Saturday, November 21, 2009

Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition - Part 1

R63467
5 years ago
Rasputin

Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition

Highly recognized former chief economist in Labor Department now doubts official 9/11 story, claiming suspicious facts and evidence of a cover-up indicate government foul play and possible criminal implications.

June 12, 2005
By Greg Szymanski

A former chief economist in the Labor Department during President Bush’s first term now believes the official story about the collapse of the WTC is ‘bogus,’ saying it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.

“If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an ‘inside job’ and a government attack on America would be compelling,” said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, a former member of the Bush team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.

Reynolds, now a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, also believes it’s ‘next to impossible’ that 19 Arab Terrorists alone outfoxed the mighty U.S. military, adding the scientific conclusions about the WTC collapse may hold the key to the entire mysterious plot behind 9/11.

“It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7,” said Reynolds this week from his offices at Texas A&M. “If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government’s collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings.

“More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right.”

However, Reynolds said “getting it right in today’s security state’ remains challenging because he claims explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11.

more


R63528
5 years ago
Continuity

Rasputin,

This is a good article. As I’ve said many times, I really think normal planes (without pods or bombs, etc.) were flown into WTC1 and WTC2. Whether these planes were remotely guided or hijacked is beyond me. I think that is pyrotechnic distraction really.

However, I am really still looking into the idea that the WTC buildings were destroyed via controlled demolition. I found something important not mentioned by any other researcher.

There are some good video replays of the WTC collapse. One of them has key footage. I will link the footage because it is priceless. Let me explain it.

Just before the general collapse of WTC1, if I remember right, something important happens. The great antenna, which was attached to the reinforced core of WTC1, begins to sink. Let me say it again. In the splitsecond before the general collapse of the building, the antenna and thus the core gives out.


WTC1, with antenna, on left

The antenna sinks into the roof of WTC1, as if the entire core of the building has been shattered from the inside. I believe the sections of the core could very well have been demolished up and down most of its height. Such a sudden loss of support would have dragged all the exterior floors down, rapidly and violently, in the near freefall way depicted.

The exterior floors could not and did not drag the thick core down perfectly onto the building’s footprint. I believe this is physically impossible, given the superb architecture of the buildings. And especially their super-redundant cores.

Post Modified: 06/13/05 19:35:28

R63537
5 years ago
Rasputin

Whether these planes were remotely guided or hijacked is beyond me.

Well, you know my opinion on that. Probably something like this:

From the Northwoods Document, signed by every single member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

“An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact
duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CJA proprietary
organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would
be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the
selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The
actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone [a remotely
controlled unmanned aircraft]. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the
actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida”

“From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to
minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB
where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and
return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will
continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will be
transmitting on the international distress frequency a “May Day” message
stating he is under attack by Cuban MiG aircraft. The transmission will be
interrupted by destruction of the aircraft, which will be triggered by radio
signal. This will allow ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization]
radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the U.S. what has
happened to the aircraft instead of the U.S. trying to “sell” the incident.”

However, I am really still looking into the idea that the WTC buildings were destroyed via controlled demolition.

How could WT7 be anything but?

Re: the other two: check this out:

“There are numerous pieces of unconfirmed anecdotal evidence suggesting strange and unusual activities in the World Trade Towers in the days and weeks before their destruction. One businessman recounted that he had visited a client in one of the towers numerous times during the months preceding the attack, and had always found that certain elevators were out of service. Another report came from Scott Forbes, an employee of Fiduciary Trust, a firm which was located on floors 90 and 94-97 of the South Tower. Eighty-seven employees of Fiduciary Trust were killed on 9/11. In an email account, Forbes reported that over the weekend of September 8-9, 2001, floors 50 and above of the South Tower experienced a “power down,” meaning that all electrical current was cut off for about 36 hours. The reason officially cited was that the electrical cables in the building were being upgraded. Forbes was an information technology officer in charge of Fiduciary Trust’s computer network; his attention was engaged by the power down because it fell to him to shut down all the company’s computers and related systems before the power went out. After the power down, he had to turn the computers back on again, and restore service on the network. Because there was no electric power above the fiftieth floor, there were also no security cameras and no security locks. There were however many outside engineering personnel coming in and out of the tower at all hours during the weekend. Forbes lived in Jersey City and could see the WTC towers from his home; when he saw the conflagration on the morning of 9/11, he immediately related it to the events of the previous weekend.” (Tarpley)

I found something important not mentioned by any other researcher.

Awesome, but probably nothing the magic-bullet quacks won’t be able to “explain” using a lot of fancy terminology and pseudo-science that would make eugenicists and paranormal investigators cringe.

Still, worth a shot and I look forward to your analysis :)


R63540
5 years ago
CaptainTrips

A Personal Decision

By Kevin Ryan
June 9th 2005

Have you ever found yourself caught between several hundred million people and their most cherished lies? After writing a letter to a government scientist, pleading with him to clarify a report of his work, I found myself in just that situation. The letter was circulated on the internet and for a brief time I became a reluctant celebrity. Of course I stand behind what I wrote, although it was originally intended as a personal message, not an open letter. Since many have asked for clarification, here is my message to all.

[For background to Kevin Ryan’s personal story see:
UQ Wire: Underwriter Speaks Out On WTC Study
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00177.htm
UQ Wire: 9/11 Whistleblower Kevin Ryan Fired – UQ Wire Editor.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00239.htm]

To me, the report in question represents a decision point, not just for the US, but for humanity as a whole. We’re at a point where we must decide if we will live consciously, or literally give up our entire reality for a thin veneer of lies. In the US these lies include cheap propaganda that passes for journalism, police-state measures that promise security, and mountains of debt that paint a picture of wealth. Additionally we’ve adopted many implicit self-deceptions, like the idea that we’ll always enjoy a limitless share of the world’s resources, no matter where these are located or who might disagree.

All people lie to themselves. It’s one of the most important things we have yet to accept about our own nature. We lie to ourselves to justify our past actions, to protect our self-image, and to promote ourselves relative to others. This lying is at the root of many of our problems (e.g. nationalism and racism). Until we see this, and strive to understand if not control it, the resulting problems will continue unchecked and the outcome will be certain. Any organism or society that makes self-deception its modus operandi will make many bad, and ultimately fatal, decisions. The day will come when we are collectively fooling ourselves in such a way that we essentially trade everything we have for what’s behind our fantasy curtain. It appears that day is near.

The official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a key part of our current self-deception. More importantly, this story may be our last chance to see just how critical our situation is so that we can all stop, and begin working together to solve the real problems we face. These problems, for the US and the world as a whole, amount to a growing storm of factors including environmental changes, resource depletion, and growth in resource usage.[1,2] Undoubtedly the secret Energy Taskforce report of May 2001 would verify this, and help us to understand that our government is responding to some of these threats with a carefully laid out plan. This plan assumes that people cannot rise above their own natural, ego-based self-deception, and therefore few of us will survive the coming storm. In essence, they’re betting against us.

Anyone who honestly looks at the evidence has difficulty finding anything in the official story of 9/11 that is believable. It’s not just one or two strange twists or holes in the story, the whole thing is bogus from start to end.[3] In my previous job I was in a position to question one part, the collapse of three tall buildings due to fire. But this isn’t really a chemistry or engineering problem, and may be best approached initially through statistics.

The three WTC buildings in question weren’t all designed the same way and weren’t all hit by airplanes. The only thing they seemed to have in common were relatively small and manageable fires, as indicated by the work of firefighters right up to the moment of collapse. From the government’s report we know that only a small percentage of the supporting columns in each of the first two buildings were severed, and that the jet fuel burned off in just a few minutes.

To follow the latest “leading hypothesis”, what are the odds that all the fireproofing fell off in just the right places, even far from the point of impact? Without much test data, let’s say it’s one in a thousand. And what are the odds that the office furnishings converged to supply highly directed and (somehow) forced-oxygen fires at very precise points on the remaining columns? Is it another one in a thousand? What is the chance that those points would then all soften in unison, and give way perfectly, so that the highly dubious “progressive global collapse” theory could be born? I wouldn’t even care to guess. But finally, with well over a hundred fires in tall buildings through history, what are the chances that the first, second and third incidents of fire-induced collapse would all occur on the same day? Let’s say it’s one in a million. Considering just these few points we’re looking at a one in a trillion chance, using generous estimates and not really considering the third building (no plane, no jet fuel, different construction).

How convenient that our miraculous result, combined with several other trains of similarly unlikely events, gives us reason to invade the few most strategically important lands for the production of oil and natural gas. As I said, this is not about chemistry or engineering. Our continued dependence on this highly improbable story means that we have a desperate need to believe it. It is, in fact, a psychology problem.

Solving the problem is a personal challenge, and involves at least three-steps. First, we have to admit we were wrong, and that we were fooled. This is not easy for most people, but congratulations to the neo-cons for noticing that their political opponents seem to be least able to admit they were wrong on any significant issue. Secondly, we have to see that terrorism is actually much worse than we feared because the terrorists are in charge. Such a pause on a national scale would be dramatic to say the least. If we get to the third step we begin to realize the scope of change necessary to move forward in a conscious manner. Obviously the US government must be substantially changed and/or forgiven. New cooperative, multinational agreements would need to be implemented immediately.[4]

If you make it through step one and care enough about people to work for step three, you may face ridicule and isolation. You may lose your income and some friends, but if we continue down the same path there’s a real chance you’re going to lose those anyway. On the upside you may be able to hold on to some sense of integrity. The only thing you can be certain of is that we’re all in this together. No matter how you voted, what credentials or positions you hold, or what faith you have in people, you will face the consequences of our collective self-deceptions. Now is the time for each of us to decide between a stormy reality and what’s behind the fantasy curtain.

FOOTNOTES:
1. http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php
2. http://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2005/05/12/
3. http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-05-22-571pglie.php
4. http://www.peakoil.net/uhdsg/UppsalaProtocol.html

Opinion: www.UnansweredQuestions.org
Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/

ReOpen911.org


R63548
5 years ago
nomadrock

I will link the footage because it is priceless

then fuckin’ do it…


R63565
5 years ago
Continuity

It’ll take a while to find. Then again, I know the footage came from one of the top websites about 9/11 and the WTC. It has the most video files of the hits/collapses.

Stay tuned.


R63567
5 years ago
zark

hmmmmm

seismic graphs have never been explained, NEVER

Seismographs at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded very interesting seismic activity on September 11, 2001 that has still not been explained.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 9-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

The Palisades seismic record shows that — as the collapses began — a huge seismic “spikes” marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were both registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth.

On Sept. 11 the British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) interviewed one of its New York-based reporters, Steve Evans, who was in the second tower when it was hit.

“I was at the base of the second tower, the second tower that was hit,” Evans said. “There was an explosion—I didn’t think it was an explosion—but the base of the building shook. I felt it shake . . . then when we were outside, the second explosion happened and then there was a series of explosions. . . . We can only wonder at the kind of damage—the kind of human damage—which was caused by those explosions—those series of explosions,” he said

The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31

“The seismic effects of the collapses are comparable to the explosions at a gasoline tank farm near Newark on January 7, 1983,” the Palisades Seismology Group reported on Sept. 14, 2001.

One of the seismologists, Won-Young Kim, told AFP that the Palisades seismographs register daily underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles away. These blasts are caused by 80,000 lbs. of ammonium nitrate and cause local earthquakes between Magnitude 1 and 2. Kim said the 1993 truck-bomb at the WTC did not register on the seismographs because it was “not coupled” to the ground.


R63568
5 years ago
whitey

R63605
5 years ago
IsraelForever2

This article is all over the place. It refers to quotes by Morgan Reynolds than goes over all different part sof the conspiracy koo theory.

Let us stop for a moment. Where is the source? They quote Mr Reynolds but don’t show the source. If a man makes such quotes, surely there must be a source. Please find it. Otherwise it looks like the whole article was a fabrication.


R63606
5 years ago
Shogo

“Highly recognized former chief economist in Labor Department”

As we all know, chief economists have a great deal of experience in both engineering and physics.

:P

Might as well say that a Bush Administration gardener now doubts the official story.

There is plenty of hard science that backs up the twin towers falling due solely to the impact of the planes. The fact that not one of you dickheads can be bothered to look for it says a lot about your intellectual honesty.


R63609
5 years ago
IsraelForever2

“There is plenty of hard science that backs up the twin towers falling due solely to the impact of the planes. The fact that not one of you dickheads can be bothered to look for it says a lot about your intellectual honesty.”

They don’t want to know that. If the Arab hijacked airplanes attacked those buildings, the US would be a victim and people would question the motives of the terror gangs. It is the process of believing an anti US conspiracy theory that turns them on, not the facts for the facts sake.


R63669
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Iffy’s one of those co-incidence theories nuts.


R63675
5 years ago
zark

ok IF2… seismic graph.. posted above ^^

please, in your (official theory) wisdom, explain the spikes

much appreciated

oh and btw just for clarity.. the US people were the victims, not the US.. it seems to have grown in world strength while the people have lost liberties, freedoms and basic human rights.

Post Modified: 06/13/05 14:39:34

R63692
5 years ago
Continuity

R63698
5 years ago
Continuity

The only way the towers could “naturally collapse” would be due to non-thermal, physical damage to their super-reinforced cores. The impact of the planes did not cause sufficient “lethal” physical damage to the cores at all. In fact, the core of WTC2 was completely spared of fuselage impact.

Shogo, I assume you are Josh(?). If so, on GNN v1.0, you viciously argued that the fires caused the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. You cited the now unlikely Truss Theory, which relied on the supposed Achilles Heel of the buildings. You also viciously argued that the WTC7 collapsed due to fire also (with a bit of falling debris for good measure).

So your fire theories are out, and now you’re all behind the physical theories?

And Zark, I respect you for your open-minded curiosity. You’re still looking at the inconsistencies which no one has yet to sweep under the rug.

Post Modified: 06/26/05 03:17:11

R63700
5 years ago
Continuity

Another highly relevant expert was Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management who said that the WTC towers were designed to take multiple hits from airliners and not collapse, comparing it to poking a pencil through fly netting, DeMartini was adament that the towers would not collapse

The WTC buildings could take a direct hit from a fully loaded 707, which was the largest jumbo jet at the time of construction. A 707 is roughly as big as one of the 767s which hit the WTC, although some of 767 models are nitceably heavier.

Let’s also consider the fire aspect again and compare the WTC fires with those that ravaged the Windsor skyscraper in Madrid for 18 hours


Windsor Building, absolutely gutted by intense fire, and yet its steel beams and reinforced core (very much like the WTC cores) stood strong.

Post Modified: 09/29/06 17:22:11

R63701
5 years ago
Continuity

There’s a lot of weird stuff said about the collapse of the WTC buildings. One of such weird statement made by current Mayor Bloomberg can be found here

Baosteel Group, the nation’s largest steel firm, has purchased 50,000 tons of the scrap steel from “Ground Zero,” the ruins of the September 11 terrorist attack, at no more than US$120 each ton, according to yesterday’s Beijing Youth Daily.

Another shipment of 10,000 tons of scrap from the WTC arrived in India earlier this month, reported Shanghai Morning Post. The metal will be melted down and recycled into kitchenware and other household items, the paper said.

New York authorities’ decision to ship the twin towers’ scrap to recyclers has raised the anger of victims’ families and some engineers who believe the massive girders should be further examined to help determine how the towers collapsed.

But New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg insisted there are better ways to study the tragedy of September 11.

If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that’s in this day and age what computers do,” said Bloomberg, a former engineering major. “Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn’t tell you anything .”

(eastday.com January 24, 2002)

Yeah, thanks for the words of wisdom, Mayor Bloomberg. Looking at forensic evidence is a big waste of time….

Post Modified: 06/13/05 18:54:25

R63703
5 years ago
Continuity

I could not find the original video I mentioned at the top of the thread, but this one is not bad. In order to appreciate what is happening in this video, you have to adjust your viewer to play frame-by-frame , otherwise it’s too difficult to pick up at first.

Okay, the spire—-which we should really call the antenna—-rose from the roof of WTC1. The huge antenna was atop, and part of, the core of WTC1. Therefore, the antenna is our visual marker that the core gives out first. It’s not the outside of the building, not the trusses, or corners. It’s the core pulling everything down.

The core mysteriously loses all cohesion and breaks apart for reasons not yet properly explained. As it disintegrates, it tumbles down and squirts all obstructing matter it falls upon out the sides of the building.

Going frame by frame, one can see that the antenna appears to go down on its own for 2-3 frames, then the roof as a whole follows, and finally the top section of the entire building is in freefall.

You might also notice that the building, viewed from the outside, doesn’t seem to collapse at the floors which were originally struck by the plane.

I could assume that the core gave out where the plane hit. However, experts have already said that if the plane in fact delivered such unlikely damage to the core, then the top of the building would have seriously leaned and toppled right over as it fell. No real leaning and toppling sideways happened. WTC2 saw a momentary 15+ degree lean, but it correctly itself instantly; WTC1 maybe only 1 or 2 degrees.

Post Modified: 09/29/06 17:24:56

R63710
5 years ago
Shogo

“So your fire theories are out”

A) They are not MY theories. They are theories advanced by structural engineers.

B) They are not out based on one person’s inquiry. As he himself stated, he doesn’t speak for UL, he was asking of his own volition. Surely if this was such a slam dunk argument, UL would have some official statement regarding this issue?

C) There is no mention made of any answer that he might have gotten to his inquiry.

I’m not a structural engineer, nor am I a demolitions expert. Nor are you, nor is Zark, nor are pretty much any of those who are trying to persuade people that explosives took down the buildings. There is literally no evidence to support such a belief, and there is a tremendous hurdle in the form of how the fuck anyone would have been able to plant enough charges in the buildings to bring them down with nobody noticing?

Occam’s Razor tells us that the simplest explanation is the most likely. And the simplest explanation is that the planes crashing into the buildings is what caused the collapse.


R63723
5 years ago
Continuity

Dude, you give me serious deja vu. In a thread from a GNN far far away, you said the same stuff. It’s all about—-don’t look, don’t go there, you’re bad if you do.

A) You distanced yourself from the truss theory, which you swore up and down was true, even though other researchers no longer bring it up because it’s flawed. Plus you give no alternatives. You just vaguely allude to them. Finally you said: There is literally no evidence to support such a belief That’s funny, you have a hell of a lot less evidence than I brought up.

B) Yes, the mother company got Kevin Ryan, the UL executive, fired for voicing his sober evaluation. He simply gave his highly relevant expert advice and for that he was ex-cused permanently, as far as I remember.

C) The answer he got was zero, nothing, zip. He naively thought the WTC’s collapse would be seriously analyzed; he thought the 9/11 Committee was a real investigative body before it revealed itself as a cover-up, as you yourself in another thread said it was.

And Occam’s Razor is by far the lamest, lazy freshmen idea ever quoted. People say “Occam’s Razor” to make their empty arguments pretty. If we all bought the simplest explanation for everything, think about it… Why not just say: don’t analyze things in detail—-just throw normal scientific inquiry out the window?

P.S. More experts have spoken about the WTC and I’ll link those next.

However, since you apparently like circumstantial supposition & philosophy instead, we’ll also go into the documented ‘powerdown’ story to explain to others how the WTC was closed for days before Sept 11, creating a long window of opportunity during which it was possibly tampered with.


R63726
5 years ago
verisimilar

table{border:0px solid black;background:#1A1A1A;width:360px}. |

They are not MY theories. They are theories advanced by structural engineers. |_

|

table{border:0px solid black;background:#1A1A1A;width:360px}. |

Why don’t you demonstrate a little intellectual honesty of your own and provide the names of said structural engineers, their firms of employ, and the theoretical materials to which you espouse? |_

|

table{border:0px solid black;background:#1A1A1A;width:360px}. |

I’m not a structural engineer, nor am I a demolitions expert. |_

|

table{border:0px solid black;background:#1A1A1A;width:360px}. |

Remember Van Romero ?

He stated on 9/11, “My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse.” He also said, “It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points.” Recanting on 9/21, “I’m not trying to say anything did or didn’t happen.” |_

|

table{border:0px solid black;background:#1A1A1A;width:360px}. |

There is literally no evidence to support such a belief, and there is a tremendous hurdle in the form of how the fuck anyone would have been able to plant enough charges in the buildings to bring them down with nobody noticing? |_

|

table{border:0px solid black;background:#1A1A1A;width:360px}. |

Comments like that really seem to frame your perception near the edge of the proverbial abyss of fucktardedness.

You’re obviously familiar with that cozy mindspace where Marvin P. Bush and Securacom / Stratesec don’t really exist. |_

|


R63727
5 years ago
zark

I’m not a structural engineer, nor am I a demolitions expert. Nor are you, nor is Zark, nor are pretty much any of those who are trying to persuade people that explosives took down the buildings. There is literally no evidence to support such a belief, and there is a tremendous hurdle in the form of how the fuck anyone would have been able to plant enough charges in the buildings to bring them down with nobody noticing

seismic graphs!

the how and the when.. are for an expert independent group to investigate.

the official theory is bollocks

sooo back to my original request..

IF2 and SHOGO.. please explain the seismic graph

Post Modified: 06/13/05 23:54:05

R63736
5 years ago
Draconis

please explain the seismic graph

...Mole people were in cahoots with the terrorists!!!

Seriuosly, though… That fuckhole Bloomberg… Selling off the scrap is, at the very least, not morally sound. His whole comment about looking at computer designs is beyond silly… That’s like telling an arson investigator to look at the floorplans of a house to determine the cause of a fire instead of inspecting the remnants.


R63755
5 years ago
Shogo

From the French architecture publication, Le Moniteur:

There have been a lot of contradictions in the facts relating to the WTC collapse given on this Forum. I thought that you might be interested to know that the leading French construction paper ‘Le Moniteur’ has a lengthy article about the WTC collapse. French professionals tend to be very serious-minded people, and the article lays out some of the facts, and the opinions from some French professionals.

The facts that they give relating to the tragedy are as follows: the two 110-storey towers were each 63.5 metres x 63.5 metres in section, with 210,000 m2 of offices, 415 metres high, and weighed 290,000 tons.

The two Boeing 767’s each weighed 110 tons, travelling at 540 kms/hour, wingspan 47.57 metres.

The first plane struck Tower 1 (north) at the 98th.floor at 0848 hrs. The second plane struck Tower 2 (south) at the 90th. floor at 0903 hrs. At 0920 both towers were ablaze. At 0955 tower 2 collapsed. At 1029 tower 1 collapsed. Six hours later building no.7 collapsed.

‘Le Moniteur’ describes the sequence as follows: 1) under the impact of the Boeings several floors were damaged, the vertical structures of the facade at those levels gave way; burning kerosene spread to the lower floors. 2) the burning kerosene caused temperatures above 1,000° Centigrade. Supporting pillars and beams were weakened. 3) the upper floors started to collapse. The levels already weakened by the fire had to take the weight of the upper storeys and failed under the impact. 4) structural pillars melted. They were deformed by the subsiding of the upper levels. Due to the conflagration and due to the abscence of the missing floors, they bent under the weight of the upper levels. 5) The top levels collapsed onto these floors. Under the impact, the floors collapsed with a domino effect.

Far from failing, the opinion is clearly that the building performed remarkably well. The structures did not deform under the initial impacts, and the facades held, even though the planes actually entered the structures. It is thanks to this that so many people were able to escape.

The buildings were constructed to withstand the impact of the much older and lighter Boeing 707 – not the 767.

Paris’ Montparnasse tower was built at the same time as the WTC, using concrete for the central structure, not using the facade in the same structural role as the WTC (Montparnasse has 50% of its facades as windows; the WTC 30%). The reinforced concrete can withstand temperatures double that of steel and also can absorb changes remarkably well. However, when they were built the technology was not available to build using concrete to a height of 400 metres – today it may be possible.

To very briefly summarise the conclusions, the impact of the aircraft, and notably the reserve fuel tanks, caused the destruction of both the facade and internal supports at the floors of impact. The upper floors then collapsed in a piston-like effect onto floors beneath many of which were already weakened by the burning kerosene. The performance of the buildings, far from being a failure, is seen as remarkable.


R63757
5 years ago
Joe

Post Modified: 05/15/06 09:17:37

R63765
5 years ago
Shogo

I like the way you see all the debris falling SIDEWAYS in the pictures. It really shows how TOTALLY UNLIKE a controlled demolition the collapse of those buildings was.


R63775
5 years ago
cicero

Whether these planes were remotely guided or hijacked is beyond me.

Its curious how several people involved with controlled guidance systems dissapeared on the planes.

As details of the passengers on the four hijacked flights emerge, some are shown to have curious connections to the defense company Raytheon, and possibly its Global Hawk pilotless aircraft program. Stanley Hall (Flight 77) was director of program management for Raytheon Electronics Warfare. One Raytheon colleague calls him “our dean of electronic warfare.” [Associated Press, 9/25/01] Peter Gay (Flight 11) was Raytheon’s vice president of operations for Electronic Systems and had been on special assignment to a company office in El Segundo, California. [Associated Press, 9/25/01] Raytheon’s El Segundo’s Electronic Systems division is one of two divisions making the Global Hawk. [ISR Journal, 3/02] Kenneth Waldie (Flight 11) was a senior quality control engineer for Raytheon’s electronic systems. David Kovalcin (Flight 11) was a senior mechanical engineer for Raytheon’s electronic systems. [CNN, 9/01] Herbert Homer (Flight 175) was a corporate executive working with the Department of Defense. [CNN, 9/01 (B); Northeastern University Voice, 12/11/01] A surprising number of passengers, especially on Flight 77, have military connections. For instance, William E. Caswell was a Navy scientist whose work was so classified that his family knew very little about what he did each day. Says his mother, “You just learn not to ask questions.” [Chicago Tribune, 9/16/01]

LINK

If you ask me they landed on an airport where the radiocontrolled planes took of and continued. Similar evidence is available with wittnessreports of planes being emptied and taken into hangars.

Probably they work for the military industry under fake identities in military controlled cityzones as in the Manhattan Projekt.

Including the following:
Dong Lee, Ruben Ornedo, and Chad Keller all worked for Boeing. Lee also worked for the NSA. Stanley Hall, “the dean of electronic warfare,” (along with Peter Gay, David Kolvacin, and Kenneth Waldie on other flights), worked for Raytheon.

William Caswell was a particle physicist who worked for the Navy. His job was so classified that his family had no clue as to what he did and did not know why he was flying to California.

Charles Droz, LCDR USN Ret, was a software developer for EM solutions (manufacturer of Wide Area Networks).

Robert Penniger worked for BAE Systems, (“an industry leader in flight control systems”), whose Board is comprised of many from the intelligence community. BAE has apparently removed their Board of Directors page, but it list a “who’s who” of high level connections to the CIA, DARPA, and NSA.

The Outside Directors list read as follows:
[The following Outside Directors were not on Flight 77]

Richard J. Kerr
former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence

Mr. Kerr served in the U.S. Intelligence community for 32 years – from September 1960 until March 1992. He started as a country analyst in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and ended his career as the senior professional intelligence officer in the U.S. government serving as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

Dr. William Schneider, Jr.
former Under Secretary State for Security, Science and Technology

Prior to serving on the board, Dr. Schneider was formerly Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance, Science and Technology (1982-1986). He served as Associate Director for National Security and International Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (198l-2) prior to being nominated as Under Secretary by the President.

Dr. Robert S. Cooper
former Director, DARPA

Dr. Cooper is currently President, CEO, Director and co-founder of Atlantic Aerospace Electronics Corporation. From 1981 to 1985, Dr. Cooper was Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Technology and simultaneously held the position of Director for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). As Assistant Secretary, he was principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense on the allocation of Department resources to research, exploratory development and advanced development projects.

General Anthony C. Zinni (Ret)
former Commander-in-Chief, CENTCOM

Gen. Zinni was formerly Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Central Command. While in the Marine Corps he held numerous command and staff assignments that include platoon, company, battalion, regimental, Marine expeditionary unit, and Marine expeditionary force command. His staff assignments included service on battalion, regimental, division, base, and service staffs in operations, training, special operations, counterterrorism, and manpower billets. Gen. Zinni most recently served as the United States Special Envoy to the Middle East.

General Kenneth A. Minihan (Ret)
former Director National Security Agency; Central Security Service

LtGen Minihan served more than thirty-three years of active commissioned service to the nation before retiring from the U.S. Air Force in 1999. On his final tour of duty, he served as the 14th Director of the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, a combat support agency of the Department of Defense with military and civilian personnel stationed worldwide. As Director, he was the senior uniformed intelligence officer in the Department of Defense. He also served as the Director of The Defense Intelligence Agency.

Robert L. Prestel
former Deputy Director, National Security Agency

Mr. Prestel served as Deputy Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) from 1990 – . He was the senior civilian presiding over this Defense Agency whose principal missions are the production of foreign Signals Intelligence and the protection of official U.S. Government communications and information systems.
[Didn’t want to you get confused about who were the fallen passengers]

Back to More Passengers

Robert Ploger and his wife were added “late” to the original CNN passenger list. He is the son of Major General Robert R Ploger USA, Ret, another “flag” link. The other “late” addition was Sandra Teague, a physical therapist at Georgetown University Hospital.

John Sammartino and Leonard Taylor worked at Xontech (missile defense), another company connected to the intelligence community, also with ties to Boeing.

Vicki Yancey worked for Vreedenberg Corp, yet another company connected to the intelligence community. Her father describes her death as a “planned murder.” Her widower works for Northrup-Grumman.

Mary Jane Booth was in a position to know what was going on at Dulles Airport as secretary for American Airlines general manager.

John Yamnicky, 71, Capt USN Ret, was a defense contractor for Veridian who had done a number of “black ops,” according to his son.

Sierra Times Fligth 77 Passanger list


R63784
5 years ago
cicero

Talking about controlled demolishion it would be a giant fallacy on the owners part if explosives where not put into the building knowing that the buildings where a target for terrorist attacks and a prior attack had hit the lower parts.

The firedepertment or whomever are responsable for these kinds of questions would have demanded that devises where put in place that ensured that the building did not fall like a log onto neighboring buildnings If a bomb strong enough was blown of in the garages or subway f.ex.

You bet you there was explosive and you can bet that the emergency controll center in building 7 had that sole purpose.


R63787
5 years ago
IsraelForever2

“The only way the towers could “naturally collapse” would be due to non-thermal, physical damage to their super-reinforced cores. “

Jibberish. The reason the towers fell has been well laid out. Extensive damage was sustained by the loaded columns. What columns remained suffered weakening by the hot fires. Steel weakens as it gets hot.


R63788
5 years ago
IsraelForever2

Cont,

I really don’t care that you waste your time on this stuff. We all have hobbies. Yours is researching the WTC. I just feel compelled to point out what a nutcase you are. I wouldn’t want it on my conscience that I could have at least told you and did not.


R63791
5 years ago
IsraelForever2

“You bet you there was explosive and you can bet that the emergency controll center in building 7 had that sole purpose.”

Ok, the same nutcase who thinks that anti-semitic death art that glorifies terror is a good thing, and that Israel is evil and the palesdiot terror gangs are good people, also believes that the WTC fell because of demolitions. Coincedence? I don’t think so.


R63793
5 years ago
IsraelForever2

IF2 Said: “ This article is all over the place. It refers to quotes by Morgan Reynolds than goes over all different part sof the conspiracy koo theory.

Let us stop for a moment. Where is the source? They quote Mr Reynolds but don’t show the source. If a man makes such quotes, surely there must be a source. Please find it. Otherwise it looks like the whole article was a fabrication.”

So, no-one has found the source, I assume.

R A S P U T I N Please, it is your responsibility. I accuse you of posting an article that made up these quotes, surely you can find the source of these quotes. If you can’t I will assume they are made up.


R63795
5 years ago
fennec

R63800
5 years ago
nomadrock

can u not work teh google Izzy?


R63801
5 years ago
verisimilar

table{border:0px solid black;background:#1A1A1A;width:360px}. |

From the French architecture publication, Le Moniteur: |_

|

table{border:0px solid black;background:#1A1A1A;width:360px}. |

It’s pretty fucking weak that you follow this lead with an opinion on the GNN forum. It’s suggestive of incompetence or good ol’fashioned intellectual dishonesty. |_

|

table{border:0px solid black;background:#1A1A1A;width:360px}. |

I thought that you might be interested to know that the leading French construction paper ‘Le Moniteur’ has a lengthy article about the WTC collapse. |_

|

table{border:0px solid black;background:#1A1A1A;width:360px}. |

Really? Considering I called you out on your intellectual honesty bullshit, I thought you might provide the actual names of engineers, their firms, and links to their theoretical speculations. At the very least, I was expecting a nonsensical refutation of the seismic data. |_

|

table{border:0px solid black;background:#1A1A1A;width:360px}. |

French professionals tend to be very serious-minded people, and the article lays out some of the facts, and the opinions from some French professionals. |_

|

table{border:0px solid black;background:#1A1A1A;width:360px}. |

What the fuck kind of statement is that?! How many French professionals do you personally know? How many French professional publications do you personally pay subscription to? Do you even speak French? What are the names of the French professionals cited in the article that you’ve so graciously summarized for us (without providing its title or even a single quotation) and what are their respective firms of employ? |_

|

table{border:0px solid black;background:#1A1A1A;width:360px}. |

I like the way you see all the debris falling SIDEWAYS in the pictures. It really shows how TOTALLY UNLIKE a controlled demolition the collapse of those buildings was. |_

|

table{border:0px solid black;background:#1A1A1A;width:360px}. |

From this point on, I will respectfully address you as Shogodunnoshit. Here’s a controlled demolition for you, Shogodunnoshit. Please, be sure to ignore that debris which falls sideways, as it may cause pain in your brain.

Villa Panamericana & Las Orquideas - 8/16/98 |_

|


R63810
5 years ago
Shogo

“Its curious how several people involved with controlled guidance systems dissapeared on the planes.”

Yes. Clearly, the government sekritly put them on the planes that they didn’t crash into the Pentagon, using a missile instead. This was because they sacrificed them to the demon/alien lord Cthlueless.


R63812
5 years ago
Shogo

Cicero, have you ever considered learning how to spell?

It might make you come off as merely ignorant.


R63814
5 years ago
Shogo

verisimilar, you’re not only a tool, but you waste a lot of space with your retarded posting style.

