At least come up to speed with the latest gov't 9/11 Coincidence Theory

Yellow Q-drops:

The Real Trolls are the Conspiracy Mongers... It never occurs to them that cutting away walls, insulation, plumbing and electrical conduits in order to place controlled demolition changes on the towers structural columns in advance would not have gone unnoticed. Furthermore, no recorded evidence of explosions prior to the tower collapses by any of the several demolition firms in Manhatten operating sensitive seismographs at other sites in the city exist.

It never occurs to the 9/11 Coincidence Theorists that there is more than one way to destroy a building. With a few trillion dollars missing from the Pentagon on 9/10/2001, you'd think they could invest in wireless technology and exotic explosives (and/or even exotic space-based star wars technology and/or Haitian HAARP) which do not impose the same requirements as "standard" controlled demolitions (CD). If all you are focused on are standard/typical things, all you will see (or not) are what you looked for.

That was the problem with the initial NIST reports on the collapse of the WTC towers: they ruled out CD for superficial reasons, came up with a marginally plausible excuse *only* for the initiation of the collapse based on airplanes, and ignored the rest of the collapse and its glaring anomolies.

FTR, the tenants of an under-occupied structure would not necessarily have to note anything that you point out. New tenants come and go. Renovation work was ongoing. Contractors and vendors are a common site. Few still would notice those on the graveyard shift. Plus, evidence of overnight construction was seen by tenants in the form of rapidly accumulating dust in the offices.

I believe there is recorded evidence of explosions. You better check your facts and provide video links to support your assertions.

Yellow Q-drops:

The "squibs" are easily explained by floors collapsing emitting debris. A buildup of pressure caused by the compression of air between the floors as they "pancaked" most likely cause the appearance of squibs. Furthermore, videos of the "explosion" show it increasing in intensity with time which is opposite of the way a real explosive detonation works which is to diminish after the initial charge is set off.

Sorry. This explanation is no longer the fable in popular favor even by NIST. You are behind the times and debunk yourself. In plain English, the floors did not "pancake" and the squibs were not caused by compressed air between floors, and you'll find nothing of the sort supported by any (more recent) NIST reports. The squibs, however, can still be explained by CD, as can the pulverization of the concrete, the horizontal ejection of steel and materials at high velocities, etc.

Yellow Q-drops:

Finally, there was virtually no concrete in the towers which were constructed entirely of steel bolts, trusses and columns none of which could hold up without the support of the others to which they were linked making the collapse of a few columns all that was needed to take down the buildings.

Pulled that one out of your butt, did you?

In the future, please do some research and substantiate your claims with links. In this case, you'll find (even in the pictures of the construction of the towers) that they were composed of substantial amounts of concrete.

Even before (or without) the wars, what were the immediate gains of 9/11?

[B]lowing the buildings up with explosives would be highly unnecessary to accomplish support for a war in the Middle East; the planes hitting the towers would certainly have been sufficient...

You're right. If a permanent military presence in the Middle East were the sole goal, the hijacked crashing planes would have been sufficient to motivate the public into supporting that action.

But what if one of the main goals really was the destruction of almost the entire WTC complex, the important records that were stored there, as well as the Office of Naval Intelligence in the Pentagon that was, ... oh, ... digging up dirt on the G.H.W.Bush administration?

What if the first goal was covering the tracks of their misdeeds in the past and using the shock-and-awe and misguided patriotism to spin it and rouse the nation into supporting even greater misdeeds? What if there were a way for this to cost them nothing, but to make money: through insurance claims, war-profiteering, and contracts and shoddy oversight of such contracts in the invaded nations?

Of course, you can't just destroy whole buildings and Pentagon wings without arousing suspicion. Get some airliners involved to give a plausible explanation for the "initiation of the collapse" (which was coincidentally, by the way, how the scope of NIST investigation into the towers collapsing on 9/11 was limited) and to add an element of "this could have been you flying", and you've got made to order fear that can be spun into overdrive to passing -- unread -- a massive piece of legislation named The USA PATRIOT ACT in just over a month.

"[N]ot only were the buildings targets, but ... specific offices within each building were the designated targets. ... [T]he attacks of September 11th were intended to cover-up the clearing of $240 billion dollars in securities covertly created in September 1991 to fund a covert economic war against the Soviet Union, during which 'unknown' western investors bought up much of the Soviet industry, with a focus on oil and gas. The attacks of September 11th also served to derail multiple Federal investigations away from crimes associated with the 1991 covert operation.

~ E. P. Heidner Collateral Damage of 9/11 (PDF)

Q-BoughtBot, Q-BoughtBot, Q-BoughtBot...

As much as I like the Q-dip and Q-drop references, I'm just now connecting a Q-dot that leads to the christening of brand new names.

"BoughtBill" and "EncinoBought"

Why?

Because if they are real people, they've been bought. They're doing their job; it's just business, nothing personal. They have their disinformation assignment, and don't get in their way.

Of course, when you speak their names out loud, what do you get?

bot-bil and en-see-no-bot, which give their new names another dimension and reality.

Until recently, I hadn't really considered that I was dealing with bot-bil, but it could explain many things.

I admit that when I've honed a good sentence or paragraph, I'll re-use it. But it'll be surrounded by other original text.

The problem with BoughtBill's postings is that far too many are high-percentage repeats from his Oracle database.

One class is his re-posting of debunking sources. On the surface, this could be an acceptable re-use. Except, the source material does not always apply. Worse, he's been caught in not understanding what the source material says, thereby debunking his debunk.

Another class are his flame wars, where his insults have been around the block too many times. I don't know how many 4 sentence (or less) postings from him (including subject) that I've seen where the only uniqueness to the posting was which 3 sentences were randomly chosen and in what order.

It is interesting to copy a sentence from his postings, enclose it in double-quotes, shove that into the AlterNet search, and see what comes up. For longer posts, he might tailor an intro or concluding sentence, but that's about it.

GuitarBill starts to resemble more and more BoughtBill, even if a Q-dip human handler exists behind the scenes to approve and tweak the posting from the database suggested by some algorithm according to certain keywords, themes, and opponents as flagged by NSA's carnivore program for response.

Too often particularly when losing, BoughtBill's rebuttal is simply to call the opponent a liar (or Nazi or anti-semetic) on the subject line, accuse them of changing the subject, change the subject, and conclude with more insults.

Bots don't have emotions. They don't have morals. They don't tire of going over the same ground, the same argument, the same points over-and-over. They'll store up weaknesses on their opponents (like personal details) and exploit those mercilessly again and again. Remove their postings or ban them? They don't care. As bots with the means to generate email addresses and IP addresses, they can keep coming back. Worse, such random creation of on-the-fly credentials can be targeted against opponents in a campaign to get them banned.

Final bit of circumstantial evidence? Just to stay abreast of the articles here is a big time commitment. To be active in the comments can be a huge time suck. To take on all who mention 9/11, Israel, or [assigned topic] in an unflattering manner with respect to any recent administration without impacting gainful employment and a personal life, that can only be achieved by a BoughtBot paid-to-post instigator.

~TwentyTen

I demand the database entry on the physics of the spire expiring into dust...

If we were dealing with a real person instead of a "composite persona GuitarBill" manned by a team, we could have expected a correction to the free-fall physics entry in the NSA Oracle database as early as April, when it was first pointed out and before he re-posted the error four times (thereby retro-actively losing those discussions, if he hadn't already lost them.) Whether or not we give one of the GuitarBill team members credit for having the supposed Master of Arts in Mathematics and "minor in Physics" (-- what was the undergraduate major: music? --), the retention of said education is what is questioned.

No, I expect that if we were to ask GuitarBill to post the appropriate corrections to his free-fall physics (F in Math, F in Physics, and B done with me please), we'd get the exact same error-filled database entry re-posted here, because no-one on the team populating the database has gotten around to fixing it.

Giving credit where credit is due, GuitarBill probably does have enough brain cells to fix on-the-fly the numerous errors. The only problem is that even fixed, his conclusions were crap. Sure, WTC-1/2 did not fall exactly at free-fall acceleration, but they fell within the margin of error and certainly at an acceleration significantly faster than the inherent resistance of the structure should have allowed, as calculated, predicted, and designed by competent architects and civil engineers.

Don't expect GuitarBill to have physics equations or NIST supporting documents to explain the spire of inner-core expiring into dust, which was probably God himself giving us a smoking gun to wake us up, to ask questions, and to find the God's honest truth about 9/11.

Could that spire (and the towers that surrounded it) have been "vibrated" into dust by HAARP, just like theories claim its directed vibration energies could have caused Haiti earthquakes? Don't know, but it is worthy to consider, as is re-considering Dr. Judy Wood.

Google Videos of "HAARP Haiti"

Haiti EarthQuake H.A.A.R.P 2010

Relating back to the premise of the article and as another Q-drop, Prophit1 was banned from AlterNet for harping about HAARP, Haiti, and the military forces we are planting there.

And why? Could it be hurricanes, flu shots, earthquakes, global warming, and other natural disasters to one day achieve goals of the Georgia Guidestones: "Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature"?

Don't know. Just sayin'...

~TwentyTen

A primer on Q-dots:

*singing* "Q-drops keep falling on my head..."

A primer on Q-dots:

• Operation Mockingbird: "was a secret Central Intelligence Agency campaign to influence domestic and foreign media beginning in the 1950s."
• The PNAC manifesto "Rebuilding America's Defenses": "If outer space represents an emerging medium of warfare, then “cyberspace,” and in particular the Internet hold similar promise and threat. And as with space, access to and use of cyberspace and the Internet are emerging elements in global commerce, politics and power. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new “global commons.” The Internet is also playing an increasingly important role in warfare and human political conflict... "
• "The Pentagon’s War on the Internet": "The War Dept. is planning to insert itself into every area of the internet... The objective is to challenge any tidbit of information that appears on the web that may counter the official narrative..."
• "The US government has allegedly set up a special security wing (Q Group) with the sole task of distancing Washington from any involvement in the 9/11 terrorist attacks." According to investigative journalist Wayne Madsen
• Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist by H. Michael Sweeney: "Avoidance. Selectivity. Coincidental. Teamwork. Anti-conspiratorial. Artificial emotions. Inconsistent. Time constant."
• Obama confidant's spine-chilling proprosal by Glenn Greenwald: "Cass Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here. Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." "
• GuitarBill's marching orders: "And remember, when you attack the Democratic party and attempt to demoralize president Obama's base, you will feel my boot in your backside.".
• GuitarBill's reaction in terms of frequency, distractions, spin, negativity, win-at-any-costs personal attacks, proven lies, and crafty-but-purposeful misdirection and how they increase for topics that make the administration, government, and those pulling their strings uncomfortable. The best defense (of lies and crap) is to be offensive.
• GuitarBill's little buddy, Gilligan... I mean, EncinoM? Enough said.

"By their fruits, ye shall know them." Don't step in the Q-droppings.

Nope, I cannot prove that the NSA Q Group exists. GuitarBill and EncinoM can and do.

~TwentyTen

Q-drops keep falling on my head...

We can't prove the Q Group exists. We can only shine lights on the Q-drops.

Both the referenced and original TwentyTen posting allude to exile-worthy postings from GuitarBill, a CISSP IT professional with a security clearance, who was championing the losing side of parallel 9/11 discussions. Thus, the resurrection from the dead of the GuitarBill alias becomes another Q-dot. Was the money he may have spent at The Stinkin' Rose on beer and dinner for JOSHUA HOLLAND's NSA recruitment sufficient to sway that Executive Managing Editor to overturn the banning decision of AlterNet's Moderator Committee? Or were 2 envelopes passed across the table as well: 1 with cash and 1 with compromising pictures of "A Boy and His Dog"?

To use GuitarBill's words, talk about "flipping the bird at the moderator and placing [himself] above the moderator's authority."

The question isn't "how many times has prophit been banned?", but "how many times has GuitarBill been justifiably banned and resurrected?"

A primer on Q-dots:

• Google "CIA Mockingbird".
• The PNAC manifesto "Rebuilding America's Defenses": "Control of space and cyberspace. [C]ontrol of the new "international commons" [will] be a key to world power in the future."
• "The Pentagon’s War on the Internet": "The War Dept. is planning to insert itself into every area of the internet... The objective is to challenge any tidbit of information that appears on the web that may counter the official narrative..."
• "The US government has allegedly set up a special security wing (Q Group) with the sole task of distancing Washington from any involvement in the 9/11 terrorist attacks." according to investigative journalist Wayne Madsen
• GuitarBill's marching orders: "And remember, when you attack the Democratic party and attempt to demoralize president Obama's base, you will feel my boot in your backside.".
• GuitarBill's reaction in terms of frequency, distractions, spin, negativity, win-at-any-costs personal attacks, proven lies, and crafty-but-purposeful misdirection and how they increase for topics that make the administration, government, and those pulling their strings uncomfortable. The best defense (of lies and crap) is to be offensive.

Nope, I cannot prove that the NSA Q Group exists. GuitarBill can and does.

~TwentyTen

Third Parties bring the gold to the Golden Age of accountability

Mr. Logan wrote:

"Given Obama and the Democratic leadership's catastrophic performance this past year, the Republicans will soon be back in power."

I'm reluctantly finding myself in agreement with your statements on catastrophic leadership performance. However, it does not have to be a foregone conclusion that this puts the Republicans back in power. With some intelligence and everybodies' collective elbow-grease in getting the word out, power could be yanked from the Democrats but not given to the Republicans (whose lock-step ruthlessness makes them worse)... No... Even a solid showing of 20-30% to one or more 3rd parties in Congress can tip the balance of power in governance towards a king making 3rd party, who will through their weight and votes around as they see fit when they sit fit (back-and-forth if need be) to get compromises and concessions back onto the table which the duopoly tends to sweep off.

Now is the time to investigate and support 3rd parties.

Mr. Logan wrote:

"And Repubs are far less reluctant to prosecute than the Democrats. I have no doubt the Jeb Bush Administration will investigate and prosecute the many crimes of the Obama Administration."

And continuing with the sarcasm, you can bet that the crimes of the Obama Administration that they will finally nail him to the cross with -- after spending millions to investigate -- won't be the Geitner/Gates continuance of fiscal and militaristic foreign policy started with saintly brother Dubya. No, it'll be something like Obama pulling a Tiger Woods as part of his daily gym workouts, lighting a cig after, and (occasionally) the CIA/Secret Service-provided inhaled-and-held blunt before.

This is, of course, after Jeb Bush has sealed into his presidential libraries all paper/electronic trails from both Dubya and Poppy, much like what Dubya did for Poppy, further delaying when their misdeeds will be completely exposed and judgment passed, probably long after they've expired from the planet.

Speaking of expiring, when do you think Obama will have NIST write up a cover-up for explaining this spire of inner-core expiring on 9/11 into dust?

Divide into 2: "Uncle Tom Obama" & "should get the boot"

Dear Mr. Yellows,

If we divide your subject line into two parts: (1) "Uncle Tom Obama" & (2) "should get the boot", I can understand the sentiments of the #2 part. As for #1, I think you're just taking a stick and poking us in the eye. It is rather racists and really has no bearing in this discussion (or any).

I mean, if Obama has sold out, he's sold out -- like many neocon (and other ilk of) criminals before him -- and his & their skin color had nothing to do with it, but rather the color of money lining their pockets.

"Enough already!"

Pay attention to and be part of 3rd parties, because they could become the king makers of government and force into being the practices and policies that we Americans expect of our elected officials.

You see, 3rd parties don't have to win the presidency, nor do their numbers in the House or Senate have to reach majorities. No. All 3rd parties have to do is gain significant numbers such that neither of the other two parties have a clear majority to govern, pass laws, approve budgets, confirm nominations, hold committee chairs, etc.

Did you say "GuitarBill", aka "SemaphoreFor9/11Truth"?

You inadvertently hit upon a great suggestion. One of GuitarBill's new pseudonyms on AlterNet should be "trollstein".

Or maybe we should have a couple of contests:

• - One to nominate and vote on his new AlterNet aliases he should adopt.
• - The other (later) to nominate and vote on the aliases that he really assumed.

Multiple aliases? Of course. Then we can play GuitarBill's favorite game of alias-ASS-ociating which pseudonyms belong to him. Loads of thread detour and distracting fun, don't you think CynicI, Prophit0, and PRC?

Why the games or contests at all? Because GuitarBill didn't just have his hat handed to him, but his ass as well by TwentyTen and winchelenator.

Here's sort of an explanation:

» Dancing like a flying monkey singing "The witch is dead!"

Of particular note to those of us who want to gloat, GuitarBill had in various discussions posted practically verbatim from his Oracle database a posting that used physics and math to supposedly debunk free-fall speeds happening in the twin towers on 9/11. Not only was he called on an error relating to constant velocity in his equations by LeftWright in April, the error was never fixed and was re-posted several times.

TwentyTen found that error as well as several more in the math and physics that a holder of a Master's of Arts in Mathematics and a minor in Physics should not have made much less repeated after the error was pointed out.

winchelenator had him on the ropes about the chemistry of fires and what temperatures the 9/11 fires could and could not have reached.

All in all, the discussion threads in the above article were classic disinformation by the dynamic duo GuitarBill and EncinoM ("Gilligan" or "GuitarBill's Little Buddy") culminating with three (3) of GuitarBill's postings getting yanked and his posting rights as well.

Without any further fanfare now that his old alias is (or damn well should be) retired from AlterNet, I nominate and vote for the following aliases for GuitarBill to assume:

• SemaphoreFor9/11Truth
• CompulsiveLiar
• Q-Groupie
• Q-Dip
• Q-Dipster
• Q-Dipshit
• Q-Dipshitster
• trollstein

Dancing like a flying monkey singing "The witch is dead!"

The spire of inner-core expiring into dust was probably God himself giving us a smoking gun to wake us up, to ask questions, and to find the God's honest truth about 9/11.

We both know that Q-dipster would love to come back at you with some sort of personal attack to distract from the fact that he doesn't have the physics entry in his NSA database to refute either the expiring spire or your comments.

Don't expect an answer from him too soon. He's probably sulking in his PJ's that his beloved login alias doesn't work. Of course, it wouldn't take much time for him to employ one of his multiple email accounts (or to acquire a brand-new gmail account), register a new handle here, and re-appear in some new form. In fact, he may already have done so prior to his musical alias getting the deathwish it has been craving for over half a year and certainly with an increased jonesing for banishment during the Christmas holidays.

See all of the "This comment has been removed" entries above? They were his. Why are they gone and why is he gone (*cross our fingers*)?

It wasn't just that:

• He was losing a 9/11 discussion badly with 5 fundamental errors in his physics, math, and reasoning on free-fall physics.
• These mistakes undermine this and several other verbatim copy/paste posts in other discussions.
• These mistakes called into question, if not his very education, then certainly his retention of and ability to re-apply such knowledge.

No, he was losing so badly that he had to drag into the discussion a real name of a real person. Has Q-dipshit ever revealed any of his personal details? A real name? A contact email address? A website? No, and not asked for either.

"Writing under a pseudonym or pen name on political topics has a long and distinguished history going back to the Federalist Papers when Founders Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote under the pen name of Publius in the late 1700s."
~ alaskanlibrarian in Pseudonyms and Anonymous Sourcing

"If you are going to out an anonymous blogger, you'd better have a very, very good reason for doing so, because the damage you can do to that person's career, and to the online public square, can be real and irreversible.
~ Rod Dreber in On outing anonymous bloggers

Without confirming or denying the accused association, the point is that publishing a real name and personal information did not have a very, very good reason to be posted, was a highly personal attack, was way off-topic, was un-American, ran afoul of basic netiquette, and contradicted the very ethics training & contracts on protecting personal data that he attended & signed on his way to a CISSP, Certified Information Systems Security Professional [link compliments of the Q-dipster himself]. Can't-be-proven-to-exist Q Group? Look who is among the organizations according to Wiki who value such certification.

We can only hope that he uses the time on the side-lines, however long we are blessed with, to contemplate his despicable actions, to repent, and to remove such offending tactics from his game in whatever pseudonym he chooses to... *cough*... "grace" this forum again.

High-five to you, winchelenator, for the 9/11 chemical heat analysis above and for mostly keeping your cool against the Q-dipshitster.

Won't you join me in the flying monkey dance & "The Witch is Dead" song?

~TwentyTen

Waste our time

Q-dip writes:

"Science is not proven or disproven in public debates."

True.

But putting it into the public realm might provide more information than we have now to put 9/11 to bed.

Additionally, it shows who is willing to stand up publicly for what position. The fact that noone has or is willing to for the government's version of 9/11 pseudo-science, speaks volumes.

Q-dip writes:

"To waste the scientist time in debating the psuedo-science of Jones and Co. would only give Jones the undue validation that he craves."

Waste the scientists' time? As if the 10,000 pages in the initial WTC report didn't waste their time! It didn't even mention WTC-7 and had its scope cripled to looking at plausible causes for the initiation of collapse and not what occured during the collapse.

"Undue validation?" If the science is invalid, let the scientific work be done to prove it invalid.

"Validation that he craves?" Shit, we all crave validation.

I think his would be justified more so than most, because mild-manner Jones effectively lost his academic position for pointing out and looking at what most in academia didn't have the balls to do, because they know which side their bread is buttered on and who funds 99.9% (give or take) of their research.

~TwentyTen

Calculate the velocity of the horizontal ejected material

Q-dipshit writes:

"Why did you avoid the empirical evidence? ... How can you claim the Towers fell at "free fall rates, when it's obvious that debris ejected from the top of the Tower, which represents pure free fall speed, reaches the ground before the rest of the Tower?"

Yes, indeed. How about you showing some intellectual honesty and apply some physics to that emperical evidence of the ejected debris?

Calculate the horizontal velocity of some of that debris. Then explain where that energy came from.

Recognize that it takes energy to eject it as such, energy that is then no longer available to be accelerate downward at free-fall rates.

Recognize that the energy consumed by pulverization of content in the path of greatest resistance is then no longer available to accerlerate the mass downward at free-fall rates.

Recognize that the debris eject is no longer available to be used as a pile driver to help pulverize the lower floors.

Recognize from that emperical evidence that the upper floors inexplicably (unless you're willing to consider explosives) "accordian" in on themselves before the collapse goes through the floors where the impact occured.

Recognize that the inflated times you've given for the collapse are without basis, because even you admit that you can't see what goes on at the bottom behind the dust clouds. Therefore, be intellectually honest and time the stages of collapse that you can effectively observe and scale, like the accordianing upper floors and the collapse of all floors down to a height effectively calibrated from surrounding buildings or other benchmarks.

All of that said about elements in the destruction that suck energy away from the towers being able to fall at free-fall, the 9/11 Commission Report -- using numbers provided by NIST -- documents the collapse time remarkably close to calculated free-fall. And as was already mentioned somewhere above, your inflated collapse times themselves are closer to free-fall rates that what most architects, engineers, and physicists would calculate based on the resistance and other load bearing characteristics of the materials in the path of greatest resistance.

And if the WTC-1/2 dust clouds confuse you in your efforts to clock free-fall rates, look no further than WTC-7. How many stages did NIST document, what were their collapse times, and how close were each of them to free-fall?

Be a man of your word and be done with me.

~TwentyTen

F in Math, F in Physics, and B done with me please

Q-dipshit writes:

"If precedence is an issue, why are my answers correct?"

Precedence, particularly when typed sloppily the way you did, is but one issue that would have flubbed the math in your pseudo-physics. (Ask your college for a refund on your degrees.)

But more importantly, your answers are not correct, with multiple errors in both your math and physics compounding the incorrectness.

[1] Although you managed to correctly calculate the free-fall time (9.23 s) and what the velocity would have been at that time (90.4 m/s), re-using that same velocity to calculate a distance at a new time (14.74 s) with the equation d=vt is wrong, because it plugs in the velocity as if it were constant from 0 to 14.74, when it wasn't. (Physics: grade F)

[2] You managed to divide the distance you were calculating by 2 for no apparent reason, so even that distance (666.7 meters) is wrong. (Math: grade F)

[3] If you really wanted to know how far something would fall in 14.74 seconds, the proper equation to use:

d = (1/2)a t^2
d = (1/2)(9.8)(m/s^2) * (14.75 s)^2
d = (1/2)(9.8)(14.75)^2 m
d = (1/2)(9.8)(217.56) m
d = 1066 m

[4] Coming up with a ratio of the distance it could have traveled in ~14 seconds to the distance it did travel (assuming the 3 errors above weren't in your work) might not have been bad.

• Your wrong ratio was (666.7 m) / 417 m = 1.60
• The ratio for a constant velocity should have been (1333.4 m)/(417 m) = 3.2, but this is also meaningless.
• The ratio you sought was (1066 m)/(417 m) = 2.55

But no. You came up with a totally assinine & deft of meaning conclusion:

"Hence, if the South Tower fell at "free-fall speed" it would have fallen about [corrected: 2.55] times as far as it actually did fall in that time."

Your saying it should have fallen (1066 - 417=) 649 meters below street level.

[5] In addition to the above 4 gross errors in your math and physics, you can't seem to accept that a building collapse could happen in stages, some fast and some slow. You always want to lead us astray by starting the clock at some arbitrary point in time, stopping it at another, and saying everything that happened in the middle was uniform and consistent.

The above answers your question 1. Your question 2 isn't relevant either to the issue at hand or to your understanding. You can't even get calculation precedence correct much less notation; you refuse to provide an unambiguous notation (e.g., image of something from an equation editor like in Word). You wouldn't know what to do with my answer. You're just wasting my time so that your team in the Q group will have time to address your other errors.

Be a man of your word. Be done with me.

~TwentyTen

Q-uack like a Q-dip from Q-Group

I asked the questions:

"Where are all of the NIST physicists/scientists (or from other agencies) willing (and with employer permission) to publicly appear and debate Jones/Gage point-for-point? ... Where are their scientific reports of using the samples within their possession (and without questionable collection, storage, and chain-of-custody issues) to repeat Jones' experiments and validate/disprove their assertions?"

And your lame-o non-answer?

"The fact that real scientists are unwilling to waste their time debating snake oil salesmen is nothing more then a straw man argument and proof of only how little in the way of actual facts the truhtiness movement has."

NIST is a government agency that has received millions to research 9/11 supposedly completely and thoroughly. Given that 9/11 is the basis for billions (no, probably trillions) invested in multiple wars, homeland security, and other knee-jerk measures, it behooves us as a nation to find out if 9/11 (as told to us) is fact or fiction. The investment in a few scientists to officially validate/disprove Jones would be tiny but invaluable, as would sponsoring them in some public debates.

I think the work has already been done, but was likely edited out or buried by superiors trying to CYA... not only their own but that of who appointed them.

"As well as the repeated lies that does that disagree with the dogmatic views of the truthiness movement must be government agents, sent out to discredit them."

If you Q-uack like a dump-suck D-uck, W-alk like a dump-suck D-uck, and A-ct like dump-suck D-uck...

Got another explanation for, say, GuitarBill who works as some sort of a database administrator and over the holidays somewhere bragged about taking a whole freaking month to read all 10,000 pages of one of NISTs 9/11 reports.

What?

• He did this for fun after his daytime database admin duties at the expense of his wife or kids or anything else that month?
• Or he read it on the job risking getting fired?
• Or his job in the Q group pays him to read it, as well as this site and rense.com, and to build his database to quickly copy-and-paste bullying responses to views that don't align with what the Q Group wouldn't want us to consider, much less believe?

As for you, EncinoM, maybe we should start calling you "Gilligan" or "GuitarBill's little buddy" as for your tag-team antics that would make the non-existent Q Group proud.

~TwentyTen

Have you addressed the substance of the report, or just its forum?

Is it only music if it is played and adored in a concert hall? Or does it stop being music when listened to from a tiny, tinny AM radio speaker?

Every industry associated with distribution of information -- music, movies, television, books, newspapers, journals -- have channels designed to keep out the "bad" and pump/hype/sell the "good" (in order to make money for the distributor).

Unfortunately, [Golden Rule] those with the gold make the rules, and often rule on good or bad based on factors completely separate from the merits of the content itself (like politics and even personal rivalries).

Case in point, person X might have a great voice and great music, but music promoters are concerned about the complete package of the musician: are they good looking and young? Do they have stage presence? Can they dance? How will they look on MTV?

Although you might point to YouTube-sensation Susan Boyle to prove me wrong (not good looking, not young, little stage presence, can't dance, doesn't look good on TV), I'll counter that Susan was not bestowed with her beautiful voice overnight. She'd been singing in churches and karayoke (sp) for years. Were it not for the fluke of making it on to a televised talent show, that YouTube has come into its own, and for the fact that (today in her late 40's) she now has a compelling story to override the x-factors that stymied her musical dreams in her younger days, she'd be where she was: nowhere.

To wrap this back around to Steven Jones.

Imagine the journal with all its alleged questionable standards and irregularities is the tiny, tinny AM radio speaker. You have not judged the quality of the music (the validity of the content), mostly because you are intellectually incapable of it, and the other NSA team members from Q Group haven't put their heads together in committee for a "psuedo-science" debunking worthy of the photons it takes to display.

Where are all of the NIST physicists/scientists (or from other agencies) willing (and with employer permission) to publicly appear and debate Jones/Gage point-for-point? My word, they'd even have an advantage of knowing Jones/Gage's side of the debate and practically their entire presentation IN ADVANCE, because they are all over the internet! Where are their scientific reports of using the samples within their possession (and without questionable collection, storage, and chain-of-custody issues) to repeat Jones' experiments and validate/disprove their assertions?

You would think that this issue is so important that they could spare the annual salaries of a few $150k scientists from their multi-million dollar budgets to settle this once and for all.

But no. Q groupies like you are sent out to sow weeds in the wheat fields, character assassinate, and apply all manner of guilt-by-association without addressing the core concerns.

~TwentyTen

Q-dip's Oracle database also has physic extracts (that don't apply)

The physics extracts from Q-dip's Oracle NSA database are wonderful, true, but applied in a manner intended to mislead.

The first slight of hand is the jump from the Richard Gage quotation into the distracting math ending up at discussing WTC-1 and WTC-2 free-fall calculations. Either Q-dip is guilty of his own charge of not having listened to and understood the radio program he linked, or he is intentionally misdirecting us (which in my book is a type of lying.) You see, Gage on the radio talks mostly about WTC-7, where NIST's Final Report supports the free-fall claim, albeit buried and surrounded by other distractions to lead us away from this obvious revelation.

Q-dip's math, besides turning off those who don't understand it, offers another realm of intellectual dishonesty from this holder of a Masters of Arts in Mathematics with Minor in Physics (which too me is most unusual, because Minors are usually associated with undergraduate degrees, not Master's degrees, and my university didn't even offer undergraduate minors.) The dishonesty comes from three directions.

First, his calculations are for free-fall in a vacuum. The towers, not being in a vacuum and being subject to air resistance and whatnot, of course would not fall at an acceleration equivalent to free-fall in a vacuum. They would take more time. So Q-dip is quote-mining, hair-splitting, and in essence setting up a clever strawman.

Second, his calculations are for the entire height of the tower structures. If GuitarBill were being honest, he'd wouldn't be looking at the whole collapse for evidence of free-fall but at collapse stages. By way of a short detour through WTC-7, note that NIST documents multiple stages of its collapse, not all of them at near free-fall speed. Also note that controlled demolitions have stages that take out some (but not all) supports to initiate downward acceleration due to gravity, and then re-use this kinetic energy of the falling mass to take out the remaining (in tact) supports and structure: saves on the total amount of explosives required. The point being: various individual collapse stages will show evidence of free-fall, but putting all stages together into one monolithic stage to dispute free-fall is disingenuous.

Students of 9/11 can readily see that the towers had multiple stages of their collapse. An interesting smoking-gun stage of the towers is that the upper floors above the impacted site collapse on themselves first before the collapse wave propagates lower, very questionable indeed! And in doing so, the upper floors cannot serve as quite the "pile-driver" in destroying the lower floors as Q-dips would have us believe, but I digress.

If GuitarBill would apply his physics and math skills to calculating the collapse speed, not of the whole building but, of just the floors above the impact site, ... well... If he were intellectually honest (or had the degrees he professes), he just might have an "Oh Shit!" moment and realize he has been debating for the wrong team.

The third area of GuitarBill's intellectual dishonesty AND THE MOST GLARING is his misapplying his velocity calculation in a subsequent multiplication by a time (from video evidence) to get a distance to MEANINGLESSLY conclude:

"If the South/North Towers fell at "free-fall speed" [they] would have fallen [respectively] about 1.60/2.41 times as far as [they] actually did fall in that time."

Acceleration due to gravity is the important factor, not velocity. Velocity is not constant and changes depending on time and how much acceleration has acted on it in that time. The velocity GuitarBill calculated is only applicable to a point in time equivalent to just prior to when "the bowling ball falling in a vacuum" would impact the street. To re-use that one-time-only-applicable velocity as a constant velocity for the whole collapse in an attempt to debunk free-fall is meaningless and a dishonest use of physics. DEBUNKING FAILED!!!

Unfortunately, the distraction does not stop there.

Q-dip says:

Video evidence proves that the South Tower fell in 14.75 seconds. The North Tower fell in 22.2 seconds.

The archives prove the GuitarBill is notorious for starting the stop-watch early and stopping it late, for including in his total collapse time separate pre-stages and post-stages (like the lonely spire from a core expiring into dust). Not that this isn't valid, but it is dishonest to use these inflated times when the 9/11 Commission does not, and when NIST provided the times for the main collapse stage as 9.75/11.05 seconds respectively, which are within the margin of error (and wind resistance).

Two points of irony here. Q-dip's insistence on using (valid but) inflated collapse times puts him in disagreement with the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission Report and causes honest researchers to therefore question its validity (if we didn't already do so at the recanting of a number of its committee members who state that evidence was withheld and they were misled).

Secondly, even if all commissions and agencies adjusted their reports to accept these inflated times, the fact remains that they are closer to free-fall times than they are to times that architects and physicists would typically calculate for a building collapsing through its path of greatest resistance while at the same time diverting kinetic energy (from downward acceleration) into the huge energy sinks of (a) pulverizing contents and structure, (b) ejecting debris horizontally at high velocities [that GuitarBill should spend some time calculating], and (c) leaving excessively high temperature (according to satellite images) molten piles in the sub-basement levels that burned for weeks (without adequate supplies of oxygen).

The conclusion from this is:

[A] GuitarBill is a liar and does not possess the education he claims, for a Mathematics Master's Degree holder with a minor in Physics would not be making the simple-ass mistakes and conclusions given by his cut-and-paste entries from his Oracle NSA database.

[B] GuitarBill is a liar and purposely mis-uses physics ("psuedo-science" anyone?) to falsely debunk 9/11 free-fall claims in a clever Q Group smoke-and-mirror distraction.

[C] Both A and B.

[D] Both A and B and other fitting epitaths to his integrity, honesty, motives, and agenda.

~TwentyTen

Nice weasel, Q-dip, but no dice

So EncinoM looks up the stats and admits that his 4% number was wrong. Should have been 4.8%. Big whoop.

It still provides no validity to his main assertion and lie that 96% (or corrected to 95.2%) or simply "the rest of the population looks for hard evidence and facts."

Nope. Looking for hard evidence and facts is the last thing this Q-dip from NSA wants the majority of the population to do! Nope, he wants them to take his word at face value: 9/11 was as we were told. Nothing questionable here. No need to investigate further. ... Hey, we've got more important things to be distracted about than the root causes for the mess we're in being a pack of lies.

Zogby hasn't polled all of America, so we don't know whether 1/3 truther is an inflation or not.

But mister. 1/3 believing that the government is covering something up... that is still a significant number and percentage of the population. Your implied premise is that 2/3 believe that the government is not covering something up (to put them back into the light of being holy and good.) Nope. The stats only state what 1/3 believe.

What do the other 2/3 believe? We don't know. We could be generous and say 1/3 are die-hard believers like you, Ewe-Ess-Ay ... right-or-wrong ... we're number 1... guv-ment don't do no harm to nobody lesson they de-zurv it. 'merikkka: luv it or leaf it up to Can-ey-duh which ain't part of 'merikkka..

The remaining 1/3?

Couldn't be bothered. 'merikas got talent is on tonight, so don't expect me at no HOA meetun' to discuss fixin' our cul-de-sack C-ment, much less to study no evidence nor facts about sum event 8 f-ing years ago that I shopped right thru to foreclosure.

Inflation has bit into the 80/20 rule. It is now 90/10: 10% of the people do 90% of the work, while the other 90% of the people do the remaining 10% of the work.

9/11? 10% of the most active posters who make up 90% of the traffic are made up of 5% truthers and 5% trolls, while the remaining 90% skip over this shit looking for today's article on U2's boner Bono.

~TwentyTen

A distracting liar, but a liar nonetheless

EncinoM writes:

"First it is only obvious to the 4% of the population that follow the cult of Griffin & Co. that 9/11 was an inside job. The rest of the population looks for hard evidence and facts."

Exaggeration? Or just plain lying?

The 4% figure is very low, and your history on this site bears witness that you have been in enough 9/11 discussions (always on the government's side) to know it. God knows why you didn't give yourself more credibility by at least using Zogby's poll numbers that say more than 1/3 of the American people do not believe in the government's version and know that something very fishy went on on 9/11 that is being covered for. So, 4% shoots you in the left foot. (How does it feel?)

Shoot yourself in the right foot by saying/implying "the rest of the population (as in 96%) looks for hard evidence and facts."

Bullshit, and you also know it even if amended it to say "1/3 are Truthers and the rest (2/3) look for hard evidence and facts." Bullshit any way you amend it, further exposing yourself as a liar.

Why is it bullshit?

Because through 24/7 television with so many channels most people can't do a single round of channel surfing in an hour, American people are bombarded with distractions be they commercials or fluff shows ranging from American Idol, to Cheaters, to People's Court, to InfoTainment, Netflix, YouTube, porn.

We know that most Americans do not read newspapers regularly, do not follow news on the radio or television (with any depth or comprehension), do not even surf the Internet for news.

There are so many distractions to lure the attention of Americans away from weighty matters, there is no way in hell that you can say with a straight face that the rest of population -- be it 66% or 96% as originally implied -- looks for hard evidence and facts.

You are therefore a liar and part of the distraction so that the population doesn't look for hard evidence and facts.

Because if they (and you) did, they'd be singing a different tune about lots of things that really matter.

~TwentyTen

When you wish upon a...

Slurring together Q-dip's words: "Take away the psuedo science of Steve Jones (& nano-thermite or other exotic explosives) and the entire house of 9/11-was-an-inside-job cards falls."

You wish. You wish for too many things in your wishful words that label things "psuedo-science" and tries to take nano-thermite (or other exotic explosives) away.

And were we to make your wish come true, you'd see that 9/11 truth still stands and isn't a house of cards. Why? Because what we're left with is massive energy sinks that can't be accounted for by fires & Sir Isaac Newton or Bush's lackey's at NIST and spin-meisters from NSA's Q group. And, as Crazy H brings up, conventional explosives can still account for it.

Challenged Gage or bullied him? You use your word, I'll use mine. Gage came to the table with one area of expertise, one area of research, one (massive) 9/11 smoking gun: namely the improbable collapses of the 3 towers.

What did Kim repeatedly do? Tries to derail him into speculation (like the Osama bin Laden tape, who did 9/11, Pentagon), into defending the entirety of views of other 9/11 truthers ("Loose Change"), and to get him off of his area of expertise that she herself can't speak to. Hit-and-run, skip between topics, keep him on topics that favor her rather than him, get him off of his game. R-iiiiight; Kim had no agenda there, and GuitarBill has a bridge in Florida to sell you.

Ya know, you Q-dips might have more credibility if you didn't run in congratulatory packs, if you didn't clomp on to any-and-all 9/11 discussions with the same talking points, if you deviated from the government's line (lie), if you could admit to there being issues with the entire package, if you could ignore the 9/11 triggers picked up by the NSA computers now and then, and if you could prove yourself to be more human rather than teams following the play-book.

You know, like maybe if you prefaced all of your 9/11 postings with: "I have issues with the official 9/11 story and am one that believes in having an new independent investigation. That being said, I take issue with [some truther point] because..." Then maybe one day you could enlighten us with the things about the official 9/11 version that disturb you. But, as the archives prove, to always be consistently on one side (the guvment's) repeating the same lies... The Q group gets an other letter: "F".

~TwentyTen

Who's the distraction?

EncinoM writes:

"The Truthiness movemnt, your post and others serves as a distraction from real issues."

Who's the distraction?

What are you trying to hide?

The truth that 9/11 was an inside job does not live or die with the nano-thermite argument, no matter how you try to weasel out of it with peer-reviews (or chain of custody) distractions. It is the cummulative arguments that overwhelming say "9/11 told to us by the government is a lie and only a new independent investigation and casting of blame where it truly belongs even if painful to our nation's reputation is the only way we can set things right in the America, in the world, in our hearts, and in the eyes of God."

Kim bullies Gage (like you and GuitarBill bully posters), but Gage's performance destroys Kim, not the other way around.

Shall we try to name all of the NSA Q-Group teammates who frequent this site to distract us from weighty matters and from questioning the administration (in power -- because they'd be voicing the neocon party line if they could)?

~TwentyTen

RE: Spoken by someone who has no clue about skepticism and critical thinking.

EncinoM wrote:

"Occam Razor's alone disproves the truthiness movement"

No it doesn't.

Occam Razor's disproves the government's coincidence version, where not 1 but 4 planes were coincidentally hijacked, where standard operating procedures on the ground coincidentally were not followed, where investigations into the patsy hijackers were coincidentally foiled pre-9/11 by superiors, where multiple military exercises coincidentally were in progress to confuse matters, where plane impacts coincidentally PULVERIZE not just three towers but almost the entire WTC complex, where a plane coincidentally hits the Pentagon in the only wing with relatively few occupants due to renovation and the primary occupant being coincidentally almost the entirety of the group of the Office of Naval Intelligence that was coincidentally investigating Bush I, where WTC-7 and other WTC buildings coincidentally housed important SEC and other investigative records into major crimes of the day (e.g., Enron), where the goals of the PNAC agenda could be coincidentally obtained, where the PULVERIZATION of WTC-1, 2, and 7 coincidentally had energy requirements beyond what fires and gravity can account for, where WTC-7 coincidentally had significant collapse stages of NIST-measured-&-reported free-fall, where WTC-7 really did fall "neatly" into its own footprint, ...

EncinoM wrote:

"nor has any of the "experiments" or evidence of the truthiness movement has been independenitly confirmed."

Nor has any of the "experiments", simulations, or evidence of the government's 9/11 coincidence movement been independently confirmed, because coincidentally much evidence was destroyed, coincidentally simulation programs that gave "plausible" explanations have not released, and coincidentally committees and agencies charged with getting to the root of the matter had their investigation scopes limited and channeled to cover for the government's coincidence version.

EncinoM wrote:

"The truthiness movement is not about critical thinking, it is about paranoia, and those that have found away to profit from the paranoia of others."

You're on the wrong side of this. The government's coincidence theory is what is all about paranoia -- fear Afghanistan, fear Iraq, fear Muslims, fear terrorism, if you don't, you aren't a patriot and are un-American.

And if you want to start pointing the finger at who profited from the paranoia of others, most in the 9/11 Truth Movement lost money (jobs, and livelihood); money certainly isn't being made hand-over-fist.

On the other hand, look at the government, the military industrial complex, the contractors and war profiteers sent overseas, homeland security, TSA, and all in the security industry from airport scanners to surveillance video cameras. Who has profited from the paranoia of others?

What's the going rate in NSA's Q group for a posting like yours?

~TwentyTen

Third parties don't have to win, so you can vote for them

Third parties don't have to win the presidency. They don't have to win a majority in congress.

They just have to win enough senators and representatives so that neither of the two other parties (Democratic and Republican) have a clear majority.

Assuming the Dem's and Repub's are diametrically opposed and in lock step along party lines, then without a majority, neither could effectively govern: assume committee chairs, pass legislation, pass budgets, approve nominations.

The third party (or parties) in sufficient numbers to diminish the majority numbers of the other two could then through their weight around obtaining concessions that are more in tune with the views and values of the American people (that all represent). "We'll give you enough votes to get this legislation passed, providing you give us this committee chair (or whatever)". The third party could regularly swing between siding with the two other parties depending on what was going on, really throwing a wrench into assumed order of things, who chairs what, what legislation makes it out of committee, etc.

~TwentyTen