Daniele Bolelli Vs. Joe Rogan: Round 2
How Your Cat Is Making You Crazy
Top Five Regrets Of The Dying
DISCUSS (63)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Documentary

Posted by Camron Wiltshire on August 3, 2011

Please take a moment to look with an open mind at the evidence that has been compiled by independent researchers around the world that calls into question the findings of the 9/11 commission report.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
← Older Comments
  • Camronwiltshire

    Oh like you’ve never insulted anyone on this forum?? Give me a break.  So you want to do a face to face (albeit digital) debate or what?  Also I have answered your question countless times.  So here we go one more time, I don’t expect you will actually answer my claims or my references but will again indulge in some form of ad hominem or red herring/circular logic dismissal but hey at least the folks at home will see even more clearly who the bullshitter is in this equation.

    For the record,  NIST did not look for explosives.  This is in violation of NFPA 21 http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=8  It’s hard to find what you won’t look for.  Also once independent researchers did look, it wasn’t very hard to find the evidence of explosive detonation haven taking place. (watch Blueprint for Truth for a more thorough presentation of these facts) You assume that if any explosives were used they must have made noise of a certain decibel range and anything under this somehow excludes the possibility of low noise incendiaries being utilized to fell the towers.http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=8   Watch this, wow, amazing, there are EXPLOSIONS recorded after all.  I have listed numerous videos which show very loud explosions all around ground zero at various stages of the attacks both pre and post collapse.   You are assuming that there are not explosives capable of melting steel that do not create a decibel range equivalent to your assumptions.  This is patently false, and nano thermite is one such incendiary whose residue has been found throughout the dust from all 3 towers, that could in fact cut through the core columns without the achieving the decibel range you offer.Of course you refuse any evidence of this based on spurious and illogical claims that this evidence is invalid because an editor associated with Bentham decided to resign upon learning of the nano-thermite papers publishing, someone who has no specific credentials to either understand or refute the peer reviewed paper, someone who made no attempt to whatsoever.  The paper  overwhelmingly demonstrates the presence of Nano Thermite,  as per the millions of iron rich microspherules present in the dust as well as a precise match of all of the associated chemistry one would expect to find had a thermate reaction taken place.    Her resigning does not equate with a scientific response to the evidence as brought forward.  To assume it does so or invalidates the evidence brought forth is illogical in the extreme.When pressed as to why no scientists have yet attempted to refute this paper, you insinuate that it is because it is somehow invalid or insinuate that Bentham is somehow subpar because of one instance where a paper with no scientific merit was published.  Again this does not deal with any of the evidence cited or the issues raised in a scientific manner.  This is again avoiding the issue and presuming that you needn’t counter this evidence because of logically fallacious insinuations rather than a proper refutation based on the scientific method.Professor Steven Jones clarifies why such pseudo debunking derisions do not satisfy the TRUELY  scientifically curious.”Here’s what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, “is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?” If not, you can and should say — “I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands…IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are “vanity publications” (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) — then why don’t the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.”http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/12/debunker-pat-curley-king-of-scientific.htmlhttp://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=8 If you ACTUALLY look at the link I provided and ACTUALLY watch the videos you will see NUMEROUS examples of eyewitness accounts and actual video footage of large explosions present on 9/11.    There, here is the refutation of your illogical claim for about the 10th time at least.  Now let’s debate face to digital face and settle this once and for all.

  • Camronwiltshire

    Oh like you’ve never insulted anyone on this forum?? Give me a break.  So you want to do a face to face (albeit digital) debate or what?  Also I have answered your question countless times.  So here we go one more time, I don’t expect you will actually answer my claims or my references but will again indulge in some form of ad hominem or red herring/circular logic dismissal but hey at least the folks at home will see even more clearly who the bullshitter is in this equation.

    For the record,  NIST did not look for explosives.  This is in violation of NFPA 21 http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=8  It’s hard to find what you won’t look for.  Also once independent researchers did look, it wasn’t very hard to find the evidence of explosive detonation haven taking place. (watch Blueprint for Truth for a more thorough presentation of these facts) You assume that if any explosives were used they must have made noise of a certain decibel range and anything under this somehow excludes the possibility of low noise incendiaries being utilized to fell the towers.http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=8   Watch this, wow, amazing, there are EXPLOSIONS recorded after all.  I have listed numerous videos which show very loud explosions all around ground zero at various stages of the attacks both pre and post collapse.   You are assuming that there are not explosives capable of melting steel that do not create a decibel range equivalent to your assumptions.  This is patently false, and nano thermite is one such incendiary whose residue has been found throughout the dust from all 3 towers, that could in fact cut through the core columns without the achieving the decibel range you offer.Of course you refuse any evidence of this based on spurious and illogical claims that this evidence is invalid because an editor associated with Bentham decided to resign upon learning of the nano-thermite papers publishing, someone who has no specific credentials to either understand or refute the peer reviewed paper, someone who made no attempt to whatsoever.  The paper  overwhelmingly demonstrates the presence of Nano Thermite,  as per the millions of iron rich microspherules present in the dust as well as a precise match of all of the associated chemistry one would expect to find had a thermate reaction taken place.    Her resigning does not equate with a scientific response to the evidence as brought forward.  To assume it does so or invalidates the evidence brought forth is illogical in the extreme.When pressed as to why no scientists have yet attempted to refute this paper, you insinuate that it is because it is somehow invalid or insinuate that Bentham is somehow subpar because of one instance where a paper with no scientific merit was published.  Again this does not deal with any of the evidence cited or the issues raised in a scientific manner.  This is again avoiding the issue and presuming that you needn’t counter this evidence because of logically fallacious insinuations rather than a proper refutation based on the scientific method.Professor Steven Jones clarifies why such pseudo debunking derisions do not satisfy the TRUELY  scientifically curious.”Here’s what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, “is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?” If not, you can and should say — “I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands…IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are “vanity publications” (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) — then why don’t the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.”http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/12/debunker-pat-curley-king-of-scientific.htmlhttp://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=8 If you ACTUALLY look at the link I provided and ACTUALLY watch the videos you will see NUMEROUS examples of eyewitness accounts and actual video footage of large explosions present on 9/11.    There, here is the refutation of your illogical claim for about the 10th time at least.  Now let’s debate face to digital face and settle this once and for all.

  • Hoodoo
  • Hoodoo
  • Hoodoo
  • Tuna Ghost

    I watched the first video, wherein nameless men are standing near a pay phone when a loud noise is heard.  If this is your evidence of “explosions” caught on recording equipment, then this conversation isn’t going any further.  

    You are assuming that there are not explosives capable of melting steel that do not create a decibel range equivalent to your assumptions. 

    I’ve said nothing about melted steel, since no one claims melted steel had anything to do with the collapse, and there is no evidence of melted steel anyway.  That claim, of molten steel, has been refuted countless times.  People claiming “there were pools of molten steel” is not evidence, I’m afraid, for a number of reasons that have already been elaborated on.  As for low-decibel explosions aided by nano-thermite, since there is no evidence at all that thermite of any kind can burn in any direction except down (talk all you want of paint or tape but that won’t make thermite burn horizontally), and since no one has thus far described in terms of process how nano-thermite would aid in an explosion, or how any of this was set up in a building that was still in use without anyone noticing, it remains a fantasy.  Explosions capable of knocking a tower down, let alone three, not making the noises they should have made remains a fantasy.  The noises people heard that sounded like explosions can and did have numerous other origins, which have been elaborated upon by several others.  

    I mean, which are you claiming here?  ”The explosions didn’t have to be loud, they had nano-thermite!  Anyway, they were loud!”.  You’re all over the place, kid.  

    Of course you refuse any evidence of this based on spurious and illogical claims that this evidence is invalid because an editor associated with Bentham decided to resign upon learning of the nano-thermite papers publishing, someone who has no specific credentials to either understand or refute the peer reviewed paper, someone who made no attempt to whatsoever

    If the editor has no credibility, then why are Truthers trying to discredit her by saying she has been influenced by the US state department?  Why would they feel it necessary to do that, if she has no credibility to begin with?  

    If I were you, I’d be very wary of aligning yourself with Steven Jones.  He once “proved” that Jesus preached to the Native tribes of the Americas, and he “proved” that the events described in the Book of Mormon are historical fact.  And since no one has debunked him, these claims must be true, right?  That’s what he’s saying, right?  Since no one has attempted to refute his claims, these claims are valid?  The Book of Mormon is historical fact, and Jesus walked around in North America?  

    So it appears you’ve simply re-arranged all the evidence the truthers before you have presented.  These claims have all been handled before.  You’ve presented nothing new here, nothing that has not already been explained numerous times.  

    Frankly, I’m already involved in your little fantasies far more than I’d like, and the idea of allowing you and your kind further into my personal life is not something I’d like to do.  I know enough people locked into a fantasy world.  There is nothing to be gained by engaging with crazy people, as my experience with Truthers across this board have clearly shown.  Providing you with a new venue in which to call me names and ignore basic facts by shouting over them does not sound like a productive thing to do.  

    If you have nothing new to add, this conversation is over.  Everything you’ve claimed has been discussed at length in other places.  Its the same things, repeated over and over, in the hopes that the next time you say them they’ll be true.  I just don’t have the energy to go in circles with you any more.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    I watched the first video, wherein nameless men are standing near a pay phone when a loud noise is heard.  If this is your evidence of “explosions” caught on recording equipment, then this conversation isn’t going any further.  

    You are assuming that there are not explosives capable of melting steel that do not create a decibel range equivalent to your assumptions. 

    I’ve said nothing about melted steel, since no one claims melted steel had anything to do with the collapse, and there is no evidence of melted steel anyway.  That claim, of molten steel, has been refuted countless times.  People claiming “there were pools of molten steel” is not evidence, I’m afraid, for a number of reasons that have already been elaborated on.  As for low-decibel explosions aided by nano-thermite, since there is no evidence at all that thermite of any kind can burn in any direction except down (talk all you want of paint or tape but that won’t make thermite burn horizontally), and since no one has thus far described in terms of process how nano-thermite would aid in an explosion, or how any of this was set up in a building that was still in use without anyone noticing, it remains a fantasy.  Explosions capable of knocking a tower down, let alone three, not making the noises they should have made remains a fantasy.  The noises people heard that sounded like explosions can and did have numerous other origins, which have been elaborated upon by several others.  

    I mean, which are you claiming here?  ”The explosions didn’t have to be loud, they had nano-thermite!  Anyway, they were loud!”.  You’re all over the place, kid.  

    Of course you refuse any evidence of this based on spurious and illogical claims that this evidence is invalid because an editor associated with Bentham decided to resign upon learning of the nano-thermite papers publishing, someone who has no specific credentials to either understand or refute the peer reviewed paper, someone who made no attempt to whatsoever

    If the editor has no credibility, then why are Truthers trying to discredit her by saying she has been influenced by the US state department?  Why would they feel it necessary to do that, if she has no credibility to begin with?  

    If I were you, I’d be very wary of aligning yourself with Steven Jones.  He once “proved” that Jesus preached to the Native tribes of the Americas, and he “proved” that the events described in the Book of Mormon are historical fact.  And since no one has debunked him, these claims must be true, right?  That’s what he’s saying, right?  Since no one has attempted to refute his claims, these claims are valid?  The Book of Mormon is historical fact, and Jesus walked around in North America?  

    So it appears you’ve simply re-arranged all the evidence the truthers before you have presented.  These claims have all been handled before.  You’ve presented nothing new here, nothing that has not already been explained numerous times.  

    Frankly, I’m already involved in your little fantasies far more than I’d like, and the idea of allowing you and your kind further into my personal life is not something I’d like to do.  I know enough people locked into a fantasy world.  There is nothing to be gained by engaging with crazy people, as my experience with Truthers across this board have clearly shown.  Providing you with a new venue in which to call me names and ignore basic facts by shouting over them does not sound like a productive thing to do.  

    If you have nothing new to add, this conversation is over.  Everything you’ve claimed has been discussed at length in other places.  Its the same things, repeated over and over, in the hopes that the next time you say them they’ll be true.  I just don’t have the energy to go in circles with you any more.  

  • Abe

    If you understand what an objective analysis is, then you’d start your own investigation by first determining the subject matter of interest, “9/11 might have been an inside job” in this case.  But to be objective, you must research claims from every expert you found on the side of a conspiracy by taking the time to investigate if a counter claim exists by equally qualified sources on the other side.  If you did this, you’ve done more than most.  

    I can’t substantiate this, but I believe most people are bandwagon jumpers because they were sent some links from a friend, and yes, the information provided at the end of many of these links is very, very compelling, but following them blindly doesn’t make the information you find fact.  All you’ve done is found a mountain of “quote” evidence to support the claims that everything you thought you were researching would naturally support. This is not objective, it’s just what happens when you research anything that has two or more sides and you travel down only one path.So lets assume you’re a good investigator and took the time to vet, to the extent possible, all of the eye witness testimony, architects, structural engineers, scientist, military experts, etc. on both sides of each claim made and held them each to the same level of scrutiny.  I mean unless your beginning premise is that the foundation of the other sides claims are a complete fabrication propagated by the conspirators. In that case, please stop reading because you’ve defeated your argument for Truth before you began.If however after listening to videos and reading transcripts and reports from the witnesses and experts of comparable knowledge and experience on both sides of the controversy and you’ve charted the pros and cons for what you find only to find your scales are no longer in balance, then your finding may or may not support your opinion. If the scales aren’t even close then you are probably as close to the Truth as you can get, and you should be commended for a job well done, so please pat yourself on the back.If your analysis is done correctly, you should find your scales tipping one way or the other regardless because you won’t be able to substantiate a counter claim or claim, and you’ll have to weigh the credibility of that information.—– Now, if you say I believe the conspiracy because I was interested in the plausibility of the conspiracy and as I dug deeper and deeper and all the evidence on the subject points to it being a cover up at a minimum and an out right act of terrorism committed by entities in our government.  I’d have to say yah that’s possible, but what I suspect what you’ve found is one bit of information, leading to links of more information all providing new and more and more compelling and seemingly credible information to support the path you chose. That’s not finding the Truth, nor does is mean that what you found is fact. And if you dispute this statement, please go back and read the first section of my post, because clearly you are not capable of understanding how you should seek the “truth”.  Also notice I said seek, and not find the truth…

  • WeAreChangeAtlanta

    A very longwinded strawman with just a dash of appeal to ridicule at the end.  If the government’s conspiracy theory does not match the evidence then it means we need a new investigation.  This is all I or the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are saying.  They don’t have a conspiracy theory, they have looked at the evidence and see that  the govt’s version doesn’t add up.  

    Clearly they are not alone in this perspective.  They actively seek a official review and discussion of the evidence.  Even 6 of 10 9/11 commissioners have openly expressed doubt with the findings of the first commission investigation not to mention, well NO mention of building 7’s implosion in the report.  

    Usually when one side refuses to hear evidence and censors completely divergent opinion it means there is something to hide.  If this equates with me having a bias that cannot be overcome in your mind well there is really nothing I could say as it is a generic vague and circular logic that is again ignoring the evidence while supposing anyone who reviews it has only chosen on pill or the other and has not actually made a reasoned analysis.  The Architects and Engineers have and have no fear of bringing it forward.  This cannot be said for NIST or the Government whatsoever.

    If you disagree then let’s see a real debate between AE911Truth and NIST.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=720775832 Texabara Madg

    To not only start war in the middle east.  The WTC was a target itself.  It start a conmmotion in the trade business, it help implement the “Shock Doctrine” and it helped to attack US constitutional civil rights.  If you think like the military, who no more than business man with guns, you prefer to control the self-attack.  This was the impulse to neo-liberalism.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Hmm yes but the WTC is a relatively popular target.  If you believe the CIA has a connection to Al Queda (which many do here on Disinfo) then surely they would know the target ahead of time anyway.  

  • Jcheadsup

    “Conspirators All”

     

    The
    weather so clear that beautiful day

    Yet no
    one dare see beyond what they say

     

    The
    charges all set with little regret

    The
    planes just attacked to covered their tracks

     

    Most
    traitorous of crimes betrayed from behind

    Most
    egregious of sins betrayed from within

     

    The
    grave in the ground holds flight 93

    Though
    strange as it seems no bodies are found

     

    The
    Pentagon flashed a huge fire ball

    But
    still haven’t seen a plane as its cause

     

    The
    crime scenes all swept with no protocol

    The
    proof hauled away except DNA

     

    And so
    in the end the culprits are free

    To fill
    carpet bags and take liberties

     

    Have no
    one to blame except for ourselves

    By
    turning our backs conspirators all

  • Iainalex88

    the FDNY do implicate that the official story is not withstanding of further scrutiny.   They want a further investigation in which their pleas has time and time again been ignored.  And nobody said the whole republican party was in on it.  Although it was obvious somebody was it cannot be said for certain exactly who(most likely people who gained massive profits).  And there was no proof that the ones that did get the blame for the attacks actually did do it.  There is “proof” but further scrutiny into that reduces that the subject of that proof to a little less than concrete proof.

← Older Comments