I pasted an entire article, the conclusions of which you totally ignore in favor of ad hom fallacies. All you can seize on is the authors assessment of French engineers. How about skipping over that part and reading the data about the structural columns, the damage to the facades, and the jet fuel fires?

Fuckface.


R63826
5 years ago
Joe

Post Modified: 05/15/06 09:17:31

R63829
5 years ago
fennec

Word Joe, on all counts.

So, I will post a picture of this baby raccoon:


R63846
5 years ago
verisimilar

verisimilar, you’re not only a tool, but you waste a lot of space with your retarded posting style.

Ok, asshole. So that my retarded posting style doesn’t give you an excuse to ignore every single question and inference I’ve already posed to you, I’ll simplify and restate them style-free.

What are the names of the structural engineers whose theories you espouse?

What are their respective firms of employ?

From what sources did you review their theories?

Do you consider Van Romero, Ph.D. to be a qualified professional with respect to the physics of energetic materials and their effects in both controlled demolitions and terrorist attacks? If not, please explain.

What is your opinion of Marvin P. Bush and his role with Securacom / Stratesec?

I pasted an entire article, the conclusions of which you totally ignore in favor of ad hom fallacies.

No, you didn’t. You didn’t cite any article. You didn’t provide the title, author or publication date of any article. You didn’t link to any article. So who’s really in favor of ad hom fallacies here?

All you can seize on is the authors assessment of French engineers.

No. What I’m seizing upon is your seeming inability to support your argument; in addition to the apparent fact that you’re confusing your personal interpretation of something you may or may not have read with something someone may or may not have actually written.

How about skipping over that part and reading the data about the structural columns, the damage to the facades, and the jet fuel fires?

Listen cupcake, until you can credit your data to a source, it won’t be taken seriously. Period.

Fuckface.

Perhaps. I’ve been less than cordial, but then, I’ve observed how you play with others for some time now and your tactics are hardly subtle.

Some more questions (simplified, of course) you chose to ignore:

Do you speak or read French?
How many French professionals do you personally know?
How many French professional publications do you personally pay subscription to?
What are the names of the French professionals cited in your mystery article?
Who do they work for?

I look forward to your response, as I’m sure it will be delightful!


R63848
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Hmmm, the pictures don’t exactly look like collapse from a fire either. And how about the pics of Bldg 7?

Of course it’s important, Joe, otherwise there wouldn’t be such heated debate. The truth of 9/11 is the one thing that could really get some righteous anger going amongst right-wingers against this corrupt government. Damn them!


R63860
5 years ago
zark

IF2 and Shogo : – “blah blah blah blah”

please/.

i ask again

explain the seismic graphs

thank you


R63894
5 years ago
Continuity


Pic 1 The above jpg is what the WTC floorplan and core approximately looked like. One will note that the reinforced core takes up a lot of area.


Pic 2 from the BBC depicts the core as very thin, up to 3 times smaller than what it was. It also incorrectly suggests that the core only had 4 comparably thin steel girders inside a sheath of concrete. Furthermore, it peddles the unlikely truss theory.


Pic 3 approximates the real size of the cores, and shows the angle of the planes when they hit the towers.


Pic 4 reveals exactly how huge and tough the cores really were. Note the 4 industrial cranes at either corner and the forest of girders. The WTC construction manager was not kidding when he said the building could still stand after receiving multiple hits from fueled jumbo jets.


R63904
5 years ago
Rasputin

The pancake people are a funny bunch


R63909
5 years ago
Continuity


Pic 5 is another incorrect depiction of what occurred. The plane that struck WTC1 did not come at this angle and did not penetrate ‘intact’ within the core. Instead, the plane was shredded to chunks by the core, even as some of the core’s columns in turn were ripped.

The theory of Thomas Eager was adopted by the ‘natural collapse’ proponents as gospel. He goes so far as to ask whether the WTC buildings were defective, which is an odd suggestion because the WTC buildings were some of the best ever constructed, relying on massive redundancy of support. His theory is rarely stated now, and new theories are evolving (i.e. the trusses & joists were supposedly okay, but the lack of insulation screwed everything).

This computer simulation , presented by Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, under the Directorate of Engineering of the National Science Foundation (NSF), shows what would have happened to the core of WTC1 if a Boeing 747 struck. Note that a 747 is bigger than a 767.

Go to the bottom 2 pictures to see the end result: the core quite intact & viable even in the worst case scenario of losing several columns.


The columns themselves were thick and cemented tight into the core. Since the core held the majority of the building’s load, and the core was overbuilt so that it could carry far more than the WTC... then why did the core just give up the ghost?

Post Modified: 06/14/05 19:34:28

R63911
5 years ago
Shogo

The building wasn’t designed to withstand the weight of several upper floors collapsing downwards.

Fucking hell you guys are dumbshits.


R63914
5 years ago
fennec

Fuckin’ turtle.


R63915
5 years ago
Continuity

Wow, Josh, you waited 1 minute and 10 seconds to reply. You’re getting slow.


R63916
5 years ago
Shogo

If it was expedient for you to believe that the WTC was poorly constructed you would.

Proponents of the demolition hypothesis are not interested in science, else they wouldn’t put so much stock in half-baked conspiracy theories that aren’t grounded in reality.


R63918
5 years ago
Continuity

Joe: And there’s no harm in people investigating, especially since they might find some truth along the way.

Joe, that’s a very open-minded, fair statement. I wonder why Shogo went bonkers at GNN v1.0 and now at v2.0 whenever anyone brought this line of investigation up? Does he see harm? He’s fairly hostile on the issue, back then and now.


R63919
5 years ago
Continuity

Ahh Shogo’s back with more ad hominem, sweeping generalizations, but he’s light on the insults now. What’s the next tactic?


R63920
5 years ago
Rasputin

half-baked conspiracy theories

heh


R63923
5 years ago
Snark

So what the fuck difference does it make?


R63926
5 years ago
sisyphus

I thought it collapsed cause it was made of popsicle sticks?


R63930
5 years ago
Rasputin

So what the fuck difference does it make?

Could be that widespread awareness of the 9/11 fraud will deter future attacks of a much larger and more lethal nature. Plus it clues people in to the criminality of the state, making rebels out of flag-wavers. And of course there’s that small matter of the truth.

I thought it collapsed cause it was made of popsicle sticks?

Well it sure wasn’t made of passports, I’ll tell ya that much.


R63939
5 years ago
Shogo

“He’s fairly hostile on the issue”

Because the controlled demolition hypothesis makes no fucking sense, douchebag.


R63951
5 years ago
Shogo

Some reading material

Suck my dick, knuckleheads.


R63953
5 years ago
Shogo

Quote, from Popular Mechanics:

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers—and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later—initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC’s structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn’t swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.


Widespread Damage
CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center’s 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. “There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below,” claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). “It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash.”

FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower’s core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel—and fiery destruction throughout the building. “It’s very hard to document where the fuel went,” says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, “but if it’s atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it’ll go off.”

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that “some elevators slammed right down” to the ground floor. “The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died,” says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary “9/11,” by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.


“Melted” Steel
CLAIM: “We have been lied to,” announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. “The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel.” The posting is entitled “Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC.”

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. “I have never seen melted steel in a building fire,” says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. “But I’ve seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks.”

“Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F,” notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. “And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent.” NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn’t the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

“The jet fuel was the ignition source,” Williams tells PM. “It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down.”

Puffs Of Dust CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: “The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions.” Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying “there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse.” The article continues, “Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures.”

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process “pancaking,” and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air—along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse—was ejected with enormous energy. “When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it’s going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window,” NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, “but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception.”

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. “I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building,” he tells PM. “I only said that that’s what it looked like.”

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. “I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line.” But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: “The paymaster of Romero’s research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement.” Romero responds: “Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years.”


R63954
5 years ago
Shogo

For zark and his seismic spikes:

Seismic Spikes
CLAIM: Seismographs at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. “The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth,” reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.

A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are “indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down” the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each “sharp spike of short duration,” says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a “demolition-style implosion.”

FACT: “There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers,” Lerner-Lam tells PM. “That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context.”

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear—misleadingly—as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty’s 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves—blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower—start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

Post Modified: 06/14/05 22:29:39

R63955
5 years ago
Shogo

For Spewtin:

WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: “The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one.”

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA’s preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. “The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7,” NIST’s Sunder tells PM. “On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.” NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7’s upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST’s analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of “progressive collapse,” a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or “kinks,” in the building’s facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building’s failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. “What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors,” Sunder notes, “it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.”

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building’s other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. “There was no firefighting in WTC 7,” Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: “Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time.”

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors—along with the building’s unusual construction—were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.


R63957
5 years ago
Shogo

For the Pentagon douchebags:

THE PENTAGON
At 9:37 am on 9/11, 51 minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade Center, the Pentagon was similarly attacked. Though dozens of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building, conspiracy advocates insist there is evidence that a missile or a different type of plane smashed into the Pentagon.

HQ ATTACK: Taken three days after 9/11, this photo shows the extent of the damage to the Pentagon, consistent with a fiery plane crash. PHOTOGRAPH BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE


Big Plane, Small Holes
CLAIM: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building’s exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon’s middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. “How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?” asks reopen911.org, a Web site “dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001.”

The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile—part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. “This attack,” he writes, “could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel.”

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon’s exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn’t the hole as wide as a 757’s 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn’t punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon’s load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. “If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building,” Sozen tells PM, “it didn’t happen.”

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide—not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet’s landing gear, not by the fuselage.

HOLE TRUTH: Flight 77’s landing gear punched a 12-ft. hole into the Pentagon’s Ring C. PHOTOGRAPH BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE


Intact Windows
CLAIM: Many Pentagon windows remained in one piece—even those just above the point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. Pentagonstrike.co.uk, an online animation widely circulated in the United States and Europe, claims that photographs showing “intact windows” directly above the crash site prove “a missile” or “a craft much smaller than a 757” struck the Pentagon.

FACT: Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that’s what the windows were supposed to do—they’re blast-resistant.

“A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that’s hitting instantaneously,” says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring’s later collapse. “They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force,” Hays notes. “They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass.”


Flight 77 Debris
CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. “In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found,” claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, “What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?”

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. “It was absolutely a plane, and I’ll tell you why,” says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. “I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.” Kilsheimer’s eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: “I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?”


R63958
5 years ago
Shogo

Seismographs in context.

Eat shit, fuckwads.

Post Modified: 06/14/05 22:36:21

R63961
5 years ago
renwald

What about the actual motives behind all of the attacks. Who has benefitted the most from “Osama Bin Laden’s” Terrorist activities? To me it seems the US government by far. Not only have they passed any and every law they have wanted to since the attacks, but they have had 2 fake wars and now have the populace further controlled under an umbrella of Bullshit Media and Fear.

I ask you, if Osama was such a king shit, and able to dupe the US defence network with this brilliant scheme, how come there have been no more attacks on US facilities in 4 years? How come he chose something harmless like a bunch of towers in the middle of NY? Why not pick something with a lasting effect, a true kick in the nuts, like a Nuclear Power Plant? Here is a man that was proclaiming a “jihad” on the US, and so far hasn’t done shit except make some B-Grade Cave Porn movies without the titties!

Proponents of the demolition hypothesis are not interested in science, else they wouldn’t put so much stock in half-baked conspiracy theories that aren’t grounded in reality.

Hah, such is the times that anyone actually interested in a scientific explanation not some dumbed down Prime-time News report, gets labelled a conspiracy nut. Whether or not anyone can divine the nature of the attack from footage of the collapsing buildings is arguable, but clearly thats the advantage of blowing shit up, it’s hard to find any evidence.

I forgot tho, Shogo knows everything, I was wrong to question anyone, maybe I should go back to religion. God is the light!


R63965
5 years ago
verisimilar

Shogodunnoshit, you are a real piece of work. It took you a lot longer to resort to that Hearst-whore-piece as your end-all-be-all than I expected.

Unfortunately, regurgitating it doesn’t address my beef with you. Why don’t you step up like a big boy and answer those questions I went through all the trouble of de-retarding for you?

Or, how about an alternative? If you’ve got enough self-respect to admit that you just flat-out fucked up with that Le Moniteur post, I’ll forget I asked you all those really tough questions that call bullshit on your intellectual honesty.

I suppose you could just continue ignoring me and telling yourself how pitiful my ad hom fallacies and attacks on your integrity are. I think this would actually be my personal preference, as dismantling all the nonsense you’re constantly purporting as fact might breath new entertainment value into my GNN-bête noire experience.

Oh! I almost forgot. In true Shogodunnoshit adolescent fashion, I’ll need to close with an obscenity for authentic dramatic effect.

...

ASS CACTUS!


R63971
5 years ago
Rasputin

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research.

Bwahahahah

You pancake peeps are a hoot.


R63972
5 years ago
Rasputin

reductio ad absurdum

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin for “reduction to the absurd”, traceable back to the Greek ©© ©©© ©© ©©©©©©©© ©©©©©©©, “reduction to the impossible”, often used by Aristotle) is a type of logical argument where we assume a claim for the sake of argument, arrive at an absurd result, and then conclude the original assumption must have been wrong, since it gave us this absurd result.


R63975
5 years ago
Shogo

Spewt, either make with the physics or STFU and go back to watching movies.


R63976
5 years ago
Shogo

veristupid, please read the article and the excerpts posted here. Then look in the mirror and repeat 100 times, “I am an ignorant tool”.


R63977
5 years ago
Shogo

To repeat: Proponents of the demolition hypothesis are not interested in science, else they wouldn’t put so much stock in half-baked conspiracy theories that aren’t grounded in reality.

Pleasant dreams, asshats.


R63981
5 years ago
zark

shogo… that web site

FACT: “There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers,” Lerner-Lam tells PM. “That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context.”

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear—misleadingly—as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty’s 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves—blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower—start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground

erm

popular mechanics forgot this quote by lerner-lam

Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion,“ Lerner-Lam said. „The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small

and

Won-Young Kim

The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31

“The seismic effects of the collapses are comparable to the explosions at a gasoline tank farm near Newark on January 7, 1983,” the Palisades Seismology Group reported on Sept. 14, 2001.

One of the seismologists, Won-Young Kim, told AFP that the Palisades seismographs register daily underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles away. These blasts are caused by 80,000 lbs. of ammonium nitrate and cause local earthquakes between Magnitude 1 and 2. Kim said the 1993 truck-bomb at the WTC did not register on the seismographs because it was “not coupled” to the ground

Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers hit the ground. Asked about these spikes seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University’s Center for Hazards and Risk Research told AFP, “This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated.”

so shove Popular Mechanics into the bin cause they are full of shit.

if their explanation of the seismic graphs is

start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground

then WTF IS THAT?

thats not explaining the graphs but describing them.
additionally the ratio of the graphs are shown to be similar but the reference of the graphs show that this is incorrect as

impact wtc1 0.9ML 288nm/s
collapse wtc1 2.3LM 5,777NM/S

impact WTC2 0.7ML 206nm/s
collapse wtc2 2.1ML 4,204nm/s

very clever how they have boxed off the collapses to make them appear the same as the impacts but they are scaled down.. with the reference to the left.

SHOGO... try again

IF2 .. step in whenever you want

Lerner-Lam is now your official source SHOGO.. nice one, your fucked from this point on cause lerner-lam doesnt back up the official theory and neither does Won-Young Kim

Post Modified: 06/14/05 23:53:19

R63984
5 years ago
verisimilar

Hmmmm… remember this?

verisimilar, you’re not only a tool, but you waste a lot of space with your retarded posting style.

Ok, asshole. So that my retarded posting style doesn’t give you an excuse to ignore every single question and inference I’ve already posed to you, I’ll simplify and restate them style-free.

What are the names of the structural engineers whose theories you espouse?

What are their respective firms of employ?

From what sources did you review their theories?

I’ve removed the inquiry regarding Romero, as it appears to have given you an excuse to consider me a proponent of the demolition hypothesis (I don’t believe that I’ve stated my position one way or the other) and consequently ignore every other pointed question, the answers to which might just prove how intellectually dishonest you really are.

What is your opinion of Marvin P. Bush and his role with Securacom / Stratesec?

I pasted an entire article, the conclusions of which you totally ignore in favor of ad hom fallacies.

No, you didn’t. You didn’t cite any article. You didn’t provide the title, author or publication date of any article. You didn’t link to any article. So who’s really in favor of ad hom fallacies here?

All you can seize on is the authors assessment of French engineers.

No. What I’m seizing upon is your seeming inability to support your argument; in addition to the apparent fact that you’re confusing your personal interpretation of something you may or may not have read with something someone may or may not have actually written.

How about skipping over that part and reading the data about the structural columns, the damage to the facades, and the jet fuel fires?

Listen cupcake, until you can credit your data to a source, it won’t be taken seriously. Period.

Fuckface.

Perhaps. I’ve been less than cordial, but then, I’ve observed how you play with others for some time now and your tactics are hardly subtle.

Some more questions (simplified, of course) you chose to ignore:

Do you speak or read French?
How many French professionals do you personally know?
How many French professional publications do you personally pay subscription to?
What are the names of the French professionals cited in your mystery article?
Who do they work for?

I look forward to your response, as I’m sure it will be delightful!

So, how about this? Everytime you make a comment that doesn’t address the aforementioned questions, I’ll remind you that you’ve neglected to respond to them. Or you can do the honorable thing; pony up and admit you were intellectually dishonest with respect to your Le Moniteur post. How bout it?


R63986
5 years ago
Rasputin

This is good stuff:

What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors, it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.

Apparently this “scientific” analysis comes courtesy of a gent named Shyam Sunder, who has introduced a new term into the magic bullet lexicon: “progressive collapse”.

“Note the guarded language Sunder uses to describe the extent of the collapse. The reader is led to believe that the collapse of a “section” could lead to the total collapse of the building, when in fact there are no examples of total progressive collapse of steel frame buildings outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7.

“Typing progressive collapse into a search engine reveals that structural engineers are “discovering new ways to deal with this deadly phenomenon” 1 If one researches the history of total progressive collapse of buildings one will find it is a recent phenomenon, apparently starting with the Oklahoma City Bombing, and then rearing its ugly head again in the 9/11/01 attack.

“The problem with the progressive collapse theory is that it’s very difficult to actually build something that will exhibit this behavior.

To repeat: Proponents of the demolition hypothesis are not interested in science

McBeal, sorry to say sugar but I don’t think you know science from scientology. Doesn’t science have something to do with objective, empirically testable hypotheses?

“To attempt to verify that this phenomenon can be reproduced outside of a terrorist incident we have introduced the progressive collapse challenge.

CHALLENGE #1:

Build an upright structure that will undergo progressive collapse.

CHALLENGE #2:

Build an upright structure with a square footprint and an aspect ratio of at least 6.5 (6.5 times as high as it is wide) that will undergo progressive collapse.

CHALLENGE #3:

Build a structure as required by CHALLENGE #2 which, in the collapse process, will throw pieces outward in all directions such that at least 80% of the weight of the materials ends up lying outside of the footprint, but their center of mass lies inside the footprint.

CHALLENGE #4:

Build a structure as required by CHALLENGE #2 which is also capable of withstanding a 100 MPH wind without collapsing. The structure has to be closed in the sense that it cannot allow air to pass through it.

CHALLENGE #5:

Build a structure that meets the requirements of both CHALLENGES #3 and #4.

The shills in the PM piece have started with an assumed (and wholly unjustified) premise and worked backwards. That’s not science, dear boy – that’s a logical fallacy. There’s even a name for it: begging the question. So if the reductio ad absurdum of WTC7 isn’t enough to get your gray cells functioning here is yet another fallacy for you and the rest of the drooling, sheepish coincidence theorists to chew on.

The quacks you quoted are no different than the eugenicists who scrambled to “scientifically prove” Hitler’s theories about white supremacy, or the “experts” who lined up behind the Warren Commisssion to pimp the magic bullet theory. Eventually, they’ll be debunked. This happens often; for instance, when a handful of scientists think they have made a momentous discovery only to learn they were the victims of a hoax.

Of course, most people don’t buy this kind of junk in the first place because most people don’t get all starry-eyed and bedazzled over some techno-jargon published in a magazine. They trust their own eyes, they know the official story’s bullshit, and they’re not gonna let someone else tell them what to think just because they have a few letters in front of their names.

Post Modified: 06/15/05 00:24:27

R63988
5 years ago
2pacalypse

Rev 18:19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

It was a Satanic Illuminati Ritual. Believe it or snot.


R63990
5 years ago
Continuity

Take Shogo’s info in context. What I’m saying is not mere ad hominem, but serious context.

The Popular Mechanics article was written by the current Homeland Security Secretary’s cousin, Cherto-whatever. Both are Bush-supporting NeoCons. I’ve read the article. It’s not very convincing, despite its hypy tone.

FEMA , the Frankenstein creation of Oliver North and the NSC, is of course hardly trustworthy. The contractors working for FEMA said the whole investigation was an unprofessional, hurried nightmare. And FEMA said cryptically that WTC7 fell ultimtely for unknown reasons, but fire related of course. (I can’t believe Shogo is still hugging the official WTC7 story…)

NIST is an official arm of the US federal government, under the Department of Commerce. NIST openly confesses to just guessing when it comes to the splashing jet fuel in WTC1 and what damage the plane did.

One of NIST’s weird claims is that not only was all the fireproofing insulation blown off by plane impacts (in a perfectly general way throughout the floors), but apparently huge gobs of concrete were also blown out of the cores, thus introducing open flames to the core columns. That’s funny, it couldn’t have happened that way to WTC2. The core was intact. No plane-to-core-impact. Sorry, NIST, no butchered forest of columns.

Earth to NIST, get some evidence. Show us the saggy columns. Oh darn, you can’t. Show us how huge walls of reinforced concrete were destroyed by heat alone to expose WTC2’s columns.

Time to get farther into the pancake theory. Pass the maple syrup, Shogo. This will be sweet.

Post Modified: 06/15/05 00:58:10

R63992
5 years ago
fennec

R63995
5 years ago
emissary71

What’s the raccoon, some sort of symbolism? Oh, I get it, your cryptically referring to the bunch of criminals that did this – via the raccoon wearing a “robbers” mask. Cool, but remember shogo and izzy aren’t that “advanced” and so aren’t likely to get it.

But I agree with you tho’. They certainly are criminals.


R63996
5 years ago
fennec

You’d pretty much have to be a dick to kill 3000 people, whether you are some rich American Christians or a rich Arab Muslim.


R63997
5 years ago
emissary71

Agreed – 100%. Seems likely that they worked together on this one.

On edit: at the highest levels at least.

Post Modified: 06/15/05 02:17:19

R64015
5 years ago
whateveryousay

what about the ‘zipper theory’?


R64017
5 years ago
IsraelForever2

The controlled demolition theory is bunk for one obvious reason. There were people in the buildings below the crash site, many as rescuers. How can you explain that?


R64035
5 years ago
Shogo

Spewtin, at least have the courtesy to cite whichever crackpot website you’re stealing from.

To say they started from a conclusion is ridiculous. What is known to be true is that planes hit the buildings, and some time later the buildings collapsed.

Hypotheses can be made to explain how that happened, be they advocating aliens with laser beams, demolition charges, or other explanations.

Various internutters have latched on to out of context quotes, such as Zark here, to prop up their varied pet hypotheses – regardless of how truthful or accurate their souces are. In Zark’s case, he accuses PM of misquoting Lerner Lam, despite the following: “There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers,” Lerner-Lam tells PM. “That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context.”

What is wrong with Zark? He’s doing the equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing when confronted with the fact that he’s bought into a crackpot hypothesis.

For yourself, all you have to fall back on is your same ol’ tired copy-and-paste barrage of nothingness. You can’t refute the article on the conclusions reached, because you lack a science background. You can’t refute it in terms of what the structural engineers said, because you’re not a structural engineer.

You’re just some movie-addicted anarchist wannabe revolutionary holed up somewhere in British Columbia. But hey, you got a bunch of know-nothing internutters to believe you – that and a couple a bucks should get you a cup of coffee in most major metropolitan areas.


R64038
5 years ago
Shogo

“The Popular Mechanics article was written by the current Homeland Security Secretary’s cousin, Cherto-whatever. “

Not according to the article byline. Care to back up that claim with some evidence?


R64040
5 years ago
Shogo

veristupid, I understand your disliking of the summary from the Le Moniteur article. Lest you be confused with ice, please join the rest of the class. We have moved on to something far more substantive here. Maybe you can turn your finely honed mind to the topic of the Popular Mechanics article.


R64043
5 years ago
Shogo

“in fact there are no examples of total progressive collapse of steel frame buildings”

Each building is different, first of all. The WTC was the tallest building of it’s kind when it was constructed. So to suggest that somehow other buildings are it’s equivalent is making a giant assumption. Whoever wrote that quote you copied is assuming that every steel frame building is identical, despite the fact that steel frame buildings have been constructed for decades. Does the author really believe that there are no differences between these buildings? No differences in manner of construction? No differences in the quality of the steel being utilized?

To assume that each and every building that happens to have a steel frame is identically constructed is a giant logical fallacy on your part.

There are plenty of valid scientific explanations for what happened at the WTC. The problem is, it is YOU that have come with a pre-conceived notion, and it is YOU that is working backwards from that notion. To quote: “They trust their own eyes, they know the official story’s bullshit”.

In other words, “I know what really happened – now let me cherry-pick pieces of information that support my belief.”


R64070
5 years ago
cicero

The pancake theory only makes sense if all steel bars in the outer and inner core and all trusses & joists failed in a perfect sequence of events milliseconds apart starting from the top to the bottom.

Now thats what I call a far fetched theory…

Make any tall structure you want out of matchsticks, cards steel bars or wooden blocks and have some of them collapse and see what happens. It will definatelly tilt before it collapses. This tilting movement will trigger a structural collapse where the resistance of the steel structure under the falling part will push the debris out and to the side of the building. A larger part of the remaining building would be standing damaged but hanging together.

The symetrical collapse into a pile defies all laws of the nature exept if it was carefully demolished for the purpose of saving the buildings surrounding the WTC towers.

I bet you a million dollars they could not even trigger a similar collapse without carefully planted explosive devises if they tried.

My point with the erlier post was to point out that it is highly likelly that following the terrorist attack of 1993 the towers was viewed as a threat to not only the inhabitants them self but to people in the surrounding buildings.

Given that the surrounding buildings are CIA and other national security center they are of strategical importance.

Therefor I am certain that planting of explosive devices have been discussed with the firedepartments and other security experts.

I am also sure that this was one of the reasons why the emergency managment bunkerts in building 7 was built.

And timelly exploited by the “all we need is a new Pearl Harbour” strategists.

Post Modified: 06/15/05 10:06:43

R64078
5 years ago
Shogo

“The pancake theory only makes sense if all steel bars in the outer and inner core and all trusses & joists failed in a perfect sequence of events milliseconds apart starting from the top to the bottom.”

You’re not a structural engineer. Shit, you can’t even figure out how to spell basic English words. Sorry, but I think I’ll file your uneducated opinion under “Totally Fucking Irrelevant”.


R64081
5 years ago
IsraelForever2

Hello, all you structural engineers out there. We already know what happened and why the WTC collapsed. So why are you going over articles? We know that Osama bin laden leads a band of religious fanatical Islamists who organized a suicide attack against the United States. One plane hit each tower, one fell a half hour after impact, one fell an hour and 20 minutes after being hit. This precipitated the war on terror which we are winning but are still in the middle of. You don’t need to quote articles to know that. It was all over the news.


R64082
5 years ago
cortez

cut-paste

—-

ACT III

Demolishing a highrise office building that has outlived its usefulness is a daunting task. As a general rule, tall buildings tend to grow in clusters, much like mushrooms, and the owners and occupants of the surrounding buildings usually frown upon having their own buildings damaged or destroyed in the process of bringing down a neighboring building. The trick then is to get the unwanted building to drop straight down, forming a neat pile that doesn’t extend much beyond the structure’s original footprint.

That is not something that tall buildings are naturally inclined to do. A large structure can be brought down in that manner, but it is an extremely difficult trick to pull off. A considerable amount of study, planning and preparation is required. Specific quantities of explosives have to be precisely placed at key structural locations throughout the building, and those explosive charges have to be programmed to detonate in a specific pattern. There is almost no margin for error. Only a handful of companies have the technical expertise to take on such a project.

When one of these highly specialized demolition companies does their job properly, the result is a spectacular show during which the targeted building seems to self-destruct and simply drop away from the skyline, as though it had never been there at all. The show is generally over in just a few seconds, making the entire process appear to be very quick and easy. But it is decidedly not easy.

When a building implodes (like the one to the left, which you can click on to view a short video of another controlled implosion), all that we as spectators see is the end result of months of research and preparation by a team of specialists with decades of training and experience. Buildings never implode by accident — at least they never did before September 11, 2001. But the south WTC tower did, at 9:59:04 AM that fateful day. And the north WTC tower did as well, at 10:28:31 AM. And then WTC7 did the very same thing, at about 5:20 PM. In less than eight hours time, three separate highrise office buildings allegedly did what no buildings in history have done before: spontaneously collapsed into their own footprints.

The inexplicable collapse of the twin towers has always been the single most compelling aspect of the events of that day — compelling because the controlled collapses point directly to inside involvement, and compelling because this evidence of direct U.S. sponsorship of the attacks has always been brazenly displayed for all to see….

more here http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69.html
——

copy-paste (same link)

—-

.....Before the spin had fully set in, there was one early media report, published in the relatively obscure Albuquerque Journal, that accurately identified the cause of the collapse of the towers:

Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday. The collapse of the buildings appears “too methodical” to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. “My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse,” Romero said. Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures ... Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. “It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that,” Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C. ... “It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points,” Romero said.
(Albuquerque Journal, September 11, 2001)

That report would have been quickly lost in the blizzard of media coverage of the attacks were it not for the work of Internet researchers, particularly Jared Israel of emperors-clothes.com, who first called attention to the story on September 14 (http://emperors-clothes.com/news/albu.htm 9-14-01). A week later, the Journal ran a follow-up report that found Mr. Romero radically reversing his position:

A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. “Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail,” said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology … Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers’ steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above … Conspiracy theorists have seized on Romero’s comments as evidence for their argument that someone else, possibly the U.S. government, was behind the attack on the Trade Center. Romero said he has been bombarded with electronic mail from the conspiracy theorists. “I’m very upset about that,” he said. “I’m not trying to say anything did or didn’t happen.”
(Albuquerque Journal, September 21, 2001)

Those damn conspiracy theorists! What is it with them? They seem to be forever insisting that the stories told to the American people by our media guardians actually make sense and reflect some kind of objective reality. On September 14, the same day that the Albuquerque Journal article hit the Internet, The Financial Times added further fuel to the conspiracy fire:

The owners of the demolished World Trade Center in lower Manhattan acquired the buildings just two months ago under a 99-year lease allowing them to walk away from their investment in the event of “an act of terrorism.” The owners, Silverstein Properties and Westfield America – a shopping mall specialist – purchased the buildings from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for $3.2bn in July and completed the financing just two weeks ago … It is understood that the buildings are insured for more than $3bn, enough to cover rebuilding costs.
(The Financial Times Limited, September 14, 2001)

Post Modified: 06/15/05 11:38:52

R64085
5 years ago
Rasputin

The following is a statement from Texas A&M University regarding recent news reports about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11.

Texas A&M University | June 15, 2005

Dr. Morgan Reynolds is retired from Texas A&M University, but holds the title of Professor Emeritus-an honorary title bestowed upon select tenured faculty, who have retired with ten or more years of service. Additionally, contrary to some written reports, while some faculty emeriti are allocated office space at Texas A&M, Dr. Reynolds does not have an office on the Texas A&M campus. Any statements made by Dr. Reynolds are in his capacity as a private citizen and do not represent the views of Texas A&M University. Below is a statement released yesterday by Dr. Robert M. Gates, President of Texas A&M University:

“The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale.”


R64086
5 years ago
Rasputin

The following is a statement from Texas A&M University regarding recent news reports about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11.

Texas A&M University | June 15, 2005

Dr. Morgan Reynolds is retired from Texas A&M University, but holds the title of Professor Emeritus-an honorary title bestowed upon select tenured faculty, who have retired with ten or more years of service. Additionally, contrary to some written reports, while some faculty emeriti are allocated office space at Texas A&M, Dr. Reynolds does not have an office on the Texas A&M campus. Any statements made by Dr. Reynolds are in his capacity as a private citizen and do not represent the views of Texas A&M University. Below is a statement released yesterday by Dr. Robert M. Gates, President of Texas A&M University:

“The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale.”


R64087
5 years ago
Shogo

Yo Cortez, douchebag, next time read the fucking article, shit-for-brains:

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. “I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building,” he tells PM. “I only said that that’s what it looked like.”

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. “I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line.” But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: “The paymaster of Romero’s research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement.” Romero responds: “Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years.”

Post Modified: 06/15/05 11:42:26

R64088
5 years ago
cortez

2+2=5


R64090
5 years ago
cicero

You’re not a structural engineer. Shit, you can’t even figure out how to spell basic English words. Sorry, but I think I’ll file your uneducated opinion under “Totally Fucking Irrelevant”.

You will have a hard time finding a structural engineer on this forum!
So we are all left in the hand of ignorant fuck tards like you claiming to know anything and everything.

Ai vill Speill anny fooking wai I want you bastadd!


R64106
5 years ago
Shogo

2+2=5? Am I supposed to be impressed by your little Orwell reference?

Face it dude, you’re wrong.

All these conspiracy theories do is poison the well for legitimate inquiries about the events of 9/11 and why they were allowed to happen. Now anybody questioning the party line about why the hijackings took place is painted with the wacko fringe brush, thanks to idiots like you who lack the ability to discriminate between sense and nonsense.


R64114
5 years ago
Rasputin

There are plenty of valid scientific explanations for what happened at the WTC. The problem is, it is YOU that have come with a pre-conceived notion, and it is YOU that is working backwards from that notion.

Huh? On the contrary, I was perfectly willing to accept the IHOP theory until I saw footage of WTC7, at which time I did as any sensible person would do – I concluded that a couple of marginal fires located on separate floors could not have caused a robust 47-story-building to collapse into a tidy pile of rubble within a few fleeting seconds. The other two buildings, I’m open to the idea that a new science was born on that day: “Progressive collapse”, but I see no evidence to support it. I do however see plenty of evidence to the contrary.

