Comments on: 04-12-30

By: Ken M

Ken M — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:33:12 +0000

I have real empathy for Jenny Z and Joseph Friendly. They live in a world clouded by uncertainty and danger, and they don’t know how to deal with it. They feel a need to believe that there is a reason that bad stuff happens, and that there is one person to blame. The hard cold truth is that, sometimes stuff just happens. One thing to remember is, “the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one.” (Occam’s razor).
In other words, some poor deluded and brainwashed terrorists hijacked plans and flew them into buildings. With the exception of one plane that was crash landed by real American heroes. The result was death, destruction, and despair. I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but like I said, sometimes stuff just happens. Peace to you and yours.

By: Clayton Miller

Clayton Miller — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:29:59 +0000

James,

The key part of nano-thermite material is that the two components you aforementioned are mixed on a molecular level, hence the name. This creates a different reaction then a aluminum grill off your car and a steel frame that it sits on.
Nano-thermite is mixed on a nanoparticle level, not a powder.

Do your research.

By: Dylan

Dylan — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:41:56 +0000

No plane hit building # 7 ?????

By: matthew

matthew — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 23:10:11 +0000

James Leers is, as usual for the bizarre type of individual that feels the need to rubbish the laws of physics and Chemistry that were working just fine on 11/9/2001, failing to tell the story based on facts. His explanation for the presence of thermite in the dust is inadequate yet he invites people to believe the state story. This is not Skeptism At all. It is sad.

By: James Leers

James Leers — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 11:18:07 +0000

Joseph Friendly, you are in world of your own. You say the evidence of controlled demolishion is overwhelming? I’d say the evidence of aeroplanes crashing into the buildings is slightly more overwhelming. I saw them. Do you even know what thermite is? Its a 50/50 mix of Iron Oxide and Aluminium Powder. When ignited by a primary agent, like gunpowder, it burns very hot, the oxygen is released from the iron and bonds to the aluminium, releasing energy. Thus, exothermic, self-oxidising reaction. Now here’s the rub: iron and aluminium are present IN ALL BUILDINGS. They are what we humans call BUILDING MATERIALS. So by saying they found evidence of thermite reagents in the towers, your effectively saying the found IRON AND ALUMINIUM in the rubble from towers. Which can be roughly translated to: Upon testing the material from the buildings, they found evidence of building materials. And this is your “overwhelming evidence of controlled demolition”? So far it fails on the demolition front, the controlled front, and the evidence front. It does pass however, on the Your an Idiot front. You flew too close to the sun, on wings made of stupid.

James.

By: Jenny Z.

Jenny Z. — Fri, 21 May 2010 18:21:07 +0000

Funny how these so-called “skeptics” like Mr. Case are only skeptical of real skeptics and not the government/corporation spin doctors that consistently tell tall tales and weave fraudulent mythologies in order to garner more power and profit.

It would appear that “skeptics” like Mr. Case are more interested in shoring up the often fraudulent foundations and bloated sacred cows of their own “intellects” than finding any kind of truth or reason in the greater world.
He proclaims that the suppositions of others are no longer “good enough” as though he is the standard bearer for rational thought in a position to rate the studies and conclusions of others.
The smug self aggrandizing tone of the author does little to evoke the gravitas he apparently feels his words carry.

That said, it is always nice to have yet another “intellectual” point out the blatantly obvious superficial aspects of linguistics for the genuinely curious questioners that they consistently smear with the denigrating label “conspiracy theorist”.

p.s. Nice straw man insert with the Bill Gates = 666 thing. It is always potent when you stir in the loony fringe bits with legitimate questions and connections. Nice touch.

By: Joseph Friendly

Joseph Friendly — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:20:02 +0000

Philip Zelikow, who served in the GW Bush administration, first on the transition team from Clinton for national security affairs and was very close to Condoleezza Rice, led an Aspen Security Seminar in April 1998 tellingly entitled, Catastrophic Terrorism, Element of a National Policy, which was published in the Nov/Dec 1998 Foreign Affairs Quarterly. It talks of a terrorist event that might kill “several thousand” which could serve to advance a foreign policy agenda. Several attended the seminar who later served with Zelikow in the Bush Administration, particularly Scooter Libby. The paper reads like the play-book for how the Bush Administration used the 911 tragedy, asserting “911 changed everything.”

The choice of Zelikow as Executive Directory of the 911 Investigation Commission was over the top. Zelikow hired the investigating attorneys, told them who to interview, edited their reports of interviews, worked closely with the individual he chose to write the final report.

The investigation refused to even consider the collapse of the buildings as result of controlled demolition. Investigation of insider trading was halted when it was concluded it did not point to Arabs. The Report failed to include much crucial information witnesses claim they provided.

Philip Shenon’s book on the 911 Commission describes Zelikow starting out the investigation with a prepared draft outline and instructing his secretary not to log his many phone calls from Karl Rove. Zelikow, himself, listed among his skill set after completing that cover-up to include, “creation and maintenance of public myth.”

By: Joseph Friendly

Joseph Friendly — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:05:37 +0000

The evidence of controlled demolition on 9/11 is overwhelming!
The 3 WTC buildings collapsing at about free fall speed is normal
for controlled demolition but impossible to explain otherwise.
Burning jet fuel softening steel supports almost simultaneously
throughout the structures is nonsense.

LVI Services Incorporated got a $2.65 million Pentagon contract
around 2000 to develop a nano-thermite spray, then another million
dollar World Trade Center contract in 2000 supposedly to treat
their asbestos problem, giving LVI opportunity to freely enter the
WTC buildings and spray nano-thermite all over the inner spaces
between floors.

How else to explain that virtually all the buildings’ concrete
flooring, office contents, and people were pulverized into an
unusually fine dust, easily flushed down sewers with water?
A collapse simply from structural failure would have resulted in
chunks of concrete, crushed office furniture and people.

The smoking gun then comes along as a 2009 published scientific
paper, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust
from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, by Niels H. Harrit,
Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, et al finding
nano-thermite chips in all 4 dust samples of the 9/11 event collected
at various sites. How else to explain molten iron at the bottom of
the rubble piles of all 3 buildings except from thermite?

By: Ron in Alaska

Ron in Alaska — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 06:50:20 +0000

Mike L. says, “(Of course while offering no solution at all.)”
Here are a few:
-Terrorists flew planes into the buildings on 9/11
-Oswald shot Kennedy
-Roosevelt was surprised by Pearl Harbor
Case seems to be simply going with the most logical explanations for these tragic events.
Not as sexy as vast conspiracies and evil villians, we must admit.
“Three people can keep a secret … if two of them are dead.”
… Ben Franklin, (Who, sadly, went to his death before he, Paine and Jefferson could take over the world with keys, kites and new-fangled woodstoves.)

By: Mike L.

Mike L. — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:34:02 +0000

Well at least George Case knows everything and serves up a tasty word salad to boot.
Funny thing about such “skeptics” is they like to point out the folly of others presumption while heaping on their own from the lofty perch of their high horses.
(Of course while offering no solution at all.)