Skip to content

Truther Crackpot Punksmacks of the Day: Making the Point

October 9, 2009


Most of the “debating” (if you really want to dignify it to call it that) with Truther crackpots has been taking place on this thread here. NewsReal was even graced with the commentary of a Truther/Birther who’s also a perennial third party candidate. Two of our commenters who had the most fun poking at the various Truthers who showed up were In The Know and Brent, who both realized that the Truthers commenting “rebuttals” were both behaving exactly as I had defined the Conspiracist Mindset in my series.

In The Know

Your all caps is BS. You should be banned for lack of coherent, cojent conversation. In fact, David probably lets you guys babble on because it makes his case. Not once have you provided EMPIRICAL data to back up your claims. You respond to verifiable, factual, logical arguments with heresay and conjecture. You assert this as undeniable TRUTH and clearly don’t even read what you respond to. Enjoy KNOWING that the trade centers were bombed from within because a video on youtube shows a guy saying “pull it” proves it. Meanwhile, the rest of us will stand up for your right to be a moron. We will suffer and some of us will (and have) die knowing that we are protecting the very people who stab us in the back.

A patriot who is tired of getting stabbed in the back by the people he fights to defend.


“There has been little else you have offered to strenghten your position that TRUTHERS or BIRTHERS are a sub-human species as you seem to claim.”

First of all I don’t think anyone ever used or believes conspiracy nuts are subhuman, just crazy. i.e. Uncle Artie can’t stop telling everyone that the end is near and Elvis is alive and running the country from a bus station bathroom in Wichita. We don’t put him down like a dog we just don’t invite him to Thanksgiving dinner. Second of all, you make David’s actual point with every post. David knew that if he wrote a series of pieces about conspiracy theorists they couldn’t help themselves from showing everyone what he was talking about

  1. Hamish permalink
    October 10, 2009 2:17 am

    I thought NewsReal and FrontPage were sorts of ‘conservative’ websites where cogent and respectful arguments were put, etc. The name-calling, abuse, and ridicule, the petty objections (re spelling mistakes), the smug, self-congratulatory comments, and the ‘one size fits all’ analysis on this thread, against those who question the ‘official conspiracy theory’ regarding 911, are not exactly what I would call the highest forms of argument, nor the most brilliant defense of conservatism I’ve seen.

    Perhaps I missed it, but it seems like it’s thought the ‘official conspiracy theory’ is simply self-evidently true and needs no defense. At least…I haven’t seen any.

    • October 10, 2009 5:04 am

      Have you read the entire series in which I explain why it’s pointless to argue with Truthers?

    • October 10, 2009 5:08 am

      Those who “question the official theory” are not the ones up for ridicule. Those who are certain that it was an “inside job” are the ones up for ridicule. And that’s a position I will defend.

      • Hamish permalink
        October 10, 2009 1:06 pm

        I watched over and over on 911, the towers coming down. I accepted the official line – the planes brought the buildings down – for about 3 years. I heard no reason to question it. Questioning did not even enter my head. Then out of the blue and unsolicited, I saw a video of the collapse of 47 storey WTC7 – which I had never even heard of. It took the 6.5 seconds of that collapse video to put my acceptance of the ‘official conspiracy theory’ on hold. That one piece of evidence was all that was needed to upset the apple cart of beliefs which I had held about it all.

        No plane brought WTC7 down – no plane hit it. The fires in WTC7 were not serious – confined to several parts of several floors. Yet for WTC7 to come down in effectively free fall speed the way it did, required it to be a planned rather than a random event – ‘random’ for pedants being simply unplanned structural failure with an unplanned chain reaction collapse following. The structural columns of the building had to have all failed at precisely the right, and virtually the same moment. The structure of the building had to have been effectively destroyed as it did not impede the collapse speed at all. It fell into a neat pile on its own footprint, never deviating a whisker off the vertical as it collapsed.

        The logic was unavoidable – even if I did not like what it forced me to conclude – that the building was demolished, and thus demolition charges must have been laid in it by other than a few Moslem hijackers of aircraft, AND before the day. (By the way I am totally and utterly opposed to Islam and see it as among the greatest threats we face. And…I would far prefer 911 to be a simple straight forward jihadist attack – it would make life so much simpler.)

        If WTC7 was demolished, there is an ‘Insider job’, end of story.

        Then I turned to the collapse of the towers. They also came down in a little over free fall speed, thus the massive structure of those buildings, in particular the central core, did not impede nor slow the collapse. The speed of the collapse was effectively the speed of the free falling debris – just fractionally slower. Watch them again on any of a number of videos at . These collapses also have finger prints all over them.

        In brief, if the planes did not cause the towers to collapse, then there is an ‘Inside job’, end of story.

        What the full outlines of the ‘insider job’ is I don’t profess to know. I don’t at all like the thought that ‘our people’ did this to us, not some enemy outside. And I am sure that this is the main reason many people are repelled by the logical implications of the collapses, going to the extent of abusing, ridiculing, name-calling, pigeon-holing, and getting so emotional against anyone who has the guts to follow the logic of the case.

        Now…yes there are people out there who are ‘truthers’ (another term of ridicule and dismissal) who hold the views they do for questionable reasons. Yes, some lines of argument and evidence are better or worse than others. Yes, some people can’t put their case very well and so can be easily beaten up. But in addressing any opposing view, it is only an intellectual game if you pick on the weakest evidence, arguments, and apologists, so as to demolish them and bolster your own egos and make you feel triumphant. Those who are serious about discovering the truth do not address the weakest arguments, evidence and apologists but the opponents strongest evidence, arguments and proponents. And they do so in a measured and unemotional way without preconceptions about where the evidence leads. Yeh, for sure they will already have a view, but that view does not blind them and lead them to pigeon-hole those of another view – lumping flakes and the serious all together – and to ridicule them as though there is no substance behind their view – though of course some conspiracies have little substance behind them. Questioning the official 911 conspiracy is not one of those. (And let’s be very clear, whatever view you hold about 911 is a ‘conspiracy theory’. It’s just the conspirators are different.)

        It seems like Newsreal and Frontpage are not highly enamored with B Hussein Obama, or the policies he is pursuing. Perhaps the Dimmicrats and Rinos are just members of an A team and a B team which are basically following the same agenda – and have been doing so for decades – that is fundamentally unconstitutional and un-American/anti-West/globalist/Socialist-(communist/fascist), and perhaps 911 is just a part of this agenda…

        • ElanaSe permalink
          October 10, 2009 1:46 pm

          “Popular mechanics” debunked all your long story on the very professional level a few years ago . Unless you’re some sort of engineer with many years of studies and experience – I’d rather listen to them. And by the way, the guy who put the “inside job” video together for “symbolic” price to watch is laughing all the way to the bank.
          Nuff said. I’m out.

          • Hamish permalink
            October 10, 2009 2:13 pm

            For a blow by blow analysis of the Popular Mechanics article see:
            Don’t know what ‘insider job’ video you’re talking about…

        • October 10, 2009 1:58 pm

          I’ll repeat myself:
          “Have you read the entire series in which I explain why it’s pointless to argue with Truthers?”