The fact that some government hack tells me I should begin with the pancake premise and go from there does not make it so; any sensible man or woman of science would not begin their study with: “the government says it’s so, therefore it’s so” (again, that is not science); they would consider various possibilities in turn, including that which is most consistent with past examples: controlled demolition. Of course, the fact that there’s no physical evidence to analyze doesn’t help matters – it was quickly shipped off to China (why is that, genius?) – but there’s plenty of material here to build a working hypothesis.

You go on about such-and-such “not being a structural engineer”; well, neither are you. And the fact that you are so hostile to the very idea that explosives may have been employed (say, as they were in 1993, by members of the FBI) suggests an emotional attachment on your part to the pancake theory. Why that is I can only speculate, but it’s certainly not rational in any sense of the word.


R64118
5 years ago
Joe

Post Modified: 05/02/06 09:54:52

R64119
5 years ago
Joe

Post Modified: 05/02/06 09:56:51

R64121
5 years ago
Shogo

“I concluded that a couple of marginal fires located on separate floors”

And who the fuck are you? Again, some wannabe revolutionary anarchist movie fanatic. Sorry, your cred is nonexistent. You weren’t there, which means you’re not in a position to know how extensive the fires in that building were.

The PM article is inconclusive about WTC7, but the working hypothesis is that a fuel line ruptured which led to the fire being more serious than was thought.

“I do however see plenty of evidence to the contrary.”

No you don’t. You see conjecture masquerading as evidence, but are unable to distinguish between the two because of your poor understanding of basic physics.

“The fact that some government hack tells me I should begin with the pancake premise”

But that’s not what’s happened. That’s not the thrust of the Popular Mechanics article. You suffer from selective reading comprehension.

“any sensible man or woman of science would not begin their study with: “the government says it’s so, therefore it’s so””

Again, that’s not the thrust of the article. The thrust of the article was to examine the conspiracy theories and see what their merits were. They were starting from the position of “here’s what’s being put forward, is it accurate?”

“that which is most consistent with past examples: controlled demolition.”

Past examples of fuel-laden jumbo jets crashing into the WTC? Oh wait – that hadn’t happened before.

“well, neither are you.”

I’m not claiming to be one. However, I do have a basic knowledge of physics, and I am capable of comprehending the words that I read. There are gaping, obvious holes in the hypotheses being put forward by the conspiracy whackos. I don’t need to be an engineer to recognize these flaws.


R64122
5 years ago
Shogo

That top photo Joe posted shows exactly why this wasn’t a controlled demolition. The leaning of the entire top of the building is obviously not the result of a controlled demolition.

This shit is so retarded, it’s not even funny.


R64124
5 years ago
nomadrock

The leaning of the entire top of the building is obviously not the result of a controlled demolition

...says the demolitions expert?

This shit is so retarded, it’s not even funny

Then why do you keep posting in here? There are other threads…


R64126
5 years ago
Joe

post deleted.

Post Modified: 03/16/06 18:03:00

R64128
5 years ago
Rasputin

But that’s not what’s happened.

Of course it is. Controlled demolition did not even enter into the debate, for obvious reasons. It was excluded as a premise from the get-go in favor of a series of absurd and continually morphing “pancake” and “zipper” theories used to justify the official story; this is akin to ruling out evolution as a premise for the origin of man because the prevailing ethos is hostile to theories that don’t support Christianity. And you know what? Some of these Christian “scientists” can produce some pretty fancy sounding theories. It doesn’t make Creationism any more plausible, but it often succeeds in duping people who aren’t, shall we say, the sharpest knives in the drawer?

As for WTC7, the building has rarely been mentioned at all, so goofy is the explanation you and a few other quacks have postulated. Speaking of which:

The PM article is inconclusive about WTC7, but the working hypothesis is that a fuel line ruptured which led to the fire being more serious than was thought.

LOL

I’m not claiming to be one. However, I do have a basic knowledge of physics

Suuure you do McBeal, sure you do.

You weren’t there, which means you’re not in a position to know how extensive the fires in that building were.

Ok, but a lot of folks were, and some of them even had cameras:

This:

Does not equal this:

or this:

And certainly not this:

Why not face up to it? You’re pawned, dude. Go lick your wounds.


R64130
5 years ago
Rasputin

Here’s an excerpt from Tarpley’s new book on 9/11, dealing with the possible demos of the towers. I didn’t post it the original Tarpley thread ‘cause I assumed it would be redundant. Apparently I was wrong.

No doubt, rascally characters like McBeal will be able to find some inaccuracy which they will use as a straw man, conveniently ignoring the other evidence, but I think when you take everything together Tarpley makes a pretty compelling case.

5. Tripod II

Tripod II was a biological warfare exercise conducted jointly by the US Department of Justice and the City of New York; it was scheduled for September 12, 2001, and formally speaking never took place. Its obvious relevance was to provide a cover for various pre-9/11 activities in New York City.

It would seem that the code name “Tripod II” was revealed for the first time in testimony by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at the 9/11 commission; however, the basic facts about this exercise had been described by Giuliani in his self-serving memoir, Leadership, published in 2002. Here the former Mayor wrote:

For months, we had in place an exercise in which we’d drill on our response to a
biochemical attack, specifically practicing for the distribution of medication. The
planned date: Wednesday, September 12. We had stored much of the materials for that drill at Pier 92. Pier 92 offered 125,000 square feet of open space and easy transportation to and from Ground Zero by way of boat and the West Side
Highway. Moreover, because it was already in use by the military, the points of
access were relatively easy to guard.” (Giuliani 355)

After Giuliani’s unusable command center in WTC 7 had been destroyed by the
inexplicable collapse of that large building, he transferred his command post to Pier 92.

THE COLLAPSE OF WORLD TRADE CENTER 1, 2,
AND 7

We now reach the center of the tragedy, the hecatomb of innocent airline passengers and office workers occasioned by the unprecedented and inexplicable collapse of the two World Trade Center towers. Here is where vast numbers of ordinary persons were immolated by the terrorist controllers for the sake of their insane geopolitical plans.

Coming from a family which lived in New York for six decades after about 1910, having lived in New York City (Flushing, Queens) from the age of 4 to the age of 16, having attended New York City public schools from the first grade through the twelfth, having worked in the city for a number of years as an adult living in Brooklyn, and having had an uncle who was a New York City policeman, the author is as much of a New Yorker as anyone. 9/11 has marked a decisive new step downward in the city’s decline, and the bitter recognition of this tragic situation can only spur on the exposure of the actual process involved in 9/11.

THE KEY: SECONDARY EXPLOSIONS

According to the official version, which the 9/11 commission hardly comments on, the twin towers fell because of the impact of the planes and of the effects of the subsequent fires. The problem is that this is physically impossible, as we will show. The fall of the towers thus depends on some other cause: controlled demolition of some kind is the only possible hypothesis. The key to seeing beyond the official version is to chronicle the presence of secondary explosions, since these are the tell-tale signs of controlled demolition. When we examine the literature, we find a multitude of references to such secondary explosions.

Louie Cacchioli, aged 51, was a firefighter attached to Engine Company 47, based uptown in Harlem. “We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck,” Cacchioli recounted later. “I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the twenty-fourth floor to get in a position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off.

We think there were bombs set in the building.” Cacchioli was trapped in an elevator but was able to escape with the help of some fireman’s tools. (People Weekly, September 24, 2001)

Auxiliary Fireman Lt. Paul Isaac Jr. also spoke of bombs in an interview with internet reporter Randy Lavello. Isaac had served with Engine Company 10 in lower Manhattan during the late 1990s, so he knew the area around the WTC. Isaac said that many New York firemen were very concerned about the ongoing cover-up of why the World Trade Center collapsed. “Many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings,” he revealed, “but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact. There were definitely bombs in those buildings.” Among those suppressing real discussion about what had happened, Isaac cited the neocon heavy James Woolsey, who had been CIA Director under Clinton, who had become the New York Fire Department’s antiterrorism consultant. (Marrs 34)

Teresa Veliz was a manager for a software development firm. She was on the 47 th floor of the North Tower when American 11 struck. Veliz was able to reach the ground level at about the same time that the South Tower collapsed. Flung to the ground in total darkness, Veliz and a colleague followed another person who happened to have a flashlight. As she narrated later: “The flashlight led us into Borders bookstore, up an escalator, and out to Church Street. The explosions were going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid to go down Church Street towards Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended up on Vesey Street. There was another explosion. And another. I didn’t know which way to run.” (Murphy; Marrs 34)

Ross Milanytch viewed the scene from the 22 nd floor of a nearby building. He reported seeing “small explosions on each floor. And after it all cleared, all that was left of the buildings, you could just see the steel girders in like a triangular sail shape. The structure was just completely gone.” (America at War; Marrs 34)

Steve Evans, a reporter for the BBC, happened to be in the South Tower that morning. “I was at the base of the second tower, the second tower that was hit,” he reported. “There was an explosion – I didn’t think it was an explosion – but the base of the building shook. I felt it shake … then we were outside, the second explosion happened and then there was a series of explosions….We can only wonder at the kind of damage – the kind of human damage – which was caused by those explosions, those series of explosions.” (Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press; www.zeitenschrift.com/news/wtc/_wahrheit.ihtml)

Fox 5 News, a New York television channel, was able to catch on videotape a large white cloud billowing out near the base of the South Tower. The newsman commented: “There is an explosion at the base of the building….white smoke from the bottom …something has happened at the base of the building… then, another explosion. Another building in the World Trade Center complex….” (Marrs 35)

Tom Elliott was at work at his desk in the offices of Aon Corp. on the 103 rd floor of the South Tower just before 9 AM. When the North Tower was hit, he decided to leave the building and began walking down the stairs with a small group of people. At the 70 th floor, Elliott was encouraged by a woman to disregard the announcement on the public address system that there was no need to evacuate. When Elliott had reached the 67 th floor, United 175 struck the South Tower, above where he was. Elliott later told a reporter what he was able to observe after that: “Although its spectacularly televised impact was above Elliott, at first he and those around him thought an explosion had come from below. An incredible sound – he calls it an ‘exploding sound’ – shook the building and a tornado of hot air and smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall came flying up the stairwell. “In front of me, the wall split from the bottom up,” Elliott recounted. Elliott was able to get out of the South Tower by 9:40. (Christian Science Monitor, September 17, 2001)

THE CASE OF WTC 6

CNN broadcast the image of smoke rising up from street level near the base of Building 6, the Customs House. This video footage had originated at 9:04, about one minute after United 175 struck the South Tower. Remember that WTC 6 was on the north side of the north tower, so any explosions there cannot be regarded as having been generated by the impact to the South Tower. A powerful explosion inside WTC 6 had hurled a cloud of gas and debris 170 meters high. A CNN archivist commented, “We can’t figure it out.” (Marrs 36) This incident was soon eclipsed by the collapse of the South Tower, and has tended to be forgotten. The various official reports have had precious little to say about
WTC 6. Overhead views of the ruins later showed a large crater in the steel structure of WTC 6; it was clear that this crater had not been caused by fire. (Von Buelow 163-164)

At 11:56 AM, NBC News broadcast a segment in which reporter Pat Dawson
summarized a conversation he had just had with Albert Terry of the FDNY. Terry had told the reporter that he had about 200 firefighters in the WTC buildings at around 9 AM. Then, Terry said, he had heard a kind of secondary explosion. Dawson:

Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City
Fire Department, who was obviously one of the first people here after the
two planes were crashed into the side, we assume, of the World Trade
Center towers, which used to be behind me over there. Chief Albert Terry
told me that he was here just literally five or ten minutes after the events
that took place this morning, that is the first crash. The Chief of Safety of
the Fire Department of New York City told me that shortly after 9:00 he
had roughly ten alarms, roughly 200 men, trying to effect rescues of some
of those civilians who were in there, and that basically he received word of
a secondary device, that is another bomb, going off. He tried to get his
men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another
explosion which took place. And then an hour after the first hit here, the
first crash, that took place, he said there was another explosion that took
place in one of the towers here. So obviously, according to his theory, he
thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.
One of the secondary devices, he thinks, that [detonated] after the initial
impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the
towers. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted
in the building. So that’s what we have been told by Albert Terry, who is
the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department. He told me
that just moments ago. (Wisnewski 135-136)

Proponents of the official version have attempted to explain some of these explosions as having been caused by gas escaping from leaks in gas mains, but this cannot account for the phenomena described by Terry. Nor can such other explanations as exploding transformers, etc.

Ann Thompson of NBC reported at 12:42 PM that she had reached the corner of
Broadway and Fulton on her way to the World Trade center that morning when she heard an explosion and a wall of debris came toward her. She took refuge in a building. When she came out again about 10:30, she heard a second explosion. Firemen warned her about another explosion. (Wisnewski 136; Trinkhaus, 4 ff.)

The eyewitness Michael Benfante told a German TV camera team: “As I was leaving, I heard it. I looked back, and the top of the North Tower was exploding. And even then I did not believe that the whole tower could fall. I thought, only the top exploded and is now going to fall on me. I turned around again and ran away. I felt the rumble of the explosions, the thunder of the collapsing building.” (German ARD network, “Tag des Terrors – Anschlag aus heiterem Himmel,” August 30, 2002, Wisnewski 136)

A reporter tried to film a standup with the WTC in the background, but was interrupted by the sound of an explosion: “We can’t get any closer to the World Trade Center. Here you can see the firemen who are on the scene, the police and FBI officers, and you see the two towers – A huge explosion! Debris is coming down on all of us!” (“Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit,” West German Television, Cologne, July 24, 2002; Wisnewski 136)

Yet another eyewitness reported: “We heard a huge explosion, and everything got black. Glass was falling down, people were getting hurt when the glass hit them. It was a big explosion, everything got dark, this here is not snow, it’s all from the building, a horrible nightmare.” “I was on Sixth Avenue and I had just tried to call somebody when I heard an explosion and saw how the people were throwing themselves on the ground, screaming and crying, I looked up and saw all that smoke, as the tower came down, and all that smoke in one tower.” (Segment by Oliver Voegtlin and Matthias Fernandes, NTV, September 11, 2001)

Another European documentary showed a man with glasses recovering in a hospital bed who recalled: “All of a sudden it went bang, bang, bang, like shots, and then three unbelievable explosions.” (“Terror gegen Amerika,” RTL, September 13, 2001)

An eyewitness who worked in an office near the WTC described his experiences to a reporter for the American Free Press. He was standing in a crowd on Church Street, about two and a half blocks from the South Tower. Just before the South Tower collapsed, he saw “a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15.” He saw about six of these flashes and at the same time heard a “a crackling sound” just before the tower collapsed.” (Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press, December 2, 2001; Wisnewksi 137)

Kim White, 32, who worked on the 80th floor of the South Tower, was another
eyewitness who reported hearing an explosion. “All of a sudden the building shook, then it started to sway. We didn’t know what was going on,” she told People magazine. “We got all our people on the floor into the stairwell . . . at that time we all thought it was a fire . . .We got down as far as the 74th floor . . . then there was another explosion.” (Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press, December 2, 2001)

A black office worker wearing a business suit that was covered with dust and ashes told the Danish television network DR-TV1: “On the eighth floor we were thrown back by a huge explosion.” (Wisnewski 138)

The German network SAT 1 broadcast a report featuring survivors who also were talking about explosions. One of these eyewitnesses, by the name of Tom Canavan, was cut off in mid-sentence by two FBI agents who barged in, grabbed him as he was speaking, and hustled him away; this scene was captured on tape. (Wisnewski 138)

NBC TAPES SHOW CONTROLLED DEMOLITION EXPLOSIONS

In his best-selling study and also in his prime-time special broadcast on German
television in August 2003, Gerhard Wisnewski employed out-takes from NBC News cameras near the World Trade Center to provide actual examples of what are almost certainly controlled demolition charges being detonated. On the NBC tape, we see the two towers burning and emitting clouds of black smoke. Then, at about frame 131 of the tape, there emerges a cloud of white-grey smoke along about two thirds of the 79 th floor of the South Tower. Two thirds of the southeast façade correspond to the dimensions of the central core column complex, which would be where controlled demolition charges would have to be placed. This line of white-grey smoke billows up, contrasting sharply with the black smoke from the fire. At about frame 203, another line of white-grey smoke emerges several floors below the first, and billows up in its turn. This represents decisive
photographic evidence of controlled demolition charges being triggered in the World Trade Center. (Wisnewski 216)

Andreas von Buelow, the former Social Democratic Technology Minister of Germany under Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, noted in his study of 9/11 that news tapes show smoke being forced out of the hermetically sealed windows of both towers in the minute or so just before they fell. (Von Buelow 146-147) This is very likely also evidence of controlled demolition charges or other artificial processes going on inside the buildings.

FIREMEN WERE CONFIDENT OF EXTINGUISHING THE FIRE

The Guiliani administration in New York City, and its successor, the Bloomberg
administration, refused for a long time to allow the public to hear tapes of the radio conversations among the FDNY firemen on the scene at the WTC. In the summer of 2002, press accounts surfaced which indicated that firemen had been able to climb to the Sky Lobby on the 78 nd floor and been able to survey the extent of the fire from there. The fuselage of United 175 had struck the 80 th floor, and one of its wings had clipped the 78 th floor itself. The FDNY officers describe a situation with only two pockets of fire, and they express confidence that they will be able to fight the fire successfully with two hose lines. Two officials who are mentioned by name on the tape are Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer and Fire Marshal Ronald P. Bucca, both of whom died when the South Tower
collapsed. “Once they got there,” the Times says, “they had a coherent plan for putting out the fires they could see and helping victims who survived.” According to the New York Times summary, the two officers “showed no panic, no sense that events were racing beyond their control…. At that point, the building would be standing for just a few more minutes, as the fire was weakening the structure on the floors above him. Even so, Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them….

The limited transcripts made available on the internet were as follows:
Battalion Seven…Ladder Fifteen, we’ve got two isolated pockets of fire.
We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78 th floor
numerous Code Ones.

The audio tape has never been released to the public. The Justice Department claims that it is evidence in the trial of Zacarias Moussawi in Alexandria, Virginia. (New York Times, August 4, 2002) Christopher Bollyn, already cited, commented: “The fact that veteran firefighters had ‘a coherent plan’ for putting out the ‘two pockets of fire’ indicates they judged the blazes to be manageable. These reports from the scene of the crash provide crucial evidence debunking the government’s claim that a raging steel-melting inferno led to the tower’s collapse.” (Marr 38-39)

Earlier in the morning, Pete Ganci, the Chief of the Department, and thus the highest-ranking uniformed firefighter in the city, had told Giuliani: “We can save everybody below the fire. Our guys are in the building, about halfway up the first tower.” (Giuliani 8) Ganci was killed in action later in the day.

THE AGONY OF THE FDNY

FDNY lost 343 firefighters that day, more than their casualties in the previous hundred years. It is worth asking why this came about. In the case of fires in high-rise skyscrapers, outside ladders cannot be used above a certain level. Therefore, the firemen are trained to use staircases to climb up to the fire and fight it within the building. They could do this with a certain degree of confidence because no modern, steel-framed, fireproof building had ever collapsed as a result of fire. On 9/11, three of them – WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, all collapsed.

Veteran firefighters knew what they were doing. Their losses are not
attributable to any mistake on their part, but, in all probability, to the fact that the twin towers and WTC 7 were brought down by some form of controlled demolition.

The 1 Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia had burned lustily for many hours in 1991, but came nowhere near collapsing. The 1 Meridian fire burned for 19 hours, leaping from floor to floor and burning out as combustible materials were used up. On May 4-5, 1988, the 62-story First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles – a structure that was more or less comparable to the twin towers – burned for more than three hours, with bright, intense flames licking up the sides of the building. In a post-blaze assessment, Iklim Ltd.,a company that specializes in building inspections and structural analyses after fires, concluded: “In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small
number of floor pans.”

These comparisons were noted with some discomfort by the New York Times, which commented that “High-rise buildings are designed to be able to survive a fire, even if the fire has to burn itself out. The strategy is to ensure that the steel support structures are strong enough or protected well enough from fire that they do not give way in the time it takes for everything inside an office building, like furniture, to burn. In major high-rise fires elsewhere in the country, such as the 1 Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia in 1991 and the First Interstate Bank fire in Los Angeles in 1988, this approach has worked. But the fires at 7 World Trade Center raged mainly on lower floors and never burned out, and in the chaos of Sept. 11, the Fire Department eventually decided to stop fighting the blazes.”

One can sense the acute embarrassment of the mythographs; this is all just
absurd. “What the hell would burn so fiercely for seven hours that the Fire Department would be afraid to fight it?” said one member of the investigation team quoted in this same article. (New York Times, March 2, 2002)

THE ROMERO ANALYSIS

An important early contribution to the discrediting of the official version regarding the WTC came in an interview with a New Mexico expert in mining technology which appeared a few days after 9/11. This highly realistic analysis appeared in the Albuquerque Journal of September 14, 2001 under the headline “Explosives Planted in Towers, New Mexico Tech Expert Says,” the byline belonged to Olivier Uyttebrouck. Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosive devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech
explosion expert said Tuesday. The collapse of the buildings appears “too
methodical” to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures,
said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology.

“My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the
World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the
buildings that caused the towers to collapse,” Romero said. Romero is a
former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at
Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on
buildings, aircraft and other structures.

Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television
broadcasts. Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of
controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. “It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that,” Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.

Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area
subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon. He said he and Denny
Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to
an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research
programs at Tech.

If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have
been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said. “It could have been a
relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points,” Romero
said. The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in
each of the towers, he said.

Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would
have been the collision of the planes into the towers.

The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common
terrorist strategy, Romero said. “One of the things terrorist events are
noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device,” Romero said.
Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts
emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion, he
said. Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack
would have been the collision of the planes into the towers.

Tech President Dan Lopez said Tuesday that Tech had not been asked to
take part in the investigation into the attacks. Tech often assists in forensic
investigations into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar explosions
and studying the effects. (http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm
-removed from archive; see http://emperors-clothes.com/news/albu.htm)

Here was an honest appraisal from a qualified expert. Romero successfully identified some of the main anomalies presented by the spectacle of collapse, and proceeded from there to the only tenable hypothesis: controlled demolition.

He was also acutely perceptive in seeing that the aircraft impacts could not in themselves have been the cause of the fall of the twin towers; they rather had to be regarded as a diversion or cover story to make the fall of the buildings plausible to public opinion. However, the America of late September 2001 was marked by a climate of neo-McCarthyite hysteria wholly antithetical to public truth; Van Romero retracted his highly insightful remarks, and is rumored to have since found preferment from the federal government.

But numerous foreign experts arrived independently at similar conclusions. Steffen Kretz, the news anchor of the Danish television channel DR-1, reported that “the World Trade Center Tower collapsed after two more explosions.” In a commentary of this same network, it was stated that the World Trade Center collapsed after an additional explosion. (Wisnewski 138) On 9/11, Denmark’s DR-1 broadcast an interview with Jens Claus Hansen, a high-ranking officer of the Danish Military Academy. His view was: “Additional bombs must have been placed inside the WTC towers – otherwise they would not have collapsed as they actually did.” Another guest was the former NATO General Keld Hillingsøe, who commented: “Additional bombs must have been installed in the buildings.” (Wisnewski 138) The Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende, the
leading conservative paper in the country, published an interview with the explosives expert Bent Lund, who pointed out that fire alone could not have caused the collapse of the twin towers. He estimated that about a ton of explosives must have exploded inside the buildings in order to bring them down in this way. (Berlingske Tidende, September 12, 2001; Wisnewski 138)

THE VIEW OF A SWISS ENGINEER

Another leading authority who raised the issue of sabotage from within the towers was Hugo Bachmann, professor emeritus of building dynamics and earthquake engineering at the world-famous Swiss Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zürich – where Einstein had taught. As Bachmann told the Neue Züricher Zeitung Online on September 13, 2001, at first glance there seemed to be two possibilities in the fall of the towers. The first was the fire and its effect on the steel supports. But Bachmann had an alternative:

“In the second scenario, an additional terrorist action would have caused the collapse of the buildings. In this way, according to Bachmann, buildings like the World Trade center can be destroyed without great logistical exertion.” The article went on to say that “Bachmann could imagine that the perpetrators had installed explosives on key supports in a lower floor before the attack.” If the perpetrators had rented office space, then these “explosive tenants” could have calmly placed explosive charges on the vulnerable parts of the building “without having anyone notice.” Bachmann thought that it was less likely that explosives in the below ground parts of the building could have caused the collapse.

Here the logistic problems would be harder to solve in order to put the charges in the right places, and the foundations were probably of more stable construction than the steel towers. Bachmann commented that “the question of whether in fact one of these two scenarios is applicable cannot be answered at this time.” But he felt it was a central issue that the second scenario should get more attention, whether or not it applied to the WTC.

Bachmann observed that anyone who had enough knowledge of static structures and explosives technology could in principle destroy any building, since every structure has its Achilles heel. An attack aimed at that weak point would be relatively easy to carry out, but would require careful and time-consuming planning. Not all buildings were equally vulnerable, but the twin towers of the World Trade Center were in Bachmann’s opinion probably among the more sensitive targets. (Wisnewski 141-143)

OPPORTUNITIES FOR TAMPERING

There are numerous pieces of unconfirmed anecdotal evidence suggesting strange and unusual activities in the World Trade Towers in the days and weeks before their destruction. One businessman recounted that he had visited a client in one of the towers numerous times during the months preceding the attack, and had always found that certain elevators were out of service. Another report came from Scott Forbes, an employee of Fiduciary Trust, a firm which was located on floors 90 and 94-97 of the South Tower. Eighty-seven employees of Fiduciary Trust were killed on 9/11. In an email account, Forbes reported that over the weekend of September 8-9, 2001, floors 50 and above of the South Tower experienced a “power down,” meaning that all electrical current was cut off for about 36 hours. The reason officially cited was that the electrical cables in the building were being upgraded. Forbes was an information technology
officer in charge of Fiduciary Trust’s computer network; his attention was engaged by the power down because it fell to him to shut down all the company’s computers and related systems before the power went out. After the power down, he had to turn the computers back on again, and restore service on the network. Because there was no electric power above the fiftieth floor, there were also no security cameras and no security locks. There were however many outside engineering personnel coming in and out of the tower at all hours during the weekend. Forbes lived in Jersey City and could see the WTC towers from his home; when he saw the conflagration on the morning of 9/11, he immediately related it to the events of the previous weekend.

SEISMIC EVIDENCE

The seismic effects of the collapse of the towers were observed and measured by Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory just up the Hudson River in Palisades, New York. Here seismographs recorded two spikes reflecting two shock waves in the earth on the morning of 9/11. The crucial fact is that these two spikes came just before the collapse of the towers began. Specifically, Columbia scientists at the facility registered a tremor of 2.1 on the Richter scale at 9:59:04 EDT, just before the beginning of the collapse of the South Tower, and a 2.3 shock just as the North Tower began to come down at 10:28:31 EDT. Both tremors were recorded before the vast majority of the mass of the buildings hit the ground. Although they were not of earthquake proportions, these were considerable shocks, about twenty times more potent than any previously
measured shock wave generated by a falling building. The 1993 WTC truck bomb had produced no seismic effects at all – it had failed to register. At 5:20 local time on the afternoon of 9/11, there was also a 0.6 tremor from the collapse of WTC 7, also at the beginning, rather than the end, of this building’s collapse.

Dr. Arthur Lerner-Lam, the director of the Columbia Center for Hazards and Risk Research, commented that “during the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage – but not causing significant ground shaking.” But Lerner-Lam declined to draw any conclusions from the glaring anomaly represented by his data, which the 9/11 commission has also avoided.

After most of the pile was removed, experts found that there were pools of what appeared to have been molten metal which had congealed on foundations of the buildings many levels underground. Some steel appeared to have partially melted, other steel had undergone alternations to its crystalline structure, and still other steel was full of holes, like a Swiss cheese.

GIULIANI OBLITERATES THE WTC CRIME SCENE

Mayor Giuliani, by pedigree, was a creature of the highly repressive bureaucratic-authoritarian apparatus which had consolidated itself in the Justice Department during the Reagan years. He now performed yeoman service in defense of the 9/11 myth, a myth which had its most obvious vulnerability in its most spectacular point: the unprecedented and physically inexplicable collapse of the twin towers.

Giuliani used the pretext that his term was ending on December 31, 2001 to organize the massive obliteration of the WTC as a crime scene. Parallel to this, Giuliani engineered a confrontation with the New York firemen, both to divert public attention from his tampering with the evidence, and also to neutralize the potential of the firemen, the one group which might have denounced the presence of controlled demolition charges in WTC 1, 2, and 7, of which, as we have seen, they were well aware.

During the crisis, Giuliani had been eager to exploit for his own political image the immense admiration and gratitude which had been expressed around the nation and the world for the epic feats of the New York firefighters. The firemen were now the most revered symbols in the country: typical was the cover of Newsweek’s post-9/11 issue, which showed some firemen raising a flag over the ruins, with an evident allusion to the flag raising on Iwo Jima. Giuliani made a practice of appearing in public wearing a baseball cap emblazoned with the letters “FDNY.” The police he relegated to his windbreaker, which bore the legend “NYPD.” Giuliani proved to be treacherous in practice to both, and he did this by playing the firefighters against the police, and vice versa – all in the service of the 9/11 coverup. The firemen, once revered, would soon be “inexcusable,” according to Giuliani.

CONTROLLED DEMOLITION AGAIN

Giuliani brought in Controlled Demolition, the same highly suspect firm which had
finished the demolition of the Murragh Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, and which had disposed of the evidence there in the process.

This contract was let surreptitiously just eleven days after 9/11, and empowered
Controlled Demolition to recycle the steel of the World Trade Center. Giuliani has not a word to say about this in his memoirs. The city accepted rock-bottom prices for the steel; the priority was to make it disappear fast. Trucks hauling the steel away were equipped with $1,000 Global Positioning System locators to ensure that none of them went astray, and that no suspect steel ended up in the back yard of a maverick 9/11 researcher. All investigators, in fact, were banned from ground zero. Now Controlled Demolition would eradicate any chance of using the abundant physical evidence present in “the pile,” as the mass of twisted rubble of the WTC quickly came to be called. It was a scene out of Kafka – it was impossible to find out which officials were superintending the destruction of the
evidence, to save a myth that was being used to set in motion a world war.
Giuliani, along with ghostwriter Ken Kurson, has produced a relentlessly self-laudatory and self-promoting autobiography entitled Leadership. This work constitutes a monument of hypocrisy. During one of his visits to the WTC site, the Mayor noticed that many visitors were taking pictures of the site. Because there was so much to hide, he found this troubling: “I noticed a disturbing phenomenon – hundreds of people carrying disposable cameras and handheld video cameras. I understood the impulse – this was a historic event, and experiencing it up close had a tremendous impact. At the same time, this was a crime scene, and a dangerous one. I did not want anyone to get hurt, or to damage evidence as they scouted out the best angle for their snapshots. If we didn’t do something about it immediately, it would soon be out of control, a voyeur’s paradise, and we risked
the site developing a distasteful freak show aspect.” (Giuliani 49) An independent
photographic documentation of the crime scene, one the FBI would not be able to confiscate? Horrors! Giuliani promulgated his infamous order that all photos were illegal in the area around the WTC complex. Those who risked a snapshot also risked going to jail.

When it was a question of preventing public scrutiny, Giuliani considered the WTC pile a crime scene where there was evidence that had to be preserved. But when it was a question of sending the crucial evidence to the other end of the world, Giuliani’s motto became “scoop and dump” – with the help of Controlled Demolition. As Thomas Van Essen, Giuliani’s fawning appointee as Fire Commissioner, described the scene: “…a full-blown recovery operation was under way, and the site had become an enormous construction zone. Trucks and plows rolled around everywhere. Giant cranes lofted massive steel beams over the heads of the men below.” (Van Essen 263) The steel was being sent to a city land fill at Fresh Kills, Staten Island.

According to Van Essen, by the end of October Giuliani was filled with humanitarian concern about the danger of accidents to those working on the pile. One of the main groups present there were firefighters who were seeking the bodies or other remains of their hundreds of fallen comrades. According to the literary provocateur Langewiesche, “there were some among the construction workers and the police who grew unreasonably impatient with the firemen, and became overeager to repeat the obvious – in polite terms, that these so-called heroes were just ordinary men. On the other hand, the firemen seemed to become steadily more self-absorbed and isolated from the larger cleanup
efforts underway. “ (Langewiesche 158) “Firemen were said to prefer watches from the Tourneau store, policemen to opt for kitchen appliances, and construction workers (who were at a disadvantage here) to enjoy picking through whatever leftovers they came upon – for instance, wine under the ruins of the Marriott hotel, and cases of contraband cigarettes that spilled from the US Customs vault in the Building Six debris.” (Langewiesche 159)

Langewiesche reported with great gusto the discovery of evidence that the firemen had been looting even before the towers came down. “Fifty feet below
the level of the street they began to uncover the hulk of a fire truck that had been driven deep by the collapse.” According to Langewiesche, the field superintendent who only wanted to get on with the job at hand felt “delight, then, after the hulk of the fire truck appeared, that rather than containing bodies (which would have required decorum), its crew cab was filled with dozens of new pairs of jeans from The Gap, a Trade Center store. When a grappler pulled off the roof, the jeans were strewn about for all to see. It was exactly the sort of evidence the field superintendent had been waiting for. While a group of initially bewildered firemen looked on, the construction workers went wild.”

(Langewiesche 161) The firemen, we must remember, were those who knew most about the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and they were also the group most likely to tell what they knew. In this sense, the firemen posed perhaps the greatest immediate threat to the 9/11 myth upon which the oligarchy had staked so much. The obvious campaign of psychological warfare against the firemen, therefore, was of world-historical importance. Given the stakes, it would be impossible to exclude that the dungaree incident which Langewiesche found so delightful had been cynically staged as a means of keeping the angry and rebellious firemen off-balance, distracted and confused.

The jeans could easily have been planted at a quiet moment during the graveyard shift.

Langewiesche’s reporting came out during the fall in the Atlantic Monthly, and rankled deeply among the angry firemen and the bereaved families.

On October 31, Halloween, Giuliani decreed without any meaningful consultation that there would be an upper limit of 25 firefighters on each shift at the WTC pile, along with 25 New York City policemen and 25 Port Authority patrolmen. Soon “the rescue workers were up in arms. Stories went around that we had simply given up on finding bodies; that the mayor wanted to speed the cleanup so it would be finished before he left office; that we had recovered gold from the trade center and didn’t care about anything else….Union officials started telling the workers we were haphazardly trucking everything to Fresh Kills – a ‘scoop and dump’ operation.” (Van Essen 265)

Langewiesche defends the Mayor’s justification of cutting the firemen’s representation on the pile: “when Giuliani gave ‘safety’ as the reason for reducing their presence on the pile, he was completely sincere.” (Langewiesche 161) In his view, the big problem on the pile was “firemen running wild.” (Langewiesche 162) In mid-October, an audience of firemen, policeman, widows, and orphans loudly booed several members of the Giuliani administration, but also Senator Hillary Clinton and a local Democratic politician. (Van Essen 258) On Friday, November 2, Giuliani was able to harvest the results of his provocations. In the morning, more than 1,000 firemen came together at the WTC. Their chants included: “Bring the brothers home! Bring the brothers home!”, “Do the right
thing!”, “Rudy must go!”, and “Tom must go!”, a reference to Fire Commissioner
Thomas Van Essen, a Giuliani appointee. Their signs read, “Mayor Giuliani, let us bring our brothers home.” Speakers denounced Giuliani’s hasty carting off of wreckage and remains to Fresh Kills as a “scoop and dump” operation. One well-respected former captain appealed to the crowd: “My son Tommy of Squad 1 is not home yet! Don’t abandon him!” This was met with a cry of “Bring Tommy home!” from the assembled throng. This scene soon degenerated into an altercation between the firefighters and the police guarding the site, and then into a full-scale riot. Twelve firefighters were taken to jail, while five policemen were injured. Giuliani had gladly sacrificed the 9/11 myth of national solidarity to the needs of his campaign of psychological warfare and provocations against the firemen. It was All Souls Day, the day of the dead, November 2, 2001.

At a press conference that same day, Giuliani hypocritically condemned the actions of the firemen as inexcusable. The police wanted to make more arrests, and were scanning videotapes of the riot to identify firefighters. The city was appalled by what had happened; many newspapers were anti-Giuliani this time. One trade union leader, Gorman, called Giuliani a “fascist,” and referred to the Police Commissioner and the Fire Commissioner as Giuliani’s “goons.”

On Monday, November 11, Giuliani and his officials were again confronted by 200 angry firefighters and bereaved families at a meeting. Giuliani was accused again and again of running a “scoop and dump” operation. One widow protested: “Last week my husband was memorialized as a hero, and this week he’s thought of as landfill?” When Van Essen stammered that the department had been overwhelmed, a widow replied, “Stop saying you are overwhelmed! I am overwhelmed! I have three children and my husband is dead!” Dr. Hirsch of the “biological stain” theory tried to defend Giuliani by arguing that nothing resembling an intact body was being found any longer, but he was shouted down
by firemen who knew from their experience on the pile that this was not so. Van Essen is forced to concede that, based on photographic evidence he personally examined, remains were indeed still be found that had to be “considered intact bodies.” (Van Essen 270-271)

Giuliani’s rush to eradicate the crime scene without regard to the preservation of human remains thus served two important goals. He was able to destroy much pertinent evidence, and he succeeded in throwing the firefighters on the defensive and playing them off against the police, the construction workers, and other groups. He was able to split the firefighters themselves. The firefighters were tied into knots emotionally, and were left with no time or energy to pursue the issue of justice for their heroic fallen comrades, which could only have been served by directly raising the issue of the indications of controlled demolition in numerous points of the World Trade Center complex. Nor was the cynical oligarchical strategy limited to Giuliani: at the 9/11 commission’s last set of hearings in New York City, the FDNY, NYPD, and other line departments of the city were mercilessly baited by the likes of former Navy Secretary John Lehman, who told them that their operational coordination was inferior to that of a Boy Scout troop. So far the firefighters have not been able to mount a challenge to the 9/11 myth, which necessarily portrays them as incompetent, in spite of their heroism and huge losses. Only by demolishing the myth, only by unearthing the story of controlled demolition, can the immense historical merits of the firefighters be duly recognized.

Giuliani’s memoir is mainly for self-aggrandizement, but it also attempts to shore up the official version at certain key vulnerable points, since the Giuliani legend and the 9/11 myth are now inextricably intertwined. The following remarks are attributed to Dr. Charles S. Hirsch, the Medical Examiner of New York City in the late afternoon of 9/11: “Most of the bodies will be vaporized. We’re going to end up with biological stains, where the tissue has become shapeless, amorphous masses of matter.” According to Giuliani, Hirsch estimated that the temperature inside the building had reached 2,000 degrees (presumably Fahrenheit). Such a temperature is impossible in the physical universe as we otherwise know it to be constituted. (Giuliani 22)

CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS

The scandalous eradication of the WTC crime scene was one of the main themes of hearings held by the House Science Committee on March 2, 2002. Congressman Anthony D. Weiner, a New York Democrat, led off by contrasting the businesslike handling of the crash scene of Flight 186 on November 12, 2001 with the chaos and disdain for the integrity of evidence that had prevailed on the WTC pile under Giuliani’s management:

“Within literally moments of that plane crash, the National Transportation Safety Board was on the ground sequestering evidence, interviewing witnesses, subpoenaing information, if necessary, and since then, they have offered periodic reports. One month and a day earlier, when the World Trade Center collapsed, nothing could have been further from the truth. According to reports that we have heard since, there has been no comprehensive investigation. One expert in fire engineering concluded that there was virtually a nonexistent investigation. We haven’t examined any aspects of the collapse that might have impacted rescue worker procedures even in this last month. Second, reports have emerged that crucial evidence has been mishandled. Over 80 percent of the steel from the World Trade Center site has already been sold for recycling, much of it, if
not all of it, before investigators and scientists could analyze the information.”

Weiner pointed out that at the flight 186 Rockaway crash scene on November 11, he had been able to “watch the National Transportation Safety Board point to pieces of evidence, [and] say to local law enforcement, don’t touch this or it is going to be a felony if you do.” (House March 104) That had been the procedure before 9/11, and it had become procedure once again after 9/11; only in regard to the 9/11 events did these methods, mandated by federal law, go out the window. It was a massive breakdown of the rule of law, and all in the service of the coverup.

Weiner pointed out that there was also plenty of blame to go around for the federal government as well. This centered on inter-agency turf wars, always a favorite means used by moles to disguise the scope and motivation of what they are really doing: “…we have allowed this investigation to become woefully bogged down and in fighting and lack of cooperation among agencies. Researchers from FEMA did not get timely access to the designs of the building. News accounts have said there has been friction between engineers in FEMA because of concerns about where the information would wind up.

Even the National Science Foundation, which has awarded grants to several scientists to study the collapse, but didn’t coordinate these efforts with FEMA or the American Society of Civil Engineers.”

The reality was even worse. FEMA’s Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) was carried out not by full-time government officials, but rather by a group of volunteer investigators, with a budget of just $600,000. (Ken Starr’s budget for hounding Clinton:

more than $40 million.) FEMA volunteers had no subpoena power, and could not stay the hand of steel recyclers or confiscate evidence if they required it. They were denied the blueprints of the buildings. They generally could not enter ground zero, apart from an early walking tour. They never saw a piece of steel wreckage until October. Out of millions of fragments, the FEMA BPAT was able to save only 156 from the recyclers.

Weiner also deplored the parsimonious budget that had been granted to the investigation:

“…finally, we have seen a noted the painfully that the financial commitment to this investigation simply is not there. It is not uncommon to spend tens of millions of dollars investigating why a plane crashed. But we have yet to spend even a million dollars on this investigation, and the Bush Administration has refused to commit to release the full funding necessary.” (House March 48)

In a later hearing, Weiner elaborated that “thousands of tons of steel were carted away and recycled before any expert could examine what could have been telltale clues.

Support trusses, fireproofing fragments, and even burned-out electrical switches that might have given scientists and engineers insight were lost forever even before an investigation was underway. (House May 20-21) Mr. Weiner testimony? (page 132)

Weiner was also well aware that the Giuliani administration, just like the Bush regime in Washington, was behaving with implacable hostility towards any and all investigations.

“We just heard testimony that the city was the opposite of cooperative. That they had refused to provide basic information,” said Congressman Weiner at the March hearings.

He told the government witnesses from FEMA and other agencies: “The idea that there was some level of cooperation, I have to tell you, the anecdotal record is replete with stories of people having cameras confiscated from them, being stopped at checkpoints.

You are officials of the United States Government. The idea that this should have to be a subject of a long negotiation over what information would be at your disposal, to me is most troubling.” (House March 133) Indeed, the FEMA’s Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) was not even allowed on the scene until October.

Weiner’s concerns were shared by Virginia Republican J. Randy Forbes, who
complained that he was “disappointed to learn that investigators were unable to examine recovered pieces of steel from the Twin Towers before they were recycled. I am also troubled that investigators had difficulty in obtaining blueprints, design drawings, and maintenance records because of liability concerns from the buildings’ owners. (House March 55) It even turned out that, despite repeated urgent requests, the investigators were being denied the out-takes of the video tapes shot by the various television networks operating around the WTC on 9-11. This is a reminder that moles are sometimes just as necessary in the private sector as they are in government.

Glenn P. Corbett, Professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, reminded the committee that “handling the collapse study as an assessment has allowed valuable evidence—the steel building components—to be destroyed.

The steel holds the primary key to understanding the chronology of events and causal factors resulting in the collapse.

The collapse of the world Trade Center towers were the largest structural collapses in world history. A disaster of such epic proportions demands that we fully resource a comprehensive, detailed investigation. Instead, we are staffing the BPAT with part-time engineers and scientists on a shoestring budget.” (House March 78) Corbett called for a World Trade Center Disaster Commission, but the Bush administration was not interested.

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a Berkeley professor of civil engineering, related his own shock in discovering that the structural steel was simply being shipped out:

“I believe I was the first one to find out that the steel was being recycled. New York Times reporter Jim Glanz told me two weeks after the quake—after the collapse. And I tried to contact the city and also the New York Times reporters tried to make sure we could have access to the steel to do the research. It was not happening. And I went myself—directly contacted the recycling plant and made the arrangement.” (House March 128) Even so, most of the steel was soon gone.

Congressman Crowley of New York correctly suggested that the flagrant illegalities and abuses of the crime scene would permanently undercut whatever explanation the government was seeking to purvey: “I do believe that conspiracy theorists are going to have a field day with this. They are going to make the Warren Commission look like a walk in the park. And that is unfortunate not only for the Members of Congress who are trying to work on this issue, but for all the families out there that are listening very carefully to what we are talking about today, what these experts are saying. And I just think there is so much that has been lost in these last six months that we can never go back and retrieve. And that is not only unfortunate, it is borderline criminal.” (House March 129)

Congressman Christopher Shays of Connecticut, a liberal Republican like Giuliani, ran interference for the Mayor. He rejected the idea that the WTC was a crime scene where there was still something to be discovered, something to be proven: Shays said he had “a particular bias that the actions against us weren’t criminal acts, they were acts of war, acts of terror. And I kind of bristle when I think of our treating this as a criminal act in which we have to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that someone did it and they were at the scene or whatever you need to deal with in a crime.” (House May 115) This chauvinistic rhetoric was a cover for the urgent need of annihilating the evidence. For this school of thought, there was no need for evidence because there was nothing to prove and
nothing to learn; they thought they knew what happened a priori thanks to CNN and Bush. The supposed government of laws was in eclipse.

Small wonder, all in all, that the August, 125-year old fireman’s trade paper Fire
Engineering blasted the entire inadequate investigation process in January 2002 editorial.

Editor Bill Manning wrote that “for more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on a slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.” Manning charged that “Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the ‘official investigation’ blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie
far afield of full disclosure.” “The destruction and removal of evidence must stop
immediately,” Manning demanded. Elsewhere in the same issue, a fire official deplored that “we are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence.” (Fire Engineering, January 2002)

Concerning the twin towers FEMA, had only agnostic conclusions to offer: “With the information and time available, the sequence of events leading to the collapse of each tower could not be definitively determined.” Concerning WTC 7: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.” (911research.wtc7.net) The World Trade Center disaster was the centerpiece of an event which the Bush administration had seized on to start what may well turn out to be a world war, but that main event could not be explained many months after the fact.

The FEMA report is redolent of conscious distortion and of fraud. The illustrations in the spring 2002 FEMA report do everything possible to make the twin towers look like flimsy, unstable structures. In one cross-section (Figure 2-1), the core columns are depicted in about one third of their actual dimensions. FEMA gives short shrift or no shrift at all to the cross-bracing core beams and the core columns. One picture (D-13) shows what is purportedly a core column with a construction hard hat on it to convey its dimensions, but this column is about half the size of the real core columns. FEMA’s illustrations offered in support of their theory of truss failure (2-20, 21, 22) show no steel columns in the core of the building at all. These fake diagrams duly impressed the radical empiricists at the New York Times, who quickly reported that the interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, not 47 massive steel box columns.

The heart of the FEMA argument is that the astronomical temperatures allegedly reached by the fires weakened the floor trusses, leading to each floor pancaking onto the one below. As the floors fell away, the columns in the façade as well as the core columns remained standing, but they then quickly buckled at the points where they were bolted together, and came crashing down. This theory is not based on observation, but on pure speculation. It is a purely cinematic explanation of what happen – it tries to account for the collapse, but takes no notice of whether such a process could occur in the real world.

In fact, the floor truss/pancake theory cannot function in the real world. Even if the floors failed, the strong structure of the 47 central columns, minus a very few which might have been severed by the impact of the airlines (even fewer in the South Tower) would have remained standing. That would have left a 110-floor steel spine intact, and this is not what was observed. Many of the deceptive drawings contained in the FEMA report then became the inspiration for the graphics used in the NOVA documentary program on this subject which was aired on PBS.

Because of the difficulties of the pancake theory, busy academics have whipped up new theories to try to meet obvious objections. Apologists for the official version start with the notion of killer fires – fires which, even though they are fed by carpets, paper, and
office furniture, are able to melt steel. From here they develop the notion of progressive total collapse – the buildings do not fall to one side, but simply collapse in place upon their own foundations. Since no modern steel framed skyscraper had ever succumbed to fire, the attempted coverup then required new pseudo-theoretical constructs. One of these was the column failure, or wet noodle, theory. This suggested that fires melted the core columns, and that was that. Of course, even the coverup cannot change the fact that the fires were not hot enough to melt the core columns. Steel is a very effective conductor of
heat, meaning that a serious hot spot on one floor is likely to be dissipated up and down the columns that pass through that hot spot. The internal and external columns, that is to say, act as cooling ribs. According to a study by Corus Construction cited at www.911research.wtc7.net, the highest temperature reached by steel in the presence of hydrocarbon fires was logged at about 360 degrees Fahrenheit – far below what is needed to weaken steel.

Given the disadvantages of the column failure theory, the truss failure theory was
advanced. The trusses were relatively lightweight metal structures which attached the metal decks bearing the concrete slabs of each floor to the core columns and the columns in the façade. The trusses offered the added advantage of being invisible from the outside, so that it was possible to assert without fear of being refuted that they had gotten extremely hot.

MIT Professor Thomas Eagar is one who has rushed into the many breaches of the FEMA report in an attempt to shore up its credibility. Not content with trusses and pancakes, Eagar has propounded the zipper theory, which he has judiciously combined with the domino effect. Eagar’s argument is that if the angle clips one side of the building had given way, then the unbearable load on the other angle clips would have caused the entire floor to become totally unzipped in just a few seconds. According to Eagar, “If it had only occurred in one little corner, such as a trash can caught on fire, you might have had to repair that corner, but the whole building wouldn’t have come crashing down. The problem was, it was such a widely distributed fire, and then you got this domino effect.” (www.911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/trusseseagar.html) In reality, the buildings had been designed to resist a Boeing 707, not just a trash can fire.

FACT CHECK

The melting point of steel is 1,538 degrees Celsius, equal to 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit, although it will weaken and buckle at somewhat lower temperatures. But the absolute maximum that can be achieved with hydrocarbons, such as the kerosene-like mixture used for jet fuel is 825 degrees Celsius or 1517 Fahrenheit – unless the mixture is pressurized or pre-heated through the admixture of fuel and air, which in this case it could not be. Diffuse flames burn at a lower temperature, and fires fed by inadequate oxygen are cooler still. The best estimate is that the fires in the towers were burning at a temperature substantially less than 800 Celsius. The collapse of the towers through the effects of the fires is thus a physical impossibility.

LOIZEAUX PREDICTED THE COLLAPSE

In the March hearings of the House Science Committee, Robert F. Shea, the Acting Administrator of the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration noted that “the World Trade Center was a tragedy. And, frankly, it was an anomaly. No one who viewed it that day, including myself, believed that those tower would fall.

Our collective thought process for laymen and engineers and firefighters changed that day forever.” (House March 60)

At those same hearings, a leaflet was distributed by the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, an organization which included many members of the victims’ families. Here the Congressmen were reminded: “The collapse of the Twin towers caused the biggest loss of life in a single incident on U.S. soil since the Civil War. Their collapse constituted the first failures of high-rise protected steel structures in history. Not a single structural engineer, including those working for the firm that built the Twin Towers and those working in the Fire Department of New York, seems to have anticipated their collapse, even when those individuals saw the extent of the fires raging in the buildings. The Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of the largest passenger jets of their day, a
Boeing 707….” (House March 167)

However, it turned out that there was at least one expert who claimed that he had
immediately intuited that the towers could collapse. As John Seabrook wrote in the New Yorker, “among the dozens of people I have spoken to recently who are experts in the construction of tall buildings (and many of whom witnessed the events of September 11 th as they unfolded), only one said that he knew immediately, upon learning, from TV, of the planes hitting the buildings, that the towers were going to fall. This was Mark Loizeaux, the president of C


R64131
5 years ago
Shogo

“Some of these Christian “scientists” can produce some pretty fancy sounding theories.”

Only if you’re a mental midget. But thanks for sharing how easily confusable you are. It explains a lot.

Firefighters claiming to have heard bombs impresses me not at all. Their training is in firefighting, not audio explosives detection.

But by all means, continue to be the wise sage of GNN fucktards. It suits you well.


R64133
5 years ago
lday

Uh, yawn..

Izzy2 and Shogo/Josh dissing any theory, no matter how sensible, that conflicts with the Likudnik’s favoured ’19-arabs-with-boxcutters’ myth.

Yo! Ye young guerillas, can you spot the psy-op?
It’s the cartoon version, suitable for kindergarten in propaganda studies.

So to jump over their distractions and wonder why all the top-security-clearance,
Raytheon, Boeing, MICkey dudes on weird flight 77?
And what happened to them?

Well, the first place that I’d look is into Mount Weather and its underground bunkers. Many of the supposed passengers would be very useful for MIC research.
The innocent, in info-quarantine, could easily be convinced that America was nuked, radioactive, their relatives dead, ergo stay here and shut up.

The official story of flight 77 is a joke, but a joke with a point.
No matter how stupid it is, as a completely unsupported conspiracy theory,
intelligent well-informed people suspecting a more believable scenario will be hit with the blunt fact that in a democracy one doesn’t have to fool all the people all the time: 51% suffices, and when one controls the vote count, one then controls even that 51% total.

Good luck America.
I wish you the best.
But the predicament is dire,
almost as much so as the Jedis was in episode four.

Faced with the choice between prison and imposing martial law,
your ruling criminal oligarchy will choose martial law.
Sad but true.
Cornered rats are the most dangerous rats,
and your oligarchs seem to be running out of options.


R64134
5 years ago
Rasputin

However, it turned out that there was at least one expert who claimed that he had
immediately intuited that the towers could collapse. As John Seabrook wrote in the New Yorker, “among the dozens of people I have spoken to recently who are experts in the construction of tall buildings (and many of whom witnessed the events of September 11 th as they unfolded), only one said that he knew immediately, upon learning, from TV, of the planes hitting the buildings, that the towers were going to fall. This was Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition Incorporated, a Maryland-based family business that specializes in reducing tall buildings to manageable pieces of rubble.

‘Within a nanosecond,’ he told me. ‘I said, “It’s coming down.” And the second tower will fall first, because it was hit lower down.’” Loizeaux was billed as a “structural undertaker” whose job was to destroy old buildings. Here is Loizeaux’ version of how he foresaw the disaster:

I thought, “Somebody’s got to tell the Fire Department to get out of
there,” Loizeaux told me. “I picked up the phone, dialed 411, got the
number, and tried it – busy. So I called the Mayor’s Office of Emergency
Management” – which was in 7 World Trade. “All circuits were busy. I
couldn’t get through.”
But how could Loizeaux know what no other expert claimed to know, and which went against a hundred years accumulated by civil engineers in building skyscrapers? If suspects are those who had the means, the motive and the opportunity, then Loizeaux may well have had the means. According to the demolitions man:

First of all, you’ve got the obvious damage to the exterior frame from the
airplane – if you count the number of external columns missing from the
sides the planes hit, there are about two-thirds of the total. And the
buildings are still standing, which is amazing – even with all those
columns missing, the gravity loads have found alternate pathways. O.K.,
but you’ve got fires – jet-fueled fires, which the building is not designed
for, and you’ve also got lots of paper in there. Now, paper cooks. A paper fire is like a coal-mine fire, it keeps burning as long as oxygen gets to it.
And you’re high in the building, up in the wind, plenty of oxygen. So
you’ve got a hot fire. And you’ve got these floor trusses, made of fairly
thin metal, and fire protection has been knocked off most of them by the
impact. And you have all this open space – clear span from perimeter to
core – with no columns or partition walls, so the airplane is going to skid
right through that space to the core, which doesn’t have any reinforced
concrete in it, just sheetrock covering steel, and the fire is going to spread
everywhere immediately, and no fire-protection systems are working – the
sprinkler heads shorn off by the airplanes, the water pipes in the core are
likely cut. So what’s going to happen? Floor A is going to fall onto floor
B, which falls onto floor C; the unsupported columns will buckle; and the
weight of everything above the crash site falls onto what remains below –
bringing loads of two thousand pounds per square foot, plus the force of
impact, onto floors designed to bear one hundred pounds per square foot.
It has to fall.” (The New Yorker, November 19, 2001)

Naturally, the pancake theory was original neither to Loizeaux nor to FEMA. The
pancake theory had been advanced by “Osama Bin Laden” in the remarks attributed to him, allegedly made in mid-November 2001, and widely publicized by the US government in December 2001. Here Bin Laden is alleged to have commented: “We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (Inaudible) Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.” But there are indications that the stocky figure shown on the tape may not be the supposedly ascetic Bin Laden at all, but a double or ham actor. (Meyssan 2002 192)

WTC 7
In the May House Science Committee W. Gene Corley, the American Society of Civil Engineers representative on the BPAT, conceded that “Building 7, which was across the street from the main towers, also collapsed and provided us with the first example that we recognized of a building collapsing as a result of fire.” (House May 30) WTC 7 presents the image of a classical controlled demolition. Whereas the twin towers are seen to implode, WTC 7 implodes – it falls in upon itself with none of the spectacular mushroom plumes of smoke and powder which had marked the demise of the larger twin towers.

The foundations collapses before the façade, the middle of the building collapses before the outer walls, and streamers of smoke emit from the façade. WTC 7 did imitate the twin towers by collapsing almost exclusively upon its own foundations.
The owner of the WTC complex was Larry Silverstein, who recalled the fall of WTC 7 to the September 2002 PBS documentary, America Rebuilds with this astounding revelation: “I remember getting a call from the…fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘we’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing is to pull it. And they made the decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.” “To pull” would appear to be the jargon term in controlled demolition circles for the deliberate detonation of charges leading to the destruction of a building. And if WTC 7 was pulled, why not WTC 1 and
2?

ANOMALIES OF THE WTC COLLAPSE

The twin towers did not simply collapse as a result of gravity; they were violently
pulverized in mid-air in an explosive process which hurled debris hundreds of meters in all directions – they were vaporized by an explosive force. Anomalies abound. The North Tower was hit first, was hit hardest in its core columns, and had more jet fuel burn inside its structure than the South Tower – but the North Tower exploded later. The South Tower was hit later, with a more glancing blow which had less impact on its core columns, and which also caused more jet fuel to be consumed outside of the building in a spectacular plume; the South Tower’s fires were less severe – but the South Tower fell first. WTC 7 was never hit by anything, and had fires only on two floors (there are no photos of WTC 7 enveloped in flames and smoke) – but WTC 7 fell anyway. WTC 6 witnessed an explosion and fire which has never been explained or even addressed.

Finally, we have the embarrassing fact that steel frame skyscrapers are virtually
indestructible to fire. The official version of events argues that, at least as far as the towers are concerned, it was the combined effect of crash impact plus fire which caused the collapses. But even the South Tower collapsed well after most of the jet fuel had burned away, and a fire based on paper, rugs, and furniture melt steel even less than one based on jet fuel. By all indications, the South Tower began the collapse sequence precisely at the moment when, well after the impact had been absorbed, the fires too were subsiding. The hole made in the North Tower by American 11 had cooled so much that, just before the collapse of the North Tower, survivors were observed looking out through the gash in the side of the building. (Marr 41)

The upper floors of both towers, after showing symptoms of high pressure which forced smoke out through the widows, exploded into spectacular mushroom clouds. Debris and other ejecta were thrown at speeds of 200 feet per second to distances of up to 500 feet in all directions. The clouds then descended, always emanating from the towers as these fell.

The mushroom clouds had expanded to two or three times the diameter of the towers after five seconds, and had expanded to five times the diameter of the towers after 15 seconds. Blast waves broke windows in buildings over 400 feet away. In the thick mushroom clouds, solid objects were hurled out ahead of the dust, another telltale sign of explosive demolition.

One might have expected the buildings to tip over at an angle starting at the points where they had been hit like a tree which leaves a stump as it falls towards the side where it has been most chopped, but instead they did not topple and there were no stumps; apart from some initial asymmetry in the top of the South Tower, the two towers both collapsed down on themselves in a perfectly symmetrical way – a suspicious sign, since this is one of the prime goals and hallmarks of controlled demolition.

The fall of the twin towers took place at breathtaking speed. The tops of the buildings reached the ground as rubble no more than 16 seconds after the collapse process had begun. A weight in a vacuum would have taken 9.2 seconds to cover the same distance.

This meant that air resistance and little else had slowed the fall of the upper stories. This indicates that the lower floors must have been demolished and pulverized before the upper stories fell on them. The building, in other words, had been pulverized, and in many areas vaporized, in mid-air. No gravity collapse could have created this phenomenon.

The non-metallic elements of the twin towers, especially the cement slabs which formed the horizontal surface of each floor, were pulverized into a fine dust, with particles of less than 100 microns in diameter. This was the dust which pervaded lower Manhattan as the explosive clouds spread from hundreds of yards in all directions. This dust took a long time to settle, but the Giuliani administration tried to convince office workers in the area that there was no danger. All the steel in the building superstructures was simply shredded. The exceptionally strong central core columns were neatly diced into 10 or 20 floor segments – something which has never been explained.

According to Jim Hoffman, the leading expert on the collapse of the World Trade Center and the source heavily relied on here, the energy necessary to create the mushroom clouds and expand them to the extraordinary dimensions actually observed to pulverize virtually all the concrete in the towers, and to chop the steel into segments is far greater than the gravitational energy represented by the buildings in the first place. According to Hoffman, there must have been powerful additional energy sources at work. When prodded to do so at recent conferences, Hoffman has been willing to speculate that these energy sources might have been unconventional ones.

THE TWIN TOWERS WERE ROBUST STRUCTURES

The twin towers were robust structures. The structure of the twin towers was represented first of all by an internal core of 47 steel box columns which measured 36 by 90 centimeters; the steel was thickest near the base, where it attained a thickness of 10 centimeters (about four inches), and tapered gradually down to 6 centimeters on the upper floors. There were 236 exterior columns in the buildings’ facades; these were 10 centimeters thick at the base, but only 6 millimeters thick in the highest floors. Each floor was a steel plate into which concrete had been poured. In the center of the building was a reinforced core featuring four steel columns encased in concrete. The structure is abundantly cross-braced, so that stress in one sector can be efficiently shifted to other
parts of the structure. All steel columns rested directly on the bedrock under Manhattan.

This structure had been designed to withstand 140 mile per hour winds, and had resisted them successfully for more than thirty years. It had also been designed by Lee Robertson, the structural engineer who built the towers to absorb the impact of a Boeing 707, an aircraft roughly comparable in size and fuel capacity to the aircraft that appear to have struck the towers on 9/11.

In the case of the twin towers, the technical problem of how to account for the immense quantities of energy released would seem to point to an energy source beyond the capabilities of conventional controlled demolition. For a possible explanation of what kind of energy source could have been at work, we must turn our attention to the realm of new physical principles, and thus to the class of directed energy weapons which are probably most familiar to the general public in connection with President Reagan’s so-called star wars speech of March 23, 1983. We may be dealing here with high energy microwave interferometry using coaxial beams for constructive and destructive interference. The inherent problem with this conjecture, as engineer Ken Jenkins has pointed out, is that such a device would require a power cable half a meter in diameter, and the presence of such a power cable has not been demonstrated. The solution to this
problem will indeed require more time and research.


R64138
5 years ago
Rasputin

Yo! Ye young guerillas, can you spot the psy-op?

This one can:


R64139
5 years ago
Butt

either you’re a demolitions expert – or shut the fuck up


R64140
5 years ago
Shogo

So, why is Loizeaux wrong?

Conspiracy nutters are a funny bunch of fucksticks. On the one hand, if one man says something and is dismissed as a loon, they tend to believe what that man says as if it were gospel truth. On the other hand, if one man says something that winds up being an accepted explanation, they are obviously in on the conspiracy!

You’ve got all bases covered. No matter how much evidence contradicts your religious faith in the conspiracy, you have some explanation based on nothing more than insinuation.

Please Rasputin, you’re embarrassing yourself now. Go back to the anarchy theories. At least with those you don’t sound like a complete fucking idiot.


R64141
5 years ago
Butt

either you’re a demolitions expert – or shut the fuck up


R64142
5 years ago
Shogo

Florence Gay, please stick to sucking cock.

Butt, just because these people are arguing against me doesn’t make them right. Try not to be a stupid cunt.


R64143
5 years ago
Shogo

Butt, suck my dick.


R64144
5 years ago
Butt

a fact: when you see lots of black smoke – that usually indicates a fire that is not burning at a very high temperature

Post Modified: 06/15/05 16:42:03

R64145
5 years ago
Butt

no thanks blo-jo, I like a mouthful

either you’re a demolitions expert – or shut the fuck up

conversely – just because you are arguing against these people doesn’t make you right.

Post Modified: 06/15/05 16:34:21

R64146
5 years ago
Shogo

Having seen many controlled demolitions on video, and even one in person, I’ve never seen one where the top portion of the building leans at an angle like that prior to falling.

Funny how that works, huh?

Morons.


R64147
5 years ago
Shogo

Eat shit, cunt.


R64149
5 years ago
Butt

I once saw a shooting close-up and in person – doesn’t make me an expert on ballistics, or assassinations


R64150
5 years ago
Butt

a fact: when you see lots of black smoke – that usually indicates a fire that is not burning at a very high temperature

I’ve never seen one where the top portion of the building leans at an angle like that prior to falling.

well, you see (or maybe you don’t) there was a rather large hole in the side of the building which might go some way to explaining the leaning of the top floors.

also you could check out the tape of the fire-fighters radio transmissions on the day. One of them was on the 78th floor and radioed back that there were only a few small fires – nothing they couldn’t handle, he said. But he’d be no expert in fires, now would he?

BTW I don’t eat anything that has come out of an asshole – so were I a cannibal, your innards would be quite safe

Post Modified: 06/15/05 16:43:28

R64153
5 years ago
Butt

a couple of simple questions for Blo-Jo

1) What is the melting temnperature of steel?

2) What is the burning temperature of Airline Fuel?

now, once you know those two figures, please try and reconcile the discrepancy, if any, between the two. In other words, try and invent a plausible excuse for the miraculous apperance of approx 700 degrees celcius extra heat needed to melt steel – spontaenous combustion?

Post Modified: 06/15/05 19:25:29

R64154
5 years ago
Butt

and if you can’t explain or reconcile the figures, then kindly shut the fuck up


R64155
5 years ago
lday

Thanks Shogo/Josh for illustrating my point. :-)

To reiterate:

Uh, yawn..
Izzy2 and Shogo/Josh dissing any theory, no matter how sensible, that conflicts with the Likudnik’s favoured ‘19-arabs-with-boxcutters’ myth.
Yo! Ye young guerillas, can you spot the psy-op?
It’s the cartoon version, suitable for kindergarten in propaganda studies.
So to jump over their distractions and wonder why all the top-security-clearance,
Raytheon, Boeing, MICkey dudes on weird flight 77?
And what happened to them?
Well, the first place that I’d look is into Mount Weather and its underground bunkers. Many of the supposed passengers would be very useful for MIC research.
The innocent, in info-quarantine, could easily be convinced that America was nuked, radioactive, their relatives dead, ergo stay here and shut up.
The official story of flight 77 is a joke, but a joke with a point.
No matter how stupid it is, as a completely unsupported conspiracy theory,
intelligent well-informed people suspecting a more believable scenario will be hit with the blunt fact that in a democracy one doesn’t have to fool all the people all the time: 51% suffices, and when one controls the vote count, one then controls even that 51% total.
Good luck America.
I wish you the best.
But the predicament is dire,
almost as much so as the Jedis was in episode four.
Faced with the choice between prison and imposing martial law,
your ruling criminal oligarchy will choose martial law.
Sad but true.
Cornered rats are the most dangerous rats,
and your oligarchs seem to be running out of options.


R64156
5 years ago
verisimilar

table{border:0px solid #FF3030;background:#1A1A1A;color:ghostwhite}. |

veristupid, I understand your disliking of the summary from the Le Moniteur article.

Pay very close attention to your words.

I pasted an entire article, the conclusions of which you totally ignore in favor of ad hom fallacies.
(R63814, 06/14/05, 12:06:17)

Now, pay very close attention to my response.

No, you didn’t. You didn’t cite any article. You didn’t provide the title, author or publication date of any article. You didn’t link to any article. So who’s really in favor of ad hom fallacies here?
(R63846, 06/14/05, 14:18:41)

Lest you be confused with ice, please join the rest of the class.

What does that even mean? The only thing you seem to be teaching anyone is how to ignore questions you’re either incapable of or unwilling to answer and look like an ass at the same time.

We have moved on to something far more substantive here.

Actually, I don’t think it’s at all more substantial, at least not as far as my beef with you is concerned. You cited and provided a link to the Hearst-wash, albeit through someone else’s obscure blog (real classy tactic by the way), therefore I don’t have a problem with the way in which you’ve attempted to use it as support for your opinion. What I have made issue with is your choosing to continually dodge my questions.

Maybe you can turn your finely honed mind to the topic of the Popular Mechanics article.

Maybe you can just answer these questions:

What are the names of the structural engineers whose theories you espouse?
What are their respective firms of employ?
From what sources did you review their theories?
Do you speak or read French?
How many French professionals do you personally know?
How many French professional publications do you personally pay subscription to?
What are the names of the French professionals cited in your mystery article from Le Moniteur?
What are their respective firms of employ?

What is your opinion of Marvin P. Bush and his role with Securacom / Stratesec?

Here’s one more for good measure.

What is Larry Silverstein saying here“:http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PULLIT.mp3, and how does it affect your opinion of what caused the collapse of WTC7? |

Post Modified: 06/15/05 17:58:55

R64159
5 years ago
Rasputin

Ah yes, our old friend Larry Silverstein.


R64164
5 years ago
renwald

This shit is so retarded, it’s not even funny.

I’m laughing at you.

What do you believe shogo? that the magical group of not all dead strip club loving terrorists armed with box cutters and a handful of training hours on a cessna aircraft managed to precisely target buildings from hundreds of km’s away. For the sole purpose of scaring the US into what? raiding the Middle East for oil and power?
Why don’t you tell us what happened smarty pants and i’ll test it out on my gaydar.

Post Modified: 06/15/05 19:14:03

R64167
5 years ago
Butt

R64121 Sorry, your cred is nonexistent. You weren’t there, which means you’re not in a position to know how extensive the fires in that building were.

you could check out the tape of the fire-fighters radio transmissions on the day. One of them wasthere, unlike you who was not there, on the 78th floor and radioed back that there were only a few small fires -nothing they couldn’t handle, he said. But he’d be no expert in fires, now would he?

so you appear to be maintaining that a firefighter on the 78th floor of the South Tower didn’t have any ‘cred’ when he said that the fires were minor and controllable? despite the fact that you weren’t there, and are neither a fire expert nor a demolitions expert.

Post Modified: 06/15/05 19:37:25

R64168
5 years ago
renwald

The only thing that appears obvious to me after all this that there is no way Osama could have ‘banked’ on the buildings collapsing. They were designed for a 707 impact, and if he had done any research that information alone should have been enough to deter any terrorist ‘mastermind’. How stupid would he have looked if both the buildings had stayed upright and there was only a few fires and 50 dead people. There would have been outrage, but not the kind Dick Chain+Rumsfeld needed. They wanted ball tearing rage, and to do that you have to bring down the buildings, create a scene of which the likes have never been seen. To give them the green light to invade at will.

My theory: They were hoping the planes would be enough to create the collapse, but when it became obvious that was not enough, they triggered the internal explosives and brought both buildings down.

God didn’t give me that theory, nor did some mass media news organisation. It’s my calculated opinion from an observant objective foreigner. From the past history of the US government, and recent history of terrorism being used as a beating stick on the populace, it appears glaringly obvious to me.

Maybe you will get it some day Shogo, you claim to have braincells. But I have given up hope on Izzy, he clearly likes not using his brain.


R64170
5 years ago
Shogo

Butt: nobody claimed the steel melted, you stupid fucking cunt.


R64172
5 years ago
Shogo

Butt: “One of them was on the 78th floor and radioed back that there were only a few small fires”

You see, you stupid cunt, had you read the Popular Mechanics article you’d have seen the accounts of burning jet fuel that went down the elevator shafts. In other words, the words of ONE firefighter do not account for all the fires in the buildings.


R64173
5 years ago
Shogo

veristupid, this is for you


R64174
5 years ago
Shogo

renwald, as for what I believe happened, I believe that the 747s were flown into the buildings. I believe that the damage to the buildings, combined with the loss of structural support of steel weakened (not melted like that stupid cunt Butt likes to pretend is being claimed) by fire caused the buildings to collapse. With the failure of the support columns high in the towers, the upper floors collapsed on the lower floors, creating stresses that the building was not designed to take.

As for who the men are that flew the planes into the buildings, I’m not claiming to know that. But for the purpose of this discussion, that is totally irrelevant.

To say that because the Bush admin benefited from 9/11 means that bombs were placed in the buildings is logically erroneous. This makes the assumption that simply flying the planes into the buildings would not have enabled the passage of the Patriot Act and the War in Iraq. I think that’s an illogical assumption. Bush would have gotten the Patriot Act passed regardless of whether the towers collapsed on 9/11, or had been demolished later.

The psychological impact was generated just by the fact that America was attacked on her own soil.

The real questions about 9/11 (the call options, the short trading, why it was allowed to happen, how much Bush knew) will never be taken seriously while the water is muddied with the soft-headed conspiracy hypotheses about bombs in the buildings, remote controlled airplanes, and demon faces in the smoke.

Occam’s Razor teaches that the simplest explanation is the most likely. When two explanations exist for an event, the simpler is the most likely. What is more likely: planes that crash into the building, destroying significant support elements, and then causing fires that weaken the structure leading to a collapse? Or dozens of men clandestinely entering a building that sees traffic at all hours, planting explosives that nobody noticed, with the risk of somebody finding out that they were being planted?

One conclusion requires a massive conspiracy involving hundreds of people, the other is explainable via simple physics.

But what happens is the simple physics get obfuscated by idiots like Butt, who shrilly demand to know how the steel melted, despite the fact that not one person ever claimed that it melted. The clamoring of all these uneducated dolts creates a cacophony of idiocy that guarantees the real questions about what went down on 9/11 will never be answered.


R64175
5 years ago
Butt

nobody claimed the steel melted, you stupid fucking cunt.

the ‘official’ story in the months after the event did claim that
you can attempt to rewrite the recent history all you want but some of us remember the what the party line was at the time.

you see, you stupid cunt, had you read the Popular Mechanics article you’d have seen the accounts of burning jet fuel that went down the elevator shafts. In other words, the words of ONE firefighter do not account for all the fires in the buildings

the guys from Popular Mechanics were there were they? Shooting the breeze with you at the time, around the water dispenser on the 78th floor were they? they, along with yourself, watched that fuel, pouring down the lift shafts did they? their conjecture completely erases any opinion that the only person on the scene, with enough knowledge and experience to form an accurate opinion, had of the severity of the situation, does it? interesting hypothesis you got there sherlock

Post Modified: 06/15/05 20:40:51

R64176
5 years ago
Butt

re occams razor: when everyone rushes to dismiss the opinion that the only person on the scene, with enough knowledge and expeience to form an accurate opinion, had of the severity of the situation, then the simplest answer is that they are clutching at straws, seeking to find an answer that doesn’t include the possibility that something other than a combination of planes, jetfuel and ‘stress factor’ (and the possibility that this was not a ‘terrawrist’ action) brought down those towers

edited to add sense

Post Modified: 06/18/05 05:34:57

R64177
5 years ago
Butt

Or dozens of men clandestinely entering a building that sees traffic at all hours, planting explosives that nobody noticed, with the risk of somebody finding out that they were being planted?

when a Bush family member owns a large slice of the security company that ‘secures’ the 2 towers, and the media ignores that, then appyling occams razor might lead one to the conclusion that all is not what it appears to be


R64179
5 years ago
Butt

re your pop mech quote:

if you had listened to the firefighters tapes you would have found out that they were using the elevators after the planes hit – kinda hard to do that if the lift shafts were filled with burning fuel at the time, no?


R64180
5 years ago
Shogo

Butt, you are seriously one of the stupidest motherfuckers on the planet.

Let me ask you something. Think hard now, ‘kay?

If some of the elevator shafts have burning fuel in them, does that mean all of them do?


R64181
5 years ago
Shogo

“the ‘official’ story in the months after the event did claim that”

No, it didn’t.

I defy you to find an official statement that the steel in the building melted.

Good luck, cunt.


R64182
5 years ago
Shogo

“they, along with yourself, watched that fuel, pouring down the lift shafts did they?”

If you read the article, stupid cunt, you’d have seen that this was reported by a cameraman on the ground floor where the elevators landed, with burning people coming out of them.


R64185
5 years ago
Rasputin

Occam’s Razor teaches

How many times are you gonna slit your throat with that razor before you stop using it?

There’s nothing “simple” about the conspiracy theory you’re espousing. In fact any one aspect of your theory is infinitely more convoluted than the “inside job” scenario in its entirety.

Take the mind-boggling, superhuman skill and serendipity it would require for a couple of exacto-waving, no-talent “dumb and dumber” flight-school drop-outs (who happened to have an FBI informer as their landlord) to subdue the passengers of flight 77 – among them many able-bodied military personnel – and then fly it into the renovation wing of the Pentagon.

Or take the remarkable correspondence of the hijackings [Flight 11 first deviates from its route a minute or two after Flight 175 takes off, and its transponder is switched off at the same time that Flight 77 takes off. Flight 175 first deviates from its route just as Flight 93 takes off and its transponder goes off at the same time that Flight 11 hits WTC1, which is also the time that Flight 77 first goes off course]

Is the simplest explanation that the half-wits pegged by the FBI as the masterminds of the attack were able to pull off this astonishingly complex and exacting operation using their Al-qaeda X-men powers?

Of course not.

The simplest explanation and the only one that fits the evidence as a whole is an inside job carried out with military precision by a handful of intelligence operatives inside the government.

The only folks muddying the waters are the LIHOP dupes who seem to know nothing about the role of patsies in false flag operations. Foreknowledge is a red herring.


R64189
5 years ago
renwald

You think the hijackers are irrelevant? I think they are a main part of the whole planes crashing into buildings story. Irregardless, I found this information rather pertinant to our ongoing debate.

Some facts demonstrating the flaws in the government jet fuel theory include:

— Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel supposedly was burning..

—When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.

—The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the fires could have been easily controlled.

FDNY fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9/11 gag order.

—Even the flawed 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges that “none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible.”

— Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.

— The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.

— WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.

— WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams.

— In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 that. “may be the smartest thing to do is pull it,” slang for demolish it.

— It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.

Despite the numerous holes in the government story, the Bush administration has brushed aside or basically ignored any and all critics. Mainstream experts, speaking for the administration, offer a theory essentially arguing that an airplane impact weakened each structure and an intense fire thermally weakened structural components, causing buckling failures while allowing the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below.

One who supports the official account is Thomas Eager, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT. He argues that the collapse occurred by the extreme heat from the fires, causing the loss of loading-bearing capacity on the structural frame.

Eagar points out the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to the point where it “lost 80 percent of its strength,” or around 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit. Critics claim his theory is flawed since the fires did not appear to be intense and widespread enough to reach such high temperatures.

Other experts supporting the official story claim the impact of the airplanes, not the heat, weakened the entire structural system of the towers, but critics contend the beams on floors 94-98 did not appear severely weakened, much less the entire structural system.

Further complicating the matter, hard evidence to fully substantiate either theory since evidence is lacking due to FEMA’s quick removal of the structural steel before it could be analyzed. Even though the criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be kept for forensic analysis, FEMA had it destroyed or shipped overseas before a serious investigation could take place.

And even more doubt is cast over why FEMA acted so swiftly since coincidentally officials had arrived the day before the 9/11 attacks at New York’s Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, named “Tripod II.”

Besides FEMA’s quick removal of the debris, authorities considered the steel quite valuable as New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and even fired one truck driver who took an unauthorized lunch break.

In a detailed analysis just released supporting the controlled demolition theory, Reynolds presents a compelling case.

“First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not,” said Reynolds. “These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened.

“On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphia’s Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that ‘beams and girders sagged and twisted, but despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.’ Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC.”

After considering both sides of the 9/11 debate and after thoroughly sifting through all the available material, Reynolds concludes the government story regarding all four plane crashes on 9/11 remains highly suspect.

“In fact, the government has failed to produce significant wreckage from any of the four alleged airliners that fateful day. The familiar photo of the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania shows no fuselage, engine or anything recognizable as a plane, just a smoking hole in the ground,” said Reynolds. “Photographers reportedly were not allowed near the hole. Neither the FBI nor the National Transportation Safety Board have investigated or produced any report on the alleged airliner crashes.”

Renwalds Razor states that simple people like being told what to think because it makes their noodles cook when they comprehend complicated theories.

Post Modified: 06/15/05 22:13:27

R64192
5 years ago
2pacalypse

Post Modified: 06/15/05 22:34:20

R64193
5 years ago
2pacalypse

WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7
It goes beyond the information provided here on WTC7.net to expose who planned
and benefited from the attack. VERSION 1.28 ——————- Copyright 2003-05, ...
www.wtc7.net/ – 6k – Cached – Similar pages

Chapter 5 – WTC Seven – The WTC Report.
Chapter 5 – WTC Seven – FEMA Report on the World Trade Center Collapse.
www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm – 96k – Cached – Similar pages

9/11 Videos – The Controlled Collapse of WTC 7
Numerous videos of WTC 7 collapsing into its footprint. Also videos of a controlled
demolition and a building collapsing without explosives.
www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html – 12k – Cached – Similar pages

Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition
A statement by Larry Silverstein indicates WTC 7 was demolished, and evidence
shows this occurred. When was the building rigged for demolition?
www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html – 13k – Cached – Similar pages
[ More results from www.whatreallyhappened.com ]

Killtown’s: Was the WTC 7 pulled?
FEMA: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to
collapse remain … “The CIA’s undercover New York station was in the 7 WTC. ...
thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7.html – 14k – Cached – Similar pages

Silverstein, FDNY Decided to ‘Pull WTC 7’: An In-Depth Analysis
Compare the two videos below with the footage of the WTC 7 collapse and the …
Silverstein Properties’ estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. ...
www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html – 83k – Cached – Similar pages

Other WTC Building “Collapses”: WTC 6 and WTC 7
The Collapses of WTC6 and WTC7. ... WTC 7 once stood in the area immediately down
and to the left of it. WTC 7, although damaged slightly by falling rubble, ...
www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_other.htm – 9k – Cached – Similar pages

WTC 7 ‘Pulled’ By Silverstein, FDNY – Were Towers ‘Pulled’ Too?
WTC 7 was not only a full city block away from Tower 1 but WTC 6 stood directly
... But more importantly WTC 7, like the Murrah building, housed high-level …
www.rense.com/general47/pulled.htm – 35k – Cached – Similar pages


R64194
5 years ago
2pacalypse

PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!

PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!
PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!! PULL IT!!!


R64195
5 years ago
2pacalypse

What’s up Larry? This is Daniel. Are we gonna pull it? Pull it hard and fast?


R64196
5 years ago
2pacalypse

Let’s “pull it”.


R64197
5 years ago
2pacalypse

Let’s get into a big circle and “pull it” together Larry.


R64198
5 years ago
2pacalypse

There’s been such a tremendous loss of life…I’d rather pull it myself.


R64199
5 years ago
2pacalypse

We should pull it together Larry.


R64200
5 years ago
cortez

Some more of the Mcgowan article

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69.html

... The text of the BBC report contained this curious claim:“the towers’ ultimate collapse was inevitable, as the steel cores inside them reached temperatures of 800C – raising questions as to why hundreds of rescue workers were sent into the doomed buildings to their deaths.” Actually, if the claim about the core temperatures were true, it would have raised questions as to how hundreds of rescue workers were sent into the doomed buildings to their deaths, since the only way up was through the building cores, where all the stairwells and elevators were located.

Perhaps the best evidence refuting the notion that the fires in the WTC towers were burning at extremely high temperatures can be found through close examination of the pre-collapse photos to the left. Near the center of the gaping entry wound (which looks much different, by the way, than the phantom entry wound in the Pentagon) stands the tragic figure of an apparently young woman still very much alive — and seemingly unaware that she is clinging to a piece of nearly molten metal.

Technically speaking, the ‘pancake’ theory does not require that the fires reached temperatures capable of melting steel; it requires only that temperatures were high enough to substantially weaken the steel floor supports. A 1500° F fire could conceivably accomplish that task, if that temperature was maintained for a considerable amount of time. But there is no indication from firefighter reports, survivor reports, or the photographic evidence that there were any fires of that magnitude that burned for any appreciable length of time.

Another problem with the ‘pancake’ theory is that it fails to address the fate of the cores of the two towers. Contrary to the deceptive BBC graphic, the cores of the WTC towers occupied a considerable portion of the buildings’ footprints, as can be seen in the accurately scaled graphic on the lower left, and in the photo on the lower right, taken while the towers were under construction. These configurations of 47 massive steel support columns, heavily cross-braced, were designed to not only be self-supporting, but to support the floors and exterior walls as well.

Even if we accept that the floor slabs somehow ‘pancaked,’ and that the outer steel and aluminum shells then buckled and collapsed, we are left with no explanation of what happened to those massive concrete and steel cores. Clearly, the floor slabs were hardly the wide-open ‘pancakes’ depicted in deceptive media graphics. In truth, the ‘pancake’ theory, at best, offers only an explanation of how the floor and exterior wall sections may have collapsed. Even if such an extremely unlikely event had occurred, the end result would not have been a 60-foot-high mound of rubble; it would have been two 137’ x 87’ x 1,360’ towers standing in place of two 208’ x 208’ x 1,360’ towers.

Yet another problem with the ‘pancake’ theory is that it is wholly dependent on a perfectly symmetrical failure of the floor slabs, even though the initial damage to the buildings was clearly asymmetrical, and the fires certainly did not burn uniformly throughout the damaged floors. And yet we know that for the destruction to be complete, the collapse of the initial floor slabs would have had to be perfectly uniform; every point of connection around the perimeter of the core, and every point of connection around the exterior shell, would have had to fail at precisely the same moment in time. And each successive floor would have had to fail in exactly the same perfectly uniform manner, unerringly, all the way down the line. When the ‘pancake’ effect has to course through 110 floors, there isn’t really any margin for error. And yet both towers, as we all know, ‘pancaked’ into oblivion in matching, perfectly choreographed collapses.

Remarkably enough, the two towers somehow collapsed in exactly the same manner even though the initial damage to each tower was quite different. The plane that hit the north tower plowed straight into the center of the north face of the tower, and then straight into the center of the tower’s core. The south tower, however, was hit with more of a glancing blow, through the southeast corner of the building, in such a way that the plane likely did minimal damage to the tower’s core. Nevertheless, the damage to the south tower may have been more significant than the damage to the north tower. In the north tower, the weight of the upper floors was transferred to the remaining structural elements of the north wall of the tower. But in the south tower, since it was a corner of the building that was blown out, there was nowhere for the load to be transferred. Also, the south tower was hit at a lower elevation, so there was more weight bearing on the damaged area.

It is interesting to note here, by the way, that in both tower crashes, the initial impacts caused structural damage on at least six floors. The south tower was impacted on floors 78-84, and the north tower on floors 93-98. The Pentagon, on the other hand, miraculously sustained impact damage on just two floors….

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69.html

Post Modified: 06/15/05 23:08:09

R64201
5 years ago
Continuity

Izzy:

The controlled demolition theory is bunk for one obvious reason. There were people in the buildings below the crash site, many as rescuers. How can you explain that?

I think I can make even more fun of this cute statement if you tell us exactly what you’re implying.


R64207
5 years ago
Continuity

Cortez, that article is very good, even though controversy still exists about the supposed woman in the photo. We can argue around her for now.

The cores held most of the loads, and the cores were redundantly build to hold more than the loads of the buildings. Before we go on, we must respect the fact that a given WTC tower (take your pick of 1 or 2) was really two buildings in one. The inner core & and the outer floors.

If an outer floor pancaked (simultaneously across the whole building even) to the floor below, it would not instantly snap the core and shatter it into pieces, dragging it down. The outer floor would fall and cause visual deformation to the outside of the building first before any lethal core damage. There would be pauses as the floors met resistance. The resistance would be noteworthy at first, and then lose power as the chain reaction and gravity took over. It wouldn’t be freefall from the instant of collapse.

Instead, if you watch my Mpeg movie posted on the first page, and watch the beginning frame-by-frame several times, you will see the core of WTC1 literally ‘cease to exist’ as a load-bearing support.

You will notice the antenna of WTC1 sinks first (the antenna rested upon the core), then milliseconds later the roof as a whole sinks as the general collapse occurs. The outer floors did not pancake first and force the core to shatter. It was the core itself , the prime support, which completely lost it.

The core columns from the impact area to the roof lost cohesion. Which means roughly 20 floors of core just disintegrated nearly all at once in about 1 second.

The question of whether the core lost the same amount of cohesion below the impact area is still up the in air. More ‘normal’ resistance was met on lower floors, causing material to eject outward.


R64226
5 years ago
Shogo

“Take the mind-boggling, superhuman skill and serendipity it would require for a couple of exacto-waving, no-talent “dumb and dumber” flight-school drop-outs (who happened to have an FBI informer as their landlord) to subdue the passengers of flight 77 – among them many able-bodied military personnel – and then fly it into the renovation wing of the Pentagon.”

Rastupid, thanks for ignoring the point I made earlier. The issue as to who was piloting the aircraft is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the question of why the towers collapsed. I certainly hope you aren’t presenting that broke-ass missile hypothesis again. That’s a real howler.

“Or take the remarkable correspondence of the hijackings [Flight 11 first deviates from its route a minute or two after Flight 175 takes off, and its transponder is switched off at the same time that Flight 77 takes off. Flight 175 first deviates from its route just as Flight 93 takes off and its transponder goes off at the same time that Flight 11 hits WTC1, which is also the time that Flight 77 first goes off course]”

Got some evidence to back up those claims fuckface?

“The simplest explanation and the only one that fits the evidence as a whole is an inside job carried out with military precision by a handful of intelligence operatives inside the government.”

A handful of operatives is insufficient to plant demolition charges undetected in three buildings, especially when two of them are as massive as the twin towers. Go back to watching movies dude, that’s about the most your brain can handle.


R64229
5 years ago
Shogo

“ an apparently young woman still very much alive—and seemingly unaware that she is clinging to a piece of nearly molten metal.”

Yo, dickhead, that’s not a piece of metal. The facade was made of steel-reinforced concrete. This is the kind of sloppy ignorance that renders you and these other shitheads totally incapable of knowing what the fuck you’re talking about.

Smoke was seen issuing from the buildings right up until their collapse, indication fires were burning. Further, we only saw the smoke that was escaping through the holes punched by the planes. It’s unknown how much other smoke was produced going up to the higher floors.


R64230
5 years ago
Rasputin

A few more words about McBeal’s Popular Mechanics hit piece. According to Bolyn:

“But who is Benjamin Chertoff, the “senior researcher” at Popular Mechanics who is behind the article? American Free Press has learned that he is none other than a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

This means that Hearst paid Benjamin Chertoff to write an article supporting the seriously flawed explanation that is based on a practically non-existent investigation of the terror event that directly led to the creation of the massive national security department his “cousin” now heads. This is exactly the kind of “journalism” one would expect to find in a dictatorship like that of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.”

And here’s some more excerpts from Hoffman’s piece “Popular Mechanics Attacks Its “9/11 LIES” Straw Man”:http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

“The Lies Are Out There”

This article has a page of Editor’s Notes, “The Lies Are Out There,” written by James Meigs, whose previous columns have praised military technology (such as the UAVs used in Fallujah). Meigs places outside of society anyone who questions the official version of events of 9/11/01:

We as a society accept the basic premise that a group of Islamist terrorists hijacked four airplanes and turned them into weapons against us. ... Sadly, the noble search for truth is now being hijacked by a growing army of conspiracy theorists.

Meigs throws a series of insults at the “conspiracy theorists,” saying they ignore the facts and engage in “elaborate, shadowy theorizing,” and concludes his diatribe by saying:

[T]hose who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attacks are libeling the truth — and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died that day.

Besides trashing the skeptics, and conflating “this country” with its corrupt leaders, Meig’s piece attempts to legitimate PM’s “investigation.” It reads:

We assembled a team of reporters and researchers, including professional fact checkers and the editors of PM, and methodically analyzed all 16 conspiracy claims.

We interviewed scores of engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses and members of the investigative teams who have held the wreckage of the attacks in their own hands. We pored over photography, maps, blueprints, aviation logs and transcripts. In every single instance, we found that the facts used by the conspiracy theorists to support their fantasies were mistaken, misunderstood, or deliberately falsified.

This sounds impressive, but the article provides no evidence to back up these claims. It provides no footnotes to source its many assertions, and despite the scores of experts listed in its final section, the article cites only a few “experts,” who would themselves likely be suspects if normal criminal justice procedures were used to investigate the crime.

Moreover, glaring errors in the article — such as the assertion that there was only a single interception in the decade before 9/11/01 — don’t inspire confidence in PM’s “professional fact checkers.” It echoes the discredited assertions of official reports such as the FEMA WTC Building Performance Study and the 9/11 Commission Report, and provides no evidence that it is anything but a well-orchestrated hit piece to perpetuate the 9/11 cover-up.

No Stand-Down Order

Here, the article falsely implies that emperors-clothes.com and StandDown.net both claim that no jets were scrambled to pursue any of the four commandeered jets. It then attacks this straw man by relating some details of the Commission’s timeline (without sourcing the Commission’s Report) to suggest that interceptors were scrambled, but that ATC couldn’t find the hijacked flights because there were too many radar blips. The article makes no mention of the many problems with NORAD’s account of the failed intercepts, but relates the following incredible assertion by NORAD public affairs officer Maj. Douglas Martin that there was a hole in NORAD’s radar coverage:

It was like a doughnut. There was no coverage in the middle.

This absurd idea that NORAD had no radar coverage over much of the continental US is distilled from the 9/11 Commission Report. Predictably, the article makes no mention of evidence that war games were planned for the day of 9/11/01. See Multiple War Games on 9/11/01 Helped to Disable Air Defense.

Intercepts Not Routine

This section quotes the following excerpt from OilEmpire.us:

It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers. When the Air Force ‘scrambles’ a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes.

It then dismisses this ‘claim’ with the following sweeping ‘fact’:

In the decade before 9/11 NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart’s Learjet, in October 1999.

This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that is one of PM’s cited experts!

From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.

It is safe to assume that a significant fraction of scrambles lead to intercepts, so the fact that there were 67 scrambles in a 9-month period before 9/11/01 suggests that there are dozens of intercepts per year. To its assertion that there was only one intercept in a decade, the article adds that “rules in effect … prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts,” and the suggestion that there were no hotlines between ATCs and NORAD.

The article mentions none of the other features of the collapses that indicate controlled demolition, such as:

· The towers fell straight down through themselves maintaining radial symmetry,
· The towers’ tops mushroomed into vast clouds of pulverized concrete and shattered steel.
· The collapses exhibited demolition squibs shooting out of the towers well below the zones of total destruction.
· The collapses generated vast dust clouds that expanded to many times the towers’ volumes — more than occurs in typical controlled demolitions.
· The towers came down suddenly and completely, at a rate only slightly slower than free fall in a vacuum. The flat top of the North Tower’s rubble cloud revealed in these photos show the rubble falling at the same speed inside and outside the former building’s profile, an impossibility unless demolition were removing the building’s structure ahead of the falling rubble.
· The explosions of the towers were characterized by intense blast waves that shattered windows in buildings 400 feet away.
· The steel skeletons were consistently shredded into short pieces which could be carried easily by the equipment used to dispose of the evidence.
· Eyewitnesses reported explosions before and at the outset of the collapses.

Roving Engine

The far-flung debris field of the Flight 93 crash site along with the eyewitness accounts make a strong case that the plane was shot down. The article takes on this issue by first citing an article on Rense.com that makes the unsubstantiated claim that “the main body of the engine … was found miles away from the main wreckage site.” It then argues that engine parts being found 300 yards from the main site is reasonable for a simple crash, because airline accident expert Michael K. Hynes, who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996, states parts could bounce that far “when you have high velocities, 500 mph or more.” This theory is at odds with the eyewitness reports that the plane plummeted almost straight down, such as the following:

· He hears two loud bangs before watching the plane take a downward turn of nearly 90 degrees.
· It makes a high-pitched, screeching sound. The plane then makes a sharp, 90-degree downward turn and crashes.
· He hears a sound that “wasn’t quite right” and looks up in the sky. “It dropped all of a sudden, like a stone.”

“9/11 MYTHS DEBUNKED”

Having slain the conspiracy theory army’s poison-spewing 16-headed dragon of 9/11 LIES — PM declares the enemy vanquished, titling its final section “9/11 MYTHS DEBUNKED.” On page 128, PM reveals its suit of armor — a list of over 70 “experts” that it found “particularly helpful.” The titles and names on this page are supposed to back the many assertions the article makes in the main section, but the article gives no indication of what experts or reports back up many of its key assertions.


R64231
5 years ago
Rasputin

Rastupid, thanks for ignoring the point I made earlier. The issue as to who was piloting the aircraft is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the question of why the towers collapsed.

Are you suggesting that the hijackings and the crashes at the WTC were unrelated? Dude, you’re insane.

A handful of operatives is insufficient to plant demolition charges undetected in three buildings

Huh?


R64237
5 years ago
Snark

God, I am so fucking intolerant of this sort of fucktarded armchair forensic crap. “I’m just a member of the general public, but I’m still informed enough to hold an opinion worth expressing when it comes to 9-11/Terri Schiavo/Jacko/Gary Webb and whatever this week’s trial or momentous event is. Furthermore I will attempt to debate it on an internet forum to the death.”

I think a few of us need to learn to respect our own fuckin’ limitations. There is not a single person here with the information or credentials to hold an opinion on this matter. Maybe Shogo’s right, maybe the rest are. Doesn’t matter. However accurate your conjectures are, none of you are informed enough to make intelligent and definitive statements about this. So quit it.


R64239
5 years ago
Joe

Not exactly ‘controlled’...

Post Modified: 03/16/06 18:03:17

R64244
5 years ago
Shogo

I at least have something of a science background from college. I feel pretty confident in my ability to recognize baseless conjecture when I see it.

Every argument put forward by the conspiracy nutters to advance their belief that it was a controlled demolition is constucted out of 100% conjecture. There is not a shred of hard evidence, nor a shred of credible argument.

Everything is based on “well, some firemen said he didn’t think the fires were that bad”, or “steel doesn’t melt that low”, or some other nonsense.

There is a simple sequence of events that explain the collapse of the towers in a causal fashion. Unfortunately, the conspiracy nutters are so devout in their religious faith that they completely lack the ability to recognize this.

It’s irksome to me because it then makes anyone asking legitimate questions about 9/11 look as dumb as they do. It makes the whole of 9/11 inquiry suspect, thanks to these morons.

On ABC’s website, there was an article about how frustrating it is for scientists to even try and debate conspiracy whackos. On the one hand, it gives their nonsense an undeserved legitimacy. On the other, it’s impossible because conspiracy nutters argue in bad faith, armed with bad “facts”, and even worse “science”.

It’s a bit like trying to argue natural selection with a fundamentalist Christian. There are so many basic principles that they won’t accept the entire exercise is one of head-banging futility.

There’s a reason the head of the structural engineering department at MIT accepts that the planes could have caused the collapse of the twin towers. It’s all spelled out in detail, for anyone with a mind open enough to accept that maybe the foil hat crowd isn’t always right.

I have no problem with the idea that the Bush admin might have known about the attack in advance. I have no problem with the idea that certain elements in our government might have let the attack happen. But the notion that buildings of those size were sekritly infiltrated to be filled with demolition charges with nobody noticing is not a reasonable assertion.


R64245
5 years ago
Rasputin

I think a few of us need to learn to respect our own fuckin’ limitations.

Speak for yourself.

There is not a single person here with the information or credentials to hold an opinion on this matter.

Bullshit. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize the reductio ad absurdum of WTC7 (or the rest of the official story), and your suggestion that people should “trust the experts” (which one?) instead of trying to understand their various arguments and come to their own conclusions is elitist and fawning.

If you’re sick of the argument, ignore it and move on.


R64254
5 years ago
nomadrock

I at least have something of a science background from college

BWAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAAHAHHAHAAAAA!!!!!!

Now you’re an amateur food critic!!!!

BBWWWAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAHHHAAAAAAHAAAAAA!!!!


R64256
5 years ago
Joe

“It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize the reductio ad absurdum of WTC7 (or the rest of the official story)”

Heh.. what is the ‘official’ story of WTC 7? As far as I can tell, the experts have so far said that they don’t really know what happened. There are theories (which are plausible, imho), but there’s hasn’t been any kind of ‘official story’. All they seem to know is that there was fire, there was damage from the collapse of the other buildings, there was fuel inside, the sprinkler system was damaged, and WTC 7’s architecture may have contributed in some way. Seems to me that the science-types are still putting all this together.

Seems like an honest enough approach – more honest than presenting speculation as fact and selectively interpreting events to fit a hypothesis.

And I’m also dumbfounded that I haven’t found a webpage that tied the ‘controlled demolition’ theory to the ‘diesel fuel explosion’ theory. It would be much easier to blow up your building by rigging the tanks to explode, instead of trying to secretly explode all of the supporting columns.

But whatever, I’m not here. :-P


R64262
5 years ago
cicero

The leaning of the entire top of the building is obviously not the result of a controlled demolition.

If the controlled demolition started on the floor that was hit by the planes it makes sense.


R64263
5 years ago
Shogo

“Now you’re an amateur food critic!!!!”

Sorry gonadcock, I get paid for my food, music, and feature writing; so, no, I’m not an amateur. But that’s still only something I do as an avocation.

My full-time job is computer programming. I get paid for my ability to think logically. I doubt very much you could say the same.

But please, feel free to type “BWAHA” with as many As and !s as you like. It only confirms that you’re an immature know-nothing fuckwad.

Post Modified: 06/16/05 09:05:24

R64264
5 years ago
Shogo

“If the controlled demolition started on the floor that was hit by the planes it makes sense.”

So now we not only have the Sekrit Skwad™ planting charges throughout a giant skyscraper with nobody noticing, but actually having the prescience to determine exactly which floors the planes would hit for each of the towers.

These are some pretty superhuman government agents! Amazing how the government is so incompetent on most everything they put their hands on, yet are able to operate with clockwork, Mamet-ian precision when the fancy strikes them.


R64266
5 years ago
emissary71

Joe – go watch the VIDEO of Silverstien saying that they ‘pulled it’. Why would he say that?

what did the conspiracy supporter’s cut some video tape together? Was someone holding a gun at Larry off camera forcing him to say it?

‘diesel fuel explosion’ theory. It would be much easier to blow up your building by rigging the tanks to explode, instead of trying to secretly explode all of the supporting columns.

Well if it was that easy I guess you could make every demolition team on the planet redundant.


R64267
5 years ago
Shogo

Silverstein says he was referring to his instructions to pull the firefighters. Are we to assume that he’s lying to force the facts to fit the hypothesis?


R64268
5 years ago
Shogo

“I guess you could make every demolition team on the planet redundant.”

If it was a demolition team, then their work was pretty sloppy and incompetent considering they missed the tops of the buildings.


R64270
5 years ago
Joe

“Joe – go watch the VIDEO of Silverstien saying that they ‘pulled it’. Why would he say that?”

The ‘pull it’ theory doesn’t fly for me. For one thing, firefighters aren’t demolition crews. And they’d probably wouldn’t like to participate in such a thing after watching other firefighters die in the collapses. And it’s completely plausible that ‘pull it’ means ‘pull out of the building’.

what did the conspiracy supporter’s cut some video tape together?”
Was someone holding a gun at Larry off camera forcing him to say it?”
Well if it was that easy I guess you could make every demolition team on the planet redundant.”

heh… fuck it. Never mind. It’s not worth the insults and effort on my part to go through all this yet again.

I’ll go back to posting pictures. Seems the root of this dispute is our differing intuition, anyways.

Do you think maybe 7 WTC was damaged in some way? It seemed to bear the brunt of the falling debris from the second collapse, along with 6 and 5…

pics deleted

Post Modified: 03/16/06 18:03:43

R64271
5 years ago
emissary71

“Silverstein says he was referring to his instructions to pull the firefighters.”

oh stop it. Go watch the video – there is no way what so ever that could be taken out of context, and you know it.

“maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it” not them, “IT”.

“Are we to assume that he’s lying to force the facts to fit the hypothesis?”

You can assume whatever you want; I’m going with motive and opportunity.

Larry said:

“I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, I said, you know we’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it. And they made that decision, ‘to pull’, and then we watched the building collapse…”


R64277
5 years ago
Shogo

“there is no way what so ever that could be taken out of context”

Oh really? You must not be familiar with the phrase “pull the plug”.

But you’re right. It’s waaaaay more likely that in front of a bunch of other people he’d order the Sekrit Skwad™ to blow up the building. What was I thinking???


R64278
5 years ago
Rasputin

Seems to me that the science-types are still putting all this together.

Seems to me that the “science types” are staying as far away from it as possible, lest they end up like this poor schmuck

Seems like an honest enough approach

I think an honest approach would be to begin with several premises, including what would appear to be most consistent with the style of collapse observed, and go from there.

[The second gif, you will notice, is a spot-on match to the collapse of WTC7, albeit a little less neat and tidy;)]

A dishonest approach, on the other hand, would be to conveniently ignore the most likely premise (or, from your angle, a possible premise) for no other reason than it conflicts with the interests of power.

more honest than presenting speculation as fact and selectively interpreting events to fit a hypothesis.

But that’s precisely what a handful of “experts” have done with respect the pancake theory. In fact, so selective were they that they had to invent a highly dubious and heretofore unobserved phenomenon known as “progressive collapse”.

Whether or not the demolition proponents have done the same thing is arguable, but I don’t agree. I think the demolition theorists are the only ones to have engaged in anything resembling an objective analysis. More importantly, their theories are able to explain phenomena that the pancake people simply can’t.

For instance (in the case of the other two towers):

·The towers fell straight down through themselves maintaining radial symmetry,
·The towers’ tops mushroomed into vast clouds of pulverized concrete and shattered steel.
·The collapses exhibited demolition squibs shooting out of the towers well below the zones of total destruction.
·The collapses generated vast dust clouds that expanded to many times the towers’ volumes—more than occurs in typical controlled demolitions.
·The towers came down suddenly and completely, at a rate only slightly slower than free fall in a vacuum. The flat top of the North Tower’s rubble cloud revealed in these photos show the rubble falling at the same speed inside and outside the former building’s profile, an impossibility unless demolition were removing the building’s structure ahead of the falling rubble.
·The explosions of the towers were characterized by intense blast waves that shattered windows in buildings 400 feet away.
·The steel skeletons were consistently shredded into short pieces which could be carried easily by the equipment used to dispose of the evidence.
·Eyewitnesses reported explosions before and at the outset of the collapses.

As for “speculation” vs “fact”, I refer you back to McBeal’s Popular Mechanics piece, which consists of the following dialogue: CLAIM...FACT.

That they seem to have fudged a lot of their speculations (er, “facts”) in no way discredits their “expert” analysis, of course.

which are plausible, imho

Well, if that’s your opinion then that’s your opinion. I’d be inclined to offer you some real estate I have on the moon, but since I like you as a person I’ll save it for McBeal and Izzy. And let me say that it’s been a pleasure arguing with someone who doesn’t feel it necessary to use the word cunt and fuckface every second line ie an adult.

Post Modified: 06/16/05 11:12:29

R64279
5 years ago
Shogo

“Ryan, whose firing may be in response”

Note the use of “may be”. More conjecture masquerading as fact.

“what would appear to be most consistent with the style of collapse observed”

The leaning top of the buidings, the huge amount of material ejected laterally, and the uneven collapse of the buildings render the collapses decidedly inconsistent with controlled demolitions.


R64281
5 years ago
Snark

“Bullshit. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize the reductio ad absurdum of WTC7 (or the rest of the official story), and your suggestion that people should “trust the experts” (which one?) instead of trying to understand their various arguments and come to their own conclusions is elitist and fawning. “

Elitist or not, deal with it. The experts know shit and you do not- you say elitist, I say realist. If you tried to tell me how microbial ecology works, I’d laugh in your face, because I’ve forgotten more ecology than you know. Likewise if I tried to tell Schneibster my opinion of string theory, or gave Fennec pointers on animal training. So yes, we don’t get an opinion and the experts do. You’re fairly used to this already, unless you have a penchant for debating which antibiotic the doctor should perscribe your for your infection, or giving your airline pilots landing tips.

Maybe you’re right and it was demolished. Maybe Shogo’s right. Maybe none of us are. But we, personally, will never, EVER, have all the information we need to make definitive statements, or the expertise to interpret that information. Going off what seems to be the best explanation, or what you think must make the most amount of sense, should not be mistaken for a complete hypothesis built off solid evidence. We can have whatever hunch we want, but let’s not have the arrogance to imagine that we can speak definitively, or that our opinions hold weight.

At one time, it seemed most reasonable and obvious to believe that the earth was the center of the universe, or that diseases were caused by demons. The idea that Earth was a planet and disease was caused by germs would have seemed absurd and retarded. Now, who knows if you’re right. What you take as reducto ad absurdum (because it seems that way) may very well be, or it may be quite correct for reasons beyond your ken.

You seem utterly ignorant of the bare fact that you are not a materials scientist, not an architect, and will never have access to all the information. Those are your- and my- limitations. So, again, learn them, instead of being so damn arrogant. Same goes for Shogo and everyone else. And as for which expert to trust, might I suggest that we go the intellectually honest route and simply remain agnostic about it, not embracing any explanation?


R64289
5 years ago
Rasputin

So yes, we don’t get an opinion and the experts do.

Sorry but that’s not the way I see things, in fact I think what you describe is a recipe for tyranny. In a democratic society where people have a basic level of education and access to information, there’s no reason why specialists can’t reduce complex theories to concepts and terms understandable to laymen, allowing regular people to make informed decisions about otherwise arcane subjects.

And that’s precisely what’s going on here, imo. I don’t pretend to be an expert but nor am I drooling idiot, and I don’t think there’s any kind of super-specialized knowledge required to understand the conflicting theories being put forth here, in particular with regards WTC7.

Going off what seems to be the best explanation, or what you think must make the most amount of sense, should not be mistaken for a complete hypothesis built off solid evidence.

I think there’s enough evidence here to built a working hypothesis; I never suggested the theory of controlled demolition was “rock-solid”; I merely have an opinion. To make a definitive judgment we would need the raw materials, which unfortunately were quickly spirited away to China, for reasons that (from my vantage point) appear obvious.

And as for which expert to trust, might I suggest that we go the intellectually honest route and simply remain agnostic about it, not embracing any explanation?

It would be intellectually _dis_honest of me to pretend I am agnostic about an issue when I am clearly not. If you don’t feel comfortable taking one side or the other that’s fine, I respect that position, however I consider one scenario more plausible than the other and therefore I’m making arguments in its favor.


R64291
5 years ago
Rasputin

Looks like our old friend erich blumrich has made a flash about the collapse of the towers.

Check out the last scene with Dan Rather, it’ll have the pancake people squirming in their seats.

WTC7


R64298
5 years ago
Shogo

“I don’t think there’s any kind of super-specialized knowledge required to understand the conflicting theories being put forth here”

The fact that you confuse theories with hypotheses should clue you in to just how wrong you are.


R64302
5 years ago
CaptainTrips

R64304
5 years ago
Rasputin

Boy you’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel aren’t you. How pathetic.

Oh and just so you don’t make the same mistake in the future: words have both connotations and denotations. Get a dictionary.

“I don’t think there’s any kind of super-specialized knowledge required to understand the conflicting theories being put forth here”

should clue you in to just how wrong you are.

I think you just shot yourself in the foot dumbass.

Anyone else wants to argue with this nitwit feel free, I’m out.


R64310
5 years ago
Shogo

Oh I’m sorry, I thought we were talkng about science…dumbass.

Obviously you don’t think specialized knowledge is necessary. You make that apparent with each unsubstantiated claim you represent as fact.

The world doesn’t operate according to “what Rasputin thinks”. There are physical laws that govern the behavior of physical objects. When an event can easily be explained by those laws it makes the kind of specious tripe you’re pimping look spectacularly uninformed.


R64311
5 years ago
Snark

“I don’t think there’s any kind of super-specialized knowledge required to understand the conflicting theories being put forth here, in particular with regards WTC7.”

I entirely disagree. It’s not just having the information; it’s having the depth of knowledge required to sift truth from bullshit. It’s only possible to “boil down” materials science so far. It’s kind of like when 50-year old creationist insurance agents try to argue evolution with me- not only do I know the facts, I know how they relate to each other, I know how to refute misconceptions, and I know how to sift out information that’s wrong or has been de-contextualized/reframed/phrased in such a way as to lead to incorrect conclusions. A very persuasive and internally coherent but selectively framed and ultimately incorrect argument regarding the materials science and architecture of WTC 7 could seem remarkably definitive to a layman, but an expert could refute it easily. Boiled-down information is incomplete, and usually devoid of the interconnection, context, and deep understanding that is usually required to pry deep into a topic. In short, it’s insufficient to make informed decisions on.

I can’t imagine how you equate that with tyrrany.

“It would be intellectually _dis_honest of me to pretend I am agnostic about an issue when I am clearly not.”

Clearly. I regard making up your mind and then judging the evidence based on your opinion to be extraordinarily poor scholarship. You already know the conclusion you want to see, and that makes it easier for you to see the evidence as supporting your prejudgement.

For someone who merely claims to have an opinion, you defend it as if it were God’s holy truth. For the record, I think you’re probably more correct than Shogo is, but I don’t pretend that’s worth much.


R64314
5 years ago
Snark

Oh, and as regards specialized knowledge, of course it’s required. Can you picture in your head how the crystal structure of steel deforms under heat? Have you ever designed a skyscraper, do you instinctively understand how weight transfers and how the forces interact with each other? Could you teach someone else about it and answer their questions?

How do you – any of you – have any confidence whatsoever that in the process of boiling down the information, someone didn’t exploit your ignorance to slip in their ulterior motive? How do you know you’re not missing some crucial part of the puzzle that would change everything?

The creationist i mentioned last post thought he had figured out once and for all how to demolish evolution- but he was utterly ignorant of a couple of key points on fossilization and genetic change that ended up coming back to demolish him.

Post Modified: 06/16/05 14:01:50

R64322
5 years ago
Butt

The leaning top of the buidings, the huge amount of material ejected laterally, and the uneven collapse of the buildings render the collapses decidedly inconsistent with controlled demolitions.

the non-demolitions-expert rears it’s ugly head


R64327
5 years ago
viaossa

One Engineer’s Failure Analysis
His Resume

An Engineering Department’s take on it

iCivilengineer.com says

-VO (authorities are cool because they’re sometimes right about stuff.)


R64328
5 years ago
revolutionary

How do you – any of you – have any confidence whatsoever that in the process of boiling down the information, someone didn’t exploit your ignorance to slip in their ulterior motive? How do you know you’re not missing some crucial part of the puzzle that would change everything?

Well, that goes both ways, Snark. Which is why it is our duty to ALWAYS question everything and never take anything at face value because an “expert” says so.


R64333
5 years ago
Snark

Hey R-
Suppose you’re right to a certain extent; a healthy degree of skepticism is always useful. Everything taken with a grain of salt and all that. But given the opinion of an expert and the opinion of a layman, I’ll take the expert every time- it’s a better bet.

In this particular case, there are enough good explanations on all sides that the only intellectually honest thing to do is wait until the dust settles and there’s a consensus. I’m not advocating any one perspective, just pointing out that at this point we’re not expert enough to throw our hat in the ring and those who are are still trying to figure it out themselves. We can have our hunches, but solidifying them into opinions and defending them to the death is probably premature and ill-advised.

Post Modified: 06/16/05 14:37:36

R64336
5 years ago
Shogo

Good finds, VO.

It’s always nice to read informed opinions from people familiar enough with a subject to offer relevant analysis grounded firmly in reality and not superstition.


R64338
5 years ago
nomadrock

I get paid for my food, music, and feature writing

Just because you get paid, doesn’t make you a professional. All it means is that someone is stupid enough to pay you for your opinions. Take advantage while it lasts.


R64348
5 years ago
TylerDurden

fennec,
thanks for making this thread worthwhile


R64354
5 years ago
Shogo

“Just because you get paid, doesn’t make you a professional.”

That’s why I said it was an avocation.

Since I get paid for my writing, I’m not an amateur:

amateur
noun a person who engages in a pursuit, esp. a sport, on an unpaid basis.
adjective engaging or engaged in without payment

You know what to do now right? It involves sticking your cock up your anus. Thanks.

*edited for fuktile

Post Modified: 06/16/05 16:37:56

R64360
5 years ago
Shogo

And more to the point, to use that to impugn any science background I have is especially ridiculous considering my profession is computer programming.

Perhaps for your next trick you could try and make some association between my teeth and what I do or don’t know about physics?

Post Modified: 06/16/05 16:54:07

R64363
5 years ago
renwald

It’s quite clear to me that if the buildings were destroyed via explosives, they would make every effort to not make it look like it, and then quickly sweep up the debris like they did, and not hold it for crime investigation at all.

So really trying to find proof of the demolition from videos and photos is pretty pointless, seeing that noone really knows what it should look like when a plane destroys not 1 but 2 towers designed to withstand the collision. Arguing about temperatures is also quite useless because noone has any readings of temp’s from inside the building, and it’s obvious Shogo+others arent going to take fire fighters eye witness accounts as gospel, nor the images of the lady standing in the gaping hole.

This is just one part of the larger picture, that is in my opinion that the US government orchestrated this attack, when you combine all the players and the games played in shitty half-assed investigations and dubious ‘experts’ telling me what I should be thinking. Will be interesting to see how long it takes for any details to emerge.


R64371
5 years ago
Snark

“designed to withstand the collision.”

I see your point, but I’ll nitpick anyway. They’d been designed to withstand the impact from a 707, not 767’s.


R64375
5 years ago
Continuity

Joe, thanks for all the photos.

You brought up something interesting. If destroyed by controlled demolition, the buildings don’t seem to collapse in a perfectly controlled way, do they?

I agree. Since I’m not all emotional about this thread and not afraid of open debate, I’ll just add this. If there was a demolition, the point would be first and foremost to take the building down reasonably in and around its footprint. A downward, implosive collapse is #1 priority. Second, there’s no need to plant demolition charges in every square inch of the building, as the expert Romero explained. Just plant enough along several floors of strategic core columns to guarantee a somewhat neat collapse. Third, let gravity take over. It does most of the work. Material “ejecta” will spew out, sure. But once the top of the buildings are directed to have enough downward momentum, they will still fall on their footprints.

The real resistance we see when the towers collapse occurs possibly because of this: falling floors and core pieces impact & compact with uncompromised floors and core pieces.

There’s hardly any resistance when the towers first collapse. Like I said earlier, the cores just give out and descend in near freefall.


R64378
5 years ago
Continuity

Renwald: Arguing about temperatures is also quite useless because noone has any readings of temp’s from inside the building

Yes that is problematic. I won’t tell you the exact temperatures either. But we do have some real evidence.

#1 Fire specialists note from the smoke that the fires in the buildings were oxygen-starved. Other skyscrapers beset by far worse fires had more oxygen

#2 The fires were dying

#3 Firemen smelled lots of kerosene, meaning an unknown amount of fuel had not ignited. It takes certain temperatures and conditions for it to ignite.

#4 The fire in WTC1 was also fuel-rich, apparently with a lot of fuel not burning.

#5 The fire in WTC2 was less powerful because we visibly saw most of the fuel blow up.

#6 Firemen went high in the towers through the cores of the buildings. They were not scorched by infernos. “Natural collapse” theorists claim that kerosene ‘must have’ spilled into the core and down inside the building. The Firemen who climbed high reported no such occurrence. I don’t believe any claim was made by the firemen, either, of feeling the core concrete walls really hot to the touch, or cracked apart by heavy thermal exposure.

#7 Fires in other buildings — fires which lasted longer and were presumed to be just as hot or hotter than the WTC fires — did not weaken steel supports to the point of collapse. The steel girders sagged over time to adjust their concrete loads well. They didn’t sag and cause collapse.

I hope someone calls me a vagina face, and then gives a speech about why I shouldn’t mention these realistic items.

Post Modified: 06/16/05 19:14:40

R64382
5 years ago
Snark

I have a coupla questions:

1. It takes a shitload of time, planning, and labor to wire a building to implode. When was this done? It’s not like you can just sneak some dudes in and do it overnight.

2. If they were wired to be demolished, is there any alternative reason why they might have been demolished other than nefarious motives?

3. “·The towers’ tops mushroomed into vast clouds of pulverized concrete and shattered steel”. I have never seen this in any controlled demolition. Most of them are neat and clean, with no mushrooming.

ON THE OTHER HAND:

4. I have seen survivor’s interviews. They reported that there was NO sound whatsoever from the towers immediately before the fall. Failing structural steel creaks and screams very loudly. It would have been very audible. Why not?

5. Is it possible that the towers were “helped”? That it wasn’t a fully controlled demo, but a few charges here and there that created an extremely messy and chaotic collapse that helped complete the work of the planes?

All I’m trying to illustrate here is that we can sit here for days asking endless good questions and get nowhere.


R64386
5 years ago
Continuity

Snark, nice to see you.

For me, my opinion is not set. I’m hungry to read all sides. However, the notion of controlled demolition has gained respectable status for logical reasons. I’ll try hard to keep to those reasons and questions. I’m not building my argument around some fiercely-held opinion. I really believe a number of questions have not been suitably answered regarding the collapses.

While expert opinion frequently takes priority over that of the layman’s, I myself won’t engage in the fallacy of authority . For instance, if NIST or FEMA or Eager or some Pentagon subcommittee says they have the absolute truth, I won’t bow at their feet while other suppressed experts say otherwise and while inconsistencies anyone can perceive still exist.

I’ve caught experts lying before, or full of biased opinions, or just guessing like anyone else. I’ve seen a few misled, embarassed, even furiously defensive. I’m sure many people here have. Not common, but it sure as shit happens. They’re human.

Besides, why does this little forum investigation have to get so ugly? If you really think the official story of collapse (which tends to change) is correct, then just chuckle and merely post data…


R64388
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Shogo said:
1. “I have no problem with the idea that the Bush admin might have known about the attack in advance. I have no problem with the idea that certain elements in our government might have let the attack happen.” So we’re basically just arguing about technicalities – we’re all agreed there are crooks in office.

2. “The leaning of the entire top of the building is obviously not the result of a controlled demolition.” That leaning also makes the pancake theory suspect which requires evenly distributed downward pressure. Most explanations of the pancake theory also ignore the presence of the core columns that were apparently pulverized and free-fell along with the pancaking floors.

3. Well, I can’t find the quote about Occam’s Razor, but it was something to the effect that too many people would have to know and conspire and that was unlikely. However, mob families have that type of controlled infrastructure, I don’t see any indication that this government and some of the corporations associated with it aren’t part of a very large-scale mafia.

4. “Dumbass” “Fuckface” “shit for brains” “immature know-nothing fuckwad” – you can’t call me any of those things, I’m a girl.


R64389
5 years ago
revolutionary

we can sit here for days asking endless good questions and get nowhere.

Maybe. Or maybe, by asking questions that have not been adequately answered, if at all, by the appropriate “authorities”, and by sharing information and exchanging opinions, in a respectful manner, maybe we could actually find some answers…I wish there were dozens, hundreds, thousands of Rasputin- and Contingency-like minds out there. Thanks for your work, guys.

Post Modified: 06/16/05 20:07:52

R64390
5 years ago
Continuity

Snark, you are asking good questions. I’ll try to address calmly, as you asked calmly, so the calmness spreads to all posters…

1. It takes a shitload of time, planning, and labor to wire a building to implode. When was this done? It’s not like you can just sneak some dudes in and do it overnight.

This is a very important question. A potential time for the WTC buildings to be set for demolition could be explained by this under-reported event:

The unprecented maintenance POWERDOWN of the WTC buildings on the weekend before Tuesday Sept 11 2001
Another link
Another
Yet Another

Also, Marvin Bush’s company, Securocom , was in charge of major amounts of security for the WTC complex. Does anyone find that odd? Or is it just something else to be glossed over in the Coincidence Theory files?

According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company Securocom had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center “up to the day the buildings fell down.”

An interesting coincidence to add to the overall Co-inky-dink Theory.

2. If they were wired to be demolished, is there any alternative reason why they might have been demolished other than nefarious motives?

Have no idea whatsoever as to that.

3. ”·The towers’ tops mushroomed into vast clouds of pulverized concrete and shattered steel”. I have never seen this in any controlled demolition. Most of them are neat and clean, with no mushrooming.

See my post above in a reply to Joe. My visual observation is that, if demolished, the building was not all wired. For WTC1, it just came down fairly neat and fast until it struck intense resistance, thus sending out gobs more ejecta.


R64391
5 years ago
Snark

I think that’s a worthy goal, rita, as long as we’re all approaching it in that spirit, and not bludgeoning everyone else over the head with the conclusions we’ve already drawn and the evidence we’ve crafted to reflect them. This is a topic that demands open minds, humility, and skeptical attitudes, and I’m glad the conversation seems to be reflecting that more now.

Post Modified: 06/16/05 20:15:26


R64400
5 years ago
whateveryousay

CDI talks a bit about what they do:

Public Relations Events

CDI coordinates implosion operations with government municipalities and private sector owners who wish to make the most of public relations opportunities arising out of CDI’s dramatic implosion operations. A few of the events choreographed by CDI are Grand Opening of Treasure Island Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada; Independence Day Celebration in Skruknda, Lativa; New Year’s Eve Celebration at the Holiday Inn in West Palm Beach, Florida; and the National Disarmament Celebration in Budapest, Hungary.

Motion Pictures

CDI has worked with Hollywood for thirty years to develop the proprietary Structural Effects technique which achieves the realism necessary to produce a “blockbuster” film. CDI started by offering films taken by CDI of the response of structures to the sequences and preparation formats introduced by CDI to produce in major motion pictures.

Department of Justice

Professionalism, integrity and security are critical to Department of Justice investigations. Controlled Demolition Incorporated (CDI) has the appropriate clearances and internal controls to support federal agencies involved in domestic or foreign investigations which involve the gathering of criminal evidence critical to our precepts of due process. The Loizeaux Group’s controlled, professional services and unmatched communication skills can support critical operations under tenuous circumstances.

source

Post Modified: 06/16/05 21:29:04

R64406
5 years ago
renwald

I’m not sure whether most have seen this already, but Mike Ruppert posted a comment in regards to Reynolds statements here.

Just out of interest has anyone read Crossing the Rubicon? I have been unable to find it in Australian Book Stores.


R64408
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Rubicon kicks butt! Great big heavy tome of good reading – the kind of thing that is much too complicated to quote or get any of your non-believing friends to read, so he’s preaching to the choir. But great, even if by now you probably have read most of his points on GNN.


R64419
5 years ago
nomadrock

Since I get paid for my writing, I’m not an amateur

I think this definition of amateur fits you pretty well

“One lacking the skill of a professional, as in an art.”


R64420
5 years ago
zark

hmm

Post Modified: 06/17/05 00:02:53

R64421
5 years ago
zark

shogo :-

Firefighters claiming to have heard bombs impresses me not at all. Their training is in firefighting, not audio explosives detection

you little shit… get some fucking respect. you obviously arent a working, blue collar guy. you are probably the type of pompous office worker who thinks all workers in industry and public services are retards, thick and uneducated.

tell you what, you spend a year or 2 working in those kinds of jobs and you will see the world in a new light…
not the ‘oh gosh, my boss’ are wonderful and everything they say and do is perfect’.

Post Modified: 06/17/05 00:09:59

R64424
5 years ago
zark

as you can see from the picture posted by joe.. page one.. the upper part is held together.. the floors are connected to something>>>> central columns

pancake theory based on there being no central columns

we know there ‘were’ columns there so;

the official report eiither ommits the fact of central columns because

1. they wanted to support a ‘pancake theory’ and the columns would have fucked that up

or

2. the columns were not there when the floors began collapsing

these guys dont lie. they just manipulate the facts, ommit details and spin

Post Modified: 06/17/05 00:03:37

R64425
5 years ago
renwald

Chickenma the reason I ask is because in Ruppertt’s statement he claims that rubicon has all the unchallenged facts. Are they that long winded that they can only be presented in a book. I respect the man for his desire to share his information, and truely can’t see a motive behind any of his work, except maybe to get his books sold. You say I may have already seen most of his points on GNN, but GNN to me is a place for discussion and hearing about non mainstream news, not common to find solid facts here, mostly conjecture.

Have you finished reading it? I’ll pay for postage both ways if you still have a mailbox ;)


R64426
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Thanks Zark. I don’t remember where I first heard of the pancake theory, I think on Frontline, and the diagrams I remember didn’t have the center columns- jeez, it almost seemed plausible. I was quite surprised to learn later that there were massive center columns.


R64440
5 years ago
sisyphus

just remember – popsicle sticks

who is winning anyway?


R64449
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Renwald, I borrowed it and returned it. The main thing I learned which I hadn’t known was about the wargames, but by now that’s been out there awhile. It puts it all together in a way that is very compelling, more than conjecture. It’s all facts, but draws conclusions that are logical but not necessarily fact.


R64454
5 years ago
TylerDurden

“pancake theory based on there being no central columns”

at least make an effort to fully understand the theory you are refuting.


R64455
5 years ago
lday

Shogo: “All these conspiracy theories do is poison the well for legitimate inquiries about the events of 9/11 and why they were allowed to happen. Now anybody questioning the party line about why the hijackings took place is painted with the wacko fringe brush…”

Ahem, first off there was obviously a conspiracy in play on 9/11. Accepting the gov’t‘s version still leaves you believing in a conspiracy theory.

Secondly, what hard evidence do you have that hijackings took place? Were the supposed hijackers on the passenger lists? No. Were they in the autopsy report?
No. Are there ordinary security camera photos of them boarding? No.

So, since you have no jury-ready evidence that hijackings took place, speculation as to why the hijackings took place is just more propaganda to support an assumption based entirely on speculation.

However, Shogo, you get full marks for obedience. G.W.Bush said that we must not tolerate any “outrageous conspiracy theories” and you follow your instructions completely, you potty-mouthed poopy-pants degenerate nazi clown.


R64461
5 years ago
tingbudong

Some posters question the purpose and credibility of non-experts discussing this topic. I think one of the important points that’s been made is that the government prevented an honest public analysis of these events by experts.

I also think it’s important to consider what foreigners are going to think about the mounting evidence of controlled demolition of the WTC. Even if you take into account all the Americans who need to and will always believe in their leaders and country, there are a lot more people who are going to eventually interpret the actions of the government and media as a reason for never trusting America in the future. This in itself is a reason why a more open inquiry should have occurred.

Whatever your opinion is about what happened, I can’t see how anybody could not recognize that America’s credibility will be weakened in the long run by the way the investigation was handled.


R64467
5 years ago
tingbudong

The idea that some entity associated the U.S. government might have been involved in the WTC attack is nauseatingly depressing. Theories about the white house allowing a terror attack to occur are bad enough. We know they had many warnings about it despite Condi’s protests that it was unimaginable.

Someone could argue that a public questioning of the administration’s competency would only have weakened the nation four years ago. I would say that only weak minded sheep would not want to hear from all points of view at this time. I don’t know what to make of some of the arguments that have been presented, but I appreciate you guys posting them.


R64469
5 years ago
Shogo

“get some fucking respect. you obviously arent a working, blue collar guy.”

Respect for blue collar workers doesn’t automagically convert them into demolitions experts. Would you know an explosion by sound? I don’t think that I would. How would you know the difference between collapsing steel and an explosion?

Unless firefighters are trained in demolitions, then I wouldn’t cling tightly to one of them claiming they heard explosions.

“you are probably the type of pompous office worker who thinks all workers in industry and public services are retards, thick and uneducated.”

I don’t think that, no. But on the other hand, I also have some respect (which you appear to lack) for people who are educated and devote their lives to understanding a topic like engineering. To insist that an uneducated blue collar workers opinion about something carries equal weight as someone who has studied engineering all their lives is stupid.

“ ‘oh gosh, my boss’ are wonderful and everything they say and do is perfect’.”

Just goes to show, you don’t know jack shit about me.

“pancake theory based on there being no central columns”

It’s so difficult to debate people who aren’t even capable of grapsing shit that’s right in front of them and written clearly.

The pancaking described is not claimed to have happened on ALL FLOORS. And it doesn’t require the central columns to be gone.

All that is required is that a sufficient quantity of central support columns be damaged, compromising their load-bearing capacity. The top floors, above the damaged columns, collapse downward onto the lower floors. The structure of the building, not designed to handle that much weight suddenly dropping down on top of it, fails.

Maybe, zark, if you got some of that education you’re so hostile to, you wouldn’t sound like such a goddamned moron.

Post Modified: 06/17/05 06:29:14

R64476
5 years ago
IsraelForever2

Snark : “Suppose you’re right to a certain extent; a healthy degree of skepticism is always useful. Everything taken with a grain of salt and all that. But given the opinion of an expert and the opinion of a layman, I’ll take the expert every time- it’s a better bet. “

Are we talking being right about conclusions, or are we talking about accurately describing the complex natural forces. If we are talking conclusions here, it makes no sense to line up two people, one smarter than the other, and just believe the smarter one. You could easily find a smart structural engineer who is a nut, who thinks that the WTC was brought down by a controlled demolition and a high school drop out who believes the correct conclusion about the hijacked planes. Who is smarter and who should you listen to?

The answer is neither. What you should lean towards is the consensus of the leading experts who you believe to be free of corruption and nefarious influence, IOW, people with integrity.

Being educated doesn’t make you right. It gives you the tools to follow a more sound roadmap to establishing the truth. Truths, which are the outcomes of the scientific process, can be believed or disbelieved by people on a whim. Being educated helps you build a more sound methodology which is the means to find truths. None of this guarantees that that you are always correct.

In the case of the WTC, we don’t need the minutia of the science. The weight of the science confirms the obvious, yet offers a few anomalies for the conspiracy nuts to go off on. Rather it is obvious from the more wider process of mankind.

The US government can’t/won’t/has no process in place to/would not consider/wouldn’t know where to begin/would be morally prevented from/ and just generally the whole implication is outside the realm of the possible. It is more likely that President Bush is an alien from Alpha Centauri commanded by robots back home using signals that exceed the speed of light, than they are doing anything remotely close to what is being suggested. My advantage over these nutcases, is that I know that, they don’t. So even before we bring one scientist in, I know I am right just by my understanding of mankind.


R64477
5 years ago
lday

For about a year after being released Crossing the Rubicon was unavailable in Canadian bookstores. Meanwhile it was 5th on Amazon’s nonfiction sales. When it finally arrived you had to give a mailing address to get it sent; a clear case of sabotage by the distributers.

In some ways it was very good, especially on the wargames angle. Since there was a mock hijacking exercise in play certain anomalies can be explained like the regular flight 77 not being scheduled on 9/11 and its pilots not having FAA licenses.
Ruppert avoids speculation wherever possible but to me it makes sense that the vigilent warriors were supposed to be acting suspiciously to see if they were reported, e.g. Moussaoui wanting to learn to steer the plane but not take-off or land, or suspicious Arabs from the watch list buying online plane tickets. A testing of vigilence. If the powers that be were ignoring all the warnings, one explanation is that they were circulating the rumours themselves to see if they would be reported.

The weakest part of the book imo is the motivation angle. Yes definitely Cheney and the oil companies wanted oil and the “new Pearl Harbour” of the PNACsters
was a cassus belli to manufacture consent, but there were some smaller motivations involved. One was the Pentagon books: they were out by $2.3 trillion dollars according to Rumsfeld on 9/10. The next day the army budget offices blew up. That was convenient for Tom White, the ex-Enron Army Secretary, and the DoD comptroller Dov Zackheim. Evidence in New York regarding big money scams involving Yukos money-laundering, rigging the gold market, Iran-Kazakstan oil swaps etc was very conveniently destroyed as well.

Another big money issue regarded the court-ordered removal of the asbestos from the twin towers. There was a decade of litigation with the insurance company over whether it was covered. In early 2001 the courts let the insurance co’s off the hook.
Done in an environmentally proper manner the cost of removing the asbestos was greater than the original cost of the buildings themselves.

Which brings up snark’s 2nd question:
“2. If they were wired to be demolished, is there any alternative reason why they might have been demolished other than nefarious motives?”

Although now covered by non-disclosure agreements as I recall at least one engineer has said he worked on demolition planning and cost estimates. Unfortunately to properly demolish the buildings without freeing the asbestos dust would have required building gigantic sheathes around the entire structure which was rather prohibitive cost-wise. However it does provide for a ‘non-nefarious’ opportunity to lay the charges with the best of intentions.

Another opportunity would have been after the first bombing of the WTC in 1993 where the idea was that the one tower would fall into the other creating a domino effect destroying not just the towers but whole blocks of lower Manhatten that they fell on. To defend against that scenario the charges might have been set so that in the event of another bombing the buildings could be evacuated and the demolition occur such that the debris fell in its own footprint. Again non-nefarious, simply limiting the damage.

The 1993 security investigation, blueprint and structural integrity analysis were all handled by a contract with Tridata, a subsidiary of Systems Planning Corporation. If they advised placing cutter charges the SPC could handle that easily. Before becoming Governor GW Bush’s foreign policy advisor Zakheim was a vice-president at SPC. After being appointed DoD comptroller (CFO) he leased a lot of Boeings to have retrofitted in Florida.

In his summation for the jury, as Ruppert addresses his readers, he discusses drone technology and remote control, two other areas in which the SPC is at the
cutting edge. As a private company it is immune from congressional oversight and pesky freedom-of-information requests. However Ruppert considers that Flights 11 and 175 were real planes. He also offers the possibility that the ‘real’ flight 77 landed at Cleveland airport or flight 93 or both. Something mysterious went on there on 9/11. It shut down at 10 AM and was evacuated. Plane substitution or amalgamating the non-insider passengers onto flight 93 are possibile explanations.

All in all it is a very good book, worth the money especially if you order it from FTW.
Also you have to give Ruppert credit for admitting places where his first intuitions had been wrong at the time. One of those was the tower’s demolition theory of which he was initially skeptical.

We may not be experts but the engineers in the 6th (7th?) sub-basement certainly were and they witnessed the post bombing situation in the two destroyed floors above them. And the fellow from the underwriter’s laboratory is certainly an expert on distinguishing arson from accident. As I recall the demolition expert on 9/11 said
that a basement bombing would be essential for a controlled demolition.


R64478
5 years ago
IsraelForever2

“What do you believe shogo? that the magical group of not all dead strip club loving terrorists armed with box cutters and a handful of training hours on a cessna aircraft managed to precisely target buildings from hundreds of km’s away. For the sole purpose of scaring the US into what? raiding the Middle East for oil and power?
Why don’t you tell us what happened smarty pants and i’ll test it out on my gaydar.”

No, they did it to obey Osama. That is what the evidence shows.


R64485
5 years ago
zark

All that is required is that a sufficient quantity of central support columns be damaged, compromising their load-bearing capacity. The top floors, above the damaged columns, collapse downward onto the lower floors. The structure of the building, not designed to handle that much weight suddenly dropping down on top of it, fails

excellent! and with the resistance of each floor below, we will find that the collapse takes 30 seconds… ummm no wait… how long it the collapse take from first floor failing to the end of collapse?

10 seconds?

hmmm

Firefighters claiming to have heard bombs impresses me not at all. Their training is in firefighting, not audio explosives detection

you are an ignorant sod, who refutes eye witness accounts because they are just firefighters

so you will also discount BBC reporters, CNN reporters, other eye witnesses.. all stating they heard explosions at the same time as each other.

or how about William Rodriguez who states that there was an explosion in the basement of WTC, then there was a boom as the plane hit.

just dismiss them all Shogo, claim elitism over them. they are just ‘workers’ and cant be used as eyewitness’s to explosions.

now.. run along to your nazi rally shogo and claim that high culture is better than all others.


R64489
5 years ago
Shogo

“ with the resistance of each floor below”

You’ve already said more than once you have no expertise in science. Please don’t throw around words like resistance when you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

“eye witness accounts”

Don’t you actually mean, “ear witness” accounts?


R64493
5 years ago
zark

Don’t you actually mean, “ear witness” accounts

hush now

You’ve already said more than once you have no expertise in science

heh, you’re a real knob cheese


R64496
5 years ago
Joe

You guys aw weiwd.


R64497
5 years ago
Shogo

“you’re a real knob cheese”

Oh you limeys, with your colorful slang.

Sounds like you need a swift kick in the cobblers.


R64501
5 years ago
Shogo

“He also offers the possibility that the ‘real’ flight 77 landed at Cleveland airport or flight 93 or both.”

So all the people who died on those planes, were they shot in the head, or what?

How are the boys, Florence?


R64512
5 years ago
Snark

Hmm. Shogo’s point is kind of interesting, really. Would an untrained ear be able to distinguish a demolition charge from a snapping structural member, or an exploding gas line, or a falling chunk of concrete? I mean, I’ve been in a burning building, and there’s a lot of shit going bang and boom.

I don’t know what the answer to that is. Maybe a firefighter has been inside enough burning shit to recognize a strange bang that he’s never heard before. I’d buy that. On the other hand, would someone without a lot (if any) experience with the sounds of explosives be able to correctly distinguish a TNT explosion from other noise of a burning and failing building?

I’m not going to refuse the testimony because they’re “just firefighters”, not at all. I doubt that was Shogo’s intention either. I respect the hell out of firefighters, but I think the question of whether or not what they heard were really demolition charges is very much open.


R64514
5 years ago
Shogo

“I doubt that was Shogo’s intention either.”

Of course not. I’d say the same thing if it was a police officer, an attorney, or a business executive.


R64515
5 years ago
viaossa

At this point, I must note an interesting discrepancy.

Ear-witness testimony is sufficient to support the “demolition charge” theory… but eye witness testimony is insufficient to support the “Jet Plane flew into the pentagon” theory.

People are so awesome.

-VO


R64518
5 years ago
Shogo

Well you see, it’s really quite simple.

If Dungeons & Dragons had a “Conspiracy Nutter” class, it would require the addition of a Selective Perception trait to the already established Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, and Dexterity scores. Only players that roll 15+ may qualify as Conspiracy Nutters.


R64574
5 years ago
zark

Of course not. I’d say the same thing if it was a police officer, an attorney, or a business executive

i appreciate what you are saying..

yet you support the official theory.. which has no proof wat-so-ever

i shout “there needs to be a full independant investigation of all the events leading up to, the events on 9/11/01 and the after events”

its that simple for me


R64577
5 years ago
viaossa

zark writes: which has no proof wat-so-ever

Proofs may be found in mathematics… But in science, there are theories, hypotheses, and supporting evidence.

The evidence to support the official story, whether one chooses to believe that or not, is substantially better than that used to support the theory that demolition charges were used.

Evidence such as film footage, photographs, and eyewitness testimony showing the jet planes flying into the buildings tends (for the rational mind) to support the hypothesis that “airplane make building fall down go boom.”

Evidence such as fragments from the aircraft involved also supports this theory.

What we don’t have is:

+physical evidence of explosives

+A reasonable explanation of how such explosives would be installed in the building(s).

+Film footage showing controlled demolition of the exterior support columns or any other part of the building

+A plausible explanation for the necessity to use explosives by any agency

+Damage to support columns or other debris characteristic of the use of explosives

+Any reason, at all, to believe explosives were used – other than the opinions and conjecture of those who were surprised that an event whose like has never, in the recorded history of humankind, happened before… happened in a way that seems fishy to them. Which, I’m sorry to say, is not evidence.

-VO


R64578
5 years ago
renwald

“He also offers the possibility that the ‘real’ flight 77 landed at Cleveland airport or flight 93 or both.”

So all the people who died on those planes, were they shot in the head, or what?
———-
Who knows? all we got was a picture of a long black stain in an open field. Thanks to the heroism of some random that said he was going to charge the terrorists, and precipitated the crash and saved the plane from flying into the White House was it?. Maybe they are on holidays in the bahamas for the rest of their natural lives, kicking it with Osama at the Club Fed jacuzi. How can you be so sure the official story is true? Iraq didn’t have WMD’s, terrorists, or ‘freedom’ till the US got there.

Izzy: “No, they did it to obey Osama. That is what the evidence shows.”
———-
you are like the little boy scout, maybe you should go to the little kiddies threads that you create daily.

Shogo all i’m going to say to you is this, I know alot of computer programmers and most of them think they know more than everyone else. You seem to take pleasure in calling people conspiracy theorists, and laughing at people for being so gullable. But all i’m after is the truth, and unfortunately you have to wade through waste deep bullshit and speculation to get there, what about the people still believing the spin like Izzy.. and 45+% of the US population, where is your contempt for them? Far from providing an open forum of discussion, it has degraded in stages to name calling, hope it was your objective.


R64581
5 years ago
Shogo

“Maybe they are on holidays in the bahamas for the rest of their natural lives, kicking it with Osama at the Club Fed jacuzi.”

I was going to suggest that perhaps they had taken up residency in your lower colon, next to your head.

“I know alot of computer programmers and most of them think they know more than everyone else.”

That’s because we do. It’s a trait we share with network and systems engineers.

“what about the people still believing the spin like Izzy.. and 45+% of the US population, where is your contempt for them?”

Oh I have plenty of contempt for them. But they don’t really visit this website, and the websites they do visit are really quick to ban dissenters.

I was discussing this very thing with viaossa the other day. I don’t know why it is that I’m so irked by people promoting the preposterous demolition conspiracy, but via suggested that perhaps it’s because of being human. i.e. I’m human, and I think this is a load of bollocks – so why do these other humans think it’s so vaild?

But then I remind myself that most people simply don’t have enough of an education in science to be able to discern when someone is doing the shuck-and-jive. It’s the same reason con-artists are able to sell colloidial silver.


R64585
5 years ago
whateveryousay

the world of the “unthinkable”... a favourite network news term.

there’s no evidence for the 19 hijackers story.
we don’t know who did it. no one’s been charged or prosecuted in absentia or in person. (at least as far as i’ve seen)

whoever did it, the motive seems to me to have been to start a war on/of terrorism.

i think that it’s perfectly fine to speculate that something other than jet planes brought the buildings down. maybe osama managed to get giant basement bombs trucked in and coupled to the supports. maybe he knew that wargames were planned for the day, inside info. lets face it, the mighty u.s. military were caught with their pants down, no?

we don’t know who did it and we don’t know the specifics. sure, some guy eventually claimed responsibility, years later, on a video tape… but anyone could make a video tape.

seems that people are just going to blame their favourite enemies. there isn’t really any evidence to support or refute much of the speculation out there and that could very well be by design. when no one knows who the terrorists are you just end up with a far more frightening spectre which cannot be seen. people can go around pointing the finger at each other whilst the real villain slips past.

i’m just assuming that it was a group with a lot of money and resources and power. any number of public personalities or lowly grunts could be involved but me thinks they would be just on the take and in the dark.


R64588
5 years ago
Continuity

Viaossa: What we don’t have is:

physical evidence of explosives

It has been established that the cores of the buildings held up the vast majority of the weight. Therefore, whatever brought the buildings down did lethal damage to the cores. Any controlled demolition would focus more or less exclusively on the cores.

These cores were obviously hidden from view. The ‘natural collapse’ theorists claim to know what happened inside, without actually seeing or being able to produce secondary proofs. They have no physical evidence of a natural collapse, just as they accuse the demolition theorists of having no proof. Instead, the ‘natural collapsers’ have notions based on scenarios & numbers of their choosing. For instance, Eager claims to know the approximate temperature of the WTC fires (1300 F), his conclusion framed within the strict premise of a natural collapse. This horrid inferno, he presumes, was out of sight, boiling in the oxygen-starved middle of the building. No evidence, just presumption after punching numbers in a calculator.

A reasonable explanation of how such explosives would be installed in the building(s).

It has already been explained that, for some time, Marvin Bush ran the security company which oversaw the WTC complex. It has already been explained that the WTC underwent an unprecented powerdown, the first time in its 30-whatever-year history, on the weekend before Sept 11. As demolition expert Romero remarked, it would not require truckloads of explosives—-but rather, the right explosives placed at the most strategic areas.

So there’s 1 potential scenario. Workmen going in and out, with free rein, for 36 hours, many of the vid cameras off.

Film footage showing controlled demolition of the exterior support columns or any other part of the building

It has already been explained that the exterior and external floors of the WTC buildings were of no great concern in keeping the towers aloft. The demolition of any external support columns would not be required.

A plausible explanation for the necessity to use explosives by any agency

It has already been explained that the construction manager for the WTC buildings, a highly relevant expert wtiness, said that the building could take a direct hit by a fully fueled/loaded jumbo jet. He was referring to the largest of the day, a 707, which is of equal or larger size than a 767.

In fact, his full quote mentioned that the WTC could receive multiple hits from jumbo jets, and still stand for a noteworthy amount of time. He is one major source of information. Others have been mentioned, or will be if this thread continues.

Damage to support columns or other debris characteristic of the use of explosives

This is a ridiclous statement because you know that the people you are defending hauled away all the evidence. That is a huge crime in itself. You selectively tiptoe around this blatant controversy as well. All part of your sudden, unquestioning love for authority which you eloquently revealed a few posts back?

However, there’s obvious and widespread interest regarding the WTC’s hard concrete components—-such an alarming amount of concrete slab was converted into fine dust before even striking the Earth. That’s weird…

Any reason, at all, to believe explosives were used – other than the opinions and conjecture of those who were surprised that an event whose like has never, in the recorded history of humankind, happened before

So you express not the slightest amount of curiosity when you learn that never, ever in history have not 1 but 3 skyscrapers burned to the point of total collapse all in one day? To use your own words against you, such an event like this has never occurred in recorded human history….

Sept 11 seemed to set many precedents indeed…

Post Modified: 06/17/05 18:30:11

R64609
5 years ago
viaossa

Continuity writes: It has been established that

We still have no physical evidence of explosives, nor do we have photographic evidence of explosive detonations. You are not presenting evidence. You are presenting conjecture and calling it evidence.

So there’s 1 potential scenario.

I disagree, only insofar as you refuse to use the phrase “but astronomically unlikely”. Such a scenario stretches any reasonable person’s ability to suspend disbelief. It is not even likely enough to make it into a Jerry Bruckheimer film.

Furthermore, this notion that these buildings could be brought down with a couple of “strategically” placed charges obviates the need for them in the first place. If they could be brought down in such a manner, they could also be brought down with similar ease through the judicious use of flying massive fuel tanks which, unlike the alleged explosives, we have ample footage of from every possible photographic angle.

This is a ridiclous statement because you know that the people you are defending hauled away all the evidence.

It is not a ridiculous statement. It’s a statement of fact regardless of what allegedly happened to the evidence. Whether the evidence was hauled to Freshkills in black helicopters, or spirited away by magic elves, the fact remains that we have no evidence of any structural damage due to explosive charges. We have plenty of pieces of aircraft, however.

Additionally, your accusation that I am defending anything other than my right to consider all potential explanations and reject the ones I consider to be ridiculous is not only inaccurate, but indicative of the same “with us or against us” false dichotomy that makes it so easy for any reasonable person to be “against” you.

All part of your sudden, unquestioning love for authority which you eloquently revealed a few posts back?

I have never been one to champion the cause of slavish devotion to authority. However, when asked to decide between the analysis of those with education, expertise, and evidence on their side… and an analysis made by those with not even two out of the aforementioned three? I tend to err on the side that has statistically proven to be more accurate. Even if the cost of that decision is a predictably dimwitted accusation of having an “unquestioning love for authority” on the part of some peanut gallery member who can’t make their story work.

To use your own words against you, such an event like this has never occurred in recorded human history….

Yes. And an intelligent person would understand that the implication here is one cannot make assumptions about what is “reasonable” to expect, and what is not. Not without a good deal of study and analysis. Which is why the repetitious claim that it is “unreasonable” that the WTC collapsed in X number of seconds, or collapsed at all without the involvement of explosives is, unfortunately, not a very educated one. This has not stopped others from making invalid comparisons between the behavior of the WTC collapse, and other totally unrelated architectural failures that did not involve buildings of the WTC’s size, construction, or airliners, however.

-VO

Post Modified: 06/17/05 23:12:39

R64613
5 years ago
Shogo

“As demolition expert Romero”

Just wanted to point out that Van Romero has repeatedly stated that he does not believe the WTC was a controlled demolition.


R64615
5 years ago
lday

V: “I have never been one
to champion
the cause
of slavish devotion
to authority.”

Uh, I seem to recall a thread back in the GNN1 conspiracy forum where you stated that you were prepared to believe anything for which there was concrete evidence.

When I pointed out that the prime suspect ‘authorities’ were in charge of what concrete evidence was publicly available you never answered.

Steel crystalized? Melted? Looking like Swiss cheese? Burning for monthes?
Absconded, criminally recycled on the other side of the planet,
the evidence is absent.

Your conspiracy theory is more easily trashed than mine.


R64618
5 years ago
Nalak

So I’ve done no research on this but it seems to me that if these firefighters saw the bottom of the supposed raging inferno that was taking place above them they might have complained about the temeratures they were experiencing. shrugs


R64619
5 years ago
Nalak

Any idiot can see that you get paid to be here Shogo.

Post Modified: 06/18/05 02:52:18

R64623
5 years ago
Continuity

Viaossa , I’m trying to sift through your last post to get at the meat. There’s a lot of wordplay and weird thinking (such as, who cares if they took away the evidence, Continuity? That’s irrelevant. But damnit I want to see that evidence, Continuity!) But one thing that caught my eye was this:

Furthermore, this notion that these buildings could be brought down with a couple of “strategically” placed charges obviates the need for them in the first place. If they could be brought down in such a manner, they could also be brought down with similar ease through the judicious use of flying massive fuel tanks which, unlike the alleged explosives, we have ample footage of from every possible photographic angle.

A couple? Nice hyperbole. Anyway, why don’t you just reword all that and admit—-you know even less than me when it comes to controlled demolition…

It’s common knowledge (not my secret knowledge either!) that demolition experts can ‘expertly’ take down huge buildings and obstructions — which various applications of enormous brute force can’t. That is 100% true. They can shape and direct the collapse too. It’s all about the clever placement of charges and using the weight of a building against itself, not causing the biggest mundane booms as possible.

It’s unfortunate that every 9/11 debate has to become so philosophical and linguistic. To do a real investigation you must eliminate the impossible; you must explore the controversies; you must ask why crimes are committed and strings of glaring coincidences take place. You have to soberly wonder: why did so many unprecedented events occur, in effect breaking the long-studied rules of what we thought were normal?

Shogo, to his credit, has at least done a fair job at looking at a number of the controversies by posting the gov-related explanations, as questionable as they are.

Shogo. Guess what? Romero stated several times that ‘the terrorists’ probably used controlled demolition. Got it? He thought Al Qaeda demolished the building, because he believed the TV-people and Bush unquestioningly, just like I did in the weeks and months after 9/11. When he learned that researchers picked up on his expert opinion, and when he knew that his observation could just as easily point the finger at non-Arab meddlers, he backed off. WHy? Because the finger started to point at him.

He apparently backed off out of a political choice, not a scientific one. He didn’t want to be associated with 9/11 Truthseekers during the hysterically patriotic phase after 9/11. He feared a backlash and chastisement, and so washed his hands of it. To counter the conventional wisdom is dangerous. He wanted to support the Gov, not inadvertently get swept up in a fight with it.

If I were him, under such a dangerous spotlight, I’d get terrified myself. In extreme cases, journalists, scientists, and even politicians were mysteriously dying after 9/11, if you don’t recall. Even bad press, shame, and loss of business is enough to close the mouths of most people.

Watch what you say, Ari told us. Watch it.

Post Modified: 06/18/05 03:43:20

R64625
5 years ago
Butt

Shogo: He thought Al Qaeda demolished the building, because he believed the TV-people and Bush unquestioningly, just like I did in the weeks and months after 9/11

question your gullibility and the reasons for it

Post Modified: 06/18/05 04:14:46

R64629
5 years ago
Flojo

Nalak: So I’ve done no research on this but it seems to me that if these firefighters saw the bottom of the supposed raging inferno that was taking place above them they might have complained about the temeratures they were experiencing.

what are you talking about, you dumbass, fuck-tard, cuntface, conspiracy-nutter??

Everyone knows that mere firefighters are not qualified to talk about temperatures
lets look at the facts:

  1. most of them would have only have had a high-school education,
  1. Few, if any, would have had a college science background, like I do – which is absolutely necessary in order to have any ‘cred’ in this thread
  1. none of them have PHD’s like me and the boys from Popular Mechanics
  1. none of them had a subscription to Popular Mechanics, like I do, in fact I doubt they could even read it, too many long words
  1. Most of them were of Irish descent, and therefore most likely drunk at the time, or being molested by Priests

taking into account the above facts, an educated dude with a college science background, like I have, would have to conclude that the last thing firefighters have any expertise on would be temperatures – I think the conjectures of the guy’s from Popular Mechanics and myself, who were actually on the 78th floor, gathered around the water-cooler at the time the planes hit, and who actually saw all that burning fuel enter the elevator-shafts and melt the steel-core, far outweighs the mere eye-witness accounts of some uneducated, inexpert lumpen-proletarian firefighters

Post Modified: 06/18/05 04:50:54

R64632
5 years ago
Snark

“such as, who cares if they took away the evidence, Continuity? That’s irrelevant. But damnit I want to see that evidence, Continuity!”

Actually, you’ve hit it on the head. We can sit here all day and theorize one side or the other, but it seems that most of what we need to actually support our hypotheses with evidence is unavailable. I find that both sides are relying heavily on innuendo, supposition, “now this is funny and it can only be explained by X” arguments, amateur photo analysis, and the like. For obvious reasons, this is not evidence, and the explanations being offered by both sides are not theories.

“To do a real investigation you must eliminate the impossible; you must explore the controversies; you must ask why crimes are committed and strings of glaring coincidences take place.”

Does it matter to you that you’ll never personally come up with a reliable answer to that question? That this does not constitute an investigation? That we’ve not even completed the first step of the scientific method?


R64633
5 years ago
Butt

so much ‘evidence’ has been ignored by the ‘experts’ however, which makes me question the accuracy of their conclusion, but overall your viewpoint seems reasonable. I can’t however get the image out of my head of a lot of people standing around, scratching their heads, wondering WTF just happened?, and then someone pipes up ‘guys, none of you are expert enough to figure this out so why don’t we just all go home and forget about it’.

But I do appreciate the reasonableness of your tone, something this thread badly needs, mea culpa:)


R64648
5 years ago
revolutionary

Does it matter to you that you’ll never personally come up with a reliable answer to that question? That this does not constitute an investigation? That we’ve not even completed the first step of the scientific method?

Does it matter to you that the “authorities” have never conducted an adequately thorough investigation nor completed, for that matter, “step one” themselves? So we should just shut up and forget about it, like most people do in this country?

Or maybe you’re right. And maybe the consumption of soy does cause “diseases” like homosexuality…if an expert says it, it must be true, what do I know!


R64676
5 years ago
Shogo

“Any idiot can see that you get paid to be here Shogo.”

Since you clearly match that description, it’s no surprise that you think such a thing.


R64677
5 years ago
Shogo

“if an expert says it, it must be true, what do I know!”

Thanks Rita, for inadvertently pointing out the silliness of the demolitions crowd.

The reason that the simple explanation is accepted is because a number of experts who anazlyzed the sequence of events and available evidence have concluded that the collapse of the buildings was caused by the amount of damage caused by the planes. It’s not just ONE expert, as in your example, but MANY. Many people who have spent years studying structural engineering, and why buildings behave as they do.

On the other hand, the conspiracy nutters often cling to ONE persons claim of something, as though that is sufficient to trump the well-thought out explanation offered by others. If one demolitions expert (Van Romero, who in his own words has been completely misquoted) said something, that must be the truth!

Of course, conspiracy nutters are wholly inconsistent here. Much like the way that one firefighters claim of hearing bombs is enough for them to prove that there were bombs in the building, yet hundreds of eyewitnesses to the plane hitting the Pentagon is insufficient evidence that maybe a plane DID in fact hit the Pentagon.

Go back to worshipping Stephen’s feet, Rita. That’s more your speed.


R64681
5 years ago
revolutionary

See, Josh, you’re so narrow minded (what a surprise)...again, it goes both ways, but you question the validity of the opinions and expertise only of those who don’t say what you want to hear…so whatever, at least there were no “cunt” or “fuckface” and the like in your last post, maybe it’s a sign that you are improving your social skills (I am not going to hold my breath that you are actually growing up).


R64701
5 years ago
viaossa

Iday writes: When I pointed out that the prime suspect ‘authorities’ were in charge of what concrete evidence was publicly available you never answered.

Possibly there was nothing left to say. If you’ve already ruled out the validity of all physical evidence except that collected by individuals totally unrelated to the government, then you’ve essentially declared that the only arguments you are willing to entertain are based on conjecture and very poor inductive reasoning. I, on the other hand, am not so inclined.

Continuity writes: such as, who cares if they took away the evidence, Continuity? That’s irrelevant. But damnit I want to see that evidence, Continuity!

This speaks to reading comprehension. I have expressed no burning desire to see physical evidence, I simply refuse to characterize a post-facto analysis without such evidence as anything other than poorly supported speculation. You have no physical evidence. You have poorly supported speculation. To question the legitimacy of a position contrary to your own when that is all you have would be an affront to anyone who cared.

you know even less than me when it comes to controlled demolition…

Much like the “explosive demolition” theory, this is also an unsubstantiated claim. Given this next paragraph, I am almost certain it too is complete hogwash.

It’s common knowledge (not my secret knowledge either!) that demolition experts can ‘expertly’ take down huge buildings and obstructions—which various applications of enormous brute force can’t. That is 100% true

What is also commonly known is that it takes weeks for an experienced demolitions team to prep a building for controlled demolition. This includes the removal of interior materials covering the structural supports, placing of shaped charges, core drilling, wiring, etc. This is the type of work required to bring about your controlled implosion, none of which would go unnoticed by the occupants of WTC regardless of how long someone shut the lights out for. It also makes a helluva flash and bang when it goes off which, presumably, we would have camera footage of if the “explosive demolition” theory were anything other than speculative fiction.

-VO


R64715
5 years ago
zark

shogo… you really need to understand how people are commissioned to do research, how their contracts are set out, what stipulations they must work to, what information they can and cant use.

this is standard practice… and yes… i do know about this, i have first hand experience of this and i have spoken to close friends who have these contracts… hell everyone has contracts like this

‘there is needed, a full ‘independant’ investigation’


R64716
5 years ago
zark

What is also commonly known is that it takes weeks for an experienced demolitions team to prep a building for controlled demolition. This includes the removal of interior materials covering the structural supports, placing of shaped charges, core drilling, wiring, etc. This is the type of work required to bring about your controlled implosion, none of which would go unnoticed by the occupants of WTC regardless of how long someone shut the lights out for. It also makes a helluva flash and bang when it goes off which, presumably, we would have camera footage of if the “explosive demolition” theory were anything other than speculative fiction

so naive.

have you heard the phrases

‘sting operation’

‘controlled deliveries’

??

ok, the jist is that people legitimately create, conduct, carry out.. illegal acts in order to catch criminals.

see. the WTC 1993… a ‘sting operation’ to conduct a ‘simulated’ bombing in order to rope-in people with criminal intentions then arrest them.. YES YES it is entrapment but it is an admitted practice by law officials

see. customs and excise uk, shipping in heroin from pakistan under ‘controlled delivery’ orders to then give to drug dealers so that they can arrest them selling it on the streets

see OMagh bombing, real ira – Mi5 agents. create the bomb with ‘real’ criminals, then plan the attack. the Mi5 agent calls the plan into his head office, the police are informed the bomb is in the other side of town by the authorities (who know where it actually was) then allow it to blow up. discommunicate the agent and say it was done by terrorists

this happens all the time, it is official practice…

you ask how can bomb be planted in WTC buildings and no1 knows or comes forward with information… well the explanation is above.
people working for intelligence services will plant the bombs thinking they are doing it to catch criminals… that is the mind set, and there is a explanation.

Post Modified: 06/18/05 12:09:19

R64717
5 years ago
Nalak

“Any idiot can see that you get paid to be here Shogo.”

“Since you clearly match that description, it’s no surprise that you think such a thing.”

So I guess coming here flaming any and all threads like this and doing what seems to be alot of research on your part in a vein attempt to sway any of us is what gets you off?
I don’t buy that…. it’s human nature to distance yourself from people and views you don’t agree with and you are doing the opposite.
How you take any pride in being a lap dog or even look at yourself in the mirror i’ll never know.

Why is it these people aren’t banned? I mean I can understand wanting free speech on a board such as this but people getting paid to be here is a different thing altogether.
If I was being paid by Ford to swamp Cheverolet boards always selling the position that Ford vehicles were superior machines no matter the arguement or evedence to the contrary I would expect to be banned no matter how liberal the board was and I think this place should think about doing the same.

Free sheech should not protect salesman imo. Free sheech should protect free thought and this guys thoughts are bought and paid for.

Post Modified: 06/18/05 12:26:05

R64723
5 years ago
deeperpolitics

Fuel laden jumbo plane hit the empire state building in 1948. It simply left a hole in the side of the building. And you mean to say that no one would shut off “gas lines” that supposedly run through the entire WTC buildings? Are you so sure gas lines ran through the WTC towers? Or were the towers electrically serviced?

Your use of “put-downs” such as “fuckface”, “retarded”, “stupid”, “conspiracy whackos” is a feeble attempt to muzzle any dialogue on the subject.

R64760
5 years ago
Snark

Does it matter to you that the “authorities” have never conducted an adequately thorough investigation nor completed, for that matter, “step one” themselves? So we should just shut up and forget about it, like most people do in this country?

I think you know me well enough to know goddamned well that’s not what I think, Rita, and I’m almost insulted that you posted that. No, of course I don’t think that. And of course I’m a huge proponent of people discussing the issue, bandying about ideas, and asking piercing questions about official versions of any story. What I refuse to do is go along with picking whatever side you feel is right and defending it to the death. Every comment I’ve posted on this thread has been to make the point that we are not in a position to establish certainties, only to ask questions and speculate. We can ask all the questions we want, and try to get all the information we have available to us, and discuss possibilities and guesses. But we should not claim certainty.

I’m not advocating that we “shut up and leave it to the experts”. I’m saying that to claim certainty, or to have an opinion on the matter that is truly informed, balanced, and justified, one would have to be an expert. Since we’re not experts and aren’t involved with any real investigation, I think it’s absurd that people are claiming that their position is certain. The best we laymen can do is ask questions and discuss, without declaring any theory right or wrong. That so many of us have become emotionally attached to their pet theory, slinging insults and defending it passionately, is patently absurd.

I’m accustomed to having my words twisted and being insulted by anonymous internet trolls. When I get that shit from someone I respect and like, and who I presumed felt the same way about me, it stings. Not cool, Rita.

Post Modified: 06/18/05 17:30:00

R64765
5 years ago
Rasputin

Ok boys, girls and dupes, here’s a new tidbit for ya to chew on.

It appears that professional grave-dancer and blood-soaked billionaire Larry Silverstein (“pull it”) — in addition to being a neocon insider — is also a long-time friend of the fanatical right-wing Likudnik party.

But I repeat myself.

Unless you’ve been living in a cave somewhere with Bin Laden and his camels, it should be apparent by now that distinguishing between Likudniks and Neocons is rather like distinguishing between species of rattle snake; Israel’s (business) interests are America’s (business) interests, and vice versa.

For my part, I do not believe that the Israelis are pulling the strings, as many of the Jew-obsessed illuminati types are prone to speculate; rather, America prefers an embattled ally in the middle east to whom it can contract out dirty work (eg South Africa) and use as a military bulwark in the region.

And speaking of contracting out and dirty work, many of us over here on the “conspiracy nutter” side have long assumed that the Mossad may have carried out some of the on-ground shenanigans with respect 9/11. They have a long, sordid history of false flags, which have included (according to French intelligence) the targeting of their own citizens.

We’ve heard of the dancing “art students”, the odigo instant messages, now behold our good friend, Larry Silverstein.

According to Haaretz and other sources, Silverstein has been good friends with Benjamin Netanyahu for over ten years. He is also chummy with the likes of Barak, Sharon and “many [other] Israeli politicians”.

And I quote:

“Shortly after the events of September 11, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called Larry Silverstein, a Jewish real estate magnate in New York, the owner of the World Trade Center’s 110-story Twin Towers and a close friend, to ask how he was. Since then they have spoken a few more times. Two former prime ministers – Benjamin Netanyahu, who this week called Silverstein a “friend,” and Ehud Barak, whom Silverstein in the past offered a job as his representative in Israel – also called soon after the disaster. Yaakov Terner, the mayor of Be’er Sheva, sent a letter of condolence.

Many Israeli politicians are acquainted in one degree or another with the 70-year-old Silverstein. For 10 years, he tried to bring about the establishment of a free-trade zone in the Negev, until the project fell apart. “This is a tragedy,” Silverstein, deeply disappointed, said then.” link

A tragedy with shades of green written all over it.

Back to Netanyahu, Silverstein’s frequent lunch partner.

Although a few researchers like Ralph Schoenman have paid a good deal of attention to Netanyahu (probably because Schoenman’s Jewish and not afraid of being labeled an anti-semite), this smooth-talkin’ weasel has mostly been overlooked. This is a shame.

For:

“Although the doctrine of War on Terror was announced by G.W. Bush following the events of 9/11, the real architect of that doctrine is Benjamin Netanyahu. While most people think that Netanyahu is an Israeli politician, he is also an author of a few books on terrorism and is the real father of the War on Terror doctrine. One of his early works on terrorism “International Terrorism: Challenge and Response” dates back to 1979. His major definitive work “Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorism” was published in 1995. He has also been promoting his War on Terror doctrine in his speeches. One such speech was delivered at the Jewish Agency Assembly Plenary meetings held in Israel on 24th June 2001.”

Schoenman claims that Netanyahu was traipsing all over the globe well before 9/11 giving speeches to VIPs warning of the impending danger of Islamic terror (while those same VIPs funded them, nudge nudge wink wink).

You can see the Neocon/Netanyahu nexus plainly enough with the document A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Seucring the Realm:

According to Coopertative Research:

July 8, 1996

The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli think tank, publishes a paper titled, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 3/6/03; Guardian, 9/3/02; Washington Times, 10/7/03] The paper advises the new, right-wing Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu to make a complete break with the past by adopting a strategy “based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism ….” Much along the lines of an earlier paper by Israeli Oded Yinon, the document urges the Israelis to aggressively seek the downfall of their Arab neighbors—especially Syria and Iraq—by exploiting the inherent tensions within and among the Arab States. [Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, 7/8/96; Carnegie Endowment for Peace, 3/19/03; Guardian, 9/3/02 Sources: A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm] Other suggestions for Israel include abandoning the Oslo Accords, developing a foreign policy based on a traditional balance of power strategy, reserving its right to invade the West Bank and Gaza Strip as part of a strategy of “self-defense,” abandoning any notion of “land for peace,” reestablishing a policy of preemptive strikes, forging closer ties to the US while taking steps towards self-reliance, and seeking an alternative to Yasser Arafat as leader of the PLO. [Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, 7/8/96; Guardian, 9/3/02 Sources: A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm]

Some of the paper’s authors will later be appointed to influential government and quasi-government positions during the administration of George W. Bush. The lead writer, Richard Perle, will serve on the Defense Policy Board (for the first year and a half he will serve as chairman). Douglas Feith will serve as undersecretary of defense for policy. He will oversee the activities of several controversial offices including the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group (see Shortly after September 11, 2001) and the Office of Special Plans (see September 2002). David Wurmser will help run the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group (see Shortly after September 11, 2001) through August 2002 and then will be transferred to the State Department to serve as a senior advisor to Undersecretary of State for Arms Control John R. Bolton (see September 2002). People and organizations involved: David Wurmser, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, Richard V. Allen, Richard Armitage, Jeffrey T. Bergner, Douglas Feith, Meyrav Wurmser, Jonathan Torop, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Robert Loewenberg, Benjamin Netanyahu

Schoenman:

“Indeed, a detailed plan was prepared by the Israeli Mossad and the Department of Information of the World Zionist Organization and published in its journal Kivunim (Directions) by Oded Yinon.

It called for the fragmentation of each Middle Eastern country in its turn into its ethnic components. The report was detailed and specific:

“Iraq is first. Rich in oil, and internally torn, it is guaranteed as the initial target. Its dissolution is even more important than of Syria. ... Egypt will then be torn apart, like a second Lebanon. ... The entire Arabian peninsula is a natural for dissolution. ... The matter is inevitable, especially in Saudi Arabia.”

The Oded Yinon plan was taken up by Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Kenneth Armitage, Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Cheney, and by the Committee on the Present Danger.”

Robert Fisk (The Independent) writes:

“The Iraqi “regime change”, as we now know, was planned as part of a Perle-Wolfowitz campaign document to the would-be Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu years before Bush came to power. It beggars belief that Tony Blair should have signed up to this nonsense without realising that it was no more nor less than a project invented by a group of pro-Israeli American neo-conservatives and right-wing Christian fundamentalists.”

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0906-Bogus.html

In Netanyahu’s speech of September 20, 2001:

These regimes are the ones that harbor the terrorist groups: Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, Hizballah and others in Syrian-controlled Lebanon, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the recently mobilized Fatah and Tanzim factions in the Palestinian territories, and sundry other terror organizations based in such capitals as Damascus, Baghdad and Khartoum. These terrorist states and terror organizations together form a terror network, whose constituent parts support each other operationally as well as politically. For example, the Palestinian groups cooperate closely with Hezbollah, which in turn links them to Syria, Iran and Bin Laden. These offshoots of terror have affiliates in other states that have not yet uprooted their presence, such as Egypt, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Now, how did this come about?”

That’s a very good question Ben.

Ah yes, the plot thickens very much upon us…


R64766
5 years ago
revolutionary

Hey, take it easy, Snark. Seriously. Noone here has claimed to have any certainties or absolute truths about anything, hence the ongoing discussion, exchange of information and disagreements.


R64768
5 years ago
Snark

Are you kidding? I can count the number of unbiased posts here on my toes.

And in any case, you still seem to be under the impression that I’m telling everyone to shut up and trust the experts, so I figure it’s a good idea to dispel that misconception. I take insults from people I like seriously.

Post Modified: 06/18/05 17:34:59

R64777
5 years ago
Rasputin

waiting….


R64787
5 years ago
viaossa

zark writes: you ask how can bomb be planted in WTC buildings and no1 knows or comes forward with information… well the explanation is above.

I do not ask how a bomb can be planted in the WTC buildings. I know how a bomb can be planted. What I do not know is why anyone would bother entertaining the idea that this happened to the WTC in the absence of any physical evidence whatsoever to support this theory. It is a behavior that to me, seems to border on religious practice.

Lest we forget, according to Continuity, we’re not talking about “a couple of bombs” – a characterization which I had used previously only to have it deemed hyperbole- but strategically placed ordnance deliberately installed to effect a controlled implosion typical of other large building demolitions. This is an entirely different sort of operation than planting some unknown number of bombs. The amount of work required, to me, seems outside of the scope of your theorized “sting” operations. Maybe you know differently. Maybe you can provide an example of a “sting” operation being used to prep a building the size of any of the WTC towers for demolition. I cannot.

-VO


R64789
5 years ago
Shogo

“a vein attempt to sway any of us is what gets you off?
I don’t buy that…. it’s human nature to distance yourself from people and views you don’t agree with”

I don’t care what you’re buying. You’re not the first person to believe that I’m paid to make posts here. As for whether you’re the dumbest to think that, only time will tell.

Human nature is a complicated thing. In person, you’re of course quite right. I don’t hang out with conspiracy nutters in my day to day life. In fact, I tend to avoid them since in real life they come off as even more loony than they do online.

When it comes to websites though, I am endlessly fascinated by the deranged writings of people like yourself. It is a form of entertainment for me. I am perpetually fascinated by the odd and crazy things that people are capable of believing.

I can promise you, though I know this will hold no water, that I am not paid to be here. I post on GNN because I find it entertaining: no more, no less.

I also have to say I really enjoyed zark’s meltdown a few posts back. That’s fucking comedy gold. Incoherence is his strong suit.


R64790
5 years ago
Shogo

“waiting….”

Wow. You’ve totally changed my mind Rasputin. Now that I know that Silverstein has conversed with Ariel Sharon, it’s become crystal clear that he had the towers destroyed by demolition charges. You must feel very proud, having come up with such a relevant bit of evidentiary information.

Putz.


R64802
5 years ago
Rasputin

Wow. You’ve totally changed my mind Rasputin.

That would be a little like changing scrap metal into gold, or a donkey into a unicorn.

Not very likely!

No McBeal, Viasso and other coincidence theorists ( I like to call these people “boys”, as opposed to men), I was not trying to convince the house Zionist that everything is A-ok.

Now that I know that Silverstein has conversed with Ariel Sharon

And Sharon being a blip on the radar?

Funny how you failed to mention Netanyahu.

Let’s hear about Netanyahoo, McBeal.

I think this will be entertaining for all concerned.

;)

Dolt.

Speak! Let’s hear it!


R64806
5 years ago
viaossa

Rasputin writes: I like to call these people “boys”, as opposed to men

Good lord. That’s significantly more insight into your fantasy life than I think this thread really warrants.

-VO


R64809
5 years ago
Rasputin

you sure know what’s best fer ya, don’cha

Tell me about your theory of WTC7

I dare ya.

C’mon smart guy, spit it out.

LOL.

What’sa matter, ya chicken?

C’mon Viassso, tell me your theory about WTC7, we’ll all have a good laugh at your expense.

Nothing other, mind you, just talk about your brilliant theory regarding WTC7

You wanna talk about boys and men? A man is someone who admits that they might have been wrong in the past.

Let’s hear it, Via: Let’s hear you opinion on WTC7

You’re a fucking phony if there ever was one. You’re even worse than McBeal; at least McBeal has an excuse, you ride the horse like a fucking wannabee.

Everybody: get the popcorn ready…

Here is the slaughter of a boy (not a man) named Viassso.

Let him defend himself. Or let him die like the worm that he is.

Post Modified: 06/18/05 23:14:41

R64810
5 years ago
Rasputin

WTC7 Viasso

Cough it up or apologize to those you have wronged.


R64811
5 years ago
Shogo

I see why you copy/paste all the time, Spewt. Your original writing sucks ass, dick, balls, and cock.


R64812
5 years ago
Rasputin

haha McBeal, I can always trust a Zionist scum-pig to come riding to the rescue.

by the way, what say you of Netanyahoo?

Let’s hear it, McBeal.


R64813
5 years ago
Continuity

Viaossa, let’s put it this way. I understand you’re going to reiterate the same stuff over and again. You’re entirely unphased by the stealing of evidence. I understand you’re eager to shift the arguments more to a philosophical vein, so as to dilute the specific controversies.

Before I go on with a new line of inquiry, I’ll add one thing. Someone asked me, Snark maybe, a question so I answered it: Was there ever a potential opportunity, a circumstantial window in which the buildings could have been wired. I gave two real examples. 1) One was that Marvin Bush ran WTC security for a fair amount of time, and he clearly had some authority there as to who went in and out, when and where. 2) Next, the Powerdown on the weekend.

Example 1 gives offers a long window of opportunity for potential wiring.

Example 2 gives a short window. Seeing that you are now a demolitions expert, do you know for sure that a team could not work hard to do it in 36 hours (which is equal to 4 normal work days for the average joe)? You have full knowledge of different charges (thermite?), their applications, their thermal and explosive powers, how many to use and exactly where, all in relation to vulnerabilities in the WTC blueprints, and so on?

I don’t have this knowledge, but I’m willing to research it —- unlike you —- to either pursue or eliminate the possibility of demolition. You see, that’s normal inquiry because controversies & coincidences still exist.


R64816
5 years ago
Continuity

Next.

Viaossa, I want to ask you some honest questions. After going through 3 pages of this thread, are you content with all the controversies and coincidences listed? You must certainly be aware that these 3 pages hardly contain every WTC controversy and coincidence either.

Do they all sit well with you? For instance, I’ll list just 5 that come to mind.

1. A Bush family member was in control of WTC security
2. The WTC was never ‘powered-down’ ever in its entire history until the weekend before Sept 11, 2001
3. The rubble was quickly hauled to the other side of the Earth under the supervision of FEMA, quickly recycled, and Mayor Bloomberg added that nothing could be learned from that evidence so it’s all good. This goes against all basic crime scene protocols btw.
4. Never in history have steel skyscrapers totally collapsed from fire, despite the fact that hotter fires have raged longer in other cases, and some never had good or any suitable fire insulation.
5. Since the official explanation now says that impact stripped the WTC cores of insulation & protective concrete, thus exposing them to the ‘intense infernos’, how does this account for the collapse of WTC2? It’s core sustained no impact (and it’s fire was weakening). The material & plane wreckage did not miraculously shift trajectory (ala JFK magic bullet) to scatter inward through the core, but moved through one corner and out the other side.

Do you have any curiosity whatsoever regarding just these 5 things? (I’m sure everyone here can make their own quick list with different items) Honestly, do you feel compelled to explain these 5 away as quickly as possible? Is there any curiosity?

Post Modified: 06/19/05 00:01:25

R64823
5 years ago
zark

Maybe you can provide an example of a “sting” operation being used to prep a building the size of any of the WTC towers for demolition. I cannot

well at least baudrillard was wrong then


R64824
5 years ago
zark

It appears that professional grave-dancer and blood-soaked billionaire Larry Silverstein (“pull it”)—in addition to being a neocon insider—is also a long-time friend of the fanatical right-wing Likudnik party rasputin

ahhh you are getting into how the neo-cons have consolidated their links, power and friends.
the bolshiviks, anti-communists, anti- nazis, the manifesto of the committee for the liberation of the peoples of russia, socialists, mensheviks, trots, SOLIDARISTS

Rasputin – if you are in UK a friend sent me a great magazine called Red Lobster… very good reading. it navigates the blatant anti-semitism, racism and paranoid delusions of most conspiracy theories, emerging with solid investigations that is similar to the depth of Peter Dale Scott

Post Modified: 06/19/05 02:16:55

R64840
5 years ago
Snark

Post erased because I was starting to sound like a broken record. Shaking Rasputin’s certainty isn’t posssible, so I won’t try.

Post Modified: 06/19/05 07:03:15

R64846
5 years ago
Shogo

Continuity: “Never in history have steel skyscrapers totally collapsed from fire,”

Nor did they in this case, either.

This is a classic example of how the conspiracy nutters misstate the explanations of the events, in order to prop up their broken hypothesis.

1) It’s not solely from fire that the WTC collapsed. There’s also the small matter of the planes punching giant holes in the buildings and damaging critical load-bearing structural components. This damage to the support structures was only exacerbated by the long-burning fires.

2) There are ZERO other examples of buildings the WTC’s size and mass being damaged in a similar fashion. By similar I mean fuel-laden 767’s slamming into them mid-height at high velocity.

As you can see from reading the posts here, when Rasputin isn’t copy/pasting the words written by others he’s totally incoherent. He and zark are the Dumbnamic Duo. If you want to subscribe to crackpot hypotheses advanced by foil-behatted conspiracy nutters, that’s your prerogative. But you should at least know that you’re arguing in bad faith by continually mischaracterizing the physical explanation of how the plane damage could result in the collapse of the buildings.


R64848
5 years ago
Shogo

“I can always trust a Zionist scum-pig to come riding to the rescue.”

Zionism no longer exists, Rastupid. The movement officially ended when Israel became a state. If you’re accusing me of being pro-West Bank occupation, then you’d be wrong. But what else is new?

“by the way, what say you of Netanyahoo?”

Well, since Netanyahu is Jewish, and Silverstein is Jewish, then obviously they were part of a sekrit Jew plot to control the world so nothing they say can ever be trusted!

Putz.


R64872
5 years ago
viaossa

Rasputin “writes”: Let’s hear you opinion on WTC7

I don’t have one. However, if asked to choose between damage sustained during the collapse of the neighboring buildings as the most likely culprit for WTC7’s failure… and damage resulting from the explosives that we have no photographic or physical evidence of, I’m going to have to pick the former.

You’re a fucking phony if there ever was one.

Whereas it is becoming more and more apparent that you are, in all possible ways, a genuine failure whose authenticity is beyond dispute.

-VO


R64876
5 years ago
viaossa

Continuity writes: Example 1 gives offers a long window of opportunity for potential wiring

No it doesn’t. Example 1 states that someone who allegedly had motive was in charge of building security at some point in the past.

Example 2 gives a short window. Seeing that you are now a demolitions expert, do you know for sure that a team could not work hard to do it in 36 hours (which is equal to 4 normal work days for the average joe)?

If by “work hard”, you mean strip all of the necessary interior facing and building materials to expose the interior and exterior support collumns on one or more floors, (probably more since the explosives proponents sure would like that pancake theory discredited), drill and prep the structural members, install the explosive charges and det cord, and have the work be completely unnoticed by the occupants of the building then I’m going to have to go with… uh no. Next?

I don’t have this knowledge, but I’m willing to research it— unlike you—

Given that you have no reason to suspect my unwillingness or inability to do research, nor any information from which to make that allegation, it is clear to me that any conclusion you are likely to come up with… about anything… is entirely suspect. In other words, since you cannot be relied upon to make good inferential judgements, and you are not as entertaining as Rasputin, you are no longer worth my time.

-VO


R64879
5 years ago
zark

He and zark are the Dumbnamic Duo

bollocks.. dont try and identify me

‘we need a full independant investigation into the 11th september 2001 events”


R64902
5 years ago
Continuity

Shogo:
It’s not solely from fire that the WTC collapsed. There’s also the small matter of the planes punching giant holes in the buildings and damaging critical load-bearing structural components. This damage to the support structures was only exacerbated by the long-burning fires.

Here you are totally wrong. It is clear that the plane which hit WTC2 did not deal serious damage to its core, which you call the critical load-bearing structural components.

It is clear that a plane did not hit WTC7, nor did WTC7 receive serious physical damage to its ‘critical load-bearing structural components.’

Boom, you are dead wrong. And your absolute lack of curiosity (no, your defensiveness) regarding what happened is instructive.

Post Modified: 06/19/05 14:32:55

R64906
5 years ago
Continuity

Viaossa, more wordplay & pretending you’re a demolitions expert? Forget the exterior columns and the other crap. There were 47 relevant columns holding those buildings up. If the right ones were accessed & destroyed, then you have collapse, as the demolition expert said.

Apparently you have the WTC blueprints and know how impossible it would be to locate and access the strategic columns. Apparently you know all the different munitions and how each type would be irrelevant, no matter if 10 or 100 were applied.

I have every reason to suspect your curiosity. You’re totally unphased by every coincidence or controversy brought up so far. In fact, your comments about WTC7 pretty much typify your whole approach.


R64909
5 years ago
Continuity

So let’s talk about another aspect of WTC7.

We can all agree that the fire in WTC7 was certainly weaker than those in the other buildings, including the smaller complex buildings which were blazing with fire, and had also struck by debris from the twin towers.

We all know that molten steel was found in the lower basements of WTC 1 and 2. Altogether, they were very hot for over a month. Uhm, a bit odd, but I digress…

Five days after Sept 11: Dozens of hot spots were mapped, the hottest being in the east corner of the South Tower where a temperature of 1,377 degrees F was recorded.

But why was molten steel found beneath WTC7?

Mark Loizeaux is president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI). Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.

AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site.

Yes, he said, hot spots of molten steel in the basements.

These incredibly hot areas were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels,” Loizeaux said.

The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

Molten steel in the rubble of WTC7 is really pressing it. This and the pull-it order and the way the WTC7 came down are all extremely damning.

Post Modified: 06/19/05 15:13:29

R64911
5 years ago
Continuity

Wait, kids, there’s more about WTC7. Maybe we can get Viaossa to show yet more lack of curiosity.

It just so happens that the New York Times itself noted this tidbit:

WASHINGTONThe Central Intelligence Agency’s clandestine New York station was destroyed in the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center, seriously disrupting United States intelligence operations while bringing the war on terrorism dangerously close to home for America’s spy agency, government officials say.
The C.I.A.‘s undercover New York station was in the 47-story building at 7 World Trade Center, one of the smaller office towers destroyed in the aftermath of the collapse of the twin towers that morning.

More here

What also was in WTC7? Tons of records from the CIA, Secret Service, SEC, Enron, and Guliani’s private stash…

That Osama, what a lucky punk. He can blow up the important stuff belonging to his enemies even when he’s not even aiming at them…

He can even make all the WTC complex external cameras go off mysteriously on the morning of the attacks. He’s magic!

Post Modified: 06/19/05 15:23:06

R64912
5 years ago
Continuity

Three more highly relevant experts speak about why the WTC towers should not have collapsed. From investigator reporter Bollyn , one of the few guys to give a shit and ask around:

*

A lead engineer who designed the World Trade Center Towers expressed shock that the towers collapsed after being hit by passenger jets.

“I designed it for a 707 to hit it,” Lee Robertson, the project’s structural engineer said. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity of more than 23,000 gallons, comparable to the 767’s 23,980-gallon fuel capacity. Another architect of the WTC, Aaron Swirski, lives in Israel and spoke to Jerusalem Post Radio after the attack: “It was designed around that eventuality to survive this kind of attack,” he said.

Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center’s construction manager, watched in confusion as the towers came down. “It was over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it,” he said.

Brown told AFP that although the buildings were designed to withstand “a 150-year storm” and the impact of a Boeing 707, he said the jet fuel burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit weakened the steel. Brown explained that the south tower collapsed first as it was struck lower with more weight above the impact area. Brown told AFP that he “did not buy” the theory that the implosion was caused by the fires sucking the air out of the lower floors, which has been speculated.

Wow, 3 experts who worked on the WTC. I guess I better not be curious though.

Post Modified: 06/19/05 15:39:28

R64913
5 years ago
viaossa

Continuity writes: I have every reason to suspect your curiosity.

No, you don’t. Still, much like your unfounded conclusions regarding the events of 9-11, I’m sure that won’t impede you from doing so.

-VO


R64931
5 years ago
Shogo

Discontinuity: “Here you are totally wrong. It is clear that the plane which hit WTC2 did not deal serious damage to its core”

Based on…..? Oh right, your own speculation.

Let’s look at another example of where your complete lack of anything approaching a clue results in you looking extremely fucking stupid:

“The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity of more than 23,000 gallons, comparable to the 767’s 23,980-gallon fuel capacity.”

OK, so you’re seeming to claim that since the 767 only carries 980 gallons more fuel, then it must be roughly the same as the 707. However, you’d be wrong.

According to the technical specifications of the two planes, the 767 outweighs the 707 by…..(drumroll)....over 100,000 pounds. 767 specs vs. 707 specs clearly shows the difference between the two planes.

Now, since force = mass * acceleration, that 100,000 pounds difference results in a force that is significantly greater than that of a 707.

Why are you conspiracy nutters so hell-bent on ignoring basic facts? Christ you’re stupid.


R64932
5 years ago
renwald

On the other hand, the conspiracy nutters often cling to ONE persons claim of something, as though that is sufficient to trump the well-thought out explanation offered by others. If one demolitions expert (Van Romero, who in his own words has been completely misquoted) said something, that must be the truth!

This is obviously going to happen in a situation where there is suspicion of a coverup.

Let’s examine what happens in a cover-up, A powerful organisation with the ability/means/desires suppresses the evidence, and places “experts” there to answer anyones questions. It’s Cattle Control 101, tell the people what they want to hear and people will believe it all. That’s where cover-ups get in trouble, because people have to believe every last part of the lie, otherwise it starts to untangle as people get a chance to examine the details.

As far as I can tell nearly everything this Administration has said since Bush has come into office has been 100% Grade A Bullshit. Not just WMD’s in Iraq, you have everything from Mercury pollution levels of companies, to climate change, to oil prices, the list is just getting bigger for me.

Which is why I like revisiting the idea of 9/11 being an inside job. It seems the most likely to me, with my heavily logically biased brain, that this task wasn’t achievable the way we have been told. Too many problems with the supposedly “simple” explanation for why these 3 tower collapses. Which brings us to examining ways in which this task can be accomplished, looking at ear-witness reports, seismic graphs, recorded footage. All trying to gleam something that we all missed on the first day.

I can only speak for myself here, but I’m not particularly scared of being called a conspiracy nutter. Names like that are for simple people, using simple stereotypes.
Shogo+Snark+viaossa are energetically denying any possible evidence of an inside job, probably for various reasons, but most likely of which would be that they feel powerful from dumping on people in forums.

We can all claim to disagree on the originators and physics of this attack, but I am yet to see a sane person try and defend the Bush Administration, and how they have used this ‘terrorist’ attack to do whatever they want. Who the fuck knows for sure who is pulling Bush’s strings, but to me it looks like he is bowing to many masters in many industries.

So to those ‘normal’ people who are too smart to be suckered in by ‘conspiracy theories’ (or as I like to call them Hypothoses), please explain this whole terrorist thing to me again. Bush’s story just doesn’t cut the mustard for me anymore.

We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens

mmm war… isn’t it fun! Sounds like Bush is stuck in an endless loop to me.

Post Modified: 06/19/05 19:18:13

R64935
5 years ago
Shogo

“This is obviously going to happen in a situation where there is suspicion of a coverup.”

Yes, but there’s ALWAYS suspicion of a cover up. Conspiracy nutters think there’s a cover up for any and everything that happens. Nothing ever happens by coincidence – everything is according to some grand design.

It’s pathological.

“Shogo+Snark+viaossa are energetically denying any possible evidence of an inside job”

This is a perfect example of the false dichotomy at work. Either people agree with you 100%, or they are shills for the man.

Never mind that Snark said he thought maybe the demoliton scenario is possible – because he’s refusing to espouse the groupthink conclusion in the absence of any physical evidence, he’s now denying an inside job.

Your brain is busted, renwald.

I think 9/11 was allowed to happen by certain elements within the government. But where you and your ilk part ways with me is that I don’t see why it’s necessary to buy into a bullshit and unsupportable belief in controlled demolitions.

It can be an inside job that solely consists of allowing planes to be hijacked and flown into buildings.


R64951
5 years ago
viaossa

renwald writes: Shogo+Snark+viaossa are energetically denying any possible evidence of an inside job

Actually, I’m not. I’m rather offhandedly pointing out that there is no evidence to support the explosive demolitions theory. There is speculation. If there were evidence, refusing to accept this theory may require some energy expenditure, but since there isn’t, all that is warranted is a “meh.”

I’m also not denying the possibility of an inside job, but as is typical throughout this thread, either I swallow your or Continuity or Rasputin’s nauseating logic in its totality, or I’m “defending” the official story.

That also warrants a “meh”.

-VO

Post Modified: 06/19/05 22:05:39

R64960
5 years ago
zark

I think 9/11 was allowed to happen by certain elements within the government. But where you and your ilk part ways with me is that I don’t see why it’s necessary to buy into a bullshit and unsupportable belief in controlled demolitions

shogo ^

excuse me?

what hit the pentagon?

you claim 9/11 was allow by certain elements.. so therefore how did they allow a UFO to hit the pentagon?
there is no evidence for a passenger jet hitting the pentagon.. and also from your arguments of fuel and force.. a passenger jet hitting the pentagon would have caused more damage that a slighty collapsed section of the pentagon.

OK, so you’re seeming to claim that since the 767 only carries 980 gallons more fuel, then it must be roughly the same as the 707. However, you’d be wrong

According to the technical specifications of the two planes, the 767 outweighs the 707 by…..(drumroll)....over 100,000 pounds. 767 specs vs. 707 specs clearly shows the difference between the two planes

Now, since force = mass * acceleration, that 100,000 pounds difference results in a force that is significantly greater than that of a 707

Post Modified: 06/19/05 22:54:32

R64961
5 years ago
Continuity

Actually Snark is a healthy skeptic who states himself well; he has not denied anything too fiercely, and has changed his tune to asking excellent questions, the sign of an open mind. That is where everyone should be, and indeed where most people are in this thread.

Viaossa is just practicing rhetoric & sophistry, flirting with insults now, and generally pretending not to notice anyone’s data or questions about the WTC controversies and coincidences. Apparently the official story sits very well with Viaossa, not all that ‘nauseating’ other stuff, i.e. molten steel found under WTC7.

I won’t say anything about Shogo. All you have to do is read what he says.


R64962
5 years ago
neverknwo

“Two former staffers at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee facing indictment on espionage charges shared allegedly classified information at the crux of the case against them with AIPAC’s executive director as soon as they received it, JTA has learned.”:http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1119061895026


R64966
5 years ago
Continuity

Back to real questions….

Results of Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) remote sensing data and interpretations show the distribution and intensity of thermal hot spots in the area in and around the World Trade Center on September 16 and 23, 2001.

You will notice on this USGS page there are better pictures which show hotspots catalagued A through G. There was actually dozens of them.

Initial analysis of these data revealed a number of thermal hot spots on September 16 in the region where the buildings collapsed 5 days earlier. Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800oF. Over 3 dozen hot spots appear in the core zone. By September 23, only 4, or possibly 5, hot spots are apparent, with temperatures cooler than those on September 16

The hotspot identified as “A”, on Sept 16, represents the one in the rubble of WTC7. It’s at the top of the above pic. Why was “A” so damn hot for so long? Why was molten steel found there under WTC7?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this website, at the bottom, gauged the WTC7 pixels of the hotspot between 800 and 900 kelvins, which is between 980 F (527c) and 1160 F (627c). A tiny fraction of WTC7 was actually gauged at 1000 kelvins, which is 1341 F, or 727c.

For having two small fires, WTC7 sure was scorching hot 5 days later. Anyone?

Post Modified: 06/19/05 23:58:59

R64967
5 years ago
renwald

Even if it was conclusively proved from testimony and evidence, someone could easily come out and say that:

“They had failsafe explosives built into the structure to prevent it from falling off centre. Sorry.”

ergo pointless discussion trying to convince anyone of this, even if achieved it will be sideswiped by the media control imo, far from being a smoking gun needed to convict the orchestrators.


R64980
5 years ago
Shogo

“there is no evidence for a passenger jet hitting the pentagon”

Perhaps I’m a masochist for debating you zark, since you’re completely sub-moronic.

There were hundreds of eye-witnesses to the jet hitting the Pentagon. There was, in fact, a giant morning traffic jam right next to the fucking thing. A traffic jam that the jet flew over on it’s way to crashing into the building.

Again, one must marvel at the hoops your “logic” is capable of jumping through. All the eyewitnesses at the Pentagon mean nothing to you, while the word of one firefighter at the WTC is enough for you to believe in demolitions.

You really are a piece of work. Might I suggest you stick to your blue-collar lifestyle, and become a lorry driver? I don’t think you’re cut out for much more than that.


R64981
5 years ago
Shogo

Continuity: “Viaossa is just practicing rhetoric & sophistry, flirting with insults now, and generally pretending not to notice anyone’s data”

You’re full of shit, guy. What he’s pointing out is your ABSENCE of data.

Show me one solid piece of data you have pertaining to the WTC. You’ve got shit. You’ve got innuendo, which you’ve confused with fact. You’ve got conjecture. You’ve got nothing.

You seem wholly unimpressed by the fact that the 767 outweighs the 707 by fifty tons. If you had any knowledge of physics at all, you’d understand just how enormous a difference that is in terms of how the building is engineered. It would be akin to saying that a Volvo was designed to withstand the impact of a sedan, so it shouldn’t have been destroyed by being hit by a Hummer.

Are you going to address this weight differential? Or continue to ignore it in favor of your non-fact based belief in magical demolitions elves?


R64983
5 years ago
Shogo

“For having two small fires, WTC7 sure was scorching hot 5 days later. Anyone?”

The WTC complex sat above a common subterranean area that included a subway station. Given that the burning rubble and debris would have wound up filling this common area, it’s hardly surprising you’d see high temperatures there for a number of days.


R65012
5 years ago
viaossa

Continuity writes: Viaossa is just practicing rhetoric & sophistry, flirting with insults now, and generally pretending not to notice anyone’s data

Throughout this thread, you’ve consistently ignored critiques that challenge the plausibility of the “explosives theory”. You’ve also been unable to defend your foregone conclusion against skepticism either with information that you’ve researched, or a convincing amount of personal expertise. As a source of innuendo, you are a veritable font… but for real data, you are utterly useless.

You’ve used “guilt by association” to attempt everything from discrediting expert opinion in the case of the engineering and failure analysis articles to alleging complicity in planting explosives whose existence up to this point remains entirely hypothetical if not downright imaginary.

You feel compelled to lump all “explosives” skeptics into a category of “supporting the official story”. Accusing them of an unwillingness to research simply because they look to sources other than “rense” or “prisonplanet” for their information, and are unwilling to endorse a theory that, to them, is unsupportable given the evidence currently available. This negative characterization of all who will not toe your line, though some of us have been frank about our own unwillingness to accept the official story, is not merely flirting with insult. It is openly insulting.

Thankfully your particular theory is so marginalized, your position so tenuous, that an insult from you carries less meaning and significance than the explosives theory currently enjoys. In fact, in a real sense, your rejection of my skepticism is a compliment.

So “thanks”.

-VO


R65026
5 years ago
lday

Z: “there is no evidence for a passenger jet hitting the pentagon”

S: “...(ad hominem deleted)...
There were hundreds of eye-witnesses to the jet hitting the Pentagon. There was, in fact, a giant morning traffic jam right next to the fucking thing. A traffic jam that the jet flew over on it’s way to crashing into the building.”

These witnesses, no doubt traumatized by the events in New York, can hardly be considered experts at identifying objects travelling at 500 mph. That probably explains why they had such conflicting observations.

Besides that, the extra-suspicious S.P.C. defence contractor designs and builds
“Low Observables”, as in missiles designed to look like commercial aircraft.

The camera footage from the gas station and hotel, which might have cleared up the entire mystery, were of course quickly confiscated by FBI officials.


R65028
5 years ago
Shogo

“These witnesses, no doubt traumatized by the events in New York”

Funny that these particular witnesses were too traumatized by the WTC to recognize a jumbo jet, but people actually on site at the WTC, in the middle of a burning building, were in complete possession of their faculties.

“can hardly be considered experts at identifying objects travelling at 500 mph.”

And yet, people who were never at the WTC, or never at the Pentagon, CAN be considered experts at identifying shit they didn’t even witness? Of course, this presumes that people must be experts in order to recognize a jumbo jet.

500 mph does indeed sound terribly fast, especially if you’re right next to it. But, as we all know from Mr. Einstein’s theory of relativity, the apparent rate of speed of an object changes based on our distance from it. People across the city saw the plane heading for the Pentagon, and since they were so much further away than the people in the traffic jam, they were able to get a good long look at it.

I don’t think that people really need to be experts to identify a commercial jumbo jet, especially since Dulles Int’l is so close to the city that they’re visible all the time.

You’re a total dumbass, Florence.


R65029
5 years ago
Schneibster

All these conspiracy theories do is poison the well for legitimate inquiries about the events of 9/11 and why they were allowed to happen. Now anybody questioning the party line about why the hijackings took place is painted with the wacko fringe brush, thanks to idiots like you who lack the ability to discriminate between sense and nonsense.

Which is precisely my objection to them. Minus “idiots” as gratuitous character assassination.

Josh, the evidence for 7 WTC is relatively more convincing- I agree with you (and always have) that the 1 and 2 WTC evidence and analysis stack up to their collapses having been caused entirely by the aftereffects of being crashed into by large aircraft full of aviation fuel; but 7 WTC has always bothered me; it’s just so damn convenient that all those SEC records got destroyed along with the rest of what happened, and no building of that type of construction has ever collapsed as a result of a fire of any kind. And “pull it” is just so damn easy to construe as something other than getting the firemen out- “pull them “ would be more likely if that was what was meant.

R, Josh has a serious point about 1 and 2 WTC- none of the evidence I have seen even makes it likely that they were the results of controlled demolition. On the other hand, the leaning of the top of 1 WTC and the fact that it snapped off at the impact point are pretty compelling evidence in favor of the damage from the impact of the jets being responsible.

LIHOP, then taking advantage of the situation. Why must it be all three or none? Why do you have a problem crediting the people who were responsible with the intelligence to take advantage of an exigent situation to demolish 7 WTC with all its inconvenient SEC records?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Archived GNN Threads