9/11, 9/11 fifteen years on, Guardian Watch, latest
Comments 114

Guardian “Facebook fact-check ” on 9/11 – every bit as poor as you would expect


by Catte

The Guardian is no better at telling the truth about the nature of the 9/11 debate than about Syria, Ukraine or indeed anything. Its recent bid at being both social-media savvy and weirdly Orwellian, “Facebook Fact Check”, has this little snippet up atm:

guardianliesaboutsjones

The paper they are referring to is On the Physics of High Rise Building Collapses, which we have published here, and the “professor” who, according to them, “left Brigham Young University in disgrace” is of course physicist Steve Jones, who was the subject of a hostile media campaign after he and his BYU research team claimed to have discovered evidence of nanothermite in tiny “red gray chips” found in the dust from the WTC explosions.

For the record, Jones’ research work on the red gray chips has been challenged, but never debunked, and his experiments have been replicated successfully by independent researchers elsewhere in the world, such as Mark Bazile. Jones was suspended from his teaching duties and then offered “early retirement” by BYU in 2006 in the midst of the media campaign against him.

BYU’s reasons for this action were never publicly disclosed but the Guardian’s claim that Jones was “disgraced” is little more than a sleazy bit of innuendo, so gross it doesn’t even appear in the sourced WaPo article, which does at least try to be a tad objective. “Disgrace” is just the Graun’s own little bit of tabloidese. Because tabloid is all it seems to do now.

Jones’ three co-authors are described in this piece as “a retired professor and two longterm 9/11 truthers.” I guess the Graun didn’t want to admit two of them are structural engineers as well as being “truthers”?

When the (ironically named?) “fact-check” briefly discusses the physics of 9/11, it’s simply to offer yet more deception. The investigation by serious professionals of the still not fully explained and extraordinary triple collapses on 9/11 is listed along with claims we didn’t go to the Moon and some random nonsense about Hillary Clinton, presumably in some attempt to discredit by proximity. Instead of honestly addressing the very real areas of uncertainty which the scientists of NIST have quite openly admitted, the Graun does what many other agenda-driven “debunkers” do and tries to reframe the issue as being between “settled science” (to borrow a term) on one side and crazy, discredited or otherwise unreliable kooks on the other.

This, we need to clearly understand, is a purely propagandist ploy meant to convince only the under-informed “masses” (ie us), and not those on either side versed in the real issues. If you read their report and other commentaries, the experts of the National Institute of Standards and Technology are well aware that the explanation they have produced for the 9/11 building collapses is neither complete nor beyond rational question. They are well aware there is plenty of room for science-based interrogation and counter-hypothesis.

But for some reason it seems to be very important to the manufacturers of consent that we, the public, are not made aware of these continuing and probably understandable uncertainties. So, through outlets such as the Guardian (and many others) they disseminate simplistic statements, soundbites and frank lies, designed to convince people that what is uncertain, poorly explained and capable of interpretation is simple, settled, dusted and done.

The link the Guardian provides that is alleged to “disprove” all such “conspiracy theories” is to the 2005 Popular Mechanics article that did indeed claim to do this. The Guardian doesn’t mention that this article has itself been “debunked” and makes several provably false assertions.

If the fire-induced collapse explanation for the events of 9/11 is really beyond debate, why do outlets such as the Graun (and indeed Popular Mechanics) not make this self-evident by simply allowing both sides to place their evidence before the public on their pages, so that readers can make up their own minds? Outlets don’t need to take a side and defend it. In fact they work best when they try to avoid this and do their best to offer argument from all sides.

We aren’t claiming Jones and his co-authors are ultimately correct. We’re just pointing out that scientific truth doesn’t need to be defended by spin or censorship or grotesque ad hominem.


In light of some of the disruptive and time-wasting commentary on these science-based 9/11 threads, we are asking everyone who makes claims of fact to post links or sources, be courteous, and stay on topic. Thanks….

114 Comments

  1. MFitz says

    The end of the article poses the question as to why outlets such as the Graun or Popular Mechanics don’t both sides to place their evidence before the public on their pages, so that readers can make up their own minds. I can think of a rather obvious reason; the “controlled demolition” crowd have never presented a case. They point out individual anomalies they can’t explain and make inferences and innuendo,… but fall far short of presenting an actual case.

    Like

    • Rhisiart Gwilym says

      Whoops! Large Johnson re-emerges with a new name! To see the childish falsity – unsupported by evidence or sources, naturally – of MFitz’s ridiculous claim that no case for controlled demolition has been presented, simply go – for one good example – to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, of which I’m a member, and study in depth the large archive of high-quality information there.

      http://www.ae911truth.org/

      Evidence pages here:

      http://www.ae911truth.org/evidence.html

      The truth – as distinct from substanceless trolling assertions – is that any court of law (any none-crooked, honest court, that is) could use the evidence now mustered by the truth-seeking community to convince a jury “beyond reasonable doubt”, as British legal parlance puts it, that the three building collapses in Manhattan were unmistakably controlled demolitions. The FACT of CD has now been established sufficiently to convince any intellectually-honest, reasonable person, who takes the trouble to study the evidence in sufficient detail. Naturally, it will never convince the obdurate denialists. But then, they’re not in the business of following the evidence honestly, wherever it leads, and facing up to the realities.

      Study the accumulated information at the high-quality truth sites, and decide for yourself. Just ignore the useless trolls. They’re losing the argument steadily anyway, as more and more people, even in the US itself, become clear that ‘their’ governments have lied to them about these attacks.

      The truth about this false flag is easing out, slowly but remorselessly. Successive opinion polls make that quite clear.

      Like

      • MFitz says

        I’m familiar with the information that is out there and my point still stands. There is no comprehensive case to prima facie standard to support any of the many malicious human intervention claims other than planes crashing into buildings. Its all single anomalies removed from proper context, accusation and innuendo. If there were then you and Mr. Gage would have presented said case to a prosecutor a long time ago instead of just raising more money and making excuses.

