so, i have been gone a while...where are we at with our discussion on 9-11?

[drizl]

now, i know its a little bit taboo, but its still an issue in my mind, and will always be as seen in the context of the war on terror, iraq, the middle east, the constitution, etc...
anyone see the latest video released by the government showing the pentagon from the doubletree hotel? supposedly there is something like 80 other videos out there that a small group of people are trying to get released.

as for where i stand:

from my perspective, its an inside job. there are just too many unanswered questions compounded by the fact that the american government continues to this day to cover up the events and whitewash the story. we all know how corrupt and capable the bush family, as well as other elitist fascists, of pulling this off- quite a bit more capable than osama in my opinion.
why do i feel this?

THE PENTAGON:
1. the original hole in the pentagon was too small for a boeing to fit into, the hole was enlarged after the wall collapsed after the initial impact.
2. there is very little evidence of a plane, and the engines are argued by some professionals (who to my knowledge have yet to be defeated) to not even belong to the boeing believed to hit the pentagon.
3. the pilot of the aircraft was supposedly the same man who participated a few years before, in simulated excersizes of a plane hitting the pentagon, in the exact same place...(loose change did a good job with this one)
4. lawn left undisturbed, and no parts of the plane shot over the wall, which means that the plane would have had to have been expertly maneuvered and scored a direct hit against the wall...quite an accomplishment, especially for arab hijackers with little to no flight experience.
5. the fact that the side of the pentagon hit, was the only one retrofitted to withstand such an impact without causing severe damage to the building itself. perhaps if this wasnt done, the plane would have travelled through the rings and caused even more damage...i dont know....seems too coincidental.
if it was an inside job, it might have allowed key players to remain in the building, such as donald rummy.
6. the video tapes. now the government is either hiding these tapes so that they can be used later, when this theory has become so important to the truth movement, to strike a major blow to the "conspiracy theorists" out there, or perhaps, and in my opinion, most likely, the videos (80 of them) were confiscated within minutes of the crash because someone ordered the team to do so knowing, that those videos might show something other than what we are told happened that day.

EVIDENCE OF CONTROLLED DEMOLITION IN NYC

1. towers collapsing at near free fall speed which means: that there was no resistance from the floors below. which means, that key structural support had to have been knocked out on lower floors (not every floor) that caused the buildings to buckle under very little stress.
2. squibs. plumes of debris as evidence of explosions occuring as much as 60 floors below the collapse of both towers.
3. both towers fell within an hour of the impact. at almost the exact amount of time from impact.
4.large explosions registering on seismographs in NY showing the impacts, as well as secondary and tertiary explosions...where did these other explosions come from, and how did they register to the magnitude they did? this evidence suggests that there were explosives anchored to the structure near the basement area which would have transferred energy throgh the collumns into the bedrock where the columns are anchored, and then to the seismographs. these seismographs show clearly the impacts, the explosions, and the collapse of both trade centers.
5. testimonies from janitors, workers, firemen and women, security officials, and onlookers of multiple explosions on multiple floors. the firefighter tape was released quite some time after the investigation...many still are unaware of what was on the tape, and much of the tape has been deleted.
6. the fine dust powder from the collapse, hinting at a large amount of explosions used.
7. all evidence shipped off to china immediately, not allowed to be studied.
8. evidence of thermite in videos and physically found by steven jones former physisist at BYU, practically fired for his findings.


LARRY SILVERSTEIN

1. profitted immensely, in the billions of dollars from the attacks.
2. weeks before 9-11, when he had purchased the property, he hired a new security firm to handle all security at the trade centers. securecom, headed by george dubyas brother.
3. securecom "powered down" the buildings several times prior to 9-11 allowing gaps in security, and pulled bomb dogs from the buildings prior to 9-11.
4. building 7, in a pbs documentary, was said to have been "pulled" (demolished) by the fire chief and larry himself. why? and why does this contradict the 9-11 report and commision findings?
5. silverstein is a very powerful man, and a well connected zionist.

these are a few points that still have me questioning the official story. do you believe or disbelieve the official story? what do you think and why?
is Q still around? haha
PEACE

[QueenAdrock]

I don't believe the conspiracy theories. I've said it once and I'll continue to say it. I believe my dad, seeing as how he's more of an expert than the people doing the accusing.

[drizl]

what does your dad say and how is he any more credible than anyone else?

[drizl]

credibility:

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

"Many respected senior members of the U.S. military, intelligence services, and government have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Some even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11." (http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport)

[drizl]

911 Truth Statement (http://www.wanttoknow.info/911statement)

Respected Leaders and Families Launch 9/11 Truth Statement Demanding Deeper Investigation into the Events of 9/11

NEW YORK CITY, NY (Oct. 26, 2004) – An alliance of 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 today announced the release of the 911 Truth Statement, a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur. The Statement supports an August 31st Zogby poll that found nearly 50% of New Yorkers believe the government had foreknowledge and "consciously failed to act," with 66% wanting a new 9/11 investigation.

Focusing on twelve questions, the Statement highlights areas of incriminating evidence that were either inadequately explored or ignored by the Kean Commission, ranging from insider trading and hijacker funding to foreign government forewarnings and inactive defenses around the Pentagon. The Statement asks for four actions: an immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Congressional hearings, media analysis, and the formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.

The Statement's list of signatories includes notables spanning the political spectrum, from Presidential candidates Ralph Nader, Michael Badnarik, and David Cobb to Catherine Austin Fitts, a member of the first Bush administration, as well as Washington veterans like Pentagon whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern. Other signers range from peace activists like Code Pink president Jodie Evans and Global Exchange's Kevin Danaher to former US Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq, Edward L. Peck; from environmentalists like Randy Hayes and John Robbins to business leaders such as Paul Hawken and Karl Schwartz, CEO of Patmos Nanotechnologies; from populist journalist Ronnie Dugger to renowned investigative reporter Kelly Patricia O'Meara.

The Statement also includes 43 noted authors, including New York Times #1 bestseller John Gray, as well as 18 eminent professors, historians, and theologians. Other notables include five-term Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, singers Michelle Shocked and Michael Franti, and actors Ed Asner and Mimi Kennedy.

The Statement was facilitated by 911truth.org, a leading coalition. The organization has also announced a press conference outside of Eliot Spitzer's Manhattan office (corner of Cedar and Nassau) at 2:00PM on Thursday, Oct. 28th where 9/11 family members and victim group representatives will file a formal complaint demanding the first criminal investigation of 9/11 events by the New York Attorney General.

The Statement

We Want Real Answers About 9/11

On August 31, 2004, Zogby International, the official North American political polling agency for Reuters, released a poll that found nearly half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of those in New York state believe US leaders had foreknowledge of impending 9/11 attacks and "consciously failed" to act. Of the New York City residents, 66% called for a new probe of unanswered questions by Congress or the New York Attorney General.

In connection with this news, we have assembled 100 notable Americans and 40 family members of those who died to sign this 9/11 Statement, which calls for immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.

We want truthful answers to questions such as:

Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?
Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?
Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed judge?
How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?
How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?
What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?
Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?
Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the questions posed here?
Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?
Those who are demanding deeper inquiry now number in the hundreds of thousands, including a former member of the first Bush administration, a retired Air Force colonel, a European parliamentarian, families of the victims, highly respected authors, investigative journalists, peace and justice leaders, former Pentagon staff, and the National Green Party.

As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:

An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.
Given the importance of the coming election, we feel it is imperative that these questions be addressed publicly, honestly, and rigorously so that Americans may exercise their democratic rights with full awareness.

In closing, we pray and hope for the strength to approach this subject with wisdom and compassion so that we may heal from the wounds inflicted on that terrible day.

Signed,

Signatories

Note: All organizations are mentioned for identification purposes only. Individuals have signed this statement as an act of their own conscience, not to signify organizational endorsement.

Virginia Deane Abernethy, Ph.D., anthropologist, author, Population Politics
Ed Asner, actor, activist
Marshall Auerback, international portfolio strategist for David W. Tice & Associates, Inc.
Catherine Austin Fitts, Asst. Secretary of Housing in the first Bush administration
Keidi Obi Awadu, aka The Conscious Rasta, talk show host, LIBRadio
Michael Badnarik, Libertarian candidate for President
Byron Belitsos, publisher, Origin Press, author Planetary Democracy
Philip J. Berg, Esquire, former deputy attorney general, Pennsylvania
Medea Benjamin, activist, author, co-founder, Global Exchange and Code Pink
Dennis Bernstein, investigative reporter, radio host of KPFA's Flashpoints
Steve Bhaerman aka Swami Beyondananda, author, political comedian
Brad Blanton, Ph.D., psychotherapist, author, Radical Honesty
Saniel Bonder, spiritual teacher and author, Great Relief
Dr. Robert Bowman, USAF Lt. Col. (Rtd.), founder, Institute for Space and Security Studies
John Buchanan, author, candidate for the Republican Party Presidential nomination, 2004
Gray Brechin, Ph.D., author, environmental historian, professor, UC Berkeley
Fred Burks, presidential interpreter for Bush, Clinton, Cheney, and Gore
Norma Carr-Rufino, Ph.D., author, professor of management, San Francisco State University
Angana Chatterji, Ph.D., scholar-activist and professor of anthropology
Paul Cienfuegos, co-founder, Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County
David Cobb, attorney, national presidential candidate, US Green Party
John Cobb, Ph.D., theologian, co-author, For the Common Good
Ernest Callenbach, founder/editor, Film Quarterly, author, Ecotopia
Kevin Danaher, Ph.D., author, speaker, co-founder, Global Exchange
Stephen Dinan, author, Radical Spirit
Bill Doyle, advocate for 9/11 families, father of Joseph Doyle, Cantor Fitzgerald employee
Ronnie Dugger, journalist/author, co-founder, Alliance for Democracy
Rachel Ehrenfeld, Ph.D., Director, American Center for Democracy, author, Funding Evil
Daniel Ellsberg, author, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers
Jodie Evans, president, Code Pink
Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law, Princeton University
Michael Franti, musician, filmmaker, human rights worker
Jim Garrison, Ph.D., president, State of the World Forum, author, America as Empire
Bruce Gagnon, Chair, Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
Ric Giardina, author, consultant, speaker, former Director of Trademarks and Brands for Intel
John Gray, Ph.D., #1 bestselling author, Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus
Stan Goff, 25-year Army Special Ops veteran, author, Full Spectrum Disorder
Melvin Goodman, senior fellow, Center for International Policy, author, former Senior Analyst, CIA, professor, National War College
Morton Goulder, Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter
David Ray Griffin, Ph.D., theologian, author, New Pearl Harbor
Doris "Granny D" Haddock, campaign finance crusader, NH Democratic candidate for Senate
Thom Hartmann, radio host; author, Unequal Protection
Richie Havens, singer, songwriter, performer, artist
Paul Hawken, bestselling author, environmentalist, entrepreneur, founder of Smith & Hawken
Randy Hayes, founder, Rainforest Action Network, US National Director, Direction Conservation
Richard Heinberg, author, The Party's Over, core faculty, New College of California
Van Jones, executive director, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Rob Kall, editor, OpEdNews.com, president, Futurehealth, Inc.
Georgia Kelly, executive director, Praxis Peace Institute
Sean Kelly, Ph.D., author, professor of philosophy and religion, CA Institute of Integral Studies
John Joseph Kennedy, Democratic Write-in Presidential Candidate for 2004
Mimi Kennedy, actress, Dharma and Greg, progressive activist
Faiz Khan, M.D., Triage Emergency Physician on 9/11, Assistant Imam
David Korten, author, When Corporations Rule the World
France Moore Lappé, author, Diet for a Small Planet; founder, Small Planet Institute
Scott M. Legere, 25 year radio broadcaster as Scott Ledger, Tampa FL
Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor, TIKKUN Magazine, author, Healing Israel/Palestine
Michael Levine, bestselling author of Deep Cover, journalist, 25-year veteran of the DEA
Joanna Macy, Ph.D., eco-philosopher, author
Enver Masud, founder, The Wisdom Fund, author, The Truth About Islam
John McCarthy, former Special Forces Captain, president, Veterans Equal Rights Protection Advocacy
Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst, co-founder, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Cynthia McKinney, five-term Congresswoman from Georgia
Ralph Metzner, Ph.D., author, professor, co-founder, Green Earth Foundation
Mark Crispin Miller, media critic, author, professor, New York University
Joseph W. Montaperto, New York City Fire Department
Leuren Moret, geoscientist, radiation specialist, environmental commissioner
Ralph Nader, Independent candidate for President
Craig Neal, author, co-founder, The Heartland Institute, former publisher, Utne Reader
Jeff Norman, executive director, Tour of Duty
Jenna Orkin, Esquire, World Trade Center Environmental Organization
Kelly Patricia O'Meara, investigative journalist, public relations
Michael Parenti, Ph.D., author, Superpatriotism and The Terrorism Trap
Edward L. Peck, former US Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq, former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism
Peter Phillips, Ph.D., professor, Sonoma State University, director, Project Censored
Henri Poole, Internet pioneer, board member, Free Software Foundation
Robert Rabbin, author, speaker, creator of TruthForPresident.org
Paul H. Ray, Ph.D., sociologist, author, The Cultural Creatives
John Renesch, business futurist, author, Getting to the Better Future
John Rensenbrink, professor emeritus, Bowdoin College, co-founder, US Green Party
John Robbins, author, founder, EarthSave International
William Rodriguez, 9/11 rescue effort hero, founder, Hispanic Victims Group
Neal Rogin, Emmy-award winning writer, performer, social observer
Allen Roland, Ph.D., psychotherapist, published author and peace activist
Rosemary Radford Ruether, professor of feminist theology, Graduate Theological Union
Michael Ruppert, publisher/editor, From The Wilderness, author, Crossing the Rubicon
Chris Sanders, founder, Sanders Research Associates
Karl W. B. Schwarz, President, CEO, Patmos Nanotechnologies, LLC
Peter Dale Scott, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, author, Drugs, Oil, and War
Firefighter Kevin Shea, FDNY Hazmat Operations
Michelle Shocked, singer/songwriter, activist
Indira Singh, risk management and computer systems consultant
J. Michael Springmann, attorney, former Foreign Service Officer, US Department of State
Douglas Sturm, Ph.D., university professor emeritus, Bucknell University
Marjorie Hewit Suchocki, Ph.D., theologian, author
Chuck Turner, Boston City Council
James W. Walter Jr., venture investor, philanthropist, founder of Walden Three
Dan Whaley, E-commerce pioneer, founder of GetThere.com, acquired for $750M
Burns H. Weston, J.S.D., Professor of Law Emeritus, Director, Center for Human Rights, U-Iowa
Howard Zinn, professor, historian, author, A People’s History of the United States
Family Members

Joanne Barbara, wife of FDNY Asst. Chief of Dept. Gerard Barbara
Gayle Barker, sister of William A. Karnes, WTC
Michele Bergsohn, wife of Alvin Bergsohn, Cantor Fitzgerald
Derrill Bodley, father of Deora Bodley, passenger on Flight 93
Kathryn C. Bowden, sister of Thomas H. Bowden, Jr. WTC1, 104th floor
Janet Calia, wife of Dominick Calia, Cantor Fitzgerald, WTC1
Maggie Cashman, wife of William Joseph Cashman, United Flight 93
Lynne Castrianno Galante, sister of Leonard Castrianno, 1WTC, 105th floor
Elza Chapa-McGowan, daughter of Rosemary Chapa, Pentagon
Bruce De Cell, father-in-law of Mark Petrocelli North Tower, 92nd floor
Ralph D'Esposito, father of Michael DÕEsposito, WTC, 96th floor
Loisanne Diehl, Surviving Spouse, Michael D. Diehl, WTC2, 90th floor
Jonathan M. Fisher, son of Dr. Gerald Paul "Geep" Fisher, Pentagon
Michael J. Fox, brother of Jeffrey L. Fox, Tower 2, 89th floor
Laurel A. Gay, sister of Peter A. Gay, AA Flight 11
Ilene Golinsky, wife of Col. Ronald F. Golinski USA RET, Pentagon
Kristen Hall, daughter of fallen firefighter Thomas Kuveikis 9/11
Kurt D. Horning, father of Matthew D. Horning, WTC Tower One, 95th floor
Jennifer W. Hunt, wife of William C. Hunt, Euro Brokers
Lori, Jerry, and Beatrice Guadagno, sister and parents of Richard Guadagno, Flight 93
John Keating, son of Barbara Keating, passenger on AA Flight 11
L. Russell Keene II, father of Russ Keene III, WTC2, 89th floor, KBW
Peter Kousoulis, sister died in WTC
Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli, mother of William E. Krukowski, NYC firefighter
Laura and Ira Lassman, parents of Nicholas C. Lassman, died in WTC, Tower One
Johnny Lee, husband of Lorraine Greene
Alicia LeGuillow, mother of Nestor A. Cintron III
Francine Levine, sister of Adam K. Ruhalter, who died on 9/11
Christopher Longing, husband of Laura M. Longing, WTC1
Bob McIlvaine, father of Robert McIlvaine, WTC, Merrill Lynch
Mary McWilliams, mother of FF Martin E. McWilliams- Engine 22
Daryl J. Meehan, brother of Colleen Ann Barkow, WTC 1, 105th floor
Elvira P. Murphy, wife of Patrick Murphy, WTC 1
Natalee Pecorelli, sister of Thomas Pecorelli of Flight 11
James L Perry, M.D and Patricia J. Perry, parents of John W. Perry, Esq., NYPD Officer 9/11
Elaine Saber, mother of Scott Saber
Julie Scarpitta, mother of Michelle Scarpitta, WTC Building 2, 84th floor
Kathleen A. Stanton, WTC South, Injured Survivor
Elizabeth Turner, wife of Simon Turner, lost on 11th September 2001
Joan W. Winton, mother of David Winton, WTC, South Tower, 89th floor
David Yancey, husband of Vicki Yancey, American Airlines Flight 77

[drizl]

Dr. Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. He served as chief economist for the United States Department of Labor during 2001--2002, George W. Bush's first term. In 2005, he gained public attention as the first prominent government official to publicly claim that 9/11 was an "inside job," and is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. This interview footage was recorded in June 2006 at the Chicago 9/11 Truth conference. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkpOsUmp-9w&NR)

[Ali]

Dude, everybody knows it was an inside job.

And nobody can do anything about it, regardless of how much proof is provided.

The people who planned and executed this are above the law.

[QueenAdrock]

what does your dad say and how is he any more credible than anyone else?

My dad says there were no bombs. He worked as a senior forensic chemist in the field of explosives for 30 years. He worked such cases as Oklahoma City bombing, the WTC bombing in '93, and hundreds of other miscellaneous bombing cases.

[drizl]

id be curious to know why your father feels that way...have you ever asked him about the evidence that has been brought up re: the free fall speed of the collapsing towers? that, perhaps more than anything else is something everyone can verify, relies on no witnesses or peoples perception and is quite indicitive of a controlled demolition.
and the oklahoma city bombing has many unanswered qustions, strange coincidences, and proof of government coverup as well...

[drizl]

and the people who were blown apart in the basement prior to the plane even hitting the building?
the seismographs showing large explosions just prior to the collapse?
proof of military grade thermite residues found on peices of steel from the towers?
the testimonies of other experts in controlled demolition who have worked for our military, and have been contracted by our government?

[yeahwho]

and the people who were blown apart in the basement prior to the plane even hitting the building?
the seismographs showing large explosions just prior to the collapse?
proof of military grade thermite residues found on peices of steel from the towers?
the testimonies of other experts in controlled demolition who have worked for our military, and have been contracted by our government?

So in your mind, the whole 9/11 plane hijacking was an elaborate hoax to begin the wheels turning for an event that will be much more sinister than Al Quaeda's claim?

The thing I do not understand is while your focusing on what may or may not of happened that day an actual takeover of Iraqi's oil reserves has begun today, isn't it a tremendous waste of time to be caught up in this theory when the reality of the very moment is your worst nightmare?

Not to knock you are anything but have you heard about the mass anarchy in Iraq? A real event.

[drizl]

i totally agree that iraq is very much a part of the same plan that involked the atrocities of 9-11. iraq could not have happened without 9-11. but iraq is not just about taking oil reserves, and its not about george dubya trying to outdue his father, it is not about george dubya losing his mind and being stubborn. this whole "war on terror" is an effort made by a crazy faction of the us government (cunnilingus rice, rummy, dick, bush, wolfowitz, rove, and many many more in DC and abroad) to destabilize the middle east and erect permanent bases in iraq, secure israels existence and eventually have a secure, dominating presence in the middle east to secure resources and have a strategic military outpost in the region.
have you read PNAC yeahwho? it was all on the table before bush even got into the office by bogus election.
that is why bush is so stubborn and refuses to give in. they knew iraq would be engulfed by civil war, it was actually quite predictable. they knew that as soon as iraq was in civil war, the mission there would be accomplished because it would give the administration an excuse to set up larger bases, and stay even longer. this is about a much greater agenda, and we are all pawns, and yes there is something we can do. we need mass resistence, mass protest, mass mobilization of individuals across the globe. we have the capability to unite en masse to put an end to these political games, and all others around the world, and focus on what is important, and what politics really needs: a genuine care for humanity and the environment. not war and exploitation.

[yeahwho]

Which is why impeachment proceedings are not only justified, but actually needed to slowdown the process GWB has embroiled this country in. I strongly feel we should investigate the reasons we went into a war w/o any substansial evedince or compelling threat to the US. I am aware of PNAC and have been for years, these are ideas that have bloomed but ideas are not illegal. The process of impeachment slows down the flatout murder co-op and puts to test the answers millions of Americans would like to have answered about the past 6 years.

How is it Bush, Rove, Cheney et;al did not understand the threat of Bin Laden?

[drizl]

i agree. impeach the motherfuckers. every last one of them. we need a new standard in politics. END CORRUPTION. idealistic? impossible?

knowing about PNAC is not about incriminating evidence or jailing someone for their thoughts. its about puting everything else in perspective, about understanding what is really going on, and why....what the motivations are.



KNOWING PNAC IS ABOUT BEING ABLE TO DECIPHER THE LIES, AND UNDERSTAND WHERE THEY WANT TO TAKE US.

[sam i am]

Aren't they all out of office in 2 more years?

How much more damage, in your estimation, can they really do in that timeframe : especially, with such luminaries as yourself and everyone listed above so obviously and forthrightly against every last thing they stand for and standing in their way, what with elections that castigated them and all?

Overblown hyperbole and breathlessly exploitative bloviations only undermine your outrage and do NOTHING to implement the kinds of changes you'd like to see come to fruition.

[QueenAdrock]

Aren't they all out of office in 2 more years?
How much more damage, in your estimation, can they really do in that timeframe

Well they were able to plan and successfully pull off the world's most intricately designed terrorist attack in history as well as the subsequent coverup in only 8 months.

But then again, these overly-brilliant people also can't plan their way out of a paper bag when it comes to Iraq. How that works, I don't know.

[sam i am]

Well they were able to plan and successfully pull off the world's most intricately designed terrorist attack in history as well as the subsequent coverup in only 8 months.

But then again, these overly-brilliant people also can't plan their way out of a paper bag when it comes to Iraq. How that works, I don't know.


LOL. Got to love my Democratic opposite on here.

Props, Queenie.

[DroppinScience]

Aren't they all out of office in 2 more years?


That wasn't the mindset of Republicans leading the charge for the impeachment of President Clinton.

[drizl]

Aren't they all out of office in 2 more years?

How much more damage, in your estimation, can they really do in that timeframe : especially, with such luminaries as yourself and everyone listed above so obviously and forthrightly against every last thing they stand for and standing in their way, what with elections that castigated them and all?

Overblown hyperbole and breathlessly exploitative bloviations only undermine your outrage and do NOTHING to implement the kinds of changes you'd like to see come to fruition.


using big words doesnt solve anything either. you sitting back and saying they only have two more years what can they do in that small amount of time isnt doing anything either.
overblown hyperbole? what is that? like when you plot a wave and it is too big for the graph? shut the fuck up.

[drizl]

the kind of change that needs to come into fruition is the masses realizing how corrupt fucked up and serious the situation is. and then, we have to mobilize and take back the power. politics will never be perfect, but we cannot accept these as our standards. speaking about such things in an open forum, on a free internet is an excersize of my free speech and an attempt to challenge anyone who wants to debate this issue to bring further understanding or at least inspiration to search further.

[drizl]

Well they were able to plan and successfully pull off the world's most intricately designed terrorist attack in history as well as the subsequent coverup in only 8 months.

But then again, these overly-brilliant people also can't plan their way out of a paper bag when it comes to Iraq. How that works, I don't know.


iraqs a little more complicated. you are talking about the difference between a covert operation to shock the american people to accepting fascism vs an invasion of a country and unfolding of predicted events so that further objectives can be realized. next stop iran? will we let it happen?

[QueenAdrock]

So according to you, Mr. "I almost choked to death on a pretzel" & co. are smart enough to not only pull off the world's largest terrorist attack, but to also have every single person involved stay absolutely silent even though undoubtedly some of the people involved knew someone killed in said attack and/or had conscientious moral objections? I mean, of ALL the people involved it would take to pull off such a feat, not one of them would have any moral objections?

Not only that, why would they attack the Pentagon, one of the country's defense strongholds? It seems counter-productive of them to attack an institution and kill some of their head defense liasons. Any explanation behind that?

And tell me, how can these people pull off such a feat, and yet they can't properly cover up the Valerie Plame incident? How come they can't go and cover up the Foley scandal? How are these lesser incidents that affect them politically (and arguably gave the House to the Democrats) not able to be covered up, yet something as huge as 9/11 is?

Simple logic tells me there is no conspiracy. They're not smart enough or good enough, period.

[drizl]

So according to you, Mr. "I almost choked to death on a pretzel" & co. are smart enough to not only pull off the world's largest terrorist attack, but to also have every single person involved stay absolutely silent even though undoubtedly some of the people involved knew someone killed in said attack and/or had conscientious moral objections? I mean, of ALL the people involved it would take to pull off such a feat, not one of them would have any moral objections?

Not only that, why would they attack the Pentagon, one of the country's defense strongholds? It seems counter-productive of them to attack an institution and kill some of their head defense liasons. Any explanation behind that?

And tell me, how can these people pull off such a feat, and yet they can't properly cover up the Valerie Plame incident? How come they can't go and cover up the Foley scandal? How are these lesser incidents that affect them politically (and arguably gave the House to the Democrats) not able to be covered up, yet something as huge as 9/11 is?

Simple logic tells me there is no conspiracy. They're not smart enough or good enough, period.





yes, according to me bush and co did pull it off. and they arent as stupid as they look. take the bush family for example. research their history, their secrecy, their fraternities and their fortunes...look at how long cheney and rumsfeld have been involved in the dirty political game. they have all been involved in key positions, privy to all sorts of information and quite capable of pulling off 9-11. they have the power and the motivation to pull it off, and to cover it all up.

in my opinion the probability that 9-11 was an inside job is much greater than the probability that osama "in a cave" and a couple of amateur box knife weilding rookie pilots were so successful. look who profitted off of all this. haliburton. oil companies. the military industrial complex. look who planned it, PNAC.

keep in mind also, that the heirarchical structure of a need-to-know sharing of information keeps people from asking questions, and it only then takes a few people at the top.

[drizl]

So according to you, Mr. "I almost choked to death on a pretzel" & co. are smart enough to not only pull off the world's largest terrorist attack, but to also have every single person involved stay absolutely silent even though undoubtedly some of the people involved knew someone killed in said attack and/or had conscientious moral objections? I mean, of ALL the people involved it would take to pull off such a feat, not one of them would have any moral objections?

Not only that, why would they attack the Pentagon, one of the country's defense strongholds? It seems counter-productive of them to attack an institution and kill some of their head defense liasons. Any explanation behind that?

And tell me, how can these people pull off such a feat, and yet they can't properly cover up the Valerie Plame incident? How come they can't go and cover up the Foley scandal? How are these lesser incidents that affect them politically (and arguably gave the House to the Democrats) not able to be covered up, yet something as huge as 9/11 is?

Simple logic tells me there is no conspiracy. They're not smart enough or good enough, period.


valerie plame, foley...these dont affect the administration. opinion polls dont fucking matter. karl rove leaves position big deal. he was put in to that position because he was a key member of the bush administration, you honestly think that just because he is "out of the public eye" that he has no influence in the administration. foley has nothing to do with 9-11. valerie plame only has a connection via iraq.

[drizl]

valerie plame, foley...these dont affect the administration. opinion polls dont fucking matter. karl rove leaves position big deal. he was put in to that position because he was a key member of the bush administration, you honestly think that just because he is "out of the public eye" that he has no influence in the administration. foley has nothing to do with 9-11. valerie plame only has a connection via iraq.

the pentagon is a target because it is a symbol of american defense.

the towers are targeted beacuse in the past, terrorists have tried to blow it up for what it stands for, globalization. its a target that means a lot to new york, to this country, and it is something an al qaeda member could only dream of pulling off, but never be so successful.

9-11 was the day because it symbolizes emergency, help, just the numbers themselves make you think "oh no!"

al qaeda and osama bin laden were chosen, as were the several hijackers who turned out to still be alive after 9-11.

[QueenAdrock]

the pentagon is a target because it is a symbol of american defense.

Um, yeah it is. And "they" killed some of their best and brightest that day, senior level officials. You think they'd send some sort of notice to them saying "Yo guys, don't be there. We'll need you for the war effort afterwards." But instead, they decided to kill those on the same side, ones that would have proven to be valuable resources?

And Foley absolutely DID affect the administration. I'm not talking about 9/11 here, I'm talking about Bush's handling on other things. IT'S SIMPLE LOGIC that if he fumbles everything else and can't cover up simple SMALL scandals, he would NOT be able to pull of 9/11. LOGIC. Bush wanted control of the House, they're the ones that decide on money issues. Don't you think it would be in his best interests to control where the money's going, so he could have more go towards his war effort? The House was "up for grabs" in the weeks prior, and ANY sort of scandal that could be used for political gain could tip the Congress one way or another. How come he couldn't cover it up, shut up ONE SINGLE PAGE about it? Especially since Hastert KNEW about it, and other Republicans knew of the issue, don't you think they could have stopped ONE PAGE from talking? They can't do that but they can pull off 9/11?

terrorists have tried to blow it up for what it stands for

Uh-huh. And it's an impossibility that the terrorists tried again, huh? It's just so out of the question that if one group is not able to pull it off correctly the first time, they'd try it again. That is just completely unreasonable. No way would they come back!

I could argue logic till I'm blue in the face, so I don't see the point in trying anymore. Sigh.

[drizl]

Um, yeah it is. And "they" killed some of their best and brightest that day, senior level officials. You think they'd send some sort of notice to them saying "Yo guys, don't be there. We'll need you for the war effort afterwards." But instead, they decided to kill those on the same side, ones that would have proven to be valuable resources?

And Foley absolutely DID affect the administration. I'm not talking about 9/11 here, I'm talking about Bush's handling on other things. IT'S SIMPLE LOGIC that if he fumbles everything else and can't cover up simple SMALL scandals, he would NOT be able to pull of 9/11. LOGIC. Bush wanted control of the House, they're the ones that decide on money issues. Don't you think it would be in his best interests to control where the money's going, so he could have more go towards his war effort? The House was "up for grabs" in the weeks prior, and ANY sort of scandal that could be used for political gain could tip the Congress one way or another. How come he couldn't cover it up, shut up ONE SINGLE PAGE about it? Especially since Hastert KNEW about it, and other Republicans knew of the issue, don't you think they could have stopped ONE PAGE from talking? They can't do that but they can pull off 9/11?



Uh-huh. And it's an impossibility that the terrorists tried again, huh? It's just so out of the question that if one group is not able to pull it off correctly the first time, they'd try it again. That is just completely unreasonable. No way would they come back!

I could argue logic till I'm blue in the face, so I don't see the point in trying anymore. Sigh.

well, they didnt seem to think twice about sending hundreds of thousands of our troops to iraq and afghanistan did they? they did happen to renovate the side of the pentagon (the only side renovated) and reinforced it which probably saved the whole pentagon from being severely damaged. that was odd wasnt it? watch the extras on michael moores fahrenheit movie, where condoleeza rice is giving testimony regarding prior knowledge to 9-11. there was a californian mayor warned not to fly on 9-11, ashcroft was warned not to fly that day, there is widespread talk of many top pentagon officials warned not to fly that day, Salman Rushdie was warned not to fly that day...

never argued that al qaeda wouldnt try again, but i will argue till your blue in the face that they couldnt have pulled it off, at least not without help from insiders in washington. you have your blinders on queen. there is much more evidence supporting government foreknowledge, and direct testimony of dick cheney giving stand down orders to stop the plane from hitting the pentagon- he could have saved those valuable resources in the pentagon.

give it a try. go beyond the "it cant be, theres no way anyone would let that happen" mentality.

[QueenAdrock]

No thanks, I'll stay with my logic. I'm not saying they wouldn't let it happen, it's that everything I see tells me that it couldn't happen. The arguments saying it could are weak.

[Randetica]

all i see is words


word.

[drizl]

i dont see how arguments supporting the towers collapsing at free fall speed are weak...anyone can look at the video footage and count out the 10 seconds it took for them to collapse. that is impossible without floors beneath resisting and slowing the collapse. the official government story is the one that is weak, the one that denies wtc 7 was demolished when you have the owner of the building saying he gave the orders with the fire chief. the one that says that all the floors pancaked down on one another when such a collapse would have taken much longer than ten seconds.

[drizl]

all i see is words


word.


well, i hope and pray that we can reopen an investigation with a truly independent committee who will give an honest effort to find the people responsible and kick their asses out of office and into jail. all of them. they should get a life sentence for every person killed that day.

[QueenAdrock]

i dont see how arguments supporting the towers collapsing at free fall speed are weak...anyone can look at the video footage and count out the 10 seconds it took for them to collapse. that is impossible without floors beneath resisting and slowing the collapse. the official government story is the one that is weak, the one that denies wtc 7 was demolished when you have the owner of the building saying he gave the orders with the fire chief. the one that says that all the floors pancaked down on one another when such a collapse would have taken much longer than ten seconds.

And I said I don't believe the government was involved, because Bush and his cronies can't pull off anything, and that has been proven time and again.

Believe whatever "evidence" you want from your conspiracy sites, and I'll believe mine.

[drizl]

now you're really confused. they are some of the slimiest, richest, most well connected and dangerous people in the world. they stole the first election, quite possibly the second, they had the pariot act and homeland security act ready to go before 9-11, they had 9-11, and then afghanistan and iraq. its not just bush and cheney and rummy and cunnilingus rice. its PNAC, its the military defense industry, its the carlyle group. its easy to see when you look for who has benefitted the most through all of this, who developed the plan, who had their pawns in place prior to the execution of the plan, and who benefitted from the plan.

[QueenAdrock]

You still haven't explained how these slimy, brilliant people aren't able to shut up one single page that could have very well cost them the House of Representatives, which controls money for the war. How come they can't do that? How come they couldn't cover up one simple scandal that several prominent Republicans knew about?

How come they can't do that, yet can pull off 9/11 without any kind of major leakage? IT'S ONE UNDERAGE BOY they needed to silence!

You give them too much credit.

[drizl]

there is a difference between someone coming forward on their own, and the media, or an investigative comittee digging up the dirt. anyone involved, regardless of which side, would not come forward due to fear of their own life- in fact, no one has claimed responsibility for 9-11. in robert fisks, "the war for civilization", being the only western journalist ever to be allowed to interview osama bin laden at one of his mountain hideouts, he states that to this day, osama still denies a role in the attacks (in spite of shady videos and claims made by our government), and in fact, osama has long been a part of so called "terrorist organizations" who pridefully claim responsibility for all their attacks because they believe that what they are doing is gods work.


more than likely, if the government was involved in this, they would silence, and have survelience on anyone involved. all governments, throughout history, have had radical factions who suprise their citizens all the time and leave history readers wondering how that could have happened, how could they let this or that happen.

you argue that they are incapable of covering their own asses, i say they are too able to cover their own asses. executive orders, things not released for the "sake of national security", close-door meetings, bush delaying testimony to the 9-11 commission, trying every tactic possible to delay and obscure information...then when he did testify, it was only on his terms:
-that he not swear under oath (and is therefore not held accountable in court of lawfor his testimony)
-that he only give testimony with dick cheney at his side (because he is incompetent and wont fuck up the cover story)
-that nothing be recorded (no transcript available)

is this the normal behavior of someone who is innocent. then you look at the 9-11 commision-led by people who always let crooks off the hook. then you look at cunnilingus rices testimony. the testimony of norman minetta, and the coverups within the 9-11 commission book/report itself!

techinically, if "conspiracy theorists" stand correct, and correct only in their theory that there were people within our government (only a few of them are necessary) who had foreknowldege-regardless of the specifics of any one theory), then everywhere you look, their should be lies, their should be coverup and deceit. and in fact, everywhere you look in regards to the events of that day, there are cold lies and blatant deceit. and when you put it all together, which is not hard to do, you see that there is a right to question, and a very real reason to be concerned that these are our leaders.

[drizl]

you cant give too much credit to people with unlimited resources, who have been in the political game for generations, and who are privey to not only the information of intelligence agencies, but also have connections in the mass brainwashing, i mean media, of the american people....

all presidents have access, once their presidency is over, to the daily intelligence briefings of the cia and fbi and everyone else. george bush senior is the only president in history, to remain connected in this way. he also served as head of the cia and as a vice president. do you think he has no influence on his son? carlyle group.

[QueenAdrock]

there is a difference between someone coming forward on their own, and the media, or an investigative comittee digging up the dirt. ...more than likely, if the government was involved in this, they would silence, and have survelience on anyone involved.

There isn't a difference, though. Hastert knew about it. Others knew about it. They knew it could be politically damaging. They didn't "silence" him, though. They could have STOPPED him from coming forward rather than having someone "dig up the dirt" on him because they KNEW it was potentially damaging. But they didn't stop it. Did they just sit there and cross their fingers and hope that he wouldn't say anything before election season? If they're as smart as you claim them to be, they would have stopped him before anything happened, regardless of how it was leaked.

You DO give the administration too much credit. If they're as smart as you say they were, they certainly dropped the ball with the page scandal. And if they're as good as covering their tracks as you say they are, they certainly fucked up with Valerie Plame. In order to stay in control of the masses, scandals can't be leaked - but they have been.

[QueenAdrock]

you argue that they are incapable of covering their own asses, i say they are too able to cover their own asses. executive orders, things not released for the "sake of national security", close-door meetings, bush delaying testimony to the 9-11 commission, trying every tactic possible to delay and obscure information...then when he did testify, it was only on his terms:
-that he not swear under oath (and is therefore not held accountable in court of lawfor his testimony)
-that he only give testimony with dick cheney at his side (because he is incompetent and wont fuck up the cover story)
-that nothing be recorded (no transcript available)

is this the normal behavior of someone who is innocent.

No, it's the behavior of someone who was caught with his pants around his ankles when 9/11 happened. He was lazy and stupid and didn't listen to the notes that said "Bin Laden determined to attack in the United States" because he didn't take it seriously. He and his administration were cocky and didn't listen to previous warnings from Richard Clarke and other places. It doesn't mean they purposefully KNEW what was going to happen and stood down, it means that they were told about it being a possibility and were too arrogant to do anything about it. They knew this fact would come out during the 9/11 investigation, and didn't want to come off as complete assholes.

Just watch the 7 minutes after Bush was told that the US was under attack. From the 2004 debates, ANYONE can see that Bush is physically unable to keep his emotions under control. AT ALL. He got visibly irritated, agitated, upset and angry over the things Kerry was saying, and this came through. His advisors told him he needed to keep his emotions under control and appear cool calm and collected if he wanted to win the debates - yet he still was unable to keep ANYTHING under control and it was apparent. Watch those seconds after he was told about 9/11 and you can see this man's true reaction. He's a terrible actor, so what was displayed on his face was his true feelings. He had the expression of a deer in the headlights first, then "oh fuck" followed by a clenched jaw and shifting eyes - very obviously pissed off. This isn't the reaction of someone who just pulled off the greatest terrorist attack in history, it's the reaction of a bumbling idiot President dropping the ball when it came to preventing the greatest terrorist attack in history.

[drizl]

There isn't a difference, though. Hastert knew about it. Others knew about it. They knew it could be politically damaging. They didn't "silence" him, though. They could have STOPPED him from coming forward rather than having someone "dig up the dirt" on him because they KNEW it was potentially damaging. But they didn't stop it. Did they just sit there and cross their fingers and hope that he wouldn't say anything before election season? If they're as smart as you claim them to be, they would have stopped him before anything happened, regardless of how it was leaked.

You DO give the administration too much credit. If they're as smart as you say they were, they certainly dropped the ball with the page scandal. And if they're as good as covering their tracks as you say they are, they certainly fucked up with Valerie Plame. In order to stay in control of the masses, scandals can't be leaked - but they have been.


PNAC and 9-11 have absolutely nothing to do with page scandals or valerie plame. your argument is that bush cant control his own party, or keep any secrets because he is too stupid. because him and his party are too big of fuckups to pull off 9-11.
they are not people to be taken lightly. the lobbies they are associated with are not to be taking lightly, their political agenda is not to be taken lightly, and their actions on 9-11 are not to be taken lightly. they fooled the entire country into accepting war with iraq. have you forgotten that?

why did dick cheney order a stand down when they had the opportunity to shoot down the plane before it hit the pentagon?

[drizl]

No, it's the behavior of someone who was caught with his pants around his ankles when 9/11 happened. He was lazy and stupid and didn't listen to the notes that said "Bin Laden determined to attack in the United States" because he didn't take it seriously. He and his administration were cocky and didn't listen to previous warnings from Richard Clarke and other places. It doesn't mean they purposefully KNEW what was going to happen and stood down, it means that they were told about it being a possibility and were too arrogant to do anything about it. They knew this fact would come out during the 9/11 investigation, and didn't want to come off as complete assholes.

Just watch the 7 minutes after Bush was told that the US was under attack. From the 2004 debates, ANYONE can see that Bush is physically unable to keep his emotions under control. AT ALL. He got visibly irritated, agitated, upset and angry over the things Kerry was saying, and this came through. His advisors told him he needed to keep his emotions under control and appear cool calm and collected if he wanted to win the debates - yet he still was unable to keep ANYTHING under control and it was apparent. Watch those seconds after he was told about 9/11 and you can see this man's true reaction. He's a terrible actor, so what was displayed on his face was his true feelings. He had the expression of a deer in the headlights first, then "oh fuck" followed by a clenched jaw and shifting eyes - very obviously pissed off. This isn't the reaction of someone who just pulled off the greatest terrorist attack in history, it's the reaction of a bumbling idiot President dropping the ball when it came to preventing the greatest terrorist attack in history.

how did bush get to be president then, if he is so retarted? why did he become president? why did he have the patriot act and the homeland security act ready to go before 9-11? why did his father spend so much time during his presidency signing executive orders making the president stronger than congress? why did bush have to be elected other than al gore?

when he is debating with john kerry he is a bumbling idiot. when he stands on an aircraft carrier and declares mission accomplished he is a leader. when he preaches to the evangelical and conservative christian population he plays the role of a messenger of god. when he gives a press conference or addresses the state about iraq having weapons of mass destruction he plays serious and enraged. he has many faces, and tells many lies.
he has tried over and over again to manipulate us with fear, and for almost 5 years, the american public ate it, lapped it up and supported what his administration told us. they used 9-11 to attack iraq, to cut up the constitution, to fullfill the objectives of PNAC. they needed 9-11.


now he is a desperate little wimpering dog. we should all be ashamed that we are still letting him rule this country.

[drizl]

i can say just as easily that he sat there after hearing word that we were under attack and let it happen. and i can back that up with his actions before 9-11, his actions after 9-11 and his reactions to the 9-11 comittee.
how could this man ever get into office if he was such a pathetic person as you claim him to be. why would his party choose him? who chose him?

what bothers me most about your arguments is that all you offer is excuses. you dont ask questions. you are content with what your dad told you about the pentagon, and you think that you can just assume that bush isnt capable of evil. you trust the 9-11 commission because you obviously dont know anything about it. who is thomas kean? why were there so many key witnesses within the cia who were not called for testimony? ask questions, and ask more questions. i appreciate you debating this with me, but there is no substance to your arguments.

for example, how do you explain the towers falling at free fall speed. just answer that one question! its elementary physics!

[QueenAdrock]

PNAC and 9-11 have absolutely nothing to do with page scandals or valerie plame.

NO. SHIT. There is a connection though, if he's not smart enough or in control of his party enough to cover up what happened with Valerie Plame or with the page, HE CANNOT BE SMART ENOUGH TO CONTROL THE COVER-UP OF 9/11. I'm not arguing that the two have to do with each other, everyone knows they're not directly connected. It's the fact that he can't deal with smaller scandals that one would think he can't deal with LARGER scandals. It's LOGIC.

when he is debating with john kerry he is a bumbling idiot. when he stands on an aircraft carrier and declares mission accomplished he is a leader.

I wasn't arguing over whether or not he's a bumbling idiot, I was arguing over him BEING UNABLE TO CONTROL HIS EMOTIONS. As you can see with him debating, he was unable to keep how he truly felt in check. This is true for everything - when he was on the aircraft he DID feel like a leader and that was shown through his expressions. When he was debating Kerry, he was angry and visibly upset, this was seen through his expressions. And on 9/11 when he was informed, he was dumbfounded, and then pissed off.
you trust the 9-11 commission because you obviously dont know anything about it.

No, I don't know much of anything about the 9/11 commission so I don't say shit about it. I don't believe it, but I don't not believe it. Where the hell did you get the idea that I trusted it if I never even MENTIONED it?

how did bush get to be president then, if he is so retarted?

First off, it's "retarded." Second off, the American public was lead to believe that he would bring back honor to the White House. They were sick of Clinton and his scandal impacted the Democrats badly. You can see through history a pattern of Democrats then Republicans being elected. It's not that outrageous that he got elected in the wake of Clinton's impeachment and his promises of bringing back honor to the White House and the Presidency and being a "compassionate conservative." You can see now people are catching on to his incompetence, as can be seen by his low poll ratings. However, you can be elected to anything if you brainwash the people into thinking you're a great, upstanding guy. Karl Rove, anyone?

what bothers me most about your arguments is that all you offer is excuses. you dont ask questions. you are content with what your dad told you about the pentagon, and you think that you can just assume that bush isnt capable of evil.

What bothers me about your arguments is that you use recycled arguments from other conspiracy theorists who have done all the "research" for you. You are not a physicist. You are not a bomb expert. You do not know that what "facts" they are saying are true. You trust it, even though the sources are biased. My father is an expert, explained to me why it's impossible that there were bombs in the towers. He is not a biased source, he fucking hates Bush with a passion. He has no stake in defending Bush; quite the opposite - he would LOVE, absolutely LOVE to bring down Bush if he could. But all the evidence he's examined says that bombs were not involved.

Let's get one thing straight: I KNOW BUSH IS A BAD MAN. He's done some terrible stuff, repealing environmental laws only one week into his Presidency, vetoing a bill on stem cells that can save lives, leaked information about Valerie Plame, etc. I'm not one to defend Bush, but I am one to defend logic. My LOGIC tells me that he is unable to pull off 9/11, and I use examples that my brain tell me makes sense - not other people's work.

Everything you argue has been said by the conspiracy theorists before and I sincerely doubt that you actually checked their claims rather than just pass it on as full truth. How do you know it's fact that Cheney claimed for the men to "stand down"? One of your .org websites? They're biased. Go out and do original research, make your OWN claims, and then get back to me.

With that, I'm done. It's no use arguing to you anymore, period.

[ZOMG_it's_Liz]

http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p116/djfatmike/internet6.jpg

[drizl]

i say you trust the 9-11 commission because you have never even questioned it, or thought to look at it. you dont even know what is out there, you just automatically assume its all conspiracy theory.

if bush is capable of convincing the people he is compassionate, convincing them that there are wmd's in iraq, capable of stealing an election, possibly 2 elections, what makes you think he is in capable of pulling this thing off. he doesnt work alone, but you know that, you mentioned rove already. you also mentioned richard clarke earlier....richard clarke was one of the people fabricating evidence of iraqs weapons of mass destruction. its not like this guy is out there all alone being a retard. he got in to office as the front man of a group of neocons. they trusted him to bring them their agenda and wealth. thats all his presidency has ever been about.

you can go on and assume this or that about what i believe. you dont even know what has been researched, who it has been researched by, what peoples testimonies were, and who they are...you AUTOMATICALLY WITHOUT EVEN BEING AWARE ABOUT IT figure its all conspiracy theory and that i got it from some .org website that is biased. yeah they are biased, because they have found evidence that people within our administration are covering up events on 9-11.

dick cheneys stand down orders (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTdAkhd6Dcw) see for yourself.

you still dance around my question. how do you explain the free fall speed of BOTH collapsing wtc towers?


you dont ask questions, you dont look for answers, so how can you even trust your own opinion on the matter?!

[QueenAdrock]

I "trust the 9/11 commission because I've never looked at it"? Makes sense. :rolleyes: Goddammit you're making my head hurt.

you dont ask questions, you dont look for answers, so how can you even trust your own opinion on the matter?!

Just because I don't come to YOUR conclusions doesn't mean I don't question or find answers. I just don't find YOUR answers, which you equate with me not asking in the first place because "obviously I would have come to the same conclusion as you." Wrong.

So once again, let me repeat.

With that, I'm done. It's no use arguing to you anymore, period.

It's no use arguing logic with you, as has been shown.

[drizl]

you cant explain why the towers would fall at a free fall speed. did you look at norman minettas testimony on dick cheney giving stand down orders?

[EN[i]GMA]

now, i know its a little bit taboo, but its still an issue in my mind, and will always be as seen in the context of the war on terror, iraq, the middle east, the constitution, etc...
anyone see the latest video released by the government showing the pentagon from the doubletree hotel? supposedly there is something like 80 other videos out there that a small group of people are trying to get released.

as for where i stand:

from my perspective, its an inside job. there are just too many unanswered questions compounded by the fact that the american government continues to this day to cover up the events and whitewash the story. we all know how corrupt and capable the bush family, as well as other elitist fascists, of pulling this off- quite a bit more capable than osama in my opinion.
why do i feel this?

THE PENTAGON:
1. the original hole in the pentagon was too small for a boeing to fit into, the hole was enlarged after the wall collapsed after the initial impact.
2. there is very little evidence of a plane, and the engines are argued by some professionals (who to my knowledge have yet to be defeated) to not even belong to the boeing believed to hit the pentagon.
3. the pilot of the aircraft was supposedly the same man who participated a few years before, in simulated excersizes of a plane hitting the pentagon, in the exact same place...(loose change did a good job with this one)
4. lawn left undisturbed, and no parts of the plane shot over the wall, which means that the plane would have had to have been expertly maneuvered and scored a direct hit against the wall...quite an accomplishment, especially for arab hijackers with little to no flight experience.
5. the fact that the side of the pentagon hit, was the only one retrofitted to withstand such an impact without causing severe damage to the building itself. perhaps if this wasnt done, the plane would have travelled through the rings and caused even more damage...i dont know....seems too coincidental.
if it was an inside job, it might have allowed key players to remain in the building, such as donald rummy.
6. the video tapes. now the government is either hiding these tapes so that they can be used later, when this theory has become so important to the truth movement, to strike a major blow to the "conspiracy theorists" out there, or perhaps, and in my opinion, most likely, the videos (80 of them) were confiscated within minutes of the crash because someone ordered the team to do so knowing, that those videos might show something other than what we are told happened that day.

EVIDENCE OF CONTROLLED DEMOLITION IN NYC

1. towers collapsing at near free fall speed which means: that there was no resistance from the floors below. which means, that key structural support had to have been knocked out on lower floors (not every floor) that caused the buildings to buckle under very little stress.
2. squibs. plumes of debris as evidence of explosions occuring as much as 60 floors below the collapse of both towers.
3. both towers fell within an hour of the impact. at almost the exact amount of time from impact.
4.large explosions registering on seismographs in NY showing the impacts, as well as secondary and tertiary explosions...where did these other explosions come from, and how did they register to the magnitude they did? this evidence suggests that there were explosives anchored to the structure near the basement area which would have transferred energy throgh the collumns into the bedrock where the columns are anchored, and then to the seismographs. these seismographs show clearly the impacts, the explosions, and the collapse of both trade centers.
5. testimonies from janitors, workers, firemen and women, security officials, and onlookers of multiple explosions on multiple floors. the firefighter tape was released quite some time after the investigation...many still are unaware of what was on the tape, and much of the tape has been deleted.
6. the fine dust powder from the collapse, hinting at a large amount of explosions used.
7. all evidence shipped off to china immediately, not allowed to be studied.
8. evidence of thermite in videos and physically found by steven jones former physisist at BYU, practically fired for his findings.


LARRY SILVERSTEIN

1. profitted immensely, in the billions of dollars from the attacks.
2. weeks before 9-11, when he had purchased the property, he hired a new security firm to handle all security at the trade centers. securecom, headed by george dubyas brother.
3. securecom "powered down" the buildings several times prior to 9-11 allowing gaps in security, and pulled bomb dogs from the buildings prior to 9-11.
4. building 7, in a pbs documentary, was said to have been "pulled" (demolished) by the fire chief and larry himself. why? and why does this contradict the 9-11 report and commision findings?
5. silverstein is a very powerful man, and a well connected zionist.

these are a few points that still have me questioning the official story. do you believe or disbelieve the official story? what do you think and why?
is Q still around? haha
PEACE

We were at the point where you were hopelessly wrong.

We're still at that point.

Let me just take wee piece of this, since I don't have the patience to deal with the whole thing.

1. the original hole in the pentagon was too small for a boeing to fit into, the hole was enlarged after the wall collapsed after the initial impact.

It was? Why wouldn't they just fly a smaller plane into it in the first place, and not even have to worry about this silly detail?

And even assuming they did do this, why the fuck would they? Were they saying "Damn, we better not use TOO big of a plane, we should use a smaller one and then make it look like a bigger one hit."

That doesn't make any fucking sense.


2. there is very little evidence of a plane, and the engines are argued by some professionals (who to my knowledge have yet to be defeated) to not even belong to the boeing believed to hit the pentagon.

So the engines from the plane that didn't hit the Pentagon were not the engines on the plane that hit the Pentagon.

Right.


3. the pilot of the aircraft was supposedly the same man who participated a few years before, in simulated excersizes of a plane hitting the pentagon, in the exact same place...(loose change did a good job with this one)

So the pilot of the plane that didn't hit the Pentagon was the pilot of the plane that hit the Pentagon? And out of all the pilots to use, or invent, they used one who could be traced to an exact replica of this plot?

Why?


4. lawn left undisturbed, and no parts of the plane shot over the wall, which means that the plane would have had to have been expertly maneuvered and scored a direct hit against the wall...quite an accomplishment, especially for arab hijackers with little to no flight experience.

Not an accomplishment at all. They hit the ground and bounced up. I guess the government programmed their missile to bounce off the from lawn and hit the building?


5. the fact that the side of the pentagon hit, was the only one retrofitted to withstand such an impact without causing severe damage to the building itself. perhaps if this wasnt done, the plane would have travelled through the rings and caused even more damage...i dont know....seems too coincidental.

The plane did travel through all the rings.

I've seen a picture of the inner most ring with about a 6-12 foot wide hole in from, apparently, the landing gear flying all the way through the building.

So yes, portions of the plane traveled through all the rings.


if it was an inside job, it might have allowed key players to remain in the building, such as donald rummy.

As if a plane crash is going to destroy the entire structure. THere's no possible way a plane could hit the Pentagon and take it all down; it's simply too big.


6. the video tapes. now the government is either hiding these tapes so that they can be used later, when this theory has become so important to the truth movement, to strike a major blow to the "conspiracy theorists" out there, or perhaps, and in my opinion, most likely, the videos (80 of them) were confiscated within minutes of the crash because someone ordered the team to do so knowing, that those videos might show something other than what we are told happened that day.

All 80 of them? If they're so secretive, how do you know there are 80 of them? Maybe they have 80 tapes, period, but how many of them have solid shots?


Basically, you're conjectures have gotten, if anything, more laughable. Go home.

[EN[i]GMA]

Just read this, it says it better than I ever could: http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/42181/

I know you, drizl, will blow it off because he makes you and everyone like you look like a total idiot, but seriously, read it and think for a second.

[Schmeltz]

drizl, you're aware that the collapse of the WTC towers has been thoroughly investigated by numerous independent professional organizations who have established a pretty solid consensus as to why things happened as they did, are you not? Look it up on Wikipedia, all of the information is there and the original studies are sourced so you can actually check them out. Is the NIST in on the great big Zionist conspiracy too? How about all the engineering professionals from the UK and other countries who have assessed the collapse and come to the same conclusions as the Americans?

I don't deny that the Bush administration used the events of September 11th to perpetuate their clearly defined political agenda, but like everyone's been saying it's ludicrous to consider that they engineered them.

[QueenAdrock]

Oh yeah, one last thing:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

:D

[drizl]

GMA']Just read this, it says it better than I ever could: http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/42181/

I know you, drizl, will blow it off because he makes you and everyone like you look like a total idiot, but seriously, read it and think for a second.


wonderful article enigma, calling anyone who questions the governments official versio of the events as dickwads, fuckwads and idiots. real professional and, my what a good writer. this article does nothing but reinforce the notion that there is something terribly wrong in this country.

[drizl]

drizl, you're aware that the collapse of the WTC towers has been thoroughly investigated by numerous independent professional organizations who have established a pretty solid consensus as to why things happened as they did, are you not? Look it up on Wikipedia, all of the information is there and the original studies are sourced so you can actually check them out. Is the NIST in on the great big Zionist conspiracy too? How about all the engineering professionals from the UK and other countries who have assessed the collapse and come to the same conclusions as the Americans?

I don't deny that the Bush administration used the events of September 11th to perpetuate their clearly defined political agenda, but like everyone's been saying it's ludicrous to consider that they engineered them.

yes, i am aware of them, and i am also aware of the people who were fired from universities and corporations for expressing their professional opinion on the matter, opinions which contrasted the official story.
there are people on both sides who are professionals who argue for or against the 9-11 truth movement.
the 9-11 truth movement, might i add, is a movement which only seeks the release of important information kept hidden from the public eye. seeks only a reopening of the investigation. that is all i advocate. A REAL INVESTIGATION WITH REAL CONCLUSIONS AND REAL REACTIONS. my only point, in all of this, is that it smells fishy, that there is too much withheld from the public, there were too many coincidences, and too pathetic of an investigation (9-11 commission). no one has ever seen such a collapse, so there are no experts. it was not a traditional demolition because it was top down....and there are a wide variety of technologies known and unknown which are capable of remote flying airplanes, demolishing buildings and controlling the public mind.

[drizl]

answer me this, all professionals, all researchers, all independent people:

how did the towers fall at nearly free fall speed?

[drizl]

GMA']We were at the point where you were hopelessly wrong.

We're still at that point.

Let me just take wee piece of this, since I don't have the patience to deal with the whole thing.



It was? Why wouldn't they just fly a smaller plane into it in the first place, and not even have to worry about this silly detail?

And even assuming they did do this, why the fuck would they? Were they saying "Damn, we better not use TOO big of a plane, we should use a smaller one and then make it look like a bigger one hit."

That doesn't make any fucking sense.



So the engines from the plane that didn't hit the Pentagon were not the engines on the plane that hit the Pentagon.

Right.



So the pilot of the plane that didn't hit the Pentagon was the pilot of the plane that hit the Pentagon? And out of all the pilots to use, or invent, they used one who could be traced to an exact replica of this plot?

Why?



Not an accomplishment at all. They hit the ground and bounced up. I guess the government programmed their missile to bounce off the from lawn and hit the building?



The plane did travel through all the rings.

I've seen a picture of the inner most ring with about a 6-12 foot wide hole in from, apparently, the landing gear flying all the way through the building.

So yes, portions of the plane traveled through all the rings.



As if a plane crash is going to destroy the entire structure. THere's no possible way a plane could hit the Pentagon and take it all down; it's simply too big.



All 80 of them? If they're so secretive, how do you know there are 80 of them? Maybe they have 80 tapes, period, but how many of them have solid shots?


Basically, you're conjectures have gotten, if anything, more laughable. Go home.


you have no argument. the plane didnt hit the ground before crashing in to the pentagon- look at the pictures. they know there is 80 tapes because people ahve come forward saying "the fbi took this tape from me". why wont the government release these tapes, why are they stored away under guise of "national security"?
fact: if that wing of the pentagon wasnt reinforced before the crash, there would have been more damage, more loss of life.

you wonder why they didnt just use a smaller plane and not worry about the "silly deal"? you have no idea of the symbolism of 9-11, you have no idea of how it affected american consciousness, you have no idea why it had to be a passenger plane. you obviously need to think harder.

tkae the patience to deal with it because it is the worst crime, and biggest lie ever committed on american soil.

[EN[i]GMA]

wonderful article enigma, calling anyone who questions the governments official versio of the events as dickwads, fuckwads and idiots. real professional and, my what a good writer. this article does nothing but reinforce the notion that there is something terribly wrong in this country.

No, it does one thing, in addition to reinforcing your opinion that everything in this nation is going wrong: it dismantles your entire pet theory.

Now, it does this through use of a lot of (fitting) insults, but behind it is an absolutely solid logic: the conspiracy theory makes no fucking sense.

None at all.

[EN[i]GMA]

you have no argument. the plane didnt hit the ground before crashing in to the pentagon- look at the pictures.

Yes, look at the pictures, tell me what you see.


they know there is 80 tapes because people ahve come forward saying "the fbi took this tape from me".

Just like we know it was a 'controlled demolition' because some halfwit off the streets said it was.

Hey, you can make that 81 tapes, because the Feds took one from me too!


why wont the government release these tapes, why are they stored away under guise of "national security"?

Because secretly there's evidence of a missile hitting the US on them.

Just kidding.


fact: if that wing of the pentagon wasnt reinforced before the crash, there would have been more damage, more loss of life.

Yeah, that's a fact that goes directly against your argument.

They blew 2 skyscrapers killing 3000 people in the process, and you're trying to tell me it's unlikely that they would want to kill a few hundred more?

I thought these were bloodthirsty savages?


you wonder why they didnt just use a smaller plane and not worry about the "silly deal"?

Yes.

you have no idea of the symbolism of 9-11, you have no idea of how it affected american consciousness, you have no idea why it had to be a passenger plane.

You're correct, I do have no idea why it had to be a passenger plane.

you obviously need to think harder.

You need to think, period.


tkae the patience to deal with it because it is the worst crime, and biggest lie ever committed on american soil.

It can't be. The biggest lie is what you're peddling. It's also something of a crime against logic and the families of those who died on 9/11.

I'm done here. Go drown in your ignorance, I won't be brought down with you.

[EN[i]GMA]

answer me this, all professionals, all researchers, all independent people:

how did the towers fall at nearly free fall speed?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.


I hope that's the last we hear of your tripe on this matter.

I hope.

[drizl]

GMA']http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.


I hope that's the last we hear of your tripe on this matter.

I hope.

yes, trust everything the government tells you. good little man.

i appreciate that you actually went and researched something, which is more than many who share their opinion on the matter dont take the time to do.

however, there is resistance afforded by the lower floors in such a collapse. and even the slightest resistence would have resulted in a much longer fall time.

heres something interesting:

One of the more interesting parts of FEMA's report is Appendix C: Limited Metallurgical Examination in which the investigators revealed that examination of the macro- and micro-structure of specimens of the steel show that it was rapidly corroded by sulfidation. Appendix C concludes with:

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. ... A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.
The authors don't speculate on whether the findings are evidence of explosives, but the New York Times called them "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."

Despite the ASCE's call for further investigation, NIST's Report ignores the findings. Its five pages in Section 6.4 Learning from the Recovered Steel (p 86/136) includes a subsection on damage analysis with considerable detail, including some "observations of the microstructure of the steel." It fails to mention the sulfidation discovered by ASCE volunteers. (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#sulfidation)

steven jones later found that there were residues of sulfur and thermite, also known as thermate (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/200606Thermate.htm) in a steel sample from one of the towers.

[drizl]

this is the first time a skyscraper has ever fallen due to fire, as prescribed by the NIST report.

and all those other skyscrapers which burned and never fell burned for much longer than one hour. remember what happened in madrid a few years ago? the fire burned for about a day.

this was one of the strongest, most reinforced buildings ever made. it is not hard to understand that there would be just the smallest amount of resistence, AT LEAST MORE RESISTENCE THAN DEAD AIR OR VACUUM would provide to the falling structure. use your head.

[drizl]

and according to your NIST theory, there would have been a core structure of 40 some massive support columns left standing in the air. it was not a pancake collapse. there were explosions, and fires cold enough to fight on the 80th floor, just below where the plane hit. there were explosions registered on seismographs, explosions in the basement, reported by firefighters, janitors, police....

[Schmeltz]

no one has ever seen such a collapse, so there are no experts.


What on earth are you talking about? The collapse of the towers might have been unprecedented, but that doesn't mean expert engineers can't figure out what happened. But I forgot, all the engineers are also elements of the conspiracy because if they speak up about it they'll be fired. Or something.

Bottom line is you might be right that the public deserves to have more information made available to them, but you have no proof that these towers were destroyed with explosives, no proof that the planes were flown by remote control, no proof that a missile was fired at the Pentagon, and no proof of a colossal conspiracy to hoodwink the public into a war that could have been easily started without any need for such a massive and elaborate plan and subsequent cover-up.

[Schmeltz]

this was one of the strongest, most reinforced buildings ever made.


Actually the WTC towers were noteworthy for the lightness of their construction, especially on the facades. And while they were designed to absorb the impact of a large jetliner, the actual impacts of the planes on 9/11were greater by orders of magnitude than the limit the towers were designed to tolerate.

Furthermore, if there were all these explosions in the basement, why did the collapse of the towers start at the top?

Edit: never mind, Enigma already posted that link.

[DroppinScience]

Whether it's Zionism or 9/11 inside jobs (or both), drizl is entertaining, but it just feels like we're arguing with a gmsisko: it's going nowhere.

[EN[i]GMA]

and according to your NIST theory, there would have been a core structure of 40 some massive support columns left standing in the air. it was not a pancake collapse. there were explosions, and fires cold enough to fight on the 80th floor, just below where the plane hit. there were explosions registered on seismographs, explosions in the basement, reported by firefighters, janitors, police....

You didn't even read it, did you?

[Schmeltz]

I like how that's "your" NIST theory. Shit Enigma, is that all you can come up with? The exhaustively researched professional opinions of dozens of tenured experts from multiple independent and well-accredited organizations? Why do you come here with this tripe?

[EN[i]GMA]

I like how that's "your" NIST theory. Shit Enigma, is that all you can come up with? The exhaustively researched professional opinions of dozens of tenured experts from multiple independent and well-accredited organizations? Why do you come here with this tripe?

Shit boys, they've found us out!

Abort Operation Ivy, I repeat, Abort Operation Ivy!

So....how about them "Beastie Boys"? More like Beastie Men nowadays, right? Right? Right...

...

Fucking run!

[drizl]

What on earth are you talking about? The collapse of the towers might have been unprecedented, but that doesn't mean expert engineers can't figure out what happened. But I forgot, all the engineers are also elements of the conspiracy because if they speak up about it they'll be fired. Or something.

Bottom line is you might be right that the public deserves to have more information made available to them, but you have no proof that these towers were destroyed with explosives, no proof that the planes were flown by remote control, no proof that a missile was fired at the Pentagon, and no proof of a colossal conspiracy to hoodwink the public into a war that could have been easily started without any need for such a massive and elaborate plan and subsequent cover-up.


all engineers is guess what is happening, all they do is plan for possibilities and predict outcomes. i never said all engineers are elements of the conspiracy. what i said is that they have never observed such a phenomena, and there is a funny thing that happens in our brains when we dont want to believe something.

there is just as much proof, if not more, that there was foreknowledge and that the event could have been stopped, than there is proof that arab hijackers took control of the planes with boxcutters and expertly maneuvered them at high speeds into buildings, striking perfect, direct hits. for the pentagon to have been hit as it was, allah would have had to guide the planes in himself. no amateur pilot could have accomplished such a feat.

it is also worth noting the speed at which we accepted the patriot act, homeland security, the war in afghanistan and the war in iraq. it was all BAM! BAM! BAM! we had no time to react to anything. that was the art of their plan.

[drizl]

Actually the WTC towers were noteworthy for the lightness of their construction, especially on the facades. And while they were designed to absorb the impact of a large jetliner, the actual impacts of the planes on 9/11were greater by orders of magnitude than the limit the towers were designed to tolerate.

Furthermore, if there were all these explosions in the basement, why did the collapse of the towers start at the top?

Edit: never mind, Enigma already posted that link.

wrong. these towers were massive. light facades yes, light trusses yes. but inner steel structure was massive. some of the largest columns ever made were used to create the central core. take a look at some of the construction pictures. the structure was overcompensating, made to withstand attacks, earthquakes, hurricanes and bombs/missiles/planes/asteroids/bin laden/saddam hussein etc...

the explosions in the basement could have been the result of many different things. one thing they could not have been the result of was jet fuel running down the core, because the explosions were actually recorded on seismographs and reported by janitors and workers within the basement BEFORE the impact of the airliners. they could have been explosions at key points within the massive core structure itself, they could have been any number of possibilities. the important thing is, is that the 9-11 commission fails to listen to the testimonies of these janitors and workers. ignores them. that is key evidence that needs to be addressed. then they go on and say that it was jet fuel that caused explosions in the lobby. an impossibility because the central core elevator shaft was hermetically sealed and air-tight. also, most all of the jet fuel exploded on impact and very little could actually make it all the way down to the basement levels even if the jet was full of fuel. and if the hermetically sealed core was ruptured, allowing oxygen in to fuel an explosion, the air would have moved from the first floors up to the higher floors and not downward due to pressure and suction.

[drizl]

GMA']You didn't even read it, did you?

not all of it, but i skimmed through and compared it to other reports which argue it. i looked at both sides to form my opinion...

fact of the matter is, pancake theory is not plausible due to all the video evidence, and also due to the fact that they ignored the massive central core of the building in there theory. their report was more of a theory that just doesnt hold up anymore. their report was more of a guess at what happened, under a constrained budget (we spent more investigating clintons blowjob, over 3 times as much) under constrained time, and pressure to produce an explaination for the structural failure. we cannot just let this be the end all, we have to EVOLVE our understanding of what happened on that day. we cannot let this date in american history slip by as did the assasination of JFK, the Golf of Tonkin Resolution (got us in to vietnam), pearl harbor (we now know that there was previous knowledge as we decoded japanese messages sending the attack)

[Schmeltz]

their report was more of a guess at what happened



Some 200 technical experts (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.



pancake theory is not plausible due to all the video evidence



NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)... the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse



but inner steel structure was massive. some of the largest columns ever made were used to create the central core.



A structure with the columns grouped along the perimeter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_wtc_towers#Design_innovations) and within the interior core may be inherently less redundant and robust than one with the columns arranged in a grid pattern.
The WTC used lightweight materials exclusively especially in the facade. Had the facade contained even minimal masonry elements and/or traditional heavy steel outermost column rows, it would have been less likely the aircraft would have cleanly penetrated to the core of each tower— a significant portion of debris and jet fuel would have remained outside, a much different scenario.



the structure was overcompensating, made to withstand attacks



The buildings had in fact been designed to withstand the impact of the largest airliner of the day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_wtc_towers#Impacts_of_airliners), the Boeing 707-320, in the event one was lost in fog while looking to land. The modeled aircraft weighed 263,000 lb (119 metric tons) with a flight speed of 180 mph (290 km/h), as in approach and landing. As energy increases with the square of speed, the 767s that hit the towers had a kinetic energy more than seven times greater than the modeled impact. Nonetheless, the impacts alone did not cause the towers to collapse.



because the explosions were actually recorded on seismographs and reported by janitors and workers within the basement BEFORE the impact of the airliners.



The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower.



i looked at both sides to form my opinion


I looked at the comprehensive study performed and reviewed by leading experts with no axe to grind and no predisposition toward wild conspiracy theories with little to no relevance to the context of the events they purport to describe.

[drizl]

the focus of the NIST investigation was not to explain the total collapse of the buildings, but the portions which were struck by the plane "which later then initiated the collapse of the towers". they site no information on how the rest of the towers collapsed, only information on the area in the immediate vicinity of the impact and the fire.

the argument for a controlled demolition of the towers rests upon it being an unconventional method- quite obviously because of the towers collapsing from the top, downward. to demolish the trade center before the eyes of the entire world, in a conventional manner would have been all-too obvious that it was a controlled demolition. NIST looked for controlled demolition in the conventional sense and they didnt see it. they looked for missiles, but they didnt see it.

NIST claims to not have recieved any "evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors..."

THEY DID NOT listen to the testimonies of individuals in or near the trade
centers.

"[Firefighter Louie] Cacchioli was called to testify privately , but walked out on several members of the committee before they finished, feeling like he was being interrogated and cross-examined rather than simply allowed to tell the truth about what occurred in the north tower on 9/11. [B]"My story was never mentioned in the final report [PDF download] and I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room," said Cacchioli. "I finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn't let me do that, I walked out. ... It was a disgrace to everyone, the victims and the family members who lost loved ones. I don't agree with the 9/11 Commission. The whole experience was terrible." [Arctic Beacon]

does that sound like an independent investigation seeking truth on the matter?

video of eyewitness reporting "other big explosions" (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/bbc_evans.wmv)

"theres a bomb in the building we have to clear out" (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/firefighters_bomb_in_building.wmv)

"then there was secondary explosions prior to the collapse" (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/FDNY-explosions.mov)

Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr.] explained to me that, “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department’s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. “There were definitely bombs in those buildings,” he told me.

"We got down as far as the 74th floor [...] Then there was another explosion, so we left again by the stairwell." (kim white, survivor, on the 80th floor at time of impact.)


Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've just had another explosion.
Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've had additional explosion.
Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion.
[...]
Dispatcher: Battalion 5, be advised we're trying to contact Battalion 3 at this moment to report north tower just collapsed.(http://www.wnbc.com/news/1315651/detail.html)

[Schmeltz]

The only item of relevance in those video clips is when the bald English guy refers to how everybody was panicking and nobody really knew what was going on. That, I suspect, is what lies behind the firefighters' order to evacuate the premises. False reports and misinformation dominated the perceptions of everybody on that day, from those on the ground to the major news networks, who reported all kinds of crazy stuff that turned out not to be true. And certainly none of those videos constitutes anything on the order of direct proof of a massive government-sponsored conspiracy to destroy the towers with explosives.

As for other explosions within the buildings - if they did indeed occur I would imagine that they would be related to the fires burning inside the towers. Gas leaks from ruptured lines or the explosive combustion of flammable materials. You offer no proof that explosions within the buildings came from devices deliberately implanted by the government, covertly, somehow, prior to 9/11. I suspect there's a simpler explanation - a little less dramatic, but more in tune with reality.

And as for the firefighters - I'm going to need a little bit more on their credentials before I take their testimony as gospel. Did everybody questioned by the 9/11 Commission have a similar experience? If the government is willing to engineer a colossal conspiracy and kill three thousand people in order to destroy the towers with planted explosives, why do they stop at threatening the jobs of ordinary people who are supposedly onto the scheme? Why is the testimony of two firefighters with a couple of hours of frenetic, terrifying experience on the site supposed to outweigh the conclusions reached by hundreds of experts who spent years exhaustively researching the site and the events in minute detail?

drizl, man, you're reaching. There's simply no compelling reason to accept the theories you propose. You're siezing on a few alleged inconsistencies and inflating them into an elephant that nobody else in the room can see. Occam's Razor, dude.

[EN[i]GMA]

not all of it, but i skimmed through and compared it to other reports which argue it. i looked at both sides to form my opinion...

fact of the matter is, pancake theory is not plausible due to all the video evidence, and also due to the fact that they ignored the massive central core of the building in there theory. their report was more of a theory that just doesnt hold up anymore. their report was more of a guess at what happened, under a constrained budget (we spent more investigating clintons blowjob, over 3 times as much) under constrained time, and pressure to produce an explaination for the structural failure. we cannot just let this be the end all, we have to EVOLVE our understanding of what happened on that day. we cannot let this date in american history slip by as did the assasination of JFK, the Golf of Tonkin Resolution (got us in to vietnam), pearl harbor (we now know that there was previous knowledge as we decoded japanese messages sending the attack)

'Skimmed it' huh? Don't lie to me you fucking idiot.

And I quote, directly: NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

[drizl]

dont fucking lie to you? fuck you, you're a piss ant. kiss my ass.

the entire theory given by NIST totally dodges the collapse of the rest of the building. all it talks about is what initiated the collapse. it talks about the collapse directly related to the area where the plane impacted the building. the rest of the building, which is what we are really concerned with here in this argument, is said only to collapse under the initial collapse. true, it did! however, the argument is that it couldnt have resulted in an entire collapse, of both buildings, at free fall speed.

and the fact that many were ignored by both the commission and the NIST comittees people within our own government, people working for the CIA and FBI, firefighters, police and emergency rescue, workers within the building, reporters and eyewitnesses....why were they not listened to, and more importantly, why were many silenced with gag orders and threats.


the more i look at the NIST addendum, addition, secondary explaination or whatever you want to call it, V.2, the more it looks like an excuse for their not investigating certain things, i.e., the steel. they didnt even test the steel for explosives or any residues whatsoever!

[drizl]

The 14 Questions
1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contractors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.

If NIST's computer models really do show collapse initiation, why don't they disclose those models?

NIST's first answer reeks of propaganda: the "massive damage caused by the large mass" of the plane is contrasted with the "light steel" of the building. In fact, the steel on a single floor of the tower weighed ten times as much as a 767.
2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

In the following, NIST squirms away from the assertion that the 'collapses' of the Twin Towers were progressive collapses. It does this by describing the floor pancaking model (endorsed by earlier versions of the official story, such as FEMA, NOVA, and Eagar) as a progressive collapse, thereby implying that NIST's theory is not a progressive collapse theory.
However, regardless of whether one calls the total destruction of the Twin Towers progressive collapse or something else, it remains true that there is no historical or experimental basis for believing that collapse events near the tops of the towers could progress all the way down the towers' vertical axes to produce total collapses. Lacking such a basis, the core assumption of NIST's theory is unscientific.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.





NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

NIST implies that the top-down order of destruction of the Twin Towers weighs against the controlled demolition theory. However, as part of a psychological operation, the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers would be designed to support a false narrative of events (that the plane crashes caused the collapses) so of course the events were engineered to have the destruction start around the crash zones.

While NIST cherry-picks a feature of the Towers' destructions that differs from conventional, bottom-up demolitions, it conveniently ignores numerous features that are apparently unique to demolitions, including:

Rapid onset, accompanied by sounds of explosions
Radial symmetry about the building's vertical axis
Consistent pulverization of non-metallic materials
Total destruction of the building
In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

NIST's mixing of the idea that "missiles were fired at or hit the towers" into its rebuttal of controlled demolition is gratuitous and seemingly designed to discredit the demolition thesis by associating it with nonsense.

3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.

But steel-framed high-rise buildings have been felled by severe earthquakes, and in those cases, the buildings were not pulverized and shredded, as the World Trade Center was, but were toppled.

The exact combination of impact-induced structural damage and fire damage was unprecedented, but in some of the examples of fires in steel-framed high-rise buildings the fires were much stronger and long-lasting than in the three WTC towers, and yet didn't even produce serious structural damage in the buildings. Since NIST's theory of the demise of the Twin Towers is essentially a fire theory, the lack of a single example of fire-induced total collapse of a steel-framed building presents a problem for that theory.

4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?

No. As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.

The piston theory that NIST advances here implies acceptance of the floor pancaking scenario, since the dust jets emerge from parts of the tower whose perimeter walls are still intact. Thus NIST contradicts its own theory, which explicitly rejects the floor pancaking scenario.

These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar “puffs” were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building.

This is highly misleading. The pre-collapse puffs, such as those seen at the top of WTC 1 following Flight 11's impact, are all very minor, and don't look anything like the energetic jets of dust and debris that accompany the explosions of the Towers.

5. Why were two distinct spikes—one for each tower—seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower?

The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers.

This is most likely true. The question is based on a long-ago-debunked theory.

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

NIST's assertion that the Tower's intact structure was "unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass" is absurd:

It requires us to believe that the massive steel frames of the towers provided no more resistance to falling rubble than air.
It ignores the fact that most of the rubble fell outside the towers' footprints, and hence could not contribute to crushing.
It is unsupported by any calculation or logical argument.
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

To the contrary, video records, such as this record of the North Tower's fall clearly establish upper boundaries on the times that it took for the vast majority of each tower to be destroyed.
7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.


Confusion about whether the official story depends on the melting of structural steel is a product of pronouncements from a number of experts that the fires in the Twin Towers caused their collapses by melting steel. Subsequently, attackers of challenges to the official story used the argument that the fires couldn't have melted steel as a straw man argument.
8. We know that the sprinkler systems were activated because survivors reported water in the stairwells. If the sprinklers were working, how could there be a 'raging inferno' in the WTC towers?

Both the NIST calculations and interviews with survivors and firefighters indicated that the aircraft impacts severed the water pipes that carried the water to the sprinkler systems. The sprinklers were not operating on the principal fire floors.

However, there were ample sources of the water in the stairwells. The water pipes ran vertically within the stairwells. Moreover, there would have been copious water from the broken restroom supply lines and from the water tanks that supplied the initial water for the sprinklers. Thus, it is not surprising that evacuating occupants encountered a lot of water.

Even if the automatic sprinklers had been operational, the sprinkler systems—which were installed in accordance with the prevailing fire safety code—were designed to suppress a fire that covered as much as 1,500 square feet on a given floor. This amount of coverage is capable of controlling almost all fires that are likely to occur in an office building. On Sept. 11, 2001, the jet-fuel ignited fires quickly spread over most of the 40,000 square feet on several floors in each tower. This created infernos that could not have been suppressed even by an undamaged sprinkler system, much less one that had been appreciably degraded.

It's true that the sprinkler system may have had little effect on controlling the fires. Regardless, fires in the South Tower remained limited to a few floors and one side of the building -- a fact documented by numerous photographs of the attack.
9. If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?

Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quantities of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water.

The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions.

NIST's answer to this question hides several essential facts:

Fires in other skyscrapers have produced bright emergent orange flames, and these buildings escaped serious structural damage
Minutes before its collapse the South Tower showed no visible flames, only dark smoke.
10. Why were people seen in the gaps left by the plane impacts if the heat from the fires behind them was so excessive?

NIST believes that the persons seen were away from any strong heat source and most likely in an area that at the time was a point where the air for combustion was being drawn into the building to support the fires. Note that people were observed only in the openings in WTC 1.

According to the International Standard ISO/TS 13571, people will be in severe pain within seconds if they are near the radiant heat level generated by a large fire. Thus, it is not surprising that none of the photographs show a person standing in those gaps where there also was a sizable fire.

The fire behavior following the aircraft impacts is described in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A. In general, there was little sustained fire near the area where the aircraft hit the towers. Immediately upon impact of the aircraft, large fireballs from the atomized jet fuel consumed all the local oxygen. (This in itself would have made those locations rapidly unlivable.) The fireballs receded quickly and were followed by fires that grew inside the tower where there was a combination of combustible material, air and an ignition source. Little combustible material remained near the aircraft entry gashes since the aircraft "bulldozed" much of it toward the interior of the building. Also, some of the contents fell through the breaks in the floor to the stories below.

Therefore, the people observed in these openings must have survived the aircraft impact and moved—once the fireballs had dissipated—to the openings where the temperatures were cooler and the air was clearer than in the building interior.

This is most likely true. This page debunks the notion that the people standing in the impact holes invalidates the notion that intense fires burned in the North Tower.

11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

NIST's explanation for the orange color of the spout is dubious given that the various materials to whose combustion it attributes the orange glow would have been extremely unlikely to have remained mixed with molten aluminum to the degree needed to produce the homogeneous color seen in the videos.

Physicist Steven E. Jones has performed a number of experiments mixing various combustibles into molten aluminum. In all cases the aluminum exhibited its normal silvery color, while the added combustibles separated.
12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

NIST's argument against thermite having been used in demolition supposes that thermite was the only method used. Since Steven Jones and others suggesting thermite use do not endorse pure-thermite theories, NIST's is essentially a straw-man argument.
13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

This is a clever evasion to the still unexplained phenomenon of thick steel members corroded away by sulfidation and intragranular melting. NIST simply calls the observations "irrelevant" since they don't necessarily pertain to the condition of the steel before the collapses.
14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.




http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html

[Schmeltz]

NIST's mixing of the idea that "missiles were fired at or hit the towers" into its rebuttal of controlled demolition is gratuitous and seemingly designed to discredit the demolition thesis by associating it with nonsense.


Oh god, the irony.

[EN[i]GMA]

dont fucking lie to you? fuck you, you're a piss ant. kiss my ass.

Don't get mad at me, you're the dipshit who didn't read it.

Just one problem: if it was a controlled demolition, why did 60 stories or so remain standing? I thought it was a precise, tactical demolition?