something wicked this way comes,the offical story of 911..something very wrong

[Len Colby]

I'm sorry, but what I see with my eyes overrules your speculation. The second plane almost missed and struck far off centre.

What you believe you saw is irrelevant , images of the impact shows that the center of the plane impacted only about 10% of the tower’s width (20 feet) to right the center and thus the fuselage and most of the left wing, including the engine in line with the core. Point me to anyone with relevant technical training, truther or otherwise, who disputes this.

See also - http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u314/spooked911/wtc2-planehole.jpg

Near freefall speed is measured by the height of the towers and the time taken to collapse. Anyone can measure it (s=16.1*t^2, I think that's it).

And when you do the math you’ll see free fall collapse would have taken 9.2 seconds or perhaps 9.0 because the rubble pile was about 60 feet (18 meters) tall. But Jim Hoffman a leading truther, cited by the likes of David Ray Griffin, Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan and Dick Gage, demonstrated the North Tower took about 15 seconds to collapse.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/ntc_frames.html

The absence of resistance to the fall and the peer reviews? That's hilarious. There was no demonstrable cause for the steel columns to disappear, or for the building to crumble that way. The Warren Commission had the best "peers" in the world. Dead wrong, though.

Let’s see whose views carry more weight, those of four engineering professors at three of the world’s top engineering departments published in peer reviewed journals or those of an obscure computer programmer (?) posting on internet forums who doesn’t even know the correct term is free fall ACCELERATION? The WCR was never reviewed by outside experts.

Funny up till now truthers have only managed to:

- sign up about 0.06% of US architects and engineers

- sign up an even lower % of architects and engineers worldwide

- publish a single paper in properly peer-reviewed journals, but it was an obscure environmental science publication.

Building 7 expected to collapse, in a highly visible perfect symmetry that's classic controlled demolition? Come on, let's try to be serious here. There's no need to tell people that what they see with their own eyes isn't what they see. Emperor's New Clothes is what you're describing.

By your “logic” dolphins must be fish and eels aquatic snakes. Worse it is based on a false premise 7 fell southward not symmetrically. I noticed you avoided the fact the FDNY had been predicting the building would collapse for several hours before it came down.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

A short video that can help ordinary people understand how the so-called experts got it wrong again and again, while ignoring the elephant in the room, can be found at:

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-11-02/911-theories-expert-vs-expert

Of course truther ‘experts’ don’t agree on much either. One wonders why if the NIST report was meant to be a cover-up why it didn’t reaffirm the conclusions of the American Society of Civil Engineers/FEMA Report? Claims the steel melted were restricted to a few engineers shortly after 9/11 and never appeared in any of the 3 reports or various scientific papers about the collapses. A small number of witnesses said they saw “molten steel” but there were various metals in the towers with lower melting points, how would laymen know the difference? Despite the videomakers claim to the contrary explosives and incendiaries don’t normally melt steal. Of course there is the fabled magical substance thermate/thermate/nano-thermite. But truther attempts to cut steel beams with it failed miserably. Also the conspirators would have had to have surreptitiously brought in truckloads of the substance to have melted steel to extent speculated by truthers

I had to hand type that, so if the link fails just google 911blogger and look on the left column.

???? you claim to have developed software but you can't figure out how to cut and paste a link?

[Len Colby]

That you would insist on countering my alleged disinformation as a mere "hobby" is simply dodging the issue. The responses are, from my experience, classic military-style debunking.

LOL! You did know I am serving military, right? That was meant as a pun, right?

LOL!

Some people I know recommended this forum as a place to learn and teach. Apparently there is no one to teach, and no one from whom to learn.

You do have a lot to learn but you only want to taught what reenforces your pre-existing beliefs. The notion of you teaching is risible you are quite ignorant even by truther standards.

Just debunkers, who rank somewhere below tax collectors and pharisees.

Your charm is reminiscent of Fetzer, Lemkin, Drago and (Jack) White.

[Guest Dale Thorn]

Dear Len,

So far you have refused, avoided, dodged, obfuscated etc. when it comes to your obligation to demand release of all of the evidence and testimony. I can draw a lot from that.

In addition, you have not provided readers here a plausible reason why you invest so much time trying to square the circle, i.e. prove the impossible, that the government didn't do it. How many times do I have to say it? The governments are the biggest killers of people by orders of magnitude compared to terrorists or individuals. For you to say that your debunking is a hobby or a contribution to anything is specious at best. Contributing to who?

