JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate

Education Forum Moderated by Anti-Semitic Crackpot---John Simkin is Aware

<< < (7/29) > >>

Mitch Todd:

--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on March 10, 2026, 05:53:34 PM ---Gee, why am I not surprised that you would spring to the defense of Niederhut's "right" to post here so he can defend himself, never mind that he won't afford that same right to people whom he attacks or disagrees with on the Education Forum.

--- End quote ---
My position is neither an endorsement nor condemnation Niederhut's behavior at the EF. Nor is it an endorsement or condemnation of anything Ben C has said at the EF or here. I simply noted that Niederhut should be allowed to respond here to something that Ben has posted here about him. It is a position born of simple human decency. Nor has WN violated any of the rules here. Why then should he be banned for posting here?



--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on March 10, 2026, 05:53:34 PM ---Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job carried out by U.S. intelligence agents, that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolitions planted by U.S. intel operatives, that Israel purposely attacked the USS Liberty in 1967 and that powerful Zionists helped cover it up, that Hamas is the victim and Israel the aggressor, that the Israeli government played a role in JFK's death, and that Fletcher Prouty was a credible source? Niederhut believes all of these things.

--- End quote ---
Why would you think that I believed in any of these ideas?

Tom Graves:

--- Quote from: Mitch Todd on March 10, 2026, 10:32:08 PM ---My position is neither an endorsement nor condemnation of Niederhut's behavior at the EF. Nor is it an endorsement or condemnation of anything Ben C has said at the EF or here. I simply noted that Niederhut should be allowed to respond here to something that Ben has posted here about him. It is a position born of simple human decency. Nor has WN violated any of the rules here. Why then should he be banned for posting here? Why would you [Griffith] think that I believed in any of these ideas [i.e., that "9/11 was an inside job carried out by U.S. intelligence agents, that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolitions planted by U.S. intel operatives, that Israel purposely attacked the USS Liberty in 1967 and that powerful Zionists helped cover it up, that Hamas is the victim and Israel the aggressor, that the Israeli government played a role in JFK's death, and that Fletcher Prouty was a credible source"]?
--- End quote ---

Those things are just as loony as Griffith's KGB-encouraged belief that the evil, evil Deep State killed JFK.

Dr. William Niederhut:
Same old bogus Michael Griffith propaganda tropes about Prouty.  These have been debunked in detail by Prouty archivist Len Osanic, and Prouty historian Jeff Carter.  As for Griffith's official status as a WCR critic, is it a limited hangout?

Tom Graves:

--- Quote from: Dr. William Niederhut on March 06, 2026, 09:13:22 PM ---The scientific research of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth-- a group of engineering and science professionals -- has documented the visible (and audible) explosive, free fall demolitions of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 on 9/11.

--- End quote ---

ME: What evidence is there that 9/11 was "an inside job"?

GROK: There is no credible evidence that the September 11, 2001 attacks were an "inside job" orchestrated or deliberately allowed by the U.S. government or other internal actors. Multiple exhaustive official investigations, independent scientific analyses, and engineering studies have concluded that the attacks were planned and executed by al-Qaeda terrorists under Osama bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission Report attributed the attacks to 19 hijackers from al-Qaeda, citing intelligence failures, bureaucratic issues, and a "failure of imagination" as reasons they were not prevented—not complicity. Government investigations (including by the FBI, FEMA, and NIST), the civil engineering community, and fact-checking outlets like Popular Mechanics (in reports updated as recently as 2025) have consistently rejected inside-job claims after examining debris, videos, seismic data, eyewitness accounts, DNA, black boxes, and simulations.

Proponents (including groups like Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which claims over 3,000 signatories but represents a fringe view criticized by mainstream professional bodies) point to alleged "anomalies" as proof of controlled demolition, missiles, foreknowledge, or staging. These claims have been repeatedly tested and debunked as misinterpretations, selective data, or inconsistencies explainable by physics, chaos of the day, and forensics. No peer-reviewed evidence supports explosives, stand-down orders, or government orchestration; legal challenges alleging inside involvement (e.g., suits against Cheney or Rumsfeld) have been dismissed as baseless. (emphasis added)

Here are the main categories of alleged evidence cited by "truthers," along with the factual rebuttals:

1. Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC 7

Claimed evidence: Buildings fell at "free-fall speed" symmetrically (like demolitions); molten steel in rubble; "thermite" chips in dust; puffs of smoke/debris ("squibs"); seismic spikes before collapse; fires from jet fuel couldn't melt/weaken steel beams.

Rebuttal: NIST's multi-year investigations (2005 for towers, 2008 for WTC 7) concluded plane impacts stripped fireproofing, and fires (fueled by jet fuel plus office contents, reaching up to ~1,000°C) caused steel to lose 50–90% of its strength without melting. This led to progressive "pancake" collapses. WTC 7 collapsed after ~7 hours of uncontrolled fires (ignited by debris from the North Tower), causing thermal expansion that disconnected a key girder from Column 79, triggering progressive failure—not explosives.

The North Tower facade fell in 5.4 seconds (not pure free fall of ~3.9 seconds); it had stages of resistance, matching NIST models. "Puffs" were compressed air and pulverized concrete from collapsing floors. No explosive residues or blast sounds (which would have been deafening) were found in debris, air samples, or videos. "Molten metal" was likely aluminum from the planes or other materials; thermite claims rely on unverified samples inconsistent with observed fires. Seismic data showed gradual waves from collapse, not bomb spikes. Popular Mechanics and structural experts confirmed this via simulations and eyewitness accounts.

2. Pentagon Attack (Not a Plane)

Claimed evidence: Entry hole "too small" for a Boeing 757; minimal wreckage visible; intact windows; "missile" trajectory.

Rebuttal: American Airlines Flight 77 (a 757) struck the building. The ~75-foot initial damage zone matches the plane's fuselage and sheared wings (one wing hit the ground); interior damage and a 12-foot hole in Ring C came from the landing gear. Eyewitnesses (dozens), jet fuel smells, plane debris (including marked parts, black box, and tail section), DNA from all victims/crew, and flight data confirm it. Blast-resistant windows survived due to design. The "small hole" photos ignore progressive collapse of the facade. No missile evidence exists.

3. Foreknowledge, Stock Trades, or Stand-Down

Claimed evidence: Unusual airline stock "put options" days prior; ignored intelligence warnings; NORAD "stand-down"; Israeli "dancing" agents or warnings to Jews.

Rebuttal: The SEC and FBI investigated trades—most were by institutional investors or unrelated; no insider profits linked to al-Qaeda or U.S. officials. Warnings were vague and not actionable due to pre-9/11 intelligence silos (detailed in the 9/11 Commission). NORAD delays stemmed from outdated protocols and confusion, not orders. Early hijacker identity mix-ups were reporting errors in chaos; all 19 were confirmed dead. Claims of Israeli involvement or Jewish warnings are antisemitic tropes with no evidence; the "dancing Israelis" were detained and cleared.

4. Other Claims (Flight 93, No Planes, etc.)

Claimed evidence: Debris field for Flight 93 too wide (shot down); plane footage looks fake; hijackers "still alive."

Rebuttal: Flight 93 crashed after passenger revolt (per cockpit recordings and calls); scattered lightweight debris was wind-blown at high speed. Black boxes, wreckage, and DNA confirm all crashes. No credible "hologram" or remote-control evidence; thousands of witnesses, videos, and radar tracked the planes. Hijacker "survivors" were name confusions (common Arabic names).

Conspiracy theories require thousands of participants (pilots, engineers, investigators, media) to maintain perfect secrecy for decades while leaving "obvious" clues—logically implausible and unsupported by any whistleblower or document. Some variants tie into antisemitic tropes (e.g., Mossad or "Jewish owners"), which lack evidence and have been discredited.

In summary, the "evidence" for an inside job consists of debunked anomalies and selective interpretations that ignore the mountain of forensic, eyewitness, and intelligence data pointing to al-Qaeda. Official reports, peer-reviewed science, and ongoing analyses (with no credible new revelations as of 2026) uphold the terrorist attack explanation. Believing otherwise typically stems from distrust or misinformation rather than verifiable proof. For primary sources, read the NIST WTC reports or the full 9/11 Commission Report.

Tom Graves:

--- Quote from: [size=14pt]Dr. [/size]William Niederhut on March 06, 2026, 09:13:22 PM ---The truth is that Michael Griffith has never studied, nor understood, the science research of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth-- a group of engineering and science professionals who have documented the visible (and audible) explosive, free fall demolitions of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 on 9/11.

--- End quote ---

Dear DR. William Niederhut,

The "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth"?

Is that anything like the crackpot organization that calls itself "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity"?

You know, the folks who said those nice people in the KGB* and/or the GRU didn't steal the DNC's emails in 2016, and that it must have been "an inside job" by the evil, evil Deep State?

*Today's SVR and FSB

-- Tom

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page