I am not into the truther movement but I have a question

[eots]

1..building 7 was not hit by an aircraft

2.a short lived fireball can not greatly effect the strength of steel that requires and is credited to sustained fires

WTC 7 burned for 7 hours, the chances are it was fed by pressurized diesel fuel that was there to supply generators. It is in the video.

Here is a video of another buidling falling due to fire: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h9TOFP7ViY]building collapses due to fire - YouTube[/ame]

Here is an article that you may or may not find interesting: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - First Time In History

hey freewill if you hadn't noticed by now, eots ,sister Jones et al have a major problem, all of what they claim to be evidence has been debunked.
it is based on the false premise that the government was "in on it!"
in the nearly 11 years since 911 not one of there many claims have turned out to be true.
even the so called leaders of the twoofer movement have stopped backing those claims.
all you are left with is the dregs.

This simpleton Freewill is in constant contradiction with the NIST report and the official theory he claims to support

 

[daws101]

WTC 7 burned for 7 hours, the chances are it was fed by pressurized diesel fuel that was there to supply generators. It is in the video.

Here is a video of another buidling falling due to fire: building collapses due to fire - YouTube

Here is an article that you may or may not find interesting: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - First Time In History

hey freewill if you hadn't noticed by now, eots ,sister Jones et al have a major problem, all of what they claim to be evidence has been debunked.
it is based on the false premise that the government was "in on it!"
in the nearly 11 years since 911 not one of there many claims have turned out to be true.
even the so called leaders of the twoofer movement have stopped backing those claims.
all you are left with is the dregs.

This simpleton Freewill is in constant contradiction with the NIST report and the official theory he claims to support

LOL! look who's calling others simpleton! stfu...

 

[Freewill]

hey freewill if you hadn't noticed by now, eots ,sister Jones et al have a major problem, all of what they claim to be evidence has been debunked.
it is based on the false premise that the government was "in on it!"
in the nearly 11 years since 911 not one of there many claims have turned out to be true.
even the so called leaders of the twoofer movement have stopped backing those claims.
all you are left with is the dregs.

This simpleton Freewill is in constant contradiction with the NIST report and the official theory he claims to support

LOL! look who's calling others simpleton! stfu...

Not to worry, being called names means I win and I wear their smear as a badge of honor.

See the poster does what all "truthers" do, the make a statement not based on any fact then expect people to believe it. Like the "pull it" BS. They said it as if "pull it" ever meant to implode the building and they ran with that BS line. Mostly because they web sites they visit implied that is what it meant. I doubt they ever came out and said that it meant to implode the building. Then when shown that pull it does not mean what they imply the names start coming out. Same with the claim that I am defending the NIST, I am not. I am not claiming to have ever read the report everything I post is basically playing against their BS. So when they say that the NIST is lying about the building falling in 5.4 seconds but when the video is run it is clearly falling in more then 5 seconds one has to wonder about these people. What I saw with the debate between Popular Science and Loose Change was educated men going against pretenders. Pretenders that are good at posting links and making innuendo but not so good with rational logical thinking.

 

[Freewill]

WTC 7 burned for 7 hours, the chances are it was fed by pressurized diesel fuel that was there to supply generators. It is in the video.

Be True[/url]

Here is one video of WTC 7 burning.

fires in WTC7

Here is an independent report:

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Finally a discussion on the fires at WTC 7

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/conspiracistsmisrepresentwtc7'scondition

 

[eots]

This simpleton Freewill is in constant contradiction with the NIST report and the official theory he claims to support

LOL! look who's calling others simpleton! stfu...

Not to worry, being called names means I win and I wear their smear as a badge of honor.

See the poster does what all "truthers" do, the make a statement not based on any fact then expect people to believe it. Like the "pull it" BS. They said it as if "pull it" ever meant to implode the building and they ran with that BS line. Mostly because they web sites they visit implied that is what it meant. I doubt they ever came out and said that it meant to implode the building. Then when shown that pull it does not mean what they imply the names start coming out. Same with the claim that I am defending the NIST, I am not. I am not claiming to have ever read the report everything I post is basically playing against their BS. So when they say that the NIST is lying about the building falling in 5.4 seconds but when the video is run it is clearly falling in more then 5 seconds one has to wonder about these people. What I saw with the debate between Popular Science and Loose Change was educated men going against pretenders. Pretenders that are good at posting links and making innuendo but not so good with rational logical thinking.

You are in constant contradiction with the NIST report..you do not even have the most basic grasp of the NIST report as you clearly have never read it..your entire opinion is based on popular mechanics type sources...this is just a fact

 

[Mr. Jones]

Not to worry, being called names means I win and I wear their smear as a badge of honor.

See the poster does what all "truthers" do, the make a statement not based on any fact then expect people to believe it.

