If one includes Mineta's testimony, this is the logical outcome=> protocol document CJCSI 3610.10A was in effect on 9/11. This protocol called for permission from SOD to fighters to shoot down errant aircraft. At 9:26, Mineta overhears young man say, "Do the orders still stand", Cheney says, "Of course the orders still stand..." Cheney is confirming the stand down protocol here on the aricraft heading into the Pentagon.
Hi, I'm just rereading some of Griffin's book. Has anyone looked at the May 23rd, 2003 9/11 commission hearing? Arnold's initial testimony seems to correlate with Mineta's testimony. To say that General Arnold lied initially doesn't make sense as Griffin points out on pages 28-30. The reason to lie was according Farmer page 30, "to obscure mistakes on the part of the F.A.A. and the military, and to overstate the readiness of the military to intercept and, if necessary, shoot down UAL 93.
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Who was Ali Mohamed and what is his relationship with Osama Bin Laden and the CIA?
How many of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth's 1400+ architectural and engineering professionals have experience in structural engineering, high rise construction, or controlled demolition?
What did Hani Hanjour’s flight instructors have to say about his flying ability?
Funny - on my other video you cite Ryan Mackey as an 'expert' on issues related to 9/11. Is he any expert on or have experience in "structural engineering, high rise construction, or controlled demolition?" In CIA false-flag terrorism? No, he's the HVAC specialist at NASA. You fail on the 'argument from authority' big time!
Everyone knows OBL works for the CIA.
The consensus seems to be Hanjour was a poor pilot.
Ok, if Mackey's work was debunked then why won't Griffin debate him?
Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it."
I challege you to provide one source that proves UBL worked for the CIA. An actual source, not a 911 twoofer source.
Why should anyone debate Mackey when he's already been debunked?
The problem is that we don't even know if Hanjour was on the plane, let alone piloting it.
Since you discount any source that shows OBL worked for the US, there's no point in doing your homework for you.
But the US was not interested in OBL even after 9/11, since the Taliban offered us his head on a plate if we had any evidence connecting him to 9/11 and the Bush Administration couldn't provide any.
I read all the accounts on OBL. He hated the west. He wouldn't even meet with western reporters. He had plenty of money and didn't want CIA funds. And he could but any weapons, including US weapons, from Pakistan. That is when the Pakistanis didn't outright give them to him.
I know you would really like OBL to be some "Under Seige" like US opertive gone out of control, but there's no supporting evidence.
If this were true he would have admitted it to smear the US.
Having read accounts of OBL, then you must be aware that he was part of the US-organized, US-trained, and US-funded anti-Soviet campaign in Afghanistan.
You must be aware that shortly before 9/11 the CIA contacted OBL when he was in Dubai for medical treatment.
You must be aware the US refused the Taliban offer to arrest OBL after 9/11.
You must be aware US forces allowed OBL to escape Tora Bora in 2001.
Pakistani Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, Ayman al-Zawahiri, CNN journalist Peter Bergen, and even Bin Laden himself all deny he was a CIA asset.
The CIA didn't train, they just funded through Pakistan.
The Taliban ONLY offered to hand him over if the US stopped bombing Afghan cities. Just like they offered to hand over the hijackers of Indian Airlines Flight 814 but suddenly "lost them".
Nonetheless there is evidence which indicates OBL was allied to the CIA. Is it surprising secret agents deny they are secret agents? Look at the US terrorist Pakistan captured last week. The US is deeply involved in international terrorism.
Yes, the US created, trained, armed many jihadist groups. Sorry your info is incomplete.
Yes, the taliban offered us OBL's head on a plate - but the US was *never* interested in him.
proudfootz, you rock! Just remember how many people don't even get your Bug/Bus, parking lot demo. You are truly a classic and a considered a brother of mine. Keep up the good work, and God bless you for being able to debate and talk truth and logic to your detractors. Wow! Oh, and by the way I have read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it. Cheers!
David Ray Griffin is a philosophy professor. What a highly credible background that is when it comes to engineering!
Why can't I get ahold of this man? I'm just a silly engineer! Where's Richard Gage?? Dylan Avery? Jason Bermas? Why don't these guys want to confront me about 9/11??
A book named "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" is nothing more than "an analysis of fallacious arguments used to marginalize critics of government-sponsored 9/11 myths."
Hahahaha, no. Just like what David Ray Griffin always does, he tries to act like he's an engineer.
I would like you to please send me the parts of the Bazant/NIST report which say that Newton's 3rd Law of Motion was violated on 9/11 so I can read it.
it rate it highly. what is your position on what most likely happened in short, do you consider an 'inside job' of some extent to be the most likely version of events? do you believe in controlled demolition, or the lack of boeing at the pentagon etc? interested to hear your opinions, sir.
right you are sir. Heres how you know its an inside job right out of the gate: You cant wire 3 buildings with tons of explosives with out buying the security company's cooperation. You cant keep what really happened a secret for so long with out the cooperation of the government. Its pretty cut and dry.
I'm not familiar with that incident but it doesn't surprise me. The military's job is to slaughter people in wartime and sometimes the "wrong people" get slaughtered and they always try to hide it. This doesn't sound like a massive 9/11 style conspiracy. We probably haven't heard about every wedding party in Afghanistan and Pakistan that we've blown up either.
The fact is that we've committed serious crimes that a lot of people hate us for and I'm surprised we haven't been attacked more often.
Then at the risk of beating a dead horse I will add that from Hiroshima to Indochina to Latin America to Iraq, with body counts in the millions the US has committed crimes that dwarf anything that happened on 9/11. And the perpetrators of these crimes rarely hid their identities and actions. The idea that somebody finally hit back is - to me - profoundly more convincing than a fantastically complex government conspiracy that produces the greatest inside job in human history.
There is certainly something to be said for the 'blowback' theory - that finally some of the chickens came home to roost.
However, in my opinion the desperation with which various governmental agencies tried to prevent and pervert investigation into 9/11 indicates involvement.
@austin0031 UH, The Great depression, Pearl Harbor, Kennedy Assassination. Its pretty obvious 'They' have been getting away with it for a very long time. They investigate themselves & bypass judiciary processes, its not rocket science. Now for a second of realizing the power a Central Intelligence Agency really is when you walk through an airport, You think they make mistakes?? Everything was made to look like rhyme & reason, but rest lightly knowing they are doing all of it on purpose.
Climatologists are all lying to us about global warming.
Biologists and paleontologist have distorted science and the fossil record to promote the theory of evolution.
These are conspiracy theories, which if true, would require literally thousands of willing and compliant accomplices to succeed. I have not spent very much studying these implausible theories and I don't think I need to. Life is too short.
Strangely enough we have laws against conspiracies on the books, people get arrested and tried for participating in conspiracies, and people even get convicted and go to jail because of their conspiracies.
So in the real world conspiracies do occur and your whining about theories regarding conspiracies doesn't make reality go away.
That's the wrong argument because I never said conspiracies don't happen. I said that a conspiracy involving the US government in the 9/11 attacks and cover-up would require the involvement and cooperation of literally thousands of people and I don't find it plausible that so many people could keep the secret.
Occam's simplest explanation would be that we were attacked by Arab terrorists whose intention was to retaliate against very real crimes that we have perpetrated in the past.
You may recall the headlines a few years ago that revealed the US participated in civilian massacres during the Korean War. Over 400 victims, mostly women and children, were murdered by our military.
They managed to keep *that* secret for 50 years.
Therefore your Argument from Incredulity is not a credible position.
The 'simplest explanation' is not always true, so Occam's Razor does not solve this problem either.
" Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks " First of all, why say adults, and not people? I'm not an adult yet by age standards yet I share that belief to a point. Second, WHEN has the government ever been truthful? Of course they're lying about something! They always do. I'm not saying the gov't did it, but they didn't tell us everything or don't know everything.
Hey there proudfootz! I read a book recommended by you when the Randi Rhodes message board was up. "Blowback" was the name of it. I enjoyed your commentary there along with eyeswideopen and DanR. I was kind of a casual poster, screwdriver. By the way, I bought this book too! Of course this thread is old now, and Griffin has more books and more things have happened. Good stuff!
Good to see you're still out there fighting the good fight.
I'm currently reading Griffin's book about 9/11 contradictions.
I'm sorry the RRMB got annihilated - there was a lot of good information available there. I suppose that's a good reason in itself to see it closed down! ;)
We have an army on top of some of the world's largest oil reserves we're dependent upon because of 911.The "Bread & Butter" of the military industrial complex (the cold war) has conveniently been replaced by the war on terror & the money keeps flowing into the same pockets it allways has (in even greater amounts & without the Soviets!) because of 911.The budgets of the FBI,CIA,FAA,NORAD massively increased=911..all failed us & the 'official story' comes from them!Of course it was an inside job!
In 2004 it was found that 72% of Americans believed that Saddam was involved in 9/11. This despite that the Bush Admin never actually SAID that. They IMPLIED it and then their media monopoly went in overdrive and convince the rest of us that.
My statement alone, being true, in itself entirely, proves 9/11 was an inside job (for anyone who can think).
I agree. PSYOPS is designed to do just that. Confuse and serve as a smokescreen for an all out assault. This is very simple, if people would start believing in what they see and know rather than what they are told.
Its amazing people believe that truthers actually seek the truth. Most are a bunch of pathetic conspiracy theorists who ignore the evidence presented.
Can't defend the 'official' version of 'crush down/crush up'? Not surprising - anyone can see it goes against easily oberved facts and well-established physical laws.
WOW that was amazing! i'm SO glad i watched this video! i can rest soundly now that i know your going to read a book..specifically that book! brilliant! you didnt even look half as akward as you usually do in your recordings!!
you should post a video whem you decide what youl be eating for dinner as well im sure we'd alll love to know -_-
your absolutely right!! i made this account JUST for you..
because before i saw your pathetic excuse for a social life on youtube..this website was nothing but a cute and fun tangent of my web usage time. UNFORTUNATELY
you seem to have taken it a step too far.
this is youtube. not the oprah show. not dr. phil. not time magazine...nobody gives a 'fuck' if your intelligent and intellectual. notice i used the pointless quotation marks you always use for no apparent reason to mock you. getalife.
i like how you couldnt come up with a significant argument to defend how i stated that you take youtube too seriously and that it seems as if this is your only social life...all you did was contradict yourself.
you even have a video about how ppl are stupid and dont have enough "MENTAL POWERS" to submit a credible argument..
and the best you could come up with is puberty? great job dumbfuck. thats why i cant stand you. your an idiot who thinks hes a genius. ,dude!
iv explained many times over why i am "angry" and "hateful" towards you. i will try to make it easier for you to understand as i am aware of your incompetence. the following are reasons for my disapproval of you.
1. you are very opinionated and close-minded, and once you support an idea all other ideas are "wrong stupid and ignorant".
2. You're socially awkward..its weird watching you on video..why cant you go to a forum or learn how to communicate.
Since all your points are based on your subjective opinion, and are poorly supported, and simply ad hominem attacks there is no reason to take you seriously.
ok u bragged that u got a book that u probably never ended up reading. nuthin was debunked other than you read books. this vid was pointless and idiotic.
Actually, yes. I haven't had time to put together a video that does this book justice.
I think even people who are themselves skeptics of 9/11 skepticism should look at this book to find out what it's really all about - depending on Popular Mechanics won't do.
I agree! But the reality is, the mass majority of US citizens are too busy struggling with their debts, watching Fox, playing XBOXs etc to spare the time to read this book...
Popular Mechanics publication is nothing but government funded propoganda...If im not mistaken, presidential candidate John McCain wrote the 'foreword' for that book denouncing 'conspiracy theorists'...
I believe that objective analysis of the events of 9/11 and importantly it's historical role, show that it was a pretext orchestrated by the intelligence services for invasion of the middle east.
The US has only 2% of the worlds oil within it's borders, the middle east has 60%, yet the US is the worlds largest oil consumer. And the US, if it attacked Iran would have political control of Suadi Arabia, Iraq and Iran, the worlds top 3 oil producing nations.
And they did not attempt to 'debunk' any element of the official story. Any real scientist should approach this issue with a mind open to any possibilities and draw conclusions from the available evidence. Trying to debunk any argument that contradicts the official one is far from scientific. But that what people like Popular Mechanics do in practice.
Much of the 'debunking' appears to have been focused on debubnking the nonsensical straw man elements of the alternative arguments, in hope to effect the other sound arguments by proxy. The important things tend to be ignored.
And we did not find these people 'debunking' the pancaking argument when it was been expounded within the media, despite it contradicting everything that even NIST said. Those people were not targetted as 'nutters'.
And notice how the dumbfuck/shills never seem to deal with the iron-rich microspherule forensic evidence for thermate. This evidence has been corroborated by the USGS, and is cold, hard, smoking-gun proof.
The sheer ignorance (or governmental complicity) of the 'debunkers' on youtube just disgusts me sometimes.
at the top of that list is the following statement. it can be assumed anyone who signed it read it:
"We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7."
The findings of their detailed analysis of the WTC disaster are a matter of public record.
Can you say the same of Michael T. Donly and Dennis J. Kollar? What investigative research have they done into the towers' collapse, and can you point me (in a *general* direction) toward their work?
NIST said the collapse was inevitable and just pointed at the video for evidence. 'see it fell, it was inevitable". and you call that scientific.
donley and kollar, according to the statement on top of the petition they signed, claim 'we need a new investigation'. and you want to hunt down the details of their claim so you can discredit them.
wow, yesterdays data! well you cant fault me for not knowing about it yet lol. if its burried in the 10000 page report i havent read it all. its not in the main summary.
i will take it under consideration after i source where they got their numbers from. my first impression is we are back to pancake theory since they talk so much about floor loads not columns failing. but nist denied the pancake theory in their report.
"The complexity... and the length of the [2005] final report... have made understanding of the investigation a challenge for many interested readers. In response, NIST has prepared simplified answers."
It's a nice way of saying that some people were too stupid to understand, and so they created a Cliff's Notes version.
If you didn't read the newly-updated portion of NIST's FAQ page and immediately see all sorts of problems, it's likely you haven't studied 9/11 nearly enough; aren't intelligent enough (dumbfuck); or are a shill.
It's time to start reading more, falcon.
h t tp://w ww .911blogger .c om/node/12990#comment
yeah thats what they were saying. you have convinced me. im sure you read all 10,000 pages of the NIST report and took the required time to analyze all the data. i wish i had your dedication and smarts or it would be clear to me.
There's no need to read all 10,000 pages. I would, however, recommend reading some of the more relevant papers (there are over 40 papers) and letters (there are 57) on the journalof911studies website.
Also, watch this lecture (if you haven't already seen it): h t tp:// video .go ogle. c om/videoplay?docid=5393675030313324244
From my vantage point, you appear to have more than enough dedication and smarts.
ive seen many of jones's videos, but not that one ill give it a look. i feel confident ive looked further into the data than most.
i kind of take the stance that one group of experts agrees with official story, one doesnt. they cancel each other somewhat in that regard. not that i dont have an opinion, but as far as 'debating' it goes nobody is budging.
but i think its clear that at minimum they took planes into some account when they built the towers.
Download it so you can search it. See if you can find the total quantity of concrete in the WTC.
One of the funniest things about this whole issue, is that the nation that put men on the moon cannot tell you how many tons of steel were on the 81st floor of the south tower. But you are supposed to believe the steel on 80, 81 and 82 weakened from fire in 56 MINUTES without knowing how much was there.
It certainly looks as though the NIST report is there to dilute the truth with a lot of irrelevencies, while diverting us from the fact that a lot of information needed to solve the crime has either been destroyed or disappeared.
As firefighters complained while the evidence was being destroyed, we are left with 'simulations' instead of hard evidence.
"I guess I should have been a little more clear in that I was looking for an *actual* Structural Engineer - i.e., someone who makes a living in that specific branch - as opposed to a Civil Engineer that some headline is calling a "Structural Engineer"."
from Wikipedia:
"In the US, most practising structural engineers are currently licensed as civil engineers, but the situation varies from state to state."
"the major branches of engineering have numerous subdivisions. Some examples include structural and transportation engineering, which are subdivisions of civil engineering"
so all structural engineers are civil engineers. all civil engineers are not structural engineers. but to say a civil engineer has nothing credible to say about buildings just because they are not a structural engineer is absurd.
"...to say a civil engineer has nothing credible to say about buildings.. is absurd.."
That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm saying that Structural Engineers (preferably those who have actually investigated the WTC collapses) are those to whom I *tend* to defer when it comes to explaining the whys and wherefores of the towers' destruction.
I never said that no one else (besides Structural Engineers) had anything "credible" to say.
"I never said that NO ONE else (besides Structural Engineers) had anything "credible" to say."
But if we're given two conflicting opinions as to why the towers collapsed, then yes, I'm going to make a value judgement somewhere along the line... i.e., at some point I'm gonna tend to lean towards one or the other Engineering "professional" as having the more plausible explanation between the two.
Problem is, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER. So how do I do this?
why would you set up such a straw man argument anyway? you really wanna go to battle over this issue? there are plenty of qualified people on both sides that claim both ways. period.
what we do know is this. the official report does not explain the collapse any further than the initiating event and claimes the rest is 'inevitable'. im sorry but that is not a fact based claim no matter what your credentials are.
we are led to believe its so horribly complicated to explain how the buildings fell that it takes teams of trained engineers with very specialized training.
so whats the opposite of that. a 12 year old kid can show you they fell down in a controlled manner just by looking at the video with a stopwatch in his hand.
Any source is only credible if it sticks to the facts. In this case, the facts show that it was not a controlled demolition (which happen from the bottom up anyway). It doesn't matter who states these facts, the only thing that matters are the facts.
NIST (via UL) did not get the scale models to fail when loaded to "maximim load conditions" and heated to "maximum upper layer air temperatures" (1000C) for a longer duration than it took the towers to fall.
to be fair, in two of the tests they were terminated because of 'imminent failure' but why didnt they just let them fail?
see the table 5-5 in NIST NCSTAR 1-6B page 96 (actual page not pdf file page).
Yes, anyone who is rational must be a 'paid shill'. And indeed, truffers are like creationist: Blind faith, ignorance, irrational, illogical arguments, ignoring facts, etc.
The fact of the matter is that the steel did not need to melt to weaken. Whatever delusions you have and what you think you have seen is irrelevant to this fact.
Actually, the weakened steel theory is very sound, and it is well known that steel expands when heated up, and it also weakens at a certain temperature.
When you say 'soften', that's of course a dishonest attempt by you to make it look like anyone claimed that it suddenly started acting like cooked spaghetti.
when you say 'weaken' that's of course a dishonest attempt by you to make it look like anyone claimed it suddenly started acting like cooked spaghetti.
yes i am sure he said 'soften' because he wanted us all to think the towers turned into cooked spaghetti. you are just dumb ting.
Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell to Fire, Report Says
Fri Mar 29, 8:59 AM ET
By JAMES GLANZ and ERIC LIPTON
The New York Times
"Stripped of its fireproofing, a steel column heats up much more quickly in a fire. The hotter the steel, the less it is able to support loads, as it eventually becomes as SOFT AS LICORICE."
There was only one single "live" feed on 911 - from which all the TV networks used as broadcast content. All other videos and images started to appear in the days, weeks and months following 911. To consider the media footage showing a plane slicing thru steel and concrete as reality is ludicrous. Real planes would have been a potential liability for the perps on 911. It was easier to control the outcome of the event with much less risk by using the media to broadcast fake imagery.
The media was broadcasting fake, manipulated images of planes on 911. Believing the government's fairytale of planes is the central problem with fully understanding the 911 event. Real jets might miss their targets, get shot down, suffer pilot or computer errors, destroy or prematurely detonate any explosives, passengers could have overtaken the hijackers, and/or the plane might not inflict enough perceived damage to make a collapse believable.
A large speeding jet's vortex trails behind it creating a highly active atmosphere which follows in its path. Had a real plane impacted a WTC Tower, real film footage would have recorded the airliner's vortex interacting with and violently dissipating the smoke from the alleged crash. No vortex literally means no planes on 911 (TV fakery).
your meant to do a book review AFTER youve read the fucker....
chunkyboy100 8 months ago
@chunkyboy100
It's the best book on the 9/11 controversy.
proudfootz 8 months ago
Your face at 1.15ish is one of the funniest I've seen in a while and the ending is a 360* bombastic knock on the head! Love moments like that.
CWonder7 1 year ago
If one includes Mineta's testimony, this is the logical outcome=> protocol document CJCSI 3610.10A was in effect on 9/11. This protocol called for permission from SOD to fighters to shoot down errant aircraft. At 9:26, Mineta overhears young man say, "Do the orders still stand", Cheney says, "Of course the orders still stand..." Cheney is confirming the stand down protocol here on the aricraft heading into the Pentagon.
charlesfloyb 1 year ago
Hi, I'm just rereading some of Griffin's book. Has anyone looked at the May 23rd, 2003 9/11 commission hearing? Arnold's initial testimony seems to correlate with Mineta's testimony. To say that General Arnold lied initially doesn't make sense as Griffin points out on pages 28-30. The reason to lie was according Farmer page 30, "to obscure mistakes on the part of the F.A.A. and the military, and to overstate the readiness of the military to intercept and, if necessary, shoot down UAL 93.
charlesfloyb 1 year ago
@OneApostate
So far I seem to have far surpassed your record as far as intelligent conversation goes.
Tanks for your 'input'.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@OneApostate
Yes - a place for idiots to get a clue.
Sit down and lsten.
proudfootz 1 year ago 2
@proudfootz hey idiot you need some proper help and start taking some medications!!
mitkoman 1 year ago
@mitkoman
Will the medicine make trolls like you go away?
proudfootz 1 year ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Who was Ali Mohamed and what is his relationship with Osama Bin Laden and the CIA?
How many of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth's 1400+ architectural and engineering professionals have experience in structural engineering, high rise construction, or controlled demolition?
What did Hani Hanjour’s flight instructors have to say about his flying ability?
ctcole77 11 months ago
@ctcole77
Funny - on my other video you cite Ryan Mackey as an 'expert' on issues related to 9/11. Is he any expert on or have experience in "structural engineering, high rise construction, or controlled demolition?" In CIA false-flag terrorism? No, he's the HVAC specialist at NASA. You fail on the 'argument from authority' big time!
Everyone knows OBL works for the CIA.
