Tuesday, June 29, 2010

David Cameron - Same Old Shit!

Concluding a series of posts on British politics, here's a simple video I put together focusing primarily on David Cameron. It took longer than I would have liked coz I had to keep updating it with new quotes as they came out. For some reason, Youtube has squashed my last three videos and I've had to add "yt:stretch=16:9" to the tags to stretch them. If the video looks kind of pixelated in 360p, watch in 480p or 720p.

Thanks to the Youtube channels itnnews, EUXTV, cveitch and liarpoliticians - virtually all the HQ and HD footage was stolen from those three channels! And thanks aswell to C-Span for their extensive video archive.

Music: Philip Glass - Facades.

Monday, June 28, 2010

Debunking Joseph Nobles: Freefall Speed

This is a response to the AE911Truth.Info page titled "Freefall Speed." Here, I will examine the arguments made by Joseph Nobles and see if they are justifiable.

The Difference Between "Speed" and "Acceleration"

The first point Mr. Nobles makes is one I happen to agree with. It is clearly more appropriate to say "acceleration" rather than "speed" when discussing the issue of free fall. However, I have often felt that trying to determine if the WTC fell at free fall acceleration is in itself somewhat misleading. If we are trying to establish whether or not the buildings were controlled demolitions, then the question really should not be "did the buildings fall at free fall?" The question should be "did the buildings fall in time intervals consistent with controlled demolitions?" That of course begs the question of whether or not buildings destroyed through controlled demolition fall in free fall. More on this will be discussed below.

Rate of Collapses

Mr. Nobles features this photo to demonstrate how the debris coming off from the Towers is falling faster than the Towers themselves.

While the debris is certainly falling faster than the actual collapse, the wave of the destruction appears to be keeping up with the majority of the debris. David Chandler has outlined this characteristic of the collapses very accurately.

What's more, the rate of fall for some of the pieces of steel has itself been shown to be a smoking gun.

It has already been established that the total time for the Towers to come down was approximately 15 seconds in either case.

Mr. Nobles then presents this video to demonstrate that Building 7 actually took close to 16 seconds to collapse.

This is an issue that has been addressed several times already, but many debunkers still think the fall of the east penthouse invalidates the idea that WTC 7 was a demolition. I myself have already shown the collapse of column 79 and the penthouse is problematic enough. And it is not impossible that roof elements can collapse in a demolition before the main structure.

Sure, there was a much shorter gap between the two events than with Building 7. But clearly the idea of sections of the roof falling in a demolition before the main structure is not unheard of.

Oddly, Mr. Nobles refers to the main structure of WTC 7 as a "portion" of the collapse. That makes it sound like it was a very small part of the building that collapsed. The east penthouse could be more accurately described as a "portion."

Measurements of the Fall Rates

Mr. Nobles attempts to demonstrate that the rate at which the buildings fell has already been well accounted for by several sources.
He first cites a statement made in NIST's FAQ on the WTC, ignoring the fact that nowhere in NIST's report do they explain the actual total collapse of the buildings.
As 911research.wtc7.net points out:

NIST's assertion that the Tower's intact structure was "unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass" is absurd:

-It requires us to believe that the massive steel frames of the towers provided no more resistance to falling rubble than air.
-It ignores the fact that most of the rubble fell outside the towers' footprints, and hence could not contribute to crushing.
-It is unsupported by any calculation or logical argument.

Mr. Nobles then cites the work of Bazant et al. He refers to Bazant's work as providing "more rigorous calculations" and that his papers have been published in "respected scientific journals." However, several refutations to Bazant's work have been written over the years. Two refutations have even been peer reviewed and published in the same journal Bazant's papers have been published in. Those can be viewed here and here.

Although Mr. Nobles portrays NIST and Bazant as having explained that "the acceleration of their descent was not mathematically unusual," there are phenomenons in the collapses of both buildings that neither NIST nor Bazant account for.
One of which is the instant acceleration of the upper section of WTC 1. Debunkers have yet to provide any rational explanation for this event.
Another phenomenon is the disintegration of the upper section of WTC 2 as it collapsed. 911research points out that:

"It is clear that that the top section itself must be disintegrating. Otherwise the top section would have extended far into parts of the building that are clearly as yet unaffected by the collapse."

And video evidence confirms this.

Mr. Nobles makes some mention of the fact that portions of the cores of both Towers remained standing after the collapses. However, video evidence shows that the remaining core of the South Tower included neither north nor west columns.

And there was hardly anything left of the North Tower's core.

Despite Mr. Nobles' claims to the contrary, the rate at which the Towers fell is greatly at issue.

The Fall of WTC 7

Mr. Nobles lastly attempts to refute many arguments made about the collapse of WTC 7. Mr. Nobles believes that the main structure of WTC 7 also did not fall in 6.5 seconds. He features this diagram to illustrate this point.

I've never particularly liked using pictures to track the fall of any of the buildings. I feel that the videos speak for themselves.

Mr. Nobles makes quite a remarkable statement in regard to the collapse of the building.

"As shocking as it may be to our inexperience in large buildings falling, this is how quickly buildings of this size fall when they begin to collapse."

Oh really? If that's the case Mr. Nobles, then why did these buildings, all known controlled demolitions, take as long and even longer to fall than Building 7? Considering the fact that all these buildings are shorter than Building 7 and supposedly fire, not explosives, brought Building 7 down.

Controlled demolition clearly doesn't always cause a building to fall at free fall.

Finally, Mr. Nobles attempts to explain the period of free fall Building 7 underwent in its collapse. And like all other debunkers, he attributes this to the alleged buckling of eight of the lower floors. I recently demonstrated in two previous posts that these claims are clearly unfounded.


Mr. Nobles has clearly not explained the collapse anomalies of the Twin Towers and Building 7. Nothing will ever accurately explain what happened to those buildings until a new investigation is finally launched. One thing is for sure though: fire cannot cause a steel framed building to fall at the incredible rate at which the WTC fell in. The only example of a top-down progressive collapse initiated by fire is one in which a 13 story building took 10 seconds to partially collapse.

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Good Science and Demolition Theories, Indeed

Mike King's May 13, 2007 article "Good Science and Demolition Theories" purports to demonstrate that conflating these terms regarding the WTC buildings on September 11th 2001 is a tenuous exercise.

King states:
There is... a crucial paper by Brent Blanchard on the Implosion World website at: http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf. This paper alone should end any credulity towards the demolition theory, though its points need more elaboration for a non-technical audience. The reason that I highlight this paper is because it is the only one to date written by an authority on controlled demolition, based on access to data not available to either the official account or the counter-orthodoxy.
Well Mr. King, on Thursday (6/25/10) Tom Sullivan, a former explosive-charge placement technician, went public on the other side of this issue. Sullivan left the industry in the wake of the 9/11 attacks after it found itself in a steep decline due to a public weary of explosions and falling buildings. But his former employer Controlled Demolition, Inc. has boasted to have imploded "more buildings, chimneys, towers, bridges, and other structures" than the sum total of its competitors.

Sullivan personally placed hundreds of explosive charges at the Kingdome in Seattle Washington, which set a world record for the largest structure implosion by volume.


In the article "Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee," it is written:
Before he became connected to CDI, was an independent photographer during his early years in Maryland. He would be sent to CD sites and take still pictures of the jobs...

When asked, what made CDI the best in the business, he commented, 'their family had all the experience because they 'invented' the art of CD. They spent years traveling around the world, showing and educating people how this art form works.'...

Brent Blanchard, the photographer from the controlled demolition company Protec, has said, in criticism of the CD theory, that there would have had to been detonation cords strung all over the place and casings left in the rubble pile from the cutter charges. So we asked for a response from Sullivan. He noted that:

Remote wireless detonators have been available for years. Look at any action movie --and of course the military has them. The reason most contractors don’t use them is that they are too expensive -- but in a project with a huge budget it would be no problem. As for the casings -- everyone in the industry, including Blanchard, would know that RDX explosive cutter charges are completely consumed when they go off -- nothing is left. And in the case of Thermite cutter charges, that may also be the case. Thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984.
This type of demolition technology has long been cited by the 9/11 truth movement, and Blanchard's paper was previously debunked by Jim Hoffman of 911research.wtc7.net in his essay "Reply to Protec's - A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT."

But since no demolition experts echoed these points we were being "credulous." So, what do the "debunkers" have to say now that this is not the case?

Commenter "TV" at the Screw Loose Change blog notes that the device patented in 1984 had "low gas output," but since then thermite technology has vastly improved.

Commenter Dave Kyte states, "You would think they could find a real controlled demolition expert of some talent and expertise. What ever happened to Danny Jowenko? Wasn't he going to blow the lid off the case? Oh. Wait, he says the towers fell from fire. Never mind. So now Sullivan is not a "real controlled demolition expert," but Blanchard is, that's rich.

It's just like when "debunkers" poo-pooed our arguments on the basis that "no engineers agreed with us," and then employed the logical fallacy of moving the goalposts after we garnered the support of 1,000 architectural and engineering professionals, including many structural and aerospace engineers. The goal line is again moving just out of reach as more and more people with demolition expertise are questioning 9/11.

As I have stated on this blog before:

Jowenko does not think the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition due to their unconventional nature, but as the website 911review.com has pointed out, "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."
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.
Similarly, 911blogger.com user "stallion4" noted:
The towers weren't conventional demolitions. They were "top down" demolitions, which are rare in the professional demolition industry.
This was achieved by strategically planting and detonating explosives beneath each tower's predetermined impact zone. This was done to create the illusion that airliner impacts caused the towers to fall.

Building 7 was a classic demolition job -- bottom up -- the type of demolition that Danny Jowenko is qualified to give his professional opinion on.
This is also akin to the fact we were told for years that we had to have peer-reviewed evidence to be taken seriously, but now that we have presented peer-reviewed evidence, it's still not good enough:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/04/nanothermite-debunking-rebuttal-deroy.html Another commenter at Screw Loose Change states that even wireless detonation systems require det cord. Be this as it may, it does decrease the amount of overall cord needed. As Robert Erickson, producer of the last year's National Geographic hit piece on 9/11 truth stated in an email, "I asked demolition experts about setting off charges with radio signals. They said it was very feasible. Everyone seems to agree to the viability of radio signals setting off explosives. That would eliminate some of the primer cord."
This fact, in conjunction with the highly tailorable type of explosives that the evidence indicates were used would eliminate the need for any cord:


Sullivan states, "Fire cannot bring down steel-framed high rises -- period."

I know a demolition company that disagrees!

Sullivan's revelations come at the heels of, and add credence to, reports that respected Middle East expert and former BBC presenter Alan Hart was personally told by the most prominent civil engineering company in the world that the collapse of the Twin Towers was a controlled demolition.

But it doesn't take an expert to see that the WTC buildings show every characteristic of controlled demolition.

But the statements of DEMOLITION EXPERT Tom Sullivan might help others to see through their cognitive dissonance to the obvious truth:

Related Info:

A Firefighter, A Demolition Expert, and an Architect Look at Ground-Zero
Interview with Tom Sullivan, Richard Gage an Eric Lawyer:
Guns and Butter - April 28, 2010 at 1:00pm

Click to listen (or download)


"I retired from FDNY in 1998. I knew many of the guys who died in the WTC collapses. May they rest in peace. I've read tons of information re. the deaths of my brothers on 9/11. I've watched the videos, listened to the rantings on both sides. It wasn't until 2006 that I began questioning the "official story" and did my own research. There is bad info on both sides, but I've concluded that the 'official story' doesn't add up. It sounds like a whitewash. The 9/11 Commission didn't investigate anything--they just took statements. We need a real, independent investigation, with supeona powers. If the 'offical' version is correct, so be it. And if heads are going to roll at any level of the government or military, so be it. Let's do it, and let's not be afraid of the truth. The brothers deserve that much." - Bryan Hunt, FireFightersFor911Truth.org

GET INVOLVED! CHANNEL YOUR VOICE! http://nyccan.org/join.php
Oh, How Typical ! Arch Debunker Pat Curley Grossly Misrepresents Firefighter Testimony and then Wrongly Accuses 911 Truthers of the Same Thing Really?

Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee 24 June 2010 Written by Darcy Wearing and Richard Gage, AIA

Thursday, June 24, 2010

More exploded bone fragments found...

More 9/11 Human Remains Found At Ground Zero
ABC News

Just two or so dump trucks filled with never-before sifted debris from Ground Zero have yielded 72 new fragments of human remains in an almost three-month operation that could bring closure to more families of victims of the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center terror attack.

Because of the size and condition of some of the remains the NYC Medical Examiner's office told ABC News there was a good chance of obtaining DNA samples that could lead to new IDs once DNA testing is completed. The remains of about 1,000 victims of the almost 3,000 killed at Ground Zero have still not been identified.

A memorandum summarizing the findings of the operation, in which 844 cubic yards of debris was forensically sifted, was released by New York City officials Tuesday. It stated that including the 72 new fragments, a total of 1845 potential human remains have now been located since 2006 and are at the Medical Examiner's Office and when possible will be subjected to DNA testing.

The full report summarizing the now completed sifting operation is expected--nearly 9 years after al Qaeda crashed planes into the Twin Towers --to yield clues to the identities of some of the victims whose remains were either never found or are not as yet identifiable.

The sifting operation took place at Fresh Kill Landfills in Staten Island, where the new debris was brought and run through a series of conveyor belts that sort debris by size. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, the debris from the site yielded driver's licenses, rings, watches, wallets, shoes -- boxes and boxes of poignant reminders of the cost in human lives. This time, the sorting yielded bone fragments.

As of January 2010, the Medical Examiner's office had identified 1626 Ground Zero victims, or 59 percent of a reported 2,752 total. As of that date 21,744 remains had been recovered and 12,768, or 59 percent, had been identified.

Related Info:

1000 Missing Bodies

So Falling Buildings Vaporize People?


The massive operation to clean up Ground Zero was described as a rescue operation for weeks, as if anyone could have survived an event that turned all the buildings' concrete to dust. The event didn't spare the corpses either, as they were vaporized, according to the coroner.

"Three months after the Sept. 11 attacks, World Trade Center victims' families are being forced to face the ghastly possibility that many of the dead were 'vaporized,' as the medical examiner put it, and may never be identified."

The fires were limited to small parts of the buildings. How did the collapse of the buildings vaporize thousands of bodies? It takes exposure of a body to 1400-1800 degrees F for at least two hours to cremate a body. 1

An entire year after the attack, the medical examiner had identified only half of the victims, despite a well-funded forensic effort using the most advanced DNA identification techniques. 19,906 remains were recovered from Ground Zero. 4,735 of those have been identified. Up to 200 remains have been linked to a single person. Of the 1,401 people identified, 673 of the IDs were based on DNA alone. Only 293 intact bodies were found. 2


1. Cremation FAQ, [cached]
2. More than half of victims IDd, nydailynews.com, 9/11/02 [cached]

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Don't be a Slacktivist! [Updated]

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog writes today:

133... That's how many people sent in letters/faxes to the NYC District Attorney requesting an investigation of WTC-7, per the request from NYC-CAN. One hundred and thirty-three. I mean, let's put that in perspective. NYC-CAN claimed to have gathered 30,000 or so signatures for their ballot initiative, right? Not really quite enough to qualify for the ballot, but close.

This is 1/226th of that. And it gets worse, much worse, because that's an unfair comparison; nothing in the NYC-CAN current push says you have to live in the Big Apple.

Following on the heels of last week's idiotic attempt to get the DA to look at some videos of WTC-7's collapse, this week the Troofers are highlighting the supposed "countdowns" and "foreknowledge" as lines of investigation, featuring, no kidding, Kevin McPadden and Indira Singh.
First off Pat, it was not 30,000 signatures they gathered, it was 80,000, so no, you are not right.

So, NYC CAN was much more successful than Pat states and by his own admission should have had their initiative on the ballot. They've had weekly campaigns focused on raising awareness of WTC 7 since back in March, so it would not be surprising if the numbers have lessened, but there is no doubt that the total letters sent number in the thousands.

Here is a fax that I sent back in March to a few of the NYC Council members which destroys "debunker" talking points about Building 7. Here is an easy site from which to send free faxes. And here is a recent blog I did debunking Pat on the issue of WTC 7 foreknowledge.

The fact of the matter is, poll numbers indicate that 100 million Americans question the official 9/11 story, sometimes it's just a matter of getting people motivated. So, are we gonna let the "debunkers" get away with this!? Don't engage in slacktivism!