Thirdly, the government, i.e. the Neocons had the only motive for this, which they spelled out in their request for a New Pearl Harbor. And guess what, Len? A New Pearl Harbor is precisely what we got, along with a Patriot Act (which you also dodge) that abrogates the Constitution. To you perhaps the Constitution is just a scrap of paper, as stated by John J. McCloy and allegedly by G.W. Bush. But to me it's a document damaged by the 9/11 lie, which sadly you are defending. And there is no question in anyone's mind that 9/11 is the basis for the Patriot Act and abrogation of the Constitution.

Fourth, challenging my credentials won't do you any good. I put my money where my mouth is when it comes to code.

Fifth, your insistence on the plane-center scenario doesn't wash. The debris from the impact spills out the adjacent side of the building, not the opposite side where you believe the plane was headed. The core was not damaged. There was no significant heat in the building, until the ignition of the demolition.

[Guest Dale Thorn]

Let's see, 15 seconds instead of 9 seconds, for the entire 1365 foot skyscraper to "fall" clear through its path of greatest resistance (through itself), all the way to the ground. Amazing, isn't it? How many seconds was that for the other tower? Skyscrapers can fall through themselves that fast only in 9/11, never in the real world.

And what percentage of scientists in Stalin's Soviet Union or Hitler's Germany would sign up against their government *in time of war*? More than 0.06 percent? Hmmmm?

[Evan Burton]

My apologies - I won't try and waste your time in future with facts and science.

Would I be correct in assuming that you are what is commonly called a 'no-planer', that is you do not believe any aircraft actually hit the WTCs or Pentagon?

[Bill Sherwood]

And what percentage of scientists in Stalin's Soviet Union or Hitler's Germany would sign up against their government *in time of war*? More than 0.06 percent? Hmmmm?

Godwin's Law = you lose.

But seriously .... I am reminded of the phrase, "you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts".

[Guest Dale Thorn]

My apologies - I won't try and waste your time in future with facts and science.

Would I be correct in assuming that you are what is commonly called a 'no-planer', that is you do not believe any aircraft actually hit the WTCs or Pentagon?

No you would be wrong, as in your other posts. I saw the second plane hit on live TV. As to the Pentagon, I forgot how many video cameras were recording on the side where the impact occurred, but they have not a single photo or video frame of the object that hit.

The alleged plane to hit the Pentagon had two multi-ton steel engines that would have impacted the building at 500 knots, yet there were no engine impact areas that I can recall.

Typical of the missing 26 volumes of evidence and testimony that you debunkers are avoiding are the above facts.

[Guest Dale Thorn]

And what percentage of scientists in Stalin's Soviet Union or Hitler's Germany would sign up against their government *in time of war*? More than 0.06 percent? Hmmmm?

Godwin's Law = you lose.

But seriously .... I am reminded of the phrase, "you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts".

Dale's law == I win. The other guy came up with the 0.06 percent which of course is way low, and I suggested the analogy to the USSR and Germany, which are apt given the Patriot Act and secret government stuff. You still are evading the really important issue here - why do you not oppose government corruption and obfuscation of evidence, and advocate for it instead?

[Guest Dale Thorn]

Just a small note about 9/11 videos: I previously mentioned Sofia of "911 Mysteries" as a good source for what I see (even now) as an excellent presentation of the facts, and the missing information. I have just been informed by '911 blogger' that Sofia is associating herself with a well known "holocaust denier", and what the implications of that association are for 9/11 truth sites. So just in case the topic should arise, I have no knowledge now of any of Sofia's work outside of the "911 Mysteries" I obtained a few years ago, and I don't see any reason to poke my head into any of those areas either. My focus on the facts of 9/11 pertain to its use as the provocation for the War on Terror (i.e. the Eternal War), and the practical elimination of the Bill of Rights for U.S. citizens. As to nitpicking the facts of 9/11, whether as a hobby or for academic purposes, those nitpicks are irrelevant to the big picture of the eternal war, so there you are. Note that I'm not claiming that the facts are irrelevant - in fact I'm saying that the facts are irrelevant to the debunkers, the proof of which is their complete refusal to support the demand for release of all of the information.

[Evan Burton]

Dale's last assertion is, of course, correct. What's troubled me for many years on 9-11 is not the events themselves but the obvious coverup that went into action immediately after. Anyone who has studied the Warren Commission and the media after JFK's assassination will understand this.

The bottom line is that, if the events happened just like the 9-11 Commission suggested they did, then all of the facts of the matter would have lined up like little dominoes and fell in a direct line that pointed right to the culprits.

Unfortunately, nothing really happened this way. The government could, of course, release all of its evidence tomorrow and we could all see how plainly obvious their assertions are (e.g., evidence of al Qaeda's planning, videotapes of the Pentagon crash, forensic evidence from the scenes, foreign intelligence, wiretaps, photos of the actual PA wreckage, etc.). By NOT doing this, they leave themselves open to all manner of speculation.

