BOB MCILVAINE ON HOW HIS SON’S DEATH POINTS TO CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

6 Votes

mcilvaine-bob

This article is a lightly modified version of a piece I just wrote for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which you can read here. I thank the staff at AE911Truth for making it possible for me to speak with Bob McIlvaine and write this article.—CM

By Craig McKee

Bob McIlvaine and his family are not alone in having suffered a devastating personal loss on September 11, 2001. The loved ones of the nearly 3,000 victims of the destruction at the World Trade Center know what he has endured for the past 15 years.

But McIlvaine is different from most of these families in important ways. In addition to his unwavering and often lonely fight to expose the complicity of the U.S. government in this false flag attack, he has strong forensic evidence that his 26-year-old son, Bobby, was killed by a powerful explosion as he was about to enter the lobby of the North Tower. That evidence is corroborated by the accounts of many FDNY members, police officers, and workers who reported explosions in the lower parts of the towers before the buildings were destroyed—some of them even before the first airplane struck.

In a recent interview, McIlvaine said his son’s body was one of the first to be recovered and taken to the New York City morgue on that day. He explained that he has been able to reach more definitive conclusions about the details of his son’s death only since conferring with the doctor who had examined his body at the morgue.

The meeting, which McIlvaine recalls happening in 2006 or 2007, provided evidence that a huge explosion — and not the North Tower’s eventual demise — was responsible for killing his son. According to McIlvaine, the wounds described by the doctor indicated that his son had been hit by flying glass from some kind of massive blast. Bobby’s face was damaged beyond recognition, he had lacerations all over his chest from flying glass, and he had post-mortem burns. In fact, the blast was strong enough to literally blow Bobby out of his laced shoes (they were not on the body when it was brought to the morgue).

“My final summation is that he was walking into the building, and before he got into the building there was a huge explosion, and of course the force of it just threw him back into the open area,” McIlvaine says. “That’s why he was picked up so quickly, because the EMTs came down there so quickly. Someone had gotten him out of there and to the morgue before the towers came down.”

It is the nature of Bobby’s injuries that convinces the elder McIlvaine that the explosion had nothing to do with the airplane hitting the tower. That conclusion is at odds with the explanation put forth by the 9/11 Commission, which attributed explosions in the Twin Towers’ lower floors and basements to fireballs of exploding jet fuel coming down the elevator shafts and blowing out.

“He wasn’t hit by a fireball, he was hit by a detonation,” McIlvaine contends. “In a detonation, the blast is first and then followed by the heat.”

He points out that the official account credits the supposed fireball with blowing out floors in different parts of the building — leaving many untouched floors in between the damaged ones.

“It blew out the 72nd floor, it blew out the 23rd floor, it blew out the lobby, it blew out all sorts of floors in the basement, and it even destroyed parts of the PATH [rail] station more than 200 feet away. For one fireball to do all that — well, that’s one powerful fireball.”

This becomes even more impossible, he argues, when you consider that the tower was divided into three vertical sections. Each elevator (except for the basement-to-penthouse maintenance elevator) serviced only one section. Thus, someone travelling from top to bottom would have had to take three different elevators. This configuration would have prevented fuel from pouring down elevator shafts and causing the destruction.

“It’s impossible for a fireball to come down that far and create that kind of damage.”

What made the horror of September 11 even worse for the McIlvaine family initially was that they had no information about their son and didn’t know if he was alive or dead. Adding to their uncertainty was that he didn’t actually work in the towers; instead, he worked for Merrill Lynch in an office building across the street from the World Trade Center. So McIlvaine thinks it’s possible that his son was either on his way to a Merrill Lynch seminar that was being held on the 106th floor of the North Tower or was cutting through to get to his own office.

A Canadian who worked for Merrill Lynch in 2001 and who was at the World Trade Center that day contacted McIlvaine two years ago. The man explained that he was heading to the same conference on the 106th floor about the same time that Bobby would have been approaching the building. But he had stopped for a coffee on the way — a decision that he thinks might have saved his life. While ordering his coffee, he heard a massive explosion in the North Tower lobby.

McIlvaine says he doesn’t tell his son’s story that often anymore because most people just don’t want to hear it. Even the 9/11 families don’t want anything to do with the idea that the event was, as he claims, perpetrated by their own government.

“People look at the United States as a father figure, and they just can’t believe their father could do something that evil.”

59 COMMENTS

  1. The problem is that A&E911 runs a limited hangout. Not only do they cling to the scientifically discredited theory of explosive nanothermite but they refuse to discuss who was responsible and why. Think about it. The most prominent 9/11 organization–which will not allow its staff or even volunteers to talk about any other theory than that it was done with nanothermite–will not address the crucial issue of who was responsible and why. That is simply appalling.

    More serious research was presented this weekend during the second Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference than you could find in all the articles, presentations and conferences sponsored by A&E911. Part 1, “How it was done”, can be found here:http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-midwest-911-truth-conference-ii.html
    and Part 2, “Who was responsible”, here:http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-midwest-911-truth-conference-ii.html It’s time to stop pretending A&E911 is a serious organization.

    1. …scientifically discredited theory of explosive nanothermite…

      This is not a valid statement. On the contrary, the use of nano-thermite is the only thing scientifically credited. If you doubt their conclusions, then you indirectly accusing Steven Jones and Neils Harrit of scientific fraud.

      His paper can be found here.

      1. Travis said:

        “If you doubt their conclusions, then you indirectly accusing Steven Jones and Neils Harrit of scientific fraud”

        Thank you, Travis, I was just getting to that.

        Not only would Steven Jones, Neils Harrit, Jeffry Farrer, and several others be guilty of scientific fraud…..they would also be guilty of deliberately deceiving the public and treason, mass murder and obstruction of justice.

        That’s why I think Fetzer is full of crap about Nano Thermite being disproven.

        There is no way to say that Jones et al are just incompetent.

        The way they present their evidence, they would HAVE to be willful deceivers.

        1. None of them is a chemical engineer. T. Mark Hightower is a chemical engineer. I am not here to deny that they found nano-thermite chips in the tiny samples of dust they studied. I am here to point out that the far more extensive dust sample studies by the US Geological Survey found a host of elements that would not have been present in the quantities and correlations which they discovered had this not been a nuclear event. Virtually the entire first part (Part 1) of the second MidWest 9/11 Truth Conference (which sockpuppet2012 refuses to review) focuses on the use of nukes on 9/11, including two civil and structural engineers and other experts in this area. The response on this threat reflects the massive ignorance of those who claim to be students of 9/11 yet refuse to respond to the extensive proof that this was done using mini and micro nukes. You are far beyond incompetent and do not even understand that Steve Jones is a nuclear physicist who has to know that this was a nuclear event. So, yes, absolutely: I AM CALLING THEM OUT!

            1. Good question, Travis!

              How many first responders, policemen and firefighters and others died of or were diagnosed with radiation poisoning?

              Most of the truckers who hauled the hundreds of thousands of tons of metal and dust and debris away should have died of or been diagnosed with radiation poisoning.

              1. Good God, man. Are you really this ignorant? Here are some paragraphs from the article that Craig decided to finesse, which of course was his right. He can publish or not as he chooses:

                The use of mini or micro nukes, which have dialable radii and can be directed upward, means that the destruction of the Twin Towers qualified as the use of “Directed Energy Weapons”, which, according to Judy Wood, are devices that provide far more energy than conventional and can be directed. Set at 100′ in the core columns, they would have had a diameter of 200′ for buildings that were 208′ on a side. Their use enabled the destruction of both buildings from the top down in an effort to simulate collapse. But they were being blown apart in every direction and converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. And this appears to be how it was done as the USGS dust studies substantiate.

                . . . .

                Other arguments could be made, of course, including that the final spire of the North Tower seems to run counter to the use of nukes. But even at Hiroshima, the scaffolding of a lone church remained after the enormous blast had done its damage. And these were mini or micro nukes, whose use has also been confirmed by the debilitating medical maladies incurred by first responders and residents of the area, which include non-Hodgkins lymphoma, leukemia, thyroid, pancreatic, brain, esophageal, prostate and blood and plasma cancers at rates far above normal, which Jeff Prager was among the first to point out and where recent estimates have placed the number affected at close to 70,000.

                Go tohttp://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2016/09/america-nuked-on-911-book-to-targeting.html for the article that I proposed he publish. Even better, go to Part 1 of the conference I have linked.

                1. There was no mushroom cloud.

                  You can tell in the videos of the collapse that the destruction was mostly gravitational. Nuclear events create so much heat that the air becomes buoyant and rises upwards.

          1. “the second MidWest 9/11 Truth Conference (which sockpuppet2012 refuses to review) focuses on the use of nukes on 9/11”

            Yep!…..I refuse to “review” it, and I’m gonna go out on a limb here and guess that Adam Syed also has no intention of “reviewing” your incredible nonsense.

            The reason I feel justified in saying that, is because I noticed that me and Adam Syed said practically the same thing, using the same words in a comment only one minute apart, without being able to see each other’s comment.

            At 1:41 a.m. I said:

            https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/09/10/mcilvaine-controlled-demolition/#comment-43841

            “You are the one trying to divide and discredit the strongest most respected members of the Truth movement”

            …..and at 1:40 Adam Syed said:

            https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/09/10/mcilvaine-controlled-demolition/#comment-43840

            “The fact that you attack the strongest, most credible 9/11 truth organization is all I need to know”

            Truthful minds think alike.

            1. You and Adam are only two among many weak-minded mediocrities that can be led by the nose by those who impress you with their credentials, such as Jones, Ryan and Harritt. You long ago gave up whatever meager capacity you may have had for critical thinking to become mindless stooges who swoon at the least gesture of those you mistakenly admire and adore. PATHETIC!

              1. Fetzer, if nuclear devices were used, there would have been high radiation counts for months. Geiger counters are cheap these days, and no doubt that everyone that lives in Manhattan could easily afford one.

                Where are the high Geiger counts?

                Why are some of the first-responders still alive?

                Where was the mushroom cloud?

                1. Travis, they banned the use of geiger counters in New York after 9/11. Why don’t you do yourself a favor and actually watch Part 1? You are forcing me to conclude that you are just a dull and dimwitted as the obvious trolls who are protecting A&E911. Why do I have to spoon feed you when the experts are speaking for themselves as participants in the 9/11 conference?

          2. Here is another study of the evidence demonstrating that the WTC was nuked on 9/11, but it is among the more technical and specific, which means that no one here is likely to read it, either:

      2. By the way, STATEMENTS are true or false. ARGUMENTS are valid or invalid or, in the case of INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS, proper or correct. So you are wrong on the facts and on the terms you are misusing. But you are still the only one showing any interested in the actual evidence.

  2. James Fetzer said:

    “The problem is that A&E911 runs a limited hangout. Not only do they cling to the scientifically discredited theory of explosive nanothermite…..”

    It is only “discredited” in the minds of disinfo Agents, like yourself.

    “…..but they refuse to discuss who was responsible and why”

    If Richard Gage deviates from the scientific aspect of 911 and wanders off into the (((Who))) and “why”…..he’ll be branded an anti-Semite neo-Nazi, and the 2,600 Architects and Engineers will be removing their names from the list faster than you could say “Abe Foxman”

    Please don’t pretend to be stupid, Dr. Fetzer!

    1. Surely you have to know by now that a chemical engineer by the name of T. Mark Hightower and I published three articles in 2011 that exposed the sham theory of explosive nano-thermite, one of which was entitled, “Is 9/11Truth based upon a false theory?”, where we explain that, it is a law of materials science that, for an explosive to destroy a material, it must have a detonation velocity equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material. The speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s; in steel, 6,100 m/s. But the highest detonation velocity attributed to nano-thermite is only 858 m/s. If you don’t know that by now, you are way behind the learning curve.

      I am astonished that you would rush to support the determination of A&E911 to not discuss the WHO and the WHY of 9/11. And your explanation appalls me. Are you implying that 2,66 architects and engineers signed up to cover up for the perps of 9/11? Do you have any idea how that makes you look as a cheerleader for covering up who was responsible for 9/11 and why? You seem to take for granted that A&E911 would be branded “anti-Semitic” or “neo-Nazi” if they talked about it. Does that mean you are aware of the pivotal role played by the Mossad on 9/11? and that the entire scheme seems to have arisen from the fertile imagination of Bibi Netanyahu, who wanted to use the US to destroy enemies of Israel?

      1. “I am astonished that you would rush to support the determination of A&E911 to not discuss the WHO and the WHY of 9/11. And your explanation appalls me”

        Yeah…..I bet it “appalls” you.

        Your false sense of “shock” is nothing but pretention.

        If Richard Gage started posting information on his website naming Israel as the perpetrator of 911, all of the 2,600 Architects and Engineers who signed the petition for a new investigation would receive a letter from the ADL, and the prominent ones would probably have members of the JDL or Mossad show up on their porch to talk about their family and the weather and stuff.

        “Are you implying that 2,66 architects and engineers signed up to cover up for the perps of 9/11?”

        What kind of a brainless question is that?

        “Do you have any idea how that makes you look as a cheerleader for covering up who was responsible for 9/11 and why?”

        Do you have any idea what an idiot you look like by pretending to not understand my simple straightforward statements?

        “You seem to take for granted that A&E911 would be branded “anti-Semitic” or “neo-Nazi” if they talked about it”

        If you mean by “it” that Israel did 911, then yes, I take it for granted that Richard Gage would be branded an anti-Semite.

        “Does that mean you are aware of the pivotal role played by the Mossad on 9/11? and that the entire scheme seems to have arisen from the fertile imagination of Bibi Netanyahu, who wanted to use the US to destroy enemies of Israel?”

        I believe there is evidence that it was decades in the making by nameless, faceless Elders far above Netanyahu.

      2. But the highest detonation velocity attributed to nano-thermite is only 858 m/s.

        Evidence of thermite is not evidence that thermite was used exclusively.

        1. It is proof that nano-thermite cannot have been the cause of the destruction of the Twin Towers. We published this fact three times in 2011. Where has A&E911 stepped up to acknowledge that it was wrong to place so much emphasis upon nano-thermite and tell us WHAT ELSE WAS USED? This is not a trick question. They haven’t told us how it was done. That is their failure.

    1. The time has come to speak the truth about sock puppets like sockpuppet2012, who seems to be a leading apologist for covering up who was responsible and why. I have published two books on 9i/11, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007) and AMERICA NUKED ON 9/11(2016), where I bring together the best experts on different aspects of 9/11. I have also organized and participated in major conferences and presentations around the world, including in LA and Athens (2006), in Madison (2007), in Buenos Aires (2008 and 2009), in Vancouver (2012, in Champaign-Urbana (2014) and now the second MidWest 9/11 Truth Conference (2016), not to mention innumerable articles and videos. What has he ever done to advance 9/11 Truth other than to attack those of us at the cutting edge? His chosen name says it all!

      1. “…..sockpuppet2012, who seems to be a leading apologist for covering up who was responsible and why”

        That’s hilarious, not to mention PROJECTION.

        I have always directed people to Christopher Bollyn’s website, where he proves beyond all possible doubt (((who))) did 911 and why.

        Your “credentials” and “conferences” and “innumerable articles and videos” don’t prove what you say is true…..that’s just an appeal to authority, and since it’s an appeal to your OWN “authority”…..it makes it an appeal to narcissism.

        1. ALL MY WORK ON 9/11 HAS BEEN COLLABORATIVE! Which makes your attacks on me simply absurd. I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth and invited Steven Jones to be my co-chair. There are thirteen contributors to the Midweat 9/11 Truth Conference and fifteen to AMERICA NUKED ON 9/11 (2016, moonrockbooks.com). Are they all supposed to be wrong because you have a rope up your butt for me? You are one of the most perfect examples possible of why there has been so little progress in 9/11 research. Too many of those who pose as “9/11 Truthers” are working to cover up what happen, not to exposed it. And, by the way, I also organized a conference in London (2010). You regard accomplishments in advancing 9/11 Truth as Appeals to Authority, when I am refuting your ludicrous claim that I am not a bona fide student advancing 9/11 Truth. I have articles and books, lectures and presentations, videos and conferences that have advanced 9/11 Truth. What, apart from attacking those of us doing the real work, have you ever done? Where are your articles and books, lectures and presentations, videos and the like?

    2. And since Christopher Bollyn continues to endorse the indefensible theory of explosive nano-thermite, what good reason is there to suppose he has 9/11 right? I am sorry, but while I like the guy personally, he has a limited grasp of the science of 9/11. And notice that, in passing, sockpuppet2012 ADMITS that he hasn’t even bothered to look at the presentations archived on my blog. What more blatant indication of a fake and a fraud could we possibly have than a guy who condemns work without even looking at it? He deserves the name, “sock puppet”!

      1. “And since Christopher Bollyn continues to endorse the indefensible theory of explosive nano-thermite, what good reason is there to suppose he has 9/11 right?”

        Simple answer…..read his book and website.

        The evidence he has put together fits together perfectly, like a huge Jigsaw puzzle.

        1. I know Bollyn’s positions on these issues. I even traveled to Janesville, WI, recently, which is only twenty minutes drive from my home, to listen to him speak. I KNOW HIS VIEWS. The point is that you are so closed-minded that you are unwilling to review anyone else’s views, such as those participating in the MidWest 9/11 Truth Conference to which I have linked. There are 14 sessions that cover every aspect of 9/11, including HOW IT WAS DONE and WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE AND WHY. You condemn work without even reviewing it, which was obvious from the start when I posted and you immediately attacked. You have ACKNOWLEDGED that you haven’t looked at my blog, where the conference is posted. What could be more powerful proof that you do not know and do not care about the truth of 9/11. You ARE a “sock puppet”!

            1. Yes–since I retired from UMD in 2006 after completing a 35-year career as a professor during which I offered principally courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning, which cannot be found on this blog (with intermittent exceptions–you seem to be able to think things through).

              1. Well, I live just north of Madison, but I have lived there in the past. I still go there for grocery shopping since Woodman’s is so cheap.

  3. Just an observation (guess), by one far from well-studied… Is it possible both nano-thermite and mini-nuclear weapons (or more) were used in bringing down WTC 1 and 2? Nano-thermite could explain heat so intense people, reportedly in the hundreds, jumped to their deaths rather than stay in the buildings. Mini-nukes could explain high-speed, hot winds on the streets near the towers which lifted pedestrians off their feet and deposited them no small distance away, along with explosions heard inside (re: this article – lobby, 23rd, 72nd floor), some of which occurred before any plane hit. For those interested in the 2016 presidential election, Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka have recently called for an independent investigation of 9/11.

    1. Jerry, OF COURSE! The problem is that A&E911 will not even concede that nano-thermite itself CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR BLOWING THE BUILDINGS APART! When a theory has been refuted on the basis of objective, scientific evidence, the appropriate response is to concede that it was wrong and to revise your views, rejecting hypotheseses you previously accepted, accepting hypothesis that you previously rejected, and leaving others in suspense. WE KNOW THAT NANO-THERMITE IS NON-EXPLOSIVE. I even include T. Mark Hightower among the speakers at the conference. But, like sockpupper2012, A&E911 has been unable to explain what in addition to nano-thermite was used to bring about the effects that we observe of the two towers blowing apart in every direction from the top down, being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, and leaving no massive piles of debris within their footprints. This is decisive proof A&E911 is not a scientific organization but a limited hang-out.

      1. “This is decisive proof A&E911 is not a scientific organization but a limited hang-out”

        You’re a crackpot and a liar!

        You are the one trying to divide and discredit the strongest most respected members of the Truth movement.

        If Richard Gage is a limited hangout Agent, then he has to be doing it deliberately, and therefore, he is a treasonous mass murderer.

        If AE911Truth is controlled opposition…..then it’s time to throw in the fucking towel.

        I say it is Fetzer who is the controlled opposition and Agent saboteur.

    2. There is no such thing as a mini-nuke. There is a concept calledcritical mass, that specifies the minimum mass of a nuclear explosion. This means that the smallest nuclear device has to be roughly equivalent to the W-54 warhead, which is about 2-4 times more powerful than the bomb used in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

      1. Travis, at least you are making the pretense of an argument. Now study the presentations of the civil and structural and chemical engineers who participated in the conference. Then come back and tell us what you think. If we have it wrong, then be specific about exactly what we say and why we say it and explain what we have wrong and how you know. Unless you think you know everything there is to know about these matters, why not give their research the consideration that it deserves ? But I congratulate you on being the first in this group to make an argument that was not simply fallacious on its face. You are commended for that. Now do some homework.

  4. Mr. Fetzer, I have been polite for years too long. But I feel compelled to take the gloves off. Here we have an interview with a family member. And this article is published on the anniversary. so what do you do? You come in immediately when the blog is published and attempt to steer the discourse into the direction of the possibility of AE911Truth being a fake truth organization. This to me reeks of COINTELPRO. Cognitive Infiltration.

    “The problem is that A&E911 will not even concede that nano-thermite itself CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR BLOWING THE BUILDINGS APART!”

    This is a good example of why I think you are a cognitive infil-traitor. AE has never said that they think that nano-thermite exclusively did the job!!! Your entire talking point is a red herring. They have said that there is evidence of nano-thermitic particles. But they believe that this was likely one of MANY incendiary / explosive agents that were at work.

    The fact that you attack the strongest, most credible 9/11 truth organization is all I need to know.

    😡😡😡

    1. Adam, You have made it obvious that you don’t care about 9/11 Truth but only in protecting the organizations that are covering it up. We have heard the story of Bob McIlvaine hundreds, if not thousands, of times. WHAT IS THE POINT OF PUBLISHING THIS AGAIN HERE AND NOW?

      I had suggested to Craig McKee that he consider publishing a piece about using AMERICA NUKED ON 9/11 (2016) as a target book for serious research and criticism. But he declined to do that and instead has published a puff piece that does nothing to advance 9/11 research.

      A&E911 has masqueraded as a public interest group for more than a decade now, soaking up funds from a sympathetic but gullible American public which probably exceeds several millions by now. And what have the produced? Nano-thermite and Building 7! That is the totality of it.

      We all know about Building 7. And we should have all known that nano-thermite can’t cut it (at least since 2011, when T. Mark Hightower and I published THREE ARTICLES about it, which A&E911 has done its best to ignore and suppress–just as you are doing here now yourself!

      I am sorry, but I have no respect for organizations and individuals who ignore important proof that is available and relevant to what happened on 9/11. That includes the USGS dust studies, which were drawn from 35 locations and are discussed extensively in Part 1 of the conference.

      This thread offers stunning proof that the 9/11 Truth community does not care about evidence or truth and justice at all. It is a complete charade, a pretense, an act. I have given you links to a new conference that is chock full of expert testimony and proof of the use of nukes on 9/11.

      Your response has been TO IGNORE IT. sockpuppet2012 DECLARES HE WON’T BOTHER TO LOOK. YOU SUPPORT HIM. YOU ARE IGNORING THE EVIDENCE, TOO. But that is not the response of others who care about truth, such as Sputnick News. It’s getting out in spite of your efforts:https://sputniknews.com/us/20160910/1045161326/9-11-alternative-versions.html

      1. “We have heard the story of Bob McIlvaine hundreds, if not thousands, of times. WHAT IS THE POINT OF PUBLISHING THIS AGAIN HERE AND NOW?”

        YOU may have but the general public hasn’t. And they need to. Craig’s blog visibility continues to grow and what better time than the anniversary?

        Why would you want to do anything to smother Bob M’s story at all?

        Good night, Uncle Fetz.

        1. You are pathetic, Adam. Another participant in the cover up, who would use the death of a man as a protective shield against criticism of A&E911, an unethical and unscientific organization.

            1. When you ignore or denigrate the most important empirical evidence we have about 9/11–that the buildings were blown apart from the top down, that they were converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, that there was no massive pile of debris in their footprints, that the USGS dust samples have confirmed that this was a nuclear event and that nano-thermite alone cannot have been responsible–what else is anyone to infer? If you were making an effort to come to grips with the scientific studies I have adduced here, there might be reason to think that you are not simply engaging in a cover up of how it was done and of who was responsible and why.

          1. The same arrogant mook I met in the McClendon room National Press Club some ten years ago. You James, your special companion Judy, and your plasmoid gaggle of sycophants still wreckingball your way through every fair gathering of people trying to untangle the mind-knot of 911? Your CME level hypocrisy could only be matched by your obtuseness to acknowledging just the very concept of hypocrisy within yourself (that’s a mathematical fact).

            Be proud of your achievement James, you are the single most enduring mass murderer of the 9/11 coverup (by forced confusion) I’ve seen of them all. You beat out Cheney and even the Pearl Prince of Darkness for your lasting character development to repel decent people.

            Really, to be clear… it would be the pinnacle of tragedy James, if you do in fact have anything decent, honest and good to offer the seekers of 911 truth… for the tragedy would lay where your offer is rejected on singular account of your halitosis delivery.

            Ya… you too can go tuck yourself. See how easy that was? How easy to tear a good gathering to shreds? But you already know all that, right? Oh wait, that’s right, you’re Mongo, “Mongo only pawn in game of life”.

            1. Typical of shills who have no argument to present, where Barrie Zwicker is not going to call you out for the most despicable ad hominem here. The NPC meeting was to present Judy’s work on 9/11 to better inform the public of the then-current state of 9/11 research. I have long since been convinced by the USGS dust sample studies and the work of civil and structural and chemical engineers that she is wrong in her theory, but she comes across as a paradigm of reason and rationality compared to most of you here, of which you are a stellar example unethical conduct.

              Here is one of the most important contributions to the MidWest 9/11 Truth Conference II, in which those responsible for 9/11 are identified and their rationale explained, a matter that the masters of A&E911 will not address and for which they are applauded by sock puppets here:

  5. For what it’s worth I find the exchanges above to be equal parts distressing and revealing. And ultimately, with luck, empowering.

    Distressing because they are the latest evidence of what might be called splits within the 9/11 Truth movement. Such schisms, or what the Chinese call “splittism,” have to be counted mainly as regrettable when they are occurring within an important—perhaps an all-important—movement dedicated to truth, justice and peace. (These are large abstract nouns, but in my opinion they apply here.)

    But are they really splits when it comes to the overall direction of the parties? All parties, including the writer, claim to be dedicated to truth, justice and peace. Whatever my strengths and weaknesses, achievements and lack of same, I do know I am so dedicated. (When it comes to my determining whether any other given individual Truther is totally authentic, I’m on thinner ice.)

    Now what of the revealing aspect of the above exchanges? One comprises the sources (websites, conference proceedings, etc.) we are referred to.

    But within the thread itself, one of the most revealing aspects is who stoops to name-calling, and why, and to what extent.

    Name-calling, or ad hominem argument, is recognized essentially as invalid argument. The Wikipedia entry under it begins as follows:

    “Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.”[2]

    The entry continues to say that ad hominem argument is not always fallacious. Anyone reading what I’m writing here can study the Wikipedia entry further regarding that, or research the whole subject of argumentum ad hominem further, in any way and to what extent they wish.

    But just regarding this one aspect, relevant to this one thread, arising from this one article, are as I see it, these dozen points:

    1 Name-calling, in any context, is destructive, is bullying, is disruptive.

    2 The more important the subject, the more damaging are the outcomes of name-calling.

    3 When people of goodwill are debating, name-calling is unnecessary.

    4 The more broadaxe the name-calling, the more irresponsible it is.

    5 In the present instance, the first name-calling was engaged in by the first commenter, and in the first sentences of his comment. First comments tend to set the tone, especially if they are highly provocative. This commenter’s first comment, and his subsequent ones, also featured extreme word inflation such as “simply appalling,” (in first comment), “you are far beyond incompetent” (in his second), “groups like A&E911 […] are soaking the public for dough and producing nothing of value at all” (in his third) and so on, escalating to “you do not know and do not care about the truth of 9/11” and worse.

    6 This first commenter is Jim Fetzer, who points out in the thread, as he has before, that he completed “a 35-year career as a professor during which I offered principally courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning…”

    7 His contribution to this thread is out of sync with logic (ad hominem argument is illogical) and is shunned in circles of scientific thinking. And out of tune with critical thinking. So there is a strange and worrisome disconnect.

    8 While Jim Fetzer’s contributions to 9/11 Truth have been considerable, at the same time his contributions have often been—and this thread is an example—unnecessarily disruptive within the movement.

    9 It can be said he should know better. It can be said that in responding to his name-calling, more name-calling is a mistake. It can be noted that down through history rulers have planted agents within movements, agents whose assignment is to disrupt.

    10 Each of us truly committed to 9/11Truth (and probably to revealing and promoting truths about other, and related, state crimes against democracy, to use Lance deHaven-Smith’s term) is forced, as I see it, to promote truths as effectively as possible. This requires avoiding, as much as possible, contributing to unnecessary disruptions.

    11 What might be called a paradox is that a highly important truth about promoting truth is that agents of the state are almost always assigned to disrupt that promotion. To ignore this truth (about the existence of agents and their modus operandi) would be irresponsible.

    12 The trick is to deal with agents (or those who might as well be agents, in particular instances or generally) without enabling their disruptiveness through rising to their bait. Insofar as we can manage that, we are empowered.

    1. Over the years, I have come to appreciate that Barrie Zwicker likes to cast himself as though he were the “conscience of the 9/11 movement”. He accuses me for committing an ad hominem by pointing out that sockpuppet2012, Adam Sayed and others (including himself) are not paying attention to the SCIENTIFIC PROOF (1) that nano-thermite cannot possibly have blown the Twin Towers apart and (2) that there is extensive evidence that it was done by mini or micro nukes and (3) that it could have been done using a combination of nano-thernite and nukes.

      How is that an attack on the person who ignores it? It is making the simply point that, when you ignore the most important scientific evidence, your conclusions are not going to be well-founded. It is a basic principle of scientific reasoning that conclusions have to be based upon all of the available relevant evidence, which includes the incapacity of nano-thermite to explode the Twin Towers and the massive proof that it was done by mini or micro nukes. Far from violating the canons of logic, THE POINTS I AM MAKING ARE ENFORCING THEM. So much for logic!

      Barrie loves to get on a high horse about issues where he has no background or understanding, which include virtually every scientific aspect of 9/11. He does not appear to grasp how we know that all four of the crash sites were fabricated or faked or that the Twin Towers were blown apart by a sophisticated arrangement of micro or mini nukes. Given that the evidence is on my side, where the case against me can only be fabricated by special pleading (“cherry picking”), I find it ironic that he would suggest that I am some kind of “agent of the state”, which is simply absurd.

      Would an agent of the state have organized conferences and published books–which have been described as “the only exclusively scientific books published” on the death of JFK–that shatter the government cover up and expose the perps involved in his assassination? or exposed the actual causes of the plane crash that took the life of Sen. Paul Wellstone? or with a half-dozen other Ph.D.s unraveled the Sandy Hook hoax as a two-day FEMA drill, where the school had been closed in 2008 and was refurbished as a stage–where we even have the FEMA manual?

      And there is so much more. If I am an “agent of the state”, I must be the most unsuccessful in history. On the other hand, what could be more clever than to have an actual “agent of the state” pose as the conscience of the 9/11 community in order to selectively attack those who are doing the cutting edge research that exposes what really happened, who was responsible and why? That would make him especially effective if he could play upon the gullible saps who have been taken in by pseudo-scientific arguments from those who are at the very core of the cover-up.

COMMENTS ARE CLOSED.