[ 31 August 2006: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]

quote:

---

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns

---

quote:

---

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

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

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

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

---

Why hasn't NIST investigated the video and eyewitness evidence of multiple explosions that occurred on the lower floors before the collapse of the towers?

Another might be:

quote:

---

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

---

Total BS?? Sounds like basic physics to me--unless you think my gr 13 physics teacher was in on it back in 1982.

Considering what a bunch of incompetent fuckwads they are in the Bush administration, doesn't it makes more sense that they didn't engineer the events of 911, but instead took full advantage of them? And are they hiding anything? Sure--they're hiding their lack of due diligence with respect to Al Quaida.

quote:

---

so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
Though my husband says, at what point does diligence slip to the point where they might as well be complicit? I think that's much more interesting than all the parsing of the stock footage of the towers collapsing by thousands of people on the internet who know nothing about structural engineering.

---

A little contradictory too:

quote:

---

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers....

---

but then they go one to describe how the floors pancaked:

quote:

---

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

---

I found this comment interesting:

quote:

---

No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.

---

Is this really true, relatively? A smaller building has not suffered similar damage relatively? And what about outside the U.S? Why did they qualify that statement?

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:
You call that basic physics? Fine, I call it basic bullshitting and brainwashing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
Is this really true, relatively? A smaller building has not suffered similar damage relatively? And what about outside the U.S? Why did they qualify that statement?

---

quote:

---

How much dust from ground unicorn horns do you suppose the Bush Administration/Corporate America needed in order to sprinkle in everyone's eyes so as to blind them to the obvious fact that it was the BA/CA that really destroyed the twin towers?

---

quote:

---

In assessing the plausibility of an account of why a building fell down, I myself would defer to physicists or preferably structural engineers and other folks who have expertise that I lack.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):

In assessing the plausibility of an account of why a building fell down, I myself would defer to physicists or preferably structural engineers and other folks who have expertise that I lack.

---

quote:

---

Though my husband says, at what point does diligence slip to the point where they might as well be complicit? I think that's much more interesting than all the parsing of the stock footage of the towers collapsing by thousands of people on the internet who know nothing about structural engineering.

---

and

quote:

---

That is a far more interesting question. The alternative, conspiracy theory questions are more akin to: How much dust from ground unicorn horns do you suppose the Bush Administration/Corporate America needed in order to sprinkle in everyone's eyes so as to blind them to the obvious fact that it was the BA/CA that really destroyed the twin towers? And, how much green Martian blood was needed (and from whom did the BA/CA steal it from???) in order to erase the memories of the thousand people who worked for the BA/CA and were the ones who implemented this dastardly act?

---

Ok. So you both find intereseting the possibility that lack of diligence becomes complicity. What are you doing about that? If by interesting you mean you think this might be the case, then you should be out in the streets demanding answers, because Bush and now Harper use 9/11 like a club to quash dissent and reason for invasions of other countries, torture, murder, and their never ending war on terror.

You DO NOT have to believe in demolitions, MIHOP, or anything else to warrant investigation and action!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):

In assessing the plausibility of an account of why a building fell down, I myself would defer to physicists or preferably structural engineers and other folks who have expertise that I lack.

---

Galileo's law of falling bodies calculates the time at which a body will travel a certain distance at complete freefall.

Distance = 16.08 x time in seconds squared

1362 (height in feet trade tower 1) = 16.08 x 84.7 (9.2 seconds).

If the towers fell as a result of impacting weight from above, how the heck did the towers fall at almost a rate of free-fall, meeting no resistance on the way down?

There are hundreds of eye-witness reports from inside the trade centre and outside of secondary explosions, emanating from within the towers. That's according to NYPD.

quote:

---

Considering what a bunch of incompetent fuckwads they are in the Bush administration, doesn't it makes more sense that they didn't engineer the events of 911, but instead took full advantage of them? And are they hiding anything? Sure--they're hiding their lack of due diligence with respect to Al Quaida.

Though my husband says, at what point does diligence slip to the point where they might as well be complicit?

---

Least we forget, the often astonishing tricks performed by illusionists are accomplished by nothing more than misdirection. That is to say, they deliberately trick the audience into looking elsewhere while the switch is being made. And it should be no surprise to find that con artists are also masters of misdirection of the mark's attention as well.

quote:

---

There are hundreds of eye-witness reports from inside the trade centre and outside of secondary explosions, emanating from within the towers. That's according to NYPD.

---

Also, addressed in the NIST Q&A document Joel linked to above:

quote:

---

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

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

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John K:

Don't forget that modern hi-rises - including the one I am sitting in as I write this - are composed of less than 10% building materials and more than 90% air.

---

That's not what I'm refering too.

There are many accounts of hearing explosions within the buildings, while they were still standing. Among those accounts are from Firefighters within the structure essentially telling everyone to get out ouf the area, because the building probably could not stand 'another' explosion, following the previous two.

But again, it's mostly conjecture, and some of it is pretty far fetched.

For me, I wouldn't be surprised if the Bush Administration, or those power cliques behind it, had a hand in carrying it out. After seeing them in action, I think they're capable of anything.

But I don't need to look into complex conspiracy theories to see the injustice of this regime and the horrors it commits.

Just look at the facts. It's obvious that after what the 911 commission found that the Bush Administration knew the attacks were coming, when and where they would take place and likely what methods would be used--and that it farted all this info off, either because they didn't take it seriously (which in itself is a crime) or they were looking for the excuse they needed to start their whole agenda.

This is one reason why Dubya shut the inquiry down. He doesn't want his government's gross incompetence and lack of concern, or, worse yet, his willingness to sacrifice innocent people to falsely justify his agenda of terror and destruction to become the center of public discussion. And, with the help of the corporate media, it hasn't.

But the fact also is that, with or without any US government complicity or indifference to the attacks, the Bush agenda is, simply by its own merits, an unjustifiable, unnecessary atrocity of genocidal proportion on the human race, and it should be opposed by anybody with half a brain or conscience.

BTW, if someone's interested in finding out more on the whole 911 mystery, I still haven't heard any real explanation as to why it took the Air National Guard over 18 minutes to respond to the airplanes going off course with no communication, when I have read that normally it takes they respond within three minutes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):
In assessing the plausibility of an account of why a building fell down, I myself would defer to physicists or preferably structural engineers and other folks who have expertise that I lack.

---

Then, defer yourself
here.

quote:

---

The basic problem for the government's account is that the buildings are known to have fallen at free fall speed, a fact that is inconsistent with the government's "pancaking" theory in which debris from above collapsed the floors below. If the buildings actually "pancaked," then each floor below would have offered resistance to the floors above, and the elapsed time would have been much longer. These experts have also calculated that the buildings did not have sufficient gravitational energy to accommodate the government's theory of the collapse. It is certainly a known and non-controversial fact among physicists and engineers that the only way buildings can collapse at free fall speed into their own footprints is by engineered demolition. Explosives are used to remove the support of floors below before the debris from above arrives. Otherwise, resistance is encountered and the time required for fall increases. Engineered demolition also explains the symmetrical collapse of the buildings into their own foot prints. As it is otherwise improbable for every point in floors below to weaken uniformly, "pancaking" would result in asymmetrical collapse as some elements of the floor would give sooner than others.

---

I certainly lack the relevant expertise. Surely there are experts on both sides of this issue, though I very much doubt that Roberts in one of them. The whole Physics 911 site is suspicious. Going down the list of alleged experts on the relevant structural issues we have the following:

- Steve Jones, a physicist (good) whose expertise is in nuclear physics, not structural engineering (hmmmmm);

- Dave Heller, an architect with a B.S. in Physics; the architects I know (I know quite a few) only know the rudiments of engineering, and a B.S. in anything is not enough to make a person an expert on such a delicate matter;

- Morgan Reynolds, an economist;

- A. K. Dewdney a mathematician;

- Jerry Longspaugh, an aerospace engineer;

- Ralph Omholt, an airline pilot;

- Derrick Grimmer, with a Ph.D. in condensed matter physics (not exactly structural engineering).

There is not a single structural or civil engineer in the whole lot. If indeed the "official story" is incorrect or untrustworthy, I wonder why the sceptics could not find a single structural engineer to back them up.

[ 06 September 2006: Message edited by: Martha (but not Stewart) ]

Oh, you're right. There isn't one.

The point? If you do enough damage to one building, various factors can spread that damage to buildings nearby.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:

Then, defer yourself
here.

And also here.

---

When a group of structural engineers publishes an article in a peer-reviewed journal alleging that the damage done on 9/11 was due to something other than two plane crashes, I'll consider the conspiracies.

For example, Sibel Edmonds & Bill Weaver write in The 9/11 Commission: A Play on Nothing in Three Acts discuss (only) 13 (of many other) Veteran National Security experts who were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 Commission, even though they had direct and relevant (but contradictory to official narrative) information related to the Commission’s investigation. The much bally-hooed Popular Mechanics article that official story shills trumpet as the nail in coffin of conspiracy theory, doesn't address concerns like those of Sibel Edmond's allegations at all.

Jeff Well's The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11 which though it might bring you too far out of your comfort zone, ranges widely over the many discordant events and relationships that surround nearly every aspect of 911 and key players.

You can wallow in your self-imposed intellectual cul-de-sacs for an eternity, however while the reality is that the details will only come out in the trial, as Dr. David Ray Griffin has so adequately established, it is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by domestic terrorists.

[ 07 September 2006: Message edited by: blogbart ]

[ 07 September 2006: Message edited by: blogbart ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by otter:
...where are the voices focusing on the more salient issues such as who knew what and when?[/QB]

---

Like:

Why did some people working at the WTC receive a warning to leave the building an hour (or 2?) before the planes crashed into the building?

Why do we not know who made a profit of 5 million with the put options on Boeing and UA? (Unclaimed profit, they say. Why not tell us anyway? It takes a bank acct to open a broker's acct. Bank accts are normally in legal names of individuals or corporations. It would not take much effort to unveil who bought the puts. Or was it perhaps Bush sen, who was in a conference with Osama's brother [2 brothers?] at the time the planes crashed into the building?)

Why has NIST only come up with a "working hypothesis" about no 7 not any final conslusions how a fire nearby brought about its collapse.

Why is the lawn green at the Pentagon in front of the hole caused by a manouver with a huge plane that only an incredible pilot could have possibly done, not somebody who failed his test on a Cessna [if that is true]?

There are many more questions and the probability of an overall conspiracy is near zero but there are other possibilities, like letting it all happen in spite of having been forewarned and have your own agenda profit by this.

Follow the money (and take that figuratively except for the put options) is an old saying.

So why did the Secret Service not immediately remove Bush from the school and why did he look so pensive after he was told but did nothing?

Who benefited politically from the mass murder?

There are many more questions without answers.

Why?

[ 07 September 2006: Message edited by: blogbart ]

They truly do believe that Bush/Cheney operatives deliberately snuffed out the lives of 3,000 people in order to....in order to what?

Their distrust of the American administration is as deep-seated as that of the Survivalists or whatever they called themselves who were connected to the Oklahoma City bombing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert MacBain:

They truly do believe that Bush/Cheney operatives deliberately snuffed out the lives of 3,000 people in order to....in order to what?.

---

quote:

---

And that is scary

---

What is a lot scarier to me is the unwillingness of people to see that the official explanation is not the truth and nothing but the truth; people who feel compelled to come to the defense of others responsible for a lot more than 3,000 dead and soon that number of US soldiers in Iraq alone.

Why not begin by answering the questions I posed above? (I've got more)

The 9/11 Conspiracy: A Skeptic's View sums up pretty well my views on this tragedy (and I spent more hours I care to remember viewing videos and reading on websites, both conspiracy theorists and 'debunkers').

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0427-29.htm

[ 07 September 2006: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joel_Goldenberg:
This new site tackles the World Trade Center controlled demolition theory. Should be fodder for good debate.Fact sheet

[ 31 August 2006: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):
The point? If you do enough damage to one building, various factors can spread that damage to buildings nearby.

---

Would you have the expertise to explain which factors spread what kind of damage and how that happened to make the third WTC building collapse 1) symmetrically 2) into its own footprint, ie, through space that was only moments before occupied by its own support structure, and 3) in free fall time? While other buildings in similar proximity did not suffer the same fate? Was it the wind?

Martha, it takes the expertise of an attentive Grade 10 student to understand what free fall means. It is the speed at which objects fall to earth through thin air. One does not need to be a structural engineer to know that the steel and concrete structure of the multiple storeys below the impact sites did not consist of thin air.

Your insisting on only a structural engineer to explain the collapse of the three WTC towers is like refusing all diagnoses but that of an ENT specialist to tell you you have a common cold. It’s like saying a neurosurgeon doesn’t have the expertise to tell someone they have a bruised shin.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert MacBain:
The most troubling thing about this thread, and the entire conspiracy theory industry, is that so many people really do believe that 9/11 was planned and executed by members of the American administration and/or their operatives.

They truly do believe that Bush/Cheney operatives deliberately snuffed out the lives of 3,000 people in order to....in order to what?

Their distrust of the American administration is as deep-seated as that of the Survivalists or whatever they called themselves who were connected to the Oklahoma City bombing.

And that is scary.

---

Chicken and the egg MacBain, but you've got them in the wrong order.

I've come to disbelieve the official conspiracy theory after quite a long time, rather reluctantly, after a lot of on-again, off-again research, debate, but finally due to a paradigmatic change in my conception of society's real power structures.

Naturally my new beliefs would alter my perception of the Bush administration for the worse. However, some in the Bush administration and other parts of government have played big roles in bringing 911 to life, but there is more behind the scenes.

So, let me tell you what scary is. It is coming to the reluctant realization that 911 was officially sanctioned, carried out and is being actively covered up by powerful and influential people.

quote:

---

....in order to what?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert MacBain:
They truly do believe that Bush/Cheney operatives deliberately snuffed out the lives of 3,000 people in order to....in order to what?...Their distrust of the American administration is as deep-seated as that of the Survivalists or whatever they called themselves who were connected to the Oklahoma City bombing. And that is scary.

---

In order to what? Well, it might just have something to do with constructing a pretense to attack and control places that have still-ample supplies of a certain dwindling resource crucial to the running of modern military machines.

You are right to be afraid of people who would resort to violence against a government (not me). But you are misled, and perhaps misleading, if you identify all those who do not believe the Official Conspiracy Theory with fanatical survivalists. I’d say the citizens researching and publicizing the evidence of the controlled WTC demolitions are largely committed to peace and true democracy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:
Would you have the expertise to explain which factors spread what kind of damage and how that happened to make the third WTC building collapse 1) symmetrically 2) into its own footprint, ie, through space that was only moments before occupied by its own support structure, and 3) in free fall time?

---

No. As I have already noted, I do not have that expertise. I am not a structural engineer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:
While other buildings in similar proximity did not suffer the same fate? Was it the wind?

---

I do not know. I do not have the relevant expertise.

quote:

---

Some Engineering acadamics have also spoken out, Jerry Russell (master's degree in Engineering from Stanford University) has published Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC and Judy Wood, (a professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University) has published The Case for Controlled Demolition.

See also the Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? from Steven E. Jones (professor of physics at Brigham Young University), The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True by David Ray Griffin, Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? by Morgan Reynolds and the extensive information on 911 Research, one of 9/11 sites from Jim Hoffman who also created WTC7.net about the skyscraper which was not hit by a plane yet still collapsed at near free fall speed — Heikki Kurttila, (a Finnish Doctor of Engineering) has made detailed calculations about the collapse speed of WTC-7 and so has Kenneth L. Kuttler (Professor of Mathemetics) in his WTC 7: A Short Computation paper in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

Videos about the collapse of the skyscrapers include 911 Revisited, which is a free feature length film available from the Internet Archive and 911 Podcasts:

September 11th Revisited is perhaps the most riveting film ever made about the destruction of the World Trade Center. This is a powerful documentary which features eyewitness accounts and archived news footage that was shot on September 11, 2001 but never replayed on television. Featuring interviews with eyewitnesses & firefighters, along with expert analysis by Professor Steven E. Jones, Professor David Ray Griffin, MIT Engineer Jeffrey King, and Professor James H. Fetzer. This film provides stunning evidence that explosives were used in the complete demolition of the WTC Twin Towers and WTC Building 7.

---

Wasn't difficult to find the above on this page searching with the term "structural engineering reports 9/11."

We can talk about doctored videos and who has what expertise, but in the final analysis, let the physical evidence speak for itself.

quote:

---

A dropped object starts its fall quite slowly, but then steadily increases its velocity--accelerates--as time goes on. Galileo showed that (ignoring air resistance) heavy and light objects accelerated at the same constant rate as they fell, that is, their speed (or "velocity") increased at a constant rate. The velocity of a ball dropped from a high place increases each second by a constant amount, usually denoted by the small letter g (for gravity).
...
The above formulas only hold for ideal cannonballs that experience no air resistance. In actual practice, air resistance modifies the motion and may have to be taken into account...

---

[ 07 September 2006: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]

There's nothing making this anything more than just another crackpot conspiracy theory. The proponents, as always, starts with a conclusion, and then selectively finds enough circumstantial evidence to convince themselves it constitutes 'proof'. Then it gets posted on websites to try to convince other people, because most people don't have a background in the subject matter and might treat it as if it was expert opinion.

It goes in the same pile as the moon hoax theory (which, impressively given that it's complete nonsense, did a much better job of being superficially convincing), the aliens built the pyramids theory, and all that alternative medicine crap that you find on infomercials (including my personal favourite scam: the Q-Ray bracelet).

Is there any point arguing against this? The theory proponents have themselves convinced, and are unlikely to be unconvinced. The vast majority of the population is not going to be swayed. So what is to be accomplished?

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:
Martha, it takes the expertise of an attentive Grade 10 student to understand what free fall means. It is the speed at which objects fall to earth through thin air. One does not need to be a structural engineer to know that the steel and concrete structure of the multiple storeys below the impact sites did not consist of thin air.

---

Really? I doubt that many 10th graders actually understand what happens when a body falls through "thin air". True, you don't need to be a structural engineer to know that the towers weren't just "thin air". However, being a structural engineer might provide a little more insight as to how buildings actually fall.

quote:

---

Your insisting on only a structural engineer to explain the collapse of the three WTC towers is like refusing all diagnoses but that of an ENT specialist to tell you you have a common cold. It’s like saying a neurosurgeon doesn’t have the expertise to tell someone they have a bruised shin.

---

That analogy is not remotely reasonable considering the players involved in the conspiracy-theory organizations. A physicist specializing in "metal-catalyzed fusion" does NOT necessarily understand the factors involved in the collapse of a skyscraper, based solely on the fact that he is a physicist.

[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: timmah ]

ETA: It's a matter of appropriate qualifications. Engineers can be thrown out of the profession for practicing outside the scope of their experience and education. Even though a number of the conspiracy theorists have impressive educations, it seems that few of them have educations applicable to the theories they are putting forward.

[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: timmah ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
The question itself is a fair one directed at a subset of people posting in this thread.

---

What I find strange is that people like you will do anything but try to answer some troubling questions.

How about answering the questions above (while keeping in mind my stated position re this matter)?

Why did some people have advance knowledge (a proven fact)?

Why has NIST not come up with a definitve answer about the collapse of no7 5 years after the event?

Why does a skyscraper (no 7) collapse because of debris from another one when NOT ONE has collapsed before or after due to fire? What is the probability of 3 collapsing in one day?

Etc etc

[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by timmah:
It's a matter of appropriate qualifications. Engineers can be thrown out of the profession for practicing outside the scope of their experience and education.

---

Nova's Why The Towers Fell is a "non-conspiracy explanation" by professional engineers and physicists and yet the scientists at NIST do not accept their explanation and are offering another one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by VanLuke:
It would appear that professional qualifications alone do not guarantee the truth.

---

I agree. And a lack of qualifications doesn't necessarily mean that someone isn't telling the truth.

However, a number of people are making assumptions and conclusions based on evidence they aren't qualified to evaluate.

If you follow their logic, you have no option but to conclude that a Bush/Cheney operative:

1.) Watched as people jumped out of the tower windows.

2.) Watched as firefighers and other emergency personnel entered the towers in order to save lives.

3.) Watched the towers burn for a couple of hours.

4.) Was fully aware of the fact that the towers were filled with office workers, firefighters and emergency personnel.

5.) Pushed the button(s) to detonate the explosives which had been distributed throughout the lower floors.

6.) Felt absolutely no remorse about the fact that he/she had just killed almost 3,000 people.

So not only has Bin Laden taken responsibility for 9-11, there is now direct evidence of his association with some of the hijackers.

quote:

---

What I find strange is that people like you will do anything but try to answer some troubling questions.

---

Because the questions aren't all that troubling. Like many conspiracy theories, this one starts with a set of 'troubling' questions which the average person on the street doesn't know enough to answer. But some amount of time researching them does, in fact, produce answers. Sometimes those answers are awkward because you have deliberately framed the questions in a way that makes them hard to answer, but they are perfectly valid.

That OBL is associated with them, as represented in the recent video, and as alleged from the very beginning, is not news, nor does it diminish the suspicsions that there was official complicity. Of course, the "legend" was established and is continuing to be reinforced. Most of the discussion about the hijackers focuses on sloppy identification, with possiblity that the names on the FBI list are actually id theft (ie those reported by BBC as being "alive") and if hijackers' names were false, then what are their real names? And all the "clues" left that made zeroing in on the hijackers so easy but prior to 911, when FBI agents tried to get attention focused on some of these guys they were pooh-pooed. What about credible reports that at least 3 of the hijackers, including Mo Atta, actually received training at US mililtary bases? What about reports that Atta loved pork, cocaine, stripers and booze?

Further, it is a matter of record that OBL was a CIA asset in the proxy war against the USSR in Afghanistan. Does OBL's and Bin Ladin families numerous, long-standing ties to the Saudi royal family and the Bush family and associates, even on the day of Sept 11, 2001, not give any of the official story supporters pause for concern?

The fact that these patsies and dupes actually were able to do what they apparently did, had to have been the result of official complicity:

- the NORAD/military standown and at least 5 wargames that interferred with normal operating procedure at FAA ,
- the change of shootdown procedure in July of 2001 by Rumsfeld,
- Norman Mineta's testimony that contradicts Cheney's and the 911 Commissions
- FAA tape destruction
- the coverup afterwards through obfuscation, resistance to real investigation, warning off those who propose "outrageous conspiracy theories".
- We still don't have a clear explanation of the anthrax scare. Remember that? The anthrax that was mailed to US house members that were calling for investigation of 911? The anthrax that was positively, independently id'd as from a specific US military lab?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
So not only has Bin Laden taken responsibility for 9-11, there is now direct evidence of his association with some of the hijackers.

---

Would that be the Osama that Al Jazeera showed or the Pentagon's Osama on the "confession tape"?

ETA

Osama denied his involvement twice and then there is the "Osama" in the "confession tape" whose facial features don't match the ones in the other videos.

I guess you also believe Saddam was building a nuclear weapon and tried to buy yellowcake from Niger.

[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
In fact, you are not looking for answers to troubling questions. You are only looking for troubling questions, believing that their existence supports a conclusion you have assumed on faith.

---

What conclusions would that be? (You have read my statement of where I stand, have you not?)

I said this is pretty well my position and it is NO conspiracy theory.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0427-29.htm

And why not answer the questions instead of a personal attack?

I just watched Steven E. Jones' lecture on the thing.

Please explain ONE THING (Jeff you too): Why did no 7 collapse on its footprint in near free fall speed?

Calling questions stupid does not explain/answer a thing.

[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

How did Bush/Cheney or their operatives convince him/her that it was the right thing to do?

Who else knows who he/she is?

Where is he/she now?

quote:

---

Originally posted by VanLuke:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0427-29.htm

And why not answer the questions instead of a personal attack?

I just watched Steven E. Jones' lecture on the thing.

---

"A Skeptic's View" makes some interesting assertions about Dr. Jones' qualifications:

quote:

---

Prof. Steven Jones, to my mind the most credible of the 9/11 critics, claims that melted and congealed steel was found in the rubble, and that it originated at the base of the standing buildings. The only plausible cause of melting with these properties, Jones claims, would be a high temperature explosive such as thermite. Jones is well-qualified to make this assessment. He is a professor of physics at Brigham Young University, with a specialty in metal-catalyzed fusion.

---

Just so's you know, a thermite reaction is a chemical reaction, and metal-catalyzed fusion is a nuclear reaction. Being an expert in one does not make you qualified to expound on another.

Other than that, a lot of the material discussed in "A Skeptic's View" raises some very interesting points.

[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: timmah ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert MacBain:
Who pushed the button(s) that activated the detonators on the explosives that had been planted throughout the lower floors of the WTC towers?

How did Bush/Cheney or their operatives convince him/her that it was the right thing to do?

Who else knows who he/she is?

Where is he/she now?

Has he/she lost any sleep over it?

---

Acting like a fool won't make you right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by timmah:
Other than that, a lot of the material discussed in "A Skeptic's View" raises some very interesting points.

---

All I tried to say is that I do NOT subscribe to a conspiracy theory as an explanation for the whole series of events and that was obvious.

Only somebody not wanting to know would believe the official explanation.

Nice "critique" of a paper and a 2 hours long film to dismiss it on the basis of somebody else's essay.

You can still find Jones' paper in the google cache. Now why would it only be available there?

FYI Jones spoke of the possibility of thermite. Have you got another explanation why the hot fires were still burning over 2 weeks later?

Firemen and the Governor of NY are on record commenting on those fires. (The aviation fuel would have burnt off rather quickly)

[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
I had a friend in one of those towers and I am pissed about the cloud coockoo land thinking expressed in this thread. The NIST FAQ is solid. Enough with the idiocy already.

---

Any number of people on this thread could have had someone they know in one of those towers when they crumbled into dust. I could well have had friends or family in one of them at the time, and that may be part of my motivation for engaging in this debate. Your actually losing a friend (my condolences) does not make you more expert on what happened.

quote:

---

Originally posted by timmah:
A physicist specializing in "metal-catalyzed fusion" does NOT necessarily understand the factors involved in the collapse of a skyscraper, based solely on the fact that he is a physicist.
…a number of people are making assumptions and conclusions based on evidence they aren't qualified to evaluate.

---

I agree, to have the highest level of debate on the collapse of the three WTC towers, you need structural engineers, among other specialists (preferably all from a variety of backgrounds).

Very little, if any, attention is focused on who actually pressed the button(s) that detonated the explosives the conspiracy theorists claim were planted throughout the lower floors.

One would have thought that, after five years analysing the manner in which the towers collapsed, they would have come up with at least one plausible lead as to who actually pressed the button (s).

Because, without some person or persons pressing a button or some other activating device, the alleged planted explosives would not have gone off.

quote:

---

Originally posted by VanLuke:
Nice "critique" of a paper and a 2 hours long film to dismiss it on the basis of somebody else's essay.

---

I made no attempt to critique the paper or the film, nor did I dismiss it. I merely pointed out a logical error in calling someone an expert on a field they don't necessarily have expertise in...a problem which seems to be rampant among the conspiracy theory organizations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
I don't care if I am being insulting. I had a friend in one of those towers and I am pissed about the cloud coockoo land thinking expressed in this thread. The NIST FAQ is solid.

Enough with the idiocy already.

---

Read the thing including the last lines because it is NOT even finished.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert MacBain:
One would have thought that, after five years analysing the manner in which the towers collapsed, they would have come up with at least one plausible lead

---

Who is being protected?

Odigo says workers were warned of attack

quote:

---

Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack. ...

Odigo usually zealously protects the privacy of its registered users, said Macover, but in this case the company took the initiative to provide the law enforcement services with the originating Internet Presence address of the message, so the FBI could track down the Internet Service Provider, and the actual sender of the original message.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert MacBain:
Not only have the conspiracy theorists failed to identify the person or persons who detonated the explosives, they have not presented any plausible evidence as to how the explosives got there in the first place.

---

Why did no 7 collapse on its foot print in near free fall speed?

One would have thought that after 5 years NIST would have a definitive answer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by timmah:

I made no attempt to critique the paper or the film, nor did I dismiss it. I merely pointed out a logical error in calling someone an expert on a field they don't necessarily have expertise in...a problem which seems to be rampant among the conspiracy theory organizations.

I never claimed to ascribe to the official government version of the truth. I wholeheartedly doubt that the gov't version is totally truthful, just as I doubt that any story from a government body is entirely truthful.

---

Considering the enormous guilt that consumed the pilot of the B-52 that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, you'd think that at least one person who participated in or knew about the planting and detonation of the explosives would have cracked under the enormous guilt of having participated in or known about a mass murder of this magnitude and leaked the story of how the demolition of the three WTC towers was planned and executed.

To my knowledge, no such person has stepped forward or even made an unguarded comment to anyone during a drunken stupor or similar impairment.

The ones who were dreaming of a New American Century and spoke of another Pearl Harbour might have thought they did the patriotic thing, if indeed they were involved.

Remember the hurt demeanour of Ollie North after he had been found guilty? He was obviously the patriot, or so he thought. (Incidentally Pointdexter was convicted in this scandal too.)

Something I only learned yesterday and doesn't go out of my head, is the claim they found Atta's passport in the rubble of the WTC.

They couldn't find one of the flight recorders, but they found a passport????

And why the months long wrangling with the White House about what was to go into the final version of the Official Report, not to mention that they at first wanted Kissinger (!!!) to lead the inquiry. Even Maureen Dowd found this a bit much, entitling one of her columns He's Baaaack!

We don't know but just like the miracle bullet illustrated above by Fidel some of the "official facts" defy the laws of physics. Were they suspended on Sep 11, 2001? I don't think so.

Even if all the conspiracy theories offered are wrong in their conclusions the official line is still not the total truth.

[ 09 September 2006: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

Who pushed the button(s) that activated the detonators on the explosives that had been planted throughout the lower floors of the WTC towers?
How did Bush/Cheney or their operatives convince him/her that it was the right thing to do?

Who else knows who he/she is?

Where is he/she now?

Has he/she lost any sleep over it?

---

When someone breaks into my home the onus is not on me to say who it was. I describe the break in, give hepful information to the authorities who then do their job. I don't see why your desire to pursue the investigation of what really happened on 911 ends because you don't know exactly who did it, how they could have done it, and if their conscience is bothering them, and why they are not confessing to you! Thats an astounding admission for you to make, really!

Who is to say who did what exactly. I can speculate that I suspect the hands-on work for WTC demolitions was done by less than 10 people over a long time surreptiously installing wiring, explosive/thermate placement planning, culmininating in an actual installation of the explosive/thermate in weeks preceding 911. Something like 1200 lbs of thermate a ball park figure needed. When you thnk of the normal movement of people and materials in WTC towers, this would have been relatively insignificant. But really how the heck should I know! I need the authorities to do their job and find out!

As for who has the steel to do this without flinching, and not talking, again why should you doubt people are incapable of this? WHat about US military training and participation in latin american death squads? What about the US military travesties in south east Asia? What about the NATO Gladio "stay behind" paramilitary organizations that in Europe murdered and injured many in Italy, France, Belgium? We know about it now, but they still aren't talking, at least on Oprah. Why should they! Be serious. And where are they now? Dead, drinking pina coladas in Tonga, in Iran or Germany in their latest black op - how the hell should I know!

However, many have talked after a fashion. Norman Mineta testified, probably inadvertently, to 911 Commission contradicting the official 911 conspiracy theory and VP Cheney. WTC owner Larry Silverstein made another inadvertent admission about WTC 7. Lots of first responders and officials made statements about WTC towers imminent collapses on the day of 911. There are reports of military members making statements that flight 93 was shot down.

Aside from those with direct hands on knowledge about WTC, Pentagon, Flight 93, there are many people who have come forward after 911 to tell what they know that contradicts the official conspiracy theory.

In fact, many of these people were doing their best to make their apprehensions even before 911. I already provided a link above to some of these:

quote:

---

For example, Sibel Edmonds & Bill Weaver write in The 9/11 Commission: A Play on Nothing in Three Acts discuss (only) 13 (of many other) Veteran National Security experts who were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 Commission, even though they had direct and relevant (but contradictory to official narrative) information related to the Commission’s investigation.

---

(You'd do yourself a favour to read Jeff Wells' The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11 .. its very entertaining even if it doesn't lead to disbelieve the official conspiracy theory)

I am not concerned that these people are not outing the demolition of the WTC because they are talking about official complicity and foreknowledge in 911 especially with regards to the hijackers. The demolition of the WTC towers is one aspect of a wide-ranging operation, but it will out if a truly independent investigation is done.

[ 09 September 2006: Message edited by: blogbart ]

How 9/11 changed America.
"Defense" spending:

quote:

---

Originally posted by VanLuke:
Something I only learned yesterday and doesn't go out of my head, is the claim they found Atta's passport in the rubble of the WTC.
They couldn't find one of the flight recorders, but they found a passport????

---

Yes, it is true. Atta's passport survived the very same horrific fireball that triggered the collapse of a 110-storey structure of steel, concrete and asbestos.

There is a plausible explanation for this. Atta's passport must not have been secured on his person, like in a pocket or a belt somewhere on his body. After passing through security, boarding the plane, and forcing his way into the cockpit, he must have taken out his passport for some reason, perhaps to admire his own picture one last time. Or maybe he had it in his hand the whole time, we'll never know.

And then, KABLOOEY!!!!!!! Although the jetliner crashed nose first into the tower, fatally severing the tower's massive support columns, there was still enough force from somewhere to eject the passport unscathed through the flames. Maybe it was the air pressure inside the cabin, but I can't really say as I'm not an expert on what happens when passenger cabins decompress on impact with 110 storey towers.

I have not come across reports of other passports or personal items kablooied out of the pressurized air cabins. Maybe our trusted authorities found some more as they were, um, methodically searching through the rubble for forensic evidence......

[ 10 September 2006: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by timmah:
When a group of structural engineers publishes an article in a peer-reviewed journal alleging that the damage done on 9/11 was due to something other than two plane crashes, I'll consider the conspiracies.Until then, it's nothing more than conjecture from people who are nowhere near qualified to make those kinds of allegations.

---

Originally posted by N.R. Kissed, in this thread, 16 May 2006 10:05 PM

quote:

---

It is curious that one side in this debate who perceive themselves as the arbiters of rationality have spent most of their time denouncing the other side as crack pots and conspiracy theorists, hardly brilliant debating tactics.
[...]
I do think it worthwhile to note that science is based around encouraging and exploring alternate hypothesis and scrutinizing the data that is presented in research. By it’s very nature it is supposed to invite critical analysis not stifle it.

It is worthwhile that noting that scientific journals can be inaccurate, influenced by politics both within and without academia, and often are reflections of schools of thought or ideology as much as they guarantee quality research. There have recently been some high profile scandals in major medical journals that raised serious questions about the validity of printed research articles. Furthermore the annals of scientific literature are filled with faulty hypothesis, poor methodology, and misguided analysis, go to the stacks and have a look. Even under the best conditions peer-reviewed does not involve in depth scrutiny.

In this particular instance the stakes are even higher it would impossible for any scientist or journal to write or publish an article critical of the official line without raising the most serious political accusations imaginable. To make such accusations would be career suicide or literally in the case of the WMD researcher in England. Even if you don’t agree with these theories surely it is at least understandable why no one would be in a hurry to publish them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
I don't care if I am being insulting. I had a friend in one of those towers and I am pissed about the cloud coockoo land thinking expressed in this thread. The NIST FAQ is solid.

Enough with the idiocy already.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:...Your actually losing a friend (my condolences) does not make you more expert on what happened.
... I'd rather honour the dead by asking for the whole truth behind this tragedy.

---

Sorry but I have to agree with gram, here. Trying to silence honest inquiry by invoking the memories of those who died is dishonest and does nothing to honour their memories. It is also the same dirty tactic used by Bush himself to keep everyone on the hate-wagon. "If you're not with us, then you must be against us". Democratic discussion of an absurdity that is passing as normality became, under Bush, unpatriotic and disrespectful to the dead. Is this the way you want to think too? What about Hurricane Katrina? Are we not supposed to question that at all, "out of respect for those who died"?. You can call things "idiocy" or "cuckooland" all you want, but trying to shame people into silence is not only anti-democratic and anti-intellectual, but to me is just plain offensive, and that's saying it mildly.

Thankfully, my friend was late that fateful day, coming out of the subway to see WTC 1 just after flight 11 hit.

I don't know if my client's brother survived or not.

My motivation for pushing for real investigation is that their exists the possibility, which I obviously believe to be demonstrably true, that official complicity allowed 2500 people to be murdered in the most brutal fashion, and that this has been covered with lies, distortions and omissions.

Its absurd that something so heinous, and so critically, negatively pivotal, can have such uncertainly swirling about it, yet questioners warned off of making "outrageous conspiracy theories", and to encounter government and establishment stonewalling, obfuscation and outright lies.

Aircraft flying below that altitude are not usually pressurized; none of the 9/11 aircraft were pressurized when they hit their targets/the ground.

It is very common for small objects to survive devastating impacts. In a number of otherwise fatal air crashes a small infant has survived, and there are often pieces of luggage and personal items that survive unscathed, along with smaller pieces of the aircraft itself.

The higher the impact speed the smaller the fragments from the wreckage; planes that crash, at relatively slow speeds, on landing or takeoff, often leave the carcass of the aircraft in large pieces.

High velocity impacts, such as the Swiss Air disaster off N.S. in 1998, which hit the water on fire at high speed, or the 9/11 strikes, reduce the plane and everything in it to much smaller pieces. But a passport surviving wouldn't be unusual, and it would be more likely than the black box surviving.

Not that the black box would have provided much in the way of useful information; they either record flight data (speed, direction, etc) or voice cockpit recordings. They are useful when trying to figure out why a plane crashed, which isn't really an issue on 9/11.

When the conspiracy-mongers command of detail is so weak in areas it intersects my fields of expertise my confidence in their broader theory is further undermined.

The BBC did a story on 9/11 conspiracies yesterday, talking to people on the deluded left and deluded right, united in their belief that the US government colluded in this atrocity.

The thing that pisses me off most about these theories is the underlying racism, the oft-repeated lines about "Aghans in caves/men who couldn't learn how to fly/men with box cutters".

For some reason it's okay to depict Al Quaeda operatives as not very bright barbarians, men who can't master the relatively simple art of flying small planes, men who don't have sophisticated weapons.

Yet the same people who use the above lines in other contexts laud the abilities of the underdog; if there's any strand running through the left it's the belief that the weaker man with stronger spirit and ideals, can prevail over the strong. But now that's eroding, and the people who believe these conspiracies, far from exposing 'the truth', seem to me like acolytes of some primitive religion.

You're so cowed by the spectre of an all-powerful America that you give it almost supernatural powers, despite its manifest inability to conceal even the smallest conspiracies - Abu Ghraib, Iran-Contra, Watergate, Valerie Plame, etc.

Despite the obvious flexibility and ability - and therefore menace - of Al Quaeda and others like them we prefer to dismiss them as misguided hicks while treating the United States as if it was run by some sort of brilliant Satanic cabal, so fiendishly clever that no ruse or deception is beyond them.

Proving how all-powerful, and all-evil, the United States has become is now a faith-based initiative for the silly left: you weave a religious narrative of causes and effects based on distortions and interpretatons of observed phenomena. "Oooo! That bush is on fire! God is speaking to us!" becomes "Oooo! A building collapsed next to two collapsed skycrapers! George Bush did this so he could invade Iraq!"

The left has abandoned the scientific approaches it used to (over enthusiastically) embrace, and replaced them with a weird and reactionary pessimism. From sloppy engineering to sloppy poltical science, we've got nothing to offer but our Hieronymous Bosch paintings of an evil Adversary.

The WTC conspiracy theories depress me not because they're right or wrong but because they betray a left that's given up on making life better for people, today.

Let's assume, for one moment, that the nuttiest of the conspiracists are right. What political project are any of you who believe them going to launch? How?

A 'successful' campaign based on the subject motivating this thread only further alienates people, makes them feel more powerless, and offers nothing but a clearer picture of a darker world.

Is your only purpose to talk and talk and talk about this? What's the purpose? What's the goal? And don't answer "truth" - we're supposed to be dealing with political action in this forum, transforming perceived truth into a changed world.

To me it just looks like the sad remnants of a desiccated tradition, with nothing left to worship at home, looking outwards and fetishizing the shapes we see in the dark.

They best we have to offer is a defense of 1960's style Latin American strong men, and a resurrection of 1930's isolationism.

The WTC conspiracists aren't just wrong, they're destructive. Lots of bad ideas from the left had positive consequences to mitigate their ill effects. Marxist economic models didn't work, but in modified form created the social democracies that have allowed more people to live at a higher standard of living than at any point in history.

Today's WTC/American bogey-man frothing doesn't offer anything. It's cynicism dressed up as politics, cowardice - the inability to present an alternative -, dressed as principle.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardy:
Aircraft are usually pressurized to simulate the equivalent of the Earth's atmosphere at 10,000 ft.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardy:
The thing that pisses me off most about these theories is the underlying racism, the oft-repeated lines about "Aghans in caves/men who couldn't learn how to fly...".

---

Who is saying they could not have learned to fly a jetliner? Not me. But there is evidence that the alleged hijackers in this instance DID NOT learn to fly them, or to make the maneuvers that would have been necessary.

Kathmandu's only 4500 ft or so above sea level; lower than Denver, Colorado. But lots of people get sick and die here every year from climbing too high, too fast - it's easy to get above 10,000 ft and not notice.

Planes could be pressurized to provide air at a sea level density but it would cost the airlines a lot.

If you want a real conspiracy check the levels of oxygen provided on commercial flights and compare them to normal amounts. Also the fact that more oxygen is pumped into business and first class comparments than into cattle class!

Linking this to the disjointed post by clandestiny... one of the reasons oxygen levels are kept low is the corrosive effect of the gas on traditional aircraft structures. As planes are increasingly made using composite structures there will be an increase in oxygen levels, which will make a big difference in passenger comfort.

But a drawback is that composites are new, so we'll go through a period of accidents as the new materials age and their hidden flaws are revealed - the 'inexplicable' November 2001 accident referred to by clandestiny was caused by the failure of a badly repaired composite tail assembly on an Airbus which was then subject to a moment of great stress as the plane flew through another's wake turbulence.

On the connection between the conspiracists and racism, first there's the many 9/11 doubters from the weird right as opposed to the weird left. Their racism needs little explanation.

But I'm talking about the opinions expressed, in rabble and elsewhere, by supposed leftists, that it is crazy to think that a bunch of people from the Middle East armed with box cutters could have done what they did. That, to me, is racist.

Agree with you on airport profiling: a complete waste of time and money, and a scary erosion of civil liberties for no civil purpose other than providing imaginary protection to a scared public.

[ 10 September 2006: Message edited by: Cardy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardy:
I'm talking about the opinions expressed, in rabble and elsewhere, by supposed leftists, that it is crazy to think that a bunch of people from the Middle East armed with box cutters could have done what they did. That, to me, is racist.

---

That's a red herring since nobody said this.

I mentioned ONE hijacker who allegedly couldn't pass a test on a Cessna and yet supposedly did a manouevre with a huge plane that very few pilots could do, I was told.

Godwin's Law should also apply to statements like yours.

I'm astounded by the KIND of arguments people use to dismiss any suggestion that the truth has not been told when there are so MANY points that should start the alarm bells to ring.

I hate to quote myself but in this stupid "debate" it seems one has to repeat over and over and over again the points made many times before.

quote:

---

As I wrote here,I think the probability of this momentous crime having been carried out by a group of conspirators with nobody "leaking" anything about it is so small that one can assume it to aproach zero. There was probably no conspiracy responsible for the entire series of events but there may well have been a conspiracy (or conspiracies) blended into the whole thing.

---

http://www.breadnroses.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=16490#16490

I also wrote (and repeated here)

quote:

---

Here is one article written by somebody who does not believe in a conspiracy linked at this Wikipedia entry.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0427-29.htm

After dismissing both, the conspiracy theorists and the official explanation put it this way (linked to above but you obviously couldn't be bothered with examining the evidence):

"What happened on 9/11? Who is responsible? The questions remain open even as they remain urgent. The American people deserve answers, and more immediately, competent and sustained investigation leading to these answers."

And this is precisely where I stand: I don't believe in a conspiracy explaining the monstrous event but I also find the official explanation unconvincing in many respects. (The collapse of no 7 hasn't yet been explained.)

Probably, we'll never know the whole truth but it's important to continue asking questions.

---

http://lukeinvancouver.googlepages.com/conspiracytheories

quote:

---

This allegation was fueled by a comment by the WTC owner that, after WTC 7 was judged to be unstable, he recommended pulling a group of firefighters out of the building, using the phrase “pull it” in reference to the contingent of firefighters.

---

http://tinyurl.com/ea6ys

"International Information Programs" Huh? What have they got to do with this?

"judged to be unstable" By whom? In record time apparently.

"he recommended pulling a group of firefighters out of the building" He was a qualified firefighter and had authority to "recommend"?

[ 10 September 2006: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

Why not tell us instead why no 7 collapsed on its footprint...

---

quote:

---

Is your only purpose to talk and talk and talk about this? What's the purpose? What's the goal? And don't answer "truth" - we're supposed to be dealing with political action in this forum, transforming perceived truth into a changed world.

---

This is talk to inform and, hopefully, incite to action, in my mind, to get polictical leadership to address the issue seriously. Why do you question motive? Do you question the purpose of NDP activists bird dogging Harper on issues? Are they just talking and talking? Why are allegations of Harper being too closely aligned with the US government not "conspiracy theory" while questioning the huge number of discrepencies in the official story of 911 is?

Is it a waste of time to ask why NORAD could have performed so miserably on the day of 911? This is relevant to Canadians, because a Canadian was in charge of NORAD on 911. NORAD has also been recently exposed as lying about its activities on 911, by 911 Commission co-chairs Kean and Hamilton in their new book. I'd like to know what role Canadian military and political leadership had in lying to the public for 5 years. This is important. If this slides by without comment, then we give the military and government a pass to keep lying to us. I believe there is much more to this, you may not, but you must honsestly acknowledge there is good reason to pursue these avenues of investigation.

quote:

---

Today's WTC/American bogey-man frothing doesn't offer anything. It's cynicism dressed up as politics, cowardice - the inability to present an alternative -, dressed as principle.

---

I am going to turn this on its head:

Today's official 911 story supporters frothing doesn't offer anything. It's politics, and cowardice, dressed up as cynicism - the inability to see an alternative -, dressed as principle.

More, all "debunking" picks on straw men. Single out a few questionable items, such as you've done with the "Arabs in caves" racism tripe, then you clap your hands together and say "see its all bollocks!" You purposely or unwittingly miss the point of dismissing that the hijackers suceeded unaided: the hijackers didn't have the influence or capability to thwart law enforcement before 911, responders the day of 911, and investigators after 911.

We saw the upper floors on fire.

We saw the people jumping out of the windows and the firemen and other emergency workers entering the buildings in an effort to save lives.

We saw the smoke billowing from the top of the towers.

We saw the towers collapse.

We saw the pile of rubble.

In this case, to do so, we would have to have photographs of Bin Laden handing box-cutters to specific persons along with one-way airline tickets.

Of course, if there was no audio, people would claim that he might have been asking that the stuff be delivered to friends in the Sudan.

And if there WAS audio, well maybe it wasn't REALLY Bin Laden's voice, but a CIA dub?

And the Germans have had to acquit? or have they been forced to go light on sentencing the alleged 9-11 plotters for a lack of evidence ?.

Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories

“[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”--Firefighter Richard Banaciski

“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

We never saw WTC 7 hit by a plane nor exhibiting large fires.

We saw many signs of explosions, as clouds of pulverized concrete, steel beams were being hurled 100's of feet horizontally from WTC 1 and 2 from the instant they begin collapsing.

We heard of firemen in the one building saying that only 2 lines were needed to knock down the small fires present, and other firemen reporting explosions throwing them through the air inside the buildings.

We saw black smoke billowing from the top of the towers indicating the fires were not hot more as pervasive to do what purportedly they did.

We saw the towers being demolished, one after the other, appearing no different from planned demolitions.

We saw the pile of rubble, and large persistent pools of molten iron, beams perfectly cut with molten edges.

We need to know so much more!

[ 10 September 2006: Message edited by: blogbart ]

quote:

---

According to a poll by Scripps Howard News Service, more than one-third of respondents think government officials "either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."

Sixteen per cent of those polled believe secret explosives brought down the towers; 12 per cent believe a cruise missile was fired into the Pentagon.

Conspiracy theories in the United States date back at least to questions about who really killed Abraham Lincoln in 1865.

To this day, people will tell you that the 1969 Apollo moon landing was staged in Hollywood; that the 1986 explosion of the Challenger space shuttle was deliberate; that the U.S. government continues to cover up the crash of an alien spaceship in Roswell, N.M., in 1947.

There is no shortage of Hurricane Katrina survivors in New Orleans who swear they heard the levees being blown up.

---

It's on CBC TV at 7 p.m.

This documentary by award-winning senior CBC Correspondent Terence McKenna looks at the long secret war that was waged against al-Qaida by the White House, CIA and FBI and also examines key intelligence failures that allowed the 9/11 plot to happen.

Interviews include Richard Clarke (Chief of Counter-terrorism at the White House), Michael Scheuer (the head of the CIA Bin Laden Unit), and Gary Schroen (the CIA field agent who was trying to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden through the 1990s).

The film also reveals how the confusion in air traffic control, the failure to promptly notify the military about the hijacked planes, and the breakdown in communications around the President allowed these attacks to be successfully carried out.

Interviews with pilots, air traffic controllers, Karen Hughes (counsel to the President), Richard Armitage (Deputy Secretary of State), and the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission Thomas Kean and Richard Hamilton are also featured.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
They do have a tape recording of OBL thanking one of the alive and well hijackers after the job was done.

---

The real Osama or the CIA's shown in Prof Jones' lecture?

Nobody is denying that terrorists flew planes into the buildings and that there is something that may be called Al Quaeda.

At least I am not. But I do not believe the offical version is the truth and I must have wasted over 200 hours watching videos and reading web pages (some of which are really not worth wasting one's time on).

We were not told the truth and one (of many) indication is that Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath to the 9-11 Commission and did so only in private. Notes reporters took were checked by secret service agents. Btw one of the commisoners on the Commission included the one who found no fault in the Iran Contra affair. Nor has he found any fault in the other three commssions he was on. He was handpicked by Bush after the outcry over his appointment of Kissinger to head the commssion.

* SF mayor Willie Brown & british author Salman Rushdie both received warnings not to fly, before the incident.
* local pennsylvania TV interviewed a man in Pennsylvania that saw Flight 93 with a fighter right on its tail ... within a minute, Flight 93 exploded. he did not actually see the plane fire a missile - but the debris site was that of an explosion, not a crash.

it became obvious very quickly that the official story was very full of holes & inconsistencies.

then true researchers like Mark Robinowitz,
http://www.oilempire.us/

Michael Ruppert,
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/

Paul Thompson,
http://www.cooperativeresearch.com/

and Jim Hoffman
http://research.wtc7.net/

went to work.

http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/index.htm

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
In the real world, people have to base their actions on substantial probabilities.

---

Real world, huh? Like the one in which the formula for acceleration due to gravity applies?

What is the probability that the structure below the impact sites suddenly, almost instantaneously, lost all structural integrity, and provided almost zero resistance to the section above the impact sites?

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Tor Star quote:
According to a poll by Scripps Howard News Service, more than one-third of respondents think government officials "either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."
Sixteen per cent of those polled believe secret explosives brought down the towers; 12 per cent believe a cruise missile was fired into the Pentagon.

Conspiracy theories in the United States date back at least to questions about who really killed Abraham Lincoln in 1865.

To this day, people will tell you that the 1969 Apollo moon landing was staged in Hollywood; that the 1986 explosion of the Challenger space shuttle was deliberate; that the U.S. government continues to cover up the crash of an alien spaceship in Roswell, N.M., in 1947.

There is no shortage of Hurricane Katrina survivors in New Orleans who swear they heard the levees being blown up.

---

You are saying, merely by juxtaposition, M. Spector and the TorStar, that people who question the multiple holes in the Official Conspiracy Theory are of the same mindset as those who believe in UFO's. It seems this most uncivil insult is intentional.

What is the formal name for the fallacious thinking behind the above quote?

The fact is that there are large numbers of USians who believe in one or more (but not necessarily all) conspiracy theories. All the article was doing was enumerating some of the theories that have substantial support.

Is that an insult? I don't think it is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I don't know what you mean by "same mindset".

---

One of which is that it's demonstrably untrue.

Another of which is that you are misusing the term "conspiracy theory" in the exact opposite sense from the way most normal people use it.