Since there is no reason to keep this evidence secret, I suspect that things didn't quite happen the way that the official story laid them out. Given that the majority of war-inducing stories have been faked over the past 100 years (and by "faked", I mean either fabricated or embellished), I have little confidence that 9-11happened as described.

I can't agree with all of that, Tom.

I do agree that there have been cover-ups to protect incompetencies (e.g. those responsible for the CIA - FBI co-ordination fiasco) and I am sure that the Bush administration took advantage of the event to take actions that it wanted to, but the actual events of the day are quite believable and there is no credible evidence to suggest in any way that it was a MIHOP / LIHOP situation.

There is evidence of the planning that went into the attack. There is forensic evidence. There is nothing being kept secret that I can think of.

You mention videotapes of the Pentagon crash; there is footage available. It just doesn't show everything that would be useful. People ask for other camera footage from outside the Pentagon... can anyone even prove there were cameras? The answer is NO, because there were no cameras. How can anyone produce footage from cameras that did not exist? All some people are doing is playing Monday morning quarterback and saying there should have been cameras there. If you look at the security situation, there wasn't a specific need for them. Cameras were located at the entrances, at checkpoints, internally, where they would do the most good.

The vast majority of people who hold qualifications in their respective areas have no issues with aspects of that day within their purview. For instance Bill, Matt, Pinch and myself can all be considered as having expertise in the aviation fields. Some of us are currently serving military, and one is retired. One aviation professional has had no association with the military whatsoever. We have collectively spoken to other aviation professionals. Bill and myself know people who hold advanced qualifications in areas such as physics. I'm pretty sure that all of us have independently spoken to structural engineers, chemists, metallurgists, etc.

I think I can say with confidence that none of us have ever found qualified persons who have doubts about 9-11 based upon expertise in their own fields.

[Guest Dale Thorn]

"No credible evidence", "Nothing being kept secret".

This is pure debunker doubletalk. Anyone who has a grasp of government reality knows the score: Everything is being withheld. We have a commission who openly admit that virtually everything they requested from Bush et al was denied.

[Evan Burton]

"No credible evidence", "Nothing being kept secret".

This is pure debunker doubletalk. Anyone who has a grasp of government reality knows the score

Yes, I thought you'd say something like that. How about we just put them all up against the wall right now? No trial, no evidence necessary. After all, you know they did it... don't you?

[Len Colby]

And what percentage of scientists in Stalin's Soviet Union or Hitler's Germany would sign up against their government *in time of war*? More than 0.06 percent? Hmmmm?

Godwin's Law = you lose.

But seriously .... I am reminded of the phrase, "you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts".

Dale's law == I win. The other guy came up with the 0.06 percent which of course is way low, and I suggested the analogy to the USSR and Germany, which are apt given the Patriot Act and secret government stuff. You still are evading the really important issue here - why do you not oppose government corruption and obfuscation of evidence, and advocate for it instead?

Unfettered paranoid nuttery, while I'm no fan of the Patriot Act it in no way is equivalent to the oppression of Hitler or Stalin. Such a statement is vilely offensive to the people suffered and died under such regimes. How many "toofers" have been carted off to prison or killed? Except for the one who are/were psycho-killers the # appears to be zero. Heck only 1 or 2 were even fired.

But do the math look up how many US As & Es have signed Gage's stupid petition and compare that to the total number of such professionals in the country.

[Len Colby]

Dale's last assertion is, of course, correct. What's troubled me for many years

on 9-11 is not the events themselves but the obvious coverup that went into action

immediately after. Anyone who has studied the Warren Commission and the media after

JFK's assassination will understand this.

The bottom line is that, if the events happened just like the 9-11 Commission

suggested they did, then all of the facts of the matter would have lined up like

little dominoes and fell in a direct line that pointed right to the culprits.

Unfortunately, nothing really happened this way. The government could, of course,

release all of its evidence tomorrow and we could all see how plainly obvious

their assertions are (e.g., evidence of al Qaeda's planning, videotapes of the

Pentagon crash, forensic evidence from the scenes, foreign intelligence, wiretaps,

photos of the actual PA wreckage, etc.). By NOT doing this, they leave themselves

open to all manner of speculation.

Since there is no reason to keep this evidence secret, I suspect that things didn't

quite happen the way that the official story laid them out. Given that the majority

of war-inducing stories have been faked over the past 100 years (and by "faked",

I mean either fabricated or embellished), I have little confidence that 9-11

happened as described.

So why don't you spell what specific eveidence you think is being kept "secret" along with evidence it actually exists and access is being denied? What difference would release make since truthers would simply claim it is fake?