911 Photos

Gator

Thought this might be a good spot for this, cant see if its a repost,

Kurt Sonnefeld was the US government’s official photographer at Ground Zero after the aftermath of 911. He stayed at Ground Zero for over a month and shot 29 roles of film of piles of dirt and debris. Kurt says he saw things which he could not explain and the ex-FEMA member decided not to hand over the roles of film to the US government. Bad move as Kurt Sonnefeld was now being shadowed and harrassed in court. Kurt took the only action he could and he dumped the pictures on the internet. Feeding the frenzy that is the Conspiracy Theory.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread492531/pg1

Some of the comments are unreal, if you cant find the torrent for the pics let me know and I will seed

humanji

Strange that they can easily kill thousands of people, but don't kill one photographer who claims to have evidence against them.

Seriously though, some of those photos are absolutely fantastic and stirring. I've not gone through them all but so far I don't really see much that stands out. Are there specific ones that I should be looking for (there's about 500 of them, so it's hard to pick individual ones out)?

4gun

humanji wrote: »

Strange that they can easily kill thousands of people, but don't kill one photographer who claims to have evidence against them.

It's easier to discredit, call him a nut

meglome

4gun wrote: »

[
It's easier to discredit, call him a nut

So what is he an expert in other than (I assume) photography?

4gun

meglome wrote: »

So what is he an expert in other than (I assume) photography?

tell you what, i'll ring him and ask him:D

meglome

4gun wrote: »

tell you what, i'll ring him and ask him:D

Well it's the first question to ask. If my plumber comes in and tells me my garden isn't the way he feels if should be, the first thing I'll ask him is what he knows about gardens. Now if he's an expert on gardens as well then I'll have to take what he says somewhat seriously but if he knows nothing about gardens then I'll be taking what he says with a big pinch of salt. Especially if he happens to be selling a new book on plumbing and wants to grab my attention.

4gun

meglome wrote: »

Well it's the first question to ask. If my plumber comes in and tells me my garden isn't the way he feels if should be, the first thing I'll ask him is what he knows about gardens. Now if he's an expert on gardens as well then I'll have to take what he says somewhat seriously but if he knows nothing about gardens then I'll be taking what he says with a big pinch of salt. Especially if he happens to be selling a new book on plumbing and wants to grab my attention.

I''l concede that ...everyone has an agenda...sell books.. get richer ...power... world domination..:D

Penn

4gun wrote: »

humanji wrote: »

Strange that they can easily kill thousands of people, but don't kill one photographer who claims to have evidence against them.

It's easier to discredit, call him a nut

No, it'd be easier to kill if the photographer had solid evidence which could implicate them

squod

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

No, it'd be easier to kill if the photographer had solid evidence which could implicate them

So, I dunno if eveyone is on the same page as I am with these 500 photos
taken by an official photographer used in the official investigation.




96e411ee1edc.jpg


If you look closely you'll see an angled cut on (what looks like) a large piece of steel, probably an important part of the buildings structure, near the ground flloor level.

Diogenes

Kurt Sonnefeld was the US government’s official photographer at Ground Zero after the aftermath of 911. He stayed at Ground Zero for over a month and shot 29 roles

I'm calling bull**** on this story.

29 Rolls in a Month? Thats about 30 odd photos a day. That's fundamentally pathetic figure.

Hang on checking your link he's not a photographer, he's a videographer, and apparently he shot 29 tapes.

Again this is a ludicrous claim, he supposed to have been there a month and shot less than an hour a day? That he was there when Will Jimeno and John McLoughlin, and we never see the minutes Kurt shot that day? Three or four hours day would be a barely acceptable figure. But 29 tapes? Seriously? And the he refuses to hand them over to the government but gives them to abovetopsecret 8 years later?

Diogenes

squod wrote: »

So, I dunno if eveyone is on the same page as I am with these 500 photos
taken by an official photographer used in the official investigation.




96e411ee1edc.jpg


If you look closely you'll see an angled cut on (what looks like) a large piece of steel, probably an important part of the buildings structure, near the ground flloor level.

And it's not possible that the beam was cut during the clean up operation?

Myrddin

Ive looked at all the photos, and while there are some brilliant "moment" shots, I cant see what could be described as evidence against the US government.

Granted Im no photographer, but I just cannot see what this supposed evidence is. It was interesting to see the FEMA team in full biohazard gear, but that could have been for a million different reasons, after all, they were just attacked by terrorists.

It was also interesting to see the recovered jet engine, Id never seen that before. But evidence....Im blind to it lads.

squod

Diogenes wrote: »

And it's not possible that the beam was cut during the clean up operation?

I'm no expert, so I'll give examples from my point of view.

The boss tells me ' here you - cut that bleedin' bee-am over der'
Off I go and start cutting the beam at an angle.

Boss comes over, He-arr wora you bleedin' doin'. Cut the bee-am strai. We have'n gor all day!'

Seriously though, I dunno if firefighters would carry around equipment capable of cutting such exact lines from steel so thick and so far off the ground.

Cutting the beam at an angle would take much longer to do, and taking longer to do stuff in an emergency situation would be eh..... silly?

6th

Cutting a beam at an angle can make sense. If you cut it straight across the section of the beam above presses down on the cut. Also when the cut is complete you then have to knock it over. Cutting at an angle means the pressure is spread out as you cut.

Diogenes

squod wrote: »

I'm no expert, so I'll give examples from my point of view.

The boss tells me ' here you - cut that bleedin' bee-am over der'
Off I go and start cutting the beam at an angle.

Boss comes over, He-arr wora you bleedin' doin'. Cut the bee-am strai. We have'n gor all day!'

Seriously though, I dunno if firefighters would carry around equipment capable of cutting such exact lines from steel so thick and so far off the ground.

Cutting the beam at an angle would take much longer to do, and taking longer to do stuff in an emergency situation would be eh..... silly?

Notice the way I used the term "clean up" and not rescue. The Ground Zero clean up operation took years. Thousands of tonnes of steel and rubble was removed from the site. Since the photo isn't dated we've no idea about the timing of the cut. The reason for the cut. Or indeed anything about the cut. What we do know is that no demolition charge cuts. And to make a cut like that would require tools, access to the beam and days of work. In short it's not really conductive to any conspiracy theory.

Although I really like how you're making a joke about the rescue operation, and the clearing of wreckage. 3000 people died there, including hundreds of FDNY and NYPD officers trying to help with the evacuation. Thousands of firefighters spend days and night crawling through the rubble desperately searching for survivors. Many people, including a friend of mine's brother's body was never recovered from the site. People spent years shifting through the wreckage finding small amounts of bone fragments just to match to DNA to give family members something small to bury, to gain a sense of closure.

So yeah. joking about that. You're just a class act.

squod

6th wrote: »

Cutting a beam at an angle can make sense. If you cut it straight across the section of the beam above presses down on the cut. Also when the cut is complete you then have to knock it over. Cutting at an angle means the pressure is spread out as you cut.

Interesting theory.

How about point two, 'I dunno if firefighters would carry around equipment capable of cutting such exact lines from steel so thick and so far off the ground.'

humanji

squod wrote: »

I'm no expert, so I'll give examples from my point of view.

The boss tells me ' here you - cut that bleedin' bee-am over der'
Off I go and start cutting the beam at an angle.

Boss comes over, He-arr wora you bleedin' doin'. Cut the bee-am strai. We have'n gor all day!'

Seriously though, I dunno if firefighters would carry around equipment capable of cutting such exact lines from steel so thick and so far off the ground.

Cutting the beam at an angle would take much longer to do, and taking longer to do stuff in an emergency situation would be eh..... silly?

Unfortunately we don't know the context of the photo, it's location or what part of the structure we're looking at. It could of been a girder that had been cut at that angle when the building was built (as in it could of been part of a corner or slope of some kind), and the fire simply charred the top. Or there may be reasons why emergency crews, salvage crews would cut at an angle like that to make it easier to remove.

humanji

squod wrote: »

Interesting theory.

How about point two, 'I dunno if firefighters would carry around equipment capable of cutting such exact lines from steel so thick and so far off the ground.'

Also, if you look at the cut, it doesn't seem that even. There's an extra chunk on the corner nearest us, and the rest doesn't look too even.

Diogenes

squod wrote: »

Interesting theory.

How about point two, 'I dunno if firefighters would carry around equipment capable of cutting such exact lines from steel so thick and so far off the ground.'

Did you miss the bit about the photo not being dated, and that it can have been taken at any point in the months and years the site was being cleared?

squod

Diogenes wrote: »

Did you miss the bit about the photo not being dated, and that it can have been taken at any point in the months and years the site was being cleared?

Yeah, I heard it was taken last week.

6th

squod wrote: »

Interesting theory.

How about point two, 'I dunno if firefighters would carry around equipment capable of cutting such exact lines from steel so thick and so far off the ground.'

I'm not a fire fighter so I dont know. I just know I've cut a fair bit of steal in my time.

*Actually on that I might see if I can find a firefighter on Boards and ask them to pop by with their opinion.

squod

6th wrote: »

I'm not a fire fighter so I dont know. I just know I've cut a fair bit of steal in my time.

*Actually on that I might see if I can find a firefighter on Boards and ask them to pop by with their opinion.

That'd be great thanks.

Diogenes

squod wrote: »

Yeah, I heard it was taken last week.

Cute. But the fact remains, you're looking at the photo and presuming the beam was cut by firemen in the immediate aftermath of the attack. You've nothing to support this assertion. It's a baseless claim.

squod

Diogenes wrote: »

Cute. But the fact remains, you're looking at the photo and presuming the beam was cut by firemen in the immediate aftermath of the attack. You've nothing to support this assertion. It's a baseless claim.

Kurt Sonnefeld was the US government’s official photographer at Ground Zero after the aftermath of 911. He stayed at Ground Zero for over a month and shot 29 roles of film of piles of dirt and debris. Kurt says he saw things which he could not explain and the ex-FEMA member decided not to hand over the roles of film to the US government. Bad move as Kurt Sonnefeld was now being shadowed and harrassed in court. Kurt took the only action he could and he dumped the pictures on the internet. Feeding the frenzy that is the Conspiracy Theory.

This is the OP's point and these photos were for use in the original FEMA investigation.

Why would FEMA use baseless photos? I'm not following you're line of reasoning on this topic.

Diogenes

squod wrote: »

Kurt Sonnefeld was the US government’s official photographer at Ground Zero after the aftermath of 911. He stayed at Ground Zero for over a month and shot 29 roles of film of piles of dirt and debris.o

According to the link he claims he was a videographer. And shot 29 rolls of tape.

29 rolls of tape, or 29 rolls of film in the course of a month is a pathetically small amount of tape or film. He either shot about a roll of photos a day, or 60 minutes a tape. Neither is a credible amount of material.

Kurt says he saw things which he could not explain and the ex-FEMA member decided not to hand over the roles of film to the US government. Bad move as Kurt Sonnefeld was now being shadowed and harrassed in court.

Harassed in court how? Civil cases? Criminal? Can you support this?

Kurt took the only action he could and he dumped the pictures on the internet. Feeding the frenzy that is the Conspiracy Theory.

Why did he wait 8 years then?
This is the OP's point and these photos were for use in the original FEMA investigation.

Why would FEMA use baseless photos? I'm not following you're line of reasoning on this topic.[/QUOTE]

squod

Diogenes wrote: »

Can you support this?

Why would I support that ? I don't work for FEMA!

Curiuos question though.

Shouldn't we be discussing the images contained in the post or debating their' significance? Maybe we should debate the comments posted on the site as the OP hinted. But asking me to support some dudes story?

Like, I dunno the fugger. So, are you trying to distract me?????

Diogenes

squod wrote: »

Why would I support that ? I don't work for FEMA!

Curiuos question though.

Shouldn't we be discussing the images contained in the post or debating their' significance? Maybe we should debate the comments posted on the site as the OP hinted. But asking me to support some dudes story?

Like, I dunno the fugger. So, are you trying to distract me?????

Well for example he claims he was harassed via the courts. This should be an easy claim to support. You've made the claim the onus is on you to support it.

squod

Diogenes wrote: »

Well for example he claims he was harassed via the courts. This should be an easy claim to support. You've made the claim the onus is on you to support it.

Turns out the dude who wrote the on the webpage made the claim.
I'm just here to discuss the webpage.

"This should be an easy claim to support." Kewl, why don't you do it then, not me. Back to topic, I find these photos interesting and the comments even more interestinger. Thanks OP.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread492531/pg1

Diogenes

squod wrote: »

Turns out the dude who wrote the on the webpage made the claim.
I'm just here to discuss the webpage.

"This should be an easy claim to support." Kewl, why don't you do it then, not me.

No see I want to introduce you, to reality. Squod Reality. Reality meet Squod.

The article makes the claim, you link to the article. If you believe the article and give it weight you should be able to support the claims.

Put simply, Kurt claims he is being harassed through the US courts. When I ask for evidence you demand I provide the evidence to dispute or support the claim you think is significant.

To, and I must be clear this is an allegory provide an example, if I accused another poster on this forum of being a paedophile, I'd be, at the very least expected to provide supporting evidence. If I reacted and said "hey well prove he's not" I'd face a massive backlash. Kurt Sonnerfeld is making outlandish claims. Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence. Is it wrong to not accept his word on this matter?

Your standard of proof is nothing but a double standard.

Back to topic, I find these photos interesting and the comments even more interestinger. Thanks OP.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread492531/pg1

A) You don't explain the why of your position.

Interestinger?

Penn

squod wrote: »

If you look closely you'll see an angled cut on (what looks like) a large piece of steel, probably an important part of the buildings structure, near the ground flloor level.

But the towers collapsed from the tops, where the planes hit. The steel could only have been cut after the building collapsed. So whats the issue?

I'm only guessing here, but I'd say the reason they cut it at an angle was so it would fall in a certain direction. Cutting it straight, it could fall back on the person cutting it, or onto someone else in the vicinity. Cutting at a steeper angle, although it takes longer, may help determine the direction of collapse. Although as I said, thats just me guessing

squod

Diogenes wrote: »

No see I want to introduce you, to reality. Squod Reality. Reality meet Squod.

The article makes the claim, you link to the article. If you believe the article and give it weight you should be able to support the claims.

Put simply, Kurt claims he is being harassed through the US courts. When I ask for evidence you demand I provide the evidence to dispute or support the claim you think is significant.

To, and I must be clear this is an allegory provide an example, if I accused another poster on this forum of being a paedophile, I'd be, at the very least expected to provide supporting evidence. If I reacted and said "hey well prove he's not" I'd face a massive backlash. Kurt Sonnerfeld is making outlandish claims. Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence. Is it wrong to not accept his word on this matter?

Your standard of proof is nothing but a double standard.




A) You don't explain the why of your position.

Interestinger?

So then you are trying to distract me? Eh.... why?

And whats with this statement, "If you believe the article and give it weight you should be able to support the claims. "


Who says I "believe the article and give it weight" and "should be able to support the claims." Distraction techniques might work on some other dudes, not me. That's a reality. Back to the topic........

Hopefully 6th is getting back to me about a firefighters opinion which I will be interested in hearing.

squod

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

But the towers collapsed from the tops, where the planes hit. The steel could only have been cut after the building collapsed. So whats the issue?

I'm only guessing here, but I'd say the reason they cut it at an angle was so it would fall in a certain direction. Cutting it straight, it could fall back on the person cutting it, or onto someone else in the vicinity. Cutting at a steeper angle, although it takes longer, may help determine the direction of collapse. Although as I said, thats just me guessing

Yep were all just guessing. I reckon more people will join the discussion and shed more light.

Torakx

ok i may be ignorant here but im assuming you all have watched programs about 911 and the suspicious circumstances around it.

its pretty well explained why it was not a plane that knocked the building down.

they fell at freefall speeds which is impossible without a demolition team.
the steel is ment to take extreme heats yet the whole thing burned and collapsed with a much lower temperature than the steel could melt at.
so what knocked them down?

im sure the pics show alot of things but i think everyone is probably passed the evidence part in regards the buildings colapsing and more looking to find a way to actually get the guys into court.

ps the chemical used to melt the steel is a special clay like material that reacts with the metal and burns it at crazy high temperatures. a demo crew gave a run through on another building in a documentary i was watching explaining why it is applied at an angle etc etc.
i dont think firemen have these chemicals for demolition.

King Mob

Maybe you should look up some material that's critical of the conspiracies?
Cause both of these "facts" have long been debunked.

Torakx wrote: »

they fell at freefall speeds which is impossible without a demolition team.

The towers didn't fall at free fall speeds.
http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

Torakx wrote: »

the steel is ment to take extreme heats yet the whole thing burned and collapsed with a much lower temperature than the steel could melt at.
so what knocked them down?

Steel loses about half it's strength at the temperature of the fires in the WTC.

Torakx wrote: »

ps the chemical used to melt the steel is a special clay like material that reacts with the metal and burns it at crazy high temperatures. a demo crew gave a run through on another building in a documentary i was watching explaining why it is applied at an angle etc etc.
i dont think firemen have these chemicals for demolition.

I'm pretty sure this clay like material doesn't exist.
Can you think of the name?

Torakx

i dont remmeber the name of the stuff they use for demolition on steel supports but il try find it when i get time.looked into all this like a year ago or more lol

from what i remember there were fires in much older buildings years before that were built the same way. these fires burned for a couple of days and the buildings stayed up.

now i am also told the steel that was in the WTC could not have melted or weakened enough to colapse it by burning fuel.

another conspiracy theory is that a 3rd building also wnet down nearby without any reason. didnt double chekc on that one if it was real probably not because that would be laughably suspicious if it had.

the pentagon was hit by a plane supposedly..yet alot of things seem to show it was a missile or some kind.
im sorry i havent watched these debunked vids yet but might have a looksee tomorrow..i mean today lol.

ok the one i saw was thermite.but that is inconclusive because of the trace chemicals left behind was said to be not enough evidence.
the only thing i can say is that those angles were not by chance.now wether they were there right after the colapse or after the cleanup i dont know.

but the whole 911 thing is suspiciously handy for america to go into iraq dont you think?
i doubt the "terrorists" profited from that as much as Bush and co.
so despite some facts being not so clear and alot of coincedences i am one of those that would be hard swayed to believe a simple story like some fanatics organised this and managed to dispatch all the US aircraft defence out of the way at the same time.
let alone the rest of the things that happened.

bonkey

squod wrote: »

Why would I support that ? I don't work for FEMA!

Curiuos question though.

So if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that everything said by an employee of FEMA is to be believed, without any evidence to support the claim, until we can prove that its false?

squod

bonkey wrote: »

So if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that everything said by an employee of FEMA is to be believed, without any evidence to support the claim, until we can prove that its false?

I dunno if you missed the official investigation by the oficially appointed investigation team, FEMA.You could google it for yourself I'm sure.

Things that trouble me about these statements is that people, it seems, are choosing to ignore evidence, for or against, the theories around 9/11. If people dowanna know, thats all kewl and the gang.

I'd like to think that an investigation into 9/11 would turn up some stuff that would prevent something like this happening again in the future. If that kind of thing isn't your bag than just say so.

Torakx

oh my god! FEMA was in charge of investigating it??!!!
thats actually hilarious!
why not just put bush or obama in a bus to the WTC and let him have a look around.
5 mins after getting there "sorry guys this all looks standard nothing to see here"

squod

squod wrote: »

I'd like to think that an investigation into 9/11 would turn up some stuff that would prevent something like this happening again in the future. .

This is my core reasoning, I've already considered one of the photos the OP has posted and asked for help with understanding it. You could help me out here and maybe take a look at some of the other photos.

Pehaps outline your theory and how these photos fit into it.

Diogenes

squod wrote: »

I'd like to think that an investigation into 9/11 would turn up some stuff that would prevent something like this happening again in the future. If that kind of thing isn't your bag than just say so.


Um. in the last 8 years we've not had a 9/11 scale event on US soil.

Completely preventing terrorism is impossible. The Provisional IRA released an infamous statement in 1984 "Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You have to be lucky always".

Simply put no security organisation can utterly prevent a dedicated foe constantly.

Pehaps outline your theory and how these photos fit into it.

Perhaps you should outline what you think is the importance of the these photographs.

You've also claimed that Kurt was harassed. Or repeated these claims without any supporting reference.

The_Kew_Tour

What I laugh about this thread is there site showing proof of something not right and people on here then showing flipping site to show otherwise because mister so so said so..

The only people with Proof in here seem to be people who dont believe in the 9/11 conspiracy.

Never seen likes of it.

squod

adrian280582 wrote: »

What I laugh about this thread is there site showing proof of something not right and people on here then showing flipping site to show otherwise because mister so so said so..

The only people with Proof in here seem to be people who dont believe in the 9/11 conspiracy.

Never seen likes of it.

Strange, again another contributor not talking about the photos or the comments on the webpage.

The_Kew_Tour

squod wrote: »

Strange, again another contributor not talking about the photos or the comments on the webpage.

and theres another

Nick_oliveri

The pictures are great, I was wondering when this thread would show up here. Kurt has given the pictures but not the video. One would think that he would release the tapes and be "left alone". It would be pretty stupid to kill him even now or if he released the tapes with the supposed footage. I think its BS though. And its more than likely all going to go wrong for him if he steps foot in America.

The pictures show nothing out of the ordinary (considering). Everyone should see these pictures though. "Nut" or "Not"! :P

steve jensen

To all that are having difficulty understanding and accepting the "truthseekers" point of view I suggest the following very complete and professional video.

http://world911truth.org/911-blueprint-for-truth/

It answers almost all the questions and puts to rest the fact that the government reports are filled with anomalies. Take the time to watch the video and then sit back as the paradigm shift takes place in your brain. Get on board the "truth train" before it is too late. Put your "that's preposterous" brain filters on hold and allow yourself to assimilate the evidence before "a priori" rejecting it on the grounds that it makes you and the rest of America uncomfortable. The truth always does!

Thanks for your time,
Steve Jensen

Diogenes

steve jensen wrote: »

To all that are having difficulty understanding and accepting the "truthseekers" point of view I suggest the following very complete and professional video.

http://world911truth.org/911-blueprint-for-truth/

It answers almost all the questions and puts to rest the fact that the government reports are filled with anomalies. Take the time to watch the video and then sit back as the paradigm shift takes place in your brain. Get on board the "truth train" before it is too late. Put your "that's preposterous" brain filters on hold and allow yourself to assimilate the evidence before "a priori" rejecting it on the grounds that it makes you and the rest of America uncomfortable. The truth always does!

Thanks for your time,
Steve Jensen

oh it's Richard Gage. I'd suggest seeing it's your first post, here, you might want to search this forum. Theres nothing new in Gage's film, that we haven't discussed here before at length.

6th

Search function is currently down. Let him talk and if anyone wants to join in ... cool.

steve jensen

Thanks for your comments. Yeah. I am a new kid on the block and am very concerned about the paradigm shift my brain has gone through in the last 3 months regards WTC 7 and everything it points to. It has widened my horizons just a bit; so I posted the other day in the hope of getting anyone to watch the video and see the truth of what has happened in our nation. Truly a trajic event that cannot begin to be corrected until many more people turn off their television sets and start doing some homework. Thanks for your openess to my mistake about how far into this you all probably are. Without the search function operational....i get lost in trying to find out where the previous comments on Dr. David Ray are....so if you can give me the urls in this site...i would be happy...delighted to read the comments. Thanks again for your help

steve jensen

Just a little clarification, that I just realized is in order. I guess there is a ton of wisdom in the saying "look before you leap". Now that I stand back and do a little perusing of the site I see that it is from the good ol emerald isle. What an honor to have stumbled upon such a great site. I have not visited your country since I lived in Dublin for two years over 30 ago.

I'm a bloody American livin' in Asia so no wonder i just assumed it was an American site.... before realizing that google takes me to Europe from here and not the good ol' US of A.

So....once again thank you for your warm and kind welcome....it is a pleasure and an honor to speak to any of you....be careful and do your best to not let your country get destroyed in the way the America is being murdered....and I would love to share a Guiness with you if I ever get the chance. In the mean time I look forward to any discussions you will permit me to join.

Diogenes

steve jensen wrote: »

Thanks for your comments. Yeah. I am a new kid on the block and am very concerned about the paradigm shift my brain has gone through in the last 3 months regards WTC 7 and everything it points to. It has widened my horizons just a bit; so I posted the other day in the hope of getting anyone to watch the video and see the truth of what has happened in our nation. Truly a trajic event that cannot begin to be corrected until many more people turn off their television sets and start doing some homework. Thanks for your openess to my mistake about how far into this you all probably are. Without the search function operational....i get lost in trying to find out where the previous comments on Dr. David Ray are....so if you can give me the urls in this site...i would be happy...delighted to read the comments. Thanks again for your help

With the search function down, I can think of no better refutation of Dr Griffin than Ryan Mackey's paper

In this paper, we examine the claims of Dr. David Ray Griffin regarding the NIST investigation into the World Trade Center disasters, and find those claims to be unfounded. All 18 major claims are discussed and rigorously dismissed, and a further analysis of the text reveals an overwhelming density of factual and logical errors.



This paper refutes Dr. Griffin’s major claims, supporting with evidence that the aircraft impacts are expected to significantly damage the structures, that the resulting fires were of both sufficient temperature and duration to cause structural collapse, that a progressive collapse resulting in total destruction of the Towers was the likely result, and that the “controlled demolition” hypothesis is speculative and unsupported by any evidence. We also discuss the anticipated NIST report on World Trade Center Seven. The author highlights the fundamental sources of errors present in Dr. Griffin’s research and provides a template to evaluate future claims using resources available in open literature.

You can download Ryan Mackey's paper as a .doc or .pdf Here

[Jackass]

While I love my therios of home there's more than meets the eye, particularly with 9/11 I think there's very dodgy circumstances surrounding, unfortunately, this type of stuff illistrates people looknig for things that just aren't there.

Look at the below picture and where the arrow points:



Many people in those comments describing this photo as proof that the collapse was a demo job as the beam is cut at an angle and there doesn't seem to be any workwers clearing this area and this would have been a "hot spot" (where fireman boots would melt up to a week after the collapse due to smouldering ruins) and this is the way demo crews ensure building collapse within their own footprint.

However, to me, this is just a normal beam sticking out of the ruins at an angle and nothing more...