Update 6/15/10:

Fellow Advocates,

Thank you and congratulations! Together we finished Week 2 with 217 letters sent to the District Attorney's office.

In Week 3 let's make it our minimum goal to reach 500 letters, and in Week 4, 1000 letters! How do we do it?

If you haven't sent a letter yet, now is the time to join. You've never had an easier opportunity to take action and be heard. If you have been participating - in addition to sending your letter for Week 3 - make it your personal to goal to get just one friend to send a letter by forwarding this action alert and urging them to take action. There must be one person you can get to send a letter with you. If you can get that one person to send a letter, we will reach 500 letters this week and 1000 next week!

To help you get more people in your networks involved, the instructions have been refined, the action alert and letter are now posted on NYC CAN's Channel Your Voice page (the link is http://nyccan.org/join.php), and a Word file has been posted there for download/print.

Let's do our best to reach 500 letters this week and 1000 letters next week. The DA's office is listening!


Ted Walter

Update 6/23/10:

Fellow Advocates!

Together we finished Week 3 with 221 letters sent to the District Attorney's office! It may not be 1000, but it's downright amazing when you think about the message 221 letters must send to the folks in the Special Prosecutions Bureau. 221 letters this week, on top of 217 letters last week, on top of 133 letters the week before. Wow!

The letter for Week 4 is our most important and most powerful one yet. Read it, and you'll agree. If there's one route the DA will most likely take to revealing the truth about September 11, 2001, it's the destruction of physical evidence at the WTC site.

Now is the time to take action if you haven't yet! Don't have a fax machine, an envelope or a stamp? NO PROBLEM! Go to FaxZero.com and send a fax for free by uploading your letter. The letter is only three pages so you can fax it for free!

And, in case it was unclear before, no matter where you live you can send a letter!

Thank you for never giving up hope.


Ted Walter

Update 8/11/2010:

Fellow Advocates,

Thank you for all your hard work, and congratulations on a job well done! We finished Week 4 of "Wake up the DA" with 408 letters sent, bringing our grand total above 1,000 letters. Now that so many seeds have been planted with the City Council and DA - and NYC CAN continues to water them - it's time to shift our collective focus to creating the kind of political climate where those seeds can grow. Let's start with a major public awareness campaign, which we are proud to be joining several other leaders and organizations in supporting. Here it is.

Very Truly Yours,

Ted Walter

Related Info:

New Action Page at "BuildingWhat?"

NYC CAN, AE911Truth ask NYC city council to investigate WTC Building 7

Thank You Mr Curley: "Debunker" PROMOTES the "Building What?" Campaign & Pushes Discredited Material (again) to Discredit Himself.

Building What? is up...

Distorted Tilt Confirmed

To explain the constant acceleration of the upper block of WTC 1, Ryan Mackey insists that the initial tilt of the Tower misaligned the columns to a point where the impacts were not square enough to produce sufficient deceleration. He demonstrated this in a Hardfire debate with Tony Szamboti, using this graphic.

However, Scootle Royale demonstrated that Mackey was incorrect in his analysis, pointing out that the upper block did not rotate about a fixed point as Mackey's slide states. Here, I will expand on Scootle's rebutal to Mackey by using another debunker's analysis. Shortly after the Hardfire debate aired, debunker AlienEntity posted the following video in support of Mackey's theory.

The video basically confirms that the tilt was instant in the collapse. But after I watched it a few times, I realized that it may also confirm exactly what Scootle pointed out. To test this, I first took Mackey's original graphic and straightened it out to illustrate the Tower prior to tilting. Then, I set it next to Mackey's graphic of the tilted Tower with markers added.

I've numbered the floors for both graphics so that debunkers will not accuse me of incorrectly adjusting Mackey's original graphic.

What this comparison shows is that, if the upper block truly "rotated before falling" as Mackey's slide states, then the north side of the Tower would have remained fixed relative to the original height of the building. Here, I've taken AlienEntity's original video and added my own marker to the roofline of the building. And it clearly shows that the north side does not remain fixed. It falls at the same time the tilt begins.

Mackey's analysis is clearly incorrect, and does not adequately explain the lack of a jolt in the North Tower's collapse. Until proven otherwise, the acceleration of WTC 1 clearly violates the laws of physics.

Side note: I would like to take this opportunity to thank AlienEntity, as his work has been very useful to me recently.

Because it can Never be Repeated Enough: 9/11 Experiments: Collapse vs. Demolition

Any theory that does not match experiment is wrong. It doesn't matter what the computer models predict, how much funding is behind it, what the experts say, or what everyone "thinks". Nothing can fool the laws of physics.


Remember: only the truth about 911 will stop the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Related Info:

The Conservation Of Angular Momentum In Action...

Distorted Tilt Confirmed

Debunker Verinage Fantasies are Bunk!

The Physics of WTC 7

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Scootle's Guide To Failing GCSE English!

I just found out from a friend that 15 and 16 year olds in the UK are required in English class to write an essay about "What happened on 9/11?" as part of the curriculum. That's right, the British government is forcing the propaganda on poor unspecting teenagers. Now I'm currently being forced to attend a thirteen week job seekers course or else I lose my benefits and lately I've been feeling like I'm back at school again but in the special needs classes. So if the governments gonna treat me like a disruptive kid, I may aswell be one for a little while.

So to any teenagers who are immune to the indoctrination and not afraid of controversy, here are a couple of humourous ways you could go about dropping some 9/11 truth in your essays while stilll following the exam board's objectives and without people thinking you are crazy.

Note: This may result in you being punished, put on "a list", and recommended further re-education. In extreme cases, child services may even be called.

One option is to write a long and extremely detailed description of the official story to show how ridiculous it is. For example...

"Hani Hanjour, a man who was incompetant in a single engine Cessna, then executed a complex 330 degree downward turn, descending 6000 feet in two and a half minutes. He then entered a steep dive and descended a further 2000 feet in 40 seconds, pulled out of this steep dive at 500mph, overcame enormous G-Forces and knocked down five light poles in less than a second while maintaining the perfect trajectory required to hit the ground floor of a conveniently reinforced section of the Pentagon without touching the lawn. And he accomplished all this without being caught on any of the eighty plus cameras surrounding the Pentagon and without attracting the attention of the US air defence."

Alternatively, you could discuss 'conspiracy theories' but 'debunk' them in a blatantly contradictory fashion. For example ...

"Conspiracy theorists claim the World Trade Center was demolished by thermite, but this is ridiculous. Thermite is not an explosive, it is too slow to be used in demolition. A series of well placed, accurately timed, 4500 degree thermite reactions cannot possibly bring down a building in a symmetrical fashion. What actually happened was, randomly spread, 1400 degree office fires brought down the buildings in a symmetrical fashion! [Source: BBC - The Third Tower]"
Tip: Cite credible sources as often as you can! It will show them you are University student material!

Aww man now I wish I was back at school again. If only I was awake when I was doing my A-Levels. I would have done my final Physics presentation on the demolitions.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

I'm Not a Prophet

But I do predict that the so-called debunkers will once again try to use the off the wall antics of David Shayler against us. My vision came to me in the form of this National Geographic program I watched tonight:

The Second Coming

Meet three men who believe the Second Coming has already occurred and that they walk the Earth as the Messiah. Pastor Apollo Quiboloy, the founder of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ in the Philippines, claims to have built a worldwide following of six million. Sergei Torop, a former Russian traffic policeman, is believed by thousands to be the literal reincarnation of Jesus of Nazareth. Then, David Shayler, a former British MI5 agent and whistle-blower, claims to be the Jesus soul incarnated as man.
David is now living in a tent and has no followers as of yet. A young girl asks him during the program if he thinks he is Jesus, to which he replies that he is, and she counters by saying "no you're not."

All I can say is, thank Jesus that his Wikipedia page includes the bolded text below:

Following the release of the 9/11 Commission Report, David Shayler joined the 9/11 Truth Movement, a movement which holds as a primary tenet the belief that the official explanation for the September 11, 2001 attacks is partly (or completely) fraudulent. The New Statesman has reported Shayler stating 'no planes were involved in 9/11' and that the apparent 'planes' were missiles camouflaged by holograms. Shayler allegedly argues that the planes seen crashing into the World Trade Center were switched out planes with detonation pods underneath, although he says the attack on the Pentagon was not the result of a plane impact.

These and other public statements led some in the 9/11 Truth Movement to dismiss him as an agent of government disinformation and a provocateur working to discredit legitimate questions about the events of September 11, 2001.
His former partner and fellow spy and 9/11 truth advocate Annie Machon pointed out another possibility in a July 16, 2009 Daily Mail article, stating:
I believe David is a good and honourable man but he has had a some sort of severe breakdown. He was a great public speaker and now he is like this.

I do blame the Government and the intelligence agencies for what he has become and they have ruined his life.
Whatever the case is, Shayler is just one of many players on the team, and as the George Washington Blog pointed out:

You have to know who the players are before you can pick the winning team, right?

So take a look at what the top military leaders, intelligence professionals, scientists, structural engineers, architects, members of Congress, 9/11 Commissioners, legal scholars, heroic first responders, family members of 9/11 victims and psychiatrists say before you make up your mind about who's on the winning side of the 9/11 debate."

Related Info:

More Discrediting by Association

THE INFOWARRIOR with Jason Bermas: Jason Debunks National Geographic & No Planes BS!

Cognitive Dissonance Meets 9/11 Truth

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Predictable Duh-bunkers Strike Again

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog posted this video today.

Pat writes:
John Farmer said in an interview:

John Farmer- Well, let me just say that I think the [9-11 Commission] report is, uh, extremely accurate, and- and sets forth the facts of 9/11. And we actually did point out in the report the discrepancies between the accounts that were given and what we actually found.

You won't see Change Duh Channel mining that quote anytime soon.
I knew that this would be Pat's talking point, so I pre-debunked him when I posted the video almost three months ago. This is becoming a habit.

Related Info:

DebunkThis! Full Length

Saturday, June 12, 2010

David Rockefeller's Bitter Sweet 95!

So it's been 95 years since globalist kingpin David Rockefeller was spawned and I'm in the mood for celebrating...

1 2 3 4

"Go to hell you old bastard!"

Hopefully he'll be celebrating his centennial in jail.

Edit: I just realised it's also daddy Bush's birthday today as well. That old bastard can go to hell too ... the baby rap- ... errmmm ... killing, baby killing freak!

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

DebunkThis! Full Length

June 09, 2010

Get the double DVD at: http://www.spywitnessnews.org/content/debunk-season-1-dvd
Season 1 • Oklahoma City Bombing • First WTC Bombing • Fluoride • Gulf War • FEMA Camps • JFK • Government testing • 9/11 • False Flags • Extras
A show for debunkers to do their thing as well as for the choir to have a reference point. So many people find it hard to believe that we are being Poisoned, tested on, lied to, that plans are documented to control and contain us as well as kill us by the powers that be. That indeed conspiracies exist and that not everyone who speaks of this is a nut job or else you would have to call yourself a nut job. Whether its O.J., Michael Jackson or 911, everyone speaks of conspiracies. 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.

Related Info:

Debunk This! 008 ( 911 Conspiracy )

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Top Construction Firm: WTC Destroyed By Controlled Demolition & the Debate about this Story at 911Blogger !

Respected Middle East expert and former BBC presenter Alan Hart has broken his silence on 9/11, by revealing that the world’s most prominent civil engineering company told him directly that the collapse of the twin towers was a controlled demolition.

Speaking on the Kevin Barrett show yesterday, Hart said he thought the 9/11 attack probably started as a Muslim operation headed up by Osama Bin Laden but that the plot was subsequently hijacked and carried out by Mossad agents in collusion with elements of the CIA, adding that since its formation, Israel has penetrated every Arab government and terrorist organization.


After reading this post I was surprised to find a disagreement over the story running in a 911Blogger comments thread. Fellow "truthers" appeared to be at each other over nothing.

1.) John Bursill posts the story (above) from Kevin Barrett's blog where: the BBC journalist Alan Hart points to his knowledge of a big construction company's conclusions that the WTC buildings were subjected to Controlled Demolition. He further stated that it was his opinion that 911 was largely the work of a CIA-Mossad operation.

2.) Highly respected Victronix in the comments thread attacks Bursill's post because the story he put up, according to her, delves too far into unsubstantiated evidence territory (it's not dealing with verified reports or physical evidence). She claims it's borderline anti-semitic.


Kevin Barrett:
Barrett has a very poor reputation: he has associated with Jim Fetzer for a long time, has supported unfounded claims that Michael Wolsey is an "enemy" agent, makes many other mistakes when dealing with 911 issues leaving himself open to general ridicule and debunking attacks.

Could he be a mole to make 911 truth look bad? Victronix has warned us about such subversive tactics in her analysis of people like Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds.

CONCLUSION on Barrett: Generally, not to be trusted due to his history -- although he could be hawking good material on occasion.

OVERALL conclusion regarding Barrett's interview: The BBC journalist was offering an honest opinion. He provided a new lead, albeit unsubstantiated, on a big construction company that, with all the expertise at its disposal, concluded 911 was an inside job. His comments, reflecting a CIA-Mossad connection in relation to the overall crime, were valid ones. There seemed to be no obvious anti-semitic agenda in terms of the BBC journalist's story.

In my humble opinion, the interview was newsworthy, despite Barrett's reputation. This is because the information put forward was not Barrett's but that of the BBC journalist. The view offered was not anti-semitic either. It dealt with valid suspects and a credible CIA-Mossad scenario.

Readers should also note that a police investigation into 911, the next step in the story, would need to consider suspects as was raised in the interview. Other suspects from other countries would also be on the list.

There is more to the 911 crime than just an examination of the physical evidence. Questions about who dun it will arise. In this case the speculation did not seem too far fetched considering the record. However, having said that, a note of caution should always be pinned to all information presented by Barrett. Each claim of his must be considered on a case by case basis because of his past record.

There was nothing controversial with Bursill's decision to post the story on 911Blogger despite questions surrounding the interviewer Barrett. Obviously, more work would be welcome in order to establish the identity of the big construction company that remained unidentified in the interview.

Sunday, June 6, 2010

Debunking the Debunkers' Free Fall Fallacies

One central argument debunkers have raised over the years is that the WTC buildings could not have been brought down with explosives because that would have caused the buildings fall in free fall.

However, a video made by debunker AlienEntity actually disproved the notion that free fall is a neccessary characteristic of a controlled demolition.

My thoughts on this video:

Obviously he is trying to use the fall of the east penthouse to make his main point. But, having already been established, including the fall of the penthouse is not an objective way of timing the collapse. As I myself have already pointed out, there are enough problems with the collapse of column 79 and the east penthouse alone.

His flawed argument about the penthouse aside, there are several significant points his video makes. First off, it shows that explosives can actually cause a building to fall at 50% the rate of free fall. This is important because, given the fact that the Twin Towers collapsed in about 15 seconds and their free fall time would be about 9 or 10 seconds, it shows that the Towers evidently did fall in time intervals that would be consistent with a demolition. However, this is a huge problem, considering that:

-The collapses started at the top and not at the bottom of the buildings.

-Supposedly no explosives were used to bring the buildings down, according to the official story.

In any case, let us now look at WTC 7. His video uses the Landmark Tower demolition as a comparison to Building 7. Oddly enough, a comparison of the Landmark demolition to WTC 7 was made long ago by the truth movement. By comparing the main structure of WTC 7 to the Landmark Tower, we see that both buildings fell in approximately the same amount of time. Building 7 was 576 feet tall and the Landmark Tower was only 380 feet tall. How could Building 7, being almost 200 feet taller, fall in the same amount of time as the Landmark building? His video also mentions the period of free fall Building 7 underwent, but merely hand waves it away by saying there's "a lot of misunderstanding about what that actually means." There certainly is a lot of misunderstanding about it, but it's not truthers who have the misunderstanding. The main argument debunkers have against the 2.25 second period of free fall is the supposed buckling of 8 of the lower floors in the building.

I touched on this subject quite extensively in my previous post, but I will expand on it by breaking down the main problems with this argument.

1. We have no visual evidence of this buckling occuring, so the claim is only based on NIST's word.

2. All of NIST's models show the buckling occuring only on the west side of the building.

However, the free fall occurs over the entire width of the building. We know this because the roofline remains essentially straight through period of free fall.

Other than the slight kink, the roofline remains essentially straight for the first 4-5 seconds of its collapse.

3. Even if the buckling did occur, there is no evidence supporting that it would even cause the building to free fall in the first place. We would only be looking at warped and twisted steel, but not zero steel.

4. NIST's own simulations show that this buckling would cause the building to fall in a different manner than what was observed in the videos.

Ultimately, it has been established that free fall is not a neccessary feature in a controlled demolition. But debunkers would have you believe that NIST's "progressive collapse" theory could cause a phenomenon in a building collapse that even controlled demolitions can't always cause. Until debunkers give a truly rational explanation for the free fall of WTC 7, I will continue to see it as a physical impossibility in a natural collapse. And the ironic thing is, NIST agrees that it is physically impossible.

Oh, How Typical ! Arch Debunker Pat Curley Grossly Misrepresents Firefighter Testimony and then Wrongly Accuses 911 Truthers of the Same Thing

In a recent post entitled "Oh, The Irony!," Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog asserted that David Ray Griffin omits testimonial evidence from the FDNY, which Pat believes indicates that they knew WTC 7 was going to collapse because of structural damage. The fact of the matter is, Griffin does not ignore this testimony, he just doesn't view it in the same way.

"Extracts from a recent Peter B Collins' interview with Professor David Ray Griffin about Building 7's thoroughly implausible collapse on 9/11."

On December 17, 2008 Pat posted the following statement by Graham MacQueen:
Occasionally "debunkers" have criticized me for my work on the Towers, sneering that I’m just a religious studies prof -- often they mistakenly say theologian -- and don’t know anything about engineering. [However], I’ve never pretended to be an engineer or a physicist. My main contributions have been in the analysis of texts, which I’m obviously trained for. The main body of texts I’ve concentrated on is the oral histories of the New York Fire Department, which constitute about 10,000 pages of very rich material. When, on occasion, I do research that requires skill in engineering, I ask engineers to help me. I’m currently completing an article with a co-author who is an engineer.
To which Pat replied, "Tell us, Graham, what do you think about the oral history from John Peruggia? Don't you think it pretty much rules out controlled demolition of the towers? Don't you think it explains where Rudy Giuliani got his information that the towers were going to collapse?"

Apparently Pat was not aware that this testimony was addressed in MacQueen's paper "Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories," published one month prior to his blog.

MacQueen quotes Peruggia:
I was in a discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the Department of Buildings, but I'm not sure. Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building's stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.

I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that information. I told him he was to proceed immediately to the command post where Chief Ganci was located…
MacQueen then writes:
When Zarrillo carried Peruggia’s startling news of imminent collapse to Chief Ganci, Ganci’s response was, 'who the fuck told you that?' Ganci had bet the lives of his firefighters on the stability of the Towers. In fact, the lives of hundreds of firefighters had been wagered on the experience of fire chiefs who never suspected collapse. Ganci had almost certainly been told, like Peruggia and others in the FDNY (see Appendix E), that planes could not cause the Towers to collapse. Ganci is dead—he died in the collapse of the North Tower—but his question remains a good one: Who told you that?

In my view, all three building collapses were peculiar in the extreme, and we have a perfect right to ask who determined that they were going to collapse and on what basis. We need not apologize for asking whether there might have been an 'engineer type person' who told crucial members of the FDNY that Seven’s stability was compromised, after which this warning was passed on and largely accepted by the rank and file.
Nine months after publishing his article MacQueen was proven correct, as nowpublic.com pointed out:
In an Oct 15, 2008 interview with Allan Rees (following the release of the NIST WTC 7 report), Dr. Shyam Sunder (lead investigator) responded to a question about the evidence of foreknowledge of the collapse of WTC 7 by saying that they were "aware that an engineer or a technical expert or a technical advisor was providing advice to the city agencies with regard to the condition of building 7', and that they had been hearing creaking noises and the area was cleared about 2:30 pm. He refused to name this person, and then implied it may have been more than one "advisor".
Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Adam T. adds:

In fact, apparently someone from the Office of Emergency Management had warned the firefighters about Building 7.
Excerpt from David Ray Griffin's book on WTC 7:

According to Captain Michael Currid, the Uniformed Fire Officers Association's sergeant at arms, he and other FDNY officers at some point went into WTC 7, where four or five fire companies were battling its flames, and yelled up the stairwells: "Drop everything and get out!" He did this, he said, because "[s]omeone from the city's Office of Emergency Management" had told him that WTC 7 was "basically a lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it."
(page 114)
Interesting that one of the warnings came from Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management, when that very same office also somehow knew the Twin Towers were going to come down.
So, these psychic "engineer types" from Giuliani's office are probably where John Peruggia, and unfortunately for Pat's argument, the firefighters got their information. The problem for Giuliani is that when he was confronted on the issue he lied when he said that he "didn't realize the towers would collapse." He also apparently agreed that the story of these fore-tellers of fire causing steel-framed high-rise buildings to collapse for the first time in history was dubious, as he also lied about the very existence of these individuals when he stated that, "No one that I know of had any idea they would implode. That was a complete surprise."

MacQueen has also debunked the notion that truthers are quote mining the FDNY regarding explosions at the Twin Towers:

MacQueen points out in the paper:
...Many members of the FDNY came to believe, in the period between 9/11 and their interviews, that they had been mistaken in interpreting what they perceived as evidence of explosions. Some suggest in their interviews that they now (as of the interview date) realize they witnessed non-explosive collapse, with the implication that they face the task of fitting what they originally perceived into the new framework. A few adopt the new framework readily; others do so reluctantly; and still others are unwilling to do so at all. I have not attempted in Appendix B to delete references to change of mind: on the contrary, I have included them because I find them fascinating and instructive. In some cases we can almost feel the struggle of the interviewee to accept the new interpretive frame.
The fact of the matter is, the oral histories were suppressed for nearly four years because they corroborate demolitions, to say otherwise is an exercise in credulity.

