The 9/11 Faith Movement

This is the hollowest bit of propaganda, with so many holes in it’s feeble argument that for once everybody is going to stay on topic as we shred this piece of printed presstitution.  Your mixing up and twisting of other people’s claims and the completely uncontextual presentation of same makes you look like a SHILL and nothing else.  You either know nothing and are copying some other thinly disguised hit pieces or you know what you are doing in which case one wonders why instead of just using shills to repeat the lies the US admin doesn’t fabricate some more evidence and be done with it.  Maybe they have been caught out with the other fabrications too often so they dare not?  I’d say mainly they count on enough complete idiots continuing to buy the lies and not finding access to the facts.  Thanks to rags like ITT, the chances that it’s readers at least will find the facts is being seriously hampered thanks to their sellout.

The official story is a conspiracy theory actually, since it lacks proof and it is therefore subject to being judged on all the same evidence as any other theory.  The evidence which could most easily prove the truth was destroyed in record time, and the rest is being kept secret.

The simple fact is that 42% of Americans have woken up to the truth and that number is growing daily.  More and more people from Scientists, Engineers, ex administration people and leaders of countries are realising the fact that 911 was self inflicted, and that the guilty parties are no further away than the White House.

You Terry Allen are so completely wrong about nearly everything you wrote it is almost surreal.  Actually Americans don’t love a conspiracy theory, the cognitive dissonance involved in having to face up to the truth in this case is what keeps the truth from being even more widely accepted, but the flow of converts is always in one direction and that isn’t going to change.

Rather than a series of circumstantial matters the evidence for demolition charges runs the full gamut from theory, history, witnesses, video footage which is clearly showing the squibs effect to the scientific findings which not only point to the theoretical likelihood of explosives demolition, recent testing of some WTC steel samples showed traces of the chemicals which proove it was Thermate used to destroy the buildings.

Meanwhile the government conspiracy theory has nothing going for it.  You are completely wrong when you say that the official explanation is supported by engineers.  Only a few and they are all connected to the offical liars, have agreed while most engineers say only that the official explanation is lacking in many details.  There are instead engineers and scientists who have clearly detailed why it is not possible for the fires and planes to have brought down the buildings, and despite the massive ad-hominem attacks such people are made to suffer whenever they speak out, exactly why more don’t, NOBODY has ever actually tackled the hard science behind these claims.

Not only is science an impassable barrier for the official conspiracy theory, so too is history since no buiding ever collapsed into its own footprint without carefully set-up demolition charges, I happen to be an explosives expert by the way.  I can assure you there isn’t a demo expert in the world who buys the official theory, it isn’t going to happen either.  The buildings fell at the rate of gravity almost, and this isn’t possible unless all structural resistance was eliminated, in one go.  No pancaking theory can explain this, it is just a CON job and I can only feel contempt for anyone stupid or cowardly enough to convince themselves otherwise.

It should be mentioned that there is an unclaimed one million dollar reward on offer to anyone who can prove that the official story is even possible. Funny that if it is such a solid bit of theory that nobody can actually model such a collapse I’d say. 

Not only does the official theory, for it is not a fact, not proven, merely a theory, not explain how a building which had been designed to withstand multiple airliner impacts fell after one jet only, it doesn’t in any way cover how WTC-7 fell in exactly the same way, into its own footprint due to nothing but a small and intermittent fire.  Watch the video, no raging fires in any of the buildings as the offical theory tries to tell us.  What do you think all that black smoke means?  COLD FIRES!

We are expected to suspend disbelief and accept that for the first time in history and against all odds, not one, not two, but three entire Skyscrapers fell into their own footprints on the same day. 

Now that is what I call FAITH!

The official conspiracy theory lacks any real evidence, what there is has been kept secret and even the fake 911 commission didn’t get access.  Now if the proof was in the massive amount of witheld evidence, perhaps it is about time it was shown to somebody since the world is becoming increasingly suspicious?

One funny thing has only recently emerged, is that the FBI admits it has absolutely NO EVIDENCE of Bin Laden’s involvement.  None at all.  That is a fact.  No evidence of Bin Laden’s involvement.  The only evidience of hijackers on the day is from cell phone calls which have since shown could not have been made from those planes at the altitudes.  The chances of any of them were very slim, and at least the ones from flight 93, were impossible!

I by the way I am not an American, and outside of the USA the numbers of people who KNOW that 911 was a false flag attack is even higher.  Like there our numbers are increasing too, a sure sign of impending realisation of truth rather than delusions.  If the alternative theory of what happened on 911 was not based upon a solid foundation, then logic predicates the theory would belong to a peripheral group and their numbers would not be growing, more likely dwindling at ths time.

Our numbers are growing and the type of everyday people as well as many highly respected people who are joining us is the smoking gun which shows that the truth is not with you, but with us.

Last but not least. 

For any who are approaching this with an open mind, do take note of the sort of pathetic, and emotional and faith based crap which will be posted by any who dare to try and support the offical conspiracy theory.  Take note of how they will just keep on running on the spot, dodging fact after fact by referring to co-incidences, inventing ad-hock theories or stretching existing ones to the limit to try and explain fact after fact.  Notice how they cannot actually explain all facts, and these they will completely ignore if they don’t simply call them lies, never mind they are verifiable facts and demand an explanation.  They have nothing but cobbled together theories that more and more intelligent and educated people are realising are absolute rubbish.  As the case for Bush Junta involvment and controlled demolitions is systematically built in an unbroken chain of evidence, much of it witnesses as well as scientific and video, you will see over and over that everything which is known is entirely consistent with both these ideas and many individual facts of themselvs are capable of demolishing the official lies on their own.  Frankly one particular witness does this all by himself.  One scientific theory, the law of gravity, pretty well demolishes the official lies.  But I am asking you to do as the Mr Allen suggests, look at the whole train of evidence, comapre it all with the two competing theories and see where you are left.

If after doing this you still somehow find yourself somehow maintaining your belief in the oficial conspiracy theory, of what happened on 911, rest assured that a few other feeble minded individuals will be there to greet you and assure you all you need is faith..

No complete unbroken line of evidence nor science can be made for the official theory. 
This is a challenge I Rabbit make to any. Whereas we have exactly this, an unbroken line of scientific and other evidence which imply that the Bushling Junta (or its controllers) were in on it and they used explosives.

Prove me wrong!

................................................................................ ................................................................................ ..

This is the rabbit from the future.  It is now several weeks later and about 500 posts have passed.  Thanks to the desperate efforts of a well known Bush administration shill the updated version of Professor Steven Jones’ report has just been brought to my attention.  The shill concerned who you will meet if you continue down this thread, made a serious error in bringing up this link for I may not otherwise have thought to do so.  It is so utterly convincing, including numerous peer reviewed studies and basically all you need to know to be able to find the truth.

If it is truth you seek, you need go no further than this one link.  By all means research all you like, and make up your own mind.  But don’t miss this, it is the last word and nobody is going to be able to deny the truth having studied it.

In honour of the FRUIT BAT, Natalie the undead, Rabbit presents .
the truth about the WTC collapses, based upon scientific analysis and peer reviewed studies.

One minor point Terry Allen, Faith is a belief held without the benefit of evidence or proof.  Those of us who have gone to the trouble to look at all that is known about 911, are able to come to a conclusion which is based on actual evidence.

Those who accept the offical fairy tale, which is absurd even upon its face do so based upon one reason and that is faith that the government bodies who put together the reports are telling the truth.  The evidence of what happened on 911 actually points well and truly away from the official theory and that is a measurable fact as this thread is going to demonstrate over the next few days I predict.  This is why we have been describing those who do blindly accept the ridiculous assertions by the administration, as the Faith based brigade and I suggest that your attempt to hijack the term is not only ironic and innacurate, but it is actually more than a little sleazy.

In honour of the FRUIT BAT, Natalie the undead, Rabbit presents .
the truth about the WTC collapses, based upon scientific analysis and peer reviewed studies.

Sirs,

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/07/challenge-to-in-these-times-magazine.html

“...I want to challenge the Editors, Publishers, Publishing Consortium, and Board of Directors of “In These Times” to ask their readers whether or not they should publish my review of “The Hidden History of 9-11-2001” within the covers of “In These Times” magazine as a rebuttal to Allen’s piece. “In These Times” should use the “Weekly Poll” feature on their website, to see if their readership wants to hear the counterpoint, and should screen the poll for repeating IP addresses to reduce a fraudulent tally...”

The gauntlet is cast, and the challenge will follow with a paper copy and an email. I can be reached at this email address:
reprehensor.911blogger(at)gmail.com

Thank you,
Allan Giles

Allan Giles

Rabbit is entirely supportive of this idea.  Don’t hold your breath though.  ITT regularly runs these pathetic and weak hitpieces on 911 truth.  This is specifically why I cannot ever trust the rag. It is just a left wing gatekeeper and the serious truths like what happened on 911 are not in their interest to publish.

They are merely a presstitute and as such a shame and insult upon their founder.

Anyway Allan Giles the rabbit shall pass the word around and you will get more support, besides which this pathetic and false hit piece of Terry Allen’s is going to be completely devastated by myself and others before we are finished. 

What a foolish turkey this Terry Allen is, the claim of spending months researching is laughable. 

Anyone could find more than enough solid evidence, virtually prove the US admin was complicit and especially that explosives were used in those buildings on 911.  This they could do in a day!

A week would give enough irrefutable facts under the belt to allow anyone to thoroughly debunk the official theory and of course to demolish this base hit piece.

Personally I have been researching 911, for four years now.  Anyone who claims to have done any research on 911, by actually reading what has been written by the people this Shill Terry Allen mentions and checking their facts, and who yet claims scepticism, is a liar or suffering from cognitive dissonance together with a reasoning malfunction.

If one tries to research the official story, it is incredible how little evidence exists to support it and virtually all of it is under serious question. NONE of it proves anything except peripheral points and the story of the nineteen hijackers is itself even apparent fantasy.  A sort of “Laural and Hardy” type play on the fringe of the real events.  Actors and poor ones at that.  Nothing which could suggest a credible scenario that whoever these people were they actually were even on any of the planes.  The magic passport which survived the supposedly superhot fires, which burned everything, except this one passport which lands miraculously at the feet of a policeman, for one.  Not that it proves or disproves anything, except that the incredible co-incidence lends an air of fitted evidence.  No credible chance that any of them could have pulled off even a fraction of what occurred.

Hopefully this truth challenged person will dare to answer his critics, and if he does I suggest he come well armed with real facts and not his spurious claims about an imaginary mastermind in a cave and nineteen mad jihadists. Of course there are no real facts which make a case for the fairy tale and certainly thgere is NOTHING which disproves the “observed fact” that explosives were used on the buildings.  Nothing disproves our alternative theory Mr Allen, I hope you get that. 

You come along with a single bit of evidence that explosives were not used and I’ll be glad to admit I’m wrong.  Also you come along with asingle bit of evidence thatBin Laden was involved and we will be impressed.  The FBI might be glad of it too, since they’ve got nothing.

How could this ninny claim to have spent months researching and yet not know that there is nothing to link Bin Laden?  How could he not realise the number of witnesses to the explosions?  How could he not understand Gravity, or melting/sssoftening points even of steel?  The claims that the fires might have gotten hot enough at their theoretical highest point to have softened the steel, doesn’t take into account the enormous volume of steel involved and that the steel columns would have dissipated the heat too well for a mere fire of such short duration to have had any effect.  Also though steel can be weakened by enough heat, the fires had been dying down long since when the collpases occurred and the steel would have had ample time to return to its original strength even if it had been raised significantly.

I have been a welder for years and I can assure you if Kerosene fires coule be made hot enough to melt of even soften steel, then we would have been saving a lot of money and doing just that, because OXY acetylene and Oxygen which is normally used, is expensive.  Also why do demolitions companies go to so much trouble setting up the explosives necessary for controlled demolitions and charge massive fees for it, if a bit of a fire on the top floors can do the trick, so well in fact as to drop three perfect demos in one day?

Uh uh.  The 911 explosive demolitions of the three WTCs were the very best demolition jobs I’ve ever seen, and while I curse the people who did it to hell, as a professional I have to admit that they were exquisite pieces of work and I doubt many people in the world could have managed it.  We do of course have a good idea of who actually did it, and yes, they are very closely involved with the clean-up too.

The reverse demolitions of the first two buildings were interesting, but not unknown, and to make the story fit at least for the moviegoing public, it had to be in reverse.  Never mind the squibs can be seen running in reverse too.

Of course those who have seen lots of bangs and crashes in the movies and who don’t understand the science or physics involved could be convinced of the official lies.

On the other hand, people who know a bit, who have been involved in the production of special effects for the movies even, cannot help but recognise a professional pyrotechnicians involvement in the actual plane crashes too.  They were not natural plane crashes, something substantial went bang thus dispersing and igniting the fuel on impact.  This also left very little Jet Fuel to fuel the fires and the fact that those fires were not fed by fuel but mostly by office furniture, carpets etc is obvious from the massive columns of black smoke.  In fact an accurate estimate can be made of the fireballs upon impact and this would also show most of the fuel was burnt in a few seconds.

The Ms Allen Shill actually mentions above that

“Scientific theories, on the other hand, depend on interlocking chains of evidence: The integrity of the whole relies on the soundness of each link. Break any one and the theory founders.”

I think that is hilariously funny.  There is no scientific theory about the collapses using fire alone which can account for the events.  The science is entirely speculative and relies on the suspension of the laws of physics on several fronts and the ignoring of an entire central core structural detail.  The design of the WTC which was studied by FEMA and the NIST report was actually fake and critical details were missing to enable the weak theory to look a bit better.  When the faults in the plans was shown, no revisiting of the theories ever happened. 

Meanwhile the theory of explosve demolition is supported by all the evidence, and history, It is supported by the science, and you cannot deny it you stupid little man, because these sort of collapses can be and are observed to occur in precisely the same way every time a Skyscraper is demolished by explosives.  The witnesses testified to the explosives, the explosives effects are seen during the collapse and the pulverised concrete due to explosives is obvious on the remains of the buildings.  To suggest that anything else is true is hollow denial.  Everything about the collapses was consistent with explosives and that is a fact.  The alternative official theory on the other hand is entirely theoretical and based as said on incomplete information.  The official theory has NO historcial eveidence which suggests it is even possible and so far nobody has been able to create a physical model which would duplicate something we are supposed to believe happened three times in a row on one day in september 2001.  That million dollar reward for doing so is still waiting for any engineer who can prove such bunkum!

Nothing occurred in those collpases which was not consistent with the contention that they were explosive demolitions.  NOTHING! and I dare anyone to suggest otherwise.

That really does leave your official fairy tale as being the one which lacks anything but fanciful speculation while the theory that explosives were used, is supported by all that interlocking evidence. It relies for credibility upon the entire history of human skyscraper buildings, accidents, fires, bombs as well as the history of building demolitions.

Why were the bomb sniffing dogs pulled out from the WTCs in the days leading up to 911?

Ms Allen

The term Pull it, is a term used in Demolition circles though in Oz we might say drop it instead.  The dictionary entry the stupid Mr Allen uses to suggest it isn’t so, is ridiculous.  Its industry slang silly one! Jargon!  You won’t find it in a dictionary.  Just ask a demolition expert.

Perhaps you’d care to explain what Silverstein meant by saying they decided to “pull it”, and don’t try claiming he meant that they should pull the firemen out of there.  In fact all the firemen were out of the building at that time, and there was nobody to pull out.  That spin was tried once long agao, but researchers soon shot it down on those grounds.

The re-insurance of the Silverstein buildings just before 911, especially against terror attacks is just an interesting co-incidence among many I guess.  The put options which were placed on the two airlines just before 911 was also another of those co-incidences. But I expect that Mr Allen is a Co-incidence theorist, so we shall ignore the many co-incidences which suggested foreknowledge.  J

Just because we have so much more solid evidence, we don’t need useless speculation Ms Allen.

Now I repeat.  Science, Physics and chemistry supports the contention that explosives were used.  It does and there is no getting away from that. One doesn’t need to invent radical new theories of pancake collapses and magical steel which somehow weakens at ridiculously low temperatures and somehow stays weak permanently to explain what it would take to bring down those buildings.  One need look no further than how we always drop such buildings in the demolitions industry, in which case the three WTCs were very well executed explosive demolitions, or implosions.  Entirely normal looking and with all the tell tale blasts of squibs and ejected debris for hundreds of feet.

Science is not the friend of the Faith based brigade, those who believe the official story which lacks any credible science or evidence.  The only thing left when evidence or proof is lacking is faith of course.  By reverse argument nobody has a need to convince themselves without evidence that a massive crime has been committed by their own government upon themselves.  Certainly not more than a handful of crazies anyway.  Well, 42% of the USA may be crazies, but they are not the 42% and growing who accept the shocking but unavoidable truth that things are really rotten in the United States of Avarice.

Lets face it guys one day you are claiming your government could never have done such a thing, the next you are trying to explain wars against countries who actually never did a thing to you.  Then you are left justifying offical torture polices and now you even have to tell yourselves that warrantless searches, secret detention and wholesale spying on the public are a good thing.

Is there a pattern in this somewhere?  It sure seems so to this rabbit.

Where is it all going to end people?  Do you not realise that what with having to pretend that the USA is exempt from international law, defending Murders of civilians and systematic rapes and torture on suspicion only, what do you think you will be having to swallow next I wonder?  Where is it all going to end people?

In honour of the FRUIT BAT, Natalie the undead, Rabbit presents .
the truth about the WTC collapses, based upon scientific analysis and peer reviewed studies.

Dear Ms. Allen,
I read with interest your article “The 9/11 faith
movement.” I agree with your assessment that
“Scientific theories, on the other hand, depend on
interlocking chains of evidence: The integrity of the
whole relies on the soundness of each link. Break any
one and the theory founders.” However, applied to the
“official conspiracy theory,” the theory put forth by
the government also breaks. We don’t have all of the
information to be able to say what really happened up
to and including September 11th, but there are several
links in the official theory that also cause it to
founder. Consider Building 11. There is no scientific
theory which explains it’s collapse other than the
pre-positioning of explosives. It fell in EXACTLY the
manner of controlled demolition. First the center
frame gave way causing a kink in the roof, then squibbs
of debris flew from the windows, then it neatly fell
into it’s footprint at nearly the speed of free fall,
pulling it’s walls in towards it’s center. No steel
framed structure has ever collapsed into it’s
footprint without being demolished. I challenge anyone
to find one. This event alone, aside from any other,
places the official theory in mortal jeapordy.
Researchers attempting to explain it may be unable to
ascribe motive, but, following Occam’s Razor,
controlled demolition is the most productive theory to
pursue. I admire the efforts of those who follow your
advice and apply the scientific method to their
inquires. I encourage you to continue your research.

Speaking as an unacknowleged amateur, I can’t see any plausible reason for buildings of that size to fall outside the footprint.  Given the massive weight involved, even at the upper stories, the amount of force required to drop the building outside its footprint would be proportionately, and implausibly, massive.

By the way, your argument depends upon the precision of your definition for footprint.  If you mean the exact dimensions of the base of the building, then the building fell outside the footprint.  If you include Manhatten Island, then the building fell inside the footprint.

This is astounding!  That this particular article could be made public under the authority of In These Times leads me to wonder just what is the purpose of this publication?  I am heartened by the fact that so far, all of the follow up letters pour scorn upon this worthless article. I would like to follow the discussion about this article, and I would be interested if Mr. Giles’s rebuttal is made available.  However once I have determined that this discussion thread has been played out I will permantly delete In These Times from my list of bookmarks.  When this sort of excrement is required NewsMax will provide. I suggest others do so as well.
Xyptol

Major
I’m sorry to have to point it out again.  No such buildings ever did or are expected to fall into their own footprints. You are way out of your depth from the look of that incredibly silly post.

The top of the first building actually was falling sideways and there is no way at that point that it could have straightened itself up. Unless as was observed the entire under stories gave way thus allowing it to straighten again.  Never happened Major Major, and if you are seeking to maintain your delusions its best you run away laddie. There is nothing left amongst the debris of 911 which supports the official fairy story.  I do understand you are an expert with many hours watching hollywood movies, but they are all made up with special effects old boy.  If buildings were so reliable to fall into their own footprints, that three could suddenly happen on one day, then I suggest that developers are wasting millions of dollars on people to come and use explosives to bring them down.  It even happens that an occassional implosion goes wrong it isn’t easy you silly bugger, if the official theory had any likelihood of succeeding then where is the claimant for the million dollars on offer for anyone who can duplicate the official collapse.  Not even computer models succeeded, until the vectors were tweaked, and tweaked well outside of what happened on the day. Ignorance and faith in government is no substitute for experience and research Major.

Major Major, we know all about cognitive dissonance, you just keep your head down, for you have nothing to gain here unless it is knowledge.  You have nothing to offer either as your first post infers.  You don’t see why they shouldn’t fall into their own footprints eh? Don’t you just Major Major?  It must have come as a surprise then that when the Madrid Skyscraper fire burned at much hotter temperatures for a whole day and night, and even though some floors fell down, that the whole thing didn’t then do what the three in New York did I guess. 

Huiler

Please rest assured that the motive for 911, as well as the actual means is no more a mystery.  Something recently became available on the web, the whistleblower to end all whistleblowers I’d say. His story is long and involved but it is verifiable and I just spent a week doing that. I’m saving it for now, since there are SO MANY other bits of interlocking evidence of what happened on 911.

The simple facts and the unbroken chain of evidence.

On the 11th September, 2001, three steel framed skyscrapers, World Trade Center One, World Trade Center Two and World Trade Center Seven, collapsed entirely. Other than structures bought down in controlled demolitions, these three buildings are the only steel framed skyscrapers, in the entire history of high rise buildings, to have suffered total collapse. World Trade Centers 3, 4, 5 and 6 also suffered significant damage, but none of these suffered the total collapse seen in World Trade Centers 1, 2 and 7 (in fact, these other buildings showed amazing survivability given that they were repeatedly hit by hundreds of tons of pieces of World Trade Centers 1 and 2, which on impact were traveling at well over 100 miles per hour).

It should be emphasized that World Trade Center Seven suffered total collapse. World Trade Center Seven was neither hit by an aircraft nor by falling debris from the twin towers. If the claim that it was destroyed by fire were true (it is not) then it would be the only steel framed skyscraper ever to have collapsed exclusively due to fire. Although the WTC Seven collapse warrants the writing of a book, we will deal only with the collapses of WTCs One and Two.

The buildings were built to withstand the impact of such aircraft anyway.

And yet Major Major would have been surprised if the buildings had not fallen into their own footprints.  Would you just Major?  Well why exactly would you have expected such a unique event?  Three times in a row! Pull the other one.  Go home Major, you are going to be eaten on this thread. You and the whole 911 faith brigade.  Without any actual proven science to back your silly fairy tale, your belief of the official lie is nothing but faith.

You are attcking a mountain with a small shovel.  You have at least ten very solid facts to explain beyond the falling into footprints, and you can’t even deny the only way it ever did happen before was due to explosives.  You can’t prove that it could have happened the way you say, and you can’t disprove that it was entirely consistent with demolitions.  That is what is called a lose lose situation. 

Close-Up of WTC-7 Collapse Footage Shows Unmistakable Demolition Charges

Terry Allen should enjoy this source since her ad-hominem attacks were clearly directed at Alex Jones.  All you shills and sheeple hate Alex, yes we know.  Personally the rabbit just cannot stand his accent.  You only need to examine the facts, who presents them is immaterial. Any genius who thinks they can debunk any of what is presented by way of verifiable facts, by knocking the source as being biased or whatever, is really scraping the bottom of the barrel due to lack of anything intelligent to say.

Sometimes little chickadees, a person just has to look at the evidence and accept that you have been wrong, and that you have based your beliefs hitherto upon faith, and faith alone.

Rabbit is here to destroy your idiotic faith!  ........^^.......

In honour of the FRUIT BAT, Natalie the undead, Rabbit presents .
the truth about the WTC collapses, based upon scientific analysis and peer reviewed studies.

I would be interested in a rebuttal from Mr. Giles as well.

Rabbit is quite capable of providing the same.

Xyptol

As a longer term resident of this site, let Rabbit assure you they are not what they seem. They ran an even more spurious and lightweight hit piece a while back.  ITT is clearly not to be trusted. 
Stick around though my friend, there are going to be fireworks.

There is a few developments with regards to whistle blowers and also scientific testing which is due to become public in the near future.  This is no doubt why the admins shills are desperately trying to shore up their crumbling wall of lies. The problem they have is that apart from some highly incomplete and farcical reports, there is no actual scientifically proven or even probable scenario to back the official lies. The government agencies involved have witheld all the evidence which would settle some isues and destroyed the rest. This in itself is a crime.  Destroying the evidence is not supposed to be kosher.  But with nothing solid to base the ridiculous and thoroughly debunked official theory upon, the supporters have to resort to personal attacks and emotional rhetoric. 

FBI hides evidence!

The hilarious thing is that this dimwit, Mr Allen actually says things which are ironically exactly why the official story doesn’t float. The need for an unbroken chain of interlocking evidence.  The best they can do is try and debunk individual bits of evidence by inventing theories out of whole cloth, which somehow offer an alternative explanation. Never a beter one mind, just an alternative to admitting the obvious.

The simpe and irrefutable fact is that the chain of interlocking evidence ALL is consistent with controlled demolition.

When the expelled dust clowds seen at each explosion became subject for discussion, a theory of massive air displacement was invented.  Problem with this idea is that it would imply the building had trapped air against which to collapse, while the fall rate of the buildings make it absolutely clear that there was NOTHING, not even enough air pressure to slow down thsoe buildings as they began to fall.  A pancake collapse such as they imagine, would start slow and speed up. It would be expected to get hung up a bit as well on the way down, more at fist, and it would not have fallen straight down, due to the damage already to one side of the buildings.

Each time the fools invent a new theory, it tends to clash with their earlier atempts to explain away what is to all intents and purposes three perfectly executed, garden variety implosions.

They rely upon the incredible gullibility of the US people and their desperate, sad need to believe they are special and that everything is just fine, except for some bad guys a long way away who we have to keep killing forever now, so they don’t do it again.

Hitler would have loved you guys, he could have saved money on Goebbels and just employed a used car salesman.

Hi Dave

This is going to be a feeding frenzy before long.  Just giving the ninnies fair warning of the size of this mountain of evidence, as they rock up with their puny shovels.

One of the most damning witness staements about explosives is that of William Rodriguez. His story was told to the 911 commission and THEY IGNORED IT!  Just like they ignored a lot of evidence.  Rodriguez’ story is completely verified, by fourteen witnesses, and he is not going away into that good night.  One of the witnesss to what he tells, was actually injured by the blast in the basement which PRECEDED the first plane strike and he was saved by Rodriguez who was named a national hero for his efforts. Hero to be sure, but nobody wants to hear what he says do they?  He also saw one of the alleged hijackers sometime before 911casing out the building, and this he also told to the 911 commission. Read his story you cringing denialists and see how you can spin it to maintain your faith based delusions.

Perhaps you might want to ask yourselves why the bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the buildings before 911?  Perhaps one of you well researched co-incidence theorists would like to challenge the fact the Bomb sniffing dogs were pulled out of the building?  Come now Rabbit has deliberately not linked that to a source, given no evidence of such a claim.  Isn’t anyone going to challenge him on it?  Go ahead, make my day says the rabbit, who NEVER EVER tells lies and knows the difference between fact and opinion. 

FACT! .............The dogs were taken away some days at least previous to 911. 
OPINION!  ..............That seems a bit suspicious. 
ANOTHER OPINION! ...............That is just a co-incidence.

Would the moronic faith based brigade like some more witnesses?

Of course NOT reading the material is one way to research, isn’t it Mr Allen? 
So Rabbit shall just cut and past to ensure you don’t miss it.  Of course these statements prove nothing on their own, but they are CONSISTANT with explosive demolition, just like every other bit of evidence.

During the afternoon of 9/11, the Mayor of New York city and the Governor of New York state held a press conference.

Reporters asked 2 interesting questions:

“Is there anything to indicate that there could be MORE BOMBS, more planes out there?”

“So, the only National Guard we’ll see will be in lower Manhattan, in the BOMB site area?”

Neither the Mayor nor the Governor corrected the reporters by stating that there weren’t any bombs, and that—instead—the twin towers had collapsed due solely to airplane and fire damage.

If you were a high-level official trying to calm down the public in a major crisis (which is part of the job description) and there weren’t in fact bombs in t he world trade centers, wouldn’t you have corrected the reporters in order to kill unfounded rumors and minimize panic? Doesn’t this lack of a statement amount to an acknowledgment that the Mayor and Governor believed there were bombs in the twin towers?

By way of analogy, imagine that 10 witnesses say they saw Mike shoot Joe. In a press conference, a reporter asks the police chief if police know why Mike shot Joe, and the chief answers without correcting the reporter. In other words, the police chief does not answer by saying something like “No no, Fred shot Joe” or

“we don’t know who shot Joe yet, we’ve just started investigating”. Isn’t that further circumstantial evidence that tends to show that Mike shot Joe? Doesn’t the silence in the face of bomb-related questions help corroborate the numerous eyewitness statements of bombs in the trade centers, such as the following:

A reporter for USA Today stated that the FBI believed that bombs i n the buildings brought the buildings down;

The NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were “bombs” and “secondary devices”, which caused the explosions in the buildings;

A NYC firefighters who witnessed attacks stated that it looked like there were bombs in the buildings;

A NYC firefighter stated “On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building”;

An MSNBC reporter stated that police had found a suspicious device “and they fear it could be something that might lead to another explosion” and the police officials believe “that one of the explosions at the world trade center . . . may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some kind of explosive device in it, so their fear is that there may have been explosive devices planted either in the building or in the adjacent area”;

A NYC firefighter stated “the south tower . . . exploded . . . At that point a debate began to rag e because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges . . . many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade”;

Assistant Fire Commissioner stated “I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building [not up where the fire was]. You know like when they . . . blow up a building ... ?”—and a lieutenant firefighter the Commisioner spoke with independently verified the flashes;

A firefighter said “[T]here was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions”; Another firefigther stated “it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight”;

A paramedic said “at first I thought it was—do you ever see professional demolition where they se t the charges on certain floors and then you hear pop pop pop pop pop—thats exactly what because thought it was”;

A police officer noted “People were saying, ‘There’s another one and another one.’ I heard reports of secondary bomb explosions ...”;

A firefighter stated “there was an explosion in the south tower, which . . . just blew out in flames . . . One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in ‘93” (referring to 1993 bombing of world trade center;

A firefighter stated “it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building . . . Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV”;

Dan Rather said that collapse was “reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen [when] a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down” (CNN’s Aaron Brown and a Fox News reporter also made similar comments);

A British newspaper stated “some eyewitnesses reported hearing another explosion just before the structure crumbled. Police said that it looked almost like a ‘planned implosion’”;

One ABC reporter stated it looked like a controlled demolition; another ABC reporter stated “anyone who has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you’re going to do this you have to get at the under-infrastructure of the building to bring it down”;

A reporter for WNYC radio said “The reporters were trying to figure out what had happened. We were thinking bombs had brought the buildings down”;

A Wall Street Journal reporter said “I heard this metallic roar, looked up and saw what I thought was just a peculiar site of individual floors, one after the other exploding outward. I thought to myself, “My God, they’re going to bring the build ing down.” And they, whoever they are, HAD SET CHARGES . . . . I saw the explosions”; and

A facilities manager in the north tower “was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons”. You can view links to the source materials for all eyewitness quotes at www.911Proof.com .

The 9/11 Commission Report did not even once mention the word “explosion” or “bomb”. The mainstream media hasn’t touched the evidence of bombs in the trade center. Democratic and republican politicans smear anyone who even raises the issue as a conspiracy nut. Isn’t it time that we faced the elephant in the living room? Can our democracy survive if we don’t?

Survive?  I would have thought that this sort of Pravda under communism type controlled and fake media, is evidence that your democracy is already dead.  You let it die you goons, by giving up the responsibility to keep an eye on it and defend it from within.  Your enemies are right there in the whitehouse.  Having stolen two elections almost without a hitch, they are not going to give back your country without a fight.  Is that any reason to bend over and get shagged everytime they demand it?.

This is an important reference for it deals specifically with the fine tuning of some of the erroneous reporting and analysis by others. This matters because it shows that people are serious about getting at the truth and that due to the amount of evidence being witheld, and despite the huge amount we actually have, we cannot expect to get all the details right at this or any stage.  The overrall argument stands unchallenged still and so far nobody on the official side has dared to try and tackle the science.  As such this useless piece of claptrap by Mr Allen is typical of the response to the well researched and verifiable science of people like Griffin, Reynolds, Jones and others.

Emotional rhetoric and ad-hominem attacks, how long do you think you can keep your fairy tale flying on this alone?  Especially when up against science, witnesses, video evidence, history and a growing chorus of outraged world citizens.

Perhaps the denialists of the faith based brigdade are haiving a problem with all these alternative media sources?  Here are more than 200 smoking guns found in the MSM. maybe you “researchers” should keep it handy so you can verify the facts as they are mentioned on “reliable sites”.

The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be saved for forensic analysis but FEMA had it destroyed before anyone could seriously investigate it. FEMA was in position to take command because it had arrived the day before the attacks at New York’s Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, “Tripod II,” quite a coincidence. The authorities apparently considered the rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 1/2 hour lunch fired.

Hmm, that was a lot of security around the rushed effort to dispose of the evidence! No worries though, the governement wouldn’t lie right?

WRONG!

The government claimed Osama Bin Laden was the culprit and did so from the very start.

Well it has taken a while for the proof to emerge, but we did suspect it all along.  FBI has NO EVIDENCE of Bin Laden’s involvment. OOPS! 

say again? 

NO EVIDENCE of Bin Laden.  Um but didn’t we atack Afghanistan because of their refusal to hand over Bin Laden?  Well actually we atacked them because they said they would only hand him over if there was any evidence he was involved.  As they rightly pointed out, Bin Laden did not have the resources to pull this off.  In fact there is nobody who could concievably have pulled this off, without massive inside help.

There is more in the “chain of evidence” which does not support the official fairy tale about the nineteen mad arabs.NO arabs on flight 77, according to the autopsy. What does it prove?  Nothing, except it is consistent with the official story lacking any proof.

View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed

The airplanes did not a have true effect on the destruction of towers; they were needed to give an excuse for odd Orwellian wars at the same time when the USA is turned into a police nation, like the German Third Reich, to some extent. The towers took the impacts of crushing Boeing 767’s. The towers were originally built to take impacts of Boeing 707’s, which are approximately of the same size and was widely used in the 1970’s.

Fires that kindled from the fuel in the planes were too shortlasting and weak to be able to severely damage the structure of the skyscrapers. Even in the extreme situation, the heat from a kerosene fire cannot threat the durability of a steel trunk. With the temperature of carbohydrate fires that reaches only 825 °C (approx. 1517 °F) steel weakens at 800 °C (approx. 1470 °F) and melts at 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F). In the skyscrapers of the WTC the surroundings were not at all ideal as there were far too many steel columns and they led heat away from the burning area. WTC 1 burned for 102 minutes and WTC 2 for 56 minutes only. A fire burning much longer, from 10 to 20 hours, could slowly increase the burning temperature down to perhaps 1100 °C (approx. 2010 °F). Provided there is more substance to burn, such a fire will damage concrete and irons, but not severely heavy steel constructions.

Does Ms Allen’s “research” make her more qualified than this Finnish military expert?  Perhaps we can hear a scientific rebuttal then?

Oh of course what is the rabbit thinking. The guy is Finnish and these were American buildings.  (Bad rabbit has probably just wasted your best answer there, sorry.)

Science?  Sure, why not?

For a building to fall outside its footprint, however that footprint is defined, it would have to fall some specified distance from the center of its footprint.  Let’s assume that a building (the center of its drop zone) falls y feet from its footprint.  Then the force required to move it that distance would be F=kmg, where:

m = the mass of the building,
g = the gravitational constant, and
k = y/h, for h = the height of the building.

So the force would, in fact, have to proportional to the weight, mg, of the building.

But, despite the above, let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that it’s possible for a building to fall far from its footprint, thereby threatening the integrity of the buildings adjacent to it, and the additional lives of the people who occupy them.  In such a situation, it would not be unreasonable to provide the means to pull it down.

Why NORAD Interceptors Couldn’t Catch Those 911 Boeings.

More miltary experts.

More military opinions. Col. Ronald D. Ray asks why half a trillion defense budget couldn’t protect Pentagon, astounded at “conspiracy theory” put out by government

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

Proof that some 911 witnesses statements, supporting the official lies, were skewed. Lap it all up, Ms Allen.  Rabbit has a whole lot more research material for you to look at.  Considering what a couple of months of “research” has done for your knowledge, it will take you the rest of your life to actually learn the truth, but what the heck, you don’t want to know it anyway, do you dear?

Now as I said repeatedly the three collapses were just like implosions all over the world.  Here is a recent one for comparison. That implosion looks just as if it pancaked, lo and behold.  Don’t be fooled by the fact that implosion uses traditional cutting charges without thermite, and it is on a scale smaller in comparison to the two WTCs at least.  Compare the actual collapse, the manner and rate of collapse.  That is all you need to see to know it is a controlled demo.  If anybody can get abuilding to collapse by any other method, it has yet to be found.  Theorising that on 911, this magical unknown method, somehow defied any odds to happen thre times in a row, on the same day for christs sake is nothing without experimental data, and anyone who can produce it can claim the one million dollar reward offered by Jimmy Walter.

Now why didn’t those texans learn from 911 and just light a fire on the top floors?  Any ideas my faithful little morons?

Major Major, your speculation is ridiculous, you are playing like a child in the sand here. Go away or else read more and blather less.

The “means to pull it down,” takes about two to three weeks (for a team) to install in such buildings you dumb beggar!

Also your farcical attempt to create some sort of scientific formula, is neglecting a small matter of the counterforce of the structural features of the buildings.  These would slow the initial collapse, or more likely stop it altogether.  I’m not sure what sort of fairy stories you believe in Major but if the skyscrapers are built so flimsy that a few floors collapsing would take out the rest of the building, I’m surprised you dare walk anywhere near skyscrapers normally.  They must be awefully flimsy structures,and I’d say the engineers who built those buildings must have seriously screwed up.

Can you get your wee head around the following. Imagine the sort of wind sheer which engineers must allow for when designing such skyscapers?  Can you get anywhere near close to understanding the enormous amount of force which is being applied to one side or another of a building when it is in a small breeze even?  Let alone the sort of massive forces of a hurricane, which they are OVERENGINEERED against.  Can you even understand that there is a lot of effort which goes into engineering a building to withstand an airplane crash?  Does it even occur to you that in fact the requirement for such plans to be passed, let alone the buildings to be built, is that they allow for the worst possible scenario and “over-engineer” the damned thing well beyond the worst possible scenario? Well, they do.  So you have learnt that much today.  Hopefully.

The fact is the bomb in the basement of 1993, was far more capable of having brought the WTC down than a jet crash and a few hours of fire..  Yet that massive bomb, barely scratched the building.  Those WTCs were unusually designed, but not in the sense that some apologists try to spin it.  They were an uncommonly strong structure, and had far above normal levels of over engineering, built in redundancy, than most such Skyscrapers.  That can be established if you go and look at the things which are still on tyhe web from before 911.  The buildings were known to be white elephants.  There was a huge problem, gargantuan, which made them a liability and that was the Asbestos.  The simple truth is, and I will give the sources later, the buildings were massively ensured, against terrorism specifically just before 911, all three buildings belonged to Larry Silverstein. 

By an incredible co-incidence a couple of months after having the foresight to re-insure these problematic buildings against terrorism, Mr Silverstein saw all three fall down boom, due to “terrorism” and the payout was lovely.  What luck! What a lucky fellow.  Instead of a multi-million dollar cleanup bill, or maybe even a demolition which was no doubt considered, for the fact of the matter was there was no easy solution for these buildings. 

Not that those facts prove anything.  They are just co-incidences.  Amazing co-incidences.  Serendipity! We understand that little faith filled deniars.  BUT these co-incidences are consistent are they not?

Just go and read about the structure of the WTCs and especially the inbuilt redundancy of the construction. Major it is painfully obvious you know nothing about enginering or demolitions, and that you have read NONE of the references given.  Instead of the knee jerk debunking of the cognitive dissonant cowards who like to dream of humping the flag and holding Dubyas hand, you need to do some reading of the actual arguments behind the contention that explosives were used.

Besides, can’t you even see that you are merely trying to stretch a theory to try and explain something which has not only got a logical and verifiable explanation, but every other bit of evidence besides is also consistent with it. That is such a puny and sad little way to go about trying to debunk a very well founded contention.  You are actually doing what the Mr Allen claims we do, but of course his piece is a completely ironic bit of grobble.

Doesn’t a person with your sort of reasoning difficulties comprehend that just because you can come up with a possible explanation for SOME of the evidence, that this doesn’t of itself alter the fact that the most plausible explanation is ours and it is backed by an unbroken chain of interlocking evidence? 

Major Major has a funny idea of what science is.  He thinks it is something you can pick and choose in detail. 

So the force would, in fact, have to proportional to the weight, mg, of the building say Major.

and directly disproportionate to the force exerted by the nether structure. says Issac Newton.

Of course this is exactly why we know the buildings were imploded.  The actual fall times are possible only by removing the structural resistance, instantly, on all levels.  Or as is done, in a wave just prior to each section falling.

Look at the videos Major and see what you see. Rabbit has no desire to crush you like a bug, but if you are going to play around on this thread you are so utterly out of your depth you will suffer badly.  The only people who will survive trying to argue the well proven contention that the buildings were brought down by explosives and that the Adminsitartion was involved, are the sort of desperate and totally corrupt shills. They will do this by smoke and mirrors and strawmen, by ad-hominem atacks and rhetorical wank.

Since I already know you are at least above that sort of rubbish, you don’t have a chance.  Rabbit really means it Major, do please read the sources given and see if things don’t seem a bit more obvious than a mere faith based acceptance of the “Holy” commission report would suggest.

You need to answer for yourself, Major, as to why the evidence was so quickly and carefully destroyed and the rest witheld.  Remember mate, not even the commission was allowed to view most of this evidence.  You don’t feel a bit suspicious about that by any chance?

Again it proves nothing, but it is consistent with our contention.  If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?

What about Rodriguez, doesn’t his story earn more than you just ignore it?  The guy saved a lot of lives dude, and you are just going to consign his story to the dustbin without even looking at it?

Doesn’t it make the Major just alittle bit suprised to hear the FBI doesn’t have any proof that Bin Laden did it?  Do you think that we make this stuff up bloke?  Get over it old fella.  Neither Rabbit nor the many Scholars for 911truth, nor the thousands of activists in the field, have so little else to do, that we would be making anything up. We can make mistakes, but unlike the Government we will review these as they become apparent.

It is us who are showing respect for those murdered by trying to find the truth which has been covered up, and withheld from the world.  You and people like you who would rather not look, just hurry on past and pretend it is all OK, are the craven curs, the cringing cowardly sheeple, who dare not challenge a bullshit story for fear their nice safe existence may seem less safe and secure.
This where the claim by Mr Allen that we who challenge the official theory are somehow the ones looking for security and safety.  That is just a patently farcical claim.  Mr Allen sure has handed us his ass on a plate.  He has also given an excellent double edges sword or two.  I love the bit about an unbroken chain of scientific evidence.  Not for the first time one is left wondering if indeed the persons who write these hopeles hit pieces are secretly just opening the door for others to speak the truth.  They just make it so easy.  I guess there isn’t much one can do when one’s own story is so full of holes and has NO ACTUAL proven scientific theory behind it.  Don’t forget, when someone can actually prove the official theory possible, they could win one million dollars.  So Major if you think you can do this why don’t you have a shot? Is a million not enough to attract your interest?

By the way, I have run a few experiments with a low pressure kerosene powered jet engine, and a small piece of steel.  The heat of that flame was obviously higher than the imperfect open burning condition in the WTCs and the steel has much less hermal inertia due to its small volume. 

After about two hours the steel was hot but the heat was also spreading along the whole length and after four hours the steel was still not bending, even with a fair weight on it. At no time did the steel get even an orange glow to it.  Five minutes after the fire was shut, the steel had equalised in temperature the excellent thermal conduction of steel is why and of course with even a high school Chemistry knowledge anyone should understand this.  Have we seen the size of the steel columns that you are trying to kid yourself got softened by even cooler fires than that?  To collaspe straight down they would all have had to sften and give way at the same moment in time.  That is a fact and you will find no demolitions expert anywhere who will say otherwise.  When rigging up for suh an implosion, all the columns must be cut, as close to simultaneously as possible.  The occassional accidents when all doesn’t go according to plan are due to the failure to achieve this exact condition.

It isn’t somthing that happens on its own, and not three times on one day.  If the chances of it happening are one to one hundred, then the chances of it happening twice on one day would have to be one in one thousand.  Would anyone like to complete the mathematics for the chances of it happening three times in one day?  Does a chance of 1 in 100,000 make you feel confident that is what happened?  Now I gave a conservative estimate to start, since actually the chances of it happening once are actually one in millions.

Those who repeat the fake points and spin the impossible theories in a chorus of faith and patriotism, are directly involved in the coverup of the murder of 3000 of your fellows.  The truth hurts for sure, but sometimes we have to face up to pain since cowardice is a less palatable option .  At least it is for some.

Being a pyrotechnician, the rabbit also did another experiment.  I have made thermite before, that is what Sparklers are in case anyone doesn’t know.  It is also used occasionally in welding, though I never have.  When professor Jones wrote about Thermate being the likely explosive used to cut the columns, Rabbit was interested.  Mixed up some Thermate and popped a bit of Sulpher in too.  Voila, thermate.  Well it ignited easier than usual, that was the first thing Rabbit noticed. The next thing was that it cut amazingly quickly through the steel it sat on.  Much quicker than thermite alone which only really welded itself into a molten puddle of the steel surface.  Enough if it was followed up with a cutting charge which is how I’d always assumed they’d done it. 

Steven Jones God bless him has indeed found the answer to exactly what was used, even before confirming it via tests.

Scholars for 911 truth is a group of distinguised and qualified scholars who lose none of their authority by virtue of challenging the official whitewash.  You cannot continue to attack the credibility automatically of anyone who speaks out, if you cannot even tackle what they say directly except by quoting small bits out of context and tearing down strawmen.  Yet it is the only sort of answer we seem to get from the faith based brigade.

Scholars for 911 truth. Do check out the list of members there are a lot of them and they have combined more knowledge and experience than all those who still try to support the official conspiracy theory.

Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholars find profoundly troubling:

* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President’s closest adviser--of “creating our own reality.”

Something else from the Scholars for 911 truth press release.

Stunning as it may be to acknowledge, they observe, the government has brought but one indictment against anyone and, to the best of their knowledge, has not even reprimanded anyone for incompetence or dereliction of duty. The official conspiracy theory--that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about--is unsupportable by the evidential data, which they have studied. They even believe there are good reasons for suspecting that video tapes officially attributed to Osama bin Laden are not genuine.

They have discovered that The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with omissions, distortions, and factual errors, which David Ray Griffin has documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. The official report, for example, entirely ignores the collapse of WTC7, a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack.

Rabbit shall rest for awhile, but if anybody wants to post the recent chemical analysis claims which show that Thermate was the explosive used, be my guest. 

Let’s save the story of Mr Grove, for the finale. The coup degrace so to speak.

But, despite the above, let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that it’s possible for a building to fall far from its footprint, thereby threatening the integrity of the buildings adjacent to it, and the additional lives of the people who occupy them.  In such a situation, it would not be unreasonable to provide the means to pull it down.

Posted by Major Major on Jul 11, 2006 at 8:34 PM

He may have a point here, Rabbit. Maybe Major Major is dropping a hint?

I have imagined that a “fallback” position, and admission, would be that the buildings were pulled or brought down to avoid a collapse that would have involved adjacent buildings etc ect ... a “greater good” sort of argument and they would justify the prepositioning of explosives for a controlled demolition as a valid response to the possibilty of further attacks after the 1993 incident. Get it? A cover up position for the cover up.

Just suppositions on my part. But interesting to think about.

Dave

If they haven’t thought of it, they will now.

They have actually already started to prepare the ground for this, I’ve noticed a tendency to repeat a specific new bit of detail which has as far as I can see no factual basis.  It is being mentioned in passing but nothing made of it and it is being done by people from within the truth seeking ranks.  It becomes apparent from Grove’s account that the truth movement is well and truly infiltrated with misinformants, as if we didn’t know.  It is sad for me to see that a couple I respected are mentioning this little detail.  Eventually it may serve as the hook upon which they’ll hang that fallback position. 

Actually since they removed the dogs just before 911, this would be the time they put in those explosives “just in case”, what amazing foresight!  This proves the government is actually on top of things and doing all in its power to protect the poor little diddums’.  Of course it will be like bread and butter for the co-incidence theorists.  Naturally they knew about the attacks, but didn’t want to “terrify” people by telling them before hand.

It is rubbish but will gain credence in the minds of desperate people by its mere mention.  So Rabbit shall remain silent.  Suffice it to say, I am using the fact of it’s repetition as being an implication the speaker is a misinformation agent.

Of course this fallback position would not make any difference to the overall pattern of deciet, but it will buy enough of the consciousness of these craven morons who would rather go blind into a cave full of monsters than turn on the bloody lights at least!

Like kids hiding under the pillow, that’s a lot of Americans.  Scared of the boogey man, hiding under the pillow, Pillow Biters.

High-Ranking Military
Officers And Airline Pilots
Agree Flt 175 Did Not
Hit WTC South Tower

By Dave vonKleist
The Power Hour
12-15-5

Startling new revelations about the 9/11 attacks were recently released on The Power Hour radio program. Col. George Nelson USAF (ret.), who has 30 years of experience identifying aircraft and aircraft parts stated, “The plane that hit the south tower on 9/11 was not United Airlines (UA) flight 175”.  After reviewing numerous video clips and photographs of the 9/11 attacks, he concluded, “That was not a commercial airliner. The planes were substituted.”

( www.thepowerhour.com/news2/replay_aug8_2005.htm )

This shocking conclusion is also being echoed by other military officers and commercial airline pilots.

Glen Standish, an airline pilot for over 20 years stated, “The plane seen in various video clips of the attack could not have been UA flight 175, due to the extra equipment that appears to be attached to the bottom of the fuselage”. A mysterious “flash” is also seen in the clips that indicate possible incendiary events took place before the planes entered the towers.

Nila Sagadevin, a seasoned airline pilot of over 20 years, examined photos of the engine that was found at the Trade Center site. He stated, “The engine found at the Trade Center was a CFM-56, which is not utilized on a Boeing 767”, confirming that the south tower was not hit by flight 175, but by another plane that had taken its place.

Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine, US Army (ret.), an expert in photo analysis, reviewed the photos taken at the Pentagon before the collapse and concluded, “The plane does not fit in that hole!” indicating that the damage was inconsistent with a 757 strike.

This explosive information not only brings into question the official story of the September 11th attacks, but also the real motives behind the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the War on Terror, the beneficiaries of government contracts, and the resulting legislation like the USA Patriot Act that was passed without review by Congress after the 9/11 attacks.
Because an increasing number of military personnel, civilian pilots, physicists, educators and law enforcement officials are now questioning the official story of hijackers responsible for the attacks on September 11th , 2001, there is a call for the re-opening of an investigation into the 911 attacks. ( www.reopen911.org )

The video clips and photographs examined are included in the controversial documentary, “911 In Plane Site” a Power Hour production. ( www.911inplanesite.com )

Nothing new hear, but it probably is news to Terry Allen, despite having spent months researching 911.  Do these people seem like those conspiracy theorists you were babbling on about in your hitpiece Ma’am?

“There are instead engineers and scientists who have clearly detailed why it is not possible for the fires and planes to have brought down the buildings, and despite the massive ad-hominem attacks such people are made to suffer whenever they speak out, exactly why more don’t, NOBODY has ever actually tackled the hard science behind these claims.”

Judging from “the massive ad-hominem attacks” you make against anyone who appears to disagree with your conclusions, you would be better advised to follow your own advice.  Aside from the hypocrisy of it all, it alienates anyone from even considering the evidence you present, and reinforces the general presumption that anyone who disagrees with the official government explanation for 911 is either monomaniacally deranged or deliberately misrepresenting the facts.

So please, explain for us, once more, how it might be possible to move the enormous mass of a building as large as the World Trade Center beyond its footprint.  You would think that the architects and engineers who built the structure would design the buiding to do exactly that, to avoid corollary damage to adjacent structures.  Moreover, if such an unlikely event were to occur, I would hope that municipal protocols would include the possibility and provide countermeasures to limit the fallout to neighboring structures.  In fact, you might be able to construct your counter-conspiracy thesis on the basis of these protocols.

In any case, as it stands, you appear to be cherry-picking the facts to support your own pre-determined conclusions.

No ad-hominem attacks Major.  My entire posting series is factual, it is full to the brim with lots of well verified facts and these are interwoven into a tapestry which can be both understood and navigated with ease.

The thrust of my argument is logical and fact based.  Opinions are given; but the factual basis for these are also given so too the train of reasoning which led to these opinions.

If being a rabbit of a somewhat feisty nature results in language which occassionally says more than the issue but which draws attention to the paucity of his opponents reasoning and motives, then it is not, by virtue of the overall construct, ad-hominem.

My dear Major.

As for your little made up bit theory.  How about instead you toddle off and find something to support your own admittedly unfounded suppositions.  You scallywags are always expecting people to prove the negative.

Just a wee hint Major Major, even given a free kick on your “supposition”, you cannot use it to explain how the building which toppled the wrong way, actually straightened up.  Due to the conservation of the momentum and the laws of gravity, you cannot explain this fact with your maximally stretched theorising.

This Minor Major, is one very good way to make sure a building does not fall into its own footprint. If it starts toppling off to any side like that, if the force from above is continuous, (gravity is constant so it is) and it is meeting resistance then the momentum of the toppling tower floors would have continued in the same arc as they began.  The only way that could have straigtened up is if the lower floors turned to water suddenly.  Sort of what happens when you pull a building with a well set up demolition job.  Like I said before Major, a GREAT demolition job, the best in history.  These would have been famous even if they’d emptied the buildings and cleared the area first.

The video shows not only the severe tilt, but another “minor” point which also IS CONSISTENT with controlled demolitions, did we see what it was?  The building top started to fall AWAY from the direction of impact.  The side which was damaged should logically have begun to collapse on the damaged side. Even if one suspends all the other impossibilities, this one still cannot be answered by the official line of bullshit.  These are eminently simple facts Major and if you are not just in a complete panic, which given the ferocity of an angry rabbit is not impossible, then just establish the truth or not of this little, almost peripheral detail to the whole picture.  It is consistent with a controlled demo, that must be a given, but can you actually seriously now try and claim that this fact too could have some entirely other explanation?  If so, by what margin Major?  Does it strengthen the accumalated mixed bag of ad-hoc theories and outside possibilities?  Does this incredible co-incidence combine with all the other incredible co-incidences to form a complete and believable scenario which you can comfortably use to justify making wars and torturing people as well as give up the basic rights and liberties you once took for granted? 

Another of those things where the only actual history supports our contention, and the theory to explain this otherwise unexplainable event can at best only present an outside chance, for some of the situation, while being congruent with another equally irrefutable fact.
Rabbit is not cherry picking the facts you silly man.  He is presenting the facts they are verifiable in all cases.  The contentions which are being made are based upon well explained reasoning and the science is indisputable but you are welcome to try.

It must seem like we are cherry picking the facts to support the Implosion and inside job theories, but there is a very logical reason for this.  There are no facts which support the official crap, what is called by some as eveidence will be shown if and when it turns up to be circumstantial only and full of holes, and contradictions.  Exactly the sort of spurious, false and hence AD-HOMINEM words of Terry Allen point out that this isn’t the way to build a believable theory.

Now Major if there is anything which actually supports your story please come out with it, but if you wish only to try and poke about with small molehills as if they are the mountain you are never going to get to the peak of understanding.  If all you can do is take some small component of an “interlocking chain of evidence” and raise some small possibility an altrenative explanation might suffice for that one point, you are not going to be taken seriously even. 

Then rather than ad-hominem what you’ll get is taunting, as you well know old fellow.

One has to ask oneself, are you even reading any of the articles you so blithely think can be answered in one hit by clever old Major making it up as he goes along?  The one million dollar reward is still unclaimed Major and it isn’t going to be as easy as making up theories about engineering and demolitions and not even reading what the experts who are contradicting the official holy report are actually saying..

If you have anything more which you feel might bgive an alternate picture of the truth, Major, do feel free to share it.  You might as well assume however that Rabbit has seen pretty much all there is, and that includes the official rubbish and the few half assed reports which sort of dance about with lots of ifs and buts but do not make a case which is not already thoroughly debunked, doubted and disproven on many fronts.  The official story is so full of major omissions that it is more like a hole than a net to catch the facts and interpret them. If you can prove other wise be my guest.

The truth of it is that the relevant facts necessary to completely disprove the official lies, are already presented here on this forum.  Despite first appearances, it’s more concise than it seems I promise.  This is not even the end of it, not by half, but unless people can take the few hours necesary to look at what are undisputed facts and how they are connected, and what they imply.  Not just seems a bit crook, but which is completely such a load of unbelievable, disprovable rubbish imaginable.  Once you make the break and see the lie, the whole thing makes a hell of a lot more sense and the CONSISTENCY if nothing else of the Bush government is plain to see.  It is the moment for most when they finally realise “The Emperor Has NO CLOTHES”.  It is a shock but I’d guess the bigger shock is looking back and having to comprehend that there are still many others who blindly parrot the fairy story without any real ability to quantify any detail, they just believe it and will defend it against all logic. 

One piece of logic is mising from the whole 911 debate, and its AWOL state is just the usual surreal state of affairs these days.  The once fairly simple notion that a theory only needed to be disproven once, for it to lose credibility.  No matter how many glaring irregularities some of which entirely demolish the official lie, not mone of them seems to put the finish to this ridiculous tory, many still buy it, but then many still believe Saddam Hussein had something to do with 911, or that he was minutes away from attacking the USA in 2003, and that the earth is flat and all manner of nonsense.  Gravity is real my little babies, it is constant, and steel doesn’t turn into water because some crazy old arab in a cave in the wilderness wants it to.

xyptol --- stay around....
Canuck, major, good to seeya, must to work go.

I see that Terry believes in SOME conspiracy theories --- Access to birth and death certificates outlawed, to protect polluting Bushist companies from epidemiological research...

911 has been used as the “killer” argument for all the evil that has happened since, so I will digress JUST a little from subject to pass some new info.

CONFIDENTIAL FM TASHKENT AMBASSADOR TO FCO 18 march 2003

I was horrified when the massive assault on Iraq started. I knew both that Iraq did not really possess WMDs, and that our weapons were much less precise than the news propaganda claimed; tens of thousands of civilians were dying.

Given that we were supporting the dictator Karimov, I thought it was pretty rich to be claiming to attack Hussein because he was a dictator. I was then outraged to see on BBC World TV a speech by George Bush saying we were going to war in Iraq to dismantle Hussein’s torture apparatus. I had just been informed that torture material was legitimate in the War on Terror.

I therefore sent the following telegram. This was the only protest from any British Ambassador at our entering on an illegal war, abandoning the UN Security Council, and following blindly George Bush’s violent and acquisitive foreign policy.

Craig Murray May 2006

This is a small example of his revelations, which were posted on the net on the Fourth of July…

BlairCo are trying to shut his site down, but it is widely mirrored , and equally valid for Americans to check out, as were the Downing Street Memos. SITE

frog has added to last one with edit. Do have a look !

In the UK the Dear Leader’s Inquiry Act 2005 came into power last month.

Shades of the KEAN COMMISSION any inquiry into 7/7 in London would be conducted under the following rules, with which Stalin would have been happy.

Under the terms of the Inquiries Act 2005:

- the inquiry and its terms of reference would be decided by the executive; no independent parliamentary scrutiny of these decisions would be allowed;
- each member of an inquiry panel, including the chair of the inquiry, would be appointed by the executive and the executive would have the discretion to dismiss any member of the inquiry;
- the executive can impose restrictions on public access to the inquiry, including on whether the inquiry, or any individual hearings, would be held in public or private;
- the executive can also impose restrictions on disclosure or publication of any evidence or documents given, produced or provided to an inquiry;
- the final report of the inquiry would be published at the executive’s discretion and crucial evidence could be omitted at the executive’s discretion, “in the public interest”.

In their AI Report 2006, Amnesty succinctly summarised the act as follows:

The Inquiries Act 2005 came into force in June 2006. It undermined the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and human rights protection. It therefore failed to provide for effective, independent, impartial or thorough public judicial inquiries into serious human rights violations. AI called for its repeal.

The July 7th Truth Campaign supports the joint calls of Amnesty International, The Law Society of England and Wales, the Finucane Family Campaign and other legal, human and civil rights organisations, in their opposition to any inquiry conducted under the Inquiries Act 2005, including any inquiry into July 7th, should it ever be granted. We also support Amnesty International’s call to repeal the Inquiries Act 2005.

One may replace the words “the executive” with the Decider

Terry J. Allen compares those who would repeat the testimonials of the FDNY about the CONTROLLED DEMOLITION to those who intentionally spread HIV-AIDS.

In These Times has been used just like a dirty syringe by Terry J. Allen.  Problem is, she was trying to use it on us. 

What caused hardened steel to melt and melt for 6 weeks?  Thermate.

What caused concrete to polverize before it hit the ground?  Explosives.

http://www.911revisited.com

Terry J. Allen = Ann Coulter

Diggins
have a look at the other twelve articles by terry.

Here is an email sent to Mr. Allen:

Interesting article.  I think many in the Scholars for 9/11 Truth understand that we need to stay away from the pile theory.  Not because what we can prove is not worthy, but because there is always an issue that is not air-tight (and subject to rejection by those in lock-step with our government).  Please read the letter sent below addressing this very issue and making a point that is rock solid.  It is my contention in this letter that the Truth movement is the defense team and all we have to do is prove reasonable doubt.  Though it is everywhere in the government story, the one major issue I present below, including the link to the paper, is rock solid.  This centers on the collapse times of the buildings.  Though one can bicker forever on what exactly happened that caused the collapses, the speed at which they fell is totally impossible related to the theory presented that fire and gravity explain the collapses (these are laws of nature and cannot be altered).  Unfortunately, a building collapsing by fire and turning into dust at the collapse zone cannot collapse this fast (near freefall).  The letter below walks you through the paper and locks this point down.

Feel free to respond with an arguement. 

Letter:

Just wanted to thank you for this entire exercise related to the 9/11 Truth process.  It has occurred to me that I, and all that feel compelled to speak out about this issue, have been going about it all the wrong way.  We continue to let ourselves get sucked into a debate about all facts related to the event about which we cannot possibly have all the answers.  We allow our critics to knock us down with any argument that we do not have the answer for or are mistaken as to its correctness or context.  Again, I want to thank you for assisting in understanding this shortcoming.  I think it is serving me, and hopefully those who feel as I do, well.

With that said, it is my feeling that if a hole can be punched in the official story that does not require myriad qualifications or specific evidence, that, in and of itself, can draw into question the remainder of the official story.  Here is my reasoning:  It is my feeling that those on the Truth Movement side are similar to the defense team in a criminal trial.  We don’t need to prove exactly what happened, all we need to do is prove that one plank to the government story cannot be possible – reasonable doubt.  Though I have known about this since she first put forward her paper this past winter, it is a fact that the collapse speed proof by Dr. Wood that I sent to you and others recently is that impossible portion of the government story.  Since I believe it fair to assume that you have not read this paper, I will summarize it here and also include the link for you to read it specifically.  Here is the premise that Dr. Wood uses: 

Let’s say you tell me that you ran, by foot, to a store 10 miles away, then to the bank (5 more miles), then to the dog track (7 more miles), then to your friend’s house (21 more miles), then home ...all in 2 minutes.

To disprove your story, I would present to you a simple case. I would present to you that the world’s record for running just one mile is 3 minutes and 43.13 seconds.  So, it does not seem possible that you could have run over 40 miles in 2 minutes.  i.e. It does not seem possible for you to have run 43 miles in half the time it would take the holder of the world’s record to run just one mile.  Even if I gave you the benefit of having run all 43 miles at world record pace, it would not have been possible for you to have done so in two minutes.

Remember, the proof need not be complicated.  I don’t need to prove exactly how long it should have taken you to run that distance.  Nor do I need to prove how much longer it would have taken if you stopped to place a bet at the dog track.  To disprove your story, I only need to show that the story you gave me is not physically possible.

The premise on which Dr. Wood begins her paper is the collapse time of WTC2 (the South Tower) as reported on Page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report.  It states that the building collapsed in 10 seconds.  Her paper then walks through the scenario that a billiard ball, if dropped at every 10-story interval precisely as the billiard ball from the previous 10 story interval passes by would take a total of 31 seconds for all of the 11 billiard balls to hit the ground.  This process is based on the government contention that progressive collapse initiated at the top and progressed entirely through the building and that all of the floors were disintegrated as they fell (if they remained in tact, would there not have been a pile of concrete floors remaining many stories high?).  Even if the collapse started at the 80th floor at the airliner impact zone, it should have taken more than 23 seconds using every 10th floor.  The government has indicated that as the collapse progressed, that it did not occur anywhere else until the collapse wave reached the individual floors from above.  She then modifies her model to involve each floor, one falling to the next, pulverizing into dust, initiating the fall of the next floor, initiating the next, and so forth.  This collapse would have taken 97 seconds for 110 floors, or more than 65 seconds from the 80th floor.  As the casual observer can surmise, these times are far greater than the actual times as reported by the Commission.

She then creates a model that would have the building collapse in the 10 seconds reported.  To create this model using the every 10 floors criteria, she determines that the ball on the 100th floor would have to start falling 0.429 seconds after the ball on the 110th floor is released (which takes 2.8 seconds to reach the 100th floor), and so on for all balls.  This would allow all the balls to reach the ground at the same time and within the 10 seconds needed.  Unfortunately, that presents a problem.  If the floors below the demolition wave move out of the way before they are hit by the floors above, what will pulverize all the concrete in the floors above?  Should they not fall into a stack with the lower floors by and large remaining in tact save cracking by the weight of the floors coming down from above?  Further, how could the lower floors start moving before being hit if there has been nothing to cause their collapse?

Dr. Wood reminds the reader that she did not take into account the natural resistance of the steel structure that, even if weakened around the collapse zone, would have caused the collapse to slow down, particularly at the beginning when there was less weight, as it progressed.

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

Based solely upon this simple, yet elegant proof, she has proven that the government theory about the collapses is mathematically and physically impossible.  She doesn’t need to prove how the buildings came down; she doesn’t need to prove what caused them to come down.  She doesn’t need to prove who was on the planes, who was flying them, or whether the planes were the ones noted by the government.  She doesn’t need to prove what hit the Pentagon or what happened in Shanksville.  She doesn’t even need to prove who orchestrated the plot, how many were involved, and how it is possible that none of them have come forward.  But, and this is important, she has proven that the government story is false (again, reasonable doubt) and that anyone tried for the events of 9/11 based upon this story would have sufficient evidence for an acquittal.  I have offered this scenario to the Scholars group concerning the Moussaoui trial as it is my feeling that this specific issue could disprove the government’s case against him (if al-Qaeda didn’t do it and Moussaoui was convicted of aiding al-Qeada, how can he be guilty?) and certainly would be a major stumbling block against anyone in al-Qaeda that might subsequently be brought to trial.

Further, it should then beg these questions by the general public:  If the government account of how the fast the buildings collapsed is false, what is the truth about the collapse?  What means could produce the speed that we all saw?  Are there alternative theories that explain it?  If the controlled demolition theory that supports all the evidence is the best theory: who did it?  If all the evidence of who did it based on all the research and analysis performed by Truthers is reasonable, should there not be a new, independent investigation?  If all of this is true, what basis is there for invading Afghanistan and Iraq?  What basis is there for domestic surveillance, renditions, torture, data mining of phone and financial records?

Again, I want to thank you, MXXX, for helping me understand how to create a logical, reasonable, yet simple case that what the government has told us is false and that I don’t need to have all the answers.  I encourage you to look at Dr. Wood’s proof, think hard about what it says, get help if you don’t understand it, but be certain of this:  What we were told about the collapse times is irrefutably false and that calls into question all the other details that we have not independently investigated for ourselves.

Well Terry,

Your critics have certainly proved your point beyond the slightest doubt. 

This “truth” movement is a religion.  Or more accurately, a cult.

If this movement ever makes it past an occasional appearance on cable tv or talk radio, where their main weapon of argument is simply strength of conviction, they will inevitably be forced to confront the cruel crushing weight of reality. (1 mb pdf)

I understand your motivation in attempting to diffuse this nonsense.  It’s a major embarrasment and distraction, and can only undermine the effort of the left to regain political power in Washington or anywhere, for that matter.

Thanks, Rabbit!!

---------------------vv------------------- (content below this line added 8/5/06)

Before you incorporate the arguments put forth by the 9/11 “truth” movement into your daily interactions with friends and family, you may want to fact check them first, and consider them in the context of common sense.  You will be spared possibly permanent embarrassment if you simply run your revelation du jour through the following before opening your mouth at that party, or sending that email to that friend who still assumes you are sane. --- Natalie, the Fruit Bat.  mmmmm.......fruit