          Given that I don’t recall your comments on it I doubt it. Here’s where to start:

          The subject of “Crackpot Chronicles” is not the events of 9/11, it’s understanding the conspiracist mindset. Judging from your last paragraph you’re probably going to have a hard time understanding what I’m talking about since it’s a mindset that you, yourself, are possessed of as well.

          • Hamish permalink
            October 10, 2009 2:07 pm

            More pigeon-holing…

            • October 10, 2009 2:15 pm

              “Pigeon-holing” which you are unable to dispute as inaccurate.

              • Hamish permalink
                October 10, 2009 2:44 pm

                Yes I have now read the whole of the thread you suggested – though not the comments following.

                You said it yourself. ‘Being condescending is something I have a lot of practice at. I’m very good at it.’

                Further you exhibit what I noted earlier. You name-call, and abuse, and ridicule.

                Also you change the subject to things that are not relevant. What has the age of the correspondent got to do with it?

                Yet further, I did not detect any cogent argument on your side of the dialogue, nor respectfulness. Just ‘condescension’, dismissal, and arrogance.

                I have no doubt this will cement me in your thinking within your rigid categories. But that is of little consequence. You just show that unhelpful, and unpleasant stereotyping, and narrow thinking can be a characteristic of conservatives as well as liberals. David Horowitz’s cause is unfortunately sullied by association with your blog.

                • October 10, 2009 3:11 pm

                  Hey, David Horowitz called Ron Paul a crackpot and a conspiracy nut long before I wrote my series. So it’s hard for me to think I’m in any way deviating from from what he’s already established as the proper way to understand conspiracist whackjobs.

                  You have yet to address the fundamental argument, namely the understanding of the conspiracist mindset which I articulate. And you can’t do it because you can’t even see it. Those possessed of the conspiracist mindset are not worthy of being engaged in respectful dialogue. It’s a waste of time. It’s no different than arguing with a racist or an anti-Semite. They do not know how to think rationally.

                  Further this isn’t my blog; it’s his blog. I just manage it for him.

                  • Hamish permalink
                    October 10, 2009 5:59 pm

                    …more of the same – name calling and ridicule. It’s getting somewhat boring.

                    Also…more ‘condescension.’
                    ‘You have yet to address the fundamental argument, namely the understanding of the conspiracist mindset which I articulate. And you can’t do it because you can’t even see it.’

                    You’ve referred to the ‘conspiracist mindset’ you seem to think is so the key to everything. I didn’t notice any articulation of this convenient, pigeon-hole category, dismissal mechanism, in the interchange you pointed me to. Perhaps you would like to pass it by us all again. List out all the hallmarks you think nails them. Let us all benefit from your obviously profound wisdom on this matter.

                    I did see you said that a mark of a conspiracist is ‘knowing’ something is true, ie, ‘birthers’ (another term of dismissal) ‘know’ BHO was not born in Hawaii. Even on that one your pigeon-holing misleads you so that you seem incapable of making necessary distinctions. Nobody that I have read would claim such a thing and so according to you on your own criteria, they are not conspiracy nutjobs. Yet I’m sure that you, with your propensity to blast off with a shotgun – taking out the innocent and guilty alike – name calling as you do so, would still call them that.

                    I saw also that you acknowledge there are conspiracies…I guess that means you could be a conspiracy whacko…

                    So…lay it all out…

                  • October 10, 2009 6:20 pm

                    “Perhaps you would like to pass it by us all again. List out all the hallmarks you think nails them. Let us all benefit from your obviously profound wisdom on this matter.”

                    I feel no need to write a cliffs notes version of my series. I have better things to do with my time than summarize what I’ve already written. Throughout the series I pointed out the different aspects of the conspiracist mindset. I showed how those who embrace one conspiracy are similar to those who embrace a totally unrelated conspiracy. If you missed them then that’s your fault, not mine, and further evidence of your own selective perceptions.

                  • Jack Hampton permalink
                    October 11, 2009 7:24 am

                    Mr. Swindle
                    You do understand you are wasting your time. He is the perfect example of the mind set that you have exposed. I am beginning to feel some misplaced sympathy for him and his lost grasp of reality. But on the bright side he might could use his post to apply for some form of disability. I suggest he contact Binder& Binder.

            • Jack Hampton permalink
              October 11, 2009 7:12 am

              I truly hope you are not abusing your pigeons. I know I know beat me.

              • October 11, 2009 7:32 am

                You’ll note I didn’t respond to his most recent comment which was an attack on me as a writer. (I’m pretty much done playing with him.) It’s hard to take such attacks seriously. I’m a professional writer supporting my family with my writing. He’s an internet troll. And he’s qualified to judge my writing?

                • Hamish permalink
                  October 11, 2009 11:25 am

                  More arrogance, condescension, and presumption:
                  ‘He’s and internet troll. I’m a professional writer. How dare he judge my writing?!’

                  ‘Its fine for me to abuse, and ridicule others but if any dare to apply a tinsy bit in return, I’ll get in a huff! Who do these trolls think they are?!’

                • Walt permalink
                  October 17, 2009 11:42 am

                  That “Truther” demands consideration and respect that he has not earned in any way. It is on a par with the old segregationists putting forth their racial/conspiratorial theories as fact, and being offended when they were met with laughter and derision. I will take Osama bin Ladin at his word on this one. The downing of the Twin Towers in 2001 was the logical progression from Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the U.S.S. Cole attack in 2000. Al-Qaeda needed ever more spectacular attacks to motivate its funders and supporters. One of the reasons that al-Qaeda is having financial problems now is that it has been unsuccessful in its attempts to match or exceed its 9-11 spectacle. Also, al-Qaeda has in recent years been killing more Moslems than non-Moslems in its attacks, and thus is less popular in the Moslem World than it used to be. In a perverse way, you could look at al-Qaeda as an Olympic athelete who has received his gold medal, and is stuck with the difficult task of exceeding his previous performance or slowly fading away with attempts at recapturing his former glory. Al-Qaeda is a declining organization at this point, but others have taken up its mantle and pursue its goals.

          • ElanaSe permalink
            October 10, 2009 2:44 pm

            I’m pretty sure you know from my earlier posts on the same thread that I DO get it. Human’s abilities are bit more complex than “the last paragraph” can show, David. Being raised in the radically superstitious society and surrounded by people with weirdest theories you can imagine (9/11 truth is nothing compare to it), I’m following the subject “why people believe in weird things” all my adult life and know a thing or two about it.
            And regarding my previous post: well, maybe it’s just my little guilty pleasure to tease a truffer with the facts..who knows.
            Oh, come on. Just take it easy.
            You’re right – life’s short to waste time on such nonsense.

            • ElanaSe permalink
              October 11, 2009 6:34 am

              Oh my gawsh, just ignore my previous post – I thought you’re replying to me.

