Webpage "Patriots Question 9/11" Addressed

[ref]

This is a little project I decided to do the other day. Addressing the claims made by the Patriots Question 9/11 -site mastered by Alan Miller. Many people link to this page nowadays, thinking the truth movement is supported by numerous professionals who rightfully question the events of 9/11. I found these claims should be addressed.

I do not suggest, that it is wrong to question the events of 9/11. But I find that most of the statements made on that site are not backed with the available data and evidence. I also question the inclusion of several induviduals on that site. People who died on 9/11 have been included as questioners of those events. And, as I found out, there really are no real ground-breaking questions that haven't been addressed before.

In this part I address the statements and claims made on the subpage "Engineers & Architects", which contains 220+ inputs. I do it in the order the people appear on that page. You might find some of the responses very repetitive, but so are the claims made by these people repetitive. I have decided to give a response to every single person, whether or not I had addressed the same claim before. This way, if people just search particular names and do not read the entire paper, they still can read an accurate response. The only exception are the controlled demolition/ae911truth petition signees. Since Richard Gage is the first entry on that site and on my paper, every time these issues come up, I direct the reader to the top of the paper.

Here is the link to the new page on my site.
http://911guide.googlepages.com/pq911

Here is the direct link to the PDF.

ETA: I almost forgot! Thanks to everyone here once again. Especially Mark, Mike Williams, Ryan Mackey and Debunking911.com. Your work and sites have been very useful.

 

[MarkyX]

The one thing I cannot stand about this site is they try to mix people with completely opposing views and act as if they all agree on the same thing. They try to mix people who simply want to extend the investigation on the incompetence of the intelligence agencies with people who think Al-Qaeda doesn't exist and thermite bombs bought down the towers. They have Judy Wood and Steven Jones on the same page!

It's kind like a 9/11 denier who thinks there were no hijackers and OBL is a patsy and quoting Richard Clarke to support his argument!

Not to mention the page is full of quotes out of context and people who died on 9/11.

 

[ref]

The one thing I cannot stand about this site is they try to mix people with completely opposing views and act as if they all agree on the same thing. They try to mix people who simply want to extend the investigation on the incompetence of the intelligence agencies with people who think Al-Qaeda doesn't exist and thermite bombs bought down the towers. They have Judy Wood and Steven Jones on the same page!

Exactly. Even some of the truthers have complained about this. They hate their heroes (Jones or Griffin) being on the same page with Fetzer and Wood.

It's kind like a 9/11 denier who thinks there were no hijackers and OBL is a patsy and quoting Richard Clarke to support his argument!

Not to mention the page is full of quotes out of context and people who died on 9/11.

Another huge problem with this site. Many wouldn't want to be there, they just have been put there. And to include people who died on 9/11, that's just pushing one's own agenda way too far by any means necessary.

 

[T.A.M.]

Alan Miller...also the guy who writes all those pro "9/11 truth" pieces on OpEdNews.com

Loon

TAM

 

[leftysergeant]

I wonder how Wesley Clark feels about being on the same roster with Eric May.

 

[ref]

This Engineers & Architects did not contain many "suspicious" entries. Most were either ae911truth supporters, or total kooks. But Frank DeMartini really stood out as a very needless entry.

The "Military Officials" and "Survivors" pages contain the most questionable entries. I'll get to them sometime soon. The "Professors" page should be fun debunking. Only about 500 entries left to address

 

[ref]

Phew. I'm working on the second part of this series, the "Military, Intelligence etc. Question 9/11" part.

I noticed another thing. Alan Miller boosts the numbers by listing the same people in multiple categories. I'm only in the middle of going through the second subpage, and I've already seen numerous people listed on both "Architects & Engineers" and "Military" pages. So few 'Patriots' that they have to be listed multiple times, eh?

And I thought the architects page was nuts, but it gets no better. The military page hosts numerous PFT members.

This job is really easy.

 

[T.A.M.]

IF you need help let me know. I was going to take it on myself, but it is large...

I would suggest you make a point of distinguishing just what each patriot has actually said, in context, as I find alot of the time they have either said nothing (in some cases they have just signed something, that is then used to promote some aspect of the truth) or said something not even close to MIHOP< not even directly LIHOP (Wesley Clarke a prime example).

TAM

 

[ref]

IF you need help let me know. I was going to take it on myself, but it is large...

I would suggest you make a point of distinguishing just what each patriot has actually said, in context, as I find alot of the time they have either said nothing (in some cases they have just signed something, that is then used to promote some aspect of the truth) or said something not even close to MIHOP< not even directly LIHOP (Wesley Clarke a prime example).

TAM

I make a point of what each of them has said. Improving all the time

Clarke is a prime example indeed.

The webpage quotes him like this:
"I think when you look at this country, right now, we need a 2-party system that works. We need Congress to do its job. We need real investigation of some of the abuses of authority that are apparently going on at the Executive branch. ... We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time."

This gives the impression, that he specifically speaks of a new investigation on 9/11, and having clear evidence of something related to that particular topic.

The entire quote goes like this:
“I think when you look at this country, right now, we need a 2-party system that works, we need Congress to do its job, we need real investigation of some of the abuses of authority that are apparently going on at the Executive branch, we need <crosstalk>

We need to really get to the bottom of the Abramoff scandal, we should have a special prosecutor appointed for that, we really need a congressional investigation of the whole business of the NSA wiretapping and how far that goes, there's been a lot of squirreling around the edges; we've never completed the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had - the evidence seems pretty clear to me, I've seen that for a long time. I think Americans are best served by a strong 2-party system and that's been out of whack and what I can do in 2006 is try to help the right Democrats get into office and that's what I'm going to do.”
http://securingamerica.com/node/692

So, he talks about different topics, the Abramoff scandal, NSA wiretapping and 9/11. Not only about investigations on 9/11.

ETA: And thanks for the help offer! I'll let you know if i'm overwhelmed by this stupidity

 

[T.A.M.]

exactly, and he is not making any direct accusation remotely MIHOP, barely even LIHOP in nature.

TAM

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Wait... do some of these folks know they're listed on that site? I know, for example, Mary Schiavo has been fiercely critical of the FAA and the general state of airline security in general, but I've never gotten the sense that she's any more than Let-It-Happen-By-Accident (or Negligence).

 

[T.A.M.]

I would bet money there are lots of people listed on that site, that did not give permission, or have any knowledge they are.

TAM

 

[ref]

Many of them don't know they are listed, and wouldn't want to be there if they knew. I'm certain of that.

But we have to keep in mind, that many of them also DO know and want to be there. These are the demolition/no plane/MIHOP kooks. It's quite easy to distinguish between the real theorists who are there at will, and the 'not knowing they are on the list' types. Those who don't know they are there, do not belong to any groups (Scholars, Pilots for Truth, AE911Truth etc.) Most of the real conspiracy theorists are members of at least one of these groups, some are members of many.

 

[T.A.M.]

Mr. Miller is quite crafty. Though I am sure he is aware of how his lists will be looked upon, and how they are being used by the truther crowd, he does have the following disclaimer on his site...

Many well known and respected senior U.S. military officers, intelligence services and law enforcement veterans, and government officials have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report or have made public statements that contradict the Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This website is a collection of their statements. It is not an organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

TAM

 

[ref]

Mr. Miller is quite crafty. Though I am sure he is aware of how his lists will be looked upon, and how they are being used by the truther crowd, he does have the following disclaimer on his site...



TAM

I still don't understand, that he claims all these people question the 9/11 Commission Report.

Many people he lists died before the report was released. Others have quotes that are from 2002. Others think WTC 7 was a demolition, which has nothing to do with the 9/11 Commission report.

He is painting with a really broad brush. (Is that a real saying?)

 

[R.Mackey]

Interesting to see our own Gregory Urich on that list.

While he's claimed a few preposterous things, like the Flight 93 impact crater being the wrong shape, he's been careful to avoid more full-blown endorsement of Truth Movement positions. I've never seen him state explosives or anything else was used in the WTC, for instance.

The variety of positions in AE911T is startling. This is what happens when one has no clear hypothesis. Everyone is "convinced" for their own, personal, hodgepodge of reasons, and nobody has a solid enough argument to convince the rest, thus there is no consistency at all. Further evidence of pseudoscience at work.

 

[leftysergeant]

Actually, some aspects of this site are tetable. If anyone can figure out how to make contact with these people whose allignment with Miller is dubious and ask them what they think of being included there, it might be very enlightening. Might even get the site pulled down when someone sues for libel. Seems to me you could make a good case that just being linked to Stubblebine or Barret or May in the public eye could be an embarrassment when applying for a job or running for public office.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Mr. Miller is quite crafty. Though I am sure he is aware of how his lists will be looked upon, and how they are being used by the truther crowd, he does have the following disclaimer on his site...

Many well known and respected senior U.S. military officers, intelligence services and law enforcement veterans, and government officials have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report or have made public statements that contradict the Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This website is a collection of their statements. It is not an organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

TAM

Oh, Christ!... Conflating legitimate, genuine, reason based criticism with fantastic, conspiracy-laden claims is a ridiculous intellectual stance to take.

Someone needs to put up an honest disclaimer for them: "These people are listed to make our more riduculous claims look legitimate".

--------

Ref, do you happen to have sources that round out Schiavo's claims a bit more? I could use some more context on what she said and why she said it. I'm leafing through the 9/11 Commision report and her contributions, but there's so much there. She's been insistent to the point of being aggravating on getting more information about 9/11 (for example, her quote in the NY Observer:

"In any other situation, it would be unthinkable to withhold investigative material from an independent commission," she told this writer. "There are usually grave consequences. But the commission is clearly not talking to everybody or not telling us everything."

)

... but again, I've not gotten any sense that she's thought anything even remotely close to LIHOP, let alone MIHOP. Rather, I got the impression she's angry at what she sees as corporate and government incompetence regarding airline safety. But I've not seen her name associated with the charge of timeline discrepancies regarding Flight 93 before either. So I'm just trying to learn more about it.

 

[Architect]

I doubt if any of these architects read this site, but just in case:

I believe that, in failing to address the underlying causes of the structural failure and hence collapse in a meaningful way but nevertheless representing your views as considered opinion, you have acted in an unprofessional manner falling significantly below the benchmark of a competent professional.

Now, if they don't like that, they can make a complain about my conduct to the RIBA which I will happily defend most rigorously. If they need the address, it's at Portland Place in London. There'll be full investigation and, if sustained, I'll be chucked out.

However they've not had any luck in court, so I can't imagine that any other quais-judicial environment would appeal to them. Roll on boys, roll on.....

 

[ref]

Oh, Christ!... Conflating legitimate, genuine, reason based criticism with fantastic, conspiracy-laden claims is a ridiculous intellectual stance to take.

Someone needs to put up an honest disclaimer for them: "These people are listed to make our more riduculous claims look legitimate".

--------

Ref, do you happen to have sources that round out Schiavo's claims a bit more? I could use some more context on what she said and why she said it. I'm leafing through the 9/11 Commision report and her contributions, but there's so much there. She's been insistent to the point of being aggravating on getting more information about 9/11 (for example, her quote in the NY Observer:


)

... but again, I've not gotten any sense that she's thought anything even remotely close to LIHOP, let alone MIHOP. Rather, I got the impression she's angry at what she sees as corporate and government incompetence regarding airline safety. But I've not seen her name associated with the charge of timeline discrepancies regarding Flight 93 before either. So I'm just trying to learn more about it.

Oh dear. Thanks for bringing Mary Schiavo up for closer inspection.

She was not the regular demolition/MIHOP person among the people in that list. She stood out. I should have done more investigation on her. I will update my earlier released list.

Mary Schiavo has not made the flight 93 claims, the PQ911 page presents.

The article is here:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/M.A.Sweeney.html

The text related to this topic goes like this:

The timeline that is most disturbing belongs to the last of the four suicide missions -- United Airlines Flight 93, later presumed destined for the U.S. Capitol, if not the White House. Huge discrepancies persist in basic facts, such as when it crashed into the Pennsylvania countryside near Shanksville. The official impact time according to NORAD, the North American Air Defense Command, is 10:03 a.m. Later, U.S. Army seismograph data gave the impact time as 10:06:05. The F.A.A. gives a crash time of 10:07 a.m. And The New York Times, drawing on flight controllers in more than one F.A.A. facility, put the time at 10:10 a.m.


Up to a seven-minute discrepancy? In terms of an air disaster, seven minutes is close to an eternity. The way our nation has historically treated any airline tragedy is to pair up recordings from the cockpit and air-traffic control and parse the timeline down to the hundredths of a second. But as Mary Schiavo points out, "We dont have an NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) investigation here, and they ordinarily dissect the timeline to the thousandth of a second."

The bolded part is the only thing Mary Schiavo has said. Not the entire thing like I first thought, when putting together the list. The flight 93 time discrepancy quote is made by the author of the NY Observer article. Very deceiving indeed. One has to be very careful not to get the wrong impression, that even I did with Mary.

Well, the statement was made in 2004. The NTSB released the flight path studies in 2006 and determines the crash time to within 1 second.