Friday, July 31, 2009

New York Judge Dismisses Claim Negligent Construction Contributed To WTC 7 Collapse

Con Ed receive $277 million less than the amount originally sued for in insurance case

Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, July 31, 2009

A New York judge presiding over a multi-million dollar insurance case has dismissed the claim that negligent design or construction of WTC Building 7 contributed to its collapse, and in doing so has destroyed a key justification cited by debunkers in claiming that WTC 7 was not deliberately imploded.

Though the ruling by no means advocates any factor other than fire and debris from the twin towers as the cause of the collapse of Building 7, it does reject the premise that the diesel tanks stored in the structure contributed to the building’s destruction.

According to a report by James Glanz which was published in the New York Times on September 11, 2002 concerning diesel tanks stored in WTC 7, “The tanks contained more than 40,000 gallons of fuel to provide backup power for the city’s emergency command center, a Secret Service office and other tenants. A 6,000-gallon tank for the command center, which was on the 23rd floor, was mounted 15 feet off the ground near an elevator bank. It was cited as unsafe by Fire Department officials in 1998 and 1999, but the Port Authority has asserted that the tank and the structure met the city’s fire code and posed no special danger.”

Debunkers have seized upon the diesel tanks as a reason for the collapse of WTC 7, the only steel-framed building in history to collapse from fire damage alone, considering it was not hit by a plane on 9/11. Despite the fact that diesel tanks being in the building do not explain its 7 second free fall collapse into its own footprint, debunkers have still clung to the issue as a sacred cow with which to try and uphold the official story.

However, a New York judge presiding over a 7-year long insurance case concerning Consolidated Edison has dismissed the claim that the tanks or faulty construction of the building contributed to the collapse.

Consolidated Edison and five of its insurers filed a $314.5 million lawsuit against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in September 2002, charging that the tanks were improperly designed and maintained. The suit claimed that the tanks fed the fires that brought down WTC 7 and thus were a major contributor to its collapse which destroyed the New York utility’s substation on 9/11.

However, Judge Alvin Hellerstein on Monday ordered the Port Authority to pay Con Ed a total of $37,580,750, just over one tenth of the figure they originally sought, or around e $277 million less than the amount originally sued for.

Con Ed have only received one tenth the sum they initially claimed because the judge dismissed three of the four counts, counts one and two, the tort complaints of the second amended complaint, and count four, the reimbursement claims.

The first tort claim was that “the Port Authority negligently designed, constructed, and maintained 7WTC, causing the tower to collapse and destroy the substation.”

The second tort claim was that “the Port Authority violated New York State and New York City fire and safety standards in designing, constructing, and maintaining 7WTC.”

Both claims were rejected by Judge Hellerstein, who dismissed Con Ed’s claim that the Port Authority was negligent in the collapse of WTC 7 because of a “connection with the construction or maintenance” of the building.

Con Ed’s claim that the damage to its substation resulted from the Port Authority’s “negligent design, approval, inspection, installation, maintenance, operation, conduct and control of 7 World Trade Center . . . and the diesel fuel tanks therein,” was labeled “redundant and not independently viable” by the Judge.

In count four, Con Ed claimed that the following factors contributed to the collapse of WTC 7.

1) inadequate fireproofing; 2) inadequate firestopping; 3) inadequate attachments between steel connections, beams, girders, and columns; 4) violation of New York City building code as to bracing of columns; 5) inadequate robustness, redundancy, and ductility; 6) failure to investigate and improve 7WTC after the 1993 bombing of Tower One; and 7) improper maximization of office space.

Judge Hellerstein dismissed count four in its entirety because, “There is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether these allegations, and proofs supporting them, would suffice to establish Con Edison’s claims.”

It is important to stress that Judge Hellerstein’s rejection of these counts is not a rejection of the premise that fire and debris from the twin towers was responsible for the collapse of Building 7, indeed that factor is later highlighted in the briefing as the cause of the collapse in the judge’s opinion, but Hellerstein’s ruling that the design or maintenance of the building did not contribute to its collapse is still key.

As we have previously reported, claims that WTC 7 was shoddily constructed and therefore more vulnerable to collapse are contradicted by the fact that the building was intentionally designed to allow large portions of floors to be permanently removed without weakening the structural integrity of the building.

In 1989, following their lease of the building from owner Larry Silverstein, brokerage firm Salomon Brothers spent $200 million dollars on structurally reinforcing the building, allowing “enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building’s structural integrity.”

According to a New York Times report, “MORE than 375 tons of steel – requiring 12 miles of welding – (was) installed to reinforce floors for Salomon’s extra equipment.”

What this amounted to, as the Times pointed out, was that WTC7, specifically designed to be deconstructed and altered, became “a building within a building”. An extraordinary adaptable and highly reinforced structure for the modern business age.

Related Info:

WTC7 and the British Brainwashing Conspiracy

Thursday, July 30, 2009

The CIT Virus

By: ScootleRoyale and John-Michael P. Talboo

"The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth - persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
~ John F. Kennedy

Browsing the Screw Loose Change blog earlier we were somewhat alarmed to learn that David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage are endorsing the work of the Citizen Investigation Team. A post on 911Blogger includes their endorsements:

“This new film by CIT is far more professionally produced than their previous efforts. It is also more convincing, given the addition of more witnesses, so that they now have a total of 13 witnesses reporting that the actual flight path of the plane that approached the Pentagon was drastically different from the official flight path (which would have been needed if the plane was to knock over the felled light poles and to strike the Pentagon at the designated spot and angle). This part of the film's thesis is now established beyond a reasonable doubt. The film does not establish its related claim---that the airliner pulled up and flew over the Pentagon---as clearly, but it does make a good case for it. One of the film's most valuable parts is a scene in which cab driver Lloyde England, who otherwise gamely tried to maintain the truth of his testimony supporting the official story, admitted that the Pentagon operation had been planned by powerful people with lots of money. I am pleased to be able to recommend this important film with enthusiasm."
~ David Ray Griffin, Author of The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé

"The exhaustive effort by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team to contact, record, document, and analyze numerous first-hand eyewitness accounts of the actual flight path of the airliner at the Pentagon on 9/11 has been long overdue, but worth waiting for. The evidence they have uncovered and compiled in their DVD "National Security Alert" deserves serious attention - particularly in light of what we now know about the explosive destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises that day."
~ Richard Gage, AIA, Architect, Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Now we weren't so much surprised by David Ray Griffin, he has after all been making a case for Pentagon no-plane theories for years, but Richard Gage, like many other researchers, has always remained neutral when it comes to the Pentagon so it was very surprising to learn he was endorsing them.

In all fairness however, we admit that years ago, we too were convinced by the Pentagon no-jetliner claims, and even 9/11 researcher and Pentagon no-jetliner claim debunker Jim Hoffman admits the same, while also pointing out these ideas have "tremendous intuitive appeal." The apparent lack of large plane debris would seem to support such theories, and again Hoffman points out that this is "reasonable given the fact that other jetliner crashes have left large pieces." Not to mention the fact that ideas such as these have been popularized in many films, such as the earlier versions of Loose Change. However, when one learns that the plane that hit the Pentagon was traveling at 500 mph, and in the words of Loose Change film maker Dylan Avery, crashed into the "only section that was renovated to withstand that very same kind of attack," a different picture emerges. The renovations included exterior walls reinforced with steel, exterior walls backed with Kevlar, and nearly two inch thick blast-resistant windows.

In the video below the narrator informs us that "the US government wanted to test what would happen if a plane crashed into the concrete walls of a nuclear power station." As we see the jet take off towards the wall in the video we are informed that it is traveling at 500 mph, watch and see the results...

As the narrator stated, "the plane disappeared into dust!" In light of these facts the physical evidence becomes far less puzzling and in fact becomes clear as being consistent with a jetliner crash.

In a previous post
it was argued that CIT & Pilots for 9/11 Truth are promoting disinformation and after a long debate on the Prison Planet forum it is clear that some uninformed judgments were made, and arguments put forward that they had already countered. However, we are now even more convinced that they are disinformation artists.

In an article by H. Michael Sweeny entitled "Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation", the author outlines 25 techniques used by promoters of disinfo. The article is essential reading for anyone genuinely interested in the truth. Some of the most notable are:

"4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively."

The author also outlines 8 common traits of disinformationists. The two most interesting are:

"3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork.
They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength."

To anyone who has ever debated a "debunker" or no-planer, these traits and techniques will seem very familiar. We have noticed that supporters of CIT's work seem to exhibit the two traits highlighted and use some of the above techniques. During the Prison Planet forum debate, four new users coincidentally signed up to post exclusively to that thread. They worked as a team and complimented each other. They ignored testimony of first responders, photographs and video of the heavily damaged Pentagon interior and people who actually SAW the plane hit the building. They instead focused on weaker arguments, attacked peoples characters, and questioned motives. Some even went as far as to accuse Scootle of being an undercover debunker!

Even Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog, who is famous for his ad-hominem laden commentary, recently pointed out that CIT supporters claim to be just arguing the "evidence," but "throw around ad hominems like frisbees."

What was especially worrying though is that until the moderators showed up Scootle was pretty much on his own. Virtually all of the participants in the thread sided with the CIT trolls...

"Hey, Scootle, just F**K OFF ALREADY - I've been very patient with you, but that's it. F**K YOU AND YOUR IDIOCY. You're EXACTLY like those billions of sheeple who refuse to WAKE UP. You deserve your New World Order. I'm sorry it's come to this but you're a twat."
~ Mike Philbin

This is the frustrating beauty of the Pentagon no-plane theories - unlike the World Trade Center no-plane theories they are worryingly convincing. In rule 20 above we highlighted the sentence "This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications." This is because we believe the Pentagon attack was specifically designed with this very purpose in mind - to muddy the waters and promote pointless debates amongst researchers.

The Pentagon attack is shrouded in mystery: there is no clear video of the attack, witness accounts are so varied and conflicting and photographs are inconclusive - and that's the way it was designed! The whole thing is a psy-op to trap researchers.

CIT have 13 witnesses who all recollect a different flight path from the official story. To counter claims of fuzzy memory, CIT will argue that because they correlate with each other it proves they are all correct because they couldn't all be mistaken the same way. If they were the only 13 witnesses then we would agree. But they weren't the only 13 - they were 13 out of more than 100. When you have that many witnesses you are bound to have some correlation of incorrect recollections. That being said, the preponderance of reports supports a plane hitting the pentagon. This fact is not lost on debunkers, the government, or the media; always eager for easy ammunition against the 9/11 truth movement. Ludicrous objections of witness fraud and witness contamination are commonly used to explain away this overwhelming body of eyewitness testimony.

Ockham's razor
dictates that indeed a Boeing 757 did hit the Pentagon, but who needs simple logic when by cherry picking witness statements and photographs we could probably build a strong case for a theory that a flying saucer hit the Pentagon if we wanted to.

We might start with the photograph showing a "small, round hole" and the video footage of UFOs over Washington in 1952, then pick out witness quotes that mention hearing strange sounds (or no sounds) while ignoring all the people who saw a commercial airliner, then interpret the "It is not a part from any Rolls-Royce engine that I'm familiar with" quote to mean it is a part only people at Area 51 would be familiar with and claim this photo is of officials removing the advanced alien technology from the scene and finally analyse the photos of burnt human remains, picking out every small anomoly and insensitively claim that they are actually alien remains.

There are witnesses who saw the plane come in from the south side, such as the four "operatives" CIT interviewed, there are witnesses who actually saw the plane hit the building such as Penny Elgas, who is also an operative according to CIT...

"Penny Elgas has a significant position in government and a very high profile highly publicized account so should be instantly considered suspect."
~ Craig Ranke CIT

...And Steve Anderson, who was in the perfect position in relation to the Pentagon to actually see a flyover, but didn't!

If CIT would actually interview someone from the Arlington Fire Department who was in there fighting the fires then maybe we'll start taking notice of them. But there's no need, it's already been done. For the book "Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11," the authors interviewed more than 100 Pentagon first responders...

"They walked closer. At the mouth of the third hole they saw a piece of a wheel and countless shards of wreckage. Some of them looked like pieces of seats." ~ Firefight, Page 149.

"For the first time, Regan's team saw something they had expected to see all along but had been scarce until then: recognizable airplane parts. They all thought they would find big pieces of the airliner laying everywhere, the way car parts end up strewn across a highway after a crash. But the physics of an airplane crash were obviously different: Mostly there was just tons of shredded metal and melted plastic.

Finally, they found several airplane seats, piled among the usual mounds of upturned office furniture and random wreckage. A couple of the seats still had bodies belted into them, which had already been found and marked for the FBI. Most of the workers inside were conscientious about not gawking, yet the seats attracted a lot of attention. They were the first objects the nonaviation experts had seen that unmistakably belonged to an airplane." ~ Firefight, Page 373.

"The airplane had nearly disintegrated, but Dan Fitch's group found several huge cogs, bent and blackened, that weighed a couple hundred pounds each; it took a couple of workers to handle each one. Other objects nearby looked like large gears, and strips of metal that appeared to be fan blades. Workers realized that they were pulling apart the remnants of one of the aircraft's two engines. The aluminum cowling that had encased it all had been torn away, but the guts of the engine were there.

FEMA crews used a blowtorch to free the core of the motor from the column in which it was embedded. Then Fitch and several others used pieces of six-by-six to pry the motor loose from the column and push it off the pile. With the help of some Old Guard troops, they rolled the heavy piece of machinery onto a dolly and finally managed to push it outside. The whole effort took the better part of an entire shift." ~ Firefight, Page 425.

"As crews dug deeper, unmistakable remnants of a passenger plane were everywhere. Wallets, shoes, jewelry, and the everyday items that had been stuffed into dozens of suitcases were littered throughout the debris." ~ Firefight, Page 426.

Tell those people a commercial airliner didn't hit the Pentagon!

Now that we have addressed the eyewitnesses, the physical evidence, and the different scenarios in which the propaganda machine may be at work, what are we left with? We are left with CIT's sister organization Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and their study of the Flight 77 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report. First off, let's look at Pilots for 9/11 Truth; from the Debunking the Debunkers blog "CIT Stuff Is Disinfo - Wake Up!":

"A number of Pilots for 9/11 Truth's members promote World Trade Center no-plane theories - arguing that the speeds at which the planes were travelling were aerodynamically impossible at the altitudes they were flying at. Rob Balsamo, the head of the group, has defended these people's opinions, saying they are qualified to have them. This was all debunked recently using a simulator. This fact alone is enough to raise serious questions about the credibility of Pilots for 9/11 Truth."

Now, what do they gather from their study of the NTSB report? Here it is in a nutshell from their founder Rob Balsamo:

"The flght data recorder raw file that we have just decoded ... it's still showing too high for the Pentagon. ... It shows the radar altimeter at 273 feet. That means 273 feet above the ground. OK? The Pentagon only gets up to 77 feet."

In essence, they believe it supports the flyover theory, which we have demonstrated is not supported by the preponderance of eyewitness testimony, or the physical evidence. Might the propaganda machine be at work here also? Well, the NTSB report does come from the government after all. Even their own press release on the matter was headlined "OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT’S OWN DATA."

As one commenter pointed asked:

"Designed to confuse us?

I think we should be careful with any evidence that the government supplies. The 'five frames' and the black box data come from the government. Both were in the hands of the government for weeks and months before release to the public.

Do people here agree that this alone renders those two sources of evidence suspect? That's how I view it. Why base theories on such suspect evidence? To me it looks as though these two pieces of evidence, which contradict each other, are meant to confuse."

The largest problem in this whole ordeal is not the fact that Pilots for 9/11 Truth raise these issues, without any such commentary of their own, but that they almost exclusively focus on such issues, while much more concrete facts pointing towards complicity, of which pilots would have keen insight, are almost totally glossed over.

Another glossed over issue is an inherent contradiction in the Pilots for 9/11 Truth premise recently brought to our attention by Michael Wolsey of the website, who states:

"You can't contend that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon and then use the flight data recorder that was found in the pentagon to bolster your argument that it didn't hit!"

All that being said, it's important to note that there is other research indicating that the flight data recorder of Flight 77 actually supports the official flight path, and that instead, the animation is wrong!

The Pentagon no-plane theories have taken on near religious preportions. It's as if believing a plane didn't hit the Pentagon somehow comforts people. On 9/11, planes crashed! That's what 9/11 was all about, planes crashing! We're interested in finding out who crashed the planes - not whether or not they did. The CIT/Pilots for 9/11 Truth theory is the only 9/11 theory that we actually laugh at...

"Yeh thats right ... We crashed two planes into two skyscrapers... And completely demolished those towers killing thousands ... And we ALMOST crashed a third plane into the Pentagon ... Except we didn't! ... What we actually did was fly the plane low enough above the Pentagon to make it look like it hit and high enough above the building to not be caught on the Doubletree Hotel security camera... then we landed the plane, killed all the passengers and crew and disposed of the plane... We hired operatives to plant some light poles and stage the scene with the taxi to make it seem like the plane came in from a different direction ... just for fun! ... Some operatives also posed as fake witnesses... they all used their real names and were friendly to independent investigators to make it seem like they had nothing to hide... the best part was ... we didn't have to pay them! ... they just wanted to be involved in a mass murder plot ... Finally, we bribed the forensic officials and first responders to say they found and identified the burnt bodies of all of the passengers at the scene..."

"... And we would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling CIT kids!"

Related Info:

A Clarification on Disinfo

CIT and Eyewitness Testimony

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

One of the worst hitpieces I have ever read...

This piece ranks up there with the History Channel documentary. My comments in blue.

My Argument with the 9/11 Truth Movement.

After publishing a piece on the absolute idiocy of the Obama Birther movement and its potential to turn nasty, I've been inundated with literally hundreds of emails decrying my comparison of the Birthers to the 9/11 Truthers.

Associating us with the Birthers right from the word go. The way the media is talking a lot about these people is comparable to the way they talk a lot about moon-landing denial. Almost makes me think this whole Obama birth debate was created by the establishment to muddy the water, distract people from more serious issues and discredit serious conspiracies.

The offending paragraph:

The 9/11 truth movement was enormously helpful to the Bush Administration as it provided a giant distraction from the colossal crimes they committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. If their energies had been directed in a positive way, there's a good chance Bush would have been impeached and Dick Cheney thrown in jail. Alas, the 9/11 truth movement dedicated its time to proving the U.S government tried to kill thousands of its own people in exchange for gold/political power.

Enormously helpful? You give us too much credit! Because of all the media smearing we didn't really have anywhere near as much of an effect as we would have liked to. At least he acknowledges the fact that they are war criminals. Now tell me - If they're willing to kill millions of innocent people overseas for their own selfish agenda, is killing 3,000 of their own citizens really any more of a stretch?

The Birther movement can be compared to the 9/11 truth movement, perhaps not in scale, but certainly in its potency.

The emails I have received have made for an entertaining read. The absolute certainty with which otherwise fairly rational people have asserted that the U.S. government planned, carried out and covered up the horrific attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon has blown me away.

Of course. That's because it's obvious to anyone capable of critical thinking.

I have been accused of complicity with the attacks, called a 'traitor to the human race,' and a terrorist. This is an example of a typical email:

You're either a complete ignoramus (see PatriotsQuestion911 --, and the peer-reviewed article about nano-thermite found in WTC dust samples -- Google it)...

...or a Mockingbird sayanim flak covering up for the Mossad's involvement (Dominick Souter, Urban Moving Systems, Odigo, Zim Shipping) and an accomplice after the fact to mass murder.

Consider yourself outed.

And that was one of the more polite messages sent by the 9/11 Truth Movement foot soldiers.

I guess that was to associate us with anti-Semites - typical. At least he mentioned the thermite paper.

Another theme that has come up over and over in the emails flooding my account are the 'facts' regarding 'Building 7'. I've skimmed some of them, and they mostly revolve around the idea that rich business men had insurance policies for the building that wasn't hit directly, and that it contained gold, and secret documents held by Enron, Exxon, and other evil corporations that helped orchestrate the attacks.

Actually most of us do not speculate WHY Building 7 was demolished. There are some theories - judging by the mysterious death of Barry Jennings it was probably something to do with those bodies - but most people just stick to proving that it was demolished.

In fairness, I have also received some polite emails suggesting I do more research on the subject before offering an opinion, but the majority have come from arm chair warriors spewing language that would make a sailor blush.

I have done some research on the topic, but stopped fairly quickly into when it dawned on me that:

"Stopped Fairly Quickly"? So you admit you did little research. It shows!

1. Any alternative to the official account of what happened is so absurd it simply cannot be true.

More absurd than this?

This blog continues below the images, click to enlarge...


2. No reputable scientific journal has ever taken any of the 'science' of the conspiracy seriously.

Because most "reputable" scientific journals are controlled. Just like the mainstream media. NIST is a "reputable" scientific organisation and they denied molten metal. Controlled Demolition Inc. is a "reputable" organisation and the head of the company is on record arguing that thermite CAN'T demolish a building but ordinary officer fires CAN!

3. The evidence supporting the official story is overwhelming, whereas the 9/11 Truthers have yet to produce a shred of concrete evidence that members of the U.S. government planned the attacks in New York and Washington.

HAHA! Really!? What evidence? The security camera image of Atta with two timestamps on? Al Suqami's passport that survived a 500 mile per hour plane crash, floated around in the air for 102 minutes and was found the next day amongst a million tonnes of rubble in perfect condition? The bag Atta was gonna take on the plane with him which contained his will for some reason which he conveniently left behind? The highly convenient paper trail? Bin Laden's mistranslated "confession" video? Bin Laden's chopped and dubbed over "confession" video? The video of some guy with a black beard who was obviously not Bin Laden? The testimony of tortured prisoners?

Overwhelming evidence indeed.

A couple of years ago, I went to court to testify in a case against someone who had committed a crime against myself and three other people. I won't go into detail, but the case against the defendant was pretty air tight. All four witnesses provided independent, stunningly similar accounts of the crimes the defendant had committed, and all four witnesses had been living in separate countries for the previous decade without any contact whatsoever.

Regardless, the defendant was found not guilty and released without charge. Why? Because the defense attorney alluded to the idea that we had orchestrated a complex conspiracy against the defendant in order to destroy his life. The defense did not provide any evidence of their own, but simply picked holes in the witnesses accounts, all of whom were recalling events from over 10 years before. It was a simple, yet incredibly effective strategy, and the defendant walked free. The 12 regular folks chosen randomly to be jurors failed to see through the tactic, and believed there remained 'reasonable doubt' that he had not committed the crime.

So "innocent until proven guilty" is a bad thing now is it? If some kids were to conspire to get you arrested on molestation charges and there was some inconsistencies in their testimony, you would be thanking god for "innocent until proven guilty".

And herein lies the ultimate weapon the 9/11 Truthers wield over your average 'Myth Busters' viewer: They don't have to prove a damn thing. They just have to raise enough doubt, pick enough holes, and use enough 'science' to make you think twice about the official theory.

What's wrong with that? Like I said "innocent until proven guilty". The burden of proof has been on the government to provide evidence of their conspiracy theory since day one. And there aren't just "holes" in the official story, there are entire voids!

It's the same type of intellectually bankrupt shenanigans the Bush Administration pulled when 'proving' the case for war against Iraq. They cherry picked evidence, ignored information that disproved their theory, and used a massive disinformation campaign to persuade people the Saddam Hussein was a reincarnation of Attila the Hun and the biggest threat to America since Adolf Hitler.

Yes they did. They also did that with 9/11. Willie Rodriguez believes he heard an explosion before the first plane hit. That evidence contradicts their theory, it was ignored. Barry Jennings testified to hearing explosions and stepping over bodies in Building 7. That evidence contradicted their theory, it was ignored. Numerous first responders testified to seeing molten metal at ground zero. That evidence contradicted NIST's theory, it was ignored... I could go on.

Given enough time and resources, you could prove that Barack Obama was in fact an alien invader from the planet Krypton, sent to earth to destroy America and turn everyone into slaves. I imagine you'd start with the whole Birther Movement nonsense, then move on to the fact that he alluded to it in a speech he gave when running for president.

I agree with that. In fact that pretty much sums up my view on Pilotsfor911truth, CIT and the No-planers. Speaking of...

The fact is, no one could have ever predicted what would happened to the World Trade Center when a two Boeing 767s were flown into it, because you couldn't exactly recreate the scenario in a laboratory. Science is often limited in its ability to predict, mostly because the real world doesn't conform to standards set in a lab. There are simply too many variables, and the best scientist recognize this and understand that their methodology is intrinsically flawed. While there have been planes flown into buildings before, nothing exactly like that had happened before, and no one really had any idea what would happen if it did.

There are so many variables at play, it is easy to pick holes in the official theory and claim that in fact what we saw (two massive passenger planes flying at high speed into a building) didn't actually happen.

The obligatory No-planer association!

The problem is, by all sane accounts, it did, and the alternative is so ridiculous, you'd have to be a moron to even entertain it.

I agree. So does everyone else in the 9/11 truth movement.

The Bush Administration was far too incompetent to pull off anything as complex as the attacks on 9/11, and to think that they could have covered it up afterward is even more absurd. What they did do was carry out and monstrously f--k up two illegal invasions of sovereign nations for oil. And thanks to the 9/11 Truth Movement, a considerable amount of attention was taken away from the people trying to hold the Bush Administration accountable.

O here we go again, "Bush was incompetent, there's no way he'd be able to orchestrate something this massive without getting caught" - They didn't orchestrate it! This goes well beyond left and right. Also they did not "monstrously f--k up two illegal invasions". The illegal invasions went exactly as planned.

The 9/11 Truth movement is fighting a pointless battle for a pointless cause. They have spent enormous amounts of time and energy on the matter, taking attention away from legitimate criticisms of the debacle and the ensuing blood bath that followed. And for that, they are the traitors, not me.

A pointless cause? The justice of three thousand families is not a good enough cause? The justice for the sick and dying first responders is not a good enough cause? The exposure of the lie that is the foundation of the world today and was used by US as an excuse to fight those illegal wars and commit all those war crimes you mentioned so many times is not a good enough cause?

Saturday, July 25, 2009

What I learned from 9/11 debunkers.

This is a response to this page

There is overwhelming evidence to support the official story. Conspiracy theorists cherry pick evidence which support their theories and deny evidence which doesn't. But the official investigators look at all the facts.

The Bush administration consisted of loving, caring individuals who were devoted to defending the US constitution and would not even think about staging terrorist attacks.

The government with trillions of dollars and a powerful military at its disposal could not possibly have orchestrated such a massive operation but a guy in a cave out in the middle-east can.

There is no such thing as compartmentalization. When a production company makes a film, the writing, producing, acting, directing, costumes, special effects, soundtrack and post-production are all done by the same small group of people. No specialization, no structure, everyone involved knows as much as everyone else.

Terrorists hate our freedom. And all those CCTV cameras, armed police officers and anti-terror laws are there to protect our freedom.

Terrorists who hate democracy like to make our government's life really easy by leaving convenient paper trails whenever they carry out a terrorist attack.

We should all fear terrorists. 3000 people were killed in major a terrorist attack in 2001, 200 in 2002, 200 in 2004, 50 in 2005, 200 in 2006 and 180 in 2008. That's about 4000 people in 8 years! Terrorism is the greatest threat to the people of this world - not cancer or AIDs or heart disease which kills millions a year, not world poverty which kills 30,000 children a day, not those wars we are fighting in the name of these terrorist attacks which have killed over a million Iraqis since 2003 and tens of thousands of British and American soldiers. Fighting terrorism should be our number one priority.

When two planes have already been hijacked and crashed into buildings and a third plane also appears to be hijacked and is heading for the capital, the most logical thing to do is completely ignore it.

Making comparisons between the three World Trade Center towers and other high rise buildings that burned much hotter for much longer and didn't collapse is ludicrous because of their different constructions. But comparing the towers to a low-rise 13 story building in Holland or a toy factory is perfectly acceptable.

When a hammer strikes a nail, the hammer will gain speed after impact. And if I were to jump on some scales, they would display a lower value for my weight than if I simply stood on them.

Falling mass hitting one side of a building can cause an upward explosive force sufficient to destroy a landing on the other side.

Fire now has the ability to intelligently seek out and destroy a structure's single point of failure. If you work in a large office building, watch out for intelligent, malevolent fire!

A series of well placed, accurately timed, 4500 degree thermite reactions cannot bring a building down symmetrically into its own footprint at the rate of freefall but scattered, 1400 degree office fires which move around every half an hour can.

The demolition industry is now completely redundant. Instead of wasting a lot of time, money and effort carefully rigging up a building with explosive charges, you can now achieve the same results using only a lighter and a copy of the NIST report.

Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan and Niels Harrit, who invite scientific scrutiny of their work, have no credibility whatsoever. NIST on the other hand are SO credible they don't need to be independently peer-reviewed.

Popular Mechanics and the BBC are fine examples of investigative journalism. And Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

If there was a conspiracy, the government funded investigations would of course openly admit it.

All the survivors, first responders and family members hate the 9/11 truth movement.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

The CIT Faithful

Your eyes do not deceive you! :)

Pat Curley
Tuesday, July 21, 2009

The CIT faithful continue to do battle with the Truth Action folks. What I am constantly amazed at is the ability for Stefan, the CIT groupie, to rationalize the flyover theory. Consider this:

"The first thing I’d like to address is this notion that witnesses are more likely to get the flight path of the plane wrong than whether the plane hit the building.

It does not sound very likely to me, and I’m sure to a lot of people. The part of the experience from seeing the plane until the impact was in some cases 10-15 seconds. The point of “impact” was an instance. When virtually their entire eye witness experience involved watching a plane fly through the air, and just a split second of it involved a frightening and traumatic instant, I personally have no qualms whatsoever with saying the complete opposite is the case."

No, of course he has no qualms about that; without that leap of faith the CIT scenario crashes and burns.

"Arcterus said the North side approach is wrong, meaning he agrees that all the witnesses were wrong about a simple left right judgement, and that they were all wrong in such a way as to corroborate each other, and that they were all so stupid they rejected the correct flight path even when prompted with it."

Again, the supposed "fact" that all the witnesses agreed about the North Side approach and "corroborate" each other is actually a strong indication that CIT is not showing all their witnesses. Just on the basis of the odds, one or two of the witnesses should have gotten it "wrong"; the fact that they did not is a strong indication that CIT is playing games with their witnesses.

"1) Logically, there is no damage to the Pentagon that could be ascribed to a Boeing hitting from the NoC flight path. I know you have said there is, but come on mate, please. I realise that the notion that a plane from the SoC path could just could in a million to one shot cause that damage, is acceptable. It is not what you would expect and we all know that."

Is he seriously claiming that there's only a one-in-a-million chance that a SoC approach would cause that damage? Or is he suggesting that there's only a 1,000,000-1 chance that it was an SoC approach?

"2) There is no conceivable logical reason for faking one set of flight path damage, planting light poles and so on and then driving the plane into the Pentagon anyway."

He's right, you know. If we assume that the light pole evidence was faked, then it makes no sense to fly the plane into the Pentagon. And how does he know that the light pole evidence was faked? Because the plane didn't fly into the Pentagon. It's circular logic.

I also love that he claims to be just arguing this "evidence", but throws around ad hominems like frisbees:

"Arabesque is rapidly becoming a comedy show."

"Mistakenly thinking Arabesque was more honest than in fact he was...."

