NIST Finally Responds to 911 Truther … “Get Cancer and Die Faggot” ….
By: Johnathan Douglas
February 17, 2012

Truther: Can someone at NIST please explain how Gravity and Fire can cause Heavy Steel columns to fly horizontally 100′s of feet away from the tower?

I would like to hear a response in your own words …

How does fire and gravity cause heavy Steel beams to hurl through the air 100′s of feet away? … Can gravity do this? ….

Monday Feb. 13, 2012 @ 2:12pm

National Institute of Standards and Technology: Yes, the chaos of millions of pounds of concrete and steel moving under the force of gravity from a high altitude can and did cause this to occur. See page 196, section 6.14.4, .

Monday Feb. 13, 2012  @ 3:46pm


Truther: Page 196 is about Structural and Fire safety and mentions nothing about Gravity hurling Steel beams horizontally through the air.

Section 6.14.4 is about “Events following collapse initiation” and again mentions nothing about how gravity was able to hurl steel columns 100′s of feet away from the building.

Do you have any scientific data or a formula for the force needed to cause what we see happing from gravity?

Also, can you show me an example of this scenario happening anywhere in the world from a natural collapse?

Please show me what tests or studies you have done to show how a one hour fire can accomplish this huge construction failure?

I know NIST have done tests in the past and even your own tests failed to weaken or melt structural steel.

Would you like me to show you your own tests?

Can you also show me where all this energy came from to do all that crushing and hurling…. as you state most of it was used to accelerate the debris downwards. So what quantity of debris was doing the crushing when it appears most of the debris was being blown outwards?

Monday Feb. 13, 2012  @ 3:49pm


National Institute of Standards and Technology: Several buildings have collapsed solely due to fire such as the Delft University Building in the Netherlands, McCormick Center in Chicago, and the Sight and Sound Entertainment Center in Pennsylvania. However, WTCs 1 and 2 collapsed due to a combination of factors including the fact that they had been struck by large passenger aircraft. The ensuing fires were never hot enough to melt steel, only weaken it. Coupled with the loss of structural integrity due to the impacts, the weakened columns could not withstand the loads above, and the buildings collapsed.

Tuesday @ 8:50am


National Institute of Standards and Technology: We stand fully behind our investigation, its results, and the recommended changes to building codes that flowed from it. We are confident that those changes will serve to make buildings safer in the future.

Tuesday @ 8:51am


Truther: NIST, are you seriously comparing Delft University, the McCormick and Sight and Sound Center to the Towers?

Only the roof collapses in those fires and they did not virtually collapse at near free fall speed. Also, fires did not cause perimeter columns to hurl away from the building. None of these buildings had a center steel core holding each floor up with trusses. I am shocked that you would use these  comparisons to the towers. It leads me to believe that you will choose anything and hope the people just believe it.

Since you mention molten metal, Can you explain why there are many witnesses that saw pools of molten metal in the rubble yet, NIST did not bother to investigate the cause?

Leslie Robertson, the man who designed the towers has publicly stated that he saw pools of molten metal weeks later. Why are you ignoring Mr. Robertson’s statements?

“We stand fully behind our investigation, its results, and the recommended changes to building codes that flowed from it.”

How many other high-rise steel framed buildings have been taken down due to your safety recommendations?

Let me try to put this as clearly as I can. Show me one example of a Steel Framed high rise Building that has virtually collapsed from Fire or Structural Damage?


FREE FALL (Time and Velocity) CALCULATOR Calculates the free fall time and velocity from the free fall distance.

First lets find the HEIGHT (h) of the North (WTC 1) and South (WTC 2) Towers.

*********TWIN TOWERS (WTC 1 & 2)**********

Location: New York City
Status: Destroyed September 11, 2001


WTC 1: 1966–1972
WTC 2: 1966–1973


WTC 1: 1,368 ft (417.0 m)
(with antenna 1,727 ft (526.3 m)
WTC 2: 1,362 ft (415.0 m)
Floor count: 110 floors
Floor area: Both had 4,300,000 sq ft (400,000 m2)
Elevators: 99.

WTC 1 (North Tower) Collapsed at near free fall @ 10:28am (hit by AA11 @ 8:46) in 11 Seconds (NIST)
WTC 2 (South Tower) Collapsed at near free fall @ 9:59am (hit by UA175 @ 9:03) in 9 Seconds (NIST)

WTC Complex: Over 350,000 Tons of steel (FEMA)
Center Core: 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41m) and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of each tower.


Truther (CONT): So now go back to the Calculator and enter 1,727 ft (h of North Tower w/antenna) in the free fall distance height box. Then hit execute.

The results are 10.361158327745 seconds. The official story has it at 11 Seconds.

Now let’s enter 1362 ft (h of the South Tower) in the free fall distance height box. Then hit execute again.

The results are 9.2013318746445 seconds. The official story has it at 9 seconds.

(Note: The speed of Gravity remains constant at 9.80665 m/s2)
According to the Official Story, NIST states that:

The North Tower collapsed in 11 Seconds and Free Fall Speed would have been 10.36 Seconds.

The South Tower collapsed in 9 Seconds and Free Fall speed would have been 9.2 Seconds.
Conclusion: The North Tower collapsed slightly slower than free fall and the South Tower collapsed a little faster than free fall. With that said, the Towers collapsed at near free fall speed.



FREE FALL (Time and Velocity) CALCULATOR
Calculates the free fall time and velocity from the free fall distance.
First lets find the HEIGHT (h) of WTC 7

***** WTC 7*****
The original 7 World Trade Center was a 47-story building, standing 610 feet (186 m) tall. It collapsed in its own foot print on September 11th at 5:20pm in 6.5 Seconds.


Truther (CONT): Now go back to the Calculator and enter 610 ft (h of WTC 7) in the free fall distance height box. Then hot the execute button.

The results are 6.1578209789918 seconds.
According to the Official Story, NIST states that:

WTC 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds.
Conclusion: WTC 7 collapsed slightly slower than free fall speed. Basically, WTC 7 collapsed at near free fall speed.

Let’s not forget that NIST admits to the Free fall with Building 7.

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)

Tuesday @ 11:23am


Kevin Ryan: Why the NIST WTC 7 Report is False!

Tuesday @ 5:21pm


Truther: Well NIST?  The two examples you gave us above should show everyone that what happened on 9/11 was scientifically impossible from fire and gravity alone. Maybe one day NIST will admit to what really happened on September 11th, 2001. Until that day comes, NIST should be ashamed of themselves for covering up the biggest “terrorist” attack on US Soil. Just goes to show you that you can’t have a Government agency investigating Government crimes.

‎”Shame on anyone who helped cover it up and to the cowards that planned and funded it” Let’s see who from NIST helped cover up 9/11. And another “terror” attack.”Why do the same five or so individuals turn up in investigations relating to terrorist attacks, when, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), there are 1.5 million engineers in the US? The authors of the official report on the Murrah Federal building – Gene Corley, Charles Thornton, Paul Mlaker, and Mete Sozen – were all among the initial team of the ASCE WTC investigation. Several of these individuals have strong connections to industries that benefited from the attack, such as armaments makers and oil and gas producers.”

Isn’t that odd….. Out of 1.5 million engineers in the USA, the same 5 people that helped cover up 9/11 also covered up the Oklahoma City Bombing. The same people out of 1.5 Million engineers practicing inside the USA! Coincidence right NIST?

Tuesday @ 5:32pm


National Institute of Standards and Technology: *Crickets*….


Truther: *Sigh*….

Does NIST care to comment on this paper?

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction.

Yesterday @ 10:40am


National Institute of Standards and Technology: We will only address specific questions regarding information contained in our reports. We will not comment on third-party research and consider such postings to be off topic for this page. Our investigation of the WTC disaster was thorough and based on the best available evidence and the soundest science. We are proud of our investigation and of the changes to international building and fire codes that flowed from its conclusions. We stand behind our conclusions and findings 100 percent.

13 hours ago


Truther: How can you say you are behind your findings 100% when you have constantly changed your theories numerous times about what happened to the towers and Building 7 on 9/11? You have gone from “Pancake theory” to “Truss pull out” to “Truss pull in” to “Pile driver” to “Column failure” to “Hollow steel shaft” to “Thermal expansion” to “Unexplainable”. Which one of these do you support 100%?How can you be 100% certain when even your own tests failed to weaken structural steel?

11 hours ago


National Institute of Standards and Technology: See entry 8 here. We explored a number of hypotheses during the course of our investigation, but a full examination of all the available evidence led us to the conclusions detailed in our final reports, released Dec. 01, 2005, and Nov. 20, 2008. See this  for information regarding NIST’s steel tests.

10 hours ago


Truther: Thank you for your time NIST but I beg to differ… and here is why. CHARACTERISTICS OF CONTROLLED DEMOLITION The Twin Towers’ destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration.
2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no “pancaked” floors found
9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front
10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire

All of these characteristics were seen, heard and testified by witnesses and experts when it came to the towers collapse. Why have you failed to look at any of these obvious points?

‎”reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests “Did you interview the hundreds of firefighters that heard and felt explosions in the lobby and sub basement levels? The Analyzed steel showed signs of corrosion due to bi products found in Nano Thermite, as confirmed by FEMA in their Limited Metallurgical Examination

As for your Laboratory Tests. They failed to weaken or melt steel.
9/11 Skepticism: NIST Floor Test

NIST FOIA 09-42: Release #15 — 42A0019 — WTC CB P1 T1 NW Camera

In the second video, NIST’s tests failed to weaken or melt a single cubicle.

Please be more clear because your own tests and the expert witnesses fail to agree with your hypothesis.

Also, your theories do not match the characteristics of a complete destruction due to fire.

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” I have asked you numerous times now to show me an example in the history of Steel framed high rises that has caused a total collapsed due to fire. You have failed to show me and the world a similar comparison.

 9 hours ago

{Let it be known that I do not think Mb Brown “works for” NIST …  I do think he is a product of their behavior} 

Mb Brown(Private Message): I sincerely hope you seek help for your obvious mental disability. Either that or commit suicide. Asshole.


Truther: Wow, thanks for the compliment I guess. What exactly is it that you don’t understand? I can help that problem of yours; you seem to suffer from not being able to  think critically.


Mb Brown(Private Message): Get cancer and die. 9/11 was not an inside job you retarded goat. I truly hope your whole family dies from cancer. Faggot.


<DELETED> * Crickets* ….

UPDATE: 4 hours ago

  •  Ken Doc: No comment NIST? You just decided to take it upon yourself to remove the thread I started?If I was wrong on anything I said, I’m sure you would have pointed that out. Instead, you just removed the entire post. Which leads me to believe that everything I said was correct and that you are trying to censor my information.Not cool NIST. 10 years later and you are still covering up the crimes. Shame on you.

  • National Institute of Standards and Technology: NIST is not a law enforcement agency, and the nature of our investigation was technical, not criminal. For WTC 1 and 2, the scope of our investigation was limited to the period between the impact of the aircraft and the initiation of the collapse. NIST has published extensive documentation to back up our findings. Visit http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/. In particular, for answers to frequently asked questions, see http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_faqs.cfm.NIST has committed no crimes. We performed a major public service by investigating the technical causes for the collapses of three World Trade Center buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7). Our investigation was complete in 2008. We will not comment on alternative theories or third-party research.

    We have recently updated our comment policy and layout as part of Facebook’s switch to a timeline format. We will remove posts that include links to misleading or unfounded accusations, are posted repeatedly, are off-topic, or otherwise violate the comment policy. This space is devoted to discussing NIST’s current research and activities in a civil, public-friendly way.

    If you have questions that are not addressed on these pages, please email NIST at facebook@nist.gov or by clicking on the messages button at the top of the page.


    WTC Disaster Study
  • Ken Doc:I’m not posting anything that is misleading NIST. I have only posted your own admissions. One was that your own tests failed to weaken or melt structural steel and the other was your admittance that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed.Now lets look at your own statements for a second……”For WTC 1 and 2, the scope of our investigation was limited to the period between the impact of the aircraft and the initiation of the collapse.”

    “We performed a major public service by investigating the technical causes for the collapses of three World Trade Center buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7).”

    How can you say you did a great service when you only researched up to the initiation of the collapses?

    Did you not feel it was important for the public to explain how the top half plowed through the rest of the structure without any resistance?

    “We have recently updated our comment policy and layout as part of Facebook’s switch to a timeline format.”

    I take it NIST does not like the new timeline format since most of the comments on your page now are from 9/11 researchers that question your conclusions. NIST did create a crime by ignoring the laws of physics. Why did you ignore Galileo, Aristotle and Newton’s laws?

    Why were their laws suspended on 9/11?

  • Ken Doc:Furthermore….”NIST is not a law enforcement agency, and the nature of our investigation was technical, not criminal.” Would you support a CRIMINAL investigation?   
  • “For WTC 1 and 2, the scope of our investigation was limited to the period between the impact of the aircraft and the initiation of the collapse.”

    So you admit that the actual collapses were not included in your reports?

    Your own words are misleading and very damning to your own institution!

Truther: *BLOCKED*

Truther: *Banned*

Truther: <Deleted>

National Institute of Standards and Technology: End of conversation …..

{Hey NIST … Stop acting like evidence people can see with their own eyes doesn’t exist and they will leave you alone … It’s a completely new phenomenon I just discovered}


9/11 Bombshell: Mike Gravel will introduce Multi-State Initiative to “Kiss My Ass”!!!
By: Johnathan Douglas
January 28, 2012

Hello (Leave your name here),

We share your alarm and outrage … If you agree with our Board that
Mike’s use of your donation was at the very least inappropriate, we
encourage you to contact Mike in writing and request he refund your
money to you … His email is: (CLASSIFIED)

We don’t know if HE will refund your money, but we do know that he has complied with at least one request ….

Please understand our difficulty is two-fold: (1) legal jurisdiction
[Our fund-raising effort crossed national and international
boundaries, so to which police do we report? we needed and still need
legal advice.]; (2) without any funds left for Board use, hiring an
attorney for advise is not an option … The interim days between
discovery and reporting were spent finding legal advice pro bono ….

Into the mix, are the complications of timing (these events
developing during the holidays) and obtaining Mike’s resignation in
order to draw up papers to show a newly re-organized board to
demonstrate that Mike no longer has legal control over the funds … We do not minimize the damage to the 9/11-Truth movement as a whole and the enormous betrayal of trust Mike’s action has bestowed on the initiative … Trust is crucial to 9/11-Truth. We all believe that it will be up to the States to conduct a new independent investigation ….

Therefore, for 911cc to succeed, trust is of the utmost importance.
Treading carefully and deliberately with this revelation was
paramount, not to be entered into hastily, lightly or recklessly.

Our Board had to consider all these factors. We needed to wait until
we had a consensus of the existing Board before we could inform our donors. Again, we wish we could have done so sooner.

We sincerely appreciate your support of the initiative and your
constructive ideas on moving forward to achieve a new an independent investigation through the states’ Ballot initiatives. We all pledge to continue efforts for truth, justice and accountability to the very best of our abilities.

Thank you,

Susan Serpa, V.P.

Did Mike Gravel Scam the Truth Movement?

Posted on February 2, 2012 by willyloman

by Scott Creighton

Say it ain’t so Mike!

It was recently brought to my attention by an old friend that Mike Gravel pulled a bunch of funding out of his foundation that was formed to put a measure on a state ballot in 2012 to create a new investigation into the events of 9/11. The organization that Gravel himself started was called the 9/11 Citizens Commission and the intention was to create a new commission, with subpoena powers, like a Grand Jury of sorts, that could re-open the case and provide a new, truly independent investigation into the events of 9/11.

Largely due to the hard work of many Truth activists (networking on Facebook, petitions, ect… ) they had managed to make some real headway in their efforts. They apparently had (if you believe the letter that was sent out) collected a nifty little nest egg to use in their campaign which should have been kicking off in full swing this close to the upcoming elections in November; somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 grand or so. Not Mitt Romney or Barack Obama money, but nothing to sneeze at either.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the Diebold machines… a week ago a correspondence goes out to the 9/11CC donors saying Gravel had split, taken the money and rerouted it to another foundation he had been running since 2001, and stopped responding to the other members of their organization.

Did Mike Gravel scam the Truth movement from the start? There are some interesting facts that may suggest he did just that.

The 9/11CC website seems to be down (at least it is at the time of writing this) and Gravel is nowhere to be seen.

Hmmm… did the Truth movement get scammed… again? (can anyone say “Ron Paul”, “nanothermite”, or “9/11 Blogger”?)

At first I was very skeptical as you can see from the discussion I had with that friend of mine last night. But after doing a little research I came up with some rather disturbing information about Gravel.

Look, the Truth movement is full of dedicated activists who will work their fucking asses off if they think they have a shot at exposing the truth about what happened on 9/11. They will dig deep and donate, they will go long hours volunteering their time to the cause. This makes them a powerfully focused grass roots army and unfortunately that strength also makes them a target for people who want to take advantage of their networks and their energy.

It takes a special kind of asshole to take advantage of people like that. At first I didn’t think Gravel could have done it. But now… well… you decide.

Here’s what I found so far:

In 2010 Mike Gravel got together with We Are Change in what looks like a Denny’s in California to announce his plan to create a ballot initiative for 2012 to form a Citizens Commission to re-open the investigation into 9/11.  Pay attention to what he says (and doesn’t say) in this

“I started with my suspicions about 9/11 really right after the event”  “If it is an inside job…” “What can we do in respect to this possible crime that has taken place…”  “this activity, if it was done, was done in conspiracy…”  Mike Gravel 2010

Gravel doesn’t seem to solid on his belief structure in that Denny’s discussion. It’s almost as if his lawyer instinct is keeping him from going too far out on that limb. A measured approach may be prudent, but when I saw this, I wondered if he had ever taken a harder line on the subject of 9/11 in the past… and I found one.

On Sept. 10th 2007 Mike Gravel posted an article on the Huffington Post for reader to view the next day the 6th anniversary of 9/11. The article was called “The Real Lessons of 9/11” and this is in part what Mike had to say. Remember Mike’s words from 2010 as you read this “I started with my suspicions about 9/11 really right after the event

As we mark the six anniversary of the 9/11 attack, it is time for Americans to face the real lessons of that horrible morning…

Our government failed to protect us on 9/11 not because such an attack was unimaginable but because bureaucratic turf wars and incompetence at the highest levels impeded our counter-terrorist efforts…

Let’s be clear, Bin Laden is not just a symbol — his hands drip with the blood of thousands of Americans who must be avenged…

We should never negotiate with terrorists and we must hunt down Bin Laden and anyone else who attacks us

I do not believe 9/11 was a governmental conspiracy.”  Mike Gravel, 2007

In 2007 Gravel was already talking about a new independent investigation with subpena powers but he wanted to do so in the context of pointing fingers at who was asleep at the switch when the evil Muslims attacked us on 9/11 as a result of blow-back for our foreign policy.

That is, by all accounts, the definition of the official story of 9/11.

Reconcile what Gravel told We Are Change with what you just read. Does it sound like Gravel had his suspicions about the official story since the day it happened? Can you now see why he would carefully infuse his speech with qualifiers like “if” and “possibly”?

When Gravel officially launched his 9/11CC project in early 2011, he did so on the Alex Jones show. The Truth movement knows full well that Alex is not a mouth piece for us, and yet there he was. Why did he go there? Because Alex can generate cash. That’s why.

I feel for the people who got passionately involved in this. I remember how I first felt when I first came to understand what Steven Jones really was. But, in the end, people have to remember that even if they had succeeded, the ballots would still be counted on Diebold electronic voting machines or ES&S or some other unverifiable system. So what did we really lose?

Perhaps Gravel is just being railroaded and he will pop back up with a new organization and transfer the funds into that. Could happen. I wouldn’t hold my breath.

The point is, if he said one thing to the Truth activists and said another thing to the readers at Huffington Post, there is no way to avoid the fact that at some point, Mike Gravel was lying.

And lying doesn’t make for a good Truth advocate.

I hope this doesn’t discourage another generation of Truth activists but I know to some degree it will. Some will be more resilient, some will be toughened a bit and skeptical, some will despair and go by the wayside. But Truth activists in the movement, like those who came before them (Suffrage Movement, Civil Rights Movement, Peace Movement, Labor Movement), understand that this is not a one battle conflict and it is not something we expect to see accomplished in a day or a week or even a decade. Most people in this country understand that the official story of 9/11, the story Mike Gravel was selling back in 2007, is bullshit and their numbers grow by the day.

If Gravel did this some might think it will weaken the movement but they would be wrong. To me, it just goes to show the dishonesty REQUIRED to believe and cheer-lead for the Bush/Cheney official story of 9/11.

If he did this and he’s gone… good. We don’t need liars in the Truth movement. Brush off the dust, lick the wounds, and chalk it up to experience… move on.

My “SPAM” Reply to Mike Gravel’s Email

Posted on February 3, 2012 by willyloman

by Scott Creighton

I sent Mike Gravel a copy of the article I wrote the other day about his folding the 9/11CC group and transferring the donated money to an old not-for-profit he runs. He didn’t like what I wrote and insinuated that either I or my “old friend” (JD) was CIA. He has finally written a response to the 9/11CC’s board letter that told the donors about Gravel leaving the organization. In it, he mentions me as a part of their “plan” in some form. He asked me to publish his letter in fairness, and in fairness I agreed in my email back to him.

But guess what? Mike Gravel added me to his SPAM list so that reply to his email got bounced back. Nice huh?

So, I will publish my reply to his email, here. Guess he will see it eventually? First here is what he wrote as a note to his answer to the 9/11CC board letter.

On 02/03/12, Mike Gravel<*************> wrote:

Scott: You might of had the intellectual honesty to have informed yourself of my side of the story; rather than swallow hole the hidden agenda “an old friend.”  How do you spot double agents, CIA, military industrial complex and other government implants? It’s difficult, but they generally come at you under the veil of sercrecy like: “an old friend told me so.” Scott, shame on you. You seem brighter than that.

… Their ugly campaign todamage my character has the real effect of damaging the entire 911 TruthMovement. The following is an example of their work: Did Mike Gravel Scam the Truth Movement? « AmericanEveryman

… Scott: I hope you will have the sense of fair play to distribute my response to the same venues you delivered your own  biased and malicious interpretation of what went on within the 911 Commission committee.” Mike Gravel

and my SPAM reply:



Thanks for the reply and the mention.

Turns out that I am not a member of that group and if you had taken the time to check the link, you would have discovered that the “old friend” I was talking about was a guy who rarely comments on my site who came by to ask me to look into what happened. He tried to post the letter from the board accusing you of these things, and I refused to publish that because I had not investigated it yet. He was involved in trying to get the ballot initiative on the ballot but he has been one of your ongoing supporters calling on the others to remain calm.

I have still not published that letter from the board.

And if you had read my article, it poses a question, it doesn’t come to a concrete conclusion.

In the comment section with the “old friend” I make it quite clear that I know how destabilization campaigns work and I figured this, the dissolution of the project by the other members of the board,  had the hallmarks of one of those efforts.

You really should have taken the time to read those comments because trust me, others are reading them now.

As to your reply. Of course I will post  it on my site which is the only place I put my article.

But I have to say that on a few points, your answer is somewhat… lacking.

First, there is the assumption that I am somehow connected to the people who you had problems with. That’s wrong and I would appreciate it if you cleared that up. I wrote what I wrote as a Truth advocate of several years and a concerned one at that.

Second: you didn’t address what I asked about regarding your miraculous transformation from the 2007 Huffington Post article to your 2010 speech where you claimed you were suspicious back at the beginning. I would love to hear that.

third: You didn’t make it clear enough why you didn’t simply return the donations to the people who donated the money or at least ask them which they preferred.

lastly: when you say that writing about this incident is going to hurt the Truth movement, I tend to disagree. I think running this project and then skipping off to allocate the donated funds to a different project without telling people or attempting to give them a choice would hurt the Truth movement. I think you can tell from the response on your Facebook page, most people would tend to agree with me.

In the end Sen. Gravel (and as you would have known if you read that comment section I referred to earlier) I don’t know what happened and honestly I don’t really care except for the fact that many good people, people dedicated to getting the Truth out to the world and nothing more, are injured by this in ways that far exceed the dollars and time they donated to help you help them.

You do need to answer to them. You do need to explain the Huffington Post article.

If you had read that comment thread I linked to, you would have seen that I had a great deal of respect for you. I don’t however buy into those speeches you gave starting in 2010 about this initiative of yours (and lets face it, it was yours from the start), I don’t like the fact that you went to launch this campaign of yours on the Alex Jones show and I don’t like the fact that you mention the ex MI6 agent who was married to the guy who started wearing dresses and calling himself Jesus either for that matter.

You are not a leader in the Truth movement. Most leaders in the Truth movement don’t write articles like you did for the Huffington Post. Then again, most aren’t ex agents for Mi6 either.

Whatever happened, you owed those people who donated time and money, an explanation long before the board of 9/11CC wrote their little letter. You should have addressed this long ago.

I am a real Truth advocate, Sen. and your innuendo as to some other nefarious agenda of mine is quite unfounded. I have a right to call you out on this as do all the people who committed to you in one way or the other. This is my movement and this is theirs; you’re just a guest who apparently has left the party.  For you to dismiss me and them by insinuating something unsavory is quite tasteless in my opinion and it does not bode well in your defense if you don’t mind my saying so.

So please, explain your transition from 2007 to 2010 and I will publish that in your defense as well.

But I think you might need to be a little more creative than simply suggesting I am CIA or something. That just doesn’t hold water anymore, you know what I mean?

Scott Creighton
American Everyman

ps. I really liked your last run for the presidency. I wanted you or Kucinich to win the nomination. To bad. Look where all that “HOPE” got us. Also, thanks for the effort with the filibuster and reading the Pentagon Papers into the congressional record. You have done a service for your country which is remembered by many of us.

An Unfortunate Alliance: Senator Gravel Moves on to “Capitalize” on Occupy Wall Street

Posted on February 13, 2012 by willyloman

by Scott Creighton

What is listed below is my reply to Senator Gravel’s response to an article I wrote about the way in which he handled his departure from 911CC, an organization that he founded and campaigned for looking to get a initiative on the ballot for the formation of a  citizens commission to re-investigate the events of 9/11. I did not find his comment to be completely forthright nor do I appreciate his apparent flippancy regarding the harm he ultimately caused those who invested in his efforts. I post this reluctantly because as Gravel himself put it, he is preparing “to capitalize on the OWS spring offensive”. Given the timing and the way he handled both his departure and the funds donated by Truth advocates, I am left wondering if he wasn’t “capitalizing” on the 911CC effort from the beginning. Below my reply is Sen. Gravel’s comment.

UPDATE: Mike Gravel claims that someone else wrote the article I found that contradicts what he told the Truth movement about what he believed happened on 9/11. Unfortunately for the senator, he wrote other articles for the Huffington Post. One of which says this:

“Despite what the Bush administration claims, Iran was a great enemy of the perpetrators of 9/11 long before 2001. In the 1990s Iran waged a covert war against the Taliban and Wahabi-Sunni terrorist networks like Al-Qaeda.

… So why not let Ahmadinejad pay his respects at Ground Zero? Why not let him send a message to the Muslim world that 9/11 was an atrocity that everyone, including fundamentalist Muslims, should mourn?”  Mike Gravel

Were both of these articles written by someone else? Are we to believe that the Huffington Post is just writing these things themselves or posting articles submitted by a third party without checking with the person who’s name is attributed to the work? Or is something else happening here?


Sen Gravel:

Let me see if I understand this:

You’re suggesting that the Huffington Post, a large website with about a million hits a day (back in  late 2007 during the election campaign) and obviously a legal team on staff or retainer, published an article under your name without checking with you or even your campaign staff about the legitimacy of said article, during your PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN?  That’s your answer?  Wouldn’t that be… illegal… for them to do that? Could they be sued for slander or libel?


As to my “assumptions”: no, I didn’t assume you should have checked my Facebook footprint because I don’t have one. I signed up for Facebook years ago and I have not updated it in 6 months or so and even then it was sporadic at best. But what I did ask you to do was to check the comment section from one of the articles I posted here on my website, which I linked to, in which JD and I briefly discussed what he knew about the situation involving the 911CC project.

As to the other “assumption”, I don’t “assume” that you should have taken more time to explain the situation surrounding your leaving the 911CC project to the donors (donors of time, effort, passion, and money) earlier than you did… I KNOW you should have. It’s common courtesy for one thing and there’s probably a law in there somewhere that also governs the dissolution of not-for-profit organizations for the other. Whether or not you had the “time” (your words) is a secondary consideration which I did not even attempt to factor into the equation. You make the time.

You see, the people whom you let down are committed to this effort every much as you are to your other project (“I am somewhat driven by the cause I believe in: empowering citizens to make laws...”). Perhaps you should have let the others know that their cause, the one you were working with them on, was a secondary consideration to you because, you see, they are somewhat driven as well.

This quote bothers me: “I have wasted more time on this negative subject than I care to admit.” – and who’s fault is it that it ended in this way and turned “negative”? It certainly wasn’t the donors fault nor was it the fault of all those Truth advocates who put their trust in you. Whether or not you complete the project is irrelevant, the way you handled the end of the project, that is relevant.

Now, all that said, this quote of yours is what concerns me most and gives me an even clearer insight into the way you seem to think Senator…

I am preparing to relaunch the National Initiative into the National Citizens Initiative (NCI) by April to capitalize on the OWS spring offensive. I don’t have the time to argue the past.” Mike Gravel

Will you be using the funds donated by Truth advocates for the 911CC in order to “relaunch” your NCI project, senator? Will you be doing that without asking them if that is their wish or will you just do it, as you said before, without asking them?

And what exactly do you mean by “capitaliz(ing) on the OWS spring offensive”? Did you capitalize on the Truth movement in order to obtain the funds to “relaunch” NCI? You have a very funny way of looking at things Mike. Perhaps you were in D.C. for a bit too long.

(The Occupy Movement is not about direct democracy. They have enough sense to know that without a fundamental change in the electronic voting machine system, there’s no way to accurately register the will of the people via the current voting process. They also understand that the system has to be fundamentally changed from the core out. Simply putting up new laws to the people to decide on means little in a society where they are constantly lied to everyday by their corporate controlled media and the corporations are free to spend as much money as they want to influence their decisions. Then of course there’s Diebold counting the votes in a completely opaque manner. seems to me that what the outcome of that would be if these aspects are not corrected first, would not be an honest direct democracy, but rather the artificial rubber stamp of public “consensus” for various unpopular laws and or constitutional reforms.)

In conclusion senator, after reading and rereading your response several times, I have come to the conclusion that you certainly could have handled your departure from the 911CC project in a more professional manner and the attitude that you have assumed since that time is a bit on the offensive side.

You inferred that I and others were CIA stooges for simply asking about the way in which you handled your departure…

You blamed everyone but yourself for the unsatisfactory progress of the 911CC project…

You seem to be jumping ship at a crucial time in order to “relaunch” another project of yours in time to “capitalize” on yet another group’s efforts…

And all of this hinges on whether or not I believe that the Huffington Post is publishing fraudulent articles by presidential candidates without their knowledge or consent.

I have to say, I am extremely disappointed in the way you handled your exit from the 911CC project and am especially disappointed in the way you chose to handle my inquiry.

I will now contact the Huffington Post and ask them if they are in the practice of writing articles for presidential candidates or publishing unverified statements from such persons as that is rather disturbing when you think about the possibilities of such unprofessional journalistic standards. What kind of response do you think I’ll get?

In short, I don’t buy it. Your flippant attitude regarding the 911CC project in this reply, the timing of your “relaunch” of your NCI project, your plans to “capitalize” on yet another movement, as well as your rather unbelievable explanation of the Huffington Post article which appeared under your name leaves me to conclude that I was correct in my original evaluation of the situation. Unfortunately.

I will leave you with this one last quote of yours which is apt in this case because unlike you, I actually take the time to write what is attributed to my name in the public sphere and, again, unlike you, I care deeply about this cause…

I have wasted more time on this negative subject than I care to admit.”  Mike Gravel

As far as I am concerned, the “negative subject” of your involvement in the Truth movement is over and I am done with it.

Given these new insights, the people who supported you are better off without you, in my opinion.

I can only hope someone at OWS takes the time to see how this little collaboration of yours worked out before they invest themselves in you and trust in you the way the Truth movement did.

And no, I will not reply to your email address. I attempted that once and found that you had put my email address on your spam list.

scott creighton
American Everyman


Scott: I am sorry that you were offended by my remarks to your article. However, I am sure that you can appreciate that there were some grounds for offense on my part.

With respect to the Post on Huffington: I did not write it and had I seen it I would have made sure it was corrected or scotched it. It was posted during my presidential campaign by a supporter who felt he or she was doing something helpful. I have learned long ago that when your name is attached to something, with or without your permission, it lives on forever and is part of your biography whether you like it or not.

You assume that I should have done more investigation of what you were doing and saying on Facebook before responding to you in anger. You are probably right if I was as adept at using facebook as you are. I am not. I find facebook and twitter too complicated to use even though I have accounts with both and supporter post sometimes in my name. I don’t mind being used as long as it is a good cause.

You make some assumptions that I should have done things to establish greater clarity. I did the best I could given the time I have. I try to work seven days a week. I am somewhat driven by the cause I believe in: empowering citizens to make laws–changing the paradigm of human governance. The only document I have our there that explains in great details what happened is my Report to Donors. That’s it. I think you have a copy. If it does not satisfy all your quires, so be it. I have wasted more time on this negative subject than I care to admit.

I am preparing to relaunch the National Initiative into the National Citizens Initiative (NCI) by April to capitalize on the OWS spring offensive. I don’t have the time to argue the past. I’ll let those who have the time do that. I don’t know how to include a zip file in this post. However, if you send me an email at ********* (a tech area I understand better) I will be happy to send information on NCI but I don’t want to pursue the 911CC dispute further.




“The 9/11 Truth Movement is Dead!”
By: Johnathan Douglas
July 20, 2010

When I was in the second grade my teacher asked the entire class to raise their hands if they thought … “John ran.” … was a sentence … I proudly raised my hand because she had literally just got done telling us that it was … After hearing her slowly walking around the classroom she came back to the front row and stood right in front of my desk and said … “Are you sure about that?” … I WAS … Very sure … Until she motioned for me to take a good look around the classroom … I was shocked to see that not one other kid had raised their hand … Not even my friends … The teacher then said … “Johnathan … I’ll give you to the count of ten to change your mind!” and started counting very slowly … After an excruciating minute of giving the rest of the class including some of my best friends a few desperate “Someone else please, please, please agree with me!!” looks I reluctantly gave up at the count of eight and lowered my hand … “That’s too bad!!” … she said with a frustrated smirk on her face … “Because it IS a sentence!!” After seeing the angry and embarrassed look on my face she bent down and whispered something into my ear I have never been able to forget … “When your right you don’t have to worry about who else agrees with you … Even when it’s no one” ….

The thing every serious 9/11 truther has to ask themselves at one point or another is … If I’ve done my own research on the subject? … Watched all the videos and listened to all the tapes? … Spent the next several years after that backing your up research with serious thought and reflection of ALL the facts given from BOTH sides of the 9/11 “debate” and you are still FORCED to come to the logical conclusion that the official explanation is complete farcical nonsense? … Then what does it matter what some brown-nosing ball sucker has to say about it?!! ….

Debunker: “So you base your entire kooky ‘WTC Demolition conspiracy theory’ on What amounts to … A feeling!?” … “A belief!!” … “ABSOLUTE RUBBISH!!” … “LMFAO LOLOLOLOL … Dumbshit!!!” ….

My simple reply: “If you consider almost nine years of thorough research on the subject including but not limited to reading every article, reading every journal entry, reading all the reports, watching every video, listening to every “debate”, every interview, every audio tape … All followed up by several years of serious thought and reflection of ALL the facts given from BOTH sides … Backed up by fifteen years of my own personal hands on building experience including steel frame and welding work a … ‘feeling’?? … But I didn’t ask you ….”


Forming my comments without any questions left for my adversary to answer is a major component to a large portion of my “wins” … Truthers run around today saying “I just have questions!” like that phrase will get them out of anything … I say why is that? … Cant look it up or what? … Its like saying “Does gravity exist, I just have questions?” … Well go outside and throw a rock and let me know how that goes … If YOU in your capacity as a truther can’t look something up about 911 enough to know for certain a debunker sure as hell isn’t going to do it for you so why even ask? … All you’ll accomplish in the end by asking a “debunker” to clarify or elaborate on one of your many “questions” is losing the upper hand … Even if you happen to have valid questions … After all you will be up against the best and brightest propagandists money can buy in most of these situations your bound to get yourself into … Never NEVER under-estimate your opponent no matter how solid you think your information is … State an obvious fact even if it’s a single seemingly non-important detail as long as its counter to a “debunker’s” obvious lie … Be sure that your fact is one that you personally know for certain is true and one that you can source all day till the cows come home if asked .. Then stick to it like glue … If said “debunker” insults your intelligence … well you didn’t ask him did you? …

When you finally have a “debunker” cornered and he has realized that you’ve given him enough rope to hang with he will often try to change the subject with what I call the “conspiracy grab bag” perhaps hoping he’ll get a rise out of you or better yet get you off onto a completely different subject ….

Debunker:“I suppose you believe in aliens from outer space? … Or that Israel is behind 911 you fucking anti-Semite?!! … Are you a tin-foil hat wearing, Alex ‘new world order’ Jones watching, JFK’er too? … Get a life you fucking moron!!”


They will try like hell … Keep coming back to your one original small detail whatever it may be and ignore everything else or you will lose!! … Always keep in mind that you don’t have to be an expert in every little detail of 911, or the history of the world either for that matter, to beat these guys … Don’t let a”debunker” shop around till he finally gets you on a point you happen to know nothing about but perhaps feel obligated to defend for one reason or another … He will clobber you with your own ignorance and thus render your one original factual detail long forgotten and therefore moot … This situation is a real shame considering that you could have won this debate forty or fifty insulting comments ago had YOU simply stayed on track … Always remember that “debunkers” react to YOU and what you say or don’t say … It’s not the other way around … Make him acknowledge the fact that he was wrong about your one particular detail before moving on to ANYTHING ELSE … If after a plethora of high quality reference materials are given your “debunker” still won’t acknowledge your one obvious fact as a fact then you’ve already won and there’s really no sense in continuing on with your debate … This type of “debunker” is most likely not there to debate anyway … In most of these cases where you have a militantly ignorant “debunker” on your hands it’s not because you’re “not getting through to him” or that your information is “inadequate” in some way but rather because he’s there making money off of each comment he makes … Like any other paid propagandist would … At this point it’s best to quit while your ahead and he’s behind … And by quit I mean shut your hole … He’ll probably just insult you one more time and leave anyway no matter what you say … Usually using some form of this excuse ….

Debunker: “I’m not like you … I actually have a life you know … I don’t have time to play ‘who gets the last word’ with losers who live in their mother’s basement and get up at noon … I have to get up early tomorrow and be a productive member of society … Later!!” ….


Perhaps most important … I have noticed in my many years of debating full-fledged “pentagon bloggers” that there appears to be two main types of skeptics … One in an admirable role and one quite the opposite … Therefore we have skeptics … People who honestly disagree for one reason or another and who are therefore worth your time and effort … And pseudo skeptics … People who usually end up being nothing more than paid war supporting propagandists sent to intentionally disrupt, intimidate, and confuse you along with anyone else who happens to read your thread and who are therefore NOT worth your time and effort … Knowing what kind of skeptic your up against right out of the gate will give you an important advantage so learn to spot the differences well ….

(quote from an unknown author)

Characteristics of a pseudo skeptic:

1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt …

2. Double standards in the application of criticism …

3. The making of judgments without full inquiry …

4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate …

5. Use of ridicule, threats of physical/emotional harm, or ad hominid attacks in lieu of arguments …

6. Pejorative labeling of proponents as “fakes”, “fags”, “fuckers”, “losers”, “hippies”, “unpatriotic”, “terrorist sympathizers” or ‘promoters’, ‘pseudo scientists’ or practitioners of ‘pathological science …

7. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof …

8. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof …

9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims …

10. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence …

11. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it …

12. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims …

13. Asserting that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (Argument from ignorance) …

14. They speak down to their audience using ‘arguments from authority’ …

15. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths …

16. Provides no references to reputable journal material and at the same time refuses to acknowledge that your reputable journal material exists “at all” even when it’s provided to them …

17. If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative …

True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics:

A. Does not show any of the characteristics of a pseudo skeptic …

B. Inquires and asks questions to try to understand things …

C. Applies open inquiry and investigation of both sides …

D. Is nonjudgmental, doesn’t jump to rash conclusions …

E. Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own …

F. Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim …

G. Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides …

H. Acknowledges valid convincing evidence …

I. Possesses solid sharp common sense and reason …

J. Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence …

(End of quote)

Once you’ve stuck to your guns on your one simple and undeniable fact and you’ve identified the type of skeptic your up against be sure that you don’t let your debate degrade into an argument over beliefs and opinions … Make it clear at all times that you are NOT stating a “belief” … THIS IS A FACT!!! … As plain as the FACT that your “debunker” has a nose on his face … You can see it but he can’t … Is it then a “belief” of yours when your say “Hey … buddy … there’s a nose on your face!!” and he doesn’t buy it and refuses to look in the mirror? … NO!! … It’s still a fact whether your new “debunker” friend decides to acquiesce the point or not ….


Take the time to understand WHY it’s true … Once you’ve done that put the link aside and take some specific excerpts and post that instead … You will then have your “debunker” in a position of having to be specific in his dismissals of your information … You therefore take the “blanket dismissal” out of his arsenal which is one of his most effective tools …

Debunker: “You twoofers don’t have ONE shred of evidence to back up what you’re saying!! … Not ONE!! … If you did it would be all over the news like yesterday … Admit it your just a crackpot with nothing but bare assertions and opinions!!”

Average Truther: “well here’s ONE shred of evidence … (gives link to peer-reviewed paper)

Debunker: “What did you get that off the Internet? … LOLOLOL … You’re a loser!! … You believe everything you see on the Internet don’t you? … Seen Bigfoot lately?? … LMAO … MASSIVE FAIL!!”

Average Truther: “This paper came from a scientist who did years of study on the subject … And it’s peer-reviewed”

Debunker: “That “scientist” so-called was an alcoholic who got fired because he has obviously lost his marbles and this is NOT a peer-reviewed paper … Anyone can post a paper there who is willing to pay the fee … LMFAO!!!”

In one fell swoop your debunker, even though he was lying, now has you off-balance and therefore on the defensive … He hasn’t at this point even had to read let alone address what’s IN said peer-reviewed paper … Any action you take from this point on will make your comments on this thread look like a pathetic attempt to defend something that really needed no defense in the first place … Here’s how this exchange should have gone ….

Debunker: “You twoofers don’t have ONE shred of evidence to back up what you’re saying!! … Not ONE … If you did it would be all over the news like yesterday … Admit it your just a crackpot with nothing but bare assertions and opinions!!”

Truther: “Well … (gives specific, undeniable, short, and easy to understand excerpt from a reliable source such as a peer-reviewed journal entry that this truther already knows backwards and forwards) ….”

Debunker: “You just make that shit up or what? … You’re a fucking Idiot!!”

Truther: “Only a moron would think that I made that up and your obviously not a moron … I got this information from an incredibly reliable source … And here’s something else I found interesting (Pastes another shockingly accurate and truthful fact from the same source that ties into nicely with the first pasted excerpt) … THESE are NOT my opinions no matter how much you would like to think so … THESE are FACTS!!”

Debunker: “Your obviously a fucking liar!! … Does Bin Ladin pay you to be a terrorist sympathizer or do you bend over for him for free?!!”

Truther: “What specifically about this is a lie? … (pastes another undeniably truthful excerpt) … And as I said be SPECIFIC this time!”

Debunker: “KOOK!!”

Truther: “That’s what I thought … Nothing I’ve said here is even remotely close to being ‘kooky’ … (pastes another excerpt)

Debunker: “Do you sleep with your mother too? … Cause I did!!”

Truther: “You having sex with my dead mother has absolutely nothing to do with this! … (pastes another excerpt)

Truther: (pastes another excerpt)

Truther: (pastes another excerpt)

Truther: (pastes another excerpt)

Truther: (pastes another excerpt)

Now wasn’t that a hell of a lot more fun?? … At this stage just keep pasting excerpts until your “debunker” gives up and starts making some sense or leaves … No matter what he says just ignore him … If you get to the end of that source and your “debunker” is still being a nuisance move on to the next source … There are plenty … I know this technique is effective because I used it against the infamous “troyfromwestvriginia” on YouTube and mopped up the floor with him … I was on his page and at an incredible disadvantage so if it worked against him it can work against your “debunker” ….


Don’t ever answer this question!!! … First of all YOU don’t have to … Leave that question for your “debunker” friend to answer … Remember that you are NOT an expert on investigating mass murders so do pretend to be … In fact pretend to know nothing …Your still on the fence …

Truther: “Hell I’m on the fence about all this … By all means persuade me … Please … Do me the favor of NOT being a truther anymore ….”

If you had the money, connections, authority, unlimited manpower, and unlimited resources you would have gotten the answer to that years ago … That doesn’t take pointing out provable factual errors out of your arsenal so don’t let them act like they can get away with this type of maneuver on you for even a second … If your on trial for murder and you’ve scientifically proven beyond all reasonable doubt you didn’t do it the prosecutor doesn’t get to turn around and say …”Well until you drag the real culprits here into court and make them confess in front of us we’re still going to find you guilty anyway!” … At least not unless your a terrorist suspect inside a the living hell of a military commission … That’s why military commissions are such an abomination to the human race as a whole … So trust me … Don’t give your opinion about anything especially about those responsible in a debate with a “debunker” … If you go down this road prepare yourself to fall off a cliff you could have avoided …Add to that the fact that it’s a step that is completely unnecessary and one you can win without taking ….


Your just more than happy to point out a fact or two here and there to let them know your listening to what they are saying and your actually going to have the gall to check … Point out the things you find wrong with what they are telling you … Don’t settle for a battle of the links with an insult chaser … Make them be specific … Make THEM tell you SPECIFICALLY WHAT is nutty or wrong with whatever it is your showing them and call them on it … THEY won’t do it in most cases unless they genuinely want to learn something which will be an important indicator for you in determining what kind of skeptic your up against … If you are indeed up against a true skeptic be willing to admit when you’re wrong and do it right away … The sooner the better ….


You have TWO ears and in this day and age TWO eyes vs ONE mouth when communicating … So an 80% listening and reading to 20% (or less) mouth ratio is ideal when dealing with “Debunkers” or anyone else for that matter … Any time you can use their exact words against them you are obligated to do so … In most cases their hypocrisy is so blatant that you will literally be able to cut and paste it ….


Debunkers when cornered like to say something completely dismissive of your well founded and factual argument by saying something completely untrue immediately followed by a question of their own to throw you and everyone who may be paying attention off topic … For example …

Debunker: Free fall is completely impossible and did NOT happen in the case of the wtc collapse … What actually occurred was a gravitational collapse that was two thirds of free fall … For free fall to happen there would have to be no resistance at all and that’s simply impossible as there was indeed structural support from the lower floors (duh) ….

Truther: Well if you take into account a full second of motionlessness in the beginning and a full second after it’s out of sight the collapse in it’s entirety was indeed two thirds of free fall … However this is misleading … There was in fact a full two and a half seconds of full free fall acceleration involved here that does not get counted if you do your math in this way … So for at least two and a half seconds there was free fall acceleration involved here … That’s about eight floors gone as fast as a rock falling through the air ….

Debunker: Your math there is just plain wrong, the question I have for you is who did it then if it wasn’t the terrorist hijackers who flew the planes into those buildings … How could “they” have possibly gotten thousands of tons of explosives past tens of thousands of people and a team of bomb sniffing dogs in broad daylight? … It’s just not possible … You truthers just don’t have your facts straight and it shows ….

Moderator/Third party: That’s a valid question that you truthers like to try and dodge all the time … I’d like an answer as well … Who do you think did it then? ….

You see what he did there? … At this point in most main stream debates I’ve seen the moderator would now choose to take the baton and run with it or just move on to something else entirely sighting “time constraints” thus purposely not giving the truther the chance to pound the debunker with the fact that he just said free fall was COMPLETELY impossible then covered himself with a complete lie when he was obviously caught in a situation where he would have to admit that a free fall event in fact DID happen … Even if it was only two and a half out of six and a half seconds it should not have happened AT ALL … This point alone should have won this debate right there but because the debunker was able to successfully “redirect” the truther’s point was instead rendered moot … Don’t ever be afraid to say “Now wait a minute … Back up here and acknowledge this!” … Hold their feet to the fire and refuse to “move on” to something else ….

I have been in rigorous scientific debates with experts who know far more than me with vast resources at their disposal … They all turn tail and run as soon as they realize they aren’t going to buffalo me with a bunch of fancy equations and scientific jargon … As long as you realize that a lie is a lie just like a pig is a pig no matter how much lipstick it wears you will find the flaw in their argument every time because I guarantee you there is one … The only way a debate would ever get “too complex” is if you let it … It’s never happened on one of my threads or to one of my “students” … But I can’t be all things to all threads at all times and neither can you so choose your battles wisely… Above all else and most importantly remember this … Once you choose your battle don’t ever give up no matter what … The most effective technique is to have a reputation for staying in it for the long haul every time … Doing so will make “debunkers” clear a path for you more than anything else I could ever teach you … It works!!! … I should know …..


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s