9/11, Steven Jones, and Me

My name is Robert Cronk and I have been informally investigating the evidence, testimony, and theories surrounding 9/11 for a while now and I have been fascinated by what I have experienced. Hopefully I’ll be able to offer a different point of view than the other multitudes of people out there talking about 9/11.

You’ve seen them. Some of them are selling a DVD or a book. Others seem to be doing it for popularity. Some have actually put their career or reputation on the line. Still others seem to struggle with the pride of “being right” above all else – sometimes I fall into that category too – oops.

In my estimation, most of these people, myself included, believe that they’re on to something that nobody else has found and they believe they are honestly just “seeking the truth.” In many cases, I have found that they have a vested interest in their particular theory being right and in my experience it seems that these vested interests get in the way of really “seeking the truth” above all else. So I’ll throw out my point of view and let you be the judge.

First of all, I’m not an expert in physics, structural engineering, or really any other relevant field involving 9/11. I am a software engineer – a computer geek. You know – I’m one of those guys who sit in a dark cubicle somewhere, eyes glazed over, eating pizza and writing code to make computers do amazing things like send email, balance your checkbook, or let you play solitaire while your boss isn’t looking.

A large part of my career has dealt with accurately comprehending and modeling reality in a computer – that’s what most computer geeks do. For example, if your business deals with money and goods, we would write a program that models the movement of that money and those goods so that you can track it and report on it. This is usually done by combining my own research and evidence with information gathered during interviews with people who are experts in whatever it is we’re trying to model.

I then go through all of the information, resolving conflicts between the evidence and people’s views of reality, and finally come up with (hopefully) an accurate model of reality to program into the computer. Any inaccuracies in the model end up causing problems for the customer and end up making a lot more work for me and so I try to get it right the first time and I try to be rigorous as I build the model – getting all the facts nailed down completely before coding anything up on the computer.

As I have done this over the years, I have learned a lot about figuring out what is true and what is false when I look at a set of information. This is the experience that I use as I investigate 9/11.

What’s that? You want me to be quiet about all of this computer stuff and get to the point? Ok, ok – Back in October of 2005, a friend of mine introduced me to the work of one Professor Steven E. Jones – a professor at BYU. Since that time, I have studied and researched the topics contained in his paper and presentations. I also attended a presentation that he gave at UVSC as well as receiving various versions of the PowerPoint slides used in those presentations.

I have also had continuing email correspondence with Professor Jones regarding the content of his presentations and his paper entitled “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?” Throughout this exchange, I have found Professor Jones to be a very kind and civil person as I have interacted with him and I thank him for that.

In this series of articles, I want to describe my interactions with him as well as working through his paper and presentation slides. I would like to tell the story of what I have found.

Why am I doing this? Don’t I have something better to do? I could think of a few things I’d rather be doing, but my goal here is to publish the truth and error that I have found throughout this process.

I believe that this country is becoming more and more divided over these issues and I have found that much of what is dividing us is rooted in misleading quotes, incomplete information, testimony taken out of context, assumptions made in ignorance, all combined with flawed theories that are based on the aforementioned mess.

I want to reveal these things in an objective way to give the casual researcher of 9/11 events another point of view. I will do my best to keep my own feelings and theories out of this discussion. That’s hard to do and I’ll probably fail at times but I’m sure you’ll forgive me.

Currently I do not support any specific theory. I am therefore open to any theory, though I must admit that my research so far has me leaning toward some theories and away from others. Let’s get to it, shall we?

On Tue 18 Oct 2005, I received an email from a friend of mine concerning one Professor Jones from BYU who was investigating the events of 9/11. It had a PowerPoint presentation attached to it. I had been looking into the events of 9/11 for a while at that point and so I was interested in taking a look at it.

The email was a forwarded email from Jones to my friend and then to me. In the part that Professor Jones wrote, he said, “…if any of you spot errors or weak arguments in the enclosed presentation, please let me know.”

I opened up the presentation slides and noticed several things that caught my attention. And when I say “caught my attention”, I mean “errors or weak arguments”. I wanted to discuss these things with Professor Jones directly and so I emailed him the next day.

Before I get to the first email, I would like to explain my approach. It is based on my discussions of several topics with people over the years ranging from whether or not the moon landing happened to what happened on 9/11.

My approach has been influenced by all of my interactions with conspiracy theorists in the past. One thing I try to avoid is what I have called the “conspiracy theory pattern”. It goes like this: First, I find some evidence that refutes one of the theory’s supporting facts, next, the defender of the theory essentially avoids the evidence I presented and then brings up several (usually more than five) other facts that supposedly also support the theory.

This has the effect of keeping the overall theory protected since the issue in question doesn’t get resolved – rather, the theory seems to get even stronger as all of these other supporting (but thus far not proven) “facts” are brought up.

In my experience, it turns out that those other “facts” usually end up being a large pile of debunkable (is that a word?) “maybes”. It’s as though protecting the theory is more important than uncovering the truth – as if they have such a strongly held belief that their theory is true that they refuse to let any of the supporting “facts” be debunked because any debunked “fact” threatens whatever vested interest they may have in the theory being true.

They might also twist a fact into a pretzel shape so that it can fit into their theory. Of course I have found that this happens to most people defending their theories and so this behavior is not necessarily proof of anything, it’s just something to keep in mind as we go through this. My idea is that once all of the facts are proven true or false individually, then and only then can the true ones be gathered together to form a theory.

I didn’t know if Professor Jones would behave this way or not and so I initially tried to avoid the “conspiracy pattern” by asking him not to address multiple items at once. I should have been clearer, as you’ll soon see. I also wanted to address the fact that Professor Jones is a physics professor (i.e. not a structural engineer) and so I was confused as to why he was glossing over, dismissing, and asserting his opinion on so many structural engineering issues that were outside of his area of expertise. He seemed to do this with his various political assertions too – as we’ll see later.

I’ll only cover the first couple of emails and then I’ll switch from this detailed mode to a summary mode where I’ll summarize what we talked about and bring up unresolved issues from his paper and presentation. Professor Jones and I are communicating about these issues via email to this day though there was a period where we had no interaction. This first email will serve as an introduction.

Wed 19 Oct 2005 – My first email to him was as follows:

From: Robert Cronk
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 10:30 AM
To: Jones, Steven
Subject: 9/11 Presentation

Mr. Jones,

My name is Robert Cronk and I am a software engineer. I am a friend of [name deleted], who I believe you are acquainted with. He regularly forwards things to me and I give him feedback on them. He recently sent me the slightly stripped down PowerPoint presentation that you prepared from your past two presentations on 9/11. I wanted to thank you for working so hard to gather this information up. I am with you as far as finding out the truth of these events. I would like to give you some feedback that I hope will make your presentation more bulletproof and more accurate based on all of the information out there.

I seek the truth and I try to do it without any agenda. It’s difficult at times, but that’s the way I believe it should be done. Currently, I am open to all options regarding 9/11. I am open to it being: 1. initiated and orchestrated by the government to rob us of our freedom (using Arab terrorists as pawns), 2. Greedy businessmen trying to get money from insurance companies, 3. It’s as explained, that terrorists just flew planes into buildings and they fell down because of the damage, 4. Anything else that pops up in the process of finding the truth. I try to look at the facts without bias for one of the above scenarios and once I have gathered it all up, then I might lean towards one that makes the most sense given all of the facts….I hope that you are taking the same unbiased approach or we won’t be able to reach the truth.

Given this background, I would like to start with a single topic and go through your presentation one topic at a time to resolve or solidify or tweak that topic. I don’t like to deal with many topics at once because in my experience, nothing is accomplished when I deal with multiple topics at once. Thanks for considering my input.

Robert Cronk

In your presentation, you assert that the global collapse of WTC Building 7 was not explained by the NIST report that you gave a link to. In that report, it discusses the following scenario:

1. An initial local failure at the lower floors (below Floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 sq ft
2. Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse, as large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse
3. Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure
4. Events resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure

In my view, this combines some heavy architecture with physics. The missing link that you did not mention in your presentation is item #3 in the above list. The key architectural pieces involved are trusses 1 and 2. The architecture of floors 5 through 7 was unique because they had a transfer system between floors 5 and 7 that included the two trusses that are at the core of the collapse. This system of cantilever girders and trusses was supposed to be a kind of converter of loads between the Con-Edison substation (that WTC 7 was built on top of) and WTC 7 itself. The two buildings had different architectures and so there needed to be a conversion point between the two. The debris impacted and damaged components adjacent to truss #2. If trusses 1 and 2 failed, they would pull the whole line of columns over simultaneously since they were all attached in the middle of that transfer area between floors 5 and 7. “Floor 5 – which did not have any exterior windows and contained the only pressurized fuel distribution system on the south, west and north floor areas – is considered a possible fire initiation location”. Because there were no windows on that floor, fire observations from outside the building would not be possible. The orange section of the graphic below shows that a large portion of the south face was destroyed by debris from the towers and that this damage tore into WTC 7 about 1/4th of the thickness of that side of the building. This is part of the damage that weakened components near truss #2.

As I have gone and studied the architecture of this building and the pieces involved, I have found this explanation of the global collapse to be a reasonable explanation. At this point, please don’t move on to squibs or anything else. Let’s first finalize the facts before us and then move on to other topics afterward. What’s your take on this specific possibility?

Thu 20 Oct 2005 – Professor Jones replied the next day the way I feared he might – as explained above:

Robert –

Thanks for your comments. Since I teach class this afternoon, 3 – 5:20 pm, I will not be able to answer your questions in much detail now. But I would like to ask you a few things that come to mind. You wrote: “At this point, please don’t move on to squibs or anything else. Let’s first finalize the facts before us and then move on to other topics afterward.”

Now why should we restrict the discussion in this way? Are you asking me to ignore relevant data in the analysis? And not just squibs would I include – but also:
1. Is there sufficient heat in hydrocarbon fires to cause column failure?
2. Is there any evidence for such heat?
3. How does heat transport to the WHOLE building structure, an enormous heat sink, as well as shifting of loads, affect the building collapse?
4. Does collapse of trusses (How many do you argue?) lead to rapid and SYMMETRICAL collapse of the entire building, onto a small footprint as observed?
5. How does one account for the molten metal found in the basement of WTC 7 (and both Towers), post collapse?
6. How does one account for sulfidation and partial evaporation of metal beams found (and reported!) in WTC 7?

So, no, I’m not willing to consider facts in isolation, ignoring other facts. But perhaps you can explain why I should take such a non-scientific approach. Or explain these other facts in correlation with the arguments you raise about trusses. Then I will consider further your questions.

Steven Jones

I was a bit disappointed by his punting (refusing to address individual facts) and then moving to six other points – the conspiracy theory pattern strikes again. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough with him. Perhaps I should have explained my approach better.

In my opinion, each piece of evidence should be able to stand on its own without being affected by or needing the support of any other fact. Once each individual fact has been proven true, then and only then can they all be gathered together and then an appropriate theory can be chosen that best matches the validated data.

I believe this to be one of the main logical fallacies of conspiracy theorists in general – just considering the hundreds of “maybes” without validating each one individually. He replied a few more times asking me a few questions about my explanation.

Looking back, I realize that I should have started with the firemen testimony and photographic and video evidence that shows that WTC 7 was so severely damaged on its south side (the side you never see in the demolition theory presentations) that the firemen set up a collapse zone hours before it actually collapsed, but we’ll get to that later.

Next we’ll be talking about diagonally cut columns, firemen testimony of WTC 7 damage, transits (what’s a transit?), laser doppler vibrometer evidence (what the?), photo and video evidence, and the extremely important issue of why a physicist would be talking about structural engineering, political, and religious issues.

We may even touch on how the majority of the scholars for truth’s membership is made up of mainly theologians, philosophers, English/literature teachers, etc. and not many engineers and why that might be important to the average person.

We might also talk about which scholar for truth believes the U.S. military is blowing up anti-matter weapons on Jupiter (he’s the engineer from France who hasn’t written anything on 9/11) and which one thinks a high energy beam was directed from WTC 7 toward the towers to blow them up – hint: his last name rhymes with “metzer” and he’s the co-chair who’s last name is not Jones. I’m being a smart aleck today – sorry.

Stay tuned and put on your thinking cap – be it cloth, leather, or tin foil – put it on and snug it up tight – this is going to be fun!

In my next post, I plan on discussing the details of Professor Jones’ powerpoint presentation and his paper along with bringing other evidence to the table that you don’t normally find on 9/11 sites. In some cases, I have dug deep to get this information. In other cases, it was a five-minute trip through Google to get to it – so why don’t the “9/11 truthers” find this stuff? It may remain a mystery until the end of time. See you in the next post.

Related Articles:
9/11, Steven Jones, and Me – Part 2
9/11, Steven Jones, and Me – Part 3
9/11, Steven Jones, and Me – Part 4

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


Posted on December 15, 2006, in Conspiracy Theories. Bookmark the permalink. 48 Comments.

  1. There is a lot more to the 9/11 truth movement than Steven Jones, but fixating on Jones makes it easy to ignore the other evidence out there. Mr. Cronk, can you explain why the military stood down on 9/11. Why was there no intercept of the hijacked airliners when such intercepts are normal protocol for our military and happend at least 60 times during 2001 before the Twin Towers were attacked? Remember the golfer Payne Stewart? Read his story to find out wht happens when normal protocols are followed.

    Why was Dick Cheney put at the head of the military chain of command just prior to 9/11, a truly unprecedented occurance? Why did the media not widely report that Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport? Flight 77 originated at Dulles in case you forgot. Why was there no clear fotage of flight 77 striking the pentagon when there are literally hundreds of cameras simultaneously surveilling the pentagon at any given moment? Why did the pilot who flew flight 77 fly directly over the pentagon and turn around so that he could hit the the recenly vacant and renovated side of the building.

    Who made millions of dollars in the market betting that American Airlines stock would drop and why didn’t the SEC or FBI investigate them. Last I heard, you have to identify yourself to the SEC in order to buy large amounts of stock. You can make Dr. Jones your whipping boy all you want, but that doesn’t erase the evidence that there was a cover up of enormous proportions centered around the events of 9/11.

    Capturing Osama Bin Laden is no longer a priority according to our president. Does the president know something we don’t?

    There are many other unanswered questions about 9/11 and you attacking Dr. Jones does nothing but convince me that you have no real interest in finding out what really happened.

    You point out that Dr. Jones is not a structural engineer and neither are you. So what credentials do you bring to the table that will help me to feel that you are qualified to analyze his work? He does have some experience using the scientific method as a physicist, but what do you bring to the table? I might even consider listening to you if you attempt to address the questions I have asked, but I seriously doubt that you will do that.

  2. michael – thanks for commenting.

    I want to point out that you just used the above-explained “conspiracy theory pattern” perfectly by 1. ignoring the points I’m making and then 2. bringing up eight (if I counted correctly) other points. Amazing! This is the pattern I have seen for the last eight years in dealing with conspiracy theorists. Re-read the article for more details on how this pattern ends up being a logical fallacy.

    I am discussing Professor Jones because I was specifically invited here to talk about my interactions with him.

    I have studied the rest of the 9/11 issues you brought up along with other theories and information. Perhaps when I’m done discussing professor Jones, I’ll move on to these other issues. In the meantime, see the references below that deal with the issues you brought up – if you truly are interested:





    Those links cover the points you brought up and more. They don’t however cover the Osama focus shift. Perhaps we’re evil and that’s why we have shifted away from Osama, or perhaps more intelligence has come in that points us to other terrorist leaders that we can more easily or immediately focus on. I really don’t know which is the case, but it’s not as evil sounding after the rest of these “facts” are debunked.

    As for what I bring to the table, re-read the article – I spent a good portion of it explaining what I bring to the table and since I’m posting this from my cell phone, I’d rather you re-read it than me retype it.

  3. I understand your point about each theory needing to stand on its own, but I’m not sure that is good science, since more complex systems tend to have parts that interact and therefore influence and affect other parts. I would also posit that the government’s theories, put forth by the NIST, tend to jump to the next point without proving the previous point, which happens to be the same weakness you ascribe to Dr. Jones. Also the government stand down is not a myth. Our government was 100 percent successful intercepting aircraft in distress in 2001 that is until 9/11. They failed 100 percent of the time on 9/11. Why the major discrepancy?

    As far as your post regarding “debunking” the stand down of our air forces, it does not prove that there was no stand down. According to a Dallas Morning News article on 10/26/1999, Payne Stewart’s jet was intercepted within about 20 minutes of the loss of radio contact. After reading various sources it seems that The Dallas Morning News was wrong about the intercept time. So I will agree that Payne Stewarts flight is not a good illustration of response time.

    According NORAD employee Lt. Colonel Dawne Deskins, Norad was informed that flight 11 was hijacked at 8:31 on 9/11. They weren’t informed that radio contact had been lost, rather they were informed that the plane had been hijacked. It wasn’t until 8:46 that two F-15 fighters are ordered to scramble from Otis Air National Guard Base in Massachusetts to find Flight 11, approximately 190 miles from the known location of the plane and 188 miles from New York City.

    First of all there were nearer bases from which to scramble jets and second of all, why would it take 15 minutes to scramble jets that were supposedly ready to take off on a moment’s notice. The pilot of one of those jets also claimed that they sat on the runway for 6 minutes after the order to scramble was given, so they didn’t even take off until 6 minutes after flight 11 hit the tower.

    Apparently the Air force did take their time in intercepting Payne Stewart’s plane, but it was a small Learjet with only 5 passengers traveling toward an area of low population. According to testimony given, air traffic controllers believed that flight 11 was headed toward Washington when it was originally hijacked. So, you actually belive that our government was so inept that they failed to respond to a hijacked commercial airliner that they believe was headed for Washington D.C. until after the plane hit one of the Twin Towers. Isn’t it telling that no one was disciplined for their supposed incompetence on 9/11.

    By the way, those jets that were scrambled to intercept flight 11 were then sent to intercept flight 175. According to Major Gen. Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, “The pilots [flew] ‘like a scalded ape,’ topping 500 mph but [were] unable to catch up to the airliner.” Did you know that a F-15 on full blower can reach speeds of over 1800 MPH. Why the heck were they going so slow? And why did they wait 6 minutes to take off.

    That doesnt include the three F-16s that were scrambled toward Flight 77. If the 9:30 AM NORAD departure time is correct, the F-16s would have had to travel slightly over 700 mph to reach Washington before Flight 77 did. Even at traveling 1300 mph, these planes could have reached Washington in six minutes – well before any claim of when Flight 77 crashed. Yet they obviously didn’t. Why were our jets so slow on 9/11.

    It was reported in our press that Osama Bin Laden was in a U.S. military hospital just prior to 9/11. Osama Bin Laden is a known CIA operative. Why was the Bin Laden family allowed to leave the U.S. right after 9/11?

    Back to my main point. Steven Jones is not the sole originator of 9/11 conspiracy theories. If you really want to investigate 9/11, start with the major communications breakdowns that occurred on that day and the military exercises that took place that day involving hijacked aircraft.

  4. michael,

    Thanks for the intelligent dialog. I’m so used to people blindly swinging that I’m not used to actually being heard. I appreciate that.

    I agree with you that complex systems have parts that interact and it’s ok to consider these interactions. I’m fine with that. The points I’ll be bringing up are points that can stand on their own though. I will make sure I’m clear as I go through them in subsequent posts.

    One problem with NIST (and FEMA) is that their objective during their investigation is not the same objective that the demolition theory people have. NIST’s and FEMA’s objective was to figure out if there are better ways to build buildings to withstand such emergency situations so that more people can be safe during the emergency and escape afterward. If there’s a cover-up just at NIST alone, there would have to be over 7,000 people being “kept quiet,” and that’s hard for me to believe. I’ve read a lot of those reports and if you have specific objections to their details, we can discuss that, but discussing generalities like this will get us nowhere. In fact, write NIST directly and ask them your questions. They do answer questions and they are the ones who have the answers. See http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm where they answer many of the recent conspiracy theory questions that have been floating around.

    The term I object to is “stand down”. This implies that there was an order given to stand down, which nobody has any proof of. Let’s stick to the facts. We can discuss miscommunications, confusion, and other issues that played into the jetliners not being intercepted. I am not in the military and therefore I really don’t know all of the answers. If there are questions that remain, let’s ask the experts in the military and at NORAD, etc. instead of uttering phrases like “stand down” amongst ourselves. When I finish with the issues at hand, I’ll hunt down some more details in this area and perhaps we can discuss it more.

    The Osama “facts” are riddled with partial quotes and twisting of information. Some of it seems legit, but there is so much deception dealing with explaining him and his ties to the U.S. that it’s hard for me to just take assertions about him at face value. See http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin.html for more detail.

    I’m not that dumb – I know that Steven Jones is not the “sole originator” of 9/11 conspiracy theories. I never implied he was and such an assertion is ridiculous. I don’t know why you’re refuting an assertion that nobody made. It sounds like you’re setting up a straw man argument, implying that I asserted it, and then knocking it down to seem like I made a ridiculous point that is easily refutable. Don’t do that any more.

    I was investigating 9/11 for a long time before Steven Jones appeared on the scene. As I said before, I am only writing about him now because I was invited here specifically to write about my experiences dealing with him and his paper and presentation. Once I have finished writing about my experiences with him, I plan on discussing these other issues that you’re bringing up.

  5. “Did you know that a F-15 on full blower can reach speeds of over 1800 MPH. Why the heck were they going so slow?”

    Did you know that an F-15 flying in “clean” configuration on full afterburner will drain its internal tanks in 15 minutes?

    How would you expect a 50 million dollar brick to intercept anything?

  6. Wow Aaron,

    Another insightful point. Did you read the rest of my comment?

  7. Michael,

    It would seem that Aaron was just trying to point out why the F-15’s were unable to use afterburner to fly all the way to their destination. That shoots down part of the “stand down” theory because it shows that they didn’t fly without afterburner because they were evil or were commanded to, but because they couldn’t or else they would run out of fuel.

    In your reply to him, you used an alternate form of the conspiracy theory pattern by ignoring his point and telling him to look at all the other details – leaving the main point of motive for not using afterburner unresolved.

    There is a second conpiracy theory pattern that deals with only digging into a topic deep enough to match one’s view of reality. So, it appears that you saw that an F-15 could fly a lot faster on afterburner and this supported your theory that there was a stand down and so you stopped digging and started spreading this partial information. You could have asked an expert or looked up “afterburner” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterburner for example, to see if flying with the afterburner turned on during the whole flight was feasible but you didn’t. I have found that a lot of people do this regardless of whether they believe in conspiracy theories or not.

    So, let’s dubunk this part of the theory before moving on. It was not feasible to fly on afterburner the whole flight and that’s why they didn’t do it, not because they were commanded to or were evil. Can you agree with that statement Michael?

    Of course, none of these comments address anything in the original post above – further manifestation of conspiracy theory pattern #1. I’ll go work on the second post now…

  8. I said that an f-15 can reach speed of over 1800 MPH on a clean burn, and Aaron said that that would drain the jet’s fuel tank in 15 minutes. I don’t disagree with him, but the point is moot.

    First, my comment about the top speed of an F-15 was an attempt to show that an F-15 traveling at 500 MPH was traveling well below its top speed. Obviously there is a lot of variation between 500 and 1800 MPH. But if you want to accept Aaron’s premise that I argued that those F-15’s should have traveled on clean burn, then lets take it to its logical conclusion.

    Otis Air Force base in Buzzards Bay Massachusetts is approximately 150 air miles away from New York City. If the F-15’s flew on clean burn all the way to NYC from Otis, then they would only have used about 35 percent of their fuel. An F-15 with 65 percent of its fuel left is hardly a 50 million dollar brick. I understand that the F-15 would have intercepted the airline before it got to NYC so I will allow for a bit more fuel usage. Either way, though, the point that Aaron claimed I made, which I didn’t, is true. Those F-15’s could have intercepted that airliner after flying at top speed for the 5 minutes it took them to get to NYC and still have had fuel left to engage them.

    The reason I didn’t immediately respond to Aaron’s comment was that it was, at best, weak. If he had done a little research and thought a few steps ahead he probably could have done better. After all, it’s telling that Aaron needs you, Mr. Cronk, to fully make his points.

  9. Ok, so there’s some disagreement between the two of you on how fast the F-15’s could/should have gone. Perhaps we should ask the F-15 pilots who flew that day why they went the speed they went. Then they could say that they were commanded to go slowly on purpose so that this atrocity could come to fruition or they could give some other explanation. I think Aaron’s point was made by him just fine – I just jumped in because I was bored.

    At any rate, you’ve done an exceptional job avoiding the points in the post and scattering the conversation in several directions, and Aaron and I have gone along with it – oh well. I’m very interested to hear if and what you will reply to my next post that will delve into more of the types of details that you seem to want to discuss.

    P.S. You can call me “Robert” if you want to. It’s three characters shorter than “Mr. Cronk”.

  10. 9/11 was an inside job. Watch this presentation from a Utah 9/11 truth group if you still doubt:


  11. Should we, as Mormons, embrace conspiracy theories?


  12. 9/11 was not an inside job, michael; if you believe that you believe a lie.

  13. What proof do you have that it wasn’t an inside job? All is that have is our government’s often conflicting statements and accusations about 9/11, none of which they have proved. I have a great deal of proof that our government was complicit in 9/11. Some of us are able to look at facts honestly, but I’m afraid your politics have occluded your view, LDS Patriot. To believe the government’s story you have to believe in a rather amazing series of coincidences.

    One lie that you probably still believe is that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for masterminding the events of 9/11. That was what we were told when we invaded Afganistan. As of June 6th, 2006, the FBI says that there is “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

    Source: http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

    And I’m the one who believes a lie?

  14. I’ll go check out the videos when I get to a computer – I’m posting from my phone again.

    My experience thusfar with these types of videos has been very poor. They usually have an extremely high error content. I’ve posted my second post in this series – go check it out.

  15. Micheal, who was the LAPD’s chief suspect in the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman back in 1994? Did they have sufficient evidence to convict this suspect? Have the prosecutors and police ever had any other suspects?

    If you are capable if understanding the difference between “chief suspect” and “sufficient evidence”, then could you please point out where and when the FBI said “Osama is not a suspect”?

  16. Oops, the above post came out wrong. That’s supposed to say “AAron H” at the top.

  17. Alberta Patriot,

    First of all, we were told that “”Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organisation were prime suspects” in 9/11. That was the reason given for the invasion of Afganistan. Now the FBI says that there is “No hard evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11.” So we invade a country, make that 2 countries, with no hard evidence.
    There was a ton of evidence linking O.J. Simpson to his wife’s murder, but there is absolutely no evidence linking Osama Bin Laden to 9/11 other than the government’s declaration on 9/11 that he was the mastermind. That is why the FBI’s most wanted poster does not list the 9/11 attacks as a reason for OBL’s most wanted status.
    So my main point: you don’t invade 2 countries and kill hundreds of thousands of people in search of a suspect that you have “no hard evidence against.” Or maybe I’m just dense.
    The burden of proof is on the White House, not on me. But there are a lot of people who buy what the President says without analysis or thought.

  18. Ok Micheal, knock off the semantic hair splitting and subject changing.

    Just show me where the FBI said “Osama is not our main suspect” and then we can deal with the other items you brought up.

    BTW, it’s AAron. “Alberta Patriot” is an alias I was using on another forum.

  19. Aaron,

    On June 5, 2006, reporter Ed Hass contacted the FBI Headquarters to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. He spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Ladens Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Ladens Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” (Source: Teamliberty.net)

    CIA reportedly disbands Bin Laden unit

    A CIA unit that had hunted for Usama bin Laden and his top deputies for a decade has been disbanded, according to a published report. Citing unnamed intelligence officials, The New York Times reported Tuesday that the unit, known as “Alec Station,” was shut down late last year. The decision to close the unit, which predated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, was first reported Monday by National Public Radio. (Source: Associated Press, July 4, 2006)

    Source: http://911review.org/Media/Bin-Laden-Not-Wanted-for_9_11.html

    So can you tell me how he’s still a suspect, if there’s no evidence connecting him to the crime and they are no longer hunting for him?

    “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
    – G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

    “I am truly not that concerned about him.”
    – G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts,
    3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

    Maybe you should tell Bush what is going on Aaron since he doesn’t seem to be aware of your agenda.

  20. Can you please show me where the FBI or CIA said “Osama is not our main suspect for 9-11”?

  21. Aaron,

    Now you are engaging is semantic hair splitting. First of all I never said that Osama Bin Laden is not a suspect in 9/11. The government could claim anyone was a suspect. Declaring someone a suspect is not evidence of guilt. Whether you believe that our government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks or not, it would be ridiculous for or government not to name a suspect, since the identity of that suspect factored into decisions about invading certain foreign countries.

    Most murder investigations start with a list of suspects that is whittled down when evidence is found linking certain suspects to a crime. What evidence has our government found linking Osama Bin Laden to 9/11? The list should be long, after all its been more than 5 years and OBL was declared a “prime suspect” on 9/12/2001.

    Usually, when someone’s name is listed on a most wanted poster they are wanted for a crime that they haven’t been convicted of, so the crimes they are accused of are listed on the poster. Why wouldn’t the FBI list the 9/11 attacks on OBL’s most wanted poster if he is still a prime suspect?

    I submit to you that the fact that the FBI won’t list 9/11 on OBL’s most wanted poster and the fact that our president is no longer truly concerned about him or his whereabouts and the fact that the FBI says that there is no hard evidence linking him to 9/11 is evidence that OBL is not wanted by our government for 9/11. I can connect the dots, but it seems like you can’t.

    If you are waiting for someone in the government to implicate themselves by saying that OBL is no longer a suspect, don’t hold your breath. If someone says such a thing, it might lead to conjecture. For instance: If there is no evidence linking OBL to 9/11 and he’s not a suspect then who really did commit 9/11, and why isn’t our government doing anything about it.

    So Aaron, while you continue to wait around for someone in authority to analyze everything for you, some of us are actually examing evidence and coming up with our own conclusions. It’s called responsible citizenship. You should try it sometime.

  22. That’s alot of bandwidth you wasted just to say; “No, AAron. The FBI and CIA have never said Osama is not thier chief suspect.”

  23. I don’t know if you guys have seen the recently released videos with Atta and another of the 9/11 hijackers at Osama’s training camps in Afghanistan or not but they’re training with Osama and al Queda and they even recorded farewell addresses. There is also released video and audio of Iraq’s leaders meeting with the taliban leaders and they’re talking about using al Queda to achieve their goals of destroying the great satan (that’s us). I’m on my phone so I can look these up for you later if you can’t find them.

    Yeah, I think president Hinckley was right when he said that the government has access to more intelligence than the general public does and that we should stand firmly with our president in this war on terror as we ferret out the terrorist organizations wherever they are. (“The Times in Which We Live” 2001, and “War and Peace” 2003)

  24. The video you are referring to is a fake. Part of this supposedly new video was released as part of a 2002 documentary. That is only one of the major problems with this video. See this source for info:


    If Atta was a CIA asset, and there is plenty of evidence that he was, and if Osama Bin Laden was a CIA asset, google the name Tim Osman, then it’s not suprising that you can find them on videotapes together.

  25. By the way I agree with that we should ferret out these terrorist organizations wherever they are. Even if they are in our own government.

  26. Robert,

    Have you had a chance to review the article posted on the Popular Mechanics webpage. The do a pretty good job of interviewing whole host of experts directly involved in the 911 attacks. They provide the kind of common sense data to debunk the 911 myths.

    See: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

    People who embrace the 911 myths will not listen to reason as they are completely caught up with their emotions and reason be damned.

  27. Yes Robert, I am well aware of Osama’s numerous confessions, the videotape of him personally meeting with the hijackers as well as the substantial evidence of Saddam Husseins involvment with Al-Queada and the PLO.

    I didn’t even bother mentioning this because I knew Micheal, who never fails to disappoint, would abitrarily declare them to be fake and throw up another bogus link to a whack-job website.

    Just another typical example of the “conspiracy theory pattern”.

  28. So, did anyone want to address anything in the actual post? 🙂

    I have posted a “part 2” with more details and I’ll link them together soon with “related article” links. Subsequent parts are in the works…

    Yes I’ve reviewed the Popular Mechanics article and they did a good job. The problem is that the conspiracy theorists attacked it with their pattern of dismissing it without addressing it and saying that there were other much more important issues that weren’t addressed. That’s the same reaction I’ve seen to anything that’s brought up – as we’ve seen here with the comments to this post.

    Oh well. I’m not here to convince conspiracy theorists of anything – in my experience, that just doesn’t happen. I’m here to give the non-conspiracy theorist more of the picture.

  29. Jim Hoffman destroys the Popular Mechanics article.
    He didn’t dismiss anything- he doesn’t have to.
    His movie destroys the official theory.

    He and Jones don’t have to be good guys, their work must be sound.

    If I bought an expensive sportscar and a huge insurance policy and the car was destroyed by a falling oak 6 WEEKS LATER as Silverstein did, then YOU WOULD LOOK FOR CHAINSAW MARKS on the tree. If I carted the tree away privately before the insurance inspector could examine it, that’s called removing/destroying/tampering with evidence. In common law that was considered evidence of guilt.

    You cannot debunk the truth. $7 Billion for Silverstein. 99 year lease bought at a fraction of it’s value. Towers which are totally outdated and money losers suddenly taken care of.

    And another thing. I love how everyone says “it would have taken thousands of pounds of explosives” as if that is a lot of explosives. I can carry 50 pounds easily. Why were bomb sniffing dogs removed in the days before the attack, the power turned off for hours at a time disabling the security cameras? What about the sub-basement explosions which are on tape and the people burned all over their body in the basement? Do you understand that Controlled Demolition Inc. cleared the site? Do you understand that in their own words they “break a building into a million little peices and put it in the basement,” blowing the basement first to make room for the rest of the mass of the structure? Why is there only an ashen pit in aerial photos (which were hard to get) Why do the (few available) photos of the wreckage up close show diagonal shearing of the columns? Why did Atta get $100,000 wired from the Pakistani ISI which IS American-run? Why did the daughter of the Pentagon pilot die in a mysterious fire three weeks ago? I don’t expect you to even care, actually- the most important thing is putting loose change down. Down with Loose Change! Hide your daughters, dylan is coming!

  30. Louis,

    Again – you’ve given us a good example of the conspiracy pattern by ignoring the details in the above post completely and then bringing up several other points.

    You are making the assumption that the “truths” of which you speak are true.

    From the research I have personally done, most of what you have brought up is not as you have painted it. Please see http://www.911myths.com and http://www.debunking911.com and look for Silverstein and the other topics you mentioned to discover a litte more about these topics that you haven’t mentioned here.

    My goal isn’t to debunk a person or a video or anything. My purpose is to show people a little something that they might not have seen anywhere else and hopefully uncover some truth and falsehoods dealing with 9/11 in general.

    If it turns out that a greedy businessman got someone to hijack four planes and kill thousands to make a buck, then let’s uncover that. The problem is that currently (if you go look where I suggested) it doesn’t seem like that matches the evidence – if you dig deeper than what matches your current beliefs.

  31. Hey Cronk,

    Sounds like the familiar conspiracy pattern here. You completely ignore Louis’ points and mention another “authority” as if that is enough to demonstrate truth. What particular points of Louis’ are you claiming to be untrue? Or are all of his points untrue simply because he is a “conspiracy theorist?” One of the problems you have here is that the circumstantial evidence is pretty overwhelming.

    As far as Louis’ first point about tampering with evidence goes let’s look at the evidence. An editorial in the January 2002 issue of Fire Engineering magazine called for the government to cease the destruction of evidence in the WTC attacks, because the steel was being shipped away for recycling before a thorough investigation could take place. Now, Cronk, you can quote Mechanics Magazine all you want, but Fire Engineering magazine is a 125-year-old monthly that frequently publishes technical studies of major fires. I think they would have a little bit more of a clue about investigating fires than does Popular Mechanics.
    In the April 16, 2002 edition of the New York Daily News it was reported that in Congressional testimony of the prior month that fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. Wow! I wonder who had the authority? Maybe it was Popular Mechanics.
    It should also be noted, Cronk, that FEMA, as the main government investigating agency for 9/11 kept approximately 150 pieces of steel from the Twin Towers and they obtained this steel from the intermediate dump, not from the scene of the crime. You see that kind of stuff all the time in CSI, you know, where they move the evidence to another site before they begin an investigation.
    Coincidentally most of the FEMA investigators were in NYC on 9/11 in preparation for a bioterror drill. Giuliani talked about it in his testimony in front of the 9/11 Commission:

    “the reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill, it had hundreds of people here, from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State, from the State Emergency Management Office, and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack. So that was gonna be the place they were going to have the drill. The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there, within three days, that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center. And it was from there that the rest of the search and rescue effort was completed.”

    Wow! What a coincidence! Here’s another.
    The Twin Towers were under ownership and control of the NY Port Authority from the time they were built until 6 month prior to 9/11. At that time they were leased, under a 99 year lease to the partnership of Silverstein Properties and Westfield America. At that time, the partnership invested in a new insurance policy against terrorist acts, which type of insurance did not previously cover the property. The policy stated that in the event of a terrorist attack, the partnership could collect the insured value of the property, and be released from their obligations under the 99-year lease. The partners’ winning bid was $3.2 billion for holdings previously estimated to be worth more than $8 billion.
    So far the partnership has collected an estimated 4.6 billion for the Twin Towers and in February 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties’ estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So building 7’s collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million. Also interesting to note: in December 2003, the Port Authority agreed to return all of the $125 million in equity that the partnership headed by Silverstein originally invested to buy the lease on the World Trade Center. Silverstein’s investment partnership also was allowed to keep the development rights for the site.
    Wow! Nice deal for Larry, but alas, just a coincidence. Do you realize that for his initial 511 million dollar investment,Larry Silverstein got over 6 billion dollar net profit,plus he got his 125 million outlay for the lease of the towers refunded. That was quite a coincidence for him because according to an Oct. 2001 article in Business Week:

    “From an economic standpoint, the trade center — subsidized since its inception — has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace.”

    The Towers had been subsidized by the City for many years since they weren’t making a profit from rentals. It has also been revealed that renovating the towers would have been incredibly expensive since such renovations would have required substantial asbestos removal. But, coincidentally these problems were solved for Larry and partners by the provident application of a couple of planes. Wow! What a coincidence!

    According to a report from Wing TV, on the weekend of 9/8, 9/9 there was a ‘power down’ condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up… “Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many ‘engineers’ coming in and out of the tower.” This power down phase was noted by many different sources and occurred in both towers for about 30 hours.

    Another rather amazing coincidence was that the security company in charge of the Twin Towers was Securacom, a company in which Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, sat on the board of directors. Securacom also provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center “up to the day the buildings fell down.”

    Wow, another coincidence! A connection to the president and also a connection to 3 major parties in the 9/11 attacks: the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. I’m glad there are smart people like you Mr. Cronk and like Popular Mechanics to set me straight, otherwise I might think there’s some connection there. Oh well. I gotta go iron my tinfoil hat.

  32. michael,

    I think you’re missing the point again. This area is for discussion about the post above, which is about Professor Jones. What I’m doing is called ‘staying on topic’ – something conspiracy theorists apparently have a difficult time with. Again – this area is about Professor Jones – feel free to discuss the items I posted about Professor Jones here. Jones. Jones. Jones.

    I have already discussed and researched the points you brought up above and have found answers on my own and you can find that most of your points have been investigated deeper than you have investigated them at http://www.911myths.com and http://www.debunking911.com among other sites. I have told people to go investigate these issues at these sites before but apparently you didn’t do that or you wouldn’t be continuing to propogate these half truths here.

    Please, please, please (michael and everyone else) go to those sites to learn more about those topics and if you want to discuss them further, please go start your own blog or find a 9/11 forum to discuss them. Um, because this area is about Jones, and you are propogating disinformation that doesn’t have anything to do with Professor Jones – um, which is what this post is about.

    Again, if you want to discuss Professor Jones – get it, this post is about Professor Jones, get it? – then please feel free to post your comments about Professor Jones here.

    Did I mention that this area is about Professor Jones?

    Has anyone noticed that none of these comments have been about Professor Jones and the items I’ve brought up? Do you see the squirming avoidance pattern of the conspiracy theorists?

    The funny thing is that all of the topics they have been bringing up were debunked years ago but yet they still use that disinformation as distraction fog when any other issue is being proven incorrect.

    Thanks to all for providing several examples of the conspiracy theory pattern here by not discussing Professor Jones. Take note of how they avoid the topics at hand and bring up tons of other half truths and when you see this pattern in the future, don’t fall victim to it.

    I’ve been dealing with conspiracy theorists for about 8 years now and I’ve seen this pattern from the start. I even decided to keep a list of the multitude of topics my conspiracy theorist friends brought up on the whole “we never went to the moon” thingee. I then debunked each and every item and sent them the list. Once I had debunked everything they had on that topic, they used the pattern to bring up the JFK assassination, the Oklahoma City bombings, etc. without addressing the fact that they were dead wrong on the whole moon thingee.

    It would be amusing if it weren’t so annoying and if it weren’t dividing the country with lies. Knock it off guys – at least do some research from both sides before you go spouting off.

    Sorry for beating around the bush. 😉

  33. Nice spouting there Cronk. In case you haven’t noticed most 9/11 truthers don’t, unless they are serious idiots, cling to one theorist or scientist as the prophet of all that happened on 9/11. Dr. Jones’ work has some merit and some weaknesses, but a point by point refutation of Dr. Jones will not convince most people that 9/11 was not an inside job.

    I came to the conclusion that there were many suspicious elements of 9/11 well before I heard of Dr. Jones. Most people will not work with you to stay on topic because your topic is weak at best. I am not a liar, but I am wiling to admit that I can be mistaken at times. I do research what I say and I do have a graduate level education and have been trained somewhat at research techniques. I do not and will not believe every conspiracy theory out there just because it counters the government’s story.

    Your back and forth converstations with Dr. Jones and even your face to face meetings hold little interest for me because Dr. Jones could be completely wrong, yet that still doesn’t invalidate the amazing quantity of evidence I’ve seen that 9/11 did not occur the way our government says it did. The points I made in my preceeding comments were true and, in and of themselves, show that there is ample evidence to warrant a serious and UNBIASED investigation into 9/11.

    Most people aren’t impressed with a one trick pony and your one trick pony seems to have distracted you from looking at the big picture. The big picture here is that MOST American’s don’t believe the government’s story. To believe such a lie you have to subscribe to an amazing amount of coincidences and overlook a lot of evidence. Some people are naturally predisposed to be skeptical of government and I must confess that I am one of those. Some people are also incapable of looking evil in the eye and clearly identifying it. Let’s all hope they recover before it’s to late.

  34. michael,

    I appreciate your spirit and I think you’d find we agree on a lot of things.

    I have already explained that I have been investigating all aspects of 9/11 for 2 years now – not just Professor Jones.

    I have already explained that I was invited here to talk about my interactions with Professor Jones and so that’s what I’m doing. I had hoped at least one comment on my post would actually deal with the content of the post itself. I guess everyone agrees with it.

    If Professor Jones doesn’t interest you, why are you here?

    I have also already explained, if you read the post, that I choose to take each piece of evidence one at a time and find the root truth of it – if there is any. Then once I have discarded all untruth, I can look at everything together in the bigger picture.

    Most conspiracy theorists I have encountered choose to gloss over a thousand “maybe’s” and claim overwhelming circumstantial evidence as they list everything off without finding out if each of their thousand maybe’s are true or not.

    I invite you to go to the sites I mentioned if you want to learn the rest of the story on the issues you have brought up. If you then want to discuss what you’ve found, go find somewhere to discuss it.

    I also invite you to actually read my original post and actually comment on it if you want to.

  35. 5 ‘Arab looking men’ were reported by witnesses filming and cheering the demise of WTC. Later that day they were apprehended when their white van was stopped by traffic police. In the van was found Arab costumes, the recording they had made, camera, box-cutters and apparently explosive traces. All reported by MSM. – in fact the NYT reported they had set up IN ADVANCE of the attacks. Weeks later they were deported to Israel, where 3 of them appeared on TV. One said ‘Our purpose was to document the event’. Please, if you will, explain how one can prepare to document an event without knowing it is going to happen? And while we are at it, how come Dov Zakheim’s loss of 2.3 trillion dollars from the Pentagon was announced the day before 9/11 when bad news is usually reserved for a friday. In your opinion was this merely a co-incidence? Also that on 911 the investigators into the loss were killed in the Pentagon – was that also a co-incidence?

  36. Even though your comment has nothing to do with the article above, I’ll discuss your topics.

    First, please post links to the original news articles you are referring to. Also post the names of the people who were killed in the pentagon along with their titles and relationship to the investigation into the losses. The article I read about investigation into the losses was in Feb 2002 and they were explaining that it wasn’t lost money, it was money that hadn’t been accounted for and at that time, they had accounted for all but 700 million and that number was still dropping as they reconciled hundreds of accounting systems at the pentagon. That news story is one of the links from Dov S. Zakheim’s wikipedia article.

  37. “My approach has been influenced by all of my interactions with conspiracy theorists in the past. One thing I try to avoid is what I have called the “conspiracy theory pattern”. It goes like this: First, I find some evidence that refutes one of the theory’s supporting facts, next, the defender of the theory essentially avoids the evidence I presented and then brings up several (usually more than five) other facts that supposedly also support the theory.”

    Your approach is fine if you are just satisfied with finding holes or mistakes in someones theory. Doing so does not prove the official conspiracy theory is correct. In fact the defender of the alternative theories are doing to you are what the defenders of the official conspiracy theory are doing to them, and as you say, this is not the correct way to defend a theory.

    There is no single alternative conspiracy theory that everyone agrees on. There are some “facts” that contradict the official conspiracy theory that are supported by most if not of all the 9/11 stories skeptics, and there are others that are not agreed by all or even the majority.

    So when someone presents up to 10 to 100 “facts” which are said contradict the official story, not every “fact” needs to be true to discredit or cast doubt on the official story. Defenders of a theory must support all of their facts.

    So by debunking 1 or more of Steven Jones “facts”, or simply casting doubt on some of them, you may have shown his theory needs be revised, or it may even require scrapping depending on how important the fact was to the theory, but you have not proved the official theory is correct, especially in so far as his facts which have not been debunked were not considered by the official theory or even contradicted the official theory.

    It is now almost 6 years since 9/11, and we do not even know what the official story for the WTC 7 collpase. The world wonders why?

    In the interim, Steven Jones and others develop their own theories. Having watched the video and seen it collapsed at free fall speed into it;s own footprint, and as an engineer, there is only 1 explanation I have heard that makes sense. Critics say the building was severely damaged on 1 side of the building due to debris from the towers and raging fires (where are the pictures? precedent?), but if that was the case, the collapse would not have been symmetrical.

  38. My goal is NOT to defend or prove the official theory correct. My goal IS to do my little part in stomping out obvious falsehoods.

    When it comes to WTC7, as far as I’m concerned, I am dismissing all theories involving demolition simply based on the firefighters’ testimony, including Daniel Nigro and others. There’s just no way to assert demolition without calling them liars or revealing one’s own ignorance.

    Exactly what kind of engineer are you? As for symmetric collapse, which part of the NIST WTC7 interim report description that describes how it could collapse symmetrically do you disagree with?

  39. Anyone who thinks 9/11 was an inside job should wear a tin foil hat 24/7. Only an idiot could believe that.

  40. I think they just believe so strongly that it was an inside job that they choose to twist whatever they find to match that belief – at least that’s what I’ve seen thus far.

    I also think that they get something from this belief. They feel important, smart, popular – like they’re saving everyone from their own ignorance.

    If their real motive were love for the truth at any cost, (this is the key here) then they would change their theories when contradictory evidence is given to them. I haven’t seen them change their theories when I have given them new evidence to consider. They haven’t even looked at it to check it out, they just rejected it to my face without even looking into it.

    So, I think they act more like addicts than idiots – in fact some of them are quite intelligent. They seem to be addicted to the rush of feeling smart and worthwhile as they put their theory out there – rejecting anything that contradicts it. Throwing out their theory would then be throwing out their self-worth, which is too painful. So they end up using the conspiracy theory pattern of avoiding the item being threatened and throwing out a bunch of other items so that their theory/self worth remains unthreatened.

    Of course, maybe I’m wrong – I’m just a software engineer after all, not a psychologist. 🙂

  41. Not only is it idiotic to believe that 9/11 was an inside job one also must believe that there are hundreds if not thousands of people involved and not one of them in this media age is willing to talk about it. Not only that but one is also required to suspend logic and ignore demonstrable facts. Speaking as one from New York who lost colleagues in that evil Islamic terrorist act, I find the suggestion that it was an inside job highly offensive. Clearly only a moron with limited capacity and a predisposition to adore leftist thugs like Soros and Michael Moore would believe it.

  42. I find it moronic that someone would assume that they are going to believe what ever the government says because they have a lot more “intelligence” than regular citizens do.


  43. Your patience for dealing with angry zealots is amazing. You did a great job of exposing the truther modus operandi – never respond, just ask more (stupid) questions. They also have a real big tendency to lie. They know that a point is no longer valid, but they keep repeating it. At least Dr. Jones, from what you posted, didn’t call you a shill.

  44. Yes, Professor Jones was very civil and polite. I hope people will see the truth for what it is but I’ve given up on convincing people. Once they believe strongly enough, there’s no point. This is really for the fence sitters or those who are just starting to look into 9/11.

  45. I am one of the RARE people out there who spent two years believing the conspiracy theories about 911. Basically, it destroyed my life and my happiness. The 911 movies are very convincing only because people dont know the whole facts. What hit the pentagon? Loose Change…why did you not show the giant gaping hole in the pentagon thats in the rest of the photo that you obviously clipped? Alex Jones why have you not told your audience that bin laden and all the rest of them do wear jewelry and watches etc? Why have you not put it out there that mark binghams mom has gone on record to say it was indeed her son and that he did indeed refer to himself as mark bingham? You 911 conspiracy people are destroying lives…like you nearly destroyed mine. THANK GOD for screw loose change and screw 911 mysteries. Sorry to not stick to steven jones here but this is the first post I have made in regards to what I found out AFTER TWO YEARS of conspiracy obsession. It takes heart to admit you have been duped and you were wrong about something like this subject. And I admit to being duped. Misled is a better word. And loose change misleads people. And I SAW IT. I think you all are helping to [mess up] this country of ours up. And I think this [crap] needs to come to an end. We are at war. It isnt helping America. And in closing….Alex Jones I emailed you many times telling you the anti semitism stinks. Even when I thought the 911 thing was real I always hated your anti semitism. And the FLAMING antisemitism of all the rest of the conspiracy theorists. Si verstien WASNT awarded 7 billion. So why has 911 mysteries not corrected that? Why do you not show the whole bin laden video that CLEARLY shows the [idoit]? Im [FRICKIN] SO PISSED that I swallowed your hogwash for so long. You ruined my feelings about my country for over two years. Thats what you are doing to your countrymen. I know. Im your countryman who used to believe you all. In closing…I hope that I am not in the minority of people who have seen the other side of all the arguments and theories and have understood the 911 movement is misleading. So 911 truthers…IT IS YOU WHO NEED TO WAKE THE [FRICKIN] UP!

  46. Wow.
    You must be a fast typist…
    I am also LDS, and Sept 10th I will be in Chicago debating a 9/11 conspirast.
    Hope we can talk about this later,

  1. Pingback: 9/11 « Cronk

  2. Pingback: Straight-down collapse of WTC 7 - what do “debunkers” say? « New York City activist

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: