Factual back-up, sources, further research materials, and the debate that ensued after I informed AlienEntity1 of my response:
OOPS! I meant to mention that the guy talking about what an explosion sounds like is Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition Inc. I would go back and change it, but karma is a bitch!
"The debunkers, people like James Meigs whose scientific expertise stretches as far as being the editor of Video Review and Entertainment Weekly, were labeled as experts while real experts like Physicist Professor Steven Jones were stripped of any such description." - Source: History Channel Hit Piece: Dirty Tricks, Malicious Lies & Journalistic Fraud
Reply: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth: Lies and Distortions
Clarifying the Collapse Time of WTC 7
Physicist Challenges the Official 911 Story
Steven E. Jones A Physics Professor Speaks Out on 9-11: Reason, Publicity, and Reaction
Breakfast with Peter Phillips- Propaganda & the US Media
Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here) - Source
Two Seconds That Will Live in Infamy (June 2009 Update)
Rate of Building 7's Fall - WTC 7's Facade Plunged at a Nearly Free-Fall Rate
Charlie Sheen and Some Facts About 9/11 for President Obama to "Deal With"
Fires, Explosions, Demolitions, Collapses, Crushdowns and the World Trade Center
Other Skyscraper Fires - Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse
Reply: Richard Gage Explains the Lack of Explosive Sounds
WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions
Building Implosion Controlled Demolition Compare WTC 7 9/11
9/11: WTC Building 7 "Collapse" video compilation
WTC Building 7 Explosions First Responder Craig Bartmer Interview
NYPD Officer Heard Building 7 Bombs
Debunking NIST's August 21, 2008 Final Report on WTC 7
The Third Tower [BBC - The Conspiracy Files(part3)
The Third Tower [BBC - The Conspiracy Files(part4)
Shaped Charge Explosion Compared to WTC Explosion on 911
Barry Jennings - 911 WTC7 Full Uncut Interview - 2 of 2
Scootle's "Twenty Minutes With The President" Contest Entry
CBC - The Fifth Estate - The Unofficial Story - Pt 4-5
Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories
Lowkey & Immortal Technique - Voices Of The Voiceless ft Rochelle Rose (Video)
AlienEntity:
I checked out your video but part one is now disabled, so has no value.
Part two fails utterly to tie any testimony of explosions to the time of the collapse, which is the only relevant time, after all.
If Barry Jennings is talking about explosions at 9am, it's hardly relevant to a collapse at 5:20pm - you've got to be kidding. Please, try to explain how on god's earth that's a controlled demoltion.
I actually made a video about Jennings, which looks at the mistakes of his testimony, but you don't seem to understand those mistakes at all.
If you want to have a testimony war, you'll lose, because office fires produce loud reports, but a loud report isn't proof of an explosive device by any stretch unless it's tied to an immediate effect on the structure - but of course you know that didn't happen.
So........it wasn't anything like a CD we've ever seen, no matter how you try to spin it.
Further, I can easily produce a boatload of testimony which says the building was losing structural integrity and was expected to collapse - by many people onscene that day.
I also can produce eyewitness testimony from a person whom I'm in touch with, who is also a FDNY member, that the building was leaning, was creaking and groaning, and was expected to fall eventually.
So you're wasting your time with desperate attempts to produce a narrative which is not consistent with the actual event. You seem more interested in preserving an obsolete and ignorant set of ideas than you do in learning the truth.
Oh, and your choice not to allow any comments on your video disqualifies you as someone whom I would provide the courtesy of posting your response. In that regard you're as cowardly as David Chandler, who similarly avoids any comments - and I suppose hopes to avoid criticism.
If you're that sensitive about the weaknesses of your approach, and that insecure about your ideas, perhaps you should pull your videos. I find it extremely weak, as I do your video from what I've seen so far.
John-Michael P. Talboo:
"Part two fails utterly to tie any testimony of explosions to the time of the collapse, which is the only relevant time, after all."
First of all that isn't true. There is a sharp bang heard in my video and described by Bartmer and McPadden. Secondly, if explosions heard during the time of the collapse are the only relevant ones, the BBC sure didn't seem to agree. They tried to refute what was being heard with testimony from Loizeaux, they did not say the time frame disproved anything.
"I actually made a video about Jennings, which looks at the mistakes of his testimony, but you don't seem to understand those mistakes at all."
I'm aware, it's been debunked on this blog.
"So........it wasn't anything like a CD we've ever seen, no matter how you try to spin it."
Why would you expect it be one like we have seen?
"A demolition that is planned as part of a covert operation to fit a narrative of events that attributes the total destruction of the building to a different cause (such as a jetliner crash and consequent fires) has a very different set of requirements than a demolition that is planned to legally remove a building in an urban setting. An examination of the technologies of energetic materials and wireless detonation available to insiders who had the means to coordinate the attack of 9/11/2001 suggests plausible scenarios by which the Twin Towers and Building 7 might have been subjected to controlled demolitions on 9/11/2001." - Source: http://www.911review.com/means/demolition/covert.html
"I can easily produce a boatload of testimony which says the building was losing structural integrity and was expected to collapse - by many people onscene that day."
Go for it, then make sure you write a response to this:
Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories
Then while you are at it you can write a response to this:
Steven Jones Tells 9/11 "Debunkers" to Put up or Shut up!
"Oh, and your choice not to allow any comments on your video disqualifies you as someone whom I would provide the courtesy of posting your response. In that regard you're as cowardly as David Chandler, who similarly avoids any comments - and I suppose hopes to avoid criticism.
If you're that sensitive about the weaknesses of your approach, and that insecure about your ideas, perhaps you should pull your videos. I find it extremely weak, as I do your video from what I've seen so far."
Sorry if I don't want to deal with this all day!:
Why I no Longer Allow Comments on YouTube
You can comment on my blog all you like.
Oh, one other thing about the explosions and such - you included that shot of a loud report where guys look up - do you even know where that sound came from in the video? Do you even care?
What makes you think it's even from WTC7, and if it's not, does that even matter to you?
The worst part of this, from your perspective, is that your evidence is so weak, and your engineering concepts virtually nonexistent, to the point that these allegations are stillborn in terms of being able to shed light on anything real.
Do you propose to take a video like yours to a judge or jury and try to convince them to convict someone? There was no evidence found on the scene of any blasting caps, det cord or other materials by the demolition-savvy teams that were there (just look at Brent Blanchard or Mark Loizeaux's comments) and there never will be. there was no evidence of cutting charges on the steel beams of any of the buildings, so you fail to back up your allegations with real evidence.
I'm just saying that these kinds of allegations are a perpetual fail-athon except to a fringe of people who fixate on the idea of an 'inside job' - well, perhaps you could bamboozle a few casual observers into buying your claptrap, but you won't convince anybody who matters much, like a forensic structural engineer or a demolition expert. But those are the people who are going to eat you alive if you dare to present this nonsense as real actionable evidence.
Mark my words, this stuff is so weak, it will never convict a single person of demolishing any of those buildings, nor should it. Mark my words and stop kidding yourself that you're onto something. It's time for people to move on with their lives - this is a truly lost cause.
John-Michael P. Talboo:
At this point I had to go to bed, so I called in a friend to respond. I sent Mr. Entity this response and the re-posted the first video:
Wow. He really doesn't seem to get the bigger picture.
"Oh, one other thing about the explosions and such - you included that shot of a loud report where guys look up - do you even know where that sound came from in the video? Do you even care?
What makes you think it's even from WTC7, and if it's not, does that even matter to you?"
Well first of all, any explosions recorded on 9/11 deserve to be investigated, right? Second, it seems to be coming from building 7 simply because the guy says, "7 is exploding."
"The worst part of this, from your perspective, is that your evidence is so weak, and your engineering concepts virtually nonexistent, to the point that these allegations are stillborn in terms of being able to shed light on anything real.
Do you propose to take a video like yours to a judge or jury and try to convince them to convict someone? There was no evidence found on the scene of any blasting caps, det cord or other materials by the demolition-savvy teams that were there (just look at Brent Blanchard or Mark Loizeaux's comments) and there never will be. there was no evidence of cutting charges on the steel beams of any of the buildings, so you fail to back up your allegations with real evidence."
To use his terminology, this part of his argument seems to be an "adhominen atttakathon :) But to address the issue of the missing blasting caps and debt cord, he really should take a look at this critique of some of Blanchard's work:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html
or: http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/demolition.html
"I'm just saying that these kinds of allegations are a perpetual fail-athon except to a fringe of people who fixate on the idea of an 'inside job' - well, perhaps you could bamboozle a few casual observers into buying your claptrap, but you won't convince anybody who matters much, like a forensic structural engineer or a demolition expert. But those are the people who are going to eat you alive if you dare to present this nonsense as real actionable evidence."
Apparently convincing people like Scott Grainger, a forensic fire protection engineer, and Danny Jowenko, a demolition expert of now 30 years, doesn't seem to count. And they're certainly not "eating us alive" either.
"Mark my words, this stuff is so weak, it will never convict a single person of demolishing any of those buildings, nor should it. Mark my words and stop kidding yourself that you're onto something.
It's time for people to move on with their lives - this is a truly lost cause."
How many times does he have to use "mark my words" to get his point across? This is one of the most important issues in history right now, and it still affects the world every day. And with AE9/11 Truth close to a thousand architects and engineers, I would hardly call it a lost cause.
Peace,
Citizenfor911truth1/Adam
Yep. I debunked him in my sleep. :)
AlienEntity1:
Message 1:
basic condition
Look, I find this stuff very anti-intellectual and boring at the best of times.
The first condition you'd have to meet in order for me to post your response is to allow comments on your videos, as I do on mine.
Your choice. Either continue to take the coward's approach or be a man and allow criticism.
I really don't care what you think about 9/11, based on your videos, you are not interested in the truth, but in pushing a dead-end political agenda which is wasting everybody's time.
You can join the flat-earthers, crop circle believers, and chemtrail/NWO lunatics if you choose, but don't expect me to respect your views. I don't.
Message 2:
A laugh a minute
This will be my last message to you and your intrepid investigators.
Yes, you geniuses can, by making videos which grossly misrepresent the events, kid yourselves into thinking you're onto something. Knock yourselves out.
Just for a laugh, if I presume your genius-level investigations are correct, and Larry Silverstein ordered the FDNY to demolish the building, starting at 9am, then you must follow thru and make sure that the perps are brought to justice!!
What are you waiting for? Take your 'evidence' (snicker) and present it to the NY District Attorney, and use the justice system to convict uh...well...I dunno... you tell me who was responsible, and how it was done.
You have no real evidence of crimes you apparently think happened. You never will, since it doesn't exist. You have no clue what you're doing, the work is so grossly incompetent.
But prove me wrong, truther, and present your evidence to the world, and get your trials started, and get your criminals behind bars. Go to it, double time!!
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have more important things to waste my time on.
9/11 truth is a modern-day witch hunt, except you clowns can't even decide what the witch looks like.
Message 3:
one more point
Your responses remind me yet again why I don't want to waste time with most truthers - they don't seem to be intellectually capable of sorting thru the contradictions in their own approaches and stories, and I don't feel like retraining them how to think.
Case in point, you claim to debunk my videos, yet you've completely missed a central point of them:
That is, my pointing out the lies and distortions of AETruth. You've managed to deflect the subject to your own myriad pet theories, but you skimmed over the main point that AETruth falsely claims that WTC7 was 'exactly in the manner of a CD'.
I said that it isn't like any CD we've seen, to which you responded 'Why would you expect it be one like we have seen?'
You have completely forgotten (how convenient) that it is AETruth which makes the claim that it is exactly the same. So you are debunking AETruth while thinking you are arguing in favor of them, I guess.
That's just dumb.
Your truther friend's response also made me cringe, the sloppiness and stupidity was so rampant: Case in point, I mentioned that your lame claims (that explosions could be timed out over several hours) would never be accepted by a forensic SE or a demo expert.
Your friend misunderstood this to mean that Danny Jowenko supports that theory. He doesn't.
Worse, Danny Jowenko, in his initial interview, refused to believe that the building was brought down on the same day as the WTC collapses. Go and see for yourself.
He knows full well that it takes a long time to prepare a CD, and there isn't a shred of evidence that he'd agree that you could space the explosions out over several hours, nor that you actually would do that.
The basic incompetence of your gang is your downfall, your inability to recognize errors in your process and to adjust your approach, your ignorance and denial of all the professional investigation which was already done, etc etc..
Anybody with a video editing system can put together a string of misleading quotes and pieces of footage. So what? It doesn't make your ideas real or even intelligent.
Your quote mining of Barry Jennings is hilarious. Jenning's own testimony is self-contradicting at best, as my video showed.
But the fact that you ignore Michael Hess' conclusion is the worst aspect of your dishonest approach: Hess is very clear that the 'explosion' was the collpase of WTC1 onto WTC7. Of course you have excluded that testimony, which is because you are being misleading. Your bad, not mine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRfctTxaIZY#t=8m50s
Don't kid yourself that you've debunked anything. In fact, you're entire set of ideas is already debunked, many times over. Your video is a retread of the same, tired claptrap which has been disproven over and over again.
So, right back at ya, chief.
John-Michael P. Talboo:
Thanks for employing debunked myth #4 on conspiracy theories. It really does save me a lot of valuable time:
Myth #4: Conspiracy theorists believe in UFOs / Aliens / Apollo Moon / Holocaust denial
"This is a straw man and an ad hominem fallacy. Not all conspiracy theorists believe in the same things, nor does believing in aliens invalidate their arguments on other theories. The only thing linking these things is that they are all perceived to be conspiracy theories. Each should be evaluated on its own merits.
However, if a theorist bases their beliefs on poor argumentation, then other conspiracy theorists may want to distance themselves from him/her or question that theorist's ability to support their own ideas. Many such people are accused of being deliberately planted to discredit other theories, a technique called the 'poisoned well'. The media then proceeds to discredit an entire investigative movement based on a few silly theories - a strawman attack.
When the media lumps anybody who doesn't trust the government version of 9-11 into the category of flat earthers and holocaust deniers, any real conspiracy there might have been is given the ultimate defense. Namely, a pre-emptive, universal ad hominem on anyone who would dare talk about it publicly, the archetypal 'tin foil hatter'."
I have posted everything you have stated on my blog, and used significant portions of your videos in my responses. I have also posted two of your videos in full at my site. And you state that I don't allow criticism!? Just because I hate YouTube's 500 character limit and inability to post links does not me a coward. Furthermore, I like to maintain a comment policy that prohibits ad hominem attacks. It pretty much shuts your ilk up.
"Just for a laugh, if I presume your genius-level investigations are correct, and Larry Silverstein ordered the FDNY to demolish the building, starting at 9am, then you must follow thru and make sure that the perps are brought to justice!!"
Stop putting words in my mouth. This video is all you will find on the Silverstein issue on my blog.
"What are you waiting for? Take your 'evidence' (snicker) and present it to the NY District Attorney, and use the justice system to convict uh...well...I dunno... you tell me who was responsible, and how it was done."
Guess you missed this:
"On November 19, 2004, the 'Justice for 9/11' Steering Committee submitted a Citizens' Complaint and Petition to the offices of the Attorney General of New York State, Eliot Spitzer, citing probable cause for an independent grand jury investigation to examine unsolved crimes committed in connection with the events of September 11, 2001. We are publishing the complete Complaint and Petition online in this space as a living, growing document. Nine members of September 11 families, Ground Zero first responders, and citizens of New York have signed on as the first complainants.
We call on citizens to support this action, to initiate similar actions in other states, and to sign the online petition of solidarity."
Signed, 17,156 concerned citizens
To add your name to this petition, please click here.
PART II.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FACTUAL MATTERS GIVING RISE TO SUSPICIONS OF CRIMINAL ACTS BY PERPETRATORS OTHER THAN 19 MIDDLE EASTERN HIJACKERS
"An open mind is required as one considers the overwhelming evidence that points to a wider circle of complicity than allowed for in the official story. We believe a subpoena-empowered investigation of these avenues for investigation, in combination, will uncover indictable crimes under both New York and federal laws." - Source: http://www.justicefor911.org/Part_II_Evidence_111904.phpJust recently an organization known as the NYC Coalition for Accountability Now succeeded in obtaining 80,000 signatures of NYC residents in support of a ballot initiative for a new 9/11 investigation to be held in New York, but it was shot down by a judge. Russian TV asked if US democracy was becoming hypocrisy.
"You have no real evidence of crimes you apparently think happened. You never will, since it doesn't exist. You have no clue what you're doing, the work is so grossly incompetent."
In 2008 and 2009, 4 papers and letters challenging the official version of events were published in US science journals. The work of the National Institute for Standards and Technology has not been peer-reviewed!
And if the 9/11 Commission would have made NORAD officials testify under oath they could have been charged with perjury:
"Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.
In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.
'We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us,' said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. 'It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied.'" - Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html
I would like to know why what they told us was so far from the truth. I would like to see those loose ends get tied. Why don't you care? Do you think they were just incompetent?
As the George Washington Blog pointed out:
"Norad has already changed its story numerous times, apparently to address impossibilities with the official story pointed out by 9/11 skeptics.
Therefore, it is obvious that Norad lied for more important reasons that covering up incompetence. Norad lied in a desperate attempt to save the official story from that myth's glaring inconsistencies and, moreover, to cover up treason by certain people within the U.S. government and military."
I mean really, what's the alternative?
"If our military had been guilty only of confusion and incompetence on 9/11, it would have been strange for its officials, by saying that they had been notified by the FAA earlier than they really had, to open themselves not only to the charge of criminal fraud but also to the suspicion that they had deliberately not intercepted the hijacked airliners. We are being asked to believe, in other words, that Scott, Arnold, and the others, in telling the earlier story, acted in a completely irrational manner--that, while being guilty only of confusion and a little incompetence, they told a lie that could have exposed them with being charged with murder and treason." - David Ray Griffin
Do you really believe this?
"You claim to debunk my videos, yet you've completely missed a central point of them:
That is, my pointing out the lies and distortions of AETruth. You've managed to deflect the subject to your own myriad pet theories, but you skimmed over the main point that AETruth falsely claims that WTC7 was 'exactly in the manner of a CD'.
I said that it isn't like any CD we've seen, to which you responded 'Why would you expect it be one like we have seen?'
You have completely forgotten (how convenient) that it is AETruth which makes the claim that it is exactly the same. So you are debunking AETruth while thinking you are arguing in favor of them, I guess.
That's just dumb."
You should try taking a look at the homepage of ae911truth.org, pay attention to the bold print here:
WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibits all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)
1. Rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse
3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration
4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses
7. Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.
"Your truther friend's response also made me cringe, the sloppiness and stupidity was so rampant: Case in point, I mentioned that your lame claims (that explosions could be timed out over several hours) would never be accepted by a forensic SE or a demo expert.
Your friend misunderstood this to mean that Danny Jowenko supports that theory. He doesn't. Worse, Danny Jowenko, in his initial interview, refused to believe that the building was brought down on the same day as the WTC collapses. Go and see for yourself.He knows full well that it takes a long time to prepare a CD, and there isn't a shred of evidence that he'd agree that you could space the explosions out over several hours, nor that you actually would do that."
I never said that spreading the explosive events out was intentional. In fact if you go back and look at my initial response when you first made your video you will see that I pointed out evidence indicating 10:45 a.m. was the originally planned demolition time. (Which begs the question: Was WTC 7 a Dud?) I also addressed your points about Jowenco.
But tell me why this is not possible, I'm guessing it's because 911myths.com says:
"Those who favour the WTC7 demolition theory have for years argued that the building did not suffer serious damage early in the day, firefighters reports saying otherwise are inaccurate, and that structural damage couldn't alone have been responsible for the final collapse, anyway. Which clearly doesn't fit at all with the idea that bombs were used before 11 AM to weaken the building's structure (assuming that was the motive)."
As MacQueen states in the aforementioned article on the FDNY collapse warnings:
"Although I agree with Mackey that the damage to Seven was serious and must be acknowledged as such, I argue that a close reading of the FDNY oral histories does not support his claims and does not remove the cloud of suspicion that hangs over the collapse warnings."
I already addressed your points about Hess, so I won't rehash that, but I will rehash this:
Thinking Clearly about The 911 Forensic Evidence - when you have Eliminated the Impossible, whatever Remains Must be the Truth.
Related Info:
AlienEntity's calculations support the controlled demolition hypothesis
Debating with Uncle Sam... sort of.
No comments:
Post a Comment