Keys Writings 2013, Part 2

This entry is part 2 of 25 in the series 2013

Jan 17, 2013

Conspiracy Theory Revisited

Blayne: Take 9/11 for instance we have gone over it several times and I have shown people the proof and pointed people to that has proven it beyond doubt with overwhelming evidence far more then Sandyhook yet people still claim they don’t “believe” when it is not a matter of belief it is a matter of facts and evidence. Has anyone looked there beyond a cursory look? Apparently not since no one has come back and refuted a single piece of evidence much less the conclusions of 17 hundred architects and engineers…

JJ The solid evidence for a conspiracy at 911 is miniscule compared to Sandy Hook and I have refuted all the major points of 911 and brought up others that no one has refuted.

The evidence for the 911 conspiracy is similar to the moon landing hoax conspiracy where people just find what they are looking for. There are always coincidences and strange facts surface in a major event and even with Sandy Hook 90% of them have a plausible explanation. Maybe the 10% does too but we don’t have the necessary information. I saw no such 10% that defied explanation from 911. Thankfully we have put the moon hoax conspiracy to bed now we have flown satellites over the landing sites and taken pictures. This has convinced all but a few.

Blayne I would beg to differ. You have not refuted a single point on the site and I have refuted everyone of your points multiple times. 😉

JJ You need to go back and reread our arguments. I think most of the group here would think I refuted them quite substantially.

Blayne:  Of course you think that. However most of those that agree with you just take your word for it.   As I have said no one here including you has refuted a single point on the site. For those that think they already have please put your money where your mouth is and go to the site there is a nice little list of main points on the front page in the far right column pick anyone of those points and refute them here.   They have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the towers fell because it was a controlled demolition, that it was physically impossible for the planes to bring the towers down. That is much better evidence of conspiracy then Sandyhook and that is just the tip of the iceberg.   There is video of BBC news caster reporting tower 7 had fallen when it was in the background still standing and on an on. There is a mountain of evidence you simply choose to ignore.   If I remember right your main claim is that they could have never gotten all that explosives in place. When it doesn’t matter because it been proven they were a controlled demolition.   Go ahead and make my day.. 😉

JJ I haven’t seen any credible evidence at all that the three towers were the act of a controlled demolition. On a believability scale of 1-100 I would rate this belief as a minus 10 – kinda in the category of Jack and the Beanstock. You and Dean are the only two here I know that accept this.

And I have read a lot of material on this and watched a lot of videos.

Blayne:  So the fact that it is physically impossible for the buildings to fall at the speed they did without explosives clearing the path below them before hand simply means nothing to you… LOL!   There you have it illustrating my point once again. Another dodge with a non answer ignoring the facts and evidence and a poor attempt at ridicule to boot to divert attention away from the facts.   Just curious why for as long as we have discussed this off and on have you refused to address a single fact on the site but instead just make off the wall comments like this?

JJ You sound like the Moon Landing Hoax people and wouldn’t be surprised if you didn’t also at one time believe that. They claimed that the moon landing defied the laws of physics and was an impossibility, but guess what? We now have photos of the landing sites proving for sure that we went to the moon. So I guess the laws of physics were not broken after all. Someone just miscalculated – which happens often.

When we argued this subject I covered the points you brought up. If you brought up some at the site you mentioned then I did cover them. I went there today and didn’t see much that was interesting or coherent.

When we discussed this earlier I countered all the points you made and you merely dismissed them or did not reply and moved on to another point claiming I had not answered when I did. Your mind is made up and we have already covered this subject into the ground so I don’t know why you keep bringing it up again and again. Maybe you ought to read some material on the other side like the book “Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts.” If you read only the arguments on one side then that’s what you’ll be inclined to believe.

Blayne: You never refuted anything I brought up.

JJ This is completely untrue. I made dozens of posts refuting you and you were oblivious to being refuted. I don’t have time to get sucked into the same tired arguments again that bore most of the people here. I will post some general principles in discovering the truth behind conspiracies.


Jan 18, 2013

Forest and the Trees

Arguing about conspiracy theories is rarely productive as both sides usually have their minds made up but one thing they are good for is providing fodder for the seekers to sharpen their ability to perceive truth.

For instance, we either went to the moon or we did not. There is no gray area in the truth here. Those who were fooled by the so-called conspiracy evidence need to reflect and examine their thinking and ask where they went wrong. If a person can be fooled on one proven point then maybe he is fooled on a number of items.

The tricky thing about examining conspiracies is that there are real conspiracies in the world so one is foolish to just dismiss them all out of hand. Each one should be examined for its merit and analyzed. Arguing about conspiracy theories is rarely productive as both sides usually have their minds made up but one thing they are good for is proving fodder for the seekers to sharpen their ability to perceive truth.

That said, what are the major and minor points to consider? Do many miss the forest and only look at the trees? Yes, the big picture is often overlooked and those who are deceived get lost in the details.

Let’s see what we should be looking for if we want to find a real conspiracy composed of shadowy characters pulling strings in the background.

