Willie Nelson on 9/11

[SugarInTheRaw]

Interview with Willie Nelson on 9/11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1en0rUx_s0)

[yeahwho]

Makes me grateful I laid down the pipe. You had better hope NoFenders doesn't get a hold of this thread, he'll be pretty pissed off. He supports the war and hates musicians who speak out on these issues.

I bet your in big ass trouble now.

[DroppinScience]

NoFenders might even WALK OUT in the middle of a Willie Nelson concert too!

Shut up and sing, Willie! :mad:

[cookiepuss]

I have nothing negative to say about Willie Nelson. he's an awesome human being. I'm willing to listen to (not nessarily agree with or follow) what he has to say from whatever soap box he wants to stand on.(y)

[DroppinScience]

I listened to the thing. That Alex Jones sure is a kook. Martial law? Canceling the elections and installing Bush forever? :rolleyes:

But regardless, I hold nothing against my man Willie.

[SugarInTheRaw]

I listened to the thing. That Alex Jones sure is a kook. Martial law? Canceling the elections and installing Bush forever? :rolleyes:

But regardless, I hold nothing against my man Willie.

Now that's some critical thought.

[DroppinScience]

Now that's some critical thought.

I've been hearing for YEARS that Bush will stage a terrorist attack (in 2004, it was just supposed to be just before the elections, then it was supposed to happen in 2006 before the mid-term elections, and now we're expected to believe it again in 2008) and install martial law or be El Comandante for life or something very similar to this effect.

I only pay attention to Alex Jones if I need a good laugh. Bush is criticized for fear mongering the public into submission. From the Jones camp, they do the EXACT SAME fear mongering and sensationalism as the targets of their scorn.

It just makes a mockery of genuine disenchantenment for these Bush years. You know there's something wrong with them when they say Michael Moore is part of the conspiracy too. :rolleyes:

[NoFenders]

Makes me grateful I laid down the pipe. You had better hope NoFenders doesn't get a hold of this thread, he'll be pretty pissed off. He supports the war and hates musicians who speak out on these issues.

I bet your in big ass trouble now.

Yeah yeah yeah. lol

This sucks. I can't access shit for youtube here at the office. UGH!!

btw, I'm very proud of our country because we can have different opinions and express them how we choose. That is a major part of what makes this country great. I don't mind that Willie has a point, that does or doesn't agree with mine. I saw him in concert last year in Ft Myers FL. He didn't mention one word of political crap. I saw my show, listened to him sing and left. What he does with a reporter is totally fine with me.

btw- Willie has always been a fav of mine. Childhood memories of road trips with my fam, all the while listening to Willie and my Pops singing along. My Mom doesn't care too much for him (Willie), always calling him a "Dirty Old Man". I always ask if he hit on her in some rude way one day??? lol

:cool:

[SugarInTheRaw]

I only pay attention to Alex Jones if I need a good laugh. Bush is criticized for fear mongering the public into submission. From the Jones camp, they do the EXACT SAME fear mongering and sensationalism as the targets of their scorn.


Why do you think Willie Nelson went public with this on Alex Jones' show and associate his name with Jones?

[SugarInTheRaw]

Honestly, does anybody know what is going on here? I read a lot about this guy Alex Jones being a fear monger and a kook, and from what I've seen and heard for myself, it may very well may be true. So why is Willie Nelson appearing on his show for a second time doing another interview with this Jones guy discussing a New World Order and secret societies? WTH!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9Xlvy094eA

[wrongwayandugg]

Makes me grateful I laid down the pipe.
LOL!! Yes. Maybe his music should be boycotted now!

[cookiepuss]

Why do you think Willie Nelson went public with this on Alex Jones' show and associate his name with Jones?

because he has an album and a tour to promote. duh. any publicity is good publicity in the entertainment game.

and for the record I've heard Willie have similar discussions in other interviews, I don't feel like this was the first time he'd gone public with his point of view at all.

[mate_spawn_die]

willie nelson = (y)

[SugarInTheRaw]

because he has an album and a tour to promote. duh. any publicity is good publicity in the entertainment game.

and for the record I've heard Willie have similar discussions in other interviews, I don't feel like this was the first time he'd gone public with his point of view at all.

Thanks, Droppin Science?

[trailerprincess]

Marion Cotillard's views seem pretty controversial on 9/11 as well :eek:

Marion (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7273651.stm)

[alien autopsy]

i dont think its a publicity thing....maybe it is... but he's also expressing his opinion on the matter. there's enough evidence to justify "controversial" thinking in regards to 9-11.

[Schmeltz]

because he has an album and a tour to promote.

I think it has nothing to do with publicity, and everything to do with the fact that Willie Nelson is not the most credulous or perceptive human being in the world. Honestly, Sugarintheraw, are you going to become a Scientologist because Tom Cruise is one? When did celebrity endorsement become an acceptable substitute for substance and credibility?

[SugarInTheRaw]

I think it has nothing to do with publicity, and everything to do with the fact that Willie Nelson is not the most credulous or perceptive human being in the world. Honestly, Sugarintheraw, are you going to become a Scientologist because Tom Cruise is one? When did celebrity endorsement become an acceptable substitute for substance and credibility?

honestly, schmeltz, i am not going to become a scientologist because tom crusie is one. :rolleyes:

[yeahwho]

I think many of us over estimate the intelligence of musicians, actors and political figures. Willie Nelson is an incredible artist and I will forever cherish his contributions to American music.

So far I'm going to have to really put limits on his scientific contributions to society as a whole, it is not his bailiwick nor should it be.

He is using his name as a ways and means to get out a message he thinks should be heard. Fine. I listened to Willie and I've heard multiple interpretations of the twin tower collapse. Willie is much more engaging singing "Stardust". When he talks about the twin tower collapse he makes my brain hurt.

On the other hand, the two brightest minds on materials and structure that any one person can come up with, when these two fellows speak of the 9/11 twin tower collapse, they sound brilliant.

Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso,

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html)

An excellent read, here's a short excerpt;

The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L (24,000 gals.) Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high temperature). Further information about the design of the WTC can be found on the World Wide Web

[cookiepuss]

I think it has nothing to do with publicity, and everything to do with the fact that Willie Nelson is not the most credulous or perceptive human being in the world. Honestly, Sugarintheraw, are you going to become a Scientologist because Tom Cruise is one? When did celebrity endorsement become an acceptable substitute for substance and credibility?

no you guys don't get it. His VIEWS have nothing to do with publicity. Getting himself booked on as many radio and TV shows as he can...(excuse me having his publicist book him on as many radio & tv shows as possible) has everything to do with publicity. it's called EXPOSURE. and if Alex Jones audience fits the demographic for Willie's fans then he's going to make an appearance and talk about whatever the structure of the show allows for. if Willie thinks (or marketing research shows) his fans watch Orange County Choppers, then odds are his publicist is going to try to get them to build a Willie bike and have Willie make a cameo.

I beleive I was responding to someone asking "why do you think he chose Alex Jone's show to go public with his ideas?" Choosing to go on that particular show didn't nessessarily have anything to do with the host or format of the show or even Willie's views. it had everything to do with whoever listens to that show.

[alien autopsy]

i dont see how having an open mind and an opinion makes you stupid. he's obviously had the gaul to look at the evidence himself and come to his own conclusions. there are many sources of information available. and many reliable sources claim that there is much about 9-11 that remains hidden to the public.

for example, if bush knew there was a terrorist attack imminent, with specific threats to both trade centers a month prior to the attacks, why would we have incapacitated our military response, and why would we not have evacuated the second tower the minute the first one got hit? there are many questions like this that lead you further down the rabbit hole.
i say good for willie, let your thoughts be heard.

[Carlos]

doesn't feel like he is reading from a script, but that this is coming from the heart (which from my limited knowledge of his music, is kinda what he is all about).... and so I would be extremely surprised if this was one big publicity stunt.. esp as this is prob a great way for you to be dropped from any major corporate backing.

as for 'why' he chose Alex Jones show... who else is gonna air such opinion??.... certainly not any of your established media.. and this is the crux. It's left to slightly (;)) over the top AJ to cover such topics on a big-ish scale that will reach as many people as possible!!

And so any real debate, any real analysis of 911, in an established/authoratitive arena is nulified, which leads to people being labelled a cook, or tin hatter, solely becaue you question a government/MSM spun conspiracy theory/myth.

The myth is sold, and repeated over and over and over, until it becomes reality: within 40 mins of the first attack the media was getting 'experts' - neo cons that 'pescribed' "A new pearl habour.." the yr before - in to spin the Bin Laden myth.
This is exactly what the mainstream media has done, and gets to the point that if you question the myth you are a blasphemous 'un-believer' in exactly the same way religion relies on a myth, and that to question the myth you are an non-believer...

Myths are inherently NOT factual, but 'based' on reality... basic physics shows that the 'established myth' is NOT based within reality, which is born out by empirical evidence in the way of video, sound, eye witness statements, NASA satelitie imagery and CSI analysis - dust from the site shows temps far higher than is physically possible from what the official narartive allows for.. just to mention a few.
Physics is physics, it doesn't lie, or can be bought.. unlike a governement comission, and governement organisations such as NIST... it's really that simple!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the way Willy and other people who raise their head above the sand are treated is akin to those who questioned chritianity (and other religions) in centuries past - ridicule, threats, and no established platform to put their views forward.

don't let yourself be blinded by belief, don't argue for something based on belief... do your research, read the 911 c-OMISSION, then read Debunking 911 debunking, and read Richard Gage's paper... or accept that you really do not know what the deal is, and accept that you actually don't care.... cos if you do care, then get reading!!!

however if like most of the e-genreation you are alergic to books... check this for starters:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7160790539111319889

[yeahwho]

for example, if bush knew there was a terrorist attack imminent, with specific threats to both trade centers a month prior to the attacks, why would we have incapacitated our military response, and why would we not have evacuated the second tower the minute the first one got hit? there are many questions like this that lead you further down the rabbit hole.
i say good for willie, let your thoughts be heard.

I couldn't agree more. I'm even more happy for World renowned material experts like MIT Professor Thomas W. Eagar and MIT physicist materials technician Christopher Musso getting to have their opportunity to have their thoughts heard. Without Freedom of Speech we may only get to hear Willies interpretation of what happened to the WTC.

[Schmeltz]

Right, so we've been through this crap way too many times already. Suffice to say that whatever his motivations, Willie Nelson's participation does not lend Alex Jones or the 9/11 Truthers any credibility.

[Carlos]

:cool: let me just put my sunglasses on Smeltz, cos your arrogance and ego is blinding...

save your fingers if this is crap... or do you just have this need to sound like the big honcho? I think peeps will stop posting bout this when they want to, simple as that.. last time i checked you don't own the authority on this board, even if you like to act like it.

On 911(and other specific topics of your choice) you refuse to 'enter' into any kind of investigative debate, or dealing with details.... purely based on your irrational desire to be 'above' such talk... save us your arrogance on this board: if there is something you believe to be crap, please... please ignore it and move along to the next thread!

Surely that is the point of this board???
Until basic questions are answered, and the laws of physics changed to match those created by the NIST and the 911 comission then you're gonna get people posting about this for some time!! Cos it don't add up right now..

[alien autopsy]

carlos, well put! there are many many questions that deserve answering. there are many things which deserve to be shared with the families of 9-11 victims. the president should have had his testimony under oath, in public, without his dick by his side!!

molten steel flowing beneath the towers!?! how did jet fuel cause that?

steel columns over 30 ft long, weighing tons, ejected hundreds of feet laterally, embedded into the sides of neighboring buildings!?

military grade thermate found on a sample of the world trade center!?!

bushes brother placed in control of the security at the wtc complex in the months prior to 9-11!?!

several FBI and CIA whistleblowers shouting at the top of their lungs, losing their jobs, to be heard because they were blocked from investigating the terrorist cells linked to 9-11 when they knew well in advance that they were planning something big in the united states!?!

kean and hamilton, chairs of the 9-11 commission, writing op-ed peices in the NY Times saying that their investigation was doomed from the get-go, and that they would never have agreed to participate if they knew that the executive to the commission was going to be bush-cronie phillip zelekow!?!

the august 6th pdb (presidential debriefing) that stated there was an imminent terrorist attack planned within the united states in the weeks to come, naming specific targets such as the pentagon, and both world trade centers!?! and later condoleeza rice testifies before the commission after months of bush delaying and obstructing her testimony before the public!?!
"what was the title of the August PDB?"
(condoleeza-) "I believe it was 'bin-laden determined to attack within the united states"!?!?



and the administration declares they knew nothing of the attacks beforehand. they acted soundly, efficiently, that the war games actually enhanced out nations ability to prevent more loss of life, more destruction!



if given the choice to sit on my thumb and accept the "myth" versus digging deeper, fueling myself with the knowledge to make a difference....in my opinion, the only cooks are the ones who sit on their thumbs and fail to ask the right questions.

[cookiepuss]

doesn't feel like he is reading from a script, but that this is coming from the heart (which from my limited knowledge of his music, is kinda what he is all about).... and so I would be extremely surprised if this was one big publicity stunt.. esp as this is prob a great way for you to be dropped from any major corporate backing.


no. no. I'm not saying it was a stunt. there's a difference between a publicity "stunt" and making the publicity rounds. What I'm saying is his apperance might not have been something where he said: "Hey I wanna go on the Alex Jones show and talk about 9/11." It might have been something his publicist came to him with...because the show fits his demographic and maybe Willie said: "oh great, he's a liberal talk show host and wants to talk about issues like 9/11, I have an opinion to share, count me in." I'm saying the hidden adgenda is nothing deep about 9/11, it more than likely came about as an opportunity for publicity. the majority of things you see and hear in the media are nothing more than cleverly disguised publicity opportunities...

I'm not hating on Willie or calling him a sell out. but he's no idiot, he knows how the entertainment business works. he has to after this many years in the business! Willie also doesn't have to worry about getting dropped from a major label. not only is he a legend int he business, but I beleive he has his own label. so he can say whatever he wants.

I'm sure what Willie said is what the beleives, as I said, I've heard him say similar things in other interviews.

[yeahwho]

Could it be the reality of steel and materials science is just plain dry? I find much of the structural evidence to be much more compelling than your conspiracy theory. What happened after 9/11 concerns me much more than the day of 9/11. The cause and effect your thinking of can also be just an opportunist exploitation of a man-made disaster that started in Afghanistan.

If you did go with tha above statement I just made, an opportunist exploitation of a man-made disaster that started in Afghanistan, your efforts become more believable in the mainstream and in court. Then you have a case against this administration and the perpetuated lie that an innocent country was about to invade America, as is your distracted from the ball to actually do something.... because it's fucking theory. Not what actually is happening, the reality in front of you.

Facts that are readily available to the conspiracy theorist are ignored, if only you concentrated on war crimes and the constitution as hard, then you may of had a chance to get the rest of America to impeach. Talk about a moronic missed opportunity. That door slammed in the conspiracy theorists face, you'll play hell getting any sort of investigation into this current administration let alone the the half baked conspiracy answers your looking for. Honestly I just don't fucking understand it.

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

[alien autopsy]

how did the towers fall at free-fall speed? thats the million dollar question.

this proves that there was no resistance from any of the floors below as the building collapsed. if there was resistance, it would have taken much longer than 10 seconds for the building to collapse, entirely.



heres a group by the name of "architects and engineers for 9/11 truth" (http://www.ae911truth.org/)

look in its "members section" and you'll find several hundred professionally licensed architects and structural engineers who have teamed up to question the NIST report, and as professionals working daily, from all walks of life, they are well educated, and well-familiar with structural physics and dynamics. it is their livelihood.

here's scholars for truth and justice 9-11 (http://stj911.org/) composed of hundreds of university professors including physicists, structural engineers and architects, whose livelihood is studying and educating, they also question the NIST reports.

here's scholars for 9-11 truth (http://911scholars.org/), a seperate group of several hundred more scholars and professionals questioning the NIST report.

there are also large groups of veterans, pilots, military officials and government representatives who are also teaming up in attack of this NIST report.

it is so blatantly obvious that wtc7 was brought down by controlled demolition that you really have to be willfully ignorant to believe claims to the contrary. and this collapse is a very important event because, if it is admitted that 7 was brought down by controlled demolition, and the subsequent cover-up was brough to light, whats to say the government is covering up other elements of the 9-11 comissions investigations?? (as chairmen kean and hamilton are now publicly testifying)

[alien autopsy]

i would say that the NIST teams consists of a small group of individuals, payed handsomely for their findings with tax payer money, is up against a tidal wave of licensed professionals, professors, controlled demolition experts and scholars who outnumber the NIST folk by the thousands.

one should be more willing to listen to the voice of thousands who are independet of conflicts-of-interest, and maybe a little more skeptical of a government funded selected handful of professionals. look at the way the 9-11 commission operated. im sure there was a very similar, and less public, matter of handling the NIST and FEMA investigations.

[yeahwho]

i would say that the NIST teams consists of a small group of individuals, payed handsomely for their findings with tax payer money, is up against a tidal wave of licensed professionals, professors, controlled demolition experts and scholars who outnumber the NIST folk by the thousands.

one should be more willing to listen to the voice of thousands who are independet of conflicts-of-interest, and maybe a little more skeptical of a government funded selected handful of professionals. look at the way the 9-11 commission operated. im sure there was a very similar, and less public, matter of handling the NIST and FEMA investigations.

I have listened to the voice of thousands, 36% of American citizens are not convinced that the official government line of how 9/11 went down is factual. It's not as if I'm living in a "US approved barricaded byline" and calling you out on your thoughts, it is actually quite the opposite.

Thats OK, I guess.... except for my thoughts on why I'm not hanging with your camp is this, it is theory while in front of you is reality. What has happening now is the evidence that must be presented to make any sort of case for theory.

I still believe Al Quaeda did the deed, they attacked the US on US soil with pretty devastating accuracy. How they got away with it is through very poor response to intelligence, just like our invasion of Iraq.

It is how this administration reacts, is exploited, or does it's own exploiting that is criminal.

[alien autopsy]

Thats OK, I guess.... except for my thoughts on why I'm not hanging with your camp is this, it is theory while in front of you is reality. What has happening now is the evidence that must be presented to make any sort of case for theory.

i disagree with your bold assertion that the NIST report is based on reality. there was no precedent for this, in fact the closest precedent was when the empire state building was hit by a gaint airplane and burned for many more times as long and didnt collapse. the NIST report is just as much theory in as much as they have a hypothesis and attempt to justify it.
its all theory. what comes into play is the evidence that goes to support that theory. its been proven that the NIST testing of the floor sagging due to structural failure of the steel columns (by fire) was exaggerated from 2-4% to 42%. that is one of the prime reasons scholars for 9-11 truth have joined force to present a "request for correction" for the NIST report. right there we have proof of innacurracy and altering of "reality" which forms the backbone of structural fire leading to collapse in light of the wealth of video footage and structural analysis.

in addition to this, the fact that hundreds upon hundreds of eyewitness testimonies relating to explosions felt prior to the airline impacts in both buildings, secondary and tertiary explosions reported on different floors all the way up to the top floors by fire fighters and rescue personnel, and the lack of attention payed towards the opinions expressed by outside exxperts and professionals hints at total ignorance and neglect for any assertion other than what the report is seeking to justify.

the report starts off suggesting there were no explosives, and from that basis tries to support its "theory". how can you call that reality?

the crux of this matter is much similar to the arguement of global warming being real or not. some computer models are created showing that man is causing it. some computer models are made that show its totally aside from man, and that it is a natural cause. some computer models are created showing that it is not occurring at all- despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

my main problem with the handling of all investigations regarding 9-11 is that evidence was handpicked. both in the commission findings, and in the NIST reports, a vast majority of the crucial evidence, eyewitness testimonies and important documents were ignored. for the 9-11 commission this is confirmed personally by not only kean and hamilton, but by many insiders and intelligence officials familiar with the events on that day. for the NIST report the "total utter neglect" of their willingness to comment on/and include evidence provided by the thermal imaging of NASA satellites showing temperatures and molten steel rivers flowing beneath the trade centers for months after the event are extremely damning for their methods of investigation. when you hand pick the evidence, you can infer any theory you want. and that is reality.

that said, perhaps there is much more criminal behavior involved regarding those days, in the form of a coverup investigation that seeks to justify not only the "official whitehouse story" but also subsequent foreign policy.

it is a fact that we can justify the invasion of afghanistan, and at the time of invasion, that of iraq as well, directly because we can prove that fires brought down those towers. we deserve a real investigation considering all the facts. for 16 million dollars the building 7 investigation should at least be able to provide us with that.

[yeahwho]

i disagree with your bold assertion that the NIST report is based on reality.

that said, perhaps there is much more criminal behavior involved regarding those days, in the form of a coverup investigation that seeks to justify not only the "official whitehouse story" but also subsequent foreign policy.

I have no bold assertion, I'm not quoting the NIST as a justification for my beliefs.

The point I'm trying to make escapes you, your missing it completely and your working yourself up over a very nuanced difference. This is why the truthout people bug the shit out of me.

I give up just like the others on this board have given up. Your missing what I'm saying so I have really nothing to talk to you about. If you cannot grasp the simplest form of social discourse I sure as fuck am not going to engage you.

[alien autopsy]

sorry, i wasnt trying to be condescending with the bold assertion comment. i meant it as your assertion, that i placed in bold letters when i quoted you in the last post i made.

i really am not worked up, just fueled with the facts. which you have chosed to completely ignore. you have no comment on the points i brought up? sounds like you were the one who completely missed on the points.

like carlos mentioned. and as schmeltz mirrored in his response:

On 911(and other specific topics of your choice) you refuse to 'enter' into any kind of investigative debate, or dealing with details.... purely based on your irrational desire to be 'above' such talk...

maybe you are fed up with the discussion, and thats totally your choice and fine by me. But dont bother speaking up at all on the subject if you are just going to declare my beliefs "conspiracy" and not based on "reality" while further declaring that the NIST are total unbiased and based on fact...

i think you are trusting too much in the official government story. and the way you respond makes you look like you are plain and simply in denial about the events leading it to 9-11, the day itself, and the actions of the white house-sponsored investigative committees. check the facts.

[alien autopsy]

I have no bold assertion, I'm not quoting the NIST as a justification for my beliefs.

The point I'm trying to make escapes you, your missing it completely and your working yourself up over a very nuanced difference. This is why the truthout people bug the shit out of me.

I give up just like the others on this board have given up. Your missing what I'm saying so I have really nothing to talk to you about. If you cannot grasp the simplest form of social discourse I sure as fuck am not going to engage you.

im still struggling to understand how i was missing your point.

you have nothing to talk to me about?

i cant grasp the simplest form of social discourse?

and you're "sure as fuck not going to engage me"?

sounds oxymoronic to me.
what crawled up your ass?

[yeahwho]

im still struggling to understand how i was missing your point.

you have nothing to talk to me about?

i cant grasp the simplest form of social discourse?

and you're "sure as fuck not going to engage me"?

sounds oxymoronic to me.
what crawled up your ass?

Sometimes you have to start small, just think a little smaller. Do you think that every Senator, Congressman, Representative, Soldier, CIA agent, FBI agent, appointed Judge, Secret Service agent are going to implicate themselves in being naive about the 9/11 conspiracy? They have made their minds up for the most part.

Whatever your endgame is, and this goes with the overwhelming majority of 9/11 truthout people, when someone engages you in the fact that right now (conspiracy or not... I choose to believe not) 9/11 is being exploited by preemptive war, torture and wiretapping... just for starters, you try to convince us it's even worse, the government did it! Many of us don't buy it, OK? We're pissed enough and don't need a fucking lot of bullshit to clutter up the facts of today...NOW.

An administration that nourishes fear.

Bills have been introduced to impeach both Cheney and Bush. Petitions to stop the Iraq war have been online, offline, at supermarket checkout lines. Even without your conspiracy theory, which BTW the majority of Americans don't believe, the majority of us do believe 9/11 was exploited, but then so are most tragic events (ie; New Orleans).

For some reason the constitution being raped, pillaged and blundered on it's own isn't enough for 9/11 truthouters.

It is enough for me, 9/11 never gave carte blanche to any administration to dismantle our constitutional rights.

* You mentioned the Empire State Building,

The fire took only 40 minutes to extinguish.

B-25: loaded weight 33,500 lb, fuel capacity 670 gallons, hit ESB at approx 150 mph.

The 767s that hit the WTC weighed about 280,000 lbs and held over 10,000 gallons of fuel each. They hit the World Trade Center with over 200 times the kinetic energy of the B-25 that hit the ESB. Both 767's hit the WTC @ over 500 MPH.

Wingspan (fuel tanks) of a 767 is 156' vs 57', length of 767 is 159' vs. 51'.

The 767 is literally wider and longer than the WTC.

I do give up, I feel as though the real genius of discovery will always be muddle by wandering down the path that our government had a dark secret meeting and planned the worst economical lookout and foreign policy ever by this conspiracy. Because they knew it would benefit Exxon.

[alien autopsy]

easy there, bud.

im not trying to let anyone or anything off the hook by focusing on 9-11. im not trying to shift focus away from any other issues facing america or the rest of the world. but i am one of the believers, and this is a thread about what willie nelson said regarding 9-11.

and just like bills that have been sent up to impeach bush and cheney, it has gone nowhere. 8 years into it, thats 2 terms, hes still our president and hes still our vp.

and just like the majority of americans want us out of iraq, we are still there.

and just like the majority of americans dont like the corruption in the government, it still exists, and runs this country.

and just like all of that, the 9-11 commission was a scam, as was the NIST report. both were not only innaccurate, but also danced around issue, and made excuses for the what happened on 9-11. and it was alowwed to occur, and most all politicians didnt bother questioning.

im interested in all forms of truth. im interested in the philisophical question of what truth really is...my mind is always open to the next bullshit scam the government is trying to pull.

dont bother categorizing me as a 9-11 truther who ignores reality and cares nothing else about the world.

[yeahwho]

One of our approaches of thought is more convincing when it is time to implicate the perpetuation of false information in a court of law.

Though both will never see the light of day. I will continually mention the weight of the jets, the amount of the fuel and the structural specifications of the WTC every time I see, hear or read a different account of what happened that day.

Because you know what? That sort of makes sense. Ask any NYC Fireman when your in the Burroughs what he thinks of your WTC collapse theory.

[alien autopsy]

my point in bringing up the empire state insident is that this occasion is one of the closest things we have to correlate to the idea of planes crashing into buildings. Both buildings are completely different structurally. both planes are completely different. there are almost no consistencies, and therefore there are no precedents that can be accepted as 100%, or maybe even 75% related. its all theoretical, even the NIST report.

go ahead and ask face to face, personally the firefighters who were directly involved in 9-11. i have seen documentaries, several such documentaries, with at least 100 different firefighters declaring that the buildings were imploded, that there were secondary explosions, and in relation to WTC 7, that it was called to be brought down and evacuated before final demolition.

so, i dont know if you have actually gone down and conducted interviews with individual firefighters "in the burroughs", but i have seen plenty of them say, on record, that the buildings were demolished, that their friends died in the basement when explosions occurred before the planes even impacted the buildings.

and building theory aside, there is enough evidence to support that george himself ignored the warning of other countries and his own CIA prior to 9-11, that directly led to our own vulnerability, and the death of thousands of americans on that day.

[yeahwho]

so, i dont know if you have actually gone down and conducted interviews with individual firefighters "in the burroughs", but i have seen plenty of them say, on record, that the buildings were demolished, that their friends died in the basement when explosions occurred before the planes even impacted the buildings.

I asked this one fireman, trini i think his name was, he said this, if i had a hammer i'd.........
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyTO5vcFWuw&feature=related)

[alien autopsy]

there are plenty of interviews of firefighters who were in the building, claiming to hear all kinds of explosions thorughout the buildings structure. its not hard to find these vids.

i think its an interesting question to ask why the FBI hasnt, and probably never will release the tapes of firefighter radio communications on that day. what is there to hide in that?

[yeahwho]

there are plenty of interviews of firefighters who were in the building, claiming to hear all kinds of explosions thorughout the buildings structure. its not hard to find these vids.

i think its an interesting question to ask why the FBI hasnt, and probably never will release the tapes of firefighter radio communications on that day. what is there to hide in that?

Not biting anymore, enjoy the conspiracy.

[alien autopsy]

i think your problem is that you are just not hungry:)

[Carlos]

lol... yeahwho you are a classic case.. I'm sure you're not stupid, but you have this inablity to asess what alienautopsy is sayin!! and have the cheek to then say he doesn't... LMFAO :p

first things first: lets go back to the evidence, and your attempt at entering into an empirical (and therefore menaingful) debate... even if it was rather short lived.

You use certain scientists analysis of NIST's findings as the basis for your arguments. Even when in, I've lost count how many posts I've clearly shown how NIST cannot be trusted on mulitple levels.

The statement regarding the temps found in the WTC were from NIST's computer simulations, that if you actually check, they had to do over and over again in order to get such high temps: in other words by fiddling the comp models... and even if there were such temps the probability that thousands of steel supports would all fail symetrically ON EVREY FLOOR AND NOT OFFER ANY KIND OF RESISTANCE is pure physics make believe.. think about... no really THINK!!!

Not to mention the real-world tests, on real pieces of steel showed no such deformation: again even when the tets were fiddled: the (unprotected)steel was subjected to far greater temps, and length of time of that in the actual event, without deformation.

You've ignored my posts where I have called out NIST on their fantasy science in the past: like how they say in 1 paragraph from their 'Frequently asked quetions..' paper:
That A: there is no evidence to support molten metal found underneath all 3 towers - even though NASA sateltie imagery shows temps in excess of 2000F days after, or that head of the clean up operation from Control Demolition is on record talking about 'flowing molten metal', numerous clean up workers on video talking about how is was like a foundry.... so clearly there is PLENTY of evidence for it, and as such should have been a amjor part of the investigation... and..
B: they go onto in the same paragraph try to say that maybe there was a chance that the smouldering pile of rubble could have produced this molten metal: er.. HELLO!!!!??? this is fantasy physics: no way can a smouldering pile of rubble get hot enough to creat blast-furnace temps and melt steel.. NIST cannot be trusted in any way shape or form as this 1 paragraph shows.

but my fave one is how they found the impact strength (and therefore damage to the core) - by firing a shotgun at bits of wood.. yes that's right, couldn't make it up if you tried!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
if you can figure out how that is in any way scientific I'm all ears..

They deny reality, then try to make up things to suit their assumption: that the towers were brought down by fire.

It's the clearest case of a backwards investigation: started out with a (pescribed?) hypothesis, and they go to any length to try show it - even if that means bending truth, reality, and physics./

So yeahwho, READ through the above, and try to let it soak in... THINK about who NIST are, and who pays their bills, check who was heading the NIST team: another neo-con

Problem is it's very clear from your arguments, that you have a limited knowledge of the facts, or just willfully ignore them.. if you had watched the latest loose change it would be abundandly clear that quite a few fire fighters, and policemen in NY, are fully up to speed with what is going down... they've even had gag's put on them by station commanders... you just need to listen to the harrowing, and disturbing radio comms from that fateful day to be pretty clear what was happening!!.....

here's one for starters: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DBb00PQR1zo

[alien autopsy]

who was the head of the NIST team?

[yeahwho]

Whoever told you people I'm buying into the NIST's investigation and results of anything they've ever investigated or have done?

Your being incredibly lame, just as those who argued with me for relying on Al Gores movie about global warming when I was factually explaining carbon dioxide PPM and the limitations on the atmosphere...

I never watched read or was remotely interested in Al Gores theory. The obviousness of science, discovery and technology and legitimacy of those doing the discovery make the "Climate Change" or whatever the fuck anybody wants to call us frying ourselves is now a "reality".

So far I'm not convinced that the people who present the information your posting has passed the Litmus test. It doesn't stand up like the WTC's don't stand up after having several tons of jet fuel explode on one of it's floors.

But hey if your finding stuff on the internet that says the contrary maybe I should just join you guys. Even Oliver Stone is smart enough to figure out that a certain modicum of objectivity and the weight of reality must be calculated into the WTC (http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/movies/09worl.html) collapse.

[alien autopsy]

well, im with you on not believing the NIST report.

[alien autopsy]

but i dont really get your oliver stone reference

[yeahwho]

but i dont really get your oliver stone reference

But hey if your finding stuff on the internet that says the contrary maybe I should just join you guys. Even Oliver Stone is smart enough to figure out that a certain modicum of objectivity and the weight of reality must be calculated into the WTC collapse.


Stone's films often have been criticized for promoting conspiracy theories and historical inaccuracies. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Stone#Controversy)

[Carlos]

well yeah I'm confused too..

the reason why we have shown that NIST is not to be trusted (in many ways), not least cos of their actual science, or lack of… is because you brought up T. Eagar + Musso’s paper. Which relies on NIST’s findings. Much of which when properly scrutinized does not stand up to proper science.

They talk of a tube like structure – clearly not true even in the diagrams they show on the papers page: (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/fig3.gif) (lol) - and so the idea that floors loosening would cause a domino effect might be able to be argued. But when you realize that the WTC’s weren’t tubelike, but a honey comb of massive steel columns, and smaller floor meshes this is literally impossible.


Again all is need is a simple thought experiment: every single core column and floor meshing would have to give way at the precise same time, if not then it would topple, this would have to be repeated ON EVERY floor… the probablility, and therefore likelihood of this happening are pretty much none!!

In the paper you linked to, it does not show any science to support it’s claims (just refs other papers), and is factually incorrect. A clear one is that the towers were designed to withstand multiple airline impacts at the same kinetic energy that the planes on 911 hit with!! And so when they say : “No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors.” … it’s just blatent ignorance (and therefore bad science) or willful deception.

Essentially they are using information that has been well and truly debunked, all the papers they ref are from September 2001, or Oct 2001… and so show very early and basically wrong data.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/9154/print - check the very simple pictured illustration how the assumed collapse theory from NIST/bazant does not stand up to even visual data.

Then go check the architects and engineers for 911 truth site: http://www.ae911truth.org/ read a couple of the papers

[alien autopsy]

i think the tube structure referred to was the out facade columns?? yeah, i noticed that too about the article, it says right at the top, refer to the NIST report for more information.

its good to question things, and its good to cite reputable sources. i only look at what i consider to be reputable sources, not what hollywood filmakers decide to show.

so, beyond the collapse of the towers, there is much much more worth investigating...