        Like

        • Rhisiart Gwilym says

          What ‘point’? You make none, of any substance. Simple unsupported, evidence-free assertion is not a useful point, particularly when the available evidence – in the real world – contradicts your unsupported assertion comprehensively.

          AE9/11Truth – as anyone can see who simply follows the links I offered – makes a conclusive case for controlled demolition of the three buildings. Further equally-conclusive work has been done by a whole range of serious workers amongst the principled-volunteer truth-seekers. Studying the large body of high quality material at AE will lead serious seekers on to their work too. I won’t pick out particular names here, because it all hangs together, and is best arrived at organically, by starting at a good place like AE’s website. But be aware: There’s a good deal of patient getting-up-to-speed work to be done before you can hope to arrive at a clear picture of the whole false flag event. And there’s all the lying lamestream-media false-meme barrage put up repeatedly by the power-serving mediawhores to clear out of your mind first, to make room for the truth; and to get emotionally ready to face it.

          Take the time to study the bona-fide high-quality material.

          Obviously, the material evidence needs to be brought before an honest court, with a settled will to seek the truth and to name the treasonous guilty parties. Equally obviously, there is no chance – yet – that any court of the crony states of the US’s imperial racket – of which the 9/11 false-flag scam was a major realpolitikal move – is going to be allowed to act honestly and in good faith. Any realworld-dweller can see that. Nevertheless, when once a real opportunity arises, the evidence will be brought before an honest court.

          Waste no time on purveyors of substanceless assertions, folks. Just study the hard, established, factual material. Don’t be bamboozled by mere repetitive denialism. Any troll can do that. And they continue to do so – as we see here.

          I’ve learned from fifteen years of sharp-end experience, that there is no point in getting into ‘yes it is’/’no it isn’t’ stichomythia with trolls. Such pointless shouting matches are designed to de-fuse peoples’ will to look seriously into this big issue. So if MFitz is going to offer nothing but substanceless statements, I shall simply bow out of such a – deliberately – pointless conversation. You can talk to yourself, M.

          Follow the evidence trail, folks; the hard evidence trial. Waste no time listening to – or worse still actually attempting a reasonable conversation with – deliberate-misleader trolls! Experience says emphatically: that’s a pointless waste of energy – as it’s designed to be.

          Like

          • Rhisiart Gwilym says

            PS: MFitz has replied again, but – in keeping with my end remarks in my previous post, I decline to continue with the time-wasting.

            I repeat: Onlookers seeking serious discussion of the facts should, as exhorted above, study the material at AE9/11Truth, and the other high-quality websites to which it links.

            What we have here is an unconvincing time-and-energy-waster pretending that the – alleged – state civil-service organisations in the US, like NIST and the Department of Justice, are actually doing their alleged work properly, and we should simply apply to them to deal with the truth about 9/11. Do I need to point out what a sick joke this idea is, in the utterly corrupted USA? Find me a trustworthy court there that would be allowed to hear the case for the false-flag honestly, and reach an impartial, honest verdict!

            Genuinely-serious students of the big false-flag can make up their own minds by studying the sources I’ve suggested.

            As for MFitz: If it looks like a troll, walks like a troll, and farts like a troll…

            Byeee, Fitz! Consider this a time-wasting effort that petered out…

            Like

  2. Rhisiart Gwilym says

    It’s really time for Off-G to bite the bullet and get rid of obvious water-muddying trolls like ‘Large Johnson’. They visit places like this not to probe for truth, but to PREVENT its emergence. Whether actually paid to do disinformation work online, as some are, or acting simply out of their own twisted emotion-dominated motivations, they need to be excluded, because their only function is to de-rail a rational discussion. Simply look at ‘LJ’ contributions to this thread – replete with scoffing ad-hominems, as usual – to see how obvious it is. His/her/their/its input is replete with false assertions that have already been debunked by the real truth-seekers. But they’re still useful for water-muddying exercises, such as we see here. I do get OG’s efforts to accommodate all strands of reasonable argument. But frank trolling – as ‘LJ’s posts obviously are – needs to be excluded. They actually disable reasonable argument – as they’re intended to do. Fifteen years of encountering the sort of dreck being sprayed here by ‘LJ’ make it very familiar to me.

    Like

    • LJ was indeed a troll. We had to remove 90% of his comments as being of the “your mom” variety and just infantile abuse. In the end he grew tired of getting no traction and departed. We believe a post-by-post method is the best and fairest way of dealing with these people. They have the chance to make a fair point, but get zero-tolerance of their trolling.

      Like

      • Rhisiart Gwilym says

        Thanks for your reply, Admin. A fair, considered position. But – having encountered this sort of toxic rubbish for so many years – I have no tolerance for it any longer. Power to your arms, friends!

        Like

  3. In light of some of the disruptive and time-wasting commentary on these science-based 9/11 threads, we are asking everyone who makes claims of fact to post links or sources, be courteous, and stay on topic. If claims are made repeatedly without being sourced or if generic dismissals are employed by ether side that are content-free we’ll have no choice but to treat the comments as spam.

    We don’t want to do that – so please people, source your claims with a link or a reference.

    Thanks….

    Liked by 1 person

    • Large Johnson says

      What scientific method assiduously avoids and rejects important physical evidence and crucial eyewitness testimony? How can an enterprise aspiring to spread the word about this actively reject what the FDNY said happened?
      You have bee hoist on your petard and the fact is that this demolition stuff,despite an avid group of zealous advocates,is a backwater in any serious discussion of what happened on 9/11

      Most serious thinkers reject it once they see the tawdry methodology and easily disproven claims.

      PS this discussion is now over. Take up my suggestions about constructive discussion, or continue to troll. UP to you.

      Like

      • You need to present your evidence in context with explanation. If you just slap up a video with a comment such as “see f**k face, that’s how dumb you are”, this isn’t evidence. The best commenters here will blockquote a comment they are replying to and rebut point by point in a coherent manner. What you do is tantamount to trolling – repetitive, abusive and non-specific. Your opinions are not the problem your method of presenting them is the problem.

        Like

  4. Some of the best Ironworker’s in the world live and work in New York City, why, nothing from them or their Union? These guys know, the truth, they know the worth of their constructions, they know there is no way in hell those buildings came down on account of fire. Has their Union Business Manager’s been paid off to keep their mouth’s shut!? Well heck, the same people who had 9/11 done own the Unions and just about everything else in this country, so why not? If there is an Ironworker in New York with the balls to tell the truth please standup!

    Like

    • Thank you Sam you spoke my heart! What about the NYC Police and Firemen? Where are they at? Save this Republic. This Democracy.

      Like

    • Here’s what Dr Shyam Sunder, the lead NIST investigator said in February 2006. “We were not looking at a bomb. We knew what the source of the problem was, which was the airplane impact. There was substantial evidence for that. We didn’t really need to understand what caused the building to collapse. We knew what started the process…
      it’s not essential to do a chemical analysis to look for residue. If blast did play a significant role in the collapse of the buildings then you should be able to see that evidence in the pieces of steel that you can see, in the manner in which the steel is fragmented. You should be able to pick that up.”

      Like

  5. Large Johnson says

    As someone who sipped the Kool-Aid and fell for some of the agit-prop lies about Building 7 I would encourage all interested individuals to carefully read the oral testimonies of the FDNY after the fact.

    In these testimonies is lead pipe proof that the building wasn’t blown up but fell from the impacts and the fires set off by them.

    Here’s an excellent paper by a brilliant man who is kryptonite for guys like Richard Gage and Steve Jones:

    https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/introduction

    If you start typing crap about the FDNY being in on it or such in response to the paper you won’t be taken seriously.

    Like

    • Charles Laird says

      Because the only loads present on 9/11 after the impact
      of the airplanes were gravity and fire (there were no high
      winds that day), many engineers were surprised that the
      Twin Towers completely collapsed. The towers, in fact,
      had been designed specifically to withstand the impact
      of a jetliner, as the head structural engineer, John Skilling,
      explained in an interview with the Seattle Times following
      the 1993 World Trade Center bombing: “Our analysis indicated
      the biggest problem would be the fact that all the
      fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building.
      There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would
      be killed,” he said. “The building structure would still be
      there.” Skilling went on to say he didn’t think a single
      200-pound [90-kg] car bomb would topple or do major
      structural damage to either of the Twin Towers. “However,”
      he added, “I’m not saying that properly applied
      explosives—shaped explosives—of that magnitude could
      not do a tremendous amount of damage…. I would imagine
      that if you took the top expert in that type of work
      and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings
      down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.”
      In other words, Skilling believed the only mechanism
      that could bring down the Twin Towers was controlled
      demolition.

      Like

      • The buildings were worthless because when they were built, few people knew asbestos was dangerous. The engineers sprayed it everywhere so the steel would remain relatively cool, in the event of an ordinary fire. That is why the buildings needed to come down. Make lemonade. Don’t talk to me about the convenience of the pin prick missile at the accounting office at the Pentagon. You got lemons…

        Like

      • Large Johnson says

        Chuckles the Clown,obviously you are a complete knucklehead.Is there anything I said that you can address? For example,have you churned up the guts to actually read the FDNY testimonies and the paper which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that your cult is too lazy to actually research anything?

        I didn’t think so.

        Like

        • AnotherLover says

          How’s that morning coffee hitting ya, LG? Count to ten, bro!

          The firemen didn’t think building 7 into a free-fall collapse. You do understand that any resistance would slow the building’s descent, right? You do know approximately how far an orange dropped from the top of WTC7 would fall in those same two seconds the building fell at free-fall speed, right? Sorry, bruh — the firemen’s opinion can’t change that. The firemen didn’t falsify NIST’s shoddy report — NIST did that. I don’t care if the firemen thought the apocalypse was upon us. They may have been waiting for their favorite magic unicorn to save the city. Nothing they can say or think can make the IMPOSSIBLE happen.

          FREE-FALL for two seconds represents A LOT of cleared structure below, capeche?

          Oh, and one more thing…

          Hulsey!

          Like

          • Large Johnson says

            Admiral Hulsey,your newest loopy guru,probably isn’t even aware that the FDNY knew the building would collapse by 3 P.M. The “pull it” shenanigans,which still befuddles otherwise intelligent people,provides just enough misdirection to lessen the power of that key fact.At least for the types who enjoy being in a cult.
            Because,of course,the demolition cult cherry picks talking points and omits key photos,videos and statements,leading wide eyed newbies to actually think that there was no real damage to the building or that there were only a few small fires or that a huge 15 story hole wasn’t gouged out of the south face of the tower or that smoke wasn’t pouring out of virtually every floor of the south side.*
            Hulsey is merely a bandwagon sucker,like all of the rest.


            *NOTE BY ADMIN: the claim of a “huge hole” in the south face of WTC7 has been made repeatedly by this commenter and others, and each time they have been asked to provide the images and/or video on which the claim is based. So far, despite repeated requests, none of them have provided any images of this alleged hole. Until some proof is produced we are going to add this rider to all instances of such claims. If anyone can locate relevant images please post them in a comment or send them to us and we’ll be happy to publish them

            Like

            • Large Johnson says

              OK,that’s easy:read the damn testimonies that you are glad to cite when touting Saint David Ray Griffin’s vaunted point that “118 First Responders mentioned explosions”.

              FDNY man Steve Spak’s video of 7: go to about the 6 minute mark to see how wrong you all are about how much fire the building was involved with.

              Even though for some reason the lying weasel who posted this section of FDNY photographer Steve Spaks vital record of that day (called “Day of Disaster”) argues that it shows how little smoke was coming from #7,it is clear that smoke was pouring out of more than half the floors and the whole building was pockmarked with holes and dinks from #1 smashing into it during its collapse. — [ if you click on the video link you will see the poster of the video actually says it’s clear how little “FIRE” there is in WTC7, not how little smoke – OffG ed.]