Related Info:

The CIT Virus

Sunday, July 19, 2009

More About That Exploding Paint

Factual back-up, sources, and further research materials:

"They say that they are not interested in hearing debunking of Steven Jones' latest paper (Active Thermitic Material...). Nope, if we are going to debunk that laughable attempt to claim that bits of red paint and rust amount to Thermite we have to do it with a peer-reviewed paper." - Pat Curley, Screw Loose Change blog

Yes, if you are claiming that highly credentialed scientists have been fooled by paint, after two years of research, when paint was one of the very first considerations, then you should back that claim up in the way they have backed up theirs. When the lead author of the paper, associate professor of chemistry at Copenhagen University in Denmark, Dr. Niels H. Harrit, was asked during an interview on Denmark television if he was in any doubt that the material was present, he replied unambiguously, "You cannot fudge this kind of science. We have found it: unreacted thermite."

If you think this author/or co-author of nearly 60 peer reviewed scientific papers is fudging, or was fooled by paint, someone on your side should demonstrate this beyond the blogosphere. I think physics professor Dr. Steven E. Jones put it best when he noted that:
Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.
Getting back to paint being one of the very first considerations, it's worthy to note that one of the first things indicating the materials were not paint chips was their explosiveness! At the Boston 9/11 Conference on 12/15/07 Steven Jones first reported his findings, stating:
Many red chips I found in the WTC dust, last June I started noticing these. Their attracted by a magnet, a thought came, well maybe it's just paint. It's hard to get thermite to ignite, and I finally thought, how can we tell if this is thermite or not?... It has the right chemical signature.

A friend of mine has an oxyacetylene torch with a very fine tip, he uses it for repairing eyeglasses, and so I had him pass it over one of these red chips... And it flamed, it flashed, as he passed over it.

He went on to state that this, in conjunction with the chemical signature and the red color, was a strong indication that this was indeed a form of thermite.

During a debate with architect Richard Gage 9/11 "debunker" Mark Roberts also suggested the red chips were paint, after Gage replied, "That's why they're extremely explosive I suppose," Roberts conveniently ignored him, stating, "These chips... One thing that should ring a bell, is that they look exactly like all the primer paint that's on the structural steel."

Of course Robert's assumption has nothing on empirical evidence. In a recent interview with Dr. Harriet conducted by national Emmy nominee and regional Emmy award-winning investigative journalist Linda Moulton Howe, he notes that, "In the primer paint, which was used on the steel beams at the original World Trade Center – we looked up the original recipes for those paints. The paints contained as an anti-corrosive: chromium and zinc, which we do not find. And magnesium, which we do not see either. These are negative indications why the red-gray chips are not paint."

More detailed analysis can be found in Harrit's article "WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT."

Also of note is the fact that, as Jim Hoffman of the website 9/11 Research points out, "Soaking the chips in methyl ethyl ketone, a solvent that dissolves paint, with periodic agitation for 55 hours, the red layers swelled up but remained intact and attached to their respective gray layers, and the thin plates tended to migrate and aggregate."

RussiaToday: Nano-thermite took down the WTC?

9/11: WTC Building 7"Collapse" video compilation

"Hey 'debunkers', if you ever come up with any primer paint chips that we can burn which yields microspheres, would you be kind enough to PM me? Thanks. The Harrit team is emphatic that no spheres were present in the chips before igniting them." - primrod

9/11 - Debunking the Debunkers - Exploding Primer Paint?

Debunker Paint

Steven E. Jones on Nanothermite - Part 9 of 12 - Sacramento, California, April 30, 2009 Steven E. Jones on Nanothermite - Part 11 of 12 - Sacramento, California, April 30, 2009

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Loose Change 911: An American Coup - Teaser

Pat Curley from the ScrewLooseChange blog says:

"Note the accelerated video of the collapse of the North Tower; he does that twice so I assume it's intentional."

For God's sake, what are you trying to say Pat? That he is going to claim this is how fast the Towers fell? It's a trailer! Here is good info on that though.

Next Pat says:

"There are some indications we'll get new stuff in the video; Steven Jones' red and gray chips look likely to get a workout. But so do squibs and the BS about how we need video of Atta getting on the plane."

Yes, it does look like "Steven Jones' red and gray chips" are "likely to get a workout"... good. Any peer-reviewed papers in the works to refute his claims? The Atta issue I agree on, although we don't know for sure if he covers it as you suggest, but the squibs are not debunked, see my post: "Un-debunking the WTC Demolition Squibs"

And Pat you still seem to be missing the point of Stewart's video.

Friday, July 10, 2009

What in the World is High-Tech Explosive Material Doing in the Dust from 9/11?

A scientific presentation given by Dr. Steven E. Jones in Sacramento, California, April 30, 2009

July 28, 2009


The presentation can be purchased on a two DVD set by clicking HERE.

Related Info...

More About That Exploding Paint