NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse

Aug 21, 2008
Typical WTC 7 floor showing locations of columns (numbered). The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7. The buckling resulted from fire-induced damage to floors around Column 79, failure of the girder between Columns 44 and 79, and cascading floor failures

The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was primarily due to fires, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.

“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,” said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. “Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.”

“Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7,” Sunder said. The NIST investigation team also determined that other elements of the building’s construction—namely trusses, girders and cantilever overhangs that were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below—did not play a significant role in the collapse.

According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temperatures “hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." WTC 7 used a structural system design in widespread use.

Citing its one new recommendation (the other 12 are reiterated from the previously completed investigation of the World Trade Center towers, WTC 1 and 2), the NIST investigation team said that “while the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a rare event, we strongly urge building owners, operators and designers to evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of the structural system. Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following features: long-span floor systems, connections not designed for thermal effects, asymmetric floor framing and/or composite floor systems.” Engineers, the team said, should be able to design cost-effective fixes to address any areas of concern identified by such evaluations.

The investigators also reported that if the city water main had not been cut by the collapse of World Trade Center towers 1 and 2 (WTC 1 and WTC 2), operating sprinklers in WTC 7 would likely have prevented its collapse. “Nevertheless,” Sunder said, “we recommend that building standards and codes be strengthened beyond their current intent to achieve life safety by preventing structural collapse even during severe fires like this one, when sprinklers do not function, do not exist or are overwhelmed by fire.”

Sunder identified several existing, emerging or even anticipated capabilities that could have helped prevent WTC 7’s collapse. He cautioned that the degree to which these capabilities improve performance remains to be evaluated. Possible options for developing cost-effective fixes include:

-- More robust connections and framing systems to better resist effects of thermal expansion on the structural system.

-- Structural systems expressly designed to prevent progressive collapse, which is the spread of local damage from a single initiating event, from element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it. Current model building codes do not require that buildings be designed to resist progressive collapse.

-- Better thermal insulation (i.e., reduced conductivity and/or increased thickness) to limit heating of structural steel and to minimize both thermal expansion and weakening effects. Insulation has been used to protect steel strength, but it could be used to maintain a lower temperature in the steel framing to limit thermal expansion.

-- Improved compartmentation in tenant areas to limit the spread of fires.

-- Thermally resistant window assemblies to limit breakage, reduce air supply and retard fire growth.

The 12 recommendations reiterated from the WTC towers investigation address several areas, including specific improvements to building standards, codes and practices; changes to, or the establishment of, evacuation and emergency response procedures; and research and other appropriate actions needed to help prevent future building failures.

Determining the probable collapse sequence for WTC 7, NIST found that the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, and the fires burned out of control on six lower floors. The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. This collapse of floors left the critical column unsupported over nine stories.

“When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain,” Sunder explained. “What followed in rapid succession was a progression of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the most eastern side of the building. Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns in the core of the building failed. Finally, the entire façade collapsed.”

The investigation team considered the possibility of other factors playing a role in the collapse of WTC 7, including the possible use of explosives, fires fed by the fuel supply tanks in and under the building, and damage from the falling debris of WTC 1.

The team said that the smallest blast event capable of crippling the critical column would have produced a “sound level of 130 to 140 decibels at a distance of half a mile,” yet no noise this loud was reported by witnesses or recorded on videos.

As for fuel fires, the team found that they could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to fail a critical column, and/or would have produced “large amounts of visible smoke” from Floors 5 and 6, which was not observed.

Finally, the report notes that “while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.”

The investigation team found that the design of WTC 7 was generally consistent with the New York City building code in effect at the time. The estimated 4,000 occupants of WTC 7 on the morning of Sept. 11 were evacuated without any fatalities or serious injuries.

To reach the conclusions in its report, NIST complemented its in-house expertise with private-sector technical experts; accumulated an extensive collection of documents, photographs and videos related to the WTC events of 9/11; conducted first-person interviews of WTC 7 occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; and performed the most complex computer simulations ever conducted to model a building’s response behavior and determine its collapse sequence due to a combination of debris impact damage, fires and a progression of structural failures from local fire-induced damage to collapse initiation, and, ultimately, to global collapse.

Source: NIST

Explore further: XPRIZE announces Global Learning XPRIZE—$15 million competition to disrupt education

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Long-lasting sensory loss in WTC workers

May 18, 2010

New research from the Monell Center and collaborating institutions reports that workers exposed to the complex mixture of toxic airborne chemicals following the 9/11 disaster had a decreased ability to detect odors and irritants ...

NIST releases final WTC 7 investigation report

Nov 20, 2008

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) today released its final report on the Sept. 11, 2001, collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City. The final report ...

Probable Cause Sequences for WTC Collapses Finalized

Apr 12, 2005

At a press briefing in New York City on April 5, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) presented its analysis of how the World Trade Center (WTC) towers collapsed after two aircraft were flown into the ...

Recommended for you

Q&A: Science journalism and public engagement

10 hours ago

Whether the public is reading about the Ebola outbreak in Africa or watching YouTube videos on the benefits of the latest diet, it's clear that reporting on science and technology profoundly shapes modern ...

Ig Nobel winner: Using pork to stop nosebleeds

Sep 19, 2014

There's some truth to the effectiveness of folk remedies and old wives' tales when it comes to serious medical issues, according to findings by a team from Detroit Medical Center.

User comments : 102

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dbren
2.8 / 5 (20) Aug 21, 2008
And yet there will still be people who will claim with a straight face that it was Dick Cheney.
x646d63
3.1 / 5 (19) Aug 21, 2008
Funny, in Appendix C of its World Trade Center Building Performance Study, FEMA claimed:

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel... The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.


This is the result of thermite, which, of course, does not "explode." The NIST has placed a nice strawman in their report they can use to dismiss any possibility of "controlled demolition" by saying there were no "explosions."

Is anyone else tired of the lies?
dbren
Aug 21, 2008
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Modernmystic
3.5 / 5 (12) Aug 21, 2008
Is anyone else tired of the lies?


You have no idea how tired....
ScooterG
2.7 / 5 (18) Aug 21, 2008
Just more glossing-over by the guv. All this, and they still won't show the pentagon videos.

Let some shingles blow off during a 140mph hurricane and we'll spend months and billions of dollars studying how to improve a roof system.

Let a skyscraper fall in on itself from a supposed terror attack and we immediately cart the wreckage off to China - then we set about trying to figure out why the structure failed.

Pure, unadulterated bs.
paulo
2.9 / 5 (14) Aug 21, 2008
more propaganda from the neo-cons. total bs.
Dinotron
2.7 / 5 (14) Aug 21, 2008
Let's just say that all you self proclaimed conspiracy theorists are right. OK. Here we go... ready?
You're right. SO, NOW what to we do? huh? What?
You seem to be wanting the world to believe your BS and for what end?
Soylent
3.2 / 5 (15) Aug 21, 2008
This is the result of thermite, which, of course, does not "explode."...


Thermite burns at ~3000 K, leaves evidence of cutting into and melting the steel and a hardened mass of iron and aluminium oxide when it solidifies.

None of which were found to have been present.

Is anyone else tired of the lies?


Very.
GrayMouser
2.8 / 5 (13) Aug 21, 2008
This is the result of thermite, which, of course, does not "explode."...


Thermite burns at ~3000 K, leaves evidence of cutting into and melting the steel and a hardened mass of iron and aluminium oxide when it solidifies.

None of which were found to have been present.

Is anyone else tired of the lies?


Very.


Nor does Thermite contain sulfur...

The report is a Duh! A civil engineer friend of mine that used to be involved in disaster response pointed out right after 9/11 that the heat generated from the combustion plus the forced air (a natural blast furnace) going up the elevators and stairwells would cause the steel to loose strength rapidly. Watching the videos gives you a strong impression that the core of the building (where the elevators were) collapsed first and dragged everything down with it.
pjvc
3.4 / 5 (11) Aug 21, 2008
Then someone tell me why the hell Larry Silverstein was interviewed saying the decision was made to BRING THEM DOWN...my God...wake up people.

I bet we went to war in Iraq for freedom and democracy, too, right? Ever see where we are strategically placed over there?
bowtieguru
3.6 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2008
There's a variant of thermite called "thermate", hotter, faster and contains sulfur. And yes, imho, this all was inside job.
KeizerSoze
3 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2008
"Never Believe What You Hear and Only Half of What You See"

see for yourself:

http://video.goog...21899003&ei=-FGuSLq2BYuE4QLlwIX3Aw&q=wtc7
Velanarris
2.7 / 5 (9) Aug 22, 2008
You guys do realize that the WTC buildings housed Dow Chemical Laboratories.

Pretty sure they'd have a bunch of sulfur there. Or maybe in the heating system, or in the 9000 other components of a skyscraper's infrastructure.

9/11 wasn't a conspiracy, the laws and subsequent restrictions of US citizens' rights were.
pjvc
3 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2008
Tellstruth
2 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2008
Here is Eyewitness Testimony that NIST would rather you not see.
VIEW THIS SHORT INTERVIEW

http://www.youtub...-ksiuwKU]http://www.youtub...-ksiuwKU[/url]]http://www.youtub...-ksiuwKU[/url]
http://www.youtub...-ksiuwKU]http://www.youtub...-ksiuwKU[/url]]http://www.youtub...-ksiuwKU[/url]

the FULL and UNCUT interview with Barry Jennings (office of Emergency Management)

Barry was in WTC7 on the morning of 9/11 and puts his account on the record.

He tells of EXPLOSIONS, DEAD BODIES, and a BLOWN OUT LOBBY.
http://www.youtub...-ksiuwKU]http://www.youtub...-ksiuwKU[/url]]http://www.youtub...-ksiuwKU[/url]
Tellstruth
1 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2008
x646d63
3 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2008
Thermite burns at ~3000 K, leaves evidence of cutting into and melting the steel and a hardened mass of iron and aluminium oxide when it solidifies.

None of which were found to have been present.


There are photos of diagonally cut steel columns with obvious debris from high-temperature cuts. Just look for them.

And, as someone else corrected, it was likely thermate, not thermite.
x646d63
3 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2008
Nor does Thermite contain sulfur...


As was corrected, thermate is the likely culprite, not thermite. Thermate contains sulfur.

A civil engineer friend of mine that used to be involved in disaster response pointed out right after 9/11 that the heat generated from the combustion plus the forced air (a natural blast furnace) going up the elevators and stairwells would cause the steel to loose strength rapidly.


Your friendship with a civil engineer doesn't give your story any more credibility, and it doesn't make steel melt from an office fire.

Watching the videos gives you a strong impression that the core of the building (where the elevators were) collapsed first and dragged everything down with it.


I would bet that 100% of people who have not seen WTC7 collapse in the context of 9/11 would assume it's a controlled demolition when viewing it.

Buildings that lose part of their support tip over, they don't collapse into their own footprint.
x646d63
3.1 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2008
Let's just say that all you self proclaimed conspiracy theorists are right. OK. Here we go... ready?


First, the biggest conspiracy theory is that 19 "terrorists" and their leader conspired to crash airplanes into WTC, the Pentagon, and some other building, and then skillfully evaded our trillion-dollar defenses using box-cutters and questionable flight training.

You're right. SO, NOW what to we do? huh? What? You seem to be wanting the world to believe your BS and for what end?


This is a valid question, but has a very unsettling answer.

We can attempt to locate the conspirators and bring them to justice (which would be extremely difficult considering that they control most of the system).

Barring that, we can look forward the ultimate conclusion if these inside-job conspiracy theories are correct: complete repression of the people by the government.

Which way are things trending?
GrayMouser
not rated yet Aug 23, 2008
A civil engineer friend of mine that used to be involved in disaster response pointed out right after 9/11 that the heat generated from the combustion plus the forced air (a natural blast furnace) going up the elevators and stairwells would cause the steel to loose strength rapidly.


Your friendship with a civil engineer doesn't give your story any more credibility, and it doesn't make steel melt from an office fire.

Buildings that lose part of their support tip over, they don't collapse into their own footprint.


1) As far as collapsing is concerned, it depends on the failure mode. The failure for the WTC was in the center of the building. When using demolition charges to bring down a building the blasters make sure that it happens that way instead of being directed by the weakest point failing (which would be more random.)

2) A oxy-iron torch burns much hotter than thermite (up to 10000 degrees F) and with the tower elevator and stairwells acting as forced air ducts the temperatures could reach the ignition point of steel. Certainly it was far past what would be needed for aluminum, magnesium, copper or anything else you'd find in use.
GrayMouser
not rated yet Aug 23, 2008
Correction: it's 10000 degrees F (almost 6000 degrees K) and above.
ancible
1 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2008
Dinotron said:
Let's just say that all you self proclaimed conspiracy theorists are right. OK. Here we go... ready?
You're right. SO, NOW what to we do? huh? What?
You seem to be wanting the world to believe your BS and for what end?


Hello, Dinotron. I think of the value in talking about any revolutionary idea (and, for most, the government possibly killing its own people is revolutionary) is not immediate action by a set few. But instead to wake up the sleeping behemoth that is the population at large.

A humorous analogy to your statement might be a pre-Greece philosopher talking to a layperson about a Republican form of government. As the philosopher finishes his treatise, the lay person shakes his head and says, "All well and good, but what do you want to do about it? Go kill the ruler/king/warlord? It's pointless to ponder such things!" Of course, the point is that a slow, incremental change is also legitimate.

Oh, and one more thing, if people really do believe their government, and many others, would do this, wouldn't you expect them to speak out?

Not trying to be rude with the joke, just keeping things light.
Later.
Modernmystic
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2008
Nixon had to resign over something much less serious that anything anyone here is suggesting. If ANYONE had anything other than delusional conjecture...oh like say some PROOF...something WOULD have been done about it by now.

The sad truth of the matter is that some people literally think the current administration is devil spawned (in all fairness I don't hold it in very high esteem either) and they'll take any encouragement they can get and push it to the heights of psychotic lunacy to reinforce their hatred for it.

Time to move on....

Blair
2 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2008
http://www.infowa.../?p=4092

http://www.infowa.../?p=4097

http://www.infowa.../?p=4114

Links to stories about the belated attempts
to "explain" how WTC Building 7 collapsed.

This new theory does not impress me at all.

I find it an insult to my common sense
that people put forward theories about
how ordinary fires could have caused
the collapse of steel structures ...

My ideas regarding physical structural theory
have not been changed, but rather, my ideas
about politics being controlled by lies
have been confirmed by more bullshit
pretending to explain away all the
facts around the WTC 7 collapse.

The ideas that our civilization has become
more and more controlled by huge lies,
backed up with lots of violence,
make way more sense than any
of the bogus explanations
for the WTC collapses.

One only has to go through the paradigm shift
to perceive that governments are, & must be,
the best organized gangs of criminals, for
9/11 events to make the most real sense.

That change in political science
is what is consistent with all
of the other physical science.

That view of political science explains
the real ways that lies and coercions
run systems of fraud and robbery.

All of the "explanations" supporting the official story
are based on ignoring most of the body of evidence.

The truly best science leads directly to the conclusions
that only controlled demolition explains the real facts.

9/11 was an extremely symbolic transition point
along the entire trajectory of these triumphs of
huge lies, backed up with violence, being able
to control what is really happening around us.

One after another, decade after decade,
bigger and bigger crimes were being
gotten away with because the
government was too corrupt.

The core of this corruption continues to be
the fiat money system, which is funding all
of the corruption, and therefore, became
the mother of all the other corruptions.

I keep on perceiving the pattern
has got to become final failure
from too much success by lies.

Political paradigm shift can shatter society.

Social polarizations, caused by requiring
people to believe in bigger and bigger lies,
and to accept bigger and bigger crimes, are
heading towards some psychotic breakdowns.
Blair
2 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2008
P.S.

I maintain a thread of posts about 9/11
on the English language forum, located:

http://www.mariju...rum.html

(numerous links to related information)

The NIST "computer simulations" were
not much more than video games ...

The "explosives" that cut through steel like butter
do not make a great noise, but they generate heat,
an intense heat quickly melts through steel.

Again, watch some of the videos demonstrating
the use of agents which burn through steel ...

There are several of them, made in other contexts.

They do not make a huge noise, but rather,
they burn right through steel quickly ...

For example, one shows the agent placed
on the hood of a car, which ignites and
burns right through the hood, & engine.

It does not explode its way through,
it burns its way through very fast!

Right from 9/11/2001, onwards, there was
a deliberate rush to destroy evidence &
a deliberate effort to obstruct justice,
and to prevent any proper forensics, &
to prevent any proper investigations.

The more you know, the worse it gets!

There is no reasonable doubt that
9/11 was an inside job, which was
obviously a false flag operation.

Of course, inside the real world,
most people do not even know
that WTC 7 ever existed, or
that it collapsed on 9/11.

Therefore, the abundance of details
that proves the official stories
are full of contradictions and
deliberate ignorance barely
make any real difference.

The real world is controlled by
dishonesty and violence serving
systems of organized robbery.

If you can not accept those social facts,
then you can not accept any 9/11 truths.

Every official "investigation" has been
part of the cover-up of the real facts.

The people who are the best at being
dishonest, and backing that up with
violence, actually control society.

A path of least resistance
is the path least morality.

The most labile component controls a system,
and the most labile component in a society
are the most dishonest and violent ones.

All governments are, and must be,
the best organized criminal gangs.

These are the actual manifestations of
laws of nature through human beings ...

The people who are best at telling lies,
and backing up those lies with coercion,
end up having the most money & weapons.

All of the dominant social stories
are the bullies' bullshit opinions.

The truth about 9/11 reveals the
general truth about civilization.

There are no fundamental dichotomies.
fleem
3.5 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2008
Yeah, and Bush called up some randomly picked middle-easterners and asked them if they'd kindly come to the USA and leave a trail of evidence of their preparations, then hop in some jets and sacrifice their lives for Bush, and they said, "Um, OK". And Bush accomplished this without anyone finding any evidence of it. Now THERE'S one clever and compelling politician!
Blair
2.4 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2008
Fleem, you seem totally ignorant
of the real history of the CIA ...

It took thousands of years
to build social pyramids
of power & privilege.

If you spent enough time,
you would see a pattern:

9/11 was a false flag operation
done by Zionists to blame on the
Muslims, and since Zionists had
already taking control of the $$$
and mass media, & government
of the USA, it was possible to
plan and carry 9/11 out, and
then cover it up afterwards.

However, this debate is mostly irrelevant.

The fascist warmongers intend to start
World War III, in order to kill off most
of the world's people, while that elite
hides inside their multi-trillion dollar
underground shelters, and thus the
"truth" shall make no difference.

Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2008
Bahahhahahaaaahaaha! Multi-trillion dollar underground shelters....ROFLMFAO.
acarrilho
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 24, 2008
I love the USA and the American people. Can't imagine my life without its exports. That being said, I can't imagine how anyone sees the way WTC 7 falls and sees anything other than a controlled demolition. I've seen plenty of collapsed steel framed buildings, nothing even remotely similar to WTC 7. I've also seen plenty of plane crashes, nothing even remotely similar to flight 93, never mind the Pentagon. It's not ONE thing. A broad view over the whole incident reveals just too much coincidences and unlikelihoods. Some people just automatically assume an anti-patriot or anti-American prejudice behind the conspiracy theory. That's not always the case. Personally, I'm a lot sadder for my convictions, and I see the same manipulation of masses across the globe, and not just the USA.
acarrilho
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2008
Also, there are somethings you just can't get around. Silverstein admitted to having suggested to "pull" WTC 7 because the fire commander said they wouldn't be able to control the fire and there had already been such a "terrible loss of life".

http://www.youtub...dAJQV100

I'm open to interpretations, though I can't imagine any reasonable one.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2008
WOAH that and a bag of chips might buy you a sit down for some people to hear a crack pot conspiracy theory....but obviously not an indictment, much less a conviction in a court of law.
Blair
2.4 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2008
One of the things that 9/11 distracted attention from was
the announcement of the disappearance of 2.3 trillion dollars
out of the Pentagon's budget.

The attack on the Pentagon that day circled
around to wipe out that part of the building
where the records were kept, so that it would
never be possible to find out where trillions
of dollars disappeared to ...

Since the beginning of the nuclear arms race,
underground shelters have been built, and
there are plenty of indications that a
lot of black ops money went there ...

That black budget is of astronomical size.

Back in the 1960s, there already were
big underground shelters, and they
have been expanded since then.

Some of the old ones have been abandoned,
but some new ones have also been built ...

There are at least a couple hundred
such places in the USA, but there
are none for the vast majority
of the people that live there.

The entire civilian population
are hostages in modern warfare.
____________________________

Regarding your second posting:

There is no way there could be
any justice through the courts.

The entire system is already
way too corrupt to allow it.

There is an inherent process:

the triumph of lies, backed by coercion,
can not make the lies become true, thus,
gradually, the society become insane,
and collapses into chaos, when its
lies get too far away from reality.

Too much success at being dishonest,
and backing that up with violence,
results in final failure of that.
_____________________________

The relevant bottom line is this:

A government science agency is
asking us to believe that some
ordinary fires extraordinarily
caused a steel structure frame
to suddenly collapse, and so,

you are being asked to believe
in ideas which are clearly
physical science nonsense!

If you are willing to believe
in physical science nonsense,
then, of course, you will be
even more willing to believe
in political science bullshit.

Basically, you refuse to go through
the necessary paradigm shift to be
able to understand that the way
the laws of nature manifest in
human society is that we are
being controlled by lies,
backed up with coercion.

9/11 was merely an extreme example
of these fundamental social facts
that secret societies, that have
specialized in dishonesty and
violence, DO control things.

There is a perpetual secret war,
that occasionally manifests as
a more public war we can see.

There is no fundamental dichotomy between
governments & other organized crime gangs.

Governments are simply the best organized
of all the possible organized crime gangs,
which is why they are able to get away with
the biggest of all those possible crimes ...

There is a continuous process from
physics and biology through to be
what happens in human societies.

The ways that the laws of nature
manifest in the laws of man is
the laws of man are legalized
lies backed up with violence,
serving systems of various
kinds of organized fraud
and robbery, and it is
impossible for society
to ever be anything
else by some kind
of organized form
of social robbery.

If you want to believe the bullies' bullshit,
that we live in a "free & democratic" society,
then you may do so, however, the social facts,
and the definition of words, indicate that we
live inside of a fascist plutocracy, and that
is why it is possible for an organization like
NIST to publish blatant scientific nonsense.

The people who are best at being dishonest,
and backing it up with violence, control
the money, since they direct the process
of social robbery, and therefore, they
have almost all the carrots and sticks
to use to persuade people to agree to
do what those big bullies want done.

Most of science and technology is being
employed to enable people to be better
at being dishonest and violent, since
human beings fundamentally must act
as robbers in their environment, &
groups of people are, and must be,
gangs of robbers, which have some
established religions, or their
ideologies, to rationalize, or
justify, those facts with
their bullies' bullshit
social stories, ...

which most people were already
brainwashed to believe in, and
want to continue to believe in.

The influence of politics on science
is extremely important, and the way
that blatant physical nonsense can
be promoted by NIST about 9/11 is
one clear example of that problem.

The basic problem the human experiment faces
is that we have developed scientific methods
to understand the laws of nature in fields
like physics, chemistry and biology, which
has made it possible to make weapons that
are billions and trillions of times more
powerful than any that ever existed ...

Meanwhile, our social and political systems
are based on a social pyramid system, that
depends on keeping the majority of people
ignorant and afraid, so that they can be
controlled and exploited, and that is
spinning faster and faster, and is
spiralling out of control now ...

You can never understand 9/11 truth
unless you are willing to embrace
the dilemma that human beings
have discovered more truth
about everything, EXCEPT,
they want to deliberately
ignore the truth about
themselves ...
ancible
2.2 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2008
fleem said: "Yeah, and Bush called up some randomly picked middle-easterners and asked them if they'd kindly come to the USA and leave a trail of evidence of their preparations, then hop in some jets and sacrifice their lives for Bush, and they said, "Um, OK". And Bush accomplished this without anyone finding any evidence of it. Now THERE'S one clever and compelling politician!"

I spent some time in the military, and can say that compartmentalization is the cornerstone of military organization. This is important because a higher up can tell you something (go guard that road, call in an airstrike at that place, kill anyone who tries to enter this building) and not only are you used to not questioning it, but if you do, a good chunk of your ass will be missing soon after. This type of mentality expands to most large organizations, especially those that deal with fast-paced life and death decisions (Blackwater, Al-Qaeda, hell even hospitals).

So, it would be very easy (in theory) to pass down an obscure order, especially if it was intentionally muddied with worthless missions, to many different groups and have them each complete a different piece of the puzzle, blissfully unaware of what they were doing.

And all of this becomes much more possible if the unaware agents are foreign (i.e. getting Pakistani/Israeli/etc. intel to do the dirty work for you.) As we know, there is no shortage of desperate and violent people (and plenty of peaceful people too!) in the middle east.

In closing, it is a powerful (if sometimes immoral) strategy to keep the left hand ignorant of the rights doings.
thematrix606
2 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2008
Yeah, and Bush called up some randomly picked middle-easterners and asked them if they'd kindly come to the USA and leave a trail of evidence of their preparations, then hop in some jets and sacrifice their lives for Bush, and they said, "Um, OK". And Bush accomplished this without anyone finding any evidence of it. Now THERE'S one clever and compelling politician!


fleem...i've seen more than enough evidence for the connection of 9/11 with bush, etc... there's hundreds of videos online for your pleasure and learning. But reading your comment you make it seem like it's almost impossible to get away with something like this without being caught? They've bombed the WTC before, the CIA bombing, JFK? There's more than enough out there for you to study from.

To leave you something to think about: Ever wonder why the stories on the internet, some straight from the source like Iraq, or now George, are MUCH different than what you see on CCN for example, or read in a major newspaper? Just think about the source of the information... it's really easy, its called the Associated Press, and they feed these 'news' stories to the whole world, all global but from one source? Hmm, i have some bitter taste in my mouth just by thinking about it ;)
fleem
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2008
First, I see I should probably make clear that I am one of the few non-extremists in this world. I see both good intentions and bad intentions come from pretty much every administration (and I currently vote a third party, typically libertarian). I also know that small conspiracies do come and go. The JFK assassination probably was a good example, but I admit I'm not sure and don't know all that much about it. One thing scientists need to remember is that EVERYTHING in life is questionable, and the best we can do is assign things a probability of truth BETWEEN zero and one, exclusive. Bin Laden expressed pleasure in the 9/11 attack and there was dancing in the streets in several Muslim cities in the middle east. From this we can surmise that there are major forces in the middle east that might very well have sponsored the attack. Although I admit it is possible, it is not very probable that the attack was staged by Bush & Co.. Note that this doesn't mean certain people (maybe Bush, maybe not) were pleased to hear the news. If you have some info that CAN BE VERIFIED and that is at least somewhat damning, then cite it rather than pointing us to youtube and talking about how military & CIA people can keep their mouths shut for decades on something as hot as this--neither of those arguments implies it happened nor is very convincing. I will try as hard as any human can (which isn't saying much) to keep an open mind.
Soylent
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2008
fleem...i've seen more than enough evidence for the connection of 9/11 with bush, etc... there's hundreds of videos online for your pleasure and learning.


Lies, quote mining and non-sequiturs is neither pleasant nor a learning experience.
dachpyarvile
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2008
This article's explanation appears consistent with the direction of the fall of debris from the building. 'Nuff said.

On the thermates allegedly used to cut the girders, there is no way that the evidence is consistent with their use there. A36 structural steel also contains sulfur as part of the manganese sulfide used to alloy the steel for the rolling process. In addition, various fuels such as jet fuel also contain barium sulfate and other barium compounds as an additive. Barium compounds also are added to plastics, steels and other metal alloys. There were plenty of those substances in the fires in the WTC.

As to the "pull them" comment, it was made in reference to the evacuation of the men in the tower who could do nothing further for the building in its current state at that time. It had nothing to do with the building itself or with any other buildings.

Conspiracists need to give us some real evidence that excludes the other possibilities. Otherwise, Occam's Razor applies.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2008
WHAT!!!!!????
This from a twat calling himself or her Modernmystic...WELL MODERN MYSTIC INSTEAD OF THINKING YOU DO KNOW ALL, DO A LITTLE RESEARCH LIKE THE REST OF US OBVIOUSLY HAVE,
OH THE WORLDS FLAT TOO YOU KNOW, NOB!


I rest my case...
dachpyarvile
4.7 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2008
...DO A LITTLE RESEARCH LIKE THE REST OF US OBVIOUSLY HAVE,
OH THE WORLDS FLAT TOO YOU KNOW, NOB!


Inorganic and metals. The concentrations of elements found in the samples are shown in Table 2, which provides values for an array of elements detectable by ICP/MS. The levels of many of the elements are consistent with their presence in building materials, including chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and barium. The very high levels of titanium (> 0.1%) were due to their presence in paint, especially white paint. The lead levels are elevated due to the use of lead-based paint on metallic surfaces during construction of the building.

Source: http://www.ehponl...ull.html
acarrilho
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2008
As to the "pull them" comment, it was made in reference to the evacuation of the men in the tower who could do nothing further for the building in its current state at that time. It had nothing to do with the building itself or with any other buildings.


Hear it again. He said "pull it", not "pull them out" or anything of the sort.

More importantly, the firefighters' reaction (who weren't inside the building) was "It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..." There is absolutely no reason to think a steel framed building will be falling because of internal fires, and these reactions were totally unwarranted without a demolition warning.
acarrilho
2.4 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2008
Conspiracists need to give us some real evidence that excludes the other possibilities. Otherwise, Occam's Razor applies.


It does apply. A conspiracy isn't the complicated explanation. On the contrary, it ties all the loose ends together.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2008
Completely unimpressed with the transcript. I guess it all just depends on what you want to see (or hear).
acarrilho
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2008
Occam's Razor usually supports insurance frauds. Particularly when it creates an eternal invisible enemy to perpetuate war profits.
acarrilho
1 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2008
Completely unimpressed with the transcript. I guess it all just depends on what you want to see (or hear).


If you can't remain objective that's your problem. I certainly don't want to hear evidence of governmental conspiracies, and would very much like to be show evidence that I'm wrong. Unfortunately, what I want isn't relevant.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2008
If you can't remain objective that's your problem.


At the risk of being trite...ditto.
acarrilho
2 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2008
If you can't remain objective that's your problem.


At the risk of being trite...ditto.


So when you hear a firefighter walking away from a steel-framed building, saying it's about to "blow up", after Silverstein and the commander gave the order to "pull it", and you don't see that as an indication the building was demolished, you think you're being objective?
Glis
5 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2008
This report is scarier than if the building was intentionally demolished.

This basically says that if you cut the water supply and set some fires you can take down a rather large modern building in a few hours?

I still don't understand how the city water being cut off would kill the sprinklers. Where I used to work they messed up and used the sprinkler water to fill a pool and it set of alarms because the sprinklers used their own reservior and pumps. I'd assume at least that level of redundancy in a building 100x the size.
p1ll
2 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2008
since when did physorg get invaded by TROOFERS??? This is a science websight, not a lunatic conspiracy website. you people (you know who you are) need to get a life, oh and and education.
p1ll
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2008
oh, and so is bush just a lucky monkey/idiot mass murdering dictator, or the most clever mass murderer in history (who poses as a bumbling idiot)? I thought you leftist lunatics think he's an idiot. Oh, but he was smart enough to pull of the greatest mass murder in american history and not get caught.

idiots
COCO
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2008
If someone has any actual proof - one piece of scientifically proven piece of evidence - they have not to date produced anything. Theories that have more holes than Swiss cheese being proffered by weak minds like Kanadians - there is more physical artefacts to prove Jesus was god or that UFOs are landing i.e. ZERO!

Get jobs people - Pray that we can defeat the evil of terror like we are destroying drugs!


let us not quibble over details and some discrepancies with the Executive office - these thiings happen in War. Let us rather huddle together and pray that if we join and increase our efforts the War on Terror will become even half as successful as our War on Drugs.

Move on folks .....

Let us move on from these mean spirited attacks against what historians will no doubt call a hero of the state. Mr. Rove and the President need our Support in these trying times. Huddling together in prayer will go a long way to healing Amerika.

acarrilho
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2008
p1ll, insulting people over the internet is pretty much as cowardly as cowardly can get, and it gives your opinion ZERO credibility. Come back when you can address the arguments without ad hominems.

As you correctly pointed out, this is a science website, and science is being pissed on by the NIST.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2008
So when you hear a firefighter walking away from a steel-framed building, saying it's about to "blow up", after Silverstein and the commander gave the order to "pull it", and you don't see that as an indication the building was demolished,


No, sorry if that shocks you somehow, but it's just as baffling to me that you think this is some kind of proof that the government killed 3000 people and made a smoking crater in NYC. Those phrases in and of themselves don't point to any grand conspiracy...period. Moreover why would they say such things over unsecured coms if it WERE a conspiracy? "Pull it"....is that really the phrase your theory hinges on, because if it is it's REEEEEAAAAALLLLLLY thin.

It just goes back to my point that if there WERE some kind of CREDIBLE proof of what you're saying someone would already have been charged with a crime, despite this "stuff" being all over the Internet and millions of dedicated disciples it's gone nowhere...probably for a very good reason.

In any case I'm one of those people that thinks some things are worth debating and others aren't (for instance whether or not the world is round). This is one of those cases. Pointing out how silly people are for thinking the world is flat (which is basically what I've been doing) really isn't debating the issue.
SUB
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2008
The uniform manner in which WTC 7 fell, including the speed at which it fell, are the first and most important indications as to what most likely caused the collapse. Any report that cleverly ignores very basic physics is in it's very begining flawed/ incomplete and very possibly corrupted.
I have never thought of the WTC7 collapse as anything other than a destruction of incriminating evidence. NIST are unlikely to ever convince the sane or unblind amoung us of anything other than that.
I see, seemingly, well educated peoples responses to this piece that completely miss the very obvious point that this building collapsed at near freefall speed onto it's own footprint. HELLO !.
x646d63
1 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2008
There is plenty of credible evidence to suspect domestic conspiracy. But a government responsible for a crime won't likely indict itself, and rest assured that Republicans and Democrats alike are all part of whatever plan is in motion. They will not be disrupting it with "legalities" as they have all demonstrated repeatedly over the last 24 years.

However, I find it important to note that a group of people conspired and killed around 3000 people on 9/11. That part is not debated.

To reflexively assume that the American government isn't capable of it wreaks of overwhelming national bias, and un-objective thinking.

Somebody had to be willing to kill "innocent" people, and there's simply no reason to assume that the American government is incapable of killing American innocents if its ultimate goals will be achieved by doing so. The American government has demonstrated its willingness to kill innocent civilians in every war it has fought (whether they are collateral damage or not), and if you believe the term "innocent" then the nationality of the "innocent" should be irrelevant.

We have killed many thousands of "innocents" in Iraq to achieve whatever convoluted agenda is to be achieved, so 3,000 more "innocents" in America is just a few drops in the overall bucket.

Killing American "innocents" is no more evil than killing "innocents" abroad, and our government is more than capable of doing so.
x646d63
1 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2008
1) As far as collapsing is concerned, it depends on the failure mode. The failure for the WTC was in the center of the building....


You need to review the floorplan above. Column 79 is hardly the center of the building.
acarrilho
1 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2008
No, sorry if that shocks you somehow, but it's just as baffling to me that you think this is some kind of proof that the government killed 3000 people and made a smoking crater in NYC.


It's one indication, not "the" proof. You're just beating up a a straw man there.

Those phrases in and of themselves don't point to any grand conspiracy...period.


No, they point out to a controlled demolition... period.

Moreover why would they say such things over unsecured coms if it WERE a conspiracy? "Pull it"....is that really the phrase your theory hinges on, because if it is it's REEEEEAAAAALLLLLLY thin.


I'm not sure you're familiar with any of this. What "unsecured coms"? The man gave an interview, and probably thought the demolition was so bloody obvious (since the plane that was supposed to hit never did) he had to say something about it.

It just goes back to my point that if there WERE some kind of CREDIBLE proof of what you're saying someone would already have been charged with a crime, despite this "stuff" being all over the Internet and millions of dedicated disciples it's gone nowhere...probably for a very good reason.


Governmental corruption is nothing new, and politicians routinely lie to the people, get away with it, and everyone knows it. I don't understand why something on a larger scale is discarded as a "conspiracy theory". These corrupt people care as much about one life as they do about 3000. People are scared shitless about testifying against any low-life out there, how many are willing to do anything serious against the U.S. government? Having to live with an ugly reality doesn't mean we can't recognize it.

In any case I'm one of those people that thinks some things are worth debating and others aren't (for instance whether or not the world is round). This is one of those cases. Pointing out how silly people are for thinking the world is flat (which is basically what I've been doing) really isn't debating the issue.


Thank you for the weak analogy. It's a logical fallacy, though, so not much use to anyone.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2008
So Nixon was forced to resign because we can't do anything about government corruption? Or perhaps you're suggesting that the world has changed so much since then that NOW it's not possible to bring down a president with a couple of reporters and some hard evidence...whatever.
acarrilho
3.5 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2008
So Nixon was forced to resign because we can't do anything about government corruption? Or perhaps you're suggesting that the world has changed so much since then that NOW it's not possible to bring down a president with a couple of reporters and some hard evidence...whatever.


I shouldn't have to point it out, but the president isn't the government.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2008
If you think you could get the American government together to do anything at all...much less something like this, then you seriously have another think coming.
dbren
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2008
It's all well and good to be skeptical of government and to always question authority, but Jeez Louise, some of the stuff I've read here would get laughed off the Art Bell show. Get a grip, people. You don't have to make up phony conspiracy theories to justify distrust of government. The Ur-villain here is Franklin Roosevelt, not George Bush. Bush just built a little on the solid foundation laid by his predecessors. The US government has been over-reaching its constitutional authority for almost 80 years.
acarrilho
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2008
It's all well and good to be skeptical of government and to always question authority, but Jeez Louise, some of the stuff I've read here would get laughed off the Art Bell show. Get a grip, people. You don't have to make up phony conspiracy theories to justify distrust of government.


It's not my government, so I've got nothing to justify. And to reiterate, I love the U.S.A. and most of its exports. I'm not a hypocrite. My government is bad enough. But just saying "you're wrong" when you're pointed to all the physical impossibilities of the "official version" isn't convincing to anyone that is familiar with them, and that's pretty much all I get in return.
Great_Idea
5 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2008
Man, I know one thing is for sure, it certainly looks as though there is a much easier and less expensive way to bring buildings down than to do a controlled demolition. Not to mention with equal or better results. Forget spending all the time it takes to set up dynamite and the planning process to ensure it comes down in one perfect pile. Torch the building the way this report suggests and it makes all the training and preparation involved in a controlled demolition obselete.

I bet all the controlled demolition experts are just kicking themselves right now saying "Darn is that really all it takes?"
acarrilho
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2008
So much for the weeks and weeks of planning how to make a building collapse into its footprint. It's interesting how so many Occam's Razor proponents would rather chalk it up as "coincidence".
acarrilho
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2008
unbelievable... i can't believe all the conspiracy comments on this story.


Why do you keep coming back?

you people think the government is so evil as to kill 3000 innocent americans to profit from war. just for money... government types that are already rich, want to get even MORE rich by killing innocent people... right...


Whenever you want to address the actual evidence supporting just that, feel free to do so.

but islamofascists who openly call for murder of americans and the destruction of our country, nooooo, couldn't be them, could it?


It was them. The government just opened the door and showed them in. The "islamofascists" knew what government intelligence wanted them to know. Like "the entire U.S. air defense response will be down for no good reason for this time frame". Does "black ops" mean anything to you?

i suppose the WTC bombing in 1994 was our government also? the obvious explanation just isn't spooky enough is it?


Silverstein has been wanting the WTC demolished for a long time.

Much more interesting if it's our own government instead of what really happened.


Wishful thinking isn't evidence.

war profiteers murder thousands of people to make $$$$ on perpetual war!! america is sooo evil!


Oh, if only it was just America.

foools!!!


Are you simply unable to comment without insults?
p1ll
2 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2008
what about popular science's debunking of 911? have you read it?

http://www.popula...842.html

I'll side with popular science's explanation...
p1ll
1 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2008
regarding the WT7 collapse, specifically:

http://www.popula...e=5#wtc7

you telling me this is all bullsh*t?
thematrix606
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2008
First, I see I should probably make clear that I am one of the few non-extremists in this world. I see both good intentions and bad intentions come from pretty much every administration (and I currently vote a third party, typically libertarian). I also know that small conspiracies do come and go. The JFK assassination probably was a good example, but I admit I'm not sure and don't know all that much about it. One thing scientists need to remember is that EVERYTHING in life is questionable, and the best we can do is assign things a probability of truth BETWEEN zero and one, exclusive.


Fleem, first of all, thnx for the quick reply...

Bin Laden expressed pleasure in the 9/11 attack and there was dancing in the streets in
several Muslim cities in the middle east.


I've seen the images of Bin Laden, i've also seen specialists on CNN confirming that those images are not authentic, i've also seen reports on cnn and other major news networks that Bin Laden was in the country and left on the same day the bombings happened in a private jet...

From this we can surmise that there are major forces in the middle east that might very well have sponsored the attack.


I would have to say that you refer to the late 80's and see what happened in Afghanistan and see how their people were fighting the Russians pretty much for the rest of the world during the cold war. The Americans supplied all their money to fight this war, before this, the country didn't even have roads connecting it's cities. You can refer to "Charlie Wilson's War" watch the movie, than look it up yourself.

Although I admit it is possible, it is not very probable that the attack was staged by Bush & Co.. Note that this doesn't mean certain people (maybe Bush, maybe not) were pleased to hear the news. If you have some info that CAN BE VERIFIED and that is at least somewhat damning, then cite it rather than pointing us to youtube and talking about how military & CIA people can keep their mouths shut for decades on something as hot as this--neither of those arguments implies it happened nor is very convincing.


I'm no debunking expert or crazy conspirator theorist but from what i've seen, on the net and on the tv is, that Chaney had the chance to shoot the planes down and he did nothing. Some of Bush's family members were at the top seat in some major operations that could have prevented this as well(I think there was someone from his family working security of the city, or building, not sure which one exactly).

And yes the CIA can keep their mouth's shut and so can the rest of the government, and i'll refer back to JFK for an easy example. We still don't have all the footage released - the same will happen with the pentagon footage, why is it so important that the public doesn't see this footage? YOU make up your mind on that, why is it necessary for the government to keep this footage away? Like in the JFK assassination, we've already seen his head blow up, what more can there be? Who are they protecting? Us or them?

I will try as hard as any human can (which isn't saying much) to keep an open mind.


That's all you can ask from anyone really, 2 thumbs up.

Final thought: The WTC buildings were built to withstand so much more than a single plane hitting them, the building's architects have gone on NATIONAL tv saying this many times. FEMA had 1 day to collect evidence and report... and then all of the evidence was conveniently removed from the site? If this was a terrorist attack, wouldn't you want a BIT more investigation including the REAL evidence from the investigation site? Just a few things to think about...
thematrix606
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2008
Oh and i forgot to mention up in my other comment, why is it when Bush gets told that the country is under attack, he sits comfortably in that room full of kids? I've seen that tape over and over, ask yourselves and anyone else...why?

All in all, there's just too many issues with the whole official story that it doesn't make sense, even if it is NOT the current administration's fault, why are they keeping the truth away from the public?
acarrilho
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2008
what about popular science's debunking of 911? have you read it?

http://www.popula...842.html

I'll side with popular science's explanation...


I've read it, and can easily observe none of the obvious inconsistencies are even remotely addressed. Most of the stuff we're pointing out here isn't commented on. They're cherry picking weak arguments, setting up a straw man based solely on them, and pounding it as if they're debunking anything.
acarrilho
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2008
Oh and i forgot to mention up in my other comment, why is it when Bush gets told that the country is under attack, he sits comfortably in that room full of kids? I've seen that tape over and over, ask yourselves and anyone else...why?


That image was particularly disturbing. And he blatantly lied about it, saying he saw the first plane hit the tower, before the second plane hit. He must be clairvoyant, because no one else saw the footage of the first, before the second hit.
COCO
1 / 5 (1) Aug 26, 2008
The solution is now in the can and Amerika can sleep in peace. This works echoes Prof Seffen at Cambridge in the UK. Funny how none of the debunkers or truthers have this type of science to backup thier supositions. Move on people to detroying the terror and freedoms of the earth - join our President and future leader Mr. McCain with this task.
x646d63
3 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2008
So Nixon was forced to resign because we can't do anything about government corruption? Or perhaps you're suggesting that the world has changed so much since then that NOW it's not possible to bring down a president with a couple of reporters and some hard evidence...


Well, the Niger yellowcake documents were forged (by Mossad). The "information was being fixed around the policy." And "we know where the WMD are, they are around Tikrit..."

It has become public knowledge, to even highly uninformed people that the Iraq invasion was unjustified and that information was created or manipulated to get congressional support for an invasion.

And yet these "policymakers" who lied us into war are now faced with a speaker of the house who controls the opposition party and says "impeachment is off the table?" And when impeachment articles are presented by Kucinich they get stuffed into committee and ignored?

The democratic party and the republican party are both supporting whatever agenda that 9/11, and the subsequent invasions are intended to escalate. Neither party is working for what the people say they want, they are working for whatever agenda they believe is best for the American government. (This may be what's best for the people, but the actual agenda is not obvious to most.) And they will lie, cheat, steal and kill in order to meet those objectives--and there will be little (if any) accountability because their goal is too important for the US.

Although I believe 9/11 was homegrown (by perhaps 30 elite government officials) and safely compartmentalized through effective planning, I do believe that this group is working towards a goal of controlling the world's important natural resources (not directly for the benefit of the US but for the demise of China, Russia and India.) This would, of course, benefit Americans, and we are wagering our entire economy on it.

So I disapprove of dishonesty and disrespect, and would rather see a world where we all got along, but I know that the entrenched belief in the illusion of power is simply too great for governments and they will continue to lie, cheat, steal and kill to meet their objectives.
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2008
First off let me thank you for a thoughtful cogent response. I'll try to return the favor.

Well, the Niger yellowcake documents were forged (by Mossad). The "information was being fixed around the policy." And "we know where the WMD are, they are around Tikrit..."


Even if true (probable) it doesn't change the fact that he did use gas against the Kurds. He had them at one time, we know this for fact. The only thing we don't know is what happened to them.

Moreover, and you may certainly reasonably disagree with me on this point...I never personally cared about WMD. I was for the invasion more on strategic grounds, and I saw no legitimacy to Saddam's regime (for about a thousand different reasons) so I had no problem with us removing it. The stupidity of the Iraq war (leaving out the horrific planning and post war execution of security) was it was with Iraq...and not the real threat in the region Iran.

It has become public knowledge, to even highly uninformed people that the Iraq invasion was unjustified


Well that depends on how you define unjustified. There are many countries in the world who "have it coming". If Saddam would have just let in the inspectors we wouldn't be where we are either...but here we are.

and that information was created or manipulated to get congressional support for an invasion.


Yes, based on all the information I have I'd say that that is highly probable.

And yet these "policymakers" who lied us into war are now faced with a speaker of the house who controls the opposition party and says "impeachment is off the table?" And when impeachment articles are presented by Kucinich they get stuffed into committee and ignored?


The big screw up there is that Kucinich was the one who presented them. If they could have got a more respected member they might have gone further. Frankly that man is regarded by a majority of Americans (albeit a slim one) as a tin foil hatted fool. Regardless, I happen to agree that impeachment should most defiantly not be off the table over THOSE issues.

The democratic party and the republican party are both supporting whatever agenda that 9/11, and the subsequent invasions are intended to escalate.


No, sorry we're just going to have to agree to disagree there.

Neither party is working for what the people say they want, they are working for whatever agenda they believe is best for the American government.


There's another place we agree, I think we just disagree on the specifics.

And they will lie, cheat, steal and kill in order to meet those objectives--and there will be little (if any) accountability because their goal is too important for the US.


You had me with lie, cheat, and steal...lost me with kill. Again I just haven't seen enough evidence to convince me of the latter. For now, again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Although I believe 9/11 was homegrown (by perhaps 30 elite government officials) and safely compartmentalized through effective planning, I do believe that this group is working towards a goal of controlling the world's important natural resources (not directly for the benefit of the US but for the demise of China, Russia and India.) This would, of course, benefit Americans, and we are wagering our entire economy on it.


Is this possible? Absolutely. Is it probable? I'm middle of the road on that one. Did it in fact happen? Unless someone comes up with a lot more evidence than I've seen presented here (and elsewhere) I have to say no it did not.

Since I've put my foot forward maybe I could ask some questions...

1. If the pentagon was not hit by a plane (which is I believe what some people believe) then what happened to that plane? Four planes went down, where DID it hit?

2. If you wanted to make a big splash and kill a lot of people and cause a lot of mayhem...why bother with a controlled demolition to minimize the damage to the footprint when such a failure would arouse suspicion and do less damage. Seems lose lose , instead of a win win chaotic demolition.

3.Were comments made by the firefighters (which I'd hardly call incriminating) brought to light through interviews, or interceptions/recordings of the conversations. If the latter why were they broadcasting such "incriminating" information on a public channel?

4. Were there no eyewitnesses outside the pentagon to it's attack? If so did they say they saw a plane, a cruise missile, or a mixture of the two?

5. This is less a question and more of a comment. I think it's well to remember that incompetence, stupidity, or a simple inability to think clearly under pressure is NOT evidence of malfeasance, I think the former is much more likely...especially in governmental circles. It took FEMA 5 days to get water to the stadium....
acarrilho
1 / 5 (1) Aug 26, 2008
1. If the pentagon was not hit by a plane (which is I believe what some people believe) then what happened to that plane? Four planes went down, where DID it hit?


I'm not aware of conclusive evidence it wasn't a plane. A few wrong premises don't invalidate a theory with so many.

2. If you wanted to make a big splash and kill a lot of people and cause a lot of mayhem...why bother with a controlled demolition to minimize the damage to the footprint when such a failure would arouse suspicion and do less damage. Seems lose lose , instead of a win win chaotic demolition.


This is actually interesting. Many people insist the collapse WASN'T contained inside the building's footprint. This particular argument can go either way, I guess. Personally, I have the feeling it WAS in fact, too neat, but if the main idea was to have a plane hit the building, that wouldn't have been much of an issue. That's why I believe Silverstein admitted to "pulling" the building. Because it WAS neat enough to be obvious.

3.Were comments made by the firefighters (which I'd hardly call incriminating) brought to light through interviews, or interceptions/recordings of the conversations. If the latter why were they broadcasting such "incriminating" information on a public channel?


The comments I heard were from amateur videos from people nearby. Have you seen the video where the fireman says the building is about to "blow up"? I'm not saying this by itself is enough to convince anyone, it's just one more indication.

4. Were there no eyewitnesses outside the pentagon to it's attack? If so did they say they saw a plane, a cruise missile, or a mixture of the two?


Honestly, I rather only comment on what I can see for myself.
COCO
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2008
Does any engineering school in the US or ROW have an alternate theory? Surely as part of even a 'devil's advocate' exercise in fourth year civil. I know NIST had the best talent available but a minority report would be expected for an event of this significance. I wonder if someone important had died that day whether an exhaustive criminal investigation have ensued.
x646d63
3 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2008
First off let me thank you for a thoughtful cogent response. I'll try to return the favor.


A much preferred course, I agree.

Even if true (probable) it doesn't change the fact that he did use gas against the Kurds. ... The only thing we don't know is what happened to them.


If gassing the kurds was enough, why wasn't that the primary motivation disclosed to the public for support? Because most people who care about this stuff know that despots kill their own (and their political enemies.) Saddam wasn't unique (or very threatening to us.) Besides, who supplied him with the gas? (hint: UK) And we know what happened to the gas, it was destroyed after the first gulf war.

Moreover, and you may certainly reasonably disagree with me on this point...I never personally cared about WMD.


Again, I care about our government telling us lies about it. Most 'net informed people knew Iraq had no WMD. I care about the lies.

I was for the invasion more on strategic grounds, and I saw no legitimacy to Saddam's regime ... so I had no problem with us removing it.


Why can't the government just tell us what the strategic reasons are? I know the answer to that. But even so, lying and then pretending you didn't just isn't a great plan.

and not the real threat in the region Iran.


The only threat Iran poses is its close ties to Russia which we are currently strengthening. They are enriching uranium to 3%, which is appropriate for power, not weapons.

And if the possession of nuclear weapons is a bad thing, why do we have tens of thousands? Why has our government spent billions (trillions perhaps) of dollars telling us that MAD (mutually assured destruction) is a GOOD thing?

Well that depends on how you define unjustified.


I use the dictionary.

There are many countries in the world who "have it coming".


From whom? And why should we be the bringer?

If Saddam would have just let in the inspectors


Um, he did. We removed them prior to the invasion.

The big screw up there is that Kucinich was the one who presented them.


So some representatives are less valuable than others? That's not very democratic. Should all be heard equally, or are you an elitist?

The democratic party and the republican party are both supporting whatever agenda that 9/11, and the subsequent invasions are intended to escalate.


No, sorry we're just going to have to agree to disagree there.


Would love to see some evidence to the contrary. Voting records and actions are much more meaningful than words of course.

And they will lie, cheat, steal and kill in order to meet those objectives--and there will be little (if any) accountability because their goal is too important for the US.


You had me with lie, cheat, and steal...lost me with kill. Again I just haven't seen enough evidence to convince me of the latter. For now, again, we'll have to agree to disagree.


America dropped two atomic bombs on innocent people to achieve an agenda (we can argue about that agenda, too I suppose.) But we did it. We killed hundreds of thousands of "innocents."

Why is it so foreign and impossible in your mind that our government would be capable of killing 3,000 for this modern agenda?

Is it because Americans are somehow more "innocent" or valuable than other people? That's the only argument that would make sense, and it's a pretty disgusting one. But don't let me argue for you.

Since I've put my foot forward maybe I could ask some questions...

1. If the pentagon was not hit by a plane (which is I believe what some people believe) then what happened to that plane? Four planes went down, where DID it hit?


The no-planers are fringe. It's obvious something hit. It's safe to assume a plane hit the Pentagon. However, I have read some aerodynamic reports that suggest flying a large jet into the ground floor at the pentagon at the speed it was traveling would be exceedingly difficult, and impossible for a poorly trained pilot. But I have seen no evidence to the contrary, so I'll accept that a plane hit the pentagon.

2. If you wanted to make a big splash and kill a lot of people and cause a lot of mayhem...why bother with a controlled demolition to minimize the damage to the footprint when such a failure would arouse suspicion and do less damage. Seems lose lose , instead of a win win chaotic demolition.


Apparently dropping the buildings into their own footprint (or near their footprint) was sufficient. WTC1 and WTC2 did damage a lot of their neighbors. WTC7 is the only that really dropped straight down.

Besides, only the towers arguably *needed* to come down (asbestos and other contaminants.) It wasn't financially feasible for a funded demolition, and they really had to go. The rest of the complex was more modern.

WTC7, on the other hand, contained a lot of very important physical evidence of the Reagan years and the Clinton years among other investigations (Iran Contra, Columbian cocaine smuggling through Arkansas, and modern investigations into malfeasance) among other offices that handily disappeared into the rubble.

3.Were comments made by the firefighters (which I'd hardly call incriminating) brought to light through interviews, or interceptions/recordings of the conversations. If the latter why were they broadcasting such "incriminating" information on a public channel?


Silverstein (who benefited greatly from these attacks) made his "pull it" comment during a TV interview (shown on PBS.)

The firefighters' conversations were recorded by the public who listened into those radio frequencies with scanners.

4. Were there no eyewitnesses outside the pentagon to it's attack? If so did they say they saw a plane, a cruise missile, or a mixture of the two?


Good question. Why weren't these people interviewed and their testimony made public?

5. This is less a question and more of a comment. I think it's well to remember that incompetence, stupidity, or a simple inability to think clearly under pressure is NOT evidence of malfeasance, I think the former is much more likely...especially in governmental circles. It took FEMA 5 days to get water to the stadium....


Do you really think our military, the one you want to send into Iran, is incompetent? Do you really think we've spent over a trillion dollars on a domestic defense system that doesn't work? Do you really think we can dispatch four fighters within 19 minutes to get a visual on a Lear Jet carrying a golfer over the midwest, but can't get jets next to rogue jumbo jets flying over manhattan within the same time frame? Seriously?
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2008
If gassing the kurds was enough, why wasn't that the primary motivation disclosed to the public for support?


Not gassing the kurds per se. However his gassing them meant he had gas, therefore he had WMD%u2026Q.E.D.

And we know what happened to the gas, it was destroyed after the first gulf war.


Was it? How do we know that? Since specious arguments abound on this thread let me put one forth. Why were there massive convoys of trucks moving in and out of Syria right up until the invasion?

Again, I care about our government telling us lies about it. Most 'net informed people knew Iraq had no WMD. I care about the lies.


First let me be clear Iraq DID have WMDs, this is an indisputable fact. The only question is when did they get rid of them. Is it probable that our intelligence agencies knew that they were moving them to Syria and they weren%u2019t a credible threat in any case prior to the war? Yes. There is one man I think who WAS kept in the dark however%u2026Collin Powell.

Why can't the government just tell us what the strategic reasons are? I know the answer to that. But even so, lying and then pretending you didn't just isn't a great plan.


No arguments from me here. I think it%u2019s reprehensible to herd us like sheep in this way. Even though I cared little about the WMDs I know many of my fellow citizens did and would have withheld support for the war had the position of the government been otherwise.

Even though I didn%u2019t care about this issue I think I should respect my fellow citizens opinions on the subject, after all it%u2019s their blood and treasure on the line too and last time I checked we were still supposed to be a Republic. Even if this meant (actually especially if this meant) there would be no invasion otherwise.

The only threat Iran poses is its close ties to Russia which we are currently strengthening. They are enriching uranium to 3%, which is appropriate for power, not weapons.


Nope sorry, Iran is a big threat all by its lonesome. Unlike Iraq it probably will have nukes presently, and much more sophisticated delivery systems (tho our bases in Poland will largely do away with the threat of certain delivery systems, it can%u2019t take away the threat of a suitcase nuke etc.). It is ruled by a hysterical bigoted genocidal lunatic hell bent on %u201Cwiping Israel off the map%u201D with the added cherry on top that he has delusions of religious grandeur.

It%u2019s the populace of Iran I feel sorry for, who by and large are pro-American. They are (again by and large) sympathetic to western ideals and if the religious zealots who have their boots on the collective neck of the populace over there were gone would actually most likely be a good ally in the region. The problem is there%u2019s no way to get from here to there without tearing through that (on the whole) innocent mass of good people. I%u2019m more for bombing the bejesus out of Natanz and several other key sites in the country and leave it at that. However, even that isn%u2019t a good solution to a cruddy situation.

And if the possession of nuclear weapons is a bad thing, why do we have tens of thousands? Why has our government spent billions (trillions perhaps) of dollars telling us that MAD (mutually assured destruction) is a GOOD thing?


I know you%u2019re waaaay smarter than this. I%u2019d like them to be gone too, but we both know that as long as communist Chinese and the Russian dictat%u2026errr federation have them so will we. Worry about the things you can change bro, you%u2019ll sleep better.

I use the dictionary.


Beneath ya. You knew what I meant.

From whom? And why should we be the bringer?


From their own populace more often than not, but from us too (speaking of Iran, their funneling weapons into Iraq is a good example). We should be the bringer because by and large we%u2019re the only ones capable, and willing to do so. We can%u2019t fix them all (lord knows we%u2019ve been having enough trouble with just two), but we can pull their teeth if they bare them and bark at us.

Um, he did. We removed them prior to the invasion.


Again beneath you. I don%u2019t really think I needed to qualify that statement by saying the inspectors were lead on a dog and pony show to the sites Saddam picked for them to see. As the situation was they were useless, actually worse than useless because they kept the truth obfuscated and the rest of the world in indecision as long as they were there.

So some representatives are less valuable than others? That's not very democratic.


No but it%u2019s basic American politics.

Should all be heard equally, or are you an elitist?


No I%u2019m a realist. I should have a million bucks but I%u2019m not going to wait for it to fall out of the sky and land on my front lawn.

Would love to see some evidence to the contrary. Voting records and actions are much more meaningful than words of course.


Touche. We were talking about something that isn%u2019t exactly going to be on the voting records though, and a good deal more nefarious than %u201Cyou give me my bridge to nowhere and I%u2019ll fund your jobs program%u201D.

America dropped two atomic bombs on innocent people to achieve an agenda (we can argue about that agenda, too I suppose.) But we did it. We killed hundreds of thousands of "innocents."


We did so in the full light of the public and the world.

Why is it so foreign and impossible in your mind that our government would be capable of killing 3,000 for this modern agenda?


Actually if you read my post carefully I didn%u2019t say it was impossible, or even improbable. What I said was the weight of the evidence hasn%u2019t convinced me yet.

The no-planers are fringe.


Nuff said, I agree. Ya%u2019ll should point this out more because a lot of us %u201Cnon believers%u201D get hung up on that one and might%u2026MIGHT be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Apparently dropping the buildings into their own footprint (or near their footprint) was sufficient.


Yes, but this doesn%u2019t really answer my question. It would have been %u201Cbetter%u201D if more had died and the whole thing looked more %u201Cnatural%u201D.

WTC1 and WTC2 did damage a lot of their neighbors. WTC7 is the only that really dropped straight down.


So the only one that didn%u2019t kill anyone was the only one demolished intentionally? Or did it kill people?

WTC7, on the other hand, contained a lot of very important physical evidence of the Reagan years and the Clinton years among other investigations (Iran Contra, Columbian cocaine smuggling through Arkansas, and modern investigations into malfeasance) among other offices that handily disappeared into the rubble.


Sources?

Do you really think our military, the one you want to send into Iran%u2026


More like to%u2026not into.

%u2026is incompetent?


Did I miss something, were you accusing the military or the civilian government of these shortfalls? If you weren%u2019t accusing the military then I%u2019m at a loss how they were brought into the conversation. I don%u2019t think the military is incompetent, never even suggested it. I said it was the government that was incompetent in its response. Big difference.

Do you really think we've spent over a trillion dollars on a domestic defense system that doesn't work?


Put a 230 million dollar f-22 in the hands of a cessna pilot and see what kind of performance you get out of that machine.

Do you really think we can dispatch four fighters within 19 minutes to get a visual on a Lear Jet carrying a golfer over the midwest, but can't get jets next to rogue jumbo jets flying over manhattan within the same time frame? Seriously?


Yes. The first plane was assumed an accident by most people. On the second crash we knew, but by then it was too late. No jet can intercept and shoot down something after it%u2019s already hit the building.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2008
Sorry about the coding, that will teach me to use word to edit my posts here.
SUB
1 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2008
I read with interest the following piece on the front page of the Guarian (UK) today. I think some of the more rational on this thread will find the following excerpt interesting. Pay particular attention to the latter part of the second paragraph:

"A Whitehall counter-terrorism unit is targeting the BBC and other media organisations as part of a new global propaganda push designed to "taint the al-Qaida brand", according to a secret Home Office paper seen by the Guardian.

The document also shows that Whitehall counter-terrorism experts intend to exploit new media websites and outlets with a proposal to "channel messages through volunteers in internet forums" as part of their campaign".

As I read this I couldn't help but think of this thread for some STRANGE reason?.

If I recieve a number of low ranking scores on this comment then please draw your own conclusions as to why.
p1ll
2 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2008
maybe i just dont want to believe my country is evil. its a defect of mine i guess...

if its a choice between iran and USA, i'll side with USA.

if it's a choice between russia and USA, i'll go with USA.

If its a choice between china and USA, i'll go with USA again..

i concede that I am biased. I just don't think the USA is an evil capitalist, imperialist nation.

I think the USA is good for the world.

I just hope the conspiracy people aren't right.

who really knows whats really going on.
acarrilho
2 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2008
maybe i just dont want to believe my country is evil. its a defect of mine i guess...


It's no defect. But what we want isn't relevant.

if its a choice between iran and USA, i'll side with USA.

if it's a choice between russia and USA, i'll go with USA.

If its a choice between china and USA, i'll go with USA again..


The Iranians, the Russian, and the Chinese probably say the same about their own countries.

i concede that I am biased. I just don't think the USA is an evil capitalist, imperialist nation.


Admitting to bias is the first step towards objectivity, if that is what one is interested in. The USA are most definitely capitalist and imperialist. I think "evil" is just part of the package, but describes the government and the powerful elite, not the people.

I think the USA is good for the world.


Depends on what you mean by "good". I can't imagine my life without the Internet, or Hollywood for that matter, but I don't give the government credit for what is good, but to the creativity of the American people. Many Europeans are incredibly hypocritical about the USA. I for one am not.

I just hope the conspiracy people aren't right.


You and me both.

who really knows whats really going on.


You know more than most by now.
acarrilho
2 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2008
Also interesting are several videos about the Flight 93 crash site. Not only there are no plane parts anywhere (utterly ridiculous by itself), it seems the big scar left in the ground was there before 9/11, and it was just "expanded" on to accommodate the "crash".
Modernmystic
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2008
Taint the al-Qaida brand? Was the guardian actually SERIOUS? My god that's like saying someone would go out of their way to point out that it's not a good idea to smoke if you want healthy lungs.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2008
Also interesting are several videos about the Flight 93 crash site. Not only there are no plane parts anywhere (utterly ridiculous by itself), it seems the big scar left in the ground was there before 9/11, and it was just "expanded" on to accommodate the "crash".


All those evil air traffic controlers that saw it on radar smack the ground must be in on in to eh?
acarrilho
2.3 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2008
Also interesting are several videos about the Flight 93 crash site. Not only there are no plane parts anywhere (utterly ridiculous by itself), it seems the big scar left in the ground was there before 9/11, and it was just "expanded" on to accommodate the "crash".


All those evil air traffic controlers that saw it on radar smack the ground must be in on in to eh?


That's known as a red herring. Why don't you comment on what I wrote? Is there an official response to these particular points?
Modernmystic
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2008
Yes there is. Per the flight control transmissions, radar data, infrared satellite data, and eyewitness accounts the plane crashed into a reclaimed coal strip mine in Shanksville at 10:03:11.

Uh that doesn't take into account all the crackpots who think they know what happened, this instead is based on hard facts and testimony.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2008
Oh and as to the supposed "no plane parts" nonsense wikipedia has a well cited article on the subject. There was debris, including human body parts AT the crash site. Actually there were several debris fields, so lack of debris is patently false.
acarrilho
2.5 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2008
Yes there is. Per the flight control transmissions, radar data, infrared satellite data, and eyewitness accounts the plane crashed into a reclaimed coal strip mine in Shanksville at 10:03:11.

Uh that doesn't take into account all the crackpots who think they know what happened, this instead is based on hard facts and testimony.


Like I said before, I can't confirm nor dismiss any of these accounts, so there's little point in addressing them. Relying on this information is gullibly trusting the accused party and the mainstream media.

Oh and as to the supposed "no plane parts" nonsense wikipedia has a well cited article on the subject. There was debris, including human body parts AT the crash site. Actually there were several debris fields, so lack of debris is patently false.


There's no use debating the issue, since anyone can see the crash site for themselves and draw their own conclusions. Compare crash sites. I encourage just that. Finding a few parts here and there isn't what is to be expected in a plane crash site. Also, it's readily observable the "scar" in the ground was already there. If you want to believe in another "coincidence" there's isn't much anyone can do.
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2008
There's no use debating the issue,


No there isn't since you obviously won't let yourself be confused with the well established and accepted facts on the issue. I'll refer anyone still watching to my post about debating whether or not the Earth is flat...the analogy holds perfectly.
acarrilho
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2008
There's no use debating the issue,


No there isn't since you obviously won't let yourself be confused with the well established and accepted facts on the issue.


Please refrain from quote mining, that just demonstrates your poor debating skills. The "well established and accepted facts" are contrary to what is readily observable by the crash site footage. There are no parts observable anywhere, and the "scar" was there before the crash. You don't address these points specifically because they're incontrovertible and expose the entire "crash" wide open.

I'll refer anyone still watching to my post about debating whether or not the Earth is flat...the analogy holds perfectly.


Keep referring people to your false analogy, what do I care. The overall available information on this case renders your analogy completely pointless and irrelevant.
x646d63
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2008
Because there exists so much real, false, misleading and misunderstood information about 9/11, I expect that most people believe today what they believed 30 minutes after the first tower fell regardless of the quantity and quality of information they have digested since then.
Velanarris
3 / 5 (3) Aug 28, 2008
You do realize that Saddam threatened to sink oil tankers in the major sea lanes around the mideast thereby shutting down one of the world's largest supplies of oil.


$500 per barrel US would be cheap if we allowed that to come to fruition. That was our primary motivator for going into Iraq both times. World chaos is a bad thing. If the govt had released press releases like that on the front page it would have been almost as bad as if it had happened.
GrayMouser
not rated yet Sep 01, 2008

No, they point out to a controlled demolition... period.


I don't understand the "controlled demolition".

Some people are saying thermite/thermate was used, which wouldn't be a controlled demolition since I don't think you could time the burn-through of the supporting beams close enough. If anyone knows of a controlled demolition using thermite type agents please correct me.

For the use of explosive charges to bring them down, you wouldn't be able to hide that from the people using the buildings. The sheetrock around the pillars would have to be cleared away and the would be some preparation (cutting beams, running detcord, etc.) All this would take days (if not a week or more) to do and would generate tons of trash. Has anyone checked with the garbage collectors to see if the type or quantity of trash changed prior to 9/11?
acarrilho
3 / 5 (2) Sep 02, 2008
How controlled or professional it was isn't entirely relevant. "Accidental" as it allegedly was, it was already too "neat".

As for the trash, everything was hauled away from ground zero very quickly and shipped to China and India for recycling. The FEMA "investigated" material was probably not from ground zero but from Fresh Kills dump, already after a "cleanup". Mayor Bloomberg had an interesting comment:

"If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do. Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything."

Right...
GrayMouser
3 / 5 (2) Sep 05, 2008

How controlled or professional it was isn't entirely relevant. "Accidental" as it allegedly was, it was already too "neat".


If professionals did it you would expect that they would be competent enough to make sure it wasn't "neat".
The use of less competent demolitions experts would have been solved before 9/11. They would have blown themselves up.


As for the trash, everything was hauled away from ground zero very quickly and shipped to China and India for recycling. The FEMA "investigated" material was probably not from ground zero but from Fresh Kills dump, already after a "cleanup". Mayor Bloomberg had an interesting comment:


I'm talking about trash BEFORE the crash. The building would have to be prepared. That would, as I said previously, generate a large amount of distinctive trash. The janitors would notice it. The security guards would notice it. The trashmen would notice it.
acarrilho
3 / 5 (2) Sep 05, 2008
If professionals did it you would expect that they would be competent enough to make sure it wasn't "neat".
The use of less competent demolitions experts would have been solved before 9/11. They would have blown themselves up.


Are you assuming these details were considered relevant in the first place? For instance, there's enough evidence to guarantee no plane ever hit the Pentagon, and they probably knew it wouldn't be possible to fake it all that well. They did it regardless and got away with it nicely. Never mind WTC 7. It's been demonstrated for some time that if people are entertained properly, the "accidents" don't have to be perfect. In fact, far from it. The 9/11 "cover up" is altogether ridiculous but has worked well so far. The great majority of people will hear or read something strange about 9/11 and fall right back into the usual stupor. That whole "they would have done it better" philosophy is pointless when we take the people's willingness to be entertained and manipulated into consideration.

I'm talking about trash BEFORE the crash. The building would have to be prepared. That would, as I said previously, generate a large amount of distinctive trash. The janitors would notice it. The security guards would notice it. The trashmen would notice it.


Any testimony is less relevant than observable evidence. You want testimonies? Silverstein himself admitted to have ordered the demolition of WTC 7, and does anyone care or even know about that? And don't give me that "pull it" meant "pull out the firefighters" bull. There was no water for the building sprinklers and there was no water for the firemen to do anything about the fires. Even the FEMA report stated clearly no firefighting was ever done in WTC 7, and I'm supposed to believe neither Silverstein nor the Fire Commander knew about that? Not bloody likely.
Velanarris
3 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2008

Are you assuming these details were considered relevant in the first place? For instance, there's enough evidence to guarantee no plane ever hit the Pentagon, and they probably knew it wouldn't be possible to fake it all that well.
You mean other than the two Rolls Royce engines that they pulled out of the central courtyard or the 2 tons of aluminum hauled away by J&B waste management.

They did it regardless and got away with it nicely. Never mind WTC 7. It's been demonstrated for some time that if people are entertained properly, the "accidents" don't have to be perfect. In fact, far from it. The 9/11 "cover up" is altogether ridiculous but has worked well so far. The great majority of people will hear or read something strange about 9/11 and fall right back into the usual stupor. That whole "they would have done it better" philosophy is pointless when we take the people's willingness to be entertained and manipulated into consideration.
Another aspect of the human psyche similar to the mechanic you're noting is the need to apply understanding to something that otherwise does not make sense. The average American citizen thinks their country is infallable and invincible. "There's no way a bunch of nomadic tribesmen from some god forsaken desert could possibly infiltrate the US and crash jets into major landmarks!" When the truth is even Rome was sacked by technologically inferior barbarians.
Any testimony is less relevant than observable evidence. You want testimonies? Silverstein himself admitted to have ordered the demolition of WTC 7, and does anyone care or even know about that? And don't give me that "pull it" meant "pull out the firefighters" bull. There was no water for the building sprinklers and there was no water for the firemen to do anything about the fires. Even the FEMA report stated clearly no firefighting was ever done in WTC 7, and I'm supposed to believe neither Silverstein nor the Fire Commander knew about that? Not bloody likely.
No, pull it could have meant a number of things. You call testimony irrelevant then provide testimony as evidence. That smacks of "I reject your reality and substitute my own."
acarrilho
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 06, 2008
You mean other than the two Rolls Royce engines that they pulled out of the central courtyard or the 2 tons of aluminum hauled away by J&B waste management.


You're simply believing the official story and the mainstream media. Fine, that's your prerogative, but I rather focus on what I can see. They could haul away the entire plane piece by piece and show it to me (why didn't they btw?). If it's readily observable from pre and post collapse pictures that it's impossible for a 757 to have hit that building, what relevance do the engines have? Have you even seen pictures with the 757 added to them for comparison? If you disagree with their analysis, than by all means demonstrate why they aren't sufficient. Google "flight 77 3D" and you'll find the pictures.

Another aspect of the human psyche similar to the mechanic you're noting is the need to apply understanding to something that otherwise does not make sense. The average American citizen thinks their country is infallable and invincible. "There's no way a bunch of nomadic tribesmen from some god forsaken desert could possibly infiltrate the US and crash jets into major landmarks!" When the truth is even Rome was sacked by technologically inferior barbarians.


I'm not an American citizen. My objectivity isn't affected by either patriotism or anti-American prejudice.

No, pull it could have meant a number of things.


I'm not familiar with them. All I heard was "demolition jargon" on one side, and "evacuation of firemen" on the other. Do you know of other alternatives?

You call testimony irrelevant then provide testimony as evidence. That smacks of "I reject your reality and substitute my own."


You misunderstood me completely. I reject any testimony for and against the conspiracy theory, if they're not on video or audio, and from someone whose background I can check personally. Why should I believe any random guy saying he heard "demolition type explosives" going off before the towers fell, or any random guy saying he took burned bodies from their seats from the flight 77 wreckage? Neither are more relevant than the evidence I can see or hear by myself. You can disagree but I know I'm not cherry picking. Silverstein isn't a random testimony.
GrayMouser
1 / 5 (1) Sep 14, 2008
For instance, there's enough evidence to guarantee no plane ever hit the Pentagon, and they probably knew it wouldn't be possible to fake it all that well.


I want what your smoking!
http://911researc...dex.html

Any testimony is less relevant than observable evidence. You want testimonies? Silverstein himself admitted to have ordered the demolition of WTC 7, and does anyone care or even know about that? And don't give me that "pull it" meant "pull out the firefighters" bull. There was no water for the building sprinklers and there was no water for the firemen to do anything about the fires. Even the FEMA report stated clearly no firefighting was ever done in WTC 7, and I'm supposed to believe neither Silverstein nor the Fire Commander knew about that? Not bloody likely.


After the attack? He told them to blow it up after all those firemen and police were killed? Anyway, that statement was in regards to tower 7 not the first 2 towers.
http://usinfo.sta...966.html
SUBdiversity
not rated yet Oct 06, 2008
Cool, I claim the 100th comment on this thread!.

Regardless of the highly dubious links that some over patriotic, over paid!, flag wavers have posted here I think it's fairly obvious to the vast majority of open minded individuals who've actualy looked long and hard into this subject that, without question, the official 9/11 report and the NIST reports were grossly negligent (to say the least). A thorough, in depth and unbiased investigation into the collapses of WTC1/2 and 7 was not carried out. Huge amounts of evidence were either destroyed/ lost/ planted or shipped away from the scene. Solid beams "melted" and buckled in all three buildings and yet they find an undamaged "highjackers" passport on the sidewalk?. This passport would need to be made of diamond to survive a 500 MPH plane crash, then the explosion, then the exit through and out the other side of the building then fall 800' to the ground below. This is only one of thousands of uncomfortable coincidences from that terrible day. Put the letters Z,I and O infront of NIST and we may start to get some real answers.
Oil/ Profit/ War/ Power/ Population Control/ Constitution amendments/ Insurance fruad/ Racism/ and Explosives, to name but a few, were the reasons behind the collapses of WTC1/2 and 7. The rest, as they say, is history. Welcome to the NWO.
Sleep tight.
Blair
not rated yet Jan 01, 2009

64.235.206.66

Re: 9/11 [Post#: 10787 / re: 10777 ] Edit post Reply to this post

http://www.youtub...bZ-aLDLY

NIST Report on WTC7 debunked and exposed!

Excellent 10 minutes on the collapse of Building 7
dachpyarvile
not rated yet Jan 31, 2009
If you can't remain objective that's your problem.


At the risk of being trite...ditto.


So when you hear a firefighter walking away from a steel-framed building, saying it's about to "blow up", after Silverstein and the commander gave the order to "pull it", and you don't see that as an indication the building was demolished, you think you're being objective?


I have looked at all the evidence objectively and the demolition by conspiracy theories are not the easier of the explanations for what happened. You need to look at all the details, not at a few 911 truth type websites.

"Pull it" and "pull the building" are not demolition terms or warnings. Terms like "blow it" and the like are.

Speaking of the building being about to blow up is consistent with what was in that building at the time, including gallons and gallons of diesel fuel for the generators that were located in that building.

The building did not fall into its own footprint, which is what would have happened in a controlled demolition. There is zero credible evidence that controlled demolition was involved in the collapse of WTC7, much less WTC1 and WTC2.

You need to look at all the facts, not squeeze them into the mold you make for them. Conspiracies abound but the only conspiracy involved in the WTC was that of those who targeted the buildings with planes and those who planned to bring it about, not our own government.

The evidence just isn't there, twisted and misrepresented "facts" notwithstanding. I have looked at all of it, chemical, physical, and otherwise. Conspiracy via controlled demolition by the government is not in evidence.

Having looked at ALL the legitimate evidence, I cannot subscribe to the "government conspiracy" theories regarding the WTC.
dachpyarvile
5 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2009
You do realize that Saddam threatened to sink oil tankers in the major sea lanes around the mideast thereby shutting down one of the world's largest supplies of oil.


$500 per barrel US would be cheap if we allowed that to come to fruition. That was our primary motivator for going into Iraq both times. World chaos is a bad thing. If the govt had released press releases like that on the front page it would have been almost as bad as if it had happened.


That wasn't all. I had friends on the ground during the early stages of the invasion. Caches of Serin gas were found hidden under ground in various locations. This little detail is not much talked about but several soldiers were exposed and had to be treated.

In addition to this, there were 550 metric tons of yellow cake Uranium in Iraq which had gone missing. It was recently found and, in a top-secret mission, was moved out of Iraq just last year and shipped to Canada for use in nuclear facilities there.

Once the operation was completed, the information was declassified and made public. But, how many people are talking about these things? If we believed the mainstream media wholeheartedly, we all would still believe that such things were not in Iraq. They were. Saddam planned to renew his nuclear ambitions in future (that fact that he still had 550 metric tons of Yellowcake shows that to some degree). We could not allow that to a madman in a place that could have destabilized the region. End of story.