37 FACTS that contradict the "official" BS story

You have begun your post with a lie. She got suspicious because the WTC tapes were confiscated, and her State Department source leaked that a team of people had been turning up at the WTC, in the dead of night, after janitorial services had gone home, and loading heavy equipment inside the building. This went on for 2-3 weeks before 9/11.

Since you have begun your lengthy post with a lie, I will not be responding to it. It is inevitably going to be riddled with other falsehoods, and efforts to twist dozens of separate pieces of evidence into one big coincidence.

 

This guy is an expert in these matters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg
"Explosives Technician - Loader - AE911Truth.org"


Why are you so quick to dismiss what an expert says? You're not being very objective. It sounds like you have a foregone conclusion and you're torturing the evidence to fit your conclusion.

 

You just can't argue with people who are ignoring so much evidence. It's like trying to convince a fundamentalist that God didn't really create the world in 7 days. They will simply ignore everything you put in front of them to support it, or claim it's been "debunked" and just carry on talking utter nonsense.

The BBC has factually come out and said that the Pakistani Foreign Secretary was told by American officials at a UN meeting in July 2001, that Afghanistan would be invaded by October 2001. This alone makes the US government prime suspects.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm

The people who keep ignoring this stuff are just denialist nutters. Nothing more to be said.

 

Citation for the 4 peer reviews. Oh, and why did the Editor the the Journal resign?

Dr Millette's duplicated expirements prove Jones-Harrit wrong.

Oh, snap!

Yeah, more of nothing. There is no proof of explosives and Harrit's paper debunks itself...**** on!

 

We were talking about a story by journalist Susan Limbaugh, not the Harrit paper. The scientific peer-review process is obviously anonymous unless specifically agreed to by all parties. As it happens, I can name one of the peer-reviewers for the Harrit paper, because he came forward after the nutters began saying Harrit (a 20 year tenured professor of chemistry) had only found paint. His name is Professor Griscom,

http://www.davidgriscom.com/

More to the point, why have you not told us? If you know they resigned you will have also read why. They believed the Harrit paper was chemistry, not chemical physics. Upon being asked for an opinion on the accuracy of the Harrit paper, they simply said "they were not qualified" to understand it.

Though it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it was political pressure which pushed the editor out. That's what happened to Professor Jones when he wrote his paper discrediting the 9/11 story at BYU, anyway. He was forced into early retirement.

An absolutely laughable straw man. Dr Millette has no peer-reviewed paper on this topic. The response you are quoting is a personal opinion and there is nothing scientific about it. According to the Conservative blog that this rumour began on, there has been a peer-reviewed refutation coming to Harrit's paper from Millette since late 2009. It is now 2013. No such paper exists. Stop falling for blatant straw men.

I'll even show you precisely where Millette is lying, just for your convenience.

From Harrit's paper:-

Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present.

From the Hairrit paper:-

This paper discusses four separate dust samples collected on or shortly after 9/11/2001. Each sample was found to contain red/gray chips. All four samples were originally collected by private citizens who lived in New York City at the time of the tragedy. These citizens came forward and provided samples for analysis in the public interest, allowing study of the 9/11 dust for whatever facts about the day might be learned from the dust. A map showing the locations where the four samples were collected is presented as Fig. 1a.

Five samples were provided, but only four people agreed to reveal their personal information for the paper. Therefore, the four samples tested by Harrit and included in the final paper all have a verifiable and legitimate chain of custody.

I'm not going any further. It's obvious you're not a very honest person. The first thing you asked me for was a link to an anonymous peer-reviewer. Yet, the next thing you did was post a non-peer-reviewed piece of trash, which any man who has read Harrit's paper can see is simply lies. Your double standards in accepting credibility of sources is evidence alone of your complete dishonesty.

So yeah. Keep drinking your Kool-Aid, pal. I'm sure it's hella tasty.

 

2-1/2 years experience hardly makes him an 'expert'.in fact,he wasn't an expert at all....his job,despite it's description was a clorified records keeper...http://911myths.com/index.php/Tom_Sullivan

 

Sorry kiddo,but Harrit's samples all contained kaolin...and pigments,because the 'chips' were PAINT.

 

For God's sake stop lying. From Harrit's paper:-

Initially, it was suspected these might be dried paint chips, but after closer inspection and testing, it was shown that this was not the case.

That the chips might have been paint was a hypothesis initially offered by Harrit himself and discredited. He explains why, here:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj0cAhqy6dQ

 

Except harrit didn't MEK chips (a)-(d), he MEK'd a separate, 5th chip, which did not have a spectrum identical to chips (a)-(d). This chip is Tnemic Red 99, and does not dissolve in MEK.

 

Thermite thread is here. In the mean time, a post from that thread which puts things in perspective;

Ron Wieck and dprJones puts it best'

I think Ron Wieck puts it best;

 

Oh, use your onion. A Pulitzer Prize? How are you going to manage that when there is a smorgasbord of evidence in the public sphere and yet the mainstream media won't touch it? 9/11 is an absolute textbook example of the media manufacturing consent, as per Herman and Chomsky's 1988 analysis. You can't even get onto the mainstream media unless you're prepared to debate within the false parameters laid down by the US government.

Well that has been done by Gage. There are now over 2,000 architects, engineers and physicists who openly and publicly maintain that the official story is false.

It's not even disputable, pal. Your denials, and that of other robots like you, is merely a striking testament to the level at which propaganda has twisted your thinking outside the boundaries of all reason. Each of the WTC buildings was surrounded with a perimeter of 47 core steel support columns. Since each building visibly fell entirely symmetrically, this means the official story must contend that each of these 47 core supports failed at precisely the same instant in time, else the collapse would have been lopsided.

This applies to WTC 1, 2, and 7. The mathematical chances of those supports failing simultaneously in a chain across 3 different buildings are literally millions, if not billions to one. Unless, of course, all 47 core supports were cut simultaneously with military grade thermate demolition devices. This type of thing:-

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5532449/description.html

To claim that the official story is true is to defy all reason. Therefore, if that is what you are doing, then you cannot be reasoned with. This guarantees that all future exchanges will be circular.

 

Until you show me that your information is coming from a peer-reviewed chemistry study, I am going to assume it is a combination of disinformation and outright lies.

Because it is.

 

You really need to stop insulting people b y calling them liars.....Harrit's paper wasn't 'peer reveiwed',because the journal was 'pay to publish'

We've been over this ad nauseam before YOU decided to show up..

 

Your accusation of ad hominem is a straw man. Your information is not verifiable and contradicts information which is. Plus, I already pointed out where Millett was lying. I think I have done enough to prove my case already.

I have already provided you with the name of one of the peer-reviewers. Professor Griscom.

I don't think you're really understanding the way this is going. Let me be candid: you have no argument. The WTC buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition. All three of them. I want to move on from that and look at circumstantial evidence linking actual people to the event, such as L. Paul Bremer, Bernard Kerik, Dick Cheney and Domald Rumsfeld. You're trying to resurrect an argument which was destroyed by 2007, before Harrit's paper even came out. Professor Jones had already proven that the official story was a violation of the laws of both probability and physics.

Your ceaseless denialism in face of overwhelming evidence that you have been deceived is nothing short of astonishing.

 

Ireally don't think YOU understand...there is ZERO evidence of any controlled demolition on 9/11.

Just saying so doesn't cut it

As far as being 'peer reviewed':

Professor Lucio Frydman
Department of Chemical Physics,
The Weizmann Institute of Sciences

Editor in Chief,
Open Chemical Physics Journal

Re: Peer review concerns, Harrit et al., OCPJ 2, 2009, 7-31, "nanothermite in WTC dust"

Dear Editor Frydman,

As an expert in the relevant areas, I have written a criticism of the above-cited paper that was printed in your journal.

I have posted my report publicly on the web here:
http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2010/11/peer-review-of-harrit-et-al-on-911-cant.html

My report is also critical of your journal in this matter.

On the face of it, it appears that the peer review process for this article was significantly flawed, to the point of professional irresponsibility or worse. This, in a matter of vital public and political interest.

Please clarify your journal's peer review of this article, the number of reviewers, their relevant expertizes, whether any changes were requested, etc. You will understand that the article is of such substandard quality as to give rise to serious questions about its review. What was your own involvement in accepting this article it its final form?

Please indicate when you will be able to respond.

Sincerely,
Denis G. Rancourt
Former professor, University of Ottawa
Ottawa, Canada

 

By the way,saying you're calling people liars isn't ad hominem,you called me one in post #383.

 

Now, you're outright implying falsehoods. I did not "just say so". I posted a page worth of evidence that it was a controlled demolition. A page which you completely ignored in favour of continuing to attack straw men and defend a position which is logically indefensible.

Apparently, taking someone's "word for it" is only a problem for you when they rubbish your absurd story. This guy you clearly do not have a problem with. Even though the institute he works for is an Israeli intelligence front.

http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2012/05/17/us-charity-secretly-funds-israeli-nukes/

I find your responses laughable, as I find your references to climate denial blogs. Because they are the only people prepared to print your rubbish!

You actually sit there with a straight face and give me information from precisely the people who blew up the WTC buildings (Israeli intelligence).

Unbelievable. Just simply unbelievable.

 

in 99.99% of cases, complete & total destruction of anything is considered highly suspicious.
The complete & total destruction of 3 steel framed buildings should set off alarms with people
but because of the psychological warfare going on .... people are not alarmed ...

what is going on around here?

 

Yes,you are....another anti semitic truther,blaming it all on Israel....

 

I said Israeli intelligence, not Jews. Accusing Israeli intelligence is slightly different than accusing the global Jewish population. You might want to refrain from using silly straw men in future.

There is evidence linking Israeli intelligence to this crime.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885

Also Eddie Shalev, the Israeli ex-military flight instructor who gave Hanjour his pilot's certification and described him as "a good pilot".

http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-the-fbi-and-9-11-commission-suppressed-key-evidence-about-hani-hanjour-alleged-hijack-pilot-of-aal-77/14290

 

Oh..you don't know then. Okay.

 

Quantumhead trolling is obvious. I have rebutted every point he has made so far and yet he just ignores the responses and keeps on posting. The typical twoofer "read all my information but I won't read any of yours".

He's not interesting in debate, he's interested in gish gallops, trolling, and petty point scoring.

Waste of time.

 

Did I ever claim to know if they found anything?

 

I'd say 2 1/2 years is enough to get to where you know what you're talking about. You seem to have the opinion that he's 180 degrees off. What credentials do you have that makes you able know whether he knows what he's talking about?

At the 45:15 time mark of part 2 of this series...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mDXHn_byA#t=2720
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DegLpgJmFL8

...they start to analyze the destruction of the towers. I urge all viewers who are sitting on the fence to watch it.

This video series explains the motives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa1AYlP47cI&list=PL88ADBF347A541776

 

Not MY credentials you should be worried about.