Learn the Truth about 9/11! - Page 2

... in said video?

BTW, that is a serious question.

I mean, since this is the first video presentation presented to a lay audience that provides an incontrovertible proof that the government did it, certainly others would have already pointed this out, right?

As to Steven Jones "so called" paper in his own "peer reviewed journal," please read;

A physicist critiques Steven Jones' new paper

And, I'm assuming that you've read Steven Jones reply in his aforementioned "peer reviewed journal."

It's "Debunker I" versus "Debunker II" versus Debunkers I" ...

Maybe these people should join the WWE?

That would at least make all this debunking rather ENTERTAINING!

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Interestingly, the real thrust of the debunkers' (ie supporters of the Bush Administration/NeoCon/official position) goes into arguing against the "controlled demolition" aspect of 9/11. Whether the collapses were gravity induced, or explosives induced cannot be proven either way to anyone's satisfaction, the trenches are dug far too deep, and there is too much time invested on both sides of the argument, and nobody is now prepared to lose face (too much testosterone?). Furthermore, a real scientific investigation is impossible because the evidence/debris quickly was placed under armed guard, inaccessible (even to NIST investigators who complained bitterly about it), and then shipped off to the far east to be melted down, or buried in a land-fill. (This was a most blatant case of tampering/interfering with a crime scene on the grand scale, but nobody was prosecuted of course...) So we are left with NIST/Purdue etc. trying their best to prove a gravity induced collapse by computer modeling, and having to push the input parameters way beyond real world conditions to get the buildings to fail.

Maybe the best way around this intractible situation, to benefit the official explanation, is to include the "controlled demolition" scenario as part of the al Qaeda plot. Perhaps this has already been thought of, in the light of spreading doubts? Can we expect a specially prepared statement in the not-too-distant future by the Bush (or succeeding Administration) implying something like this: in the light of new (and highly classified) intelligence, we have learned that the 9/11 plot was broader and more extensive than was originally thought. We have learned that another terrorist cell, working in league with the hijacking teams, was operating in New York City, under cover, and by taking advantage of lax security at the World Trade Center, rigged 3 of the main buildings in the complex.... etc etc). By placing the blame on al Qaeda, the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers would change its status with middle America from the realms of "wacky conspiracy theory" to "being eagerly accepted", at a stroke. Of course, this wouldn't answer the other 99% of questions that remain, but it would help the official cause by engaging the energy of the counter flow, akin to the martial arts...

~

I have noticed that the debunkers refrain from tackling the points in the story where the government's own evidence clearly contradicts itself. Hmmm.... One also cannot ignore that their "best" evidence, ie the confession of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed re. being the mastermind of 9/11 was extracted using torture, thus making it unreliable at best. And... the fact that according to the CIA, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed lied regarding "his role" in the killing of Daniel Pearl...

With no new evidence, Fox continues to ask: Did al Qaeda burn California?



And sammi jo, you don't believe the whole "controlled demolition" FUD do you? Please say no...

I think there was a thread recently where I stated that "it appears as if it might have been" or words pertaining to that. When taking such factors such these into account, it does make one wonder:
*explosions in the basements of both towers prior to (both) the airplanes impacting, and also prior to each collapse.. or
*numerous videotapes of explosions in both the North and South Towers (and #7) between the times that the planes went in, to when the collapses happened... or
*stacks of eyewitness reports from police, firefighters, onlookers and TV crews reporting explosions in the towers in the same time period,
*audio and seismic waveforms indicating explosions in the buildings
etc etc

I know you must be aware of all these, being a diligent reseacher. However, one doesn't need to be a diligent researcher, since such material resides all over youtube and googlevideo etc, and much originates from msm news camera footage. Perhaps these were
*gas explosions from gas escaping from broken lines? Or
*explosions caused b the detonation of unknown (explosive or volatile) material that was stored (probably illegally) in the Twin Towers? Or
*explosions caused by kerosene vapor + air? Perhaps
*coal dust + air explosions? Or
*flour + air explosions from a pita bread bakery owned by Ahmed Iqbal on the 37th floor? Or
*bottled fart gas and liquid oxygen? Maybe
*al Qaeda kidnapped and murdered a bunch of conspiracy theorists, mixed their remains with ammonium perchlorate and fuel oil, and set them off in the buildings?
*Perhaps these videos were all faked, in real time (!), to produce controversy?

Silliness aside, why did the 9/11 Commission need to lie regarding the internal structure of the Twin Towers in their final report? Was this in order to prop up the theory that the Towers collapsed because of heat stress on the steel which caused a progressive failure down the entire structure, because (this theory) was considered weak and liable to question? When the blueprints of the Twin Towers were leaked earlier this year, this new evidence proved beyond a shaow of a doubt that the Commission had lied and misrepresented the facts. It is this kind of shenanigan which puts the official story on very shaky ground and makes people ask questions.

As I stated earlier, if a witness lies on the stand, then it calls into question the veracity of ALL his evidence. If the 9/11 Commission lied and misrepresented, not just about the structure of the Twin Towers, but dozens of other key aspects of the attacks, then why should we believe any part of their story.. especially when 90% of the evidence was excluded because it didn't fit with what appeared to be a pre-ordained conclusion?

You asked me if I believed the Twin Towers collapsed because of a controlled demolition?
My answer is:

"I don't know how they collapsed, but I would sure love to know. The official explanation has far too many holes, inconsistencies, impossibilities and unlikelihoods to be acceptable (to my mind at least). It is speculative at best, and it is supported largely by what we (the general public) would prefer to acknowledge, rather than by hard evidence The "controlled demolition" explanation is also speculative; it wasn't given a chance to be proven or disproven, because the best evidence was prevented from being collected for timely analysis.

Mere "Belief" shouldn't come into this. Evidence is what is required. I have never baldly stated said that "the World Trade Center was brought down by a controlled demolition"... simply because, I do not KNOW. Neither do you. Neither does anyone (apart from the culprits, whoever they may be).

And when it comes to belief, as you asked me: when people lie, belief goes out of the window.

I have met some great guys from the NYC FD, NYPD, and NYPA and the ones who were there had this to say (paraphrasing of course):

* All of them said that in their careers prior to 9-11, none of them had the experience to handle, much less witness a crisis of that nature. They had what they were trained for, nothing else. Many heard and saw things they questioned that day, but there was nothing, nothing that presented to them a controlled demolition (all agreed to that). One fireman said that the sounds emitted from the people who impacted the ground from a hundred stories up is the same as a grenade going off.

* I have talked to demolition experts (how come no one in the Truther movement does?) and they laugh at the mere idea of such an operation, much less clandestine. Whole sections of concrete, drywall, electrical and plumbing fixtures have to be gutted to even consider placing detonation wiring, charges or squibs into any building for detonation. It would take over a year or more to set up one building the size of one WTC tower.

We all know what the real conspiracy is...even the de-bunkers do.

This too.

It's very interesting to go back to footage recorded on the day itself (when the event was unfolding and the memory of the witnesses was not colored by politically expedient pronouncements), and listen to what government agencies, such as the FBI, were saying on the mainstream media. There are countless extracts suggesting that "the current line of thinking is that devices have been planted in the buildings" or words to that effect. These are not my words; I am merely quoting those of law enforcement, as relayed by the MSM at the time. I don't have the time to go trolling the net to quote links that you are undoubtedly familiar with.. but here's one in *hundreds* of others. Listen to what the commentators are saying re. what the FBI etc are thinking.


Actually, I have. I video-interviewed a demolition expert who used to work for Loiseaux and has been running a successful demolition business in Orange County (they take down buildings using explosives, or from the top down in piecemeal fashion, or by swinging a wrecking ball on a chain from a crane, or by using ropes/lines.. etc etc. This was in August 2004; the purpose of the interview was actually unrelated to 9/11, but I took the opportunity at the end of the 45 minute interview (just before I was about to break down) to ask him if there was any possibility that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolitions (how could I resist?). He immediately asked if I was still rolling tape. (I was, of course) He said he could not comment on camera for obvious reasons; he had a business to run, he did not want to get involved, or have any associations with such lines of thought. Two things of interest that are in the interview, however, are as follows, which I was unaware of at the time:

(1) The term "pulling" a building in the demolition business refers to attaching lines to the structure and literally "pulling it down", or "over". (Larry Silverstein's referral to "pulling it" did not mean what many in the Truth Movement have implied, i.e. a demolition term for taking a building down with explosives. However, he was not referring to "attaching lines to #7 to "pull it". Also, he was not referring to pulling any firefighting operation out of #7 because there was no operation ongoing to fight any fire in #7 that coincided with the timeline he was referring to! The "pull it" comments have been taken out of context on both sides of the argument; unfortunately Mr.Silverstein has not shed any credible light on what he was referring to, either.

(2) Demolition crews tend to avoid operations using explosives when there is a full overcast, especially when there is a full cloud cover of low altitude (ie under 3000 ft). Apparently, a full low overcast can contribute to collateral damage to (glass) windows in nearby structures, presumably by standing LF waves bouncing off the low cloud and causing amplification of the such waves by "in-phase summation".


One year! That's a lot of explosives charges.... and apparently, according to the official story, the 3 major buildings failed without the aid of such. (That is a scary thought... I wonder if other large structures have been examined and retrofitted to guard against complete failure due to fire damage?)

It remains peculiar that both towers came down in almost identical fashion, at almost freefall acceleration against the line of most resistance (namely the 47 column cores) of which nothing remained except a large pile of massive, neatly severed girders.
I still ask: "how did all that concrete get pulverized in mid air, literally in the first few seconds after the initiation of the collapses, well before hitting the ground, and above the region of structural failure? The Twin Towers were literally reduced to steel and dust, and there is very little in the way of macroscopic pieces of reinforced concrete apparent in the photos of the wreckage. Reinforced concrete does not transform itself in mid air into fine powder, all by itself... C'mon physics majors... what was that energy source?

Aspects of the Twin Towers demise like this are why people are now speculating about explosives use. Such a notion is only deemed as "outlandish" or "nuts" if attributed to a false flag attack. Had al Qaeda been blamed from the get go in rigging the buildings beforehand, this would have been gleefully acceptable to the media. Unfortunately, rational debate has been closed off, in the political need to create and sustain a bogeyman.


Of course there was a conspiracy. Everyone knows that, unless one has almost zero command/comprehesion of the English language. The $2.3+ trillion question however, is who organized it? If a group of 19 people (allegedly) with pocketknives, whose members included a coke and liquor freak, a 100lb lad who was unable to fly a 2 seater Cessna (even after plenty of practise), and a Saudi Airlines pilot who wasn't even in the US at the time (!) could singlehandedly run rings around the entire US military, evade every intelligence and law enforcement agency, and somehow all manage to simultaneously board commercial planes without being apprehended by airport security, then we are in deep doo-doo if a real "bona fide" terrorist gang with malintent towards the US were to initiate a real campaign against soft targets here. It doesn't beat thinking about... and any organization with sufficient funds could do it so easily, given the will and enough psychopathic dysfunctionality.

From wikipedia (in turn taken from the NIST report(s));


WTC structural design

[CENTER][/CENTER]

So the unreinforced concrete slap was poured on top of the corrugated sheet metal. The compressive strength was 3.000 psi (minimum specification, in situ ~4,000 psi likely per NIST), and the tensile strength ~ 400 psi at normal room temperature.

Of course the floors with fires would have had elevated temperatures of ~600+ degrees C, so the steel (A36 which means Fy = 36 ksi (not the 36-100 ksi range wikipedia suggests)) and the concrete had different thermal coefficients, the trusses, as modeled sagged down 40+ inches. Thus implying that the concrete may have been already spalled and cracked significantly prior to collapse. Also the concrete loses about a third (to a half ) of it's stength on the floors with significant elevated (~600 degrees C) temperatures.

Anyway once the structure above the failure point started falling as a unit through the remaining floors, the steel components must have chopped up or crushed these slabs, and the lighter pulverized pieces were ejected as shown in the WTC collapse videos.

I don't know how much concrete dust was on the ground, but I'd SWAG that only 10-20 percent of these concrete slabs were, in fact, pulverized into the grey clouds of dust that was visible on that fateful day.

Also remember that the initial blast wave (assuming adiabatic ignition of the jet fuel, since initially at least the ambient air was already in the building and the holes created by the 767's as they entered/exited the WTC's created additional exterior air access initally) was HOT (~ 4,000 degrees F) and undoubtedly fractured much of the unreinforced lightweight concrete (due to the heat and initial blast wave) in the blast wave areas.

[CENTER]
757 Fuel Tank Locations[/CENTER]

See 767 SERIES FLAMMABLE MATERIAL LOCATIONS (1st page of PDF) for 767 fuel tank locations (but very similar to the 757 graphic shown above).

So, once the 767's entered the WTC's the normal coolant to the engines (intake air) was cutoff (the planes were "forced" to stop very quickly by the WTC's \) the jet engines where already very hot and their exhaust temperature would also be very hot entering the WTC's). So we have all that is necesssary for the fireballs (and blast waves) we saw after immediate impact. \

The two engines were undoubtedly the hottest parts of the plane once inside the WTC. Were they hot enough, or sustained enough heat energy density to melt A36 steel? Don't know the answer to that one.

When in doubt, I always apply Occam's Razor;


It should be pretty obvious by now, what my position is with respect to alternatives to the official explanation.

Sammi,

Did you not see it with your own eyes? Here's what I saw. I saw two planes fly into the buildings and explode into giant fireballs. This started fires which burned very hot, weakening the concrete and steel. Eventually the points of impact could sustain the floors above them, and each building collapsed on itself.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide...ower_1st24.mpg

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide..._collapse.mpeg

The second clip shows clearly that the point of failure was the bottom of the fire. The steel folded like my back on a bad day. Anyone with a set of eyes can see what happened. Anyone.

If one wants to get analytical and scientific, nobody knows how hot the fires were; the temperatures were not measured. All there was to go on was visual evidence from an external aspect. There is plenty to suggest the fires were rather more inefficient and relatively lower temperature than what has been endlessly circulating in the media. Anyway, I am not interested in joining in the speculation on how and why the buildings failed because the concrete evidence isn't there (literally), and having to resort to computer modeling to duplicate the failures by inputting wildly unrealistic parameters and then arrogantly pronouncing that "we know how the towers collapsed" is not good science; it appears that faith-based elements, or "political expediency parameters" have crept into the equations. More to the point, is why the factors that implied more than (or other than) the "impact + fire damage" were disqualified from the Commission's hearings, and those contrary factors that did make it to the Commission hearings were omitted from their final report, en masse.

As I said earlier, I do not know how the towers collapsed. But when evidence that suggests additional or contrary factors is ignored by the Commission, which not only used circular arguments, but also lied and misrepresented on multiple occasions in their final report, is it not natural to become suspicious? Their mission (inexplicably delayed by 441 days on account of the Bush Administration's intransigence) was to get to the bottom of the what happened that morning and "leave no stone unturned". That did not happen; the entire "investigation was sabotaged (even hijacked) from the inside by Philip Zelikow, not to mention lack of time, funding, the extraordinary (ab)use of "executive privilege" and all the other BS that accompanied it. Even the mainstream reported on this, although the really blatant stuff was not mentioned. And when key aspects of the official story get altered in response to emerging facts, that clearly indicates that certain officials are not being straight and honest.

If the Twin Towers failed on account of factors in addition to fire and plane impact damage, then that is one more reason, amongst hundreds of others, to suspect that parties in addition to (or other than?) the 19 alleged al Qaeda men were responsible. It's not just about the most spectacularly horrific part of the attacks, ie the towers' collapses (nobody knows how or why that happened empirically, including everyone on this board of course).... there is all the other material about what happened (or otherwise) on that day that does not gel with the official account. And when the official body assembled to "investigate" fails to deliver in such a spectacular fashion, then it is reasonable to expect suspicion from those who have the time and interest to look beyond the baby formula and pabulum dished up by Fox, CNN and the rest of the MSM.

But we do know two jet planes struck WTC1 and WTC2, we do see fireballs created when the jet fuel "exploded," we do know that the interiors of several floors were on fire throughout initial impact through to building failure of WTC1 and WTC2, and we do know that the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 damaged key areas of WTC7, and that many parts of that building were also on fire for many hours, prior to, and up to it's collapse.

So we already know that significant structural damage had occurred, due to the initial impacts, the subsequent fireballs/blastwaves, and subsequent weakening of the steel framed buildings due to the continued fires inside these structures in the areas already weakened by the initial impacts and fireballs/blast waves.

Would you deny any of those very basic FACTS?

As to the precise nature of structural failure, since we will never know a priori exactly what the full nature of the internal damage was and how it progressed through to the point of failure, these facts results in various plausible assumptions that are applied using SOTA FEA codes.

Both the NIST and Purdue studies have shown that under very plausible sets of assumptions that both structures would have failed from the combination of events that occurred that day without the need to introduce conjectures of "controlled demolitions" or other extremely implausible sets of additional forces to explain the WTC's failures.

This "debate" is quite similar to the AGW and evolution evidence and theoretical models, these explanations of record are in a constant state of deconstructionism by the contrarians, who only "seem to pick apart" the prevailing explanation, without offering equally compelling alternative(s) based on the evidentiary records, and the expertise necessary to examine the evidentiary record(s) in an unbiased fashion.

And if they did have a compelling alternative to explain why four planes with hijackers did what they did that day, I'd like to hear it, in the mainstream peer reviewed engineering and scientific literature, with the caveat that it must stand the test of scientific time and become the de facto predominant theory that explains the events that occurred ON September 11th, 2001. \

There is no good reason to be suspicious. You pointed out Occam's razor (at least, someone did). That's exactly what we should be using here. The most reasonable explanation, the one most verifiable by the video evidence, is that two planes exploded, thereby damaging the structure and causing fires that eventually damaged the structure to the point where it collapsed. There is no hard evidence to the contrary. Yes, there are questions. There are unknowns. But, those don't amount to evidence.

I have noticed that the debunkers of "alternative 9/11 hypotheses" remain glued to the demise of the Twin Towers, the cause of which remains (in my mind at least), an unknown. There are arguments that support both sides, but I shall refrain from speculating for obvious reasons. However, I will add just one thing, when it comes to government agencies investigating politically loaded matters especially something as controversial as 9/11: if evidence was found that pointed any blame, either wholly or proportionately, towards an(other) element of government, then there is a lesser chance that this evidence would see the light of day, than if the investigation was done by a fair and independent team of experts outside of any federal agency, whose members were selected across the board, ie covering the entire political/racial/socio-economic etc. etc. spectrum. But that is just my mindset: I am disinclined to trust the powers-that-be to conduct themselves in a fair and honest manner, on account of the historical record, as well as human nature.

I also notice that the points I raised earlier in the thread about other aspects of 9/11 have been quietly not addressed. That's OK.. I wasn't expecting anyone to jump to the defense of the official line, especially when their own facts, evidence and timeline run counter to their story, which has even been altered to fit in with new information. It makes rational explanations tough... apart from people telling lies, that is.

Please explain first underlined comment, TYVM.

Oh, like a trial, where all the mountains of evidence, would be brought forward to confuse the "jury" of novices with no formal skills in such matters, kind of what we have now with the "truth" movements!

What points, the three you posted in your first reply in this thread? Because I dealt with the first point in a previous 911 thread, which you never responded to!

Your other two points don't directly address events that occurred on that fateful day with respect to jet planes hitting buildings (or the ground), and the subsequent destruction of those (and surrounding) buildings (or the ground).

See when you write a good movie script, it's not a good idea to leave your plot outline incomplete, you must gather up your "Loose Change" and see if it amounts to anything more than what it is. It must amount to something complete and stand on it's own, to demand a plot rewrite. And so far all your "Loose Change" from all various time eras, all countries of origin, and all denominations, doesn't add up or stand on it's own merits.

But when you do come up with some lightweight unreinforced concrete data that can withstand the heat, fireball, blast waves, mass and inertia of what actually happened on that fateful day, that forms a complete picture on it's own, then and only then, will the real SME's begin to take notice.

Did you actually see the concrete and steel weaken the way you suggest and then the points "could [NOT???] sustain the floors above them..."?
Nobody could actually see in to the buildings after the impacts, so nobody really knows for sure what transpired next.

Were the impacts in the middle of each building (as in from side to side) or off to one side? If the latter, then the structure would not fail in the clean manner which it did and there would have been much more debris off to the sides of the buildings. Ever play the game of basic physics called Jenga? Ever felled a tree? Ever watched the demolition of a building?

How do they explain the necessary evenness of the fire (to cause a clean collapse) when the momentum and direction of the planes would take the vast majority of the fuel into one area of the buildings and there were very large elevator mechanisms blocking the way to the other side of the building?

The south tower did start collapsing off to one side... would this have then continued straight down?

You're insane. I don't mean that to attack you. I just really think that's true. Have a nice day.

Even if bombs were set to explode inside the WTC towers, a friggin big plane-looking thing complete with fireballs and stuff caused enough damage.

My impression is that a big ass "thing" (eg. plane) with fiery stuff caused good enough damage. If the conspirators planted bombs to go off timed with the planes (or "planes") crashing into the building, that was clearly overkill. Pardon the pun.

The link between massive damage to the tower due to planes/ "planes" and the tower collapsing is an interesting one for conspiracy buffs.

... I saw great balls of fire, I saw subsequent sustained fires, I saw the exterior structural damage, I saw the WTC's collapse, and I saw the NIST and Purdue studies.

What part of the above did you not see?

And to answer your last question, yup.

Semi rant...

See, I have stated that I watched it on TV live. I was out of work and I had been up early to search for jobs online. At that time I had Excite.com (remember them?) as my homepage. I don't recall the exact time, but when I got online the homepage had a headline "Plane hits WTC tower" "Huh?" So I immediately turned on the TV and there it was...within minutes I saw the second plane hit. Then after a good dumbfounded disbelief watching the Pentagon in flames, evacuations and speculations, I needed some grounding. I called my mother and started talking to her. As I talked to her, the tower collapsed. Now here's the thing, I saw the impact area give inward and that top half, like a giant hand pushed itself onto the other floors and squashed the building down. I recall the sounds too. The sound of concentrated impacts and an unbelievable sustained roaring sound. Then dust and debris.

What bothered me next was the undeniable belief that the next tower was going to fall (it never seemed to important to the reporters at the time). I hoped that by then the police, firemen and EMTs knew this and would get the hell out of that area. Years later, The firemen, police and others I met said that they would never leave, that's their job. Their duty to help and rescue people in danger. What a great group of dedicated people. If there were anyone to convince me that those towers were brought down by other means they would have told me (and they know there are others who will, only to get attention). They aren't happy that their group are being shafted for medical benefits and other deserved services from New York City, but the one thing they can't fathom are people, who weren't there, would actually believe what they see and read from anyone who was not.

As far as the government is concerned, they knew something was going to happen again. But their intelligence sources were in a bureaucratic mess. They either couldn't comprehend or piece together within each other to get a handle on it. And yes, they could have plain ignored the information and warnings. Some in office had already started their agenda to reclaim more powers to the president, had plans for a Middle Eastern incursion and that was their plan from the beginning. When 9-11 played into their hands, it was the watershed for an unparalleled advance to enforce and bring about this agenda with unbelievable speed. We as Americans wanted, no needed immediate justice for this act and let the leaders take us on this journey. And what a trip it's been. To keep trying to explain 9-11 I think it has made a lot of us veer off into a sea of confusion, speculation and even fear. Maybe if we just close our eyes and just let our memory of that day roll off in our minds, a sense of clarity as what it means to ourselves is the most important thing.

Semi rant over...too much coffee and I needed to get that off my chest.

Oh and please, watch Arundhati Roy's We. A very good 9-11 speech and a brilliant vision of strife and hope.

I just watched the Bill Moyers piece from 2004 (re-shown earlier this year), and the 9-11 truth piece about the four NJ widows of 9-11 victims (don't know the exact name of that one) getting the ball rolling to create the 9-11 commission using public pressure. Both were quite good. IMHO, in the second one with Clark warning the Bushies, and the Bushies basically ignoring him.

The Bushies were asleep at the wheel and the basic intelligence was there, perhaps not "actionable" but you would have thought they'd have had heightened security, used profiling, and better readiness of fighter jets to take down those planes if necessary.

The Bushies are so "Executive Privilege" and wanted at all costs to avoid the "blame game" pointing at them. But those hijackers were pretty clever with the box cutters and disabling the aircraft transponders (if that's the right word (?)). Bush is such a TARD!

And yes firefighters do great things, they place themselves in harm's way to save lives, as they did on 9-11!

Blaming either Bush or Clinton is stupid. Neither administration connected the dots or did enough to prevent terrorism prior to 9/11. The problem was that while we knew hijackings were likely coming and we knew Al-Qaeda might want to fly planes into buildings, no one at any sufficient level of authority put it together that they were going to take a civilian airliner and use it as a missile.

The problem with this kind of thinking ("the Bushies were asleep") is that someone can easily point to all the things that the prior President did or didn't with respect to preventing terrorism. One could even say his failure to respond to the 1993, 1998 and 2000 terror attacks encouraged more terrorism. We already know that OBL used the Blackhawk Down incident to encourage his recruits. And then someone else will point out Bush didn't focus on AQ enough when coming into office. It never ends.

The government was totally negligent in protecting us from terrorism pre-9/11, Enough said.

Re. "Refrain from speculating". Exactly that... it should be plain enough. If you read back the 9/11 threads in which I have contributed, I have asked a lot of questions, and linked to a bunch of information (mostly) quoted from mainstream sources and/or government agencies. The implications inferred by these points cannot be equated to (my) speculating as to what might have happened.


Why did you conjure up the word "novices" when I specifically quoted "experts". Is this your method, to misrepresent an opposing argument in order to put your points over?


I imagine you are referring to the disinformation that has been embedded within the truth movement by hostile parties in order to discredit such (S.O.P). Legitimate parties in the truth movement ask questions rather than speculate or draw conclusions with insufficient information. Yes, there are a mountain of unanswered questions re. 9/11; some concern the demise of the Twin Towers, but there are many more regarding other aspects of the attacks. Why is the truth movement called such? Because there are a lot of people who are skeptical of wild fairytales loaded to the gills with impossibilites, beyond-bizarre coincidences and extreme unlikelihoods. These people are only trying to find out what actually happened that morning: it is as simple as that.

Tell me, all you people who are so convinced that we have a lily-white, honest administration of extraordinary integrity complete with haloes around their crowns, what is so wrong about asking them a question or two about the most drastic event in our lifetimes, most aspects of which have been neither adequately explained (nor even addressed at all!). And when they and their close associates (in political, religious and business circles) are the ones who have made out like bandits as a result of *that event*, I think they owe us all a far more cohesive, consistent story than what they have dished up so far, much of which is quite frankly, gibberish. Give us at least something that would stand up in a US court of law! Their chief witnesses have lied, on multiple occasions... the glove does not fit. And there are a lot of people who don't appreciate being lied to, especially when their hard-earned tax dollars are squandered on massive corporate welfare, waging insane and illegal wars, instigating a surveillance type society, all on account of those lies.


See 12th entry in this thread. They do not concern the physics of the destruction of the Twin Towers.


LOL Ok, Your turn!

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the connection here...

---

As you point out at the end of your post, the government completely missed this one.

---

Which is why I really believe there is something fishy going on as in it was allowed to happen.

I don't think it works like that.

No-one is sitting in a dark room (or a lighted room) with the actual evidence in front of them and then say 'right we will let this happen because then we can do X'.

How they do it is different and is based on them - ie the Neocons and elements of the Government under their influence - firstly preserving their 'moral integrity'.

They will NEVER put themselves in a position where they outright lie or commit a crime (well, not one that matters) because:

a) they risk they might get caught
b) they need the water-carriers like SDW and Co to honestly be able to take the view 'there is no evidence'
c) if the truth comes out then the public will turn en masse

So they will NEVER put those three things in danger.

How they do it instead is by NOT ACCEPTING any evidence before the fact.

They may 'know' that an 'al Qaeda' plot is underway but they simply do not look at any conclusive evidence.

They may 'know' Iran is not trying to build a nuke but they simply do not look at any conclusive evidence.

They may 'know' there are no WMDs but they simply do not look at any conclusive evidence.

That way they can say 'we acted on best evidence' and 'we did not know'. In that they are telling the truth but really all it amounts to is an equivalence to a Police Chief having a signed confession from a suspect on his desk but refusing to open the file.

When he beats a confession out of an innocent man who he has hated for decades he is telling the truth when he says he did not know for sure who the real perp was.

He did not know because it was more advantageous for him not to know.

That is different from actually knowing and acting anyway.

Or maybe they did know and went ahead with their plans anyway. If anyone is sick and evil enough to actually do this then Bush and Co are.

People debunk these 'conspiracy theories' but they never ask WHY these theories occur about THESE people.

They happens because everyone can see that BUSH and co are just the sort of people who ARE actually capable of such a thing whether they did it or not.

I can't believe half of the things people actually believe in this thread...

Amazing.

I am not pro rah rah Bush fan, and I can't wait for him to get out of office. If anything so the anti-Bush zealots that blame him for everything will finally STFU. If you believe that above, well I feel sorry for you.

Missed your word "experts" so I'll offer a mea culpa on that one. But more to the point, unfortunately the SME's that anyone would select from would be from a group that is overwhelmingly male, of varying ages, but predominately older due to their vast experience in the specific engineering fields, highly educated (PhD P.E.'s), and the majority of these would undoubtedly be caucasians. The group of diversified technical experts that you suggest would be difficult to form, many of them would have to be selected from small pools of available talent, which would be divisive, in that those experts left out, would form a larger group of technical expertise.

What is typically done in serious engineering reviews, is a minimum of three study groups are formed, each working independently of the others. Unfortunately, previous works are now out there (e. g. NIST with respect to the WTC's), so to expect new study groups to ignore previous works is not possible, so that if you exclude those with prior knowledge, your are left with a very small (nee nonexistent) pool to select from.

Now what would be interesting would be to select one of these groups from the "truth experts" who's sole purpose would be to look at alternatives to the "official explanation" to develop a compelling alternative explanation that fits the available specific intelligence data (in the months just prior to 9-11) and the physical events that occured ON 9-11.

Another group to reexamine the "official explanation" using all available documented information (e. g. whatever available written/electronic records that have been withheld by the Executive Branch). We are now six years beyond the events of 9-11, so that now I would not place much weight on individuals trying to recall a precise coherent timeline of those past events.

The third group would be an independent "supergroup" of technical experts that would independently reexamine the "official explanation" and develop the best plausible "alternative explanations" and flush those out as best as could be done in a probabilistic fashion.

Maybe (a big maybe) under another administration something like this would happen, but I don't think you'll see it under the next administration, regardless of who is elected POTUS.

This would cost a LOT of money to fund, and due to "national security" issues would probably not happen in the near future, we would have to wait a few decades for most of that information to be accessible in the public domain.

As to your questions, I think I've provided a compelling answer to the pulverized "reinforced" concrete issue.

As to your "jet hitting the Pentagon wasn't where it had to have been based on the altimeter data" you do need to understand physical measurement systems, which requires SME's to place statistical error bars on the data set, this includes the instruments biases (white noise) and offsets (voltages when reading "zero" assuming the instrumentation wasn't reset, which they were, as is SOP for all commercial aircraft (exceeding ~18,000 feet if I recall correctly). Then we get into issues of A/D conversion and binary bits, 16-bit 14-bit, 12-bit DAQ. Also the details of the magnetic compass and if true north (TN) was set for the expected destination versus it's actual end point, regardless these need to be adjusted to TN of the final destination including any bias and initial offset(s) estimates of the magnetic compass (SOP error bars). Also remember that the elevation is based on the barometric equation (pressure, humidity, and temperature dependent) which itself is an idealization (or best fit). Also the instruments would need to be checked periodically against a reference standard, if not then you have to deal with possible instrument drift (internal clock, etceteras) or loss of sensitivity. Then we have the impact itself and that raises some questions on data loss and spurious EE noise introducing additional offsets or jumps in the raw data (voltages).

Lots of details, that the end used doesn't see, but what you have is the DOT's best effort to do the requisite data analysis as is, they present it as is, for the DOT to then adjust the data record to agree with the actual known elevation and direction itself would be falsification of the engineering data record as is. If they had done that you guys would go simply bonkers!

As to building temperatures prior to collapse and after collapse, we don't have an exact record of the chemical composition of the in situ materials, in the WTC or on the jets, the thermodynamics and exothermic chemical reactions are sketchy at best, and the debris pile WAS an excellent insulator by any metric (110 floors of 4 inch thick concrete is ~ 150 feet thick less the ejected dust), So before people go running off to the "thermite explanation" perhaps they should examine what was known (or can be reasonably assumed) to have been in situ materials beforehand. That would keep the thermodynamicists and chemical engineers very busy for a very long time! \

You know this got me thinking too. Wonder if Clinton was responsible for the first WTC attacks.. .

We should look into that.

Well, of course I do not believe 'everyone can see' - clearly there are many, many people who cannot see.

But I kind of meant 'everyone who hasn't bought into the BS'.

... Al Gore was POTUS at the time?

He definitely would have listened to Clarke.

Bush, et. al. have been asshats from the word GO!

[CENTER]
Clarke and Bush[/CENTER]

Agreed. There was one man though that knew. He may have had the knowledge and tenacity to prevent it. We'll never know. He was forced out of the FBI for being too...tenacious. He later died on 9-11.

In terms of 911, it always makes me laugh when people - many of whom are unable or unwilling to actually enter debate based on rational analysis - try to dismiss any questioning as 'conspiracy theories' and label the 'conspiracy theorists' as crazy when you can get news items like this:

30% of Americans Dont Know When 9/11 Attacks Occurred!!


At least the 'tin foil hatters' have a handle on the dates.....

When one side perpetually labels the other as "tinfoil hatters", and refuses to debate "because we don't have engage in dialog with "crazy people", how can rational debate happen? When (a) 30% of the population are either so moronic that they don't know when 9/11 happened (assuming that the poll was conducted in a scientific fashion) and (b) such a large proportion of the remainder are in such denial that anything that impinges on their comfort zone is arbitrarily dismissed without a cursory glance, what hope is there for greater awareness of the subject?

It's hardly a wonder that such events can be pulled off without danger of getting busted. Mistakes can be made in the operation, blatant lies can be told in multiple during the aftermath, and storylines can be shifted around and altered according to convenience.... and the majority would prefer not to know. No wonder edumacation is assuming a lower and lower priority as each month passes....

Thought experiment: It would be interesting to have a TV debate, where a panel of the most vocal supporters of the official story were up against a panel of the most knowledgeable 9/11 skeptics, in front of a live audience. The debate would be broadcast in real time (ie no video/audio delay inserted in the broadcast signal path), the questions would all be unscreened, no questions would be out-of-bounds (provided they were on topic of course), and the questions would be selected in random order by a device (similar to the one that selects winning numbers in a lottery, for example?). Admittedly, finding an impartial moderator would be a toughie... Such a show could be a ratings winner... but would any mainstream media outlet dare do it?

Was done already, almost.

Recall the Loose Change/Popular Mechanics debate?

I know you believe that Popular Mechanics is possessed by the evil ghost of William Randolf Hearst, yet you have to admit they handed those two "loosers" their asses on a plate.

Actually the 30% that don't know when 9-11 happened are the same 30% wearing the tin foil hats!

Anyone listening to them talk about their "versions of events" (and there are many) wouldn't know what was what, listening to their contrived concoctions of pretzel logic!

As to a debate, sure the SME's (structural engineers, aeronautical engineers, material scientists, etceteras) on one side versus the blog-o-smear experts on the other side (You know people like AJ with his bullhorn, with every one else wearing quirky garb and foam hats). The debate from the AJ crowd would consist of five words shouted over and over;

"It was an inside job. It was an inside job. It was an ... "

In hindsight, this is easy to say. Did anyone...ANYONE actually think that planes were going to be as missiles like that? I really have not heard of a single person.


True. But in fairness that attack was so daring and large that no believed it could happen.



Blah. Another "The American People Are Stupid" link. The problem is that if you believe that, you're never allowed to use an opinion poll for support of anything, ever again.

As for conspiracy wackos, well I understand the frustration. Sometimes it's easier to dismiss your opponent as a crackpot than to argue on the merits. However, one can't use what his/her opponent is doing as free standing support for his argument. In other words, it doesn't make the conspiracy theory argument anymore valid just because someone on the other side refuses to debate.

All that said, there really are a lot of crackpots out there on this issue. There is no evidence that suggests the conspiracy theory folks (or "truth movement" or what not) have a point. We all saw what happened. We've seen it hundreds of times. We've seen the buildings fall. We saw them fail at the bottom of where the flames were. We saw the explosions. Hell, there's more evidence for the faked moon landing and little green men from mars than there is for 9/11 being an inside job or that the towers fell from explosive charges.

Given that there is little to no evidence on their side, and given that there is a large amount of evidence supporting the official position, and given that the "truthers" continue to stick to their ridiculous theories, yes...they can be considered nut jobs. They're sticking to their guns because of supreme distrust in the government and distrust of the Bush Administration, not for any reason supported by the evidence. It's like a hobby almost....like spotting UFOs for some people.

OK, Frank and SDW....

As I am a reasonably open-minded person, perhaps you can inform me of something in the oficial story that I am missing out on.

So, hit me with your best evidence that 9/11 was what you claim it was, namely a plot by 19 al Qaeda agents working for Osama bin Laden.

Maybe, just maybe, if the evidence is good enough, I will be able join your side and my doubts and skepticism can be dissolved. It would be far more comfortable, I am sure. So, I invite you to do me the favor.

Try reading the engineering studies, look at the known timeline of events by the 19 (or 20) hijackers leading up to and during that fateful day, and try to keep an open mind on the highly plausible, not the highly implausible.

And no, I won't play your subterfuge of "us versus them" your last several posts have been mostly filled with rhetoric, for example your opening statement above is a classic straw man.

And I have responded, as best as I can (and at length) to several of your technical questions, and yet, not a single word in reply from you on those technical issues I addressed? \

I have even offered up a future plan of study (three independent studies) to fully address the primary issues you have raised, now that's what I call being opened minded! \

I would even look forward to a complete public disclosure of all of the government's intelligence, classified materials, and other materials withheld by the government, IF it would in any way reassure you as to the actual events that transpired (up to and) on that fateful day. Now is that being opened minded?

I'll withhold further comments on this issue as I would want to keep an open mind on your reply, except to comment; How would this (my last previous statement) actually address key outstanding questions (from those people proposing alternatives to the prevailing wisdom), and would this additional information be viewed objectively or subjectively?

BTW, I don't like your apparently closed mind when you lump me (nee the professional engineering community) in with you know who (nee the neocon artists)! \ I don't "carry their water for them" (the neocon artists), and I never have, however, I do look at the data objectively (keeping in mind that I view all things in a probabilistic AND deterministic fashion).

sammi, the burden of proof is on you here. Please post your evidence that the "official version" as you call it is not really what happened. I don't want questions either, I want FACTS. I don't want "why is that this would happen, or this, or that?" because that's just speculation and conjecture. Facts, please.

Noam Chomsky: Stop the 9-11 conspiracy talk already (Quicktime movie).


Transcript.

The official storyline is somewhere near this:

That 19 Islamic fundamentalists took over 4 commercial airplanes and flew them into targets in DC and NYC (and a field in PA), because they "hate our freedoms"; and the Administration at the time knew nothing beforehand (ie the attacks were a complete surprise) and the anticipation/prevention of such attacks was the result of "a lack of imagination".

Before I reply to the points you made, do you agree with this position? Or a modified version of such? Knowing where you stand on this might save me a lot of typing. (This is for both Frank and SDW).