        • Jack Hampton permalink
          October 11, 2009 7:06 am

          I do not feel triumphant at all that would only occur if reason and evidence won out. I have had to deal with every half baked amateur that does not have a clue yet they are convinced they know, “who shot cock robin” I am now to the point at my age I can only be amazed at what the addled mind can concoct with absolute impossibilities disproving there conspiracies staring them in the face. I realized years ago it is futile. Mr. Swindle will realize that as well. Perhaps you watched to much?

    • The Inquisitor permalink
      October 10, 2009 6:30 am

      “The name-calling, abuse, and ridicule, the petty objections (re spelling mistakes), the smug, self-congratulatory comments, and the ‘one size fits all’ analysis on this thread …”

      You noticed that too.

    • ElanaSe permalink
      October 10, 2009 7:38 am

      Any optical illusion is just an illusion. Simple empirical test of many such illusions shows that what you see is not what it is. But no, conspiracy theorists try to prove that what they see IS the truth – even if they’re shown a thousand times that their claim is just an assumption, not the empirical proven evidence. With the same success they can start looking for the hints that the world is flat .
      Ignorance should be exposed and ridiculed. Questioning the official version – fine. But as Dr. Freud said: “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”.

      • Jack Hampton permalink
        October 12, 2009 3:50 am

        I believe there is a medical term for the type of people you just described. It is called Nuts, Fruitcakes, Crazy and Insane.

        • October 12, 2009 9:05 am

          Thank you Dr. Hampton. 🙂

  2. October 10, 2009 4:03 am

    There are indisputable flaws in the official version of events. We would all like the truth but we will never get to hear it. Let us simply unite against Obi and his insane supporters.

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 10, 2009 6:02 am

      Their are flaws in every investigation. In the 9/11 investigation there are none that would contradict the official conclusions well not for anyone reasonable.

  3. Stanley Yuzuk permalink
    October 10, 2009 8:16 am

    A friend of mine sent me photo’s of the Pentagon after 9/11. His question was “Where are the airplane parts?”. Unless these photo’s were doctored or taken after removal, I have to agree with him. That said, how come the 9/11 Commission didn’t do more of an investigation into the security at Boston’s Logan Airport? Oh, I forgot. Boston is in Massachusetts the land of Kennedy’s and Kerry’s!

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 11, 2009 5:15 am

      There were all kinds of photos of aircraft parts probably the largest item was the landing gear which I saw. There would not be very many large items to photograph. There is no question it was a plane. Have you ever asked your self if it was a missle then where are the people that went missing from that flight? So please be kind enough to answer that. I talked to a gentleman and his wife whose son was killed in that crash. I would just like to know where you think those people went?

  4. October 10, 2009 11:04 am

    Golly gee, David…. You’re jess so sophisticated. Asking to see “the messiah’s” birth certificate (if he has one here), makes me in league with the grassy knoll people, truthers, Bacon writing Shakespeare’s plays; etc.

    Asking to see “the messiah’s” birth certificate is less ridiculous than “the messiah” getting the Nobel Prize (which he should’ve turned down), so I’ll try — TRY to survive the Alinskyte ridicule of you and Mr. Forsman.

    • October 10, 2009 11:09 am

      Do you understand why I would stick Birthers in the conspiracist crackpot bucket? It’s not a coincidence that the same people who are Truthers are often Birthers too.

      Further, a Birther is someone who KNOWS that Obama was born in Kenya or KNOWS that there’s a conspiracy afoot. Just being curious and doubting does not a birther make. So if it’s one’s position that “I think Obama was probably born in Hawaii, I’d just like more evidence” then you’re not a birther. You’re a birther if you KNOW that Obama was born in Kenya and you’re unwilling to consider evidence to the contrary.

  5. October 10, 2009 2:25 pm

    There are problems with the other conspiracy theories. Gerald Posner could’ve raked in a fortune for a book that said Pres. Kennedy was killed by the mafia (the most likely conspiracy scenario); however, he refused to do so because his research led to Oswald only.

    Also, Jack Ruby brought his dogs with him when he lost his temper and killed Oswald. If Ruby were going to that area with the intent to murder Oswald, he would’ve left his dogs at home because he wouldn’t have wanted them to suffer in the car when he was arrested. Jack Ruby loved those dogs.

    To bad no one managed to watch the History Channel when it tackled the truther issue. It had the comments of the truthers and a “Popular Mechanics” fellow side by side. Guess which side sounded more rational?

    Also, even that polite anti-Semite, Michael Scheur, had some rational comments to make in the two hour “History Channel” special.

    As for the Bacon-actually-writing-the-works-of-Shakespeare theory, that idea was supposed to have died out in the 1920s.

  6. Adpack permalink
    October 10, 2009 4:11 pm

    911 Tower Collapse Conspiracy?

    Since the 1950’s I have been an engineer, manager, and CEO in the Electronics, Semiconductor, Aerospace, and Consulting Laboratory and Material & Failure Analysis Industries. I naturally had a special interest in watching the analysis of what caused the towers to so dramatically fail. Of course there was special interest on the part of architectural engineers and builders (and hovering lawyers) as to what went wrong. Was it poor or marginal design, quality of materials and workmanship, or sabotage? And how might it be prevented in the future? And are other buildings in danger?

    In brief, it was concluded that the prolonged exposure to the large quantity of burning aviation fuel weakened the floors immediately affected, causing them to finally collapse and “pancake” on top of the floors below them, until the sheer added weight of several floors dropping upon them at increasing velocity, exceeded the strength of even structures not weakened or damaged by heat or impact.

    I recollect an excellent program on PBS that examined this issue at a “popular” level several years ago or so. (Frontline or Nova or some such.)

    • Hamish permalink
      October 10, 2009 6:19 pm

      Well Adpack…with all due respect, your scenario does not stack up even given all your illustrious qualifications – though it wasn’t apparently ‘your ‘senario’ but that of others.

      Look at the construction photos. Look at the plans of the towers and they way they were constructed. Even if the floors did pancake, such pancaking would leave the central core and the outer structure more or less intact. Further, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that if all the floors pancaked to the bottom, after they had collapsed what you would have is a pile of pancaked floors on the deck. Unfortunately for your senario, this is not what was found on the ground. All the thousands of tons of concrete in the floors was pulverised – turned to dust, and blown throughout Manhattan. There were no concrete slabs on the deck at all. In fact there wasn’t much of any size on the deck, except piles of construction steel. They were all pulverised in the process of collapse. Check out any of the collapse videos available readily on the web.

      Regarding burning av gas.

      1. With the second tower that was hit, most of the av gas got burnt up outside the building in the huge fire ball. The plane didn’t even hit the central core of the building and yet it was the first tower to fall.
      2. Av gas does not burn very hot anyway and structural steel work dissipates heat rapidly. No steel framed high rise building had ever collapsed due to fire before 911 and none have collapsed since, yet three collapsed on that day, with WTC7 going down in 6.5 seconds at 5.20pm. The fires on the towers were minor compared to some towering infernos there have been which produced no collapses. For example, see photos of the CTV hotel fire from earlier this year – started by fireworks…

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 12, 2009 3:55 am

      I stated that very same fact along with other contributing factors earlier. But I fear your reason will be lost on all the nuts. Hamish and Edward will continue to seek, Who Shot Cock Robin? Sorry it is an old cop joke.

  7. Louise Whiteford permalink
    October 10, 2009 6:24 pm

    The point is to keep searching for the truth. Who owns Popular Mechanics? Are they above being a part of a cover up? Would you rely on one doctor’s opinion if you have a serious disease? Isn’t Popular Mechanics a Hearst publication? What makes them the ultimate source? The truth will set you free. I do not feel comfortable with a 911 Commission that began with Henry Kissinger. Just what does he know about physics, engineering, fires, and investigations? He does know something about his clients and that is why he declined to be on the commission when one of the 911 widows asked for his client list. He is an old Bismark empire builder who does not understand our Constitution or care. After each statement one makes it serves us well to add, “as far as I know.” I am suspicious of anything where I suddenly see Kissinger. Like Sarah Palin meeting with him before she went out on the campaign trail with McCain. And Henry on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange saying we don’t have a crisis!

    • October 10, 2009 9:49 pm

      Help me please. Is your comment supposed to be over-the-top satire? I make a terrible straight man, so the humor may have went over my head. If your intent was indeed humor, then kudos, you caught me with my pants down. If you’re actually serious–well–I’ll just walk away quietly.

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 11, 2009 7:46 am

      Has it nailed folks it was that bastard Kissinger supported by the NAACP the KKK and the dreaded Illuminati. These are the same master criminals that killed JFK and poor poor Jimmy Hoffa It was not Jack Ruby that killed Oswald but Kissinger disguised to look like him by the extraterrestrials that are controlling everything. Yep and Obama is one of um. Count me as done with the crack pots can with move on now to serious stuff.

      • October 11, 2009 7:33 pm

        Thanks for clearing that up, Jack. For a while there I was worried that the whole thing was some kind of wild conspiracy. Good to know that there’s a sensible explanation.

        • Jack Hampton permalink
          October 12, 2009 4:01 am

          Tar an Feathers
          Once many years ago I went to the Federal Pen In Lewisburg Pa to interview a convict ( you refer to them as convicts because they resent the term inmate) His whole response when talking to him was to accuse me of the very actions of his buddy who was later convicted. The same applies to these conspiracy nuts almost at least the convict was sane and trying to cover for his buddy the conspiracy nuts are just nuts.

  8. Soylent Green permalink
    October 10, 2009 8:28 pm

    Well David, I think they’ve proved your point for you.

    • October 10, 2009 8:49 pm

      Thank you Soylent Green. They certainly have. And the fact that people like Hamish above claim to have read my series, missed the point, and then demanded that I write a cliffs notes version of it for them makes it all the more satisfying.

      • Jack Hampton permalink
        October 12, 2009 4:05 am

        Mr. Swindle
        Hamish never once not once addressed or even referred to the object of your post. He never understood because he is blinded by his god like insight that he and only he knows the truth. It did not matter that that was not the point of your post. But you played him like a stubborn trout. well done.

        • October 12, 2009 8:30 am

          Thanks Jack. I was particularly amused by Hamish’s attack that I was “arrogant” in my response. Now I’ll be the first to admit that I’m an “arrogant” person. That’s not really an insult to me, it’s my own recognition of my own character flaw. Most writers tend to have a certain amount of arrogance, otherwise they wouldn’t be writers. It’s inherently arrogant to think that one’s writing and ideas are worth being read by people.

          But the irony is that every Truther and Crackpot Conspiracist is far more arrogant than I am. It’s a particularly mutant form of arrogance for one to think they’re so smart and talented that they can unearth the secret truth about how the world works.

          • Hamish permalink
            October 12, 2009 11:49 am

            Self-congratulation and mutual back-slapping…

            …and yet more abuse…

    • ElanaSe permalink
      October 11, 2009 6:36 am


  9. john permalink
    October 10, 2009 8:48 pm

    lol. I think, my opinion, which along with $2.00 can buy a nice cup of coffee, is that the best anyone can do is to offer a personal opinon, some more educated than others, some still enjoy to simply say something to feel a part regardless of it’s basis. I believe there is much fear in our society regardless of the many reasons why different people have the fears they do. This fear secretes various things in people. In my opinion what all this comes down to is a complete lack of concern for one another as Americans. There are many who call themselves Americans but that is based on what? Obama recieved Nobel prize for what? Illusions is all we see, the truth none of can see as our words, our thoughts, our actions are all influenced by something. There is a spirit world, not my opinion a fact, i.e. ghosts. These ghosts/spirits influence us for good or bad or both depending on the spirit doing the influencing. Now, our founders knew this, which is why they spoke of Christianity so highly, for it contains the purest motives for mankind. What caused the decline and collapse of the Roman empire? I believe it was fear, distrust, greed, wait it’s the same things the Bible talks about as deeds of the flesh, wow, imagine that. Noah Webster in History of the United States 1833 “…the moral principles adn precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws…All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” I don’t know maybe this post will be of benifit to someone.

  10. October 10, 2009 9:10 pm

    The Truthers concept of 9/11 is fabrication.
    I’ve debated with one, firstly I worked on hot steel, White hot steel becomes maleable, much before melt point. They loose their rigid strength.

    Secondly the sound someone heard, that they claim were explosions, were the snap of cold steel girders, in the lower stratas. Snapping of Cold steel girders would make a very sharp noise.

    • Hamish permalink
      October 10, 2009 10:15 pm

      Your ‘series’ is not the most lucid writing I have read. You may get an ego boost to think that you can so easily and conveniently pigeon-hole others – especially those you don’t know and have had minimum interaction with – but it actually blinds you and exposes immaturity…

      You talk of conspiratists knowing stuff with certainty and being totally blinkered. Those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones…

    • Hamish permalink
      October 10, 2009 10:39 pm

      Lorenzo Bouchard said:

      ‘The Truthers concept of 9/11 is fabrication.
      I’ve debated with one, firstly I worked on hot steel, White hot steel becomes maleable, much before melt point. They loose their rigid strength.

      Secondly the sound someone heard, that they claim were explosions, were the snap of cold steel girders, in the lower stratas. Snapping of Cold steel girders would make a very sharp noise.’

      1. Congratulations Lorenzo for having debated ONE ‘Truther’. A truly enormous sample. They could have been informed or not…

      2. Having worked with white hot steel doesn’t make you an expert on this matter. It’s no news to anyone that if you heat steel enough it firstly becomes mailable, and if the temperature increases sufficiently, that it will melt. So the question is not whether or not this will happen but whether any fires in the towers or WTC7 were hot enough to make structural steel so mailable (or even melt) so as to cause catastrophic structural failure. All indications were they were not. Further…to repeat – as it appears I have not been heard – no steel framed high rise building either before or after 911, have ever collapsed as the result of fire – and there have been some extremely intense and prolonged high rise fires, which the fires in the towers and WTC7 come no where near emulating. Yet on 911 three such building collapsed supposedly as a result of relatively small fires.

