"None of the facts of a US military attack on the trade towers on 9/11 have been debunked. "

*sigh* Pick your *very best* example.

[Removed by me, duplicate of above post]

The overwhelming evidence indicating that 9/11 was planned by our own military and secret service organizations with the clear participation of international secret services has been made available by many people on many sites, and some of those have already been mentioned in comments contributed by others.

I did not come here to engage in a purposeless/distraction debate with irresponsible and misguided members of some high school debate team.

I made my comments to point out the inherent dishonesty of the article itself and also to point to the dishonesty of Common Dreams in offering it as an 'alternative' item.

This is classic disinfo. And, it is important to recognize it and begin to see how it works. This is a very good example of creating a 'discussion/dissension' around already proven-to-be mute points to bolster the false assumption that Arab terrorists, and not our own government, planned and executed the atttacks on the trade towers.

According to Cossiga, the former president of Italy, Mossad planned the attacks on the trade towers with the help of the CIA.

We are going to show how this allegation can not be true.

Regardless, let's learn a little about Cossiga who "…was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio. This was a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 1960s, 1970s and '80s. Gladio's specialty was to carry out what they termed "false flag" operations—terror attacks that were blamed on their domestic and geopolitical opposition." American Free Press

and :

"In March 2001, Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony, "You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force … the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security." " American Free Press

Now, Gladio itself was a major project of Gehlen, a high level German Nazi who also helped form the CIA and helped select those Nazi scientists and technicians (9,000) who would enter the US to work in the CIA and other notable US academic, military and scientific establishments.

In other words, following WWII, there were immediate moves to consolidate Nazi talents and use them to implement and further develop many of the technologies including mind control that had been investigated during Hitler's reign.

Maybe we should digress further, all the way back to Hitler's selection… and who exactly selected him to play the role of Fuhrer during the militarization of Germany in the thirties and forties… and we find at the root the German army and its leader, Wilhelm, the grandson of Queen Victoria.

We also discover that Hitler's 'new' philosophy of eugenics had an English root and an English coach and to deliver it more forcibly, a drama coach paid for by the German army.

Still with me? I hope so. More to come. In the meantime, you may want to check on all the similarities between the Reichstag fire and 9/11. It ALMOST appears to have been written by the same author…

"Maybe we should digress further, "

Personally I am losing interest as we digress away from 911 itself. And if this digression is OK, it strikes me that disappearing airline passengers should be worthy of discussion, an issue closer to 911.

It would be harder to get closer to 9/11 than to correctly identify those who planned and executed it.

Digressions into relevant history are made to enable others to have the wherewithal (if they do not already possess it) to see for themselves how these operations are planned, by whom and why.

Most people who have looked at the evidence conclude that there was US government complicity. But, the spin is that it serves the interests of Israel.

The truth is that it serves the interests of the elite international corporate order and Israel itself, also serves this order and in fact, was established to serve the war-making interests of this order, just as Saudi Arabia was and just as modern day Iran and Iraq do.

I hope my comments will not be construed as anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, etc. I am neither. I believe that the Jewish people like the Moslem people are being (and have been) used as pawns in an elite war-maker's game (for purposes of genocide, meaning to keep the majority downtrodden) that is easy to understand once you know the rules, the objectives and the nature of the game board they set up to make the playing of the game possible (factioning, divide and conquer, etc.).

"It would be harder to get closer to 9/11 than to correctly identify those who planned and executed it."

And if they designed it without using passenger airliners, than you have to address 4 missing airliners and passengers.

jakenewton you said, "And if they designed it without using passenger airliners, than you have to address 4 missing airliners and passengers."

What you are asking munch1 is akin to me asking you, where is Amelia Earhardt or Jimmy Hoffa? Just because he can't tell you where they are does not mean that they were on the planes that struck the buildings. With secret CIA prisons, bases and bunkers all over the world, you don't think that your government could disappear a few hundred people if they were of a mind to? If in fact, if the government WAS complicit in the killing of some 3000 people on 9/11, what difference would a few hundred more make?

(edited comment after making post: My post was written before seeing the answer immediately above so it is basically a repeat of that logic.)

I think you are mistaken.

Proof that the towers were imploded does not in itself indicate what happened to the passenger planes or the passengers.

Proof that a missile struck the Pentagon also says nothing about what happened to passengers (clearly they were not riding the missile).

The US military was actively involved in an attack on innocent people and then telling a lie to the world and using that false flag attack to get the majority of US citizens to rally behind two invasions.

Now, an investigation into what happened to the planes and passengers reported to have struck the towers is certainly warranted.

But, this case is still like getting a video of a bank robber robbing a bank; We may be able to see that a robbery took place, and we may be able to see who did it or at least, who did not. But, that will not necessarily indicate what those robbers did with the money after they left the bank.

(So, even though we are now in the position of knowing that our military (and others in the US government and corporate sector) was involved in a false flag attack on the American people that has resulted in further usurpation of civil rights as well as another raid on the treasury, we do not yet know the full extent of the crimes committed nor the names of all those who actively participated.)

Kapische?

I guess it is time to raise the question:

If NATO sponsored the Gladio program to bring about stricter police state controls across Europe, then could our own 9/11 (which had a well conceived Patriot Act encased in its immediate aftermath) have similar parentage?

And finally, what is the nature of this international corporation that arrogates the right to commit acts of terrorism across the globe so that it may assume an expediency to implement its concept of 'order' (what some would call complete chaos in that this order serves only to destroy the very rudiments of natural and communal life)?

We need to deeply question our concept of society and order. We need to realize that much of what we accept as 'society' is simply a convenient myth that serves an order not scripted by us nor for us.

We must overcome our inculcation to accept what we have learned is 'order' and realize that real order is not arbitrary, elitist (wherein the elite and those who serve them are chosen for very shortsighted reasons by decidedly traditional/conventional rather than reasoning minds) nor destructive.

We must see that the 'orders' that arise out of all the smoke invariably lead to greater and greater break down in community and natural potential and are in fact nothing but pyramids based upon the illusion that most people's lives are best lived when completely controlled. And the elite life is best lived when cut off from all natural feedback and artificially indulged to produce undying loyalty and deep neuroses.

9/11 should be a wake up call. So wake up already. How long can you pretend that wars without end will be supported by the encroaching deserts? The dying oceans, the disappearing biospheres?

Military order is literally killing us. And, better ideas are well articulated. http://www.allinharmony.com

"Or rather, towards the center of the earth from where *gravity* originates?"

Remember the game of blockhead? Blocks are stacked on top of each other until one fails to balance correctly and usually causes the whole structure to fall... all over the place generally... not into a neat little footprint of itself?

In all my times playing, I never saw the top block fall 'through' the blocks below.

Get it? The blocks cannot fall through each other unless the lower ones have been compromised such that they are no longer impediments to the fall (meaning their ability to resist has already been removed. In a controlled demolition, this is done by thermite charges such as were clearly evidenced in the steel girder remains of the trade towers.)

Now, I'm sure you already do know this. Most who attain to kindergarten can see this principle operating pretty much everywhere.

If the blocks are in place, another one cannot fall 'through' it; it will bounce or tumble to the side. In such a case (non-controlled demolition), buildings fall helter skelter and remains scatter over much wider areas than was the case with the controlled demolition of the trade towers.

Again, this part of the demolition proof has been well covered elsewhere and it is unlikely that you are unaware of it.

"What you are asking munch1 is akin to me asking you, where is Amelia Earhardt or Jimmy Hoffa?"

He is asking me toi believe that CIA and Massad planned it without presenting any reasonable evidence.

"With secret CIA prisons, bases and bunkers all over the world, you don't think that your government could disappear a few hundred people if they were of a mind to?"

I would ask you to suggest a method by which they did this. I would ask you to spot check freinds and families of the victims regarding what was going on in the hours leading up to when they boarded the planes.

I think it's *much* more reasonable to think 19 guys with boxcutters hijacked airliners. The alleged CIA plans where we we fly missles and military jets into buildings, make four airliners disappear along with the people on them, and plant tons of explosives into buildings to achieve intentional implosions *way* beyond anything that that particular industry has ever done before is just plain ludicrous by comparison.

You guys should know BTW that the more, ah, erm, uh, "serious" truther types don't really go for the no airliners version.

"Amelia Earhardt or Jimmy Hoffa"

Comparing the disapearance of single individuals to the idea of a coordinated disappearance of *hundreds* from many backgrounds. Wise up!

" "serious" truther types"?!

Interesting. Everyone should be capable of ascertaining the truth. Yes, there has been a deluge of disinfo starting even before the attacks, but enough physical evidence has been provided by enough people to disprove the absurd Arab hijacker claims.

Also, I do NOT believe that the CIA/MOSSAD allegations are anything but a fail safe. It is unquestionably true that a number of agencies were involved in the planning, execution and aftermath 'selling' of the event as a terrorist attack. And one of the later fall back positions was that a rogue CIA group under the direction of Israel was responsible. Poppycock!

9/11 follows an historical pattern of powerful military/corporate interests preparing events to bring about conditions of war and the restructuring of society more favorable to its greater control (Homeland Security, Patriot Act, etc.).

There are numbers of examples.

That these military sponsored and trained terrorist organizations (Gladio, Taliban, etc.) operate throughout the world has again been very credibly reported.

That massive operations are launched is not unusual. Nor that these operations are then spun by the same organizations that plan and execute them.

Another recent example was the 'low-intensity' operation against Chile. It also resulted in a consolidation of police state powers. Basically, the operation was an attack on the Argentinean peso. And in this particular case, a 'retired' naval officer told me of his personal role as a chief conspirator in the plot.

This particular officer, Jim Sass, also served in China (a connection that helped him arrange the sale of his wines to China from his newly acquired Argentinean winery) and Russia and following the collapse of the peso, he became a key player in the buy up of lands... last I saw him he was preparing to move onto one of the oldest and most impressive estates in the Mendoza region.

So, the military is in power around the world and that military power is the Euro/US. And, it does carry out all manner of secret operations to consolidate its interests around the globe, the US is clearly not immune, though its citizens would like to believe otherwise.

Serious 'truthers'? Lose the arrogance. It underscores dishonesty. And, GET REAL!

The basic military infrastructure (with a decided and lawless power elite) of society is unquestionable. Contingency plans crafted by military think tanks are not inventions nor do they all remain 'contingencies'... some are in fact enacted with widespread, and massively damaging consequences.

Jake. it wouldn't be hard to have "coordinated disappearance of *hundreds* from many backgrounds."
Especially when they were only on four planes on a day of great confusion regarding air travel. Look at the number of flights that were in the air that day, and all of them were diverted and forced to land at locations other than their original destinations. Your government was running war games simulating hijackings, with false radar blips at the same time. Don't be so naive Jake, if they wanted to do it, they could have done it.
I'm not trying to tell you how they did it because I don't know, and munch1 doesn't know either, but the evidence, a lot of it destroyed, points to the goverment having a hand in it. Why did BushCo resist an investigation into it for a year and a half? Why did Bush and Cheney refuse to testify separately under oath in the ultimate bipartisan whitewash, that was the 911 commission report, in which the only information released, was that which all members agreed to unanimously, and much evidence and testimony was excluded? Why is it that nobody seems to know that Bush's brother ran the company that provided security for the airline and the WTC on 911? Why is it not common knowledge that the owner of the WTC had asked for permission to demolish the WTC before 911, and was denied permission by the port authority? Why did Silverman's new lease on the WTC contain that special terrorism clause that allowed him to make billions on the disaster, instead of having to pay billions to fix the asbestos problems with the building, which they were under orders to do? Why was building 7 "pulled"? Why have they not released the video tapes from the businesses around the pentagon, that were confiscated after the event, that would have shown what actually happened there? Even if the passengers and hijackers were on the planes that hit the buildings, do you not understand that the technology for flying those planes remotely has been around for decades? Those planes were fly-by-wire aircraft, meaning all the controls work through computers, not mechanical interface. Why did the 911 commission not care where the money originated, that was supposed to have financed the hijackers.
These are just a very few questions, I could go on for pages with questions that remain unanswered, but in the final analysis, how did this administration USE this event, and the antrax attacks that followed shortly thereafter, to further their foreign policy goals that were stated many times previous to 911 in documents like PNAC (Project for the New American Century), that states plainly that what is needed is a New Pearl Harbor event to get authorization for the funds needed to carry out their plans for Americam Empire?
Only a totally naive person could objectively look at all the information and evidence, knowing how our government and the CIA have misled our people in the past to get us into wars, and just accept the government's conspiracy theory regarding the events of 911 without question.

munch1, sorry, I didn't see your response before I posted mine.

"The "more serious" conspiracy types don't push the no airliner theories."

I know. Most people in the community who take social responsibility seriously learn quickly that the CIA also works at selling its right to 'peer review' of our facts as well.

BTW, it works the same in all arenas including the veg movement. 'Ex'-cops are promoted as savvy activists and common folks motivated by genuine concern are slandered and maligned.

It does help identify who is who though.

"Danny Jowenko's statements "

A guy with an opinion is all.

"I'm still cracking up over your statement:
'"…the weakening of support structures by sawing and torchwork,'

Why? You are publicly denying that this technique is routine in building demolition? Good luck to you.

"INTO the path of MOST resistance "

Or rather, towards the center of the earth from where *gravity* originates?

"Anyone that can argue against controlled demolition at wtc7 probably also believes (or supports the fable) that a Boeing 757 went completely into that 14 foot hole at the Pentagon, engines, tail section, fuselage, wings and all."

No, a lot of that ended up scattered about on the grounds in front, as phtos clearly show.

The "more serious" conspiracy types don't push the no airliner theories.

In regard to the rewrite... more problems to be considered such as this historical account of another military plane hitting a New York skyscraper:

(http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm)

The Crash

At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor. ...

... The plane crash killed 14 people (11 office workers and the three crewmen) plus injured 26 others. Though the integrity of the Empire State Building was not affected, the cost of the damage done by the crash was $1 million.

(And all the other skyscaper fires that did NOT result in a building pulverizing itself and then falling neatly into its own footprint but go on perversely standing (perverse in that they did not avail themselves of secret service demolition expertise before having a fire party on their premises).)

"PNAC (Project for the New American Century), that states plainly that what is needed is a New Pearl Harbor event to get authorization for the funds needed to carry out their plans for Americam Empire?"

Demonstrate that it actually says that. Of course, it does not.

You repeat the same stuff over and over. Your charges have been answered, you have to acknowledge them and counter them.

jakenewton
I've got a question for you Jake.
Do you think that George Bush, Dick Cheney and all the others in his administration lied to the American people and to the UN to sell them an illegal war of choice in Iraq?

"Do you think that George Bush, Dick Cheney and all the others in his administration lied to the American people and to the UN to sell them an illegal war of choice in Iraq?"

I have yet to see proof that they lied. The so called Downing Street Memo seems to show the opposite, that is, that they believed there were WMDs in Iraq.

Of curse my opinion on that has nothing to do with what happened on 911 so I have no idea why you would ask. I would rather you debunk the debunkers.

Go away Jake, I'm through talking to you.

"Go away Jake, I'm through talking to you."

Looks like an admission of defeat to me. Anybody else?

Someone brought up the debunking911 website and I apologize if I'm straying a little off topic but had to add my .o2.
The debunking911 website supports the theory that ONE steel column and ONE column alone could lead to the global collapse of Building 7. In other words, that site supports a "single point of failure" theory.

Does anyone actually believe that a 47 story steel-framed high-rise housing the CIA, Secret Service, Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as a bunch of financial institutions would have been built with even a remote possibility of a single point of global failure?
Regardless of who the tenants were.

Don't take my word for it, check it out. You be the judge.

off the flow but a correction to my last comment:

"Another recent example was the 'low-intensity' operation against Chile."

should read: ... 'low-intensity' operation against Argentina.

Jake, Mike did not admit defeat. He realized you were not engaging in an honest discussion...

the 'never acknowledge when the opposition makes a valid point, always pretend as though the point has never even been properly addressed...' tactic.

In other words, your position appears completely untenable. And quite amazing that you persist. All I would like to know is does this sort of work pay well?

I would also like to point out that when we speak of the administration's complicity or Bush's war, we do ourselves an injustice. The current program to invade Iraq was already in the planning stages years before Bush was even elected.

How do I know? I was working on NSA and CIA sponsored projects in the nineties. Many of the solicitations we reviewed were understood to be seeking developments for use in Iraq, meaning when we invaded Iraq. So, the NSA and the CIA do plan ahead. If events have to be massaged to make deployment of new weapons systems possible, well, that is a particular expertise.

(I am going to try and insert a piece from one of the comments that was 'moderated' and see if I can get an important point across, that Israel is not the key to understanding 9/11 or the invasions that followed but Israel's (and other crafted states of the Middle East) parentage is.)

Insertion:

Israel, like Saudi Arabia, present day Iran and Iraq and other Middle Eastern states enjoy their present borders largely due to British Imperial designs for the Middle East. Those states were created to bolster the British Empire's hegemonic interests (which can always be best served by factioning, a basic divide-and-conquer principal of government).

In the case of Iraq, Saddam was assisted to power by MI6 and the CIA. Also, his foe (Khomeini) in the Iran/Iraq war was assisted to power by not only US state department machinations but also those of the secret services of France, Germany and England.

The Middle East is politically precisely as controlled as it was during the heyday of the British Empire by foreign interests. Key national players in the Middle East are integrated into (and participate in) the US/Euro programs.

So, we did NOT go to war for oil. We already controlled not only the oil in Iraq but also the oil in Iran and Saudi Arabia if the 'we' is taken to mean the predominant Euro-based corporate/military/banking establishment.

munch1 - That was a great question for Jake - "All I would like to know is does this sort of work pay well?"
Wouldn't you really like to know why they do what they do?
I've been on a few other blogs where trolls and moles engage you in coversations like this, then copy responses and take them back to post on right-wing blogs, trying to show how crazy lefties are. I guess for them, it's kind of a way to "make your bones" so to speak, with others who get their daily pablum form Rush, Boortz, Savage, O'Really and all the rest. Oh well, I hope at least he has the decency to copy all of it, maybe it will open some eyes over there, but I doubt it.
And you are right, they have been planning Iraq since well before the 2000 elections, as evidenced by the letter sent to Bill Clinton in January of 1998, asking him to invade Iraq. That letter was signed by all the criminals in this administration including the former and now the newest head of the world bank.

"All I would like to know is does this sort of work pay well?"

*blush*

"One of the major problems you guys have is the idea that "it collapsed AS IF from controlled demolition, therefore it WAS controlled demolition". A basic fallacy of logic."

And one of the major problems you guys have is the laws of physics.

Since those have been rewritten by government establishments in times past, I am sure we can expect a rewrite anytime soon.

Until then though, the buildings collapsed not by fire and not by structural failures due to impact (s) but rather by expertly planned and controlled demolitions.

Think about steel columns, think about a fire, think about a building almost pulverizing itself and then falling INTO the path of MOST resistance at free fall speed. See the problem? Anyway, now that you know what your new laws of physics must explain... stop wasting time here and get busy with the rewrite... the National Bureau of Standards awaits your submission... until then, the gov is cooked... it's just a matter of time before the buzzer announces it's done.

"possibility of a single point of global failure?"

Buildings are designed against a schedule of design criteria. In the case of WTG7, I doubt the criteria included a requirement involving large pieces of another building falling on it.

"trying to show how crazy lefties are. "

911 conspiracy thinking does not equate to "lefty" or "progressive". Many are on the right, and most prominent left wing thinkers do not beleive in the conspiracy theories about 911.

"In the case of WTC7, I doubt the criteria included a requirement involving large pieces of another building falling on it."

To think that a building being struck by debris on one side can cause it to collapse straight down is ludicrous. The building did not fall over in the direction of the gouge damage from the tower debris, but rather, collapses onto its own footprint. There's the first clue.
That requires all four sides of the building to structurally fail simultaneously. That can only be explained with controlled demolition.

Google building 7 smoking gun

"To think that a building being struck by debris on one side can cause it to collapse straight down is ludicrous. "

There was also a large, not small, fire, remember?

"The building did not fall over in the direction of the gouge damage from the tower debris, "

You seem to want it to fall over like a tree. Extremely large buildings covering large amounts of ground do not behave like trees.

If you insist that the building was imploded, than you are stuck with the various implications, such as the preparations required to do such a thing. Thousands of pounds of explosives, large crews, the weakening of support structures by sawing and torchwork, etc. You should read up on building demolition.

Without 1 and 2, WTC7 itself would have been an acheivement in the industry orders of magnitude above the last largest job acheived.

One of the major problems you guys have is the idea that "it collapsed AS IF from controlled demolition, therefore it WAS controlled demolition". A basic fallacy of logic.

"...the weakening of support structures by sawing and torchwork, etc."

Google danny jowenko. He's a demolitions expert and knows much more than most people about controlled demolitions.

Thanks for the comic relief jakenewton.

"Google danny jowenko. He's a demolitions expert and knows much more than most people about controlled demolitions."

So what. I can find many more who are on record as saying that it didn't happen. Are you saying they *don't* cut and torch support structures?

"Thanks for the comic relief jakenewton."

I'll just note that you haven't effectively countered anything I wrote which *I* think is funny.

Nice try jakenewton. Lol!
Danny Jowenko's statements are more proof of a coverup than anything you've provided to the contrary.

And tell me just what is it that you've added?

I'm still cracking up over your statement:
"…the weakening of support structures by sawing and torchwork, etc."

Anyone that can argue against controlled demolition at wtc7 probably also believes (or supports the fable) that a Boeing 757 went completely into that 14 foot hole at the Pentagon, engines, tail section, fuselage, wings and all. Most people add it all up and come to the conclusion that the official story of what happened that day is full of holes.
911lies.org

Thanks again for the laughs jakenewton, I've thoroughly enjoyed it.

"At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building."

Apples and oranges. Maximim take off weight of a 757 is 125 tons. 757s fly much faster than a B-25. 35 times as much fuel. Furthermore, the Empire State Building is a reinforced masonry structure in which the structural steel beams are encased within limestone walls or slabs of concrete 8 inches (20 cm) thick.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0311.shtml

"And all the other skyscaper fires that did NOT result in a building pulverizing itself and then falling neatly into its own footprint"

Basic fallacy of logic, that since something never happened, it didn't or couldn't happe. 911 was a day of mant "firsts".

"Most people in the community who take social responsibility seriously "

In the case of 911 truthers, it is not their seriousness that is the problem.

"Remember the game of blockhead?"

Bad analogy. Solid wooden blocks do not compare well to the internals of the WTC towers which were mostly air, limiting the resistance substantially..

"Again, this part of the demolition proof has been well covered elsewhere and it is unlikely that you are unaware of it."

You and I should both avoid any analysis that thinks of the WTC towers as being internally solid.

I have posted three comments regarding the construction of the trade towers. They have not as yet appeared (I just saw that they are also 'awaiting moderation'). If they do not, it is a clear indication that facts regarding the towers' actual structures are being censored in the vain attempt to prevent the general public from realizing that:

1) The towers were imploded.

2) The operation involved several US government and 'private' agencies and involved long term planning.

3) The operation's scope was known to the BBC before the actual events unfolded. (This supports the idea that this was an attack planned by international police/military agencies, not just US, as a means to affect civl rights in the US.)

"The only theory that is supported by the evidence is controlled demolition with explosives," Gage says. "You could never get a collapse event of that speed through 80 floors of intact steel structure. The laws of physics simply don't allow it."

"The operation's scope was known to the BBC before the actual events unfolded."

Scroll to near the bottom to read about BBC:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

"Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust."

The quote above appears on the right column of the architects and engineers webiste for 9-11 truth.

There are a number of other aspects to the collapse listed that prove the towers came down by planned demolition such as

"Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves"

Also from the architects' and engineers' site are items that further indicate that the towers did not fall due to fire:

(Trade Towers) exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never "collapsed"

The portrayal of the media on your 'debunk' site is far from accurate.

I find such psycho-babble-nonsense insulting.

Why do you people bother? It isn't funny. It does not make you look 'smart', 'clever' or even 'cute'.

And it forces a noxious experience upon the rest of us because we are forced to acknowledge that insanity (and disconnection) is so widespread and so complete in so many members of government and their disinformation agencies and agents.

"The portrayal of the media on your 'debunk' site is far from accurate. "

To state it as such without explaining why is unimpressive. You are supposed to present a counter argument.

"And it forces a noxious experience upon the rest of us "

*tap tap* Dude, you are in a small minority!

munch1, you should just give up on Jake, as he is not the least bit interested in seeking the truth. The clue to Jake's motivation here was revealed when I asked him,

"Do you think that George Bush, Dick Cheney and all the others in his administration lied to the American people and to the UN to sell them an illegal war of choice in Iraq?"

and he replied,

"I have yet to see proof that they lied. The so called Downing Street Memo seems to show the opposite, that is, that they believed there were WMDs in Iraq."

It's not about the truth for him. Even the most ignorant of my republican acquaintances accept that we were lied into the war in Iraq, as do most Americans. If he can deny the evidence regarding the invasion of Iraq, it shows either a level of cognitive dissonance that can not be overcome with facts or reason, or just plain dishonesty, and I suspect that the latter is actually the case.

Even if all the info debunking the 911 truth movement were true, and that is far from the case, all it takes for this administration to be complicit, would be for them to have known about it and done nothing to stop it, and there is no question about that.

From the Downing Street Memo, which was supposed to be a Smoking Gun":

" ...CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions."

"For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."

So if they "knew" they were no WMDs, why are they expressing concern about them? Therefore the participants in this meeting were not lying.

"we were lied into the war in Iraq"

And what would be your "very best" argument that this is true?

Lying about WMDs and conspiring to cause the events of 911 are what critical thinkers would call "two different things". Your question was irrelevent to the 911 question, as is my opinion about it. Wise up!

Agreed. I give up.

Those who want to know what happened have plenty of access to honest information as well as the ability to simply watch the demolition for themselves.

And the existence of a 'jake' thinking that all responsible commentary is simply a personal prompt for him to engage in dishonest counterpoint should further underscore the point that disinfo is taken seriously in this corporate/military tyranny (the 'need to know' society) administered by people tested and proven to be sociopaths.

The 'debunkers' are pathetic. And I am not going to waste my time addressing their absurd (and quite criminal exercises in a cover-up) spins.

"dishonest counterpoint"

What's your very best evidence I have been dishonest?

Frankly munch1, you seem to be new at this. You should brush up on logical fallacies for starters. There are a lot of good websites for that.

Colin Powell admits misleading the UN about WMD and so does his chief of staff. He calls it his darkest day and a mark on his record.
Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!
(You Too Jake)

"You should brush up on logical fallacies for starters. There are a lot of good websites for that."

Indeed there are. Please go back and review the quotes from the architects and engineers that I recently included in these comments.