives.


>Question for you: You are asking tax payers or other groups to pony up some $10 million to investigate 911 and Ryan's claims. Does that group have a reasonable expectation that you provide some supporting evidence that Ryan's claims are valid or do you think the Feds might hand over $10 million because Ryan makes a claim?

Congress spent over $30 million investigating Monica Lewinsky. 3000 victims on 9/11 deserve a proper investigation.
The cost of NOT investigating 9/11 properly, has cost the USA an estimated $4 Trillion for wars we did not have to fight.
Not to mention the lives of over 3000 soldiers and over a million innocent civilians.
 
Last edited:
All the claims of Bush & Cheney are empty statements, from Bin Laden to WMDs to the usefulness of torture. No independent scientists will come forward to defend them.
Even those who are dependent, such as Dr. Shyam "The Sham" Sunder refuse to speak about 9/11. There is no way to defend empty.

Show me any evidence Bin Laden did 9/11. The FBI doesn't have even enough to put 9/11 on his wanted poster or get an indictment, step one. You make empty statements.

The irony is hilarious of you, Mr. Believer-In-Bush-Cheney-Empty-Statements-Without-Independent-Verification-Or-Any-Physicists accusing us who have 22 peer reviewed papers in independent journals plus over 60 more, plus all the physicists willing to speak about 9/11, plus 10 CD experts, plus over 2000 architects & engineers, plus Congressmen.

You should read the news. 3 Congressmen are leading a House Resolution to release the 28 page chapter that Bush classified, about who funded 9/11. Kind of important, huh?
www.aneta.org/politicalaction/28pages

All we ask for in a new 9/11 investigation are for:
1. No empty statements or empty accusations
2. Independent verification of the support of statements.
3. Any PhD in Physics willing to speak out for the BS911. www.911Debate.org
Not too much to ask for.

----- Original Message -----
From: MacLaugh
To: TruthMakesPeace
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: Let's continue the discussion on Skepiko-Forum.com

If you obtain evidence for what you claim---instead of copying me to some guy named Chris who links me to those ridiculous Ryan articles and youtube videos, I'll be happy to discuss.
You make a lot of claims that are empty, steel, no scientists, all of that, and there is no way to discuss empty.
 
Last edited:
MacLaugh: There is nothing to debate because you have no evidence that can be debated. Take one of your claims to any University you choose, any civil engineering firm you choose, any demolition company you choose, and obtain backing that suggests the possibility that the claims you make could be true.

It is not possible to debate with someone who will not seek independent confirmation for the claims they make. We could start with you obtaining a lab test.

TruthMakesPeace: Do you not see the hilarious hypocrisy in what you write?

So NIST is "independent verification" and "peer reviewed" for you now? This shows you don't know what these term mean. You play a fraudulent game of "Catch-22" with the word "independent". As soon as an independent scientist with no previous statements about 9/11 signs the petition for a new investigation, you try to say that he is "not being independent" any more.

You need to define dependence. Dependent on who? Certainly not job dependence. Not income dependence. None of us get paid. Even Richard Gage, the only paid Truther on the planet, makes much less than he would as an architect. Dependent upon 9/11 Truth for promotions? If anything, scientists risk losing their jobs by questioning the U.S. Government story. Your accusation is without basis, and is fraudulent.

So Bush appoints Dr. Sham in 2002, who never built an out house, as head of a building investigation,
then promotes him in 2005, based on his ability to lie with a straight face.
So you can hire some scientists, tell them what you want, at the risk of being fired, and call it either "peer review" or "independent verification". They are not indpendent nor peers when the Bush administration can fire NIST scientists if they don't produce the report they want.

You can't appoint, hire, pay, and be able to fire your peer reviewers then call them independent. Duh.


Your demonstrated inability to distinguish between dependent "verification" and truly independent verification
explains why you are among the few who still believe the BS911 long after all PhDs in physics refuse to defend it.

You would howl if Dr. Niels Harrit hired Dr. David Griscom to peer review his study.
You would howl even more if he paid him. FYI, Dr. Griscom reviewed the nanothermite paper for free.
This is what scientists do. They like to read papers by other scientists, and comment on them.

Dr. Sham's appointment is like Robert Mueller, who was never a Special Agent or did any investigation,
being appointed by Bush to lead 1000's of SAs.
Why do you keep asking for things from me that I have plenty of, and you don't have any?
It is hypocritical.

Truthers have all the universities, demolition companies, and structural engineers who say anything about 9/11.
Falsers don't have anyone at any university willing to debate on behalf of the BS911.
Falsers have no PhDs in physics - and no CE, PE, or SEs for Wayne Coste PE's challenge either.

You have none of the people you ask for. While 9/11 Truth has them in abundance.

Dr. Kevin Barrett is offering $2000 to any professor from the University of Wisconsin.
I wrote 28 universities for a Physicist, offering $1000 in 2014 and .911 BTC in 2015
For 1 hour's work, from the comfort of their home via Skype!

9/11 Truth has abundant evidence and hundreds of unanswered questions - plenty enough justify a new investigation.
Freaking explosives were found in the WTC dust.

Meanwhile the BS911 has zero evidence to support it.
No intercept by the NSA of any communication from Bin Laden.
No evidence for an indictment by the DoJ or FBI
Accusations are not evidence.
90% redacted pages say nothing.

9/11 Truth has a long list of university graduates and professors, including all the top schools, Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford, Cambridge.
www.ANETA.org/AE911Truth/petition/summary/universities

Who is more likely to be right? Ivy League graduates and PhDs who use their real names an post their resumes online?
or MacLaugh and some guys who won't disclose their name or degrees (if any) on the old banned JREF forum?

You seek no independent confirmation of the BS911 claims.
You even allow Bush & Cheney skate by without even testifying under oath.
How gullible is that?


BS911 is an epic fail. You are a pitifully poor skeptic. That's why you cling to the dwindling minority of BS911 true believers.
 
Last edited:
MacLaugh seems sadly destined to be the Final Falser Fool.
He seems to feel ok when scientists will not defend the BS911. Scientists get in the way of his dogma.

He on the Titanic, going down, as all the scientists get on the life boats for Truth,
from Dr. David Griscom to Dr. Frank Greening.
It does not matter to MacLaugh that he has no scientists with him any more. He seems to want to go down with the fools.

His trick is the "Catch-22" of "independence".
Anyone who does not believe the Bush Story of 9/11 (BS911) is no longer "independent".
Then he tries to say "there is no independent verification".
A stupid and obvious ploy.
Then he says Dr. Sham of NIST, appointed by Bush, is "independent". LOL.

He doesn't look in the mirror and see the BS911 has no independent verification.
Richard Gage was once a Falser, and would make more money as an architect.
He choses to make a lower income to do what is right. So he is independent.

So was Dr. David Griscom, Dr. Frank Greening, and most the 2000 architects and engineers.
So was Dan Jowenko, Holland's #1 Controlled demoltion expert, who had no ties to 9/11 truth and did not even know about WTC 7. When he was shown WTC7 he said "this is controlled demolition...absolutely." He was independent and never changed his opinion. Plus revised his opinion of WTC 1 and 2 to CD.

I was independent of 9/11 Truth too, selling over priced computers to the Army bound for Iraq and Afghanistan.
If anything I was dependent on the BS911 for my 2 Mercedes Benzes and 3 homes. (I'm trying to atone for it sponsoring Truther activities.)
They all turned from Falser to Truther.
No one is going from Truther to Falser.

Truther are in the majority now, and there's no going back to the lie.
More and more Congressmen are signing on to House Resolution #14
to release the 28 page chapter Bush classified about who financed 9/11,
a huge lie of omission - undeniable by anyone.


----- Original Message -----
From: MacLaugh
To: Chris S
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: Let's continue the discussion on Skeptiko-Forum -

Chris,

You still leave me with the fact that not one of your claims has received independent verification from experts anywhere, even though obtaining such verification would help your organization enormously.

I'm not asking you to provide a demolition company to "tell the truth" about 911 or to comment on 911 whatsoever.

I'm asking for a demolition company to tell me that any single claim you make is not rubbish. That's it.

Let's start with what I see as the preposterous claim that you can CD a building from the elevator shafts. What do demolition companies say about that? It sure looks like you are afraid to ask.

I'm asking you to establish with University physicists that steel can't travel from 80 stories high into the Amex building without explosives. Are you telling me that you can't find some liberal physicists who would love to destroy George Bush to assist you in documenting that claim and providing the mathematics to support it? It seems you are you afraid to ask.

Explosives can't be used to move steel anywhere unless the explosives are anchored to the deck of a ship or the ground in a canon that directs force, which isn't the case with the WTC 7 steel beams.

I'm asking for University physicists to go on record with a paper that "free fall" has any meaning. I'm asking for a civil engineering firm to back up your claim that the WTC buildings fell from a controlled demolition. I've seen the WTC7 collapse many times. It looks nothing like a controlled demolition. You claim otherwise. I'm asking for evidence. You say I have no clue. Maybe, but you have no evidence.

A cynic would say you won't provide me with evidence because you can't. Instead, you direct me out to watch YouTube videos made by other true believers. You can't possibly believe that the US government will ever take youtube videos seriously. Or take seriously claims about buildings collapsing from a group that does not have the backing of a demolition company. Who buys that?

As for the corporately owned-media---you can't be serious.

There are dozens of non-corporately owned Bush-hating press organizations like the Village Voice and the Washington, DC "City Paper," the San Francisco Free Press, and none take 911 Truth seriously--none will print your claims--even though these papers are in the business of printing the very controversial.

The City Paper runs offensive sex ads, they brought down the Mayor of Washington, Marion Barry, on crack charges, but you claim they are afraid to print a some of your claims about 911? Yeah, this makes sense.

People in the press, in government, and in the scientific community do not respond well to groups who won't present their claims to professionals with expertise for verification, but choose instead to prey on the public's lack of knowledge.

As for "critical mass," Richard Gage can't draw 200 people to his lectures. He can't get a magazine article written or a newspaper interview to save his life.

I'd say you have a ways to go.

MacLaugh


On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Chris S wrote:
MacLaugh,
This was a clandestine demolition to make it look like the planes and fire brought the buildings down. That is why it was rigged differently than any other demolition. Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. The rigging went on for nine months (and did not necessarily use wires). The explosives were probably installed after the dogs were withdrawn.
The article in Elevator magazine confirms that the renovation was taking place. This proves access. The explosions in the videos prove there were explosions. Some were strong enough to hurl multi ton framing sections up to 600 feet at speeds up to 70 mph. If you think gravity can do that then there is no point in our debating further.
When presented with people who say that there was a power down you choose to assume that they are lying. That is your choice.

There are several demolitions experts in the video "Experts Speak Out". Any demolition company that told the truth about the Trade towers and WTC 7 would be maligned and vilified in the corporate owned press. They would lose a lot of business because the "big lie" (conspiracy theorists are unpatriotic) has been told so many times that most people have come to believe it.
There numerous experts in many disciplines that say the official theory of planes and fires could not have brought down the Trade Towers and WTC 7. But you don't have to be an expert to see that WTC 7 was obviously and indisputably a controlled demolition any more than you have to be a rocket scientist to recognize a rocket when you see one. If you can't see that then you have not a clue about framing or how controlled demolitions work.

So we are divided between those who can see the obvious and those who either don't have a clue or simply refuse to accept the reality that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.
I have been "debating" with people like yourself for nine years now and you all simply refuse to believe the laws of physics or anyone who says something that destroys the official story. No worries mate. Thinking people are learning the truth every day and eventually we will reach critical mass.

All the best

Chris S.
 
Last edited:
9/11 is hardly a specialization of mine, and I don't have solid thoughts on it. However, it seems to me that absolutely everyone was trolled hard that day.

See for instance


and


and


So to summarize, there are at least 6 outright problems with the idea that planes hit the buildings, and only one aspect which supports it (the videos of it). The first and most important problem for me is the fact that most live witnesses simply didn't see, hear or report a plane at all. People assume that everyone saw and heard the plane but those who were there and reported live simply didn't. That's just ridiculous, it would sound like being a front-row banger at a rock concert to everyone in lower Manhattan as the plane approached. If you were outside you would want to cover your ears. And if I've understood it correctly, the supposed planes entered at opposite sides of the buildings (one from the north, one from the south). Everyone on the street should have seen at least one of the planes, and everyone should have heard both.

The second is the argument that you can see in the videos that they are faked for various reasons. I won't comment on that as I'm not a video analyst, but it does seem shady in a lot of cases. Planes appearing out of nowhere, different descent paths, different backdrops in the sky on a sunny day with blue sky (is that a thing?), etc.

The third argument is the lack of vortexes in the smoke after the supposed planes hit the buildings. The smoke from the explosions should have curled up instantly and spun like crazy, and yet behaved as if there was no real wind turbulence up there.

Fourthly, a Boeing 767-200 can't fly at 590 mph at such a low altitude. As far as I've understood it, it's just impossible. In fact, even 390 mph seems to be pushing it. The recent crash of flight 4U 9525 for instance, the German pilot who committed suicide with a plane, crashed into the alps at 430 mph diving straight down, and that landing was at 2000m. Source. That's 5 times higher up than on 9/11, as the roofs of the towers were about 415m high, but the explosions were below the 100 out of 110 floors. And as can be seen in the diagram, the descent speed slowed down the closer he got to the ground.

And fifth, aluminum planes do not enter steel buildings like a road runner cartoon enters a rock, leaving a perfect entry behind. They mostly telescope in on themselves, shatter completely and fall off. Some of it will of course enter a little here and there, but not full penetration instantly as if there's zero resistance. It's literally as if a Boeing plane flew into an artillery tank and just exploded inside it.

Sixth, once the explosion has died down, there is exactly zero evidence of plane debris in the footage of the hole in the buildings or below them. The entire plane was swallowed by the building, apparently. Chew chew.

Of course, whenever you bring this up, you face ridicule and denial first, and logic never. The greater the lie, the more people are inclined to believe in it. I think the implication of this realization blocks people from entertaining it at all, since it's then evident that you'll believe whatever the media wants you to believe.

And I'm not some fanatic true believer in this stuff, I just enjoy discussing it and I would enjoy any constructive feedback you can give me! :) Sadly that rarely happens, as people tend to see it for what it seemingly is and agree, or have a hard time even discussing it. As with all sensitive subjects, of course, as everyone on this board should be more than aware of.
 
9/11 is hardly a specialization of mine, and I don't have solid thoughts on it. However, it seems to me that absolutely everyone was trolled hard that day.

See for instance


and


and


So to summarize, there are at least 6 outright problems with the idea that planes hit the buildings, and only one aspect which supports it (the videos of it). The first and most important problem for me is the fact that most live witnesses simply didn't see, hear or report a plane at all. People assume that everyone saw and heard the plane but those who were there and reported live simply didn't. That's just ridiculous, it would sound like being a front-row banger at a rock concert to everyone in lower Manhattan as the plane approached. If you were outside you would want to cover your ears. And if I've understood it correctly, the supposed planes entered at opposite sides of the buildings (one from the north, one from the south). Everyone on the street should have seen at least one of the planes, and everyone should have heard both.

The second is the argument that you can see in the videos that they are faked for various reasons. I won't comment on that as I'm not a video analyst, but it does seem shady in a lot of cases. Planes appearing out of nowhere, different descent paths, different backdrops in the sky on a sunny day with blue sky (is that a thing?), etc.

The third argument is the lack of vortexes in the smoke after the supposed planes hit the buildings. The smoke from the explosions should have curled up instantly and spun like crazy, and yet behaved as if there was no real wind turbulence up there.

Fourthly, a Boeing 767-200 can't fly at 590 mph at such a low altitude. As far as I've understood it, it's just impossible. In fact, even 390 mph seems to be pushing it. The recent crash of flight 4U 9525 for instance, the German pilot who committed suicide with a plane, crashed into the alps at 430 mph diving straight down, and that landing was at 2000m. Source. That's 5 times higher up than on 9/11, as the roofs of the towers were about 415m high, but the explosions were below the 100 out of 110 floors. And as can be seen in the diagram, the descent speed slowed down the closer he got to the ground.

And fifth, aluminum planes do not enter steel buildings like a road runner cartoon enters a rock, leaving a perfect entry behind. They mostly telescope in on themselves, shatter completely and fall off. Some of it will of course enter a little here and there, but not full penetration instantly as if there's zero resistance. It's literally as if a Boeing plane flew into an artillery tank and just exploded inside it.

Sixth, once the explosion has died down, there is exactly zero evidence of plane debris in the footage of the hole in the buildings or below them. The entire plane was swallowed by the building, apparently. Chew chew.

Of course, whenever you bring this up, you face ridicule and denial first, and logic never. The greater the lie, the more people are inclined to believe in it. I think the implication of this realization blocks people from entertaining it at all, since it's then evident that you'll believe whatever the media wants you to believe.

And I'm not some fanatic true believer in this stuff, I just enjoy discussing it and I would enjoy any constructive feedback you can give me! :) Sadly that rarely happens, as people tend to see it for what it seemingly is and agree, or have a hard time even discussing it. As with all sensitive subjects, of course, as everyone on this board should be more than aware of.
I haven't watched those yet, so apologies if this is mentioned, but the first plane impact footage is laughable with the nose out thing. They immediately, mysteriously cut to black, then the other networks when showing the footage covered the most important part, the plane's impact (and thus the nose out), with their network banners.

I certainly used to think the idea of no planes was looney, but now I have the same problem with their impacts as I do with the collapses.
 
Fourthly, a Boeing 767-200 can't fly at 590 mph at such a low altitude. As far as I've understood it, it's just impossible. In fact, even 390 mph seems to be pushing it. The recent crash of flight 4U 9525 for instance, the German pilot who committed suicide with a plane, crashed into the alps at 430 mph diving straight down, and that landing was at 2000m. Source. That's 5 times higher up than on 9/11, as the roofs of the towers were about 415m high, but the explosions were below the 100 out of 110 floors. And as can be seen in the diagram, the descent speed slowed down the closer he got to the ground.

And fifth, aluminum planes do not enter steel buildings like a road runner cartoon enters a rock, leaving a perfect entry behind. They mostly telescope in on themselves, shatter completely and fall off. Some of it will of course enter a little here and there, but not full penetration instantly as if there's zero resistance. It's literally as if a Boeing plane flew into an artillery tank and just exploded inside
Hjortron

A Boeing 767-200 can fly at 590 mph at sea level in my opinion. It's way beyond the normal limit of 350knots (402mph)called the redline, but the 767 is very different from the A320, which automatically pulls up (slows down) if you try to go faster than redline. The A320 is fly by wire which means that you can design different limits beyond which it is difficult to achieve. It wasn't going "straight down" as in vertical, it won't allow you to pitch down more than (I think) 20 degrees, which is a lot although it doesn't sound like much.

I say the above as an ex-airline pilot who has flown both types, the 767 for a few thousand hours as both FO and Captain, the A320 I only flew for a few hundred as a FO. Of course you might say 'you haven't done it yourself so how do you know for sure?', that's true but it is at least an informed opinion, backed up by pilots that know much more than I do about breaking speed limits. I asked the question on pprune, a forum I used to frequent, about how fast you could get in a Boeing, and it was generally agreed that 590mph could be achieved at low level. (Nowadays pprune is full of wannabes and non- professionals but the real knowledgeable ex test pilots for example can still be found)

As for your other point about what it looks like flying into something solid at high speed I'll leave it to others to make up their minds with this video.

I think there is plenty of evidence to question on 9/11 but we must be skeptical and provide evidence which is harder to refute Imo.

 
I haven't watched those yet, so apologies if this is mentioned, but the first plane impact footage is laughable with the nose out thing. They immediately, mysteriously cut to black, then the other networks when showing the footage covered the most important part, the plane's impact (and thus the nose out), with their network banners.
Agree. It certainly added to my skepticism as a piece of the puzzle. I'm guessing you're referring to this clip


where you can see the nose coming out? That got to me too, and what I find at least as compelling is the fact that the plane isn't there before the final moment, even though it should absolutely have been seen earlier as the video was more zoomed out.

I certainly used to think the idea of no planes was looney, but now I have the same problem with their impacts as I do with the collapses.
Likewise. I actually find the evidence for there being no planes in NYC among the strongest in favor of the idea that 9/11 was an inside job altogether.

Hjortron

A Boeing 767-200 can fly at 590 mph at sea level in my opinion. It's way beyond the normal limit of 350knots (402mph)called the redline, but the 767 is very different from the A320, which automatically pulls up (slows down) if you try to go faster than redline. The A320 is fly by wire which means that you can design different limits beyond which it is difficult to achieve. It wasn't going "straight down" as in vertical, it won't allow you to pitch down more than (I think) 20 degrees, which is a lot although it doesn't sound like much.
Steve, thank you for your response and for engaging in this discussion! :)

Obviously I didn't mean that it dived straight down 90 degrees, only that it went straight down in a practical sense as much as it could, and maybe I should have been clearer about that. Either way, I don't think the supposed planes on 9/11 dived in any similar sense, although I don't have the numbers at which angles they were descending.

I say the above as an ex-airline pilot who has flown both types, the 767 for a few thousand hours as both FO and Captain, the A320 I only flew for a few hundred as a FO. Of course you might say 'you haven't done it yourself so how do you know for sure?', that's true but it is at least an informed opinion, backed up by pilots that know much more than I do about breaking speed limits. I asked the question on pprune, a forum I used to frequent, about how fast you could get in a Boeing, and it was generally agreed that 590mph could be achieved at low level. (Nowadays pprune is full of wannabes and non- professionals but the real knowledgeable ex test pilots for example can still be found)
Interesting that you're a pilot, as it was other pilots en masse that got me engaged in this stuff, via Pilots for 9/11 Truth. It's actual pilots that are most vocal and known for the notion that no planes were used on 9/11 at all.

If you look into the videos I posted, they make several arguments for why it's probably impossible for a Boeing 767-200 to fly at 590 mph at a 360m altitude. The first is that the engines are designed to go such speeds at a 11000 m altitude, where the air density is three times less than at ground level, which means that you'll need six times as much horse power to achieve it as you ordinarily would. Additionally, the engines are not designed for such speeds at such altitudes, and some have made the argument that the engines will choke and start acting like a brake.

In fact the cruising speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph, and the maximum cruising speed is 567 mph. The official version is asking us to believe that the plane flew at 360 m and hit the building perfectly at a speed faster than it's possible for it to go at 11000 m. (I think it's best to temporarily disregard how the potential hijackers pulled this off in light of how actual pilots find this impossibly hard to do in a simulator, just to find out if it's even possible in theory first and foremost.)

You say that "it was generally agreed that 590mph could be achieved at low level" - but I must ask, on what grounds? And do we have a single case of this happening outside of 9/11? A commercial airplane flying anywhere close to its maximum cruising speed at sea level? I've tried googling it extensively but I've come up short.

As for your other point about what it looks like flying into something solid at high speed I'll leave it to others to make up their minds with this video.

I think there is plenty of evidence to question on 9/11 but we must be skeptical and provide evidence which is harder to refute Imo.

Thank you very much for posting this video! If you look at it and compare it with 9/11 videos, you'll see that it only supports the no plane theory even more so!

First of all, the explosion - it starts immediately, and by the time the plane has atomized out of sight, the smoke and fire is high up in the air like a cannabis leaf. Compare that to 5:40 in the second video I posted, where everyone can see that the entire plane is swallowed into the building completely before anything even begins to happen smoke-wise. The supposed plane is literally swallowed by the building, and then the explosion begins from the inside. This is in stark contrast to how it should happen, if the video you posted is to be any guideline.

Secondly, look at the explosion itself. It looks completely different from the one on 9/11. In your video, everything explodes away in every upward direction. Compare that to the explosions in the towers, and you'll see they're nothing alike.

Thirdly, your video is what should have happened on 9/11. No penetration whatsoever, complete disintegration on impact, and only a very minor effect on what it hit. And keep in mind, that plane hits a concrete wall. Steel is another monster entirely.
 
Last edited:
The no-plane theory has been debated for some time within the 9/11-truth community. I have the feeling that some pretty good counter arguments have been presented against the theory by now, to the point where it doesn't really hold up very well anymore. Of course you have to weigh the evidence for yourself and come to your own conclusions. But in so doing I think it would be beneficial to take some of the counter arguments offered into consideration. This blog post presents a rather comprehensive list.

In addition there are some letters at Journal of 9/11 Studies (in the subsection 'No planes hit towers?'). In my opinion this journal contains some of the best scholarly 9/11-research. Anything there on a given topic, in this case the no-plane theory, is worth taking into consideration.

To highlight just a single counterpoint, it is worth pointing out that there is photographic evidence of plane debris at ground zero. These photographs alone pose a serious challenge to the no-plane theory.
 
Hjortron, it is complicated explaining aircraft speeds and I started to write it all down but it would take me hours as I don't type that fast, so I deleted it all.:) I will just say that when planes descend, jet airliners, they do so with engines at idle, producing little thrust, but they are still fast even when the engines are in that state. DakotaRider produced a post about PSA1771, a BAe146 which is hardly known for its speed. It was crashed deliberately by a man who had shot both the pilots, it went supersonic before impact ! It was vertical when it went in but there's an example of an airliner going at supersonic speed at ground level. The B767 is a much more powerful plane and is much less 'draggy' than the 146. The point is that it's not only about the engines, but the B767 can reach redline at low level in level flight with less than maximum thrust, the B757 is similar. I can't remember now but with the engines at idle you could get to redline( 350kts) at a relatively low dive angle, probably less than 10degrees nose down.

The indicated (speed the pilot reads on the dial) when planes are cruising is the much lower than the TRUE Airspeed( the planes speed relative to the air near it). So when you say max cruising speed is 567mph it is probably measured in Mach Number. The 767 has M0.86 limit (in the US) less in the UK (or used to be) but the max cruise Mach is maybe M0.82 ( it would have no range with much more) . At these speeds the INDICATED speed would be around 240-290 kts , depending on height . There are reports of DC8's and B747's going supersonic when losing control during the cruise.

As for the Phantom hitting the concrete - who knows but it was a blast eh.

Thanks for the nice greeting ;;/? I've posted on this thread before. :)
 
Top