      3. It wasn’t ‘someone’ who heard explosions. There were heaps of people who heard explosions, including New York firemen. Yeh, perhaps snapping of cold steel beams would make a noise, but why should the central core of the towers, which consisted of 47 massive vertical columns snap or even collapse?

      The plans of the towers can be found here:

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 12, 2009 4:16 am

      The nuts like hamish will never understand that the support beams did not have to melt or become maleable the fact is they only had to be weakened. You brought up a very good point and sane people understand. But I have had it with these revolting loons there idiocy is an insult to those that parished in this terrible attack on our nation and those that have died and been wounded defending and punishing the perps. Any further response to them is contributing to there mental problems. I am done with them.

      • Hamish permalink
        October 12, 2009 11:27 am

        Yet more abuse…seems characteristic of believers in the official conspiracy theory – at least those posting on this site. Oh and by the way, you have a spelling error…

        Why, oh knowledgeable one, is it that high rise buildings subject to far more intense fires over a far longer period of time, have not collapsed?

  11. Stanley Yuzuk permalink
    October 11, 2009 5:29 am

    What makes popular mechanics the experts? Because they say they are? Who is Kilsheimer? Why is what he states as the truth, true? Because he says it is? If that little piece of red and white debris is all that is left of a Boeing 757, than I have my doubts on the whole article! By the way, I was a Staten Island Ferry employee on 9/11. I have a certificate of appreciation signed by Mayor Guliani, for my service in helping to evacuate New York City’s citizens on that day. I know what happened to the Twin Towers, because I saw it live, but I am questioning the photo’s of the Pentagon. Something is not sitting right in this story.


    • ElanaSe permalink
      October 11, 2009 6:36 am

      And what makes Stanley Yuzuk an expert? Because he says he is? Why is what he states is true?

  12. "gunner" permalink
    October 11, 2009 5:42 am

    occams razor anyone? accepting the fact of a group of suicidal fanatics flying airliners into tall buildings is a lot more likely than a gang of demolition experts scurrying around an occupied building drilling holes, setting and wiring up explosive charges while attracting absolutely no notice at all. explosive demolition has become a common technique in recent years, but requires extensive preparation by skilled workers, and is not carried out by “ninjas” in odd moments when nobody is looking.

    • October 11, 2009 5:56 am

      Conspiracist crackpots think Occam is a competitor with Gillette. The fact that they have not internalized Occam’s razor as one of the core tenets of logical, scientific, rational thinking is part of the reason why dialogue with them is so fruitless and frustrating.

      It’s a foundational problem in their minds. If you and I are operating from the basic principle that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one and they are not then it’s going to be very difficult to have a decent conversation with any of them.

      • Hamish permalink
        October 11, 2009 11:52 am

        David, your use of Occam’s razor sounds so profound, but even this this little piece of your professional writing breaks down.

        You said:
        ‘It’s a foundational problem in their minds. If you and I are operating from the basic principle that the simplest explanation is USUALLY THE CORRECT ONE, and they are not then it’s going to be very difficult to have a decent conversation with any of them.’

        So you have here conceded that Occam’s razor does not always apply, that sometimes the more complicated explanation is correct. You’ve just shot yourself in the foot. How do you know that 911 is not one of those exceptions you allow for?

        Because you suffer from the very mindset you smugly and condescendingly accuse others of having. You have accepted a conspiracy theory and KNOW that it is true, thus can’t be reasoned with. Rational dialogue with you is ‘fruitless and frustrating’ precisely because you are so dogmatically certain of the conspiracy idea you hold.

      • Hamish permalink
        October 11, 2009 12:14 pm

        Then again… perhaps invoking planning and design to explain the collapses of the towers and WTC7 IS the simplest explanation.

        With WTC7 we have a 47 story skyscraper, drop vertically at free fall speed onto its footprint.

        The likelihood of this happening as the result of all the columns being shredded at precisely the right moments to bring about this result without a single thought being given to it, is not high. A far simpler explanation is that the collapse was engineered so that all the columns were shredded at precisely the right moments to bring about this result.

        Long live Occam’s Razor…

        • In the know permalink
          October 12, 2009 11:33 am

          “entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem”- William of Ockham

          Let’s compare:

          1. Complex building demolition. The average time set to rig a building for demolition is 2 weeks. It consists of multiple engineers, requires structural diagrams, numerous explosives experts and explosives. This is done in empty buildings and people watch as the building is bieng rigged. You profess that this took place in secret, in one of the largets cities in the world, nicknamed “the city that never sleeps” for a good reason. There are always people everywhere in that city.

          2. Building 7 suffered catastrophic structural damage during the collapse of trade centers 1 and 2. Consiquently, the NYFD cleared the building because of the hazard that it too may collapse. This is common practice after an earthquake. After being cleared, the building was not safe to re-enter for this very reason. Broken gas mains filled lower levels with highly combustible natural gas. Open wiring ignited lower level fires (bombs heard exploding?). The crippled building collapses in its footprint. Similar to bookshelf collapsing.

          Which one seems like the more simple and obvious answer? Food for thought, what is the most dangerous hazard to an area after an earthquake? It’s fire. Yes, that’s correct, caused by wiring and gas leaks. Do yourself a favor and don’t quote a mathematical principle if you do not have a grasp on logic. That’s what mathematics is, logic.

          • In the know permalink
            October 12, 2009 11:41 am

            I forgot:

            3. The simplest scenario is that a giant invisible moth name Gamara crushed the building. There. That would crush the building faster than “all the columns were shredded at precisely the right moments to bring about this result.” So it must be true.

            Warning, this has been a sarcastic comment.

  13. Stanley Yuzuk permalink
    October 11, 2009 6:01 am

    Hey Jack, As I stated I was only about a half mile from the Towers in NYC on 9/11. That said, a Boeing 757 is a huge aircraft. Why only the picture of a small piece of debris? The damage to the Pentagon was not so massive as to completely destroy all the remains of a 757. “Where did all those people go”? That I cannot answer. But the questions raised about the Pentagon, I beieve need more answering. Something is definitely not sitting right. I am not saying it was a missile or a government conspiracy, but….???

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 11, 2009 8:03 am

      Stanley Oh yes it is I do not care if you were on the moon that day. The plane was destroyed and I have seen 2 crash sites where the largest thing was the landing gear just as it was at the pentagon which I might add was and is a very reenforced hardened building. People and eye witnesses saw the plane. Again be sensible where are those people? Why are there famlies mourning them why are children growing up with out a parent? Did Kissinger take the passengers kill them and bury the bodies to cover his diabolical plot and to what end? Godalmighty give it up!

      • Hamish permalink
        October 11, 2009 11:43 am

        Here is another example of why smug, self assured, condescending, pigeon holing that lumps all dissent in together misleading and misinforms. Not all those who question the the official conspiracy theory that David etc, accept, buy into the ‘no plane into the Pentagon’ idea. Thus the question ‘Where did all the people go?’ is totally irrelevant to such people and does not in any way address their concerns.

        That said, there are anomalies with the Pentagon attack.

  14. Stanley Yuzuk permalink
    October 11, 2009 6:46 am

    I am not an “expert”! I am not advancing any conspiracy treories. I am just stating that I have questions. If you cannot maintain low tones and must resort to personal attacks, than go drink your Kool-Aid!!

    • ElanaSe permalink
      October 11, 2009 12:10 pm

      Did I hit a nerve, Stanley? How does your own medicine taste? You just had a chutzpa to discredit a bunch of fine specialists which gave you scientific answers to many of your so called “questions”. And you did it not because “PM” is somehow unreliable, but because their answers don’t fit the answers you’ve already prepared to shout…
      All I did – switched the names. Now who’s the Kool-Aid addict?

  15. Jack Hampton permalink
    October 11, 2009 8:12 am

    You did not ask questions you put forth more crack pot ideas and made claim that that as fact the plane would not be destroyed? I asked you the questions. I think we know who drank the cool-aid

  16. The Inquisitor permalink
    October 11, 2009 12:36 pm

    Hamish, why is the issue of the collapse of the Twin Towers seemingly so important to you? Is it just intellectual curiosity?

    • Hamish permalink
      October 11, 2009 2:06 pm

      With all due respect, what sort of question is that?

      Perhaps I could reply, “Why do you ask?”

  17. Keith permalink
    October 11, 2009 8:05 pm

    I respect the solders for fighting for our country,the problem is the corruption of the elites and their cover up of 911.

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 12, 2009 4:22 am

      Horse apples.

  18. Keith permalink
    October 12, 2009 2:39 pm

    Those guys that rejected the evidence of 911, are just name calling,I’m not attacking the solders,I’m attacking the corrupt leaders that covered up 911 evidence,they’re acting like our goverment is perfect, like they never covered up any corrupt thing they did. If you look at our own history, like the watergate scandel,Oliver North scandel, Bill Clinton scandel and others, It’s very clear of what they’re capable of doing,If I weren’t able to uncover the evidence from research, I wouldn’t believe it either.
    It’s hard to ignore the 700 engineers that demanded a new invesigation of 911.
    Criticizing the goverment doesn’t make you anti american, If you listen to some of John F Kennedy speeches, he said very eloquently and precisely, that he excepts the criticism of the american people, because it will help us straighten up our act in governing and serving the interest of america.

    • In the know permalink
      October 12, 2009 3:36 pm

      Nobody said lunatics are anti american. You could be a crazy patriot.

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 13, 2009 5:30 am

      We know that the government has covered up things. But the Oliver North thing I do not get it was a covert operation in Central America and was supposed to be covered up. It was his job along with his work in regard to Bin Laden. Did you even notice that those great scandals were uncovered and rather quickly? I doubt that you did. Also it is not hard to ignore 700 flaky engineers out of a couple of million that is not very many if that is even a real number. But to hell with the hundreds of professional investigators and there support staff of thousands with the best science in the world behind them you have uncovered the truth with your research on the internet with your frequent visit to Prison Planet. Oh thank you Sir! We are not just name calling? We are ridiculing you for the simple minded buffoon you are. Dear Lord Man read your own words. Stop embarrassing your self and your family before they have you locked in some kind of home and bring you nice coloring books on the week end. Some advice demand the jumbo box of crayons.

      • Hamish permalink
        October 13, 2009 11:33 am

        More abuse…the stock answer to counter ideas on this site. It’s a pity as such behaviour does not help the ‘conservative’ cause. Having read Jamie Glazov’s and Jonah Goldberg’s recent books, I thought those associated with them might have been above this.

        Oh…and there was another spelling mistake…

        • Jack Hampton permalink
          October 14, 2009 2:41 am

          These are not counter ideas. Your stock in trade is an impossible conspiracy that only a few people like your self buy into. Professionals know better. What do you think this is a spelling be? You make your self look like an escapee from the funney farm and then your gotcha is a mispelled word. But if you really knew what you were talking about youwould understand the mispelled words are part of the conspiracy only da spirators know what da mean.

          • Hamish permalink
            October 14, 2009 2:49 am

            Clearly the comment re spelling was lost on you. David started it by nit-picking about those dastardly trolls not being able to spell – as proof that they are as thick as a brick and thus worthy of all the names he can dredge up, and all the ridicule he can dump on them. I’m just chucking his nit-picking back in his face…only its to one of his cronies…

  19. Keith permalink
    October 12, 2009 8:59 pm


  20. Keith permalink
    October 13, 2009 1:52 pm

    There’s still a question you didn’t answer,why was thermite found in many of the samples taken from the collapsed 911 buildings. terrorist can’t make thermite, It’s high tech
    and is only made by the united states military,I think your giving those terrorist more intelligence and credibility than they deserve.

    • The Inquisitor permalink
      October 13, 2009 2:24 pm

      “… terrorist can’t make thermite, It’s high tech and is only made by the united states military …”

      I have no intention of getting embroiled in your “debate,” but the foregoing statement is nonsense. My high school chemistry teacher made a mini thermite “bomb” and ignited it for our class to see. It made a blinding white light and fell into a bucket of water with sand at the bottom.

      Google before you write. You will find the recipe.

      • Hamish permalink
        October 13, 2009 9:59 pm


        Before slap yourself on the back for such a easy and resounding blow against trolls and conspiracy know-nothings, perhaps you should check out these papers regarding the nano-thermite found pervasively in 911 dust…

        Non-technical summary:

        A non-technical guide to the scientific paper linked to below:

        Scientific paper:

        • Jack Hampton permalink
          October 14, 2009 6:23 am

          Why don’t you check out a mental health facility?

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 14, 2009 2:44 am

      It was not found numb nuts. The military does not use it that much. However it was not found. So you are saying it was the US gooberment that did it. Now you nor your comrad in nuts have ever answered the question why? What would be the purpose? Hell am as crazy as they are for engaging these people.

  21. Keith permalink
    October 13, 2009 2:04 pm

    It’s very unlikely that some cave dwellers with no shoes,that some how able to penetrate the most sophisticated system in the world,(US) your kidding me right.

    • October 13, 2009 2:15 pm

      As if it wasn’t clear enough already, Keith knows NOTHING about Al Qaeda and radical Islam. He is painfully ill-equipped and ignorant of the war that we’re fighting. Thus it makes sense he’d embrace the conspiracist crackpot mentality.

  22. Keith permalink
    October 13, 2009 2:07 pm

    Stop while your ahead.

  23. Keith permalink
    October 13, 2009 2:17 pm

    answer the question…?

  24. Keith permalink
    October 13, 2009 2:44 pm

    Then how did it get into all the highly secured goverment buildings, It still requires people from the inside to get it in and still set it up, still you haven’t made your case.?