              I imagine it would have been difficult to get into position for a good photo of the south face from straight away but the firemen talked about it and they certainly weren’t lying.Again,read Mark Roberts paper and read the oral testimonies about #7. There is a photo in the Popular Mechanics debunking book but it’s not a great one.

              “Day of Disaster” used to be on youtube in its entirety but is now only available for DVD purchase on Spak’s own website,or used to be.It really is the kryptonite for the Les Jamiesons and the Richard Gage’s of our world and it’s a shame it’s not more readily accessible.

              Stevespak.com.

              I understand that being shown to have been hoodwinked by lying supposed “truthers” is a tough pill to swallow but you need to know.Otherwise your movement is rotten at its core.

              Prove me wrong.


              NOTE BY ADMIN: can it be confirmed that this video and the “not great” photo in Popular Mechanics are the only available images of the South side and the alleged major damage the “truthers” allegedly overlook?

              Like

              • AnotherLover says

                Thanks for the video PROOF of the small, isolated fires everyone other than you has been talking about.

                Nice try, I guess.

                Like

                • Large Johnson says

                  Useful idiots abound in the controlled demolition cult.

                  “Everyone other than you…”! You’re a regular riot!

                  Like

              • Moriarty's Left Sock says

                Buildings that are blazing out of control are visibly well, blazing out of control.

                Like this :

                And this:

                BTW – neither of these high rise towers – and no other high rise ever – fell down due to “out of control” fire.

                Like

                • Large Johnson says

                  Nice try.
                  Now that you’re an expert on fires and building collapses you can always hire yourself out to your fellow cultists.
                  Why don’t you go to any firehouse in New York and explain how angry you are about them being in on the cover up.

                  Any of those buildings you show have cement cores? I guarantee that you wouldn’t know. [show some evidence that cement cores would predispose to total collapse, if this is your point (is it?) or this is simply distraction – OffG ed.]

                  Like

                • Large Johnson says

                  My point is obvious but I need to source it? You have got to be joking! [it is obvious what point you are trying to make but you need to cite a source – OffG ed.]

                  Like

              • Large Johnson says

                Admin–It’s cited by firemen in the oral testimonies.You play a cynical game when you refuse to find out for yourself and then come right back with some “no photo,no fact” malarkey.

                I’ve already proved that the building was heavily involved with fires.You can see for your self the smoke pouring out of virtually the entire south side.
                You know this but just cannot admit as you’re part of a cult and defying cult leaders is a no-no.

                Undoubtedly you think the testimonies are tampered with or the firemen are lying.How else to explain the continuing denial of facts related in those testimonies?

                Like

            • Large Johnson says

              Uh,somebody (was it you?) has replaced the videos I’ve linked with the National Security Alert video provided by someone else earlier.

              What gives?

              Like

              • That’s the video you posted. If you want to change it for another, post the link in reply here and I’ll edit your comment

                Like

                • Large Johnson says

                  Regarding the persnickety OffG-ed’s point,my point is that cement cores are not susceptible to the kind of weakening a steel core would be. — [your point is obvious, but you need to cite a source for it – Off ed]

                  Like

    • Loop Garou says

      The extent of the fire can be disputed, with many firefighters offering differing opinions. But it makes no difference. Even if Building 7 had been blazing like a torch (which it clearly was not) it doesn’t explain a complete symmetrical collapse in its own footprint. STEEL FRAME HIGH RISE BUILDINGS HAVE NEVER BEFORE OR SINCE COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE. Anyone contending this one did needs to provide the physics of how it happened. NIST so far has failed to do so.

      Like

    • AnotherLover says

      People can go back-and-forth on this. I can prove to you, however, that at least one part of the story of 9/11 was planned and pre-scripted. The light poles in Arlington, VA. The plane never hit the poles. The plane was North of a gas station itself North of a major thoroughfare from the light poles. The plane didn’t hit them. Which leaves us wondering who did. The plane didn’t knock a light pole into Lloyd England’s taxi cab, putting a hole in his windshield. But someone did.
      Citizend Investigation Team’s “National Security Alert” (at 7:35):

      Someone knocked those light poles down. It wasn’t the airplane.

      Another gem in this video is the interview with the Pentagon police officer that ran outside right after the explosion only to see the airplane flying away. This is the smoking gun. This detail proves a fairytale was created and sold on 9/11, and that fairytale is the official version of events.

      …do you still think buildings collapsed on their own? Pretty lucky coincidence for the storytellers, eh? Lmao. Mic dropped. Victory declared. If you can explain to me how the airplane took those poles down, then I respectfully un-declare victory. I don’t think that’s going to happen. I think you’re just going to have to start liking Kool-Aid!

      Like

      • Loop Garou says

        There is no need to go back and forth. Science is science. Certain people want to confuse the issue, but it’s simple. High rise steel framed buildings have never before or since collapsed due to fire, because the structure makes this virtually impossible. Anyone who claims these three buildings collapsed due to fire needs to prove how this could happen with physics. NIST has failed by its own admission to adequately do this.

        There is currently NO scientific support for the claim the towers collapsed due to fire.

        Like

        • AnotherLover says

          I like pinning people down with the light poles. Of course you’re right about the demolitions. But you can always meet a true-believer structural engineer that can out-argue you on the topic. Ask them how the plane knocked over the light poles. Link to the cued vid. Done. If the plane didn’t hit the poles, then it didn’t knock them over. If it didn’t knock them over, then something else did. This proves to a reasonable person that someone acted with foreknowledge of 9/11. That’s why I like it. Someone was able to plan the light poles and the taxi cab. And they were able to implement their plans. The implications are endless. Pre-meditation. Cover story. When combined with the credible eyewitness account of the plane flying away from the Pentagon directly after the explosion, it’s a very tasty soup indeed.
          Citizen Investigation Team’s “National Security Alert” I like the 455 second mark. Cheers!

          Like

          • PainedScientist says

            You absolutely can’t meet a structural engineer who can out-argue the facts about the failings of the NIST report. They can lie and evade but they can’t out-argue because physics is physics. That’s the beauty of it . The physics will always tell the truth.

            That’s why NIST had to twist and turn and refuse to look too close at certain things. But if we put enough pressure on them they will have to look close and admit the official story does not make scientific sense.

            They already have had to admit free-fall in Building 7. That is HUGE. It means they are admitting there was literally no solid mass beneath the roof of WTC7 for EIGHT FLOORS when it began to fall. Eight storeys of steel had somehow evaporated in two or three seconds. They haven’t tried to explain this because they can’t without also admitting controlled demolition of some kind.

            The next step is getting them to admit this as well. And given enough time and resources it can be done. Science is the way.

            Liked by 1 person

            • AnotherLover says

              Well, I absolutely agree. The two towers looked like Sideshow Bob from the explosions, and real, actual free-fall in WTC7 totally convinces me. But people come back with arguments. There’s substance to argue about. It appears impossible to me, too. But so what? It’s complicated. They were all three complicated structures I can only understand in the most general of terms, and I have a skoshe of science background.

              I like the light poles because a child can understand it. A child could turn around and laugh at an adult that denies it. We know where the plane was. The plane demonstrably did not fly over or into the light poles. You have to discount multiple corroborating witness accounts of people that literally thought the plane was about to hit them in order to argue otherwise. You’re not asking witnesses for height, weight, eye color, make and model — none of that! You’re talking to witnesses that literally thought the plane might fly right into them physically. They thought they might die in seconds’ time. Not because the plane was on the other side of Columbia Pike from them, but because the plane was directly above them. I’ve literally yet to find the person to even try to argue against this simple assertion, which either means they haven’t taken the time to look or, more likely, they simply can’t.

              Also, people have become hardened to the free-fall argument. To them, if it’s really as clear as we think it is, then how can well-respected scientists still argue otherwise? Well, I have my rather cynical opinions on that matter, but describing scientists as the craven peons that they are just does not wash with most people. The light poles removes all scientific reasoning. The plane wasn’t there. Period. Someone staged those light poles. Fact. Someone staged Lloyd England’s taxi cab. Fact. Pre-meditation. Fact.

              Anyway all the best. Cheers

              Like

          • @AnotherLover – taken out of context your opening sentence looks like something you should be telling your analyst 🙂

            Like

            • AnotherLover says

              Whut? Why? Because I said “pinning them down with the light poles” ??? Have you seen these light poles? Do you know how hard it would be to pin somebody down with one? You should watch National Security Alert. Listen to the taxi cab driver, Lloyd England, describe how he removed the light pole from his windshield. He had help of the most intriguing and inexplicable kind. Here I’ll cue it up:

              You should try pinning people down with light poles. It’s thrilling.

              Like

        • I did not plant the explosives, but building 7 was a controlled demolition. If building 7 was a controlled demolition, then the towers…

          Like

        • Large Johnson says

          Loopy,you are a regular riot! Ever heard of NIST? They’re not the National Enquirer or Infowars.com.
          if you think the FDNY was lying when they testified that 7 had developed a bulge where #1 smashed into it and was a building heavily involved in multiple fires which were unable to be fought while it emanated the kinds of creaks and groans that indicated a damaged,compromised structure you are truly less than a weasel.
          A perimeter was created by Chief Nigro at 3 P M because they were concerned that the burning,damaged building would collapse.

          Which it did.

          Facts are facts and you enjoy avoiding important ones.

          Like

          • AnotherLover says

            Yeah and the BBC was so ‘concerned’ it would collapse they reported on it a half-hour early!

            As our good Dr. Hulsey has showed us, the National Enquirer or Infowars could have done a more objective assessment of the building’s collapse than NIST did. NIST ignored the concrete to get their expansion numbers, along with ignoring innumerable structural elements of the building.

            Do yourself a flavor and check out this Hulsey character before you get yourself too deep into this hole you’re furiously digging yourself into!

            Like

            • Large Johnson says

              Hulsey’s speculations and computer models versus the testimonies of the FDNY is a no contest,slam duck,you have got to be joking,not even close victory for the impacts and fires case.

              Less exciting,I know,but obvious.

              Can someone coax Loopy over to the common sense lane and tell him that the FDNY doesn’t blow up buildings on fire and even if they did “pull” is NOT jargon for “blow up with super quiet demolition explosives”.

              Like

              • Loop Garou says

                You’re the only person here talking about the FDNY being part of a conspiracy or blowing stuff up. You’re embarrassing yourself in your hopeless attempt to wreck serious discussion with grade z trolling. You and your name are just depressing and sad.

                Liked by 1 person

    • I see this piece is by one “Mark Roberts” who (if i’m not mistaken) spent years popping up on sites trying to disrupt science discussions.
      Has the ” brilliant man ” ever written up his story and presented it to a science journal?

      Like

      • Loop Garou says

        Wow that is one huge pile of lies, distortions and smoke-blowing – and not even cleverly done! Look at “Mark” trying to prove the phrase “pull it” as used by Lucky Larry Silverstein about WTC7 actually refers to pulling firefighters back or out of the buildings. He cites a long list of places where the word “pull” is used on 9/11 to refer to removing people from buildings – except in each case they say “pull out” or “pull back”, NOT “pull it” which is Silverstein’s own words. In fact he proves no one uses the phrase “pull it” to refer to removing people from buildings. The idiot ends up discrediting his own stupid claim.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Who increased the insurance money a few weeks before 9-11? Who collected the insurance money?

          Like

          • Large Johnson says

            Cute,tiger!
            And that even after being unable to provide a reason why someone wouldn’t get anti-terrorism insurance at a known terror target.
            Following Loopy’s embarrassing statement of allegiance to the “pull it” insanity (at least he’s looking at the paper,he’s on his way!).
            Could Silverstein even have gotten a loan without that insurance?
            We’ve already provided you with all the information you need to find out for your selves that the FDNY knew the building would collapse because its condition made that obvious.

            They are not lying and they are the actual experts that you try and disappear and replace with a highly biased cross section of activists with an axe to grind.
            How else to explain the unanimity in donning blinders to so much relevant evidence?

            Like

          • Large Johnson says

            Brian,only the village idiot or Les Jamieson would not secure anti-terrorism insurance at a known terrorist target which had already suffered a massive terrorist bombing only 8 years before.
            Could he even obtain a loan without such insurance (Offg-ed.,why did you erase my earlier response to Brian’s nutty point?

            Like

        • Large Johnson says

          Of course you don’t realize that you just disqualified your self from any further discussion on this story,Loopy.

          Are you telling me that you are still stuck like a woolly mammoth on that miserable lie? You believe that the FDNY “made that decision” to blow up a building on fire because the lease holder suggested it?

          I truly feel sorry for you.

          Like

      • Large Johnson says

        Only the truly deranged and paranoid think that a guy would change his name because he wrote a paper utterly demolishing your cult.Why on Earth would a guy do that? Because you schnooks might start a blogging campaign against him?

        When we fill you in on how the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh was banging all the women and smuggling in tons of hashish we hope you won’t start toppling face first onto the pavement.

        Like

      • Large Johnson says

        It’s so simple that science doesn’t even enter the picture.Nor does it matter,no matter how many biased knuckleheads you list on a website.

        Are you saying that the firemen were part of a conspiracy when they observed that after #1 crashed into #7 the building had raging fires,developed a bulge where #1 smashed a gouge 12 stories high out of the North Face (an area never shown by the demolition cult) and was emanating creaks and groans which presaged collapse?

        Fat fucking chance and forget the firemen being part of your exciting scam.

        Like

        • Large Johnson says

          In error I said “North Face” when I meant to say “South Face” at the end of paragraph two.
          Thanks.

          Like

          • Well, the Long Johnson has spoken and thereby proves that he has more grey matter at the end of his Johnson than sits in his brain pan.

            Oh, you are most definitely in error, but not about what you imagine. If the best you can do is concoct straw men and knock them down while insulting them, you rave the ravings of lunacy, my Long Johnson, and I’m afraid that more masturbation, however frantic, will only further deplete what little grey remains in you. Do try to give it a rest now and then, eh.

            Like

            • Deal Large Johnson,

              Again you put words in the mouth of an other and attack your own shadow, and what a shadow you do cast, and understandably, eh, what with you being so Large and all.

              But let me help you try to hone in on your target as pertains to my previous remarks: I impute nothing to you about what may or may not be the quality of your mind. For my premise is that you do not have the necessary neurological substrate to be in possession of a mind, dirty or otherwise, as nature has seen fit to over-endow one end of you at the expense of another, by the sounds of your boasting which is implicit in in your moniker and quite objectively so, even if you are unaware of the “fact.” And we do know, I think, what accounts for that lack of awareness, eh. Or maybe you do not know: there is a long established correlation between Large Johnsons and microcephaly in adults, and yet the culture exalts Large Johnsons. Go figure.

              As for the accusation that I have a dirty mind, you know the saying, eh: the dirtier it is, the more fun, eh. Or is it: if it ain’t messy, you aren’t having any fun, eh. Or maybe it’s: the dirtier, the better. I’ll have to ask my wife. Not about the purported “fact” of the matter, but about the saying, and I’ll get back to you.

              And if ever I find myself on Nazi Boulevard, be assured that I will have a baseball glove in one hand and a bat in the other, to catch and bunt the brick bats . . . oh, I’m sorry, you said “brick wall” and not “brick bat” . . . My, Mr. Large Johnson, whatever are you thinking? I do not stride the boulevard with my eyes closed. I assure you there will be no collision of the sort. I mean . . . Ooops . . . Silly me, I almost implored you to do the impossible and use your “mind” in thinking this scenario through to something approaching plausibility. And of course, to my question, “whatever are you thinking,” well, the answer is like a Kantian category of the understanding given a priori, eh: nothing, nothing at all, nothing that isn’t already something old and borrowed and threadbare, traditionally right and true, established and approved.

              The Large Johnson, in his permanent state of parasomnia, has spoken again.

              Like

            • @ Norman Pilon: You may have noticed by the way he floods this comments forum with worthless comment repeatedly referring to the NIST report and other reports previously chewed up and spat out at Off-Guardian, that Large Johnson is a full-time troll.

              Best not to feed the trolls because they keep answering back and derailing the comments threads.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Large Deal Johnson,

                You stir again. Words come to you, you know not wherefrom. Like a child unconsciously at play with building blocks, you arrange them in haphazard sequences, then something appealing to your sulking, irrational nature magically appears, strikes you as something that you yourself have done, and being but yet an infant in your intellectual and emotional capacities, you seize upon it as a weapon, a weapon to wield a frustrated polymorphous perversity, a metaphorical Large Johnson with which to assault Twinks, Twinks in love with another, oblivious to the Long Large Johnson who is the Deal.

                And so it was, another day in the subterranean existence of a Dick deeply unloved and therefore insufficiently stroked.

                Speaking to itself, mumbling in a bitter tone in its sleep, the Dick spoke to itself as to another:

                “Hush. Listen. A creak. A groan. Yonder, there, around “that” bulge, “his” bulge, not mine. It’s Twinks. But I . . . I . . . I am so Large! And a Johnson, to boot, how is it, it’s Chuck, always Chuck? Just look at him, he thinks he’s so Large, but I am the Large, the Large Johnson, the Deal and the Dick.”

                Like

              • Deal Johnson,

                Why are you always making allusions to “the tail between my legs” and juxtaposing sly insinuations an “orality” of which you stridently approve? I had no idea I could be so arousing. No offence taken, I assure you. In fact, I’m flattered. Do know that I swing in another direction, however. I just don’t want you to get your hopes to high, so as to spare you any more grief in a life already overburdened with too many disappointments.

                Like

                • My only question to you, Large, because I think you are sincerely devoted to the truth, whatever it might be, is why do you attack people rather than the “flaws” in their arguments as you see them?

                  Like

                • Large Johnson says

                  OK,fair point.I come on very strong about this story because the misinformation and lies about Building 7 have utterly decimated all of the muckraking and exposes of the important stuff.
                  Once people look at the demolition conspiracy points they quickly figure out that it’s so erroneous and even racist that they avoid the subject and reject the devastating evidence like the hijackers’ provenance,the money trail and the non-investigation and cover-up by the White House,the FBI and the intelligence agencies.

                  The fact is that you guys are the insulters,regularly labeling any skeptic of your case as an “agent” a “shill”,a “troll” and the like.

                  Like

                  • You are the only person here right now being persistently abusive. Even this post in which you are notionally apologising is abusive as well as evidence-free. You don’t disprove serious scientific analysis by posting videos without explanation or calling people names.

                    The contention being discussed here is whether NIST has proved is theory about the unique collapse of three building on 9/11. Please let’s remember NIST’s explanation is just a theory based on a computer model whose calibrations NIST refuses to release. Under the circumstances there is nothing crazy or “conspiratorial” about questioning that theory and proposing what might be more plausible alternative.

                    Like

  6. damien says

    Here is an aerial photo presented as US government evidence at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. It shows some cars at the Flight 93 crash site. Each car is about 4 metres long (at most). The Flight 93 impact zone is about 5 car lengths long, or 20 metres, a claim consistent with witness accounts at the time. Now here’s the rub. The wingspan of this Boeing 757–222 was 125 feet, or nearly 40 metres, about twice the length of the hole in the ground at Shanksville! So this plane (loaded with 16 tons of disappearing and unaccounted for jet fuel) crashed into a hole half the size of its wingspan, burrowed into the ground with its wings folded up, and pulled the earth in on top of itself. All this happened (if we believe the official explanation) while traveling upside down at 35 degrees to the horizontal, its huge vertical tail fin leaving no ground markings.

    Oh, and despite scores of witnesses saying they could see no large scale debris, the FBI claimed that they had recovered 95% of the plane and passengers (about 60 tons) within two weeks of the crash and immediately returned the debris to the owners United Airlines — because, after all, it was UA property and it’s not like there was a criminal investigation going on or anything. No photos of anything like the alleged 60 tons of debris have ever been provided.

    Sorry folks, but this is not even funny. The BS factor is through the roof and it’s frightening to think that our media are uncritically prepared to accept this ridiculous account.

    Liked by 1 person

    • A plane crash has bodies and luggage and plane parts. Shanksville . Yank my shank at Shanksville. I bow to you and please beg you to wake up, please.

      Like

  7. This is typical. Words describing the effects of Totalitarian oppression, impoverishment, and murdering of US citizens and citizens of the world by the vehicle of 100% Corrupt, Rule-By-The-Few-For-The-Benefit-Of-The-Few-Only-By-Design, Totalitarian, Police-State, False-Debt-Banker-Rule, Government. But nobody is doing what is necessary to eradicate it. That is Violently erading it’a infrastructure, and killing allnof it’s personnel(allied, affiliated, etc.). Everyday, everywhere in such country that this ‘government’ is the government of the land should look like 911, perpetuated on government buildings, police personnel and accompanying infrastructure, military personnel, and accompanying infrastructure, airports/airplanes, highways, bridges, barges, railroad tracks/trains, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. No, it’s too easy and cowardly, to keep re-hashing what is already known and has been known. Therefore live with the Totalitarianism, and Increasing Totalitarianism, that you worship, keep praising and embracing it, keep standing-with-your-hand(s)-over-your-heart(s)-during-the-rendition-Of-It’s-National-Anthem, while it robs, pillages, murders you and your fellow world citizens, you worthless morons!

    Like

  8. damien says

    http://www.consensus911.org/

    … has a good coverage of the disputed facts.

    Blogger Shoestring also does an excellent in depth analysis of critical issues. For example, on Flight 93.

    http://shoestring911.blogspot.com.au/2009/03/why-was-there-no-jet-fuel-at-flight-93.html
    http://shoestring911.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/shanksville-pennsylvania-on-911.html
    http://shoestring911.blogspot.com.au/2007/10/todd-beamers-odd-phone-call-and-silent.html

    The official 911 Inquiry does not the standards of public accountability that we associate with a functioning democracy.

    Like

  9. Jerome Fryer says

    [..edited for content-free trolling..]

    The events of September 11th have been extensively studied by people with actual expertise, and a not insignificant number of peer-reviewed papers are available. None of them posit any need for ‘nano-thermite’ (or ‘nano-thermate’), controlled demolition, or secret government spooks planting bombs to explain the collapse of the WTC towers or WTC 7. Either the experts are all wrong, or fringe lunatics (more often than not with no engineering or science training at all) are behaving as you’d expect fringe lunatics to behave.

    [..edited for content-free trolling..]

    Like

    • Can you cite the peer-reviewed studies you are referring to? We’ll be glad to host or link to them here.

      Are you aware the Harrit et al paper that claims thermitic materials in the WTC dust is also peer-reviewed and has not been refuted as of now?

      Are you claiming all sceptical professional physicists, engineers and architects as “fringe lunatics”? It might help people understand your position of you could explain your definition here.

      Your comments about moon-landings and flat-earthers have been removed as pointless trolling/ad hom.

      Like

      • There was no link. By all means supply one. Our commenting standards are clear. We never edit for opinion but will occasionally remove empty ad hom or hate speech.

        We’d like to remind you also that we’ve offered you an open forum to present any evidence you have. Send us articles, videos or links that support your contentions and we will publish them.

        Like

      • I assembled a team of scientists from the Chinese Science Academy to translate the Harrit, Jones, Ryan paper ” Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.”it was a two year project that included academics in language as well.
        I asked the scientists from the Chinese Science Academy to be as critical of the paper as possible. Their response was “the paper isn’t too hard to get your head around it. The science was sound and the conclusions were correct.” I asked them if there was a chance the nano-thermate was paint. They all laughed, and said “no.”
        Dr. Jones went into early retirement because the Bush gang threatened to end all grant money to the university if he stayed. The “disgrace” is on the Bush administration that lied us into “The War on Terror.”

        Like

      • Large Johnson says

        Adman,have you even bothered to do the relevant “investigating”,as per-the firemen who were on the scene for many hours and have important things to say?

        Remember,my main man,I’m just asking questions.

        Like

    • AnotherLover says

      Too bad your comment got edited. I’m glad though, in this case, to be spared any reference to flat Earthers and moon landings. Can’t you people come up with your own insults? Do you have to copy each other? For fifteen years?

      9/11 was pre-meditated and a cover story was created. I will eat my words if you can explain how an airplane flying North of a gas station located North of Columbia Pike could knock over several light poles to the South of Columbia Pike in Arlington that morning.

      Get ALL your experts on board. This is no small detail. Witnesses conclusively place the plane North of Columbia Pike. How did it knock over the light poles South of the roadway? I’ll cue this video up for — you should only have to watch a few minutes to know that the plane didn’t hit the poles and in fact it was nowhere near them:

      This is evidence of pre-meditation and the fabrication of a cover story. Since the plane didn’t knock the light poles down, we can conclude that somebody else did. That action requires both foreknowledge and pre-meditation.

      Please tell me how the airplane knocked the light poles over.

      Like

    • I agree. How did building 7 fall on 9-11 at free fall speed? The building codes need to be re written because we are not safe from airplanes. God help us all.

      Like

        • Large Johnson says

          Simple fact that needs no citation,Professor: there was no free fall,except for a short period at #7 which had to do with the unusual structure of a building built above a Con Ed sub-station.
          Illustrating quite nicely that the controlled demolition propaganda talking points are almost always wrong and,or,lies brings out the big boys at this joint,don’t it.

          Like

  10. Good article. As for the challenge to the Harrit/Jones research – thats settled then – it was paint that caused large section steel beams to form ‘eutectic’ mixtures; turn into emmental (with holes the size of silver dollars); form molten alloys and pour like lava from the South Tower for seven minutes before the collapse! See: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
    I totally agree that both sides of the evidence should be laid out together. We both know that it will not be in the Guardian any time soon though.

    Like

    • Eric_B says

      Where has it ever been established that large section steel beams formed ‘eutectic’ mixtures; turned into emmental (with holes the size of silver dollars); formed molten alloys and poured like lava from the South Tower for seven minutes before the collapse?

      Like

    • I thought the molten steel was still around the crime scene a week or two later. I think you need to ask the firemen that were there and are still alive. How did jet fuel keep the steel molten for a week or two?

      Like

      • Large Johnson says

        Ace,you really have hampered your demolition cause because the firemen reveal,in their numbers,that your sacred #7 was not a controlled operation.

        Don’t you just hate that!

        Like

        • AnotherLover says

          1) NIST report is garbage
          2) WTC7 did fall at free-fall speed for the first couple seconds, and it wasn’t far off of true free-fall speed for the entire collapse
          3) Hulsey!

          Like

          • Large Johnson says

            https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/introduction

            And one of our best favorites,a true classic:

            That’s your boy Les Jamieson and his addled sidekick Jack Gordon flopping miserably down there.Oof!!

            This one is also fun as it’s always a treat to see Alex Jones punched around like the ditzy rag doll he is!

            Part Two:

            General hilarity and abject failure ensues when silly cultists try and explain the Tower 7 conspiracy.

            Like

            • AnotherLover says

              I watched the first video. It was as annoying and pointless as the rest of your comments.

              Like

              • Large Johnson says

                People always get annoyed when their truths are crushed to the earth and they have to start all over. [you have not stated what “truther” claims you see these videos disproving. In future if you post a video in response to a comment please state what you think it is rebutting in specific terms – OffG ed]

                Like

  11. “We aren’t claiming Jones and his co-authors are ultimately correct. We’re just pointing out that scientific truth doesn’t need to be defended by spin or censorship or grotesque ad hominem.”

    Very well said. This is the part the corporate media doesn’t get anymore. Whereas it’s quite understandable – if rather disagreeable at times – for newspapers to take sides as far as politics, fashion and football are concerned, when it comes to investigations into world-shattering events it is essential for all the evidence to be presented as impartially as possible.

    In the same way there should be no ‘sides’ as such where verdicts are reached in courts of law, there should be no sides taken by teams investigating acts of terrorism. After all, they are basically still criminal acts despite the scale of death and destruction involved.

    The growing trend of the corporate media to reach verdicts even before any evidence has been examined, let alone presented before a court, has contributed to the growth of the international terrorism the West claims to be fighting. We see it everywhere from the downing of MH17 to barrel bombs in Syria. Far too many highly-paid journalists are being led by the nose by self-interested government agencies. Seemingly desperate to convince themselves with hardly a prod needed, most have become easy meat. Then they set about trying to convince the rest of us. The cynicism involved is shaking public confidence in our leaders all over the world, and rightly so.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Yes, facts are facts are facts …….. buildings ALWAYS fall down in their own footprint when they fall. And buildings, when their fall in their own footprint ALWAYS and loaded in trucks and carted off to China!

    Now that 9/11 is settled, Tubularsock is putting ALL his research time into Hillary’s coughing up ALIEN EGGS! Boy, Trump’s Wall is going to have to be really really tall to keep any further “aliens” out!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Buildings don’t do that? Some importance evidence might be at firemen parks around the country. If the samples are true, they did not get shipped to China. God bless America.

      Like

    • Large Johnson says

      Puh-leeze,Louise! The only thing settled is the American West and we know what a lie that whole thing is.

      Like

.....................

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s