Serious problems with the 9-11 Debunking waste of time

[LastChild]

You don't grill your steak with starter fluid (which is basically kerosene,) you wait for the coals to catch and develop a nice Class-A fire. But the kerosene sure helps the process along!

Actually I use gas. So what's your point?

 

[Unsecured Coins]

he's Uncle Grandpa, get it right!!

 

[LastChild]

No no. This is a new lie. It used to be just that they were cousins, perhaps some distance removed. Now, it's good ol' Uncle Mike.

So cousin makes it better?

 

[Unsecured Coins]

no, my little friend... they aren't related at all.

Get it?

 

[LastChild]

Thinks WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. Also thinks WTC1 & 2 were not.

Has stated “I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.”

Seems to ignore all the damage caused to WTC 7 by the falling twin tower debris. He lives in the Netherlands and has only seen the same collapse videos as others. Is the only demolition expert in the world, who suspects WTC 7 was a demolition.

Numerous firefighter testimonies confirm, how damaged WTC 7 was before collapsing and how serious the fires were. The collapse videos do not show the south side damage properly. The videos only show a fairly rapid collapse. One can not evaluate the collapse of WTC 7 from these videos, showing the building from the north for only a few seconds. It may look somewhat like a demolition, but all the evidence points towards it not being a demolition. No seismic spikes were measured, there were no audible explosions, professionals on the scene have not suspected anything and firefighters confirm the danger of collapse even before it happened. The FDNY evacuated the area surrounding WTC 7 before the collapse, because the building was so unstable, had damage low in the structure and had numerous fires on many floors. And finally, no evidence of explosive devices or wiring, that are usually found after demolitions, have been found in the rubble and remains of WTC 7.

You should also read the statement given by Chief Daniel Nigro.

For a complete critique of the controlled demolition hypothesis, please visit
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
http://www.911myths.com
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction

Yeah this is what I said people like you do. Thanks for confirming.

 

[beachnut]

So cousin makes it better?

It is bs junk. Like your CD junk. Pure fantasy, with no real facts. So far you have pure hearsay BS. Need some fact to back up your BS. Start with why someone should be held accountable for preventing something you failed to prevent yourself.

The jet fuel; what is your point? There would be no fires without the impact and jet fuel. What is your point? This makes your post stupid BS.

"they might be distant cousins." becomes nephew. Wow, will 9/11 truth ever get smart and learn how to think? You can not get a single fact correct! Your OP is a redo! Try again. Stop doing shallow research. You are doing as good as we can expect of a 9/11 truth supporter and pusher of lies and false information misleading others for no good reason.

 

[BenBurch]

Actually I use gas. So what's your point?

Obvious to anybody with a room temperature IQ; Jet fuel was very significant in that it acted as the accelerant and flame path for the fire. That is why it was fully involved so quickly and why there was fire on so many floors.

 

[CptColumbo]

So cousin makes it better?

If related it is a distant relation. They have never met, nor had Benjamin heard of Michael until he was asked if he was related to him.

Ask yourself, would you help cover-up the murder of 3000 people for a distant cousin? Considering that there were over 200 contributers to the article and IIRC 7 writers, how much could he alter the article without anyone noticing?

 

[twinstead]

LastChild do you have ANY response to our (somewhat) patient rebuttals to your points?


A good start: Do you really think that one demolition expert (who doesn't think WTC1 and 2 were CD, just WTC7) reasonably counters the crush of experts who disagree?

 

[afinemadness]

Yeah this is what I said people like you do. Thanks for confirming.

Translation: How dare you use facts to rebut my theories.

 

[BenBurch]

So cousin makes it better?

Except that isn't even true in any practical sense.

If they are cousins it was from some time in the 1700s. They do not know each other and are mutually unaware of any relationship at all. YOU are as likely to be his cousin.

I know a number of Burches that I have no obvious relationship with except possibly in the colonial era.

And even if they were BROTHERS, that doesn't have any relevancy to the exceptional job of investigative journalism that Popular Mechanics did on this story.

 

[beachnut]

The OP is officially debunked. Too many errors.

 

[Quad4_72]

6: After claiming the NIST investigation and their theory of collapse initiation is the be all end all evidence to put all CT theories to rest even though NIST never touches on the collapse itself a former NIST insider comes out with a list of problems he has found with the way NIST had conducted their investigation into the WTC tower collapses and also notes the report on building seven is still not released.

First of all, no one ever said the NIST report was perfect (as someone already touched on). Second, up to collapse initiation is all that is necessary, anything after that is a waste of time and money. Please provide your source for the NIST insider.

 

[Brainster]

4. Championing the PM hit piece as debunking all 9/11conspiracy theories when in reality they only cherry pick certain parts of one movie out of the entire 9/11 movement.

The original Popular Mechanics article debunked the following claims:

1. The Pods. Used in two very influential movies in the 9-11 Denial Movement: In Plane Site and Loose Change I, and one uninfluential movie (9-11 Ripple Effect).

2. Stand-down Order. Claimed by almost all "Truthers", except, apparently Dylan Avery.

3. Flight 175's supposed lack of windows. Claimed in Loose Change I, II and SE.

4. Routine intercepts: Cited in almost every 9-11 conspiracy theory movie including 9-11 Press for Truth and by almost all "Truthers"

5. Claim that damage at the WTC could not have been as widespread as it was (including at the base of the Towers). Claimed by Willie Rodriquez and many 9-11 activists.

6. Melted steel. Claimed by almost all 9-11 fruitcakes and conspiracy theory movies.

7. Squibs. Claimed by all WTC CD believers.

8. Seismic spikes. Claimed by many 9-11 Deniers. Cited in Loose Change and 9-11 Mysteries.

9. WTC-7 controlled demolition. Claimed by almost all 9-11 Deniers, cited in almost all 9-11 Denial movies.

10. Pentagon hole too small. Claimed by most Pentagon Deniers, cited in Loose Change and many other 9-11 Denial Movies.

11. Unbroken windows at the Pentagon. Claimed by Loose Change and other Pentagon Denial movies.

12. Insufficient Flight 77 Debris. Claimed by Loose Change and all Pentagon Deniers.

13. Flight 93 the White Jet. Cited as recently as Monday at 9-11 Blogger.

14. Flight 93 engine found too far from crash scene. Frequently claimed.

15. Debris at 8-mile distant Indian Lake. Commonly claimed.

16. Flight 93 shot down. Very commonly claimed, including by David Ray Griffin (See #97)

 

[Corsair 115]

i honestly thought people were done spreading this lie.

It's like the idea that all the 9/11 hijackers entered the U.S. from Canada. It's just one of those myths that, no matter how hard it's stamped on, it won't quite die.

 

[LastChild]

Stop right there. Look at the word you typed just before evidence. "There is no hard evidence". I agree. While I personally blame the 19 hijackers as well as KSM et al...other than Osama being the frontman of the organization which carried out the attacks and susequently taking credit - there is really not much direct evidence of his involvement.

Nope not on the FBI's most wanted for 9/11. No evidence.

Strawman . Can you clarify this statement with sources. Thanks.

youtube...
9/11: Absurd claims that jet fuel fires melted the WTC steel

Ah, so you trust his analysis on the WTC Towers then? It really baffles me when you guys get so desperate that you trot out someone who actually destroys 2/3 of your CD idiocy. Technically, he's on our side. He also didn't claim it was taken down as part of an impossibly vast conspiracy. IIRC, he claims it was demoed "because of the sensitive nature of the documents it housed"....or something

Yeah this is what I claimed you do.

Who here has championed PM as "debunking all 9/11conspiracy theories" ?

Meigs is a publicist and the PM piece is nothing but propaganda.

BTW, show me your evidence that Ben Chertoff is related to Micheal Chertoff. Oh and Meigs assembled a team of experts in relevant fields for the piece, something you guys wouldn't dream of doing. He didn't just start making stuff up like most twoofers do. 'Squibs' being a prime example. That term was completely made up by the truth movement. Betcha didn't know that.

usnews
Viewing 9/11 From a Grassy Knoll
You won't believe what the conspiracy theorists are claiming-or will you?
By Will Sullivan
Posted 9/3/06

"Conspiracy theorists have an answer to that, too. They assert that Benjamin Chertoff, a researcher on the project, is a cousin of homeland security chief Michael Chertoff. He's not, though he may be distantly related. "

"He's not , though he may be..."? Well that's some denial and a hell of a coincidence if it's true. But then again there's a lot of coincidence to but into if you want to support the fairy tale.

Even if true, it's evidence of CYA, not a conspiracy. Try harder.

Even if true?
"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

Another strawmen. You're not doing well. Many people here, like RMackey have problems with the report. It isn't perfect, noone here claims it is. Now can you tell me in your own words what problems this former NIST insider had with the report?

I'm doing fine thank you. How about his words?

"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.

1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ...

2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ...

6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"

I agree, but I think the breakdown was much bigger than a few individuals not reading email. What do you propose? Fire everyone at NORAD, the FAA, the CIA and FBI? I wouldn't have minded seeing a few heads roll, but they would've been scapegoats anyways. The system failed us and witchhunts are sooooo 17th century.

Thanks for agreeing no need to qualify.

 

[Quad4_72]

6: After claiming the NIST investigation and their theory of collapse initiation is the be all end all evidence to put all CT theories to rest even though NIST never touches on the collapse itself a former NIST insider comes out with a list of problems he has found with the way NIST had conducted their investigation into the WTC tower collapses and also notes the report on building seven is still not released.

First of all, no one ever said the NIST report was perfect (as someone already touched on). Second, up to collapse initiation is all that is necessary, anything after that is a waste of time and money. Please provide your source for the NIST insider.

 

[LastChild]

LastChild do you have ANY response to our (somewhat) patient rebuttals to your points?


A good start: Do you really think that one demolition expert (who doesn't think WTC1 and 2 were CD, just WTC7) reasonably counters the crush of experts who disagree?

So why do debunkers bring him up? And who are the crush of demolition experts who disagree? While you're at it what the heck is a crush of experts?

 

[Minadin]

"Conspiracy theorists have an answer to that, too. They assert that Benjamin Chertoff, a researcher on the project, is a cousin of homeland security chief Michael Chertoff. He's not, though he may be distantly related. "

"He's not , though he may be..."? Well that's some denial and a hell of a coincidence if it's true. But then again there's a lot of coincidence to but into if you want to support the fairy tale.

Horse Hockey.

There's no one in the world who might be more distantly related to you than a cousin?

If someone came up to me and asked, "Hey, is <person I'm unacquainted with who shares my last name> a cousin of yours, or something?"

I would almost certainly reply, "No, though it's possible we're distantly related."

You see, there's not a whole lot of people who share my surname, and I guess that Chertoff is also fairly uncommon. So if I were to find out about someone with the same last name as mine, I might assume that we're related somehow, even tangentially, though I would be pretty danged sure that they were not one of my cousins. I know my cousins.

 

[T.A.M.]

I've put together some facts here; let's hear about some other red flags that should pop up to anyone claiming to be a critical thinker while suspending all disbelief to buy into the government fairytale.

False assumption already (I do not suspend disbelief for all but the official story, but anyway...), not a good start, but I really didn't expect much better.

Some that I can think of off the top of my head:

1. Blaming UBL for the attacks even after the FBI states there is no hard evidence connecting him to 9/11.

Al Capone was guilty of having many people killed, as well as other crimes. What crime was he put in jail for????

2. Crying jet fuel, jet fuel, jet fuel, for years before the NIST report only to find that NIST blames the building content fire but never really backs it up.

dinosaur. Crying pods, pods, pods, until someone pointed out how friggin' stupid and evidenceless a claim it was...

3. Saying no explosive experts support CD but then pointing to Jowenko who still claims WTC7 was a CD.

Jowenko got caught up in the moment, and then was too proud to back down from his first impression of the WTC7 video...IMO.

4. Championing the PM hit piece as debunking all 9/11conspiracy theories when in reality they only cherry pick certain parts of one movie out of the entire 9/11 movement. Then finding out the piece was written by Benjamin Chertoff nephew of Michael Chertoff and Jim Meigs a former magazine editor of Premiere Magazine and Entertainment weekly.

How many pieces of the Jenga game do you have to debunk/remove, before the whole thing crumbles...

5. The book by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton chairs of the 9/11 committee where they reveal NORAD and the FAA lied and how they felt they were setup to fail by the administration and were under funded. The same administration that never wanted an investigation in the first place.

This is a statement...please clarify your position on this and its relevance to the title of your OP.

6: After claiming the NIST investigation and their theory of collapse initiation is the be all end all evidence to put all CT theories to rest even though NIST never touches on the collapse itself a former NIST insider comes out with a list of problems he has found with the way NIST had conducted their investigation into the WTC tower collapses and also notes the report on building seven is still not released.

Most here have not claimed NIST is perfect, but rather, the best we have. In terms of the things that were looked at by NIST, they were thorough. Strawman anyone!!

7. To this day not one person or agency has been held accountable for the failure to protect the US from the attacks of 9/11.

Point out a particular person or agency, for which there is enough evidence to procecute them for crimes against the country. Even less demanding, show enough solid evidence to have a particular person dismissed.

Your initial attempt to criticize the debunkers wasting their time, morphed into the same old truther diatribe.

TAM