    • In the know permalink
      October 14, 2009 10:01 am

      Thermite compound= 2Al+Feo2–Mg–> combustion

      Nah, no aluminum or rusted iron or magnesium in those towers. They were made of reinforced concrete and defied the laws of gravity.

      *warning* this comment is satirical in nature

      • Hamish permalink
        October 14, 2009 10:00 pm

        In the know:

        Not sure which bit/s of your post are satirical but just thought I would note that that the structure of the three towers that collapsed 911 were of steel framed construction, not reinforced concrete – though of course the floors would have been reinforced concrete – light weight concrete I believe.

  25. Keith permalink
    October 13, 2009 6:16 pm

    I think I made my point, so thanks for the debate, next subject.

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 14, 2009 2:52 am

      Yes you made your point? You are if not already qualified for social security disability. Go apply today tell them what you are telling us on this website explain your ideas to the nice lady or man and you will be approves right away. But you will probably have to have a supervisor appointed to make sure you do not spend it all on comic books. You know I knew there were people like you out there in radio land but I never expected it to be this bad. I am going to choke David Swindle. Go a head Mr. Swindle I know your laughing.

  26. Keith permalink
    October 14, 2009 10:57 am

    I will say that i’m impressed with Hamish research on the dust samples of the twin towers, I’ll give you that one.

    • In the know permalink
      October 14, 2009 4:02 pm

      You’re impressed? Do you know what you read? Read this link and tell me where you see “thermite”. I see trace elements found in most building materials used in skyscrapers. The same particulate matter would be found in a collapsed building after an earthquake.

  27. Keith permalink
    October 14, 2009 7:43 pm

    IF you read the Jim Hoffman scientific report, It very clear, It even has photo’s of the thermite particles, your report deals with only numbers, which could be fabricated all i know. I tell you what, if you have a problem with the hoffman report, why don’t you write him and let him know,because your not getting anywhere by trying to prove to me your stories, have you ever heard of the MLK…CIA…you should check it out.
    I have seen to much evidence that contradicts what your saying. I must of stepped on a nerve or something,because you guys are coming at me like somebody addicted to crack, remember you guys attacked me first,this is getting boring.I’m just one of many TRUTHERS, I don’t get offended by that name, I kind of like it. So again I’m not the one you have to convince, write to all the science institutions and engineers that you disagree with and try to convince them, your wasting your time with me.

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 15, 2009 6:09 am

      No you stepped on no nerve we are just laughing at you. we realize you cannot be offended as a matter of fact you are shameless. No we do not have to prove anything. You are the conspiracy nut. Must be hell having to look over your shoulder wondering if it will be a black chopper that gets you or if it will be the guys in the white coats throwing a net over you. In my best Bunker voice Coo Coo Coo Coo. Shouldn’t you be out at area 51 looking for the little green men now?

      • Hamish permalink
        October 15, 2009 11:39 am

        Yet more abuse, disrespect, condescension and presumption…the smart lines become soooo boring…

  28. Keith permalink
    October 14, 2009 8:19 pm

    This is one of many reports that show the scientific evidence of thermite dust at the world trade center,you can start with this web page address…….

    • In the know permalink
      October 15, 2009 5:48 am

      And you did exactly what I thought you would. ATTENTION MORON. That link I posted. You know, the one you said this about:

      “IF you read the Jim Hoffman scientific report, It very clear, It even has photo’s of the thermite particles, your report deals with only numbers, which could be fabricated all i know.”

      It was cited as a reference in that report. That’s where I got the link. You will deny ANYTHING that disagrees with your theory. Even after you present it as evidence. My POINT is, you don’t even know what you’re reading. You draw fallicious conclusions from data. No amount of extrapolation from that data can show that thermite was ever present. It shows base elements which are commonly found in all modern building materials. Then again, maybe that’s what THEY wanted.

  29. Keith permalink
    October 15, 2009 3:11 pm

    Come on, thermite is highly explosive,if most builings had this material in it, you would have alot more building collapses that caught on fire, that would have ment the world trade center would have collapsed before from the previous fires they had, and all other building fires would have resulted in a collapsed too. Other buildings fires that burned for hours before there where put out and didn’t even come close to collapsing. COME ON, NONSENCE..

    • In the know permalink
      October 16, 2009 9:08 am

      ROLFCOPTER. Thermite is not an explosive you jackalope. As for your theory that because Mg, Al, and FeO2 being present would cause a building to explode. I hope you don’t drive a car with factory alloy wheels. They are magnesium/aluminum alloy bolted onto steel wheel hubs that always rust. Do they explode? Good god, do you really know this little about chemistry?

      • Jack Hampton permalink
        October 16, 2009 10:48 am

        In the Know
        I have to admit I do not know crap about chemistry. But I just called an old Lab tech that dealt in this stuff and we worked together somtimes. He is retrograded to Az working on his short game years round. He said you basic primise is absolutely correct.

        • Hamish permalink
          October 16, 2009 11:26 am

          Jack Hampton said:

          “I have to admit I do not know crap about chemistry…”

          Well there you go. You said it…

          From Wikipedia – for what it’s worth…

          ‘Nano-thermite is the common name of a subset of metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) characterized by a highly exothermic reaction after ignition. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as in applications in propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.

          What separates MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium are not a fine powder, but rather nanoparticles. This dramatically increases the reactivity relative to micrometre-sized powder thermite. As the mass transport mechanisms that slow down the burning rates of traditional thermites are not so important at these scales, the reactions become kinetically controlled and much faster….


          Nanoscale composites are easier to ignite than traditional thermites. A nichrome bridgewire can be used in some cases. Other means of ignition can include flame or laser pulse.

          MICs have been investigated as a possible replacement for lead (e.g. lead styphnate, lead azide) containing percussion caps and electric matches. Compositions based on Al-Bi2O3 tend to be used. PETN may be optionally added. [6][7] MICs can be also added to high explosives to modify their properties. [8] Aluminium is typically added to explosives to increase their energy yield. Addition of small amount of MIC to aluminium powder increases overall combustion rate, acting as a burn rate modifier. [9]

          The products of a thermite reaction, resulting from ignition of the thermitic mixture, are usually metal oxides and elemental metals. At the temperatures prevailing during the reaction, the products can be solid, liquid or gaseous, depending on the components of the mixture.[10]


          MICs or Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times more powerful than conventional explosives.[11] Nanoenergetic materials can store higher amounts of energy than conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to tailor the release of this energy. Thermobaric weapons are considered to be a promising application of nanoenergetic materials. Research into military applications of nano-sized materials began in the early 1990s.[2]’

  30. Keith permalink
    October 15, 2009 6:49 pm

    These are creditable people, even people in the military question it,they’re not dumb,they’re highly educated doctors, engineers…….
    or maybe this web page……..
    or this NASSA engineer………………and if you want more to look up .let me know..?

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 16, 2009 3:46 am

      Dear sane people I hope you have learned by now you cannot reason with the brain dead. Just move on and let them babble through life till someone throws a net over them and takes them to the nice place with the nice soft walls and put them on a leash and force them to wear a football helmet. Just give it up tell them they are right and that they are working for God and to keep up the good work. You are wasting time and common sense on uncommon ignorance.

      • Hamish permalink
        October 16, 2009 11:15 am

        Jack Hampton said:

        “Dear sane people I hope you have learned by now you cannot reason with the brain dead…”

        I have…

  31. Hamish permalink
    October 16, 2009 12:15 am

    Perhaps you guys may be interested (highly unlikely however) in reading this critique…

    ‘…a critique of the
    Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team
    on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers
    by the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
    of the World Trade Center Disaster’

    June 23, 2005, National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST)

  32. Keith permalink
    October 16, 2009 4:01 pm

    Thanks for clearing that up for us Hamish

    • Hamish permalink
      October 16, 2009 5:04 pm

      No trouble Keith.

      The http://www.911 site has a vast amount of sober information, careful and critical analysis and evaluation, masses of photographic and video evidence. It is well structured so that any information sought is pretty easily found. It could keep you reading for days…very persuasive…

      I see they’ve just added a critique of the Pentagon fly-over theory, using reconstructions from Google Earth street view to show how untenable it is. They don’t buy the ‘no plane into Pentagon’ idea either…

  33. Stanley Yuzuk permalink
    October 16, 2009 4:59 pm

    David, Jack, Elana, In The Know, and all the rest of the “non-truthers” do not like the fact that United States citizens exercise their right to free speech! Questions still exist about the JFK assassination, and that was 46 years ago! Don’t believe that powerful government officials can put conspiracy theories over on US citizens?? Then I have WMD’s and an African US Presidents Healthcare to sell you!? You guys have to keep an open mind to others views. You never know when you might learn something. Name calling and nit picking typos does NOT add to your credibility. In fact it makes you sound more like left wing nuts than conservatives. Maintain low tones and keep up a good conversation. Good honest debate is what made this country great. Don’t kill that with ridicling those that you do not agree with. Best wishes to all, Stanley

    • Hamish permalink
      October 16, 2009 5:07 pm

      Stanley, you’re the man! You’ve hit the nail on the head.

      These guys really do sound like the loony left, nut jobs, trolls, and all the other names they’ve been chucking around…

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 17, 2009 2:47 am

      I honestly believe that you have good intentions with your comment. But some other people that are truthers make insane claims. There is simply put no way a conspiracy that involved that many people much less the help of the terrorist them self could have been pulled off. I have been again in some multi state investigations that would require no where near the numbers need for 9/11 and they could not be kept secret. Someone allways talks. The same with Kennedy. It is absurd. We ridicule the truthers for the very reasons that David Swindle stated because of the absurdity and they will always be chasing a conspiracy. Hell Lyndon Johnson could not even keep the Gulf of Tonkin inncident quite with all the resources at his disposal, the same with Richard Nixon and Watergate. They also can never tell you where the people on those planes went. Stanely it is just a mental problem of some sort. I do not know how to describe it but if there was anything that is deserving of ridicule it is this.

      • Hamish permalink
        October 17, 2009 12:33 pm

        Jack Hampton said:

        ‘…But some other people that are truthers make insane claims.’

        Whippty do. Just because ‘some’ do doesn’t mean all do. Your logic is not the greatest…

        ‘…There is simply put no way a conspiracy that involved that many people much less the help of the terrorist them self could have been pulled off.’

        Yeah, this seems like a reasonable claim and certainly needs to be addressed, but is actually armchair theorising. We don’t know how many people were involved or what level of knowledge of the overall plan they each had. Believers in the official conspiracy story like to multiply the numbers they think needed to be involved and in the know, while objectors to it will minimise the numbers. A whole raft of people could have been involved thinking they were doing something else…

        See the link below for a scenario that only has a few people really in the know…

        The vicious ridicule and scorn and name-called that you guys practice here, I suggest intimidate a whole heap of people from raising their hands in this forum. The same sort of thing through the wider culture – and other far more sophisticated mechanisms of control – also suppresses dissent. It is not at all surprising if there are not many whistle blowers.

        If it was an insider job, then it was a very high sophisticated operation, planned to the highest degree, and taking into account the various psychological responses to the events…Unfortunately, they couldn’t do it so that everything fitted the official story. While planes going into buildings superficially sounds like it could be a sufficient means to bring the buildings down in the manner they fell – and this idea worked on me for several years, more sober, measured reflection on the matter shows it to be impossible…

        But armchair theorising is not sufficient. There is heaps of evidence that needs to be dealt with and if it is in conflict with an armchair theory, so be it.

        • Jack Hampton permalink
          October 17, 2009 2:10 pm

          Hehehe nuts.

          • Hamish permalink
            October 17, 2009 2:25 pm

            More sniveling ridicule…

    • October 17, 2009 7:07 am

      “David, Jack, Elana, In The Know, and all the rest of the “non-truthers” do not like the fact that United States citizens exercise their right to free speech!”

      I’m not going to argue 9/11 Truther conspiracism with you but your opening statement pretty much reveals that you haven’t bothered to read my writings on this subject at all. Thus you’re monologuing, not dialoguing.

      I’m something of a first amendment extremist and nowhere have I stated that crackpot conspiracists should not be allowed to exercise their 1st amendment right.

      • Hamish permalink
        October 17, 2009 11:53 am

        More name-calling…

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 17, 2009 10:46 am

      By all means rave on.

  34. Stanley Yuzuk permalink
    October 16, 2009 5:34 pm

    Thanks Hamish. I have endured that kind of ridicule in defense of consevative views also. I try to maintain an honest debate and look at both sides of the issue. But when the adversaries resort to name calling or nitpicking typo’s, then I know they are closed minded. That is the end of the debate. All I asked was where are the remains of the Boeing 757 that crashed into the Pentagon? Jack stated that he saw pictures of the landing gear. What about the wings, fusillage, and tail section of this enormous plane? I wish I could afford to buy and crash a 757 into a 5 foot thick concrete building and then photograph the remains, I just think there would be more than a couple of small pieces of debris. And by the way Jack, how can you be sure you saw that particular landing gear? In this day and age ANY photo can be made to look like what the author wants it to look like.

    • Hamish permalink
      October 16, 2009 6:32 pm


      Check out the following essays. I think they will answer all your questions:

      The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows
      by Jim Hoffman, Version 0.9, March 28, 2006

      Also an earlier essay by Hoffman:

      The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics
      by Jim Hoffman, first published: October 7, 2004, revised: November 15, 2004
      EDITOR’S NOTE 4/4/06: For a more detailed analysis of the physical evidence of the crash, see: The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows (see above.)

      Hoffman has not endeared himself to many 911 sceptics for writing these essays.

      • Jack Hampton permalink
        October 17, 2009 2:55 am

        We would all appreciate it if you would take some of your time and crack the Hoffa case. The diversion might be a pleasant change for you as well.

Comments are closed.