9/11, Steven Jones, and Me – Part 4

As I have been reviewing Professor Jones’ paper for part 4, I have come across two articles that, taken together, have done this already and from what I’ve read so far, they’ve done a much better job than I could ever dream of doing, so rather than rebuilding the wheel, I’ll point you to them for a more complete review.

The first is an article written by Brent Blanchard, senior editor at Implosion World.  The article is located here.  I also found another copy of it here.  I included both in case either link goes away.

According to Mr. Blanchard, he was at ground zero during the cleanup after 9/11 and he goes through some common misconceptions about demolition that demolition theorists are getting wrong.  Some examples of the myths he debunks are:

Assertion 1: “The towers’ collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions.”

Assertion 2: “But they fell straight down into their own footprint.”

Assertion 3: “But explosive charges (aka plumes, squibs, etc.) can clearly be seen shooting from several floors just prior to collapse”

Assertion 4: “Several credible eyewitnesses are adamant that they heard explosion in or near the towers.”

These are just the first four out of nine total assertions that are debunked and explained from a professional demolitionist point of view.  Mr. Blanchard also says that he spoke to Professor Jones in 2006 about his paper.  It’s a good article.  Go read it.

The second article is by Mike King and it uses the above article as a source as he discusses Professor Jones’ paper.  It is here.  It is a very good read also.  I recommend it.

I think I’m done with this topic and I want to move onto another one: seeking truth.  In my years interacting with conspiracy theorists and others, I have noticed many traits, motivations, and behaviors that are quite interesting to me.  In my next article, I will cover what I have found.  It’s interesting because in observing these traits in others, I have been able to identify some of those traits within myself too and have been able to progress as a person as I have tried to get rid of these traits.  See you soon!

Related Articles:
9/11, Steven Jones, and Me
9/11, Steven Jones, and Me – Part 2
9/11, Steven Jones, and Me – Part 3

Technorati : , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About these ads

Posted on January 12, 2007, in Conspiracy Theories. Bookmark the permalink. 64 Comments.

  1. Cronk,

    I really can’t believe you fell for the grabage put forth by Blanchard. It is full of problems, logical inconsistencies and gratuitous assertions. It pick some of the weakest of the 9/11 conspiracies to argue against. It is not scientific and it lists no sources (credible or otherwise).

    Protec claims to be objective and unbiased yet they list Turner Construction Co. as one of their clients. Turner was one of the 4 main contractors called to do ground zero cleanup work. I understand that does not prove bias, but an 11 page PDF document full of gratuitous assertions and completely devoid of sources is a major problem.

    I don’t wish to belabor the point, but I can very easily show how unprofessional and poorly thought out the article is. Should I talk about that here or do you wish to do so in another forum?

    By the way, tell LDS Patriot that the new layout is nice.

  2. Sure he could have been more detailed by giving some names, chain of custody, etc. but he explained that the people wanted to remain anonymous to avoid harrassment.

    The issue here (and in many of these issues) is trust. One has to ask one’s self, “Do I trust this guy?” And that’s the main issue. I think he glossed over some details because he doesn’t realize that many people out here might not trust him. So, yeah – I’d like to see more detail too, but I actually trust this guy based on the content of his paper. He sounds like the type of expert who actually gets his hands dirty. I’ve interacted with many of these types of “dirty hands” experts in my career as a programmer and call me crazy, but I trust them because of my past experiences. I know you’ll rip me a new one for saying that, I just know it. :-)

    Did you read the other article?

  3. Blanchard’s article is very impressive and comes from a true expert in this field. His analysis was completely logical and expressive.
    Thank you very much for the series–I believe Mr. Jones has his work cut out for him.

  4. I have read most of the second article and one glaring weakness is that it depends on the first article. It overgeneralizes and depends on gratuitous assertion, though no so much as Blanchard’s article, to make its points. I saw one point that may be novel and true and many more that were not.

    “The fact is that the near free-fall-speed of collapse of buildings in controlled demolition is entirely due to gravity, and not to explosives. ”
    That’s a facile point, but it simply begs the question.

    I’ll be happy to address both articles point by point if you’re game.

  5. Patterson,

    What exactly did you find impressive about Blanchard’s article?

  6. I found it refreshing to hear things from a demolition expert who was at ground zero during the excavation instead of hearing it from a bunch of armchair quarterbacks who know little about demolition.

    If you’d like to address points in the articles, I’m fine with that, but please address them one point at a time and let’s not move on to multiple points until we have resolved the point at hand. Thanks.

  7. micheal,

    I removed your comment as it was off topic, except for one part: you said you had found an article that refuted one of the above articles but you did not post a link to it. I would be interested to see that point of view. Please post that link. Thanks.

  8. I said I quit Cronk. Find it yourself if you’re actually interested.

  9. I searched around and found one page on myspace talking about Mr. Blanchard’s article. I don’t know if that’s the article you found or not.

    It was a mixed bag, containing the following:

    1. Some valid points dealing with some lack of detail and source citing. Perhaps I’ll email him about it to see if he has any more information.

    2. Baseless statements from a “seems to me” non-expert point of view.

    3. Used the old diagonally cut column and “cement chunk posing as previously molten metal” disinformation as well as other previously debunked information.

  10. Micheal – will you pleae clarify your position on the use of ad hominem attacks and “guilt by association” tactics?

    I’ve seen you criticise others for these behaviors, yet thats all you appearantly can come up with against Mr. Blanchards article.

  11. I can clearly cite many weaknesses with Blanchard’s article. But, after careful consideration, I determined that I was wasting my time trying to convince anyone that a belief system that they cling so dogmatically to is incorrect. I wrote about that decision in a comment to Cronk, but he decided to delete it.

    So Aaron, I can come up with plenty of problems with Blanchard’s article. Can you? you should be able to spot a few after you read my original comment:

    ” It is full of problems, logical inconsistencies and gratuitous assertions. It pick (sic) some of the weakest of the 9/11 conspiracies to argue against. It is not scientific and it lists no sources (credible or otherwise).

    Protec claims to be objective and unbiased yet they list Turner Construction Co. as one of their clients. Turner was one of the 4 main contractors called to do ground zero cleanup work. I understand that does not prove bias, but an 11 page PDF document full of gratuitous assertions and completely devoid of sources is a major problem. ”

    By the way I was not using the fallacy of guilt by association. Since I don’t suggest Turner Construction is guilty of anything, Implosionworld can’t be guilty by association. I believe what I was asserting was a possible conflict of interest. Please look this term up if you have any questions about it.

    As for your assertion of ad hominem attacks I did not, in fact, call Blanchard any names nor attack his character. I asserted that his paper is garbage and hopefully you can tell the difference between a man and a piece of paper. The phrase “Ad Hominem” is a Latin phrase which means “toward or against a man” therefore an Ad Hominem attack either consists of calling another MAN (not a piece of paper) names or otherwise casting aspersions upon his character. As a college student I would have had serious difficulties if I proclaimed that every professor who panned my writing was guilty of Ad Hominem attacks.

    So, to be clear here, there are other far better sources and writers of 9/11 debunking information. You can believe Blanchard all you want. You have my permission to do so. But understand this, Blanchard’s article is not a scholarly document. It cites no sources for its assertions, even though such sources would probably be easy to quote. It is full of gratuitous assertions (please look this term up if you don’t understand). It also picks some of the weakest of the 9/11 arguments to ‘debunk.’

    I believe my original point was clear Aaron. I don’t have any problems citing specific examples of my points, but I don’t have much faith in a sensible rebuttal from your end.

  12. LDSPatriot. The only thing that you have proven to me is that you don’t believe Steven Jones. Fine. Nobody said you have to believe Steven Jones to be a good guy. Maybe Steven Jones is wrong.

    If I am wrong then accept my apology but from what I read I could not find a rebuttal to his main argument. His main argument was that Thermate (professional grade demolition material) bi-products were found at Ground Zero.

    For the folks who don’t know what the heck I just said (cause I sure didn’t know a few days ago) check out this interview with Steven Jones.

    Judge for yourself. Then read the rest of what I wrote please.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2842384983834100001&q=alex+jones

    “Satan is making war against…the very foundations upon which society, government, and religion rest…he plans to destroy freedom-economic, political, and religous, and to set up in place thereof the greatest, most widespread and most complete tyranny that has ever oppressed men. He is working under such perfect disguise that many do not recognize either him or his methods…he comes as a thief in the night; he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Without their knowing it, the people are being urged down paths that lead only to destruction…” (First Presidency Heber J Grant, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., David O. McKay, Conference Report, October 1942, p. 14)

    Note the date this warning was given. 1942. This has been going on for a very long time. It’s not Bush, it’s not Clinton… though they have been its puppet for the last several years. It started in America much earlier.

    I highly recommend this movie which tells the whole story…and gives the documented evidence of attacks on the Constitution since the late 1800′s…and how that attack has accelerated in the last 30 years.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=aaron+russo&hl=en

  13. I deleted your comment because the majority of it had nothing to do with the original post. If you want to cover other topics, there are many 9/11 forums where you can do that.

    I think you are following the conspiracy theory pattern of minimizing the current topic at hand – pretending that he’s debunking the weakest points of the demolition theory. It’s strange that the very points he’s addressing are the main and most important points I hear from the demolitionists when they talk. The minute those points are addressed, they become trivial.

    Again, if you have specific problems with the papers (I have a few and have expressed them) please explain. If not, that’s fine too.

    I just happen to trust a demolition expert who was there (we weren’t) and had access to hundreds of other people there (we didn’t) and hundreds of photos and has a chain of custody for the steel, etc. (we don’t). So why should I listen to armchair non-experts when I can listen to experts who were there? I admit that the manner in which he expressed himself was not bulletproof or perfectly detailed, but I’m sure if we gave him a list of questions, he would be willing to answer them and provide more detail.

  14. Hey Cronk,

    I was responding to Aaron there. I already made my point to you, but you chose to erase it.

  15. michael,

    No hard feelings – I get where you’re coming from and I understand what you’re saying and I agree with you on some points. I deleted your post because it drifted off topic to a ton of other things unrelated to this post. I told you before that I wanted comments to deal with the subject matter in the post and to not drift too much from that. I have not deleted any of your comments that were focused on the original post.

    I’d actually like you to comment so we can have a few different points of view.

  16. Ok Cronk. Here is a solid refutation of Blanchard’s nonsense:

    http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html

    I came upon this paper after I had read Blanchard’s article and I agree with it wholeheartedly. It shows extremely well the problems with Blanchard’s logic. Tell me what is wrong with it.

  17. michael,

    Thanks! I’ll go read it and take the valid points in it to Mr. Blanchard to see if he can address those points.

    Adam,

    Thanks for commenting. I believe I addressed the issue of molten metal samples and that deals primarily with chain of custody – a list of places, people, and dates who handled the samples from ground zero all the way to Jones’ lab. He has only listed where some anonymous people found some on a 9/11 memorial somewhere and an anonymous person found some dust in his/her apartment near ground zero and the purity of the samples is not published. I’ve asked him to publish the rest of the details but he hasn’t yet.

    Thanks for the other information, but as I have mentioned before, 9/11 has a viral nature of drifting to a million other topics, so try to keep your comments focused on the post they are addressed to. I have seen most of the 9/11 videos and have heard about many other details on both sides of the 9/11 argument but I’m trying to stay focused on one point at a time for now. Thanks.

  18. P.S. I have emailed Implosion World and have asked them to ask Mr. Blanchard to look at the article you posted, michael. I also would like to see the evidence and testimony he is basing his report on. That will help us to not need to trust him directly. I’m hoping my email won’t find its way to the junk email folder and that he’ll be willing to provide more detail.

    So, did you find anything in his report that you agreed with? What about the other article?

  19. Mr. Blanchard replied to me yesterday via email. Apparently, they’ve already gone some rounds with the “truth seekers”:

    He said, “We have found, however, that many will never see reason despite what you say or prove. Every detailed answer you give leads to another question about some theoretical scientific minutae in a different direction, etc. After a while we get tired of playing whack-a-mole.”

    He added, “My many sources on site asked not to be named because they’re family men like you & I and don’t want to be harassed by clowns. They know I get “traitor mail” and death threats but I can laugh it off… Anyway they all work for the demo companies I listed, and the top guys at those companies will usually speak about this if asked.”

    That’s really rich that the “truth seekers” act like that towards him. I have to admit that it doesn’t surprise me though.

  20. P.S. In another reply (today) from Mr. Blanchard:

    RE: Photographic evidence:

    “photos, the ones I referred to are commonly available on the net (firemen in front of obviously torch-cut column, long reach excavating bucket of “molten steel” and other silliness).”

    “We have thousands of other photos we personally captured on site and you can swing by to view them if you want, but I’d imagine our shots don’t look much different than the millions taken by others. And not one shows evidence of thermite or explosives.”

    “No the photos are not on line, they’re here in New Jersey in a giant box.”

    RE: His areas of expertise:

    “My expertise is working on site on thousands of explo-demo jobs. Helping load powder, wiring, speaking at community meetings, studying vibration records, performing damage-claim investigations… over the past 20 years we’ve been called upon to assist in every way imaginable to help keep projects safe and on track. So I help perform all of the above all the time.”

    RE: Diagonally cut columns:

    “Columns are often cut diagonally so they fall in a predetermined direction. When you’re on a ladder or manlift cutting a 5-ton beam, there better be no doubt about which way it’s going to drop!”

  21. And one more reply from Mr. Blanchard today after I told him to come look at LDSPatriot – specifically at this post and the comments:

    “I think your site looks great and your reasoned, balanced approach to the subject is commendable…”

    “As a final comment I would submit that those who criticize me and our report have a convenient habit of forgetting that I don’t need to prove or justify anything…they do. It’s also telling that they consistently avoid our final paragraph, which notes how folks can cite myriad scientific hypotheses and theoretical assumptions based on “unknowns” forever, but to this day there is still not a shred of physical evidence indicating that explosives (or thermite, or whatever) were used. Period.”

  22. Steven “Dances With Nazis” Jones is once again hanging with the swastika swingers.

    http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/01/holocaust-denier-hosting-9-11.html

    Like some of you who post here (possibly also Micheal and his hero Jones), my ancestors were chased across the plains and forced to settle in a desert surrounding a poisoned lake. We know that many of our ancestors did not survive these aattacks by thier enemies, they they were murdered for thier faith.

    The crimes inflicted upon the early saints pale in comparison to the atrocities we know were inflicted against the jews in Hitlers europe. But the thinking behind both atrocities, as well as those who are compelled by thier hatreds to deny them is basically the same.

    For Jones to so freely associate with these people is nothing less than a betrayal of everything our ancestors died for.

  23. Michael!

    I had to rewrite this comment. I was apparently not in a good mood when I wrote the original.

    Thanks for the link. Those testimonies are interesting. So, my thought process at this point is to combine these peoples’ testimony with the testimony of fire chief Daniel Nigro and the others who were calling the shots that day. So for all the testimonies but the “20 second countdown” one, they all look like misinformation in an emergency situation. I could see someone getting the order to clear out of the collapse zone yelling something like “wtc 7 is coming down – clear out” and someone hearing that and thinking “oh, they’re bringing wtc 7 down” and then telling others that misinformation. If that is what happened, then both sets of testimony make sense.

    I’d like to find the “20 second” countdown guy and ask him about his experience, like I did with Mr. Blanchard, but unfortunately he’s only identified as an anonymous “Mike.” So I can’t resolve his testimony with the rest.

    I feel bad you didn’t ask Mr. Blanchard some questions as he visited this thread. If you have a specific question for him, feel free to post it and I’ll pass it on to him.

  24. I was right Cronk. You do choose to overlook some of the most compelling evidence that building 7 was demolished. You will overlook this as well by explaining that all of these witnesses were mistaken. I’m sure Blanchard can explain those away since he wasn’t there and they were. Right? I think it is interesting that you weren’t there either, yet you claim to know that certain eyewitnesses observations were mistakes. Here are a lot more verified and sourced statements. Please explain how these witnesses were mistaken and I really don’t care what Blanchard has to say on the matter. Please do me a favor and use your own critical thinking skills instead of asking Blanchard to borrow his.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/130207building7.htm

  25. michael,

    Thanks for the link. The confusing thing to me is that the prison planet link has a ton of testimony where people talked about the wtc 7 having taken a big hit from the north tower and that because of the fires and missing steel/damage was going to collapse on its own (not be purposefully demolished) and so they set up a collapse zone.

    Your link proves my point and includes a lot of testimony that I’ve been trying to tell you about for a while now. No, these witnesses were not mistaken (except for one that I saw, based on the rest of the testimony), it did collapse on its own, just like they said.

    There was a volunteer EMT that said she thought that they might have brought it down on purpose because it had so much damage, but that’s her guess without knowing anything about what the people in charge were seeing. She did mention hearing someone say that they were going to bring it down because of collateral damage, but that’s heresay and it could have been second or third hand and it’s obviously wrong when you go to the sources – the people in charge, like Daniel Nigro and others, knew from transit data and strange creeking noises coming out of the building along with seeing the massive damage and fires on the south side that the building would very likely collapse on its own.

    I’m confused. Did you read the testimonies at the link you posted? They talk about it being so damaged and unstable that it was going to collapse on its own – not be demolished purposefully! Here are a few examples:

    Firefighter Thomas Smith: “They backed me off the rig because seven was in dead jeopardy, so they backed everybody off and moved us to the rear end of Vesey Street.”

    It was in dead jeopardy? Does that mean it was going to be demolished or collapse on its own?

    Firefighter Vincent Massa: “At this point Seven World Trade Center was going heavy, and they weren’t letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. … I remember later on in the day as we were waiting for seven to come down, they kept backing us up Vesey, almost like a full block. They were concerned about seven coming down”

    Everybody was expecting and concerned that it would come down? That sounds like collapse to me, not demolition. Firefighters don’t demolish buildings anyway, but that’s beside the point.

    Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy: Then, like I said, building seven was in eminent collapse. They blew the horns. They said everyone clear the area until we got that last civilian out.”

    Eminent collapse? Not demolition.

    EMT Joseph Fortis: “When the third building came down, we were on that corner in front of the school, and everybody just stood back. They pulled us all back at the time, almost about an hour before it, because they were sure — they knew it was going to come down, but they weren’t sure. So they pulled everyone back, and everybody stood there and we actually just waited and just waited and waited until it went down, because it was unsafe.”

    They knew it was going to collapse, but they weren’t sure? It went down because it was unsafe? Why wouldn’t they say, we demolished it because it was unsafe? Probably because they didn’t, based on all this testimony.

    Firefighter Edward Kennedy: “That was the only Mayday that I remember, and to tell you the truth, the only guy that really stands out in my mind that I remember being on the radio was Chief Visconti. … I remember him screaming about 7, No. 7, that they wanted everybody away from 7 because 7 was definitely going to collapse, they don’t know when, but it’s definitely going to come down, just get the hell out of the way, everybody get away from it, make sure you’re away from it, that’s an order, you know, stuff like that.”

    7 was definately going to collapse, not be demolished. They didn’t know when it would collapse. If they were going to demolish it, wouldn’t they know when it would be demolished? Wouldn’t they not call it a collapse.

    Paramedic Louis Cook: “We got to Chambers and Greenwich, and the chief turns around and says, ‘There’s number Seven World Trade. That’s the OEM bunker.’ We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it’s engulfed in flames and starting to collapse. … We hear over the fire portable, ‘Everybody evacuate the site. It’s going to collapse.’ Mark Steffens starts yelling, ‘Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We’ve got to go! We’ve got to go! It’s going to collapse.’ … We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake.”

    There’s that word collapse again a few more times. Honestly this is not about demolition but collapse of a damaged, engulfed building.

    I could go on, but I’m just quoting the whole page at this point – every single testimony I saw on that page points toward an unstable damaged engulfed building collapsing on its own and that they knew it would collapse on its own but weren’t sure exactly when it would collapse.

    Here’s the EMT guessing/assuming that the building was brought down without any evidence to back up the assumption:

    Indira Singh, a volunteer EMT: “What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon after noon, after midday on 9/11, we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. … I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable, because of the collateral damage. …”

    Interesting unbased belief, but again, it’s not based on anything but an assumption and heresay. She was not involved with running the transits, sounding the horns, making the calls the set up a collapse zone, etc.

    Please tell me you get this because if you don’t, I don’t know what any further discussion will gain us.

  26. Before 9/11 no steel framed highrise has ever collapsed due to fire. Most firefighters and structural engineers were suprised that the twin towers collapsed. WTC 7 was a hardened structure. Many millions of dollars were spent hardening the structure so WTC 7 could be used as a control center for the Office of Emergency Management. That is a fact. WTC 7 was damaged by falling debris from the North Tower and there were small fires buring in WTC 7 but all steel high rise buildings are built with some redundancy and are built to withstand fire. It was not a given that WTC 7was expected to collapse since I bet you would not find a single structural engineer prior to 9/11 that would have predicted collapse in a similar situation.

    Much of the expectation of the firefighters on 9/11 thatWTC 7 would collapse is due to the fact that they were told well in advance that it would. The testimony backs this up. They were told it would collapse and they were told to back off.

    There was a lie placed in the media that wtc 7 was monitored by vibrometer so the firefighters knew it would collapse. I can find no other substantiation for that lie and that is the only way firefighters could have reliably know wtc 7 would collapse.

    So go on believing your coincidence theory Cronk. I, for one, don’t believe that an event with less than one in a million probability (one steel framed high rise building collapsing due to fire) occurred three times in a day when such behavior had never been observed before. All three buildings were overengineered. The twin towers were designed to withstand an airplane impact but I guess you believe that was a lie? Or was that just misinformation. Why did it take a lawsuit to release the recorded radio conversations of police and firefighters on 9/11? Many police and firefighters claim to have heard and seen explosions, but according to you that is simply misinformation.

    You claim to be openminded but that is simply a lie. I’m sure you will delete this post as you have others because it is off topic but I don’t really care. You have to go through all sorts of contortions to support the official story. You’ll even accept obviously shoddy work like Blanchard’s if if supports your thesis

    Cronk, you are foolishly consistent in your acceptance of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory and foolishly consistent in believing any so called expert who supports that story.

    As Emerson said “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.”

    It ony takes a few consistencies in a preliminary investigation of a death to upgrade the case to a homicide, but were damn lucky you aren’t a homicide investigator, because murderers could kill with impunitywith you on watch. The official story is full of inconsistencies and outright lies, but apparently you can’t see those problems.

    Sorry to interrupt your dream. Go back to sleep.

  27. You brought up some testimony and told me it proved the buildings were blown up and that I would therefore ignore it. I didn’t ignore it but I responded and told you what I thought of it and then you completely ignored my specific comments about the testimonies you posted and you then proceeded to bring up a bunch of other stuff. Can you see how we get nowhere by repeating this pattern? Truce. Let’s discuss the testimonies you brought up and drop the defensiveness. What do you think?

    I’m willing to accept that the government blew up those buildings if the testimonies and facts show it to be the case. And I agree with you that some of the things that day look suspicious, especially on the surface. However, each time I have honestly and objectively looked into those suspicious items (“pull it”, etc.) I have found reasonable explanations. So, if you’re willing, let’s drop the defensiveness and discuss this testimony you have posted and the comments I made about it.

  28. Here’s some old business for Aaron concerning his assertions as to the veracity of OBL’s videotaped “confession.”

    Check out these articles Aaron:

    Top Bin Laden Expert: Confession Fake
    http://www.911blogger.com/node/6317

    OBL Dead?
    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osama_dead.html

  29. 1st, I can’t look at the 911blogger link. 911blogger seems to have rather odd rules about acceptable language. You can drop F-bombs with reckless abandon but if you say something considered offensive like “Can you get a structural engineer to confirm that?”, they block your IP at the drop of a hat.

    2nd, your other link follows a pattern wich I’m finding tragically unsuprising, it’s yet another neo-nazi hate site.

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/holocaust.html

    Just what is with you and the nazi crap, Micheal?

    On a spiritual level, I’d think you’d be better off reading Penthouse or Playboy than this ignorant and hate-filled trash. To my knowledge, no one has ever stuffed 6 million people into gas chambers or gave EXTERMINATION ORDERS to the state militia (this is a not-so-subtle hint, BTW) from looking at a ladies naughty bits.

  30. I can’t access 911blogger. My IP was blocked from that site shortly after one of your fellow “truth” seekers threatened to have me killed for arguing with him.

    Your other link is to yet another neo-nazi hate-site.

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/holocaust.html

    What is with you and the nazi crap, Micheal?

    Given the history of our faith, how can you associate with these people and trust their version of historic events?

  31. It is strange how often the truthers align with the nazis. Nazis are against Jews and so are the muslim extremeists. Perhaps it’s a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” situation: if you fight to make the terrorists look innocent and your own government look guilty, you end up aligning with the terrorists and therefore the nazis too by coincidence. Strange bedfellows indeed.

  32. Wow! Are you saying that the facts and sources cited are incorrect in the Osama’s Dead story?

    Speaking of strange bedfellows, roll over Cronk, Aaron says you’re stealing all of the sheets.

  33. I bring up a serious issue and you respond by making gay jokes against Cronk and I. That makes you what… 13?

    Why are you reading neo-nazi websites, Micheal? How can you trust people who lie out of religious hatred to tell you the truth? How do you reconcile this with your membership in the church?

  34. michael,

    What is your goal here? Are you achieving it? I’ve politely asked you to drop the defensiveness and stay on topic and you have done neither. So before I ban you completely, I’d like to understand what it is you are trying to do here because your actions don’t make sense to me.

    If you’re trying to help us understand the truth that you have found, try doing it in a more pleasant way.

    If you’re trying to shore up your own beliefs and just be right, try doing it in a more pleasant way.

    If you’re seeking truth, why does everything you disagree with bounce off of you?

    I’ve looked at your sites and have tried to discuss the issues found there with you but if I bring other evidence to the table that sheds a different light on things, you ignore my information and come up with other topics to discuss, leaving the topic at hand unresolved.

    Please explain. Thanks.

  35. Please don’t ban Michael quite yet, Robert.

    I hold out faint hope that he will address the illogical trust he places in those who deny one of histories most heavily documented atrocities while at the same time stopping just short of accusing the BYU faculty of engineering of lying about a subject that falls under thier field of expertise.

  36. “if you fight to make the terrorists look innocent and your own government look guilty, you end up aligning with the terrorists and therefore the nazis too by coincidence. Strange bedfellows indeed.”

    Cronk what exactly do you think a strange bedfellow is? Are you that literal? I was making a pretty clear comment on the fact that you are pretty closesly allied with Aaron’s strange and unresearched views. If you are so darn myopic that you can’t understand your own colloquialisms then maybe you should take a break.
    My comment was not sexual nor was it intended to be interpreted as such. It was you who introduced the “strange bedfellows” argument, which by the way is a logical fallacy called guilt by association. Maybe you should ban yourself.

  37. Aaron,

    One short comment and two logical fallacies: Guilt by association and appeal to authority.Great job! I’ll promise to take up a collection so you can take an intro to logic course. That is, if you promise to attend.

  38. Could you show me where I made an appeal to authority, please?

  39. “while at the same time stopping just short of accusing the BYU faculty of engineering of lying about a subject that falls under thier field of expertise.”

    The BYU engineering faculty are not the ultimate authority on truth, but it certainly appears that you think so Aaron.

  40. They are authorities on ENGINEERING, Micheal. The chair of the BYU ENGINEERING faculty, Dr. A. Woodruff Miller has said that your fellow nazi-lover Steven Jones, who is NOT and ENGINEER, is WRONG about what caused the WTC to collapse and that not a single member of his faculty buys the crapola that Jones is spewing.

    http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

    Quoting ENGINEERS on an issue specifically related to the field of ENGINEERING is NOT an “appeal to authority”.

    You obviously not only have no clue what I am talking about, you don’t even know what you are talking about either.

  41. Michael,

    It was Aaron that made the comment about your bedfellow response, not me. Also, I was just trying to figure out why the truthers and the nazis were aligning so often and it was a “the enemy of my enemy if my friend” situation. That’s all – and I thought it was weird.

    What do you think about the nazi/terrorist/truther alignment issue? Do you not care and just think it’s irrelevant, or does it bother you that they end up agreeing with each other on 9/11 issues?

    Also, you disappeared when Mr. Blanchard was around. I would have thought if you were really seeking the truth no matter what it is, you would have jumped on the opportunity to chat with someone who was actually there.

    Michael – I’d really like to have a decent, productive conversation here. Let’s all drop the attitudes and try to make some progress. If we don’t start making some civil progress, I might just shut this thread down because it’s a waste of time.

  42. I’ve read a great deal of testimony from witnesses who were actually there and Mr. Blanchard makes no claims as to actually witnessing the events of 9/11, just the cleanup.

    Also it is no mystery why some 9/11 truthers choose to use alternative and sometimes questionable sources to disseminate their information. Mainstream sources are not likely to post anti-establishment views of any sort, so there is a paucity of mainstream sources that will honestly look at, let alone publish, such information. Therefore 9/11 truthers and (god forbid) holocaust deniers are both likely to publish their information on websites that are anti-establishment.
    Second, you are guilty of the same facile argument that most individuals posit about “conspiracy theories.” That is, you and Aaron lump all individuals who don’t buy the government’s lies into one large group of conspiracy theorists, nuts and wackos insted of looking at the merits of or problems with individual arguments.
    Blanchard is you expert on demolition, but his unsourced and often lazy observations do not trump all of the firsthand accounts of what happened on 9/11 and there are a plethora of individuals whose direct observations run counter to the official government conspiracy theory.
    I gave up talking to you when Blanchard appeared because I was disappointed in you and in your critical thinking skills. You claimed that his article was weak, but you just trusted him based on his expertise. Instead of a claim by claim analysis of his assertion you decided that he could redeem himself by answering questions about his article. Well either he wrote those things or he didn’t and either they were true or they weren’t. You are critical of Dr. Jones and his work yet you accept much more obviously slipshod work from Blanchard because you trust him. At least Dr. Jones took the time to reference his claims.

