Relevant references include the Loose Change (2nd edition) documentary, and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website. It would be nice if people took a close look at these or similar sites before posting comments on this thread.

[ 05 June 2006: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]
thread title edited
[ 13 June 2006: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]

Here's the first thread

Here's the second thread

[ 29 June 2006: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]

Which bits, ceti? It would help us to know.

Saying that something has been "debunked" in this case is a matter of perspective. None of the physical laws or evidence supporting the demolition theory for the WTC have been "debunked". If there are facts that have been made up, please point out which ones, so we can evaluate this more clearly.

PS: I would add that the Really Hot Fire causing Pancaking theory has several times over been debunked itself. It certainly hasn't been proven.

[ 06 June 2006: Message edited by: jas ]

[ 22 June 2006: Message edited by: jas ]

quote:

---

Khimia: Why will no one give serious consideration to the Godzilla/Mothra theory?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Don't be silly. Godzilla is a force for good, not evil.

---

My own feeling is at the very least that by deliberate neglect warnings of the attacks were downplayed and ignored. There is ample intent and motivation that has been demonstrated by Cheney and the rest of the PNAC cabal.

quote:

---

As alluded to at the end of the original movie, another Godzilla monster surfaced at first as a menace in Godzilla Raids Again but would soon become Japan's greatest hero, starting in Ghidorah, the Three Headed Monster. He would team up with Mothra, Rodan and Anguirus to battle a variety of foes both mundane (Ebirah, Kumonga and Kamacuras) and bizarre (Hedorah, Gigan and Megalon). He even gained a son in the form of Minilla. The series ended with Terror of Mechagodzilla in 1975. The final scene depicted Godzilla wading off into the sea, not to be seen until his return in the Heisei series ten years later.

Godzilla’s appearance would gradually transform from being reptilian (King Kong vs. Godzilla) to dog-like (Mothra vs. Godzilla) and gradually become friendlier and more human in shape and demeanor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
That's probably the Godzilla I watched when I was knee-high to a grasshopper. But yea, I guess he ran amok to begin with.

---

I'm sure books have been written about Godzilla's transformation into a heroic figure.

Not long ago a restored version of the original Gojira was released. I can't find the review I read, but here's one from the Grauniad, by Rick Moody.

quote:

---

So let me just get the opinion part out of the way, and say that, in fact, the restored, original Godzilla (by which name we now ought to refer to the subtitled edition of what once was Gojira) is a luminous, beautiful, melancholy film, full of lovely moments, great cinematography, and a theme worthy of the great foreign films of the 20th century. The restored Godzilla is so superior to the American version that it actually makes me sheepish to think that I ever liked it. The script is lovely, too, with its proto-environmentalist pleas about the horrors of nuclear testing and the dangers of eliminating the fisheries around Japan. There are also implicit and explicit lamentations about the second world war and the suffering of the Japanese people during the end of that conflict. Likewise, there is the charming mix of reverence and terror about the Godzilla monster himself.

---

quote:

---

I'm not saying all of it has been debunked, but also to look at alternative explanations and not get swallowed up by the most far-fetched theories out there.

---

I've since seen pictures of American Airlines debris scattered about the Pentagon which really questions the whole "a plane didn't hit the Pentagon" theory but then you look at the official report that the plane was vaporized yet humans were still identifiable makes you raise questions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ceti:
However, some of the theories seem to imply the implication of too many people, thus stretching credibility. The more people, the more mouths to keep shut.

---

Agreed, ceti. But you can see in just these three threads on Babble how mouths get shut - even by so-called progressives. So it's not too much of a stretch to see how it would work in a more mainstream, reactionary, "you are with us or you are against us" environment.

[ 07 June 2006: Message edited by: jas ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ceti:
Alternet has a thread going on this. Much the same discussion as here.

---

Thanks for the link. That discussion is a little more intelligent than what's happening here.

I loved this comment:

quote:

---

Well, this is fantastic! From now on, why hire demolition experts? Just put big holes and aviation fuel in all buildings slated for demolition!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
I have a conspiracy theory. I think Cueball works for CSIS. He knows way to much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John K:
Predictably, when there are websites dedicated to conspiracy theories, there will be websites dedicated to de-bunking the conspiracy theories. Here's one of the better ones I've run across:
http://www.911myths.com/index.html

---

That's a good site, John K. Particularly because they don't spend half their time talking about people "making shit up!" If you actually read it though, you'll find it doesn't "debunk" anything about the demolition theory. They present counter-arguments to several of the claims made by different theorists. Definitely gives pause for thought, but, as they say,

[Q]None of this proves anything, of course, but it is interesting[/Q].

They contradict themselves when attempting to disprove that structural columns were ejected from the collapsing building, using a photo to suggest that the "beams" are actually just the aluminum facade. In another section of their critique, they show in diagram the structure of the steel supports which are plainly visible in the first photo.

And their critique of the "collapse at near free-fall speeds" claim seems to miss the point. I believe the idea is that whether the buildings took 9 or 15 seconds to fall, without explosives, the pancaking of 110 stories should have taken a lot longer.

Their critique of "progressive collapse" outside of demolition never happening before or after 9/11 only presents three examples: two of partially constructed buildings, and one of only a partial collapse. Again, pause for thought, but we're talking about the Twin Towers here, buildings that had stood tall for thirty years and had already seen a generation of New Yorkers grow up.

Beausoleil, June 5, 7:27am

quote:

---

It is an established propaganda technique to ridicule and discredit anyone who attempts to point out discrepancies in the 'Official Version of the Truth". Thus we have the term "Conspiracy Theorists", always accompanied of course by a roll of the eyes by those who are too 'reasonable' to fall for such 'nonsense'. Professional propagandists play on our need to feel intelligent and acceptable. The price for speaking an unpopular truth is ostracism and ridicule. But the price for not speaking it is the very price that we pay now, slavery and oppression.

---

And the 8:03am post of intothewild, which includes:

quote:

---

some psychological phenomena, very much useful to the Bush/GOP regime, which enable their lies, crimes and treasons to go unnoticed and unchallenged…:
Conformity and Herd Mentality
-'Unity' in a community comes as the phenomenon of 'One Mind' develops.
- 'One Mind' is each individual in a community aligning their thoughts with what the other members are thinking. This occurrence is motivated by the sense of comfort it provides.
-It can be described as collective hypnotic induction, which creates an illusion of a consensus that is hard to challenge.
-Many people lead their lives enslaved by artificial belief systems imposed by others. The few that are courageously critical are not heard, or else they are severely shamed, ridiculed and viciously accused of causing problems.

---

Many of those who doubt the official story would be heavily discouraged to publicly express their true thoughts, for fear of being stigmatized by the herd.

ljsullivan, 3:57pm

quote:

---

Yes, there are conspiracy theorists/nuts, and then there are conspiracies. People are so afraid of looking foolish by considering conspiracy that they choose denial to maintain that 'cool' posture -- as though it couldn't happen here. Yet history is filled with real conspiracies.

---

WhuThe?!? on Jun 5, 2006 9:34 PM
This poster makes a good point about the energy required to melt steel girders, and ends with

quote:

---

It seems so obvious to me and I hope for justice, but that will never happen if the citizenry continues in their customary self-serving denial, and that is what it is. Who wants to waste time worrying about our "president" committing the worst act of treason in our nations history when SUV-fuel prices already have our puny little minds occupied to full capacity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Khimia:
Again I smell cover up. Why will no one give serious consideration to the Godzilla/Mothra theory? Who is protecting them, who owes them favours? What about the money trail?

---

ROFL!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rgaiason:
Originally posted by Khimia:
Why will no one give serious consideration to the Godzilla/Mothra theory?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
It's OK, gram swaraj, I wouldn't try and convert anyone here who is committed to logically contradictory but nevertheless safe opinion. Since both sides are working with the same evidence, we know that the jokesters here have no more clue than you or I what really went down on 9/11. They are just adhering to what they feel is safest - the story that receives official endorsement. We know by studies of mob behaviour that if the politicians, the pundits and mainstream opinion leaders were to suddenly start questioning and ridiculing the official story of the WTC collapse, the Babble jokesters would find themselves suddenly having to change their tune.

---

Condescend and sneer all you like, but when this theory was first discussed on babble, I read the Steven Jones page, watched the videos he linked to, and then asked a few questions -- in a straightforward and even polite way -- about what seemed to me fairly obvious holes in that account, and basic errors of fact. Things that supporters of this version would have to explain or account for if they were going to convince me, let alone people more knowledgeable than me (a large group, probably).

No-one bothered to take on my questions directly. Instead they responded with insinuations about my politics and my credulity, slogans like "believe and obey, it's the only way," and the like.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:
This is a continuation of the second thread on this topic (inexplicably left in the Canadian politics section by the mods).

---

Strangely enough, you started both of those earlier threads in the Canadian Politics section, so I'm not sure what's so "inexplicable" about it. Sometimes moving threads is low on the priority list if other more urgent things need to be done. No big conspiracy here.

Here's the
first thread

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:
Condescend and sneer all you like, but when this theory was first discussed on babble, I read the Steven Jones page, watched the videos he linked to, and then asked a few questions -- in a straightforward and even polite way -- about what seemed to me fairly obvious holes in that account, and basic errors of fact. ...

No-one bothered to take on my questions directly. Instead they responded with insinuations about my politics and my credulity....

---

[Edit: Well, here's the thread. Anyone? Bueller?]

[ 22 June 2006: Message edited by: Yossarian ]

We saw the flames and smoke pouring out of the top of the first tower. Then we saw a plane approach the second tower, hit it, and the resulting explosion flames and smoke.

Then we watched the tops of the two towers flaming and smoking. And then, quite some time later, they both came tumbling down – snuffing out more than 3,000 innocent lives.

The conspiracy theorists would have us believe that all of this was planned and impeccably timed by hardliners in the Bush administration who wanted an excuse to invade Iraq.

That means that as I, along with millions of others around the world, watched the firemen and emergency personnel enter those buildings in an effort to save lives, some person or persons in the Bush administration was also watching the events on TV and knew that the explosive devices were about to go off and those firemen and emergency personnel would die in a matter or minutes.

I can see that some 'rabble babblers' need some help with their understanding of 'conspiracy theory'.

One problem is with the limitation of motivation.
Like most crimes, a criminal conspiracy requires 'motive, means and opportunity'. Ascribing a narrow motivation~"who wanted an excuse to invade Iraq" overlooks some other motivations like the gas pipeline across Afghanistan; solving the very expensive problem of asbestos removal from the twin towers; destruction of evidence (and investigators) in some big 'white collar' swindles; eliminating the to-be-audited books of the Pentagon's army budget (unaccounted trillions of $); and generally setting up America for transition from Republic to Empire due to a crafty 'phantom menace'.

We are not relying on an “official story” to tell us what we saw with our own eyes.

Two planes smashed into the twin towers and both towers subsequently collapsed.

1.) It did not collapse until about five hours after the collapse of the twin towers. Why the delay if all this was planned in advance?

2.) The building owner said that, after everyone had been evacuated from the building, the fire department commander said the building could not be saved and that the best remedy would be a controlled demolition.

3.) A clean-up worker and a fireman told PBS that they were aware at the time that explosives were going to be detonated and that the building would collapse.

4.) If this really was a plot hatched by the Bush-Cheney administration, don't you think they would have told the building owner and the others to keep their mouths shut?

5.) No. I don't know why the New York fire department was able to bring the third tower down so fast. Maybe, as was suggested at the time, they planted dynamite around the foundations.

However, I doubt very much that the fire department commander knew at the time that he was suggesting a controlled demolition to the building owner that the CIA or someone else had already rigged the building with explosives.

If you are suggesting that he was in on the plot, then he would have known in advance that three thousand people would die that day.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert MacBain:
CORRECTION: The third tower collapsed EIGHT hours after the twin towers -- not approximately five hours as I stated in the earlier posting.

According to the New York fire department commander, the reason for collapsing the building was because he did not believe that they could contain the fire.

---

So why did they not let it burn out. #7 had only a few floors that where on fire. There are building with 20 floor fires that have never colapsed. And if the fire dept said to pull the building down. How they hell did they manage to get explosive experts inside the "raging inferno" building to plant the explosives so #7 could fall in it's footprint. Wow I guess they used pixie dust and waved a wand and those *gasp* explosives just appeared in the right place to allow this building to come down in a controlled demo.

Come on, if you are going to use facts, look at them in the light and examine if the "fact" makes any sense in how it relates to the event. Obviously something is wrong with the "fire chief" conspiracy. Because if the NYFD won't go it to the building because it is too dangerous, how did they manage explosive experts who don't deal with burning buildings everyday, get into and onto floors that where burning wildly out of control. Then locate and plant explosive(remember the building is burning and you are carrying explosives) to bring the building down a few hours later, when a proper building demo takes many many weeks to get the demolision to fall so perfectly.

That seems like a pretty reasonable explanation for why the New York City fire department was able to collapse the third tower in a relatively short span of time.

And you wouldn’t need to rely on “compartmentalization and non-disclosure agreements” or “retroactive gag orders” or the fact that “a lot of technical people might have been sworn to secrecy for ostensibly harmless reasons” to “cover that up.”

It was all done live on TV with the full knowledge of the building’s owner, the clean-up crew and the firefighters and other emergency personnel.

quote:

---

"...charges might have been laid as a defensive precaution. If it was going to fall then falling straight down into it's own 'footprint' was safest.”

That seems like a pretty reasonable explanation for why the New York City fire department was able to collapse the third tower in a relatively short span of time.

---

Well golly, if this is what happened, why didn't they just say so?? Why all the talk about the shakin' and the tremblin' (and the really hot fires) goin' on at WTC7, which finally resulted in its complete and utterly perfect symmetrical free-fall collapse into itself, as if it had been made of powdered brick? Why do the official reports still say that fires caused the collapse, darn it?

quote:

---

It was all done live on TV with the full knowledge of the building’s owner, the clean-up crew and the firefighters and other emergency personnel.

---

And were the news reports telling us that it was being pulled with previously laid charges for safety reasons? If so, what does that say about the theories of all the Babble explosives experts who tell us that explosives degrade and become unstable extremely rapidly?

quote:

---

Can we now remove the third tower from the conspiracy theory menu?

---

quote:

---

CBC Newsworld keeps showing footage of the "first" plane crashing into the first tower to collapse. But at this time there is also smoke belching from the top of the second tower.

Some time later you can see a second plane crashing into the second tower, lower down from the smoking area. By and by that tower collapses too.

This suggests that something more than two planes were involved, although at this point that hardly seems to matter.

I'm stunned, shaking.

In Bush's statement he said the US would "hunt down and find" the "folks" responsible.

---

quote:

---

as well a 747 crashed in Pittsburgh......state department in Washington had a car bomb detonated outside its doors.

---

Why are you quoting 'lance's initial impression of the event, instead of responding to the points he made when he reviewed the Steven Jones web page and video?

[ 28 June 2006: Message edited by: Yossarian ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yossarian:
And a few posts after that, someone else said Then someone else said a plane had crashed in San Francisco. Immediately above 'lance's post, rasmus raven said that five planes had crashed.

Why are you quoting 'lance's initial impression of the event, instead of responding to the points he made when he reviewed the Steven Jones web page and video?

---

'Lance was watching real-time footage of events as they transpired, and recording what he was observing first hand in that historic thread. He was not writing down what other erroneous reports were coming in at the time. There's an obvious difference there, Yossarian.

I think his interpretation of what he was seeing on television that day is very telling. I think he too would find this archived comment of his very interesting in light of his more recent comments on the subject.

Secondly, I am not (nor is anyone else here) required to answer any posters queries - especially ones from a thread in which I had no participation. Why are you fighting 'lance's battles for him anyway?

quote:

---

- that the video didn't say what the website said it said. The website referred to eyewitness accounts of "molten steel," referring the reader to the video. The video showed (and people therein talked about) "red-hot" steel;

- that in any case, steel wouldn't need to be molten, just weakened, for the building or frame it comprises to collapse, so bits about the "melting temperature" not being reached are irrelevant (not to mention inconsistent with the previous claim);

- that if, as the "experts" claimed, molten steel was still present below the former foundations one month after the collapse, it would have needed a constant heat source to keep it molten (2600 degrees C). Where could that heat have come from? If the building had been brought down with "thermite," said thermite would have burned up in seconds or minutes;

- that, contrary to two widespread claims, the building site was not immediately "sealed off," nor were debris immediately "whisked away and buried"; and

- that many independent engineers, materials scientists etc. had had the chance to examine the debris.

---

As for 'lance's impressions on the day of Sept. 11 itself: yes, he reported what he saw (or what he thought he saw -- no one else in the thread picked up on his point to agree or disagree with it), which is different from repeating something heard in the news. I still wouldn't read much significance into it, as you do. He was quickly recording his impressions of film footage while processing a lot of other information, and like everyone else on that day, could have recorded those impressions in a way that was confused.

Actually, let's run that tape again:

quote:

---

CBC Newsworld keeps showing footage of the "first" plane crashing into the first tower to collapse. But at this time there is also smoke belching from the top of the second tower.

Some time later you can see a second plane crashing into the second tower, lower down from the smoking area. By and by that tower collapses too.

---

[ 28 June 2006: Message edited by: Yossarian ]

quote:

---

With the towers being fairly close together, and the film footage being shot from below, the smoke rising from the top of one tower might appear to be smoke rising from the tower between it and the camera.

---

And Yossarian, arguments based on "well maybe he didn't see it properly" or "maybe the angle was confusing" may have some truth, but they don't particularly sway me, especially with my obvious bias, right? I think the person to ask is 'lance himself when he comes back. I certainly wouldn't know what he saw, and the people posting in that thread didn't exactly have time to start discussing those kinds of details, did they? Although certainly no one then tried to make the argument to 'lance that you're trying to make here.

I am touched by your obvious discomfort that some people might actually begin to question the kerosene fuel fire theory, however.

[ 02 July 2006: Message edited by: jas ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
you started both of those earlier threads in the Canadian Politics section

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
And it is the first indication of what we can see in the future in terms of the fight for control not just of mass opinion, but of mass perception.

---

And, Robert MacBain, you are being incredibly, superlatively naïve. You believe everything you see and hear on the news at face value? You don’t know who owns and controls the mass media? You don’t think these owners try to control the information flow? You think people in positions of power have never, and will never, for their own ends kill thousands of people - even their own citizens - without compunction? (BTW, maybe start deprogramming yourself by reading up a bit on big lie techniques.)

Hey RM, I saw the evidence on TV, too (how couldn’t I have?). Two massive concrete and steel (and asbestos, etc.) structures collapsing practically straight down into themselves at near free-fall speed. And jet fuel exploding outside the tower after the second plane hit. But, I didn’t see anything on mass media TV about the first airplane hit. Saw the second one ad nauseum though. Saw the second one ad nauseum though. Saw the second one ad nauseum though. Surely someone out there must have a video of the first plane hitting? You'd think people and tourists all around Manhattan would tend to point their cameras at something like a Boeing 757 descending toward a forest of skyscrapers. Did the major networks put out a call to the public for such a video, and if so, did no one respond to it? Or was it deemed un-newsworthy? Ah, but maybe there’s no video of the first airplane at all, not one worth seeing anyways. Saw the second one ad nauseum though. Saw the second one ad nauseum though. Saw the second one ad nauseum though.

Thanks to Frustrated Mess for the lead, through Muckraker, to this announcement of a debate scheduled for September 16 in Charleston: The National 9/11 Debate
The 7 members for the “civilian” team are all listed on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website. The government side debators have not yet been decided, it would seem.

[ 29 June 2006: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lawrence Day:
Heh! The news video of the second tower hit is all over the web. Rosalee Grabel and Phil Jayhan had the sense to play it in slow motion and discovered a remarkable anomaly. A third of a second before impact there is a flash from the belly of the plane
as if a missile had been fired. Anyone with VCR who recorded the second hit can verify this for themself.
The Salon article was just more dissappointing propaganda. Almost any article that talks about 'no plane hit the Pentagon' is suspect. That is a strawman. What hit the Pentagon was most likely a missile disguised to look like a normal Boeing. The M.I.C., especially Zakheim's old company S.P.C. with its history in 'stealth' make these to order. The Salon article is purely for people who haven't researched on the web.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:

Hey RM, I saw the evidence on TV, too... But, I didn’t see anything on mass media TV about the first airplane hit. Saw the second one ad nauseum though. Saw the second one ad nauseum though. Saw the second one ad nauseum though. Surely someone out there must have a video of the first plane hitting? You'd think people and tourists all around Manhattan would tend to point their cameras at something like a Boeing 757 descending toward a forest of skyscrapers. Did the major networks put out a call to the public for such a video, and if so, did no one respond to it? Or was it deemed un-newsworthy? Ah, but maybe there’s no video of the first airplane at all, not one worth seeing anyways. Saw the second one ad nauseum though. Saw the second one ad nauseum though. Saw the second one ad nauseum though.

---

Good, because trying to fit a both/and situation into an either/or category is exactly the

PSYOP/psychological operation that was designed to frustrate and bore you into throwing up

your hands about what actually happened.

"...is this latest theory going around the web now?"

The problem is that anti-Semites (or pseudo-anti-Semites) instantly blamed the nefarious

neocon Rabbi Zakheim, Pentagon CFO/comptroller, P.N.A.C. signer, former VP at

extra-suspicious S.P.C. and Gov. G.W.Bush's mid-east foreign policy advisor in his

Presidential race..well frankly Dr. Zakheim is a 'person of interest' since he had motive,

means and opportunity, but who would want to ride in a boat pilotted by anti-Semites (or

pseudo-anti-Semites)? So this theory has circulated the web slowly and carefully with an

eye out for disiformation and deflector shields up.But it is logical and fits the facts.

"...What's also interesting is how no one's dealing with what this implies..."

Wake up! The 'phantom menace' turned the 'republic' into an 'empire'?
History couldn't be writ more large.
Rent Spartacus and Star Wars 1-3; jump the action and follow the politics..

Is Bilderberg really just "nothing" as Noam Chomsky has said ?. Is Noam Chomsky a deep undercover CIA front man ?.

quote:

---

Noam Chomsky and his Left Gatekeeper associates must be actively exposed for their role in the propaganda system. For nearly 40 years since they infiltrated the activist movement, these Left gatekeepers have made the activist movements impotent, territorial, confused, and ineffective. Thus instead of understanding their enslavement, many activists end up calling for tighter chains by echoing Chomsky's calls for gun control, population control, and a world government under the UN. They end up critiquing the Iraq disaster without seeing government involvement in 9-11 and the CIA/MI-6/Mossad creation known as Al-Qaeda.

Noam Chomsky and his clique of re-direct agents mercilessly push real activists into dead-end solutions. Until they are vocally exposed, the Left will continue to remain a managed asset of the New World Order

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

Don't be silly. Godzilla is a force for good, not evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yossarian:
There would obviously be more (and probably better-quality) footage of the second plane, as by then a lot more people were watching. And yeah, that was sort of what I was referring to: on the day itself, they were showing coverage of the second plane hitting, over and over again, from at least a couple of different angles. I seem to remember seeing coverage of the first plane too, though, so I assume there would be publicly available footage of that somewhere.

---

quote:

---

CBC Newsworld keeps showing footage of the "first" plane crashing into the first tower to collapse. But at this time there is also smoke belching from the top of the second tower.

Some time later you can see a second plane crashing into the second tower, lower down from the smoking area. By and by that tower collapses too.

This suggests that something more than two planes were involved, although at this point that hardly seems to matter.

---

and can we agree not to quote jefg rense in this thread?

[ 02 July 2006: Message edited by: jas ]

For the record there was a video of the first plane hitting the tower, taken by (if I remember correctly) some NY police or fireman who were videotaping a training exercise near the tower. Someone yells that there's a plane flying low and the camera tracks it, rather jerkily but it's clear what you're seeing, as it arrows into the building.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardy:

Sorry I don't have anything to add in re the Masons, demonic remote-controlled rabbits seeking to dominate the galactic asbestos market, etc, but the above two sources might of interest to those with an interest in the subject but an aversion to tinfoil hats.

---

No problem, Cardy. We've got our hands full of silly stories these days.

That's why it is always such a disappointment to me that these conversations frequently devolve into name-calling with a lot of "media brainwashed sheep!", "tinfoil-hatted nutbar!" being thrown back and forth. Is it all really necessary? If your opponent's position is really that lacking in foundation, surely you can demonstrate that using the facts, right? Or maybe your position isn't as solid as you like to believe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert MacBain:
I would also drop the Godzilla stuff. We're speculating about the deaths of 3,000 souls. They deserve a higher level of debate.

---

Absolutely.

Jacob TT says "If your opponent's position is really that lacking in foundation, surely you can demonstrate that using the facts, right?" In this and other debates in this and other forums, it's increasingly not possible.

This discussion is dominated by polarized groups, with one group viewing the other as conspiracists or stooges. In the middle are those with an open mind who sift through the information available and draw their own conclusions.

The two groups do not share the same definition of 'facts,' and this is where the ridicule sets in. As a member of one group I am amazed by the information the other presents as factual, and believe it has a dangerous and distorting effect on this or any debate. No doubt those on the other side would think the same of my views.

Just because something is on the internet does not make it a fact, and confusion on this issue seems to be at the root of many of the bizarre arguments seen here and elsewhere.

Of course saying this will result in accusations that I am a tool of the CIA and so on. So, given that my views will be dismissed by many whether they're based on staight citations from reputable sources (another plug here for W. Langewiesche's excellent work) or if I tease the conspiracy- mongers for their silliness, I choose to combine the two.

I'm interested in communicating with people looking for more information, not those who have made up their minds, and I'm looking for those who don't want to be associated with the tinfoil-hat wearers. Because that's what I believe them to be, and I could provide endless citations in support of that belief. But I don't because they won't be convinced, and the undecided reader would be bored. So I include jabs at the other side in my posts, as a form of fairness in advertising - if you're looking for missile-masons-mossad citations from me, you're reading the wrong posts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardy:

The two groups do not share the same definition of 'facts,' and this is where the ridicule sets in. As a member of one group I am amazed by the information the other presents as factual, and believe it has a dangerous and distorting effect on this or any debate. No doubt those on the other side would think the same of my views.

....Of course saying this will result in accusations that I am a tool of the CIA and so on. So, given that my views will be dismissed by many whether they're based on staight citations from reputable sources (another plug here for W. Langewiesche's excellent work) or if I tease the conspiracy- mongers for their silliness, I choose to combine the two.

....Finally, the best way to show respect to those who died on 9/11 or in any other atrocity commited by reactionaries of left or right is to have good, honest arguments based on reason, the rules of evidence, and good humour. There's nothing such people hate more than debate and dissent.

---

I would agree with the very first sentence of your statement (not really sure what you mkean by your very last sentence). I also wonder where defenders of the official story get their "facts". Is it some special top-secret place that the conspiracy theorists can't access? No. A point I've made all along has been that the parties currently debating this issue have access to the same evidence - what remains after what was appropriated or withheld.

Many of the posters here talk about the facts that the conspiracy theorists have "made up". I have asked several times in these three threads which "facts" in the demolition theory (what this thread is about) have been made up, and as yet, nobody has been able or willing to provide these.

Your comment about "reputable sources" is probably more what this is about. The defenders of the official story unquestioningly accept their information sources as reputable, and tend to automatically assume that sources of alternative explanations can't be reputable, because they're lumped in with the Alex Joneses and Jeff Renses. So we have a disagreement on who or what is a legitimate source.

Plenty of books have been written on both sides of this debate, Cardy. Thank you for your recommendation, but just because you name one that you like does not mean, first of all, that we can all run out and buy it so that we will debate you on it (in this thread which was not started by you), and secondly, that it is the final authority on this subject.

Whether the existing conspiracy theories are palatable to you or not, it is astounding to me that you and many of your ilk are unwilling to acknowledge that there is far too much about the official story that bizarrely stretches credibility. And I think that may be where the power of it lies - in its blatant, in-your-face ridiculousness. Because it's so out there, so brashly "this is what happened", and not trying to convince or desperately to conform to demonstrated laws of physics, (for one) or general lay understandings of how gravity and impedance work in building demolition, most people don't dare question it publicly. How can it be wrong if so many people endorse that this is what happened?

please take the time to see the movie before arguing that it's all baloney.

quote:

---

...then surely you must also believe...

---

This is a good example of a phrase that, for me, separates information I can use from conspiracy mongering:

There is nothing that I must surely believe, not the official version of any event or the reconstructions written by others. One thing only leads to another if there is a chain of proof; saying something is 'obvious' or using a phrase like the above is not sufficient. Too many of the WTC conspiracy theories are either factually incorrect or politically nonsensical.

I have looked at a lot of the sources cited by folks in this thread and elsewhere, and I find them wanting in whole or in part. The 'official' version is also troublesome in places, but it makes more sense to me as a whole, and is supported by more credible expertise in the areas I have examined more closely.

My purpose in contributing to this thread was to commend a book that deals with a lot of the issues raised here; I don't have the time or inclination to engage in a debate with people who aren't going to change their minds, so please don't ask me to.

I just hope that a couple of people read Langewiesche's book; apart from anything else it's very nicely written.

PS. Given all my contributions here have been pushing a book it's embarrassing that I miswrote the name; the full title is "American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center", (North Point Press, 2002).

[ 05 July 2006: Message edited by: Cardy ]

quote:

---

Cardy:
Too many of the WTC conspiracy theories are either factually incorrect or politically nonsensical.

---

I'm not weighing in on either side of this discussion, but the above statement gave me a chuckle.

Are you saying that there may be theories that are factually correct but politically nonsensical and ones that are incorrect but make perfect political sense?

Suppose that we do not have any that are both factually correct and politically sensible.

quote:

---

Are you saying that there may be theories that are factually correct but politically nonsensical and ones that are incorrect but make perfect political sense?

---

Damn straight!

Several of the sites on building demolition show hotels and other buildings as they collapse.

In most cases, the bottom floors collapse/implode first and the top floors -- 100% intact -- pile down on top of the collapsed bottom floors.

Can anyone enlighten me on why the reverse occurred in the case of the WTC collapse?

All vidoes etc. clearly show that the bottom floors were intact and that the collapse started from the top -- not from the bottom as is usually the case.

The theory of Bushco complicity is still a working hypothesis for me, but, as always, the best and most likely conspiracies are the simplest ones. If they got wind that an attack was likely, they could just agree among a small number of high-level individuals that they would fail to defend against it, and then cover up their "incompetence". Low-risk and tightly contained, unlike planting explosives all over the WTC. So why resist all attempts to investigate the event if they weren't personally involved? Simple. They had their script all ready to go, including where to pin the blame and how to "retaliate". They didn't want any inconvenient facts mucking things up. What if evidence pointed to actual perpetrators that were easy to find? What if the whole thing was settled in a matter of weeks, like the Mcveigh incident? That would never fit with their agenda, so it was all rhetoric, no detective work.

It's possible that they had a more active role in the whole affair, but it seems unnecessary when so many psychos want to hit the US. There had been plenty of attempts before to do things like this, we know those people are not made up, but competent security work had always foiled these plans. All they had to do was stop being competent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert MacBain:

In most cases, the bottom floors collapse/implode first and the top floors -- 100% intact -- pile down on top of the collapsed bottom floors.

Can anyone enlighten me on why the reverse occurred in the case of the WTC collapse?

---

Sorry, but amateur videos on the Internet are not the same as lab studies of the structural steel (samples of steel were sent to many different labs across the US for testing) or forensic reports or structural engineering investigations.

Interestingly, none of the conspiracy theories published on the Internet - not in any peer-reviewed scientific publications, but on amateur websites created for the purpose of disseminating unfounded conspiracy theories - none of these theories ever seem to interview the structural engineers or architects or steel manufacturers or fire suppression specialists who built the damn towers or any of the engineering experts who had published their worries about a collapse from a fire in the Towers back in 1964 to 1970 at the time the buildings were being designed using an untested building technique, untested fire retardant materials, and an untested unprecedented thinness of steel on the upper storeys.

The New York Times in 1968 even carried full-page ads from groups opposed to the construction of the new Towers warning of a possible collapse from a fire that would be caused by a plane smashing into the WTC.

[ 06 July 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]

or should I say unable?

[ 06 July 2006: Message edited by: jas ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
I am touched by your obvious discomfort that some people might actually begin to question the kerosene fuel fire theory, however.

---

quote:

---

For those not interested in silly stories about Boeing shaped missiles and so on, I'd recommend a book by W. Langewiesche called 'Unbuilding the World Trade Center'. The author has a long background in aviation so knows his stuff where aviation issues are involved, and his writing is both interesting and addresses many of the issues raised in this thread concerning how the buildings collapsed, the demolition of WTC7, etc.

---

Not only is there the Langewiesche book, which was based on the author crawling around the wreckage site for months with structural engineers, accident investigators, firefighters, the top reinforced concrete experts on the planet, as well as the people who designed and constructed the Towers.

Anyone with a library card can also find numerous books written before 2001 on the controversy surrounding the entirely novel construction techniques and materials used in the erection of the Twin Towers.

Many books point out: the lack of proper fire testing of the towers' model, the unprecedented thinness of the steel skeleton, the unprecedented thinness of the fire retardant materials (to keep the steel from melting in a fire), the unprecedented open floor design without ANY intermediary columns before the elevator/service core and the external skeleton wall. Modelling showed the structure had incredible redundancy except that that redundancy was never tested for prolonged fire conditions. NEVER TESTED FOR PROLONGED FIRE CONDITIONS. And certainly not tested for prolonged fire conditions after more than 1/3 of the structural columns that are needed to carry the towers's weight had been destroyed in huge 5-to-9 storeys high gashes.

No one needs airplane missiles, space alien laser beams, dynamite hidden back in 1993, nukes in the basement.

All you need is engineering and experience in accident investigation - see the NISO studies, all the material in the Langewiesche book, the opinions of the delegates from the American Society of Civil Engineers who took samples from the steel girders from the New Jersey site to which they had been carted so they could be sent off to different engineering labs - ASCE is the largest, most respected and reputable engineering association on the planet... The list of reputable engineers, accident investigating experts, fire engineering experts, strucutral steel experts, reinforced concrete experts who clambered over the wreckage for months after 911 runs into the hundreds.

One would assume they would have published stuff backing up the conspiracy theories had they found the tiniest bit of evidence.

So again, simple question: why haven't any of the allegations of conspiracies been made by anyone who was actually onsite during the close to one year of recovery operations and who actually sifted through the physical evidence, and why haven't any of these allegations ever been accepted for publication in any reputable peer-reviewed science, engineering or technical journal?

Simple question...

[ 06 July 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]

You don’t need a degree in metallurgy to see with your own eyes that more than 80% of the lower floors were 100% intact.

That would make the WTC “demolition” the first one in history where the building collapsed from the top down.

On September 11, 2001, -- before the “official story” came out or the conspiracy theories started to circulate, a lecturer at the School of Engineering at the University of Sydney wrote:

“However, as fire raged in the upper floors, the heat would have been gradually affecting the behaviour of the remaining material…. While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections….

”Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination….

”Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure….”

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
The relevant point for me is that 'lance notices smoke "belching" from the second tower before any plane has hit it, and moreover that the plane hits below the area of already-belching smoke.

---

Actually, Yossarian, this is what I wrote in response to your posting of 'lance's questions, among other things.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Critical Mass2:

Simple question...

---

Perhaps because the hypotheses are just too scientifically ridiculous and politically paranoid to be considered for publication in any reputable journal...

Just find me 5 or 6 articles about nukes in the basement, or CIA demolition charges, or airplane-fired missiles in any peer-reviewed engineering, or fire investigation, or forensics, or metallurgy, or construction or aviation journal. OK, never mind, find me just 3 articles supporting those "hypotheses" accepted for publication in any peer-reviewed, reputable science, technical or engineering journal.

Anything will do from either the National Academy Press, or any of the dozens of journals published by the American Society of Civil Engineers, or the Journal fo Materials Science, or any journal from the National Association of Fire Protection, etc.

I'm easy, just 3 articles from any of those top recognized, reputable science, engineering or technical journals, any of those journals at all should do.

If the conspiracy theories had any basis in fact or science, structural engineers, fire investigators, forensic experts, other scientists would certainly want to know and discuss the relevant data.

So, just a measly 3 articles in any REAL technical journal, published by a science academy, Springer, Elsevier, Thomson, any real science, technical or engineering publisher will do.

Now that would spark a legitimate technical discussion about possible scenarios.

In the absence of the existence of any material backing up the conspiracy stories accepted for publication in any real technical journal, the conclusion is very straightforward.

[ 07 July 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Critical Mass2:
Again, not a single conspiracy theory hypothesis accepted for publication in any significant, reputable, peer-reviewed science, technical or engineering journal.

Perhaps because the hypotheses are just too scientifically ridiculous and politically paranoid to be considered for publication in any reputable journal...

Just find me 5 or 6 articles about nukes in the basement, or CIA demolition charges, or airplane-fired missiles in any peer-reviewed engineering, or fire investigation, or forensics, or metallurgy, or construction or aviation journal. OK, never mind, find me just 3 articles supporintg those "hypotheses" accepted for publication in any peer-reviewed, reputable science, technical or engineering journal.

---

Scientifically ridiculous?

There was no visble sign of any explosion or collapse on the bottom approximately 80 floors. The collapse started at the top -- where the fire was. And, judging by the smoke that we saw billowing out of the top of that building, it was one helluva fire.

If the conspiracy theorists are right, this is probably the only time in history that a "demolition" was planned so that the explosives were planted on the top floors rather than at the bottom as is the case 100% of the time.

- and since I'm writing, just a brief overview of why I feel as I do:

1. 4 big plane crashes, and not a single photo of a tail or wing or engine or large fuselage piece to be seen - once would be stretching the imagination, four times is just not on. Check any story of any other big plane crash in history, and you have these things, big debris fields of actual, very recognizable pieces of a big plane, not the tiny scraps we've seen from any of the 911 places. Big planes simply do NOT disintegrate or vaporize, except in comic books. I don't know what is actually happening here - I just know this is pretty hard to believe, especially considering the many, many other very suspicious-looking or sounding things about the whole Official American Gov Conspiracy Theory of Arabs in Caves etc.

2. The world trade centers were not a stack of fragile pancakes waiting for a strong fart to collapse them - if that was the case, highrise structures would be falling down all over the world every year, a grim sort of spectator sport like watching people getting flooded in known flood areas or having their houses destroyed in known hurricane areas or something. No, highrises are not like that - they are built incredibly strongly (and the bigger the stronger, and this was the biggest), which is why we do NOT see them falling down all over the place (this http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm is probably the most detailed overview, with a lot of pics etc, wherein it can be seen just how solidly built they were). Each of the WTC buildings was a huge matrix of steel beams and reinforced concrete, the two big ones at least built around a massive central shaft, like the spindle on a record player. Spindles do not pancake, even if the idea that the rest of it might of had some small credibility. Think of the plane that flew into the Empire State building in the 1940s - bit of localized damage, nothing more. Think of the various very major fires that have occurred in other steel frame high rises over the last few years - the one in Spain recently, a couple in the States, Meridian Plaza I believe is one name (I'm not getting into any details here for the same reason I would not spend a weekend writing a detailed referenced paper about why there is no Santa Claus or something) - many floors completely burned out after hours of raging infernos, the steel structure still remaining. And no they did not have an airplane crashing into them - but remember also that the WTC (as are most of these buildings) was designed and built to accomodate an actual accident such as an aircraft accidentally crashing into them. And these things are built way above specs as well, you know that - a factor of 3, if I'm not mistaken, but I'm not going to bother to look it up now. There is no possible way that the relatively small fires caused by the crashes generated enough heat to weaken any of that steel, let alone enough of it to cause "catastrophic collapse" - the only thing that has been catastrophically collapsing around here the last few years is the brains of otherwise fairly intelligent citizens who believe the fairy tales thrown at them by their government and media about this and any number of other things.

3. Pentagon - aside from no serious aircraft parts - there were several known cameras taking 24/7 vids of the area where the plane was supposed to have hit - that they have not managed to release one unambiguous picture of a real plane somewhere along the immediate pre-crash trajectory seems to me about all the evidence one needs that there was no plane there. Again, what it really was I don't really know - most likely some sort of missile by the looks of the holes in the building. And this alleged plane was supposedly being tracked for an hour or more, a "known hijacked aircraft with unknown objectives that must be assumed to be hostile" - heading towards the seat of the American government, Andrews Air Force Base not ten miles away - and no planes scrambled in defence. Right. There is NO excuse possible for that, outside of the obvious. Stand down. NOT ordered from some freaking cave in Afghanistan.

4. It seems pretty telling too that the US gov stonewalled all investigation attempts for years, and when they did do one it examined NOTHING that should have been examined - usually innocent people are anxious for an investigation into things, and guilty people would rather not. Columbo 101.

5. I think also you over-rate the place of "respected journals" in trying to suss out what is really going on in the non-scientific, "real" world of human struggles for democracy and in general, against the elites, that kind of thing - most of the major journals are pretty tied in to "the establishment", however you want to define that, and they and those who publish in them are going to be very, very reluctant to take any sort of leading role in bringing down the rulers - matters of funding, shared objectives, and what not (and conspiratorial though it sounds, we are dealing with some pretty obviously hard-hitting criminals here, with a great deal to lose if/when they are finally brought to justice, and I suspect there has been a fair amount of "you want to see your family alive, keep your mouth shut jack" stuff going on). Once the illegitimate rulers are brought down and a new regime put in place, these journals will start with a bit of analysis - but don't look to them to lead the way. In my opinion. But nonetheless, aside from the Elseview book at the top, you can find quite an impressive list of scholars who are willing to disagree with the official story here - http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html .

I saw the first tower on fire and a plane heading toward the second tower. You are now telling me that that plane did not exist. That it was impossible for that plane to exist.

You are also saying that the fire that broke out on the top floors of the second tower had absolutely nothing to do with the plane that I saw on live TV.

I can't do that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
Actually, Yossarian, this is what I wrote in response to your posting of 'lance's questions, among other things.

Sorry you feel the need to start quoting people incorrectly in some attempt to make your lame points.

---

I saw it as a bit of a deflection, because instead of staying on the points that I'd raised, you went back to another thread from Sept. 11 2001, where people were reporting what they saw at the time. Sort of shifting the goalposts. First you say that it's all about the scientific facts -- that we should confine the discussion to the scientific facts discussed recently on selected websites and videos, instead of going on our own recollection of what we saw. Then when someone addresses those facts, you say the relevant point for you is what people thought they saw on TV on the day of the attacks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert MacBain:
Let's keep it simple and stick with what we saw with our own eyes.

---

Ok, how about eye witnesses to the event?

“[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

That still does NOT explain why it was the top floors that tumbled down on the other floors.

If what they saw was what happened, the lower floors would have imploded first.

They didn't.

Also, if explosives were planted on the lower floors, how is it that a number of firefighters survived inside Tower One? They were on the third or fourth floor in a stairwell, and immediately after the collapse they looked up and saw blue sky above their heads. Their part of the stairwell survived.

If, as you suggest -- and the images of the perfectly intact lower 80% of the tower disproves -- the explosives were planted on the lower floors, how were those firefighters able to survive after the explosives went off?

This is, ideed, a silly and counter-productive exercise.

God himself could tell you that the towers collapsed because of the damage to the top floors and you still would not believe it.

So the simple fact that engineers and scientists and their journals have not published more on what happened to the WTC lends less credence to the government conspiracy theory than you give it - it may indeed simply mean that they themselves will have some explaining to do some day soon about how they could have been so credulous and/or silent themselves, about something so very obvious (and there are senior academics writing about these things - I don't know if anyone has mentioned the fairly recent Steve Jones from Brigham Young paper - http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html , which is pretty damning stuff, and one might, if one had access, want to ask the journals why they won't print such papers. There has been a powerful and very unsettling trend the last few decades of what we might call the politicization of science (we saw that recently even here, in a very blatant way, in Canada when the editors of the world-class Canadian Medical Association Journal were fired for daring to even mildly question some activities of the pharmaceutical companies).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert MacBain:
OK, Fidel. That is what they said they saw and heard.

That still does NOT explain why it was the top floors that tumbled down on the other floors.

If what they saw was what happened, the lower floors would have imploded first.

They didn't.

---

quote:

---

WTC 1, 2, and 7 also fell straight down, with remarkable symmetry, according to researchers. Without explosives, they say, this symmetry would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Collapse theorists also point to photographs and videos of what they believe are demolition "squibs", which are tightly focused horizontal plumes of smoke and debris being ejected from the twin towers during the collapse. Official theorists propose that the squibs were merely the ejection of material due to the evacuation of air as the floors collapsed; the plumes, however, appear approximately 10 stories below the area of main destruction and are ejected only from the centers of the towers. These plumes appear in both towers, at regular intervals, and from multiple camera angles. Researchers say the presence of these squibs indicate secondary explosive devices, activated just ahead of the collapsing material, removing the structural support and allowing total collpase. It is also believed that squibs were seen in the destruction of WTC 7, running rapidly up the Southwest corner of the building[18]. Similarly, while a possible theory is that the WTC 7 squibs simply result from the floors collapsing, the time between the events is much too rapid to be due to gravitational acceleration.

---

Bob, maybe God IS trying to tell us something about the deliberate and planned demolition of the WTC tower(s)

[ 07 July 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

I saw the first tower on fire and a plane heading toward the second tower.
I presume you also saw the tower that was hit second (with a big fireball of burning fuel exploding outside the building), collapse first.

And you still haven't answered the basic question: Why did the towers collapse from the top down?
So, you are saying the alleged airliners sliced into the towers, and the ensuing fires weakened them at the points of collision. The weight of the sections above the fires then fell on the sections below the fires, all that concrete and steel engineered to support the stories above. And then they imploded practically straight down in timespans slightly greater than it would take something like a bowling ball to reach the ground if dropped from the top floor.

Even if the upper-sections-collapsing-theory were true, why didn’t they encounter more resistance from the lower sections, and then topple off to one side or another? Why did the “perfectly intact” lower sections suddenly lose their rigidity, what’s the physics behind that?

I think you’d have to calculate the mass of the top sections, see how much they accelerated due to gravity by collapsing the distance of a few floors, and see if that was enough to make the bottom sections rapidly crack into pieces.

If, as you suggest -- and the images of the perfectly intact lower 80% of the tower disproves -- the explosives were planted on the lower floors, how were those firefighters able to survive after the explosives went off?
How big would an explosion need to be to eliminate the structural integrity of the tower frame? Would it necessarily be a huge explosion that can be easily seen from outside the building, and would these explosions necessarily be so big that someone inside the building would not be able to hear it and survive to report it?
And if the towers did really fall because of airplane strikes, what I wonder about is why the NY firefighters, whose profession is to know how buildings burn and collapse due to fires, were so stupid as to enter and ascend a tower when they knew that a really hot fire was melting the steel frame above them, making imminent a complete implosion of the whole 110-storey structure. Someone’s gotta ask the FDNY this question. Have they updated their manuals and practices in light of the painful lessons they learned from the WTC tragedy?

This is, ideed, a silly and counter-productive exercise.
Yes, especially if you think debate and democracy is silly and counterproductive.