The consensus seems to be Hanjour was a poor pilot.
Questions answered!
proudfootz 11 months ago
@proudfootz
Griffin is a theologist.
Ok, if Mackey's work was debunked then why won't Griffin debate him?
Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it."
I challege you to provide one source that proves UBL worked for the CIA. An actual source, not a 911 twoofer source.
ctcole77 11 months ago
@ctcole77
Why should anyone debate Mackey when he's already been debunked?
The problem is that we don't even know if Hanjour was on the plane, let alone piloting it.
Since you discount any source that shows OBL worked for the US, there's no point in doing your homework for you.
But the US was not interested in OBL even after 9/11, since the Taliban offered us his head on a plate if we had any evidence connecting him to 9/11 and the Bush Administration couldn't provide any.
proudfootz 11 months ago
@proudfootz
I read all the accounts on OBL. He hated the west. He wouldn't even meet with western reporters. He had plenty of money and didn't want CIA funds. And he could but any weapons, including US weapons, from Pakistan. That is when the Pakistanis didn't outright give them to him.
I know you would really like OBL to be some "Under Seige" like US opertive gone out of control, but there's no supporting evidence.
If this were true he would have admitted it to smear the US.
ctcole77 11 months ago
@ctcole77
Having read accounts of OBL, then you must be aware that he was part of the US-organized, US-trained, and US-funded anti-Soviet campaign in Afghanistan.
You must be aware that shortly before 9/11 the CIA contacted OBL when he was in Dubai for medical treatment.
You must be aware the US refused the Taliban offer to arrest OBL after 9/11.
You must be aware US forces allowed OBL to escape Tora Bora in 2001.
Check and mate.
proudfootz 11 months ago
@proudfootz
E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E!
I didn't ask for your opinion.
Pakistani Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, Ayman al-Zawahiri, CNN journalist Peter Bergen, and even Bin Laden himself all deny he was a CIA asset.
The CIA didn't train, they just funded through Pakistan.
The Taliban ONLY offered to hand him over if the US stopped bombing Afghan cities. Just like they offered to hand over the hijackers of Indian Airlines Flight 814 but suddenly "lost them".
proudLIAR DEBUNKED!
ctcole77 11 months ago
@ctcole77
Nonetheless there is evidence which indicates OBL was allied to the CIA. Is it surprising secret agents deny they are secret agents? Look at the US terrorist Pakistan captured last week. The US is deeply involved in international terrorism.
Yes, the US created, trained, armed many jihadist groups. Sorry your info is incomplete.
Yes, the taliban offered us OBL's head on a plate - but the US was *never* interested in him.
Yes, Proudfootz DEBUNKED ctcole77.
Again.
proudfootz 11 months ago
@proudfootz
Along with engineering, you have no clue about history.
ctcole77 11 months ago
@proudfootz
Besides, if you had any clue about Islam you'd know that Mullah Omar would never give up Bin Laden.
It goes all the way back to Abraham. But again, you don't know what this means.
ctcole77 11 months ago
@ctcole77
You have no idea what the Taliban would or wouldn't do.
You know neither history nor international politics.
You fail again.
proudfootz 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@proudfootz
Quite the opposite LIAR.
I just finished my BA in history at OSU.
Learn what it means to a muslim when you betray or do not protect a guest.
It has nothing to do with Bin Laden being a terrorist.
It goes all the way back to Abraham. But again, you don't know what this means.
911 TRUTH = 911 LIES
ctcole77 11 months ago
Way to go, a great book filled with more facts than the library of Congress!
Continue the journey.
NorCalTruth 1 year ago
Good for you for taking a look.!
That is where we all start. I hope you found the book enlightening, and I hope you continued the journey of deeper understanding.
The official 9/11 story has too many holes to be ignored.
NorCalTruth 1 year ago
proudfootz, you rock! Just remember how many people don't even get your Bug/Bus, parking lot demo. You are truly a classic and a considered a brother of mine. Keep up the good work, and God bless you for being able to debate and talk truth and logic to your detractors. Wow! Oh, and by the way I have read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it. Cheers!
Joba62Cy 1 year ago
@Joba62Cy
I have read the book since and I found it covered the whole 'truther v debunker' controversy very well and I recommed it to everyone!
proudfootz 1 year ago
David Ray Griffin is a philosophy professor. What a highly credible background that is when it comes to engineering!
Why can't I get ahold of this man? I'm just a silly engineer! Where's Richard Gage?? Dylan Avery? Jason Bermas? Why don't these guys want to confront me about 9/11??
fengineer08 1 year ago
You seem to mistake this book for an engineering text.
It is actually an analysis of fallacious arguments used to marginalize critics of government-sponsored 9/11 myths.
proudfootz 1 year ago
A book named "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" is nothing more than "an analysis of fallacious arguments used to marginalize critics of government-sponsored 9/11 myths."
Hahahaha, no. Just like what David Ray Griffin always does, he tries to act like he's an engineer.
Fail.
fengineer08 1 year ago
The failure is yours, fake-engineer08.
Griffin doesn't pretend to be anything he's not, unlike you pretending to be an engineer online.
Should you ever write a book even half as good as this you'll have something to be proud of for real.
proudfootz 1 year ago
Nice job completely avoiding my question. Are you going to answer it?
And no, I'm not a fake engineer. I worked very hard to become one thanks.
I'll be waiting for your answer, whenever you're done avoiding it, let me know.
B.S. Engineering
FE/EIT/PE in progress
fengineer08 1 year ago
@fengineer08
You seem to want to debate some of these people who have brought out important information regarding 9/11.
Don't ask me - ask them.
Why haven't you contacted them?
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz,
You said that basic laws of physics were violated on 9/11.
I'm just asking you to tell me which laws they were.
I'll be waiting, again.
fengineer08 1 year ago
@fengineer08
According to Bazant/NIST the top of WTC towers passed through a skyscraper without the 'equal and opposite' reaction (resistance) Newton described.
Have you contacted those people you wanted to debate yet?
proudfootz 1 year ago
I would like you to please send me the parts of the Bazant/NIST report which say that Newton's 3rd Law of Motion was violated on 9/11 so I can read it.
fengineer08 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You also said the NIST report "requires the basic laws of physics to be suspended on 9/11."
Again, what are those basic laws of physics that were suspended on 9/11?
fengineer08 1 year ago
forgot to mention.. no offense but you would make a good Vulcan.
orangepravda888 2 years ago
Comment removed
orangepravda888 2 years ago
That'd be so cool.
Hollywood - are you listening?
proudfootz 2 years ago
9/11 incident = Reichstag incident
which also = "The Queens"opium fields in Afghanistan, etc etc.
orangepravda888 2 years ago
my goodness your active on this blog aren't you? what is your opinion on the book now?
I own a copy myself.
wearechangenorwich 2 years ago
weare -
I thought it does a good job handling the controversies and the attempts by self-appointed 'debunkers' to sideline investigation into 9/11.
Everyone should read it.
proudfootz 2 years ago
it rate it highly. what is your position on what most likely happened in short, do you consider an 'inside job' of some extent to be the most likely version of events? do you believe in controlled demolition, or the lack of boeing at the pentagon etc? interested to hear your opinions, sir.
all the best.
wearechangenorwich 2 years ago
weare -
Given the amount of interference with a real investigation, I think it indicates some kind of 'inside job'.
They would not go to such lengths to cover up if there were no involvement.
proudfootz 2 years ago
ah - logic! How very old school of you.. they seem to have stopped teaching that.
a clear indication indeed, as is the evidence for controlled demolition, in my opinion.
I admire your logic.
wearechangenorwich 2 years ago
right you are sir. Heres how you know its an inside job right out of the gate: You cant wire 3 buildings with tons of explosives with out buying the security company's cooperation. You cant keep what really happened a secret for so long with out the cooperation of the government. Its pretty cut and dry.
NewBlueSon 2 years ago
I'm not familiar with that incident but it doesn't surprise me. The military's job is to slaughter people in wartime and sometimes the "wrong people" get slaughtered and they always try to hide it. This doesn't sound like a massive 9/11 style conspiracy. We probably haven't heard about every wedding party in Afghanistan and Pakistan that we've blown up either.
The fact is that we've committed serious crimes that a lot of people hate us for and I'm surprised we haven't been attacked more often.
austin0031 2 years ago
au -
True, people representing the US have done some awful things.
..and they know how to keep a secret.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Then at the risk of beating a dead horse I will add that from Hiroshima to Indochina to Latin America to Iraq, with body counts in the millions the US has committed crimes that dwarf anything that happened on 9/11. And the perpetrators of these crimes rarely hid their identities and actions. The idea that somebody finally hit back is - to me - profoundly more convincing than a fantastically complex government conspiracy that produces the greatest inside job in human history.
austin0031 2 years ago
au -
There is certainly something to be said for the 'blowback' theory - that finally some of the chickens came home to roost.
However, in my opinion the desperation with which various governmental agencies tried to prevent and pervert investigation into 9/11 indicates involvement.
proudfootz 2 years ago
@austin0031 UH, The Great depression, Pearl Harbor, Kennedy Assassination. Its pretty obvious 'They' have been getting away with it for a very long time. They investigate themselves & bypass judiciary processes, its not rocket science. Now for a second of realizing the power a Central Intelligence Agency really is when you walk through an airport, You think they make mistakes?? Everything was made to look like rhyme & reason, but rest lightly knowing they are doing all of it on purpose.
LendMeYourHand 1 year ago
9/11 was perpetrated by the US government.
The Apollo moon landing was faked.
Climatologists are all lying to us about global warming.
Biologists and paleontologist have distorted science and the fossil record to promote the theory of evolution.
These are conspiracy theories, which if true, would require literally thousands of willing and compliant accomplices to succeed. I have not spent very much studying these implausible theories and I don't think I need to. Life is too short.
austin0031 2 years ago
au -
Strangely enough we have laws against conspiracies on the books, people get arrested and tried for participating in conspiracies, and people even get convicted and go to jail because of their conspiracies.
So in the real world conspiracies do occur and your whining about theories regarding conspiracies doesn't make reality go away.
proudfootz 2 years ago
That's the wrong argument because I never said conspiracies don't happen. I said that a conspiracy involving the US government in the 9/11 attacks and cover-up would require the involvement and cooperation of literally thousands of people and I don't find it plausible that so many people could keep the secret.
Occam's simplest explanation would be that we were attacked by Arab terrorists whose intention was to retaliate against very real crimes that we have perpetrated in the past.
austin0031 2 years ago
au -
You may recall the headlines a few years ago that revealed the US participated in civilian massacres during the Korean War. Over 400 victims, mostly women and children, were murdered by our military.
They managed to keep *that* secret for 50 years.
Therefore your Argument from Incredulity is not a credible position.
The 'simplest explanation' is not always true, so Occam's Razor does not solve this problem either.
proudfootz 2 years ago
both sides are believeable, all im saying is i dont trust the government and pretty much nothing surprises me.
im sure time will tell...
justseanmusic 2 years ago
" Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks " First of all, why say adults, and not people? I'm not an adult yet by age standards yet I share that belief to a point. Second, WHEN has the government ever been truthful? Of course they're lying about something! They always do. I'm not saying the gov't did it, but they didn't tell us everything or don't know everything.
dragonofthedarknight 2 years ago
dragon -
I think the polls on which the statement is based were conducted among 'adults'.
But your point is well taken: governments lie and it would be silly not to expect them to do so when it is to their advantage.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Hey there proudfootz! I read a book recommended by you when the Randi Rhodes message board was up. "Blowback" was the name of it. I enjoyed your commentary there along with eyeswideopen and DanR. I was kind of a casual poster, screwdriver. By the way, I bought this book too! Of course this thread is old now, and Griffin has more books and more things have happened. Good stuff!
NormanMinetaTestimon 2 years ago
Good to see you're still out there fighting the good fight.
I'm currently reading Griffin's book about 9/11 contradictions.
I'm sorry the RRMB got annihilated - there was a lot of good information available there. I suppose that's a good reason in itself to see it closed down! ;)
proudfootz 2 years ago
We have an army on top of some of the world's largest oil reserves we're dependent upon because of 911.The "Bread & Butter" of the military industrial complex (the cold war) has conveniently been replaced by the war on terror & the money keeps flowing into the same pockets it allways has (in even greater amounts & without the Soviets!) because of 911.The budgets of the FBI,CIA,FAA,NORAD massively increased=911..all failed us & the 'official story' comes from them!Of course it was an inside job!
waitew 2 years ago 2
I wish there were more P2P book pirates.
Focoist911 2 years ago
In 2004 it was found that 72% of Americans believed that Saddam was involved in 9/11. This despite that the Bush Admin never actually SAID that. They IMPLIED it and then their media monopoly went in overdrive and convince the rest of us that.
My statement alone, being true, in itself entirely, proves 9/11 was an inside job (for anyone who can think).
Focoist911 2 years ago 2
books rule
CiphersSon 2 years ago
¡Es un pelón!
Axer2012 2 years ago
I can not believe that there are people that still don't get it. Amazing!
marcusjansen239369 3 years ago
marc -
I think there's just a lot of people who don't *want* to get it.
proudfootz 3 years ago
I agree. PSYOPS is designed to do just that. Confuse and serve as a smokescreen for an all out assault. This is very simple, if people would start believing in what they see and know rather than what they are told.
marcusjansen239369 3 years ago
Its amazing people believe that truthers actually seek the truth. Most are a bunch of pathetic conspiracy theorists who ignore the evidence presented.
Denierbud11 3 years ago
Interesting theory - too bad it's based only on name-calling and nothing else.
The fact is that the extraordinary claims of the 'official' conspiracy theory have not met the burden of proof.
proudfootz 3 years ago
What claims have failed, how have they failed and what alternate explanation can you give?
Denierbud11 3 years ago
Ever heard of Bazant and 'crush down/crush up' theory? Utter absurdity.
proudfootz 3 years ago
Well then, why not sum up the theory and and present your own thoughts.
Denierbud11 3 years ago
Bazant/NIST theory entails
a) top portion of WTC1 becomes separate from rest of building
b) acting as a rigid block suddenly went into free fall
c) where it collides with the remaining undamaged structure in one terrific jolt
d) causing continuous collapse
e) the alleged upper block maintains its integrity all the way to the ground
This alleged scenario is in conflict with observed facts and physical laws, but is an accepted part of OCT.
proudfootz 3 years ago
And as an alternative theory, what would you present?
And what evidence would support your alternative?
Denierbud11 3 years ago
Glad you agree current 'mainstream' theory is indefensible.
That means we have to go back to the drawing board...
proudfootz 3 years ago
"Glad you agree current 'mainstream' theory is indefensible."
Actually I think your analysis is flawed.
Denierbud11 3 years ago
How is my analyisis of the ridiculous Bazant/NIST 'crush down/crush up' theory flawed?
proudfootz 3 years ago
A five point analysis of what the report entails followed by a one line comment is hardly a definitive analysis of a peer reviewed article.
Denierbud11 3 years ago
Demanding a definitive anaysis in 500 characters or less is overly optimistic at best.
Demanding a definitive alternative theory in the same tiny parcel is also likely to lead to disappointment.
There are plenty of places available to you where the untenable Bazant/NIST theory is thoroughly debunked.
I suggest if you have any sincere interest in the topic you do some research.
Good luck!
proudfootz 3 years ago
No alternative theory to offer? C'mon spit it out, bombs? Mini nukes? Space beams?
Denierbud11 3 years ago
LOL!
Can't defend the 'official' version of 'crush down/crush up'? Not surprising - anyone can see it goes against easily oberved facts and well-established physical laws.
Thanks for playing!
proudfootz 3 years ago
So I'll take that as you do not have an alternative theory.
Denierbud11 3 years ago
So I'll take your nonresponse as you also find the 'official story' indefensible.
proudfootz 3 years ago
I don't have an issue with the official story.
Denierbud11 3 years ago
dang. i read this whole argument but this comment tripped me out.
Ryanitis 2 years ago
WOW that was amazing! i'm SO glad i watched this video! i can rest soundly now that i know your going to read a book..specifically that book! brilliant! you didnt even look half as akward as you usually do in your recordings!!
you should post a video whem you decide what youl be eating for dinner as well im sure we'd alll love to know -_-
i hate you so much. lol
aar0njames 3 years ago
LOL! Another right-wing kook with a crush on me!
aar0njames
Joined: December 06, 2008
Last Sign In: 11 hours ago
Videos Watched: 19
Subscribers: 0
Channel Views: 0
Age: 18
Country: United States
Thanks for starting an account just so you can watch my vids.
proudfootz 3 years ago
your absolutely right!! i made this account JUST for you..
because before i saw your pathetic excuse for a social life on youtube..this website was nothing but a cute and fun tangent of my web usage time. UNFORTUNATELY
you seem to have taken it a step too far.
this is youtube. not the oprah show. not dr. phil. not time magazine...nobody gives a 'fuck' if your intelligent and intellectual. notice i used the pointless quotation marks you always use for no apparent reason to mock you. getalife.
aar0njames 3 years ago
aar0 -
Your body is going through changes, you have these feelings you can't control...
No need to get angry at me because you don't understand what's going on.
It's just hormones, dude!
proudfootz 3 years ago
nice "MENTAL POWERS"
i like how you couldnt come up with a significant argument to defend how i stated that you take youtube too seriously and that it seems as if this is your only social life...all you did was contradict yourself.
you even have a video about how ppl are stupid and dont have enough "MENTAL POWERS" to submit a credible argument..
and the best you could come up with is puberty? great job dumbfuck. thats why i cant stand you. your an idiot who thinks hes a genius. ,dude!
aar0njames 3 years ago
aar0 -
You're the noob who seems to be taling all this stuff too seriously - filled with anger and hate for no other reason than your ignorance.
When you have an argument, let someone know!
proudfootz 3 years ago
prou-
iv explained many times over why i am "angry" and "hateful" towards you. i will try to make it easier for you to understand as i am aware of your incompetence. the following are reasons for my disapproval of you.
1. you are very opinionated and close-minded, and once you support an idea all other ideas are "wrong stupid and ignorant".
2. You're socially awkward..its weird watching you on video..why cant you go to a forum or learn how to communicate.
3. youre and ugly bastard w/ugly ideas
aar0njames 3 years ago
aar0 -
Since all your points are based on your subjective opinion, and are poorly supported, and simply ad hominem attacks there is no reason to take you seriously.
proudfootz 3 years ago
Do you support the theory of David Ray Griffin that all phone calls on 911 were faked using voice morphing?
Esnir 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
More money for Griffen from a skinhead. Not surprised.
miraskill 3 years ago
More nonsense from a sock-puppet.
What a surprise!
proudfootz 3 years ago
ok u bragged that u got a book that u probably never ended up reading. nuthin was debunked other than you read books. this vid was pointless and idiotic.
WoozleWuzzle666 3 years ago 2
Read the damn book already!
Smacked980 3 years ago
So have you read it?
I have and it destroys the official story over and over and over again...
Wyndup 3 years ago
wyn -
Actually, yes. I haven't had time to put together a video that does this book justice.
I think even people who are themselves skeptics of 9/11 skepticism should look at this book to find out what it's really all about - depending on Popular Mechanics won't do.
proudfootz 3 years ago
I agree! But the reality is, the mass majority of US citizens are too busy struggling with their debts, watching Fox, playing XBOXs etc to spare the time to read this book...
Popular Mechanics publication is nothing but government funded propoganda...If im not mistaken, presidential candidate John McCain wrote the 'foreword' for that book denouncing 'conspiracy theorists'...
Wyndup 3 years ago
wyn -
The fact that there is a 'controversy' will keep most away - they like this stuff to be solved in an hour (90 minutes at most).
As you say, Americans are too busy to seek the truth themselves and prefer it in individually wrapped pre-digested slices.
proudfootz 3 years ago
Hope to hear about this book!
TheReasonWhyGuy 3 years ago
lex -
You're 'not into column insults' but you call this the 'stupidist vid you have ever seen'?
You should look up the meaning of 'insult'.
proudfootz 4 years ago
lex -
I'm afraid I don't know words small enough to explain it to you.
Maybe a retarded cat could relate to you on yopur level?
proudfootz 4 years ago
now u are insulting him, u moron
ure the retarded cat here!!!
666legy666 3 years ago
legy -
I'm always willing to give as good as I get.
U R a retarded cat, U moron.
proudfootz 3 years ago
I believe that objective analysis of the events of 9/11 and importantly it's historical role, show that it was a pretext orchestrated by the intelligence services for invasion of the middle east.
The US has only 2% of the worlds oil within it's borders, the middle east has 60%, yet the US is the worlds largest oil consumer. And the US, if it attacked Iran would have political control of Suadi Arabia, Iraq and Iran, the worlds top 3 oil producing nations.
Psycarne 4 years ago 2
And they did not attempt to 'debunk' any element of the official story. Any real scientist should approach this issue with a mind open to any possibilities and draw conclusions from the available evidence. Trying to debunk any argument that contradicts the official one is far from scientific. But that what people like Popular Mechanics do in practice.
Psycarne 4 years ago
Much of the 'debunking' appears to have been focused on debubnking the nonsensical straw man elements of the alternative arguments, in hope to effect the other sound arguments by proxy. The important things tend to be ignored.
And we did not find these people 'debunking' the pancaking argument when it was been expounded within the media, despite it contradicting everything that even NIST said. Those people were not targetted as 'nutters'.
Psycarne 4 years ago
psy -
Exactly - it was the 9/11 skeptics who debunked the OCT claim that kerosene melted the steel at WTC and caused the collapse of the towers.
proudfootz 4 years ago
Google Democracy now 911 israel and let me know what you think.
J1Goro 4 years ago
75% of Americans think Iran has attacked America
via terrorism lol.
J1Goro 4 years ago 2
And notice how the dumbfuck/shills never seem to deal with the iron-rich microspherule forensic evidence for thermate. This evidence has been corroborated by the USGS, and is cold, hard, smoking-gun proof.
The sheer ignorance (or governmental complicity) of the 'debunkers' on youtube just disgusts me sometimes.
youmightknowless 4 years ago
"...microspherule forensic evidence for thermate.."
Try not to copy/paste big words you don't understand, okay there, Bainbridge?
falconApoda 4 years ago
so since he used a big word or two, his argument is null and void? thats your big rebuttal?
sheesh. you just arent even trying any more.
xrongor 4 years ago
"...you just arent even trying any more.."
You really expect me to "try" to rationally discuss these issues with someone who is, right out of the gate, calling me a "dumbfuck/shill"?
You're a lot more charitable than I am.
falconApoda 4 years ago
I knew you wouldn't be able to deal with that evidence. I absolutely knew it. No dumbfuck/shill will ever tread where they have no footing...
...especially if they lack the relatively simple technical knowledge and vocabulary required to understand what the hell I'm saying.
Oh, and; stop projecting, dummy.
(now watch him continue to avoid the evidence)
youmightknowless 4 years ago
For falconApoda, the dumbfuck:
you said:
"Kindly name one Structural Engineer who is "skeptical" of the government's version."
What? Too lazy to find one by yourself? Here are 2, for example:
Michael T. Donly
P.E., Structural/Civil Engineer
B.S.C.E.
Dennis J. Kollar
P.E., Structural Engineer
Lic: 34422-6 professional engineer
youmightknowless 4 years ago
"Michael T. Donly... Dennis J. Kollar..."
So what do these guys have to say?
Or were they just a couple of names that you Ctrl+V'd from some online list?
falconApoda 4 years ago
at the top of that list is the following statement. it can be assumed anyone who signed it read it:
"We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7."
xrongor 4 years ago
had enough yet? you arent very good at this.
xrongor 4 years ago
falc -
"Fahim Sadek... Dr. Raymond H. R. Tide ..."
"So what do these guys have to say?
Or were they just a couple of names that you Ctrl+V'd from some online list?"
proudfootz 4 years ago
""Fahim Sadek... Dr. Raymond H. R. Tide ..."
"So what do these guys have to say?"..."
The findings of their detailed analysis of the WTC disaster are a matter of public record.
Can you say the same of Michael T. Donly and Dennis J. Kollar? What investigative research have they done into the towers' collapse, and can you point me (in a *general* direction) toward their work?
falconApoda 4 years ago
black is white and white is black.
NIST said the collapse was inevitable and just pointed at the video for evidence. 'see it fell, it was inevitable". and you call that scientific.
donley and kollar, according to the statement on top of the petition they signed, claim 'we need a new investigation'. and you want to hunt down the details of their claim so you can discredit them.
xrongor 4 years ago
"NIST said the collapse was inevitable and just pointed at the video for evidence... and you call that scientific."
Now who's constructing strawmen?
falconApoda 4 years ago
show me the evidence NIST has to support the building collapsing all the way to the ground.
xrongor 4 years ago
"...show me the evidence NIST has to support the building collapsing all the way to the ground.."
By all means, go to their Web site and read it for yourself:
h t tp://w tc.nist.g ov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.h tm (remove spaces)
They just put up a new FAQ.
falconApoda 4 years ago
wow, yesterdays data! well you cant fault me for not knowing about it yet lol. if its burried in the 10000 page report i havent read it all. its not in the main summary.
i will take it under consideration after i source where they got their numbers from. my first impression is we are back to pancake theory since they talk so much about floor loads not columns failing. but nist denied the pancake theory in their report.
xrongor 4 years ago
"wow, yesterdays data!"
Actually, no:
"The complexity... and the length of the [2005] final report... have made understanding of the investigation a challenge for many interested readers. In response, NIST has prepared simplified answers."
It's a nice way of saying that some people were too stupid to understand, and so they created a Cliff's Notes version.
falconApoda 4 years ago
If you didn't read the newly-updated portion of NIST's FAQ page and immediately see all sorts of problems, it's likely you haven't studied 9/11 nearly enough; aren't intelligent enough (dumbfuck); or are a shill.
It's time to start reading more, falcon.
h t tp://w ww .911blogger .c om/node/12990#comment
journalof911studies(dot)com
youmightknowless 4 years ago
i agree. i havent checked out your link but it looks like they are back to the pancake theory at minimum.
xrongor 4 years ago
yeah thats what they were saying. you have convinced me. im sure you read all 10,000 pages of the NIST report and took the required time to analyze all the data. i wish i had your dedication and smarts or it would be clear to me.
xrongor 4 years ago
There's no need to read all 10,000 pages. I would, however, recommend reading some of the more relevant papers (there are over 40 papers) and letters (there are 57) on the journalof911studies website.
Also, watch this lecture (if you haven't already seen it): h t tp:// video .go ogle. c om/videoplay?docid=5393675030313324244
From my vantage point, you appear to have more than enough dedication and smarts.
youmightknowless 4 years ago
ive seen many of jones's videos, but not that one ill give it a look. i feel confident ive looked further into the data than most.
i kind of take the stance that one group of experts agrees with official story, one doesnt. they cancel each other somewhat in that regard. not that i dont have an opinion, but as far as 'debating' it goes nobody is budging.
but i think its clear that at minimum they took planes into some account when they built the towers.
xrongor 4 years ago
There's something you should know about the "group of experts" supporting the official myth:
h t tp:// ww w .911blogger . c om/node/6765
Amazing article.
youmightknowless 4 years ago
and imho best evidence is a 707 at 600mph.
in any case, even if they didnt design it for planes it still doesnt refute the other evidence supporting controlled demolition.
im trying to wean myself from this thread, i quit debating 911 online a while ago lol. but i love proudfoots videos!!
xrongor 4 years ago
It's 11,305 pages.
Download it so you can search it. See if you can find the total quantity of concrete in the WTC.
One of the funniest things about this whole issue, is that the nation that put men on the moon cannot tell you how many tons of steel were on the 81st floor of the south tower. But you are supposed to believe the steel on 80, 81 and 82 weakened from fire in 56 MINUTES without knowing how much was there.
watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q
psikeyhackr 4 years ago
psi -
It certainly looks as though the NIST report is there to dilute the truth with a lot of irrelevencies, while diverting us from the fact that a lot of information needed to solve the crime has either been destroyed or disappeared.
As firefighters complained while the evidence was being destroyed, we are left with 'simulations' instead of hard evidence.
proudfootz 4 years ago
Did you know that one plane had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9? Now that is REALLY IMPORTANT to figuring this thing out.
If this wasn't so serious I would find it fukin' hilarious.
I did a search on "center of mass". It was only used FOUR times in ONE document. It was about suspended ceilings. ROFLMAO
The center of the mass that supposedly crushed everything below is irrelevant.
psikeyhackr 4 years ago
Why falconApoda is a dumbfuck/shill:
he said:
"I guess I should have been a little more clear in that I was looking for an *actual* Structural Engineer - i.e., someone who makes a living in that specific branch - as opposed to a Civil Engineer that some headline is calling a "Structural Engineer"."
from Wikipedia:
"In the US, most practising structural engineers are currently licensed as civil engineers, but the situation varies from state to state."
youmightknowless 4 years ago
"from Wikipedia..."
Great! Let's just see what Wikipedia says about the WTC's on 9/11, and that'll settle the issue once and for all.
Game?
falconApoda 4 years ago
taken from the bls website:
"the major branches of engineering have numerous subdivisions. Some examples include structural and transportation engineering, which are subdivisions of civil engineering"
so all structural engineers are civil engineers. all civil engineers are not structural engineers. but to say a civil engineer has nothing credible to say about buildings just because they are not a structural engineer is absurd.
xrongor 4 years ago
"...to say a civil engineer has nothing credible to say about buildings.. is absurd.."
That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm saying that Structural Engineers (preferably those who have actually investigated the WTC collapses) are those to whom I *tend* to defer when it comes to explaining the whys and wherefores of the towers' destruction.
I never said that no one else (besides Structural Engineers) had anything "credible" to say.
falconApoda 4 years ago
"I never said that NO ONE else (besides Structural Engineers) had anything "credible" to say."
But if we're given two conflicting opinions as to why the towers collapsed, then yes, I'm going to make a value judgement somewhere along the line... i.e., at some point I'm gonna tend to lean towards one or the other Engineering "professional" as having the more plausible explanation between the two.
Problem is, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER. So how do I do this?
falconApoda 4 years ago
One way is to examine their specific expertise. So if I have to choose between Engineer A who:
1. Has spent nearly all of his career dealing with the design of structural systems for large buildings.
2. Has completed a detailed analysis of the WTC collapse.
And Engineer B who:
1. Was once involved in the construction of a bowling alley.
2. Hasn't examined the WTC, but put his name under some truther boilerplate declaration.
I'm afraid that I tend to go with "A".
falconApoda 4 years ago
why would you set up such a straw man argument anyway? you really wanna go to battle over this issue? there are plenty of qualified people on both sides that claim both ways. period.
what we do know is this. the official report does not explain the collapse any further than the initiating event and claimes the rest is 'inevitable'. im sorry but that is not a fact based claim no matter what your credentials are.
xrongor 4 years ago
xron -
The whole 'credentials' argument is a collossal waste of time - exactly what has delayed a real investigation for years.
proudfootz 4 years ago
black is white and white is black.
we are led to believe its so horribly complicated to explain how the buildings fell that it takes teams of trained engineers with very specialized training.
so whats the opposite of that. a 12 year old kid can show you they fell down in a controlled manner just by looking at the video with a stopwatch in his hand.
xrongor 4 years ago
Any source is only credible if it sticks to the facts. In this case, the facts show that it was not a controlled demolition (which happen from the bottom up anyway). It doesn't matter who states these facts, the only thing that matters are the facts.
The steel did not have to melt to weaken.
tingtangs 4 years ago
tt -
The claim that controlled demolition can ONLY happen 'fromn the bottom up' is one that stands in need of proof.
What do you think the word 'controlled' means? Wouldn't that imply they could set off charges in any order they chose?
proudfootz 4 years ago
search for 'top down demolition'. there are several examples. sorry ting you have been debunked.
xrongor 4 years ago
baku -
Yes, the NISTians seem to think we should take what their 'experts' say on faith without question.
proudfootz 4 years ago
NIST (via UL) did not get the scale models to fail when loaded to "maximim load conditions" and heated to "maximum upper layer air temperatures" (1000C) for a longer duration than it took the towers to fall.
to be fair, in two of the tests they were terminated because of 'imminent failure' but why didnt they just let them fail?
see the table 5-5 in NIST NCSTAR 1-6B page 96 (actual page not pdf file page).
xrongor 4 years ago
Yes, anyone who is rational must be a 'paid shill'. And indeed, truffers are like creationist: Blind faith, ignorance, irrational, illogical arguments, ignoring facts, etc.
The fact of the matter is that the steel did not need to melt to weaken. Whatever delusions you have and what you think you have seen is irrelevant to this fact.
tingtangs 4 years ago
tt -
Unfortunately for the 'weakened steel' theory, no hard evidence was found to support it.
The steel samples saved from the towers never reached sufficient temperatures to soften.
'Fire weakened steel' is another article of NISTian faith.
proudfootz 4 years ago
Actually, the weakened steel theory is very sound, and it is well known that steel expands when heated up, and it also weakens at a certain temperature.
When you say 'soften', that's of course a dishonest attempt by you to make it look like anyone claimed that it suddenly started acting like cooked spaghetti.
tingtangs 4 years ago
tt -
Some 'experts' have made claims along the lines of 'steel melted' from the kerosine fires, and that the steel 'softened' to plasticity.
It is the 9/11 skeptics who have been trying to keep the administration apologists honest by pointing out the absurdity of such claims.
proudfootz 4 years ago
when you say 'weaken' that's of course a dishonest attempt by you to make it look like anyone claimed it suddenly started acting like cooked spaghetti.
yes i am sure he said 'soften' because he wanted us all to think the towers turned into cooked spaghetti. you are just dumb ting.
xrongor 4 years ago
tt -
Structural engineer Chris Wise:
"The columns would have MELTED, the floors would have MELTED and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."
It was the 'Truthers' who debunked this crap.
proudfootz 4 years ago
tt -
Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell to Fire, Report Says
Fri Mar 29, 8:59 AM ET
By JAMES GLANZ and ERIC LIPTON
The New York Times
"Stripped of its fireproofing, a steel column heats up much more quickly in a fire. The hotter the steel, the less it is able to support loads, as it eventually becomes as SOFT AS LICORICE."
proudfootz 4 years ago
So again, why refer to Griffin? Is it because the religion of 911troofing is the same as other religions, including creationism?
tingtangs 4 years ago
tt -
So what is your area of expertise? You never did say. Some posters think you need very specialized training to have an opinion.
proudfootz 4 years ago
My area of expertise doesn't matter. All that matters is that you are appealing to an authority who has proven to be dishonest and ignorant.
tingtangs 4 years ago
tt -
Since your area of expertise 'doesn't matter', it would be less hypocritical if you'd stop shrieking about the expertise of others.
proudfootz 4 years ago
BakuninXL is resorting to straw men.
Straw men are the best tactic that creationists/911-truthers use against logic, reason and fact.
Anyone who has paid attention and is not just here to spread lies will realize that steel weakens long before it melts.
tingtangs 4 years ago
There was only one single "live" feed on 911 - from which all the TV networks used as broadcast content. All other videos and images started to appear in the days, weeks and months following 911. To consider the media footage showing a plane slicing thru steel and concrete as reality is ludicrous. Real planes would have been a potential liability for the perps on 911. It was easier to control the outcome of the event with much less risk by using the media to broadcast fake imagery.
4ezMoney 4 years ago
When did the media show a plane slicing through steel?
You have no evidence of fake imagery. Only an irrational religious conviction on the matter.
tingtangs 4 years ago
The media was broadcasting fake, manipulated images of planes on 911. Believing the government's fairytale of planes is the central problem with fully understanding the 911 event. Real jets might miss their targets, get shot down, suffer pilot or computer errors, destroy or prematurely detonate any explosives, passengers could have overtaken the hijackers, and/or the plane might not inflict enough perceived damage to make a collapse believable.
4ezMoney 4 years ago
The media was broadcasting live.
The passenger jets did not miss their targets (except one).
Passengers of one of the planes did overtake the hijackers.
The planes were huge, and at high speeds, and inflicted more than enough damage.
tingtangs 4 years ago
TV fakery & media complicity in mass murder:
* a hollow aluminum plane (especially fragile wings) cannot slice through steel beams & concrete without damage to the plane
* fake TV footage shows a WTC Tower sealing itself around the plane during the alleged penetration
* large Boeing jets cannot travel 500+ mph at sea level since the air is too dense
* flying jets create a wind vortex (mini horizontal tornado effect) which will swirl smoke; no vortex on 911 means no planes on 911
4ezMoney 4 years ago
A large speeding jet's vortex trails behind it creating a highly active atmosphere which follows in its path. Had a real plane impacted a WTC Tower, real film footage would have recorded the airliner's vortex interacting with and violently dissipating the smoke from the alleged crash. No vortex literally means no planes on 911 (TV fakery).
4ezMoney 4 years ago
Who said that the plane sliced through steel beams? Who said that the plane didn't take damage?
There were planes and actual witnesses. All you have, 4ezMoney, is religious faith in the whole 911-truthing nonsense.
And that vortex nonsense, are you saying that the vortex stays there for many hours?
tingtangs 4 years ago