Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

NY Post: 9/11 conspiracy group pushes vote for investigation (36 posts)

  1. truthmod
    Administrator

    http://nypost.com/2014/07/09/911-conspiracy-group-...


    It’s the ultimate conspiracy theory — and New York City voters may get to vote on it come November.

    A group funded by 9/11 conspiracy theorists has rounded up enough signatures to mount a ballot referendum questioning if 7 World Trade Center was really taken down as a result of the terror attack that fateful day.

    The referendum would require the Buildings Department to investigate the collapse, even though two previous reports declared it had been caused by fires spread from the burning Twin Towers.

    The measure is being pushed by the NYC Coalition for Accountability Now, which last Thursday presented more than 67,000 signatures to the City Clerk’s office — 37,000 more than required — to get the issue on the ballot.


    http://gothamist.com/2014/07/10/911_conspiracy_gro...

    Asked about the petition today, Mayor Bill de Blasio said, “From what I’ve heard it’s absolutely ridiculous. And it’s inappropriate, after all the suffering that went on 9/11 and since. It seems to be this is a very insensitive and inappropriate action.” The mayor added, "“I believe the City Council will share our view that this should never be on the ballot."

    http://highrisesafetynyc.org/

    Posted 9 years ago #
  2. mark
    Member

    Captain Chris Boyle (Engine 94) with 18 years of service with the FDNY gave this interview:

    Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

    Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site. … We went one block north over to Greenwich and then headed south. There was an engine company there, right at the corner. It was right underneath building 7 and it was still burning at the time. They had a hose in operation, but you could tell there was no pressure. It was barely making it across the street. Building 6 was fully involved and it was hitting the sidewalk across the street. I told the guys to wait up.

    A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

    But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe 
systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I'm standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we'll go in, we’ll see.

    So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

    Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

    Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

    Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

    Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

    /////////

    Here is an extract from the testimony of Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, who had 33 years service in Division 1 to his credit:

    Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?

    Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

    Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

    Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.


    Posted 9 years ago #
  3. BrianG
    Member

    Those who were inside WTC7 had interesting stories to tell. Two NYC employees (Jennings and Hess) reported explosions inside the building before noon. According to the FEMA report (IIRC), a scout went up to the 9th floor and walked the entire south wall and found no damage. In the afternoon a team went into the basement to try to rescue some caged dogs, but found so much damage in the basement area that they abandoned their quest. And according to NIST a scouting team climbed to the (IIRC) the 5th floor, and found an elevator car blown off of its tracks and out of its shaft and 20 or 30 feet out into the hallway.

    Of course at some point tales of explosions became politically incorrect, and other stories explaining the failure to fight the rather wimpy fires on 6 floors were needed. There were three 19,000 gallons-per-minute fireboats in the WFC harbor two blocks away. Hose lines had been stretched to relay pumper trucks on West Street. Tony Szamboti says that the West Street hoses could have been connected to the Siamese fittings on WTC7's building facade. IIRC he said that this would have provided water to the automatic sprinkler system on the lower floors of the building--nobody needed to go inside. According to NIST the fires persisted on only 6 floors.

    The problem with Chief Hayden's SW corner bulge is that if you look at the helicopter photo that shows the SW corner, it appears that the corner has been sheared off so there is no SW corner to bulge.

    The problem with tales of huge fires is that NIST says fires persisted on only 6 floors. The illusion that smoke was pouring out of every south side window was because the wind from the NW created a low-pressure zone on the S side of WTC7, so it sucked up the smoke from WTC6 and WTC5. NIST talks about this in their report. You can see the same phenomenon with WTC1 after the collapse of WTC2. The vortex on the s. side of WTC1 sucks up the dust from WTC2 and makes it look like dust is belching from every s. side window of WTC1.

    The problem with tales that the building was leaning is that neither NIST nor FEMA believes them. Had the building been leaning, it would not have exhibited the orderly vertical collapse that it did. Leaning tends toward toppling.

    On 9/11 people in authority (such as Chief Downey and Chief Turi) and many witnesses believed that the towers had been blown up. I have no need to judge whether they were right or wrong. I think the suspicion that WTC7 had explosives in it was more than justified (and I have no need to judge whether that was right or wrong) and i think that best explains the reluctance of the firefighters to address the wimpy fires in WTC7.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  4. truthmover
    Administrator

    I know you are into CD Brian. And I know we've disagreed about this before. But I truly believe that ALL remaining efforts to promote 9/11 truth that are backed by any money are infiltrated and corrupted and that those wanting to infiltrate and corrupt are very specifically interested in focusing on the physical evidence as it's both captivating to those interested and easy to bury under debunker arguments, over people's heads, or just wonky sounding to everyone else. Ae911truth is a scam.

    NOW, that doesn't mean I'm not curious. And it doesn't mean I think there is nothing questionable about what happened to WTC7. I've spent a lot of time looking at it and arguing it's relevance in the past. But I no longer think that pursuing that line of inquiry could have ANY beneficial outcome as it leads nowhere. In some general sense it could motivate further inquiry. But by a very clear logical path, if The Terror Timeline doesn't do that, a bunch of physics isn't going to either.

    The argument is simple and goes back to the original critique that founded TruthMove. If you want to motivate change around this issue you need to promote the evidence that has mainstream appeal. The writing on the wall has always been glaring. When the MSM covers 9/11 truth they inevitable talk about 'people who think Bush blew up the towers.' The NEVER talk about even one fact from The Terror Timeline.

    That's very telling. That has to inform strategy. The reason why the MSM always pushed the CD angle is because that's CLEARLY the easiest way to malign the issue. So HOW IN THE WORLD are you going to choose that as a primary focus? It's entirely counter-intuitive. Anti-strategic. In other words, it DOESN'T MATTER how convincing it sounds to the choir. IT doesn't matter if we think it's an open and shut case. What matters are how it looks to people who AREN'T invested. The target audience.

    So who is the target audience and what do they find convincing? Well, once again, you look to the MSM coverage and we can just consider what they ignore.

    This seems all so PAINFULLY obvious to me after all this time. Not obvious at first, mind you. But over time, having been one of the most internally skeptical people involved, this all gelled for me. Like Ruppert said at the very beginning of my journey, the physical evidence leads us nowhere.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  5. BrianG
    Member

    Actually, tm, no I'm NOT into CD. My discussion with mark was not a case of testifying for the Holy Church of Controlled Demolition, but simply a matter of pointing out the unreliable nature of the testimony mark cites--testimony so dubious that both FEMA and NIST ignored it in their reports. Pointing out that FDNY had reasonable cause on the afternoon of 9/11 to suspect that there were bombs in WTC7 is not to say that I believe there were bombs in WTC7 or in the towers.

    What I'm into is pointing out the need for new investigations--not just of the intelligence "failures" and the air defense "failures" but of the failure of every official investigation to completely and honestly examine the facts. I'm solidly with Dr Bowman: "The truth about 9/11 is that we don't know the truth about 9/11, and we should!" I'm as annoyed by the people who claim CD is an "open and shut case" as you are. I don't claim to be an expert in the engineering of 100-story buildings and controlled demolition, so I don't claim to know what happened. But I can recognize an incomplete and shoddy report when I see one, and that's why we need new investigations. Democracy needs believable official reports.

    When people try to "debunk" the CD hypothesis by making stupid claims about the alleged complexity of a CD operation and the inability of keeping its preparations secret I will refute these claims point by point. That does not mean that I believe that demolitionists installed radio-controlled explosive and/or incendiary charges inside the elevator shafts. It only means that doing so was possible, and that placing the explosive and/or incendiaries inside the hollow box columns of the buildings would provide another layer of concealment.

    How can you claim that pursuing WTC7 leads nowhere when an initiative for a municipal WTC7 investigation will very likely appear on the NYC ballot this fall? So 66,000 signatures on a petition are nothing? Are you predicting the results of an investigation that hasn't happened yet?

    If you want the MSM to talk about the Terror Timeline, you need to make news about the Terror Timeline. The news of which I am aware is the pending congressional legislation to declassify the 28 pages from the Joint Inquiry, and though I've seen some limited attempts to publicize the issue I've seen no evidence that any serious organizing is going on. Why aren't the 9/11 widows speaking out in favor of this?

    Physics has the advantage that it is taught in thousands of colleges every year, and every one of those classes provides a potential locus for the many serious questions about the collapses of the three skyscrapers on 9/11.

    It's always well to identify the target audience, and I wish the truth movement had been more effective in doing so. Since 2007 I have been advocating that we employ professional market researchers to identify our target audience, what resonates with them, and what pisses them off. Are you suggesting that the MSM ignoring is based on their assessment of the market and not on the instructions of their corporate masters? Don't forget that the purpose of MSM is to deliver the eyeballs of confident consumers to their clients' ads. No rearranging perceptions of history is allowed. They have to convince people to go into debt to buy new cars when they already have perfectly good cars. Also don't forget that as of 2007 62% of Americans believed that some elements in the federal government knew about 9/11 in advance and consciously allowed it to happen. We had already won! How that victory was snatched from our jaws is another story.

    As to allegations of infiltration and corruption--yes, we all have seen evidence. As I recall the statement of principles, the standard of proof was a pay stub and we were to focus on damaging behaviors themselves and avoid unprovable conspiracy theories. Yes--you, I, mark, Jon, Carol, Richard, Cosmos, Les, Janice; any or all of us could be paid infiltrators. Kevin, Willie, and Craig were ejected for their blatant evil-doing.

    I would like to see "Crossing the Rubicon" released in a updated and abridged edition so that people would actually read it. I would like to see your memoirs about the truth movement. Maybe an anthology would be a good thing--youse guys, Mark, Janice, the Jersey widows, Jon, Nafeez, Paul Thompson, Paul Rea, Carol, Kyle, Jamey Hecht, the entire Press for Truth gang, Cosmos. All of us who have sacrificed and bent our lives for 9/11 Truth.

    I was in Manhattan on 9/11. That's why I'm here. That's why I went up above liars like Willie and Kevin and Craig, no matter what the cost. That's another story for another time.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  6. BrianG
    Member

    "Up against", not "up above". I guess I was thinking faster than I could type.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  7. mark
    Member

    The truth movement is like the dead parrot in the Monty Python skit.

    In a city as large as NYC, you could get 66,000 signatures for virtually anything.


    BBC: Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTZ3XXO7wNA

    no mention of suppressed warnings and overlapping wargames, but lots of focus on Loose Change, Richard Gage and Steven Jones, countered by New York firefighters who were there and various official experts. Has footage showing the fires in 7 were not small and were caused by part of the North Tower falling on it, first time a skyscraper has fallen on another building.


    “Just because someone says the government is lying does not mean they are telling the truth.”
 -- John Judge, Coalition on Political Assassinations www.politicalassassinations.com

    "If the organizing principle is that the government lies, but there's no organizing principle to how you get to the truth, then anything is possibly the truth.  People will organize around disinformation just as easily as information.  The way covert operations do effective disinformation is they give the truth to the people who are discredited and they give the lie to the people who have great credibility - the way they disinform from both ends and confuse people.  They put out stories - as we know from the assassinations - that will lead us down false paths, that will lead us to false sponsorships." -- John Judge, Coalition on Political Assassinations, conference on the 37th anniversary of the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, June 5, 2005

    Posted 9 years ago #
  8. mark
    Member

    Abridged version of "Rubicon"

    -- don't count on an update, for obvious reasons


    Crossing the Rubicon: 
Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney 
by Michael Kane 


    fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml

    Means: Dick Cheney and the Secret Service
Dick Cheney was running a completely separate chain of Command & Control via the Secret Service, assuring the paralysis of Air Force response on 9/11. The Secret Service has the technology to see the same radar screens the FAA sees in real time. They also have the legal authority and technological capability to take 
supreme command in cases of national emergency. 
Dick Cheney was the acting Commander in Chief on 9/11.

    Motive: Peak Oil At some point between 2000 and 2007, world oil production reaches its peak; from that point on, every barrel of oil is going to be harder to find, more expensive to recover, and more valuable to those who recover and control it. Dick Cheney was well aware of the coming Peak Oil crisis at least as early as 1999, and 9/11 provided the pretext for the series of energy wars that Cheney stated, “will not end in our lifetime.”

    Opportunity: 9/11 War Games The Air Force was running multiple war games on the morning of 9/11 simulating hijackings over the continental United States that included (at least) one “live-fly” exercise as well as simulations that placed “false blips” on FAA radar screens. These war games eerily mirrored the real events of 9/11 to the point of the Air Force running drills involving hijacked aircraft as the 9/11 plot actually unfolded. The war games & terror drills played a critical role in ensuring no Air Force fighter jocks — who had trained their entire lives for this moment — would be able to prevent the attacks from succeeding. These exercises were under Dick Cheney's management.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  9. JohnA
    Member

    ".... but simply a matter of pointing out the unreliable nature of the testimony mark cites--testimony so dubious that both FEMA and NIST ignored it in their reports."

    Ah. It's amazing how you use the NIST report to defame the detailed eyewitness testimony of new york firefighters out of one corner of your mouth - while condemning the NIST report out of the other.

    What are you suggesting here Brian? New York firefighters are IN on a conspiracy to invent eyewitness accounts to cover up a CD at building 7 after hundreds of their brothers died on that day?

    Hmm. Maybe you're right. Maybe they are paid actors - just like all the paid actors who presented the DUBIOUS eyewitness accounts of seeing planes on that day.

    Yeah - what you're saying sounds JUST as absurd as Nico Haupt's dismissal of witnesses.

    Ya know - when I look back in bitterness at ALL the competing factions RESPONSIBLE for deny justice for the 3000 killed on 9/11- no doubt the NSA and the disinformation faction and the disruptors and the no planers and the exotic weaponry crew and the anti - semites and the 'blame Israel' meme and the big tent advocates, etc etc etc - the ONE group I believe is the MOST responsible for DESTROYING all credibility for the call for truth and JUST ICE for 3000 dead - are useful idiots for CD like you Brian.

    Now - don't give me lectures on politeness. I'm just telling it like it is. 9/11 was a horrendous crime and many many people suffered

    Posted 9 years ago #
  10. JohnA
    Member

    One of the things i often tell climate change denier and anti-vaccine advocates is that I believe in political conspiracies but I do not believe in scientific conspiracies. It is simply impossible in this day and age with all the data available to us and research tools available to us and the myriad scientific organizations and computer modeling and peer reviewed papers and diversity in the scientific community worldwide , it is simply impossible for a conspiracy of silence to occur in the scientific world.

    You would have us believe that you possess this hidden knowledge of such great importance - which the vast majority of worldwide scientific consensus fails to see. It's simply strains credulity to continue after 13 years to claim that the sum total of the world's combined scientific braintrust fails to acknowledge a truth that a handful of conspiracy theorist continue to advocate for.

    Even the so-called 'expert' advocates for this theory have failed to garner even the minimum amount of legitimate scientific debate in any of the legitimate halls of science worldwide. They have not published in peer-reviewed engineering journals. they have not presented their findings to any legitimate engineering or physics organizations. Their work is not advocated by, reproduced by, debated by or otherwise even REFERENCED by ANY legitimate scientific bodies ANY WHERE. There are no universities, no engineering societies, no national academies of science, no articles written in legitimate periodicals, no research, no questions, no acknowledgment by any legitimate scientific experts anywhere in the world who point to the work of AE911Truth.

    So I am left with two choices.

    Choice one: I should believe that non - experts like Brian possess a secret hidden understanding of the events of the collapse of buildings on 9/11 that was first presented to the movement by the likes of Nico Haupt and Morgan Reynolds and later advocated vis-a-vis false evidence thru Stephen Jones and further propagated thru a network of underground amateur sleuths and Scooby Doo researchers, further spread by AE911TRUTH which does not publish its findings or present it's evidence in legitimate forums for scientific debate - instead opting to present their case at gatherings sharing a stage with UFO advocates and anti - semites. And that this hidden knowledge Brian possesses somehow is being IGNORED and/or censored by the entire scientific world.

    Choice two: it is bullshit and perhaps, even worse, intentional disinformation foisted on us as a form of cognitive infiltration which has created a cult - like programmed PREDICTABLE ego - response from those among us who were unfortunate enough to fall for it in the first place.

    There is a reason why people in cults need to be 'reprogrammed'. when an environment is created where unwitting victims of cults are programmed to define themselves by their beliefs it forces the victim to create a self - fulfilling delusion-based, (sometimes complex and convincing) epistemology that is erected to PROTECT the victim's fragile underlying ego and self identification. The cognitive infiltrators need only provide the occasional intellectual kindling for the victim to continue burning the fire- because the victim is fighting to protect their identity.

    I imagine it would be very hard to admit - at this point - that you've been had - that you are a sucker. No. It's easier to continue to work BACKWARDS from the premise that you are special and part of a very special select few who possess the keys to a very special hidden truth - a chosen one - a superhero - part of a fellowship of hidden truth collectors.

    It's easier to believe you're infallible and just avoid looking in mirrors - than to abandon the cult and accept that you have become an unwitting pawn of the very evil you professed to be fighting.

    Brian. Frankly. Check yourself.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  11. truthmod
    Administrator

    We've edited our Controlled Demolition page over the last year or two to reflect some of these debates. I welcome any of you to let us know if some of the "Evidence" listed is inaccurate or if there is counter evidence that should be listed.

    http://www.truthmove.org/content/demolition-wtc-7/

    I simply do not have the expertise to determine whether the collapses were suspicious or not. Common sense may point in one direction, but how dependable is that? One thing that seems very clear to me: CD hijacked and sunk the movement.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  12. JohnA
    Member

    Thanks but no thanks. I'm not an engineer. If anyone TRULY cares about this issue they should work to gain the attention of those who ARE qualified to review the evidence and build at LEAST a minority scientific consensus in the legitimate world of science. 13 years of lobbying on the issue and near saturation coverage of CD has FAILED to gain even a modicum of legitimate scientific attention or validation.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  13. truthmover
    Administrator

    "[F]irst presented to the movement by the likes of Nico Haupt and Morgan Reynolds and later advocated vis-a-vis false evidence thru Stephen Jones and further propagated thru a network of underground amateur sleuths and Scooby Doo researchers, further spread by AE911TRUTH which does not publish its findings or present it's evidence in legitimate forums for scientific debate - instead opting to present their case at gatherings sharing a stage with UFO advocates and anti - semites."

    Yep. That covers it.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  14. BrianG
    Member

    mark, if you would provide a link to the video "showing the fires in 7 were not small and were caused by part of the North Tower falling on it" I would appreciate it. The video I've seen represented as showing that the fires were not small shows fires burning in a couple of windows, and claims that a bent aluminum window frame is an indication of structural failure.

    Do you happen to know who owns the copyright to Crossing the Rubicon right now?

    JohnA, what I am suggesting is what I said. On 9/11, those responsible for the safety of any FDNY personnel who entered WTC7 had good reason (which I can detail again) to believe that secondary devices may have been used to bring down the towers and that such devices might be present in WTC7.

    After 9/11, of course, FDNY's justifiable prudence had morphed into "outrageous conspiracy theories" and FDNY was in the unenviable position of trying to explain why they did not fight wimpy fires in a $800 million building. Very likely the reason was because the fires were so limited and so wimpy, that they were not worth fighting.
    But there was the justifiable belief in massive fires because of the illusion (which I can explain again) that smoke was pouring out of almost every south side window on the building.

    Also in an unenviable position was NIST. FEMA had simply thrown up its hands and declared that its best hypothesis was unlikely. They had to explain the bizarre collapse of a fireproofed building from wimpy fires. Don't you think that if they could have claimed massive structural damage and/or massive fires that they would have done so? And yet they cite none of the testimony that might be used to support that idea. Why not?

    Did NIST deliberately create unbelievable reports in order to engender conspiracy theories? I suppose it's possible. Elsewhere I have speculated that maybe the government deliberately withholds information to create an environment of Conspiracy Fatigue and make "we'll never know the truth" seem like sage wisdom.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  15. BrianG
    Member

    JohnA, your professing of the impossibility of scientific conspiracies much resembles the peedunkers' professing of the impossibility of media conspiracies. "The liberal media would be all over it to hang George Bush if they had half a chance!" Of course we all know that's bullshit. We know the media were silenced, and I doubt that I need to quote Amanpour and Rather and Borjesson to reinforce the point.

    Professionalism in science or engineering or media or academia--or anywhere--demands that one always consider that becoming personally controversial might hurt colleagues or clents or sponsors or donors, and so one must stick to approved paths. Were I a professional architect or engineer, I would never sign the ae911truth petition because of those fears. It would be very easy for me to say that I am not an expert in 100 story buildings, and the professional costs would be greater for me than for other people, so I can not be expected to stick my neck out that way. That gives me enormous respect for the 2200 architects and engineers who have been willing to put their professional reputations on the line and sign the petition.

    The only reasons that the shortcomings of the NIST reports are "hidden knowledge" is that so few are aware of them. Few have ever even heard of WTC7. People assume that NIST's 10,000 pages must have covered the issues when they have not. NIST failed to address the ten essential mysteries of the towers' demise, let alone solve them. NIST claims they did not analyze the towers' collapses. Let me repeat: NIST claims they did not analyze the towers' collapses.

    Here is a list of scientific papers you may submit to your favorite debunkers:

    February 2014 | Reassessing the Plastic Hinge Model for Energy Dissipation of Axially Loaded Columns Journal: Journal of Structures, Vol. 2014, Article ID 795257, 7 pages, 2014. doi:10.1155/2014/795257. Authors: Dr. Robert Korol and Dr. K. S. Sivakumaran (McMaster University) Link: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jstruc/2014/795257...

    June 2013 | Some Misunderstanding Related to WTC Collapse Analysis Journal: International Journal of Protective Structures (Vol. 4, No. 2 / June 2013) Authors: Dr. Gregory Szuladzinski (PhD, Structural Mechanics), Tony Szamboti (ME), and Richard Johns. Link: http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/bl60385... Download Preview (PDF): Preview – Some Misunderstandings of WTC Collapse Analysis

    April 2013 | Conspiracy Theory in America (Book) Publisher: University of Texas Press Author: Dr. Lance DeHaven-Smith (Florida State University) Link: http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/books/dehcon.html

    November 2012 | Energy Absorption Potential of Light Weight Concrete Floors Journal: Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering (Vol. 39, pp: 1193-1201) Authors: Dr. Robert Korol and Dr. K. S. Sivakumaran (McMaster University) Link: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/l2...

    March 2012 | Launching the U.S. Terror War: the CIA, 9/11, Afghanistan, and Central Asia Journal: The Asia-Pacific Journal Author: Dr. Peter Dale Scott (University of California, Berkeley) Link: http://japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3723

    February 2012 | Temporal Considerations in Collapse of WTC Towers Journal: Int. J. Structural Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.189-207 Author: Dr. Gregory Szuladzinski (PhD, Structural Mechanics; FEIA & Member of ASCE) Link: http://www.inderscience.com/offer.php?id=47711

    September 2011 | Conspiracy Theories and Stylized Facts Journal: Journal for Peace and Justice Studies 21.2 (Fall 2011) Author: Dr. Kurtis Hagen (SUNY) Download Paper (PDF): Kurt Hagen – Conspiracy Theories and Stylized Facts

    June 2011 | Was There Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks? Journal: Multinational Finance Journal, 2011, vol. 15, no. 1/2, pp. 1-46 Authors: Wing-Keung Wong (Hong Kong Baptist University) and Dr. Howard E. Thompson (University of Wisconsin-Madison) et al Link: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id... Download Paper (PDF): Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks

    April 2011 | Collapse Time Analysis of Multi-Story Structural Steel Buildings Journal: The Open Civil Engineering Journal (Bentham Open) (Vol.5, 2011, pp. 25-35) Authors: Dr. Robert Korol (McMaster University) et al Link: http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tociej/articles...

    Posted 9 years ago #
  16. mark
    Member

    I read the DeHaven - Smith book. Good big picture analysis but his "sources" for 9/11 complicity were the BS efforts, not best evidence.

    The stock trading claims are real, although I doubt every piece of evidence for them is real.

    Bentham Science isn't "science" even if they use that word.

    All of the buildings surrounding the twin towers suffered major or total collapse, which the demolition fantasy people conveniently ignore while calling the firefighters liars. And is anyone surprised by the political collapse of 9/11 "truth?"

    I wouldn't trust AE911 to design a shed for my garden.

    I've posted this before -- I don't agree with the political view of the program but it does do a good job of pointing out that AE911 truthiness and similar efforts are offensive fools.

    --

    BBC: Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTZ3XXO7wNA

    no mention of suppressed warnings and overlapping wargames, but lots of focus on Loose Change, Richard Gage and Steven Jones, countered by New York firefighters who were there and various official experts. Has footage showing the fires in 7 were not small and were caused by part of the North Tower falling on it, first time a skyscraper has fallen on another building.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  17. mark
    Member

    FDNY was in the unenviable position of trying to explain why they did not fight wimpy fires in a $800 million building. Very likely the reason was because the fires were so limited and so wimpy, that they were not worth fighting.

    --

    In reality:

    Numerous fire department people have said with the tremendous loss of life the NYFD had suffered coupled with the fact no one was trapped in WTC 7 they did not have the resources to invest in trying to save 7 (or 5 or 6, either). Twenty stories of fire plus structural damage (from the North Tower falling on it) and almost no water pressure meant the NYFD set up a cordon around the building so if it collapsed no one else would be hurt.

    I hope at some point in the future the demolition disinformation will reach the same recognition as the "Pentagon missile" hoax has in at least some corners of the 9/11 Half Truth Movement.

    Calling the firefighters liars (whether explicit or implicit) is about as dumb as the "hologram" hoax.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  18. mark
    Member

    I recommend this article plus the book "book: “Disconnecting the Dots: How CIA and FBI officials helped
enable 9/11 and evaded government investigations,” by Kevin Fenton


    www.salon.com/2012/09/11/911_what_bush_knew/

    TUESDAY, SEP 11, 2012 07:33 AM PDT

    9/11: What Bush knew An article sheds new light on the CIA's desperate efforts to warn about 9/11. 
Why didn't the White House listen?

    BY PAUL CAMPOS

    Last year Jonathan Kay, a Canadian journalist, published "Among the Truthers," an interesting chronicle of, among other things, post-9/11 conspiracy theories. Many of these theories are outlandish on their face, such as claims that the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition, that airplanes never struck them, that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland rather than crashing in a Pennsylvania field, and so forth.

    Now if I were inclined toward a conspiratorial view of the world, I would speculate that the very outlandish-ness of these claims is itself part of a conspiracy to obscure what really happened on 9/11. This meta-conspiracy theory would go something like this: Over the past 11 years, it has slowly but inexorably become clear that the CIA uncovered key details of the 9/11 plot several months in advance, and tried on numerous occasions to get the Bush administration to take action to stop it.

    In a New York Times Op-Ed, www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-... Kurt Eichenwald offers new evidence on this front. Throughout the spring and summer of 2001, Eichenwald claims the CIA presented the administration with compelling evidence that al-Qaida operatives were in the United States, that they were planning a major terrorist attack intended to produce mass casualties, and that this attack was imminent. In response, the Bush administration did nothing.

    Indeed, the administration's level of inaction was so negligent that senior intelligence officials actually considered resigning, so as not to be in a position of responsibility when the attack took place:

    "Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else."

    For a long time, the administration successfully covered up this series of events, by employing the clever strategy of revealing a small and ultimately misleading part of the truth: In April 2004, it declassified a single daily briefing, that featured the startling headline "Bin 
Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," but on closer examination did not contain much in the way of specifics regarding the attack, which took place just 35 days after the memo's printing.

    Releasing this single briefing was deeply misleading, because it gave the impression that the administration had been given just one rather vague warning about the impending attack, rather than a series of much more concrete briefings, which ought to have put the government on high alert. The shocking truth, if Eichenwald is correct, is that the Bush administration was told enough in advance about the nature and timing of the 9/11 attacks that it could quite possibly have stopped them, but, for whatever reason, President Bush and his advisers chose to ignore those warnings.

    (According to Eichenwald, some White House neocons believed, "Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat.")

    Note that to this point my meta-conspiracy narrative has the unusual virtue of being based on nothing but what are now the known facts of the matter. To go beyond this, we have to enter the realm of speculation, which is where things get "conspiratorial" in the dismissive sense of the word. We might, for example, speculate that certain neoconservatives in and around the White House were not wholly displeased with the failure to stop the attacks, since they provided an emotionally compelling, although completely irrational, basis for launching the invasion of Iraq these people were laboring to bring about.

    We could take one more step, and note that, in the years after the attacks, neoconservatives played an active role in both publicizing and debunking the most extravagant 9/11 conspiracy theories, because nothing is more useful to a real conspiracy than directing attention to a series of absurd ones, which tend to discredit the very concept itself. (Note how former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer is already attacking Eichenwald as a "truther.")

    Now, do I believe in this meta-conspiracy theory? Of course not, because I am – or at least aspire to be – a Very Serious Person, and Very Serious People do not believe in conspiracies. They do, however, participate in them.

    Paul Campos is a professor of law at the 
University of Colorado at Boulder.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  19. mark
    Member

    also: In the unlikely event there is ever a real investigation about 9/11 foreknowledge - and it would require government subpoena powers, not some strange "truther" clown circus - "Disconnecting the Dots" would be a good place to start.

    I also recommend the late Gaeton Fonzi's book "The Last Investigation" about the House Select Committee on Assassinations as a cautionary tale for those clinging to fantasies that a "new 9/11 investigation" is going to happen any day now when the chance of that is about as remote as 9/11 Truth admitting the towers were not actually demolished and Rumsfeld cooked up the Pentagon Missile hoax.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  20. JohnA
    Member

    "JohnA, your professing of the impossibility of scientific conspiracies much resembles the peedunkers' professing of the impossibility of media conspiracies. "The liberal media would be all over it to hang George Bush if they had half a chance!" Of course we all know that's bullshit."

    Much resembles? Actually, comparing the media to the rigors of science is pretty much THE WORST analogy you can make.

    And PLEASE tell me your not still hawking that ae911Truth petition!! Lol.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  21. BrianG
    Member

    marc, many of the firefighters' statements are contrary to reality. It's not calling them liars to point out that the belief that smoke was pouring out of every south side window of WTC7, however compelling the illusion may have been on the afternoon of 9/11, is incorrect. NIST says that fires persisted on only 6 floors, and that there were never twenty floors of fire. Don't you think that if they could have found reliable reports of big fires, they would have used them? Or are they deliberately trying to raise doubts about their own reports to further conspiracy theories?

    The claims of "Fireman Miller" about the alleged leaning of the building can not be given much credence when we don't even know his full name. NIST does not claim that the building was leaning--because if it was, it likely would have fallen toward the south instead of mostly right straight down.

    The fires in WTC7 were small. Show the the video that says they were not, and I will debunk it.

    There was water available. 3 18,000 gallon-per-minute fire boats were in the WFC harbor, and hoselines were run to West Street where relay pumpers picked up the flow.

    I don't know why rational open-minded people can not be open to the idea that FDNY did not fight the fires in WTC7 because they were so trivial they were not worth fighting, and because on the afternoon of 9/11 they had very good reason (whether rightly or wrongly) to suspect that there were bombs in WTC7.

    Mr. Campos's article was very intelligent. I much admired the kicker where he said that Serious People do not believe in conspiracies--though they do participate in them. Still, I wonder why it was necessary to invoke conspiracy theories at all. Weren't the facts damning enough?

    I found "Disconnecting the Dots" almost unreadable in the first hundred pages--meandering, repetitive. Maybe I should give it another chance.

    I think calling for a new investigation is a perfectly legitimate organizing position. When we get a new investigation, we can attend and video the hearings, comment on the drafts, raise bloody hell about the shortcuts and assumptions, and criticize the results. What's wrong with that? Why do you need to be such an Eeyore?

    Posted 9 years ago #
  22. BrianG
    Member

    John, a scientist is only as rigorous as his sponsors allow him to be. The NIST report's failure to adhere to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, Newton's 1st and 3rd Laws, and the 2d Law of Thermodynamics are right out there for history to judge.

    I'm still hawking the justicefor911 petition and the ae911truth petition. Justicefor911 now has 18,000 signatures, and the ae911truth petition has 21,720, including those of 2240 architects and engineers.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  23. BrianG
    Member

    The Scholars' petition lists 22, 736 signatures. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929/981/...

    Posted 9 years ago #
  24. mark
    Member

    The BBC video (linked above) shows fires in WTC 7 that were very large. But don't watch it if you want to maintain your comfortable illusion.

    One reason FDNY didn't try to fight the WTC 7 fire is they had just suffered the largest loss of firefighters, I believe in USA history. That's why they cordoned off the area around 7 and waited for the inevitable.

    Calling for a new investigation is foolishness, to be polite, since the topic has been thoroughly wrecked by the promotion of nonsense by the 9/11 Half Truth Movement. Read Gaeton Fonzi's "The Last Investigation" about the House Select Committee on Assassinations if you still think there's a remote chance of reopening the 9/11 investigations. That horse left the barn a decade ago.

    And who's "we?" Sorry but you don't speak for me. Speak for yourself.

    Justice for 911 was also a decade ago, if it has 18 thousand signatures after a decade that's pretty poor response.

    The AE911 petition might seem better if it disclosed how many of the signatures are from people who have built tall buildings or done professional forensics. But even if it had a million signatures that wouldn't change the facts of what happened when planes hit the towers at full speed or when a collapsing tower fell onto other buildings (5, 6, 7).

    Posted 9 years ago #
  25. JohnA
    Member

    "John, a scientist is only as rigorous as his sponsors allow him to be"

    (Chuckle)

    Sure

    It's a conspiracy I tell ya!! A global conspiracy silencing scientists. EVEN in countries with no dog in this fight!!

    Brian - you sound like a brainwashed cult member. It seems no amount of evidence or logic or reasoning can penitrate your programmed responses.

    You speak with such expertise about things you know NOTHING about. Youre neither an engineer nor a firefighter. You're also not a witness. You spin reality to you're own liking, selectively reverse engineering facts and smearing living witnesses who fought to save lives that day because their eyewitness accounts contradict your own delusions of self importance. Your logic is paper thin and virtually without any professional or academic merit. Zero. There is virtually NO professional or academic research or peer reviewed debate on issues that - frankly - as you present them - appear contrived and logically deficient on the most fundamental level.

    The scientists are all silenced by sponsors. The firefighters are liars assisting in the mass murder of hundreds of their friends and brothers - leaving behind widows and orphaned children they personally know. A virtually airtight leak proof conspiracy by the VICTIMS AND WITNESSES AND SCIENCE COMMUNITY - all hell bent on keeping secret a conspiracy original presented by Nick Haupt, Morgan Reynolds and steven Jones. All career frauds.

    And at a time when cognitive infiltration - in ALL its manifestations and derivations is undermining real science on climate change and myriad other politically motivated issues - I find the continued hawking of disinformation associated with 9/11 to be REPUGNANT

    Posted 9 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.