Note: "Debunkers" will point out that the audio of the Tower "collapsing" in the above video, which comes from the Discovery Channel's Inside the Twin Towers documentary, is not the correct soundtrack. There has been dispute about this, but I have it on good authority that one of the people involved in the capturing of the video did say the audio on the Discovery Channel piece was not correct. A "debunker" victory? Not so much, because this person also stated the following, "Both myself and the senior fire officers who were with me at the time mentioned in our written statements to the NYPD that we thought their had been an explosion before the tower collapsed."

The "debunkers" can call me a liar if they want, but I'm not, this conversation did take place, unfortunately no agreement was made on quoting this person by name.

So, as we have pointed out on this blog before, the other audio is just as damning.
Highly recommended are the comments by "Anonymous #2" on Pat's post. Whoever you are, you are welcome to join this blog ASAP! You would have to leave most of the insults at their blog though, as funny as they are. ;) jmtalboo@gmail.com

In one particular comment this anonymous debunker smasher notes, "everybody in the truth movement knows that the firefighters were warned that WTC 7 was going to 'come down' or be 'brought down'. (E.g. FDNY Rastuccio) Exactly where those warnings were ultimately coming from, is unclear..."

To which one of Pat's regulars Lazarus Long responded, "who mentioned 'brought down', when and where. Who said it, fucktartd?"

Anonomous#2 responds, "E.g. Indira Singh, FDNY Lt. David Rastuccio. Do your fucking homework, neanderthal."

Here are those accounts.
Bryan Hunt, FDNY, retired 8-15 Years
I retired from FDNY in 1998. I knew many of the guys who died in the WTC collapses. May they rest in peace. I've read tons of information re. the deaths of my brothers on 9/11. I've watched the videos, listened to the rantings on both sides. It wasn't until 2006 that I began questioning the "official story" and did my own research. There is bad info on both sides, but I've concluded that the "official story" doesn't add up. It sounds like a whitewash. The 9/11 Commission didn't investigate anything--they just took statements. We need a real, independent investigation, with supeona powers. If the "offical" version is correct, so be it. And if heads are going to roll at any level of the government or military, so be it. Let's do it, and let's not be afraid of the truth. The brothers deserve that much. - Source: FireFightersFor911Truth.org
For a debunking of the debunkers on all the issues surrounding WTC 7 please view this film by blog contributor AdamT., based largely on the research and information from David Ray Griffin's book The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Official Final Report About 9/11 is Unscientific and False.

Saturday, June 5, 2010

Hypothesis Trailer

Steven Jones says:

"I appreciate when people react and they say, well... scientifically, how about (insert) somebody elses explanation for freefall speed. But if you just say you're a nutty heretic... then I say, well, no I'm not."

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog says:

"I'm sorry to say, Steven, that you are indeed a nutty heretic."

This coming from a guy who recently posted a blog entitled "Oh, The Irony!". But whatever Pat, it makes my job even easier when you prove Steven's point and debunk yourself. We will definitely have to add your statement to the top of our list of ridiculous "debunker" explanations for the freefall of WTC 7.

For those who just can't wait for the film, I'm guessing that the essay "Steven E. Jones A Physics Professor Speaks Out on 9-11: Reason, Publicity, and Reaction" is pretty close to a print version. It even has a section called "When All Else Fails, Personal Attack."

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Another 'Lone-Nut' Gives the UK Government a Reason to Disarm the People Even More!

Gun laws in the UK are among the toughest in the world. Largely due to two major massacres.

In 1987, a man named Michael Robert Ryan killed sixteen people in Hungerford, and then shot himself. The massacre led to the banning of semi-automatic rifles.

In 1996, a man named Thomas Watt Hamilton (interesting how they like to reveal all three names) walked into Dunblane Primary School and opened fire on a class of five and six year old children, killing or wounding all but one of them, including the teacher. Hamilton also killed himself. The massacre led to the banning of handguns.

Currently, despite the tough regulations, more than half a million British people legally own a shotgun, but that might not be the case for long!

Today a taxi driver named Derrick Bird killed at least 12 people in Cumbria with a shotgun. Derrick himself has been found dead and some news reports are saying he killed himself. How convenient!

Apparently he just drove around shooting people at random for three hours with his shotgun pointed out of his taxi window. An impressive achievement in the 95,000 square mile, CCTV rich prison camp that is the United Kingdom. Where was the police?!

What's the bet this will be used to disarm the British people even further? Several news channels have already referenced the previous two massacres and their impact on gun laws.

Many suspect that with regards to the previous two massacres, there's more to the stories than what we have been told, especially Dunblane ...

Could Derrick Bird have been some kind of brainwashed patsy like so many of these 'lone-nuts'? We'll probably never know since he's dead. But I'm sure this event will provide the new puppet regime an excuse to reverse its policies on relaxing the police state and impose further gun control on an already defenseless British public.

The logic of gun control has confused me since I was like ten years old. If you want a gun badly enough and you have connections, you can get one, regardless of how illegal they are. Banning guns only prevents innocent people from protecting themselves. In Switzerland, guns are a big part of the culture and the violent crime statistics are so low they aren't even kept. In every case, disarming a population leads to more violent crime. But of course gun control is not about keeping people safe, just ask Adolf Hitler! It's about limiting people's ability to defend themselves against what is coming...

America, you have been warned.