    It is obvious to me that you and many others like you are incapable of changing your mind, no matter what evidence is presented and I’m sure you feel the same way about me.

    There have been quite a few crazy ideas put forth by 9/11 truthers and I certainly do not belive that they are all true. I do know it is true that the government has lied repeatedly about most of the events surrounding 9/11, from foreknowledge to the actual events. I also know that it is true that the White House fought long and hard to prevent a thorough investigation of the events of 9/11. I do not trust our government. I also know that the White House has used 9/11 as an opportunity to wage wars and to infringe upon our Constitutional rights.
    I do not believe our goverment. At this point in history I happen to think that anyone who truly trusts our corrupt government is either in severe denial or is a complete idiot. I guess that is what differentiates us conspiracy nuts from you party liners. Keep fighting the good fight, though. Some day you may get a cushy job in the Ministry of Truth.

  43. Thanks Michael – I appreciate you being honest about how you feel.

    You are right that I am probably putting too much trust in Mr. Blanchard simply because I agree with him. If I were to be purely scientific, I’d just ask him for all of his raw evidence and firsthand testimonies and check it all out myself. I guess I’m relying on my BS detecting gut that I have relied on for decades in my profession and perhaps that’s just not good enough.

    I agree with you that regardless of who was behind 9/11 that our government has taken away our God given constitution protected rights. The difficult question is whether it is justified. There have been cases where history has shown leaders during wartimes taking away rights out of necessity of survival and other leaders taking rights to power-grab the people and enslave them. In a way, I think that distinction is a big part of why this debate is so heated.

    I think the other reason the 9/11 discussions are so heated is because we can end up fighting the right or wrong enemy based on our interpretation of what happened that day and who was behind it. The unresolved truths of that day are at the source of the contention not only about that day but about everything else that has happened since that day dealing with war and politics.

    So until the exact nature of the events of that day are resolved, the contention will continue. I think we both want to think we’re doing our part to resolve the confusion of that day but if both our motives were pure, we would have come to agreement before now. I suppose we both have a mix of pure and impure motives since neither of us are perfect.

    I do want to say that I’m not a blind government truster. I started as a “hey, the things these conspiracy theorists are saying don’t match the evidence I’ve seen” person and I’ve tried not to defend the government position, just look at what’s out there and see how it matches the evidence. I have seen unknowns in the government theories, but that’s to be expected. The things I see in Jones’ and others’ work are not empty holes, but holes filled in with things that don’t match the evidence I’ve seen. Some say the government theory also has holes filled in with things that don’t match the evidence but as I have investigated these issues, I have found that the evidence that it’s not matching is not evidence, but conjecture and misinformation. I have tried to point out some of that misinformation here.

    Time will tell if we can make progress towards truth here on this post or not.

  44. Engineers and firefighters predicted WTC7′s collapse hours before it did. Firefighters on the ground could even see the building bulging and leaning unnaturally as well as hearing groans and creaks from outside the building.

    Firefighters set up a collapse zone around WTC7 to prevent loss of life.

    Some desk jockey at the BBC likely made an error, accidentally changing “about to collapse” to “has collapsed”.

    It’s a simple error, easily made. Hardly evidence of secret shenanigans.

  45. I watched the full video and read the page. The male reporter said it had been “some 8 hours since the attacks” putting it around 5pm or so. The female reporter said that “the details are very sketchy” and that the “area is completely closed off”. The female reporter is obviously live and on site and so the time (about 5pm) and the background (wtc 7 still standing) match. The only thing that doesn’t match is her sketchy details of wtc 7 having already collapsed.

    I can see two main possible explanations:

    1. The U.S. government told the BBC too early that WTC 7 had collapsed.

    2. For about 1 1/2 hours before this video was shot, firemen and emergency personel had been telling everyone that the building was going to come down because of the transit data and other evidence they had. Some people misunderstood this as meaning they were going to blow it up, others misunderstood that it had already collapsed and reported it thusly.

    I would like to hear what the BBC has to say in explanation, but I think option 2 matches the evidence I’ve seen a little better and option 1 doesn’t even make sense.

  46. There’s nowhere to go from here Cronk. You might as well get that job at the Ministry of Truth. If it was an innocent mistake, why has the BBC lost the tape? You do a great job of creating excuses for a corrupt government.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/270207bbcresponds.htm

  47. michael,

    I’m tired of responding to you. I’m trying to be honest here and you’re being insulting. I still don’t know what your goal is here. I am no longer accepting comments from you. I am sorry it had to end this way.

  48. BBC = US Government?!?

    Do you even know what the first “B” stands for?

    Do we need to add basic geography to physics, engineering, history, aviation and all the other subjects that the 9-11 twoofers know absolutely nothing about?

  49. Here are some more pages with useful information about the damage on the south side of WTC7 and about diagonally cut columns.

    http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/wtc7-new-evidence-from-old-photos.html

    http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/real-world-tests-cut-through-steel.html

  50. Larry Schneider

    What does anyone think? The first beast has seven heads, one of which was mortally wounded. A second beast equal in might comes into view and plays a roll in creating an image or likeness of the first beast,and with the serpents help causes the image of the first to “come to life” or could we say, ” gets power”? The first beast. a representation of the seven most bad-*ss governments since Adam up till now? Also it is a representation of the second beast and the second beast a representation of the first beast. That is, in military might. The second beast, with two horns like a lamb and mouth like dragon is eual in might alone like the seven heads from before. And if the second beast were to have seven heads it would be like unto the first beast. The second plays a hugh roll in restoring the head of the first beast, the one mortally wounded. Let’s say that head is the Old Babylonian government, ruled by nebachenezzer, which was/is located in moder day Iraq. The old kingdom was in the land of Persia,which consisted of Iraq, Iran, and Afghanastan. We know that to the east of Iran is U.S. occupied Afghanastan and to the west of Iran is U.S. occupied Iraq. Let’s say the U.S. has no intention of leaving Iraq or Afghanastan, and turn its attention to Iran? Did you know that the word “Iran” means the land of the Aryian? I did not know that intil just the other day. Let’s say U.S. occupies Iran, now they have Iraq, Iran and Afghanastan, the original home of the Babylonian government. A” head” that could now easily be brought back to life by the second beast. (U.S. military.) Now the newly restored head somehow gains great dominance in the economic world with the help of the second beast.

  51. Larry Schneider

    Continued: the “newly” restored head, a new economy, a new world economy, a new standered is backed by the second beast, the U.S. military. What mighty government isn’t backed by a mighty military force? And it would now be very, very easy , after watching for myself the new awesome weapons of the U.S. military, for the “world” to say of the second beast, “who is like unto the beast? who can conquere it? Who is able to make war with the beast?” Now let’s say that with the help of the second beast, the U.S. military machine, that the new head is established in its religion of preference, and uses that religion to its advantage. And lets say that they become a ruthless, ruthless economic power established on the “principles of the ancient old secret combination.” Now lets get to it and just say, that certain people pissed off the U.S. government by reminding them to remember God and because of pride and hard heartedness they in their hearts say,” F the Church!” And thus abandoning their former Christian principles turn it over to the Adversary and back the only group of people ruthless enough to make open war with the Christian powers that be: namely the radcal extremist Islamic party. I can easily see that they are here in America and are taking over our economy here at home and are trying to break our backs by continually raising the prices like the greedy sh*t bags that they are. And no American man has the balls to go after these true bullies. I hope you heard that last statement. A big bully falls the moment you walk up to him and tell him , ” You know what? I’m going to, oh I don’t know, maybe in about three seconds commence to beat you within an inch of your wretched life. Now how might that be?” But in the other side over yonder, I can easily see them becomming so agressive as to tell the people over there, ” are you a F…ing Christian? Because if you are I’m not going to F…ing sell to you. I don’t f…ing damn s..t care!” You say that you are not Christian and then I will sell to you!” Can you see that happening? And lets say that with the backed U.S.military, they some how are able to dry up the Euphrates, a good transport system for civilian and military supplies?

  52. Larry Schneider

    My personal and I do mean just my personal oppinion is that I truely believe that certain groups within the U.S. government allowed 9/11, Why do I think that? Because they, afterwords, had an excuse to go to war against the “axis of Evil”. It would have been much more difficult in justifying the war before congress otherwise. Once the war commenced and right before, billions of dollsra were confinscated by the Bush administration, that he has since refused to account strictly for and now is pushing for the insane suggestion of unlimited amounts of money, period. Here tells me that at least he does not care about America or what it was intended for. Bush is a good ‘ol boy from Texas. Texas, to this day, believes that it is THE CAPITAL of the U.S. They are still trying to beat the yankee. I know that God has influenced man on earth to establish governments and so forth and we’re to not rile against them or oppose them. However, we the American people and not God,voted for bush jr. He has proven to be untruthful in many things and it is incumbent, (sorry if I spelled it wrong) upon the American people to investgate and impeach any President who becomes wreckless, refuses to account in the strictest, of on going operations that will not jepardize American security, and an account of spending in the strictest and also truthfully. It is his responsibility to secure our nation first with our funds in the treasury, for which it was first most and formost intended for. We have the old adopted “whatever ” to not speak bad about the president, yes but we have a duty to rid all administrations who delight themselves in coruption. Is is our constitution right to do so. And if we continue to act stupid and lazy and neglegent, the day may arrive sooner than we would think, that our constitutional rights have all but vanished.
    No body wants to do the Presidents job but when he out and out spits in the face of those he pled with to vote for him, by b…sh..ing around concerning illegal immigration, that gives me every right to seek an impeachment against him for abandonment of military duty against these infiltraitors. By the way take a very good look at the illegals comming in to America , They look pretty healthy to me. I know for myself that 9 out of every 10 Aericans are traitors when it comes to their country. They will hire illegals for one reason and one reason only and that is to save a buck. You have no right to hire an illegal infiltraitor befor your own truely fellow American. You don’t know who these people are or what theyare up to.They could be up here to spy us out, move tons of weapons up here to use against us,thake over our economy. America, our forefathers worked very hard, some gave their lives so that you and I could have it so much more easier and this is how we thank tham or God? You want to make silly-*ss excuses for being a bunch of cowardly chicken-sh*ts. The point is is we are just plain cocky, ungrateful, too full of uorselves, but I tell you that we had better change now and acting like you love your country. Forgive my harshness, but f*ck golf Okay? F*ck football on Sundays okay? F*ck hollywood and everything associsted with it. It’s time to truly grow up now and put away our little toys and so forth and become a mighty men.

  53. Larry – Firstly, I tweaked some of the special words you used in your posts. Try to keep it a little cleaner for future posts. Secondly, I don’t think your logic of “the American government was able to benefit from 9/11, therefore they planned it” is valid. Think of it, if a guy you hate attacked your girlfriend, and you end up beating him up, does it mean that you paid him to attack your girlfriend so you could have an excuse to beat him up? It could be true, but it really doesn’t make sense, and it doesn’t prove anything. Thirdly, this topic you’re commenting on is only remotely related to this post if at all. If you want to comment on the content of the original post, feel free to do so. If you want to post about something else, there are many forums out there where you could start your own topic and discuss it with others. I just want to keep things on topic, that’s all.

  54. Larry Schneider

    Rcronk, yeah my appologies for you having to do some tweaking. I’ll try to keep it toned. As far as the other bit, it was basically an overall observation as to what even caused 9/11 in the first place. I feel very certain that, what I afore mentioned is more than likely, though for now only speculation. If you only knew what the U.S. government was up to ! They benefited from 9/11 by being able to declare a war on the “axis of evil” in a way that they would have not otherwise been able to do with such force. We let them knock our buildings and that now gives us a ligitimate excuse to get some serious revenge and at the same time we can accomplish certain agendas without Russia or China interfering, seeing that Russia and China are more than likely to respond as,”Well those guys got it comming. They attacked U.S. on U.S. soil, we won’t dare interfere”. I don’t think it has really anything to do with Bush trying to pay back Saddam for threatening his Daddy. Bush said that I was addicted to oil. Well he’s a liar. He is the one addicted to oil. He sais that I don’t want pick lettuce all day. Well he’s right.Do you? However that doesn’t mean that “therefore I don’t want to work at all. Again he lied. They are going to more than likely take over Iran as well. But listen cronk, thanks for the correspondance, I really appreciate it and sorry again about the tweaking bit, Later

  55. No worries – take care.

  56. Larry Schneider

    Did you here the latest? U.S. says that Iran is training Iraqi soldiers to combat the U.S. soldiers. I just don’t see the U.S. pulling out of the middle east at any time soon, period, period. The U,S. will, unless through devine intervention, take over Iran as well. It is inevitable. There’s your sign.

  57. Hey – we didn’t “take over Iran” yet! :)

  58. Thanks for some of your insights, Cronk. I am personally still of the opinion that WTC was taken down by explosives, although I don’t care to go so far as to say it was a government plot. Even so, your rebuttals have been the best I’ve seen so far, and far beyond what mainstream media has been able to offer at this point.

    However, I would like to challenge your best evidence so far: a paper from Edinburg creating a plausible theory that WTC would collapse under temperatures as low as 400C. This certainly provides good hope that WTC could have been taken down by a fire. However, I have two problems with this:

    1. As is mentioned in the conclusions, this is only a two dimensional demonstration, and only proves that the outer colums had the potential to implode on themselves. He also admits that he has made no consideration of the intial damage cause by the plane and recognizes the assymetry of the fires. That being said, this theory, while physically plausible, still doesn’t explain a symmetrical collapse. I recognize that the building would fall vertically no matter what, but one would think that one side would fall first and drag the other side with it.

    2. How did this cause the inner core to fail? The trusses for the floor would’ve failed long before those beams, and if the temperatures were only 400C like this paper admits, it was no where near weakened enough to fall so easily.

    Finally, I’d also like to mention that the very same paper mentions that “Although the Twin Towers themselves had sustained considerable structural damage, WTC 7 which had not, also collapsed (being the first recorded case of the collapse of such a structure entirely because of fire).” Not hard evidence to be sure, but I figured since it was from your own source, that it was more than fair game.

    Thanks for the good arguments,

    Paul

  59. I’ve read all the official reports: There is one released by the owner of WTC lease at the time of the attack, there is one by FEMA, there is one released by congress (9/11 report) and there is a later report that took almost 5 years to finish.

    The biggest problems with every report listed above is the fact they ‘assumed’ no cutting agents (thermite/thermate) were used to slice the steel beams in each of these buildings.

    So the reports concluded that because they ‘believed’ no thermate/thermite was used they did NOT EVEN TEST for residuals of these compounds.

    This is like a police officer arriving at the scene of a fatal accident. Everyone is dead on the scene. They’re trying to figure out what caused the accident. He finds out everyone is Mormon and concludes that no alcohol was involved in the accident. So the medical examiners office skips the blood alcohol test altogether.

    One of the other big problems with these reports is they are headed up or have major contributions by the same four individuals who covered up what happened in the Oklahoma City bombings. These four dudes headed up all four of these major investigations.

    Why on earth do we have the same four people doing every investigation of the most important terrorist attacks in America?

    Why not have dozens of different reports from different sources to allow multiple viewpoints?

    Instead we are spoonfed the same biased report.

    Hell even the Congressional 9/11 report entirely fails to mention the fact that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

  60. “Hey- we didn’t “take over Iran” yet!”….

    Does this mean that it is not going to happen?

  61. Arthur Whittaker

    I think that you have to look at the big picture and not concentrate only on the WTC. There were other airplanes with assigned targets. One was the Pentagon. What about the airplane that crashed in the field. Where was it headed? Was it’s target the Congress or the White House? Lets put as much thought and evidence gathering into the Pentagon target. They are obvious interrelated as they happened the same day, using the same weapons, the airplanes, to do the job of destruction. There must have been a larger plan than just the WTC. What was it?

    Today is Oct 28 2009. We have a new President, President Obama, We need to ask ourselves these questions. 1.What is his background? 2. Where did he come from? 3. Who financed his campaign? He had all the money that he needed to win. Where did all this money come from? 4. Why did he win? 5. Has he continued to take away our rights guaranteed us by our constitution or has he continued to protect our right by following the constitution?

    Is the election of President Obama, politics as usual, or is there a hidden force behind President Obama?

    Has my ability to have a frank and open discussion on the internet been curtailed because of fear that I will end up on a black list?
    To tell you the truth, I have had to think long and hard about submitting this email.

    I go back to the power of one, or I wouldn’t be submitting this e-mail. I would invite you to think out of the box. Look at things from outside the box, get a different viewpoint, and see if the scene looks the same from that view. If what we believe is true it should look the same. If not then we have not arrived at the truth and we must widen our search for the truth. Only when we box ourselves into one way of thinking are we impeded from arriving at the complete truth. All points of view have some truth in them. Our job is to determine if we have arrived at the complete truth.

    Even though I have not stuck to the basis of what destroyed the WTC I feel that the WTC is just one aspect of a much larger picture.

    If you disagree with me please delete my comments so they will not be published on the internet. I am concerned about my comments being published for no purpose.

    If you feel this is not the correct place to discuss this subject please don’t publish it and send me an email stating such.

    Thanks for the opportunity to voice my opinion.

  62. Science requires actual data. This site has yet to produce any and have it published in a peer review journal. Most of what is here is mere diatribe. The attitude here is not what most would call Christian.
    There are now NINE international scientists that have published their data in a peer review scientific journal.
    Like it or not there is Thermite residues in the dust and and in the air if you add Dr. Cahill’s data.
    I am sure the Islamophobics will deny for ever as it simply does not fit their world view. But then again there are those here that believe that g-d is humanoid man from another planet. That will not stand the scrutiny of data and science either.
    Namaste!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: