Le Monde: 911 was inside job

Someone should do a documentary along these lines, with commentary from professors in structural engineering, physics, etc., and include lots of footage if they can obtain it from the incident, and should split the film up in to sections, investing each hypothesis (the official explanation, the incompetence explanation, the Govt Let it Happen, and the Govt MADE it happen).

I am not sure what to think, I side usually between incompetence and perhaps let it happen. All I know is, is that it's creepy how everything is Classified and when you get down to it, the public still doesn't really have much information. Creepy.

I would love to see that documentary on a cable science channel like Discovery, TLC or Science Channel.

I have thought for some time that 9/11 was allowed to happen much like Pearl Harbor: to shift the mindest of mainstream America to allow for a war. In the case of Pearl Harbor, I think it was the right thing; in the case of 9/11, I don't.

There's the daily newspaper Le Monde and then there's the monthly Le Monde Diplomatique (whose Norwegian edition is apparently in question), those are two different publications; nuance.
Not that I care much for either publications' credibility.

As for Nine-Eleven, everybody who's anybody knows it was my nephew Ezekiel who dood it.

Bullshit.

It was me. And Francis Bacon.

Wake up me when they\\'re actually deported back to the regimes they supposedly tried to escape from, claiming refugee statues and milking the social services and the tax payers dry.

Wow, you caught a typo. You deserve a statue.

Not to worry. You\\'ll eventually catch whatever is coming your way.

I notice you aren't laughing anymore.

To laugh at such a sad case would just be cruel. But you\\'re right; that never stopped me before.

Comedy gold. An actual case of lol. Best...sig...ever!

What did you think of www.loosechange911.com?

There's also a link to a Google video of about 40 minutes of it that escapes me at the moment...

There are plenty of documentaries on the subject, including commentary from experts in structural and materials engineering. "Loose Change" and "In Plane Sight" come to mind. Easily obtained via Bittorrent. Much of the Le Monde article linked above derives from detailed covered in the former.

Tip: avoid the Pentagon controversy, focus on WTC #7. It collapsed without a plane even hitting it - go figure.

Or were you aware of these and posting in jest? Apologies if I misinterpreted.

Thanks, JimDreamworx. Beat me to it by a minute (damn).

Google Video link from the official website isn't working. Try this one.

Again: WTC 7 is the key. Steel buildings don't just fall on their own... or by fire... even a jet fuel fire.

Exactly so. No steel building has ever failed as a result of fire, either before or after 9-11. I think that one of the red flags was raised by the 9-11 Commission itself regarding the towers' collapses: on Page 541 of the Commission's Report, they state that "the outside of each tower was covered with a frame of 14 inch wide steel columns...these exterior columns bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the building(s) was a hollow steel shaft in which elevators and stairwells were grouped. This statement, for an official government inquiry into the worst manmade disaster in US history, is either mind-bogglingly incompetent, or a deliberate lie. I suspect the latter, because the entire premise of the governments' claim that the buildings collapsed into their own footprint in a "pancake" type fashion would be severely compromised should they have stated the reality of the towers' interior core which consisted of 47 massive steel columns, 36" by 14" at the base, with 4" thick walls.The buildings were greatly over-engineered with multiple structural redundancies, and were capable of supporting up to 10 times their actual weight.


The majority of the jetfuel burned off in the initial fireball (especially in the case of "Flight 175" hitting the South Tower). According to NIST, no evidence was found that indicated temperatures higher than approximately 500ºF in the steel. The highest possible temperature attainable by burning kerosene in the most optimum conditions (in pure oxygen, maximum efficiency combustion) is about 1800ºF. The fires in the WTC, as evidenced by the clouds of thick billowing black smoke, were low efficiency and oxygen starved, and it is considered extremely unlikely that the temperatures attained by those fires were anywhere near the theoretical maximum. Structural steel melts around 3000ºF. Another point is that the most efficient combustion of jetfuel occurs in jet engines .. steel parts which have been employed in jet engine construction do not melt in midflight. (!)

Recently, however, steel samples sent to Prof. Steven Jones at Brigham Young University from several monuments fabricated from ex-WTC steel have been analyzed, and products of thermite and thermate (thermite with added sulfur) reactions have been found. See paper here These findings appear to be logically sound, especially considering the fact that satellite-based thermal imaging found that there were hotspots of molten material for weeks after the attacks, even underneath WTC #7, which was not even hit by an airplane.

Dr. Jones' paper has been favorably peer-reviewed twice at two different universities. The integrity of the samples from the WTC steel was maintained from collection to analysis, and contamination was ruled out because the analyses were performed on all parts of the samples, including internally from sliced sections.

Dr. Jones and team did the math and the chemistry. Now it's up to law enforcement to find out who set those probable thermite/thermate charges. Did "al qaeda agents" get in there and take advantage of the lax security in the buildings (which happened to be provided by Securacom, a company which just coincidentally, provided security at two of the airports from which the rogue flights originated, and on whose board of directors sat President Bush's brother Marvin Bush? Persons unknown, either al qaeda or not, might have been prepping the building during the several power and access shutdowns which happened during the weeks leading up to the attacks.

I just watched this. Nice try, but no cigar. It is just a theory, and there is no evidence available to either prove, or disprove it. (Mayor Giuliani ordered the speedy removal and burial of the steel and rubble, evidence which could have resolved these questions). There is much verifiable information re. WTC 7 that suggests foul play, and none of this was touched in this most unbalanced History Channel piece.

Jet engine parts are made of titanium alloys.

Absolutely. I didn't claim otherwise. Just read what I wrote:

Many older jet engines have used stainless steel and other special steel components without melting.

The point being, jetfuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, even under the most optimum conditions.

Furthermore, the following point has been totally overlooked in the explanations of the towers' collapses:

Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. The steel heated by burning jetfuel and office equipment fires in a very small area (relative to the massive frame dimensions of the 1350ft tall building) would have been dissipated very rapidly and efficiently away from from the heat sources; the entire building's interconnected frame would have acted as a huge heat sink, rapidly drawing heat energy away from the source of the fires up and down the remainder of the otherwise cold frame. The official version of the towers collapses relies on that the notion that the heat from these relatively low temperature oxygen-starved fires somehow managed to violate (by government decree perhaps?) a fundamental principle of thermodynamics.

sammij, this is what I don't understand about all this speculation that the planes couldn't have caused the buildings to come down, and so there must have been extra missiles or bombs or something:

What's the point? Why would some conspirators rig extra bombs or missiles when they were going to slam planes into the buildings? Surely that would be enough, especially when the extras would severely endanger the conspiracy?

Steel is not used on Jet planes old or new. It is too heavy, too stiff, and it corrodes. Parts of the Engine that are not heat critical use aluminum. The parts that are heat critical, which are the parts you were referring to, are made of titanium alloy.

Also the temperature of burning kerosene is irrelevant. Kerosene was not the only thing burning. You add anything to the mix and all bets are off.

Btw, have ever seen a tank after it ignites?
Here's an image: http://tarawatheaftermath.com/images/photos16.jpg
How do you think that happened?

Anyway, I find the whole premise of your argument ignorant and idiotic. If you spend 10 min in any site that deals with debunking these idiotic 9/11 conspiracy theories you would get all the answers you require.

This is because nutjobs wouldn't believe that WTC 7 failed from being an oddly designed building over a power substation that got hit by a falling skyscraper and allowed to burn for hours even if God Himself came down and said "Yup...no conspiracy, just bad luck and being too tricky on #7".

So a "theory" from the engineer of record from the construction/design of the building is of zero note.

Fortunately, non-nutjobs can look at this piece and say "Hey, yah, that is an odd sort of building. I can see how it isn't as structurally sound as normal sky scrapers."

Vinea

Actually, if you spend 10 minutes looking into the whole 9/11 thing, you start having strong doubts that what has been portrayed as truth is really that. There simply are too many questionable points. Adding fuel to the fire is the fact that the Bush admin has subsequently lied about WMD and other things to aid in the war effort, so why not this, too? Pearl Harbor instantly united a rather dis-interested country into a major war mode, which was hoped for with 9/11. Nobody really questioned PH because there was a real danger out there. THis time round, the danger is either not as real and/or not as apparent (saying there is a terrorist out there is not the same as showing a photo of a battleship).

For all those believing that the plane that flew into the Pentagon (or Pennsylvania!!!) burned completely: it doesn't happen that way.

Look at these photos:
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/pictures.htm

Even the space shuttle, which disentigrated high in the atmsophere at very high speed, left debris:

http://www.lubbockonline.com/gallery...debris/1.shtml

I agree with you 100%. Of course it's strange; there is no (known) answer to that question. Pure speculation: the parties who authorized slamming airplanes into the towers did not know that the impacts would bring them down (after all... a modern steel highrise has never undergone catastrophic failure before from *any* cause). Had the towers remained standing, there would have been lots of clues remaining that the perps would rather not have around.

Another oddity, which Sego mentioned earlier: why go to all the hassle of slamming planes into the towers, when a demolition job would work quite nicely by itself?

The explosives hypothesis has gotten continuation from the evidence that has been collected in the last 4.5 years.
(a) the total pulverization of the buildings' concrete requires energy far in excess of what was available as a result of a purely gravity induced collapse
(b) both towers came down at freefall acceleration, implying that the underlying 70-90 floors offered zero resistance. (!) This is in violation of the law of conservation of momentum.
(c) thermite/thermate residue has been positively analyzed in a scientific study that has been peer-reviewed twice, at 2 universities
(d) there were pools of molten steel under the rubble of 1, 2 and 7 for weeks after the attacks.
(e) the lobby and the 5 basement levels of the North Tower were destroyed in a huge blast that injured 17 people, some 10 seconds before the first plane hit. The sound of both impacts were recorded by a tape machine in a conference room.
(f) there was testimon from numerous firefighter and polices who witnessed explosions in both the towers before they collapsed.
(g) frequency domain analysis of the seismic traces of the collapses from Lamont Young yield harmonic envelopes with similar characteristics to ground coupled explosions, for example from quarrying activity.
(h) the force of gravity acts vertically downwards alone.. and cannot by itself cause material, which included sections of massive steel beams, to be thrown both upwards (!) and outwards by up to several hundred feet.
(i) the indisputable fact that the 9-11 commission lied about the towers' internal structures in order to give credence to the official "pancake" collapse theory.

and etc...

Thats just off the top of my head. There's a hell of a lot more. None of this has been satisfactorily explained. If it can be, then great.. but if someone's can do a debunk job.. then good science is the only way.. Those articles in Popular Mechanics etc were clearly politically mandated and answered nothing, and have themselves in turn been roundly refuted.

Lets see some peer-reviewed links that substantiate all aspects of the official story. The scientific standards of proof have to be equally rigorous for both official and alternative explanations.

By the way, I have alleged no "conspiracy theory", either on behalf of the governments "19 Arabs alone" version, or any different one. Please do try not to misrepresent what I post.

thanks

Everything's connected to everything else. Something just struck me but if it makes any sense, maybe others can flesh it out more because my heads got too much going on already.

Those who have or do dismiss sammi jo as a crazy conspiracy theorist do her a disservice. Because she's clearly not. Crazy conspiracy theorists just accept crazy theories without subjecting them to any reality testing. sammi has clearly sought to test the veracity of the ideas she puts forth.

I remember the discussion here that first made me aware there were things about 911 that just don't make sense. Something johnq said IIRC and the simple realisation that the response of the secret service agents, Bush's minders, when 911 unfolded, was wrong. Not normal.

Once you spot one thing that doesn't make sense you start to see the others. Too many questions that remain unanswered and that could easily be answered without risking national security.

We can't find Osama but we manage shit like this?
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/07/09...ntiterror.html

But the missing element for me with the Inside Job Theory has always been why? What is this some grand plan to make Bush Evil Overlord of the world? Seems like an ambitious plan. He's working to a tight schedule.

Forget grab for power. Forget aggression. Think defence. What could they possibly fear so much that they would do this? What has every government, every regime, every ruling order in history feared more than anything else? What can make an army lay down it's weapons or turn them on their own leaders?

Happy Bastille Day, Monsieur Powerdoc!

Mob rule. The power of the mob. What's the greatest force for mob rule this planet has ever seen? What threat of mob rule could world leaders have seen coming and could make them go to this effort and extent to stop? Why is the technocracy taking so long to get its shit together when they seem to be putting in plenty of effort? Why does all the chatter on the Net about the unanswered 911 questions seem doomed to remain in the realm of crazy conspiracy theory when some of the questions are not crazy at all?

Their Objective: Divide and Conquer
Their Weapon: Fear
Their Enemy: You're looking at it.

Mob rule. The people. The internets. Maybe that's why he sees it as more than one.

We've seen its power. Even with relativity silly stuff like Googlebombing. We've recognized the existence of memes. Ooooh look what we can do when we all think and work together!

It's often struck me that if I was a world leader, I think I'd feel a little threatened by the internet's ability to expose the collective consciousness and to give it shape like never before.

But maybe it struck them too. Maybe the political blogs weren't as effective at the last US election as they should have been because the first shot had already been fired. And they were already wounded. Still fighting but injured, handicapped. The Net couldn't be killed easily but it could be rendered largely ineffective as a vehicle for mob rule.

As long as the USA is the sole superpower in the world, no one is going to bother. Besides, the US now controls a significant portion of the oil in the middle east. You could vote the republicans out of power and hope that the democrats would conduct an investigation, but it would be political suicide for anyone to dig up the dirt. \

Looks like even the heavily Republican oriented 9/11 "Commission" (joke) was skeptical that the Pentagon was being truthful.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101300_pf.html

Gradually, the official story continues to fall apart under the weight of inconsistencies, impossibilities and anomalies.

The mission of the 9-11 Commission (pls excuse the choice of words), was "to leave no stone unturned" and get to the bottom of what went wrong. Considering the Bush Administration refused to entertain the formation of any national inquiry or "Commission" for a year and a quarter after the attacks wend down, (which is odd, even suspect, in itself), it looks as if the resulting panel failed absolutely in its quest to get to the bottom of what happened and how it happened.

I don't put much stock in paranoid delusional conspiracy theories. A major weakness was exploited by those who committed the acts of 9/11, and that weakness has for the most part, been "fixed". There are a number of ways to skin a cat, however, so I would never assume these people will give up.

I think the only hope to stop them is by utterly destroying them and their culture of terror. It's impossible to stamp out a forest fire with your bare feet. But a water drop might do it.

edited for clarity

Is this drop of water the acid our oceans are turning into or will you use Brita filtered...?
Do you mean using violence as the means or education, wellfare, raising their living standards and integrating them into the world community?

Do you mean helping them with building infrstructure or bombing the shit out of whatever little infrastructure they have...??