9/11: The Sensible Doubt

Ratings: 8.10/10 from 40 users.


9/11: The Sensible DoubtWhat happened on September 11, 2001? All over the world, people question the official story and explanation about the events that took place in USA more than 10 years ago.

In this Danish documentary you will meet architect Jan Utzon, MP Benny Engelbrecht, professor Niels Harrit, airline captain Niels Studstrup, journalist Tommy Hansen and artist Jacob Fuglsang.

They will talk about their doubt and skepticism and explain why they have come to feel and think this way. The film is in Danish with English subtitles.

More great documentaries

245 Comments / User Reviews

  1. FlatBaroque

    Two skyscrapers do not collapse on their own footprints.

  2. ZarathustraSpeaks

    Feed the need for an evil empire when we can no longer be stimulated by the real world.

  3. dewflirt

    Short and pointless.

  4. Emily Donelan

    I find it most encouraging to witness the intelligent, aware Danish people each from different fields question what the NEWS reports say is happening on the screen. When one looks at the screen with an open mind, one can see the newscast is following a script and is not reporting at all what is right there in full view on the screen. This information adds to the thousands of other informed, aware people who can not be brainwashed to belief in the official view. I was inVancouver, Canada when this event occurred. I heard the newscast and believed the newcasters view of the event. Later when introduced to the experts on demolition, I saw that it clearly was a demolition event in all 3 WTC buidings. The wars that resulted from this false flag operation will end. We must not allow officials to start other wars for their purposes in future. What was this war for? Clearly not the official story. Let us not be duped again. Lets look at the facts with our own eyes.

  5. oQ

    you mean 3?

  6. signalfire1

    The buildings were nuked with small, low radiation-signature, tactical nuclear weapons. Nothing else explains the evidence including the lack of pancaked floors which should have resulted from any gravity-collapse scenario, the hot, heavy dust pyroclastic flows, the black column of smoke rising from the center as the buildings collapsed which was the heavy steel inner beams being evaporated, the outer beams and aluminum cladding being blown straight outwards with incredible force, or the sustained heat underneath the pile for months, which was residual fission.

    These bombs now come in sizes that could easily have been hidden in the building and set off by remote control. And Osama didn't do it.

    If the government will cravenly lie about 'the air being fit to breathe', they'll lie about it all, won't they? I don't know who is really running the US government, but they're evil incarnate. Look at the people who didn't want an investigation, for starters.

  7. Giacomo della Svezia

    In one of the documentaries I watched on this site one of the owners (at least I thought he was) of building 7 said on television that the building was demolished on purpose. I also think I have a vague remembrance of it from the time it happened (although I am aware of the unreliability of memory).
    The reason that was given for it was that the fire was getting out of control and demolition was the only option left.
    What I found intriguing - to put it mildly - was the fact that such a demolition could be organized at such short notice, where this normally takes many days of preparation.
    I think there is reason enough for all the questions that rose even when it was happening, and the official version of what happened is in conflict with a number of facts and testimonies. I am in favour of a new investigation.

  8. Dean Edgington

    interesting, all you have to do now is prove it.

  9. SurvivorVeteran

    Yes... finding out the truth about 9/11 is pointless...

    Go put your head back in the sand.

  10. David Ewer

    This is an excellent short film with highly believable people talking honestly. Well worth watching. Thanks Vlatko for a great site.

  11. David Ewer

    Like your response?

  12. Far Spam

    Its obvious who was behind 911.

    Unfortunately "they" cannot be accused publicly.

    Ironically the only people who can accuse them publicly are blamed for 911 and are being bombed!

  13. dewflirt

    I don't have a problem with the truth, but most people that watch or appear in these docs already have it in mind that the conspiracy IS the truth. Are either they or the government unbiased enough to conduct any worthwhile investigation? Can't be many people left that don't have an opinion on this one way or another. Nothing in this that I haven't heard in any of the other 911 docs, so yes, pointless. :)

  14. dewflirt

    Is that a question? :)

  15. dmxi

    i believe the standard questions have been answered by non-conformist professionals & overweigh the official report. it's time time to put more effort
    into the money trail & confront the insiders which helped to cover-up.there is always a weak-link (a weaky-leaky, if you will) which hasn't been detected yet. it's utopian to believe that it's all that easy, as the powers to be are well organized & use measures that we wouldn't dream of. an atrocious crime is easier to masquerade than a profane one & the falling towers acted like stakes, poked into the nations eyes, blinding them to the true nature of this horrific act...................mission acclompished!

  16. Giacomo della Svezia

    I agree this short documentary doesn't present new facts. The people in it weren't there and didn't investigate anything.
    The maker claims there is reason enough for another independent investigation of the events - if such a thing were possible -, because these people are filled with unanswered questions and they are presumed to represent all people with common sense. I think they actually do and I have the same doubts as they have.

  17. relament

    Yep, I agree that your comments are pointless, dewflirt.

    It was an excellent documentary! Thanks, TDF:)

  18. fnertz

    That really did not make any sense at all.
    For example, I myself know that there's an evil empire and I feel thoroughly stimulated by the real world.

  19. dewflirt

    I haven't said that there are no unanswered questions. I haven't said that independent enquiry isn't needed. I said the doc was pointless . I also said that an UNBIASED enquiry is all but impossible because everyone has preconceived ideas about what the truth is.

  20. dmxi

    dew is making a valid point due to nothing new being adressed,whereas your comment adresses nothing at all....

  21. dewflirt

    Everyone has doubts but I've yet to hear a reasonable alternative to either the conspiracy or the official version of events.
    This is why I usually steer clear of 911 docs, emotions run high and tempers fray! :)

  22. relament

    All the people in the documentary pose very logical questions, and their point of view is interesting, because I've never heard these particular people give their point of view on the matter. So, unless you know these people personally, then it is "new".

    Whereas you must be too self-involved to realize this, dmxi.

  23. dewflirt

    New people but the same questions. They know no more than most people. Questions are not information, there is no new information in this film, no matter how valid their points are. They are voicing suspicions you share, that doesn't make them true. Or new. :)

  24. Richard

    I like the idea that people all over the world are questioning the spoon "fed" explanation of America's military,politicians, and its corporate leaders. Always question authority...always!

  25. relament

    The documentary is called, "sensible doubt". The description of the film is accurate. Just because you want new information about the 9/11 attacks, doesn't make the interviews in this film pointless. It's a different kind of "information" contained in this documentary.

  26. dewflirt

    They are on the conspiracy band wagon. They did say themselves that anything said against the official facts will be labelled as conspiracy. Other docs on TDF say all that is said here. This is just bland, made for tv chaff. That's my opinion, nothing more. Not worth arguing over :)

  27. Sparky

    Procescute the BUSH FAMILY WAR CRIMINALS!!!

  28. Jack1952

    Rehashed 9/11 conspiracy stuff. Building 7 could not have collapsed that way. Heard it already. Couldn't have been a plane that hit the Pentagon...had to be a missile. Old news. Could never have manoeuvred a plane that way. Heard that too. The guy in the cave could never have led such a plan. I think that was part of a comedy routine.

    Journalism is not surfing the net and reading a few books. If that how this Danish journalist conducts his craft no wonder the other journalists don't take him seriously.

    Danish journalists have never had a thing to fear from Muslim extremists, have they? Are cartoonists considered to be journalists?

    I wish just one of these conspiracy films would do some honest investigative journalism. They just go over the same ground and never get to the meat of the matter. There are thousands of witnesses to interview. Talk to all of them...not just the ones that back up your version. As a matter of fact, don't start out with any version. Start with a clean slate and let the investigation take you where it does. It will never happen though.

  29. Epicurus

    he let it burn down. it did not come down in a controlled explosion.

  30. batvette

    So you're saying the entire news media is in on the conspiracy, and everything they broadcast is a scripted fiction meant to deceive you.
    This would entail tens of thousands of individuals to do. Why would they do this? What would make them want to participate in mass murder and the destruction of our freedoms?
    All the people on the ground in New York- the entire city- people who filmed and photographed it at the very least, are they all in on the conspiracy as well?
    "We must not allow officials to start other wars for their purposes in future. What was this war for? Clearly not the official story."
    You know it was for something else but can't imagine what it was.
    Why have we been at war in Afghanistan, if not because we were attacked on 9/11?

  31. batvette

    Ask questions.

    Recognize answers.

    Do not keep asking them in different ways or have others ask them again.

    I can answer virtually- no I think I can say absolutely- any question you could ask about 9/11, given a few minutes on Google. You will simply reject the answers. They won't come from me, they've all been answered before. This is related to the "scientific method" fault with truthers. They believe not understanding or mocking the prevailing hypothesis disproves it. I've asked many truthers, refer to the NIST report on the towers, what specific part of this report do you have a problem with? All of them, to the last one, not only had never seen the document but refuse to look at it, saying "it's from the government, it's full of lies".
    This basic lack of understanding how science comes to its conclusions is why when it comes to qualified professionals with the credentials to present a serious case about 9/11 conspiracies, those questioning the official story number in the lowest single figure percentiles.

    If Richard Gage's group membership is an indicator it's a fraction of one percent. Not that being on the fringe seems to bother truthers.

    Note how a viewer at the bottom of the page asks what these wars were about- then insists they were started for reasons other than stated. Who believes that is a qualified position to take against a consensus?

    So what is this documentary? Because it has seemingly intelligent people with scientific backgrounds who can speak in complete coherent sentences, yet has no new evidence, it's supposed to be notable?

    IMO it's more evidence truthers just don't get it. In anticipation of a barrage of comments implying how much more enlightened you all are, does anyone want to present a truther written scientific analysis/rebuttal of the NIST report on the collapse of the towers? Better yet one published in a professional journal?

  32. jeffroko

    I think the fact that people are still talking about 9/11 and getting the word out to audiences that may not want to watch a 2 hour doc in English is encouraging. Maybe some of the fiends who (probably) covered up and/or destroyed evidence leading to a scientific investigation will be put behind bars. Or maybe SEAL team 6 could pay THEIR palaces a little visit.

  33. rufusclyde

    The United States has been following a policy of surrounding China, the principle economic rival of the US, and Russia, with military bases. In addition US policy has entailed military action in accordance with a strategy of de-stabilizing or jeopardizing energy corridors to China. Iran is potentially a tremendously valuable source of hydrocarbons for China, and Iran is bordered by Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which have been occupied by the US. This strategy of occupying energy choke-points has also coincided with the construction of Camp Bondsteel, which sits astride the vital "corridor 8" energy route into Western Europe, a corridor that would carry vital energy supplies from the Caspian basin, reputed to be one of the richest hydro-carbon sources in the world. The territory of Afghanistan lies on a route that could have carried supplies of Caspian gas from Turkmenistan to the Indian ocean.
    Given this policy of strategic military action in relation to China and Russia, and given Aghanistan's relation to this strategy, perhaps the war in Afghanistan has something to do with this particular strategy. Given the fact that the 19 hi-jackers of 2001 fame resided in the US and Germany among other places, and the fact that the Taliban government of Afghanistan offered to turn over Bin Laden were proof of his culpability for the terror attacks provided, and given the fact that the 19 were Saudis and a few other non-Afghan arabs, it is not clear what the war in Afghanistan has to do with the 2001 attacks.

  34. rufusclyde

    Your allegation that people believe that not understanding the prevailing hypothesis disproves it seems highly improbable. What evidence do you have that people hold this belief?

  35. batvette

    1. From the other content of her post we can be sure this person doesn't know about any of that, the point of my question to her was not to reveal such complex information but to point out her logical fallacy in asserting it could not be for the stated reason but not knowing another.
    2. We're no longer occupying Iraq and won't be occupying Afghanistan much longer, and China has many options for energy that would be possible. While I can't say this is or isn't the case it's kind of silly because if they did that then this was for the long term good of America, not the personal plundering of Cheney and Bush.
    If the intent is thus the long term good of America why do it so destructively as 9/11, and waging unjust wars?
    3. "the fact that the Taliban government of Afghanistan offered to turn over Bin Laden "
    I distinctly recall they said they would protect him as a guest in their house.

  36. David Hartley

    Could I just ask you, as you seem to know the Nist report well, to explain how the official story works for you? I have not read the report myself but have seen works by others that have, they too, as with yourself have read the report from cover to cover and yet they find problems. Perhaps you could just re-emphasise the salient points and give us a brief statement about why it is true.

    An article I enjoyed was Gordon Ross' Momentum Transfer in WTC 1, he also has a youtube video posted.

  37. batvette

    Now I know you're just here to troll. They may not know they are of this belief. The vast majority display it in their arguments.
    "How did building 7 fall when it wasn't hit by a plane?"

    Done. Please do not disguise any more willful ignorance behind a facade of a seemingly intelligent question.

  38. batvette

    No I'm not going to explain why the NIST report works for me, just to have you look for a hole in my analysis that isn't in the report itself.
    Precursory inspection of Ross' theory show it's a fairly preposterous notion: He suggests rather than explosives placed all over the buildings, there were carefully placed charges put in very precise positions at or below the floors where the planes hit.
    He never claims the planes were not hijacked and piloted by Arab Muslims.
    It's absurd because had the planes hit just a floor or two higher or lower his theory doesn't work. At 500 mph they were lucky to hit the buildings, placing the impacts at an exact floor is near impossible.
    His theory also falls flat by claiming the angular cuts in the debris mean they were part of the collapse when it's been proven the angular cuts were made by demo torches long after.
    Occam and his razor screamed when they saw his theory.

  39. FlatBaroque

    False choice. There was no reason for them to come down, in frigging identical fashion no less.

  40. Jack1952

    The government knows how to make gravity pull sideways. They have technology unheard of in the normal world we live in. I've seen a film which quite believably proposes that the crashes were holograms and that the twin towers were hollow. Believable in a fictional kind of way...like a James Bond movie.

  41. Jack1952

    Do you have specific documents and evidence to prove your allegation of the encirclement of China? Or is this retrospective in nature...postulating American policy by observing disconnected news stories? I would think China would be screaming its indignation if this was such an obvious policy.

    The Taliban offered to turn over Bin Laden to a third party, if that party could be proven not to be susceptible to American pressure and only if proof could be offered that Bin Laden was guilty. Americans rejected it because to them it would have been another place of asylum for Bin Laden.

    Afghanistan was the refuge of many non Afghan Muslims left over from the war with the Soviet Union. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bin Laden offered his militia to the Saudi government to protect Arabia from the Iraqis. Bin Laden believed that they had brought down the mighty Soviet Union and were a world wide force to be reckoned with. The Saudis not only refused his help (he was a wanted man in Arabia) but allowed the infidel American military on sacred Arabian soil. This enraged Bin Laden and prompted his call for war against the West. He wasn't going to instigate this war by having his operatives live in Afghanistan. They had to infiltrate and go to the places they sought to harm. The head of the organization resided in Afghanistan. There was nowhere else to go if you wanted to capture him.

  42. Jack1952

    Any casual observation of the towers collapsing shows them beginning to fall at the point where the planes hit the towers. If the section above the crash site fell into the tower still standing, would this standing structure resist the top section, causing it to bounce off and fall to the side? Or would the standing structure collapse under the weight of the falling top and be annihilated from the top down in what some call its own footprint?

    In reality, it didn't fall only into its own footprint. If you go to the site offered by Kim Bruce, debunking9/11, and click on the World Trade Centre 7 option you will find a picture of the damage done by steel girders to the Bankers Trust building. There are steel girders lying on the ground, away from the base of the towers and even in-bedded into the side of the Bankers Trust tower. So much for the "in its own footprint" theory.

  43. David Hartley

    However I pointed to a hypothesis that made me think and you ignored much of it's information only to punch holes in it.

    Ross' and others work on the disintegration of the top section and therefore the section not being available to create the energy needed to act on the rest of the building is very interesting. If you have a view on that I really would be interested.

  44. David Hartley

    Thought I'd put up part of the conclusion of his examination. The work on elastic and plastic stages i found really interesting. One could perhaps sum it up a little crudely and say within a short time the top section would have bounced off.

    "The energy balance of the collapse moves into deficit during the plastic shortening phase of the first impacted columns showing that there would be insufficient energy available from the released potential energy of the upper section to satisfy all of the energy demands of the collision. The analysis shows that despite the assumptions made in favour of collapse continuation, vertical movement of the falling section would be arrested prior to completion of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted columns, and within 0.02 secondsafter impact.

    A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point."

  45. Jack1952

    I read this article and it was interesting, but it really isn't evidence. We like to believe that we know how something is going to happen but there are so many variables involved that how can we definitively say that it must happen this way. Even if it is proven to be true, it is only a starting point. We still don't have the perpetrators. We now have to establish a timeline. A timeline that outlines the planning stages, preparation, implementation, supply requisition, personnel involved, personnel background files and where they were leading to crashes, a lot of legwork to do. That is what the 9/11 commission and the FBI have done. They detailed the actions of the 19 hijackers right through the attacks. I want someone to do more than analyse video and solve structural anomalies with their slide-rules and go out and establish a plausible explanation and timeline for who they believe are the real criminals in this crime. Until then it remains an "it doesn't seem right" type of accusation. No real substance, whatsoever, and no one to place before a grand jury.

  46. Giacomo della Svezia

    You're right about emotions and tempers. :
    I watch stuff like this with a healthy dose (I hope) of scepticism and found many of the documentaries about 9/11 unconvincing. A long time ago I watched a documentary that debunked a lot of the allegations in a way that did convince me, but not everything.

  47. David Hartley

    I agree, but would emphasise that all known physics tell us what did not happen. As to the sideways ejections, some of which were many tons, this also speaks of energy being put into the collapse.

  48. Omniscience

    Reading the comments below leads me to the conclusion that some of the 'commenters' are provocateurs or agents of the government trying to confuse or disrupt any sort of consensual alternative contrary to the official government explanation. Answering questions with questions, referring to documents & commissions that were created by the same sources of the official story only stagnates the revelation of truth. IT IS NOT THE JOB of those who question holes in the official story to prove what really happened. IT IS THE JOB of those who released the official story to explain why there are errors in it. Lies have to be proven while the truth can withstand vigorous research. In a court of law you only need reasonable doubt to acquit so why should it be different in a court of public opinion?

  49. rufusclyde

    The multitude of news stories describing the events that entail the enactment of US policy toward China are not disconnected, as they are by defintion connected by their common subject matter. Strange framing of your question. Clearly observations of US military activity would be retrospective in nature. One can't make observations of prospective actions, as they have not taken place. Again, curious framing of the question.
    How do you know that Bin Laden believed that "they" were a world wide force? Is there evidence that Bin Laden was misinformed about the assets available to "them"?
    Prior to the US air assault on Afghanistan the Taliban offered to try bin Laden. This offer was refused. After the US Air Force had begun bombing Afghanistan, the Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over to a neutral country. This offer was also refused. And of course, in the end, no evidence that capturing bin Laden was a goal. The account of his demise that was eventually distilled out gives no indication that capture was a desired outcome. And of course, that final operation didn't take place in Afghanistan.
    Leaving the question of why Afghanistan was invaded very much open to debate.

  50. rufusclyde

    You plainly stated that people believe that not understanding the hypothesis disproves it. Your statement describes a belief of causation, specifically that the lack of understanding causes the disproving of the hypothesis. Whether or not people understand the NIST hypothesis, what evidence do you have that people believe that failing to understand the hypothesis serves to disprove the hypothesis?
    Your statement is highly implausible, and you call me a troll? Initially I thought perhaps you were up to some "cognitive infiltration", but it is becoming clear that you're just misinformed and incapable of conveying consistent ideas. "The government invaded Iraq to deal with complex economic issues that affect National Security and misrepresented their aims with the WMD scheme, although they also had to stop Saddam from gassing the Kurds, even though the gassing wasn't taking place anymore because they didn't have any WMDS. And also Saddam wanted to prove what a man he was. But Afghanistan was invaded because bin Laden attacked the US from there, although he was justified in that because US policy was killing Iraqi babies. And the official justification for the Afghan invasion is to be taken at face value. But not the Iraqi story, which had to be tailored for "Mom and Pop". And the UN.
    Carry on von Metternich.

  51. rufusclyde

    The fact that the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 failed to produce a compliant vassal does not negate the fact that this was a desired outcome. A vast proportion of the population did not welcome the US troops as liberators, as is borne out by the fact that most US casualties have occurred since the fall of the Baathists. This failure resulted in a shifting set of circumstances and desired outcomes. The country has been left divided and incapable of sovereign action. Neither China nor Russia can use the current Iraqi state as a strategic asset. While the policy of isolating China and Russia continues unabated, the current phase entails the 'Balkanization' of states that do not comply with the US strategy. Lybia has been subjected to this, Iraq and currently Syria.
    That statement about China's energy options is very vague. Would you like to try again with that one?

  52. slpsa

    This subject is in my realm of expertise. I think many of you know, I am an engineer and have been for over 3 decades, approaching 4. Structural engineering was my forte, until I switched over to the mining industry. Without going over all I have said about this topic, I will make it short and to the point. The governing laws of gravity cannot be changed for one day, no matter who is telling the story. Buildings, do not, and cannot fall this way without something to remove the material underneath them. Furthermore, jet fuel cannot burn hot enough, even with office furnishings present, to melt or warp structural steel. Those small facts alone, should spell it out to those who livings are not relevant to buildings, construction of buildings, building code or fire protection. I sleep well at night knowing this was a setup. Everyone who thinks the official story is true, only thinks that because they have not much of a clue, how buildings as big as the WTC towers are put together and how safety measures are built into them. The best doc on this subject is an editors pick, and the people who are mostly speaking in it, are my coworkers and brothers in the trade. In fact, the gentleman from Las Vegas is someone I have worked with and spoken to before. This man is not open to conspiracy, you only need to watch the doc to know he talks what he knows. The man is a walking brain and someone I have looked up to for many years. I know from decades of experience that the official story is bunk of the highest order. I am 100 per cent certain, that those buildings were brought down with explosives. Thermite to be exact. Who did it, and why, I leave to others to figure out. I only know what I do for a living allows me to make that call. There is not a chance, anyone will convince me otherwise, until my dying day. Someone did this on purpose, the world has changed over it, that part is what makes me sad. Why is the question i will have, until someone finally admits the truth.

  53. batvette

    Why, pray tell, would they not come down in identical fashion, when they were identical buildings subjected to identical events?
    The only difference was that one collapsed much quicker, due to the fact the impact zone was lower leaving a greater mass above the area of failure. That very difference is even more evidence of the official story being obviously true.

  54. batvette

    Well being the government they have their own laws of physics, if they aren't enough to facilitate their evil plans they just pass new ones.

  55. slpsa

    Schills are not new, and have been trolling the net, since Sept 11th, 2001, on someones payroll, to say these ridiculous things. I dismiss them immediately, do yourself a favor and do the same. They talk out their arseholes all day long, but know 0 about physics or engineering.

  56. batvette

    Mass is mass. That's my view on that.
    There would not be significant disintegration of the building as it fell, being a mostly steel and aluminum structure. Only the floors were concrete. Then you have the building contents. (though the upper structure WAS torn into smaller pieces as the collapse occurred, they still retained their mass and as a dynamic load overwhelmed the lower structure's ability to support it)

  57. slpsa

    Jack, since this subject is in my sphere of knowledge, again with all due respect I always afford you, it was a 70 meter damage radius. A forty two story skyscraper making a 70 meter damage radius is in effect " in its own footprint ". In fact, it was artwork to bring that building down that way it fell, no other building that size has ever been dropped. Whoever did it, is the best on the planet, bar none. Without going into technicalities, numbers and figures, Jack my friend, it was dropped into a neat little pile as far as 42 story buildings go. I would not BS you man, I respect you too much and your opinions as well.

  58. batvette

    " If the section above the crash site fell into the tower still standing, would this standing structure resist the top section, causing it to bounce off and fall to the side? "

    Pretty sure that's where most truthers are going with that and it's nonsense. especially since when the collapse initiated on both it did begin as a "toppling" or diagonally pivotal motion.
    As soon as the "box" as it were is subjected to this diagonal force it tears itself to pieces, with all the pieces falling toward the ground. Many of the pieces of various size and shape were then left to altered paths of travel. The hole torn into building 7 was over 20 floors high, 1/3 the width of the building and 1/4 of the depth into it. If that were a controlled demolition "falling into its own footprint" the demo company would be driven out of the business.

  59. slpsa

    " there were carefully placed charges put in very precise positions at or below the floors where the planes hit "

    Precisely how you demo a building. There is no other way to remove the material underneath the impact zone to have it free fall the way all three buildings did. The fundamental laws of physics say so. They cannot be changed, ever, by anyone, or anything.

  60. batvette

    Simple visual review of the initiation of the collapse on video shows his hypothesis is in error. The floor at the impact zone saw its outer columns bulge outward noticeably, the floor failed and the upper structure moved 3 meters. This momentum was not arrested as he claims and there were no explosions audibly or visually evident at that moment to support his "four stages" theory.

  61. slpsa

    I could identify about 20 problems with NIST's report. Albeit, I already have shot many holes in that report, most that unless you are an engineer, you would have 0 grasp of what I would be saying, unless I dumb it down for you, so have thousands upon thousands of my colleagues over the last decade. You can believe what you wish, as many do. The people who design, build and construct buildings of this type are the ones that know the facts. The facts are, no building, can fall like these three did, without explosives. Not a soul can change that fact, especially all the net experts who seem to know more than people who work in the associated fields.

  62. slpsa

    Oh by the way, what you ask for has been done about 100 times. Apparently experts in their fields are not qualified by your standards. Fair enough, sit in the dark and wonder.

  63. batvette

    " Until then it remains an "it doesn't seem right" type of accusation."

    That's probably the best short summary I've heard yet, and it's in line with what I said to another viewer:

    "This is related to the "scientific method" fault with truthers. They believe not understanding or mocking the prevailing hypothesis disproves it."

    They believe if they don't know the mechanics of this structural failure then something additional had to have been done. Fueled by strong hatred of Bush or distrust of government, or belief they were lied to about wars (again out of ignorance or driven by emotions on that) that must have been the additional factor.
    Their own ignorance of engineering, or even foreign policy, becomes proof against the conspirators, it sounds callous to even say it but I think some do display that.

  64. slpsa

    In your mind maybe. Scientifically, that is pure BS. Please, show us your engineering degree, along with your fire protection certificates, your demolitions certifications, as well as any buildings you have constructed, designed, and last but not least, what 42, and twin 110 story buildings you have wired up for demolition.

  65. slpsa

    What about people like me? What is your excuse for certified, veteran engineers calling it what is was? A demo...What label will you put on myself and other experts? Truthers? Hardly. Reality based experts is close, but I am sure you can come up with some sort of funny name for us.

  66. slpsa

    Concrete, turned to the consistency of talcum powder from a collapse? Not possible, not even maybe. In this universe anyways.

  67. slpsa

    Anyways, my blood pressure goes up every time this subject comes up. I tire of suffering uneducated fools once again. The people who know what this was, good on you, your right. Those who believe this was a terrorist attack and that fire destroyed those buildings, I feel pity for you. I can imagine tying your shoes in the morning must be hard work.

  68. batvette

    Oh that is one that reaches the level of comedy, anyone who disagrees with you on the conspiracy must have been paid by the conspirators to do so.

    " IT IS NOT THE JOB of those who question holes in the official story to prove what really happened. IT IS THE JOB of those who released the official story to explain why there are errors in it. Lies have to be proven while the truth can withstand vigorous research. In a court of law you only need reasonable doubt to acquit so why should it be different in a court of public opinion?"

    That is perhaps the most confused and conflicting statement I have seen in a long time.

    The accusations you people are leveling against the conspirators are what need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

    There are no errors in the official story. Truthers have pointless questions they mistake as evidence, that have virtually all been answered before. They don't like the answers so keep asking the same questions.

    (when I say there are no errors I am not saying there are not instances of negligence or lapses in the government's response or earlier investigations that need to be addressed. There is ample evidence of design and maintenance issues in the fireproofing and construction of the towers that could even be called criminally negligent for instance. For these "errors" or failures there are almost to the last one explanations for them however)

    As Jack1952 implied with different words, you're going to have to put a whole case together against the conspirators, showing when and how they planted "explosives", disposed of the passengers in the planes they replaced with holograms or missiles, or whatever variation each of you pursues, to have a viable alternative theory. A complete presentation, not merely poking a hole in the official version. It would surely fall to pieces upon scrutiny, the same scrutiny the official story has been subjected to.

    I'll conclude by saying it's probable you believe people like me are agents of the government because you feel your position is noble to reveal criminal wrongdoing, to get to the truth, and may not understand why others would stand in the way of this. Why would I be motivated to oppose you? On our side of the street, after seeing there is no real evidence to keep this agenda of yours in motion, it damages our country's reputation worldwide and gives fuel to those around the world who would like to see us toppled from our position as number one. It's essentially shooting us all in the foot, additionally we have a hundred thousand young Americans still fighting the real perpetrators or those who share their ideology. Why fuel their ideology? Some of you think the "get Bush" agenda can only hurt Bush or Cheney but the rest of the world sees wars AMERICA started and aren't so immersed in our politics they would limit their sentiments to him. Some simply know better and are looking for any excuse to treat us with contempt. We've been on the top of the heap for a while, it's only natural for them to want to do that.

    Shooting us all in the foot is the best way I can summarize it.
    Like we're all on a life raft adrift at sea, with America's image and fortunes fading from the era the world applauded our involvement stopping evil dictators- and truthers are in the corner with an ice pick stabbing at the floor. Yes i'm motivated to fight it.

  69. dmxi

    "Whereas you must be too self-involved to realize this, dmxi."
    well,it takes one to know one!

  70. batvette

    The ideas which are conveyed in these discussions, that there is no evidence of anything outside the official story of 9/11, and that removing Saddam and invading Iraq was just and necessary, have unerring consistency.
    Your perversion of my statements to form comically contradictory positions that are not my own, are what they are.
    von Mitternich, LOL. If I could only have a bit of the action he got with the fairer sex in his day, I'd appreciate the reference.

  71. batvette

    "The fact that the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 failed to produce a compliant vassal does not negate the fact that this was a desired outcome. A vast proportion of the population did not welcome the US troops as liberators, as is borne out by the fact that most US casualties have occurred since the fall of the Baathists. "

    Which could be assumed to be evidence of my theory Iraq was used as a trap to lure Al Qaeda terrorists, to come kill Americans at a time and place of our choosing. Additionally for our energy policy, since we can't dictate who the Iraqis award contracts to, having it in a disarray may be to our benefit.

    "That statement about China's energy options is very vague. Would you like to try again with that one?"

    You seem to be an intelligent individual, why would you ask me to do your homework for you? China and Russia share significant border real estate and have been engaged in much energy commerce. China needs energy, Russia needs capital. It's absurd to think we could block all points of energy import, just the one I mention is sufficient.
    Your argument requires complete ignorance of geography and breaking news. You do realize they are now constructing a 15 million metric ton crude oil pipeline between the two countries? That Russia can import electricity to them directly?

  72. rufusclyde

    So you are back to a secret motive, ie. the luring of "al Qaeda terrorists" into the sovereign state of Iraq, whereupon a massive combined Air/Ground military operation using hundreds of billions of dollars worth of equipment and ordinance, and costing the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, not to mention US personnel, was undertaken under the guise of disarming the Baathists, and yet you have offered this up in the context that the official motive for the invasion of Afghanistan, the 2001 atttacks, should be taken at face value. Loop-de-loop.
    To the best of my knowlege, one exports, rather than imports to a foreign country. As for the overall strategy, the US occupies key strategic geographical positions in the former Soviet states such as Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. The US has also developed a military relationship with Mongolia, currently maintains a massive miltary presence in Japan and on the Korean peninsula.
    These military arrangements would afford the means to rapidly and effectively disrupt the transit of energy between China and Russia. It is illogical to think that China's energy needs could be met through one source in the event of a more overt conflict with the US. Were Russian energy adequate for China's demand, China would not be competing in Africa and the many other regions in which they currently pursue energy. Great Britain's control of nitrates afforded the empire continued dominance over rivals who could not manufacture explosives and propellants without the raw material. Energy choke-points are the basis for military strategy all over the world. Do you think these strategies are followed because it is impossible to harm an enemy by limiting or eliminating access to resources?

  73. rufusclyde

    Unfortunately, I did not pervert your statement. You asserted that people believe that their lack of understanding of the official hypotheses disproves the hypotheses. I cannot help it if you can't take responsibility for your inability to communicate in an effective manner. That bit about unerring consistency and justice is a non sequitor. I have no doubt though, that you struggle mightily with getting play with women.

  74. rufusclyde

    In light of the deaths of 1/5 of the population of North Korea, Curtis Lemay having taken credit on behalf of the US for this massive murder between 1950-53, the deaths of 3 million Vietnamese between 1960 and 1975, the overthrow by the US of governments in Guatemala, Iran, Indonesia and many other countries, it is not realistic to refer to an era when "the world applauded our involvement stopping evil dictators". This era never existed. The World consists of a billion people in China who populate the country that fought the US in Korea. It consists of millions of people who suffered under US-backed regimes in Central and South America. It consists of millions of Africans who live on the continent where Apartheid South Africa partnered with Israel to develop atomic weapons while the US backed Israel to the hilt. The best you can come up with is regurgitated propaganda that everybody is already exposed to the moment they turn on their televisions? Lazy.

  75. batvette

    I was talking about WW2. Everything since, what, are you sorry we won the Cold War? All were part of it. Have a nice day comrade.

  76. batvette

    Did you publish your professionally qualified opinions in a peer review journal? Have you rallied your colleagues to join you and do the same?

  77. batvette

    I don't need to produce any such credentials. I need only point out that the vast majority, something like 99% of them* approve the official story.

    *if one takes membership in Gage's group, discounts those with mere engineering degrees in unrelated fields, the numbers are barely 1/10 of 1 percent even.

    Again if you have these qualifications there are professional avenues you could pursue to get the word out. Have you?

  78. batvette

    I might add that if the 110 story towers were really "wired for demolition" you'd have found blasting caps and remote detonator fragments blown all over lower Manhatten. The debris from ground zero was picked through with a fine tooth comb for human remains and no such evidence was found. Most of it remains in the Fresh Kills landfill.

  79. batvette

    China and Russia scored the biggest share of Iraq's oil contracts. Russia and China are building an enormous pipeline between them.
    Your conspiracy theory is absurd.

  80. rufusclyde

    Again, no such era existed. The US intermittently backed the Kuomintang forces that fought the Chinese, so the US was certainly not viewed as a force that overthrew dictators in that population. The US backed France in Indo-china, so they're out. The US backed Great Britain, who ruled India, so they're out. So much for your world in love with America, post-WW2 or in any other era. Nice red-baiting slag to top off your inept back-peddling.

  81. batvette

    you didn't respond to my point though, it's that his theory requires the planes to impact an exactly predetermined spot right above these preplanted charges. As the theory does not include precisely controlled aircraft with remote piloting systems with incredibly advanced accuracy, but planes flown by muslims to do so, which did impact at greatly differing spots on each tower, it's a tall tale to posit.
    There is a detailed report by a 757 avionics engineer out there that pretty much blows holes in any theory of remotely piloted aircraft.
    As for your physics laws, of course that's true, but what do the charges really do that heating the steel which greatly reduces their strength, and removing columns by plane impact, does not? You've simply removed some load bearing capacity of the floor of the structure.
    The NIST report has all the calculations to determine that what really happened was sufficient to accomplish what he is saying required explosives.
    The fireproofing was inadequate, poorly applied and neglected to begin with. (fireproofing had been observed to be peeling off columns in 3 story long sheets in previous inspections due to improper prep- sprayed right over surface rust) Corrosion may have been a factor on column strength as well, with dissimilar metal contact on exterior columns in an ocean proximate environment. Whole floors of building contents were instantly ignited and burned for a sustained period of time, with the fireproofing knocked off many critical structural parts. The buildings didn't stand a chance. There is no conspiracy, just a perfect storm.

  82. batvette

    "so have thousands upon thousands of my colleagues over the last decade."

    And they've expressed those opinions in professional publications in their respective industries? If so, can you provide some examples?

  83. batvette

    Don't hold back your sneering hatred and contempt for democracy and freedom of speech pushed down the throats of the Che Guevara faithful. Tell us how you really feel. America is far from perfect but every regime we opposed represented authoritarian, closed societies of horrible repression and corruption, portrayed as "for the people".
    Just like Saddam's Iraq.
    No apologies on our part for winning the cold war are necessary or will ever be forthcoming.

  84. rufusclyde

    Nice try with the strawman. I haven't put forth any conspiracy theory whatsoever. Did you have evidence that the US has not formed an axis of strategic military assets running from Georgia to Turkmenistan? Is it a false assertion that the US has military partnerships with Mongolia and a sixty-five-year presence in Japan and on the Korean peninsula? Your assertion that Iraq was invaded in order to draw in the "al Qaeda" fighters you claim constituted a minority portion of the force that attempted to repel the invasion, is very much a conspiracy theory, as it implies that the 2003 invasion was intended to provoke this incursion of foreign fighters rather than to disarm the Baath regime as was stated by the US government as justification for the invasion.
    Between 1973 and 2003 no Western oil companies operated in Iraq, now ExxonMobil and BP are there. That was a funny maneuevre, implying that the Chinese and Russian presence were the development of the war, rather than the emerging Western presence. Loop-de-loop!

  85. rufusclyde

    Another strawman. Do you mean horrible repression and corruption like Iran-contra, the Savings and Loan scandal, BCCI, Watergate, the Gulf of Tonkin fraud, the bail-out after the fraudulent inflation of CDS's and mortgage-backed securities, segregation, and the murder of millions of asians through aerial bombardment?

  86. 510naf

    I'm into this about 1:30 seconds and it occurs that some folk just don't want to believe, "the", western power could be vulnerable to such an as attack as 9/11, from such an inconsequential force.

  87. Paul MacLeod

    What about all the pools of molten metal at ground zero, that were still there over 6 weeks later? What about Building 7 and the molten metal being recorded there? It wasn't hit by a plane so how did molten metal get there? Only one type of explosive causes motlen metal and large quantities of black dust and that is Thermite. Aluminium oxide burns real hot and bright creates a thick dust once combusted, imagine that scaled up! Thermite it also explains the angular cuts made to the core collumns, you know that picture of what remained of the core collumns sticking out of the debris, they look like someone took a swipe at them with a Lightsaber!
    According to offical statments they didn't find very much in the debris of the Twin Towers but they did manage to find one of the apparent hijackers passports!?! How they hell is that possible!? And the official reports don't include the molten metal whatsoever!
    What about the witness accounts of people in the basment of The Twin Towers hearing and feeling an explosion above them that pinned them to the deck then the plane impacted the building, then these people trying to escape the smoke and fire in the basment they cross to the other tower and it happens all over again! Big explosion above them then the second plane hits!
    What about the apparent Plane that hit the Pentagon? Where is the footage of that, where's all the CCTV footage? Don't tell me they weren't pointed in the right direction!?! Then the rapid clean up of the Pentagon where any forensic evidence was quite literally covered up! Offical reports say that they could identify the passengers of the plane that hit the Pentagon by their DNA, finger prints and/or dental records but nothing of the plane remained because, official reports say, the intense heat from buring jet fuel vaporised the entire plane, including the giant turbines made from an aluminium and titanium alloy, what kind of fire can vaporise an entire plane but leave human remains behind?!
    How about comparing the Shanksville crash site with other plane crashes? The Shanksville site is a bit lacking in debris and by comparison with, say the Lockerby crash site, the Shanksville crash site looks like a small impact crater not a plane crash site.
    Why weren't these planes challenged in the air by the Airforce? Why didn't NORAD commit fighter planes to stop these disasters from happening in some of the most highly resrticted airspaces in the World and we are supposed to believe that some dude in a cave on the other side of the globe orchestrated this?!

  88. batvette

    I'm sorry your attention span is so short you cannot comprehend the concept of more than one reason to invade Iraq.
    Call it conspiracy theory if you like, the benefit is a fact. Doubt they didn't expect it.

  89. batvette

    And you know about, and can freely criticize, these events how?
    During the cold war an American journalist could expect a Pulitzer prize for an expose on his government's misdeeds abroad. His Soviet counterpart could expect a trip to the Gulags. You should direct your contempt toward more deserving "evil" entities.

  90. rufusclyde

    So the US government expected a massive insurgency when they claimed that they would be welcomed as liberators? That seems kind of duplicitous, no? But again, the issue is your assertion that this subterfuge did take place, in contrast to your assertion that subterfuge did not underly the officialy justification for invading Afghanistan. Once more, you go for the strawman, alleging that the issue is my attention span and my inability to comprehend the complexities of your claims. As to whether it was a benefit, that would really depend on who you are claiming benefitted. Iran certainly benefitted from the elimination of the Baath regime. KBR seems to have benefitted. The tens of thousands of dead Iraqis didn't benefit so much.

  91. rufusclyde

    More strawmen. No American journalist recieved a Pulitzer for exposing CIA involvement in the overthrow of Guatemala, in fact the US media was enlisted in the effort. Who was the US journalist who won the Pulitzer for exposing No Gun Ri sixty years ago? Likewise, no US journalist received such an award for reporting on the CIA overthrow of Mossadegh. No US journalist received a Pulitzer for reporting on the CIA inteference in Italian politics going back sixty-five years. Which US journalist won the Pulitzer for exposing Gulf of Tonkin back in '65? Seymour Hersh did win an award for writing about Mi Lai, but those few score deaths were a drop in the bucket compared to 50 000 dead in targeted executions from Operation Phoenix. Strawmen and red-baiting seem to be the extent of your repertoire when your childish regurgitation of propaganda is challenged.

  92. rufusclyde

    I just watched the first 1:30 to see what might give you that feeling, but there is no mention of the western powers, no mention of anything other than the man's puzzlement at the collapse of the building. What a funny comment for you to make, although very much in keeping with the propaganda narrative that people's disbelief of the official story is rooted in their inability to accept that arabs could have pulled it off. Wrong spot for you to deploy that one.

  93. wald0

    Wow, so that is your defense of America's clearly immoral, unethical, and at times even criminal actions, that 1960's Russia was worse or that other countries also commit horrible acts? Since when did the fact that everyone is guilty of something make that something excusable? Yes there have been and still are horrible acts committed all around the world by various countries, but that in no way means others have no right to criticize the U.S. for those same actions. Especially when the U.S. government tries to sell the idea constantly that we are supposed to be some kind of moral example to the rest of the globe that provides effective moral, economic, and geo-political leadership.

  94. batvette

    "Seymour Hersh did win an award for writing about Mi Lai"

    That's all you needed to say. To the rest, blah, blah, blah. About what it's worth.

    Oh and we didn't overthrow Mossadegh. We tried and failed, ultimately it was the Iranians disgusted by the realization of his failed policies.
    The CIA took credit for something they could never have done when their agency was on the chopping block after Bay of Pigs and unanswered questions about JFK's death. At that time Iran was a success story, they didn't know what would happen over a decade later. If it makes America look bad you people slurp it up without scrutiny, it's the only event where you would accept the CIA's story about anything.

  95. Jack1952

    I must appreciate and respect your expertise also but I also must consider that there are those in your field who would disagree with your conclusions. It is inevitable in any discussion among experts on any given subject. I find that your questions about the collapse of these buildings to be quite compelling and the only reason I would investigate further. It is when I dig deeper that I find problems with the controlled collapse scenario. The big problem being, I find it difficult to believe that a demolition team could set the charges in place in three buildings and not have a single witness who has seen them at work. My experience at different work places has shown me that when any type of renovation, construction work is being done, the curious have to come over to see what is going on. Its something to break up the monotony of work, something to talk about at break time. Yet, I have heard of no one that has come forward to state that strange renovations were being done. If that type of witness could be found, there would be dates, possible companies involved. This would lead to other areas of investigation. The "truthers" have not done this. Its like I said in an other comment. Analysing video footage and discussing building collapse scenarios is not enough to build a case. It is a starting point. That's all.

    I have not even offered the missing planes along with their passengers and crew, the fellow employees of the crew, those who spoke to those on the planes, the passenger lists with the hijacker's names on them and video footage of them at the airports, the evidence of Bin Laden's open hostility towards the West, the buildings collapsing at the exact location of the crash site, just to name a few aspects that will be hard to explain or use in a conspiracy indictment. To indict anyone in the American government these questions must be answered. If they are not answered satisfactorily, they would be acquitted. That's where it stands right now.

    If the official version is not true, then I want to know. However, knowing is not about questions, its about answers.

  96. batvette

    "Furthermore, jet fuel cannot burn hot enough, even with office furnishings present, to melt or warp structural steel. "

    I don't know about your engineering credentials but that statement conveys a complete misunderstanding of the nature of this fire event.

    Q: Is 1850 degrees F, the temperature reached by contents of a normal office building fire and that determined to be reached in this one, hot enough to remove the extra temper of structural steel?

    Q: Why would the temperature jet fuel burns at even be relevant when it did not play the role of sole combustible in this fire but rather an accelerant of common office materials?

    Q: If fires from common office materials did not get hot enough to remove the temper of structural steel, and threaten the integrity of structures, why does code require fireproofing? Just to waste money?

    Q: Since we know the fireproofing was inadequate and in disrepair to begin with, and had most of what there was knocked off by the impact of the planes, why would we expect the structure to not be in jeopardy once subjected to conditions the fireproofing was meant to protect against?

  97. batvette

    I don't think a single one of these questions is new or doesn't have an answer for them out there on the internet. I know I've answered many of them before. Why don't you look for the answers and then explain why these points are so significant when you know them? Many of them are based on non factual claims, the Pentagon plane for instance was not "vaporized". Many parts making it recognizable as the plane it was were clearly visible after the fire was extinguished- and why did you state they identified the passengers through DNA then ask why remains would survive a vaporizing fire? DNA is not the same as "human remains" as we commonly define them. Why didn't you ask why DNA could survive a fire?
    This leads me to wonder what "truth" it is you intend to arrive at when the questions are only meant to deceive.

    "they look like someone took a swipe at them with a Lightsaber!"

    Comic-con was last month. Lightsabers are a fictional thing. Those columns were cut by demo torches.

  98. batvette

    What does all that have to do with 9/11? The other viewer keeps steering off the topic with similar rhetoric, we really should stick to discussing this documentary or at least its subject matter.
    I'm not excusing ALL of our transgressions but we're better than who we opposed in all the conflicts he mentioned. Morals are a relatiive thing, "better than" is good enough for me when nobody is perfect.

  99. rufusclyde

    The CIA overthrew Mossadegh. It was accomplished through operation Ajax, which entailed bribing people to riot and bombings by CIA operatives posing as communists, among other things. Kermit Roosevelt was in charge of the operation, and it was carried out by Donald Wilber. No one claimed that you did it, Batvette.

  100. rufusclyde

    Batvette, why do you keep using the pronoun "we" when you refer to the actions of the armed forces and intelligence agencies of the United States? And whatever gave you the idea that your opinion that "you" were better than who "you" opposed constitutes factual information? And Batvette, it was you who asserted that the official version was true, since the Afghan invasion was caused by the 2001 attacks. Nobody steered anything off topic but you.

  101. rufusclyde

    Batvette, you are discussing structural failure analysis, and you're offering the opinion that the building would not hold together for one second tilted on it's corner. The buildings were constructed to withstand shearing forces from wind, which means that the structures had integrity in more than two dimensions. Does that mean that a section of the building would have integrity oriented in a different direction? I don't know, and clearly, neither do you. But that doesn't stop you from making a statement that would require such knowledge to be factual.

  102. Teddy Mcd

    I don't buy the conspiracy angle - could be, but I believe not.

    Let's fess up most of here don't in fact know with the authority of absolute certainty.

    But it does my heart and mind good to see such great minds take on the topic.

    Good for you guys and girls.

  103. Jack1952

    Criticism should go where it is deserved no matter who does it. There are many who criticize only the United States and greet any criticism elsewhere with the statement "Its no worse than what the United States is doing". Total defence or total criticism of any entity is bias. Many will accept the "truther" version only because it whets their anti-American appetites. That is as dishonest as defending everything the United States does, no matter what they do. I have been told on many occasions by individuals that they do not believe the official version of 9/11 because they are not sheeple. An exceptionally poor reason to believe anything.

  104. Jack1952

    That is exactly the thing. We don't know. Therefore evidence must be gleaned from other sources. Who, how, and when the explosives were set in place would help. None of that has been forthcoming. Since it isn't available we're back to speculating how it was possible how the towers came down. Speculating being the operative word.

  105. batvette

    I'm quite familiar with operation ajax, if you care to look at the wiki article on it you'd see I've been an active editor and involved in the discussions on it for several years.
    CIA operatives posing as communists? That is not part of the story as I know it. With Iran sharing a border with the USSR, you think maybe there were actually communists involved?
    The CIA had some influence in the matter. Ultimately it came about due to widespread dissatisfaction by the people of Iraq when their economic chickens came home to roost after privatizing their oil industry and alienating their number one customer. They didn't even know how to run the infrastructure.
    Tell me, do you accept everything the CIA tells you on every issue, or do you just accept the ones that made them look good to congress, until political events changed their outcome, and then made them look bad to leftists?

  106. batvette

    Nobody came here to read about me or what you have to say about me. Please keep that in mind. It's getting a little silly that so many of your posts mention my pseudonym. Talk about 9/11 or US foreign policy, not other viewers.

  107. dmxi

    i would like to edit the mis-spellings...must've been late that night.cheers........

  108. batvette

    That is a very good point I'd never thought of, one of many I've seen you raise. Yes office workers would certainly be curious, not to mention be a little perturbed at the mess they'd be making. Good comment.

  109. rufusclyde

    Batvette, it seems rather inconsistent of you to claim that I hate free speech, and then turn around and tell me what to talk about. Loop-de-loop.

  110. rufusclyde

    The coup came about when the CIA demanded that the Shah dismiss Mossadegh. An Iranian General, favorable to the US administration, was named as the new Prime Minister by the Shah. The coup culminated in the deployment of Iranian troops against Mossadegh. Your claim that economic dissatisfaction among the masses of Iranian people was the driving force behind the overthrow is not consistent with what is known about the events surrounding Mossadegh's depature.

  111. rufusclyde

    Since it is the verb in the predicate of your sentence, speculate is indeed the operative word. Your statement about the film and the Pentagon is curious, to say the least. Many films of airplanes in flight exist, and they are not all blurry. The nature of the images captured would depend on the angle and distance from the subject, in this case, Flight 77. As there were apparently many cameras, clearly not all in the same place, not all pointing the same direction, your claim seems unlikely. I don't believe the official version for many reasons. It seemed very unlikely to me, on the day of the attacks, that US air defences could not intercept any of the planes. The buildings fell so fast, and there were initial reports of explosions and bombs in the buildings, that from the outset I anticipated hearing of other terrorists in the buildings, like the '93 attacks. It seemed very strange to me that within the day, it was announced that the culprit was bin Laden, since my initial thought was that McVeigh types had been behind it, since 'militias" were the terrorists du jour in the US media. When it was announced that teams of fundamentalist college drop-outs had seized the controls from veteran US commercial pilots with box-cutters, it seemed highly implausible to me. Former Air Force pilots are not people to trifle with. It seemed implausible to me that an airliner could penetrate the air space around the Pentagon, and then hit the Pentagon. All of these things led me to doubt the oficial story. If indeed it was a psy-op, it was effective, at least in my case, of creating complete cognitive chaos.

  112. Hodd

    When has there ever been any "communists" involved in any historical event where it was claimed to be? Within the American interpretation of history all that has ever really meant was leftist governments or popular uprisings attempting autonomy which threatened US corporate interests. The CIA would intervene and crush any such efforts virtually everywhere in the world. The threat of Communism, was and always was, a PR narrative to foster public and political support. I have seen nothing to suggest otherwise.

  113. Jack1952

    That the cameras would have been placed on the Pentagon and pointing at the building and the surrounding lawn would suggest that film of an oncoming airliner would have been at close range and probably quite blurry. Film of planes in flight were taken by hand held cameras following the path of the plane. Stop the camera and the plane will suddenly become blurry. Any cameras at the Pentagon would be fixed in position and would not be following the flight of the plane.

    Even if fighters had intercepted the planes that hit the towers, they would not have shot them down. Standard policy would have been to escort them until they landed. Four hijacked planes in the sky over the United States is unprecedented and there would have been a great deal of confusion in the first hour of the hijacking. NORAD was never designed to protect against domestic passenger planes. It would be a little unsettling to think that it would be. As for Washington airspace being violated, it is easier to spot a plane high above the city with the intent to do damage but one that is flying at rooftop level confuses radar and is hard to spot.

    During a intense fire, such as the one at the Twin Towers, there are always explosions. Every time the flames breach a sealed room the resultant reaction with the oxygen in the room causes an explosive sound. Their would also be items under pressure exploding under the intense heat. Not strange at all that explosions were heard.

    Plane hijackings, up until this time, usually involved a small group of hijackers, who had weapons or implied that they had weapons. Flight crews were advised to use the "common strategy" tactic. This meant that they were to comply with the hijackers, land the aircraft and let the authorities handle it from there and to encourage the passengers to do the same. This would make it easy for 4 or 5 motivated individuals armed with boxcutters, claiming to have explosives, to hijack a passenger plane.

    I have no problem with a person questioning an official story. Some people should look at all the angles and not just the ones that suit their own pet theory.

  114. rufusclyde

    I'm not sure what made you think I was interested in your interpretation of the events. I explained why I doubted the official explanation after your claim that people disbelieve simply because they're not sheeple, rather than because their critical faculties produce doubts about the information they have been fed, and you have done absolutely nothing to alter those doubts with the theories you put forth. Do you really believe that an adult would benefit from the facile nonsense you just posted? There are apparently eight-five tapes from around the Pentagon held by the FBI. Although I have read that only one shows the impact, I see no reason why the tapes are held, so I doubt the official account. Hijackers do not ordinarily take the controls of jet-liners, and the transponders were turned off. If the official account of flight 93 is true, then the flight crew had been completely incapacitated by box-cutters. Your NORAD explanation is a strawman, as NORAD's role is to protect the country from aerial attack by monitoring and controlling the airspace. The 2001 event was quite certainly an aerial attack. Your Pentagon explanation is equally weak. The world is awash in anti-aircraft systems designed to bring down low-flying planes. One would think the Pentagon benefits from such protection. Flight 77 was not flying at roof-top level, and in fact executed a 330 degree turning descent from 2200 feet. And of course, the flights were not intercepted, so they were not escorted anywhere during the forty-odd minutes of hijacked flight in the case of Flight 77.
    You see Jack, we're all explosed to the accounts from CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Newsweek, Time, etc. You're not really adding much re-iterating banalities that do not adequately address the questions about what happened that day.

  115. batvette

    "It seemed very strange to me that within the day, it was announced that the culprit was bin Laden,"

    People who accuse Bush of perpetrating this event seem to forget that people who criticize Bush for not doing enough to stop it point out that Bush was told a month earlier that Osama Bin Laden was going to attack America with planes.

    "It seemed very unlikely to me, on the day of the attacks, that US air defences could not intercept any of the planes."

    NORAD's resources were aligned to track and intercept long distance threats from other continents, not commercial flights that originated within the US.

    "When it was announced that teams of fundamentalist college drop-outs had seized the controls from veteran US commercial pilots with box-cutters, it seemed highly implausible to me. Former Air Force pilots are not people to trifle with."

    That may be the silliest thing I've ever seen posited on this event. What gave you the idea the Air Force trains its pilots to be proficient in hand to hand combat? Does a college degree mean you are a bad ass?
    The reason they were easily able to take control of the planes is because nothing like this had ever happened before. SOP in a hijacking was to not fight back, let them have their way and it would be over soon enough.

  116. batvette

    Richard Helms, long time CIA director, told a BBC television program that the agency did not counter rumours of in Iran because the Iranian episode looked like a success. At the time, of course, agency needed some success, especially to counter fiascos as the Bay of Pigs.
    Even Donald Wilber, the CIA operative whose secret report has been given top billing by the New York Times makes it clear that whatever he and his CIA colleagues were up to in Tehran at the time simply failed.
    Wilbert writes: headquarters spent a day featured by depression and despair… The message sent to Tehran on the night of August 18 said that the operation has been tried and failed and that contrary operations against Mussadeq should be discontinued.
    Barry Rubin writes “It cannot be said that the United States overthrew Mussadeq and replaced him with the Shah… Overthrowing Mussadeq was like pushing an open door.”
    Mossadegh himself never blamed the Americans for his downfall. He was intelligent enough to know why his political career led into an impasse.
    Three years ago the CIA announced that almost all of its documents pertaining to the August 1953 events in Iran had been destroyed in a fire. Was someone trying to cover up the CIA’s most dramatic success story? Or did the documents burn because the good ambiance created by the Iranian myth that had been fabricated by a few individuals with a lot of imagination and very little of scruples?
    Loy Henderson , the US ambassador to Tehran at the time, makes it abundantly clear in his dispatches to the State Department that Mussadeq was overthrown by a popular uprising which started from the poorest districts of the Iranian capital.

  117. rufusclyde

    Batvette, you claimed to edit Wikpedia articles, and then you use Wikipedia as your source? And the source for the Wikipedia article is the 9/11 comission, which in itself is a source of contention? Your opinion that there is no evidence is not the same as mine. I do feel that the number of exercises being conducted on the day suggests a conspiracy. I do not consider it incontrovertible evidence of a conspiracy. Perhaps you are up to cognitive infiltration but you're just not very good at it. I don't have talking points, I like to watch the movies on this site and read the comments, but that seems very much different than what you are doing, which is why I registered and posted comments related to your consistent effort to disseminate what I would describe as false information. That twist on the Saddam paying the suicide bombers is a stark example. The Baathists paid Palestinian families money who had family members killed by the Israelis. While it is quite a stretch to consider suicide bombers as KIA, reality is not quite the same as your characterization of a bounty for suicide bombers. You're peddling propaganda.

  118. rufusclyde

    Spin, Batvette, spin. The gist of your story is that the US did not overthrow Mossadegh, thus absolving the US government of blame for the toppling of a democractically elected government. What a funny dance to pretend that what is at stake is the reputation of the effectiveness of the CIA, rather than the acknoweldgement that the US has consistently fought against democracy where it abutted US strategy and backed tyrants like the Shah and his Savakh. Imagine Loy Henderson denying that the US had fomented a coup. Who would have thought that the US representative in the country would deny that agents of his government had overthrown his hosts?

  119. rufusclyde

    More strawmen. Bush, a simpleton puppet, is a non-issue. NORAD was more than capable of intercepting aircraft originating in the US, the fact that they were commercial flights is irrelevant. SOP in a hijacking does not ordinarily entail the hijackers assuming control of the planes. The official story entails the pilots being attacked with box-cutters. It seems implausible to me that the people alleged to have been the hi-jackers could have been successful in this effort against former USAF pilots. Is being a college drop-out on the list of qualities SOCOM looks for in their operators? What you seem to fail to grasp is that all of the things that raise doubts are things that cannot be proven nor disproven. All evidence about Hani Hanjour indicates that it is highly unlikely that he could have operated Flight 77 in a manner that led air traffic controllers to believe that they were observing a military aircraft. And yet one man, with ties to a foreign government, said that he could use a simulator. Attempts to replicate the buckling-truss failure set-up did not produce collapse. No other steel-framed high-rise has collapsed due to fire. So to this date, no evidence has been provided that proves the official story.

  120. Simon Gramstrup

    A massive discussion. I would not dare to engage anyone here on this subject. I am however pretty sure that you won't end up agreeing on anything.

    Wether or not there's something fishy in this event, then the fact is that many many people are worried that their/your government is not telling the truth. And that must not happen.

    What you imho should discuss, is how to get an unbiased 'entity' to present both sides build upon an open discussion. If anything is labeled 'secret' then perhaps as a 'low-tech' compromise a set of generally trusted public people could take a look at the footage? It really doesn't matter, as long as trust in the government is restored.

    Nobody is better off with doubt.

  121. batvette

    Tell me, do you buy the CIA's account of every event?

  122. batvette

    "It seems implausible to me that the people alleged to have been the hi-jackers could have been successful in this effort against former USAF pilots."

    Again, what does the fact they were former Air Force pilots have to do with their ability to fend off box cutter wielding terrorists? I am a Navy veteran of a carrier deployed fighter squadron, and know for a fact that training to defend the cockpit against terrorists is not part of the training program for aircrews of either service nor is there any extensive hand to hand combat training. As usual your own ignorance or false assumptions are being used as a talking point to build a case and it's just silly. You think because they are were in the air force that means they would do what please? Jump up and yell at them, "you can't take over MY plane cuz I was in teh US AIR FORCE!"? When was an Air Force plane ever hijacked?
    Furthermore your belief that NORAD should have been able to intercept these aircraft is not relevant. You reject the wiki article which describes the government response, you'll reject the 9/11 report which details the government response, IT TELLS YOU WHAT THEY DID AND WHY THEY WEREN'T SHOT DOWN.

    Ignorance is not evidence.

  123. goodkat

    Bottomline in this docu, as in many others, is that there's something very fishy about 9/11, and it's aftermath.. Noone can seriously deny this!

  124. rufusclyde

    Strawmen on parade again Batvette. The issue is not whether the USAF trains aircrews in hand to hand combat. I do now that such personnel undergo SERE training. The issue is what kind of people have those jobs? They are people trained to cope with massive responsibility, react to developments in life and death situations, to be independent and to make decisions in those situations. It seems highly unlikely that terrorists would make their way into the cockpit of a two-seat carrier plane. Neither the Wiki article, nor the 9/11 report tell me what "they" did, with regard to the high number of exercises conducted by the armed forces and intelligence agencies of the United States on Septbember 11, 2001.

  125. rufusclyde

    Strawman again batvette. The issue is not whether one believes the CIA's account of every event, it is whether or not agents of the US Government undertook the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953, They did.

  126. batvette

    And you know this "fact" how? Because the CIA claimed this, in the mid 60's, when it would make them look good to Congress who was considering disbanding them. All scholarly research is based upon CIA documents that were doctored long after the fact. So I ask you again, do you take the CIA's word for everything they claim? Or only that which later events made them look evil?

  127. batvette

    You don't believe it? Good for you. That's not evidence.

  128. batvette

    You don't believe it? Good for you. That's not evidence.

  129. rufusclyde

    Strawman again batvette. I haven't claimed that my disbelief constitutes evidence that the official story is not consistent with the events that occurred. It seemed unlikely to me that the individuals credited with seizing the planes in the manner alleged did so, but was it possible? Obviously. This particular film shows four people explaining their personal impressions of the events and expressing their doubts. These doubts are a result of observation and intuition. It's a process that drives human learning.

  130. batvette

    Please do not patronize me with your pointless circular arguments and parroting claims of logical fallacies on my part.
    You can't possibly tell us how the fact these pilots were former Air Force pilots would have any bearing on their actions that day, but you tried to emphasize that as an exhibit of evidence in itself but there is no rationale to it. If anything it's an argument against them doing anything but calmly sitting there and getting their throats cut. When you can present a case with actual evidence don't hold back, lay it out.
    (LOL at "intuition". Too funny)

  131. rufusclyde

    batvette, maybe you need a grown-up to explain "parroting" to you. Your claims are, in my opinion, illogical. Of course, unlike you, I am not trying to present conclusions, simply opinions. I do not share your opinion that being former military aviators, these men would be more likely to sit calmly and have their throats cut with box-cutters.

  132. rufusclyde

    Let's try and follow your loop-de-loop. I'm surprised that you weren't a fighter pilot, you seem the reincarnation of Max Immelman with regard to turning yourself upside down. On one hand, you quote Donald Wilber, former CIA agent, as evidence that the US did not overthrow Mossadegh, and then you discount the CIA statements about the coup as boasting. The US and British governments sent intelligence agents to Iran to bring about the ouster of the democratically elected leader, Mossadegh. These agents engaged in activities intended to bring about this ouster. The Shah dismissed Mossadegh, Iranian officers working with the CIA took over the government four days after the coup began on 15 August 1953. Something really strange about your spin here. If overthrowing a democratically elected government looks evil, how does claiming responsiblity for such an act look good to congress? Round and round you go, where you'll stop, I don't think you know.

  133. batvette

    Are you feigning ignorance on purpose? They took credit for this in the 60's when they were under serious scrutiny from Congress after Bay of Pigs. At that time Iran's alliance was a shining success in US policy. When the Shah was overthrown and things got nasty in the late 70's the blowback from that was obvious and the NY Times runs an "expose" on material they "just"
    discovered. We can imagine the Times would have never ran that story before 1976. Anything else you need spelled out?

  134. batvette

    Military Aviator =/= Combat Soldier. C-ya.

  135. rufusclyde

    Keep stuffing that straw, batvette. Did the CIA run the Ajax operation or not? Did the CIA work with Iranian military officers to depose Mossadegh or not? The answer to both questions is yes.

  136. batvette

    Typical, you ask me to explain something and now ignore the point you wanted explained. Everything we know about Operation Ajax came from information the CIA concocted from doctored paperwork they changed from the original accounts. They did this at a time when the coup would make them look like an effective part of US policy. Later events changed this perception and that's why they NY times ran their expose. The only reason you accept the CIA's story as factual is because now it makes them look like an evil agency. The whole story is absurd, that Kermit Roosevelt took $10,000 and hired prostitutes, circus performers and street thugs to subvert the political will of a country of 20 million people.
    Mossadegh wrote in his memoirs what really happened, that his economic policies were just a bad idea that proved disastrous once put in place.
    The one thing you cannot assert as fact is "Operation Ajax was the cause of Mossadegh's overthrow". Of course they ran the operation, that is not under dispute. Stop insulting the people of Iran, they are not our patsies. This does show the motivation of people like you, you don't care about the Iranians but just look for any reason to call America evil. Sick.

  137. rufusclyde

    Strawman again batvette. Nobody asked you to explain anything. 20 million people did not dismiss Mossadegh, the Shah did. The CIA ran operation Ajax, which was intended to overthrow the democratically elected government of a sovereign nation, Iran. The General whom the Shah named as the new Prime Minister was working with the CIA operatives in Iran. Conclusion of batvete: agents of the United States Government did not ovethrow Mossadegh. Spinning, spinning, spinning batvette.

  138. Another21stCenturySlave

    but american foreign policy is evil & sick - just ask the orphaned children of iraq or afghanistan & hiroshima goes without sayin'.....

  139. batvette

    Who is the ultimate source of these "facts" you are claiming?

    On second thought in light of this:

    "Nobody asked you to explain anything"

    When it was you who asked me:

    " If overthrowing a democratically elected government looks evil, how does claiming responsiblity for such an act look good to congress?"

    Don't bother wasting either of our time with your childish trolling, it's quite obvious progressive discourse is the last thing you are here for. No further responses from me are deserved or forthcoming. Have a nice day.

  140. batvette

    The orphans of the Butcher of Baghdad, the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden, and the Empire of the Rising Sun would beg to differ.

  141. CapnCanard

    Paul MacLeod, there you go again with those persistent facts that just won't go away. Can't we all just accept whatever our government tells us without considering other possibilities? Listen to batvette who is smarter than anyone else that batvette knows.

  142. CapnCanard

    good to hear some Danes discussing 9-11... especially since some of them are former pilots and professionals who are skeptical of the official story. It would easy for the SS(the Scared Shit-less) to attack their ideas because it doesn't fit the accepted American explanation. After all, the Exceptional Americans would never lie of deceive anyone... ever.

  143. CapnCanard

    my last comment: at 15:27 one commentator makes pronounces that given all that happened the conclusion is that a lot of planning had to have been undertaken to make WTC7 come down so much like a controlled demolition. In 2004, this is the same conclusion I came to as well but I never wanted believe it, nor do I want to believe it now. But the official story is a sad pathetic explanation, like putting lipstick on a pig and declaring the sow beautiful...

    That quote of Leo Tolstoy at about 20:00 minutes is at the heart of why apparently intelligent men are in such denial.

  144. rufusclyde

    Progessive discourse? You are peddling propaganda, and you are almost completely reliant on the strawman technique. The United States armed forces have produced millions of orphans in Japan, North Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq through the use of air power. The million or so people who died in Indonesia after the overthrow of Sukarno by CIA-sponsored military officers, allied with the favorite of US intelligence, funamentalist moslems, don't likely share your worship of America. You're a fundamentalist batvette with a religious view of the United States. The United States of America is an imperial entity, and to create and hold that empire, millions have been killed. It is no better and no worse than any other empire, but with military bases in over one hundred countries, and more money spent on the military and supporting intelligence than any other country, 500% of China's expenditures, an empire it certainly is.

  145. batvette

    "Smart". That's a funny word. You can be intelligent, or knowledgeable, or wise, which is probably a combination of the prior, but "Smart" is ambiguous.
    I'm smart enough to know if you can only make snide remarks about me rather than offer links to (or your own) professional report published in a peer review journal detailing how the towers collapsed other than Muslims flying airplanes, an unprecedented fire in a building with no sprinklers and shoddy fireproofing, and gravity, my position is pretty sound.
    I can't stop repeating, it's funny that when it comes to professionals in fields where analysis of structural failure is at all relevant, the faithful or "truthers" dips to tiny percentages of those in the general public. Why is that?
    Face it, distrust of TPTB, hatred of a certain political party or President, disliking wars, feeling guilt over past policies of America or the west, etc- and all the lies by the government since Julius Caesar ruled, are not a substitute for actual evidence to present a criminal case.
    This is the inherent fault of thinking with your heart.
    But anyway if you want to discuss me and not the topic, get with that other user who seems so interested. Perhaps you can make a party of it or another documentary or something. Myself I find it a boring discussion.

  146. batvette

    "the conclusion is that a lot of planning had to have been undertaken to make WTC7 come down so much like a controlled demolition."

    You say it came down "like a controlled demolition" and why is that? Because the only archives of film showing buildings collapsing are almost all controlled demolitions. If architects do their job properly that's the only reason they fall. There haven't been enough strong earthquakes in industrialized nations with modern buildings to show the results of that. What you witnessed is a structural failure. One with unusual circumstances, including a huge gash which allowed oxygen to feed a large fire. Little effort was made to fight the fire. Upon analysis the building had design faults that would never have been revealed without the other events.
    However think of what you are saying, wouldn't some one have seen charges planted all over the building for this "controlled demolition"? Wouldn't the blasting caps and remote detonators or wires be strewn all over as evidence?
    My concerns over building 7 were dismissed when I read some of the accounts of firefighters that day.

    ""They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out."

    " So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. "

    "Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see. "

    "He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. "

    "but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. "

    Other reports say that a city building engineer also sighted up the building with a transit and noticed a "pronounced lean" to the structure.

  147. CapnCanard

    And still you are in denial. Accept your fate and keep pushing Sisyphus! ; ) Of course, you may continue to attack any opposition and/or those who fail to agree with you, but that's all you got. By the way, I have made no such assertions, just observations. If you don't mind at this time I will be getting out of your cesspool.

  148. Jack1952

    I apologize. Since you had directed your comment towards me, I had assumed you were interested in an adult discussion. It did not occur to me that you only wanted to speak and listening was not an option. My mistake. If validation is your goal, you won't find it here.

  149. rufusclyde

    Adult discussion is not what takes place in the comments section on any of these 9/11 films. Jack1952, your first comment on this movie is spin. It's not rehashed conspiracy stuff, it is four men talking about their impression of the evidence presented in the media and what conclusions they came to. Then you jumped right into stuffing your strawman, alleging that journalists have not spoken to witnesses. For weeks after this event witnesses were interviewed. By Halloween of 2001 I had seen interviews with people from around Shanksville who saw the plane, found debris, saw the crash site. I had seen dozens of interviews with emergency personnell who were at the WTC, and I have seen dozens of witnesses from the Pentagon incident. Does your big green S stand for spin?

  150. rufusclyde

    Spin batvette, spin. Looked like controlled demolition, but we don't see many modern buildings fellled by earthquakes? So it might look like a building that has been knocked down in an earthquake, and that's why one should accept the fire explanation? Loop-de-loop!

  151. rufusclyde

    batvette continues to stuff the strawmen. AE911 represents a tiny fraction of professionals who advocate for a collapse caused by something other than the official fire explanation, so batvette takes the remaining portion of such professionals and assigns them them the quality of having analyzed and approved of the NIST explanation. Put your hands in the air as batvette spins through another loop!

  152. batvette

    You didn't think answers were actually desired to all these questions, did you? The very point of them is that they are pointless. There's only one approach to dealing with trolls who pursue discussions as a one way street, Jack- which is why your reply is the only one I see in the discussion.

  153. rufusclyde

    spin, batvette, spin! That's a funny manoeuver where you imply that you're engaged in something other than propagating a particular view. "I'm not going to talk about structural falure, while I tell people how the structure failed". I like your meta-narrative, "the whole world loved America because we get rid of dictators, even though there is ample evidence that the US Government supports dictators lke Mubarak, the house of Saud, Pinochet, Bautista, the Shah, Somoza, ad infinitum."

  154. dmxi

    "the incidents that occured on 9/11 remember of a staged event due to it's orchestrated qualities which searches it's own.never has there been a similiar
    atrocity in comparrison which opens doors to speculations & distrust an acting government that doesn't apply open investigations to counter-steer,willingly or unwillingly,creates an atmosphere consisting of friction in all fractions that grow around this topic,whilst the orchestrators enjoy the fruit that toppled from those towers.follow the apple seeds....as no one dares too."
    -disclosed communique-

  155. dmxi

    80 percent of my comments need approval,hoo-ray...some-ones paying attention!?!

  156. Achems_Razor

    No, 80% of your comments are because of error on your part. When you put a period on the end of a sentence leave a space or disqus thinks it is a link.

  157. dmxi

    now you robbed me of my delusion of attention.period.the 80 % was made up....,monsieur moderator????i bet it's a hard job & one looses
    ones light-heartedness with such an overflow of comments from every creed & colour?now,what do i have to do with my 'period'?

  158. Jack1952

    And we know this because skyscrapers collapse everyday and not one of them collapse into their own footprint.

  159. Jack1952

    Surprised at your admission that you do not intend to engage in an adult discussion. I tend to the idea that a weak argument leads to ridicule and childish behaviour.

    For the record, I was not speaking of journalists in general. I was speaking of material that claims that 9/11 was a government operation who seem to take an overview only of the events of that day but do not engage in in-depth investigation using witnesses and the construction of detailed models of what they believe happened that day. For example, if the twin towers was a controlled demolition, find out who has the capability to take on such a project, show where and how the charges would be set to allow for the buildings to collapse the way they did, how long such a project should take, how it could have been done without witnesses and maybe find a few witnesses who remember strange renovations, the material needed and how they would be secured and implemented. That is the type of journalism that I was referring to.

    There is the official version of the events of 9/11 or the official spin and there are the many versions of the doubters or the unofficial spins. Weaving your own tale is putting your own spin on the story. You are just as guilty of spin as anyone else.

    The avatar is a logo for a group interested in the technological singularity...an interesting topic on its own. The "s" referring to singularity.

  160. rufusclyde

    Jack1952, not surprised at your inaccurate characterization of my previous statement. I haven't woven any tale, but don't let that stop you from your ill-informed commentary. Find out who had the capability to take on such a project? This was a massive terrorist attack and psy-op, regardless of who comitted it. Do you think it likely that people involved in commercial demolitions would have been enlisted? There is already much evidence of people working on all three buildings at various times.

  161. kingsulet

    only a BLIND man can posiblle belive that report made by the government "experts"... "experts" payd by the...you quess...pay by the same government

    absolutly ridiculos...but the world is full of blind ignorante ppl

  162. Teddy Mcd

    re: "absolutly ridiculos...but the world is full of blind ignorante ppl"

    ...care to elaborate?

  163. Jack1952

    I will elaborate for you. This is his way of saying that he believes that he is the intelligent one, that he has been blessed with insight the rest of us have been deprived of. It is a declaration of superiority.

  164. Jack1952

    Damn. My cover has been blown. I thought for sure that working in a factory packaging toilet paper would be the perfect cover. Maybe I should have stuck with bar-tending.

    If the government is guilty do you really think that they care enough about what people say in a documentary thread that they would hire posters to counter any thing that seems too inflammatory. A little self important are we?

  165. Jack1952

    What is interesting is your implication that everyone else "spins" but you are the unique individual that doesn't.

    Controlled demotions is a specialized skill. Even government operatives must be trained in fields where those involved could eventually be isolated by anyone who digs deep enough. They would also have to hone their skills with practical applications which would leave commercial demolition experts asking one another who could have done such an operation.

    I have not heard of any such "renovations" being done. Elaborate with a little evidence.

    "No other steel-framed high-rise has collapsed due to fire" is misleading. It should read "No other steel-framed high-rise has collapsed after being struck by nearly fully fuelled passenger planes flying at top speed causing structural damage and intense fires". A little more accurate in that context but with no precedence, either.

  166. rufusclyde

    It is simply inaccurate for you to claim that I imply that everyone else spins. Perhaps the el Kaydah's, when they weren't practising jumping through flaming rings with assault rifles practiced some demolition, and applied those skills to the WTC facilities. The fuel that exploded in massive fireballs, and also flooded the off-set elevator shafts, only to explode in the lower floors? That was another strawman you threw in there, as I most definitely did not use that phrase you quoted with regard to fire collapse. I referred to the official fire explanation, which entails loads being transferred around due to the behaviour of the core and perimeter columns, mitigated by the hat truss, resulting from fire and the damage to perimeter and core columns caused by the aircraft impact. I suggest you start reading before you start writing, with regard to work done in the WTC buildings.

  167. babylucy

    It's already been proven that the WTC could not be felled by multiple plane crashes. And that metal cannot melt from jet fuel. What's not to get!? We've been lied to.

  168. batvette

    1. Do you know what the scenario was for the model of the planned for crash?
    2. The consensus hypothesis does not claim anything about melting steel.

  169. batvette

    but you're all calling for another investigation. won't that also be by the same government?

  170. Neal Walker

    your former presidant Woodrow Wilson along with Edward Burnaise helped create a public relations machine to persuade people to join the war in Europe... This was infact a war on the people. The selling of that war was done with a picture of the statue of liberty burning in NY harbor... The symbol to get your people to war this time was the twin towers

  171. Teddy Mcd

    Simply stated -

    First - I do not believe the conspiracy. (the debate is a done deal for me - round 'em cowboys let's move on)

    Second - I do believe that subsequent to the horrific catastrophe of 9/11 the government in power exploited the crisis to their own ends, and like it or not (I don't) that's politics.

    Third - If you believe in this conspiracy, then it is not a conspiracy to you but an atrocious fact. If so, and with best estimates from on-line surveys of 10% or 31 million adult American citizens who do, then what surprises me is that there wasn't and hasn't been an insurgency.

  172. Peter Wilson

    what, your comment?

  173. Brave Heart

    False flag attacks? and stand down exercises are what government do to make their slave/sheople go along with the program they want. Problem, Reaction, Solution is as old as the hills and not new. 9ll was an inside job!

  174. rufusclyde

    batvette spinning away with false binaries and strawmen. Fires not hot enough to produce alleged deformation becomes claim that fires were not hot enough to make people jump. 6 or 10% of the population find the official story impausible? Why wouldn't such a small fraction of the population mount an insurgency against the most heaviliy armed state in the world, with the state enjoying the support of an alleged 90-94% of the population? Because they have psychological problems, says batvette. Never mind the previous history of illegal activity such as BCCI, Iran-contra, Watergate, Teapot Dome, Nugan-hand bank, Eugene Hassenfus and Barry Seale, Operation Phoenix, the bombing of Cambodia, Cointelpro, Kent State, and on and on. batvette says awareness of previous malfeasance of the US state apparatus equates with false attribution to non-existent forces. Loop-de-loop disinfo batvette!

  175. batvette

    What is the motivation the US government- an entity comprised of the country's own citizens- would have to perpetrate this crime again?

  176. 911dokumentar

    I have produced THE SENSIBLE DOUBT and a have a little message to the debunkers here and everywhere else:

    I know that most of you are motivated by a sense of justice and that you want all truthers to be silent and accept the official story about 9/11, because you think we represent a threat to our democracies.

    I really wish that the official story was true and I think that counts for many of the truthers out there. Because then I could still maintain the naive trust in the system and the world of politics that I'm raised with.

    We don't maintain our skepticism to annoy you or to undermine our democracies. We maintain our skepticism because we respect our democraicies and because we believe that truth and transparency is the fundament for good governance. We maintain our skepticism because we believe in a better world for all of us. And that includes debunkers too, even though you use so much energy and intelligence to sabotage our efforts.

    So here is my questions to you:
    Where is the danger in having a new independent investigation of the events that took place 11 years ago?
    Why is that a threat to you?
    Why are you so afraid of that scenario?

    I really wish that you would use your energy to fight for a more noble cause.

  177. Teddy Mcd

    (this post also appears on, 9/11Intercepted.)

    Okay let me ask a question.

    preamble - It is somewhere in the near future (two-three years) and a 9/11 investigation with the authority of law, the power to convict has been completed and the ruling is that it was an inside job. It was an inside job orchestrated by the government: non elected officials, congressmen, senators and the executive branch (including the president). Those found guilty (pick a number and make it high) of treason and murder are sentenced to death and duly executed.

    ? What then - what of the world - USA -democracy - religion (in a way) - the military - the common man and woman, and anything you want might want to add.

    I would appreciate hearing opinions from any and all so inclined.

    Thanks - Teddy Mcd

  178. rufusclyde

    No kidding batvette. That line of reasoning allows us to dismiss claims that the Chinese massacred their own people, that the Germans did, that the Cambodians did, etc. Brilliant deductive reasoning.

  179. AddNewComment1

    yes they do.. i've seen it.

  180. AddNewComment1

    ummm but they did

  181. batvette

    Nobody is stopping you from having an "independent" investigation- in fact you're already having one for the past 11 years with all of you truthers trading misleading trivia and information on the internet, leaving no stone unturned in your quest to present only the facts that fit your agenda and ignore anything more sensible.
    This is how pointless the whole thing is. After 11 years you don't have a lick of evidence this is all some government conspiracy, but you seem sure if only an "independent" investigation were held you'd have the evidence you need. Independent of what? The government?
    Okay investigate away. Get back to us when you find something.

    On this:

    "We maintain our skepticism because we believe in a better world for all of us. And that includes debunkers too, even though you use so much energy and intelligence to sabotage our efforts."

    You know this is why many people treat truthers with less and less respect and more contempt as time goes by. Just what is it you are implying, that those who disagree with your silly theories and baseless allegations do so out of evil intentions?
    Sorry to burst your bubble but there are NO good intentions behind perpetuating groundless accusations that America committed these crimes against itself to plunder the resources of other nations. Continuing to do so against all reason and common sense could only mean you want this country to fail, and see it grovel before the world for sins committed only in your own imagination.

  182. Ryan

    Your willful ignorance is only outweighed by you steadfastly misguided, misplaced and antiquated sense of nationalism. Grow up. Wake up.

  183. batvette

    Ah, complete ad hominem, not unexpected nor unique- or even competent at it. If you have a credible rebuttal to a topically relevant issue I have commented on, please don't hold back, express yourself.
    I can be pretty sure no one came here to see viewers comment about me, your reply was thus useless other than reveal my criticism of this nonsense about truthers wanting a better world for all of us cut right to the bone.
    You don't want a better world for anyone and just want your cynical self defeatist philosophies thrust upon us all.

  184. noconman

    Thanks for the belly laugh! I always enjoy reading your flag waving r*tarded babble. So you still workin for the man I see, cause only someone paid and or redicuously stupid could defend the obvious conflict between the official story and common sense, facts and physics.
    Keep up the good work, Tards need a hero like you. LOL

  185. Colin Doran

    You asked questions of 'debunkers' - 2 months ago- and I would like to respond if I can. First of all could you stop calling people 'debunkers'. Stop labelling people, as if looking at evidence about 911 was being done, as you illustrate in your post, by two types of people-on the one hand the good, brave, noble truth people, who ask questions and in spite of the pain it causes them, accept the painfull truth etc, , and , on the other hand , the people trying to sabotage their noble efforts. As someone who is not even an American I comment on these 911 inside job theories because I think they are a load of nonsense. I looked at that video and I see people , Danish people this time, repeating the same things that have been put out on the internet for years. Repeating it almost word for word. What do these Danish people know about 911 except what they have seen on the internet? They don't have some kind of inside knowledge that other people don't have. They have just looked at this 'inside job' stuff on the internet and what amazes me is that they don't seem to recognise that the things they are saying are not things they have come up with themselves but things that have been suggested to them. I did not hear one original idea or thought expressed in that video. I listened to those poeple being interviewed and I could have been listening to any 911 video, the same ideas, the same evidence, the same inaccurate distorted statements. The investigative journalist. There was just this small hole in the Pentagon.The official story is that the plane evaporated. If I was an investigative journalist and I presented that totally specious and false account I would be ashamed to call myself an investigative journalist. Did he do any investigation at all? Nils Harrit saying'..down goes this massive building without any visible cause." Look at 3.31 in your video. That is building 7 shortly before it collapsed. This is the building that according to all these truth videos said had tiny office fires in it. Can you imagine anyone calling that a tiny office fire? The 911 truth 'inside job' depends on influencing people by presenting a one-sided and inaccurate version of the facts, liberally mixed with a seductive message that if you believe in these conclusions then you are a good, brave truth seeker, an uncommonly virtuous and intelligent person who hates war and has sympathy for all the people who have died since 911.if you don't , well you are sabotaging the efforts of these good people and are one of those less intelligent, less aware people who has no compassion for all these victims. I know which side I'd like to be on, if I bought into that false dichotomy.

  186. batvette

    " cause only someone paid and or redicuously stupid could defend the obvious conflict between the official story and common sense, facts and physics."

    Yeah and that was demonstrated by your complete inability to impeach a single topical point I have raised, and only offer ad hominem remarks of no use to anyone not interested in childish personal abuse.
    Have a nice, "twoofer" day.

  187. noconman

    You never cease to make me laugh batvette! Thanks again for standing up for all the tards who cannot think for themselves or understand logic, reason and physics! You clowns make the show worth while! LOL There is no debating an abusive rude **** like you. You are a parrot for disinformation.

  188. batvette

    "You are a parrot for disinformation."


  189. rufusclyde

    Scatvette, you rascal! You built a little construct where you equated a possible cabal of people in government, the military and intelligence with "the government". Then you kicked it up a notch and equated "the government" with 'America". Tricky, tricky ol' Scatvette! US policy under Carter is to create an "Arc of Crisis", involving the recruiting, training, and indoctrination of fundamentalist moslems, one of these people is Bin Laden, whose network is used in furthering US policy in the Balkans and Chechnya right through 2000. In 2001 elements of this network are alleged to have perpetrated the terror attacks, and you state there's no evidence of a conspiracy? Bush and Rice lie on television, claiming that nobody forsaw the kamikaze attacks, in direct contravention to well-established facts, but still no evidence. Whether or not any of the theories that contradict the official story are true or not, you are simply lying when you state that there is no evidence to support the "truthers", as you call them. Sibel Edmonds and the Able Danger program? Nothing to see here you America-hating pinkos!

  190. batvette

    This is why I'm ignoring you:

    "you are simply lying"

    You tear off in a rant about things that have never even been discussed here, quote nothing I have ever said, and say I am lying? All while calling me "Scatvette"?

    Such dishonesty and immaturity is no obligation of mine to address.

    Funny about Sibel Edmonds. She is a whistle blower but is not a truther- she has never stated she believes 9/11 was an inside job.

  191. rufusclyde

    Spin on you Dervish, scatvette! Funny thing about your use of the word "truther" as though you can characterize anyone who points out that the principle actors in the 2001 attacks are all tied to US intelligence and the only beneficiaries of the attacks are US imperialists. No obligation to touch that Rice and Bush "who knew' prevarication about the kamikaze tactics with airliners, or any of the other demonstrable facts that run counter to the official US propaganda line. What does it look like if you don't ignore somebody? I've never stated that I believe it was an inside job, because that is a gross oversimplification. Inside what?
    "After 11 years you don't have a lick of evidence this is all some government conspiracy..."
    "Sorry to burst your bubble but there are NO good intentions behind perpetuating groundless accusations that America committed these crimes against itself to plunder the resources of other nations."
    Fibbin' ol' scatvette!

  192. rufusclyde

    I just watched a Sibel Edmonds interview from 15 December 2012, during the course of which she states that elements within the US Gov took steps to make the 2001 attacks happen: "Do you think that the government purposefully ignored intelligence because they wanted 9/11 to happen?" Edmonds: "Absolutely.."
    Scatvette, you ol' trickster, you!

  193. Al Scott

    This movie has a great title. And the eyes have it for me. Asymetrical fires cannot cause symetrical collapse and pulverize concrete, as per the "official" NIST summation. And how the HELL can a Report that analysed that day, ignore a 47 story building that by all accounts wasn't hit by a plane?

    I call BS.

  194. batvette

    Batvette: "she has never stated she believes 9/11 was an inside job."

    Rufusclyde: " "Do you think that the government purposefully ignored intelligence because they wanted 9/11 to happen?" Edmonds: "Absolutely.."

    "you ol' trickster, you."
    I don't know what's worse, your blatantly dishonest tactics or the insult you are making to anyone reading for believing they would fall for such silliness-and you do it in reply to a post where I called you out on that ****.
    There is no point in any form of discussion with your ilk.

  195. rufusclyde

    Sorry pal, you made a demonstrably false statement about Sibel Edmonds. She stated very clearly that she believes that elements in the US Government acted in a particular way in an effort to ensure that the 2001 attacks took place. So were you lying, or are you just nuts?

  196. Al Scott

    oh yeah? well my eye witness report "sees" the penthouse section fall into the building before any other event. Now watch the NIST Computer simulation". Apparently, all mainstream "live" shots were inaccurate.

    Proof by Simulation. Great! Bet you play video games and believe the blood is real, huh?

    Every week a buidling, catches fire and falls into itself creating pyroclastic clouds of pulverized material.

  197. batvette

    My statement was 100% correct and you're trolling.

    "Allowed to happen" is not "ensured they took place."
    "Ignored intelligence" is not "made to happen".

    The obvious difference is you are trying to SPIN her statements into her believing the government was an active participant in this, not merely a bystander who didn't stop it.

    What kind of person has no more integrity than to stoop to clearly dishonest tactics merely to portray someone else as dishonest?

    This is nothing new, your ilk raises its ugly head on the internet in various forums. You have nothing but failed simpleton arguments with little substance and seek only to make these interactions as ugly and immature as possible to drive away any intellectual discussion. You want to waste everyone's time and energy because if you can't win the argument then nobody should, nor should even participate in it.

    You're a life sink.

  198. rufusclyde

    scatvette, your claim is entirely false. On December 15, 2012, Sibel Edmonds was asked directly if she believed that elements in government purposefully ignored intelligence because they wanted the event to occur. Edmonds replied that she did believe this. Her statement is not ambiguous. The word used in the question is purposefully, meaning, not implying, intent. You have played the disinfo game by claiming that my arguments failed without ever demonstrating such. Spin on, scatvette, spin on!

  199. batvette

    You bring a link to a quote by Sibel Edwards saying "9/11 was an INSIDE JOB" and your pointless personal attacks on me will finally have merit.
    Until then please cease your annoying badgering.

  200. rufusclyde

    spinning ol' slippery scatvette! Officials whose duty it was to act on intelligence in order to thwart terrorist attacks deliberately ignored intelligence about the 2001 plot because they wanted it to take place. That is an action contributing to the attacks, which makes those officials part of the plot. That is by definition, an inside job, and Edmonds stated that this is what took place. Are you trying to mince words because Edmonds didn't use the exact term "inside job"? Again, as for personal attacks, you call people "twoofers" and "trolls". Whinin' ol' fascist hack scatvette!

  201. batvette

    "Whinin' ol' fascist hack scatvette!"

    Stay classy.

    On this:

    "Officials whose duty it was to act on intelligence in order to thwart terrorist attacks deliberately ignored intelligence about the 2001 plot because they wanted it to take place"

    There is no evidence to support this claim as factual.
    Sibel Edmonds has no evidence whatsoever and was not even employed by the government on 9/11. And she's not even a truther. She has an opinion based upon the hearsay of a belief expressed by an informant whose tape she translated. The informer stated he thought people "in the government" knew about information he had.
    If you think this is evidence the government allowed this to`happen your knowledge of the mechanisms of government, as well as the character of people used as informants, amount to that of a child. A level consistent with your posts here.

  202. rufusclyde

    Classy like your comments about French people, "twoofers", trolls and those whom you repeatedly claim are marginalized from the rest of society? That kind of classy?

  203. batvette

    If you have a qualified alternative hypothesis which refures the NIST findings you are free to publish it in one of your professional trade journals for scrutiny by your colleagues.
    I'm sure they will give it all the attention it deserves, after their lunch time nap and diaper change.

    "Every week a buidling, catches fire and falls into itself creating pyroclastic clouds of pulverized material."

    If that's what you believe happened, it's no wonder your posts are so tragically wrong and confused. A building just "caught fire". Wow.

    They should change the title of you people from "truthers" to "completely full of ****ters".

  204. rufusclyde

    Prevaricatin' ol' scatvette! Floppi' back and forth like a fish! First you stated that Sibel Edmonds did not state that she believes that the 2001 attacks were an inside job. She stated that she believes exactly that. Then you flipped around and denigrated her opinion, and wrapped up by calling me childish. You neglected, however, to include your recent whining about being insulted. Lazy ol' scatvette!

  205. batvette

    "First you stated that Sibel Edmonds did not state that she believes that the 2001 attacks were an inside job. She stated that she believes exactly that. "

    You're lying. She said nothing of the sort.

  206. rufusclyde

    No, slippery ol' scatvette, she said something very much of the sort. She said that elements of the government deliberately ignored intelligence about the 2001 attacks because they wanted the attacks to take place. That is by definition an inside job. Spin on, ol' scatvette!

  207. batvette

    yet 10 years later Sibel Edmonds cannot bother herself to divulge who ignored what let alone that it might have been even remotely actionable.
    truthers merely display their extreme ignorance and ability to grasp at straws by relying on what they have been told by other truthers.
    I've looked into the details of this woman's claims, she doesn't know **** about **** and what little she knows about is no indication of malfeasance or negligence by government.
    furthermore your allegations I am engaged in spin are countered by your own statements throughout.
    She doesn't state that government DID ignore intelligence, she offers speculation about all of that- that she BELIEVES they did and she BELIEVES they (and she can't state whom) wanted 911 to happen.
    You'd know the huge difference if you had a clue what you were talking about regarding the source of her claims.

  208. rufusclyde

    Whirlin', flippin' ol' scatvette can't stop the spin! You very clearly falsely stated that Edmonds does not state that it was an inside job, which she does. Then you make post after post trying to obfuscate that fact, reaching a point now where you're claiming that her statement that she believes the aforementioned facts is somehow different than stating that the facts describe what took place. Funny stuff, you stating that you can discern a difference between what she knows and what she believes. Pachinko scatvette bounces to the bottom!

  209. batvette

    Stop filling the discussion with your BS, doofus lied.
    There was nothing false about anything I stated, I said she never said something- if she had, you could C/P my statement and prove it false with a statement by Sibel Edmonds- free from your spin seeking to explain what your definition is of what she said.
    As for Sibel Edmonds she has no evidence to support her claims at all, and not even first hand knowledge- thus they are merely beliefs- nothing a rational person should consider they could build a case with.
    She can't produce a speck of intelligence which was ignored, nor even name a single official who knew of it and ignored it. Doesn't that concern you, if you were running around claiming the government ignored inteligence, but couldn't say what or by whom? SHE HAS NOTHING, which seems to be typical of what twoofers need to call something evidence.
    Of course all of these important and relevant facts are neither to you, and you will only be concerned with ways to present me as a liar, which is as ridiculous as you using lies to present it.

  210. rufusclyde

    Easy there, scatvette! You stated very clearly that Sibel Edmonds did not call the 2001 attacks an inside job. That statement is false. Sibel Edmonds did say that she believes the attacks were an inside job. Whether you think that she is in a position to make an informed statement is a completely different issue. After making this false statement, you continued to obfuscate and spin, and then went off on a completley different tack about whether or not she knows anything. So, how come you've got a few hundred posts on these docs scatvette, and why do you have "talking points"?

  211. batvette

    " Sibel Edmonds did say that she believes the attacks were an inside job"

    Link to her saying those words. Now.

    How many posts does doofus lied have in these docs? Who cares?

    You're not interested in discussing whether there is any basis for Sibel Edmonds to make her public statements, but instead want to try and discredit me through your own dishonesty? Grow up. Widen the scope of your discussions! People don't care what YOU think about ME. They didn't come here for the topic of batvette or rufusclyde.
    Stay on topic or I'll just go back to ignoring you.
    People like you are so small minded and accomplish nothing by merely trying to discredit someone they disagree with. At the end of the day what have you got done by proving batvette is a liar through your own lies?
    You haven't done anything to change the larger issues of Sibel Edmonds or 9/11 have you? And there will still be millions upon millions of people who disagree with you about those issues. Are you gonna prove them all liars, using lies?

  212. rufusclyde

    scatvette! You've got me confused with your bottom. It was clear that you searched the December 2012 interview I cited right after you realized that you were wrong. We've already been down the garden path with this one. So let's get back to you and why you have 'talking points' when you post in these threads, and why you started using the terms "truther" and "twoofer" to refer to people posting here.

  213. pwndecaf

    I declare rufusclyde the winner of this debate. Batvette, take your seat. - you've been pwned.

  214. Ryan Han

    Am I the only one who's tired of this batvette? Seriously, This guy's on every 911 forum defending the gov't. Hey, TDF, kick this troll out!

  215. Ryan Han

    Do you believe those surveys? Do some research on how the surveys and polls are deceptively manufactured. Basically a survey can be made to look like anything the powers that be wants it to be. And I wonder who is behind those surveys...let's see ,who controls the media that conducts these surveys...

    So, those surveys say that only 10% believe government is lying. That's funny, cause when I talked to people about it, more often than not they believe the gov't is lying.

    Maybe the survey was done at Jerry Springer show.

  216. Achems_Razor

    Sorry, he is following "the comment policy" so far, and since we remain unbiased of what people post, as long as it follows "the comment policy" he is welcome to post.

  217. jonathan hildebrandt-svith

    When you say we, do you mean the mods?
    Because Epicurus reply to Giacomo della Svezia was quote "he let it burn down. it did not come down in a controlled explosion" that certainly doesn't sound unbiased to me.

  218. Achems_Razor

    No, by we means TDF itself is unbiased to what people "post" as long as the posts adhere to "the comment policy."Have edited my previous post so it is made more clearer to you, sorry about that.

  219. batvette

    Your wish for censorship is amusing, particularly since I don't recall you posting any rebuttals to my posts.
    If you think my intent is to "defend the gov't" should I conversely reply that the other side is "defending terrorists"?
    No I'm just defending common sense and my interpretation of the facts. Nobody has established any validity to the theory "the gov't" did this so your accusation is silly. I think around 3 million people are employed by the federal government, better inform them that this mere association makes them capable and culpable of mass murder or the cover up afterwards.

  220. fender24

    The Port Authority was already under attack with asbestos lawsuits and they were losing. In 1989 it was estimated that it was going to cost the Port Authority $1 billion (give or take) for asbestos abatement at the World Trade Center and La Guardia. The costs for abatement increased significantly with each year that went by and these were not the only properties that the Port Authority had that required abatement. Eleven years later by 2001, the cost of abatement could easily have topped $3 billion. (give or take)

    This was going to become a huge burden.

    The towers were due for some major upgrades, had the reputation for being a financial misfit and lot of empty renting space etz.. the port authority was struggling for years to get the insurance company to pay for asbestos removal but since they rejected costs to have the job done, no asbestos removal no upgrade. The problem could not be fixed legally, at least not economically, until one man came around. Larry silverstein found a solution.

    July 24, 2001 Larry bought the 99 year lease (99??)
    for 3.2 billion even he was outbid by Vornado Realty. (Why would Larry Silverstein lease buildings that he knew he would have to pay billions for asbestos abatement?)
    With Boston Properties and Brookfield Properties also competing for the lease. However, i think Vornado was forced to withdrew and then
    Larry made sure the insurance included both the alleged terrorist attacks which happened just 6 weeks later. wow how convenient eh! lucky for Larry. So blow it up and blame it on the Muslims!. Silverstein gets the insurance, the war industry gets their war, and the medical industry gets thousands of more customers, everybody gains.

    Just ask yourself, who benefits?

    The destruction of WTC, for certain interests, have obviously been both desirable and profitable.

    "Port Authority of NY vs.
    Affiliated FM Insurance Co.,"

    "Port Authority of NY/NJ WTC Tower Asbestos Abatement Contract Records For 1995-2000"

  221. fender24

    right on!! there have been no news coverage of wtc 7 collapse, and they forgot about mentioning it in the commission report,... ooops .D

  222. fender24

    When the upper part begun to lean it should break of and hit the pavement below according to laws of physics. You're choice of words is just as misleading as with the NCSTAR 1 when it concerns the word "collapse" since video coverage obviously proves The World Trade Center Towers did not "collapse" but Instead, they were quite obviously pulverized from top to bottom, look at the photos from ground zero.

  223. batvette

    "When the upper part begun to lean it should break of and hit the pavement below according to laws of physics. "

    If you believe 11 and 30 story sections of that building should have remained intact once diagonal gravitational forces were applied, you maybe shouldn't be commenting on this event.

  224. fender24

    So u believe the top section broke of?

  225. Touchy

    Actually no, that doesn't happen. Like ever. That's the point. These are the only 3 modern skyscrapers in existence to be brought down by structural failure caused by fire. If you have evidence to the contrary feel free to present it, we'll wait.

  226. batvette

    No. There were failures in each collapse of a single floor's columns at the point of impact as the floor trusses sagged and pulled the outer columns in. Combined with the columns the planes took out being missing, and others weakened from heat, the upper mass overwhelmed their load supporting ability and that entire mass- 30 floors on one, 10+ on the other, instantly began moving downward. In just 3 meters, or the distance of that one floor, the weight of the mass multiplied 30 times its static load force as it accelerated. Each floor it hit just added more mass to the pile so that even as lower floors were stronger they still had to try and support 30x the weight they did before.
    The mass of the upper sections did not break off. As they were propelled downward, they crumbled. However in each collapse a slight diagonal movement was noticed as it began- but the section could not stay intact.
    Just remember the greatest force of all was gravity and no matter what everything gets pulled downward.
    That's the funny thing about why there needn't be any explosives to destroy the towers. The stored kinetic energy of all that weight high off the ground just sitting there was greater than the bombs used on Japan in WW2. In each tower. Once momentum took over with that one floor failing, it was all she wrote. Remember that figure, it's fact. 30x, that's what happens to mass when momentum takes over in a gravity driven collapse in just 3 meters. It's best imagined by thinking about a 900 story building carefully placed on the lower part of the tower by a giant crane. Release the 900 story load and what happens? Nothing would stop it's drop, not a bit. You can hold a 100 pound barbell over your head, right?
    What would happen if it were suddenly 3000 pounds? Blows these "free fall" arguments away. The fact your body stood between the barbell and the ground wouldn't matter to the barbell. Not a bit.

  227. batvette

    My deductive reasoning is being questioned by someone who argues absurd accusations with zero evidence against the government of the United States should still be considered true because the Nazis, Red Chinese, and Cambodians did it.
    All of these historical events still had reasons their governments did these things.
    I ask again, what reason would the government,also comprised of US citizens,do this to US citizens?
    I doubt I will ever get an answer, because there isn't one. At least that makes sense.

  228. rufusclyde

    You brought up the self-evident point that the government is composed of citizens as if that fact renders absurd the possibility that a government thus composed would kill their fellow citizens, when in reality this sort of thing takes place all over the world. So is it only absurd that US citizens would kill other US citizens, as opposed to other nationalities, due to that supernatural US exceptionalism? The 2001 terrorist attacks have been used as a pretext for the Global War on Terror, as well as an enormous expansion of the surveillance state in the US, not to mention far-reaching international agreements with such lackeys as Canada. It is in fact disingenuous of you to act as though you can't imagine why the US government would do such a thing, whether they did or not. Spinning ol' scatvette!

  229. batvette

    You never explained why the non democratic countries you mentioned have any relevance to the US where we elect our leaders from the populace. Stop rambling.

  230. rufusclyde

    Well, no, you never explained how democracy has any relevance to actions of the state. Adolf Hitler was elected with 43% of the vote from a 72% turnout. So much for that red herring. In the United States, from 340-odd million "the populace" managed to come up with a father-son combo within twelve years of each other, bringing to mind banana republics. Not to mention the two candidates from the vast "populace" in 2004 were both members of a tiny fraternal association. The US is ruled by elites, like every other society, who happen to use the mechanisms of representative democracy to lay a claim to legitimacy.

  231. PLsmscientist

    The 9/11 videos are great. But look at the facts. 911 is in all school books and the story is the official one. Any educational institution does not want students to develop a critical idea. So I wonder if we can connect this experience of educational deception with the so called holocaust story of 2 world war. There are too many things in common. Criticism will never find support in the media and laws are set to punish those who challenge the official truth. At the end it's in your interest to seek the truth at any price otherwise you will be responsible for keeping your children and grand children into slavery.

  232. Steve Perreira

    Dear Batvette: I Think it was Dr. Spock on Strar Trek who informed the Captiain that in an insane world, it is the sane man that appears insane. Good luck with these truthers .. seems few of them know anything about physics, statics, dynamics, etc. A little engineering knowledge goes a long way. You've done your best, KUDOS. -Stevie-

  233. Steve Perreira

    It would have been nicer if Mr. Silverstein had blown up his buildings in the middle of the night and saved a few thousand lives. Then too, how persuasive he was to even managed to involve United and American Airlines in the conspiracy - how much did he pay them to kill off a hundred or so passengers? That Silverstein though, just outright mean spirited, making a spectacle in broad daylight with so many people going to work! Whatever happened to good old-fashioned arson!
    Goodnight your truther kooks -Stevie-

Leave a comment / review: