Town Square

Post a New Topic

Review- Hypothesis

Original post made by Carol Brouillet on Aug 26, 2010

The World Premiere of Hypothesis will be at the upcoming 6th Annual 9/11 Truth Film Festival to be held at the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland, the Viz Theater in San Francisco, and the Bal Theater in San Leandro September 9th- September 12th. Filmmaker Brett Smith will attend to introduce his film and for Questions and Answers

The film is a glimpse into the pivotal life of Professor Steven E. Jones by a young filmmaker, Brett Smith, when Professor Jones's criticism of the official explanation for the destruction of the World Trade Center drew national attention to him and Brigham Young University.

Professor Jones had been teaching at Brigham Young University for over twenty years, and he loved his students and his career. He was attending a lecture in 2005 when the subject of 9/11 came up. The lecturer hinted that something was deeply amiss in the official story and half the room agreed with her. Professor Jones fell into the other half of the room's shocked surprise at the idea. Afterwards he did some research on the Internet, discovered Jim Hoffman's WTC 7 site, and learned for the first time about building 7, not struck by a plane, which came down in the exact manner of a controlled demolition. His research into the destruction of the buildings began.

Professor Jones wrote his first paper on the subject, 'Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?', and presented a seminar on the same topic at BYU, both of which drew the local press and created quite a stir.

The film contains some priceless exchanges and interviews with random students and the administration officials at BYU, which are enlightening, frightening, and humorous. Most impressive are the interviews with Dr. Jones's scientific collaborator Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, as well as views of the lab and their experiments. There is an excellent clip documenting the circumstances of the gathering of the first dust sample that Dr. Jones and Dr. Farrer examined together.

The most dramatic, surprising, and damning interview, however, was with the man, C. Martin Hinckley, who first threatened Jones and then tried to bribe him to stop his research on the evidence of explosives. His threats in fact materialize later in the media attacks and the administrative leave that ended Professor Jones's teaching career at BYU. (I interviewed Brett Smith today on my weekly radio show, Community Currency, on Progressive Radio Network and learned that he actually was working on a short film on Big Brother when Hinckley mentioned Professor Jones, only later did Brett Smith change the focus of his documentary to Professor Jones. This is a rare, damning interview on the corruption of scientific research for political purposes. When I first saw it, I just couldn't understand how Hinckley could have agreed to be filmed.)

As we see Professor Jones's wife, son, and grandchild in the film and we become aware of his gentle, friendly, and caring nature, it becomes clear that it hurt him deeply to be forced to stop teaching. When he speaks clearly about his 'pursuit of truth,' I can see in him the spiritual resolve of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., both of whom practiced 'satyagraha,' 'satya' meaning 'truth' and 'agraha' meaning 'pursuit of.' Satyagraha was the term created to describe the non-violent movement that Gandhi led, which also began on a September 11th, in 1906. Professor Jones may laugh when he is nervous or frightened, but he clearly has courage, born out of a great love for his family, his community, his country, and the world.

Although Professor Jones has been attacked academically as well as by the media, it is clear that his research is logical, holds up to close scrutiny, and follows the scientific method. The documentary is a rare, honest gem of a film which provides an inspiring example of what Orwell meant when he wrote, 'In a time of universal deceit to tell the truth is a revolutionary act.'

The film is short, 48 minutes long, and ends symbolically with a view of the door closing as Professor Jones leaves his office at BYU to continue his 9/11 research on his own.

Fortunately for film enthusiasts, when one door closes, another opens: the film festival premiering Hypothesis will also include The Hard Evidence Tour, Professor Jones's November 2009 talk in Sydney, Australia which sheds more light on 9/11 truth developments since 2006 and the growing numbers of scientists, architects, and engineers who have joined Professor Jones in his pursuit of truth.

Comments (68)

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 27, 2010 at 3:20 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

What about the emergency generator diesel fuel in Building 7 subbasement? Structural steel protection is usually rated for 4 hour protection. Seems like that goal was met. Someone needs to have their Ocam's Razor sharpened.


Posted by Helen, a resident of Southgate
on Aug 27, 2010 at 6:34 am

The Truthers will always be true believers in their own paranoia. They are types that thought that Oliver Stone made a truthful documentary about JFK. They don't let the facts get in the way of their fantasies.


Posted by O. W. Douglas, a resident of Green Acres
on Aug 28, 2010 at 12:18 pm

Buildings do not implode unless they have been primed to.
Anyone who says otherwise is a fool or a liar.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 29, 2010 at 5:17 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Douglas, If you know of an explosive and a wire that can survive 7 hours of fierce flame and then and only then execute a choreographed demolition then your future is insured. Unsupported objects tend to fall straight down unless some force imparts a horizontal vector to their motion. Engineering News Record detailed at length the examination of building collapses at 9/11 and found agreement with the structural engineer on the towers that the impact disrupted the structural fireproofing allowing the horizontal steel members to exceed steel's softening point and dropping a floor - the impact of one falling floor carried subsequent floors before it, following gravity's mandate toward down. Are you any relation to W. O. Douglas?


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 29, 2010 at 7:03 pm

Mr. Wallis, NIST gave up on the diesel fuel hypothesis some time ago, and it does not appear in their final report on WTC7. Their reports also indicate that office fires burn in one area only 20 minutes before all the fuel is exhausted--thus your "7 hours" hypothesis is discredited. There was no "impact" of airliners on WTC7, and thus no disruption of the fireproofing.


Posted by There Were No Black Helicoptors at the WTC, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 29, 2010 at 9:40 pm

This Professor is a physicist who worked on nuclear fusion.
He has no background in structural engineering or building construction.

Just because a guy has a PhD, it doesn't make him an expert.

And while the NIST report did ultimate determine that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers, they did point to the lack of water to fight the fire as being the critical factor:

"The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, including on floor 13, where a critical interior column buckled. With the buckling of that column, adjacent columns also failed along with the floor structure above. This triggered a vertical progression of floor failures to the roof. The collapse then progressed east-to-west across the structure, and ultimately the entire structure collapsed. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse."


Posted by Carol Brouillet, a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 29, 2010 at 10:21 pm

Professor Emeritus Steven Jones has published many papers, received many awards, and knows what he is talking about. His first paper was-
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?

Another that he co-authored was published in a peer reviewed journal- Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

And Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe was also co-authored by Professor Jones, Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen

The questions that Professor Jones has raised in these paper have not been answered by NIST, and are based on real science, observations, experiments, evidence, not unreproducible computer models, lies, absurdities. NIST has admitted that they can't even explain the total collapse- only the initiation of the collapse and that for over two seconds WTC 7 fell at freefall speed- an impossibility for a "fire induced collapse."

What his work and his story demonstrate is that the government lied, destroyed evidence, there was a major cover-up, the media has actively participated in the cover-up.

If you look at his paper, work on his examination of the WTC 7 dust, you will see that a very sophisticated nano-thermite was used of better quality than the military grade thermite produced at Livermore Labs.

I happen to be friends with a woman who lived across the street from the WTC on 9/11, a survivor, Janette MacKinlay, and I was at her home when she gave more dust to Professor Jones to examine. Janette is now suffering from brain cancer and believes it was definitely caused by her exposure to the dust.

Professor Jones should be regarded as a national hero for risking his life, career, in pursuit of truth and justice.


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 29, 2010 at 11:23 pm

Black Helicopters, Dr. Jones needs no expertise in structural engineering or building construction, but only freshman physics to observe that certain aspects of the buildings' demise are unnatural. The speed of the collapse appears to violate the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy), the prevailing collapse theory by Dr. Bazant appears to violate Newton's third law (action and reaction), and the arrested rotation of the tilting top block of the south tower seems to violate the law of conservation of angular momentum.

The water mains were broken, it's true, but there were three 19,000 gallons-per-minute fireboats in the WFC yacht harbor two blocks away, and water lines (with pumper truck relays) had been set up to bring Hudson River water to West Street, half a block from Building 7.

Note that WTC7's critical and allegedly buckled Column 79 was not retained from the wreckage. According to NIST, none of the WTC7 wreckage was retained. Instead it was scooped up and shipped off to China over the protests of engineers and family members who wanted it retained for scientific study. (In fact, a steel sample from WTC7 was examined by PhD scientists at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute. The baffling "evaporation" and "intergranular melting" caused by a high-temperature sulfidation attack on the sample (consistent with the thermitic reaction discussed by Mrs. Brouillet above) was written up in Appendix C of the FEMA/ASCE report on the World Trade Center and was characterized by the New York Times as "perhaps the deepest mystery" of Ground Zero. NIST not only did not follow up on the studies, but pretended the sample did not exist.

For you to believe that column 79 brought WTC7 down you have to believe that 20-minute office fires caused sufficient thermal expansion in floor beams to dislodge a girder, that one floor failing at one spot brought down the five floors below it, and that somehow all this tore down the other two girders connected to column 79 over the same five floors.

To believe that this caused the building to fail in the manner it did you must believe that column 79 pulled down the two adjacent interior columns, these three pulled down the next three, they pulled down the
next, and the interior of the building hollowed itself out leaving the external walls standing with virtually no sign of the invisible collapse within. You must believe this even though NIST's own computer models show the exterior of the building crumpling up like a wet paper bag.

Please note that NIST's draft report on WTC7 claimed that their analysis of the time of collapse was "consistent with physical principles". (p. 595-596) In the final report they have removed this claim.

Over 1250 architects and engineers have joined Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth in calling for new investigations of 9/11. The official reports are dishonest, they are incomplete, and they are unbelievable.






Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 30, 2010 at 7:27 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

I lack the time and incentive to Fisk all the crap shoveled at me by Brian and Carol, but a few observations:
Architects and Engineers with no direct professional association with a project are no less fallible than any other dilettante.
The mode of failure of steel structures is seldom thermal expansion - more often it is softening and loss of strength.
Iron is a component both of thermite and of steel. Nitrogen and other components of explosive residue are not foreign to other usages.
The natural forces that impel a straight down collapse can be countered by uneven support failure. Building desructors are sometimes embarrassed by this.
I would only hope that within the service of our government there were folk clever enough to carry out the hoax you posit, albeit without the inclination; Alas, all evidence laughs at such a supposition. A government that cannot keep ten thousand top secret documents so that one man or group can harvest all of them is unlikely to possess the myriad skills needed for such an endeavor. Even I would be hard pressed to emulate such a feat.
As for computer models, I have a computer model that has Pam Anderson breaking down my bedroom door.


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 30, 2010 at 9:39 am

Mr. Wallis, I didn't see anyone claiming infallibility, and I didn't see anyone claiming the government did it. Mrs. Brouillet said the government lied and has covered up the facts about 9/11, and I know she can back that claim up. The 1200 architects and engineers want new investigations for many reasons, one of which is that the NIST report about the World Trade Center is incomplete: it stops at the moment of collapse initiation and thus ignores the greatest mysteries in the two worst structural failures in history--their symmetry, totality, speed, the pulverization of 180,000 tons of concrete floors, and the presence of molten iron in the debris.

Dr. Jones found chips of intermingled iron oxide and aluminum (thermite) that were highly energetic and revealed under electronmicroscopic examination what appears to be a sophisticated nanostructure. I would like to see Dr. Jones's work examined by independent scientists and either confirmed or debunked. Instead it is ignored. Why? Are people afraid of the truth?

I don't see the point of most of your remarks. You seem to be expressing doubt about the failure mechanism (thermal expansion) proposed in the WTC 7 report, you seem to be suggesting that scientific tests for explosive residues (which NIST did not do) can not possibly be meaningful, that computer models are unrelated to reality, and that governments are inherently incompetent. It's too bad that you employ your capabilities in spreading confusion and cynicism instead of clarity.




Posted by Helen, a resident of Southgate
on Aug 30, 2010 at 12:11 pm

Here we are, again, watching the Truthers and their True Belief. It is interesting that the Truthers have adopted a Mormom Truther, who believes that he can find pre-Columbian horses in N. America and that Mayan stories establish Jesus Christ on this continent long ago. Let's not forget the attempts by Dr. Jones to establish cold fusion as a source of electrical power, even though it has been known for a long time that it is not possible, for theoretical reasons. Dr. Jones is now chasing another loser. And his acolytes are calling him a hero.

Let the Truthers stew in their own juices, and reconfirm the Truth to themselves. It makes them feel vindicated, becasue they KNOW. They can feel it in their bones, their blood, their souls.

It was Oliver Stone before, and it's Dr. Jones now. The real truth is that deluded and paranoid individuals are drawn to great, heroic myths of power and knowledge.


Posted by fsmily engineers multistoies, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 30, 2010 at 1:03 pm

Read the NIST report, the failure conclusion is in there.
It makes sense, no demo involved. The structural failure conclusion makes sense.



Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 30, 2010 at 1:17 pm

Helen, certainly True Believers can be annoying, but do I detect a but of projection on your part? Have you investigated the issues upon which you opine so confidently so you have scientific information to back up your attitude, or do you just KNOW?

I'm not going to stick my neck out for Dr. Jones's nanothermite claims until I see his findings replicated by an independent lab, preferably one that is not told what they're looking for. But your dismissive attitude seems premature and unscientific to me.

I can be confident (because I have done my homework) that the official investigations are incomplete, dishonest, and unbelievable.


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 30, 2010 at 1:26 pm

fsmily, have you taken your own advice? Did you read the NIST twin towers report? All 10,000 pages? Did you read the part that says that none of their core steel samples shows heating above 480 degrees F and thus they have no physical evidence to back up their claims that the fire weakened the steel? Did you read section 6.14.4 where it says the twin towers came down "essentially in free fall"? Doesn't that violate the first law of thermodynamics? Did you notice that they do not explain how a partial collapse on one side of the building propagates at the speed of sound across the building's robust, redundant core of 47 steel columns to result in a symmetrical collapse? Did you notice that they did not explain the presence of molten iron found in the rubble? Did you notice that they did not have the scientific integrity to express regret that the crime scene was destroyed before experts could examine it?


Posted by family engineers multistories, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 30, 2010 at 1:46 pm

Brian,

No logic would statisfy you. You want to believe for some reason that something other than the planes brought these buildings down. Their failures was well explained in those documents. Take the time to understand them and dont cherry pick information


Posted by Helen, a resident of Southgate
on Aug 30, 2010 at 2:18 pm

Brian,

I remember all the 'white papers' and conspiratorial books published on the JFK assassination. One of the really big 'unexplained facts' was that a bullet would need to stop in mid air, make a right-hand turn, stop again, then make a left hand turn, in order to stike JFK and Connally. This was the sine qua non of the True Believers, including Oliver Stone, and it lasted for many years. The problem was that none of them, including Oliver Stone, bothered to check the real facts of the matter. It turns out that the limosine had been modified after the JFK murder, and the jump seat that Connally sat in had been moved from its original position. There was no need to speculate about a "magic bullet" theory. The True Believers simply did not do their due diligence. Shame on them.

It is the same thing with the 9-11 Truthers. You all are cocksure that the government lied or misled for some nefarious reason. This says much more about you than it does about the facts.

I know several people, all quite intelligent, who fell for the JFK conspiracy. They now are emabarrassed and chastened by their gullibility. There are still a few real paranoids out there who think Oswald did not fire the shots (and the only shots) that killed Kennedy. Carol Broulliet reminds me of them. Are you one of them, too, Brian?


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 30, 2010 at 8:10 pm

fsmily, how do you know no logic would satisfy me? You call labeling the holes in an investigation "cherry picking". Have you read the NIST report yourself so you know whereof you speak? Did you know that they threw out the results of their own empirical studies of heated floor trusses when the results were not to their pleasure, and that after initial computer models with "realistic" input parameters for building structural damage and fire severity failed to generate a collapse, they simply upped their parameters until they got the results they wanted? They ignored the eyewitness testimony of 100 first responders who saw flashes of light and/or heard sounds of explosions.

Chief Ray Downey, FDNY, was the premier collapse experts in the country. He told father John Delendick that he thought explosives were used, because the collapse was "too even".

Helen, I am not cocksure about anything. Are you projecting again? I know the government lied because I have checked for myself.

9/11 Commissioners Kean and Hamilton wrote in their book "Without Precedent" that the shifting stories the Commission was getting out of NORAD so angered them that they considered referring the issue to the Justice Department for criminal action.

Dr. Condoleezza Rice lied under oath when she told the 9/11 Commission that the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" memo was not a warning. It warned of preparations for hijackings and planned attacks in the USA.

NIST's lead investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder lied when he told NOVA that the steel debris was unavailable for study because it had been scattered in rescue operations. Rescue operations were terminated in one week. The "scoop and dump" cleanup that destroyed the crime scene started after that. Nobody died at Building 7, and yet its debris was destroyed along with the other.


Posted by There Were No Black Helicoptors at the WTC, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 30, 2010 at 8:19 pm

Hey, Walter, nice post there, my man - and if I could ever get a copy of that Pam Anderson computer program you have...

But seriously, these folks are like the anti-fluoridation folks: They'll sift through thousands of pages just to find a line here or there to pull out of context and use to justify their premise. And it really is a waste of time to reason/argue with them - they'll go to their graves believing in black helicoptors.


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 30, 2010 at 8:39 pm

NORAD lied, Condi lied, NIST lied, and all you've got is Elvis jokes.

Pray tell, how do you take blatant lies "out of context"? How do you take no physical evidence out of context? How do you take the report's dodging of the greatest mysteries of the event out of context? If you want to dispute my claims, by all means do so. Show how I took stuff out of context. Contrary to what fsmily says, I would love to believe the planes brought the buildings down. Unfortunately neither NIST nor FEMA really tried to convince me.


Posted by family engineers multistories, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 30, 2010 at 9:27 pm

I'll take one shot at explaining it to you with another failure example. Recall the gas tanker that burned up under the steel overpass in the east bay? No? Here is a reminder

Web Link

The forces and temperatures were higher at the WTC, yet this failure occurred at a mere steel bridge. Steel fatigues at lower temperatures than you apparently want to believe. ok, you are on your own now.


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 30, 2010 at 10:03 pm

I'm glad you brought up the Freeway Fire, fsmily, because there are a lot of misconceptions about that floating around.

There is absolutely no comparison between the freeway fire and the World Trade Center. At the freeway fire we had 8,000 gallons of fuel concentrated under an un-fireproofed beam, burning with plenty of air. The beam collapsed after 20 minutes.

At the WTC we had 11,000 gallons of fuel spread out over at least four floors, and as much as half of the fuel flew right through the building to exit the other side, making the famous fireballs. According to NIST, the jet fuel burned off in less than ten minutes, and after that we had an ordinary office fire. The sooty smoke emanating from the towers suggests that the fires were oxygen-starved. The south tower did not collapse until almost an hour after the jet impact, and the north tower stood for 102 minutes. Also note the upper freeway fell--what, 30 feet?--imposing a massive dynamic load on the bridgeway below it. And it did not collapse the lower structure.

Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a professor of civil engineering at Berkeley, studied both the freeway collapse and the WTC collapses. He emphasized that the steel on the freeway did not melt--and this is despite ideal conditions for doing so if gasoline were capable of melting steel. Not gasoline, not jet fuel, not office fires can burn hot enough to melt steel. And yet Dr. Astaneh-Asl told PBS "I saw melting of girders at the World Trade Center."

Dr. Astaneh was trying to do a study of the WTC steel debris at the landfill. He complained to the House Science Committee that the steel was being destroyed before he could see it. As far as I know he abandoned his study of the steel and never issued a final report.







Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 31, 2010 at 3:36 pm

What, no tinfoil jokes? Now maybe you can begin to have some idea why over 1250 architects and engineers are not satisfied with the shoddy, dishonest, and unbelievable official reports. Doubtless countless others have the same misgivings about what we've been told, but are unwilling to sign their names to the cause because they have concerns about professional consequences for them and their colleagues, or because (as I do) they consider some of the controlled demolition claims to be a bit overstated. Many more are simply unwilling to think about the issues. Ronald Brookman, a licensed structural engineer, sent a questionnaire about the Ground Zero incident to 100 of his colleagues in the structural engineering field. He only got one response.





Posted by Helen, a resident of Southgate
on Aug 31, 2010 at 4:06 pm

Brian,

Did Oswald fire the only shots at Kennedy? Did his (and only his) bullets kill JFK and wound Connally? Just curious about how you think about things.

BTW, I pose this same question to Carol Brouillet. Carol, what do you think or feel or emote about the JFK "conspiracy"?


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 31, 2010 at 4:25 pm

Helen, I know very little about the JFK story, and on the face of it the suggestion that the allegedly strange trajectory of the magic bullet can be explained if JFK was leaning forward and Gov. Connelley was turning around to speak to JFK and had his left hand on his right knee seems to make sense.

I am intrigued by the apparent conflicting testimony about the nature of the head wounds, by the recently-surfaced video showing secret service agents being ordered off the back bumper of the limo, and by the Prouty story suggesting that Oswald background material was transmitted to the press in New Zealand in a suspiciously swift or even premature timeframe, but I have never bothered to look into any of that. The only JFK book I have ever read is the Warren Commission report. I read it cover-to-cover when I was 10 years old.


Posted by Helen, a resident of Southgate
on Aug 31, 2010 at 4:48 pm

Brian,

You claim to know very little, yet you have read and watched so much about the JFK murder, from both your ten year old understanding and your viewing of the latest version of conspiracy videos. You show little understanding that a straight-trajectory bullet hit both Kennedy and Connally. Can you explain why? Or will you claim that a massive governemnt conpiracy killed JFK and toppled WT7?

Do you have the feeling, Brian, that evil forces are attempting to control your life?


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 31, 2010 at 5:24 pm

I guess you didn't read my post. I explained how a single bullet could hit both Kennedy and Connelly.


Posted by Helen, a resident of Southgate
on Aug 31, 2010 at 5:39 pm

Brian,

Wrong answer. Do some more digging. Oliver Stone refused to do some simple fact checking, and his "JFK" was a farce.

You are following the Oliver Stone craziness in terms of the WT7 conspiracy theory.

Brian, take a breath, look in your mirror, and ask yourself if someone or a government is persecuting you. I am concerned about you. What does your mother say?


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 31, 2010 at 9:12 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

There are lots of facts surrounding any happening. The appropriate response to many of them is "So what?" Remember, if it were not for coincidences, almost nothing would ever happen.


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 1, 2010 at 8:28 am

Helen, pray tell, what does Oliver Stone have to do with the unbelievable report on WTC7, which will go down in history as a monument to the decline of the scientific and journalistic might of this once-great country?

Walter, I take your somewhat cryptic remarks as further examples of your efforts to spread confusion and cynicism. You seem to be suggesting that facts are useless, analysis is pointless, and stuff just happens--reality is too darn complicated for people to comprehend.
If that's not what you're saying, I don't get your point.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 2, 2010 at 8:10 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

If you can find conspiracy in the formal report on building 7, then you should comprehend plain language.
"So what?" means that relevance to the issue at hands of any item needs to be established before that item enters into consideration.
"...if it were not for coincidences, almost nothing would ever happen." restates "Correlation does not imply causation".
Tell me now what wire would you have connected the charges together to detonate them on command, and how would you house the explosives to keep them ready to boom when nd only when commanded? Pnce ou answer that to my satisfaction then I will ead your justification for he conspiracy.
Good luck.


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 3, 2010 at 10:59 am

I have no need to find conspiracy. When I see a shoddy investigation that reverse-engineers its data to enable its predetermined conclusions, I see the need for a new investigation. When I see a country that is afraid to look at the questions left unanswered by the official reports, I see a society that is losing its ability to function as a democracy. Those are the issues at hand. Perhaps they are not important to you, but they are important to me.

Correlation alone does not prove causation, but since correlation is necessary to causation, it may suggest need to a closer look.

I am quite astounded that you seem to believe that the simple task of planting explosives in the WTC's 15 miles of elevator shafts should be some kind of technological hocus pocus.

I would not use any wire to connect the charges together. I would use wireless control employing coded signals to allow separate triggering of the various devices, and I would use a very powerful
transmitter and very insensitive receivers to avoid false triggers in an EMF-rich environment like lower Manhattan.







Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 3, 2010 at 11:26 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

And you would protect those explosives how? I don't have the elevator safety code in front of me but I know that nothing unrelated to the operation of the elevator is permitted in the elevator shaft and machine room. I seriously question the existence of a packaging material that would resist a blazing fire for hours.
But you beggar the primary question; WHY?


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 3, 2010 at 12:05 pm

When explosives in elevator shafts are outlawed, only outlaws will put explosives in the elevator shaft, I guess.

What need is there for a bomb-packing material to resist fires for hours? NIST tells us that the jet fuel burned off in six minutes, and that office fires burn at most 20 minutes in one place before all the fuel is gone.

Why what? Maybe it would be better to focus on what happened (facts) instead of trying to do away with facts by inventing an argument of incredulity about motivations.

Did it not occur to you that in order to terrorize, the towers must fall? If they stood they would be monuments of endurance, not vulnerability.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 3, 2010 at 2:57 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Brian I take it you have never been in an elevator shaft or equipment room, or handled, stored or fused high explosives. I have, and based on the totality of my experience and education I suggest Dr Jones not give up his day job. Oh, wait! He already did. Perhaps he can find work with Gore, he seems to be losing crew.


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 3, 2010 at 3:53 pm

Oh I see, you're reduced to an argument from incredulity coupled to an argument from your own undemonstrated authority. Two logical fallacies do not cancel each other out.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 4, 2010 at 7:25 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

My authority has been acknowledged by State licensing as EE and ME, readily verifiable.
Have you ever been in an elevator shaft other than in the cab, or in an elevator equipment room? While my experience with explosives was not documented because it was just another tool of a soldier's trade, but I welcome some knowledgeable discourse. How about a credible why?


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 4, 2010 at 12:42 pm

I've never been in an elevator shaft. So what? Is there some great mystery?

I already said why. To terrorize, the towers had to fall. If they stood after the planes hit them they would be symbols of strength, not vulnerability--of survival, not death.


Posted by Helen, a resident of Southgate
on Sep 4, 2010 at 4:48 pm

Brian,

Have you considered that the U.S. government brought down the WT buildings with an anti-matter device? I've heard that such a device has been extensively studied at Area 51...it was discovered in a crashed alien spaceship.

This device could have neutralized all matter in a tiny slice of the buildings, thus cutting through all the steel supports, and the builing would have collapsed straight down. The government would have plausible deniability, because they would lie about having the anti-matter machine. They would then have a casus belli to attack Afghanistan.


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 4, 2010 at 8:01 pm

Helen, I must admit I have not seriously considered an "anti-matter device" because I've seen no evidence that any such thing exists. If you have evidence of such a device, by all means provide it and I'll take a look.

There are a lot of loony theories floating around in the 9/11 truth movement: Bush is an alien reptile, the Jews did it, there were laser weapons, missiles, William Rodriguez saved hundreds of lives, no plane hit the Pentagon. It's usually pretty easy to slap such nuttery down, and I suspect that your information on an anti-matter device is of this ilk.


Posted by Helen, a resident of Southgate
on Sep 5, 2010 at 9:00 am

Brian,

The anti-matter device (AMD) theory makes more sense than a controlled demolition, following a plane crash. Why? Because the AMD could be used at a distance, and it does not require pre-positioning of explosives. It also does not require a conspiracy with the plane hijackers, it simply waits for an opportunity to be employed. The way I understand it, the CIA has a few of these devices, and they are kept at the ready in major American cities, awaiting the proper cirmcumstanes to produce maximum political advantage. Why do you think Area 51 is so well guarded?

I have seen no proof that AMD was not used to destroy the WT buildings. I have also seen no proof that absolutely rules out a controlled demolition, although it is harder to believe, due to the extraorddinary coordination needed to pull it off. Therefore, the AMD theory is the more realistic of the two.


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 5, 2010 at 12:10 pm

Certainly the simplicity of an attack by some super-weapon would make its use attractive to someone who wished to bring down the towers--if such a weapon existed--but you provide no evidence that such technology exists.

Your concerns about the complexity of a controlled demolition are overblown. According to the FEMA report on the collapses, the failure of a few floor truss anchors initiated a chain reaction by which the floor "unzipped" and then brought the other floors down.
Dr. Van Romero, an expert on explosives and their effects on buildings, expressed the opinion that a few charges in a few key places in the towers could have brought the buildings down.

The extreme and baffling symmetry shown in the collapses of both buildings is consistent with controlled demolition but not with a natural collapse from asymmetrical structural damage and asymmetrical fires. You might consider whether your AMD has symmetrical effects, or whether multiple devices be necessary to achieve this.

I prefer to avoid theorizing myself, and stick to facts. The way it's put by Dr. Robert Bowman, Lt. Col. USAF (ret.), the former director of the space weapons program, is: "The truth about 9/11 is that we don't know the truth about 9/11--and we should!" I've never seen Dr. Bowman speculate about what kind of high-tech weaponry might be available, and I see no reason to do so myself.


Posted by Helen, a resident of Southgate
on Sep 5, 2010 at 3:10 pm

Brian,

You will find many "experts" who will feed you what you want to believe. Going back to the JFK murder, there were some "experts" in ballistics that insisted that ice bullets were used, because of the trajectory of Kennedy's head. It was all nonsense, but it was believed by the gullible.

I put forth the nonsense of anti-matter devices, because it is as believable, or more believable, than your theory of controlled demolition as part of a very complex conspiracy.

Another theory I have heard about is that Allah did it, or a vengeful Christian god did it to punish the sins of the West. Disprove that theory, if you can, Brian.

I will leave you with a quote from the Bhagavad Gita:

"Delusion arises from anger. The mind is bewildered by delusion. Reasoning is destroyed when the mind is bewildered. One falls down when reasoning is destroyed."

As a mother, myself, Brian, I am concerned about you. What does your mother think?



Posted by James T. Kirk, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 5, 2010 at 3:18 pm

Wow, someone tell these folks that the "X Files" was just a TV show ("anti-matter device"?? - beam me up, Scotty!)


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 5, 2010 at 3:29 pm

Helen, your antimatter devices are not believable because you provide no evidence that they exist or any substantiation of your story as to their origin as extraterrestrial technologies.

Controlled demolition, on the other hand, is a well-known human field of endeavor that is known to obey laws of physics and to exhibit certain characteristics. Your only argument against its employment at the twin towers, the claim that the operation would necessarily be complex, I have shown to be false. I didn't propose a complex conspiracy. I proposed a simple conspiracy--terrorists wished to maximize the terrorist effect of their terrorism.

Your quote from the Bhagavad Gita very well describes the delusions and bewilderment that 9/11 has perpetrated on society. Half of Americans still believe Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Talk about bewildered! I do what I can to maintain and restore reasoning.


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 5, 2010 at 3:31 pm

James T., nobody here really believes in antimatter devices. Helen only pretends to because she thinks it's a clever rhetorical position.


Posted by Helen, a resident of Southgate
on Sep 5, 2010 at 6:16 pm

Brian,

"Brian and I donned the superhero costumes to add drama/color/draw attention to our rather small march."

I had no initial interest in who you are, Brian. I had a certain sense that Carol B. was a politically self-centered activist, because I had heard her name in terms of a political campaign with a the green party. However, given your adamant defense of the 9-11 truthers, I decided to do a little digging. The above quote appears to be from Carol B. Web Link

I also found out that Carol B. was completly enamored of Oliver Stone and his JFK nonsense:

"In 1992, Carol saw the Oliver Stone film JFK and began researching the Central Intelligence Agency. She became a "media activist" to raise critical issues that she believed were censored or ignored by the corporate press". Web Link

Honestly, I didn't realize that Carol B. was one of the Oliver Stone sect, until I just looked it up. Her paranoia has no bounds, Brian.

Brian, please believe me, you should not trust a woman who flashes a smile and a cause at you. Walk away, slowly. Don't confront her, she will win you back. Just fade her out. She is not your friend. Your are her tool, if you agree to be a tool.

I wish you the best.


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 5, 2010 at 6:57 pm

Helen, I know Mrs. Brouillet very well and, believe me, I am not her tool. I saw that there were several rather ignorant comments at the top of the list and, since I have done much study of what happened at Ground Zero, I thought I would help bring some missing information to the discussion.


Posted by Helen, a resident of Southgate
on Sep 5, 2010 at 7:03 pm

Brian, please, just walk away, slowly. You are being used. Talk to your mother. Better yet, talk to your father.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 5, 2010 at 7:54 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

B. Good "I've never been in an elevator shaft. So what? Is there some great mystery? "
Thee is very little room in elevator shafts not occupied by cabs and counterweights. Elevator people will not accept anything foreign in their sovereign space. You brought up elevator shafts, not me.
I remember the assassination theorists. One argument was that Oswald could not have made 3 aimed shots in the time indicated by the Zapruder film. Marines in WWII and somewhat after carried and rained with the .03, a bolt action rifle. the first of any shot groups is an aimed shot, and the accuracy of the next two shots was nothing to write home about, but any competent riflemen could shoot a pretty tight group in that time.
Your motive sucks even worse than your engineering, B.Good


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 5, 2010 at 9:12 pm

Mr. Wallis, if you would bother to look at the blueprints of the World Trade Center, you will see that the core columns of the buildings are mostly inside the elevator hoistways. These core columns are for most of their height hollow 16" X 36" steel box columns that have ample room for hiding explosives.

So a terrorist's motive of improving the terrorist effect of a terrorist act "sucks"? Please elaborate.

If you want to talk engineering, let's talk engineering and not Kennedy. You remind me of the joke about the drunk who was looking for his lost keys under the street light--because it was too dark to look where he actually lost them.



Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 6, 2010 at 5:38 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

The topic of conspiracies was raised by one of you cohorts, not me. How does one access the interior of a box column? Or was this theory so prescient that it anticipated, dozens of years earlier, the impacts of aircraft?
The structural engineer for the towers concurred that it was likely the unseating of floor joists at the periphery that initiated the tower collapses; this unseating caused by the reduction in steel strength occasioned by heat; occasioned by the failure of structural fireproofing; caused by the foolish outlawing of asbestos structural fireproofing.
Anyone who thinks that war is viewed as an improvement of anyone's situation is stretching a far reach. WWIs "Merchants of Death" would have prospered far more from peace than they did from war.


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 6, 2010 at 9:49 am


You ask how one accesses the interior of a box column. I must admit to a lack of direct experience in the subject, but I suppose I would first try use of a hole. Americans' basic helplessness and "can't do" attitude when it comes to the rather simple task of bringing down a skyscraper quite astounds me.

Thank you for bringing up the Zipper theory, which was put forth by MIT professor Dr. Thomas Eagar, NOVA, National Geographic, and FEMA's $600,000 study in 2002. I read the zipper theory first in the spring of 2002 in Matthys Levy's book "Why Buildings Fall Down". Under this theory a chain reaction began when a couple of heat-damaged floor trusses pulled away from their anchors on the perimeter columns, these hanging trusses then pulled their adjacent trusses down, which pulled the next and the next. Soon the entire floor "unzipped" and fell on the floor below, the two floors took down a third and the entire building "pancaked". It seemed bizarre, but I accepted this theory because it came from MIT and because I thought it was morbid and prurient to think about 9/11.

I am not aware that any credentialed engineers publicly challenged this theory in those early years other than Jeff King, an MIT EE who had become a medical doctor. For three years the zipper/pancake theory was conventional wisdom despite its obvious problems, and it continues to confuse people today.

One problem is that it does not explain what took down the robust and extensively cross-braced steel cores, which were built to take all the gravity loads of the building. A second is that pancake collapses (you see them when earthquakes take down shoddy concrete buildings in places like Turkey and Mexico and Haiti) exhibit a stack of pancakes on the ground. In the WTC 180,000 tons of concrete was pulverized to dust. A third problem is that these floors must unzip very rapidly around the entire perimeter for the pancaking to be symmetrical--any slowness and the collapsing part of the building begins to tip. The zipper must be opened at 600 mph to achieve symmetry.

In 2005 NIST released its $20,000 report which completely abandons the zipper/pancake nonsense, and when this failed to generate any discussion in the engineering community I realized this country was in deep kimchee. For three years zipper/pancake had been conventional wisdom, no one but Jeff King would speak up against its obvious absurdity, but when the authorities do a flip-flop nobody can be found to defend the theory they pretended to believe. There was no "How could we have been so wrong?" analysis, no popular comparing and contrasting of the two theories, and no criticism of the new NIST theories, which have their own obvious problems. You would think the engineering community and the Popular Mechanics readers would have some interest in the most spectacular building collapses in history. Nope. Just Popular Mechanics snickering at stupid conspiracy theories, and a whole lot of silence and apathy.














gar The entire engineering community seemed to believe this theory



Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 6, 2010 at 12:02 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Find a hole? It has been the bane of my Mechanical and Electrical Engineering practice that, when we ask Structural Engineers to make a hole in their stuff so our duct, pipe or conduit can go through, they explain that if they didn't need all that member they would have specified a smaller, cheaper member. My experience with box columns is that their end connection plates are welded on at the fabricator's yard.
If every engineer in the country has been bought off, where's my check? And twenty thou wouldn't get an engineering report off the backs of cocktail napkins.


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 6, 2010 at 12:20 pm

Of course your structural engineers don't want any holes. They're very bad luck. They cause stress concentrations, the plumbing and the wiring can chafe, fireblocking is defeated, yadda yadda.

There's this thing called a safety factor. The World Trade Center was built to survive hurricanes--twice as strong as it would have been built in Chicago. According to a White Paper published during the design phase, it was engineered to take a hit from a four-engine 707 at 600 mph, all the perimeter columns on one side could be cut and it would still take a 100 mph wind, and the perimeter columns were rated at 2000% (yes 20X) the dead load. The 47 steel box columns in the highly redundant core were designed to take all the gravity loads in the building.

And you think that someone who wants to bring the building down will be afraid to drill a 3/8" hole in a 16" X 36" box column so he can pump some explosives in?

I didn't say every engineer has been bought off. I say that the lack of interest in the subject is baffling and dismaying. How come it's left to a retired theologian to write the only serious analysis of the WTC7 report? How come the conventional wisdom about the collapse mechanism (truss failure v. column failure) can be completely reversed and there's no controversy whatsoever? How come so many people are so poorly informed? How come so many engineers never even heard of WTC7? When a 47-story building completely collapses after a few wimpy office fires, engineers and insurance companies should be concerned and should demand a plausible explanation.








Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 6, 2010 at 9:14 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

How much Kryptonite can you force through a 3/8" hole, and how complex a fuse mechanism can follow, and how many terrorists can dance on the head of a pin.


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 6, 2010 at 10:11 pm

How much do you need, how much will you pay, and how long have I got?

How complex a radio-activated igniter? As complex as you're willing to pay for.

You're the engineer. You know this.


Posted by There Actually Were No Black Helicoptors at the WTC, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 6, 2010 at 10:38 pm

I know who's behind this: Obama, the socialist, of course!
Aided by Sarah Palin - she acts like a dumb blonde, but she's actually an expert nuclear physicist!
And it was Dick Cheney who set the explosives in the hole - he loves dark places, after all!
Bush himself set it off via remore-control plunger - then he calmly walked into that Kindergarden class to read that book to the kids as cover.

How do I know all this? My dog saw the Hypothesis film today, then broke down and confessed to being a part of all this.


Posted by There Actually Were Black Helicoptors at the WTC, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 6, 2010 at 10:41 pm

Sorry, I screwed up my new cover name above - It should be:
There Actually Were Black Helicoptors at the WTC

Before my dog confesssed to me (see above post), I was:
There Were No Black Helicoptors at the WTC


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 6, 2010 at 11:19 pm

Black Helicopters, I'm glad you have such a rich relationship with your dog. Everybody needs someone.

I am not proposing a theory that explosives were hidden in the columns of the World Trade Center. Mr. Wallis was claiming that there is not room in the elevator shafts for explosive or incendiary charges. I simply showed that this claim was wrong. The blueprints (available for viewing at the AE911Truth.org website) show that explosives could just as well be placed adjacent to the core columns as inside them--I simply wished to short-circuit any boring "somebody would have seen them" discussion. When Mr. Wallis claimed that access to the columns' interior was a problem I showed that was wrong.

I am disappointed that nobody wants to discuss the official reports. My opinion that we need new 9/11 investigations is not based on any conspiracy theory. It is based on my determination that the official report is dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable--and that tolerance for such shoddy work is incompatible with the principles of an open and democratic society.





Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 7, 2010 at 4:50 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Structural Engineers have an interest in buildings not collapsing, therefore in the aftermath of 9/11 the topics of the mechanism of the collapse were openly and vigorously debated, in public. There were no star chamber meetings, no one even monitoring the effort. This was no Warren Commission Report. You aver that critical components of the "final" report have been demonstrated to be in error. I suspect the reason the whole engineering community has not risen up in chagrin is that they, as do I, find the raised objections to be caviling.


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 7, 2010 at 10:06 am

Any vigorous debate (and I'd appreciate any references to such that you can provide, because I'm not aware of any) died away pretty quickly. Dr. Van Romero, Ronald Hamburger, and Chief Ray Downey all said on 9/11 that they thought the towers had been brought down with explosives. Van Romero changed his mind within a week (and then went on to bring $50 million in federal funding to his school, New Mexico Tech).

Ronald Hamburger was recruited into the FEMA/ASCE report and quit talking about bombs, though he told a Stanford audience such a whopper (claiming the WTC could not have been struck lower than the 80th floor because the buildings surrounding it were too tall) that you have to wonder if he was making s "Pay no attention to me! I'm lying!" statement.

Chief Ray Downey, one of the premier building collapse experts in the country, died when the north tower came down. Over 100 first responders testified that they'd seen flashes of light or sounds of explosions, and then saw their testimony sealed until the NYT gained its release through a lawsuit.

The editor of Fire Engineering magazine protested that the destruction of the steel debris was making the investigation a "half-baked farce". He was fired.

Kevin Ryan made public his questions about NIST's interpretation of tests Underwriters Labs had done on models of the WTC floor trusses and he was fired from UL. Steven Jones pointed out that the theory that the towers collapsed naturally violated elementary laws of physics--the first law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of angular momentum, and Newton's third law--and he was forced to take early retirement from BYU.

As I said, there was no controversy in 2005 when the conventional wisdom, the zipper truss theory was turned on its head to create NIST's column failure theory. NIST makes FEMA's shoddy truss clips so freaking strong that saggy floors actually break the perimeter columns!

It is hardly quibbling to wish that a report that purports to explain why a building collapsed explain why it collapsed. The report on the twin towers stops at the point of collapse initiation and thus dodges the greatest mysteries in the worst structural failures in history--their speed, symmetry, totality, the pulverization of the concrete, the presence of molten iron in the debris pile, the persistent fires, the eutectic sulfidation attack on the Appendix C steel samples (which the New York Times called the "deepest mystery").
It is not quibbling to point out that the computer models were fudged by simply upping the input parameters until the desired results were achieved, that NIST refuses to release supporting materials for those models, that of the the steel samples NIST studied not one piece of core steel shows heating sufficient to weaken it, and that NIST lacks the scientific integrity to express regret that the crime scene was scrubbed and scientists were not permitted to examine it. Dr. Astaneh-Asl complained to the House Science Committee that the steel was being destroyed before he could examine it, and AFAIK he abandoned his empirical studies of the debris and never issued a final report.

It is also not quibbling to point out numerous problems with NIST's report on WTC7. They would have you believe that the interior of the building fell down, leaving 600-foot tall perimeter columns standing with no lateral support at all, and yet showing no distress at all until the shell falls straight down with virtually no distortion. And yet their own computer model shows the building folding up like a wet paper bag. NIST's claim that collapse initiated when thermal expansion of long-span floor beams pushed an interior girder off its seat is very suspect. The girder was a foot wide, independent calculations show that the alleged thermal expansion would have pushed less than half the necessary amount, and common sense would dictate that instead of pushing the interior girder, any expanding beams would have bulged out the perimeter columns. To generate the desired results NIST had to eliminate shear studs and assume that the beams were heated but the concrete slab above them was not. A local structural engineer, Kamal Obeid, says that the heated beams in question would have bowed before they pushed the girder.

NIST's draft report on WTC7 claimed that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles". That this language was removed from the final report suggests some dissension within their ranks. We need an environment where the honest scientists within NIST feel free to come forward with the truth.

Over 1250 architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for new investigations of the WTC collapses. Doubtless thousands more are in silent agreement but for professional reasons choose to keep silent. I have many times challenged people to identify independent engineers who have expressed confidence in the NIST report. They can't do it. All the names they cite are people whose firms were involved in the report or who have received awards from NIST.




Posted by family engineers multistories, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 7, 2010 at 10:19 am

walter,

google "Brian Good" palo alto

I think I can save you a chunk of your life if you are more familiar with Brian's background.


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 7, 2010 at 10:42 am

Yes, Dr. Kevin Barrett the Jew-hating, violence-mongering, 9/11 lunatic who never met a crazy conspiracy theory he didn't like, does not take kindly to my criticisms of his discrediting antics. Check out the links in his article--mostly he references his own writings or documents that do not exist. He's a nutcase.


Posted by There Were No Black Helicoptors at the WTC, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 7, 2010 at 9:38 pm

Looks like two kettles calling each other black (or should I say 3 with this Carol character who started all this).

Isn't it about time you shut this thread down, oh forum moderator?? There's no redeeming value here and, with the 9/11 anniversary looming, can we honor the dead by stopping with this nonsense?
I'm sure Walter would agree.


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 7, 2010 at 10:49 pm

It may look like two kettles to someone who sees what he wants to see, but if you were to investigate you would find many differences. Barrett discredits himself in the first three paragraphs--assuming that every person making negative comments on the internet about his behavior is me, and providing no evidence for this absurd belief whatsoever.

You're a fine one to talk about honoring the dead after joking that your dog confessed to blowing up the World Trade Center. Perhaps you should do a comedy show for the 9/11 widows--maybe it would cheer them up. They submitted 300 questions to the 9/11 Commission, and they only got 27 answers. Condi Rice lied to their faces blatantly-- under oath--when she testified before the Commission, and then she was promoted to Secretary of State. Is that how we honor the dead, by treating their widows so shamefully?

We honor the dead by seeking the truth relentlessly, not through lazy acceptance of impossible cover-stories, and certainly not by calling for censorship in their name.






Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 8, 2010 at 4:04 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Web Link

When do they put the explosives in this one?


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 8, 2010 at 8:27 am

"They"?

I guess "when" would depend of who, and why they wanted to do it. That's too blue sky for me.


Posted by Brian Good, a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 9, 2010 at 5:30 pm

Actually, you might direct your question to Kevin Barrett. He has no problem issuing quite detailed predictions of attacks that never come to pass.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Gourmet hot dogs, sausage food truck coming to the Peninsula
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 2,487 views

Allowing Unauthorized Immigrants to Learn and Earn Legally Will Help the Economy
By Steve Levy | 29 comments | 1,949 views

College applications: round three
By Sally Torbey | 24 comments | 1,480 views

Is HBO's Silicon Valley Any Good?
By Anita Felicelli | 14 comments | 1,432 views

PAUSD Leadership Challenges
By Paul Losch | 14 comments | 978 views