Do they have a case here? A moment’s reflection will reveal that not only does this NOT support their case (that fire weakened steel causing gravitational collapse), but rather it strongly supports the controlled demolition theory regarding the towers. How so?
Consider their example. What is the Verinage method? It is controlled demolition! So they are using an example of controlled demolition in order to refute the controlled demolition theory!! This is obviously self-refuting. In order for them to have a case, it would seem to me that they would have to provide examples of fire alone initiating specific and simultaneous structural failure in order to cause a symmetrical collapse that resemble anything like the WTC buildings. Consider that the Verinage method employs a team of structural engineers who “rig the physics” in a purposeful and deliberate manner in order to accomplish the desired result; a symmetrical, rapid collapse. This strongly supports the controlled demolition theory, NOT a fire initiated, gravitational collapse theory. To say that fire can do exactly what a team of engineers and demolition experts do is not only absurd, but it is an insult to their profession in my opinion. It is argued that the Verinage method emulates the WTC conditions for this kind of collapse. But how can that be without fire? This is question begging as the whole debate is centered on whether random office fires can bring down buildings in the exact manner as controlled demolition, exhibiting all, or most of, their characteristics. The Verinage example refutes their own case.
Also, a closer look at theVerinage method reveals other problems for the debunkers. For example, what type of building is the method used for? Are any steel framed high rises? No.
To bring down steel framed buildings, explosives are generally used.
Does the method employ a gravitational collapse of the top 15 % of the building in order to crush the bottom 85%, like we see in the WTC’s? No, they weaken the columns on the CENTRAL floors and let physics do the work.
Lastly, it is argued, in the WTC collapses, that the squibs were the result of pressurized air, not explosives. In the Verinage example, no explosives were used so wouldn’t westill expect to see many squibs like in the WTC’s, assuming they are the samekind of destructive event? Compare the WTC squibs with these Verinage examples . Where are the squibs in the lower floors in the Verinage examples? . The squibs in the WTC’s, in contrast, look exactly like those seen in controlled demolitions using explosives.
So, does the Verinage example carry any weight for the debunkers? Not at all. It not only does NOT support their case but rather it’s a strong support for the controlled demolition theory in that it takes HUMAN AGENCY, a team of EXPERTS, to set up the NECESSARY CONDITIONS in order to accomplish this kind ofcollapse. For more detailed info on the problems of the Verinage method brought up by debunkers, see here and here.
Considering the documentation of corruption in political, corporate and military (intelligence) circles it is irrational to exclude the consideration of high level conspiracy when evaluating the causes of recent conflicts. To a priori exclude a conspiracy hypothesis is naive and illogical.
Indeed, staged attacks, or the hyping of a danger posed by a potential, if not fictitious, enemy is a common method to motivate a population into accepting what would otherwise be an unpopular policy. Such methods allow for pre-emptive bombing, endless conflict (often designed to consolidate the power of a military industrial state at home) or territorial conquest.
So today, when we are faced with claims of "conspiracy theory", we must take into consideration the specific evidence being presented rather than blindly accepting any generalised (often wrong) statements put out by those in authority. Ultimately our beliefs regarding the validity of what may be happening should be built from the bottom up - via evidence- not from the top down. Working hypotheses are fine but they must be discarded or swapped according to the underlying data upon which they should be constructed.
In the case of government corruption and cover-ups, if the officially sanctioned account is unverifiable or shown to be outright false, then it MUST be rejected and seen for what it is. There should be no psychological need to cling onto the idea that "trusted" people in power wouldn't lie about matters involving the deaths of many thousands of people - or that they could not have a hand in such crimes (or in covering up such crimes).
Figures in authority can and must be held to account and questioned. The words, or reports, put out by figures in Government, whether by academics or esteemed professionals, do not constitute a Holy Grail. In fact, it DOES NOT MATTER WHO is putting out the information, ONLY that it is verifiable, logical and explainable. If you can't show how a conclusion was reached then it is not verified. It's unsubstantiated. It's as simple as that.
So, regardless of what time in history you are living, beware the words and reports of those in authority -especially when it comes to highly "controversial" matters.
Never outright assume what the truth may be. Do your own research. If a "conspiracy theory" has been touted as an alternative narrative, then it is best to check the evidence.
Always remember Galileo when it comes to authority (and also public opinion) because; "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
At the launch of the UK Don't Attack Iran Campaign on 28 January 2012, held at a rally outside the US Embassy in London, actor Roger Lloyd Pack gave a powerful reading of Strange Meeting by First World War poet Wilfred Owen, one of the most famous anti-war poems ever written.
Strange Meeting (poem) is a poem by Wilfred Owen. It deals with the atrocities of World War I. The poem was written sometime in 1918 and it was published in 1919 after Owen's death. The poem is narrated by a soldier who goes to the underworld to escape the hell of the battlefield and there he meets the enemy soldier he killed the day before.
This poem has been called as one of Owen's "most haunting and complex war poems".
It seemed that out of the battle I escaped Down some profound dull tunnel, long since scooped Through granites which Titanic wars had groined. Yet also there encumbered sleepers groaned, Too fast in thought or death to be bestirred. Then, as I probed them, one sprang up, and stared With piteous recognition in fixed eyes, Lifting distressful hands as if to bless. And by his smile, I knew that sullen hall; By his dead smile, I knew we stood in Hell. With a thousand fears that vision's face was grained; Yet no blood reached there from the upper ground, And no guns thumped, or down the flues made moan. "Strange, friend," I said, "Here is no cause to mourn." "None," said the other, "Save the undone years, The hopelessness. Whatever hope is yours, Was my life also; I went hunting wild After the wildest beauty in the world, Which lies not calm in eyes, or braided hair, But mocks the steady running of the hour, And if it grieves, grieves richlier than here. For by my glee might many men have laughed, And of my weeping something has been left, Which must die now. I mean the truth untold, The pity of war, the pity war distilled. Now men will go content with what we spoiled. Or, discontent, boil bloody, and be spilled. They will be swift with swiftness of the tigress, None will break ranks, though nations trek from progress. Courage was mine, and I had mystery; Wisdom was mine, and I had mastery; To miss the march of this retreating world Into vain citadels that are not walled. Then, when much blood had clogged their chariot-wheels I would go up and wash them from sweet wells, Even with truths that lie too deep for taint. I would have poured my spirit without stint But not through wounds; not on the cess of war. Foreheads of men have bled where no wounds were. I am the enemy you killed, my friend. I knew you in this dark; for so you frowned Yesterday through me as you jabbed and killed. I parried; but my hands were loath and cold. Let us sleep now . . ."
Howard Cohen of Actors and Artists for 9/11 Truth discusses his forthcoming feature film, "A Violation of Trust." Set to star veteran Hollywood actors Ed Asner, Woody Harrelson, Daniel Sunjata, Michele Phillips, and more, "A Violation of Trust" dramatizes the first day of a new presidential investigation into 9/11.
Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog has suggested that the health problems of the first responders might just be another "Gulf War Syndrome." Nope Pat, they are suffering from cancer and you can't prove it isn't a result of 9/11. And the existence of Gulf War Syndrome has not been debunked either.
Support 9/11 first responders in their struggle. Demand that the Zadroga Act cover cancer as part of its protections.
The latest activism video from Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, hilariously depicts "TSA perverts" watching naked body scanner porn, stealing expensive electronics from the luggage of air travelers, digging for crotch gold during "enhanced pat downs" and turning into total psychopathic criminals.
Obama terror drones: CIA tactics in Pakistan include targeting rescuers and funerals
Excerpt:
...Research by the Bureau has found that since Obama took office three years ago, between 282 and 535 civilians have been credibly reported as killed including more than 60 children. A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. The tactics have been condemned by leading legal experts.
We won't wait for the bombs to drop to make our voices heard. Tell President Obama that another war isn't what this country needs!
We will deliver our first wave of signatures to the Obama Administration on February 14.
The crisis in the Straits of Hormuz and reports the US is backing off efforts to stop a military strike by Israel represent a threat to our security greater than that posed by Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.
Recent history proves war isn't working. We expect the US to use every means at its disposal to prevent a strike on Iran by Israel and pursue a diplomatic resolution to the dispute over Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.
IN THIS BULLETIN: 1) Act Now - Don't attack Iran - No More War 2) Stop the War National Conference 2012
**************************************** 1) Act Now - Don't attack Iran - No More War
The chorus for war on Iran is growing. The US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta said on the weekend there is 'a strong likelihood' of an attack by Israel before the spring. Meanwhile there are still calls for intervention in Syria.
As part of our Don't Attack Iran campaign, Stop the War groups and activists across the country are organising street campaigning, activist meetings and rallies against a new war in the Middle East. In many places there is action this Saturday 11 February on the Don't Attack Iran day of action.
Activities on Saturday include filming vox pop interviews with local people, street meetings, a hoax visit by David Cameron, street stalls, surveys of how many local people support an attack on Iran, lobbying of local MPs and much more.
When 3 of the stills are placed together, it is manifestly clear that this is not one seamless animation of a plane nose:
And finally, when the stills are turned into an animation, we can witness the shape changes in action:
In conclusion, these images demonstrate that what is seen exiting the
South Tower is not a CGI plane, but is quite clearly debris being
expelled from the building, followed by a huge explosion.
The video then goes on to ask the question "Why no Shiney planes?" Well the way the shadows were that day the planes don't look shiny, other videos, including amateur footage, all have a plane in them. So here is a better question posed by Jason, "Why is there no footage showing a building exploding without a plane hitting it?" Only one such video has been touted as such, but it it is simply a matter of low-resolution video. Skip to 4:08 in the following video to see for yourself; the whole video is worth watching though.
There are good empirical arguments that this engine piece is as stated, but the argument that the engine is the wrong type makes no sense on an a priori basis as well. As poster "Edx" asked on the JREF forum, "...Why do you think these conspirators would intentionally plant an engine that wasn't from a Boeing 767 in the streets in order to fake evidence that a Boeing 767 crashed .... especially when they know people will take pictures of it and then someone could just stand up and say that it couldn't be from that plane?"
The rebuttal video then states, "Folks did say they had heard an explosion alright.. But no one talked about the engine noise, why is that." This point and others are debunked in this video by blog contributor Adam Taylor:
Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog has suggested that the health problems of the first responders might just be another "Gulf War Syndrome." Nope Pat, they are suffering from cancer and you can't prove it isn't a result of 9/11. And the existence of Gulf War Syndrome has not been debunked either.
9/11 First Responders Need Cancer Treatment Coverage!
Support 9/11 first responders in their struggle. Demand that the Zadroga Act cover cancer as part of its protections.
hi there, just wanted to take a minute and say how much i appreciate your 9/11 truth site. Your research and all the details of evidence you provide are excellent. Like yourselves, i take the more conservative views of the 9/11 movement and try to stick with the refutations of the official story, rather than on speculations of what might have happened (like the various pentagon theories). Your blog has been a valuable resource for me as i also have taken a strong interest in the "debunking the debunkers" side of things. Still to this day, the strongest evidence to me is how the government and it's supporters argue their case (straw men, ad hominem, ridicule and insults) and how they have hid or destroyed much of the evidence as well as suppressed testimonies in the Commission hearings and silenced the whistleblowers. This is all VERY revealing and i think that if this were a case on a trial, with a jury, their fraud and deception would be plainly evident (to anyone with a critical thinking cap on that is).Anyway, thank you so much for all your hard work, research and putting the debunkers in their place. Also thank you for correcting much of the misinformation and/or disinformation out there. peace to you and keep fighting the fight..i support you all 100%!
The "debunker" Oystein at the JREF Forum replied, commenting that my post "presents Discussion pieces at the JEM [Journal of Engineering Mechanics] as 'peer-reviewed articles', which shows the author (Talboo) know nothing about scientific discourse, or he flat-out lies ('discussions' about a peer-reviewed paper are published by the journal without peer-review)."
First off, after being told on YouTube that, "There is a rebuttal to Zdenek Bazant's January 2011 paper with an editor at JEM right now, "grandmastershek" responded, "You mean Bjorkmans comments? Yeah discussion papers are not peer reviewed."
No, it is not Bjorkman's comments. It is a substantial correction of major errors in the Bazant and Le January 2011 paper in JEM which are not ambiguous and that their claim that deceleration of the North Tower upper section in a natural collapse would be too small to be visible is erroneous. I hate to burst your little bubble here bubba but I would tend to think Discussion papers are more rigorously reviewed than standard papers, owing to the fact that they are criticizing a published paper and the author of the paper being criticized gets to respond.
Further backing up Szamboti's argument, is chemical engineer James Gourley, who described the process of getting his discussion paper refuting Bazant published in the JEM on 911blogger.com. Gourley states, "Not much is ever written about what we go through to get these papers published. The publication of this paper is a case study in the struggles we face." He notes that he had to "remove language that the editors thought was too argumentative" and that he left out a number of points he could have raised, knowing that "it would be difficult to get a paper critical of the official story published in a mainstream scientific journal" and "didn't want to give JEM any reason to reject it."
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), which oversees the JEM and many other scientific journals, makes essentially the same point, in their "ASCE Authors’ Guide," as Szamboti did, that "Discussions present significant comments or questions about the technical content of a technical paper." The guide goes on to state that "Discussions follow the requirements for other manuscripts except that they do not have abstracts, introductions, or conclusions." [All above emphasis added.]
Considered in sum, it certainly looks like discussion papers are indeed peer-reviewed. But just to make certain, I contacted Szamboti as well as esteemed scientist Dr. Crockett Grabbe, who replied:
I know they are peer reviewed in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, as Richard Johns and I just went through that with our Discussion of the Le and Bazant January 2011 paper [mentioned here]. There was at least one reviewer other than the editor.
Crockett Grabbe
PhD in Applied Physics, Caltech, 1978
As Scootle recently noted, stay tuned for an upcoming "post about the red-gray chips that addresses Millette's report and outlines an
upcoming, blind study of the WTC dust commissioned by chemical engineer Mark Basile." The article will kick off a fundraising campaign for the study that I am helping spearhead. Let the red chips fall where they may!
What Does it Mean for the 9/11 Truth Movement if James R. Millette Proves Nano-thermite Wasn't Used to Take down the WTC Towers on 9/11?
This begs the question, "What does it mean for the 9/11 truth movement if Millette proves nano-thermite wasn't used to take down the WTC Towers on 9/11?"
First off, to do that he will need to address an issue debated on 911blogger.com between physicist Steven Jones Steven, PhD. and chemist Dr. Frank Greening shortly after the release of the nano-thermite findings. Jones highlighted how he informed Greening that during the ignition of the material iron-rich spheres were formed, such as would be expected during a thermite reaction. He pointed out that the device in which the chips were heated only reaches 700°C, but that "the melting points of iron and of iron oxide are both above 1200 C." This is evidence of a high-temperature chemical reaction and was already addressed in the paper, which notes that the samples ignited at about 430ºC.
Greening argued that, "The microspheres reported in the Harrit paper could at best be described as 'iron-rich', with Al, Si and O always present. But let me remind you, this is also true for the magnetically separated microspheres found in incinerator ashes – they contain mostly Fe, Al, Si, and O."
Jones replied, "Dr. Farrer and Danny and I have looked at many of these post-DSC spheres, many do NOT contain Al. See for example Fig 21 in our paper."
Greening then admitted to some error on that point. He also seemed to agree that the materials could not be primer paint used on the WTC.
Furthermore, 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; the chemical compositions are almost indistinguishable, or "strikingly similar" as the paper puts it. This again requires an impeccable explanation.
If all of this is done and the original study is effectively debunked then the question remains, "What does this mean for the truth movement?" The answer is nothing. Because most of us are not scientists, we must act like jurors in a trial, who often are asked to disseminate forensic evidence. The situation as it has existed is thus: the government skipped key forensic tests, while independent scientists did not and presented longstanding unrefutedpeer-reviewed evidence of explosive material being present. This is akin to a prosecution in a murder trial demonstrating through forensics that there was blood on a knife, while the defense simply claimed it was only red wine, while also refusing during a nearly three year window of opportunity to test their hypothesis. In essence, our position has been the logical one.
On the other hand, scientists from the truth movement have refuted the most prominent paper promoting gravity-driven collapse as the culprit on 9/11, three times in the same journal it was published in, the American Society of Civil Engineers' peer-reviewed Journal of Engineering Mechanics (JEM). Another major paper published in JEM supportive of gravity-driven collapse was also refuted in that same journal in a paper published by the impeccably credentialed scientist Crockett Grabbe, who also published one of the aforementioned three refutations. Still yet another three important peer-reviewed papers published in mainstream journals by members of the truth movement remain unchallenged. Learn more about all of these papers and read some by clicking here.
Again, this is all to say that the widely agreed upon physical evidence for demolition has not been debunked and the official investigations unquestionably were deplorably inadequate. One win in the scientific literature for debunkers in no way changes the very clear need for a new independent investigation. All of this this is best demonstrated by the following video of mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti with accompanying factual back-up.
