New York City activist

September 8, 2009

To “debunkers”

Soon I’ll be soliciting feedback from a few 9/11 “debunkers,” as well as people in the 9/11 Truth movement, regarding my draft pamphlet.

But first, here’s a little about me and my more general point of view, and the evolution of my views on 9/11. I’ll also say a little about my views on “conspiracy theories” and what I call grand conspiracy ideology.


July 16, 2009

The force exerted by the falling part?

In the Truth Action forum, “Truthmover” posted Looking beyond the hype – Bilderberg docs on Wikileaks. Truthmover’s take on these documents is entirely sane — no “New World Order” scaremongering, just a reasonable interest in knowing what the rich and powerful are up to.

But then “dicktater” chimed in with quotes from David Icke and links to sites such as “Conspiracy Central.” Several of us objected.

Eventually “dicktater” responded with a totally off-topic post about WTC demolition claims, apparently in an effort to claim that I am more of a “kook” than David Icke because I’m not inclined to believe in the WTC demolition hypotheses. I’ve decided to respond here, rather than in the Truth Action forum itself, (1) to avoid further derailing the thread, and (2) because I’m not sure whether YT would welcome debate about WTC demolition theories in the Truth Action forum.


July 14, 2009

Preliminary reply to “nanothermite”

In reply to my post Back from a long hiatus, “nanothermite” wrote:

Now, Diane, I thought you claimed in the past to be scientific or that using a scientific approach was the way forward. How can you claim to be a 9/11 truth activist for a few years and thoroughly familiarize yourself with the scientific evidence of controlled demolition

I’ve pointed out for a long time that a lot of the more popular presentations of this evidence, including Richard Gage’s, are either mistaken or incomplete on various points. See, for example, my post Demolition of WTC: Let’s not overstate the case, please, written back in November 2007.

At the time I wrote that post, I nevertheless believed that a few of the popular arguments for WTC demolition were very strong, including: (1) the almost straight-down nature of the collapse of WTC 7, and (2) the iron-rich spherules as evidence of thermite.


May 8, 2008

To psikeyhackr: Belated replies to comments of yours

To psikeyhackr:

I just now replied, belatedly, to the following comments of yours:


April 13, 2008

My current views on 9/11 – brief summary

Since July of last year, I’ve spent quite a bit of time studying various arguments and counterarguments about what happened on 9/11. Below is a brief summary of my current thoughts.

March 12, 2008

Time to get serious about proving “assisted collapse” of WTC buildings

Needed: More scientists and engineers. And more teamwork. And better peer review.

I just now heard about the following, on 911blogger: A Proposal for Proving Controlled Demolition in a Civil Negligence Suit Against the Security Groups Responsible for the WTC.

In my opinion, this is WAY premature. We are NOT yet anywhere near ready to prove any such thing in a court of law, not even in a civil case.

March 11, 2008

Second reply to Tom a.k.a. “Representative Press”

I’ll now reply to the latest comment from Tom, a.k.a. “Representative Press.” First, I’ll reply to various blog posts linked within his comment. Then I’ll reply to the comment itself.

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.

March 6, 2008

No-planes theories (transplanted comment thread)

Below is a copy of a bunch of comments originally posted in reply to my post Pentagon no-757 theories: debunkings from within the 9/11 Truth movement. I’m deleting them there and moving them here because the comments are about WTC no-planes theories.

Please note: Here on this blog, comments on the topic of no-planes theories should be posted only in response to this and other posts in the no-planes theories category, and not underneath any other posts.

Hiding the planting of incendiaries, explosives, or whatever? Response to a common a priori objection

Below is a copy of a long bunch of comments I’ve deleted from the thread below my post He oughta know better: Mark Roberts and the iron spherules.

The copied comments below deal mainly with the question of how thermite, etc., could have been planted in World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 without being noticed by many witnesses.

March 5, 2008

“9/11 Guide” page about Richard Gage

In a comment here after my post Richard Gage’s avowed enemy, part 1, ref1 asked me to look at his page about Richard Gage, on his “9/11 Guide” site.

March 3, 2008

Richard Gage’s avowed enemy, Part 3 – and more about WTC 7

I’ll now look at a few more parts of Nobles’s commentary on the September 2007 version of Gage’s slide show.

February 28, 2008

Richard Gage’s avowed enemy, part 2 – and my thoughts about WTC 7

I’ll now continue my review of Joseph Nobles’s review of Richard Gage’s slide show. I’ll also take the opportunity to voice my current beliefs and questions about WTC 7 in general, and to suggest some research projects for the engineers in Gage’s organization.

February 24, 2008

Richard Gage’s avowed enemy, part 1

In reply to my post Review of Hardfire debates between Mark Roberts and Loose Change crew, some comments were posted by “boloboffin,” who turns out to be Joseph Nobles, author of a website called AE911Truth.INFO, devoted to a crusade against Richard Gages’s organization Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (

February 23, 2008

Common a priori objections by “debunkers,” including arguments from authority and the “someone would have talked” and “too many people” arguments

Every now and then I get a wave of “debunkers” visiting this blog. They’re welcome to post here; I’ve learned a lot from them. But, in the future, I would like to try to avoid certain repetitious arguments, or at least confine those particular arguments to relevant threads such as this one.

There are some a priori arguments they almost always bring up in an effort to prove that there could not have been any government complicity in the attacks of 9/11. In recent debates here, those arguments got jumbled together with other, meatier issues in comment threads.

To avoid such jumbling in the future, I’ve decided to devote this post to the more common a priori arguments. I’ll then add a rule to my comment policy requiring that, in the future, these and similar a priori arguments be discussed only in comments below this post (or other posts on these same topics), rather than jumbled together with other, more substantive discussions.

In this post I’ll also provide a brief review of my debates with “debunkers” in general, for the benefit of “debunkers” visiting this blog for the first time. Some of the discussions we’ve had here have been very worthwhile.

February 22, 2008

Questions for “debunkers” about Steven Jones’s research

Steven Jones gave me permission to quote some questions which he posted in a private forum. I would be interested to see comments by “debunkers.” I would also appreciate it very much if anyone could post links to relevant pages by “debunkers.”

February 17, 2008

Steven Jones’s research, and critiques thereof

I have not been keeping up with all the latest details of Steven Jones’s research and all the critiques thereof, so I’m not going to say a lot about it right now. The main purpose of this post is simply to set up a page where those who want to talk to me about his research, for whatever reason, can post comments about it, rather than mixing this topic with miscellaneous other discussions.

February 15, 2008

WTC 7 fire weirdness, taking FEMA and NIST at their word

Many people in the 9/11 Truth movement have questioned the WTC 7 fire observations in the FEMA report and the NIST Interim Report on WTC 7, wondering if there were really so many different fires on so many different floors, most of them visible only on the south side, with no photos having been taken of most of these fires. Ditto for many of the debris damage observations.

In this post, I am going to take the opposite approach, for the most part. If we take FEMA and NIST at their word regarding the fire locations, what does that imply, or at least suggest?

February 11, 2008

Two WTC 7 collapse videos: Can both be real?

Consider the following two WTC 7 collapse videos

To my admittedly untrained eye, these two videos look too different from each other for both of them to be genuine, unaltered recordings of the exact same event from different angles.

Why this is important: The northeast video, if genuine, substantially weakens the “symmetry of collapse” argument regarding WTC 7. Hence, if the genuineness of the northwest video can be established, and if the incompatibility I percieve turns out to be valid, we can thereby disprove an important piece of alleged evidence against the “symmetry of collapse” argument.

February 9, 2008

Review of Hardfire debates between Mark Roberts and Loose Change crew

Two weeks ago, I met Ron Wieck in a diner, where he lent me a DVD containing two episodes of his “Hardfire” show, containing two parts of a debate between Mark Roberts and two members of the Loose Change crew, Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas. Today, I have finally finished watching and reviewing the two shows.

January 30, 2008

My decision about Ron Wieck’s show

In the JRFF forum, ref (a.k.a. ref1 here) says, about the possibility of me appearing on Ron Wieck’s show:

I think she will be the toughest opponent as of yet. Dylan & Jason were easy, Fetzer… crazy. Diane has good argumentation, she is thorough and polite, it’s not going to be a walk in the park like dismissing some “no plane” or Loose Change claims. She’s by far the nicest truth movement representative I have ever had any interaction with. And she seems sincere. Although we very much disagree on almost every topic.

Thanks for all the compliments. But I’ve decided, as per my initial reaction, that I’m not yet ready to participate in a televised debate because I’m too new to the 9/11 Truth movement and too new at studying various topics pertaining to the events of 9/11. (I’ve been at it only since this past summer.) There are too many topics I haven’t yet researched in enough detail even regarding just WTC 7 (to which the proposed debate would be limited) for me to participate adequately in a televised debate about it.

January 29, 2008

Loose Change Final Cut – section on WTC 7

I recently had an opportunity to view Loose Change Final Cut. I like it a lot better than the previous versions of Loose Change. But I wish it had been titled “Loose Change, Third Edition,” rather than “Final Cut.” It still contains quite a few errors that I hope will be corrected at some point in the future, plus a few other ways it could be improved. Although David Ray Griffin has done a lot for the 9/11 Truth movement, he is, alas, far from the world’s most thorough “fact checker,” especially on technical matters.

In this post I’ll review, in detail, the segment “Act II, Chapter IV, WTC 7.” The following is intended both as constructive criticism of LCFC itself and also to call attention to some of the issues that LCFC raises. It will also contain some notes to myself on matters I should research further.

January 3, 2008

He oughta know better: Mark Roberts and the iron spherules

On Mark Roberts’s site, a page titled They oughta know better: critiques of the inept work, absurd claims, and deceitful practices of Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, Jim Hoffman, Steven E. Jones, Gordon Ross, Kevin Ryan, and others includes the following claim by Mark Roberts:

The “mysterious” iron spheres in WTC dust that are cited by Jones as possible evidence of thermite or thermate use, are in fact expected to form in a hot office fire.

In support of this claim, Roberts cites the very interesting paper WTC Dust Signature Report: Composition and Morphology: Summary Report, Prepared for: Deutsche Bank (PDF), prepared by the RJ Lee Group, available on an archived version of the website of the New York Environmental Law and Justice Project. But, as we shall see, this report does not actually support Roberts’s claim at all.

(P.S.: After I notified Roberts about this post, he changed the wording on his website. Below, I’ll leave my reply to the original wording intact, and then I’ll reply to the revised version in a P.S.)

December 20, 2007

My main reasons for being suspicious about 9/11

Below is a summary of the things I personally find strangest about 9/11, and which lead me to suspect complicity by high officials in the U.S. government.


December 19, 2007

Screw Loose Change – reply to some recent posts

I’ll now comment on an assortment of recent posts at Screw Loose Change.


Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at