Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Really, I was under the impression I had been doing that the entire time...if the supplied links to various sources are not good enough for you, perhaps you should do your own research....or better yet, get to work debunking as you do.


The problem is that you are asking anyone who wants to engage in a meaningful discussion with you to read and then critique many thousands of words of text, of wildly varying quality. It's just far too much content to be usefully discussed in a forum like this.

If you could narrow it down to one or maybe two issues that proved something was amiss with the official story, that would be a great help.


yep, you want me to narrow it down to two or one, as if there is ever a single piece of evidence that would beyond a shadow of a doubt convince a person one way or the other...besides that my contention has been that the linking of catastrophic coincidental failures, political agenda's, political histories, inconsistent timelines, poor investigations, muddled cover-ups, and events that defy any previously known or anticipated outcome... such as the way and means of the collapse itself that is, regardless of view point, very much in question.


Is there any concrete thesis hiding in there somewhere? Is there so much as a single significant place where you can confidently say "The official story says this, but I can prove that is false"?


Your entire arguments hinges on: They are too dumb to have done anything this involved...even though there is plenty of historical precedent for political conspiracy.

No it doesn't.

[thesyntaxera]

The problem is that you are asking anyone who wants to engage in a meaningful discussion with you to read and then critique many thousands of words of text, of wildly varying quality.

That is what would be required for us to be on a level playing field. Is that too much to ask? I didn't think it would be considering the claims made in the intial stages of this thread, although not so much by you however.

If you could narrow it down to one or maybe two issues that proved something was amiss with the official story, that would be a great help.

to narrow it down is useless, as in.. the components need to be viewed in a wider context. Simply arguing over the claims does nothing because the greatest evidence is in the news articles and government documents that set the stage for the theory to exist in the first place. I have posted all the links you really need to investigate from the CT side.

Is there any concrete thesis hiding in there somewhere? Is there so much as a single significant place where you can confidently say "The official story says this, but I can prove that is false"?

This isn't a case where you can do that. My point in playing devils advocate as I stated initially was to see what evidence there was to contest the CT theories which in some forms seems more realistic than the official CT claim.

No it doesn't.

Yes...it does...maybe not you specifically, but you are one of many who has posted on this thread.

If you want to have a reasonable discussion, review my sources...

[thesyntaxera]

Very very entertaining article.


http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/28/104931/652

Those who are truly addicted to conspiracy delusions should find a more appropriate outlet for their paranoia.

[kookbreaker]

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060109135344541

This is what they say:

Steel cannot remain in a molten state for weeks due to a hydro-carbon fire. Case closed again…


Of course this never happened. Molten steel is the wet dream of the CT'er. It never existed.


A paper passport cannot survive a plane crashing at 400 miles an hour into a building, survive the collapse of a 110 story tower which pulverized thousands of tons of concrete into fine dust, then be found intact on top of the rubble. Case closed again…


This is arrogant of the author, to think he knows exactly how things will happen in an explosion. Other paper, of mucher lower durability, survived the explosion, so could a passport.

And once again, the passport is moot. CT'ers act like it is the most important thing to the investigation, but it is irrelevant.

The rest of this 'case closed' claims is just a house of cards based on falsde assumptions.

[Belz...]

[...] my contention has been that the linking of catastrophic coincidental failures, political agenda's, political histories, inconsistent timelines, poor investigations, muddled cover-ups, and events that defy any previously known or anticipated outcome...

I'm not sure I see any of that in the events. Would you care to elaborate ?

If the government is not responsible they should feel some measure of duty to prove innocence to a skeptical world. If they have nothing to hide there should be a full disclosure for there is nothing that would be to sensitive to no be included in a investigation.

But that doesn't make sense. Why would you have to prove your innocence ? If that's the way things worked, we'd spend our entire lives in court defending against unsubstantiated accusations. Now you're shifting the burden of proof, which is typical of CT'ers, woo, theists and the like.

The reason I have stated earlier is: there is no real evidence to support it.

Funny, everybody here seems to be convinced otherwise.

Your entire arguments hinges on: They are too dumb to have done anything this involved...even though there is plenty of historical precedent for political conspiracy.

You mean OTHER conspiracy theories ?

Isn't that what skepticism does too?

No. Skepticism doesn't do anything. Skeptics who DO are just as bad as non-skeptics, but cherry-picking sure isn't a typical skeptical response.

[thesyntaxera]

Of course this never happened. Molten steel is the wet dream of the CT'er. It never existed.

so prove that there wasn't any.


This is arrogant of the author, to think he knows exactly how things will happen in an explosion. Other paper, of mucher lower durability, survived the explosion, so could a passport.

That paper wasn't in the pocket of one of the highjackers...to assume they could find such a thing requires the same leap of faith.

And once again, the passport is moot. CT'ers act like it is the most important thing to the investigation, but it is irrelevant.

Actually it's quite relevant. It's how the investigators claim they knew it was al-qaeda...isn't it?

The rest of this 'case closed' claims is just a house of cards based on falsde assumptions.

So knock that house of cards down.

[thesyntaxera]

I'm not sure I see any of that in the events. Would you care to elaborate ?

then you need to be the researcher and read. it is well documented, and supplied for you...would you like me to get some free time and a spoon as well...???



But that doesn't make sense. Why would you have to prove your innocence ? If that's the way things worked, we'd spend our entire lives in court defending against unsubstantiated accusations. Now you're shifting the burden of proof, which is typical of CT'ers, woo, theists and the like.

Listen, what doesn't make sense is that this group of words is emblematic of your logic...

Funny, everybody here seems to be convinced otherwise.

Thats because everyone here apparently only read the commision report, FEMA's report, and the NIST which have all been fully disputed.



You mean OTHER conspiracy theories ?

The official story is a poorly supported conspiracy theory, why are you not attacking it?

No. Skepticism doesn't do anything. Skeptics who DO are just as bad as non-skeptics, but cherry-picking sure isn't a typical skeptical response.

then quit doing it.

[Kevin_Lowe]

That is what would be required for us to be on a level playing field. Is that too much to ask? I didn't think it would be considering the claims made in the intial stages of this thread, although not so much by you however.


It's too much to ask if you can't show us any good reason to make the effort, I think. If you don't have a single clear-cut point to make, just a cloud of vague suspicions, then what's the incentive to read all links you paste up?


to narrow it down is useless, as in.. the components need to be viewed in a wider context. Simply arguing over the claims does nothing because the greatest evidence is in the news articles and government documents that set the stage for the theory to exist in the first place. I have posted all the links you really need to investigate from the CT side.


That's a bit of a cop-out isn't it? Anyone can raise doubts about a complex issue if they feel like making the effort. The moon landing conspiracy theorists and creationists are proof enough of that. If there is no compelling evidence that the official story is incorrect on any point, why do you expect us to take conspiracy theories seriously?


This isn't a case where you can do that. My point in playing devils advocate as I stated initially was to see what evidence there was to contest the CT theories which in some forms seems more realistic than the official CT claim.


Please be more specific. Which forms? Which theories seem more realistic on which points, and why?


Yes...it does...maybe not you specifically, but you are one of many who has posted on this thread.

If you want to have a reasonable discussion, review my sources...

To be completely frank, nothing you have presented here is new to me. I'm sure I'm not the only one posting here who has kept an eye on the 9/11 conspiracy theories over the last four years. We're skeptics, we check this stuff out for fun. So assuming that you're better informed than everybody else here is probably a mistake. I've read all or most of this stuff, and I'm not in the least bit convinced by it because it doesn't hold water. I have seen the big picture you refer to, and I don't see any grounds for serious doubts about the basic story in it.

If you want me, and us, to revise that opinion you need to show us some issue or point where the official story is false.

[kookbreaker]

so prove that there wasn't any.


You still misunderstand the concept of 'burden of proof'. No wonder you are considered to be such a flipping moron.

There is no (real) evidence for molten steel in the basement.


That paper wasn't in the pocket of one of the highjackers...to assume they could find such a thing requires the same leap of faith.


At least two items of mail from the 911 planes were found. Much more flammable paper than a passport was able to survive. Again, this has been explained to you several times. You don't get it. Things survive.


Actually it's quite relevant. It's how the investigators claim they knew it was al-qaeda...isn't it?


No. It wasn't. That is entirely an invention on your part. You've been told this several times already in this thread. Obviously you are as thick as lead or are deliberately ignoring facts.


So knock that house of cards down.

Its been knocked down and stomped on. You just keep insisting its a magnificent tower.

[thesyntaxera]

It's too much to ask if you can't show us any good reason to make the effort, I think. If you don't have a single clear-cut point to make, just a cloud of vague suspicions, then what's the incentive to read all links you paste up?

Now later your going to tell me you read them already. Good reason? Wasn't the point of this thread to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories? Did you think you were going to just make masturbatory comments to each other without anyone challenging anything you were saying?



That's a bit of a cop-out isn't it? Anyone can raise doubts about a complex issue if they feel like making the effort. The moon landing conspiracy theorists and creationists are proof enough of that. If there is no compelling evidence that the official story is incorrect on any point, why do you expect us to take conspiracy theories seriously?

Nice of you to identify what you are doing with this post, it is indeed a cop out. No compelling evidence? I have given you pages of compelling "evidence"...since there was no real evidence gathered. It's not that the official story is incorrect on any of it's points, it's that it isn't sure 100% on all it's points, and it leaves a lot of stuff out...potentially on purpose.

Please be more specific. Which forms? Which theories seem more realistic on which points, and why?

*fart noise*



To be completely frank, nothing you have presented here is new to me.

Ah yes, the old back up..."why should I bother to read it..??"



I'm sure I'm not the only one posting here who has kept an eye on the 9/11 conspiracy theories over the last four years. We're skeptics, we check this stuff out for fun. So assuming that you're better informed than everybody else here is probably a mistake. I've read all or most of this stuff, and I'm not in the least bit convinced by it because it doesn't hold water. I have seen the big picture you refer to, and I don't see any grounds for serious doubts about the basic story in it.

I don't really want to compare intellectual testicles with you over this, but it would be safe for you to assume I am at least as informed as you are, and further more, I feel that if you had done the research and been left totally unconvinced you surely have some line of logic that you followed that led you to this conclusion, and that most likely it is the esteem you hold for your own logic that is leading you to this conclusion.

Whatever it is, you have reasoning behind your conclusion and if you think you can rationalize away all the inconsistancies then I would love to hear it...it IS what I asked you to do in the first place.

If you want me, and us, to revise that opinion you need to show us some issue or point where the official story is false.

I don't desire to change your opinion, I asked to know why you have it, and then argued the points that contest it.

[thesyntaxera]

You still misunderstand the concept of 'burden of proof'. No wonder you are considered to be such a flipping moron.

You have broken nothing...kookbreaker.

There is no (real) evidence for molten steel in the basement.

There is a claim that was never investigated fully however.

At least two items of mail from the 911 planes were found. Much more flammable paper than a passport was able to survive. Again, this has been explained to you several times. You don't get it. Things survive.

Oh I get that things survive...it's just that your ignoring the improbability that you would find that specific piece of paper out of that whole mess...talk about needle in a haystack...


No. It wasn't. That is entirely an invention on your part. You've been told this several times already in this thread.

Yes... it is. No invention....how else would they have known for sure...no video getting on the plane, no name on the passenger list, nothing.....if your going to credit prior intelligence then your only damning the official story more.

Besides, telling me several times...and linking to a direct quote or page is compelling, not just your bare words.

Its been knocked down and stomped on. You just keep insisting its a magnificent tower.

How has it been knocked down and stomped on then? I haven't found one good argument yet, and trust me, I have been looking for a loooooog time.

[kookbreaker]

You have broken nothing...kookbreaker.
There is a claim that was never investigated fully however.


They also didn't scan for Unicorns and Elves. Big freaking deal!


Oh I get that things survive...it's just that your ignoring the improbability that you would find that specific piece of paper out of that whole mess...talk about needle in a haystack...


It is not as if the paper was crtical or even relevant to the investigation. If you look at what we have on the investigation, the FBI has never made much of the passport. The ones who scream and jump and down about it are the CT'ers


Yes... it is. No invention....how else would they have known for sure...no video getting on the plane, no name on the passenger list, nothing.


The FBI has done actual investigation and following of leads to determine the names. They had evidence, the passport was not a big part of it.


....if your going to credit prior intelligence then your only damning the official story more.


Give me a quote where the FBI says we know who it was because of the passport. You seem to think that the passport was part of the 'official story; when in fact it is a strawman of the CT'ers.


Besides, telling me several times...and linking to a direct quote or page is compelling, not just your bare words.


If you can't be bothered to keep up with the things said on this thread, then do not bother replying.


How has it been knocked down and stomped on then? I haven't found one good argument yet, and trust me, I have been looking for a loooooog time.

You haven't found one because you are a dishonest conspiracy theorist who doesn't want his little world of psuedo-superior knowledge shattered with actual facts.

You've disgusted several people who tried to work with you by your base dishonesty. You took that as a victory of some kind. That says volumes about what you are.

[kookbreaker]

*fart noise*


That's all that pretty much comes out of any side of you.

[thesyntaxera]

Big freaking deal!

The fact that a poor investigation was done is a big deal...your response is unsurprising.

The FBI has done actual investigation and following of leads to determine the names. They had evidence, the passport was not a big part of it.

So what was a big part of it. Your avoiding answering yet again. Here is the FBI pages related to 9/11...

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/penttbomb.htm

nothing in there about that which you speak. if you have something better I am waiting to see it.

There isn't a quote because there was no investigation into it. It was mentioned in the media while raising some eyebrows.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,669961,00.html


If you can't be bothered to keep up with the things said on this thread, then do not bother replying.

My thoughts exactly, if all your going to do is come here and hurl diatribe don't waste your time.

You haven't found one because you are a dishonest conspiracy theorist who doesn't want his little world of psuedo-superior knowledge shattered with actual facts.

You are just being an ass here I assume, incapable of forming an argument you resort to name calling again. I mentioned what I thought happened, it doesn't make me a "dishonest conspiracy theorist". Pseudo superior?? Sheesh...do you have self esteem issues or something? AND WHAT FACTS!!!!????? Still waiting for those.

I have posted links to hundreds of resources to investigate, many, many, many of them journalistic pieces based on independent investigation...you have supplied nothing but your unwavering faith in the 9/11 commision report even though it doesn't even make sense!

You've disgusted several people who tried to work with you by your base dishonesty. You took that as a victory of some kind. That says volumes about what you are.

Oh really, gosh I am sorry for having a dissenting opinion. I am not here to claim intellectual victories, I stated my intentions from the get go...get over it. Speaking of saying volumes Kookbreaker, your moniker might lead one to think you are the one who views this as competition.

NOW, are you done? Can you discredit any of that information? Do what you claim you can do, or explain your line of logic, or just answer my intial question without stooping to name calling caveman behavior.

[thesyntaxera]

That's all that pretty much comes out of any side of you.


:boggled:

[thesyntaxera]

Here I did the work for you....

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_2001.htm

It is believed that Mohamed Atta, who had obtained flight training in the United States during the prior two years, had taken over the aircraft’s controls, redirecting it toward New York City. At approximately 8:46 a.m., AA flight 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Less than two hours later, at 10:25 a.m., the North Tower collapsed.

There is no mention of a passport at all, although they believe he was flying...

Why can't you admit that they may have planted it? It is certainly much easier to believe.

* This number does not include the 19 hijackers, all of whom died in the attack

they mean 15 right because four of them are possibly still alive...right?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

Also, lets throw out the passport all together...the only way to say with 100% certainty that it was Atta would be from the flight recorder.

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra/archives/001139.html

Two men who worked extensively in the wreckage of the World Trade Center claim they helped federal agents find three of the four “black boxes” from the jetliners that struck the towers on 9/11 - contradicting the official account.

Both the independent 9/11 Commission and federal authorities continue to insist that none of the four devices - a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR) from the two planes - were ever found in the wreckage.

But New York City firefighter Nicholas DeMasi has written in a recent book -- self-published by several Ground Zero workers -- that he escorted federal agents on an all-terrain vehicle in October 2001 and helped them locate three of the four.

His account is supported by a volunteer, Mike Bellone, whose efforts at Ground Zero have been chronicled in the New York Times and elsewhere. Bellone said assisted DeMasi and the agents and that saw a device that resembling a “black box” in the back of the firefighter’s ATV.

Their story raises the question of whether there was a some type of cover-up at Ground Zero. Federal aviation officials - blaming the massive devastation - have said the World Trade Center attacks seem to be the only major jetliner crashes in which the critical devices were never located.

A footnote to the 9/11 Commission Report issued this summer flatly states: “The CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175” - the two planes that hit the Trade Center - “were not found.”

And officials for the FBI - which oversaw the cleanup at Ground Zero - and the New York City Fire Department repeated this week that the devices were never recovered.

[richardm]

Oh I get that things survive...it's just that your ignoring the improbability that you would find that specific piece of paper out of that whole mess...talk about needle in a haystack...


Several things (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/hands.htm) were found after the buildings came down that would have been in the front of the aircraft. That is to say, ahead of the explosion. Is it too much of a leap of imagination to consider that they could have been blasted straight through the building?

Also you - or one of your links - express astonishment that


A paper passport cannot survive a plane crashing at 400 miles an hour into a building, survive the collapse of a 110 story tower which pulverized thousands of tons of concrete into fine dust, then be found intact on top of the rubble. Case closed again…


If the passport was indeed found on top of the rubble, that would indeed be an amazing thing. But it wasn't. It was found - according to another one of your links -


two blocks away from the twin towers
.

Doesn't that seem a bit less amazing? The passport and, indeed, the hands presumed to be from one of the stewardesses were found on nearby buildings after they were thrown clear. Not dug out of the rubble. Or sitting perched on the ruins for an investigator to find. Plus, of course, they weren't the only things found at a distance from the towers. But they were the only things that were interesting enough to be worth reporting.

[Belz...]

then you need to be the researcher and read. it is well documented, and supplied for you...would you like me to get some free time and a spoon as well...???

Just give me a summary. You can breast-feed me later.

Listen, what doesn't make sense is that this group of words is emblematic of your logic...

You haven't answered my objection: why would someone need to prove their innocence ?

The official story is a poorly supported conspiracy theory, why are you not attacking it?

Yes, those pesky fundamentalist islamic terrorists who think westerners are devil-worshippers would never do something like that.

then quit doing it.

You didn't even read what I wrote, did you ?

[richardm]

Also, lets throw out the passport all together...the only way to say with 100% certainty that it was Atta would be from the flight recorder.

Let's suppose that we did find the flight recorder. And the flight recorder showed that Atta was not one of the hijackers.

Would you find it more believable that his passport could have been found?

How many other passports were found belonging to passengers, by the way? Or if not passports some other form of identification (I'm not sure what the rules were regarding ID on internal flights in the USA, but I assume something would be required).

[delphi_ote]

I never said I agree with him....so, where are you getting this? I pulled that quote because Zero stated that basically no strucural engineers thought demolition the day it happened.

a) He wasn't a structural engineer.

b) Do you know how many thousands of structural engineers there are in our country? Even with one, that would basically be none.

Isn't that what skepticism does too? Besides, I am not cherry picking anything...the Commision, FEMA report, and NIST investigation have all been thoroughly disputed....all I am am doing is pointing out where.

The articles you've linked so far have mostly been the personal web sites of nobodies who are scouring the footage and reports looking only for information that bolsters their nonsense argument, but you've dismissed the experts who examined the wreckage and the building plans.

Instead of comparing me to the "disgusting tradition of holocaust deniers" in some sordid attempt at getting a rise out of me you could be reading and debasing all the information I have linked....

Or would that not be near as fun as hurling insults of the most immature variety?

You're making the same logical fallacies they do. You exhibit the same insensitivity. The comparison is apt.

[kookbreaker]

Here I did the work for you....

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_2001.htm


That is a summary, not the investigation.


There is no mention of a passport at all, although they believe he was flying...


Exactly. The passport was not a crucial peice of evidence at all.


Why can't you admit that they may have planted it?


Allow me to quote Peter Sellers from the movie 'Murder By Death':

"Its Stupid! Its the Stupidest theory I ever heard!"

There is no need for the passport to determine who was flying the plane. Its a red herring by CT'ers.


It is certainly much easier to believe.


No it isn't. Its not even close to being believable. The idea that the conspirators would plant a passport when a host of FBI investiagtion would lead them to the real pilot and hijackers is beyond idiotic.


they mean 15 right because four of them are possibly still alive...right?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm


Now this has been explained to you several times already. Obviously that lead-brain of yours refused to allow the facts in:

http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html


Also, lets throw out the passport all together...


You are the one who keeps quoting articles that bring it up as if it were proof of anything.


the only way to say with 100% certainty that it was Atta would be from the flight recorder.


Wrong again. The Flight Recorder would not prove much at all. Why do think it would prove it was Atta at the controls?

No, really, tell me the technical specification of the flight recorder that would tell us 'Mohammad Atta is sitting in the pilot's seat'. C'mon, you've just a made quite an assertion about the Flight Recorder's abilities there, why don't you back it up with your superior knowledge. You must know more about the Flight Recorders than the rest of us!

[Belz...]

The articles you've linked so far have mostly been the personal web sites of nobodies who are scouring the footage and reports looking only for information that bolsters their nonsense argument, but you've dismissed the experts who examined the wreckage and the building plans.

Pfft... experts, Delphi. You can't trust them JUST because they know what they're talking about.

Damned evidence.

[thesyntaxera]

The articles you've linked so far have mostly been the personal web sites of nobodies who are scouring the footage and reports looking only for information that bolsters their nonsense argument, but you've dismissed the experts who examined the wreckage and the building plans.

No, there are plenty(hundreds) of news articles. Don't betray your ignorance. Just say you haven't looked at them.

You're making the same logical fallacies they do. You exhibit the same insensitivity. The comparison is apt.

*yawn*
There is not one shred of evidence that proves the official story 100%, so you, as has been pointed out, are just as guilty as well.

Wrong again. The Flight Recorder would not prove much at all. Why do think it would prove it was Atta at the controls?

..............

No, really, tell me the technical specification of the flight recorder that would tell us 'Mohammad Atta is sitting in the pilot's seat'. C'mon, you've just a made quite an assertion about the Flight Recorder's abilities there, why don't you back it up with your superior knowledge. You must know more about the Flight Recorders than the rest of us!

Well, I know that if Atta was being investigated that far in advance they probably have recordings of his voice somewhere for comparison/investigative puposes for starters, it's a pretty standard practice in intelligence gathering. That said, there is no way that they could have seen Atta, so I am left to assume if he was flying the plane they determined it some how...that would be by the aid of flight recorders....something you all claim were found even though the government says they weren't.

Now this has been explained to you several times already. Obviously that lead-brain of yours refused to allow the facts in:

http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

Obviously. :rolleyes:

I guess when you have all those people with the same name you need some way to sort them out....oh yeah...they had pictures...so I guess if that doesn't narrow it down I don't know what will...didn't the people in question call in claiming innocence?...don't you thnk they would recognize themselves?

In anycase, it's reported in more than one paper that has been linked for you, so I assume it has been researched....

The argument you are making based on the article is right brained moronism, the entire 911myths site is a terrible debunking source. It only offers more conservative assumptions to back up the unsupported initial assumptions....it's like a conspiracy site for official hacks like you.

[delphi_ote]

There is not one shred of evidence that proves the official story 100%, so you, as has been pointed out, are just as guilty as well.

Funny you should say "not one shred of evidence." Someone else recently got in trouble for using those words...

He once famously insisted that Adolf Hitler knew nothing about the systematic slaughter of six million Jews, and he has been quoted as saying there was "not one shred of evidence" that the Nazis carried out their "final solution" on such a scale.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/secondworldwar/story/0,14058,1645049,00.html

[Freakshow]

Really? So what a low speed for the plane? And what does that have to do with anything? You aren't aware of f=mv?

Maybe you could have read the previous posts....As stated in the FEMA and NIST reports, it wasn't the fuel fed fire that caused it to fall, it was the office furniture fire that burned for 85 minutes that was ignited by the fuel...they state most of the fuel burned on impact.And does the initial explosion, combined with the severing of the water lines for the sprinkler system, have anything to do with the ensuing fire that was fueled by solid matter?

ETA: More fuel also means more mass. Fuel does not have zero mass.

[CurtC]

That said, there is no way that they could have seen Atta, so I am left to assume if he was flying the plane they determined it some how...that would be by the aid of flight recorders....something you all claim were found even though the government says they weren't.So now it's us claiming that the flight recorders were found?!?

Maybe they thought Atta was flying the plane because he had the most pilot experience? And, maybe, just maybe, it doesn't really matter in the overall scheme of things which of them was at the controls.

Judging from your arguments here so far, it appears that these are your biggest issues with the standard model:

* That the buildings fell, mostly straight down, after only an hour or so of fire.

* That Atta's passport was found afterwards.

* That a terrorist was able to fly a plane into the Pentagon.

Are there any others you thing are the big ones? Please don't just point to a whole laundry list like you've been doing. We're not asking you to read Randi's Flim Flam, Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World, and Shermer's Why People Believe Wierd Things before we'll even consider you worthy of a discussion. Give us a few big issues, the ones that best demonstrate that the standard model is wrong. So far I've seen the above three.

[CurtC]

You aren't aware of f=mv?I think you meant f=ma, or p=mv.

[Freakshow]

I think you meant f=ma, or p=mv.I'll take your word for it. But regardless of whether or not I am a physicist, I thought that pretty much everyone knew that the faster a mass travels, the more force it has on impacting something else.

thesyntaxera doesn't seem to know that.

[delphi_ote]

I'll take your word for it. But regardless of whether or not I am a physicist, I thought that pretty much everyone knew that the faster a mass travels, the more force it has on impacting something else.

thesyntaxera doesn't seem to know that.

I think we should be talking about momentum instead of force here, but you've still got the right idea.

p=mv

[Freakshow]

I think we should be talking about momentum instead of force here, but you've still got the right idea.

p=mvI said I'd take CurtC's word for it. I never said I'd take YOUR word for it. :p (You know I'm kidding, dude.) :D

ETA: I'll also point out another aspect of a more severe impact: how much of the fireproofing was blown off the trusses, and throughout a larger region of the building.

[delphi_ote]

I never said I'd take YOUR word for it.

Fine. But you don't have to take my word for it!

http://www.njn.net/kids/shows/images/readingrainbow.jpg

[Kevin_Lowe]

Now later your going to tell me you read them already. Good reason? Wasn't the point of this thread to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories? Did you think you were going to just make masturbatory comments to each other without anyone challenging anything you were saying?


You misunderstand me. I am explaining to you here why it is unreasonable to post a flood of links and then expect others to post point-by-point rebuttals of everything in those links.

If you can or will not take the time to synthesise the content of these floods of links into something intelligent, why should anybody else take the time to address everything you link to?


Nice of you to identify what you are doing with this post, it is indeed a cop out. No compelling evidence? I have given you pages of compelling "evidence"...since there was no real evidence gathered. It's not that the official story is incorrect on any of it's points, it's that it isn't sure 100% on all it's points, and it leaves a lot of stuff out...potentially on purpose.


If you can find enough ambiguity in the available evidence to fit a coherent conspiracy theory into, roll it out and let us take a look at it. If not, all you have is ambiguities, not evidence of a conspiracy.


*fart noise*


Classy.


I don't really want to compare intellectual testicles with you over this, but it would be safe for you to assume I am at least as informed as you are, and further more, I feel that if you had done the research and been left totally unconvinced you surely have some line of logic that you followed that led you to this conclusion, and that most likely it is the esteem you hold for your own logic that is leading you to this conclusion.


That sounds a bit circular to me, but never mind.

There's not so much a "line of logic" as a methodology. If the evidence shows the official story to be false on an important issue then there's cause for concern, but you admit yourself there is no such evidence. If there is no reason for a rational person to think that the official story is false on any important issue, then it's irrational to believe in conspiracy theories until such a time as evidence emerges.

I don't desire to change your opinion, I asked to know why you have it, and then argued the points that contest it.

You have heard it now. There is simply no reason (right now anyway) to believe that the essentials of the "official" story are false on any point.

[kookbreaker]

Well, I know that if Atta was being investigated that far in advance they probably have recordings of his voice somewhere for comparison/investigative puposes for starters, it's a pretty standard practice in intelligence gathering. That said, there is no way that they could have seen Atta, so I am left to assume if he was flying the plane they determined it some how...that would be by the aid of flight recorders.


You said the flight recorders would prove 100% that Atta was in the Pilot's seat. Are you backing away from that claim?


...something you all claim were found even though the government says they weren't.


Uh they weren't found, and we never said otherwise. Keep your lies and deceptions straight scumbag.


Obviously. :rolleyes:

I guess when you have all those people with the same name you need some way to sort them out....oh yeah...they had pictures...so I guess if that doesn't narrow it down I don't know what will...didn't the people in question call in claiming innocence?...don't you thnk they would recognize themselves?


What are you smoking? The FBI has categoricly stated that they know who did it and just because someone Arabic has the same name does not mean the terrorist are 'really alive'.


In anycase, it's reported in more than one paper that has been linked for you, so I assume it has been researched....


I think the FBI has not made an error in this matter. You have yet to prove anything by any decent standards.


The argument you are making based on the article is right brained moronism, the entire 911myths site is a terrible debunking source. It only offers more conservative assumptions to back up the unsupported initial assumptions....it's like a conspiracy site for official hacks like you.

Translation: WAAAAAAH!!! Stop USING FACTS AGAINST ME WAAAAAAH!!!!

Your last paragraph is an admission that you have nothing. Nothing at all.

[thesyntaxera]

Funny you should say "not one shred of evidence." Someone else recently got in trouble for using those words...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/secondworldwar/story/0,14058,1645049,00.html

Do you hear me calling you a holocaust denier? Is this your fall back argument? Can you not think of something else to insult others with? The message you are sending is that if I don't agree with you, I am comparable to a nazi holocaust denier.....your pretzel logic really astounds.

that isn't even a comparison.

Your paving the way in this thread for racist and slanderous remarks just because you can't explain how you know the official story is true.

GROW UP!

[thesyntaxera]

ETA: I'll also point out another aspect of a more severe impact: how much of the fireproofing was blown off the trusses, and throughout a larger region of the building.

So how are you going to explain this? That all the fire proofing did fall off? How is that even possible?

[thesyntaxera]

You misunderstand me. I am explaining to you here why it is unreasonable to post a flood of links and then expect others to post point-by-point rebuttals of everything in those links.

Kevin, I am trying really hard to understand you, however it seems fit for you to disregard any point I bring up with documentation saying I am asking you to comb through thousands of words of text, and that it is too difficult. I had initially only posted 5 links. You only needed to read the wiki article because it has every argument you have stated, and every counter argument to them written there for you. If that was too much to ask...sorry.

So then I am asked to produce something of more substance...hence the hundreds of newspaper articles that seem to suggest to everyone but you guys apparently that something was amiss that morning.


If you can or will not take the time to synthesise the content of these floods of links into something intelligent, why should anybody else take the time to address everything you link to?

I have already explained this several times, apparently my answers aren't good enough for you. You have said already that none of this is new to you so why even ask this question anyway? You should already know what the synthesis of the content of those articles is....in case you haven't guessed yet they are refutations of your claims and investigations into the circumstances leading up to 911 and after...something that I suppose doesn't have any bearing on your logical process.

If you can find enough ambiguity in the available evidence to fit a coherent conspiracy theory into, roll it out and let us take a look at it. If not, all you have is ambiguities, not evidence of a conspiracy.

This is the easy part, one that you don't seem to notice has been done for you. There are literally 3000 books, and hundreds of movies finding ambiguity in the evidence. The simple fact that no true investigation into anything was done is enough ambiguity...then there's the building collapses which despite what you and your skeptical witch hunter friends say is mysterious...and this is what baffles me about all the responses so far...

A building is hit by a plane, and falls in 85 minutes in defiance of every known law of physics. You all argue it by chopping it down to the plane hit it and weakened the steel and the building collapsed.....is over simplification a requisite for skepticism?

Besides, the biggest clue is that the Commission report, FEMA report, and NIST report all contradict each other and you guys... If you have read them you would notice they don't credit jet fuel, but the burning office contents as enough of a fire to weaken the steel. Which is impossible...

Then there's the fact that white smoke is coming out of the hole the majority of the 85 minutes suggesting a weakened fire, not some raging inferno....

and there is of course the pyroclastic flow of smoke that wafts down...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroclastic_flow

The way the buildings have collapsed has been analyzed a million different ways, and each time there is never an explanation why the center of the buildings falls first. It's like somebody went in and removed an 8 foot tall section of all the 47 steel core beams and then magically made them completely disappear in three buildings in one day.

There's not so much a "line of logic" as a methodology. If the evidence shows the official story to be false on an important issue then there's cause for concern, but you admit yourself there is no such evidence. If there is no reason for a rational person to think that the official story is false on any important issue, then it's irrational to believe in conspiracy theories until such a time as evidence emerges.

The official story hasn't even been proven may I remind you. It is a conspiracy theory itself.

It's ok for you to believe a poorly supported conspiracy theory about 19 highjackers(even though it is 15 now)who made it through every international, national, and state investigation agency, and every terrorist counter measure our nation, and the international community has to offer. Then after getting here are able to plan and carry out despite numerous warnings from government agencies, as well as international intelligence agencies the deadliest attack on our nation...with the aid of every concieveable coincidental catasrophic failure there could ever be....

but it's stupid of me to assume they maybe had some help???

There is more than enough evidence supplied in the news articles you haven't read to make this a valid concern. In fact, it's really only americans who don't question the official story...just about everyone else in the international community thinks it was an inside job as well.
You have heard it now. There is simply no reason (right now anyway) to believe that the essentials of the "official" story are false on any point

Yes there is, I have been demonstrating it for you. Just read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Conspiracy

also, what are you terming "essentials"? Is this your way of accounting for all the inconsistencies that you find when you compare the three official explanantions?

[kookbreaker]

.

So how are you going to explain this? That all the fire proofing did fall off? How is that even possible?

Were you ever in the World Trade Center?

[richardm]

.then there's the building collapses which despite what you and your skeptical witch hunter friends say is mysterious...and this is what baffles me about all the responses so far...

A building is hit by a plane, and falls in 85 minutes in defiance of every known law of physics. You all argue it by chopping it down to the plane hit it and weakened the steel and the building collapsed.....is over simplification a requisite for skepticism?

Besides, the biggest clue is that the Commission report, FEMA report, and NIST report all contradict each other and you guys... If you have read them you would notice they don't credit jet fuel, but the burning office contents as enough of a fire to weaken the steel. Which is impossible...



Have you read this article? (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html). I believe it addresses many of your questions regarding the collapse, including:


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).

[delphi_ote]

Do you hear me calling you a holocaust denier? Is this your fall back argument? Can you not think of something else to insult others with? The message you are sending is that if I don't agree with you, I am comparable to a nazi holocaust denier.....your pretzel logic really astounds.

that isn't even a comparison.

Your paving the way in this thread for racist and slanderous remarks just because you can't explain how you know the official story is true.

GROW UP!

The message I'm sending is that you're using the same logical fallacies and exhibiting the same insensitivity of a Holocaust denier. Like the Holocaust denier, because you think there are holes in the official story, you claim it is entirely false. One percived inconsistency is enough for you to accuse government officials of covering up the murder of thousands, because that's what you want to believe. Any official or expert disagreeing with you is part of the cover up. Though millions witnessed both the Holocaust and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, eye witnesses are only to be believed if they support your case. Despite overwhelming evidence for the official story, you still claim that there is "not one shred of evidence." Despite the fact that many people lost their lives in a tragic way, you maintain that the murderers who did it are not culpable.

So where's the difference again?

[richardm]

there is never an explanation why the center of the buildings falls first.
It also suggests:


. As the heat of the fire intensified, the joints on the most severely burned floors gave way, causing the perimeter wall columns to bow outward and the floors above them to fall. The buildings collapsed within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km/h


The outside bit bows outwards and the inside bit falls down inside. Repeatedly.

[Manny]

that isn't even a comparison.
Correct. The Holocaust was not broadcast on live television, did not feature the perpetrators on video bragging about it and left less physical evidence of precisely how it was perpetrated. It would be more accurate to compare you to a moon landing denier.

[CurtC]

The outside bit bows outwards and the inside bit falls down inside. Repeatedly.To be fair, that's not a good explanation for the WTC1 collapse, which video shows started at the middle (the antenna on top of the building starts moving downwards before the perimeter of the building does. There were two major supports in the towers - the perimeter columns, and several columns in the center. In WTC1, the center columns had to fail first, but that doesn't mean that they all had to fail, just that enough so that the building couldn't support the weight of the upper part of the building. Remember, WTC1 was the tower that was hit by a well-centered 767 impact, so it would have done maximum damage to those center columns.

WTC2 was a different story - it failed at the perimeter, because the 767 hit more along one edge.

[Belz...]

So how are you going to explain this? That all the fire proofing did fall off? How is that even possible?

You've never rammed a passenger jet through a building, have you ?

So then I am asked to produce something of more substance...hence the hundreds of newspaper articles that seem to suggest to everyone but you guys apparently that something was amiss that morning.

We're either very stupid or we can make the difference between good and bad evidence.

This is the easy part, one that you don't seem to notice has been done for you. There are literally 3000 books, and hundreds of movies finding ambiguity in the evidence.

Oh NO! Laymen have opinions. What ever shall we do ?

A building is hit by a plane, and falls in 85 minutes in defiance of every known law of physics.

I'm not sure if you accept this, but there is such a thing as gravity that pulls the buildings down. Fire also tends to consume things and metal expands when heated. You'll also be amazed to learn that debris can fly several blocks away from a falling skyscraper and that fuel is flammable.

You all argue it by chopping it down to the plane hit it and weakened the steel and the building collapsed.....is over simplification a requisite for skepticism?

Funny, seeing how complicating matters is an innate trait of conspiracy theorists.

Besides, the biggest clue is that the Commission report, FEMA report, and NIST report all contradict each other and you guys... If you have read them you would notice they don't credit jet fuel, but the burning office contents as enough of a fire to weaken the steel. Which is impossible...

Oh NO! Furniture is flammable. What ever shall we do ?

Then there's the fact that white smoke is coming out of the hole the majority of the 85 minutes suggesting a weakened fire, not some raging inferno....

I was under the impression that colour is an indication of what's burning, not how.

The way the buildings have collapsed has been analyzed a million different ways, and each time there is never an explanation why the center of the buildings falls first. It's like somebody went in and removed an 8 foot tall section of all the 47 steel core beams and then magically made them completely disappear in three buildings in one day.

OR... or maybe because the building's main support is on its outside ?

[B]The official story hasn't even been proven may I remind you. It is a conspiracy theory itself.

Oh NO! Crazy fundamentalist muslim terrorists who believe westerners are demon-worshipping decadents conspire to destroy our economy. What ever shall we do ?

but it's stupid of me to assume they maybe had some help???

Not stupid, just misguided. There is no need for any other involvement, no motive, and no evidence. Isn't that enough ?

The argument you are making based on the article is right brained moronism, the entire 911myths site is a terrible debunking source. It only offers more conservative assumptions to back up the unsupported initial assumptions....it's like a conspiracy site for official hacks like you.

I'd like you to read your own paragraph, there. Perhaps you can spot how flawed your reasoning is. If not, I offer the following alteration:

"The argument you are making based on the links is right brained moronism, the entire conspiracy theory is a terrible idea. It only offers more paranoid assumptions to back up the unsupported initial assumptions...."

Basically, you're just putting your hands to your ears and chanting, hoping that, if you don't even consider the opposite arguments, they don't matter.

[thesyntaxera]

The message I'm sending is that you're using the same logical fallacies and exhibiting the same insensitivity of a Holocaust denier. Like the Holocaust denier, because you think there are holes in the official story, you claim it is entirely false.

No, if you haven't been reading closely, I explained that personally I didn't feel that there was some massive conspiracy by the government to undermine the lives of thousands of victims by killing them. I suggested that the actual evidence in the least, outside of any collapse theories, and other ridiculousness, gives more than enough credence to the theory of politcal cover up and damage control because the federal government had more than enough warning. If you had reviewed the news sources this would be apparent to you.

Therefore if this had happened it allows one to look with different eyes on the official version of events which is also contradictory in case you haven't checked.

To say that your rationalizations are as good as proof is stupidity. There was no investigation worth it's salt, therefore any conclusions you draw are faulty.

One percived inconsistency is enough for you to accuse government officials of covering up the murder of thousands, because that's what you want to believe.

The problem is that there is hundreds of varying inconsistencies that you are convienently overlooking...like the news links, and the alternate interpretations of the collapse. For all we know there were demolitions charges, and any cover up is just to hide the fact that the executive branch is as stupid as you have been claiming...you could literally come up with a hundred different reason for there to be explosives in the building that don't involve the government putting it there.

The point is, you don't know for sure, you are making a guess just like everyone else...the fact that you don't know for sure should be a big clue. Instead you argue points garnered through faulty logic to back up an explanation that itself lacks much logic.

Any official or expert disagreeing with you is part of the cover up. Though millions witnessed both the Holocaust and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, eye witnesses are only to be believed if they support your case.

Not so much. I have never suggested that any official that disagrees with me is bunk, I suggested that based on the evidence surrounding the event it is plausible to think that politics was involved in coming to conclusions.

All of the eyewitness' in this case are questionable, no one remembers anything exactly how it happened, and further more there are just as many eye witness accounts that you write off because they don't agree with your world view.

Despite overwhelming evidence for the official story

Bull! IF there were such evidence you would have linked it up by now. There is no overwhelming evidence! How many sites do I need to link, how many references need cited before you will understand that the investigation was bogus. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IS CONCRETE. That said, if you can find something I would live to hear it...

IT IS WHAT I HAVE ASKED FOR THIS ENTIRE TIME.

you still claim that there is "not one shred of evidence." Despite the fact that many people lost their lives in a tragic way, you maintain that the murderers who did it are not culpable.

So where's the difference again?

Your one of those shady skeptics that has such a hard time admitting thier own stupidity that it drives you to become a flat out LIAR....aren't you? I never said that the people accused are not culpable. I said there wasn't enough proof to assume they did it, and then to go fight two wars that killed thousands more than 9/11 all based on this.

The fact that people died is not evidence of anything except that there was a crime commited.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin, I am trying really hard to understand you, however it seems fit for you to disregard any point I bring up with documentation saying I am asking you to comb through thousands of words of text, and that it is too difficult. I had initially only posted 5 links. You only needed to read the wiki article because it has every argument you have stated, and every counter argument to them written there for you. If that was too much to ask...sorry.


At the risk of repeating myself, it's unreasonable to expect people to do this if you can't give them a good reason to do so. You have not done so, except for naked assertions that if you read enough of this stuff you will become convinced there is some vague conspiracy.

Now that alone is not much of a reason. It doesn't help that I have read plenty of this stuff, and as a matter of fact I'm not convinced there is a vague conspiracy.


So then I am asked to produce something of more substance...hence the hundreds of newspaper articles that seem to suggest to everyone but you guys apparently that something was amiss that morning.


It might suggest that to everyone who is also a conspiracy theorist, and I suspect that if you hang out around such people you will get a biased view of what is normal.

Newspaper articles rushed to press in an emergency aren't terribly good evidence of anything, especially if they can't be backed up, and especially if you are using them as the basis of an extraordinary claim. If someone found a newspaper article saying Uri Geller had real psi powers that would not convince a rational person that Uri Geller had real psi powers.


I have already explained this several times, apparently my answers aren't good enough for you. You have said already that none of this is new to you so why even ask this question anyway? You should already know what the synthesis of the content of those articles is....in case you haven't guessed yet they are refutations of your claims and investigations into the circumstances leading up to 911 and after...something that I suppose doesn't have any bearing on your logical process.


Why do I ask these questions? Two reasons. Maybe you'll have some really convincing piece of evidence that I somehow missed (although you have already admitted you do not). Maybe you'll realise, in the attempt to get your thoughts in order on the issue so you can commit them to paper, that you don't actually have a single sensible reason to fix the belief there was a conspiracy.

Either of these outcomes would suit me. If there is a conspiracy I want to know, and if you are getting overexited by a cloud of innuendo I want you to know.


This is the easy part, one that you don't seem to notice has been done for you. There are literally 3000 books, and hundreds of movies finding ambiguity in the evidence. The simple fact that no true investigation into anything was done is enough ambiguity...then there's the building collapses which despite what you and your skeptical witch hunter friends say is mysterious...and this is what baffles me about all the responses so far...


There are books saying UFOs built the pyramids too, and books "finding" ambiguities in the evidence that the earth is billions of years old. You seem to think that if the volume of twaddle about a given topic is large enough there must be some truth to it, but that is not necessarily so. What you really want is a single bit of solid evidence.


A building is hit by a plane, and falls in 85 minutes in defiance of every known law of physics. You all argue it by chopping it down to the plane hit it and weakened the steel and the building collapsed.....is over simplification a requisite for skepticism?


That's the consensus of the people who understand the ins and outs of engineering and physics far, far better than me. We have already established that I know engineering and physics better than you.

Now if you want us to believe that you and the other conspiracy theorists have cottoned on to something that people who have studied and worked in the field for decades have missed, you need some convincing evidence. You simply do not have this evidence.

All you have is a thousand variations on "How could it fall like that? It doesn't make sense to me personally! Me, an ignorant person! How do I know all those experts aren't just wrong, or lying?".

The thing is, the reason we have professional engineers with years of university training is that having laypeople take a guess at the outcome of engineering issues is not a way of proceeding that reliably works.


Besides, the biggest clue is that the Commission report, FEMA report, and NIST report all contradict each other and you guys... If you have read them you would notice they don't credit jet fuel, but the burning office contents as enough of a fire to weaken the steel. Which is impossible...


How would you know what is possible and what is not? You didn't even know whether or not steel was a good conductor of heat, and now you're confidently making claims about what is or isn't possible?


Then there's the fact that white smoke is coming out of the hole the majority of the 85 minutes suggesting a weakened fire, not some raging inferno....

and there is of course the pyroclastic flow of smoke that wafts down...


Which proves what? Show your work. What does this mean in terms of the temperature inside the building, and what does this mean for the strength of damaged trusses?


The way the buildings have collapsed has been analyzed a million different ways, and each time there is never an explanation why the center of the buildings falls first. It's like somebody went in and removed an 8 foot tall section of all the 47 steel core beams and then magically made them completely disappear in three buildings in one day.


This has, I think, been explained to you repeatedly. The WTC towers used a modular truss system of construction which was practically unique, and which failed under the combination of impact damage and fire. No magic needs to be invoked.


The official story hasn't even been proven may I remind you. It is a conspiracy theory itself.

It's ok for you to believe a poorly supported conspiracy theory about 19 highjackers(even though it is 15 now)who made it through every international, national, and state investigation agency, and every terrorist counter measure our nation, and the international community has to offer. Then after getting here are able to plan and carry out despite numerous warnings from government agencies, as well as international intelligence agencies the deadliest attack on our nation...with the aid of every concieveable coincidental catasrophic failure there could ever be....

but it's stupid of me to assume they maybe had some help???


Thinking that it was unlikely is a perfectly good place to start an investigation, but an idiotic place to stop one.

Ruling out the possibility of complacency and incompetence without any evidence isn't exactly logically rigorous. So if you want to put it that way, yes, it is very stupid to assume as a fact that they had inside help.


There is more than enough evidence supplied in the news articles you haven't read to make this a valid concern. In fact, it's really only americans who don't question the official story...just about everyone else in the international community thinks it was an inside job as well.


Even if this was true (and it's a lie), so? Lots of people think the official story about the Kennedy assassination is false too, and a disturbing number of people think the earth is 6000 years old, or think we never landed on the moon. Lots of people think aliens abduct people, and that homeopathy works.

What matters is the evidence, not the popularity.


also, what are you terming "essentials"? Is this your way of accounting for all the inconsistencies that you find when you compare the three official explanantions?

No. It's to allow for the fact that there are legitimate questions about who knew what when and whether the White House deliberately made Islamic terrorism a low priority for the intelligence services because they knew any overt acts of terrorism that did occur would suit their agenda for Afghanistan and Iraq.

The essentials of the story are that a cell of Islamic nutters backed by Al Qaeda conspired to hijack four planes and crash them into things, that they succeeded because the existing systems to deal with such attacks were totally inadequate, that one plane hit the Pentagon and two planes hit the WTC buildings causing them to collapse.

[Belz...]

No, if you haven't been reading closely, I explained that personally I didn't feel that there was some massive conspiracy by the government to undermine the lives of thousands of victims by killing them. I suggested that the actual evidence in the least, outside of any collapse theories, and other ridiculousness, gives more than enough credence to the theory of politcal cover up and damage control because the federal government had more than enough warning. If you had reviewed the news sources this would be apparent to you.

I don't understand your position, then. If you DON'T believe there was a government conspiracy, and you STILL believe that the official story is not the truth, then what DO you think happened ?

The problem is that there is hundreds of varying inconsistencies that you are convienently overlooking...like the news links, and the alternate interpretations of the collapse.

Oh NO! Different people have different opinions when not in possession of the full facts. What ever shall we do ?

For all we know there were demolitions charges, and any cover up is just to hide the fact that the executive branch is as stupid as you have been claiming...you could literally come up with a hundred different reason for there to be explosives in the building that don't involve the government putting it there.

OH! I see. So you believe that, since ramming jets into the WTC couldn't possibly have toppled the buildings, the terrorists put explosives there to knock the things down ? Then why ram jets into it ? Why give people time to react and evacuate ?

Have you even SEEN a real demolition ?

The point is, you don't know for sure, you are making a guess just like everyone else...the fact that you don't know for sure should be a big clue.

Of what ? When do we EVER know anything for sure ?

All of the eyewitness' in this case are questionable, no one remembers anything exactly how it happened,

For once, I agree with you. Eyewitnesses are unreliable. Always.

Your one of those shady skeptics that has such a hard time admitting thier own stupidity that it drives you to become a flat out LIAR....aren't you?

Careful, now. One could also say that when you're out of arguments, you resort to insults. Don't open that door.

[richardm]

To be fair, that's not a good explanation for the WTC1 collapse

Fair enough - thanks!

[thesyntaxera]

You have not done so, except for naked assertions that if you read enough of this stuff you will become convinced there is some vague conspiracy.

They aren't naked assertions, I have posted links to ALL of the information I am referencing...you have not bothered to read them offering excuses in place of analysis.

Now that alone is not much of a reason. It doesn't help that I have read plenty of this stuff, and as a matter of fact I'm not convinced there is a vague conspiracy.

your opinion based on what you have read...these does not equate fact.

It might suggest that to everyone who is also a conspiracy theorist, and I suspect that if you hang out around such people you will get a biased view of what is normal.

And blanket skepticism isn't a bias?

Newspaper articles rushed to press in an emergency aren't terribly good evidence of anything

first off, this is an assumption, there is no indication that these were rushed to the presses.

especially if they can't be backed up

Which they are if you had read them this would be obvious.

and especially if you are using them as the basis of an extraordinary claim.

The research done by the independent media is invaluable. They are not making extraordinary claims, they are claiming based on hard evidence that there has been a cover up of events.

Maybe you'll realise, in the attempt to get your thoughts in order on the issue so you can commit them to paper, that you don't actually have a single sensible reason to fix the belief there was a conspiracy.

there is no smoking gun in favor of the official conspriacy either. There is plenty of evidence to suggest a governmental cover up of the events.

If there is a conspiracy I want to know, and if you are getting overexited by a cloud of innuendo I want you to know

I have been researching this since the event occured. The time for me to be over excited has passed. If you aren't a little paranoid in light of current/recent events than you haven't been paying attention.

What you really want is a single bit of solid evidence.

Exactly, as I have been saying there isn't ANY, one way or the other...it is foolish to believe any unsupported story.

That's the consensus of the people who understand the ins and outs of engineering and physics far, far better than me.

But it's ok for you to ignore other engineers, and scientists that are in favor of a different version of events? Most don't claim a conspiracy theory, they just say it's not possible. I have linked all the information, and the step by step explanations as to why they believe this...you haven't read them.

We have already established that I know engineering and physics better than you.

When, and how could you know anything about me?

You simply do not have this evidence.

Nor do you or the government,

All you have is a thousand variations on "How could it fall like that? It doesn't make sense to me personally! Me, an ignorant person! How do I know all those experts aren't just wrong, or lying?".

Actually I posted links to very detailed step by step looks at the official series of events, and every single one of the theories you supply is debunked, thoroughly.

The thing is, the reason we have professional engineers with years of university training is that having laypeople take a guess at the outcome of engineering issues is not a way of proceeding that reliably works.

Agreed and as I stated, it's ok for you to disregard the views of other scientists/researchers because they don't jive with you.

How would you know what is possible and what is not?

How would you know?

You didn't even know whether or not steel was a good conductor of heat, and now you're confidently making claims about what is or isn't possible?

Why? Because I asked a rhetorical question about the heat conduction of steel. It is a strong metal, it conducts heat well...no rocket science there.

Which proves what? Show your work.

i did, you made excuses for not reading it.

This has, I think, been explained to you repeatedly. The WTC towers used a modular truss system of construction which was practically unique, and which failed under the combination of impact damage and fire. No magic needs to be invoked.

Magic is invoked in the official tale however. The entire truss theory has been debunked. Like I said, read.


What matters is the evidence, not the popularity.

Yes, so what is the evidence that proves the official story? A list will do.

The essentials of the story are that a cell of Islamic nutters backed by Al Qaeda conspired to hijack four planes and crash them into things, that they succeeded because the existing systems to deal with such attacks were totally inadequate, that one plane hit the Pentagon and two planes hit the WTC buildings causing them to collapse.

Except that this snippet is completely turned inside out when you look at how much was known in advance.

[Belz...]

first off, this is an assumption, there is no indication that these were rushed to the presses.

Bias. News are ALWAYS rushed when there's something big going on. That's why they keep giving conflicting accounts.

[thesyntaxera]

I don't understand your position, then. If you DON'T believe there was a government conspiracy, and you STILL believe that the official story is not the truth, then what DO you think happened ?

It should be obvious that the official story is not the truth...regardless of sweeping conspiracies, there is more than enough evidence to support that.
So then what happened? That is my stance. You guys championing a poorly crafted pseudo-fiction as fact isn't helping.

As far as I can tell from the actual evidence available outside of the attacks, the government had foreknowledge, they had an established agenda that was waiting for a event of this kind, they went to great lengths to confuse the information about this event which leads to people like you and I arguing and never finding anything out, they sealed or destroyed all the evidence related to this attack in a clamoring attempt at protecting themselves and the saudi's from backlash, they have abused this event in every way possible to take maximum advantage of the fallout, they have covered up the environmental impact...

all of this alone is conspiracy...and 100% provable.

[kookbreaker]

It should be obvious that the official story is not the truth...regardless of sweeping conspiracies, there is more than enough evidence to support that.


No, there is not. Despite your claims and repeating factoids that have been shown to be false, you have yet to establish that the official story is signifigantly wrong by any measure.


So then what happened? That is my stance. You guys championing a poorly crafted pseudo-fiction as fact isn't helping.


We support it as fact because it is fact.


As far as I can tell from the actual evidence available outside of the attacks, the government had foreknowledge, they had an established agenda that was waiting for a event of this kind, they went to great lengths to confuse the information about this event which leads to people like you and I arguing and never finding anything out, they sealed or destroyed all the evidence related to this attack in a clamoring attempt at protecting themselves and the saudi's from backlash, they have abused this event in every way possible to take maximum advantage of the fallout, they have covered up the environmental impact...

all of this alone is conspiracy...and 100% provable.

You have low standards for "100%".

[thesyntaxera]

Bias. News are ALWAYS rushed when there's something big going on. That's why they keep giving conflicting accounts.

It's understandable to say what you are saying, but you have not read nor verified any of them...so this statement means nothing.

[thesyntaxera]

No, there is not. Despite your claims and repeating factoids that have been shown to be false, you have yet to establish that the official story is signifigantly wrong by any measure.

The official story maintains the the flight recorders were not found, you guys say otherwise. The official story maintains that burning office contents brought down the towers...this is impossible.

All of the things you are claiming as fact are inferences from experts viewing the same video evidence. There are other experts who disagree with them...you are ignoring them.

It's a guess, get it...not fact...there was no investigation beyond the supported story. They couldn't have even known who did it until afterward unless they had previous knowledge, which just points to ineptitude or conspiracy yet again.


We support it as fact because it is fact.

What are the facts? What is the physical evidence? They didn't find anything after the event. So did they use all that intell from before that was no good and worth ignoring until the buildings were attacked?

You have low standards for "100%".

Really, well I challenge you to discredit with facts any of the hundreds of news links supplied....if you can't than this statement means nothing as well.

[kookbreaker]

The official story maintains the the flight recorders were not found, you guys say otherwise.


We have never said that. Ever. I defy you to find the post where I have said the WTC recorders were found. This is your imagination run wild. Retract this claim.


The official story maintains that burning office contents brought down the towers...this is impossible.


According to you, but you are in fact wrong and not an expert in any field to declare something to be impossible.


All of the things you are claiming as fact are inferences from experts viewing the same video evidence. There are other experts who disagree with them...you are ignoring them.


Actually, not one single person you have quoted is an expert. You have not quoted a structural engineer, failure analyist, or anyone relevant. You've been called on this several times. But you keep claiming otherwise.


It's a guess, get it...not fact.


No. It is fact. You wanting it to be otherwise does not make it different.


..there was no investigation beyond the supported story.


According to you, and you have demonstrated a deliberate lack of knowledge in this matter


They couldn't have even known who did it until afterward unless they had previous knowledge, which just points to ineptitude or conspiracy yet again.


This does not follow. There are many ways that they could have found out after the fact via the names on the manifest, eyewitness accounts, and other investigation techniques. Your rejection of them does not make them illegitimate.


What are the facts? What is the physical evidence? They didn't find anything after the event. So did they use all that intell from before that was no good and worth ignoring until the buildings were attacked?


If a person is suspected of being sympathetic to terrorists, we do not have the right to keep him off airplanes, at least not before 9/11.


Really, well I challenge you to discredit with facts any of the hundreds of news links supplied....if you can't than this statement means nothing as well.

In your last blast of links I spent two seconds to spot fallacies and mythmaking that had already been debunked in this very thread. Your response to that was for me to 'prove it wasn't there', a la Ed Wood.

You have not produced any experts to show the collapse model is flawed, you have not produced any evidence that the investigation was bungled, you have not done anything except repeat the 'If I ran the zoo' fallacy. Your tactics are the same as those of Holocost deniers, deny it though you might.

Is there any reason we should take a petulant, whiney little child like you seriously in any way?

[thesyntaxera]

We have never said that. Ever. I defy you to find the post where I have said the WTC recorders were found. This is your imagination run wild. Retract this claim.

What you seem to be missing is the element of common sense and the burden of proof. Planes hit the Trade Center and the Pentagon. That is undisputed (yes, even for the Pentagon -- people who don't believe that a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon should be disregarded as, at absolute best, idiots. Hundreds of people saw the plane. Passengers on the plane reported its flight path in real time. The flight data recorder was recovered.)

Year Zero??? Didn't you make this claim as well?

According to you, but you are in fact wrong and not an expert in any field to declare something to be impossible.

Am I, how do you know I am not? More assumptions I suppose? Wasn't there that guy from brigham young university? And the designer of the buildings themselves?

Actually, not one single person you have quoted is an expert. You have not quoted a structural engineer, failure analyist, or anyone relevant. You've been called on this several times. But you keep claiming otherwise.

No, usually I cite something that disagrees...you just ignore them and repeat what you just wrote above.

This does not follow. There are many ways that they could have found out after the fact via the names on the manifest, eyewitness accounts, and other investigation techniques. Your rejection of them does not make them illegitimate.

Name one eyewitness who saw them in an airport that day? Name one reliable eyewitness... Show me a link that says there names were on the manifest, because every source says otherwise that I have seen.


You have not produced any experts to show the collapse model is flawed...

read, because yes I have.

you have not produced any evidence that the investigation was bungled..

read, because yes...in fact I have...

Your tactics are the same as those of Holocost deniers, deny it though you might.

smeg off.

Is there any reason we should take a petulant, whiney little child like you seriously in any way?

didn't somebody just suggest staying away from name calling...

prove your case, or be ignored...

[Blackwell]

Year Zero??? Didn't you make this claim as well?

Reread manny's post - he's referring to the flight recorder from the Pentagon. It was recovered, along with the recorder from the field in Pennsylvania.

Now, reread kook's post. He's referring to the WTC recorders.

[kookbreaker]

Year Zero??? Didn't you make this claim as well?


*Snort* So, did you deliberately mix up the Petnagon planes with the WTC planes, or are you just stupid?


Am I, how do you know I am not?


The rank idiocy you have demonstrated is more than enough evidence.


More assumptions I suppose?


Its an assumption along the lines of "If I let go of this ball, it will fall to the ground."


Wasn't there that guy from brigham young university?


He's a physics professor. As a physics student I can rightly say he ain't qualified. Pretty much every sentence of that "paper" demonstrates that he wasn't much of a physics guy, either.


And the designer of the buildings themselves?


Nope.


No, usually I cite something that disagrees...you just ignore them and repeat what you just wrote above.


You can cite all you want, it doesn't make it any better.


Name one eyewitness who saw them in an airport that day? Name one reliable eyewitness...


Micheal Tuohey.


Show me a link that says there names were on the manifest, because every source says otherwise that I have seen.


That's because all you use are nutter sources. Maybe if you actually went and read the 'official version' that you constantly disdain you might learn something:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Read section 1.1 in particular. It has pretty much all their steps.


read, because yes I have.

read, because yes...in fact I have...


Nope. Sorry, but what you have produced doesn't pass the smell test.


smeg off.


Make me. I am not the one employing the same tactics as holocost deniers.


didn't somebody just suggest staying away from name calling...


I doubt it was me.


prove your case, or be ignored...

PWAH! Oh puh-leeze. The entire mentallity of a CT nutter like you is basicly a giant cry for attention: "LOOK AT ME!!! I DOUBT THINGS FOR NO GOOD REASON! I THINK I KNOW BETTER THAN THE EXPERTS!!"

You think that your little petty comment up there even begins to look like a threat?

[thesyntaxera]

Reread manny's post - he's referring to the flight recorder from the Pentagon. It was recovered, along with the recorder from the field in Pennsylvania.

Now, reread kook's post. He's referring to the WTC recorders.

I stand corrected.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html
9/11: Missing Black Boxes in World Trade Center Attacks Found by Firefighters, Analyzed by NTSB, Concealed by FBI

All four of the devices were recovered from the two planes that hit the Pentagon and that crashed in rural Pennsylvania. In the case of American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, the FBI reports that the flight data recorder survived and had recoverable information, but the voice recorder was allegedly too damaged to provide any record. In the case of United Airlines Flight 93, which hit the ground at 500 mph in Pennsylvania, the situation was reversed: the voice recorder survived but the flight data box was allegedly damaged beyond recovery.

But the FBI states, and also reported to the 9-11 Commission, that none of the recording devices from the two planes that hit the World Trade Center were ever recovered.


Speaking of the pentagon:

http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/punchout-path.jpg

what do you make of that?

It was garnered from here:

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3308&st=0

They ask some good questions:

If DNA is destroyed at ~150 degrees C, how did a fire hot enough to consume tons of metal, seats, and luggage fail to destroy the passengers DNA?

To investigate the dynamics of the crash more, I looked at the most expensive and comprehensive computer simulation of the Pentagon incident I know of, the Purdue study. It showed the wings and tail disappearing at the moment of impact, and only purported to account for the single hole, which they say was made by the fuselage. They didn't show the wings and tail folding up; only disappearing. They said the plane entered the building "in a state resembling a liquid more than a solid". And yet they didn't show anything penetrate the building besides the fuselage. How could this happen?

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

The photo included is the only one not included in the above link. A very well thought argument however.

As I read more and more of this thread:

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3308&st=0

the more I think we all need to stop and read it if for no other reason than to realize we are being a little too serious here...please...read that thread.

[thesyntaxera]

To add some more:

http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=699&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Dr. Griffin listed ten characteristics of the collapses which all indicate that the buildings did not fall due to being struck by planes or the ensuing fires. He explained the buildings fell suddenly without any indication of collapse. They fell straight into their own footprint at free-fall speed, meeting virtually no resistance as they fell--a physical impossibility unless all vertical support was being progressively removed by explosives severing the core columns. The towers were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 and 160 mile per hour winds, and nothing about the plane crashes or ensuing fires gave any indication of causing the kind of damage that would be necessary to trigger even a partial or progressive collapse, much less the shredding of the buildings into dust and fragments that could drop at free-fall speed. The massive core columns--the most significant structural feature of the buildings, whose very existence is denied in the official 9/11 Commission Report--were severed into uniform 30 foot sections, just right for the 30-foot trucks used to remove them quickly before a real investigation could transpire. There was a volcanic-like dust cloud from the concrete being pulverized, and no physical mechanism other than explosives can begin to explain how so much of the buildings' concrete was rendered into extremely fine dust. The debris was ejected horizontally several hundred feet in huge fan shaped plumes stretching in all directions, with telltale "squibs" following the path of the explosives downward. These are all facts that have been avoided by mainstream and even most of the alternative media. Again, these are characteristics of the kind of controlled demolitions that news people and firefighters were describing on the morning of 9/11. Those multiple first-person descriptions of controlled demolition were hidden away for almost four years by the City of New York until a lawsuit finally forced the city to release them. Dr. Griffin's study of these accounts has led him beyond his earlier questioning of the official story of the collapses, to his above-quoted conclusion: The destruction of the three WTC buildings with explosives by US government terrorists is no longer a hypothesis, but a fact that has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

[thesyntaxera]

http://www.911proof.com/

Here are some quotes from this site.

Preliminarily, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney took the rare step of personally requesting that congress limit all 9/11 investigation solely to "intelligence failures", so there has never been a congressional probe into any of the real issues involved.

The administration also opposed the creation of a 9/11 commission. Once it was forced, by pressure from widows of 9-11 victims, to allow a commission to be formed, the administration appointed as executive director an administration insider (and see this article), starved the commission of funds, providing a fraction of the funds used to investigate Monica Lewinsky, failed to provide crucial documents (and see this article also), and refused to require high-level officials to testify under oath, and allowed Bush and Cheney to be questioned jointly.

More importantly, the 9-11 Commission refused to examine virtually any evidence which contradicted the administration's official version of events. As just two of numerous examples, the 9-11 Commission report does not even mention the collapse of World Trade Center building 7 or any explosions in the buildings (the word "explosion" does not appear in the report), and refused to allow any firefighters to testify publicly.

Indeed, former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland reputedly resigned in disgust from the Commission. See for example this article.

Indeed, the very 9-11 widows who had pressured the administration to create the 9/11 Commission declared it a failure which ignored 70% of their detailed questions and "suppressed important evidence and whistleblower testimony that challenged the official story on many fronts".

Moreover, a leading firefighters' trade publication called the investigation concerning the world trade center a "half-baked farce". In addition, the official investigators themselves were largely denied funding, access to the site and the evidence contained there, or even access to such basic information as the blueprints for the world trade center. Similarly, a professor of fire protection engineering, and the former chief of the fire science and engineering division of the agency now investigating the world trade center disaster, wrote that the world trade center buildings could not have collapsed due to jet fuel fires, that evidence was being destroyed, and that there was no real investigation into the collapses.

Indeed, the blueprints for the world trade center are apparently STILL being withheld from reporters and the public, and the government agency in charge of the investigation has grossly mischaracterized the structure of the buildings.

And the government agency tasked with examining the collapse of the World Trade Centers did NOT investigate any anomalies in the collapse of the buildings, failing to even examine any of the following evidence: the buildings’ impossible near free-fall speeds and symmetrical collapses; the unexplained fact that the core of the North Tower failed first; the apparent demolition squibs; the fact that the buildings turned to dust in mid-air; the presence of molten metal in the basement areas in large pools in all of the buildings; the unexplained presence of unusual compounds in the steel; the unexplained swiss-cheese like holes in the steel; and the unexplained straightening out of the upper 34 floors of the South Tower after they had precipitously leaned over and started toppling like a tree.

And did you know that investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House?

Or did you know that the tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times

Indeed, while he focuses on a very superficial issue, even the former director of the FBI says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission.


Just read the pages....every one of these quotes has a story linked to it on the main page.

A firefighter stated "it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building . . . Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV."

9/11 hero, who was the last person out of the north tower, said that there was a massive explosion in the North Tower BEFORE the plane hit (see also this interview and also this interview)

Firefighter stated "the Maydays started coming in to vacate the north tower . . . we started going down. At that point, we proceeded down . . . Made it down to the lobby. There were about maybe 30 firefighters that were with us. Made it to the lobby, and the lobby was like a war zone. All the windows were blown out, and the command post wasn't there. We made it to the corner of West and Vesey when the building came down." (pages 5 & 6)

yes...just read

http://www.911proof.com/

[thesyntaxera]

PWAH! Oh puh-leeze. The entire mentallity of a CT nutter like you is basicly a giant cry for attention: "LOOK AT ME!!! I DOUBT THINGS FOR NO GOOD REASON! I THINK I KNOW BETTER THAN THE EXPERTS!!"

You think that your little petty comment up there even begins to look like a threat?

WTF!!!!

Okay, you are a jackass after all. I am done having anything to do with you in this thread until you can learn how to have a conversation that doesn't involve you validating your massive ego.

[Kevin_Lowe]

They aren't naked assertions, I have posted links to ALL of the information I am referencing...you have not bothered to read them offering excuses in place of analysis.


You post links that do not give a reasonable person grounds to believe there was a conspiracy. Then you claim over and over again that you have proven there was a conspiracy.


your opinion based on what you have read...these does not equate fact.


This is true, but your opinion based on what you have read is not fact either.

What is telling is that you cannot or will not post a single fact wich discredits the official story or proves the existence of a conspiracy.


And blanket skepticism isn't a bias?


Believe me, there are plenty of posters around here perfectly happy to believe bad things about the Bush administration - if and only if the evidence supports it. If there was credible evidence that the current US government conspired to bring about 9/11 I and at least half a dozen others would love to see it.

In fact if ironclad proof emerged tomorrow that Cheney personally piloted the planes into the buildings by remote control and then GW Bush pushed a big red button that detonated the secret explosive concrete I would do a happy dance in my lounge room. I would probably even sing a happy song too.

The problem is that if you approach the official story and the conspiracy theories with equal skepticism, you conclude that the conspiracy theories are a big pile of the brown stuff.


first off, this is an assumption, there is no indication that these were rushed to the presses.


You're missing the point. Newspaper stories alone are not sufficient proof of extraordinary claims because newspapers get the facts wrong all the time.


The research done by the independent media is invaluable. They are not making extraordinary claims, they are claiming based on hard evidence that there has been a cover up of events.


Great! This is exactly what I have been asking for from the start, and you were claiming up until a minute ago that you didn't have it.

What's the hard evidence? Where is it? What does it prove is being covered up? Please be completely specific, don't just handwave and say "Oh, it's somewhere in one of the links I posted". Tell us exactly what the hard evidence is, where it is documented, and what it proves.


I have been researching this since the event occured. The time for me to be over excited has passed. If you aren't a little paranoid in light of current/recent events than you haven't been paying attention.


Like I said earlier, suspicion of the motives and character of the current administration is a great place to start an investigation and a terrible place to stop one. I've been paying attention, but I have seen no hard evidence of a conspiracy.


Exactly, as I have been saying there isn't ANY, one way or the other...it is foolish to believe any unsupported story.


Oh, for pity's sake. There is a mountain of evidence for the official story, not the least of which is that literally thousands of government employees would have to be in on any cover-up of the major events of 9/11.


But it's ok for you to ignore other engineers, and scientists that are in favor of a different version of events? Most don't claim a conspiracy theory, they just say it's not possible. I have linked all the information, and the step by step explanations as to why they believe this...you haven't read them.


Actually I probably have, although it's possible I missed one or two. Invariably the people claiming conspiracy do not represent the majority of people with relevant expertise. They're isolated individuals who are acting outside their area of competence.

I find it hard to believe that the overwhelming majority of high-rise building engineers and failure analysts worldwide are in on a conspiracy.

Perhaps equally importantly there is absolutely no plausible story as to why the evil conspirators would particularly want the WTC buildings to fall down, nor why they would choose a ridiculously complicated plan involving kamikaze airliners if they did.


When, and how could you know anything about me?


You didn't know how well steel conducts heat. Now you are trying to pretend it was a rhetorical question and you knew all along. That indicates to me firstly that you don't have the grasp of physics I expect from a reasonably talented high school student who studies physics, and that you are a bit dishonest.

The first is nothing to be ashamed of. Many perfectly intelligent people choose subjects other than physics in high school. The second, well...


Why? Because I asked a rhetorical question about the heat conduction of steel. It is a strong metal, it conducts heat well...no rocket science there.


Oh really? Allow me to quote you. You said "I am not familiar, but I would wonder how well steel diffuses heat, and if this would bolster, or work against the point of view that a fire weakened them to breaking."

Here's a link to the remark in context:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1362579&highlight=steel+conducts+heat#post1362579

That does not sound to me, in or out of context, remotely like a rhetorical question from someone informed about the physical properties of steel.

I think you are trying to be sneaky, thesyntaxera/love.


Magic is invoked in the official tale however. The entire truss theory has been debunked. Like I said, read.


Debunked by relevant experts? Or poked at by irrelevant laypeople, much as the moon landings are poked at?

That is a rhetorical question, by the way, just so you know what one might look like.


Yes, so what is the evidence that proves the official story? A list will do.


Your wacky claim, your burden of proof.


Except that this snippet is completely turned inside out when you look at how much was known in advance.

Facts? Evidence? Why is it that you first deny you have a single solid bit of evidence disproving the official story, and then you turn around and make claims like this that imply you have exactly such evidence?

Given that I already believe you to be a bit dishonest, you are not helping yourself by behaving this way.

[kookbreaker]

I stand corrected.


And then we Sashay....

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html

Speaking of the pentagon:

http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/punchout-path.jpg

what do you make of that?
[/QUOTE]

I would say: "Do not depend on straight lines when the impacting item is not a solid block."

More to the point, if it was not a plane that did this damage, what did? And where did the plane go that everyone saw? hmm?


It was garnered from here:

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3308&st=0

They ask some good questions:

"If DNA is destroyed at ~150 degrees C, how did a fire hot enough to consume tons of metal, seats, and luggage fail to destroy the passengers DNA?"


Answer is so easy its laughable. First of all, the seats were not all destroyed, nore was the luggage, nor all the metal. If you read the links that you provided below you would see a picture of one of the seats. Missed that, did you?

Even if those things were destroyed, fire is not an even item. Body parts have been recovered from buildings that have been burned to the ground.


"To investigate the dynamics of the crash more, I looked at the most expensive and comprehensive computer simulation of the Pentagon incident I know of, the Purdue study. It showed the wings and tail disappearing at the moment of impact, and only purported to account for the single hole, which they say was made by the fuselage. They didn't show the wings and tail folding up; only disappearing. They said the plane entered the building "in a state resembling a liquid more than a solid". And yet they didn't show anything penetrate the building besides the fuselage. How could this happen?"


I really can't say too much here except that this person seems to want an excess of graphic detail from what was a simple computer model demo.


http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

The photo included is the only one not included in the above link. A very well thought argument however.



I would agree.


As I read more and more of this thread:

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3308&st=0

the more I think we all need to stop and read it if for no other reason than to realize we are being a little too serious here...please...read that thread.

It is an interesting thread, but there really is nothing new. I note that the OP in that one is pulling some very familiar stunts.

I note that suddenly we are talking about the Pentagon again, and the next few posts by TheSyntaxeria are mostly verbiage.

[kookbreaker]

To add some more:

http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=699&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0


Why should I consider the ramblins of a Theologian to be of greater value than just about every structural engineer in the world?

Why is Dr. Griffin's nonsense worthy of consideration when Engineers in Singapore have done analysis of the basic model and agreed with it?

Do you really think a theologian has any merit in this matter?

[kookbreaker]

WTF!!!!


You made an ultimatum. I called you on it.


Okay, you are a jackass after all.


And?


I am done having anything to do with you in this thread until you can learn how to have a conversation that doesn't involve you validating your massive ego.

Irony meters of the world: PEG!

[delphi_ote]

You made an ultimatum. I called you on it.

These types certainly get upset when you hit the nail on the head like that.

[kookbreaker]

These types certainly get upset when you hit the nail on the head like that.

Yeah, notice all of a sudden he's talking about the Pentagon again?

As John McAdams would say 'Sashay!'

[thesyntaxera]

I thought this was interesting...it doesn't really mean anything however....

this is rumsfeld talking in a parade interview.

They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html

could this have been the source of controversy?

I was cruising around this conversation at wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories

[thesyntaxera]

Given that I already believe you to be a bit dishonest, you are not helping yourself by behaving this way.

First, you have nothing to base any claims of my dishonesty on...you don't know me...at all...you know 139 posts of me arguing an opposing point of view...chill out captain serious.

My first post:

hey fellow skeptics...it my first time...be gentle
When I saw this thread I just had to reply...conspiracies theory is a pet hobby of mine as well.
I am electing to play devils advocate, due in part to the fact that no one has done any real debunking in this thread...so I thought I would supply some info to be debunked...sound fun? ok...
Is it logical to believe the following:

In it I have listed the popular claims, and wondered if it were logical...etc Year Zero makes an honest attempt to explain things in a rational way, and based on my reaction to what appears to be a "warm welcome" everyone leaps into "smash the stupid newbie troll guy mode"... since then I have been on the defensive while maintaining my argument...

Now pretend for a second that the assumptions you have been making since my first post aren't clouding every response you make to me.

These are the arguments you have to refute, and you can't do so by quoting 911myths. Especially when there is a 911proof that has just as convincing information.

So I ask again what is the list of evidence that refutes this all and makes you believe the official account.

Your previous answers have all revolved around following a line of logic instead of evidence...the usual answer simply being "It's not logical". I have asked you to demonstrate how illogical it is and you freak out and use the crappiest analogies I have ever read to explain yourself, instead of evidence...


So what is the evidence. We have all looked at the same things...whats are you seeing that this side of the argument isn't seeing???

Why couldn't you have just answered the question to begin with if you are so sure.

Remember, "logical" analogies don't count.

[PixyMisa]

I thought this was interesting...it doesn't really mean anything however....
You got that right.

this is rumsfeld talking in a parade interview.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html

could this have been the source of controversy?
Only for idiots.

Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens [as] the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.
Not much to hang your theory on, really. One mis-transcribed word in a partly inaudible response.

[PixyMisa]

In it I have listed the popular claims, and wondered if it were logical
No, it isn't.

So I ask again what is the list of evidence that refutes this all and makes you believe the official account.
Refutes what all? You haven't presented any positive evidence of anything.

[Kevin_Lowe]

First, you have nothing to base any claims of my dishonesty on...you don't know me...at all...you know 139 posts of me arguing an opposing point of view...chill out captain serious.


Do you think this issue merits seriousness? I do.


In it I have listed the popular claims, and wondered if it were logical...etc Year Zero makes an honest attempt to explain things in a rational way, and based on my reaction to what appears to be a "warm welcome" everyone leaps into "smash the stupid newbie troll guy mode"... since then I have been on the defensive while maintaining my argument...


You are not honest, you repeat claims which have already been demolished, and you are rude. That is not how to make friends around here.


These are the arguments you have to refute, and you can't do so by quoting 911myths. Especially when there is a 911proof that has just as convincing information.


No it doesn't.


So I ask again what is the list of evidence that refutes this all and makes you believe the official account.


Your weird claims, your burden of proof.


Your previous answers have all revolved around following a line of logic instead of evidence...the usual answer simply being "It's not logical". I have asked you to demonstrate how illogical it is and you freak out and use the crappiest analogies I have ever read to explain yourself, instead of evidence...

So what is the evidence. We have all looked at the same things...whats are you seeing that this side of the argument isn't seeing???


Your weird claims, your burden of proof. Show us credible reason to question an aspect of the official story, and maybe someone will dig for evidence to support the official story. So far you've provided nothing of substance.


Remember, "logical" analogies don't count.

Didn't we already demonstrate that in addition to being less than honest, you wouldn't know formal logic from a hole in the ground?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Stupid double post.

[Belz...]

It should be obvious that the official story is not the truth...regardless of sweeping conspiracies, there is more than enough evidence to support that.

Suspicions and inconsistencies are not evidence, per se.

So then what happened? That is my stance. You guys championing a poorly crafted pseudo-fiction as fact isn't helping.

Careful, Syntax. The mere fact that you don't believe the official story does not make it fiction.

As far as I can tell from the actual evidence available outside of the attacks, the government had foreknowledge, they had an established agenda that was waiting for a event of this kind, they went to great lengths to confuse the information about this event which leads to people like you and I arguing and never finding anything out, they sealed or destroyed all the evidence related to this attack in a clamoring attempt at protecting themselves and the saudi's from backlash, they have abused this event in every way possible to take maximum advantage of the fallout, they have covered up the environmental impact...

If they destroyed all the evidence, how do YOU know about it ?

all of this alone is conspiracy...and 100% provable.

100% ? Wow! You'll make millions with your book, then, and probably topple the government. Good luck with that. I won't be holding my breath.

It's understandable to say what you are saying, but you have not read nor verified any of them...so this statement means nothing.

So... because I haven't read all of the articles, I cannot say that "News are ALWAYS rushed when there's something big going on. That's why they keep giving conflicting accounts." ? So who else has read them, here ? Maybe YOU can tell Syntax. You've never seen a news room, have you ?

The official story maintains that burning office contents brought down the towers...this is impossible.

How would you know this ? How would you know that whole storeys of burning stuff can't heat up the structure sufficiently ?

Really, well I challenge you to discredit with facts any of the hundreds of news links supplied....

Been done already, methinks.

[Belz...]

http://www.911proof.com/

Here are some quotes from this site.



They seem just as eager to accept any "evidence" that contradicts the official story and ignore those who agree with it. Frankly, the quote you provided about the WTC collapse rings alarm bells.

[delphi_ote]

So what is the evidence. We have all looked at the same things...whats are you seeing that this side of the argument isn't seeing???

Reason.

[billydkid]

what bothers me about conspiracy theories is they tend discredit information that might actually be true and we might need to know. It is my theory that conspiracy theories are cooked up by people engaged in actual conspiracies.

[Belz...]

First, you have nothing to base any claims of my dishonesty on...you don't know me...at all...you know 139 posts of me arguing an opposing point of view...chill out captain serious.

So what you are saying is that experience is worth nothing ? Another thread, perhaps.

In it I have listed the popular claims, and wondered if it were logical...etc Year Zero makes an honest attempt to explain things in a rational way, and based on my reaction to what appears to be a "warm welcome" everyone leaps into "smash the stupid newbie troll guy mode"... since then I have been on the defensive while maintaining my argument...

It's typical of people in your position to switch to the victim-mode. Namely, that, for some obscure reason, people will smash you although you are somehow correct. Perhaps it never occured to you that, if everybody takes down your arguments in this way, it might be because your arguments are flawed.

Now pretend for a second that the assumptions you have been making since my first post aren't clouding every response you make to me.

I can do that. Can you ? Can you honestly say that your responses to our objections have been completely unbiased ?

These are the arguments you have to refute, and you can't do so by quoting 911myths. Especially when there is a 911proof that has just as convincing information.

We're not quoting 911myths exclusively. In fact I didn't even know about that site until you started this thread. People are posting and linking and quoting from professionals and specialists who know what they're talking about. You're mostly quoting from lay sources that "feel" that something's wrong.

Your previous answers have all revolved around following a line of logic instead of evidence...the usual answer simply being "It's not logical". I have asked you to demonstrate how illogical it is and you freak out and use the crappiest analogies I have ever read to explain yourself, instead of evidence...

Logic is a good way to determine if a line of reasoning is worth following. Perhaps you've heard of it.

So what is the evidence. We have all looked at the same things...whats are you seeing that this side of the argument isn't seeing???

You're again assuming that there's something wrong to start with. That's a circular argument.

[thesyntaxera]

You post links that do not give a reasonable person grounds to believe there was a conspiracy. Then you claim over and over again that you have proven there was a conspiracy.

I post links that make arguments against yours, and I have never claimed I have proof 100% that all the 9/11 crap is all true...I suggested that based on the the investigative reporting done between then and now enough information has come to light to draw into question the official explanation, which as true as it may be is still riddled with faults that are exploited in favor of conspiracy.

Talk about dishonest...your main method of reply has been to distort everything I say to fit the CT'er picture you have imagined me as being.

What is telling is that you cannot or will not post a single fact wich discredits the official story or proves the existence of a conspiracy.

What is even more telling is that you won't admit that there is no way to disprove conspiracy with evidence, and that aside from professional opinion there isn't much you have to go on...you can make a general claim like..."it's basic physics..." as a means to validate your argument...but this is not evidence...There has never been a 100% accurate model made of the attacks because not all of the variables can be known, as well, any scientist will tell you that science is probabilities, which means we can argue until the cows come home about the science behind it...some will never agree.


The problem is that if you approach the official story and the conspiracy theories with equal skepticism, you conclude that the conspiracy theories are a big pile of the brown stuff.

I agree, most are outlandish. They exploit that lack of support information in the official versions to thier own ends, typical ct tactics...but that doesn't mean that the official version is all rosy either...you say the essentials are all that matter...and I say all the FACTS matter...this could be just a difference in opinion I think.

You're missing the point. Newspaper stories alone are not sufficient proof of extraordinary claims because newspapers get the facts wrong all the time.

But the research and interviews behind them is...you can write off some for sure...but not all...this is how you avoid having to look at any of them I assume...very nice.


Great! This is exactly what I have been asking for from the start, and you were claiming up until a minute ago that you didn't have it.

then read the news article links.

What's the hard evidence? Where is it? What does it prove is being covered up? Please be completely specific, don't just handwave and say "Oh, it's somewhere in one of the links I posted". Tell us exactly what the hard evidence is, where it is documented, and what it proves.

read the news links and draw your own conclusions.

Like I said earlier, suspicion of the motives and character of the current administration is a great place to start an investigation and a terrible place to stop one. I've been paying attention, but I have seen no hard evidence of a conspiracy.

The reverse question would be...why do you think there would be? I don't know if you have ever had to deal extensively with american government, but the beauracracy alone is almost enough to cover up anything.

Oh, for pity's sake. There is a mountain of evidence for the official story?

So where is the physical evidence that says that the buildings came down according to the official story? This is what I am asking...what is there that proves it...as simple question you keep dodging for apparently no reason since, I guess only hardcore skeptics like you guys are the only ones that would know anything as truth.

You didn't know how well steel conducts heat. Now you are trying to pretend it was a rhetorical question and you knew all along.

It was...if you were to reread my posts you would see the rhetorical question is frequently used.

and that you are a bit dishonest.

Prove it...or is this another inductive guess?

The second, well...

Do me a favor..prove that I am a liar, or have been actively lying...I have explained myself according the truth...you just don't want to say that you and everyone else reacted like a bunch of kindergarten asses.


I am not familiar
I don't know the exact properties of steel like an expert would?

but I would wonder how well steel diffuses heat, and if this would bolster, or work against the point of view that a fire weakened them to breaking...

the rhetorical part...a speculation based on not being an expert...are you noid much Kevin?

Here's a link to the remark in context:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1362579&highlight=steel+conducts+heat#post1362579

Link away.

That does not sound to me, in or out of context, remotely like a rhetorical question from someone informed about the physical properties of steel.

yeah it does...because it is....and when did I say I was an expert about steel?

I think you are trying to be sneaky, thesyntaxera/love.

I can say that if you have a mod investigate my IP you will find that love and I are not the same...there is no connection outside your swollen head.


Facts? Evidence? Why is it that you first deny you have a single solid bit of evidence disproving the official story, and then you turn around and make claims like this that imply you have exactly such evidence?

I don't deny, I post links that contest your uncited claims...I ask you to cite them, and you refuse because "I have posted to many links"....

all I am asking is what physical evidence is there that proves the official account....a very easy task if you are so well informed.

[thesyntaxera]

You could have just linked this article:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1253.shtml

but no, polishing your brass balls was more important.

[thesyntaxera]

what bothers me about conspiracy theories is they tend discredit information that might actually be true and we might need to know. It is my theory that conspiracy theories are cooked up by people engaged in actual conspiracies.

you might not want to say anything like this in this thread...even if I agree with you to a small extent.

or since you already have said it...I will loan you my flame retardant suit, it is a little worn now, but still in good condition.

[Belz...]

I suggested that based on the the investigative reporting done between then and now enough information has come to light to draw into question the official explanation, which as true as it may be is still riddled with faults that are exploited in favor of conspiracy.

I'm starting to wonder if you know what a conspiracy is. But what's evident is that, although you do not support every CT idea for the WTC tragedy, you are convinced of your principal assumption, which is that something is wrong with the official story.

Talk about dishonest...your main method of reply has been to distort everything I say to fit the CT'er picture you have imagined me as being.

Well, you do.

What is even more telling is that you won't admit that there is no way to disprove conspiracy with evidence

Er... yes you can. If evidence is useless, then why do you try to convince other people with what you consider evidence ?

and that aside from professional opinion there isn't much you have to go on...you can make a general claim like..."it's basic physics..." as a means to validate your argument...but this is not evidence...

Professional opinions, laws of physics and physical proof aren't evidence ? What IS evidence, then Syntax ? Your thoughts ? Talk to Iacchus, then.

There has never been a 100% accurate model made of the attacks because not all of the variables can be known, as well, any scientist will tell you that science is probabilities, which means we can argue until the cows come home about the science behind it...some will never agree.

Unfortunately this is true of EVERYTHING, so this entire paragraph is useless. The point is to reach the most reasonable and likely conclusion.

I say all the FACTS matter...this could be just a difference in opinion I think.

If I say the Great Brown Chicken sat on the WTCs astral counterparts and caused the collapse.. is that acceptable evidence ?

read the news links and draw your own conclusions.

We have.

The reverse question would be...why do you think there would be? I don't know if you have ever had to deal extensively with american government, but the beauracracy alone is almost enough to cover up anything.

I don't think the usual level of competence you guys attribute to your government allows them to be so efficient at covering up anything.

So where is the physical evidence that says that the buildings came down according to the official story?

Let me see. Logic doesn't work. Analogies don't work. Testimony, expert or otherwise, doesn't work. I guess now we have to rely on the molten steel found on the site. Next question.

yeah it does...because it is....and when did I say I was an expert about steel?

You didn't, but you doubt what people say about its properties under duress because it would put a large thorn in your opinion's side.

all I am asking is what physical evidence is there that proves the official account....a very easy task if you are so well informed.

As I said, evidence has been provided, but you ignore every single one of them because they contradict your views.

[Belz...]

you might not want to say anything like this in this thread...even if I agree with you to a small extent.

or since you already have said it...I will loan you my flame retardant suit, it is a little worn now, but still in good condition.

I do believe his post was sarcastic.

[thesyntaxera]

I'm starting to wonder if you know what a conspiracy is. But what's evident is that, although you do not support every CT idea for the WTC tragedy, you are convinced of your principal assumption, which is that something is wrong with the official story.

no..Belz...you are not a very close reader are you? I am convinced that there is no way to prove the official story 100% with facts and physical evidence.

Er... yes you can. If evidence is useless, then why do you try to convince other people with what you consider evidence ?

Whose trying to do anything...except argue the opposite side with the evidence they use, and asking you to debunk it which is what this thread is what this was all about intially.

Professional opinions,

are not facts.

laws of physics

What laws of physics support the official story? See I pointed this tactic out in one of my last posts...do you realize that the collapse is a chain reaction of events...??? How do the indisputable laws of physics explain each part of the chain reaction?

and physical proof aren't evidence ?

Just tell me what it is then? Thats what I am asking?

[thesyntaxera]

So what you are saying is that experience is worth nothing ? Another thread, perhaps.

What has that go to do with anything, except to justify why you can make assumption about people with no basis.

It's typical of people in your position to switch to the victim-mode.

and it's typical of skeptics to leap to conclusions based on little but logic which at times is flawed, and then to argue into obscurity any point that is being attempted...without ever justifying your own in this case.


Can you honestly say that your responses to our objections have been completely unbiased ?

As I said, I posted the arguments that contest the official account...there are whole sites debunking every one of the official claims, and some that make convincing arguments...I asked you to debunk them...these have been my responses to your "evidence"...my responses to personal attacks are heavily biased...as would yours be.

We're not quoting 911myths exclusively. In fact I didn't even know about that site until you started this thread. People are posting and linking and quoting from professionals and specialists who know what they're talking about. You're mostly quoting from lay sources that "feel" that something's wrong.

You haven't read a single link I have posted have you.

[kookbreaker]

what bothers me about conspiracy theories is they tend discredit information that might actually be true and we might need to know.

On another board, one skeptic put the matter succinctly:

A conspiracy theorist is like having a guard dog that growls at every single shadow, day and night. It thinks its doing a great job, but in fact it is worse than useless.



It is my theory that conspiracy theories are cooked up by people engaged in actual conspiracies.

:D


Edited due to a dumb spelling error

[kookbreaker]

you might not want to say anything like this in this thread...even if I agree with you to a small extent.

or since you already have said it...I will loan you my flame retardant suit, it is a little worn now, but still in good condition.

WOOOSH!!

[thesyntaxera]

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/commissionlies.html

and what about these?

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers--including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC--are still alive (19-20).

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta--such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances--that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed--an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"--a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).

12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel--that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel--made no sense in this case (30).

14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's facade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner--even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras--including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike--could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).

22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).

23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).

24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).

25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).

26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).

27. The omission of David Schippers' claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).

28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).

29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).

30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).

31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America's "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).

32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).

33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).

34. The omission of Gerald Posner's account of Abu Zubaydah's testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family--all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period--were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).

35. The Commission's denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).

36. The Commission's denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).

37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).

38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).

39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).

40. The omission of Coleen Rowley's claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).

41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright's charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).

42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer (91-94).

43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds--testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).

44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).

45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).

46. The Commission's claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).

47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).

48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).

49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).

50. The omission of Gerald Posner's report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).

51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be "coming down" (114).

52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as "opportunities" (116-17).

53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that "a new Pearl Harbor" would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).

54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).

55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks--Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart--were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).

56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).

57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).

58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).

59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).

60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld's conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).

61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (133-34).

62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).

63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD's Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).

64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).

65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).

66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane's transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military's radar to track that plane (166-67).

67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD's response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).

68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).

69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).

70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD's earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).

71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).

72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175's hijacking (183-84, 186).

73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).

74. The omission, in the Commission's claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).

75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI's counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).

76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military's radar (191-92).

77. The failure to explain, if NORAD's earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was "incorrect," how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).

78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).

79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).

80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke's videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).

81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because "none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department"--although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).

82. The Commission's claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke's videoconference--although Clarke's book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).

83. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke's contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke's videoconference (213-17).

84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke's account of Rumsfeld's whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld’s own accounts (217-19).

85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).

86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36--in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).

87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon--one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a "high-speed dive") and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).

88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from "Phantom Flight 11," were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).

89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).

90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93's hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).

91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).

92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).

93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).

94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC's Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).

95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).

96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).

97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).

98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).

99. The omission of Clarke's own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).

100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).

101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).

102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).

103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).

104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).

105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).

106. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).

107. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).

108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).

109. The failure to probe the issue of how the "war games" scheduled for that day were related to the military's failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).

110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).

111. The claim--made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them--that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).

112. The failure to point out that the Commission's claimed "independence" was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).

113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).

114. The failure to point out that the Commission's chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).

115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report "without dissent," to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of "looking at information only partially," had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).

some of these are already in dispute here...the problem I am seeing is a lack of strength in a few of the claims that he doesn't cite as fact...

[Belz...]

no..Belz...you are not a very close reader are you? I am convinced that there is no way to prove the official story 100% with facts and physical evidence.

Which is why I said that "you are convinced of your principal assumption, which is that something is wrong with the official story."

You've just confirmed what I said RIGHT AFTER saying that I can't read.

Whose trying to do anything...except argue the opposite side with the evidence they use, and asking you to debunk it which is what this thread is what this was all about intially.

What opposite side ? You're the one who's challenging the official account. You're the one who's expected to present evidence.

[professional opinions] are not facts.

True. I said they were evidence.

What laws of physics support the official story?

Heavy things tend to fall down. But not according to you. You claim they should fall slower than free-fall speeds, whatever that means. Since when do debris fall faster in a controlled demolition ?

See I pointed this tactic out in one of my last posts...do you realize that the collapse is a chain reaction of events...???

I know you said that. That's why I pointed out that laws of physics are, according to you, apparently NOT evidence. In fact, I suspect that NOTHING is evidence so long as it goes against your close-minded belief.

How do the indisputable laws of physics explain each part of the chain reaction?

Are you actually saying that the collapse DEFIED the laws of physics ? Wow.

Just tell me what it is then? Thats what I am asking?

I asked a question: is physical things considered evidence ?

[Belz...]

What has that go to do with anything, except to justify why you can make assumption about people with no basis.


Will you eventually start putting NAMES in the messages you answer to ? This is getting annoying and confusing.

and it's typical of skeptics to leap to conclusions based on little but logic which at times is flawed,

Yes. Reaching conclusions with logic. I can see how annoying that must be to you.

As I said, I posted the arguments that contest the official account...there are whole sites debunking every one of the official claims, and some that make convincing arguments...I asked you to debunk them...these have been my responses to your "evidence"...my responses to personal attacks are heavily biased...as would yours be.

I'm not talking about responses to personal attacks, but to facts and evidence. You basically ignore, for example, the opinion of actual experts in favor of those of laymen. How is this rational ?

[kookbreaker]

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/commissionlies.html

and what about these?

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers--including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC--are still alive (19-20).


This one has been beaten to death:
http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html


2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta--such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances--that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).


And televangelists would never solicit prostitutes, right? They are soooo religious, after all.


3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).


Hani flopped out of flight school the first time he took it, but he perservered and was awarded his pilot's liscence. They don't hand those out just because you take the course many times. You have to pass a test.

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html


4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).


Is this the official manifests, or the victims lists?

I suspect the latter:

http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_arabs.html


5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).


Buildings have never been hit with 90,000L molotov cocktails before.

Again, NO STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS FOUND PROBLEMS WITH THE FAILURE OF THE WTC.


6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).


Unsupported claim. NIST studies have shown the fires had enough time to do the damage required.


7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).


If one expects even events from chaotic events such as fire, one will be disappointed with more than the WTC collapse.


8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed--an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).


But that NIST has. While WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane, it was hit by large amounts of falling, burning debris from the WTC 1&2. The suggestion that the fires were small and localized has been debunked.


9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).


These people have a funny defintion of 'suggestive of controlled demolition' becuase no demolitionist agrees with them.


10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"--a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).


As can be seen in the video,for a short time they were. But having that much material collapsing around you isn't healthy.

Again. I'll stick with the Structural Engineers take on things rather than this silly amateur night.

I hit 10 and this loser is off to a lousy start. I might continue with more of these, but I suspect their quality will not improve.

[Blackwell]

Good job Kook. I'll just hit one more and hand it over:

19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Also - if it wasn't a fuel-ladden plane, syn, what was the cause of the huge fireball and black smoke?

[kookbreaker]

Continueing to destroy thesyntaxera's cut n'paste arguement.

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/commissionlies.html


11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).


Irrelevant. 'Pull' is not the term used by building demolitionists. 'Shoot' is the prefered term. We already covered this.


12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).


The steel was finally all removed from the site by May, 2002.

http://www.911myths.com/html/recycled_steel.html

The investigators had time to look at the steel. Since there was no evidence of explosives being used, there was no reason to test the material.


13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel--that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel--made no sense in this case (30).


It makes perfect sense in this matter. Even if there were no survivors, the citizens of NYC wanted the remains of their lost returned. The city wanted to recover the area and move on.


14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).


Since he was told that by structural engineers who were on the scene:

http://www.911myths.com/html/giuliani_and_the_wtc_warning.html

This is not a big deal or surprise. I find it very difficult that Guilliani, the biggest cheerleader for the city of NYC, would be complict in anything so devastating to his city.


15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).


Marvin was in charge until 6/2000. It is hard to accept that he had any hand in the matter some 15 months later.


16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).


Had they full working knowledge of the work being done and could pick out the side from several thousand feet up this might come scraping near a relveant point.


17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).


Several models have been made regarding the damage. It is spot on.


18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's facade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).


Photo's shown are deliberately picked by CT'ers with firefighting efforts and smoke obscuring the impact point. Other photos prior to the collapse show the hole at expected size.


19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).


As if Blackwell's link wasn't enough, there is also this:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html


20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner--even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).


The Pentagon is within a very short distance from Ronald Reagan Airport. Missile systems would be quite a hazard.

[thesyntaxera]

Will you eventually start putting NAMES in the messages you answer to ? This is getting annoying and confusing.

The minute you start reading the contents of my posts, namely the links that contain the names you seek...



Yes. Reaching conclusions with logic. I can see how annoying that must be to you.

Logic is not fact...so what is the physical evidence that proves the official story, and that has you so convinced...or is it just your faith in your own logic that has you convinced..need I remind you this isn't evidence either.

I'm not talking about responses to personal attacks, but to facts and evidence. You basically ignore, for example, the opinion of actual experts in favor of those of laymen. How is this rational ?

have been asking for evidence, cold hard evidence this whole time...and not a single thing...just a lot of excuses and links to sites that say that "we don't know for sure but it is logical to make this guess"...as far as experts...the word experts doesn't mean infalliable as you seem to suggest, it means they are more educated, and just like anyone who is only viewing the video evidence they are going to be limited in the claims they can make.

[thesyntaxera]

Here is something a little more reasonable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_9/11_Commission_Report

Unresolved issues regarding prior advance warning

In the months preceding September 11, the governments of at least four countries—Germany, Egypt, Russia and Israel— are said to have given specific "urgent" warnings to the US of an impending terrorist attack, indicating that hijacked commercial aircraft might well be used to attack targets in the USA. [2], full list of July-August 2001 intelligence warnings here. The Egyptian and French warnings to the USA are claimed to have originated from Mossad and German intelligence.

German intelligence service BND told both US and Israeli intelligence agencies in June that Middle East terrorists were "planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture." (Source: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, September 14, 2001)
Egypt sent an urgent warning to the US June 13. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak told the French newspaper Le Figaro that the warning was originally delivered just before the G-8 summit in Genoa, and was taken seriously enough that antiaircraft batteries were stationed around the Genoa airport. According to Mubarak, "an airplane stuffed with explosives" was mentioned. (Source: New York Times, September 26, 2001)
Russian intelligence notified the CIA during the summer that 25 terrorist pilots had been specifically training for suicide missions. In an interview September 15 with MSNBC, Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed that he had ordered Russian intelligence in August to warn the US government "in the strongest possible terms" of imminent attacks on airports and government buildings. (Source: MSNBC).
The Israeli Mossad warned FBI and CIA in August that as many as 200 followers of Osama bin Laden were slipping into the country to prepare "a major assault on the United States." The advisory spoke of a "large-scale target," and The Los Angeles Times cites unnamed US officials confirming Mossad's warning had been received. (Source: Sunday Telegraph, September 16, 2001; Los Angeles Times, September 20, 2001)
The Independent, a liberal daily in Great Britain, published an article asserting the US government "was warned repeatedly that a devastating attack on the United States was on its way." The Independent cited an interview given by Osama bin Laden to a London-based Arabic-language newspaper, al-Quds al-Arabi, in late August. (Source: Independent, September 17, 2001).

[Blackwell]

Adding to Kookbreaker's point:



16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

Less likely than a field in Pennsylvania? I can't imagine what point you're trying to make with this. You seem to imply that the terrorists would have had pin-point precision in their piloting, and would have been able to aim an airliner EXACTLY to the spot they wanted.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I post links that make arguments against yours, and I have never claimed I have proof 100% that all the 9/11 crap is all true...I suggested that based on the the investigative reporting done between then and now enough information has come to light to draw into question the official explanation, which as true as it may be is still riddled with faults that are exploited in favor of conspiracy.

Talk about dishonest...your main method of reply has been to distort everything I say to fit the CT'er picture you have imagined me as being.


This is hilarious. Out of one side of your mouth you paint yourself as a poor, skeptical victim of unreasonable distortion. Then out of the other you post a 100+ point conspiracy kook laundry list that includes silly claims which have already been flogged to death right in this very thread.


What is even more telling is that you won't admit that there is no way to disprove conspiracy with evidence, and that aside from professional opinion there isn't much you have to go on...you can make a general claim like..."it's basic physics..." as a means to validate your argument...but this is not evidence...There has never been a 100% accurate model made of the attacks because not all of the variables can be known, as well, any scientist will tell you that science is probabilities, which means we can argue until the cows come home about the science behind it...some will never agree.


I don't know exactly how life arose from non-living materials either. It was a long time ago and it was probably complicated.

In issues like this we are obliged to go with the best explanation available, and the consensus of people who know what they are talking about is that the conventional story does the job just fine.

read the news links and draw your own conclusions.


The hilarity continues. I ask you to state specifically what your evidence is and not to claim it is hidden somewhere in an unspecified link. So you claim you have it, and that it is somewhere in an unspecified link.


The reverse question would be...why do you think there would be? I don't know if you have ever had to deal extensively with american government, but the beauracracy alone is almost enough to cover up anything.


Doubting the honesty of government bureaucracy is a great place to start an investigation but a stupid place to stop one.


So where is the physical evidence that says that the buildings came down according to the official story? This is what I am asking...what is there that proves it...as simple question you keep dodging for apparently no reason since, I guess only hardcore skeptics like you guys are the only ones that would know anything as truth.


That's a dumb question. The smart question is "Is there a skerrick of evidence which contradicts the consensus of the relevant experts?". The answer is no, and while it stays that way you are a kook if you believe the WTC buildings were demolished, built out of explosive concrete or whatever.


It was...if you were to reread my posts you would see the rhetorical question is frequently used.


Fine, keep pretending.


I can say that if you have a mod investigate my IP you will find that love and I are not the same...there is no connection outside your swollen head.


We're neither ignorant nor stupid.

[PixyMisa]

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/commissionlies.html

and what about these?

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers--including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC--are still alive (19-20). What evidence?

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta--such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances--that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21). So he's a hypocrite. That's no less common among the fanatically religious than among any other group.

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22). He missed the Pentagon, and hit the ground. Then the plane continued along the ground until it hit the wall of the Pentagon. Which indicates that he was in fact a poor pilot.

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23). So they lied.

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25). You have got to be kidding. Steel-framed buildings are well-known to collapse in fires. This may be unusual for skyscrapers, but steel framed houses (for example) can collapse more quickly in fires than wooden-framed ones.

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26). The WTC was structurally very different from other buildings, so this doesn't really say anything.

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26). "Should not"? Without a full characterisation of the fires and the structural damage due to impact, there's no way you can say which one "should" have collapsed first.

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed--an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26). That, at least, is not obvious nonsense. But neither is it positive evidence of anything.

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27). 1. Smoke
2. Dust
3. Debris
4. The buildings fell down
5-10. etc

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"--a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28). Uh, why? The building just fell down.

11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28). "Pull"? That's it?

12. The omission...
13. The omission...
14. The omission...
15. The omission...
16. The omission...

17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34). This has been discussed at length. First, the plane hit the ground before it hit the Pentagon. That tends to slow the aircraft down a bit. Second, parts of the plane were picked out of the rubble inside the Pentagon.

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's facade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34). Once the wings and undercarriage have been sheared off by colliding with the ground, a 757 isn't very big. Its size, in fact, matches that of the entrance hole.

19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36). Since such testimony would be factually wrong, its omission comes as no surprise.

20. The omission...
21. The omission...
22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39). Which was a reference to the plane. Duh.

23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44). Why would they assume that?

24. The failure to explore...
25. The claims that...
26. The omission...
27. The omission...
28. The omission...
29. The claim...
30. The omission...
31. The omission...
32. The omission...
33. The omission...
34. The omission...
35. The Commission's denial...
36. The Commission's denial...
37. The denial...
38. The denial...
39. The omission...
40. The omission...
41. The omission...
42. The omission...
43. The omission...
44. The omission...
45. The omission...
46. The Commission's claim that it found no evidence...
47. The omission...
48. The omission...
49. The omission...
50. The omission...
51. The omission...
52. The omission...
53. The omission...
54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22). Yeah. So?

55. The failure to mention...
56. The omission...
57. The omission...
58. The omission...
59. The omission...
60. The omission...
61. The omission...
62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158). Well, which one is true?

63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD's Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162). And?

64. The omission...
65. The acceptance...
66. The endorsement of the claim...
67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD's response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69). Was it?

68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75). Did they?

69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82). Did they?

70. The omission...
71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183). And?

72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175's hijacking (183-84, 186). Okay! Finally a point that is possibly relevant, if insignificant.

73. The claim that...
74. The omission...
75. The failure to mention...
76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military's radar (191-92). Being detected by the military's radar as what?

77. The failure to explain...
78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99). And?

79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12). And?

80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke's videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210). And?

81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because "none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department"--although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211). The head of department is not necessarily the right official.

82. The Commission's claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke's videoconference--although Clarke's book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212). And?

83. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke's contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke's videoconference (213-17). And?

84. The failure to mention...
85. The omission...
86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36--in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223). And?

87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon--one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a "high-speed dive") and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23). Then how are they contradictory?

88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from "Phantom Flight 11," were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24). Were they?

89. The omission...
90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93's hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253). Were they?

91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31). And?

92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233). :boggled:

93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234). Hey, maybe because there were multiple hijackings and planes flying into buildings and all that sort of thing.

94. The omission of any exploration...
95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237). And?

96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41). And?

97. The omission...
98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).
99. The omission of Clarke's own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).[/quote] And when did he receive the authorisation?

100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).

101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44). And?

102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245). And?

103. The omission...
104. The omission...
105. The omission...
106. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).
And?

107. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63). And?

108. The failure to highlight the significance...
109. The failure to probe...
110. The failure to discuss...
111. The claim--made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them--that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75). Inexplicably?

You've never met a human being, have you?

112. The failure to point out that the Commission's claimed "independence" was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84). Conspiracy!

113. The failure to point out...
114. The failure to point out...
115. The failure ... to point out...
Wow. That was staggeringly pathetic. Do you know what "positive evidence" means?

[Flange Desire]

Just popped in to see how it is all progressing.
Still cooking I see.

[CurtC]

So thesyntaxera, how does posting a huge list of lies, distortions, and insignificant facts advance your case? Can you pick a few things anywhere that you would actually stand behind? People here have asked for a few pieces of good evidence, and you claimed that they just need to read voluminous web sites. Then you post something, but it's simply a huge amount of extremely poor evidence. Is there anything good?

[Belz...]

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/commissionlies.html

and what about these?

Good. You provide some points. Let's take the first 20. Let's see what we can achieve.

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers--including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC--are still alive (19-20).

This is a claim of evidence, not evidence itself. If it were true, however, all it would point to is that we may have the wrong names.

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta--such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances--that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

Religious fundies are allowed to break Allah's code in order to complete their mission.

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

All you need is a good set of coordinates, I guess. No one's asking these guys to do loops. Of course, I had heard that their initial target was the white house, but I've since read that this might not be true. Still, "poor" is a relative term.

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

Could you provide a link to the official manifests, preferably from the company itself ?

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

The WTC was designed differently than most skyscrapers. In addition, those other steel-frame buildings were NOT hit by airliners. The furniture fire may have caused the collapse, but the fuel spread the fire quickly, and the structure must have taken SOME damage from the crash.

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

Experts claim that this was unnecessary.

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

This isn't so simple, Syntax. External damaga and internal damage are not the same. No one was inside the tower to survey the damage at those floors.

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed--an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

If you watch the video closely, you'll see that the building takes heavy damage from the towers' collapse and there is a lot of smoke coming from it.

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

Again, watch actual demolitions. You can hear the explosives and you can see them explode in sequence. The top of the towers simply collapsed and took the rest with them as they fell. Obviously, the skyscrapers were not designed to handle a mass of such magnitude crashing onto them.

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"--a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

Except that, even if this were true, those steel columns would also be damaged by the fire and the collapse. I don't think they'd handle the stress. I could be wrong, though, but first we'd have to confirm their presence. Could you provide a link for this claim ?

11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).

From what I've read of that conversation on this very thread, he meant pull the TEAM. Firemen don't use demolition jargon, do they ?

12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

Overseas where ?

13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel--that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel--made no sense in this case (30).

I'm not sure I follow you, here.

14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

Quotation and source, please.

15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

These facts do not provide any information that may change the evidence. Everybody's connected to everybody else, and more closely than you might think.

16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

If you're talking about it beign reinforced, it would still be pretty risky to ram a jet into a building if you don't want to destroy it. Motive, please ?

17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

Actually this was discusses at lenght. People saw the 757, a 757 is missing, the passengers are dead, there's a big whole in the pentagon with parts of plane in it. I'd say a place crashed there.

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's facade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

The WHOLE plane didn't ENTER the building. It also hit the ground and you can bet the wings didn't go through the pentagon. The time of collapse is irrelevant, as we've already said the building was reinforced, and there's no way you can estimate the "proper" collapse time.

19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

You've seen the photos on this thread. I assume you're just reusing arguments instead of typing them yourself.

20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner--even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

This has also been explained.

some of these are already in dispute here...the problem I am seeing is a lack of strength in a few of the claims that he doesn't cite as fact...

As you see, in about 15 minutes I was able to more-or-less respond, without much effort, to the first 20 points you brought. Some don't make sense at all, others have been disproven by conclusive evidence. The few that I can't answer, need support, which you haven't provided.

I'm pretty sure I could, in about 2-3 hours, respond in a detailed way to each of your 100 points. There would be very few points left that would raise questions.

This said, it shows how conspiracy-types do little researsh to verify their assertions. If they'd spend a fraction of their "researsh" time actually looking for answers, their entire argument would collapse because they'd realise that most of their points are baseless.

[Belz...]

The minute you start reading the contents of my posts, namely the links that contain the names you seek...

That is so childish. You'll stop doing things that confuse people once they start reading your posts, which is something you can't even verify ?

Logic is not fact...

No, but without it you can't really analyse the facts, can you ? Your 100+ assertions aren't facts, either.

so what is the physical evidence that proves the official story, and that has you so convinced...

It's been named. I hate repeating myself.

or is it just your faith in your own logic that has you convinced..

There is no such thing as A logic. There is only one logic. I think you're confusing logic with belief.

need I remind you this isn't evidence either.

Either what ? It's the same thing you said a moment ago.

have been asking for evidence, cold hard evidence this whole time...and not a single thing...just a lot of excuses and links to sites that say that "we don't know for sure but it is logical to make this guess"...

Yes, in the absence of conclusive evidence we have to make the best guess we can. For certain elements of this subject, that's the case. CTers always ask more proof than is physically possible for the official story they so abhor.

as far as experts...the word experts doesn't mean infalliable as you seem to suggest, it means they are more educated, and just like anyone who is only viewing the video evidence they are going to be limited in the claims they can make.

Perhaps, but their opinion is certainly more "expert" than that of laymen.

[LW]

There is no such thing as A logic. There is only one logic.


Actually, there are dozens and dozens of different mathematical logics.

[Twilek]

Someone mentioned a while back that it could be possible to create a PCT to prove the Colmubia didn't actually crash, despite the large amount of debris found.

I found that interesting, in that my own sister actually believes that. She thinks we're all being duped - that it actually broke up into pre-made satellites which are now orbiting the earth conducting mind-control-weapons experiments on us with remote sensing devices.

Got a headache? Nervous twitch? Sore throat? Blame it on NASA. Gah!!!

[The_Fire]

If they (the CT'ers) get THAT out of Columbia, what did they get out of Challenger?

[delphi_ote]

If they (the CT'ers) get THAT out of Columbia, what did they get out of Challenger?

Clearly explosives were put inside shortly after it was built, and the government wanted to cover that fact up. Obviously the Challenger was a weapon designed to attack Soviet ground forces attempting to invade the U.S. from Cuba. If you look at the the tapes after the explosion, it is clear that the pieces were in free fall. thesyntaxera blindly believes the official story, but here is some other evidence for the truth:

1. The astronauts were never given proper instructions on how to exit the vehicle.

2. Several witnesses saw the pieces fall back and to the right.

3. Then President Bill Clinton was seen signing several documents relating to the explosion after it happened.

4. A man in Israel once had a dog named Challenger. You know what that means.

5. The fuel tanks were colored orange, which we all know is the color for hazard. And the Dukes of Hazard.

6. The magnetic couplings connecting the fuel tanks to the rockets were not actually magnets.

7. The astronauts never called home before the launch, which was customary for astronauts to do at the time.

8. Everyone knows that liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen are not explosive.

9. Then President Clinton was quoted as saying "The Challenger disaster is truly a sad event, for which mankind has not the capacity to fathom."

10. Eleven of the sixteen astronauts were later seen alive in Texas.

11. The event took place just three days before major sanctions on Cuba were lifted.

12. "Teacher" was a known code word for "intercontinental ballistic missile" at the time.

13. Students were all forced to watch the launch. I think you see the obvious implication there.

14. Soviet leader Chikov Molestin was never seen again after the explosion.

15. Secret documents obtained from government sources indicate that several such weapons were being designed at the time.

I could go on, but I'm not as tedious as thesyntaxera. Clearly I have presented more evidence than any of you have for the "official story," because there is not one shred of evidence for it.

And since you don't hear anyone talking about this, it just proves my point that this was a cover up.

[thesyntaxera]

Are they shiney enough yet?

Since we have already established that you can argue either way on every point without proving anything..... what about this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones


Steven Earl Jones is a professor of physics at Brigham Young University who conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Jones has also investigated the hypothesis that the World Trade Center Twin Towers and WTC 7, which all collapsed nearly symmetrically on September 11, 2001, were brought down by pre-positioned explosives. Although the term cold fusion was coined by Jones [1], his experimental work was significantly different than the more controversial cold fusion experiments of Pons and Fleischmann.

Jones also examines the official reports by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (aka the 9/11 commission), which all conclude fires and damage alone caused complete demolition of all three buildings. A central topic within Jones essay is the contention that the condition and nature of the debris which remained following the buildings' collapses was not consistent with the scenarios documented by FEMA and NIST; in particular, along with the observations of molten metal at Ground Zero by Leslie Robertson (WTC structural engineer)and Dr. Allison Geyh (a public health investigator from Johns Hopkins), Jones cites and includes photographic evidence [4], which he says show molten metal in the debris, and notes the reports on sulfidation of structural steel.

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion."

Now, isn't saying a hot corrision attack on the steel occured similar to saying there was thermite or some other corrosive demolition explosive. Jones points out that sulfur added to a thermite reaction dramatically increases it's capability.



Some critics have claimed that Jones's analysis is similar to that of other researchers which they have disputed in the past, including claims regarding photographic evidence of demolition charges, the claim that no major persistent fires were visible at WTC7, and what they allege are selectively edited quotes from Bill Manning [5]and Stephen Gregory.

commentary on "edited" quotes.
http://www.911myths.com/html/fire_engineering.html

Jones makes a mention that it is for emphasis in his paper, and to be honest it doesn't seem that Manning is in favor of the "truss theory" either so much as he is in favor of a more indepth investigation which one could argue would be why Jones placed the quotes for "emphasis".

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

Interesting, isn't that what I been saying all along...that there is no physical evidence to prove/disprove any theory?

There are also some reports that Jones was under the gun for making these allegations in a formal peer reviewed paper, and they are commented on here:

http://www.newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724

“The dean explained to me how he handled requests for media interviews; how he managed to give so few,” said Jones, a full-tenured professor whose controversial research into the WTC collapse has sparked national media attention. “I’ve made the personal decision to stick with peer-reviewed papers and scholarly seminars as a means of expressing my views, as much as possible. No one at the university has told me not to talk about this subject.”

In a Nov. 11 interview, Physics Professor Harold Stokes, one of several faculty members who attended the seminar, said the explosive demolition hypothesis “certainly raises some interesting questions” and that Jones’ claims “certainly appear to be valid.”

Like many of his other colleagues, though, Stokes was up front in saying that he didn’t have the technical expertise to properly scrutinize Jones’ claims.

In an effort to accommodate administration and others, Jones said he has modified his paper, and submitted it to another journal and another round of peer reviewing.

He said he feels “a bit awkward” that some colleagues now question the peer review process his paper initially passed through.

“My paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication before being made available on the Web with the editor’s approval,” Jones said. “The reviewers included a physicist and an engineer, I now understand. The review has not been shown to have been inappropriate and I believe it was appropriate.”

Still, Jones said he willingly submitted his paper to another publication, where he is confident it will pass peer review a second time.


Here is jones' paper:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

[kookbreaker]

Are they shiney enough yet?

Since we have already established that you can argue either way on every point without proving anything..... what about this guy:


What about him? He's an energy physicist, not at all qualified to review structural failure.

If you read this thread about his 'paper' on the BAUT forum, you will see his credentials and writing are nowhere near up to snuff. I don't feel like re-writing all of it, so here is the thread link.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34793&

[delphi_ote]

thesyntaxera didn't respond to my post. Clearly he can't prove that the Challenger was not blown up by the U.S. State Department to appease the Mexican and Belgian governments. Obviously it was.

[PixyMisa]

Now, isn't saying a hot corrision attack on the steel occured similar to saying there was thermite or some other corrosive demolition explosive.
No.

[thesyntaxera]

kookbreaker wrote:
I pointed this out in the other thread. Re: the Molten metal, there is no evidence, beyond a few unrealiable eyewitness accounts, that there was ever any large quantity of molten metal found in the basement.

Furthermore, explosives don't really make pools of molten metal. Thermite doesn't make squibs. Mixing explosives and cutting fires is a recepie for failure.

I would point out that the good professor was third fool only to Pons & Fleichmann in the whole Cold Fusion fiasco. Not exactly a prize thinker in my book. Also, a physics professor is not a Structural Engineer.

Third fool?

Jones did not claim that any useful energy was produced. Rather, he reported slightly more neutrons were detected from experiments than could be expected from normal sources. Jones said the result suggested at least the possibility of fusion, though unlikely to be useful as an energy source.

What he did has nothing to do with the debunked Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann theory...the link I supplied makes this distinction.

I guess it also doesn't matter that his theory has survived one bout with peer review done by a physicist and an engineer.

As far as the molten metal claims from unreliable sources...what so unreliable about "Leslie Robertson (WTC structural engineer)and Dr. Allison Geyh (a public health investigator from Johns Hopkins)"??

and there are all these varied claims:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html#ref3
A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains." 2

A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating:

In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel 3

A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel." 4

A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage:

When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.

It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off.

I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat. 5

A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating:

Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel. 6

A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated:

Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster. 7

An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage:

As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. 8

A member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on which an article containing the following passage is based.

Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots. 9


The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage:

... or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole. 10

A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." 11

It would seem that the current hypothesis(not fact) only works if you exclude all the firefighter testimony of multiple explosions, and of low burning fires, as well as the second video of the first impact that shows the impact and then provides audio of a second explosion and of a corresponding vibration, and assume that the fire ignited every single thing on the affected floors all at once and then proceeded to burn at an ever increasing temperature until a whole floors worth of steel was weakened to the point of failure despite the rapid heat conductivity that steel posesses.

Which doesn't explain wtc7 at all...for the most part...

The main suggestion in the reports is that the key event was the planes striking the buildings because fire alone couldn't have brought them down. In the case of wtc1 it was the combined hole in the outer columns, and the unseen damage to the inner columns that brought it down, and in the case of wtc2 in which it didn't take a direct hit the outer support columns failed and lead to a truss failure during redistribution of weight from the outer columns.

It has been pointed out that this isn't really consistent with the buildings contruction.

It also points out a flaw in the wtc7 explanation which doesn't include a plane, but a piece of flaming wreckage that penetrates the building and happens to land in the vicinity of a diesel fuel store starting a fire that burns so hot and strong that it literally pulls the entire building down almost in unison at nearly free fall speeds.

Maybe you should have just read the links...

[orphia nay]

I don't believe there was 'molten steel'. Bent or melted steel is more likely, but if there was molten metal, it was probably aluminium - aluminium melts at 660°C and most aluminium alloys melt at between 500 and 660°C.

[Kevin_Lowe]

thesyntaxera: If we put aside for a moment for whether there actually was molten steel present at the site (as opposed to other things which might have resembled molten steel, such as the aforementioned liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulphur), what do you think it would prove if there was molten steel at the site?

[Hellbound]

Just out of curiosity, do you know the components that make up thermite? And, I mean thermite that burns at 3000 degrees F. or so?

Aluminum and rust.

Yes, that's all. Commercial and military thermite has other chemicals, primarily for ease of ignition.

Do you know how much aluminum and rust there would be in an office building of that size?

Just saying, that even if some areas of melted steel were found, this does not necessarily support the hypothesis of demolition. It would depend on the amount of such melted material found. If thermite was used as a demolition agent, you'd expect quite a bit of this slag to be found. To my understanding, that was not the case.

[kookbreaker]

kookbreaker wrote:

Third fool?


Pretty much. He was nowhere near as bad as P&F, but he made some massive, unsupported claims.


Jones did not claim that any useful energy was produced. Rather, he reported slightly more neutrons were detected from experiments than could be expected from normal sources. Jones said the result suggested at least the possibility of fusion, though unlikely to be useful as an energy source.


From a physics standpoint, claiming excess neutrons is worse than claiming excess heat.

Read 'Bad Science, The short life and weird times of cold fusion.'

from which I will quote:


'David Jackson, a UC Berkely theorist who wrote a seminal paper on muon-catalized fusion in 1959, and served as the field's elder statesman, observed that Jones seemed to be of two minds on the subject: when Jones presnted his data at meetings attended by the PSI competition, he would say that his data were similar to theirs. But, "when you heard Steve Jones talk about it without these other people around", said Jackson "then he's trying to sell you that the sticking probability is dropping like a bomb, and commercial fusion is just around the corner'


mmm-hmm.


What he did has nothing to do with the debunked Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann theory...the link I supplied makes this distinction.


You are quite wrong.


I guess it also doesn't matter that his theory has survived one bout with peer review done by a physicist and an engineer.


A physicist is still unqualified to make judgements of structure. Also this seems to be an elective peer reivew process: He's getting his buddies to review it.

We also do not know what kind of engineer reviewed it. The only Engineer listed in his acknowledgements is a micro-electronics engineer.

Furthermore:

http://www.et.byu.edu/news_jones_statement.htm


" Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."


etc.


As far as the molten metal claims from unreliable sources...what so unreliable about "Leslie Robertson (WTC structural engineer)and Dr. Allison Geyh (a public health investigator from Johns Hopkins)"??


Its all just statments. Not one photo of the pools of molten steel exists.

[Twilek]

5. The fuel tanks were colored orange, which we all know is the color for hazard. And the Dukes of Hazard.

lol!

Good job.

[thesyntaxera]

thesyntaxera: If we put aside for a moment for whether there actually was molten steel present at the site (as opposed to other things which might have resembled molten steel, such as the aforementioned liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulphur), what do you think it would prove if there was molten steel at the site?

Well...before we go into it :

"liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion."

This seems to indicate that there was a hot corrision of steel that generated the eutectic mixture...what that means I haven't determined yet, but from the wording it sounds like there was a corrosion of steel at high temperature and the residual by products were this "mixture"....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutectic

Metallic eutectics
The term is often used in metallurgy to describe the alloy of two or more component materials having the relative concentrations specified at the eutectic point. When a non-eutectic alloy freezes, one component of the alloy crystallizes at one temperature and the other at a different temperature. With a eutectic alloy, the mixture freezes as one at a single temperature. A eutectic alloy therefore has a sharp melting point, and a non-eutectic alloy exhibits a plastic melting range. The phase transformations that occur while freezing a given alloy can be understood using the phase diagram by drawing a vertical line from the liquid phase to the solid phase on a phase diagram; each point along the line describes the composition at a given temperature.

Some uses include:

eutectic alloys for soldering, composed of tin (Sn), lead (Pb) and sometimes silver (Ag) or gold (Au).
casting alloys, such as aluminum-silicon and cast iron (an iron-carbon eutectic).
brazing, where diffusion can remove alloying elements from the joint, so that eutectic melting is only possible early in the brazing process.
temperature response, i.e. Wood's metal for fire sprinklers.
non-toxic mercury replacements, such as galinstan.
experimental metallic glasses, with extremely high strength and corrosion resistance.


What it would suggest, rather than prove unfortunately, is that temperatures higher than could have been achieved were in fact achieved, which would lend more credence to the official account being wrong.

[thesyntaxera]

then there is all this:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

America’s top military leaders drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in US cities to trick the public into supporting a war against Cuba in the early 1960s. Approved in writing by the Pentagon Joint Chiefs, Operation Northwoods even proposed blowing up a US ship and hijacking planes as a false pretext for war. [ABC News, 5/1/01, Pentagon Documents]




1980s: Osama bin Laden runs a front organization for the mujaheddin—Islamic freedom fighters rebelling against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The CIA secretly backs the mujaheddin. Pakistan's President Benazir Bhutto, understanding the ferocity of Islamic extremism, tells then President George Bush, "You are creating a Frankenstein." [MSNBC, 8/24/98, Newsweek, 10/1/01, more]

1993: An expert panel commissioned by the Pentagon raises the possibility that an airplane could be used to bomb national landmarks. [Washington Post, 10/2/01, more]

1994: Two attacks take place which involve hijacking planes to crash them into buildings, including one by an Islamic militant group. In a third attack, a lone pilot crashes a plane at the White House. Yet after Sept. 11, over and over aviation and security officials say they are shocked that terrorists could have hijacked airliners and crashed them into landmark buildings. [New York Times, 10/3/01]

Oct 1995: The oil company Unocal signs a contract for a “the perfect pipeline” through Afghanistan. Unocal edges out a more experienced Argentinean company for the contract. Henry Kissinger, a Unocal consultant, calls it "the triumph of hope over experience." But not long afterward, the Taliban alienates the US and the contract falls through. [Washington Post, 10/5/98]

1996: Analysts start working through the night in a chamber, deep in the bowels of CIA headquarters, known as the Bin Laden Room. Approximately 10-15 individuals are assigned to the unit, which is part of the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center. By September 10, 2001, there are approximately 35-40 personnel assigned. Recognizing the danger posed by Bin Laden, the FBI also created a unit in 1999 at FBI headquarters to focus on him. [Newsweek, 10/1/01, Senate Intelligence (Witness Hill), 9/18/02]

1996: The Saudi Arabian government is financially supporting Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda and other extremist groups. After 9/11, the Bush Administration chooses not to confront the Saudi leadership over its support of terror organizations and its refusal to help in the investigation. [New Yorker, 10/22/01, more]

1996-1999: The CIA officer in charge of operations against Al Qaeda from Washington writes, “I speak with firsthand experience (and for several score of CIA officers) when I state categorically that during this time senior White House officials repeatedly refused to act on sound intelligence that provided multiple chances to eliminate Osama bin Laden.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/5/04]

1996-2001: Federal authorities have known for years that suspected terrorists with ties to bin Laden were receiving flight training at schools in the US and abroad. One convicted terrorist confessed that his planned role in a terror attack was to crash a plane into CIA headquarters. [Washington Post, 9/23/01, more]

1996-Sept 11, 2001: Taliban envoys repeatedly discuss turning bin Laden over, but the US wants to be handed bin Laden directly, and the Taliban want to turn him over to some third country. About 20 more meetings on giving up bin Laden take place up till 9/11, all fruitless. [Washington Post, 10/29/01]

1997: Former National Security Advisor Brzezinski publishes a book portraying Eurasia as the key to world power, and Central Asia with its vast oil reserves as the key to domination of Eurasia. He states that for the US to maintain its global primacy, it must prevent any adversary from controlling that region. He notes that because of popular resistance to US military expansionism, his ambitious strategy can’t be implemented "except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." [The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives]

1998: An Oklahoma City FBI agent sends a memo warning that "large numbers of Middle Eastern males" are getting flight training and could be planning terrorist attacks. [CBS, 5/30/02] A separate CIA intelligence report asserts that Arab terrorists are planning to fly a bomb-laden aircraft into the WTC. [New York Times, 9/19/02, Senate Intelligence Committee (Witness Hill), 9/18/02, more]

Aug 1998: Within minutes of each other, truck bombs blow up the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing more than 220. For some of the time that bin Laden’s men were plotting to blow up the two embassies, US intelligence was tapping their phones. [Newsweek, 10/1/01]

Dec 1998: A Time magazine cover story entitled "The Hunt for Osama," reports that bin Laden may be planning his boldest move yet - a strike on Washington or possibly New York City. [Time, 12/21/98]

Late 1998-Early 2000: On at least three occasions, spies in Afghanistan report bin Laden's location. Each time, the president approves an attack. Each time, the CIA Director says the information is not reliable enough and the attack cannot go forward. [New York Times, 12/30/01, more]

Sept 1999: A US intelligence report states bin Laden and Al-Qaeda terrorists could crash an aircraft into the Pentagon. The Bush administration claims not to have heard of this report until May 2002, though it was widely shared within the government. [CNN, 5/18/02, AP, 5/18/02, Guardian, 5/19/02]

Nov 1999: The head of Australia's security services admits the Echelon global surveillance system exists. The US still denies it exists. BBC describes Echelon's power as "astounding." Every international telephone call, fax, e-mail, or radio transmission can be listened to by powerful computers capable of voice recognition. They home in on key words, or patterns of messages. [BBC, 11/3/99]

Jan 2000: George Bush Sr. meets with the bin Laden family on behalf of the Carlyle Group. He also met with them in 1998. Bush’s chief of staff could not remember that this meeting took place until shown a thank you note confirming the meeting. [Wall Street Journal, 9/27/01, Guardian, 10/31/01]

Summer 2000: A secret military operation named Able Danger identifies four future 9/11 hijackers, including lead hijacker Mohamed Atta, as a potential threat and members of Al Qaeda. Yet none of this is mentioned later in the 9/11 Commissions' final report. When questioned, the 9/11 commission's chief spokesman initially says that staff members briefed about Able Danger did not remember hearing anything about Atta. Days later, however, after provided detailed information, he says the uniformed officer who briefed two staff members had indeed mentioned Atta. [New York Times, 8/11/05, more]

Sept 2000: The think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC) writes the blueprint for a global “Pax Americana.” Written for the Bush team before the 2000 election, the report Rebuilding America’s Defenses is a plan for maintaining global US preeminence and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests. The plan shows Bush intends to take control of the Persian Gulf whether or not Saddam Hussein is in power. [Sunday Herald, 9/7/02, read report]

2000 – 2001: The military conducts exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties. One imagined target is the World Trade Center. [USA Today, 4/19/04] Another is the Pentagon. [Military District of Washington (Army website), 11/3/00]

Jan 2001: A flight school alerts the FAA. Hijacker Hani Hanjour lacks English and flying skills needed for his commercial pilot's license. An FAA official then sits next to him in class. The official offers a translator to help him pass, but the flight school points out this is against the rules. [AP, 5/10/02]

Jan 2001: After the elections, US intelligence agencies are told to “back off” investigating the bin Ladens and Saudi royals. There have always been constraints on investigating Saudis. [BBC, 11/6/01, more]

Spring 2001: Military and government documents are released that seek to legitimize the use of US military force in the pursuit of oil. One article advocates presidential subterfuge in the promotion of conflict and "explicitly urge[s] painting over the US's actual reasons for warfare as a necessity for mobilizing public support for a conflict." [Sydney Morning Herald, 12/26/02, more]

May 2001: US security chiefs reject Sudan's offer to turn over voluminous files about bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Sudan has made this offer repeatedly since 1995. [Guardian, 9/30/01, more]

May 2001: Secretary of State Powell gives $43 million in aid to the Taliban government. [Los Angeles Times, 5/22/01] This follows $113 million given by the US in 2000. [State Dept. Fact Sheet, 12/11/01]

May 2001: The US introduces the "Visa Express" program allowing any Saudi Arabian to obtain visas through their travel agent instead of appearing at a consulate in person. [US News and World Report, 12/12/01] Five hijackers use Visa Express over the next month to enter the US. [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02, (Witness Hill)]

May-Aug 2001: A number of the 9/11 hijackers make at least six trips to Las Vegas. These "fundamentalist" Muslims drink alcohol, frequent strip clubs, and smoke hashish. Some even have strippers perform lap dances for them. [San Francisco Chronicle, 10/4/01, Newsweek, 10/15/01]

June 2001: German intelligence warns the CIA, Britain's MI6, and Israel's Mossad that Middle Eastern terrorists are training for hijackings and targeting US and Israeli symbols. [Fox News, 5/17/02]

June 13, 2001: Egyptian President Mubarak through his intelligence services warns the US that bin Laden's Islamic terrorist network is threatening to kill Bush and other G8 leaders at their July economic summit meeting in Italy. The terrorists plan to use a plane stuffed with explosives. [NY Times, 9/26/01]

July 4-14, 2001: Bin Laden reportedly receives kidney treatment from Canadian-trained Dr. Callaway at the American Hospital in Dubai. Telephoned several times, the doctor declines to answer questions. During his stay, bin Laden allegedly is visited by one or two CIA officers. [Guardian, 11/1/01, Sydney Morning Herald, 10/31/01, London Times 11/1/01, UPI, 11/1/01, more]

July 10, 2001: A Phoenix FBI agent sends a memorandum warning about Middle Eastern men taking flight lessons. He suspects bin Laden's followers and recommends a national program to check visas of suspicious flight-school students. The memo is sent to two FBI counter-terrorism offices, but no action is taken. [New York Times, 5/21/02] Vice President Cheney says in May 2002 that he opposes releasing this memo to congressional leaders or to the media and public. [CNN, 5/20/02]

July 24, 2001: Larry Silverstein's $3.2 billion 99-year lease of the WTC is finalized. Silverstein hopes to win $7 billion in insurance from the 9/11 destruction of the WTC towers. [New York Times, 02/16/03, Newsday, 09/25/02]

July 26, 2001: Attorney General Ashcroft stops flying commercial airlines due to a threat assessment. [CBS, 7/26/01] He later walks out of his office rather than answer questions about this. [AP, 5/16/02, more]

Late July 2001: The US and UN ignore warnings from the Taliban foreign minister that bin Laden is planning an imminent huge attack on US soil. The FBI and CIA also fail to take seriously warnings that Islamic fundamentalists have enrolled in flight schools across the US. [Independent, 9/7/02, more]

Summer 2001: Intelligence officials know that al Qaeda both hopes to use planes as weapons and seeks to strike a violent blow within the US, despite government claims following 9/11 that the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks came “like bolts from the blue.” [Wall Street Journal, 09/19/02]

Summer 2001: Russian President Putin later says publicly that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the US of suicide pilots training for attacks on US targets. [Fox, 5/17/02]

Late summer 2001: Jordanian intelligence agents go to Washington to warn that a major attack is planned inside the US and that aircraft will be used. Christian Science Monitor calls the story "confidently authenticated" even though Jordan later backs away from it. [CS Monitor, 5/23/02]

Aug 5-11, 2001: Israel warns US of an imminent Al Qaeda attack. [Fox News, 5/17/02]

Aug 6, 2001: President Bush is warned by US intelligence that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners. The White House waits eight months after 9/11 to reveal this fact. [New York Times, 5/16/02] Titled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US,” the intelligence briefing specifically mentions the World Trade Center. Yet Bush later states the briefing “said nothing about an attack on America.” [Washington Post, 4/12/04, White House, 4/11/04, Intelligence Briefing, 8/6/01, more]

Aug 22, 2001: Top counter-terrorism expert John O'Neill quits the FBI due to repeated obstruction of his al-Qaeda investigations and a power play against him. He was the government's "most committed tracker of bin Laden and al-Qaeda." The next day he starts a new job as head of security at the WTC. He is killed weeks later in the World Trade Center during the 9/11 attack. [New Yorker, 1/14/02]

Aug 24, 2001: Frustrated with lack of response from FBI headquarters about detained suspect Moussaoui, the Minnesota FBI begins working with the CIA. The CIA sends alerts calling him a "suspect 747 airline suicide hijacker." Three days later an FBI Minnesota supervisor says he is trying keep Moussaoui from “taking control of a plane and fly it into the WTC." [Senate Intelligence Committee (Hill #2), 10/17/02] FBI headquarters chastises Minnesota FBI for notifying the CIA. [Time, 5/21/02] FBI Director Mueller will later say "there was nothing the agency could have done to anticipate and prevent the [9/11] attacks." [Senate Intelligence Committee (Witness Breitweiser), 9/18/02, more]

Sept 10, 2001: A particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip. “Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill." [Newsweek, 9/13/01] "A group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns." [Newsweek, 9/24/01, more]

Sept 10, 2001: Former president Bush is with a brother of Osama bin Laden at a Carlyle business conference. The conference is interrupted the next day by the attacks. [Washington Post, 3/16/03]

Sept 10, 2001: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announces that by some estimates the Department of Defense "cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." CBS later calculates that 25% of the yearly defense budget is unaccounted for. A defense analyst says, “The books are cooked routinely year after year." [DOD, 9/10/01, CBS, 1/29/02] This announcement was buried by the next day’s news of 9/11.

Sept 11, 2001: Warren Buffett, the second richest man on Earth [BBC, 6/22/01], schedules a charity event inside Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. A small group of business leaders attend, including at least one who would otherwise have died in the WTC. [SF Business Times, 2/1/02] Bush flies to this same base that day, where there is an underground command center. [CNN, 9/12/01, CBS, 9/11/02]

Sept 11, 2001: Recovery experts extract data from 32 WTC computer drives revealing a surge in financial transactions. Illegal transfers of over $100 million may have been made through some WTC computer systems immediately before and during the disaster. [Reuters, 12/18/01, CNN, 12/20/01, more]

Sept 11, 2001: In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, a US intelligence agency (the National Reconnaissance Office or NRO) was all set for an exercise at 9 AM on September 11th in which an aircraft would crash into one of its buildings near Washington, DC. [AP, 8/22/02, more]

Sept 11, 2001: The entire continental United States is defended by only seven air bases and 14 military jets. [CNN, 9/9/03, Newsday, 9/23/01]

September 11, 2001—Timeline for the Day of the Attacks

Department of Defense (6/1/01) and FAA (7/12/01) procedure: In the event of a hijacking, the FAA hijack coordinator on duty at Washington headquarters requests the military to provide escort aircraft. Normally, NORAD escort aircraft take the required action. The FAA notifies the National Military Command Center by the most expeditious means. [DOD/, 6/1/01, FAA, 7/12/01, FAA 7/12/01]

If NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) hears of any difficulties in the skies, they begin the work to scramble jet fighters [take off and intercept aircraft that are off course]. Between Sep 2000 and June 2001 fighters were scrambled 67 times. [AP, 8/12/02] When the Lear jet of golfer Payne Stewart didn’t respond in 1999, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched. According to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to Payne’s stricken Lear about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact with his plane.[Dallas Morning News, 10/26/99, more]

8:20 AM (approx.): Air traffic controllers suspect Flight 11 has been hijacked. [NY Times, 9/15/01, more]

8:40 AM: NORAD is notified of hijacking. [NY Times, 10/16/01, 8:38 AM Washington Post, 9/15/01]

8:46 AM: Flight 11 crashes into the WTC (World Trade Center) north tower. [approximately 26 minutes after controllers lost contact][New York Times, 9/12/01]

8:46 AM: Bush later states, "I was sitting outside the classroom and I saw an airplane hit the tower. The TV was on.” [CNN, 12/4/01] “When we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building.” [White House, 1/5/02] There was no live coverage of the first crash on TV.

8:52 AM: Two F-15s take off from Otis Air Force Base. [Washington Post, 9/15/01] They go after Flight 175. Major General Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, states "the pilots flew like a scalded ape, topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner. We had a nine-minute window, and in excess of 100 miles to intercept 175,'' he said. ''There was just literally no way.'' [Dallas Morning News, 9/15/01] F-15's fly at up to 2.5 times the speed of sound [1875 mph or 30+ miles a minute or 270+ miles in nine minutes] and are designed for low-altitude, high-speed, precision attacks. [BBC]

8:56 AM: By this time, it is evident that Flight 77 is lost. The FAA, already in contact with the Pentagon about the two hijackings out of Boston, reportedly doesn’t notify NORAD of this until 9:24, 28 minutes later. [see 9:10 AM for comparison, New York Times, 10/16/01]

9:03 AM: Flight 175 crashes into the south WTC tower. [23 minutes after NORAD notified, 43 minutes after air traffic control lost contact with pilots][New York Times, 9/12/01, CNN, 9/12/01]

9:10 AM: Major General Paul Weaver states Flight 77 came back on the (radar) scope at 9:10 in West Virginia. [Dallas Morning News, 9/15/01] Another report states the military was notified of Flight 77 several minutes after 9:03. [Washington Post, 9/15/01]

9:24 AM [? – see above]: The FAA, who 28 minutes earlier had discovered Flight 77 off course and heading east over West Virginia, reportedly notifies NORAD. A Pentagon spokesman says, "The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way." [Newsday, 9/23/01, New York Times, 10/16/01] Yet since the first crash, military officials in a Pentagon command center were urgently talking to law enforcement and air traffic control officials about what to do. [New York Times, 9/15/01]

9:28 AM: Air traffic control learns that Flight 93 has been hijacked. [MSNBC, 7/30/02]

9:38 AM: Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon. [42 minutes or more after contact was lost, one hour after NORAD notification of first hijacking][New York Times, 10/16/01, 9:43 CNN, 9/12/01]

9:59 AM: The south tower of the World Trade Center collapses. [New York Times, 9/12/01]

10:10 AM: Flight 93 crashes in Pennsylvania. [42 minutes after contact was lost][CNN, 9/12/02]

10:28 AM: The World Trade Center north tower collapses. [CNN, 9/12/01, NY Times, 9/12/01]

5:20 PM: Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapses. [CNN, 9/12/01]

Sept 11, 2001: Did the Air Force send up planes after the hijacked aircraft? The Air Force won't say. It says they keep about 20 F-15 and F-16 fighters on duty with Air National Guards along the nation's coastline, ready to inspect unknown aircraft entering U.S. airspace. "We can scramble and be airborne in a matter of minutes," said an Air Force spokesperson. Some airline pilots are wondering whether the FAA did enough to try to prevent the crashes. [Wall Street Journal, 09/14/01]

Sept 11, 2001: Six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners make a tape recording describing the events, but the tape is later destroyed by a supervisor without anyone making a transcript or even listening to it. [Washington Post, 5/6/04, New York Times, 5/6/04]

Sept 11, 2001: Hours after the attacks, a "shadow government" is formed. Key congressional leaders say they didn’t know President Bush had established this government-in-waiting. Some Congressmen state the administration should have conferred about its plans. [CBS, 3/2/02, Washington Post, 3/2/02, more]

Sept 11, 2001: A National Public Radio correspondent states: "I spoke with Congressman Ike Skelton who said that just recently the director of the CIA warned that there could be an attack – an imminent attack – on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected." [NPR, 9/11/01]

Sept 12, 2001: Senator Orrin Hatch says the US was monitoring bin Laden supporters and overheard them discussing the attack. [AP, 9/12/01] Why has the media not explored the fact that the US could monitor private communications of al-Qaeda on 9/11?

Sept 13-19, 2001: Members of bin Laden's family are driven or flown under FBI supervision to a secret assembly point in Texas and then to Washington, where they leave the country on a private plane when airports reopen three days after the attacks. [NY Times, 9/30/01, Boston Globe, 9/20/01, more]

Sept 14, 2001: The two black boxes for Flight 77 are found. [PBS, 9/14/01] FBI Director Robert Mueller later says Flight 77's data recorder provides altitude, speed, headings and other information, but the voice recorder contains “nothing useful.” [CBS, 2/23/02]

Sept 15-16, 2001: U.S. military sources give the FBI information that several of the 9/11 hijackers, including leader Mohamed Atta, may have received training at secure U.S. military installations. Three hijackers listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla. Atta graduated from the US International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. The media drops the story after the Air Force issues a statement saying that while the names are similar, "we are probably not talking about the same people." [Newsweek, 9/15/01, Washington Post, 9/16/01, New York Times, 9/15/01, more]

Sept 19, 2001: The FBI claims that there may have been six hijacking teams on the morning of 9/11. [New York Times, 9/19/01, CBS, 9/14/01] Authorities have identified teams that total as many as 50 infiltrators who supported or carried out the strikes. About 40 of the men have been accounted for. [Los Angeles Times, 9/13/01] Yet only one person, Moussaoui, is later charged.

Sept 23, 2001: Several of the alleged 9/11 hijackers are still alive. Pilot Waleed Al Shehri is one of the men the FBI said deliberately crashed a plane into the WTC. He is protesting his innocence from Morocco. His photograph was released, and he acknowledges that he is indeed the Waleed Al Shehri whom FBI has named. But, he says, he left the US last year, and became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines. [BBC, 9/23/01]

Oct 2, 2001: The Patriot Act is introduced in Congress. The next day, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D) accuses the Bush administration of reneging on an agreement on this anti-terrorist bill. [Washington Post, 10/4/01] Anthrax letters are sent to Leahy and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D) on October 9. [CNN, 11/18/01]

Oct 10-11, 2001: After consulting with the FBI and CDC, Iowa State University in Ames destroys anthrax spores collected over seven decades. On Oct 25, the White House homeland security director confirms publicly that the tainted letters contained the Ames strain. [New York Times, 11/9/01]

Nov 12, 2001—Mar 25, 2002: 13 renowned microbiologists mysteriously die over the span of less than five months. All but one or two are killed or murdered under unusual circumstances. Some are world leaders in developing weapons-grade biological plagues. Others are the best in figuring out how to stop millions from dying because of biological weapons. Still others are experts in the theory of bioterrorism. [Globe and Mail, 5/4/02] Nov 12: Benito Que, 52, an expert in infectious diseases—killed in carjacking, later deemed possible stroke. [Globe and Mail, 5/4/02] Nov. 16: Don Wiley, 57, one of the world's leading researchers of deadly viruses—body found in Mississippi River. [CNN, 12/22/01] Nov 21: Dr. Vladimir Pasechnik, 64, an expert in adapting germs and viruses for military use—stroke. [New York Times, 11/23/01] Dec 10: Dr. Robert Schwartz, 57, a leading researcher on DNA sequencing analysis—slain at home. [Washington Post, 12/12/01] Dec 14: Nguyen Van Set, 44, his research organization had just come to fame for discovering a virus which can be modified to affect smallpox—dies in an airlock in his lab. [Sydney Morning Herald, 12/12/01] Jan 2002: Ivan Glebov (bandit attack) and Alexi Brushlinski (killed in Moscow), both world-renowned members of the Russian Academy of Science. [Pravda, 2/9/02] Feb 9: Victor Korshunov, 56, head of the microbiology sub-faculty at the Russian State Medical University—killed by cranial injury. [Pravda, 2/9/02] Feb 11: Ian Langford, 40, one of Europe's leading experts on environmental risk—murdered in home. [London Times, 2/13/02] Feb 28 (2): Tanya Holzmayer, 46, helped create drugs that interfere with replication of the virus that causes AIDS, and Guyang Huang, 38, a brilliant scholar highly regarded in genetics—murder/suicide. [San Jose Mercury News, 2/28/02] Mar 24: David Wynn-Williams, 55, an astrobiologist with NASA Ames Research Center—killed while jogging. [London Times, 3/27/02] Mar 25: Steven Mostow, 63, an expert on the threat of bioterrorism—private plane crash. [KUSA TV/NBC, 3/26/02]

Dec 2001: The US engineers the rise to power of a former Unocal Oil employee, Hamid Karzai, as the interim president of Afghanistan. Looking at the map of the big US bases in Afghanistan, one is struck that they are identical to the route of the projected oil pipeline. [Chicago Tribune, 3/18/02, more]

Dec 25, 2001: Leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts believe the investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center is "inadequate.” They note that the current team of 20 or so investigators has inadequate financial and staff support, has been prevented from interviewing witnesses and from examining the disaster site. They couldn’t even get detailed blueprints of the World Trade Center. The decision to rapidly recycle the steel beams from the WTC means definitive answers may never be known. [New York Times, 12/25/01]

Jan 1, 2002: Zalamy Khalilzad is appointed by Bush as special envoy to Afghanistan. [BBC, 1/1/02, Chicago Tribune, 3/18/02] Khalilzad once lobbied for the Taliban and worked for an American oil company that sought concessions for pipelines in Afghanistan. [Independent, 1/10/02]

Jan 4, 2002: An editorial in the respected trade magazine Fire Engineering states that there is good reason to believe that the "official investigation," blessed by FEMA, into the WTC collapse is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests are clearly not full disclosure. Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. [Fire Engineering, 1/02]

Jan 24, 2002: Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle claims that on this day Cheney calls him and urges that no 9/11 inquiry be made. He is repeatedly pressured thereafter. [Newsweek, 2/4/02, more]

Feb 6, 2002: CIA Director Tenet tells a Senate hearing that there was no 9/11 intelligence failure. When asked about the CIA on 9/11, he states that the 9/11 plot was "in the heads of three or four people." He rejects any suggestion that the CIA failed to do its job. [USA Today, 2/7/02]

Feb 21, 2002: A ban on poppy growing by the Taliban in July 2000 along with severe droughts reduced Afghanistan's opium yield by 91% in 2001. Yet the UN expects its 2002 opium crop to be equivalent to the bumper one of three years ago. Afghanistan is the source of 75% of the world's heroin. [Guardian, 2/21/02] Why is the US unable to control opium production which had almost stopped?

Mar 2, 2002: The 9/11 collapse of WTC building 7 was the first time a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise in the US has ever collapsed in a fire. [New York Times, 3/2/02] Building 7 was where the SEC was storing files related to numerous Wall Street investigations. The files for approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cases were destroyed. [National Law Journal, 9/17/01] Lost files include documents that could show the relationship between Citigroup and the WorldCom bankruptcy. [The Street, 8/9/02]

Mar 13, 2002: Bush says of bin Laden: "I truly am not that concerned about him." [White House, 3/13/02] Military chief Myers states: "the goal has never been to get bin Laden." [CNN/DOD, 4/6/02]

Apr 19, 2002: FBI Director Mueller: "We have not uncovered a single piece of paper that mentioned any aspect of the 9/11 plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind." [FBI, 4/19/02, Los Angeles Times, 4/30/02] Yet investigators have amassed a ''substantial'' amount of e-mail traffic among the hijackers. [USA Today, 10/1/01] The laptop computer of Moussaoui, the alleged 20th hijacker, was confiscated weeks before 9/11, yet FBI headquarters systematically dismissed and undermined requests by Minneapolis FBI agents to search the computer. [Time, 5/21/02, CNN, 5/27/02]

May 15, 2002: For the first time, the White House admits that Bush was warned about bin Laden hijacking aircraft and wanting to attack the US in Aug 2001. It is unclear why they waited eight months to reveal this. The Press Secretary states that while Bush had been warned of possible hijackings, "the president did not receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers." Yet the August memo left little doubt that the hijacked airliners were intended for use as missiles and that US targets were intended. [New York Times, 5/16/02, Washington Post, 5/16/02, Guardian, 5/19/02]

May 16, 2002: Congressional committee members investigating 9/11 say there is far more damaging information that has not yet been disclosed. “We've just scratched the surface,” said Senator Richard Shelby, ranking Republican member of the Senate intelligence committee. [Washington Post, 5/17/02]

May 17, 2002: Dan Rather says that he and other journalists haven't been properly investigating since 9/11. He graphically describes the pressures to conform after the attacks. [Guardian, 5/17/02, more]

May 21, 2002: A memo is released in which Minnesota FBI agent Coleen Rowley writes to FBI Director Mueller, “I have deep concerns that a delicate and subtle shading/skewing of facts by you and others at the highest levels of FBI management has occurred and is occurring.” [Time, 5/21/02] CNN calls the memo a "colossal indictment of our chief law-enforcement agency." [CNN, 5/27/02] Time magazine later names Rowley one of three "Persons of the Year" for 2002. [Time, 12/22/02]

May 23, 2002: President Bush says he is opposed to establishing a special, independent commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before 9/11. [CBS, 5/23/02]

May 30, 2002: FBI Agent Robert Wright formally accuses the FBI of deliberately curtailing investigations that might have prevented 9/11. He is under threat of retribution if he talks to members of Congress about what he knows. [Fox News, 5/30/02, more] He also accuses the agency of shutting down his 1998 criminal probe into alleged terrorist-training camps in Chicago and Kansas City. Wright has written a book, but the agency won't let him publish it or even give it to anyone. [LA Weekly, 8/2/02]

July 23, 2002: The New York City government decides that many of the audio and written records of the Fire Department's actions on 9/11 should never be released. The New York Times had filed a lawsuit seeking numerous records concerning the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, including firsthand accounts by scores of firefighters and chiefs. [New York Times, 7/23/02]

Aug 11, 2002: The Observer has learned of three heroin refineries in Afghanistan. There are believed to be several more, some of them operating in broad daylight. [Observer, 8/11/02]

Aug 30, 2002: German authorities charge a Moroccan man with complicity in the 9/11 attacks. He is only the second person ever to be charged formally in connection with 9/11. [Telegraph, 8/30/02]

Sept 11, 2002: On the first anniversary of 9/11, New York Times writes, "One year later, the public knows less about the circumstances of 2,801 deaths at the foot of Manhattan in broad daylight than people in 1912 knew within weeks about the Titanic." The former police commissioner of Philadelphia says: "You can hardly point to a cataclysmic event in our history when a blue-ribbon panel did not set out to establish the facts and suggest reforms. That has not happened here." [New York Times, 9/11/02]

Oct 5, 2002: Congressional investigators say the FBI's efforts to block their inquiry makes them skeptical of FBI assertions. They also say the Justice Department has joined the FBI in fighting congressional requests for information, while the CIA has been antagonistic. [New York Times, 10/5/02]

Oct 16, 2002: The CIA, FBI, and NSA all testify that no individual at their agencies has been punished or fired for any of the missteps surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks. [Washington Post, 10/18/02]

Oct 21, 2002: No more than six of the 19 hijackers were interviewed by US officials before being granted visas. This contradicts the State Department’s claim that 12 had been interviewed. Of 15 hijackers, none filled in the visa documents properly. All 15 of them should have been denied entry to the country. “The system was rigged in their favor from the get-go.” [Washington Post, 10/22/02, ABC News, 10/23/02] In December 2002, two top Republican senators report that if State Department personnel had merely followed the law in Saudi Arabia, 9/11 would not have happened. [AP, 12/18/02, more]

Oct 27, 2002: A report from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's Defense Science Board recommends the creation of a super-intelligence body (P2OG) which would launch secret operations to “stimulate reactions” among terrorists and states owning weapons of mass destruction. It would prod terrorist cells into action, thus exposing them to quick-response attacks by US forces. [Los Angeles Times, 10/27/02, more]

Oct 29, 2002: Of over 800 people rounded up since 9/11, only 10 have been linked to the hijackings and probably will turn out to be innocent. [Newsweek, 10/29/02] Though many were held for months, the vast majority were never charged with anything other than overstaying a visa. [New York Times, 7/11/02]

Nov 27, 2002: Bush names Henry Kissinger to lead an independent investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks. [New York Times, 11/28/02] He is a highly controversial figure. Documents released by the CIA strengthen suspicions that Kissinger was actively involved in a covert plan to assassinate thousands of political opponents in six Latin American countries. He is also famous for his obsession with secrecy. [BBC, 4/26/02] "Indeed, it is tempting to wonder if the choice of Mr. Kissinger is not a clever maneuver by the White House to contain an investigation it long opposed." [New York Times, 11/29/02]

Dec 13, 2002: Kissinger resigns as chairman of the new 9/11 investigation citing controversy over potential conflicts of interest with his business clients. [CNN, 12/13/02, BBC, 12/14/02]

Dec 16, 2002: Bush names Thomas Kean chairman after Henry Kissinger resigns. Kean promises a thorough investigation. [AP, 12/17/02] He plans to devote one day a week to the 9/11 commission. [Washington Post, 12/17/02]

Jan 13, 2003: The worldwide turmoil caused by US government policies goes not exactly unreported, but entirely de-emphasized. Guardian writers are inundated by e-mails from Americans asking why their own papers never print what is in UK papers. If there is a Watergate scandal lurking in this administration, it is unlikely to be [Washington Post's Bob] Woodward or his colleagues who will tell us about it. If it emerges, it will probably come out on the web. "That is a devastating indictment of the state of American newspapers." [Guardian, 1/13/03]

July 22, 2004: The 9/11 Commission Report is published. It fails to mention that a year before the attacks a secret Pentagon project named Able Danger had identified four 9/11 hijackers, including leader Mohamed Atta. The Commission spokesperson initially states members were not informed of this, but later acknowledges they were. [New York Times, 8/11/05, more]

Nov 19, 2004: The fear that Afghanistan might degenerate into a narco-state is becoming a reality. Afghanistan has surpassed Colombia as the world's biggest gross producer of illicit narcotics, heroin being the "main engine of economic growth" and the "strongest bond" among tribes that previously fought constantly. What we have here now is a narco-economy where 40 to 50 percent of the GDP is from illicit drugs. [San Francisco Chronicle, 11/19/04] How does a country controlled by the US become the largest producer of illegal drugs? For a possible answer, click here.

Nov 17, 2005: Former FBI Director Louis Freeh: "The Able Danger intelligence, if confirmed, is undoubtedly the most relevant fact of the entire post-9/11 inquiry. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it 'was not historically significant.' This astounding conclusion—in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings—raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself." [Wall Street Journal, 11/17/05, more]

2004 - 2005: A growing number of top government officials and public leaders express disbelief in the official story of 9/11. Some even believe 9/11 may have been an inside job. 100 prominent leaders and forty 9/11 family members sign a statement calling for an unbiased inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the attacks to occur. [Various Publications]

[thesyntaxera]

About the Eutectic mixture-

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

You know...you can label me a holocaust denier or whatever...but I would be quite happy to find out that they just didn't look deep enough...in fact I would be relieved.

[thesyntaxera]

Here is a conversation from the physics forum conversation I linked to about this eutectic mixture-

It means nothing but if offers points for consideration-

Again, I contend that thermite fires account for ALL the following facts & parameters, (which no one from the gravity-driven collapse supporters has yet to account for in their nonsensical postulations)...

a - a compressed mass of rubble continued to burn for weeks after the 'attack / collapse'

b - a 'lake' of water was applied to douse this persistant fire

c - water had NO EFFECT to douse or suppress the fires

d - water will 'FEED' a thermite / diasite reaction

e - a thermite / diasite reaction gives off ultraviolet radiation (and this ultraviolet radiation could possibly account for the anomalous lightening of videos and photographs at the end of the collapses, which many writers have commented on)

f - Pyrocool absorbs ultraviolet radiation whilst dousing the oxygen-absorbing ability of a thermite / diasite based incendiary

g - Pyrocool reached the areas of the 'underground fires' and put them out, whereas ALL other fire-fighting efforts failed.

h - Pyrocool was specifically developed to fight 'incendiary' fires (primarily for use in military theaters).

AND Additionally...

i - Thermite melts steel

j - the smoke coming from the fires was white (just like the white smoke referred to by Pecararo in the basement explosions).... thermite produces white smoke.


Until someone comes up with a better theory for the underground fires THAT ACCOUNTS FOR ALL the above factors, I'll have to stick with the Most Plausible One (as presented above - thermite... OR something else which has the same properties and fulfills All the above parameters.)

<!--emo&:lol:-->

Now Foxx, weren't you supporting Hoffman's analysis earlier????

You know the one where the AVERAGE temperature of the PYROCLASTIC CLOUD was over 1,000 deg C.

Caused by the HEATING of the CONCRETE to this TEMP.

So, according to HOFFMAN, it doesn't MATTER where you started in the pile, you were HOT by the time it was all over.

So which is it. Did the collapse CAUSE HEATING or NOT???


As to thermite....

Let me just say

Thermite is:

A ) HEAVY
B ) BURNS FAIRLY QUICKLY
C ) LEAVES TELL TALE SLAG

How many TONS of Thermite would it take to burn for several weeks?

You see, while paper and such could ignite at reasonable temps, thermite has a VERY HIGH ignition temp.

Why was NO SLAG found??

Arthur

How about adding a little sulfur to bring the ignition tempter down? Helps explain appendix c in the FEMA report.

[PixyMisa]

Here is a conversation from the physics forum conversation I linked to about this eutectic mixture-

It means nothing
You got that right. It is complete and utter nonsense.

[The_Fire]

then there is all this:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg
A couple of comments:


1980s: Osama bin Laden runs a front organization for the mujaheddin—Islamic freedom fighters rebelling against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The CIA secretly backs the mujaheddin. Pakistan's President Benazir Bhutto, understanding the ferocity of Islamic extremism, tells then President George Bush, "You are creating a Frankenstein." [MSNBC, 8/24/98, Newsweek, 10/1/01, more]


What Benazir Bhutto, allthough I would like for you to supply some sort of online reference from a preferably credible source like a newspaper or official website, may or may not have said is not relevant right now. What one needs to understand is the political climate at the time, not only in afghanistan but also in the worlds as a whole. The Cold war was at an all time high and the Russians were embedded in Afghanistan by way of occupation.
Given Afghanistans geographical location (http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_htm/asia.htm) close to western allies like Saudi Arabia, India and Pakistan (Spelling?) as well as the proximity to the olieresources of the region, it would have been a VERY bad idea to allow that situation to continue. As it were, America was not allowed by international conventions to interfer directly but instead choose to educate a bunch of freedom fighters, which they could be considered as at the time depending of your definition of the word, to perform to the best of their ability.
This is, from a political viewpoint as well as a military viewpoint, a very sound idea as it would allow America to aid the freedomfighters by claiming that the natives weren't happy with the occupation and give the entire "We support Freedom" speech. From a military viewpoint, it is also a sound idea to utilise local people since they would know the area, it's cultural habits as well as the topography in a degree which no foreigner could. It would also give the locals a focal point saying "It is allright to fight these *SelfCensored* and it works!". This is a strategy enabled as far back as WW2.
Unfortunately the selection of the freedomfighters to support could have been screened better, but hindsight is 20/20 and there were no way of predicting that a well-educated saudi (A western ally) whom had grown up in a relative western inviroment would order a number of airliners to crash into American Property 20+ years later. Otherwise the Randi Challenge would already be resolved.


1993: An expert panel commissioned by the Pentagon raises the possibility that an airplane could be used to bomb national landmarks. [Washington Post, 10/2/01, more]

Do you by any chance have a link to an online copy of said article? A headline would also help. Untill then I refrain to comment on this.


1994: Two attacks take place which involve hijacking planes to crash them into buildings, including one by an Islamic militant group. In a third attack, a lone pilot crashes a plane at the White House. Yet after Sept. 11, over and over aviation and security officials say they are shocked that terrorists could have hijacked airliners and crashed them into landmark buildings. [New York Times, 10/3/01]

The "attack" on the White House weren't an attack as I understand it. I quote (http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/ustreas/usss/t1pubrpt.html): (http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/ustreas/usss/t1pubrpt.html%29:)

On Sunday, September 11, 1994, after spending an evening with his brother consuming alcohol and smoking crack cocaine, Frank Eugene Corder asked his brother to drop him off in the vicinity of Aldino Airport in Churchville, Maryland. Corder walked to the airport and found the keys to a Cessna P150 airplane that had been returned to the airport earlier that day after having been rented by another individual. Although Corder was not a licensed pilot, he had taken several lessons in the aircraft and had flown it several times during the summer of 1993.

Jup, that really sounds like an islamic plot to take over the world. But wait! There is more!:

Based on the physical evidence, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded that the crash was intentional rather than a failed attempt at a controlled landing. The airplane's velocity on impact clearly exceeded a safe landing speed. Moreover, the airplane's wing flaps were up and its throttle position was "full forward," neither of which is characteristic of an aircraft in a landing posture. At the time of the crash, Corder was thirty-eight years old. He abused alcohol and cocaine, and faced a wide array of financial, marital, and legal problems. Both cocaine and alcohol were found in Corder's blood after the crash. The D.C. Medical Examiner ruled Corder's death a suicide. The Review did not discover information inconsistent with this conclusion.

It appears that by crashing onto the White House lawn, Corder was attempting to fulfill an ambition he had expressed to friends to kill himself "in a big way" by flying an airplane into the White House or the dome of the Capitol.


Oh yeah! It's a terrorist attack.:boggled:
I'll be back later when I'm not at risk of being tossed out on my ear for doing something I shouldn't be doing..

Edit: Grammar hickup.

[Belz...]

It would seem that the current hypothesis(not fact) only works if you exclude all the firefighter testimony of multiple explosions, and of low burning fires, as well as the second video of the first impact that shows the impact and then provides audio of a second explosion and of a corresponding vibration,

As it's been explained, Syntax, firefighters could not tell you what was going on 80 floors above them, and even if they could, they could make mistakes. We can't just look at one or two testimonies and think this invalidates the whole theory. Look at any other case in which testimony contradicts the official account. Does this mean the official story is wrong ?

and assume that the fire ignited every single thing on the affected floors all at once and then proceeded to burn at an ever increasing temperature until a whole floors worth of steel was weakened to the point of failure despite the rapid heat conductivity that steel posesses.

I honestly don't understand what's wrong with the theory, although you exaggerate it quite nicely, here. Jumbo jet impact, jet fuel fire, big office building. I didn't expect the thing to fall down, but when the structure is explained to me, it makes sense. All you have is anecdotal evidence.

It also points out a flaw in the wtc7 explanation which doesn't include a plane, but a piece of flaming wreckage that penetrates the building and happens to land in the vicinity of a diesel fuel store starting a fire that burns so hot and strong that it literally pulls the entire building down almost in unison at nearly free fall speeds.

Free fall. Yes. Things fall faster when explosives are involved. Great. Yeah.

This seems to indicate that there was a hot corrision of steel that generated the eutectic mixture...what that means I haven't determined yet, but from the wording it sounds like there was a corrosion of steel at high temperature and the residual by products were this "mixture"....

Sounds ? It sounds like ? Come back when you're SURE.

[Kevin_Lowe]

You know...you can label me a holocaust denier or whatever...but I would be quite happy to find out that they just didn't look deep enough...in fact I would be relieved.

Going purely on the article you linked to it looks like an unexpected chemical reaction happened either during the fire, or more likely in the rubble afterwards, that explains the observations of something looking like molten steel that were made during the cleanup process.

So what is this proof of again? How does this lead you to believe there was a conspiracy? Kindly explain your thought processes for once.

[Hellbound]

a - a compressed mass of rubble continued to burn for weeks after the 'attack / collapse'

Thermite burns quickly. It would not burn for weeks. In fact, thermite burns out in a relatively short time even for large amounts. Same for napalm and other incendiaries. The author of this bit knows nothing of thermite, and ignores basic properties of simple fires. A wooden bed of coals can smolder for several days, igniting to open flame as soon as it is stirred or otherwise disturbed, allowing inner embers access to oxygen. The compressed mass part of this makes it even more likely. In olden times, coals used to be kept in small metal boxes surrounded by sand, to be used for starting fires. They lasted quite some time, as well.

b - a 'lake' of water was applied to douse this persistant fire

c - water had NO EFFECT to douse or suppress the fires

d - water will 'FEED' a thermite / diasite reaction
Again, the author betrays his absolute ignorance of thermite. Here, he confuses thermite (a mixture of aluminum and rust) with phospherous (an elementary compound, this particular type a white powder or chalky solid). Thermite can be doused by water. Phosperous will pull oxygen atoms from water molecules and continue to burn.


e - a thermite / diasite reaction gives off ultraviolet radiation (and this ultraviolet radiation could possibly account for the anomalous lightening of videos and photographs at the end of the collapses, which many writers have commented on)


Source? While it may well give off UV, I seriously doubt the amount of UV given off would overpower that of, say, the sun. He's speaking out his anus.

f - Pyrocool absorbs ultraviolet radiation whilst dousing the oxygen-absorbing ability of a thermite / diasite based incendiary

Again, thermite does not absorb oxygen from water. Phosperous does.

g - Pyrocool reached the areas of the 'underground fires' and put them out, whereas ALL other fire-fighting efforts failed.

So they kept trying things until it worked? I don't see a problem here.

h - Pyrocool was specifically developed to fight 'incendiary' fires (primarily for use in military theaters).

And superglue was originally designed as a medical adhesive. Does this mean that when I glue the handle back on my coffee cup I'm performing surgery?

AND Additionally...

i - Thermite melts steel

Well, he did get this part right, at least.

j - the smoke coming from the fires was white (just like the white smoke referred to by Pecararo in the basement explosions).... thermite produces white smoke.


So does phosperhous, so do a burning pile of pine needles, so does an arc weilder....sorry, but white smoke does not even come close to positively identifying any possible incendiary. Many completly average items can give off white smoke, and even then smoke color may vary depending on the conditions of burning (temperature, total heat, pressure/constriction, availability of oxygen, etc).

I'm sorry, but your "physics" expert is clueless on thermite. I have, personally, experienced thermite, white phospherous, and many other incendiaries and explosives used (over 12 years military, including multiple deployments into active combat zones). I can conclusively say that your source knows nothing about military incediaries or the differences between them. A simple google search into the relevant items, from a trusted source (not some post on a forum), would have shown his ignorance within 5 minutes (or, if he had bothered to research his subject before pontificating, prevented the entire mess of ignorance).

For some reason, this thread continually reminds me of a bit of folk wisdom:

"A fool cannot help but speak, and reveal his ignorace."

[Hellbound]

One other quick comment...

Have you ever heated steel in a normal wood fire?

"hot corrosion of steel" does not necesarily equal "melting steel". Steel will rust quickly when heated. This allows for all sorts of other reactions to occur in the rusted areas, as the chemical properties of iron oxide differ from those found in the carbon steel.

[thesyntaxera]

Going purely on the article you linked to it looks like an unexpected chemical reaction happened either during the fire, or more likely in the rubble afterwards, that explains the observations of something looking like molten steel that were made during the cleanup process.

So what is this proof of again? How does this lead you to believe there was a conspiracy? Kindly explain your thought processes for once.

Sure, that would be what the FEMA report details..

http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm
this one in particular.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Kevin, I never said I believed there was a "conspiracy" as you are suggesting, what I suggested was that there was a cover up of events and a lack of investigation...which is entirely feasible.

This is only BIG for ease of reading...not to be an ass.

The line of logic goes as such...according to the official accounts>fuel from the planes doesn't reach the temp needed to produce this reaction> fuel from office building materials and furniture does not produce this temp>the impact is the key factor in the collapse as it is responsible for the extra weakening of the building infrastructure>the buildings thus has no reason to reach such intense temperatures>the buildings fall in a manner that resembles a controlled demolition to the layman or somone who may "dabble in physics">the buildings all have telltale signs of demolition identifiable in the video evidence>regardless these signs could be misread>the buildings debris field is hotter than it should be as evidenced by the thermal readings, the heat is isolated to the the three fallen buildings>debris culled from the bottom of the pile is a orange/red indicating temperatures of extreme intensity that should not exist if the former indications of heat determined by multiple investigations is accurate>during analysis it is determined that core pieces of steel from the center columns contain the evidence for an Eutectic reaction that occured>it is described as "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.">No source of the sulphur is identified, and it is noted for furthur inquiry>it is possible that the sulfur in the drywall, or in the diesel of the emergency generators that burned in wtc7 and possibly in wtc 1,2>it should be noted that diesel doesn't ignite like gasoline, it explodes from being compressed in the cylinder of a motor>it should also be noted that the temperatures required to yield this eutectic reaction are far too high to have been generated by any of the known sources of fire(1000C - 1800F)>the report notes that these temperatures are not likely to have melted the steel>Eutectic mixtures are used in the manufacture of explosives http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4555280.html > http://www.google.com/search?q=Eutectic+explosives&hl=en&lr= > sulphur is a key ingredient in accelerating thermite and other explosives> http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/bang.htm > no source of the sulphur is identified in the report as stated previously...all building sources are ruled out...

Therefore.....

it is likely that explosives were used...

I would also like to point out that there were many government agencies located in these buildings, and many sensitive possibly explosive things could have been lurking about on their own without being planted...any cover up could be related to these agencies and whatever was there....this is just guessing though...the above is not.

[thesyntaxera]

Do you by any chance have a link to an online copy of said article? A headline would also help. Untill then I refrain to comment on this.

Yeah, it was at the top of that post.

[thesyntaxera]

The author of this bit knows nothing of thermite, and ignores basic properties of simple fires. A wooden bed of coals can smolder for several days, igniting to open flame as soon as it is stirred or otherwise disturbed, allowing inner embers access to oxygen. The compressed mass part of this makes it even more likely. In olden times, coals used to be kept in small metal boxes surrounded by sand, to be used for starting fires. They lasted quite some time, as well.

all quite true, I made a similar analogy earlier regarding fire pits and burnt wood....however no one said that thermite burned for days...they said that the debris was incredibly hot for days....and it was too hot for the fires that pre-existed the collapse...so there must have been an accelerant in there somewhere. The compressed mass would have insulated the heat present not created excess heat to cause these reactions.

[thesyntaxera]

One other quick comment...

Have you ever heated steel in a normal wood fire?

"hot corrosion of steel" does not necesarily equal "melting steel". Steel will rust quickly when heated. This allows for all sorts of other reactions to occur in the rusted areas, as the chemical properties of iron oxide differ from those found in the carbon steel.

Except that the FEMA report specifically states that the steel was radically melted.

[Belz...]

This is only BIG for ease of reading...not to be an ass.

Actually it makes it more painful... like this thread.

The line of logic goes as such...according to the official accounts>fuel from the planes doesn't reach the temp needed to produce this reaction> fuel from office building materials and furniture does not produce this temp>the impact is the key factor in the collapse as it is responsible for the extra weakening of the building infrastructure [...]

it is likely that explosives were used...

But each of these elements has been explained to you countless times. You seem to me to be adamant that something is wrong and you won't have anything to do with any form of evidence or argument contrary to your belief.

If you don't want to learn, why are you here ?

[CurtC]

>the buildings all have telltale signs of demolition identifiable in the video evidence>regardless these signs could be misreadAnd what, pray tell, are those "telltale signs of demolition"? The fact that the buildings fell down? That they fell straight down instead of toppling over like a kid's toy?
>it should be noted that diesel doesn't ignite like gasoline, it explodes from being compressed in the cylinder of a motorThis has zero relevance. Unless/until it's compressed, it simply ignites like gasoline.
Therefore.....
it is likely that explosives were used...That's one huge non sequitur.
I would also like to point out that there were many government agencies located in these buildings, and many sensitive possibly explosive things could have been lurking about on their own without being planted...Are you seriously suggesting that the government could have stockpiled explosives within their offices at the WTC, and this could have been responsible for the collapse?

[kookbreaker]

all quite true, I made a similar analogy earlier regarding fire pits and burnt wood....however no one said that thermite burned for days...they said that the debris was incredibly hot for days....and it was too hot for the fires that pre-existed the collapse...


There is no indication that any 'hot-spot' temperatures reached higher than what could be expected from the original fire

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html


so there must have been an accelerant in there somewhere.


Nonsense.


The compressed mass would have insulated the heat present not created excess heat to cause these reactions.

That is what happened.

[Belz...]

Are you seriously suggesting that the government could have stockpiled explosives within their offices at the WTC, and this could have been responsible for the collapse?

Yes, this is the point where someone can start calling him crazy.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I've seen James Bond movies, "they" have arsenals in the strangest places.

Probably the impact of the planes set off a stockpile of exploding umbrellas and acid-squirting wristwatches. The rest is history.

[thesyntaxera]

But each of these elements has been explained to you countless times. You seem to me to be adamant that something is wrong and you won't have anything to do with any form of evidence or argument contrary to your belief.

If you don't want to learn, why are you here ?

Explained? You call what you guys do explaining? The points that I mention are directly taken from the documents that you so prize...there is no explaining needed. I am adamant yes, but only because there are so many glaring holes that you seem to think are invalid if you can write them off with right brain logic.

[thesyntaxera]

There is no indication that any 'hot-spot' temperatures reached higher than what could be expected from the original fire

Except that there were visible hot spots 23 days afterward. Thats quite an achievement for a hydrocarbon fire that should by rights, have been nearly extinguished by the debris.

[thesyntaxera]

And what, pray tell, are those "telltale signs of demolition"? The fact that the buildings fell down? That they fell straight down instead of toppling over like a kid's toy?

Sort of...more like there are visible "squib" jets, there is a pyroclastic flow of hot dust and debris that usually accompanies volcano's, this flow has to be a certain temperature in order to behave this way, they fell on the foot print, the center fell first...there are ten that are identified by several sources...you have read and wrote them off I am sure.

This has zero relevance. Unless/until it's compressed, it simply ignites like gasoline.

not exactly. it ignites by heating air with glow plugs until it reaches it's flash point, and then injecting the fuel into thje mix....

Go buy a small can of diesel and throw a match into it....my bet is that it probably won't flash like gas.


Are you seriously suggesting that the government could have stockpiled explosives within their offices at the WTC, and this could have been responsible for the collapse.

uh...no....I am suggesting that there may have been some explosives present, and that there might have been sensitive materials that needed obscuring.

[delphi_ote]

Except that the FEMA report specifically states that the steel was radically melted.
http://metalreview.com/admin/concertimages/wacken4cannibalcorpse.jpg
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! PUT YOUR HANDS TOGETHER AND THROW THOSE DEVIL HORNS FOR THE BADDEST METAL BAND EVER, RADICALLY MELTED!!!

ETA But first, let's hear it for our opening act, FEMA Report!
http://www.jazzbanjo.com/jbartist/images/quinn.jpg

[thesyntaxera]

Sort of...more like there are visible "squib" jets, there is a pyroclastic flow of hot dust and debris that usually accompanies volcano's, this flow has to be a certain temperature in order to behave this way, they fell on the foot print, the center fell first...there are ten that are identified by several sources...you have read and wrote them off I am sure.

to add to this..there is also the fact that in order for the building to fall as fast as it did it would have to be progressively weakened in advance of the falling debris to remove any resistance by the building itself...like a demolition

[PixyMisa]

to add to this..there is also the fact that in order for the building to fall as fast as it did it would have to be progressively weakened in advance of the falling debris to remove any resistance by the building itself...like a demolition
No.

[thesyntaxera]

No.

oh thats right, it was the massive girth of the building that shattered the rest of the building so quickly as to be near free fall speeds.

so how did that sulphur get there is my question...

and why was there a temperature based reaction that exceeded the heat producible by any of these events?

[thesyntaxera]

Has anyone reviewed the 2nd video of the 1st impact? The one that captures the impact and a second explosion 9 seconds later that visibly shakes the camera?

Did you think anything of it...or should I assume no...?

[richardm]

I am adamant yes

Which is amazing, because four weeks ago you said

I am electing to play devils advocate

But you're not playing devil's advocate at all, are you? You really believe this stuff. So not only are you a creduloid idiot, you're a liar as well. Oh dear!

[Kevin_Lowe]

to add to this..there is also the fact that in order for the building to fall as fast as it did it would have to be progressively weakened in advance of the falling debris to remove any resistance by the building itself...like a demolition

I thought we had already been over this. And over, and over...

You have absolutely no basis for claiming that the buildings should have fallen faster than they did. No evidence, no source with relevant expertise, nothing.

[thesyntaxera]

Which is amazing, because four weeks ago you said



But you're not playing devil's advocate at all, are you? You really believe this stuff. So not only are you a creduloid idiot, you're a liar as well. Oh dear!


Richard the only thing you have illuminated here is your lack of critical thinking...your apparent wish to be percieved as an A-hole, and a total lack of interpersonal ettiquette.......you all freak out, and then wonder why I am rude in return, and then claim I am exactly like everyone else who makes these claims just because I argue the other point of view... when I have been saying all along that I don't buy the David Icke illuminati driven world government that you all seem to think is the heart of every conspiracy theory to emanate from this event...It is reasonable to think a cover up took place because there is every indication that one has, and it is reasonable to think that the investigation sucked...because it did, and it is reasonable to think that the towers came down in a manner not described by the official report because the three explanations are mutually contradictory...

You have taken my comments out of context to call me a liar...like the tactless, witless, master of the innane that you are...

what I said was:
I am electing to play devils advocate, due in part to the fact that no one has done any real debunking in this thread...so I thought I would supply some info to be debunked...sound fun? ok...

I am adamant yes, but only because there are so many glaring holes that you seem to think are invalid if you can write them off with right brain logic

You all talk as if your narrow minded ramblings represent fact and truth, when you fail to realize that your narrowminded ramblings are no better at proving anything than a CT argument is. You all talk as if each of the CT claims has been refuted...using such language as "flogged to death"....

Flogged to death by what? Your immaculate words? Your arguments...? You have resisted any requests for physical evidence that proves the official story as is...you have failed to show anything other than planes hitting buildings...multiple holes and inconsistancies have been noted in hundred of news print media outlets...these have been written off under the auspices of unreliable news media, unreliable analysis, invalid analysis..etc Multiple eyewitness and first hand accounts from official sources are written off because YOU can't verifiy them personally, excluding the possibility that they may be true in favor of the radical skepticism that keeps your arguments afloat...in this case you are paranoid of anything that hasn't come from an official mouthpiece, and failed to note how many people changed thier perception of the events after they were placed on an official payroll, such as the Van Romero character...you use character assassination on anyone who raises a dissenting opinion...you are the skeptics that rely on the cheap shot to win an argument rather than explain fact, because winning the argument in your eyes is like gaining a victory for the worldview that you use like a mantra...it proves nothing, and still you continue...believe whatever you want....your going to anyway...but please just explain the following:

How you can believe 3 mutually contradictory explanations for collapse?

Why can't we see one picture of a plane anywhere near the pentagon..it must have been caught from every angle imaginable..

Why despite the protests of a Commissioner, 9/11 families, and numerous new yorkers a more comprehensive investigation wasn't done?

What caused a Eutectic reaction for the first time ever in a building fire, something that would require temp's in extreme excess of what this disaster is capable of producing, and something that is a hallmark of explosives...Remember the FEMA team looked for a cause in the buildings themselves and found nothing worthwhile...so this is still a mystery...


What physical evidence is there to prove as FACT the official story? By it's own admission it is a hypothesis.

Why don't you recognize that the official version is a conspiracy theory of similar magnitude to the ones you decry, and that our government has taken part in all kinds of conspiracies for years, not to mention one in particular that detailed the planning of a staged terrorist attack to gain the very outcome that this has garnered ala northwoods...while also disregarding what we know as fact about that day, that cheney ran his own command and control shadow government to coordinate the governments response...

Your ultimate comeback has been.."well...it would take thousands of people to pull this off..." as if this one comment will some how debunk the whole idea when in reality it would take just a few well placed people to throw a few well placed wrenches to stop the machinery of the government at any time...

You prize your pseudo logic until someone uses it to create a CT claim, then it's the most wretched form of disinformation...quit contradicting yourselves...

[thesyntaxera]

I thought we had already been over this. And over, and over...

You have absolutely no basis for claiming that the buildings should have fallen faster than they did. No evidence, no source with relevant expertise, nothing.

I never said that they fell faster than they did....I said that they fall at nearly free fall speeds which they do...get it straight man.

[richardm]

You have taken my comments out of context to call me a liar...
You are not playing devil's advocate here are you? You really believe the "Official Story Is Not True" line. So either you were lying in your original claim, or you are an idiot who doesn't know what "playing devil's advocate" means. Which is it?

I make a real effort to be nice to people here, even when I strongly disagree with them. But I am making a special effort not to bother in your case because you're a deliberate liar who pretends not to believe something when you really do, and who keeps trotting out the same debunked claims again and again and again - just like a True Believer should! Plus, you're boring. And it's Tuesday, when my tolerance is traditionally at a low ebb. So while I'm showing off my lack of personal etiquette and exercising my A-Hole credentials:


percieved
ettiquette
innane
inconsistancies
verifiy
thier

Learn to spell!

Also, you smell funny and have poor dress sense.

Apologies to the other thread denizens for this. I think it was the 6,000+ word cut-and-paste and the size=5 post that tipped me over the edge. I won't do it again, I promise.

[Belz...]

to add to this..there is also the fact that in order for the building to fall as fast as it did it would have to be progressively weakened in advance of the falling debris to remove any resistance by the building itself...like a demolition

And might I ask how you reach this conclusion ?

Explained? You call what you guys do explaining? The points that I mention are directly taken from the documents that you so prize...there is no explaining needed. I am adamant yes, but only because there are so many glaring holes that you seem to think are invalid if you can write them off with right brain logic.

Syntax, this IS beign close-minded. You're not pointing out what part of our argument is flawed, you're just repeating the same assertions over and over and claiming that ours are false to start with. The REASON for you beign adamant is NOT our lack of proof or logic, but rather the fact that you decided, in advance, that you would hold this conclusion, and convince US or else.

That's not the way investigations work, Syntax. You'd do a very poor detective.

Sort of...more like there are visible "squib" jets, there is a pyroclastic flow of hot dust and debris that usually accompanies volcano's, this flow has to be a certain temperature in order to behave this way,

So, what now ? A volcanoe destroyed the WTC ?

not exactly. it ignites by heating air with glow plugs until it reaches it's flash point, and then injecting the fuel into thje mix....

Wanna do an experiment ? Buy a liter... sorry... a gallon of diesel fuel from your local vendor... and then put a match to it. If you survive, tell us about your conclusions.

Go buy a small can of diesel and throw a match into it....my bet is that it probably won't flash like gas.

Your BET? So basically you know HOW diesel engines work... and you think that diesel CANNOT flash just because those types of engines don't NEED to use a sparkplug ? This is like saying that water-soluble paint won't go away with oil.

uh...no....I am suggesting that there may have been some explosives present, and that there might have been sensitive materials that needed obscuring.

So... the evil government is just hiding the fact that the attacks made the stockpiled explosives blow ?

[Belz...]

Has anyone reviewed the 2nd video of the 1st impact? The one that captures the impact and a second explosion 9 seconds later that visibly shakes the camera?

Oh NO! Shockwaves from explosions take time to reach the camera! What ever shall we do ?

Why can't we see one picture of a plane anywhere near the pentagon..it must have been caught from every angle imaginable..

Can't see a missile, either.

Why despite the protests of a Commissioner, 9/11 families, and numerous new yorkers a more comprehensive investigation wasn't done?

You're starting to talk like a JFK CTer.

What caused a Eutectic reaction for the first time ever in a building fire, something that would require temp's in extreme excess of what this disaster is capable of producing, and something that is a hallmark of explosives...Remember the FEMA team looked for a cause in the buildings themselves and found nothing worthwhile...so this is still a mystery...

NOW you're starting to talk like a theist. "If we don't know what created the universe... it MUST be God."

Why don't you recognize that the official version is a conspiracy theory of similar magnitude to the ones you decry,

It is. But when did terrorists ever try to hide the fact that they attack the enemy ?

...and that our government has taken part in all kinds of conspiracies for years, not to mention one in particular that detailed the planning of a staged terrorist attack to gain the very outcome that this has garnered ala northwoods...while also disregarding what we know as fact about that day, that cheney ran his own command and control shadow government to coordinate the governments response...

Slow down, Syntax. What in the blue HELL are you talking about ?

Your ultimate comeback has been.."well...it would take thousands of people to pull this off..." as if this one comment will some how debunk the whole idea when in reality it would take just a few well placed people to throw a few well placed wrenches to stop the machinery of the government at any time...

Well, in order to pull THIS one off, they'd have to plan the hijack of four planes and a whole lot of other things. They couldn't do it with a handful of people. And what do you do with these people then ? Eliminate them ? Otherwise they may talk: bad for you!

[kookbreaker]

Except that there were visible hot spots 23 days afterward. Thats quite an achievement for a hydrocarbon fire that should by rights, have been nearly extinguished by the debris.

By what right do you claim 'by all rights'? Its obvious you now zilch about heat and fires. The debris can easily produce an oven effect very easily.

Ever heard of Centralia?

[kookbreaker]

I never said that they fell faster than they did....I said that they fall at nearly free fall speeds which they do...get it straight man.

Not even close. (http://bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=636389&highlight=free-fall#post636389)

[delphi_ote]

Nobody else thought that was a cool band name? Damn!

[Belz...]

Nobody else thought that was a cool band name? Damn!

Hey, Delphi. I thought so. But I prefered the opening act!

[CurtC]

I just got an email review of the book The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin. The reviewer, Richard Morrock, says:Most writers on a subject do what is called research on the material, which means reading books, conducting interviews, and tracking down documents. This consumes far too much time and effort for conspiracy buffs like Griffin. His approach consists of asking disturbing questions, ignoring the actual evidence, speculating about the possible answers, assuming the worst-case scenario, and then drawing up his indictment of the administration based on his assumptions, even where they are in flagrant contradiction to widely-known facts.

...

One of the points Griffin raises is why the South Tower collapsed half an hour before the North Tower, although it was struck 15 minutes later. From this alleged discrepancy in the official story, Griffin concludes that the government had planted explosives in the WTC the previous weekend, using a power blackout as cover, and had dynamited the buildings.

So Syntax, are you David Griffin?

[Belz...]

"One of the points Griffin raises is why the South Tower collapsed half an hour before the North Tower, although it was struck 15 minutes later. From this alleged discrepancy in the official story, Griffin concludes that the government had planted explosives in the WTC the previous weekend, using a power blackout as cover, and had dynamited the buildings."

Which is funny. CTers use this kind of "discrepancy" to prove their point, completely forgetting that, IF someone really HAD decided to bomb the WTC, they'd have toppled the tower that got hit first, FIRST, and second tower LAST.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I never said that they fell faster than they did....I said that they fall at nearly free fall speeds which they do...get it straight man.

I'm really beginning to wonder why I bother.

You claim that the actual speed of the buildings' collapse is so fast that it is inconsistent with the official story. Right?

You also have absolutely no credible support for this claim. Right? No relevant expert, no experimental evidence, nothing. It's just a claim you pulled out of thin air.

So you're just making completely empty claims. Over and over again.

[thesyntaxera]

I'm really beginning to wonder why I bother.

You claim that the actual speed of the buildings' collapse is so fast that it is inconsistent with the official story. Right?

You also have absolutely no credible support for this claim. Right? No relevant expert, no experimental evidence, nothing. It's just a claim you pulled out of thin air.

So you're just making completely empty claims. Over and over again.


No thats not what I am claiming...I am saying that when they are timed they fall at nearly free fall speeds...to quote the Steve Jones paper:

Speed: How fast did the building fall? (Students and I measure less than 6.6 seconds; time it!)

empty claims my arse.

[thesyntaxera]

Which is it?

Whichever you choose to label me, Dick.

I make a real effort to be nice to people here, even when I strongly disagree with them.

I bet.

But I am making a special effort not to bother in your case because you're a deliberate liar who pretends not to believe something when you really do, and who keeps trotting out the same debunked claims again and again and again - just like a True Believer should! Plus, you're boring. And it's Tuesday, when my tolerance is traditionally at a low ebb. So while I'm showing off my lack of personal etiquette and exercising my A-Hole credentials:

They haven't been debunked, as I already explained. You can't even answer the simple questions I put forward....

As far as being boring...and all that liar nonsense...could you be any more juvenile? Answer the questions or don't....but please don't evolve some sort of emotional attachment to this thread and act like you are on a crusade against injustice just because you can't seem to "win" the debate....which is what you are attempting correct? To be right? Because thats what's important..

as far as spelling...no one else in this thread or on this forum, nor you I am guessing have ever mispelled in typing haste I am sure....

[delphi_ote]

You're just jealous you don't look as cool as this guy:

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/5646/drmas9yb.jpg

[Kevin_Lowe]

No thats not what I am claiming...I am saying that when they are timed they fall at nearly free fall speeds...

This has to be deliberate, you were capable of reading a minute ago.

You have no evidence for the claim that the buildings would not fall at "near" free fall speeds if the official story were true.


empty claims my arse.

Empty claims indeed.

Look, one last try before I write you off completely.

Suppose we agreed the buildings fell in whatever time you want them to have fallen. Suppose we don't care. What would it prove?

You keep claiming that the buildings could only have fallen at "near" free fall speeds if they were demolished with pre-placed charges. However you have absolutely no evidence that the buildings could not fall at "near" free fall speeds without pre-placed charges. That particular claim is one you and your fellow kooks have just helped yourselves to, without bothering with evidence.

[thesyntaxera]

This has to be deliberate, you were capable of reading a minute ago.

You have no evidence for the claim that the buildings would not fall at "near" free fall speeds if the official story were true.



Empty claims indeed.

Look, one last try before I write you off completely.

Suppose we agreed the buildings fell in whatever time you want them to have fallen. Suppose we don't care. What would it prove?

You keep claiming that the buildings could only have fallen at "near" free fall speeds if they were demolished with pre-placed charges. However you have absolutely no evidence that the buildings could not fall at "near" free fall speeds without pre-placed charges. That particular claim is one you and your fellow kooks have just helped yourselves to, without bothering with evidence.

Write off whatever you want...you have been written off already as it is. I can't believe the best answer to any of the questions I have asked is that I am a kook who is trying to prove a conspiracy...

If the building falls at 6.6 seconds as stated in the Jones paper, then it is falling with virtually no resistance. If there is no resistance, than there is no building underneath of it in a sense. The building falls to pieces and you don't think this is relevant...your stated reason is that there is nothing to indicate that this doesn't fall in line with the official report....if it does than the official report is mistaken...there were 80 floors of steel reinforced resistance, not to mention 80+ layers of concrete all bound together...these things just don't fly apart at the seams just because a plane weakens steel in one section of the building...you know this, but because your so in love with the washed and pressed version of events this doesn't penetrate...

You still have no proof verifying the official accounts outside the fact that planes hit the buildings..

You still didn't answer my questions...and you obviously can't...so I think were done.

[thesyntaxera]

Which is funny. CTers use this kind of "discrepancy" to prove their point, completely forgetting that, IF someone really HAD decided to bomb the WTC, they'd have toppled the tower that got hit first, FIRST, and second tower LAST.

They bring it up because it's valid. If someone had bombed them how are we to know how they would do it, and by what rational process they undertook to decide this.

Perhaps they wanted to confuse the situation....who knows...it's pointless to guess...maybe somebody got confused at the controls...why is there a need for a conspirator to be flawless in planning? People make mistakes.

that is niether here nor there....so why even bring it up...

[thesyntaxera]

I just got an email review of the book The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin. The reviewer, Richard Morrock, says:

So Syntax, are you David Griffin?

Maybe...but i doubt it...I am curious...since you guys still haven't answered...what are these widely known facts that Morrock is talking about? That there were planes there? Okay, attacking the fringe theories of missles and the like is one thing...so what about everything else? What does the ole infallible Morrock have to say?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Write off whatever you want...you have been written off already as it is. I can't believe the best answer to any of the questions I have asked is that I am a kook who is trying to prove a conspiracy...


Nobody else believes that to be the case either, so you are in good company.


If the building falls at 6.6 seconds as stated in the Jones paper, then it is falling with virtually no resistance. If there is no resistance, than there is no building underneath of it in a sense. The building falls to pieces and you don't think this is relevant...your stated reason is that there is nothing to indicate that this doesn't fall in line with the official report....if it does than the official report is mistaken...there were 80 floors of steel reinforced resistance, not to mention 80+ layers of concrete all bound together...these things just don't fly apart at the seams just because a plane weakens steel in one section of the building...you know this, but because your so in love with the washed and pressed version of events this doesn't penetrate...


But you don't know how long it "should" have taken, do you? You have no idea how long it's "supposed" to take for a chunk of skyscraper to smash its way through the rest of the structure. You haven't got any physics to back this claim up, just a guess by ignorant laypeople that it should have taken longer.

If Joe Sixpack could model these kinds of events in his head, we wouldn't need engineers. However he can't, so we do.


You still have no proof verifying the official accounts outside the fact that planes hit the buildings..


Except that the relevant experts, both in the USA and internationally, agree on the official story and disagree with the various kook ideas you prefer. So either the laws of physics were specially suspended just for 9/11, or every structural engineer in the world has been got at by evil conspirators, or you're just plain wrong.


You still didn't answer my questions...and you obviously can't...so I think were done.

What questions are you referring to? You haven't addressed any questions to me in some time.

[Belz...]

If the building falls at 6.6 seconds as stated in the Jones paper, then it is falling with virtually no resistance. If there is no resistance, than there is no building underneath of it in a sense. The building falls to pieces and you don't think this is relevant...

How did you arrive at the conclusion that, had explosives NOT been used, the building would have fallen any slower ? The only "evidence" you have so far is the assertion that the buildings "seemed" to collapse as though in a controlled demolition.

They bring it up because it's valid. If someone had bombed them how are we to know how they would do it, and by what rational process they undertook to decide this.

Perhaps they wanted to confuse the situation....who knows...it's pointless to guess...maybe somebody got confused at the controls...why is there a need for a conspirator to be flawless in planning? People make mistakes.

Indeed they do, but the level of competence you people assign to the alleged conspirators in hiding their involvement appears to be pretty damn high. Why would we assume that, otherwise, they are blundering idiots who can't demolish a building in a way that doesn't seem suspicious ?

[thesyntaxera]

How did you arrive at the conclusion that, had explosives NOT been used, the building would have fallen any slower ? The only "evidence" you have so far is the assertion that the buildings "seemed" to collapse as though in a controlled demolition.

Very easily...like i said..there are 80+ floors of interlaced steel and concrete supported by an ever widening central section of 40+ columns...It only takes a simple understanding of force and gravity to figure out that there is no way a building can become completely disabled throughout the entire support structure and just crumble to pieces because 10 floors are burning...further more there isn't a single official explanation that looks at this...the explanation is that there was some insubstantial fire, and that the planes impact weakened the structure in those key areas...if anything the top stories could have crumbled and fell to the ground...but there is nothing that says the bottom 80 had to fall as well.

Indeed they do, but the level of competence you people assign to the alleged conspirators in hiding their involvement appears to be pretty damn high. Why would we assume that, otherwise, they are blundering idiots who can't demolish a building in a way that doesn't seem suspicious ?

I never said they were competent at all....are who are "you people"??? The level of competence you put in the government researchers, and analyst is astounding as well...

[kookbreaker]

If the building falls at 6.6 seconds as stated in the Jones paper, then it is falling with virtually no resistance.


Keep in mind that such measurements are taken from the very visible portion of the collapse until they are no longer visible, not the actual point where the roof hits the ground. That makes such measurements suspect, at best.

It should also be noted that there was evidence of collapse more than half-a minute before the collapse shown in the WTC video. FEMA report chapter 5.5.4.

WTC7 had parts of two World Trade Centers fall on it and burned for 7 hours. Its visible collapse.

Structural Engineers around the world are not surprised by this collapse. Why are you?

[kookbreaker]

I never said they were competent at all....are who are "you people"??? The level of competence you put in the government researchers, and analyst is astounding as well...

Yet, it is funny how skilled structural engineers around the world, even in countries not friendly to the United States have pretty much agreed with the collapse models described by the government researchers.

Oh, but you must know better than all of them, right?

[Belz...]

Very easily...like i said..there are 80+ floors of interlaced steel and concrete supported by an ever widening central section of 40+ columns...It only takes a simple understanding of force and gravity to figure out that there is no way a building can become completely disabled throughout the entire support structure and just crumble to pieces because 10 floors are burning

So, what you are saying is that you are just guessing ?

...further more there isn't a single official explanation that looks at this...the explanation is that there was some insubstantial fire, and that the planes impact weakened the structure in those key areas...if anything the top stories could have crumbled and fell to the ground...but there is nothing that says the bottom 80 had to fall as well.

That's ridiculous. The sheer mass of the top block would be, IMHO, more than enough to shatter the underlying floors in rapid succession. You GUESS that they couldn't, I GUESS that they could. Only evidence could break this deadlock, but all you've provided is opinions, either yours or otherwise.

I never said they were competent at all....are who are "you people"??? The level of competence you put in the government researchers, and analyst is astounding as well...

I don't do anything. All I'm saying is that experts and researchers are certainly more knowledgeable in their specialty than laypeople.

So what do you say about competence ? If they were smart enough to plan such a thing, and if, for some reason, the order in which the WTC toppled is suspicious, wouldn't you expect them NOT to make such a basic, stupid mistake ? Or, perhaps, the order of the collapse ISN'T suspicious.

[CurtC]

It only takes a simple understanding of force and gravity to figure out that there is no way a building can become completely disabled throughout the entire support structure and just crumble to pieces because 10 floors are burning...[bolding mine]Do you actually have evidence that there is no way, or are you sticking with your Joe Sixpack assertion? The evidence we've seen seems to indicate that it can happen that way. You do realize that you have the burden of coming up with evidence, right?

if anything the top stories could have crumbled and fell to the ground...but there is nothing that says the bottom 80 had to fall as well.So if the top 30-story section of a building falls and slams down onto the 75th floor, you think the 75th floor is just going to stop its fall?

[Hellbound]

It only takes a simple understanding of force and gravity to figure out that there is no way a building can become completely disabled throughout the entire support structure and just crumble to pieces because 10 floors are burning...

Yes, but it takes a complex, in-depth understanding of force, gravity, and material properties to realize why the "simple" understanding is incomplete.

This is why we prefer the opinions and explanations of experts (such as the vast majority of structural engineers), rather than lay people or those whose expertise is in a differing area.

[Belz...]

It only takes a simple understanding of force and gravity to figure out that there is no way a building can become completely disabled throughout the entire support structure and just crumble to pieces because 10 floors are burning

And by the way, it only takes a simple understanding of physics to know that, obviously, the world is flat: otherwise you'd notice a "curve" at the horizon, and people on the other "side" of the world would fall off.

Then again, "simple" understandings are rarely sufficient.

[PixyMisa]

It only takes a simple understanding of force and gravity to figure out that there is no way a building can become completely disabled throughout the entire support structure and just crumble to pieces because 10 floors are burning
The entire structure doesn't need to fail for part of the building to collapse. But part of the building collapsing can cause the entire structure to fail.

...further more there isn't a single official explanation that looks at this...the explanation is that there was some insubstantial fire, and that the planes impact weakened the structure in those key areas...if anything the top stories could have crumbled and fell to the ground...but there is nothing that says the bottom 80 had to fall as well.
The top stories did crumble and fall to the ground - through the rest of the building. With that much weight coming down on them, the remaining floors might as well have been made of tissue paper.

[study-the-facts]

thesyntaxera: as a fellow 911 truth researcher, I had to say bravo to you for your attempts at opening the eyes of this ridiculous group of know-it-alls. But I've learned in other forums that past a certain point, it becomes fruitless to continue responding to their uneducated replies.

As I wrote in one other thread in this forum:

Most of you egotistical know-nothings will never bother to put in the time necessary to uncover the truth of 911 - you'll simply sit at your typewriters and fire off your vapid responses, hoping to impress your equally clueless comrades.

To those of you who have ANY ability to see beyond your precious preconceived notions and actually study this subject, here's the latest article about Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones, a proponant of the WTC demolition theory. He's formed a group of 50 other scholars, all who agree with his assertions:
h t t p :/ / deseretnews.c o m /dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00. h t m l (remove spaces).

If even one of you pulls your over-sized head out of your posterior long enough to read this article (and the site it links to) it will be worth signing up to this forum just to post this reply.

That's it for me. Best of success in your pursuit of the facts, thesyntaxera.

[PixyMisa]

I can see that you're going to be a big success on these forums.

So what is it in Jones' latest paper that makes it less completely worthless than the previous one?

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think I'll open a window. It smells like socks in here.

[Belz...]

thesyntaxera: as a fellow 911 truth researcher, I had to say bravo to you for your attempts at opening the eyes of this ridiculous group of know-it-alls. But I've learned in other forums that past a certain point, it becomes fruitless to continue responding to their uneducated replies.

Funny how people who are convinced of their own ideas accuse others of doing the same.

"When you're sure, question everything." - The Book of Cataclysm

Most of you egotistical know-nothings will never bother to put in the time necessary to uncover the truth of 911 - you'll simply sit at your typewriters and fire off your vapid responses, hoping to impress your equally clueless comrades.

Yeah. Insults. That'll work.

To those of you who have ANY ability to see beyond your precious preconceived notions and actually study this subject, here's the latest article about Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones, a proponant of the WTC demolition theory. He's formed a group of 50 other scholars, all who agree with his assertions:
h t t p :/ / deseretnews.c o m /dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00. h t m l (remove spaces).

All specialists in architecture, demolition, fire and explosives, I take it.

If even one of you pulls your over-sized head out of your posterior long enough to read this article (and the site it links to) it will be worth signing up to this forum just to post this reply.

That's it for me. Best of success in your pursuit of the facts, thesyntaxera.

Actually, all you guys are doing is chasing your own tails. That's not truth-searching.

[CurtC]

To those of you who have ANY ability to see beyond your precious preconceived notions and actually study this subject, here's the latest article about Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones, a proponant of the WTC demolition theory. He's formed a group of 50 other scholars, all who agree with his assertions:
h t t p :/ / deseretnews.c o m /dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00. h t m l (remove spaces).

Here's a direct link to your article: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00.html

But it's just a newspaper article, and one from Utah.

As an aside, it's telling that this Fetzer guy also believes in grand conspiracies in the JFK assassination, including the idea that the Zapruder film was doctored/faked. I guess critical thinking skills aren't his strong points.

I read some on the group's web page, and it looks like the same discredited arguments we've seen already. So Mr Facts, I'll ask you what we've been patiently asking of Syntax - what things in your opinion make the best case against the standard model? We just want a few, which Syntax had a problem with, he would post either none or 100.

[Belz...]

... It's pretty windy in here.

Seems like the woo have left the area.

bump.

[thesyntaxera]

... It's pretty windy in here.

Seems like the woo have left the area.

bump.

Yeah thats what happened...or they got tired of your circular rhetoric... you can't find any physical evidence to prove the official story thus validating your point, and you can't admit that the official story is lacking the ability to disprove conspiracy thus prolonging these types of debates...among other things...

you all claim to have debunked the points, but then can't explain how the three collapse explanantions can be mutually contradictory, not mention the Eutectic Reaction that occured apparently with added sulphur..something that reaks of explosives...

In short you have taken to this like a debate on a game show, where you utilize argumentative tactics in place of facts to make your case, this is ridiculous when trying to sort out in a rational way fact from fiction...

so unless you have something really intelligent to add(which I doubt)......

[PixyMisa]

Yeah thats what happened...or they got tired of your circular rhetoric... you can't find any physical evidence to prove the official story thus validating your point, and you can't admit that the official story is lacking the ability to disprove conspiracy thus prolonging these types of debates...among other things...
No.

you all claim to have debunked the points, but then can't explain how the three collapse explanantions can be mutually contradictory, not mention the Eutectic Reaction that occured apparently with added sulphur..something that reaks of explosives...
Uh... You think they used black powder to blow up the WTC?


In short you have taken to this like a debate on a game show, where you utilize argumentative tactics in place of facts to make your case, this is ridiculous when trying to sort out in a rational way fact from fiction...
No.

We asked you for evidence.

You don't have any.

so unless you have something really intelligent to add(which I doubt)......
You'll go away and never return?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Uh... You think they used black powder to blow up the WTC?


Sulphur is a chemical, silly. Explosives are made of chemicals. QED.
;)


You'll go away and never return?

We can hope.

[Flange Desire]

...as a fellow 911 truth researcher...

Regarding your use of insults as a way to seek the truth -
Did it work for you?

[Belz...]

Seems like the woo have left the area.
Yeah thats what happened...

So you admit you're a woo ?

or they got tired of your circular rhetoric... you can't find any physical evidence to prove the official story thus validating your point, and you can't admit that the official story is lacking the ability to disprove conspiracy thus prolonging these types of debates...among other things...

If you cared to accept the explanation of experts in these matters and decided to follow evidence instead of sensationalism, you'd be a skeptic, too.

you all claim to have debunked the points, but then can't explain how the three collapse explanantions can be mutually contradictory, not mention the Eutectic Reaction that occured apparently with added sulphur..something that reaks of explosives...

There is only one explanation, there is no such reation involved, and nothing reeks except people who don't listen to reason.

In short you have taken to this like a debate on a game show, where you utilize argumentative tactics in place of facts to make your case, this is ridiculous when trying to sort out in a rational way fact from fiction...

You don't WANT fact, Syntax. You want your version of the story to stick, the facts be DAMNED. You're not looking for the truth.

[aggle-rithm]

Most of you egotistical know-nothings will never bother to put in the time necessary to uncover the truth of 911 - you'll simply sit at your typewriters and fire off your vapid responses, hoping to impress your equally clueless comrades.


I wrote a couple of articles in SkepticReport about this topic a while back. One of the things that struck me then, and continues to mystify me now, is the insistence on the part of the CT's that it is the responsibility of others, not they, to uncover the "truth", despite the fact that they are the only ones who seem to care about it. Their job, as they see it, is to sew a few seeds of doubt here and there, and wait for it to blossom, through the toil of others, into the Accepted Truth.

The 9/11 attacks were indeed the result of a conspiracy. They were the culmination of a intricate strategy on the part of Muslim extremists to destroy America (or whatever the "reasoning" was behind it) by trying to wreck the economy, draw it into an unwinnable war, terrify the civilian populace, etc. In carrying out their plan, they raised terrorism to a new level, using tactics that had been unthinkable before. From a historical perspective, this is really, really heavy stuff. But it's not enough for the CT's. The REAL conspiracy is not good enough. There has to be SOME OTHER conspiracy, more unbelievable and with more disturbing implications.

I have no doubt that, were all their claims accepted as the official explanation, they would begin to say that THIS was the cover story, that the REAL truth was even more shocking and far-reaching than this. And if this new pile of baloney was accepted, they would come up with ANOTHER set of implausible "inconsistencies", and so on, and so on.

Very tiresome.

[thesyntaxera]

The 9/11 attacks were indeed the result of a conspiracy. They were the culmination of a intricate strategy on the part of Muslim extremists to destroy America (or whatever the "reasoning" was behind it) by trying to wreck the economy, draw it into an unwinnable war, terrify the civilian populace, etc. In carrying out their plan, they raised terrorism to a new level, using tactics that had been unthinkable before. From a historical perspective, this is really, really heavy stuff. But it's not enough for the CT's. The REAL conspiracy is not good enough. There has to be SOME OTHER conspiracy, more unbelievable and with more disturbing implications.


Sure...this did happen, on part of the extremists. But what is the legitimate ammo of the CT that keeps this a float? Perhaps the many documented connections between these people and the people in the american government that are the focus of the CT in the first place.

I had previously supplied links to articles detailing the depth of these connections, and they were written off because "no news story is accurate" in the eyes of the skeptics in this thread.

Then there are other matters, like the mutual inconsistancy of the official accounts ala FEMA, NIST, and the Commision. Upon close reading it should become apparent that they aren't in congruence. In summary, they basically admit that there is virtually no way this could have happened, but that it happened anyway by some means that are indeterminable.

Then there is the eutectic reaction, which as yet has been unexplained by both NIST and FEMA. You all write it off as well...even though it is a heat based reaction that requires temps around 1600-1700F degrees(some thing that the official accounts say didn't happen) The only way this could have occured is from a massive fire(one much larger, with much more volatile combustibles) or explosives...

As well there is building 7 with its nearly uniform collapse, and inconsistent explanation(it was not structurally weakened by planes)...and it also contained eutectic residue(buildings 1,2,7 all did).

The investigation was shoddy, and skeptics can't admit this, there is no evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the official story effectively...in fact other than a handfull of recordings made by bin Laden, the multitude of ignored warnings, and a passport that disappeared there really is nothing to support the claims of the government in regard to the Al-Qaeda plot except blind faith..

So how is a recording made in the hills of the Afghan tribal region and then leaked to the press more reliable than a news story that has been researched or based on actual documents?


anyways...
I think what this debate really truly boils down to is this:

Do you think there is enough physical evidence to prove the official story? If so, what is it?

Do you think that there are too many flaws in the investigation, and the findings to believe in total the official account? If so, why?


Personally, I have no doubt that Al-Qaeda and bin Laden are responsible for the planning and highjacking of planes....but you can't tell me the governments excuses as to why they didn't know in advance aren't bunk, and you can't tell me that they don't have ties to this because they do...the american government practically created extremist islam to combat the Soviet Union. Not to mention the years of meddling in the middle east that only served to harm us even more in the end...and all for private interests.

[delphi_ote]

http://serp.la.asu.edu/clipart_dir/health1/health1_imag/headache.gif
Ugh... here we go again.

[PixyMisa]

anyways...
I think what this debate really truly boils down to is this:
Do you have any evidence to back up any of your claims??

Personally, I have no doubt that Al-Qaeda and bin Laden are responsible for the planning and highjacking of planes....but you can't tell me the governments excuses as to why they didn't know in advance aren't bunk
Sure I can. They aren't bunk.

[kookbreaker]

...the american government practically created extremist islam to combat the Soviet Union. .

Well, that's one of the most inept, idiotic, and blinded views of history made in the past few weeks.

[kookbreaker]

Sure...this did happen, on part of the extremists. But what is the legitimate ammo of the CT that keeps this a float?

You seem to hold this naive belief that it is possible for CT's to actually be made to go away.

This is simply not true. History shows that CT's just make stuff up wholecloth if they want evidence.

[CurtC]

Do you think there is enough physical evidence to prove the official story? If so, what is it?"Proof" is an impossibly high standard for investigations. You have to be content with weighing the evidence and using reason and logic to come to the most reasonable conclusion. And in this case, the standard model is by far the most reasonable conclusion. Other explanations, involving the government help or even acquiescence are 1) not plausible, and 2) have zero evidence for them.

Do you think that there are too many flaws in the investigation, and the findings to believe in total the official account? If so, why?"In total"? I'm sure there must be typos here and there, but by and large the evidence clearly points to the standard model. If you have any credible evidence that casts doubt on it, we'd like to see it, but so far you haven't come up with any piece that's credible, only long lists of lots of not credible stuff. That doesn't cut it.

[Belz...]

Sure...this did happen, on part of the extremists. But what is the legitimate ammo of the CT that keeps this a float? Perhaps the many documented connections between these people and the people in the american government that are the focus of the CT in the first place.

I had previously supplied links to articles detailing the depth of these connections, and they were written off because "no news story is accurate" in the eyes of the skeptics in this thread.

Then there are other matters, like the mutual inconsistancy of the official accounts ala FEMA, NIST, and the Commision. Upon close reading it should become apparent that they aren't in congruence. In summary, they basically admit that there is virtually no way this could have happened, but that it happened anyway by some means that are indeterminable.

Then there is the eutectic reaction, which as yet has been unexplained by both NIST and FEMA. You all write it off as well...even though it is a heat based reaction that requires temps around 1600-1700F degrees(some thing that the official accounts say didn't happen) The only way this could have occured is from a massive fire(one much larger, with much more volatile combustibles) or explosives...

As well there is building 7 with its nearly uniform collapse, and inconsistent explanation(it was not structurally weakened by planes)...and it also contained eutectic residue(buildings 1,2,7 all did).

The investigation was shoddy, and skeptics can't admit this, there is no evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the official story effectively...in fact other than a handfull of recordings made by bin Laden, the multitude of ignored warnings, and a passport that disappeared there really is nothing to support the claims of the government in regard to the Al-Qaeda plot except blind faith..

So how is a recording made in the hills of the Afghan tribal region and then leaked to the press more reliable than a news story that has been researched or based on actual documents?


anyways...
I think what this debate really truly boils down to is this:

Do you think there is enough physical evidence to prove the official story? If so, what is it?

Do you think that there are too many flaws in the investigation, and the findings to believe in total the official account? If so, why?


Personally, I have no doubt that Al-Qaeda and bin Laden are responsible for the planning and highjacking of planes....but you can't tell me the governments excuses as to why they didn't know in advance aren't bunk, and you can't tell me that they don't have ties to this because they do...the american government practically created extremist islam to combat the Soviet Union. Not to mention the years of meddling in the middle east that only served to harm us even more in the end...and all for private interests.

:words:

[Belz...]

...the american government practically created extremist islam to combat the Soviet Union.

Sure they did. Those damn Huns also created Christianity to cripple the Roman Empire from the inside.

[delphi_ote]

Sure they did. Those damn Huns also created Christianity to cripple the Roman Empire from the inside.

No. I created both just to give thesyntaxera something to get upset about. While he's making these long posts, I'm stealing his nacho chips.

[VespaGuy]

I hate to get sucked into this thread (the regular posters seem to be doing a fine job debunking), but I have a question for thesyntaxera.

As far as I can tell, thesyntaxera has taken a position that he doesn't necessarily believe that there is a conspiracy, but that there are too many holes in the popular version of the events that unfolded on 9/11. Although, to my understanding he will not commit to a particular conspiracy theory (such as remote-controlled planes), he seems to fall back on the theory that the attack was carried out by terrorists, but that the government had advanced knowledge of the attacks and wired the intended targets for demolition.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

My question to thesyntaxera is this: Why was WTC7 destroyed?

[delphi_ote]

My question to thesyntaxera is this: Why was WTC7 destroyed?

What an excellent question. Will he have the courage to answer it directly? My magic 8 ball says, "Outlook not so good."

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well, that's one of the most inept, idiotic, and blinded views of history made in the past few weeks.

Well, he's got one finger on a correct idea. Al Qaeda and the Taliban did get the power they did in Afghanistan partially thanks to support from the USA.

They were called "mujihadeen" in the western press and considered heroic freedom fighters at the time, if you recall. Later when they were the bad guys they were referred to as the Taliban and Al Qaeda and were oppressors or terrorists, but they were the same people.

It doesn't follow from this that Al Qaeda were ever controlled by the CIA or anybody else, of course, but that won't stop the woowoos.

[kookbreaker]

Well, he's got one finger on a correct idea. Al Qaeda and the Taliban did get the power they did in Afghanistan partially thanks to support from the USA.

They were called "mujihadeen" in the western press and considered heroic freedom fighters at the time, if you recall. Later when they were the bad guys they were referred to as the Taliban and Al Qaeda and were oppressors or terrorists, but they were the same people.

It doesn't follow from this that Al Qaeda were ever controlled by the CIA or anybody else, of course, but that won't stop the woowoos.

Iran predates the mujihadeen by several years. I would not call that revolution a moderate Islamic revolution.

[PixyMisa]

They were called "mujihadeen" in the western press and considered heroic freedom fighters at the time, if you recall. Later when they were the bad guys they were referred to as the Taliban and Al Qaeda and were oppressors or terrorists, but they were the same people.
They were one of the factions. Many of the Afghan groups being funded by the CIA to fight the Soviets were also opposed to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

[thesyntaxera]

As far as I can tell, thesyntaxera has taken a position that he doesn't necessarily believe that there is a conspiracy, but that there are too many holes in the popular version of the events that unfolded on 9/11. Although, to my understanding he will not commit to a particular conspiracy theory (such as remote-controlled planes), he seems to fall back on the theory that the attack was carried out by terrorists, but that the government had advanced knowledge of the attacks and wired the intended targets for demolition.

That is the gist...sort of... You would have a much harder time proving that the government did all it could to prevent the attack then you would proving that they heard about it but didn't do anything.

As far as Wtc7...you want me to inject a theory here I am guessing...The evidence is this...the FEMA and NIST reports both conclude that they are unsure why the building would have fallen down...the explanation is inconsistant with the explanations provided for the towers...there was no extensive building damage, and both reports also ruled out the possbility that it would only take fires of extreme heat to bring the buildings down.

So no fire could have brought it down, and there was no significant structural damage to the building.

In all three of the buildings the remains of a eutectic reaction were found...eutectic reactions require heat well over 1500F. The NIST and FEMA clearly state that this temperature was not possible given the type of fire, and the contents of the buildings.

Eutectic reactions are only found in extremely hot fires, or where explosives(particularly eutectic explosives) are used.

So.. the evidence suggests that at the very least there was some type of accelerant, and the FEMA and NIST reports both conclude that there is no logical reason for there to have been any accelerant present that could have created this reaction.

so any idea's other than explosives...because I would love to hear them.

I'll leave the why to you...

[bob_kark]

What purpose would it serve to destroy WTC 7? Other than to fuel speculation? It seems counterproductive to me.

[Euromutt]

...the american government practically created extremist islam to combat the Soviet Union.Wrong; there were Islamist groups in Afghanistan well before the Soviets invaded in 1979. It should also be noted that the various Islamist groups were by no means the only ones fighting the Sovs; (moderately Islamic) nationalist groups, Iranian-backed Shi'ite groups, and Maoists, among others, also took part in the resistance.
Well, he's got one finger on a correct idea. Al Qaeda and the Taliban did get the power they did in Afghanistan partially thanks to support from the USA.

They were called "mujihadeen" in the western press and considered heroic freedom fighters at the time, if you recall. Later when they were the bad guys they were referred to as the Taliban and Al Qaeda and were oppressors or terrorists, but they were the same people.Also incorrect. Many of the Taliban may have been members of Islamist groups during the Soviet period (those old enough to fight at the time, that is), but the Taliban did not exist as an organization during that period. The two most prominent Islamist groups during the Soviet period were Burhanuddin Rabbani's Jam'iyyat-e-Islami (Association of Islam) and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hizb-e-Islami (Party of Islam). If you look up the Taliban siege on Kabul in 1995-96, you'll notice that their opposition consisted of those two same groups, led by those same two men, who had put aside their factional infighting to deal with their common foe (i.e. the Taliban).

It should also be noted that Hizb, Jam'iyyat and their precursors were primarily inspired and influenced by the Egyptian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, whereas the Taliban, as we all know, had Saudi Wahhabism as its religious basis. If anything, much of the Taliban's motivation and initial popular support came from disaffection with the very groups that had composed the mujehadin, as these had continued to fight amongst each other after the Sov-backed communists had been defeated.

The notion that the Taliban were/are simply the Soviet-era mujehadin under a different name is a fiction.

[kookbreaker]

TAs far as Wtc7...you want me to inject a theory here I am guessing...The evidence is this...the FEMA and NIST reports both conclude that they are unsure why the building would have fallen down...the explanation is inconsistant with the explanations provided for the towers...there was no extensive building damage, and both reports also ruled out the possbility that it would only take fires of extreme heat to bring the buildings down.


Do you want to quote the sections that say that? The FEMA report admits its is dealing with probabilities of where the collapse initiated, but does not say that fires could not bring it down.


So no fire could have brought it down, and there was no significant structural damage to the building.


That statement is wrong. Collapse of buildings by fire, although not common, is a known effect. Ask Philadelphia firefighters why they abandoned firefighting in the Meridian building. Here I'll mention the report:

http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza.html


All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors.

Now, do you realise what you are claiming? You are essentially saying that firefighters don't need to fight fires in buildings except to prevent them from spreading or to rescue people trapped inside. After all, skyscrapers are invincible, according to you. Yet, firefighters seem to risk their lives to stop fires in these invincible buildings. Why is that?

[Kevin_Lowe]

That is the gist...sort of... You would have a much harder time proving that the government did all it could to prevent the attack then you would proving that they heard about it but didn't do anything.


Especially if the person setting themself up as judge of whether the government did all it could to prevent the attack knows nothing about the issue.

When you find an actual expert on the USA's hijacking response systems at the time who thinks the hijackings were deliberately facilitated, as opposed to a self-appointed internet theory-collector, let us know.


As far as Wtc7...you want me to inject a theory here I am guessing...The evidence is this...the FEMA and NIST reports both conclude that they are unsure why the building would have fallen down...the explanation is inconsistant with the explanations provided for the towers...there was no extensive building damage, and both reports also ruled out the possbility that it would only take fires of extreme heat to bring the buildings down.

So no fire could have brought it down, and there was no significant structural damage to the building.


Didn't we go over this? There was indeed significant structural damage, and at least one other steel-framed building collapsed due to fire (and no structural damage) long before 9/11.

Mind you if there had really been no structural damage to WTC7, woowoos like you would be saying "How did such huge buildings collapse without damaging WTC7 which was right hext to them?! Obviously this is proof it was a controlled demolition!".


In all three of the buildings the remains of a eutectic reaction were found...eutectic reactions require heat well over 1500F. The NIST and FEMA clearly state that this temperature was not possible given the type of fire, and the contents of the buildings.


Where does it say that eutectic reactions require heat well over 1500F?

I think you just made that up.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Especially if the person setting themself up as judge of whether the government did all it could to prevent the attack knows nothing about the issue.

When you find an actual expert on the USA's hijacking response systems at the time who thinks the hijackings were deliberately facilitated, as opposed to a self-appointed internet theory-collector, let us know.



Didn't we go over this? There was indeed significant structural damage, and at least one other steel-framed building collapsed due to fire (and no structural damage) long before 9/11.

Mind you if there had really been no structural damage to WTC7, woowoos like you would be saying "How did such huge buildings collapse without damaging WTC7 which was right hext to them?! Obviously this is proof it was a controlled demolition!".



Where does it say that eutectic reactions require heat well over 1500F?

I think you just made that up.

In my limited understanding, isn't a eutectic reaction one where the liquid phase transforms into two different solid phases upon cooling, or a mixture of two or more elements whose combined melting point is lower than the melting point of either of the constituents of the mixture?

[Kevin_Lowe]

In my limited understanding, isn't a eutectic reaction one where the liquid phase transforms into two different solid phases upon cooling, or a mixture of two or more elements whose combined melting point is lower than the melting point of either of the constituents of the mixture?

That's what I gathered from googling. I didn't see anything about 1500F being required for anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutectic

There are also things called "eutectic explosives". I haven't been able to find a good explanation of what about these explosives is eutectic though, so I can't evaluate thesyntaxera's attempt to link the eutectic reactions in the WTC rubble to "eutectic explosives".

[Hellbound]

Kevin:

Just guessing, but I'm thinking eutectic explosives may be those that are composed of two (or more) elements which are stable individually, but explosive when together.

From wiki:
A eutectic or eutectic mixture is a mixture of two or more elements which has a lower melting point than any of its constituents. The proper ratios of components to obtain a eutectic alloy is identified by the eutectic point on a phase diagram. The term comes from the Greek 'eutektos', meaning 'easily melted.'

Not sure how this applies to explosives, though.

Reading further, it seems that eutectic explosives are formed by two chemicals which are mixed and melted, then solidified. Found a paper from Los Alamos (pdf format) which can be seen at http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/lib-www/la-pubs/00312939.pdf. They don't specifically define "eutectic explosive", but seem to be using the term just as for normal use (i.e.-a mixture with a low melting point).

On the idea that eutectic mixtures found equate to explosives...I don't think so. All the references I've found to eutectic explosives, the eutectic mixture or phase is used in the production of the compound, not as an after-effect of the explosion. Most are Ammonia Nitrate mixtures, although one mentioned Benzine.

[chipmunk stew]

Kevin:

Just guessing, but I'm thinking eutectic explosives may be those that are composed of two (or more) elements which are stable individually, but explosive when together.

From wiki:
A eutectic or eutectic mixture is a mixture of two or more elements which has a lower melting point than any of its constituents. The proper ratios of components to obtain a eutectic alloy is identified by the eutectic point on a phase diagram. The term comes from the Greek 'eutektos', meaning 'easily melted.'

Not sure how this applies to explosives, though.

Reading further, it seems that eutectic explosives are formed by two chemicals which are mixed and melted, then solidified. Found a paper from Los Alamos (pdf format) which can be seen at http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/lib-www/la-pubs/00312939.pdf. They don't specifically define "eutectic explosive", but seem to be using the term just as for normal use (i.e.-a mixture with a low melting point).

On the idea that eutectic mixtures found equate to explosives...I don't think so. All the references I've found to eutectic explosives, the eutectic mixture or phase is used in the production of the compound, not as an after-effect of the explosion. Most are Ammonia Nitrate mixtures, although one mentioned Benzine.I've heard Inside Job proponents mention Thermite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite) a lot as the likely candidate for WTC 1 & 2.

edit: I found this interesting, from the wiki:

The thermite reaction can take place by accident in industrial locations where abrasive grinding and cutting wheels are used with ferrous metals (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferrous_metals&action=edit). Using aluminium in this situation produces an admixture of oxides which is capable of violent explosive reaction.

[aggle-rithm]

As far as Wtc7...you want me to inject a theory here I am guessing...The evidence is this...the FEMA and NIST reports both conclude that they are unsure why the building would have fallen down...the explanation is inconsistant with the explanations provided for the towers...there was no extensive building damage, and both reports also ruled out the possbility that it would only take fires of extreme heat to bring the buildings down.


The collapse of WTC7 was ONLY a mystery if you believe that the two main buildings came down as the result of a controlled implosion. It may have looked that way from a distance, but there were in fact huge girders shooting out from the sides of these buildings as they collapsed. There was more than enough energy in these missiles to compromise the structural integrity of the surrounding buildings.

[Hellbound]

I've heard Inside Job proponents mention Thermite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite) a lot as the likely candidate for WTC 1 & 2.:

You'd have some easily identifiable by-products of this, and, to my knowledge, sulfur would not be one. Aluminum powder and iron oxide is the most common mixture for thermite, with a Potassium Chlorate/Sugar mix for an igniter (well, the easiest mix, I should say). I'm not aware or any that rely on sulfur or sulfur compounds, although I could be wrong. To my undertsanding, sulfur is a major component of the eutectic mixtures found in the WTC wreckage.

[Belz...]

Mind you if there had really been no structural damage to WTC7, woowoos like you would be saying "How did such huge buildings collapse without damaging WTC7 which was right hext to them?! Obviously this is proof it was a controlled demolition!".

That's a good observation. If it was controlled demolition, why did it damage the WTC7 so much ?

Oh! I guess they demolished it, too, just to make it more realistic. :rolleyes:

[thesyntaxera]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911+eyewitness&pl=true

Back again. Here is a video for you. In it is exremely clear visual and audio evidence supporting the demolition theory. VERY audible explosions can be heard in sequence, as well there is visible smoke rising from the base of the building...not to mention WTC7 and the loud explosion directly preceding the collapse.

The video purports to show the event in near realtime from two camera angles, and unlike others there is no theory attached...no missles, no conspiracy..just some crappy introduction about the guy who filmed it and his commentary, as well as some visual and audio analysis for reference...it clearly supports the demolition idea without ever saying it...

I know, most of you can't be bothered with watching it...but you should, if only to come up with more educated guesses as to how this happened...


You'd have some easily identifiable by-products of this, and, to my knowledge, sulfur would not be one. Aluminum powder and iron oxide is the most common mixture for thermite, with a Potassium Chlorate/Sugar mix for an igniter (well, the easiest mix, I should say). I'm not aware or any that rely on sulfur or sulfur compounds, although I could be wrong. To my undertsanding, sulfur is a major component of the eutectic mixtures found in the WTC wreckage.

As mentioned and cited earlier in this thread Sulphur is an accelerant to Thermite reactions.

I lifted this from a similar conversation...and am sure it will be taken witha grain of salt by you folks..nonetheless...

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?postid=1290716

Thermite is made using 25.3% aluminium and 74.7% iron oxide. (This mixture is sold under the brand name Thermit as a heat source for welding.) The complete formula for the reaction using iron (III) oxide is as follows:

Fe2O3 + 2Al == Al2O3 + 2Fe

Which shows that Thermite does not contain sulfur but it does contain aluminum.
--------------

Bravo, yesitdid ! You have found the 'secret formula' for the 'Goldschmidt process' of using thermite for welding. Yep, you're right - iron & aluminum ... no sulphur.

But, the idea in the 'explosives' theory is not to use the thermite for welding steel together, but rather for burning / melting it apart. The regular 'Goldschmidt thermite' formula for welding contains no sulphur.

-------------
"The chemical analysis of those eroded columns shows a lot of sulfur. They do not mention aluminum.
-------------
So true, and here it gets 'interesting'.

When I say thermite, I'm not talking about the brand name stuff used in welding.

The 'missing' aluminum is not really that surprising to me. The aluminum reduces the iron oxide to molten iron and forms a slag of aluminum oxide on its surface. This slag could easily have been abraded away during the collapse, burial, removal, transportation, handling etc, etc, etc. We might very well find some if 'they' hadn't so quickly and illegally disposed of all the evidence.

Not finding any aluminum on a sample is not evidence that there never was none, perhaps with adequate samples for testing this slag might have been found. We can't arrive at a definitive answer regarding 'aluminum slag' to say that none existed. Perhaps none existed on the piece, or perhaps investigators dismissed any aluminum slag they found and just attributed it to remnants of the plane, or other aluminum in the towers.

The more important aspect is the unexplained sulphur...

"A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel." [pg 1]

"No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified." [pg 13]

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf


The aluminum / iron formula is the simple basic formula. Exotic 'thermites' can use other chemicals for varying effects - although most of these are for military uses (and as such are not widely publicized). I have heard of Flouride combinations - but that's not important here at the moment.

*********

One problem with thermites is the difference in weight between the aluminum and the iron oxide. This causes them to separate out rendering the thermite useless.One way to fix this is to use a binder to hold the chemicals to each other. Sulfur is good for this. Called Diasite, this formula uses sulfur to bind all the chemicals together.

The percentages are as follows...
Iron Oxide - 70%
Aluminum - 23%
Sulfur - 7%

Hmmm... starting to sound a little more like what was found with the WTC steel, wouldn't you think?

Ya gotta dig pretty deep for this info. I found it at a 'unorthodox' site (almost advocates violence ).

You might be very careful visiting this site if you are in the states (homeland security, and all)...it's probably flagged.

http://www.hackcanada.com/blackcraw...ve/thermite.txt

The people are a little 'militant' shall we say...

http://www.hackcanada.com/blackcrawl/patriot.html

------

Another tidbit of information is ...

"Iron oxide reacts with aluminum to produce molten iron. A: The reaction is initiated by the heat from a sparkler which is placed in the iron oxide/aluminum mixture B: The reaction is initiated by the heat from glycerin plus potassium permanganate" .

cool little animated gif - a little more action that the experiment you posted Tinfoil...
http://genchem.chem.wisc.edu/demons...te_reaction.htm

[Hellbound]

Of course, thesyn, the problem is that there is no evidence of molten steel. Only of some of these mixtures, and molten metal (which was, according to accounts, most likely aluminum).

Not to mention, the idea that you could use a thermite compund and have the sulfer leave a trace without leaving traces of aluminum or aluminum oxide is silly, especially when you consider the purpose of the sulfer is specifically to increase the mixing of the iron oxide and aluminum (which prevents more of the aluminum from rising to the top). Not to mention that the sulfer itself has a very low melting point and lower density than either Iron or Aluminum (or aluminum oxide), and would preferentially rise to the surface (thus being even less likely to be attached than the aluminum oxide residue).

Finally, there's no evidence of thermite, either. No bright lights in the windows (thermite reactions produce a LOT of light). No evidence of melted steel. Only evidence of weakened beams, consitent with what could be expected in traditional fires (house fires can regularly reach high temperatures...temperature is not heat, and the confusion of the two is causing problems. Wood may burn at 300 degrees (hypothetical),but in a confined area where the heat can't eaisly escape (such as inside a building) the temperature of the room/area can easily rise above this.

[Tirdun]

I'm agitated after watching this... so I'm just going to point out ONE thing... as patiently and objectively as I can.

At some point after the first tower falls, the camera zooms in and some text informs us that there's a NEW fire, some 6 whole floors above the crash site.

I am, to put it mildly, underwhelmed by this revelation. 6 floors you say? Above a commercial jet impact site? And this is shocking enough to warrant a text-overlay and zoom? Being as generous as possible, six floors above the crash site is 60 feet. If a fire has managed to travel all of 60 feet in 30(?) minutes, let me tell you, its not newsworthy. Its not text-overlay and zoom worthy. It doesn't call the whole of our understood reality into question.

[thesyntaxera]

Of course, thesyn, the problem is that there is no evidence of molten steel. Only of some of these mixtures, and molten metal (which was, according to accounts, most likely aluminum).

I agree, no where in the NIST or FEMA reports is there a mention of molten steel...there is eyewitness reports of liquid pools of molten metal that have been written off as unreliable just like other eyewitness testimony...you remember...the ones that said there were multiple explosions going off in sequence...in the video linked above you actually hear the explosions..not that the sounds mean anything perse. What I know is that there is no way to determine if there was liquid slag, but there were reports of it...just like the reports of secondary explosions...and those are evidenced clearly in the video.

Not to mention, the idea that you could use a thermite compund and have the sulfer leave a trace without leaving traces of aluminum or aluminum oxide is silly, especially when you consider the purpose of the sulfer is specifically to increase the mixing of the iron oxide and aluminum (which prevents more of the aluminum from rising to the top). Not to mention that the sulfer itself has a very low melting point and lower density than either Iron or Aluminum (or aluminum oxide), and would preferentially rise to the surface (thus being even less likely to be attached than the aluminum oxide residue).

Good points, although I would suggest you re-read the long explanation of thermite listed above. Some good points are made..namely..and maybe you can clarify this:

Not finding any aluminum on a sample is not evidence that there never was none, perhaps with adequate samples for testing this slag might have been found. We can't arrive at a definitive answer regarding 'aluminum slag' to say that none existed. Perhaps none existed on the piece, or perhaps investigators dismissed any aluminum slag they found and just attributed it to remnants of the plane, or other aluminum in the towers.


Finally, there's no evidence of thermite, either. No bright lights in the windows (thermite reactions produce a LOT of light). No evidence of melted steel. Only evidence of weakened beams, consitent with what could be expected in traditional fires (house fires can regularly reach high temperatures...temperature is not heat, and the confusion of the two is causing problems. Wood may burn at 300 degrees (hypothetical),but in a confined area where the heat can't eaisly escape (such as inside a building) the temperature of the room/area can easily rise above this.

Too true in the strictest sense, however...I say again, if you watch the video you will hear evidence of explosions(upwards of 8 or 9)...and as far as thermite producing lots of light, how do you expect to see the light of thermite in the buildings core from the outside? You bring up another good point, fire can maintain high temperature when in a sealed environment...the thing is there wasn't a fire hot enough to produce the reaction in the first place, and that is according to the official reports...they also make a mention of the fact that the majority of the combustible fuel exploded in the impact and was consumed in a massive fire ball...and then there is the notion that with all the debris and the massive free fall, the fire could have been mostly extinguished by smothering...this is speculative at best...but you know me.

Watch the video...then tell me what you think...essentially to completely disprove demoliton I think this video needs looked at...it is very intriguing.

[thesyntaxera]

I'm agitated after watching this... so I'm just going to point out ONE thing... as patiently and objectively as I can.

At some point after the first tower falls, the camera zooms in and some text informs us that there's a NEW fire, some 6 whole floors above the crash site.

I am, to put it mildly, underwhelmed by this revelation. 6 floors you say? Above a commercial jet impact site? And this is shocking enough to warrant a text-overlay and zoom? Being as generous as possible, six floors above the crash site is 60 feet. If a fire has managed to travel all of 60 feet in 30(?) minutes, let me tell you, its not newsworthy. Its not text-overlay and zoom worthy. It doesn't call the whole of our understood reality into question.


ok...opinion noted...I think part of the notion of the video is that they are detailing the events from a new vantage point...in that regard everything seen and heard in the video has not been seen or heard before, and is therefore subsequently pointed out to you...

did you get to the explosions yet?

[Hellbound]

You also seem to fail to understand that Thermite does not explode, nor would it sound like an explosion.

It burns, brightly and quickly. You might get a woosh, but not a boom.

And I touched on the whoel "slag" excuse. I've seen thermite go off (military, done work with explosives and incendiaries). It's a nice ad hoc explanation that may work in thermite weilding, where the product is designed to get rid of slag, but not for melting, where the thermite itself will drop through the metal being cut, leaving bits of this slag (regardless of where it is in relation to the thermite) on the pieces of metal.

[thesyntaxera]

You also seem to fail to understand that Thermite does not explode, nor would it sound like an explosion.

It burns, brightly and quickly. You might get a woosh, but not a boom.

And I touched on the whoel "slag" excuse. I've seen thermite go off (military, done work with explosives and incendiaries). It's a nice ad hoc explanation that may work in thermite weilding, where the product is designed to get rid of slag, but not for melting, where the thermite itself will drop through the metal being cut, leaving bits of this slag (regardless of where it is in relation to the thermite) on the pieces of metal.

No, I don't fail to understand that thermite can't explode. What I understand is that in the video I posted(which I assume you haven't viewed) there is numerous loud echoing explosions that precede the collapses and that there is what could be evidence for some type of thermite or similar explosives in ONLY the core steel columns of the Towers and in the structural steel of the WTC7...

I am wondering, is it possible for thermite to even create a eutectic reaction such as this, and is it possible that a person could mistake slag from a thermite reaction as simply molten metal? Is it possible that slag from elsewhere could be mistaken as thermite related slag? What reasons are there for this eutectic reaction to occur outside of eutectic explosives or thermite?...this is the tricky one because even the fema and nist people listed no known reason for there to be one reaction let alone three all located in the buildings in question, and admit that they are at a loss to explain it.

I am aware that thermite can be made from other compounds as well..is it possible that a different type of thermite could have been used, or a different demolitions explosive all together?

Thermite is obviously good for cutting through things, but I would assume that in a demolition that they use more than that to bring a building down...in the numerous demolition video's that normally accompany 911 theories almost all feature the sound of an explosion or series of explosions like the ones in this video.

[Ramooone]

No, I don't fail to understand that thermite can't explode. What I understand is that in the video I posted(which I assume you haven't viewed) there is numerous loud echoing explosions that precede the collapses and that there is what could be evidence for some type of thermite or similar explosives in ONLY the core steel columns of the Towers and in the structural steel of the WTC7...

I am wondering, is it possible for thermite to even create a eutectic reaction such as this, and is it possible that a person could mistake slag from a thermite reaction as simply molten metal? Is it possible that slag from elsewhere could be mistaken as thermite related slag? What reasons are there for this eutectic reaction to occur outside of eutectic explosives or thermite?...this is the tricky one because even the fema and nist people listed no known reason for there to be one reaction let alone three all located in the buildings in question, and admit that they are at a loss to explain it.

I am aware that thermite can be made from other compounds as well..is it possible that a different type of thermite could have been used, or a different demolitions explosive all together?

Thermite is obviously good for cutting through things, but I would assume that in a demolition that they use more than that to bring a building down...in the numerous demolition video's that normally accompany 911 theories almost all feature the sound of an explosion or series of explosions like the ones in this video.

you're not hearing explosions, you are hearing wind on the recording. i watched and listened to the video. watch the video again, after WTC7 is down for a couple of mins and they have the camera fixated upon it you still hear those "explosions" its wind noise. i work in editing for television and audio, i know these sounds.

[CurtC]

syntax, that video is an hour and 44 minutes. Do you have an index time that you're referring to? For some reason, I don't feel like watching that whole video just to reply to your question.

[WildCat]

you're not hearing explosions, you are hearing wind on the recording. i watched and listened to the video. watch the video again, after WTC7 is down for a couple of mins and they have the camera fixated upon it you still hear those "explosions" its wind noise. i work in editing for television and audio, i know these sounds.
You beat me to it, definitely wind noise.

[chipmunk stew]

you're not hearing explosions, you are hearing wind on the recording. i watched and listened to the video. watch the video again, after WTC7 is down for a couple of mins and they have the camera fixated upon it you still hear those "explosions" its wind noise. i work in editing for television and audio, i know these sounds.Even if they were explosions, it's foolish to jump to the conclusion that explosions=bombs. There are a hundred causes of explosions other than intentional detonation. Explosions are the norm in badly burning buildings.

The explosion heard in the basement, as well as the blown out windows and tiles could have been a number of things more plausible than planted bombs. It may have been an elevator that dropped down its shaft, blowing out a gust of pressurized air like a pop gun and then crashing to a stop in the basement, for instance.

[thesyntaxera]

you're not hearing explosions, you are hearing wind on the recording. i watched and listened to the video. watch the video again, after WTC7 is down for a couple of mins and they have the camera fixated upon it you still hear those "explosions" its wind noise. i work in editing for television and audio, i know these sounds.

Really, what kind of speakers are you using? When I listened to these sounds on the standard dell speaker system(two small speakers and a small sub) it sounds exactly like a series of explosions. I know what sound you speak of as well...I work in audio recording myself currently, I even had a job(on a volunteer basis)for a few years out of highschool as a boom operator for some local movie guys with big ambitions(the boom operator is the guy with the microphone on a stick for you non-industry types)

It's called pop... it's something you experience in vocal recording as well if a person is too close to the mic...thats why they invented the pop filter if I am not mistaken...wind causes the mics membrane to vibrate so fast that is makes a popping sound....

This is not a pop, it is a distant loud thud. They also demonstrate how long it takes for the sound to emmante from ground zero to the pier in hoboken where the video is filmed.

Did you miss that part?

[thesyntaxera]

syntax, that video is an hour and 44 minutes. Do you have an index time that you're referring to? For some reason, I don't feel like watching that whole video just to reply to your question.

I wonder why that is?

I think if you let it load up all the way, and then fast forward there will be a part visible on the screen where it counts the number of explosions heard, and then shortly after it goes into wtc7...

since it's google video it should allow you to see the images in fast forward as you move the locater.

look for something that looks like:

explosion#3
explosion#2
explosion#1

it counts from the bottom up

maybe one of your buddies here who just watched it could give you the number otherwise I will look it up later.

[thesyntaxera]

Even if they were explosions, it's foolish to jump to the conclusion that explosions=bombs. There are a hundred causes of explosions other than intentional detonation. Explosions are the norm in badly burning buildings.

So what are these hundreds of alternatives? These buildings weren't badly burning. They were on fire. If you want to entertain that a fireman knows what a bad fire looks like, than you could assume that the firemen who were tasked with assessing the fire, and then reported that it was under control from the burning floors in question might have been at least been some what right.


The explosion heard in the basement, as well as the blown out windows and tiles could have been a number of things more plausible than planted bombs. It may have been an elevator that dropped down its shaft, blowing out a gust of pressurized air like a pop gun and then crashing to a stop in the basement, for instance.

Guess's guess's guess's your starting to sound like a CT'er in reverse:D

[chipmunk stew]

Guess's guess's guess's your starting to sound like a CT'er in reverse:DExcept my guesses are presented as such and don't require the suspension of disbelief that's required to take the leap of logic that says "bombs".

[chipmunk stew]

I wonder why that is?

I think if you let it load up all the way, and then fast forward there will be a part visible on the screen where it counts the number of explosions heard, and then shortly after it goes into wtc7...

since it's google video it should allow you to see the images in fast forward as you move the locater.

look for something that looks like:

explosion#3
explosion#2
explosion#1

it counts from the bottom up

maybe one of your buddies here who just watched it could give you the number otherwise I will look it up later.Okay, let's take an investigative approach here. Maybe you can do a better job than geggy did on a different thread. Let's take the bombs hypothesis--after all, we shouldn't discount any plausible hypothesis, and you seem to think it's plausible.

Assuming it was bombs, and taking all the evidence we have on hand into account, can you construct a coherent theory that can explain how the job was pulled off?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

If you're going to investigate the sounds on the video it needs to be done methodically.
What are all possible causes of the noise heard in the recording?
Of those possible causes what would be substantiating evidence, from the video or other sources that would support the possibility?
Of those possible causes what would be substantiating evidence, from the video or other sources that would oppose the possibility?
What evidence pro or con to each possibility can be obtained from outside the recording?
etc

[WildCat]

Really, what kind of speakers are you using? When I listened to these sounds on the standard dell speaker system(two small speakers and a small sub) it sounds exactly like a series of explosions. I know what sound you speak of as well...I work in audio recording myself currently, I even had a job(on a volunteer basis)for a few years out of highschool as a boom operator for some local movie guys with big ambitions(the boom operator is the guy with the microphone on a stick for you non-industry types)

It's called pop... it's something you experience in vocal recording as well if a person is too close to the mic...thats why they invented the pop filter if I am not mistaken...wind causes the mics membrane to vibrate so fast that is makes a popping sound....

This is not a pop, it is a distant loud thud. They also demonstrate how long it takes for the sound to emmante from ground zero to the pier in hoboken where the video is filmed.

Did you miss that part?
No, that is wind noise. Pops can happen w/ a slight wind, such as from a person's breath. Wind noise makes exactly the type of deep rumble heard in that video.

And if you're still not convinced, why did no one closer to the WTC hear these loud explosions that somehow got picked up by the mic on a camera at least a mile away across the river?

[Polaris]

No, that is wind noise. Pops can happen w/ a slight wind, such as from a person's breath. Wind noise makes exactly the type of deep rumble heard in that video.

And if you're still not convinced, why did no one closer to the WTC hear these loud explosions that somehow got picked up by the mic on a camera at least a mile away across the river?

Good point - if those were explosions, then they should show up on other footage at the same moments relative to distance from the Towers.

[Tirdun]

I think part of the notion of the video is that they are detailing the events from a new vantage point
They are detailing it from a conspiracy vantage point. The constant pointing out of news helicopters, which they continually increment in count for some reason, as if none were the same helicopter... and as if NYC doesn't have news helicopters. The suggestion that some "mission" was "accomplished" while pointing out one of the helicopters after the first building fell. The endless descriptions of smoke coming from street level, where there was already debris and wreckage after the impacts.

This isn't an investigation, this is a fishing expedition for anything that seems "out of place" in a situation which is almost utterly unique by people with no expertise, no experience and a dirty agenda. The explosions sound like bangs and thuds. Given that my expertise in what kind of sounds an 80+ story building makes when struck by an airliner and set afire are essentially equal to the film-maker's and yours, I'm going to go with "I don't know and neither do you". I have heard a number of structure fires however. They make noises. Loud, unexpected noises. Extrapolating upwards, bigger buildings in the midst of bigger fires might make louder noises. Just a theory, but I have as much support for that as anything presented on this tape.

The entire film was another tiresome reminder that lots of people died because some people will not rest until their disgusting goals are achieved. To suggest that there are things we do not understand is reasonable. To suggest that a piece of the official history is incorrect because of some clear bit of evidence is acceptable. But to claim that the entire thing is somehow cloaked in mystery and lies with only loud bangs and smoke, pixelated images and some distrust of the powers that be is neither reasonable or acceptable.

I have no interest in pouring over more archived footage of the WTC attacks. If you find something concrete, something real, something that goes beyond metal flakes in the rubble or smoke from a burning building, let me know.

[CurtC]

The video also makes a big deal of flashes of light from the helicopter. Have you ever seen glints of light from distant airplanes, especially in the morning and evening? The plane will light up, then in a few seconds will be completely invisible because it's so far away. I've seen glints of light off many Iridium satellites that almost hurt your eyes to look at, but vanish in a few seconds because the satellites are the size of a car that's 800 miles away.

Obviously to everyone with at least half a functional brain, these flashes are reflections of the sun off the helicopter.

[Manny]

I've seen glints of light off many Iridium satellites that almost hurt your eyes to look at, but vanish in a few seconds because the satellites are the size of a car that's 800 miles away.Oh, you mean the secret government program to inure us to UFOs and send us subliminal mind-control messages in a base code which only our primitive minds perceive? Yeah, I've seen those too.

[Hellbound]

*sigh*

THERMITE CHARGES WOULD NOT PRODUCE AUDIBLE EXPLOSIONS, NO MATTER HOW BIG THEY WERE.

Thermite is not an explosive.

So the sound of explosions you claim to hear is directly contradictory to the thermite idea.

[thesyntaxera]

No, that is wind noise. Pops can happen w/ a slight wind, such as from a person's breath. Wind noise makes exactly the type of deep rumble heard in that video.

And if you're still not convinced, why did no one closer to the WTC hear these loud explosions that somehow got picked up by the mic on a camera at least a mile away across the river?

this is where your comfortable skepticism takes a turn...

first off, you are identifying that you know exactly zero about this wind noise you speak of...wind doesn't make short burst thuds of high intensity that sound like explosions echoing across a river. Usually it's windy and you can identify wind by it's telltale static like hiss over the microphone, and if there is a pop it is accompanied by this hiss...air blows and trails audibly.

For it to be what you suggest there would literally have to have been a rapid succession of intense air bursts that only occured right before the collapse of the buildings, and that weren't accompanied by wind...because you would have heard it...that and the day was reported to have been one of the nicest windless days there could be...notice how long it took for the cloud of debris to dissipate...

in short...you are wrong and desperate to come up with an alternate explanation even if it isn't really that logical.

As far as why no one else reported explosions???

Here is a whole page of reported secondary explosions:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/eyewitness.html

*sigh*

THERMITE CHARGES WOULD NOT PRODUCE AUDIBLE EXPLOSIONS, NO MATTER HOW BIG THEY WERE.

Thermite is not an explosive.

So the sound of explosions you claim to hear is directly contradictory to the thermite idea.

Huntsman, no one said they would...thermite was being explored as a possible explanation for the eutectic reaction...you didn't read my response to the first time you said this did you? I asked you a bunch of questions that steered away from this.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_explosion.JPG


What I really like about this image is that it is taken from the reverse angle of the video that I asked you to watch...do you notice the WTC collapsing in the backround? Did you notice in the other video that right before this collapse there were explosions heard?

Did you notice that CNN was reporting that there were more explosions?

sheesh...

edit: correction not reverse angle...what I meant to say was exact same angle....almost...perhaps they heard the explosions as well...or maybe it was the same wind noise confusing so many different people at the same time...

[senorpogo]

Huntsman, no one said they would...thermite was being explored as a possible explanation for the eutectic reaction...you didn't read my response to the first time you said this did you? I asked you a bunch of questions that steered away from this.

I'm confused. Was it or was it not thermite?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm confused. Was it or was it not thermite?

No, I think I get what they're trying to say.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING, I AM JUST PARAPHRASING WHAT I THINK OTHERS MAY BE BELIEVING

Thermite was used to weaken the steel structure of the WTC buildings, and then explosives were used to bring them down.

[senorpogo]

No, I think I get what they're trying to say.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING, I AM JUST PARAPHRASING WHAT I THINK OTHERS MAY BE BELIEVING

Thermite was used to weaken the steel structure of the WTC buildings, and then explosives were used to bring them down.

Thermite, explosives, and airplanes.
Got it.

[delphi_ote]

Thermite, explosives, and airplanes.
Got it.
Remote controlled military airplanes.

I've said it time and time again, inefficiency is the globalist way. I guess if you control the world, you get a little bored from time to time.

[WildCat]

this is where your comfortable skepticism takes a turn...

first off, you are identifying that you know exactly zero about this wind noise you speak of...wind doesn't make short burst thuds of high intensity that sound like explosions echoing across a river. Usually it's windy and you can identify wind by it's telltale static like hiss over the microphone, and if there is a pop it is accompanied by this hiss...air blows and trails audibly.
I know all about wind noise on microphones. I've done a lot of outdoor recording, and still do occasionally, recording taper-friendly bands is a hobby of mine! When I was first starting out in this hobby I had several recordings ruined by exactly that noise. I know it was windy when I made them, I was certainly not aware of explosions going off at the time. And it's funny how the "explosion noises" disappeared once I invested in high-quality wind screens...

[hellaeon]

Yes, but how did the demolition charges happen to be in the right places to finish the job? The collapse started in just the place where the planes hit.

Hans

This is where I would assume the arguement would skip to WTC 7 and how did that collapse if planes did not hit it....after beating this drum, in CT land this implies they win and therefore everything they say is true.

edit: hahaha did not realise it has become another multi page post!

[CurtC]

[explaining what syntax was intending to say...]
Thermite was used to weaken the steel structure of the WTC buildings, and then explosives were used to bring them down.syntax, is this what you meant? I guess I'm confused - simply weakening the steel structure is enough to let gravity bring them down, right? Why would it take both?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

syntax, is this what you meant? I guess I'm confused - simply weakening the steel structure is enough to let gravity bring them down, right? Why would it take both?

Both, plus airplanes.

[delphi_ote]

Both, plus airplanes.
And a partridge in a pear tree.

[thesyntaxera]

I know all about wind noise on microphones. I've done a lot of outdoor recording, and still do occasionally, recording taper-friendly bands is a hobby of mine! When I was first starting out in this hobby I had several recordings ruined by exactly that noise. I know it was windy when I made them, I was certainly not aware of explosions going off at the time. And it's funny how the "explosion noises" disappeared once I invested in high-quality wind screens...

Wildcat...listen...recording/editing audio is my business...your preaching to the choir...and your wrong...there is no way wind can just appear and make a loud thud in rhythmic sequences that sounds like an echoing explosion...there is a huge difference....

Why do you keep persuing this innane line of logic as if it makes any sense? Instead you are making unreasonable excuses based on your uneducated experiences with audio recording....


why can't you admit that it is possible that not only did terrorists crash planes, but also may have put improvised explosives in the building to aid it's destruction? Why can't you admit that the reason this wasn't explored was because it might make the response to the event seem worse than it appeared, and might also point out the sitting administrations ignorance of the events leading up to this tragedy...

Your stretching your logic pretty thin..

[aggle-rithm]

why can't you admit that it is possible that not only did terrorists crash planes, but also may have put improvised explosives in the building to aid it's destruction? Why can't you admit that the reason this wasn't explored was because it might make the response to the event seem worse than it appeared, and might also point out the sitting administrations ignorance of the events leading up to this tragedy...


Maybe if you could explain how they would pull this off without attracting attention, it would be easier to admit. Or if you could explain how, since the structures failed exactly where the planes struck, how they knew where to put the charges. Or how they were able to wire the explosives and thermite in such a way that they are not only invisible, but could withstand the impact of an airliner at cruising speed and the subsequent fire without malfunctioning.

Loud noises != conspiracy.

[delphi_ote]

Why can't you admit that it is possible that not only did terrorists crash planes, but also may have put improvised explosives in the building to aid it's destruction?
Improvised explosives would not help a building collapse. I see no reason to believe someone could sneak explosives into such a large and secured building. No such explosives were found at Ground Zero. Why can't you admit that this theory has absolutely no evidence whatsoever except your imagination?
Why can't you admit that the reason this wasn't explored was because it might make the response to the event seem worse than it appeared, and might also point out the sitting administrations ignorance of the events leading up to this tragedy...
Now that's just stupid. Make the event seem worse? I don't know about you, but whatever way 3000 people were murdered doesn't really matter. They're all awful.

Why couldn't you just admit when you got here that you believed these theories with all your heart and soul?
Your stretching your logic pretty thin...
Logic is not like rhetoric. You can't stretch it to cover something that isn't there. It either works or it doesn't. Wildcat has an explaination for what you're describing that is simple. It requires only that we believe that a microphone on a boat was blown on by the wind. Your explanation requires that we believe that Saudis snuck into the World Trade Center to plant "improvised" explosives (and redundantly crash planes into the buildings), that those improvised explosives could knock down a building the size of the World Trade Center, and that the government (and every single demolitions expert and structural engineer for that matter) covered all of this up for no good reason. You have no evidence for any of this besides a video tape where you hear popping sounds, and those popping sounds sound exactly like wind on a microphone.

[chipmunk stew]

why can't you admit that it is possible that not only did terrorists crash planes, but also may have put improvised explosives in the building to aid it's destruction? Why can't you admit that the reason this wasn't explored was because it might make the response to the event seem worse than it appeared, and might also point out the sitting administrations ignorance of the events leading up to this tragedy...

Your stretching your logic pretty thin..Okay, let's take an investigative approach here. Maybe you can do a better job than geggy did on a different thread. Let's take the bombs hypothesis--after all, we shouldn't discount any plausible hypothesis, and you seem to think it's plausible.

Assuming it was bombs, and taking all the evidence we have on hand into account, can you construct a coherent theory that can explain how the job was pulled off?

[Manny]

I guess this is something of an aside, but after 15 pages I have the answer to the OP which was, for those who have forgotten, "Any Conspiracy-Busters here?" The answer is, "Yes. Yes there are." Details later.