New York City activist

March 8, 2008

Reply to Tom a.k.a. “Representative Press”

In a comment below my post General gripe thread – about the 9/11 Truth movement, “representativepress” (identified as Tom on his blog) wrote:

My gripe is how the facts which disprove their case don’t get a fair hearing. I have been banned from forums just for stating basic facts.

I would suggest reading a forum’s rules before you post there. You evidently did not read my comment policy, for example, because you posted video links here.

9/11 Truth movement forums vary in their policies. The rules of the Loose Change forum, for example, allow posts by opponents only in a designated Skeptics area, and forbid re-hashing certain specific common arguments by “debunkers.” Your own argument, discussed below, happens not to be one of the forbidden ones, but you might be banned for posting it in the wrong sub-forum, especially if you did so repeatedly.

I too have rules about where to post certain kinds of things. Again, see my comment policy, including Note A, below the numbered list of rules.

Anyhow, you also wrote:

Diane, I think the following info will answer your questions about 9/11:
Please check out my page WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 “Controlled Demolition” Theory.

Actually, this doesn’t tell me anything about 9/11 that I didn’t know already. I was already well aware of the published observations of column-bowing.

What this debunks, specifically, is the alleged “sudden onset of collapse” and “foreknowledge of collapse” as alleged evidence for controlled demolition of the Twin Towers.

However, it doesn’t rule out the possibility that something else (though perhaps not a full-fledged “controlled demolition” with explosives) might have been done to WTC 1, 2, and 7 besides just hitting WTC 1 and 2 with jet planes. Right now I’m taking a wait-and-see attitude toward Steven Jones’s research. (Yes, I’m aware that Steven Jones has ventured outside his field of expertise and made some serious blunders, but some key results of his have been confirmed by independent sources. And we’ll see what happens when he has more people with expertise in chemistry and metallurgy to advise him and/or replicate some other results of his. One of the things I’m now doing is to try to help find such people who might be willing to work with him. More about this in a future post.) I’ve also suggested other possible research projects for members of Richard Gage’s organization. It remains to be seen whether any relevant people are interested.

Anyhow, even if nothing was done to the WTC buildings besides hitting two of them with jet planes, there are still plenty of other fishy things that happened on 9/11, and there is plenty of evidence of subsequent coverups.

At the bottom of the linked page, you state your concern:

We have an unacceptable risk to our nation because of specific foreign policies. People who promote these erroneous 9/11 theories undermine efforts to get the focus on stopping these foreign policies. We must take a serious look at the motives for the 9/11 attacks and call for a full review of the specific foreign policies that motivate terrorists to attack us. I see a lot of people are spreading this “controlled demolition” theory, I also notice they don’t talk about ending the foreign policies.

Actually, many advocates of the “controlled demolition” theory do also oppose the same specific foreign policies that you do. Many believe that the motive for U.S. government complicity in the 9/11 attacks was to rally popular support for some of those very same polcies. Many believe that the motive of the perpetrators was to justify a century of “war on terror,” i.e. U.S. military occupation of various Muslim countries. And many people in the 9/11 Truth movement are critical of U.S. support for Israel, too, or at least U.S. support for the rabid Likud faction. You apparently have not spent much time looking at 9/11 Truth movement websites and forums, or talking to people in the 9/11 Truth movement.

In a post on your blog, you say the following:

Don’t let the Bush Administration trick us into another war. President Bush must be impeached in order to prevent him from committing another war crime by attacking Iran. We must end the wars of aggression in the Middle East, NOT expand them into a World War! Ending corrupt political policies is the only way to ensure security.

The vast majority of people in the 9/11 Truth movement would agree with this wholeheartedly. Try posting just the above three sentences in a few 9/11 Truth forums and see what kind of a reaction you get. (Just make sure you follow the forum rules about where to post it, etc.)

Try posting, also, about the real reasons why the U.S.A. is hated in much of the Muslim world (while refraining from discussing your views on 9/11 itself). You won’t get much disagreement, if any, except that some might disagree about the relative importance of the various reasons.

We all can agree that the “they hate our freedoms” excuse was ridiculous.

On a side panel on the right hand side of the web page he linked to here on my blog, you further allege:

These “9/11 was an inside job” websites look like they are well financed and they are duping many people into not questioning policies like U.S. support of Israel. Some people may indeed be deliberately misleading Americans so we won’t look at the real motives for the 9/11 attacks.

“Well financed???” Which specific websites are you talking about?

Further down on on that sidebar, you refer to the 9/11 Truth movement as the “conspiracy people” while continuing to promote your own “conspiracy theory” about the 9/11 Truth movement itself:

We have the mainstream media avoiding dealing with the prime motive for the 9/11 attack and we have these conspiracy people also not talking about the prime motive for the 9/11 attack.

And we now have a “debunker” asking for money:

We need to raise funds so we can raise our voices so all Americans can learn the truth: We were not attacked because of our freedoms and we were not attacked because the U.S. government engineered it. Anyone who plays along with these lies is helping special interests protect specific foreign policies at the expense of the American people.

Again, most people in the 9/11 Truth movement are highly critical of various aspects of U.S. foreign policy, including most if not all of the same aspects that you are.

By the way, speaking of “protecting specific foreign policies at the expense of the American people,” what do you think of Sibel Edmonds’s (and other similar whistleblowers’) allegations about the FBI?

On another subject: At the bottom of that page of yours is a link to a post on your blog titled “The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel,” which I won’t link to directly because of the outright hate speech I noticed in some comments there (though not in your own statements).

Tom, I hope you can distinguish between (1) justified criticisms of Israeli government policies and (2) blanket bigotry against Jews in general. Some of your commenters, on both sides of the debate about Israel, evidently cannot. Please point out to them that crucial distinction. Please take a stand against racism and religion-based bigotry on both sides.

The reason why many Jews believe they “need Israel,” after all, is precisely because of a justified fear of the neo-Nazi-like views voiced by too many opponents of Israel. Please address that fear by taking a stand against those neo-Nazi-like attitudes. Only if the concerns of both sides are addressed can there possibly ever be peace in the Middle East.


  1. Whether or not these buildings pre-bowed doesn’t and can’t explain away the fall speeds nor the squibs bursting 20-40 floors below action…oops.

    Comment by realitydesign — March 9, 2008 @ 6:18 pm | Reply

  2. Several mechanical engineers in Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice have concluded that the speed-of-collapse argument is NOT valid. See Greg Urich’s brief paper about this (PDF). See also the section The “Newton’s laws” argument: Incomplete without some details in my post Demolition of WTC: Let’s not overstate the case, please.

    The “squibs” argument needs further analysis to establish its validity. See the section on The “squibs” – more details needed in the above-mentioned post of mine.

    I should soon do some more research on the disposal of the steel evidence. NIST’s samples did not include any of the steel that had been (presumably) weakened the most by fire. That, in itself, is very suspicious.

    Comment by Diane — March 9, 2008 @ 10:54 pm | Reply

  3. I think the reason NIST avoids discussing things after the point of collapse initiation is because things would have gotten really messy for them once they tried to explain the progression of the collapse and *how it occured- if they can explain the mechanisms for/during the collapse in a really good way- time calculations could follow and I would bet my life that they would climb over 20 seconds and look a whole lot less neat. WTC-7 of course is another story and speaks for itself on video (not in favor of the official scenario).

    The squibs speak for themselves- at some point you just have to look at the videos and accept the precision.

    Comment by realitydesign — March 10, 2008 @ 7:39 am | Reply

  4. I wouldn’t bet my life on any aspect of anything so far outside our everyday experience as the collapse of a 110-storey skyscraper. Never before in the history of the world has such a tall and massive steel-frame skyscraper collapsed for any reason whatsoever. Intuitions about how such a tall and massive building “should” have collapsed, based on the ways that smaller buildings have collapsed, may well be incorrect.

    As I understand it, NIST’s reasons for not bothering to analyze the collapse itself (past initiation) are as follows:

    1) Modeling the collapse itself in detail would be too complicated. Too many aspects are unpredictable.

    2) The main concern of structural engineers is how to prevent collapse in the first place; hence the initiation of collapse was considered far more important to understand.

    3) Apparently there’s an almost universal consensus among structural engineers that Bazant’s explanation is more-or-less correct, though oversimplified.

    However, there’s more disagreement about the initiation of collapse. Furthermore, as I said, the fact that NIST didn’t get the most relevant steel samples strongly suggests a coverup.

    Comment by Diane — March 10, 2008 @ 11:56 am | Reply

  5. Diane, have you read Crossing the Rubicon by Mike Ruppert?

    I ask because it is considered by many to be the cornerstone maverick in 911 studies. I am reminded of this amazing book because Mike avoids discussing the collapses because:

    1. It becomes a technical quagmire with more money/resources on the side of you know who…

    2. We don’t need the wtc 1 & 2 collapse- ultimately to prove an ‘inside job’ cover up.

    Peace and Love

    Comment by realitydesign — March 10, 2008 @ 2:53 pm | Reply

  6. I have not yet read that book in particular, but I agree with the basic idea, that there are oodles of other suspicious things about 9/11 even without considering the question of what else might have been done to the WTC buildings besides just hitting two of them with jet planes.

    Comment by Diane — March 10, 2008 @ 4:31 pm | Reply

  7. OMG, you will love it!!! Mike is super critical like yourself- rigidly rigorously sharp and as an ex-LAPD cop, approaches the subject from a crime angle…your homework is to read this book ASAP! Seriously it’s like the first step in serious 911 study- ask around. You have a great blog too!

    Comment by realitydesign — March 10, 2008 @ 4:38 pm | Reply

  8. Well, yes, I certainly should read it.

    Right now, though, my focus is more on trying to persuade some of the major promoters of WTC demolition theories to present better evidence and stop promulgating the more fallacious “evidence.” I have enough of a technical background to understand the key issues involved, and I do think this matter is important.

    However, I would encourage those 9/11 Truth activists without a strong technical background to focus more on other things, as Ruppert does.

    Glad you like my blog.

    Comment by Diane — March 10, 2008 @ 7:43 pm | Reply

  9. Ahh, I see…very wise.


    Comment by realitydesign — March 10, 2008 @ 8:09 pm | Reply

  10. Hello Diane,

    Thank you for the reply. I hope this forum will be productive and will advance the cause of justice and security for all. I think this can be achieved if we discuss the facts and the issues. A quick point, I do think my gripe was justified, if you look at how the discussion of basic facts is handled, the unwillingness to discuss and the exclusion of the evidence which debunks their claims, this unreasonableness dominates their forums. I think you are trying too hard to find an excuse for the unreasonableness I have encountered several times. Did you see my e-mail exchange with Justin A. Martell, founder of Student Scholars For 9/11 Truth?

    But let’s get to the facts and issues. Thank you for taking note of some of the things I have written on my blog, I do plan to do justice to your post but I may not get to explore every point within this post, I plan to get to everything you mention, if not this post then a subsequent one.

    You wrote, “We all can agree that the “they hate our freedoms” excuse was ridiculous.” I agree. And when I say I agree, I mean that the “they hate our freedoms” excuse was ridiculous. And I assume you know that “we all”does not include all people and that not all people want this truth to be stated. And it should be pointed out that mainstream media caters to those who don’t want to think the excuse is ridiculous or don’t want others to think it is. And I should point out that the “they hate our freedoms” excuse is an excuse used to protect specific foreign policies from scrutiny, the excuse is not being used for no reason, the reason is to hide the real motives. Do you agree? Look at how pundits omit the specific foreign policies which terrorist themselves list as the reasons why they attack.

    I would like to point out how sad it is that while “we all can agree that the “they hate our freedoms” excuse was ridiculous,” we all can’t get behind that as a point of discussion to demand that it be addressed in the public forum. If the “9/11 Truth Movement” is indeed a demand for truth, why isn’t the very first rallying cry a demand that Bush stop lying about the motive for the attack? This is why it is so frustrating to see the “Truth Movement” doing what it is doing. I think you are ignoring my point about the damage this “Truth Movement” has done. You see their websites, they’re not confronting Bush on his lying about the motive, they totally misdirect people away from the reality of what the attack was about! This is such a serious thing, this really is unfair. The constant refrain about an “official story,” as if all politicians and propel in government agree on what happened, totally ignores the fact that what Bush says and what the CIA, FBI and others say are not the same thing. The movement’s constant refrain of “official story” is like a propaganda technique which suppresses the fact that Bush and the intelligence agencies are saying different things. The “9/11 Truth Movement” is a cruel joke.

    And I want to point out that I didn’t say that the “truth movement” was a conspiracy. I think most are independent people who mistakenly believe in a convoluted conspiracy theory and in doing so they unintentionally end up doing what the manipulative commissioners of the 9/111 commission did, cover-up the motives for the attacks. The frustrating thing is this is a life and death issue and I don’t like what I see from some of the more vocal and persistent advocates, an immature unreasonable behavior (I will talk about the top ones soon, meanwhile see my blog comments on Griffin and Jones.)

    I appreciate that you are tying to take a serious approach to this so we can end the corrupt political policies and that you’re at least starting to take a critical look at the convoluted “controlled demolition” theory. You are being misled by people who are charlatans, con-men or fools. Their arguments are not rational nor scientific. For goodness sakes, Jones doesn’t even understand the central basic fact about why the buildings failed, even though he has read what NIST has said.

    There is no way around it, what he doesn’t understand (and there is no good reason for not understanding it) is CENTRAL to why the buildings collapsed and it is backed up by evidence that he is ignoring either deliberately or out of incompetence. The man demonstrates clearly that he should not be writing a paper like this or be involved in any academic endeavors because if he can’t understand what NIST is saying in their report, he has no right trying to write scientific papers. I don’t know what the defect is with his mind but there is a problem of some sort, given the evidence he indicates he doesn’t understand. It really is disgusting that his ignorance or deception has gone this far. Please read what I wrote at the link, I think it is cut and dry: Prof. Steven E. Jones and his 911 paper
    Jones doesn’t understand that the photographic evidence and eyewitness reports are of the bowing perimeter columns? After quoting this part of the NIST report, “To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports,” Jones writes ” [e.g., complete collapse occurred]” ( e.g. means “for example”.) But Jones is totally wrong! NIST is NOT talking about “complete collapse” but rather is referring to the observable events BEFORE complete collapse! Jones has demonstrated that he is embarrassingly not fit to publish scientific papers.

    And this kind of incompetence, misunderstanding or deliberate deception is what makes up the “9/11 Truth Movement.” Why the hell can’t the movement deal with the things we know? The 9/11 commissioners kept testimony out of the 9/11 Report because they didn’t want the American people to reassess the policy of supporting Israel. This fact is admitted to in the Kean and Hamilton book. Why isn’t the movement even touching that fact?


    Comment by representativepress — March 11, 2008 @ 2:51 am | Reply

  11. Regarding Steven Jones, I’ve posted a comment here on Tom’s blog.

    In reply to Tom’s very enlightening post SCANDAL: 9/11 Commissioners Bowed to Pressure to Suppress Main Motive for the 9/11 Attacks, I posted a comment here on Tom’s blog.

    I’ll be posting a more complete reply to Tom’s comment above later.

    Comment by Diane — March 11, 2008 @ 6:29 pm | Reply

  12. (This comment is an edited pingback.)

    The post linked below contains my complete reply to the above comment from Tom.

    – Diane

    Pingback by Second reply to Tom a.k.a. “Representative Press” « New York City activist — March 11, 2008 @ 9:53 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your 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

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: