Lawmaker asks McCain to talk with 9/11 theorists

RATSOADM · #1 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 02:56 AM

Quote:

An Arizona state senator is petitioning presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain to meet with 9/11 conspiracy theorists, including an adjunct professor from Scottsdale who has been fasting outside McCain's Phoenix office for more than a week.

State Sen. Karen Johnson, a Mesa Republican, delivered a letter to McCain's Senate office Tuesday asking that he sit down with Scottsdale activist Blair Gadsby and a pair of leading members of the 9/11 Truth Movement to consider alternative explanations for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Gadsby's fast outside McCain's Senate office entered its 10th day today.

"There are so many questions left unanswered," said Johnson, who called for a new, independent investigation into the attacks.

Follow up:

She has previously been the focus of media attention for her vocal misgivings about the government account of 9/11. Again Tuesday, she said, "There's no explanation - no legitimate explanation - about why those towers and Building 7 came down."

WTC 7 was the third building to collapse at the complex, though it wasn't directly struck by either aircraft.

Gadsby said he'll maintain his office vigil until McCain pledges to sit down with him, Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and Steven Jones, a physicist who claims to have done laboratory analysis and found evidence of explosives in the WTC rubble. Their conditions: a pledge of two hours with McCain, plus national media coverage.

Gadsby, an adjunct community college professor, said he's been told by McCain staffers that the senator is too busy to meet. The Republic had no luck Tuesday reaching representatives of either McCain's Senate office or presidential campaign. But he appears unsympathetic to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and occasionally has sparred with them on the campaign trail over the past year.

He also wrote the foreword to a 2006 book titled Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts. It was written by the editors of Popular Mechanics magazine.

"We cannot let these tales go unanswered," McCain wrote, saying that the "9/11 conspiracy movement exploits the public's anger and sadness" and "traffics in ugly, unfounded accusations of extraordinary evil against fellow Americans."

Well aware of McCain's earlier comments, Gadsby said it's his belief that the senator "has been deceived by these scientists" and the "whitewash" surrounding 9/11.

"I believe he has the character to do the right thing," continued Gadsby, who has lost 20 pounds during his fast on a diet of water and electrolytes.

Generally speaking, his theory for the 9/11 attacks involves a government-led inside job with the intent to provide an impetus for war in the Middle East. He and Johnson point to the possible use of controlled explosives planted prior to Sept. 11 to bring down the WTC towers, saying collisions with the airliners alone wouldn't have been sufficient.

"We need to know what happened on 9/11," Johnson wrote in her letter to McCain. "Nearly 3,000 Americans died that day, and we deserve to know the truth about what happened."

Static · 06-10-2008, 12:26 PM

McCain will probably be the last person to sit down and talk with any 911 truthers... That guy is such a douche on so many levels, he doesn't even show them any respect, I seriously doubt he'll talk about other possible ways the attacks could have happened... Even if a million pieces of evidence are staring him right in the face...

side note - I saw the show 'modern marvels' yesterday, and the subject was extreme heat, so of course they showed what extreme heat can do to steel, which brought in the twin towers. They had a 'scientist' on there who actually said "the innitial plane crashes aren't what brought the towers down, everyone know's it was the fire and the extreme amount of heat that was present" (seems they can't even stick to their own story anymore...) Fire WAS NOT the cause of collapse at the wtc! That has been proven, scientifically, so why the fuck is the history channel still spitting this shit...I wonder who owns the history channel....hmm.

I must be a crazy conspiracy theorist too...

**Brother of Yeshua** · 06-10-2008, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Static

McCain will probably be the last person to sit down and talk with any 911 truthers... That guy is such a douche on so many levels, he doesn't even show them any respect, I seriously doubt he'll talk about other possible ways the attacks could have happened... Even if a million pieces of evidence are staring him right in the face...

side note - I saw the show 'modern marvels' yesterday, and the subject was extreme heat, so of course they showed what extreme heat can do to steel, which brought in the twin towers. They had a 'scientist' on there who actually said "the innitial plane crashes aren't what brought the towers down, everyone know's it was the fire and the extreme amount of heat that was present" (seems they can't even stick to their own story anymore...) Fire WAS NOT the cause of collapse at the wtc! That has been proven, scientifically, so why the fuck is the history channel still spitting this shit...I wonder who owns the history channel....hmm.

I must be a crazy conspiracy theorist too...

More importantly, you obviously hate America, and are a commie pinko islamic fascist sympathizer.

It is nice, however, to see local government people at least recognizing the concerns of their constituency, regardless of personal opinions and feelings towards those views.

**Opunaya** · 06-10-2008, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Static

McCain will probably be the last person to sit down and talk with any 911 truthers... That guy is such a douche on so many levels, he doesn't even show them any respect, I seriously doubt he'll talk about other possible ways the attacks could have happened... Even if a million pieces of evidence are staring him right in the face...

side note - I saw the show 'modern marvels' yesterday, and the subject was extreme heat, so of course they showed what extreme heat can do to steel, which brought in the twin towers. They had a 'scientist' on there who actually said "the innitial plane crashes aren't what brought the towers down, everyone know's it was the fire and the extreme amount of heat that was present" (seems they can't even stick to their own story anymore...) Fire WAS NOT the cause of collapse at the wtc! That has been proven, scientifically, so why the fuck is the history channel still spitting this shit...I wonder who owns the history channel....hmm.

I must be a crazy conspiracy theorist too...

Was that a new episode? Or an old one...you sure you didn't catch the one from seven years ago or something?

rightwinger · 06-10-2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

They had a 'scientist' on there who actually said "the innitial plane crashes aren't what brought the towers down, everyone know's it was the fire and the extreme amount of heat that was present" (seems they can't even stick to their own story anymore...)

That's always been the story.

Although it wasn't just an either or thing. The structural damage (that also knocked off fireproofing) + the extreme fires caused the collapse.

Quote:

Fire WAS NOT the cause of collapse at the wtc! That has been proven, scientifically

How was it proven scientifically?

Quote:

It is nice, however, to see local government people at least recognizing the concerns of their constituency

No. She's not representing the concerns of the constituency. She bought into nonsense. That letter you posted from her, showed that. She repeated, the tired old, debunked lines of the truth movement.

And. I know I'm not around much. But, just fyi. RATSOADM, I'm still waiting for that example of a building demolition that used thermite.

And I'd like to see some calculations, showing why the building "fell too fast", and how fast it should have come down.

RATSOADM · 06-10-2008, 02:55 PM

Quote:

"I'm still waiting for that example of a building demolition that used thermite."

dude i fucking showed u thermite charges can be used for demolition, why the hell shoudl i find examples? im unsure where to even begin to see a list of materials used for a demolition, as far as i am aware, when a demolition takes place, it is not standard procedure for the demolition company to disclose all of their methods, some of which may be patented... i showed you the patent for the demolition charges using thermite, showed an example of how they are used to cut through columns (the pbs documentary). Now if you want example, here is 1. WTC7 hehe.

U seem to think that if the buildings were demolished on 9/11 , the people doing the work would have documented everything and used standard procedures for everything..this is unrealistic, the accusation you gave was that thermite could not be used for demolition...i showed that it CAN be used, and there are not only patents, but examples of how they build the shaped charge using thermite... That;s all i will provide, i do not have examples of its use, mostly because i do not monitor every explosion out there to see what materials are used, and I think it is not even a valid question. ITs completely irrelevent. You seem to act as though there is never a first time for anything, that if its not fully documented, and explained, used in the past with diagrams, testimony from Bush and probably used in your hometown, that it is impossible.. Even with patents, information proving that its possible etc.. u would not believe the earth is round if you havnt flown around the globe most likely...maybe that's a little extreme, but truthfully you dont seem to believe anything is even possible without a documentary by some magicians like penn and teller, or a article in popular mechanics magazine... any other examples are invalid.. If anything appears on youtube,. its instantly false hehe.

here is something taken from wikipedia also if your interested.

Quote:

"Because thermate burns at higher temperatures than ordinary thermite[citation needed], it has useful military applications in cutting through tank armor or other hardened military vehicles or bunkers. As with thermite, thermate's ability to burn for short periods of time without an external supply of oxygen renders it useful for underwater demolition."

**Brother of Yeshua** · 06-10-2008, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightwinger

How was it proven scientifically?

I'm not trying to start a debate, but go look up what NIST has said. They've changed the story from fuel raised to high temperatures, then retracted it, then they said the central column collapsed, then they retracted that. Then they said "we are unable to provide a full explanation of the collapse."

I've shown you this before. You seem to trust NIST, so I'm not sure what other proof you need that it has been debunked.

rightwinger · 06-10-2008, 03:30 PM

Quote:

im unsure where to even begin to see a list of materials used for a demolition

This is what people would call "doing research"

If I were to make a claim, that 9-11 was a controlled demolition. I'd have done some research, into what a controlled demolition is. Probably would have fired a few e-mails to some demolition firms. Made some calls etc.

But your goal isn't research. Hence, why all your info comes from conspiracy sites.

There is no evidence of controlled demolition. Furthermore, there is no evidence of thermite.

Steven Jones' evidence of thermite is dust samples of materials.....that are used in building construction. He found sulfur, and thinks that's indicative of thermite. But, the dry wall in the WTC buildings was sulfur based. That's the extent of the evidence for thermite. Nothing. The fact that it is not used in demolitions, and is also infeasible...is gravy, on top of the fact that there is no evidence of it's use in this case.

Nor is there any evidence of a controlled demolition.

Quote:

the accusation you gave was that thermite could not be used for demolition

I said that it is not used in demolition, and it's infeasible to do so.

Due to the amount needed.

It would be impossible to sneak that much thermite into a building, and secretly plant it with nobody noticing.

Quote:

You seem to act as though there is never a first time for anything, that if its not fully documented, and explained, used in the past with diagrams, testimony from Bush and probably used in your hometown, that it is impossible

If there is no evidence for something...I do not believe it.

Quote:

Even with patents

It's a patent for a product, that is not in production, and is not in use.

Quote:

information proving that its possible etc

Proving that it's possible is not even the issue.

You have to prove, that it WAS used. Not that it could be used.

Quote:

but truthfully you dont seem to believe anything is even possible without a documentary by some magicians like penn and teller, or a article in popular mechanics magazine

I don't rely on Penn and Teller or Popular Mechanics.

I take what NIST and the ASCE say about structures seriously though. And I take peer reviewed science seriously. (No. Not an open letter published in a vanity journal....for which Steven Jones had to PAY, and the people who actually reviewed it are not identified)

I go where the evidence points me. And there is no evidence for your theories. On top of them being completely fucking insane, and lacking evidence of any kind.

**Brother of Yeshua** · 06-10-2008, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightwinger

I take what NIST and the ASCE say about structures seriously though.

Then make sure you check out the info in my last post

rightwinger · 06-10-2008, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother of Yeshua

I'm not trying to start a debate, but go look up what NIST has said. They've changed the story from fuel raised to high temperatures, then retracted it, then they said the central column collapsed, then they retracted that. Then they said "we are unable to provide a full explanation of the collapse."

I've shown you this before. You seem to trust NIST, so I'm not sure what other proof you need that it has been debunked.

What did they retract about "fuel raised to high temperatures"?

What did they change about the center column? Do you have a link of some kind?

There is only one NIST report, so I'm not sure what point you are making.

The "unable to provide full explanation"...is about a couple things. One, it's in reference to building 7, of which there is no report, though one is in the works. And they never explained the full collapse. Just showed what initiated the collapse, and why that would be sufficient enough momentum and energy to cause the global collapse.

The NIST report, has not been debunked....at all.

If you were able to show a few nuances of their position....that still wouldn't debunk anything.

And still. You miss the point. Poking a hole in the NIST report....is not proof of an inside job, at all. You need evidence to make that claim.