Monday, August 31, 2009
Tonight, Monday August 31st, the National Geographic Channel is set to debut a new anti-conspiracy hit piece entitled, “9/11: Science and Conspiracy”. And while the unwitting supporters of the "official version of 9/11" will surely applaud and reference it as more proof of the 9/11 Truth Movements folly, what they present is far from scientific proof.
Amazingly enough, the New York Post went to Sander Hicks as a leading source for their review of the program. As a well known 9/11 investigator and author of the groundbreaking book, "The Big Wedding", Sander was well aware of the kind of straw man fallacies and deceptive science used to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement's claims:
-"It's pseudo-science," Hicks says. "Any high school student would tell you, to do experiments in New Mexico [where much of the pyrotechnic tests were conducted] with different kinds of materials is a joke."
The explosives planted in the WTC argument? The TV special tested with only regular thermite (a pyrotechnic compound) and not "super thermite" as Truthers believe was the culprit.
"That's like saying, 'We want to do an experiment with whiskey, but we're going to use beer instead," Hicks says.-
The very fact that they knowingly conducted their experiments with different materials than those claimed by 9/11 researchers contradicts the statement by executive producer Erik Nelson who insists the goal of the program, "wasn't to debunk Truthers, sway any minds or hide contrary test results."
To add insult to the injury Nelson continues to say that, "It would've been fantastic to prove that the Truthers were correct, but sadly, as far as my ratings are concerned, that's not what happened." If they truly were hoping, for the sake of ratings, to prove 9/11 research to be correct, they why did they not examine, or even mention, the recent peer reviewed paper, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe."
From the personal review by Sander Hicks:
"They know that the truth movement has real science on our side: red nano-thermite chips found in four out of four samples tested. Those results were published in a peer-reviewed paper, by respected scientists like Kevin Ryan, Stephen Jones, Niels Harrit, et. al. This nano-thermite study is the 500 lb. gorilla in the room. It’s suffering a total media blackout in the US. Yet you feel its presence if you read between the lines of the New York Post review. I spoke about the Harrit paper often with the reporter, but it didn’t survive the editor’s cut. In the documentary, the producers never mention the peer-reviewed nano-thermite study. When you can’t win with science, you chose pseudo-science."
Dear friends who've just viewed the National Geographic Conspiracy Theory on 9/11
Exchange of emails (March 2009) with Robert Erickson, producer of the National Geographic special on 9/11
National Geographic Does 9/11: Another Icon Debased in Service of the Big Lie - Like Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies Straw Man, only dumber?
Finally, an apology from the National Geographic Channel
National Geographic Channel on 9/11: Manipulation vs. Objectivity
National Geographic vs Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup
THE INFOWARRIOR with Jason Bermas: Jason Debunks National Geographic & No Planes BS!
Alex Jones and Richard Gage Debunk the National Geographic Hit Piece on 9/11 Truth
Debunking National Geographic - 9/11 Science and Conspiracy
National Geographic Should Stick to Documentaries About Girls Who Cry Blood
National Geographic: "Science" and "Psychology"
National Geographic hitpiece will prove 9/11 fire collapse theory to be impossible.
National Geographic to Air New 911 "Documentary".
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Were the three skyscrapers on 9/11 demolished? You decide?
Music: Mundtot - Stammtisch
Saturday, August 29, 2009
"A demolition that is planned as part of a covert operation to fit a narrative of events that attributes the total destruction of the building to a different cause (such as a jetliner crash and consequent fires) has a very different set of requirements than a demolition that is planned to legally remove a building in an urban setting. An examination of the technologies of energetic materials and wireless detonation available to insiders who had the means to coordinate the attack of 9/11/2001 suggests plausible scenarios by which the Twin Towers and Building 7 might have been subjected to controlled demolitions on 9/11/2001." - Source: http://www.911review.com/means/demolition/covert.html
The demolition expert in the video above does not think the Twin Towers were controlled demolitions due to their unconventional nature, but again this goes back to this being a covert operation, visit this link for more info. And despite claims to the contrary, he is quite sure WTC 7 was a demolition. Perhaps the more conventional nature of WTC 7's demolition can be explained by evidence that indicates 10:45 a.m. was the originally planned demolition time.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
I am much more open-minded than I was to the idea that conventional explosives were used. For one, Creighton shows that det cord comes in a variety of colors and would be indistinguishable from fiber optic lines.
Regarding the iron-rich spheres found in WTC dust, he notes that:
The composition of the trusses was not simply carbon and iron as has been suggested by many others. That would be the main composition of A-36 structural steel. But as NIST points out, in the fabrication process of the trusses, the company that made them substituted a higher grade steel, a HSLA steel, for the parts of the trusses that were to be comprised of A-36 structural steel. They also used ASTM A-242 steel in the trusses. This could explain the reports of silicone, sulfur, and various other metals found in the “iron rich spheres”...Finally, while I used to think the the sounds heard during the destruction on 9/11 were not quite on par with acknowledged demolitions done with conventional explosives, I have since demonstrated in an article I wrote for AE911Truth and in a video I put together that this is not the case. Creighton also points out that in normal controlled demolitions walls and windows are removed, which increases the sound level.
The incredibly high temperatures required to create the spheres themselves as well as all the molten steel found under the rubble of Ground Zero can easily be explained by the use of PETN. PETN is commonly used in the demolition industry and it is more than capable of creating temperatures in excess of 7,050 degs. Fahrenheit.
Creighton has expressed to me, that he leaves open that there is some possibility nano-thermite was used to ignite conventional explosives.
Debunking Scott Creighton's Debunking of Nano-Thermite
In a recent post entitled "Niels Harrit is a Weasel. He’s the Back-Stabbing Fredo of the Truth Family," Scott Creighton, AKA willyloman, calls Professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University a "disinfo specialist, red-chip peddling, snake oil salesman." Now for those who don't know, Neils Harrit is a Professor of Chemistry, expert in nano-chemistry, and one of nine scientists who in April of this year found unignited explosive residues in dust from the WTC disaster on 9/11. Specifically, they found a nano-engineered variant of the incendiary thermite, that when heated exerted an energy/volume yield exceeding that of explosives commonly used in demolitions.
Creighton starts his critique by stating that there is no way that the required amounts of nano-thermite could have been snuck into the Towers and by bashing the plausibility of 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman's Hypothetical Blasting Scenario. However, he makes no mention of a paper written by one of the nine scientists to make the discovery entitled, "Demolition access to the WTC Towers."
Matt Sullivan of the RockCreekFreePress points out the important aspects of the paper:
Sol-gels of nano-thermites are described in the literature as being very stable and safe to handle in liquid form. They can be applied to surfaces by spray or even paintbrush. It is entirely possible that the explosives were applied to the building disguised as a paint or as a spray-on fireproofing.
Researcher Kevin Ryan has previously published a paper (Journal of 9/11 Studies) noting the extreme coincidence that the floors in the towers where structural failure was initiated exactly correspond to the floors where fireproofing had recently been 'upgraded' in 1999 and 2000." (See diagram)
Next Creighton childishly tells these investigators what they need to be doing:
Hey Steven and Neils, I got an idea: why not test for the exact kind of explosive residue that the controlled demolition industry ACTUALLY USES? Hey, there’s a concept. You know, the kind of tests that NIST and FEMA report that they DIDN’T run? The kind of test that you yourselves also admit you DIDN’T run? The kind of test I specifically ASKED you to run, not once but TWICE now in private communications? And the VERY kinds of tests you yourselves suggest SOMEONE ELSE RUNS in your recent bullshit "thermetic material" paper?By pointing out that NIST and FEMA didn't run tests for conventional explosives Creighton insinuates that this must be the line of inquiry where the real truth lies, but that knife cuts both ways.
You know, THOSE tests. That’s an idea, huh? The kind of tests that Greg Roberts (one of the authors of the nanothermite paper) told me in an email that he DIDN’T want to run because a negative result might hurt the Truth movement. Those tests.
As pointed out by the group FireFightersFor911Truth, "The National Fire Protection Association very clearly states melted steel or concrete is a sign of exotic accelerants. (both have been documented in the WTC debris) Therefore, the debris should have been thoroughly analyzed for exotic accelerants, specifically Thermite.”
And in NIST's 2006 Q&A paper they stated that they didn't test for any type of explosives, conventional or otherwise.
Q: Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?
A: NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
Speaking of questions, did Gregg Roberts give you permission to print something from a private email Mr. Creighton? Because if not, my dictionary says right here that a "backstabbing weasel" is someone who publishes a private comment in a public place without permission, especially if it's done with a destructive tone.
That being said, Mr. Roberts has every reason to be concerned that tests for conventional explosives might yield negative results. These are clearly demolitions, but they are also clearly deceptive in nature, they were made to look as if they were caused by plane impacts and fire. Furthermore, no det cord, which would leave unmistakable chemical evidence, was found in the rubble. For these and many more reasons distributed conventional explosives do not seem to be the best candidate. On the other hand, there is considerable evidence for the use of thermite. In addition, the use of thermobaric devices would fit the bill perfectly as well, particularly due to the fact that they leave no explosive residues. So, what would you choose as a conspirator? Nanotechnolgy that practically nobody has heard of combined with thermobarics that don't leave a trace, or detectable conventional explosives?
All that being said, when Kevin Ryan was asked on the visibilty911 podcast if anyone had looked for evidence of conventional explosives he stated that, "we've been talking about it, but no. I think the best thing to do is start testing for RDX, HMX, and those sorts of things in the WTC dust... That's the next step that we're looking at now."
So you may get you wish at some point Mr. Creighton, but it certainly won't be because of your hateful diatribe.
Next, Creighton inserts a video I put together into his article, take a look.
The funny thing is the video debunks the idea he raises that, "the red/grey chips ARE paint, with a slightly different chemical make-up that what was used on the columns, and from the OTHER location that had red painted steel in the Twin Towers… the TRUSSES."
I have to wonder if he watched it all the way, or if he just didn't pay attention. Trusses, columns, it doesn't matter! The video clearly demonstrates a multitude of reasons that these chips are not paint of any variety.
Finally, Creighton briefly mentions one of the many examples of supporting evidence for the use of thermite, he states:
What you DON’T see is the TRUSSES. The THOUSANDS of STEEL trusses are missing. Why? Because when the HIGH EXPLOSIVES that were placed under the floors and inside the TRUSS systems, was ignited, the 4,000 degree plus temperatures MELTED the TRUSSES and PULVERIZED the concrete floors of the towers.As Jim Hoffman has pointed out, the Thermitic Material paper analyzes iron-rich spheres from three different sources: residue from the ignition of commercial thermite, residue from the ignition of the red-gray chips found in the WTC dust, and the spheres found by themselves in the dust. Take a look for yourself, the chemical compositions are almost indistinguishable, or "strikingly similar" as the paper puts it. The chips creating molten-iron spheres is itself evidence of a high temperature chemical reaction, which would not happen if they were just chips of paint.
That is why some of the red/grey chips are attached to the iron-rich micro-spheres; because they were BOTH created at the SAME TIME.
Once you realize that you are wrong on this issue Mr. Creighton, you will realize that we already have the evidence you seek. The real questions are, how do we break through the media censorship, and get people in positions of power to do something. Won't you join us in looking for the answers? If not, then you need to take the advice found in one of the comments on your article.
"The way you dispute a juried paper with solid science is to produce another juried paper with better science that shows reproducible evidence that the first one is wrong and why."
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Want to hear about a mass case of faulty memory at an air show that directly correlates to the type of eyewitness testimony CIT has gathered? Even better, want to experience your own false memory? Grab a pen and paper and hit play!
"Eyewitness identification evidence is the leading cause of wrongful conviction in the United States. Of the more than 200 people exonerated by way of DNA evidence in the US, over 75% were wrongfully convicted on the basis of erroneous eyewitness identification evidence. In England, the Criminal Law Review Committee, writing in 1971, stated that cases of mistaken identification "constitute by far the greatest cause of actual or possible wrong convictions". Yet despite substantial anecdotal and scientific support for the proposition that eyewitness testimony is often unreliable, it is held in high regard by jurors in criminal trials, even when 'far outweighed by evidence of innocence.' In the words of former US Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, there is "nothing more convincing [to a jury] than a live human being who takes the stand, points a finger at the defendant, and says 'That's the one!'" - Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification http://innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php
Criminal Law Review Committee Eleventh Report, Cmnd 4991
Elizabeth Loftus, Eyewitness Evidence 9 (1979).
Watkins v. Souders, 449 U.S. 341, 352 (1982) (Brennan, J. dissenting).
The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony
a talk by
Barbara Tversky, Professor of Psychology
and George Fisher, Professor of Law
"Courts, lawyers and police officers are now aware of the ability of third parties to introduce false memories to witnesses. For this reason, lawyers closely question witnesses regarding the accuracy of their memories and about any possible "assistance" from others in the formation of their present memories." - Sources: http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm
Eyewitnesses who recalled explosions in the Twin Towers and Building 7 are supported by peer-reviewed scientific research. Nano-thermite is the murder weapon!
This blog entry is also posted at visibility911.com.
Debunking the Citizen Investigation Team Hoax
CIT WITNESS VERIFICATION, PART 1: THE PREVIOUSLY SUSPICIOUS FATHER MCGRAW REDUX: THE MASTER OPUS
CIT WITNESS VERIFICATION PART II: THE LADIES OF 13th AND POE (summary)
CIT WITNESS VERIFICATION PART III: ROUGHSHOD OVER THE SUSPICIOUS ONES
National Geographic, Muse, Internet Censorship, Sibel Edmonds, Invisible Empire, 911-DIS.INFO and the Union of Truthers and Debunkers
Speaking of my country, British truther band Muse (the most awesome band on the planet) have a new single out called Uprising. Its a freedom anthem in its own right. I'm downloading it while I still have the freedom to do so. It seems my nazi government wants to mandate all ISPs to cut the internet connections of anyone who does too much illegal downloading. They claim its because illegal downloading of music and video hurts the industries (which it doesn't) but we all know what its really about ... CONTROL! Just one more step towards a heavily restricted internet regulated by corporations where no truth can survive.
My guess is it's to stop bombshells like Sibel Edmonds' Deposition video from ever getting out. What a woman. Why aren't there more people like her in the world?
This blog continues below the image...
... O yeh.
A trailer for Jason Bermas' "Invisible Empire" is out. And Pat Curley has "debunked it" by predictably pointing out the fact that the JFK speech was referring to Communism and not the New World Order. Secret Societies do exist Pat! Whether you think the Bilderberg Group, The Bohemian Club, Skull and Bones, The Freemasons, The Shadow Government and The Illuminati are conspiring to rule the world or not (which I'm not even sure I'm fully convinced by) , they do exist! And they are secret societies! And there's your president telling you why secret societies are bad!
And I have a new website... http://911-dis.info... don't let the name fool you, it's not just gonna be about disinfo. It's just a place for me to write stuff about 9/11 and other things I believe in. It's under construction at the moment but I've already done pages devoted to tearing apart the official story and Flight 77 myths. Comments and suggestions welcomed. Domain name: £20, web host with 6GB monthly bandwidth: £0, waking people up: priceless.
While researching for the Flight 77 page I noticed that SLC has linked to Frustrating Fraud a few times ... and Frustrating Fraud often references JREF threads ... funny ... truthers and debunkers united over a mutual hatred of CIT! ... I suppose in a way the debunkers are just as much truthers as we are ... just with added name calling and thermite denial ... they do good research ... they point out flaws in our arguments, allowing us to build a stronger case ... without them we wouldn't be where we are today ... they are the yin to our yang so to speak.
Why 'Debunkers' Help The 911 Truth Movement
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
The first point I agree with, it probably was just smoke escaping, but their response to Chandler's second smoking gun only focuses on the trail aspect, and not the much more damning fact that the object is falling faster than freefall, as if it was launched downwards. A much more obvious downward ejection can be seen in photographs and videos of the north tower's destruction...
You see that big piece of steel on the right hand side of the picture that's lined up with the roof of Tower 7? In certain videos of the north tower's destruction you can see that it "falls" much faster than the other falling material. The only explanation for this is that the piece had to have been launched downwards by some kind of explosive force.
Included are video clips of the ABC Balzac-Vitry demolition, used to demonstrate how a crushdown is possible. However, although the maker asserts that "Both the upper and lower sections of the buildings [sic] are disintegrated by the buildings [sic] own gravitational energy", they do not show an image of what that building looked like afterwards...
So much for "disintegrated"! Those videos don't debunk anything. In fact they actually demonstrate that a block of falling floors will slow down after colliding with lower floors. Something which Chandler and others have proved didn't happen in the case of the North tower.
As for the projectile, I'm not convinced by it either. I am however now highly intrigued by this missile-like projectile, launched from the collapsing North tower, that hits Building 7.
Click here to see a recent debate on this blog with the same so-called debunker.
STEVEN E. JONES: NANOTHERMITE (new DVD) - Watch it online now
Monday, August 24, 2009
I saw a bio one time that stated a bio is for other people to lie about you, as opposed to an autobiography where you lie about yourself. So here's who I am according to some other people, take it with a grain of salt. :)
"John-Michael's the sort of Truther I wish everyone would emulate -- open, responsive, generous with time, skills, and knowledge. He helped me (a computer dunce) start up and build my web site, and still answers my less-than-erudite questions. He's one fellow-traveler I have learned to trust. I'm glad to have his encouragement and friendship. You're a real mensch (if you don't mind the term) ha ha!"- James Hufferd, Ph.D., published author and coordinator of 911grassroots.org, which hosts the 9/11 Grassroots Organizers list
"John Michael Talboo has found a unique niche in the movement, monitoring, analyzing, and refuting the hollow arguments of the so called '9-11 debunkers'. I believe valuable insight can be gained by examining and critiquing the 9-11 debunking websites. John Michael and his contributors do a great job and are constantly refining their work to better 'debunk the debunkers'". - Michael Wolsey, visibility911.com
Visibility 9-11 Welcomes John-Michael Talboo and Stewart Bradley of Debunking the Debunkers
"J-M is passionate, careful about the details of being factually accurate, and a helluva nice guy! I'm grateful to call him both a friend and a colleague, and appreciate his courage and energy in this search for truth in our lives and our world." - Janice Matthews, Executive Director, 911truth.org
911truth.org: Debunking the '9/11 Debunkers' With John-Michael Talboo and Stewart Bradley
"Having worked with John-Michael on projects for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth I know him to be a very determined and intelligent individual with strong research skills. He has also shown his worth time and again in other collaborative efforts.
A great asset of John Michael's is his ability to objectively consider the evidence at hand and not become attached to theories or material in the face of new hypotheses or evidence. In this way, the material he analyses and presents is sure to depict the most accurate, unbiased edition of the current research. His ongoing blog, Debunking the Debunkers, is a showcase of his talents.
Indeed, John-Michael's work against the debunkers at his webpage is a valuable contribution in the fight to inform the public of the trickery and deceptions put out in defense of the 9/11 myth." - Gregg Roberts, 911research.wtc7.net, ae911truth.org
"Clearly John-Michael's work reveals himself to be one of the leading research-activists in the ongoing fight to expose the false flag terror attack we all experienced on September 11, 2001.
From the posts I have seen it is obvious that JM has taken the time to delve into each 911 issue so that the reader can get to the heart of the matter. There is real talent shown in his excellent ability to understand and organise very complex information. Whether it is to expose subtle debunker trickery or to assemble a coherent fact-based argument, based on the best available evidence, each effort is of the highest quality. I am particularly impressed by the multitude of hyperlinked references in each article that back up everything he presents.
With an expert grasp of the 911 issues John-Michael has time and again thoroughly demolished the arguments of the best debunkers and presented clear evidence revealing that 911 must have been an inside job. For this he must be heartily commended. None of us can afford to let the debunkers get away with their dishonest spin - they are destroying our futures.
All-in-all John-Michael comes across as a very intelligent and level headed guy who understands the difference between an unproven hypothetical or speculative position verses one that is grounded on hard evidence. Not everyone has the ability to recognise the difference when faced with the propaganda, spin, and pseudo science put out by the official 911 investigation, the debunkers, and those who support them in the mainstream media.
It is a privilege to be allied to this fine individual. John-Michael Talboo must be listed as a true champion for education, truth and justice. Thomas Jefferson would be proud!" - Steve Weathers, SpookyWeather.blogspot.com
From my experience John-Michael Talboo is professional, cares about what he puts out into the world, is factual, punctual and seems like a nice guy. Sure our relationship has been all through email, but you can tell a lot about a person. I can attest John doesn't use emoto-cons, unusual punctuation or send spam and that to me is an all around good guy. - Lisa Rehfuss, author of Testify newspaper column, 3 children's columns, movie critic "Two Popcorn Eating Flick Junkies In A Free-Flow Floundering Review"
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Here's some of the "science" on their website:
Conspiracy: Thermite, which is less traceable, was used in the controlled demolition that brought down the towers.
Science: Some truthers claim dust that some New Yorkers found after the attack shares the components of thermite. Scientists assert that even if this dust did contain thermite, it would be impossible to determine whether the thermite came from a controlled demolition or simply from the melting of the airplanes. EMRTC designed an experiment to see if thermite was a plausible option in the collapse of the towers. The thermite in the test was not even able to melt a column much smaller than those in the World Trade Center.
So thermite, which burns at 4500 degrees, cannot demolish a building. But jet fuel and office material, which burn at 1400 degrees, can! That's a bit like saying a tank can't knock down a wall but a little old lady in a motorized wheelchair can! And are they seriously going with the natural thermite reaction theory that Frank Greening suggested? The theory that aluminum from the planes turned to powder and intimately mixed itself with the rust on the steel in the correct ratio to form thermite. And then out of the god knows how many cubic meters of dust produced, the small samples Steven Jones obtained just happened to contain some of this "intelligent malevolent thermite", as Gordon Ross put it?
The only thing their thermite experiment will prove is that fire can't demolish a building.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Darth Vader and the New World Order - Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith mirrors reality
'Star Wars & False Flag Terrorism' (2.0)
Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories
NWO Conspiracy Bullshit
Conspiracies - 9/11 and The New World Order
Nanothermite Demolishes 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Meet the 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts
I Am Not A Conspiracy Theorist
John McCain is a Conspiracy Theorist
Hijacking the American Conscience: The Reality of Conspiracy in the USA & The Way to Progress
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Factual back-up, sources, and further research materials:
Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce, or, Critiquing PentaCon (Smoking Crack Version) - Showing the absurdity of The PentaCon's premise
Five Video Frames Leaked in 2002 Show Moments of the Pentagon Attack
What do the frames show about the attack and its investigation or cover-up by authorities? This analysis suggests the answer is not the immediately obvious one.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
August 11, 2009
The 9/11 Un-debunked series is a series of videos made in response to the videos posted by RKOwens4 and also to respond to the claims of other so-called 9/11 debunkers.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
In my opinion they did an excellent job.
I thought they did such an excellent job, that it did not need my input at all.
I did not watch the CIT movie at the time,
I did not want to waste my precious time.
But I did read the numerous articles That JM and Scootle wrote regarding this subject.
I became concerned when Richard Gage and others who have supported us in our long quest for 9/11 Truth, jumped on board the CIT dis-info, smoke and mirrors, no plane hit the Pentagon, theory train.
So I watched the CIT Movie.
I can't believe I watched this! (it took forever to load)
In the first part of the movie CIT swears that they are going to prove that the 9/11 Pentagon attack was a Black-Ops., False Flag operation.
My first thought was "Ya Think???"
This is not news or at the very least it is not news to me.
I and others have been saying 9/11 was a False Flag operation for years.
I am glad that more people are now agreeing with the concept.
However I have a real problem with people who are claiming that yes 9/11 was a False Flag Operation while subtly promoting no plane theories.
The CIT People subtly allude by images and dialog that no plane hit the Pentagon.
They do this right in the beginning of the movie.
They are showing the support columns of the Pentagon explosion impact site.
The columns allegedly (according to the movie) do not show impact damage consistent with the official story claims of a plane hitting the Pentagon.
(pay no attention to the fact that the impact damage zone outline they keep showing on the Pentagon in red, looks exactly like the outline of a plane)
They go along in a few more frames and subtly place images that they claim show how the government's story and flight path is a lie.
These images are designed to place a doubt in the minds of the viewer.
The images and graphs they show of the Pentagon plane crash site are linked with dialog that subtly insinuates that it is impossible for a plane to have done this.
(again ignore that red outline that exactly matches the wing span of a plane on their graphs )
Then they spend most of the movie interviewing people who "remember clearly" that they saw THE PLANE coming in on the North side instead of the South side as the "official story" claims.
I have to say this.
ALL Of THOSE EYE WITNESSES THAT THE CIT REPORTERS INTERVIEWED claim they SAW A PLANE FLYING ULTRA LOW and SCREAMING (was the word their eyewitnesses used) IN THE DIRECTION OF THE PENTAGON!
Now the CIT people would like you to believe that the plane could not have done the aeronautical maneuvers required to come in on the South side and hit the Pentagon.
The CIT people laid claim from their movie that Pilots for 9/11 Truth said this type of South Side maneuver was impossible for this type of plane.
OK- I'm no Pilot and everything I know about flying a plane could be placed in one sentence.
But my mind just kept screaming SO WHAT!
North Side, South side I do not care what side the plane came in on, the eyewitnesses all showed the same impact site on the maps!
The (CIT reporters) gave the eyewitnesses maps and a pen to draw the flight path of THE PLANE on.
ALL THE CIT's EYEWITNESSES who drew a line on the map of the PLANES FLIGHT PATH DREW A LINE TO THE "OFFICIAL STORY" IMPACT SITE AT THE PENTAGON!
Now how about those light poles they kept yammering about in the movie?
I am going to play Devils advocate for a minute.
Lets just say that the plane flew in on the North Side and the light poles falling down were not caused by the direct impact of the planes wings (or any plane contact) but were caused by the wind-sheer force of the planes, 500 plus MPH speed and jet engine out put force as it blew by..
This is not inconsistent, nor does it invaladate the fact that a PLANE hit the Pentagon.
Note that Plane is the operative word in those sentences.
Believing that a plane came in on the South Side (as many eyewitnesses and the official story said it did) does not invalidate the supposition that the 9/11 Pentagon Attack was a Black-OPs.False Flag Operation.
But just in case the official story of the flight path is wrong, and the eyewitnesses that saw the plane hit the Pentagon are wrong, and the plane flew in on the North side after all and something else hit the Pentagon I have to say this......
ALL EVIDENCE INCLUDING CIT's OWN EYEWITNESSES, IN THEIR OWN MOVIE, CLAIM THE PLANE THEY SAW HIT THE PENTAGON!
At no time in any eyewitness testimony did any person say,
"I saw the plane fly over/hop over/pull-up/ and/or miss the Pentagon."
I found myself asking these questions of the CIT's movie.
If indeed the plane flew over the Pentagon with-out impact as they allude to...
then where is flight 77?
Where did the passengers go?
Where did the Black box come from?
If our military shot the plane out of the sky with a missile after it supposidly hopped/ flew over the Pentagon --- how is it there is no impact site or debris field somewhere else?
What about the families of the passengers who died on the plane?
Were they all just illusions and they all lied to cover up the governments Black-Ops moment?
As they say in my part of the world...
Don't even get me started regarding the statement in the movie about our, government "quietly releasing proof", documents to the CIT people.
I can sum up the CIT dis-info no plane theory in one word.
A Clarification on Disinfo
9/11-a Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon
Pentagon Attack Photos
Friday, August 7, 2009
August 01, 2009
A compilation of 911 truth in the news, as portrayed by the mainstream media.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."
Cognitive Dissonance Avoidance, Denial, & Rationalization
Cognitive Dissonance Meets 9/11 Truth
911review.com: Media and Propaganda
9/11 Truth: Mainstream U.S. Media Suppresses 9/11 Questions
Mainstream Media Silently Screams for New 9/11 Investigation
Nanothermite Demolishes 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
9/11 "Truthers" or "Twoofers"? You Decide...
Thursday, August 6, 2009
A plane did indeed crash in Shanksville
August 05, 2009
The debate that ensued...
All airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11 crashed within 43 minutes of being hijacked. So your 1 hour 53 minute number is completely irrelevant. I have no idea how you expect planes to be intercepted in 30 minutes of first signs of non-response, especially in a pre-9/11 world were domestic intercepts of aircraft are incredibly rare. Not to mention the confusion about which of the thousands of aircraft in the sky were hijacked and which ones weren't.
John-Michael P. Talboo:
KJC24 says: "I have no idea how you expect planes to be intercepted in 30 minutes."
"I knew within hours of the attacks on 9/11/2001 that it was an inside job. Based on my 11-year experience as an FAA Air Traffic Controller in the busy Northeast corridor, including hundreds of hours of training, briefings, air refuelings, low altitude bombing drills, being part of huge military exercises, daily military training exercises, interacting on a routine basis directly with NORAD radar personnel, and based on my own direct experience dealing with in-flight emergency situations, including two instances of hijacked commercial airliners, I state unequivocally; There is absolutely no way that four large commercial airliners could have flown around off course for 30 to 60 minutes on 9/11 without being intercepted and shot completely out of the sky by our jet fighters unless very highly placed people in our government and our military wanted it to happen." - Robin Hordon, Former FAA Air Traffic Controller at the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center, located in Nashua, NH, 1970 - 1981. FAA certified commercial pilot. FAA certified Flight Instructor and certified Ground Instructor.KJC24 says: "Your 1 hour 53 minute number is completely irrelevant."
I didn't say the following to KJC24 at the time, but I should have!: No, it's not. This time span should have cut down individual intercept times because the military would be in the highest possible state of alertness. During this time specific actions could have been taken like redeploying the aircraft already in the air that had arrived too late in Manhattan towards the deviating planes headed for the capital.
Flight 77: The impact was 83 minutes after Flight 11 first went off course, and 58 minutes after the North Tower impact, and 40 minutes after the South Tower impact, yet the jet was not intercepted as it flew over the (normally) most heavily protected airspace in the United States, and in the world. - Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/flight77.html
He knew within minutes it was an inside job, but waited 5 years to tell us about it? Just when the truth movement was at its height of popularity? Colin Scoggins was the military liaison at Boston ARTCC on the morning of 9/11 and doesn't think it was an inside job. Boston ATC's on duty that morning were interviewed on TV and none thought there was a conspiracy. Once again dishonest truthers single out the words of a nut and hold them above those who know better. Remember, all planes crashed within 43 minutes of being hijacked, it wasn't always known which planes were hijacked and which weren't, some of them had their transponders turned off, and prior to 9/11, I doubt hijack suicide missions were part of any NORAD operating procedure. Payne Stewart's jet wasn't intercepted until 80 minutes (despite having its transponder on) after it stopped responding to ATC requests, so what makes you think that even a perfect response to the hijackings would have been enough time?
John-Michael P. Talboo:
Despite what Colin Scoggins says he believes, you are aware that he was interviewed at length for David Ray Griffin's book Debunking 9/11 Debunking, right? Both he and Robin Hordon were interviewed, and through their combined testimonies and research it is shown that the FAA's supposed slow response to the hijacked flights is not only inherently unbelievable, but also "in tension with several other reports."
When looking at the information about Flight 77 that I quoted to you it is clear that the Payne Stewart incident pales in comparison. Hordan stated that in his career he dealt with "two instances of hijacked commercial airliners" and that "there is absolutely no way that four large commercial airliners could have flown around off course for 30 to 60 minutes on 9/11 without being intercepted and shot completely out of the sky." Of course since he disagrees with your view he is a nut. Why he waited 5 years isn't relevant at all, there are plenty of good reasons one might not want to go public with such opinions.
As to transponders being turned off:
Helpful background information on the significance of transponder signals is provided in journalist and 9/11 critic Michael Rupert's Crossing the Rubicon. Ruppert explains that all commercial airliners are equipped with transponders--devices that identify the altitude and position of planes by means of radio signals to air traffic controllers (ATCs). When transponders go off, the plane can still be tracked in two dimensions, but the ATC can no longer pinpoint its altitude. At that point, the system is in emergency status and the offending plane appears on the consoles of all the local ATCs. Ruppert goes on to quote from the statement of a pilot, one Michael Guillaume, who explains that such a plane...But yes, there was a lot of confusion that day, much of it created by the war games.
"...is now a hazard to air navigation, and the controller's primary function of separating planes is now in jeopardy... If in addition to losing communication and transponder the flight starts to deviate from its last clearance, the whole system is in emergency condition. Alarms all over the country would be going off...
So we know that the traffic control system would be in panic mode within two or three minutes of the initial events. ... The odds are that many flights would be on patrol just offshore. It would be most improbable that even one commercial flight could go [astray] more than ten minutes without being intercepted... Interceptions are routine daily occurrences. The fact that they didn't happen under extreme provocation raises some serious questions..." - Source: http://www.bushstole04.com/911/david_ray_griffin911.htm
I'm not able to respond to your posts in detail due to lack of time. Most of the research I've done on 9/11 has been debunking the so-called demolition nonsense that troofers have put forward. I've never really studied the NORAD response. But I expect my next video will be about the NORAD intercepts, so you can wait for my full response then. As for what you said about transponders, it doesn't appear to be quite so simple since the ATC and NORAD were chasing AA11 long after it had already crashed into the WTC. I believe the transcripts are available for all to see regarding ATC and NORAD, and I don't believe for a moment the hundreds of people involved in those organisations and communications were "in on it". When it comes to a conspiracy involving 3,000 innocent lives in the US, you can't depend on keeping those people quiet, so no conspiracy would ever involve that many people. Politicians have been busted for much less with only a handful of witnesses.
John-Michael P. Talboo:
I await your video and will post a response. Here is some more info I beg that you consider:
KJC24 says: "troofers"
9/11 "Truthers" or "Twoofers"? You Decide...
KJC24 says: "demolition nonsense"
Scientists Find Explosives in World Trade Center Dust
KJC24 says: "As for what you said about transponders, it doesn't appear to be quite so simple since the ATC and NORAD were chasing AA11 long after it had already crashed into the WTC."
The traffic controllers at the Boston Center were reportedly very clear about the fate of AA 11. According to a story in the Christian Science Monitor two days after 9/11, flight controllers said that they never lost sight of the flight. Flight controller Mark Hodgkins later told ABC News: I watched the target of American 11 the whole way down. New York Times and Newhouse News stories reported that as soon as the Boston flight controllers heard that a plane had hit the WTC, they knew that it was AA 11, because they had been tracking it continuously since it had begun behaving erratically. Scoggins, as the manager of the Boston Center, presumably knew all of this. - Source: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2006091418303369KJC24 says: "I believe the transcripts are availible for all to see regarding ATC and NORAD."
Yes the transcripts, and in fact the full audio, is available thanks to the creators of Loose Change. 911myths.com notes, "We agree with very little that the Loose Change creators have to say, but they do at least deserve praise for both securing the release of the full NORAD 9/11 tapes, and making them public immediately."
That being said, you really should have a look at what what one of the Loose Change creators has to say about the tapes he helped secure the release of.
Infowarrior with Jason Bermas - 2/3 05/27
Infowarrior with Jason Bermas -3/3 05/27
KJC24 says: "I don't believe for a moment the hundreds of people involved in those organisations and communications were "in on it". When it comes to a conspiracy involving 3,000 innocent lives in the US, you can't depend on keeping those people quiet, so no conspiracy would ever involve that many people."
Frequently Asked Questions: Conspiracy
Cognitive Dissonance Meets 9/11 Truth
I have been looking into all aspects of this subject in depth since late 2004 and I completely understand where you are coming from since I used to think it was nonsense myself.
That really is too much bullshit for me to deal with right now.
John-Michael Talboo - Update May 5th 2011:
KJC24 never made a video on NORAD.
Pumpitout Radio: Foreknowledge and Lack of Air Defense
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Amazing video of a demolition in Turkey going horribly wrong.
First note that the upper part of the building remains as one HUGE chunk.
Second, note that not only does the building topple over, IT ROLLS OVER! - This is due to the conservation of angular momentum - a fundamental law of Physics that keeps spinning tops/coins spinning.
On 9/11 however, according to debunkers, this fundamental law of Physics was temporarily suspended. When the south tower started to collapse, the upper block of floors toppled and reached an angle of about 25 degrees...
... At that angle, the center of mass would have been highly off-center - as much more weight would have been acting on one side compared to the other...
... But the upper 30 stories of the building did not stay together as one huge block, instead they were completely destroyed in a cloud of dust...
... And the lower floors collapsed symmetrically...
Had the laws of Physics been in effect on 9/11, the collapse would have probably looked something like the botched demolition above.
For a more in depth analysis please read the paper "Collapse of the South Tower of the World Trade Center" by University of Iowa physics professor Crockett Grabbe.
"When interviewees say in the FDNY oral histories that they were worried that the Twin Towers might collapse, it almost always turns out that what they were worried about was partial collapse--they worried, for example, that the portion of the building above the impact site might fall off. Almost without exception, they were staggered by the collapse that actually took place, which was sudden, violent, complete, symmetrical and extremely rapid." - Source: Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories
Saturday, August 1, 2009
A show for debunkers to do their thing. So many people find it hard to believe that we are being poisoned, tested on and killed by the powers that be. That indeed conspiracies exist and that anyone who speaks of this is just a nut job. This show isn't about why they do what they do, it's about the fact that it has and is being done. This wont be a show covering hours worth of evidence. We will focus on an element or two to keep it simple and to the point. It is my hope that some of these can be debunked so that knowledge of the truth can be refined. I also hope that if these can't be debunked, that people start to wake up to the reality of what happened in the past and continues to go on today so that the future doesn't consist of this cycle of destruction that kills us and the world we live in.