Major point: A shadowy conspiracy that must keep its identity secret must be composed of a small number of people to succeed. The ideal number is three. If there are more than six with a general knowledge of what is going on then the chances of the conspiracy being exposed is great and exponentially increases as more participants are added.

Most of such successful shadow conspiracies in our history have been murdering people who are considered obstacles. A conspiracy to murder has the advantage of only needing a small number of insiders to accomplish the job.

Sandy Hook fits in this category. We do not know if there was a conspiracy but one is possible because it could have been pulled off with three to six insiders.

On the other hand, many conspiracy theories would demand thousands of knowledgeable people participating. Two such conspiracies are the Moon landing and 9/11. Because both of these would demand thousands of participants and hundreds of insiders the mathematical probability of them being credible just from this one principle is so miniscule that they should be dismissed out of hand. The reason these conspiracies have to be very limited in number is that when more than six people are involved the chances of someone spilling the beans becomes high. When dozens or more are involved then you can be sure that the conspiracy will be exposed.

There has never been a proven shadow conspiracy that has involved more than a handful of people.

Conclusion: If you want to find a real shadow conspiracy look for one that can be carried out by a handful of participants.

Minor Point: A detail that doesn’t seem to make sense or seems too coincidental.

Sandy Hook has quite a few of these. For instance we have a picture of one of the dead girls, Emily Parker, showing up after the massacre. Then we have her dad being cheerful and laughing just before an interview.

The moon landing conspiracy claimed that the flag planted by Armstrong waved as in a wind which was impossible. Photos showed no stars in the sky and convinced them the astronauts were in a studio. The angle and color of shadows are inconsistent giving them more supposed proof they were in a studio.

Happenings like this are odd but they can be explained away.

The point is that after every major event anomalies will be discovered. A number of strange coincidences always seems to surface, even in events where it is obvious that no conspiracy exists.

Second major point: Real conspirators rely on tried and proven methods and do not want to try something new that requires great risk or would have a high risk of exposing them.

For instance, if the moon landing was a hoax then it would only be a matter of time before it was exposed by another nation checking out the landing sites. Why would anyone risk such a sure fire exposure?

Conspiracy people claim that the Twin Towers was a controlled demolition, but the largest building ever brought down with explosives was the J.L. Hudson Building in Detroit which was only 22 stories high. The Twin Towers were 110 stories and any technology to bring them down would have been very experimental and unproven. Only a fool would have tried such an unproven method and anyone smart enough to get away with a conspiracy is not a fool.

Minor point: It seems odd that the buildings collapsed as they did.

These details prove nothing because we have never witnessed the destruction of a building this size. Trying to guess all the details from theory is like the scientists trying to guess the results of the first atomic bombs going off. They knew nothing for sure until they actually exploded one and examined the results.

Science thought it was against the laws of physics that the universe could be increasing in the rate of expansion, but they found they were wrong when they discovered the very odd fact that the speed of expansion is increasing.

Observations around events that reveal oddities are the rule rather than the exception. A lot more reliable criteria for making a judgment is to look at the big picture and examine what is logical there.

Keith: Ideally, any crime committed can be best achieved by doing it yourself with nobody involved. Crimes can involve many people and succeed. Caesar’s assassination is an example of more than three persons being involved and succeeding. The Kennedy assassination probably involved more than three

JJ I said that three was the ideal number for a conspiracy, not that you couldn’t have one with a greater number. The larger the number the more awkward it becomes.

LWK did a good job in classifying the conspiracies as those that are intended to be kept secret (as the moon landing and 9/11) and those that require secrecy for a short time followed by the incentive of glory and power such as Caesar’s assassination and Stauffenberg’s group.

Another difference is no one can be proven to have known 911 was coming but Hitler knew there was a conspiracy against him. He suspected some of the players but did not go after them because it would hurt his credibility with the military. He was almost relieved after Stauffenberg’s failed attempt. He stated that he finally could go after the conspirators and still keep the support of the military.

All the main conspiracy accusations today involve shadowing characters that do not want to be discovered before, during or after the event.

If Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy I would guess there were only about a dozen who orchestrated it.

By contrast, the moon hoax would have involved over 100,000 – a mathematical impossibility. 911 would have involved thousands which would have made it impossible to keep secret after the event happened.

Let us suppose Stauffenberg and his group assassinated Hitler and wanted to keep it secret. Could they have succeeded? Not a chance.

Even so the thousands of supposed conspirators with the moon hoax or 911 could not have kept the details secret. We would have all kinds of insiders showing up on Sixty Minutes with disguised voices spilling their guts to clear their guilt.

Blayne:You forgot the Gulf of Tonken hoax that got us into the Vietnam war. They have admitted it never happend and it required hundreds of Naval and army personal to keep it quiet. Or how about Operation North woods? Here is a good list of proven

JJ The Gulf of Tonken and other examples prove my point. It was not kept secret. We now know all about it. Conspirators can often keep a plot secret, but after it is executed people pay attention and the truth comes out if there is a significant number of people who know about it.

It has been a dozen years since 9/11 and if it was a conspiracy as claimed then there would be dozens of the thousands involved who would be willing to talk about it just as many are now happy to talk about the Gulf of Tonken.