Wrong, the facts countering the ludicrous claims of NIST and the OCT, have been linked for you to read and observe to better understand why such views and hypothesis exists. It is you who are choosing to dismiss them without putting them to proper or honest testing. If you did you would post something within the facts presented that you disagree with, instead it is clear you are ignoring the work required to seriously engage in this topic.

Like the "pull it" BS. They said it as if "pull it" ever meant to implode the building and they ran with that BS line. Mostly because they web sites they visit implied that is what it meant. I doubt they ever came out and said that it meant to implode the building. Then when shown that pull it does not mean what they imply the names start coming out.

There is more to Silverstein then this pull it statement. The fact is tho, that he did say this, and was asking his insurance company for permission to implode his building, according to a witness on the scene. So putting these 2 statements together, from him, and the reporter, what do you expect people to conclude?
But, this is another instance of you ignoring something you have no answer for.

Same with the claim that I am defending the NIST, I am not. I am not claiming to have ever read the report everything I post is basically playing against their BS.

It is obvious you really don't care what the NIST report says, or how they manipulated the data to come to the preconceived fire only outcome.
What you are posting in rebuttal to the facts laid out by the credible people against the OCT, has already been thoroughly spanked and dismissed.

So when they say that the NIST is lying about the building falling in 5.4 seconds but when the video is run it is clearly falling in more then 5 seconds one has to wonder about these people.

Look, even NIST changed their report to include the 2.25 secs. of free fall. If you disagree and staunchly believe they are wrong (wouldn't be the first time) perhaps you can provide them with your data and calculations, otherwise stop trying to further muddy the discussion by interjecting your BS uneducated opinions in a debate that is supposed to be based on facts.

What I saw with the debate between Popular Science and Loose Change was educated men going against pretenders. Pretenders that are good at posting links and making innuendo but not so good with rational logical thinking.

The people of Loose Change are not the only ones who showed up Popular Mechanics and their faulty explanation of anything 9-11.
Popular Mechanics didn't touch any of the important things others have pointed out in their critic of their article.
Popular Mechanics seeking to debunk what it calls some of the most prevalent myths about 9-11 fabricated by “conspiracy theorists,” completely ignores the suddenness, vertical, rapidity, and totality of the collapses and also fails to mention the testimonies about molten steel, demolition rings, and the sounds of explosions. They leave these important facts out of the discussion.

They set out to disprove 'wild conspiracies" IE: by stating that the truthers said no way steel could melt with the temps sited in the buildings. This is true, steel can't melt, however they say that steel only needed to "weaken" and so according according to Pop Mech., the truthers are attacking a strawman to solidify their argument.

What they don't mention however is the idea that the towers collapsed because their steel melted was put into the public consciousness by some early defenders of the official theory in the first place!
For critics of the OCT theory to show the absurdity of this claim is not, therefore, to attack a straw man. The idea that the official theory is based on this absurd claim is, in any case, not one of “the most prevalent claims” of those who reject the official theory.

Popular Mechanics, NIST and people like yourselves also ignore the fact that The fire theory is rendered even more unlikely when considering that for fire to have induced a collapse that began suddenly and was entirely symmetrical, so that it went straight down, the fires would have needed to cause all the crucial parts of the building to fail simultaneously, even though the fires were not spread evenly throughout the buildings. All support columns would have to have weakened to the point of collapse at the same instant, with the fires heat and intensity a constant on these critical points.

Popular Mechanics also falsely stated that
“In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999."
The truth is that the FAA reported in a news release on Aug. 9, 2002, that it had scrambled fighters 67 times between September 2000 and June 2001, and the Calgary Herald (Oct. 13, 2001) reported that NORAD scrambled fighters 129 times in 2000.

Major Mike Snyder, a NORAD spokesperson, reportedly told the Boston Globe a few days after 9/11 that “[NORAD’S] fighters routinely intercept aircraft..

The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account of 911 Cannot Be True

As to why Popular Mechanics would have published such a bad article, one clue is perhaps provided by the fact that the article’s “senior researcher” was 25-year old Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new head of the Department of Homeland Security...

Another relevant fact is that this article was published shortly after a coup at this Hearst-owned magazine, in which the editor-in-chief was replaced...

Young Chertoff’s debunking article has itself been effectively debunked by many genuine 9/11 researchers, such as Jim Hoffman, “Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth,” Global Outlook 10 (Spring-Summer 2005), 21-42 (which was based on Hoffman, “Popular Mechanics’ Deceptive Smear Against 9/11 Truth,” 911Review.com, February 15, 2005 [http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html]), and Peter Meyer, “Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11,” Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11. To be sure, these articles by Hoffman and Meyer, while agreeing on many points, take different approaches in response to some of the issues raised. But both articles demonstrate that Popular Mechanics owes its readers an apology for publishing such a massively flawed article on such an important subject.

Using Popular Mechanics to come here and engage in a debate of the 9-11 collapses and attack shows that you are, behind the timeline and severely misinformed.
Try addressing the facts in peoples posts instead of embracing other willfully ignorant and misinformed characters one liner opinions and evasive tactics. Posting what you don't agree with and why with links would also advance the discussion.

 

[paulitician]

What the Hell's wrong with you people? Big Brother never lies. And to state otherwise makes you a CRAZY UN-AMERICAN TERRORIST!! Shame on you.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Yes these people are seriously fucked up..War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength, in their twisted minds.
For an explanation of this behavior, look no further than the psychological theory of cognitive dissonance. This theory holds that when people are presented with information that contradicts preexisting beliefs, they try to relieve the cognitive tension one way or another. They process and respond to information defensively, for instance: their belief challenged by fact, they ignore the latter. They also accept and seek out confirming information but ignore, discredit the source of, or argue against contrary information.

The preexisting belief that they live in a society that is run by a form of government that is the one and only benevolent entity in existence and that would never harm its own peoples is the biggest and wide spread illusion that these folks live with. When presented with facts that counter these indoctrinated beliefs, and all the instances of them throughout history, it is akin to finding out that their "Uncle Sam" has been the one involved in the rash of killings, robberies and lies that have taken place and since they think they know him best, he could NEVER be the guilty one, and how dare anyone even accuse him of such atrocities, despite the overwhelming evidence against him.

It is past the time that Americans to face reality and quit being lazy and allow themselves to be coddled by evil and greedy liars and think for themselves, and stop ignoring what is being done to them.
It is also like beaten wife syndrome, where the victim keeps going back to the source of their abuse, in hopes that "he'll change" with just a little more time...
This is a serious mental illness combined with the reality of having to actually do something about it, that leads to the cowardice behavior of taking more abuse, even if it negatively affects their own children. It is unacceptable.

 

[paulitician]

Yes these people are seriously fucked up..War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength, in their twisted minds.
For an explanation of this behavior, look no further than the psychological theory of cognitive dissonance. This theory holds that when people are presented with information that contradicts preexisting beliefs, they try to relieve the cognitive tension one way or another. They process and respond to information defensively, for instance: their belief challenged by fact, they ignore the latter. They also accept and seek out confirming information but ignore, discredit the source of, or argue against contrary information.

The preexisting belief that they live in a society that is run by a form of government that is the one and only benevolent entity in existence and that would never harm its own peoples is the biggest and wide spread illusion that these folks live with. When presented with facts that counter these indoctrinated beliefs, and all the instances of them throughout history, it is akin to finding out that their "Uncle Sam" has been the one involved in the rash of killings, robberies and lies that have taken place and since they think they know him best, he could NEVER be the guilty one, and how dare anyone even accuse him of such atrocities, despite the overwhelming evidence against him.

It is past the time that Americans to face reality and quit being lazy and allow themselves to be coddled by evil and greedy liars and think for themselves, and stop ignoring what is being done to them.
It is also like beaten wife syndrome, where the victim keeps going back to the source of their abuse, in hopes that "he'll change" with just a little more time...
This is a serious mental illness combined with the reality of having to actually do something about it, that leads to the cowardice behavior of taking more abuse, even if it negatively affects their own children. It is unacceptable.

Well said. Thanks.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Yes these people are seriously fucked up..War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength, in their twisted minds.
For an explanation of this behavior, look no further than the psychological theory of cognitive dissonance. This theory holds that when people are presented with information that contradicts preexisting beliefs, they try to relieve the cognitive tension one way or another. They process and respond to information defensively, for instance: their belief challenged by fact, they ignore the latter. They also accept and seek out confirming information but ignore, discredit the source of, or argue against contrary information.

The preexisting belief that they live in a society that is run by a form of government that is the one and only benevolent entity in existence and that would never harm its own peoples is the biggest and wide spread illusion that these folks live with. When presented with facts that counter these indoctrinated beliefs, and all the instances of them throughout history, it is akin to finding out that their "Uncle Sam" has been the one involved in the rash of killings, robberies and lies that have taken place and since they think they know him best, he could NEVER be the guilty one, and how dare anyone even accuse him of such atrocities, despite the overwhelming evidence against him.

It is past the time that Americans to face reality and quit being lazy and allow themselves to be coddled by evil and greedy liars and think for themselves, and stop ignoring what is being done to them.
It is also like beaten wife syndrome, where the victim keeps going back to the source of their abuse, in hopes that "he'll change" with just a little more time...
This is a serious mental illness combined with the reality of having to actually do something about it, that leads to the cowardice behavior of taking more abuse, even if it negatively affects their own children. It is unacceptable.

Well said. Thanks.

Still waiting on anything with any semblance of intelligence from the resident trolls that backs up their positions. How anyone can ignore the facts presented to them, that counter the official fairytale of the OCT, from such credible people in the relevant fields of study is beyond comprehension.
If they are so adamant in their beliefs, that what is being said and has been studied that goes against the OCT and NIST and the government, why wont they just lay it out instead of dodging and ignoring what is posted, or by trying to "debunk" it with old shit that has already been analyzed, dissected and proven to be BS lies??

 

[daws101]

LOL! look who's calling others simpleton! stfu...

Not to worry, being called names means I win and I wear their smear as a badge of honor.

See the poster does what all "truthers" do, the make a statement not based on any fact then expect people to believe it. Like the "pull it" BS. They said it as if "pull it" ever meant to implode the building and they ran with that BS line. Mostly because they web sites they visit implied that is what it meant. I doubt they ever came out and said that it meant to implode the building. Then when shown that pull it does not mean what they imply the names start coming out. Same with the claim that I am defending the NIST, I am not. I am not claiming to have ever read the report everything I post is basically playing against their BS. So when they say that the NIST is lying about the building falling in 5.4 seconds but when the video is run it is clearly falling in more then 5 seconds one has to wonder about these people. What I saw with the debate between Popular Science and Loose Change was educated men going against pretenders. Pretenders that are good at posting links and making innuendo but not so good with rational logical thinking.

You are in constant contradiction with the NIST report..you do not even have the most basic grasp of the NIST report as you clearly have never read it..your entire opinion is based on popular mechanics type sources...this is just a fact

popular mechanics agrees with the nist report and you disagree with both so there is no contradiction.

 

[daws101]

Yes these people are seriously fucked up..War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength, in their twisted minds.
For an explanation of this behavior, look no further than the psychological theory of cognitive dissonance. This theory holds that when people are presented with information that contradicts preexisting beliefs, they try to relieve the cognitive tension one way or another. They process and respond to information defensively, for instance: their belief challenged by fact, they ignore the latter. They also accept and seek out confirming information but ignore, discredit the source of, or argue against contrary information.

The preexisting belief that they live in a society that is run by a form of government that is the one and only benevolent entity in existence and that would never harm its own peoples is the biggest and wide spread illusion that these folks live with. When presented with facts that counter these indoctrinated beliefs, and all the instances of them throughout history, it is akin to finding out that their "Uncle Sam" has been the one involved in the rash of killings, robberies and lies that have taken place and since they think they know him best, he could NEVER be the guilty one, and how dare anyone even accuse him of such atrocities, despite the overwhelming evidence against him.

It is past the time that Americans to face reality and quit being lazy and allow themselves to be coddled by evil and greedy liars and think for themselves, and stop ignoring what is being done to them.
It is also like beaten wife syndrome, where the victim keeps going back to the source of their abuse, in hopes that "he'll change" with just a little more time...
This is a serious mental illness combined with the reality of having to actually do something about it, that leads to the cowardice behavior of taking more abuse, even if it negatively affects their own children. It is unacceptable.

Well said. Thanks.

Still waiting on anything with any semblance of intelligence from the resident trolls that backs up their positions. How anyone can ignore the facts presented to them, that counter the official fairytale of the OCT, from such credible people in the relevant fields of study is beyond comprehension.
If they are so adamant in their beliefs, that what is being said and has been studied that goes against the OCT and NIST and the government, why wont they just lay it out instead of dodging and ignoring what is posted, or by trying to "debunk" it with old shit that has already been analyzed, dissected and proven to be BS lies??

hey sister jones none of what you've posted in post #166 ,168 and 170 is evidence. none of the people you mention are credible.

cognitive dissonance! hahahahahahaha you are a living example cognitive bias:

A cognitive bias is a pattern of deviation in judgment that occurs in particular situations, leading to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality.[1][2][3] Implicit in the concept of a "pattern of deviation" is a standard of comparison with what is normatively expected; this may be the judgment of people outside those particular situations, or may be a set of independently verifiable facts. A continually evolving list of cognitive biases has been identified over the last six decades of research on human judgment and decision-making in cognitive science, social psychology, and behavioral economics.

Cognitive biases are instances of evolved mental behavior. Some are presumably adaptive, for example, because they lead to more effective actions in given contexts or enable faster decisions when faster decisions are of greater value (heuristics). Others presumably result from a lack of appropriate mental mechanisms (bounded rationality), or simply from mental noise and distortions.

 

[eots]

not to worry, being called names means i win and i wear their smear as a badge of honor.

See the poster does what all "truthers" do, the make a statement not based on any fact then expect people to believe it. Like the "pull it" bs. They said it as if "pull it" ever meant to implode the building and they ran with that bs line. Mostly because they web sites they visit implied that is what it meant. I doubt they ever came out and said that it meant to implode the building. Then when shown that pull it does not mean what they imply the names start coming out. Same with the claim that i am defending the nist, i am not. I am not claiming to have ever read the report everything i post is basically playing against their bs. So when they say that the nist is lying about the building falling in 5.4 seconds but when the video is run it is clearly falling in more then 5 seconds one has to wonder about these people. What i saw with the debate between popular science and loose change was educated men going against pretenders. Pretenders that are good at posting links and making innuendo but not so good with rational logical thinking.

you are in constant contradiction with the nist report..you do not even have the most basic grasp of the nist report as you clearly have never read it..your entire opinion is based on popular mechanics type sources...this is just a fact

popular mechanics agrees with the nist report and you disagree with both so there is no contradiction.

The popular mechanics book came out before the final NIST report and is full of contradictions falsehoods

 

[daws101]

you are in constant contradiction with the nist report..you do not even have the most basic grasp of the nist report as you clearly have never read it..your entire opinion is based on popular mechanics type sources...this is just a fact

popular mechanics agrees with the nist report and you disagree with both so there is no contradiction.

The popular mechanics book came out before the final NIST report and is full of contradictions falsehoods

wrong again...


The Conspiracy Industry: Afterword to PM Expanded Investigation
Afterword to Popular Mechanics magazine's book, Debunking 9/11 Myths, by editor-in-chief James B. Meigs, analyzing the nature of conspiracies theories related to September 11. The fully revised and updated 2011 edition of the book is now on sale.
By James B. Meigs

On February 7, 2005, I became a member of the Bush/Halliburton/Zionist/CIA/New World Order/ Illuminati conspiracy for global domination. It was on that day the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics, with its cover story debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, hit newsstands. Within hours, the online community of 9/11 conspiracy buffs--which calls itself the "9/11 Truth Movement"--was aflame with wild fantasies about me and my staff, the magazine I edit, and the article we had published.

The Web site 9-11 Research: An Independent Investigation of the 9-11-2001 Attack, an organization that claims that questioning the "official" story of 9/11 is "an act of responsible citizenship," fired one of the first salvos: "Popular Mechanics Attacks Its 9/11 LIES Straw Man," read the headline of a piece by a leading conspiracy theorist named Jim Hoffman.

We had begun our plunge down the rabbit hole. Within hours, a post on www.portland.indymedia.org, which claims to be dedicated to "radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth," called me "James Meigs the Coward and Traitor." Not long afterward, another prominent conspiracy theorist produced an analysis that concluded that Popular Mechanics is a CIA front organization. Invective and threats soon clogged the comments section of our Web site and poured in by e-mail:
I was amused at your attempts to prove the conspirator theorists wrong by your interviewing people who work for the government. Face it: The U.S. government planned this attack to further its own agenda in the Middle East.

Rest assured, puppet boys . . . when the hammer comes down about the biggest crime ever perpetrated in the history of man--AND IT WILL--it will be VERY easy to identify the co-conspirators by their flimsy, awkwardly ignorant of reality magazine articles. Keep that in mind the next time you align yourself with evil scum.

YOU HAVE DECLARD YOURSELF ENEMY OF AMERICANS AND FRIEND OF THE MOSSAD!

I shouldn't have been surprised. In researching the article we'd spent enough time studying the conspiracy movement to get a feel for its style: the tone of outraged patriotism, the apocalyptic rhetoric, the casual use of invective. A common refrain in conspiracy circles is the claim that "We're just asking questions." One would think that at least some quarters of the conspiracy movement might welcome a mainstream publication's serious, nonideological attempt to answer those questions. One would be wrong.

It was only a matter of time before the Nazis got dragged in. Christopher Bollyn, a prominent conspiracy theorist affiliated with the far-right American Free Press, weighed in a few weeks later with a piece titled "The Hidden Hand of the CIA, 911 And Popular Mechanics." The article begins with a brief history of Hitler's consolidation of power following the Reichstag fire in 1933. "Like Nazi Germany of 1933," Bollyn wrote, "American newsstands today carry a mainstream magazine dedicated to pushing the government's truth of 9/11 while viciously smearing independent researchers as extremists who peddle fantasies and make poisonous claims."

In a few short weeks, Popular Mechanics had gone from being a 100-year-old journal about science, engineering, car maintenance, and home improvement to being a pivotal player in a global conspiracy on a par with Nazi Germany.

Not all the responses were negative, of course. One visitor to our Web site, after plowing through dozens of angry comments, left a supportive post that included this astute observation:
Some people are open to any possibility, and honestly examine all evidence in a rational manner to come to a conclusion, followed by a moral evaluation. Others start with a desire for a specific moral evaluation, and then work backwards assembling any fact that supports them, and dismissing any fact that does not.

Author Chip Berlet, who is an analyst for the liberal think tank Political Research Associates, employs the awkward but useful term "conspiracism" to describe this mindset. "Populist conspiracism sees secret plots by tiny cabals of evildoers as the major motor powering important historical events," he writes on the think tank's Web site. Berlet has spent more than two decades studying far-right and authoritarian movements in the United States. "Every major traumatic event in U.S. history generates a new round of speculation about conspiracies," he writes. "The attacks on 9/11/01 are no exception."

As the hate mail poured in and articles claiming to have debunked the magazine's analysis proliferated online, we soon learned to identify the key techniques that give conspiracy theorists their illusion of coherence.


Marginalization of Opposing Views
The 9/11 Truth Movement invariably describes the mainstream account of 9/11 as the "government version" or "the official version." In fact, the generally accepted account of 9/11 is made up of a multitude of sources: thousands of newspaper, TV, and radio reports produced by journalists from all over the world; investigations conducted by independent organizations and institutions, including the American Society of Civil Engineers, Purdue University, Northwestern University, Columbia University, the National Fire Protection Association, and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.; eyewitness testimony from literally thousands of people; recordings and transcripts of phone calls, air traffic control transmissions, and other communications; thousands of photographs; thousands of feet of video footage; and, let's not forget the words of Osama bin Laden, who discussed the operation in detail on more than one occasion, including in an audio recording released in May 2006 that said: "I am responsible for assigning the roles of the 19 brothers to conduct these conquests . . ."

The mainstream view of 9/11 is, in other words, a vast consensus. By presenting it instead as the product of a small coterie of insiders, conspiracists are able to ignore facts they find inconvenient and demonize people with whom they disagree.




Read more: The Conspiracy Industry: Afterword to PM Expanded Investigation - Popular Mechanics The Conspiracy Industry: Afterword to PM Expanded Investigation - Popular Mechanics

 

[eots]

I am not wrong...so the book updated was in 2011...no one is buying or reading their book any more...all the bullshit they told in the first publication is constantly repeated by debwunkers as fact still..all their bullshit videos are still out there

 

[daws101]

I am not wrong...so the book updated was in 2011...no one is buying or reading their book any more...all the bullshit they told in the first publication is constantly repeated by debwunkers as fact still..all their bullshit videos are still out there

of course you are wrong ....you've never been right.
who is no one? you and your 5 twoofers buddies?
since you've never presented any credible evidence to prove the pm report to be inaccurate.
then your claim of bullshit is also inaccurate and subjective.

 

[daws101]

Argument by Anomaly
In an article about the Popular Mechanics 9/11 report, Scientific American columnist Michael Shermer makes an important observation about the conspiracist method: "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the `evidence' for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy."

A successful scientific theory organizes masses of information into a coherent, well-tested narrative. When a theory has managed to explain the real world accurately enough for long enough, it becomes accepted as fact. Conspiracy theorists, Shermer points out, generally ignore the mass of evidence that supports the mainstream view and focus strictly on tiny anomalies. But, in a complex and messy world, the fact that there might be a few details we don't yet understand should not be surprising.

A good example is the conspiracist fascination with the collapse of 7 World Trade Center. Since the 47-story tower was not hit by an airplane, only by the debris of the North Tower, investigators weren't sure at first just how or why it collapsed hours after the attacks. A scientist (or for that matter, a journalist or historian) might see that gap in our knowledge as an opportunity for further research (see "WTC 7: Fire and Debris Damage," page 53). In the conspiracy world, however, even a hint of uncertainty is a chance to set a trap. If researchers can't "prove" exactly how the building fell, they say, then there is only one other possible conclusion: Someone blew it up.


Slipshod Handling of Facts
There are hundreds of books--and hundreds of thousands of Web pages--devoted to 9/11 conspiracy theories, many bristling with footnotes, citations, and technical jargon. But despite the appearance of scholarly rigor, few of these documents handle factual material with enough care to pass muster at a high-school newspaper, much less at a scholarly journal. Some mistakes are mere sloppiness; others show deliberate disregard for the truth.

Journalism is never perfect. Early accounts of any major event are studded with minor errors and omissions. As Washington Post publisher Philip Graham famously noted, "Journalism is the first draft of history." In future drafts, errors are corrected, so anyone honestly attempting to understand an event relies more heavily on later investigations. Conspiracy theorists tend to do just the opposite. For example, the conspiracy Web site TOTAL 911 INFO includes the headline "Video: CNN reported no plane hit pentagon." The item includes a clip from the morning of the attack, in which reporter Jamie McIntyre says, "There's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon."

Today, we know why very little wreckage was visible from McIntyre's vantage point: Flight 77 didn't crash near the Pentagon. It crashed into the Pentagon. Traveling at 780 feet per second, it struck with such force that virtually the entire aircraft and its contents continued into the building. Investigators recovered the shredded remnants of the plane, including the black box, and established exactly how Flight 77 struck the building. Through forensics they have identified all but five of the 64 passengers and crew and Pentagon fatalities. (All five hijackers were positively identified.) Though a few conspiracy theorists attempt to reckon with that vast accretion of evidence, many more prefer to turn back the clock to the earliest possible moment, when hard facts were at a minimum.

Some errors are so simple they are almost laughable. After the Popular Mechanics report was published, numerous critics wrote to object to our explanation of why NORAD was poorly prepared to intercept off-course commercial aircraft (see "Military Intercepts," page 22). Many pointed to the 1999 case of golfer Payne Stewart's private jet, which was intercepted and followed after losing pressurization and failing to respond to radio calls. "Within less than 20 minutes fighter planes were alongside Stewart's plane," one letter claimed. In fact, the widespread idea that a fighter was able to reach Stewart's aircraft within minutes is based on a convenient misreading of the flight records. According to the National Transportation Safety Board report on the incident, controllers lost contact with Stewart's jet at 9:30 a.m. eastern daylight time; the flight was intercepted at 9:52 a.m. central daylight time--that is, the intercept took an hour and 22 minutes, not 22 minutes. (Not surprisingly, such errors always seem to break in favor of the conspiracists' views and never the other way around.)


Repetition
The Web site rense.com, which is edited by conspiracy oriented radio talk-show host Jeff Rense, includes an article by Bollyn discussing the seismic data recorded by Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at the time the two towers fell. "These unexplained `spikes' in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses," Bollyn concludes. This claim, which originally appeared in the American Free Press, was decisively debunked in the Popular Mechanics magazine article (and is addressed here in "Seismic Spikes" in Chapter 2, "The World Trade Center"). The truth on this issue isn't hard to find: Lamont-Doherty's research is available to the public. Nonetheless, this claim from Bollyn's piece is repeated verbatim on more than 50 conspiracy sites today.

In the early days of the Internet, some commentators worried that material posted online would be ephemeral. In fact, the opposite is true. On the Internet, errors can last forever--repeated, cross-referenced, and passed from site to site in an endless daisy chain. The essentially nonchronological nature of the Internet contributes to this phenomenon. Many postings don't have dates, so it is difficult for readers to see what information has been disproven or superseded. Mainstream journalism makes at least an attempt to correct mistakes and prevent them from being repeated in later stories. The conspiracy movement prefers a see-what-sticks approach: Throw everything against the wall, and keep throwing.


Circular Reasoning
In archaeology, researchers are often reminded that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In the world of 9/11 denial, even the tiniest gaps in the evidence record are seen as proof that the mainstream view is incorrect. Case in point: the widespread claim that the government was hiding incriminating evidence because it refused to release video footage from security cameras outside the Pentagon. The footage had been entered into evidence at the trial of Al Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, who pleaded guilty in May 2006. Later that month the government released the material in response to a Freedom of Information request by the conservative watchdog organization Judicial Watch. The footage from two of those cameras, however, didn't show the cruise missile or small aircraft predicted by author Thierry Meyssan and others. Nor did it show a Boeing 757 streaking toward impact. In fact, the security cameras in question recorded data at the glacial rate of one frame per second. The odds of picking up a clear image of a jet moving at 780 feet per second were slim indeed. But that didn't stop an online commentator from concluding: "There's no plane at the Pentagon at 9/11, plain and simple."

But among 9/11 theorists, the presence of evidence supporting the mainstream view is also taken as proof of conspiracy. One forum posting that has multiplied across the Internet includes a long list of the physical evidence linking the 19 hijackers to the crime: the rental car left behind at Boston's Logan airport, Mohamed Atta's suitcase, passports recovered at the crash sites, and so on. "HOW CONVENIENT!" the author notes after each citation. In the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose logic of conspiracism, there is no piece of information that cannot be incorporated into one's pet theory. Like doctrinaire Marxists or certain religious extremists, conspiracists enjoy a worldview that is immune to refutation.

Jim Hoffman sums up this worldview nicely in one of his pieces attacking the original Popular Mechanics investigation of conspiracy theories. "[The article] purports to debunk conspiracy theorists' physical-evidence-based claims without even acknowledging that there are other grounds on which to question the official story," he writes. "Indeed many 9/11 researchers don't even address the physical evidence, preferring instead to focus on who had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack." This is a stunning burst of honesty: Since we've already decided who's to blame, Hoffman is saying, evidence is optional.


Demonization
The 9/11 conspiracy theorists have an eternal problem: In every field where they make claims, the leading experts disagree with them. The only solution is to attack these authorities early and often.

Van Romero, an explosives expert from New Mexico who was quoted in the Albuquerque Journal on September 11, 2001, as saying that it looked like explosives brought down the World Trade Center towers, saw this firsthand. Eleven days later, the Journal ran a follow-up story stating his opinion that "fire is what caused the buildings to fail." Predictably, conspiracists view that clarification as proof that somebody "got to" Romero. "Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement," claimed The Emperor's New Clothes.

It is in the nature of conspiracy theories that they must constantly expand as they try to absorb and neutralize conflicting information. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, a conspiracy theorist might have imagined a compact plot involving a corrupt White House and a few renegade military officers. But as the months went by, committees were organized by Congress, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and others. News organizations conducted detailed investigations. Reports and studies piled up, none of them helpful to the conspiracist viewpoint. For conspiracy theorists there was only one answer: All of these people must be in on the plot, too.

One of the chilling things about 9/11 denial is how blithely its adherents are able to accuse their fellow citizens of complicity in evil. They think nothing of suggesting that Romero would keep silent about an enormous crime, that hundreds of researchers involved in 9/11 investigations were participants in a cover-up, or that journalists from Popular Mechanics, The Nation, the New York Times and hundreds of other publications would willingly hide such a plot. Many critics of Popular Mechanics complained that some of the sources we quoted work for the U.S. government. The assumption--explicitly stated by many--was that anyone connected with the government should be seen as implicated. Point of reference: Not including the U.S. Post Office, the federal government has more than 1.9 million employees.



Read more: The Conspiracy Industry: Afterword to PM Expanded Investigation - Popular Mechanics

 

[Freewill]

I am done, it is starting to feel like pulling the wings off of flys;

The last thing i will address is that acuasation that there was nothing posted to counter the truther BS. These are the links I provided:

According to this site WTC 5 did partially collaspe. (tried to find an independent source)

Hughes Associates, Inc.

Here is a video of another buidling falling due to fire:
building collapses due to fire - YouTube
building collapses due to fire - YouTube



Here is an article that you may or may not find interesting: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - First Time In History

Here is one video of WTC 7 burning.

fires in WTC7

Here is an independent report:

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf

Finally a discussion on the fires at WTC 7

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...#39;scondition

Here is a site that directly addresses the video in the OP.

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

Here is another: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Pentagon - Flight 93 - Popular Mechanics

 

[Mr. Jones]

hey sister jones none of what you've posted in post #166 ,168 and 170 is evidence. none of the people you mention are credible.

It is evidence of more rational theories that explain the 9-11 attacks and make more sense then the shit you subscribe to. Tell us why you don't consider this evidence of this fact, or why the people who draw their counter conclusions are not credible instead of just typing your opinion and running away to paste some shit about cognizant dissonance that fits you perfectly.
Fact is the people and agencies that you side with have been shown to be liars, have been caught fucking up the data and changing it to fit a ludicrous fire only scenario, whereas the folks that are not government affiliated have not bullshitted there way through insane fire only scenarios that don't make sense.

You've yet to rationally point anything out in the counter theories that advance NIST or your boneheaded beliefs and only post your asinine opinions, again with nothing of substance to back it up.

But that is how you operate, by denying any counter proof of credible evidence, and by saying the people are not credible, which is the the first rule of engaging cognizant dissonance.

So come on quit ignoring it and pretending things don't exist, and try to point out what it is that you are having a problem with instead.

 

[daws101]

hey sister jones none of what you've posted in post #166 ,168 and 170 is evidence. none of the people you mention are credible.

It is evidence of more rational theories that explain the 9-11 attacks and make more sense then the shit you subscribe to. Tell us why you don't consider this evidence of this fact, or why the people who draw their counter conclusions are not credible instead of just typing your opinion and running away to paste some shit about cognizant dissonance that fits you perfectly.
Fact is the people and agencies that you side with have been shown to be liars, have been caught fucking up the data and changing it to fit a ludicrous fire only scenario, whereas the folks that are not government affiliated have not bullshitted there way through insane fire only scenarios that don't make sense.

You've yet to rationally point anything out in the counter theories that advance NIST or your boneheaded beliefs and only post your asinine opinions, again with nothing of substance to back it up.

But that is how you operate, by denying any counter proof of credible evidence, and by saying the people are not credible, which is the the first rule of engaging cognizant dissonance.

So come on quit ignoring it and pretending things don't exist, and try to point out what it is that you are having a problem with instead.

lol lol! yep cognitive bias at work.

as I've said before if you twoofs were right about 911 then there would have been only two possible outcomes.
bush and co would be waiting on death row or already executed.

OR

WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION AS ALL THE TWOOFERS WOULD BE AWAITING THE SAME FATE AS BUSH AND CO.

instead you get to amuse people with you lunatic ravings!

ain't freedom of speech great!