Blayne: This still does not explain the fact that the buildings could not fall through their own mass at near free fall speed as if there as nothing below them. Most of the building below where the planes hit was completely intact. Demolition is the only thing that can cause a building to do this as it clears the mass below.

JJ Wrong wrong wrong. Demolition is a thousand miles from explaining it because the technology does not exist to take down buildings like the Twin Towers. Your whole point rests on technology that has no existence and has never been tested.

Blayne; The details prove everything in this case…

JJ Then where are your details explaining an impossible demolition??? I have seen no good details on this that go beyond fantasy thinking.

Keith: If 9/11 was a government conspiracy then the individuals behind it in the U.S. facilitated the terrorist attack for their own ends. I do not think they organized the attack from the ground up. They became aware of the pending attack which they could have prevented and deliberately let it happen. If the buildings were demolished by explosives after the planes hit, then the conspirators used their black-ops network to carry it out.

JJ At least you are presenting something that is a possibility here. It is possible some in inner circles knew an attack was coming and did nothing to suit their own purposes.

On the other hand, you think the regular 9/11 conspiracy could have been carried out by few dozen people. This is not possible. There would have been hundreds involved in planning and planting the explosives. There would have been hundreds of soldiers involved in faking the planes and capturing and executing the passengers as claimed.

There would have been hundreds more who participated in faking the phone calls from the planes. This doesn’t count the masterminds who had to include hundreds more in their circle. If it was a conspiracy as claimed I would suspect that there are thousands who could expose it.


Jan 18, 2013


Here is an excerpt from my book illustrating the improbability of orthodox conspiracy theory and 9/11.

So, here’s the situation they present: Bush, the supposed dumbest president in history, was a major player in a conspiracy that involved the cooperation of thousands of participants, pulled off the most infamous disaster in history, and never got caught. Thousands of people are pointing fingers at him, trying to nail him, but he is outsmarting them all, great genius that he is.

Here’s the conspiracy story in a nutshell: Bush and Cheney, in cooperation with invisible power brokers and the military, arranged the hijacking of four planes – Flights 93, 77, 175 and 11. Somehow, after they took off, they were mysteriously snatched out of the skies and taken to an undisclosed location. At this location, the passengers were killed and disposed. The planes were also destroyed, obviously completely pulverized that very day to prevent any recognizable piece from being later used as evidence to the crime.

This was an ingenious accomplishment on the part of Bush and other conspirators when you take into account the whistle blowers at minor atrocities such as Abu Ghraib. 9/11 was much bigger than making men perform tricks while naked.

Just imagine being in the military and designated as one of those disposing of the passengers. Four planes land and all the hundreds of passengers are unloaded and lined up to be shot. You and dozens of others are to kill them and dispose of the bodies. Isn’t it amazing that not one of them has anonymously spoken to the press?

After the planes were snatched out of the air, an amazing thing occurred. They were replaced by missiles or special pods created by the government. These missiles were painted and fixed up to look like planes, but were not planes. These missiles had no passengers on board, but were specially designed to accomplish the evil deed.

They had to make it appear that the passengers were still on board to the end so they faked phone calls made from passengers to loved ones on the ground. All the dozens of loved ones involved were fooled into thinking they were talking to the real person because the government somehow knew in advance who was going to be on each plane and duplicated the correct voices in advance using voice technology. Conspiracy people do not even ask how a bungling bureaucracy can even manage to successfully retrieve the phone numbers of the correct loved ones to call, let alone make them think a computer voice is a family member.

I don’t know about you, but if a computer called me pretending to be my wife, I think I could tell if I was talking to her or not.

The missiles then went about to accomplish their evil mission. The first was substituted for Flight 93 and crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.

What was that about? I know if I were a conspirator, the last thing I would do is to go through all that trouble just to crash a missile in a field. Strange.

The second, the substitute for Flight 77, crashed into the Pentagon. What was that about? The military attacking itself? Oh, yeah… that was just to remove suspicion. That really worked, didn’t it? Even though dozens of people saw a plane, some even close enough to see the passengers, they were fooled. It was really a missile.

The other two missiles, which replaced Flights 175 and 11, plowed into the two Twin Towers buildings. Though millions of people saw the video of this, what they saw were not planes, but missiles or specially built pods that landed in just the right places to not interfere with the planned explosive demolition.

Explosive demolition?

Yes, and this is the amazing part. The conspiracy people believe that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were brought down by a controlled demolition by the use of pre-planted explosives. Even though the largest demolition by explosives has been just over 20 stories, the conspirators decided to go for the Guinness Book of World Records. They increased that record not twice, or four times, but over five times and did it simultaneously with not one building, but two, along with a smaller record-breaking building on the side.

They didn’t care that the technology for such an unknown feat had not been perfected or tested. Instead, they recklessly went ahead blowing up the buildings, just hoping everything would work as planned. This would have indeed been a dumb thing to do, but it turned out that Bush was extremely lucky that things worked out.

Planting the explosives was the difficult part and really illustrates the hidden genius of Bush to have pulled this off.

Hundreds of workers with blow torches and construction tools would have had to enter the buildings and, without being seen, tear out the walls in thousands of locations in each of the Twin Towers. Then they would have had to pull out blowtorches and cut out “V” notches in the thousands of steel beams that supported the towers.

Next, they would have had to wire one explosive charge to another in thousands of locations, destroying and disrupting offices as they moved along. After this, they would have had to repair their destructive work before each worker entered his office again. The repair would have had to be so seamless that none of the thousands of people in the Twin Towers would notice that any changes were made.

Even more amazing is that none of the hundreds, or perhaps even thousands, of demolition workers have spilled their guts. Not one of them has gone to the press to become the hero of the ages. Maybe the conspirators had the military kill them all.

Again, the question arises. When the military lined up and gunned down all the demolition workers, was there not one of the assassins that had a prick in his conscience and was willing to tell his story?

I guess not.

It must have been the genius of Bush that pulled this all off so seamlessly.

If you believe this is the way 9/11 really happened, then I have a bridge to sell you, cheap.

Sorry, I do not have time to answer all the time consuming questions. Instead, just google the answers or go here:

We have already covered this subject to death and I have no interest i repeating what I have already said.


Jan 19, 2013

Re: Forest and the Trees

Blayne: The Gulf of Tonken incident did not come to light for decades Along with many other incidents…. there goes your point. There have been dozens willing to talk about it.

JJ The truth of the Gulf of Tonkin was available from the beginning. A number of insiders tried to reveal the truth. Senator Wayne Morse had an informant shortly after the incident that revealed the truth to him, but wasn’t able to stop us going to war. The 9/11 incident was much more massive and would have involved many more people but we have no Senator or member of Congress claiming to have an informant giving us details of a conspiracy.

Not one insider has come forward with any testimony on a 9/11 conspiracy let alone evidence of a demolition. If your belief were true many would have come forward by now.

JJ Quote Wrong wrong wrong. Demolition is a thousand miles from explaining it because the technology does not exist to take down buildings like the Twin Towers. Your whole point rests on technology that has no existence and has never been tested.

Blayne: Yet the fact remains they fell at near free fall speed mainly into their own footprint. The only way that could happen is to have their mass below them cleared out of the way and the only tech that we know of that can do that is controlled demolition.

JJ You keep bringing up this freefall doctrine just like you did a couple years ago when we covered it thoroughly. We both gave our explanations and now you want to do the dance all over again. Why? You’re not giving any additional light this time around.

The last time I gave you this reference: LINK

And here is a more recent one illustrating that the freefall was not such a freefall after all.


Of course the conspiracy people counter this but unconvincingly.

Blayne: Also I wonder why you think taking down the towers would be any different then any other high rise? The tech has existed for decades.

JJ You have absolutely no proof of this. Either prove it or quit making this claim from the seat of your pants.

JJ Quote: Then where are your details explaining an impossible demolition??? I have seen no good details on this that go beyond fantasy thinking.

Blayne I have posted them many times.

JJ Strange. You keep saying this but I have not seen it. Has anyone else?

You then want to bring up many details that we have already discussed. If you want my answers on the rest of your questions go back two years and read my posts. They are still there.

I will add this interesting quote from the popular Mechanics book on the subject of demolition.

“if you look at any building that is imploded, the explosives are primarily placed on the ground floor and the basement,” Loizeaux (a demolition expert) says. “Why? Because you want to remove the columns when you have the majority of that stored potential energy above where you’re taking the columns out. You want to release as much energy as possible. if you look at the collapse of these structures, they start collapsing up where the planes hit. They don’t start collapsing down -below.” Loizeaux says even if explosives had been placed on the upper floors, they would have generated significantly more dust and debris than mere “puffs.”

Despite his credentials as a physicist, Jones is among those who make faulty assumptions about controlled demolition. in putting forth his case that the buildings were brought down with explosives, Jones writes: “Roughly 29000 pounds of RDX-grade linear-shaped charges (which could have been pre-positioned by just a few men) would then suffice in each Tower and WTC 7 to cut the supports at key points so that gravity would bring the buildings straight down.”

According to Loizeaux, Jones is simply wrong. “The explosives configuration manufacturing technology [to bring down those buildings] does not exist,” Loizeaux says. “If someone were to attempt to make such charges, they would weigh thousands of pounds apiece. You would need forklifts to bring them into the building.”

The biggest commercially available charges, Loizeaux tells Popular Mechanics, are able to cut through steel that is three inches thick. The, box columns at the base of the World Trade Center towers were 14 inches on a side. If big enough charges did exist, Loizeaux says, for each tower it could hypothetically take as long as two months for a team of up to 75 men with unfettered access to three floors to strip the fireproofing off the columns and then place and wire the charges.

“There’s just no way to do it,” Loizeux says, adding that it is similarly implausible that explosives could he smuggled into the buildings. “If you just put bulk explosives in file cabinets next to every column in the building, it wouldn’t knock those columns down. It would blow the windows out. It would trash the [building] and probably blow out two floors above and a floor below . . but it wouldn’t knock the [buildingl down.”


Jan 19, 2013

If It Will Save One Life

I’ve always hated the “save one life” argument. The Left uses it as an emotional argument often to take us away from freedom. They used it to create the irritating 55 MPH speed limit and all kinds of regulations. They have spent up to a billion dollars to save a life with nuclear energy regulations where for about a hundred bucks they could save a sick kid in Central America.


Jan 19, 2013

Re: 9/11 Analysis

Dean You should have already researched it.

JJ I have researched supposed whistle blowers before but new attempts at supplying them come up all the time. None from any insider and none with any convincing evidence.

Dean: I already gave you witnesses in the link, there is many more I didn’t reference, but you are so much in denile so nothing will help you?

JJ You’re dreaming of another reality. Just make a feeble attempt to give us one actual whistle blower that goes beyond someone hearing a noise, hearsay or something. Give me one like the actual witness to the Gulf of Tonkin that was on the ship and spilled his guts to Senator Morse. Maybe you could supply a soldier feeling guilty for gunning down the passengers of the planes after they were miraculously snatched from the air – or maybe someone who fabricated the cell phone calls or helped plant the explosives etc.

Blayne’s whistleblowers “FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, the most gagged woman in America, having the State Secrets Privilege imposed on her twice, went public last year to reveal that Bin Laden maintained “intimate” relations with the US right up until 9/11.

JJ It’s common knowledge we supported Ben Laden during the Russian war with Afghanistan and if we kept some links going that proves nothing. This gal was no insider with any knowledge of a conspiracy.

Blayne: Another whistleblower is former Sergeant in the United States Army named Lauro “LJ” Chavez. Chavez was stationed at MacDill AFB where he claims he witnessed unusual preparations for a potential airplane hitting the base on the morning of 9/11 and distinctly heard officers talking about a stand down. This led him to go public in questioning the NORAD stand down and the demolition of the twin towers.”

JJ Again, a million miles from an insider. Lots of people have heard strange stuff. Listen to Coast to Coast and you’ll be amazed, but observations and hearsay does not prove a conspiracy.

As I said, out of the thousands that had to be involved not one with real knowledge has come forth. Surely one of the hundreds that had to plant the explosives would feel enough guilt to come forward. The fact that no one has ought to tell you something.

Good information on the black boxes is here:

Blayne: Again if no conspiracy can exist without an original conspirator coming forward how did the Manhattan Project stay secret?

JJ The Manhattan project didn’t stay secret. Right after the bomb hit Hiroshima everyone knew about it.

It is fairly easy to keep preparations a secret but after they are executed it is another matter. After 9/11 was executed some participants would normally come forth – particularly rank and file workers just doing their job planting explosives.

JJ Of course the argument made in the video is invalid. The speed of a transfer of force is faster than freefall which explains the supposedly strange data.

Blayne: You have never gotten past the fact that it is physically impossible for a plane and low grade fire to bring down a metal framed building much less the speed of the fall. Yet you continue to thumb your nose at over 1700 architects and engineers informing you of that fact… Talk about fantasy land geeze..

JJ Nothing to get over. It fell at the speed it fell whatever that was for there seems to be lack of agreement on this except for certain truthers who are always 100% sure they have the facts right.

This is just like the moon hoax conspiracy except the moon hoax people had better evidence.

To calculate what an event would accomplish when it was a one of a kind event often results in occurrences that baffle calculations.

Keith listed a number of them from the Moon Hoax but at least he accepts the photographic evidence of the landing sites we now have. The laws of physics were not violated. Instead many just either calculated incorrectly or used bad data in the process.

True believers will never prove their 9/11 conspiracy theories because they make no sense. 20 years from now we will still have no insider whistle blower and the truthers will continue with this same tired debate.

On Sept 11, 2010 we started going back and forth on this subject for about two weeks through about 200 posts. I’ve tried to not repeat myself this round but I think we have covered this enough so unless some really significant new material is presented this will be my last post on this subject for some time to come.

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Conspiracy Discussion, Part 1

This entry is part 41 of 62 in the series 2010

Conspiracy Discussion, Part 1
Posted Sept 13, 2010
Actually as far as the 3 WTC buildings being taken down by explosives the counter arguments are all speculative theories with no precedents. Where as the facts of how the buildings came down have hundreds of precedents and all of them are from buildings taken down by explosives. High rise steel buildings do not disintegrate in mid air and collapse at free fall speed into their own foot print from fire or planes period there is no precedent in history.

A nuke would have incited the people much more and made people much more suspicious. What is so complex about it? The buildings were supposedly undergoing renovations for over a year so there would be little if any wonder about construction types in the buildings. I used to maintained networks in some high rises in LA and you can get around in those buildings in the utility areas with out being seen most of the time too.

One can speculate on it being to complex to pull off never the less the facts are the buildings were taken down with explosives.
IYou say there are hundreds of precedents demonstrating a WTC type demolition.  Can you cite just one?  The largest one I can find as only twenty some stories.

There were not enough renovations going on to secretly have a crew of hundreds go in and pull apart the buildings clear to the steel beams and plant and wire the explosives.  Someone would have seen then in there with blow torches cutting he necessary Vs in the steel.

Why haven’t one of the hundreds of necessary workers talked let alone the other conspirators?

Why didn’t the explosives go off as soon as the planes hit?

Why was there no sound of the explosive force as happens in regular demolitions.  There are so many unanswered questions it is beyond belief.

A small nuke (or a dozen other things) would have been much easier had there been a conspiracy and it could have been easily blamed on terrorists.

Check out this short video in demolition:

You really ought to watch the History Channel one also:
History Chanel Video

From Wikipedia
Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, “These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the ‘reverse scientific method.’ They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn’t fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion.”

Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort. The tower walls would have had to be opened on dozens of floors. Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be sneaked past security and placed in the towers without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing. Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, “How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash […] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?”

Here is a short film explaining the collapse of WTC7 which was not hit by a plane.
WTC7 Video

No need for secrets they were supposedly removing asbestos.

I can’t find any evidence of this on the site you referenced or any other site.  Do you have a reference?

Like I said I have spent time in high rises in LA you don’t need to pull anything apart there are access points to the column areas on every floor this is where they run all the utilities. They were renovating supposedly to clean out asbestos etc no one would question what they were doing and people would be kept out of those areas due to asbestos and cleaning a steel column to metal would have been chalked up to getting rid of asbestos and the regular people in the building would rarely see them as they would be in the access areas or if not the area they were working would be cleared due to asbestos.

I can’t find any evidence that anyone was clearing out asbestos and if there was someone doing renovation there should be a record. They would have had to supposedly renovate the whole building to wire it for explosives and I can’t find any evidence of this.

JJ Quote
Why haven’t one of the hundreds of necessary workers talked let alone the other conspirators?

You don’t need hundreds of people I have seen documentaries on TV of teams of ten to twenty wiring a whole building for demo.

These were not just any buildings.  If the largest building destroyed by demolition explosives took 20 people then the three WTC buildings with over 10 million square feet would have taken well over 100 workers to prepare them.

People have talked and been dismissed as crackpots.

Maybe you can supply an interview with a couple of these.  If they are for real they should have something on youtube.

JJ Quote:
Why didn’t the explosives go off as soon as the planes hit?  Why was there no sound of the explosive force as happens in regular demolitions.

There are many reports of explosions listen to firemen and others reporting multiple explosions


Everyone agrees there were a number of explosions most probably caused by broken gas lines but where is the audio of explosions that have the distinct sound of explosives from demolition???  This video (Click Here) gives the sound at a real demolition and then gives the sound of the twin towers coming down.  Obviously there wasn’t demolition type explosions that brought down the towers.

From the time the first plane hit there were thousands of recording devices active.  Surely one of them would have picked up the explosions but none have that I can find.  How about you?  Can you produce just one recording proving there were real demolition type explosions???

JJ Quote
You say there are hundreds of precedents demonstrating a WTC type demolition.
Can you cite just one? The largest one I can find as only twenty some stories. (Note Blayne found one 32 stories)

There are probably hundreds alone in Las Vegas they demo buildings this way all
the time


I watched these are they are nothing like the collapse of the Twin Towers.  The collapse of these  began at the top and proceeded downwards.  The examples you gave did not do this. Let us see a demolition expert prepare a 110 story building and fly a plane into it without igniting the explosions and then hours later begin the explosions right where the plane hit. How would one go about doing that?

Also you never answered why the two planes did not ignite the explosives as soon as they hit.

Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Conspiracy Discussion, Part 2

This entry is part 42 of 62 in the series 2010

Posted Sept 14, 2010
What needs to be answered first is how the buildings fell through all their mass at free fall speed when that is impossible without explosives clearing the way down.

And what makes you think it’s impossible without explosives or even that it will happen with explosives?
The Twin Towers didn’t have a free fall. You can read about it here:

Here is an explantion for WTC7
To many people the apparent collapse of the buildings at ‘near free-fall-speed’ is one of the most compelling arguments in favour of the CD theory. However it is also the most easily dealt with on scientific grounds. The fact is that the near free-fall-speed of collapse of buildings in controlled demolition is entirely due to gravity, and not to explosives. The question of course remains, how come that buildings, impeded by their intact lower floors, collapse so fast? (Though of course, this is not a question with any direct relevance to 9/11.) Put this way, the question conveys the essential fact of controlled demolition: that the only floors effectively ‘removed’ from the building are the lowest. (Further charges are placed in the building if and only if it is necessary to guide its fall in a certain way, for example to collapse a building into its footprint.) In a 20-story building, for example, the bottom floor or floors is extensively rigged with explosive, to remove its load-bearing capability. The remaining 18-odd storeys pancake into the region of the destroyed floor, one at a time, raising exactly the same question as to how is it that this process can take place so quickly? The same question applies to conventional demolition, and to the Tower buildings. The difference is that the pancaking occurs high in the Twin Towers (‘top-down pancaking’), and at the base of WTC 7 (‘bottom-up pancaking’). In the usual bottom-up process each floor impedes the process of collapse through its structural rigidity, just as much as one would expect in the top-down processes in the Towers. Although no text-book account is available which might give a simple answer to the issue of the speed of gravitational collapse of buildings, one might draw on the analogy of a hydraulic press compressing, say, a car body shell. The car body shell may seem strong enough to withstand everyday loadings, but, when it takes the hit of a high-powered press, it collapses with astonishing speed. 18 storeys of a big building, moving even rather sedately as they would at the onset of collapse, probably outstrip the forces of even the biggest hydraulic press ever built.

It seems that all the proponents of the CD theory state the case, like Jones above, along the lines: “The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses.” This is simply unscientific; not corresponding to the reality of how controlled demolition is carried out. Returning to our example of the collapse of a 20-story building, there is simply no need to explode each floor, and such explosions are certainly not the explanation of why buildings fall so fast in controlled demolition. All the calculations produced by the CD theorists, designed to prove their theory, are based on the wrong premise, that explosions accelerate the descent. They don’t: it is purely gravity that does it.

Even if you accept the unprecedented theory that the fires weakened the steel it only would be at the one point and the supposed pancaking floors would hit the lower floors and columns and mass that has not been weakened causing great resistance and slowing it down tipping over, it could not have fallen at free fall speed without explosives it was physically impossible.

Most engineers who have studied this disagree with you. There has not been one study supporting you that has gotten peer review support.

So you can question how it was possible to pull it off but never the less it is already proven it was done by explosives with the forensic evidence.

It has not been proven. The proof is in the opposite direction.

Take a listen to this video of the fall of WTC7.
WTC7 Video

Do you hear any explosives going off? How does a building get demolished with explosives when there is no sound of explosions? Did they use some silent explosives from Area 51?

You indicate that Turner Construction, who supervised the 2000 demolition of the Seattle Kingdome may have set the explosive for the towers. Here is a video of one of their demolitions. Notice the obvious explosive noise that is missing from WTC7 and the Twin Towers?
Kingdome Demolition
You might also ask how all the explosives might have been planted in that much smaller structure without being discovered. If you couldn’t do it there in secret then the Twin Towers would have been impossible.

…why do you think it is impossible to get a hundred people in there as construction workers when the building had thousands of people working in it daily?

Preparing for demolition is a pretty intrusive thing. The owner of the building and management would have had to been in on the conspiracy as well. If Turner Construction did the evil deed then you would think that one of the employees would have talked by now. Or you’d think some rich Moslem would have offered one of them a pile of money to talk to exonerate his own people.

Also there is the little problem of no fuses, caps and other demolition materials ever being found at the site.

Here is an interesting compilation of whistle blowers who have tried to come forward:

Whistle Blowers

There’s no whistle blowers there of anything but conjecture. Where is a real whistleblower – someone who planted the explosives or assisted in killing the passengers of the planes? If the conspiracy theory was correct we’d have a real whistle blower by now.

This video gives the sound at a real demolition and then gives the sound of the twin towers coming down. Obviously there wasn’t demolition type explosions that brought down the towers.

Here are some sound recordings (Sound Recordings)


That weak sound just does not compare to a real demolition as referenced above. Everyone acknowledges there were some gas line explosions, but they sound different than demolition explosions.

Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Conspiracy Discussion, Part 3

This entry is part 43 of 62 in the series 2010

Posted Sept 16, 2010
first want to state that I have no problem with Blayne or anyone else bringing up honest objections to anything I write. Contrary to some critics, we do have independent thinkers here. Blayne has a very good mind that I admire and would much rather have him on my side, but when he is not I find must have very sound arguments.

Blayne points out one anomaly in the world trade Center collapse and that is the apparent free fall of WTC#7. Contrary to some conspiracy reports the other two did not freefall.

Most engineers and researchers who have looked into this do not see anything defying the laws of physics.

Now let us say that there was a demolition. One could use Blayne’s argument even here. He says to have a freefall you have to have no resistance. Are you telling me that a demolition can remove all resistance from the entire structure of a building? That doesn’t sound logical either. Yet we saw the building collapse at near freefall so we know it can be done. Now some say it fell faster than freefall so that also would seemingly defy the laws of physics no matter how you spin it.

Where has there ever been a free fall of a building 47 stories or higher from a proven demolition?


If a group of engineers could have planned 911 in advance none could have accurately predicted all the anomalies. That is because every big event that has ever happened before has anomalies that were unforeseen.

Before we landed a spacecraft on Venus scientists made many predictions that were wrong. But then when our instruments showed us the true reality we had to accept it. The same goes for our discoveries on Titan. No one was able to predict them all.

The granddaddy of them all was the moon landing. Many anomalies occurred that amateur scientists thought defied the laws of physics and the Moon Landing Hoax Theory was born. I would think that those who believe 911 was a conspiracy would also be convinced of the Moon Hoax arguments because they are even more convincing. I might consider them myself except for one thing.

We have proof positive that we went to the moon.

And just like 911 such a hoax would have to involved thousands of people who never talked about it.
In such a vast conspiracy such silence would be totally impossible.

The military cannot even keep any of its secrets. Even many that may endanger our service people’s lives are exposed through wikileaks publishing on the internet.

Now if do-gooders are motivated to reveal secrets that may endanger lives wouldn’t they be much more motivated to reveal the secrets of 911 when apparently evil conspirators are involved???

Such a leaker could go down in history as a great hero.

Here is a list of reasons I cannot swallow the 911 conspiracy theory.

(1) No clear motive.

One may say the motive is to give the government an excuse to take away our freedoms. Well Obama is doing a better job of that than any president we ever had and he completely ignores the 911 disaster. He is proof that 911 just was not needed if this was the plan.

(2) The chances of being exposed with such a complex conspiracy involving thousands of people would be too high.

(3) If there was a real conspiracy we would have had dozens of leaks by now, some appearing on 60 minutes.

(4) All three buildings were damaged by heat and fire. Why did tremendous heat and fire not set off the explosive charges in all three buildings long before they fell? The wiring would have also been short circuited by the heat and fire.

(5) The collapse of the Twin towers happened from the top down. This has never in the history of the planet happened to a large building through demolition. Why would conspirators attempt something that has never been tested or proven to work???

(6) There are no demolition-like sounds of explosives. Just watch the difference in this film:
That alone ought to convince a fair-minded person that no demolition was involved.

(7) I’ve studied both sides piece by piece and in each case the traditional argument makes the most sense. The only thing that raises a red flag at all is the anomaly of the free fall of WTC7 but a free fall through demolition seems just as mysterious for you still have resistance to overcome.

(8) The disaster took a trillion dollars out of our economy and more if you count the wars. How would conspirators benefit by such a loss? No one seemed to benefit but the real villains – Islamic terrorists.

(9) Turner Construction which is accused of setting the explosives had offices in the Twin Towers that were destroyed. Why weren’t their offices in a safe location if they knew what was going to happen?

If we look at the whole disaster the list could go on and on.

Keith quoting me:
writes the following,”…And just like 911 such a hoax would have to
involved thousands of people who never talked about it. In such a vast
conspiracy such silence would be totally impossible…”

There are examples of huge projects where many people have been involved and the
secret has been kept for many years and sometimes decades.
The three that come to mind are the Manhattan Project, Ultra Secret, and J.J.’s
own previous life conspiracy when he tried to eliminate Hitler. Silence is not
totally impossible. All of these projects involved large numbers of personnel
and were kept secret for a very long time.

As Ruth indicated it is possible to plan a conspiracy without being discovered. The reason for this is obvious. Often the conspirators are planning something of which no one is suspicious. The Nazis knew we were working on the bomb and we knew they were but did not know the details.


as soon as the bomb went off all our enemies went into hyperdrive to discover all the details. Sadly, Stalin discovered all our atomic secrets and this gave him a big advantage in developing his own nuclear program.

Then as soon as Valkyrie was executed most of the conspirators were revealed.

Now imagine this. Suppose the real purpose of the Manhattan project was to bomb New York. Do you think they could have kept that secret? No. it would have been revealed before the act. To think they could have bombed New York and blamed it on the Nazis and then nine years later most people still accept this because no leakers surface is just too fantastic to believe. Even so nine years after 911 there has not been one lowly laborer for the conspiracy to come forward.

The Pentagon probably has the most sophisticated video surveillance system in the world. Why
no video?

Let us just suppose that there was a conspiracy and they had power to make sure no videos would be taken. This is essential because they are going to send a missile and not a plane. They are going to hijack the plane in midair and kill all the passengers and dispose of the plane.

Now they have a major problem. Even though they have control of the Pentagon videos they have no control of videos made by citizens. When they send the missile there is at least a 50/50 chance that some citizen will take a video of the event that will clearly show what attacked the Pentagon. When considering this do you think they will take the chance of being exposed? I certainly wouldn’t if I were a conspirator.

In addition a number of eye witnesses have come forth and stated that it was a plane and not a missile that hit the Pentagon. I heard one witness on Coast to Coast say that he was on the ground and close enough to the plane to actually see some passengers through the windows just before it crashed.

Keith writes:
I do not believe the Pentagon only has one poor quality video.  I work at a paper mill and you can not enter the site without being caught on a high quality camera.  There is a Sony plant across the street which has even better video surveillance of their premises.  To think that the defensive nerve center of the western world has only one poor quality video of this plane hitting their building is preposterous.

(The real question is why they won’t release  any video?  I can only speculate their is something more amiss than an imagined cruise missile.  The whole government stance on 911 is a continual lack of candor.  One would think they want the public to believe in these conspiracies.  The same applies to the moon landings.  We have the technology to clearly photograph the landing modules on the moon but never produce anything but grainy shadow photos.  Both 911 and the alleged moon hoaxes can be put to rest, but the government does not seem interested in providing the necessary proof.)

Actually, you are the first person I’ve heard bring this up. I did a little digging and found that the one video that was released was not taken by the Pentagon but by a nearby Motel.  If the Pentagon has videos they do not seem to be saying much.  Unfortunately, the government is so secretive they look guilty even if they are not. Since we have 136 eye witnesses any video released shouldn’t have anything surprising in it. They confiscated the one video that was released and had to be sued before they released it.  You’d think it would therefore have something sinister in it, but then there was nothing.  Here’s a video to fuel your interest.
Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey