Certfied OFFICIAL thread on 9/11 panel on C SPAN - 8 PM

[burythehatchet]

:)

[burythehatchet]

1. Hosted by Alex Jones

[The Witch]

2. here.

He sounds like cookie monster :)

[readmoreoften]

66. oh my god

:spray: I never had to use that icon before! He does sound like cookie monster!

[burythehatchet]

3. Operation Northwoods

I can't believe this is being discussed.

[John Q. Citizen]

4. Who is appearing? n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

387. Me either.

It was an excellent synopsis.

[Cleita]

5. Interesting that the American Scholars Association is

bringing out a physicist to explain how building seven fell. This looks like they are going to back up what DUers have been speculating on all along.

I always felt that if we could convince some whistleblowers, who know what was planned, under oath it would be the end of BushCo, but we need that evidence so it's no longer a tinfoilhat theory.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

6. There you guys are!

I see they sent you to the basement. :(

[Cleita]

7. I think considering who is discussing this it should have remained

GD because they are talking about other things to that have been done in the past by our government to start wars.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

9. agreed

Lt. Col Bob Bowman up now.

Career Military.

Running for Congress in Florida

and when he gets there, he's taking 911 investigation mainstream.

articles of impeachment for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice.

Flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam

Swore to defend constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and that includes renegade presidents.

[babylonsister]

22. I agree! If it's even a possibility, discussion has to start somewhere. nt

[Bushwick Bill]

8. Nice work from Steven Jones.

Says he received samples from a couple of different sources.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

27. Samples of dust include Lead, Aluminum and

SULFUR

[mom cat]

36. Thermate!

[Carefulplease]

98. Why must the sulfur come from thermate?

[rman]

397. thermate is a military version of thermite;

it contains sulfer to make it burn faster and hotter. thermite doesn't.

[mom cat]

37. That was excellent! The new findings by professor Jones gave even

more rock solid evidence.

[Jazz2006]

324. Except that there's nothing new about it....

Do a search on this forum and you'll see why.

And do further searches on this very forum and you'll find out why there's nothing even close to "rock solid" about it.

[Brainster]

365. I Love How He Got It!

Some woman gathered up some dirt from a memorial that included some of the steel from the WTC and kept it for a couple of years until he wrote his paper? I mean, have these buffoons ever heard of "chain of custody"?

[WinkyDink]

10. Oh, man! I'm going, "Amen! Tell it, Brother!"

Articles of Impeachment!
"Time for the Oil Mafia to be indicted for treason!"

[Viva_La_Revolution]

11. Webster Tarpley up

Author

[rodeodance]

12. Hi all, finally found you. listening via the net

[rodeodance]

13. He is laying it on cheney--the mess we are in.

[rodeodance]

15. here is some information about this meeting: posted on another DU thread.

at Jul-29-06 12:23 PM
Original message
C-SPAN to show hard-hitting LA 911 Truth Panel, Sat 8/11 pm EST, Sun 2:15
I saw this panel in person in Los Angeles. The speakers seemed to vie with each other in pulling no punches, and their remarks were so hard-hitting, not to say explosive, that they may have overstepped the prevailing narrow limits on freedom of the press.

Can C-Span air this without starting a revolution? we wondered

Please try to see it, and see how many other people you can get to see it too.
Such a strong blow for sanity against today's war-crazed rush to Armageddon is very rare.

(The June 24-25th conference, "The American Scholars Symposium: 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda," sold out to a crowd of 1,200 people, making it the biggest 9/11 truth conference to date.)

Pass it on!

- John Leonard

It's here
http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/fullschedul...

Sat July 29, 2006
08:00 PM EDT / 5 pm PDT / 6 PM MDT / 7 pm CDT
1:50 (est.) Forum
September 11th Terrorist Attacks
Alex Jones Productions
James H. Fetzer, Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Alex Jones

11:00 PM EDT / 8 pm PDT / 9 PM MDT / 10 pm CDT
1:50 (est.) Forum
September 11th Terrorist Attacks
Alex Jones Productions
Alex Jones

Rebroadcast Sun, July 30th
2:15 PM EDT / 11:15 AM PDT / 12:15 PM MDT / 1:15 PM CDT

Overview here
http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?c...
Forum
September 11th Terrorist Attacks
Alex Jones Productions
Los Angeles, California (United States)
ID: 193155 - 06/25/2006 - 1:50 - $24.95

Jones, Alex Filmmaker
Fetzer, James H. Co-Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Bowman, Robert M. Member, Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Jones, Steven E. Co-Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Tarpley, Webster Griffin Author

Panelists discussed theories on alleged conspiracies regarding the origins of the attacks on September 11, 2001.

Mr. Tarpley is the author of 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, published by Progressive Press.

The two-day event, “American Scholars Symposium: 9/11 and The Neo-Con Agenda,” was held in the ballroom of the Sheraton Los Angeles Downtown.

======

Dear Friends,

The June 25th panel discussion from the Alex Jones Los Angeles conference will be telecast on C-SPAN this coming Saturday evening at 8pm and again at 11pm eastern time (July 29th) and 2:15 pm Sunday July 30th.

This discussion includes Alex Jones, Professor Steven Jones, Col. Robert Bowman, Professor James Fetzer, and myself.

The mere fact that it has been scheduled pays tribute to the growing strength of our 9/11 truth movement.

I urge you to build the maximum audience for this important event, which represents our best opportunity of counteracting the escalation of the Middle East and North Korean crises towards thermonuclear World War III, by means a strong dose of 9/11 truth.

I call upon each of you to put aside other considerations for the next 48 hours and to mobilize all available forces to make this a turning point in world history. Let it be seen by 100,000,000 Americans, and we can turn the world back from the brink of the abyss.

- Webster G. Tarpley

[valerief]

14. top ten reasons why hijackers are fake. n/t

[Pastiche423]

19. Not a transcriber, but...

#10 The hijacker's names do not appear on any manifests.

# 9 No autopsies

# 8 5-7 hijackers have turned up alive and have been interviewed by several publications.

# 7 The FBI has not revised their hijacker list.

# 6 Speacial Agent Flagg said the names of the hijackers were found on a list in a car at Logan? along w/a hijacker manual.

# 5 Hijackers were not skilled enough to fly the planes the way they were.

# 4 Cell phones calls could not have been made at the altitude and speed.

# 3 Wrt Flt 93: The words spoken by that beamer guy could not have been heard in the cockpit.

# 2 The last words spoken by the hijackers were not the words that a real muslim would have said approaching death.

# 1 Moussaoui was charged for not informing anyone of the plot, after an agent tried to tell his superiors 70 times about what he had found out about Moussaoui.

[valerief]

21. Thanks. I couldn't do it. n/t

[Joanne98]

31. The alive highjackers. Where can I get that info?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Joanne98]

35. Thankyou. My sister doesn't believe it. I can't get her to watch

Loose Change two. The bbc interview would be nice.

[Bolo Boffin]

51. You should listen to your sister.

She's got your back on this one.

[WinkyDink]

16. How anyone is yet unconvinced, I will never understand.

OMG, Russia and China......not perpetual war; ANNIHILATION.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

17. James Fetzer

Scholars for 911 Truth Founder

Top 10 reasons he does not believe the "Official Story"

10. Hijacker names do not appear on manifests

9. none were subject to any autopsy

8. 5-7 have turned up alive and well in the middle east

7. The FBI has never revised the terrorist list

6. FBI agent says they knew names right away because one of the hijackers left behind included a terrorist manual and a list of the hijackers.

5. The hijackers could not have flown the planes, no real training

4. Cell phone calls could not have been made at reported altitudes.

3. Zarkowi trial - tape played of passenger conversation was from a cockpit recorder - those don't pick up sounds from passenger compartments.

2. last words on tape - "Allah Akbar" There is one god Allah and Mohammad is his prophet

1. Moussoui confessed to a different plot, gov charged him with knowing about 911 anyway. FBI had been following him, told superiors 70 times that this was a bad guy, they did nothing.

[tridim]

24. We all need to be as angry as James Fetzer

[Viva_La_Revolution]

25. Boy! he is pissed!

Go James!

[valerief]

18. These guys are plain talking and smart and make sense. n/t

[babylonsister]

20. Didn't the owner of Bldg. 7 admit it was rigged for explosives?

I thought I'd read that somewhere?:freak:

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[babylonsister]

28. Thank you for the links! nt

[Viva_La_Revolution]

26. Loose Change producers asking questions

[Viva_La_Revolution]

29. REPEAT AT 11PM Eastern

kick!

[Joanne98]

30. THAT WAS AWESOME!

[Bjornsdotter]

33. Ditto n/t

[Pastiche423]

32. I would loved to have heard

the panels answer to the last question....."What happened to the passengers?"

I would also like to know why the owner of this board is so against the truth coming out and being discussed.

If this gets me tombstoned, then............. hey it's been real, guys!

[pooja]

38. yes, i want to know the same thing. what happened to the

passengers.

[Joanne98]

39. Isn't that situation in Operation Northwoods

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

50. We aren't allowed to post to whatreallyhappened here.

It's a rightwing bullshit conspiracy site. The owner frowns on linking to rightwing bullshit conspiracy sites, like whatreallyhappened or American Free Press or Larouche places or the like.

[leesa]

63. It is not. I suggest you actually look at things before you spout your

nonsense. What really happened is NOT right wing, nor left wing.

[Bolo Boffin]

76. Michael Rivero - rightwing libertarian nutcase

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Rivero

Michael Rivero is a visual-effects artist who also is the owner of alternative news weblog Whatreallyhappened.com.

Rivero's political beliefs appear to follow a roughly libertarian-paleoconservative base. He has stated that he is a Republican<1>, although he frequently criticizes neoconservatives and George W. Bush.

Rivero's focused support of free speech with regard to holocaust denial<2> and his claims that Zionists acting on behalf of the state of Israel are behind many major terrorist incidents<3><4> and Rivero's labeling of suspected Israeli spying on the government of the United States as the “Mother of All Scandals”<5> have led to accusations of anti-Semitism against him by his critics,<6> to whom he replies using a quote attributed to Colin Powell pointing out that criticizing Israel's government policies is not itself anti-Semitic.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/salvorhardin/18

Rivero also used WhatReallyHappened to start (yes, start) the "Vince Foster Murdered" lie about the Clintons.

He's an anti-Semitic rightwing nutcase spreading lies about 9/11 to discredit websites on the left.

Educate yourself.

[salvorhardin]

80. Michael Rivero is a freeper too.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/salvorhardin/23

[mirandapriestly]

101. If you look really hard you can probably find something

"offensive" on it although everyone knows that was not your intentions. Posters like boloboffin spend a lot of time trying to find flaws with sites and posts so that he can get them deleted. you'd almost think it was his job or something.

[Jazz2006]

314. If you look at post #113 by Lithos, the moderator, you'll find that

boloboffin is correct.

(edit to correct post #)

[Bolo Boffin]

44. Because the owner of this board recognizes that all this is bullshit. n/t

[Pastiche423]

45. And he told you this when?

[Bolo Boffin]

48. During a coffee break at NSA Headquarters. n/t

[Pastiche423]

52. I'm calling bullshit

Skinner has never once said publically that the government's complicity was bullshit.

Do you often claim that other people say things when they don't? That's a great way to discredit yourself. (More than you already have)

[Name removed]

59. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lithos]

113. WRH is not allowed for use on DU

As it is a site DU does not wish to legitimatize or support thru the inclusion of links or republished material.

Next time you have a question about what are considered sites that DU wishes to support thru inclusion, then please contact myself or DU Administration.

Lithos
DU Moderator.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

58. go play somewhere else

We know the "official story" is bullshit.

They won't allow us to investigate any other way.

If they don't like the conclusions we come to, then tough shit, they should have told us the truth.

[Bolo Boffin]

69. I think I shall stay. n/t

[Viva_La_Revolution]

71. fine. Try to learn something though

if your tiny little closed mind can handle it.

[Bolo Boffin]

74. You don't know me or my mind.

I give the people here at the September 11th forum plenty of opportunities to teach me something, but they keep coming up with bullshit like this C-Span free-for-all.

[wildbilln864]

89. I think you'll stay too.

after all, isn't that your mission? Isn't that what you're paid for?
Can you say "agent provocateur"? I thought you could.

snip/
lFirstly, the Pentagon says it will wage war against the internet in order to dominate the realm of communications, prevent digital attacks on the US and its allies, and to have the upper hand when launching cyber-attacks against enemies.

lSecondly, psychological military operations, known as psyops, will be at the heart of future military action. Psyops involve using any media – from newspapers, books and posters to the internet, music, Blackberrys and personal digital assistants (PDAs) – to put out black propaganda to assist government and military strategy. Psyops involve the dissemination of lies and fake stories and releasing information to wrong-foot the enemy.

lThirdly, the US wants to take control of the Earth’s electromagnetic spectrum, allowing US war planners to dominate mobile phones, PDAs, the web, radio, TV and other forms of modern communication. That could see entire countries denied access to telecommunications at the flick of a switch by America.
http://www.sundayherald.com/54975

[Bolo Boffin]

90. Agent provocateur.

Yes I can say it. But I am not one.

I am not paid to be here.

I am really here because of my desire to see truth out and the Bush Administration be held accountable for its crimes against the American people and the world.

I am not in the employ of the Pentagon. I am an actor in a show running in Dallas, and currently I also work at a coffee bar. This means I am always broke.

I do all of this out of the goodness of my heart. Truth will out, though there are many people who deceive themselves and others.

[mrgerbik]

106. its weird

with all the evidence at your feet and your stated hate and mistrust of BushCo, that you can't possibly consider 9/11 as a false flag operation. It dumbfounds me.

[Bolo Boffin]

108. Not with controlled demolition and Flight 77 denial.

You want to talk false flag via the al-Qaeda network? I'm willing to listen. I've read Operation Northwoods. I know about Tonkin. The mistake of many is thinking the actual Operation Northwoods details was feisable either then or now. They run around talking about explosions in the offices of Cantor Fitzgerald or Kroll - that's insane. Trying to find some link between the plane passengers, or outright denying their existence? Complete nonsense.

Go show how Bush did it through Atta and his gangs. In the meantime, the very fact that Bush didn't catch Atta and his gangs is enough to hang him if the facts were actually published about that.

Everything else about 9/11 CTs is counterproductive and worth opposing to minimize its impact.

[Judi Lynn]

91. Thanks for posting that link.

This has been going on a long time, and it's ALWAYS a victory seeing anything published about it at all!

[mirandapriestly]

95. You 'll probably get in trouble for that

even though it is probably the truth and they will go on insulting and disrupting without repercussions. There is no way that people come here every day and spend hours ridiculing and harassing posters who don't accept the government view on 911 are doing it "from the heart". I think there is an obvious agenda, but we are not allowed to discuss that.

[Judi Lynn]

107. Just the quick look I've had tells me everything I need to know!

The truth of these events will be something everyone has to consider. Intelligent, conscientious people want to see ALL the evidence.

The ones who hope to prevent more study and discussion are idiots, or worse.

[mirandapriestly]

315. We need to have dialog

and people can't have dialog when they feel threatened...One of the introducers on the CSPAN show said that last night, and I thought it really is impossible to talk on this forum when you are being challenged(unjustly) and called names constantly

[Bolo Boffin]

109. Then STOP DISCUSSING IT!!!

Jesus, if this is you not discussing it, I'd hate to see you discuss the idea that I and others like me are here for ulterior motives.

It's the only damn thing you do, Miranda!

[Grateful for Hope]

111. Can I quote you to him? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

112. Go for it.

If it makes you happy...

[Grateful for Hope]

310. What if it does not make YOU happy? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

318. I'm not too worried about it, Hope.

[e-mail]

Have fun storming the castle.

[Grateful for Hope]

320. One day soon, you will find that you have been wrong all along...

just like there was "no election fraud in 2004"...and, I can't wait to see your reaction. It will be something to treasure.

I can't wait.

On edit....because of course you know that it will happen...the truth always wins out in the end. Even despite all efforts to suppress it.

And, of course you will respond with some kind of denigrating post. I expect it, and, I have to say, I ignore it. So post away. With my blessing...

[Bolo Boffin]

322. I disagree: you are wrong on this issue.

You've never heard me say anything against election fraud, most certainly 2000, and thus willing to accept 2004. There's something you are wrong about right now.

And when you discover that you are wrong about 9/11, watch my reaction. There will be no gloating, there will only be a quiet smile of welcome back into the light.

[Grateful for Hope]

327. Ok...so we are both sure we are right

so then, it makes both sides of our arguments laced with "confirmation bias".

I am willing to admit that I have a bias, and, I am surprised that you are not.

But then, those of us who seek the truth while admitting we have a bias, are far more likely to find the truth.

[Bolo Boffin]

328. Keep laying that flattering unction to your soul.

For all the good it will do you.

[Grateful for Hope]

329. Like I said in an earlier post...I question your maturity. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

331. I know you are, so what am I? n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

332. just proving a point...and you are pretty transparent. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

334. I know you are, so what am I? n/t

[Nozebro]

392. PeeWee Herman

"I know you are, so what am I? n/t"

[Nitty-Gritty]

389. Well said!

"those of us who seek the truth while admitting we have a bias, are far more likely to find the truth."

[mirandapriestly]

40. If this were allowed on mainstream television

the response would be so overwhelming, but it stays hidden and we have to try to discuss it with half information and a bunch of fake posters attacking us 24/7.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mirandapriestly]

43. nice self portrait.eom

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[salvorhardin]

53. Mirandapriestly, that's a lie and you know it.

You will find me quite active in R&T, the Skeptics' group, A&A group, less active in ER and elsewhere on DU. In addition to running the only liberal blog carnival, posting on topics ranging across science, atheism, technology, society and more on my own site. For instance, what have you done about preserving net neutrality lately?
http://www.neuralgourmet.com/2006/07/25/aclu_nsa_spying_lawsuit_against_at_t_dismissed_eff_lawsuit_clears_hurdle
http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/07/archive-digging-how-rude-is-that.html

You don't want to play the Liberaler'than'thou game with me. And I don't want to play it with you.

My primary concern: The right wing has managed to get where it is today by exploiting ignorance, superstition, bigotry and conspiracism. That's their game. So I despise it when I see those on the left who play the same game but think it's OK because they do it with more empathy. Bullshit. Just like your post.

Stop lying.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[salvorhardin]

57. I still don't see you apologizing for lying about me

Is that how much you value the truth?

I'm waiting for your apology Miranda. Why did you lie?

[Name removed]

341. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mirandapriestly]

348. The poster known as "jazzyToes"

is describing her own behavior! Desperate times mean desperate measures like making up nonsense about posters and making sure to get their name in the title so that unfamiliar posters will see it. Ingenious tactic to counter the CSPAN show and the attention it is receiving.

[Jazz2006]

353. Silly girl... see #341

there is nobody here using the name "jazzytoes" but there is someone here using the name "miranda priestly" who has been behaving outlandishly for months on these threads, calling people liars, stalking people and posting all manner of ridiculous and unfounded things about people who don't buy the conspiracy theories that this "poster posing as miranda priestly" espouses.

So typical - you can't refute the message so you try to disparage the messenger. You're not fooling anyone.

Edit to add post number to subject line.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. That is a lie, miranda, out and out. I just did a search

and in the past year salvor has posted all over DU.

Why would you lie about something like that, something so easily disproven...

...wait, I forget, you're here promoting crapola theories about 9/11. That's not a concern of yours at all.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[salvorhardin]

61. Over an hour since you told a straight-up lie about me

And I still don't see an apology. I'll just assume it's not coming. How sad. Well, good night.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Joanne98]

46. I got a few non-political to admit, they think these things.

It's kinda like a secret people keep. But I think it ready to explode.

[Jara sang]

60. I don't think Bob Bowman should be flying any small planes soon.

My girlfiend watching this just said "That guy will probably end up dead."

[Judi Lynn]

64. Absolutely! I thought the same about them all.

I'd like to mention one other oddity mentioned which I had never heard before:

One of the passengers allegedly called his mother, and said, according to her claim, "Hi, Mom, it's me, ____ ________," using his first AND LAST names, which would be silly! (I can't remember his name, that's why I used lines...)

I am so glad to know DU'ers were watching. I plan to tape it tomorrow.

Damned steamed it really didn't last three hours, rather 1 hour 45 minutes, and was followed by a Cheney speech. I was really, really looking forward to a HUGE!!!!!11! program. They made the most of the time they were allotted.

[mirandapriestly]

65. That is so funny...

"Hi mom it's Mark Bingham" Then Fetzer adds, "you believe me, don't you?" that got quite a few laughs..

[Judi Lynn]

70. Small wonder that one never got the same publicity as that Todd

guy's famous call to his wife!

It seemed slightly bogus.

[Bolo Boffin]

73. Laugh it up, chuckleheads.

Mark Bingham was a hero that day, and he died stopping Flight 93 from crashing into the Capitol building.

Miranda, that's one of the vilest things you've ever posted here.

[Nitty-Gritty]

390. Did they say if she DID believe him?! EOM

nt

[Bolo Boffin]

72. That's Mark Bingham you're slandering there, Judi. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

75. I beg your pardon!

I'm not a regular in this forum, so I have no idea who the hell you are.

Obviously, I was NOT SLANDERING MARK BINGHAM. You must be wildly desperate to try that crap with me.

Go peddle your silliness elsewhere. I'm not biting.

[Bolo Boffin]

77. The hell you weren't.

You're just chattering away about how "silly" it was that __________ _________ used his first and last name when he "allegedly" called his mother.

His mother has the tape. Mark Bingham died fighting actual terrorists. He died along with the other passengers of Flight 93 making sure that that horrible day's wounds were lessened.

He deserves much, much better at your hands than slander and mockery.

[Judi Lynn]

78. You need to have a better grasp of language than you seem to have,

in order to understand what you're reading! Please take the time needed to THINK both reading and writing.

Otherwise you'll sound confused, and you'll lose respect from others.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Brainster]

366. They Just Don't Get It

The scorn with which the CT crowd treats the passengers is the part that angers me the most. I suppose they're all tired of the inevitable "Well, what happened to the passengers on the planes, then?" response, and so they take it out on the passengers.

Here's a quote from a friend of mine regarding the "We Will Never Forget" line at the end of Loose Change:

"However, once the dust has settled, we will claim there's no proof that you ever lived. We will edit videos of your death with slow motion and music. We'll post them on websites and say it's so fake it's hilarious. We will mock your last words and claim them too stupid to believe."

Note as well, that when Betty Ong seems too calm in her phone call, that's evidence of no hijacking. But when Mark Bingham's nervous and distracted, that's evidence of a faked phone call.

[mirandapriestly]

81. This is what we are up against all the time.eom

[Bolo Boffin]

82. Oh, your sad and terrible life...

How will you manage to cope?

[LARED]

85. .........

:spray:

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Make7]

105. "The post below this is what is funny, dear..." - mirandapriestly

That's remarkable, I hadn't yet even composed this post and you knew it would be funny.

Your comment is high praise indeed. Thank you.

:) Make7

[Judi Lynn]

84. It's kinda comical when you see it for the first time!

I've noticed the highest ambition some of these lil' fellas seem to have is to make so much noise in threads that the people who really want to exchange information just give up in exasperation.

I imagine they got by with it as kids, by parents who didn't have good parenting skills. They have grown up to be thoughtless, and odd adults!



It's just noise. Pitching fits.

By the way, it's good to learn you saw what was available during the excellent C-Span program. That's what I came to this thread to see.

I was riveted by what I heard from these clearly intelligent men, with acknowledgment of the many other men and women there who obviously are involved as well. I think it took courage for the members of the audience just to show up, knowing they would possibly be shown on tv.

[mirandapriestly]

94. Excellent observation

that is EXACTLY what they are doing. Don't look there! Look here!

[eleny]

67. Holy Smokes That Was Great!

Seeing these guys was like findng DU several years ago.
It's all so frightening but there's something about knowing that you're not alone.

[mirandapriestly]

83. It was great, wish it were longer, though...

There is a tremendous attempt to discredit the people on that panel, but when you hear them talk you can see that they are not the ones who should be discredited. I remember when I found DU and found people talking about the bogus election, I was so relieved. There were some "blind deniers" but now it is commonly agreed that both elections were stolen . Eventually it will be the same with 911.

[Grateful for Hope]

87. Back in November 2004

I was not an active poster, but I read the election forum all the time (I think it was called Election2004 or something like that at the time).

There was a lot of in-fighting in that forum...much like what we find in this forum. The people who did not believe there was election fraud in 2004 were very busy labeling those who did believe in the fraud "tinhatters" and worse.

Sound familiar?

[mirandapriestly]

96. Yes and now I see election fraud has become mainstream

thought at DU. Although some of those who spend hours every single day ridiculing and harasssing us here can be seen making comments against electrion fraud still, but they are chewed up and spit out pretty fast.

[eleny]

93. See down thread a bit - there's a DVD of the entire conference

:hi:

[Sven77]

86. Order the Video 3 DVDs 21+ hours

at Democracy Digest Volume 89: American Scholars Symposium -- 9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda: Facing the Facts (on 3 DVDs)

[eleny]

92. This is the entire symposium

There's a 4 DVD set also that's less compressed for better quality.

Thanks for posting this. I would not have known about it.

[mirandapriestly]

97. I'm ordering it, thanks

I only saw part of it on CSPAN because the published times were different from what was on and the it was cut short for Evil Cheney in an act of supreme irony..

[Ezlivin]

88. CVR is the *newest* twist I've heard

Fetzer's list, item #3.

The government played a portion of the Cockpit Voice Recorder's data for the widows of Flight 93 and apparently the CVR "overheard" the passengers plotting to use a cart to break down the door.

[mirandapriestly]

99. what? I heard him say CVR's did not work

outside the cockpit, is that what you mean?

[Ezlivin]

100. Exactly

It was something so obvious that I smacked my forehead. Duh. Of course a CVR would be limited to recording in the cockpit. The designers would probably take great pains to limit its coverage to that area and keep superfluous noises out.

[mirandapriestly]

103. So was the CVR "faked"?

I know that Cheney said after he heard the cockpit break in story, "sounds like we got a hero here", or something like that. I mean he said it right away, like it had been planned. So the hero thing sounds preplanned..

[Gin]

104. I watched the CSPAN panel.......I believe there was some kind

of fix at play on 9/11...........it may not be exactly what these people are saying but too many things happened that didn't add up.....such as...(IMHO)

the buildings imploding...perfectly......
building 7 imploding perfectly....
conveniently finding passports in the front seat of one of the hijackers cars at the airport.....
announcing the names of the terrorists within a day....and all of their history...
the plane hits the pentagon right where it had been rebuilt and re-reinforced, at a high speed/ low angle/ man these pilots were terrific!

doing training exercises on the exact situation that happened that day.

Too may coincidences happened.....and anyone here can call me a whack job...a lunatic..or whatever they please...

By the way.............I also believe the voting machines can be hacked easily..they have been and will be, to keep the thugs in power.

[mirandapriestly]

110. Lots of coincidences that don't add up

Isn't that the truth..

[Brainster]

367. Uncle Fetzer Got It Wrong

The transcript of the CVR http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/moussaouitranscript.pdf">is here (PDF file). The only words from outside the cockpit that were heard were, "In the cockpit. If we don't, we'll die," and those words were clearly said while the passengers were just outside the door, where it would not be surprising for the roof-mounted recorder to overhear it.

It's just another example of how Fetzer will say anything. The idea that the passengers used a drink cart as a battering ram was deduced by the 9-11 Commission from the sounds heard (glass breaking, metal against metal).

[smacky44]

114. I only saw part of the C-SPAN program on 9/11 but wow!!

The beginning of the program that outlined the number of "false-flag" operation planned by the US was mind boggling. The US even planned to target its own citizens to incite or make a justification for attacking Cuba. How can we believe anything we hear coming out of the ME now that blames Hizbollah for or Iraqi "insurgents" for the shit that is going on?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

115. if it ever hits YouTube, please let us know

[Jeanette in FL]

117. Link to video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4258946892514662399

[helderheid]

120. Direct link from C-Span

rtsp://video.c-span.org/60days/ap072906_theories.rm

[Grateful for Hope]

384. Thank you for the link! n/t

[longship]

116. I'm sorry, but I cannot concur.

Why should I believe a guy who makes such outrageous claims without a single shred of evidence?

Explosives in the WTC? How? Who planted them? How did they get planted without detection? And most importantly, why would they need to plant explosives if they were going to ram the buildings with fuel-laden large-bodied airliners at 500 knots (which very well might bring the buildings down--in fact, it did).

Remote controlled airliners? What utter bull shit? Now the conspiracy kooks have to explain what happened to those flights and their passengers. I know, they were taken to Comet Hale-Bopp and eaten by the Heaven's Gate cult.

Anybody who believes either the official account 9/11 or this total lunacy has severely impaired credulity. This stuff is just as bad as the Bush administration lies. In fact, I would argue that it is worse than ChimpCo's 9/11 lies because it severely damages any and all arguments to get to the truth.

Tin foil hat rubbish.

[tabatha]

118. Have you seen these....

Some of your questions are answered in them.
The second video answers the question of who planted the explosives.

Loose Change 2nd edition
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change
1 hour 20 mins

9/11 Revisited
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939
56 mins

The Truth and Lies of 9/11
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145
2 hrs 17 mins

The Great Conspiracy
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529813972926262623 1 hour 10 mins

[longship]

122. Of course I have.

I've seen a few of these.

Special pleading, straw man arguments, cherry picked facts, out-of-context quotations, and outright bad science. Karl Rove himself could not have come up with a more twisted and untruthful fiction. There is not one shred of a chain of evidence that supports even minor conclusions.

It's all bunk and it hurts all of us. It gives the enemy a weapon with which to block the path to the truth about 9/11. The Repugs can make a very credible claim that requests for further investigations comes from a bunch of delusional conspiracy lunatics.

As long as people believe this crap, the Repugs will be right about the conspiracy nuts.

[tabatha]

126. science and military experience

I found the science of Professor Steven E. Jones totally credible - being a chemist myself.
I found the testimony of Former Air Force Interceptor Pilot Robert Bowma something to take into consideration.
These people have far more credibility than those who dismiss things with only superficial review.

And the most important question - if the government has nothing to hide, why have they hidden so much?
I would like to hear their arguments and answers to questions.
But they are not forthcoming. Why?

Only with information of both sides can one come to a conclusion.
And I salute those who are prepared to have open minds in defending what has, since 9/11, been an ongoing erosion of the constitution.
Thus I am not persuaded by emotional dismissive arguments - science and reasoning are more persuasive.

[longship]

130. Both sides?

What is this shit about both sides? Is this a dichotomy where I have to either accept the Bush administration's report *or* this delusional wacky crap about invisible missiles, invisible demolition charges, disappearing airliners (complete with passengers), and other crap?

Sorry, there are few dichotomies in the universe. Certainly, the possible events of 9/11 do not form a dichotomy. In fact, I think one could easily argue that the possible events of 9/11 do not include invisible missles, disappearing airliners (complete with passengers), or invisible demolition charges.

I completely reject both the Bush administration's and the tin foil hat crowd's versions. Both are bunk. In fact, of the two, the Bush admininistation's version is the more believable. At least it has the benefit of being *possible*.

[tabatha]

138. both sides

There are probably elements of truth in the official story and the 911 "truth-seekers" findings.
Thus the truth is probably somewhere in between.
However, one will never arrive at the truth if there is not cooperation from the government.

If there was nothing to hide:

why were the shattered columns from the towers shipped out of the country before anyone could have a look at them?
why were Flight Control tapes destroyed and thrown into the trash the very day they were made on 9/11?
why was the administration reluctant to have an inquiry into 9/11 and had to be persuaded to do so?
why has OBL not been caught? why has the OBL investigative unit been shut down?

Just a very small sample of some of very suspicious behavior.

[karlrschneider]

149. You have posed 4 legitimate questions, however

I clearly recall seeing metallurgists identifying, cataloging and getting samples from the
wreckage in late September from the Fresh Kills landfill where it was originally taken.

"Flight control tapes"? Are you referring to audio tapes from the various ATC centers? If they
were improperly destroyed, it's a valid question but doesn't address the issue of controlled demolition.

The administration had plenty of self-serving reasons to stifle an investigation that would (had it
been impartial and thorough) exposed horrendous incompetence. They have plenty of skeletons to
worry about absent the MIHOP theories.

Again, about OBL...a good question which also has nothing to do with the mechanics of the WTC.

Think about something here: If "they" thought to plant explosives in 3 WTC
towers and assuming it could have been accomplished, why the need for airplanes? Or even
vice-versa - don't you think the 'outrage' would have been just as extreme and justified
from the damage from the planes even if the towers hadn't collapsed? Many would have died
anyway. Do you believe explosives were 'planted' in the Pentagon as well? It's probably the
most well-guarded building in America.

[leesa]

159. Because "they" is our government and the airplanes were to pin it on

Muslims so they could kick start PNAC. The planting was DONE by our government so what difference does it make if it's guarded?

[karlrschneider]

184. Oh, get a grip. If they were going to do that, why the HELL did they

need AIRPLANES? They could have just as easily invented some Muslims to blame and eliminated all the logistics involving 4 airliners. Please tell me you're brighter than that...

[mrgerbik]

321. Planes crashing into the towers

was probably the only plausible method to allow an assemblage of a story that involved the towers completely collapsing. It also had the added "bonus" of inflicting much more physiological damage as it was a completely unheard of event and in broad site of the public.

[wildbilln864]

357. good grief man...

it was stunning, in your face psychological ops! Say "Shock and Awe!"

[Joe Chi Minh]

185. You don't seem to have any understanding of the frequently

compelling importance of circumstantial evidence; choosing instead to rabbit on about the mechanics of the WTC. A topic dealt with at great length and depth by others.

[karlrschneider]

243. Circumstantial evidence is (properly) excluded from consideration

in the U.S. It is one of the few improvements we have made over English Common Law.

[eomer]

292. Not true. Circumstantial evidence is not excluded from consideration.

IANAL, but was sure that you could not be right. A quick google shows that circumstantial evidence is not excluded from consideration in the U.S.:

"Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection between the fact and the inference is too weak to be of help in deciding the case. Many convictions for various crimes have rested largely on circumstantial evidence."

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c342.htm

"A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is generally considered more powerful, but successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. In practice, circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over direct evidence in that it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

"circumstantial evidence
n. evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact. There is a public perception that such evidence is weak ("all they have is circumstantial evidence"), but the probable conclusion from the circumstances may be so strong that there can be little doubt as to a vital fact ("beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, and "a preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case). Particularly in criminal cases, "eyewitness" ("I saw Frankie shoot Johnny") type evidence is often lacking and may be unreliable, so circumstantial evidence becomes essential. Prior threats to the victim, fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, ownership of the murder weapon, and the accused being seen in the neighborhood, certainly point to the suspect as being the killer, but each bit of evidence is circumstantial."

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=191&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C

[Jeanette in FL]

236. The need for the airplanes - Collective Trauma

Collective trauma is when a nation or a group of people collectively experience or witness a traumatic event. Even those who do not display signs of physical trauma, may be emotionally traumatized by catastrophic events they witnessed in person or even on television screens far away. Such events can change the mindsets of entire communities, cities, states and even nations. The closer the proximity one is to the event, and the younger (thus more impressionable) the person is, the more likely they are to be affected.

[karlrschneider]

255. Okay, fine. If they had skipped the airplanes and JUST done the

"controlled demolition", it would have killed EVERYONE IMMEDIATELY. You have just shat upon your own argument.

[EstimatedProphet]

265. Have to interject here

That's not true. If indeed they did do a controlled demolition, it wasn't at the time of the plane hitting the building. It was right before the building fell.

[karlrschneider]

274. That does not affect my argument...why use planes if the bldgs had

been wired with explosives? Why risk security leaks from literally thousands of people who would have to be involved in "allowing" 4 hijackings and the subsequent "failure" of our own military to mount a rapid response? That's just nuts.

[EstimatedProphet]

275. I see what you're saying now

OK.

I do see the psychological shock value of using airplanes though, and I don't think it would have had the same kind of impact on the American psyche if the buildings were just bombed.

[karlrschneider]

278. Perhaps, I cannot speak for those who lost friends and family.

But I suspect that if I were one of them, it wouldn't have made much if any difference. Also don't forget that setting off CD charges (without planes) would obviously have resulted in several times as many casualties, there would have been no warning or chance for anybody to evacuate.

[Jeanette in FL]

277. Dramatic affect was needed

Yes, of course "they" could eliminated everyone at one time. But that story line would have gotten old very quickly.

By using planes, it dragged a whole lot of us into it. It could have been you or me on that plane. There is not a person today that gets onto a plane that doesn't think about 911.

It was dramatic, being able to show planes going into the WTC over and over and over again.

Then the gov't was able to put all kinds of restrictions on travel, introducing us to being more and more invaded by our gov't. Everyone yelled "Yes, protect us". It was an experiment to see what we would give up for security and how far the gov't could go".

[karlrschneider]

279. So, I gather you believe the MIHOP scenario?

With, or without planted explosives? Just wonderin'.

If it WAS planned (and executed, with cooperation from thousands of airline employees, Air Traffic Controllers, the upper echelon of NORAD, etc. etc.) wouldn't you surmise that Bush was "in on the plot"? And if so, how would you explain his obvious deer-in-the-headlight look at the Booker school?
Don't you suppose someone would have told him "When you get the news from Andy Card, you will need to actually, like, DO something" instead of having him sit there like a turd on a log looking like a lost puppy?

Yeah, Rove is an evil bastard but not even he or his PNAC cohorts are actually -that- stupid.

[mrgerbik]

326. why would you need 1000's of people? n/t

[wildbilln864]

359. psychological effect was more important...

than kill count maybe. Also how could they have explained that terrorists were able to gain access in order to plant explosives? The explosives were to be hidden from the public. We were to believe that 2 planes and 2 kerosene fireballs brought down 3 buildings. One building not being struck by anything significant.
It was shocking to watch! That was the purpose.

[Sinti]

311. Agreed - but an airline hijacking specifically

is perfect, because it's the ME terrorist's MO. It's essentially a kind of copycat crime. No one questions who did it, because it follows the pattern of a known criminal. No airline hijacking, and people (read foreign governments) would be more prone to investigate. No explosive demolition of the towers and only a few hundred folks die, not enough trauma to properly set the machine in motion. Thousands dead and a couple of icons destroyed is a hell of a starter kit for mass evangelizing, or "brainwashing" if you want to be more straightforward. Combine that with repeated phrases, preferably with a rhythmic pattern and it's lemmings over the cliff.

[tabatha]

268. pentagon

The Pentagon did not collapse.

By the way, I do not subscribe blindly to all 911 theories.
I don't know what to believe about the Pentagon.
I have read credible reports that a plane was observed going into the Pentagon, and debris does point to a commercial airliner.
But the video that was posted to show the plane by the adminisration is a joke.
Why were all of the videos from neighboring places confiscated and not shown or returned?
I have no idea what happened there.

[karlrschneider]

276. All the videos from neighboring places...

You know, that sounds an awful like what the administration said a while back about Saddam's
"WMDs"...."We couldn't find them so we know he must have hidden them"...or Rummy's clever little bon mot: "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"

[pberq]

395. Ah yes, the incompetence theory

So 9-11 was a result of incompetence? And not one person was fired or demoted even? Give me a break!

"The administration had plenty of self-serving reasons to stifle an investigation that would (had it
been impartial and thorough) exposed horrendous incompetence. They have plenty of skeletons to
worry about absent the MIHOP theories."

[longship]

280. I agree, but some possible disinformation.

You make some strong claims I have not heard before. I would very much appreciate if you could provide definitive and authoritative sources for the following:

* The shattered columns from the towers shipped out of country before anybody could have a look at them.

* Flight control tapes destroyed on 9/11.

As far as I know, there are still columns from the WTC available for study.

And, if you want compelling descriptions of the collapses you need to look at the NCST/NIST Advisory Committee findings. These studies were by independent investigators, not the government.

Here'a a link to the documents:
NCST Advisory Minutes with citations

If people question these findings, and they do, they publish their contrary findings in the appropriate journals. For instance, look at this newer research which shows that not everybody agrees with the prevalent theories.

Note that making a movie of delusional ravings based on hearsay, straw men, special pleading, cherry picked facts, and a whole lot of bad science is not the appropriate method to fight for the truth.

[Grateful for Hope]

382. Yes

I wholeheartedly agree that there are probably some elements of truth in the official story (and in the alternative theories as well). As far as the official story goes, I have said here a few times that "the best lies are those that have some elements of truth".

[karlrschneider]

226. Jones' science is okay but he extrapolates WAY too much.

He appeared to be surprised at the composition of the samples he obtained (the origin of which nobody really knows - see my other post concerning the preservation of evidence) is about what would be expected in ordinary structural steel. Would you care to say what area of chemistry your degree is in?

Bowman is exactly right to question the lack of military response to hijacked airplanes and we have
yet to know precisely who dropped the ball (or tossed it in the trash) but again, that particular issue has nothing to do with the discussion of whether some nefarious group wired the buildings with explosives...and he does appear to be somewhat frenetic in his infusing his obvious political agenda
into his remarks which don't really address the alleged conspiracy of controlled demolition.

I think the administration's attempts to derail investigations are sufficiently explained by their
reticence to permit their absolute incompetence to be revealed...which is to me at least quite enough damning in itself even without consideration of deliberate foul play.

[glitch]

258. I agree with your post. Emotional, dismissive arguments, often with insult

don't win debates. In fact the rule is the first to insult loses automatically, it means they can't back up their position with reason.

Welcome to DU!

[tabatha]

270. the science of it

Here is an article by Jones to read and analyze.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Note the following section:

2. Observed Temperatures around 1000°C and Sulfidation in WTC 7 Steel

One of the relatively few previous peer-reviewed papers relating to the WTC collapses provides "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7." This brief but important letter states:

While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.

[mirandapriestly]

312. What a nice post

It is interesting to see those people dismissed & discredited by anonymous internet posters! I find Steven Jones to be credible and I think he's sort of charming and personable as well.

[femrap]

135. How do you explain WTC 7?

It was a beautifully performed professional demolition.

Our government is capable of evil.....so many Americans refuse to accept that.

[longship]

137. WTC 7 collapsed due to damage from the collapse of WTC 1 and 2

There is not a single shred of a chain of evidence that supports controlled demolition in any of the WTC collapses. None.

Anybody who claims otherwise is making shit up.

That's all I am going to say about it in these forums. Go look up the peer reviewed literature and see for yourself.

[tabatha]

139. wtc7

I believe that the findings of the cause of WTC7 collapse by the 9/11 commission could not explain it properly.
Their only conclusion was what that their postulated theory had a very low probablity of being true.
(Why all the angry words at alternative theories?)

[longship]

151. I'm not angry about alternative theories.

I'm angry about complete stupidity.

I do not know the precise mechanism that brought down WTC 7. However, I do know that nobody at the scene that day has said or ever said that the it was brought down by demolition charges.

Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence for very severe damage of WTC 7 by the collapse nearby of WTC towers 1 and 2. I highly suspect that this damage was the instigation of WTC 7's collapse. We have absolutely no evidence for controlled demolition.

[tabatha]

202. please view this about the wtc7 demolition

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939

A few words about controlled demolition. This science was pursued to allow buildings to be demolished in an orderly, controlled way. For WTC7 to collapse in the incredibly precise way that it did - it would have had to have extremely precise timing in the destruction of the center beams and then the side beams. Also, it fell at almost free fall.

If it collapsed because of damage - that damage could not have been that well-balanced to allow such a prefect collpase to occur. And it would have taken a much longer time to fall.

My first thought on seeing the towers collapsing on Sep 11, 2001 - was they must have had explosives at the base. This was the thought of many people - including enegineers that I know. I did not see WTC7 until years later.

[karlrschneider]

211. Name those engineers. And if "they" had put explosives inside

the WTC bldgs, why bother with the risk and logistics of hijacking 4 airplanes? Or do you dispute they WERE hit by airplanes? And how many people would have been needed (and trusted 100%) to carry out
the installation and wiring of explosives in 4 buildings (3 WTC & the Pentagon)??

[longship]

235. I've seen it.

It's total made up bunkum.

On top of that, you have some of your facts outright wrong. Did you expect a tall building like WTC 7 to topple like a domino? Just what makes you (or anybody) think that would happen? The building is going to more or less fall into its own footprint, however, the pattern may be skewed somewhat. There is no way that a building that tall is going to remain intact while it topples.

Facts here

[tabatha]

259. facts and opinion

I checked the page at "Facts here" - and it seemed more like a lot of opinion.
Jones' discussion made more of an impact - he was discussing actual physics, not just how badly damaged something was.

However, I am prepared to be open-minded about other opinions without dismissing them as bunkum. That article made me curious as to whether WTC7 caused any damage to surrounding buildings, which I will verify for myself - and not just accept from one point of view.

If you believed the pancake theory of the tower collapse, what happened to the central beams left out of the 911 Commission report?

[longship]

296. Do you mean the central support columns?

Those were reinforced concrete.

When such structures collapse catastrophically they basically turn to dust at the fracture point which is often an oblique slice through the column. Any engineer who has played with such structural failures in the lab understands the energies released in these failures is large and nearly instantaneous.

A catastrophic collapse gets started when the supports for a single floor gives way, propelling the upper floor into the one below it. This happens with a significant release of energy and rather large velocity. This over stresses the support for the lower floor. If the stress is too much for the support for that floor, it too will collapse adding mass, velocity and energy to the collapse. Once a couple of floors fail there is sufficient mass collapsing and energy released to overwhelm all supports on all subsequent floors and the entire building collapses with the previously collapsed floors pancaking each subsequent floor below it. If you look at the WTC tower collapses, that's precisely what you see. The top floors collapsing on each subsequent lower floor.

There are photographs of both towers which show partially collapsed floors and warping of the outer supports in the collision zones. Engineers have measured the deformations in sequences of pictures of the towers as the time of the collapse approaches. The deformations increase until just prior to collapse. Furthermore, they show the sagging floor slabs which would be required to initiate the collapse. These too increase.

This is all consistent with catastrophic failure and *NOT* of controlled demolition.
I don't know how any informed person could watch those towers collapse and conclude that it was controlled demolition. This is especially true since the collapse begins, in both towers precisely at the level where the airliner hit. Not below and not above.

The conclusion of controlled demolition is not only wrong. It is wildly wrong.

[tabatha]

304. central support columns

"Those were reinforced concrete."
No,they were not.

Read this carefully:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

"This is especially true since the collapse begins, in both towers precisely at the level where the airliner hit. Not below and not above."
This is readily explained in the above as well.

Maybe after reading the content of the above link, you will have some idea of what Jones is actually saying. Then it would be interesting to hear what in the article you think is incorrect.

[longship]

305. Aha. You're on WTC 7.

I was on WTC 1 and 2.

I did see an engineering document on the collapse of WTC 7. If I remember correctly it was caused by the severe damage to the corner of the building on lower floors. There are several pics on the net showing this damage. Then, in a sequence of pictures as it collapses, you can see the entire end of the building dropping slightly as supports in the lower floors on that end collapse. This tore out middle support members throughout the structure. On the film one then sees the middle of the top of the building sagging. The entire building's integrity vanishes. On the film the sag is immediately followed by the progressive collapse we've all seen many times.

[tabatha]

307. WTC 1,2 7

WTC 1 and 2 did not have concrete central support columns either.
Do you have a link to the engineering document of the collapse of WTC 7 ?
I would like to see what they say as opposed to the "official" explanation below:

"Concluding remarks in the FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse lend support to these arguments:
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse <“official theory”> remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.) "

[longship]

309. I believe that you are wrong about WTC 1 and 2.

They had reinforced concrete support columns in the core and a steel support outer skin, both which shared the load of the floor slabs. That's why the building collapsed. When the floor slab(s) became disconnected from the outer supports due to the penetration of the airliners, it put additional stresses on the central core support columns, some of which were also damaged by the collisions.

The only thing left was time and the fires which in the most recent tests seem to have been started by the fuel, but really got going by the contents of the offices (paper, carpet, wood furniture, etc.). This put additional stress on the steel supports for the floor slabs and the outer shell. No, the steel didn't melt. However, differential heating will warp steel without melting it.

In the final video sequences of the each of the towers just before the collapse one can see the outer skin warping inward and floor slab(s) collapsing. These have been analyzed by engineers who have quantified the sagging and warping. Models using this data have determined that the cause of collapse was the inability of the central columns to hold the additional stresses in the area of the collision. As more floor slab(s) pulled out of position the transfer of stress between the outer walls and the central columns was disrupted to the point that the central columns collapsed on the level just below the collision. This put enough stress on the next lower level that it also collapsed and the total building collapse was on its way.

Here's a figure showing the central columns damaged by the airliner in WTC 1.


Okay, I'm not too sure whether they are concrete. No difference though. Their function is the same. Their failure mode is different, but the result is the same. Too much stress on the central columns, whether they be steel or reinforced concrete, results in catastrophic collapse of the building.

BTW, I heard a recorded phone call from one of the towers the other day. The call ended when the tower collapsed. The last second of the call was something I'll never forget all my life.

[tabatha]

360. No they are not concrete, but steel

From peer reviewed literature:
(http://www.journalof911studies.com/ - see "Evidence for Controlled Demolition")

Calculations by Gordon Ross show that, if a floor near the plane impact site instantly and
totally disintegrated, the energy available from the falling of the top portion would not be
sufficient to provide the energy needed to sustain the collapse through the undamaged
lower portion. Thus, in the absence of explosives, the top would have decelerated and
come to rest.11
11. Gordon Ross, “Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC
1”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, (June, 2006).

If the concrete slabs had been "pulverized" as seen in the videos, how would these pulverized "slabs" caused stress on the slabs below (suffficiently to cause collapse)?

5. Violent projection of dust and steel early in collapse. Of particular interest is the fact that not
only does the dust fly out fast very early but also it very quickly falls, showing that it is no
ordinary cloud but extremely dense. It is dense because of the very high concentration of
concrete in it. Note how the streams of projected dust arch downwards, almost keeping up with
the steel. Little concrete was found in the rubble pile. It is not only the pulverization of the
concrete which appears to be contrary to normal expectations; one would expect concrete to
fracture on impact into large blocks and similarly one would expect the human remains to be
substantial. Instead the remains were so severely fragmented that only 12 bodies could be
identified visually, 200 samples were found by DNA to have come from one person and 1000
people have not been identified at all.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/bodies.html


The picture that most contradicts your theory is this one on this page:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
about half way down with the caption:

Top ~ 30 floors of South Tower topple over.
What happens to the block and its angular momentum?

You can see that the top of the tower is not falling down vertically, but at an angle. If it had continued on that path, it would have hit the adjacent building on its way down. But it does not - it pulverizes, and as Jones says, "But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! " I doubt whether "powder" could cause the collpase of the floor below especially as this powder was ejected sideways.

The pancake theory does not work because there were no concrete pancakes.

[mrgerbik]

333. The what would be the point

of paying a demolition company huge sums of money to take down a building?

They take weeks to prepare a building as so it will fall in on its own footprint. It all seems so silly when all they ever really needed were fires burning for a a few hours and some structural damage then let gravity take its course, so to speak.

[Bolo Boffin]

335. Anyone who looks at the Pile and says that the towers fell into their

footprints...

...doesn't understand what they are looking at.

[mrgerbik]

371. that's beside the point

that it fell in on itself... and didn't topple over onto other buildings.

[Bolo Boffin]

373. I demand footprint-falling-into from my falling-in-footprint buildings! nt

[mrgerbik]

377. how should i word it then?

Tomato, tomatoe whats the difference? To point out such a trivial discrepancy in the wording of an event doesn't discount the fact that it didn't topple over, or fall in any manner then in on itself. Correct?

[Bolo Boffin]

378. Tomato is correct, tomatoe is not.

The term "falling into its footprint" is standard rhetoric from the CD crowd. It is repeated over and over again.

It is crap. Those buildings didn't fall "into their own footprint". Anyone who looks at the Pile can see that. To say that any of those buildings fell into their footprints neatly is just plain wrong.

But "fell in a huge mess all over the damn place" doesn't sound so... purposeful, does it?

[Carefulplease]

383. "Fell in a huge mess all over the damn place"

I rather like this way of putting it.

[VTMechEngr]

244. alternative theories?

(Why all the angry words at alternative theories?)

Because, just like the alternative theories of ID and Creationism, they are BULLSHIT!


Physics explains the collapse just fine without your conspiracy.

[tabatha]

262. theories

I don't believe in ID or creationism.
Neither have I seen a plausible explanation of the WTC7 collapse.
I would happily read it if a link was supplied.
(still haven't used bs or bunkum)

[soothsayer]

144. Sure there is.

[flyarm]

163. talk to firemen and police in NYC who saw it..they would tell

you..horse hockey ..longship...

everyone i have talked to that was near or close when wtc7 collapsed said it had to be a controlled demolition!

my husband and i have done numerous charity events for the NYPD and the NYFD..and all who were close by say..it was a controlled demo!

fly

[karlrschneider]

170. I worked my way through college as a cop and I can promise you

they are not generally the brightest bulbs in the chandelier. I wouldn't want one doing cardiac surgery on me nor do I want them explaining the principles of structural engineering.

[WinkyDink]

188. Yes, well, it's too bad the Republican Guiliani had the steel carted

away without allowing any structural engineers to examine it, then, no?

[Joe Chi Minh]

189. Silence came the stern reply.

[karlrschneider]

209. Extreme impatience is no virtue, sir.

...

[karlrschneider]

192. It was taken to the Fresh Kills landfill and was examined by many

independent engineers, chemists and metallurgists. Much of it was on videotape.

[flyarm]

220. you sir are incorrect very little of the steel was investigated..and only

select pieces were used for a very small study!

fly

[karlrschneider]

228. And you 'know' this...how? I have seen hours of video showing

scientists at the landfill taking samples, notes and video. Are those faked like the moon landing?

[flyarm]

267. because at the time i lived very close to "fresh kills!" staten Island

my husband is a sports media guy, we did many of the fund raising for the families of the NYPD and FYPD..we know all the guys who were working the recovery!

we were at WTC and the fire station right on the WTC site so often for moral support of the guys working it..my husband was slapping the guys on the backs and hugging them often, very often...in fact many days my husband was there on a daily basis!

we know what they told us..we know what they told us they saw..

and we know what they told us was being done with the steel!


or i should say the disposal of the steel!

the disposal of evidence!

much of it was cut up in Jersey city and newark!

and even shortly after 9/11 the fire dept magazine was screaming about it..the internal magazine..for firefighters of NYC!

too bad it no longer works on the links i had..


look here and do your own homework on it..

i know what i saw..i know what i heard and i damn well know the people who told us..and i respect what they saw and what they told us..i respect the hell out of them!

and they all knew i was a flight crew for American..so there was no bullshit!

fly

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?investigations:_a_detailed_look=wtcinvestigation&timeline=complete_911_timeline

September 12-October 2001: Steel Debris From WTC Shipped Out of US for Recycling In the month following 9/11, a significant amount of the steel debris from the WTC collapses is removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at a recycling plant or shipped out of the US. Each of the twin towers contained 78,000 tons of recyclable steel. Much of this is shipped to India, China, and other Asian countries, where it will be melted down and reprocessed into new steel products. Asian companies are able to purchase the steel for just $120 per ton, compared, for example, to a usual average price of $150 per ton in China. Industry officials estimate that selling off the steel and other metals from the WTC for recycling could net a few tens of million dollars. 9/11 victims’ families and some engineers are angered at the decision to quickly discard the steel, believing it should be examined to help determine how the towers collapsed. A respected fire fighting trade magazine comments, “We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence.” Rep. Joseph Crowley (D) will later call the loss of this evidence “borderline criminal.” By March 2002, 150 pieces of steel from the WTC debris will have been identified by engineers for use in future investigations (see March 6, 2002). A study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which commences in August 2002 , will have 236 pieces of recovered steel available to it. Of these, 229 pieces are from WTC 1 and 2, representing “roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers.” New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg defends the decision to quickly get rid of the WTC steel, saying, “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.” Officials in the mayor’s office decline to reply to requests by the New York Times regarding who decided to have the steel recycled.
Entity Tags: World Trade Center

[longship]

297. I'd like to see an authoritative citation for this claim.

I think that it, too, may be bunkum.

[flyarm]

219. but they can sure describe what they saw !! n/t

[karlrschneider]

230. Goatherders described what they saw 2000 years ago.

What they "saw" was a black dome over the flat earth with tiny pinholes, the sun revolving around
the earth, and lightning as bolts of fire hurled by a mysterious deity.

[WinkyDink]

186. WTC 7 was nowhere near N&S. NOT affected by them. And how

would that work, exactly??

[karlrschneider]

216. Nowhere near? Oh, that's right, it was in Boston.

:eyes:

[longship]

298. Like this!

[Joe Chi Minh]

166. What rubbish! The powerful pathological liars of the far right

never desist in their attempts to suppress the truth; simply because it is always deeply prejudicial and unpalatable to the majority, in its pristine, unvarnished, undistorted form. You must have a screw loose, if you haven't noticed that they call the purveyors of any truth prejudicial to their cause, "conspiracy nuts".

You need to get back in your longship and return to Scandiavia, to learn how governments should be run.

[karlrschneider]

191. Scandanavia? WTF are you babbling about?

jeezus

[Joe Chi Minh]

208. Longships, you mutt!

[karlrschneider]

214. And short buses. Tell Nessie I said hi.

:eyes:

[longship]

299. Why do you have to resort to ad hominems?

Why can't you put forth an intelligent counter argument?

Ad hominems are indicative of precisely the kind of thing we've all been fighting for the past five years. They show that you have nothing intelligent to say about these topics. For Christ sakes, we're on the same side here.

I just refuse to let a bunch of kooks who have zero knowledge of the science convince me that the 9/11 airliners somehow vanished into thin air, that the towers collapsed by controlled demolition when there is not a shred of evidence to support it, that there were missiles involved at the Pentagon when every fucking witness saw an airliner hit it.

I just am not that gullible that I'm willing to suspend what I've learned in my many years of education for a kookie movement that makes shit up out of whole cloth.

The extent to which there are natural explanations for events is the extent to which we don't need to make up magical causes, or radical conspiracy theories, either.

[mrgerbik]

340. Please don't muck up everything you hear

about alternative theories and believe that every single 9/11 skeptic has the exact same set of ideas.

Please refer to this
http://www.911review.com/errors/index.html

[Nozebro]

393. So let them hear from a voice of moderation, reason & humility like YOU?

"The Repugs can make a very credible claim that requests for further investigations comes from a bunch of delusional conspiracy lunatics."

[karlrschneider]

119. I try to stay out of these "discussions" but have to say you're right.

It embarrasses me to have this kind of utter nonsense promoted here.
:eyes:

[helderheid]

121. the BYU professor is really convincing

[longship]

125. Sorry. My education is in physics.

He is an embarassment to my field of study. Just because a person has a specific credential does not give his pronouncements any validity.

In science, the sole measure of a pronouncement is peer review.

The extent to which this BYU professor has not submitted his paper to a peer-reviewed journal is the extent to which the paper is totally meaningless.

Yet, there are peer-reviewed papers on the events of 9/11. None of them come to any conclusion other than those building were brought down by those airliners crashing into them. There is no need to argue for invisible controlled demolitions.

Do an abstract scan on World Trade Center and 9/11 and see if I'm not right.

[karlrschneider]

131. I have been a commercial pilot since 1964 and an aeronautical

engineer since 1963. It's kind of like a mechanical eng. degree with a lot of extra courses
in various areas such as freebody statics and dynamics, both aero and hydro. I haven't done
a hands-on study of the WTC, obviously, but have studied the findings on both (rather, all) sides
of what unfortunately ended up somehow as controversial...it should never have any more than
evolution should be a subject of debate.

The hats are way worse than tinfoil, they're neutron-star dense. The TV show mentioned is on
again, and I'm TIVOing it this time for further analysis...although I watched it earlier today
and I'm not impressed.

[flyarm]

165. what aircraft hit wtc7???????????n/t

[longship]

250. Part of Flight 77 hit WTC 7

In two areas, the SW corner and in the middle of the tower face. These started fires as was documented on that morning. This was before the collapse of any building.

Of course the WTC 1 collapse gutted not only WTC 7 but also other buildings, some much further away than WTC 7. But no building was closer than and taller than WTC 7. This made WTC 7 uniquely exposed. There was basically nothing left of the entire north face of WTC 7 above the floors screened by the intervening WTC 6 (much shorter than 7). The NY fire department was warning that WTC 7 could collapse basically all day after WTC 1 collapsed. I watched it all and I remember CNN announcing that fact several times.

Why do we need these imaginary controlled demolitions?

[flyarm]

283. wha???????? AA flt 77 did not hit NYC..

and no part of any aircraft hit WTC building 7!


fly

[longship]

289. My bad, wrong flight number.

I was thinking the plane that hit the South tower and typed 77. I meant Flight 175 which scattered debris all over the area and started a couple of small fires in WTC 7 (reported on morning of 9/11--sorry, I have no citation).

Here's a picture of the WTC 1 collapse from the North. Note debris is falling faster than the building (building cannot be in free fall). Also, note debris falling on north side of WTC 7. How can anybody credibly claim that WTC 7 wasn't severely damaged at that distance? Every other building at that distance from WTC 1 or 2 collapse was totally wiped out. WTC 7 was much taller than the others and had a much higher exposure to debris.

[EstimatedProphet]

260. Alright. Are you saying that peer review makes an article true?

Here's what I'm getting from what you're saying: if a statement isn't peer-reviewed, then it is invalid. Is that what you're saying?

[longship]

282. Peer review means that it has stood certain tests.

It does not necessarily bless a theory with validity. However, it does provide a check and balance against bunkum of the kind being spewed by things like the movie "Loose Change".

[EstimatedProphet]

287. OK, thanks for the clarity

I ask because one of the statements made during the panel was to the effect that Dr. Jones is either currently going through peer review on some of his papers, or has done so already.

[longship]

290. That's very good.

I'd like to see what the paper says (after it passes review).
I rewatch the video and see if I can catch a title.

[Jeroen]

123. You know what is really embarrassing?

That non of the hijacked flights on 9/11 where intercepted. Intercepts are standard procedure in aviation worldwide. In 2001 over 60 planes where intercepted in the U.S. (within 10 minutes) for different reasons, like communication failure, diversion off filed route and so on.

Incompetence? Could this be the answer? According to the 9/11 commission it is.
Normally the FAA notifies NORAD and NORAD scrambles Air Force interceptors.
It happens all the time. Any fighter pilot can tell you that.
But on 9/11 four flights where allowed to fly cross-country for over 30 minutes without being intercepted.
Now that is embarrassing.

[helderheid]

124. Welkom bij DU, Jeroen!

[Jeroen]

129. Thanks! (dank je ;-)

[karlrschneider]

132. I absolutely agree with that particular point, but it has no relevance

to the nutty claims about controlled demolition.

[Jeroen]

142. I agree, the air defence failure has no direct relevance to those claims

But I am not so sure if these claims are nutty.
I find the well known arguments feasible.

[Joe Chi Minh]

203. You mutt! Who said it did! And your confrere has the gall to talk

about strawmen!

There are myriad, separate technical matters connected in the most bizarre circumstantial fashion - comprising circumstantial evidence of such an extraordinary and suspicious nature, that the only possible explanation is a high-level conspiracy. And all you can say, Dum-Dum, is "I absolutely agree with that particular point"... before setting up your strawman for us. Nice try! NOT.

[longship]

133. Good. Facts!!!

This is precisely the kind of questions we need to be asking.
But unfortunately, because the MIHOP kooks are dominating the dialog these questions will *NEVER* be asked--all because such questions will forevermore be labelled as "kooky".

We have the MIHOPers to thank for that.

[JohnyCanuck]

148. And one of them was allowed to hit the Pentagon

the headquarters of the mightiest military organization the world has ever seen, or so we are lead to believe.

[Jeroen]

152. Flying at app. 60 feet at 550 mph.

[karlrschneider]

162. Many people attach some kind of significance to those figures

and I can't understand why - the faster a plane goes, the more maneuverable it becomes. The only difference between going 500 mpg at an altitude of 20,000 feet and at 60 feet is...19,940 feet.

[Jeroen]

175. True, but there is little margin for error at that speed at such low

altitude. But you are an airline pilot. If you think it is possible, I have to take your word for it. I guess they could have reprogrammed the FMC (waypoint / fix), set a speed and rate of decent and finally a low altitude (on their ‘final approach course’).

Is it possible to dial in (autopilot) a speed of 550 mph and a altitude of , say, 60 feet?

[karlrschneider]

181. I'm not familiar with the autopilots on the Boeing 700 series, but

I would guess probably not, however it wouldn't be any trick to hand fly most any plane to hit
a building if you have learned the most basic skills (keeping the target right in front of the nose.)

It's something I teach beginners on the first flying lesson and most people "get it" within an hour or two.

[Jeroen]

198. Okay, thanks for that info! I will keep that in mind

[flyarm]

222. nonsence! 767 &757 completely computerized aircraft!.

please if you do not know what you are talking about..say nothing as you make a fool of yourself..

fly

[karlrschneider]

254. Ah, well I defer to your vast experience serving drinks to rude

passengers and demonstrating the mysteries and nuances of seat belts and barf bags.

I only can lay claim to (you can check it)

Commercial pilot certificate # 1586810 first issued 1963
Instrument rating
Airplane single and multiengine
Flight instructor
Instrument flight instructor
Certified ground instructor
Type ratings in:
Lockheed 18
Lear 24
Lear 25
Douglas A26
Douglas DC3
Howard 500

Aeronautical Engineering degree 1963
Consultant to Vanderbilt University

Obviously I am a moron.

[flyarm]

291. well well..since you think i only serve drinks..

i began working at airports from the time i was 12 yrs old ..i solo'ed in a

DEHAVILLAND TWIN OTTER..WHEN I WAS 17 YRS OLD..

my uncle owned a local airport and i almost married the only child of the owner of the largest private Airport in NJ ..who also happened to be a Captain with US air, and prior to that Allegheny..and Mohawk airlines and after becoming an airline CAPTAIN HE WENT BACK AND JOINED THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD ..AND FLEW F16'S

HE WAS ORIGINALLY BASED AT MOODY AND THEN LACKLAND AFB..HE STARTED FLYING THE T38'S AND GRADUATED FIRST IN HIS CLASS...

i flew with him all the time and spent all my time off following him at air force bases..in fact i spent all my time for many many years at air force bases with him..

he owned his own Citabria tail dragger and i flew it often!

i was working at my uncles airport at age 17 as a dispatcher for a small regional airline..when the new owner crashed into a oil tank in newark..and i was the one to take the call that the plane had crashed with the owner of the Jets football team on board with James Loeb

now as for serving drinks...

for someone who says you know so much about flying..you should be ashamed of yourself for that comment as i know of no pilot who would make such an ignorant statement..and that makes me question what you say.. as all pilots i know ..and that is many many..through 33 years of flying..any good pilot would tell you or anyone who would ask..that we are the eyes and ears of the cockpit crew..
we are the first defence for the passengers in life and death situations,

our job is not your fucking drinks, but saving your life!

i will no longer respond to your ignorance..and sir if as you say you fly..stay the fuck away from me..i find your attitude disgusting!

fly


oh and these are the aircraft i have been qualified through 33 yrs of flying

727 100 &200
DC10 ..and i flew it when it even had the piano bar!
747
S80's
707 all configurations
737
757 all configurations
767 200& 300er
777
A300

[flyarm]

167. as a flight attend for one of the airlines involved ..

NY based 2001 flt attend of the year for the NY base for my airline...i could not agree more Jeroen !

i would go further..it was a deliberate event!

fly

[Jeroen]

178. Congratulations on that 2001 achievement! - thank God you are fine today

[flyarm]

223. i took early retirement so i could go out and speak publically about all

the lies ..and i have been publically speaking for 4 yrs now about the lies you have been told about 9/11!

fly

[Grateful for Hope]

385. Good on ya, Flyarm! n/t

[Make7]

271. Could you (or anyone else) supply a source for the following statement:

Jeroen wrote:

In 2001 over 60 planes where intercepted in the U.S. (within 10 minutes) for different reasons, like communication failure, diversion off filed route and so on.

My interest is mainly in how many of these were pre-9/11 as opposed to post-9/11, and also the time frames involved for the various intercepts. I haven't seen a detailed source for this type of information and was just curious as to what it was based upon. Thanks.

- Make7

[flyarm]

284. you can go to NTSB incident database

https://extranet.nasdac.faa.gov/portal/page?_pageid=33,38299&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

and sign up for public access..

or here...

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx/49cfr830.html

fly

[Make7]

306. Could you verify that the info on intercepts is in that public database?

I am afraid I'm not having much luck. I have done numerous searches within several of the databases on that site and have only come up with a single intercept for 2001 - which is obviously not correct.

Perhaps you could give me a nudge in the right direction. I am not entirely clear on the proper search parameters. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

- Make7

[flyarm]

339. well i can look at stuff you perhaps can't ..so i can't be of much help to

you..i can get inside info..so it may not help the public..not sure..
fly

adding this..you might try googling this..

ntsb airline incidents

[Make7]

363. Is it possible for you to collect the information regarding the intercepts

... from that database linked to in your previous post, and post it here so we can all verify the veracity of any claims that have been made regarding response times? To narrow down the amount of information to be collected, we could limit the data to pre-9/11 incidents in 2001 since that would better indicate the response that would be expected on 9/11.

- Make7
I somehow doubt that you will be able to...

[longship]

301. That's extraordinatily embarassing

Especially if you add the fact of the Aug 6 PDB which expressly says that the precise kind of attack as happened on 9/11 was imminent.

Condi called it a "historic" document. Rubbish. They are incompetent. The went to sleep at the switch and did nothing. They were extraordinarily unprepared. The result, the 9/11 attacks can be layed directly in ChimpCo's lap.

But controlled demolitions, missiles, and disappearing airliners? Hog wash based on ignorance.

[marions ghost]

127. The professor analyzed samples from the site

and found explosives consistent with controlled demolitions. Didn't you see the video? He just kept hammering that. It's the main point. Dr. Jones never implied any conclusions except one--that in his expert opinion--the planes did not bring the towers down. Or rather, they had some help. All he's saying is 'here's some evidence to support the theory of demolition.' Sure everything is theory until there is a real investigation.

[longship]

140. Citation from peer-reviewed publication, please.

You are making a very specific claim from somebody you call a professor.
Certainly this very specific claim can be backed up by a peer-reviewed article.

Failing to produce such citation requires that you retract the claim.

This is the way things work in academia. No official pronouncements without peer review.

Putting it crassly, it's time to put up or shut up, my friend.
:-)

[marions ghost]

150. oh calm down

I'm very familiar with how things work in academia you may be sure. Dr. Jones has put out an extraordinarily controversial finding. It doesn't surprise me if nobody has exactly jumped in there to independently back him up (yet). Scientists put out theories and sometimes it takes awhile for others in a very conservative field to second them--ESPECIALLY when there are such serious implications. I admire Dr. Jones for his bravery. I don't think he has subterranean motives. He has absolutely nothing to gain by going out on such a limb.

But how do you prove anybody right or wrong if you squelch any rational investigation and destroy the material evidence? I don't know much about Dr. Jones, but based on this panel discussion, I give him credibility for the points that he made.

Sorry, it's the current govt that has NO credibility.:)

[longship]

157. Sorry, my friend. No peer review? No academic standing.

Since you are familiar with academia, you must be aware of the routine.

Plenty of controversial theories are out there, but they *all* have been submitted and approved for publication. A theory is not a theory until it has been accepted for publication.

You must also know peer-review's purpose is not to weed out controversial theories. but to weed out illogical, scientifically flawed, or experimentally unsound techniques. Science *thrives* on controversy. No review panel (which are totally anonymous, even to each other) would ever reject a paper just because it is controversial.

Your Professor must publish, or his pronouncements mean absolutely nothing. Those are the rules of the game. They are good rules because the protect academia from all sorts of kookiness like these 9/11 conspiracies.

In other words, there is no sample study until it has been peer-reviewed. Short of that, I will presume that you have retracted your claim of its existance.

[marions ghost]

249. I'm sure the professor would not mind it being peer-reviewed

but...you know how things work in academia...there wouldn't be too many willing to risk killing their careers. Too much of a hot potato. They'll let Jones take the heat and keep their opinions private.

Maybe you'd like to cite a peer-rebuttal? Just a link is OK.

[longship]

252. Yes, publishing bunkum has a way of messing with ones career.

no other comment.

[marions ghost]

264. Academic freedom

is supposed to allow for what some might call 'bunkum' --and others might call simply a radical theory-- to be put forward. Dr. Jones has presented a reasonable case.

Don't you remember all that "Global Warming" 'bunkum?'

Unless they cart Dr. Jones away to the local psychiatric facility, I don't think he can be easily discredited. You haven't given me any peer-rebuttals (not your rebuttal, peer rebuttal).

[longship]

281. Academic Freedom?

Fine, I'll go along with that. But academia has it's own built-in anti-bunkum detection mechanism. It's called peer review.

So, if you are so convinced of your facts, submit them to the appropriate journals for review by peers.

Academic freedom is a two-way street. There are strings attached.

[marions ghost]

294. of course

but it's not that easy to get articles published in journals, no matter what the topic is...especially hard if the topic is rejected over others by a conservative editor, for example. Do you happen to know if any have been submitted? I don't. So you can't say what the status of that really is. You still haven't told me of any formal refutations of Jones's work.

[longship]

300. I haven't seen Jones' work.

So, I will have to look at it. I will do so, but I'll have a jaundiced eye on his conclusions. If I even smell a whiff of "controlled demolition" without specific evidence *FOR* controlled demolition, I will be done with him, too.

It would be nice if people here would just realize that making arbitrary claims is not good enough. One also has to support the claim with positive supporting evidence. One cannot pick and choose which facts will be used to support their conclusions. One must accept all the facts and use those facts to come to a version of reality that fits all the facts.

The MIHOPers, regrettably do not do that.

[flyarm]

173. why if you are a true american and in physics haven't "you" studied it??

why have "you" not asked for samples and done a study??
do you think you are above that as an american?

or a citizen ?

my co-workers died that day and i can tell you ..my entire adult life has been in the air with one of the airlines involved..and not one ..yes read that again..not one proceedure was followed by our government that morning..not one fucking proceedure!

got that??? mr Physics..???????

it doesn't take a Physics prof to tell me this adminst was complicit in 9/11..

my lifelong experience in flying tells me that!

and if you even attempted common sense ..your life long experience of common sense would tell you that

do you have common sense???????



fly

[TheWatcher]

179. Because he knows all the answers already and doesn't need

to question the official story.

People like longship have always been, and will always be Good Germa.....Um' I mean Good Americans.

As for your question, he won't answer it, he'll avoid it like all Good Citizens do.

[longship]

227. Ad hominems? Tsk! Tsk!

Shame on you.

[karlrschneider]

200. Are you drinking today?

You are normally very coherent and cogent...
:eyes:

[flyarm]

205. sorry to disappoint..i don't drink..only toasts at weddings!! n/t

[karlrschneider]

221. Okay.

..

[longship]

224. I've *never* said any such conclusions about 9/11 in these forums.

I have never given any credance to the official 9/11 report conclusions. They are likely total bunk.

I have only stated these facts and these beliefs.

FACT: The three buildings were hit by the airliners as reported. We know this as a fact because the chain of evidence is thick. Millions of people witnessed at least one of the events. Thousands witnessed the other two. Any report denying this fact had damned-well better have a chain of evidence to substantiate their claim. There is no such chain of evidence.

I have stated that that there is sufficient evidence to believe that the three WTC towers that collapsed did so because of the damage by the airliners, or the damage due to the proximity of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. I have little doubt that any totally independant and objective investigation would arrive at this conclusion. There is not a shred of evidence of controlled demolition and anybody who says otherwise does not understand what is meant by chain of evidence. Short of such a chain of evidence, the most likely reason for the buildings' fall is precisely what has been reported. Short of substantial evidence to the contrary, Occam's razor says I must go with this.

FACT: The crash in PA was that of the highjacked plane, as reported. Here we have the reports of the hundreds of volunteer fire fighters on the scene immediately after the crash who were responsible for securing the site and the eventual retrieval of remains and personal effects. This chain of evidence, from a totally independant source, leaves little room for any other claim. Again, those wishing to dispute this better damned-well have a better chain of evidence, which of course, they do not. I do not know why this plane crashed, but because of the very tight debris field, it is *likely* that it flew intact directly into the ground and was not shot down. I would not *conclude* this, however.

FACT: I believe that highjackers did these events. This is based on witness accounts, the phone calls from people on the highjacked planes. This chain of evidence is not as strong, however the calls and reports of them are fairly compelling. I do not accept the argument that the calls were fictitious as they were too widespread and to persons who would well recognize their loved ones' voices. I believe the calls are an indisputable FACT, again because of the chain of evidence. So there's little reason to disbelieve that the planes were highjacked, as the callers reported. There is certainly no evidence to the contrary.

[karlrschneider]

240. How DARE you address this logically and dispassionately!

It is perfectly obvious even to the untutored casual observer that there were NO airplanes involved with 9/11! (Nobody could have imagined it!) And buildings ALWAYS fall over sideways when their structural ingegrity is wrecked! And unlike every other falling body, they ignore the formula for
falling bodies T=sqrt(2H/g)!

And when one building crashes next to another one, it NEVER causes damage to it!

Get with the program here.

[longship]

286. Some claims by the 9/11 conspiracy crowd.

Claim: The WTC towers collapsed in free fall.

Response: Falsified. Look at the video of the collapses. See the debris cloud from the collapse zone? The debris cloud is falling slower than free fall (actually it's free fall minus wind resistance). Yet the debris cloud is falling much faster than the building is collapsing. You can see it with your own eyes. Therefore, the claim by the MIHOP lunatics that the WTC towers collapsed in free fall is falsified.

Claim: Squibs were seen in the collapse of the buildings (you choose, MIHOPers claim the same basic thing for WTC 7 as well as the big towers).

Response: Consider what would happen in any collapse like these (controlled or otherwise). The floors from above collapse on the floors below. The air between the floors must go someplace. In fact, it is squeezed out from the sides. Any openings along the edges of the floor would be the source of a jet of air and debris as the floor forces it out. You would see this ejecta from various places as the floors collapse whether or not there was controlled demolition. So the claim by the MIHOPers that ejecta from the collapsing floor zones is "squibs" is falsified because it would be there regardless of whether the collapse was deliberate or not.

And so it goes. Physics tells us a lot. So I would appreciate if you would not make ad hominem attacks on me just because I am opposed to one of your pet beliefs.

[Joe Chi Minh]

207. An academic mutual admiration society may impress the hell out

of you and your colleagues, Lief Ericson, but you really ought to be aware that the doctors and lawyers were among Hitler's strongest supporters. Nor I believe was there an enormous frantic exodus of non-Jewish German scientists from Germany at that time. Wake up to yourself, laddie. This board is for grown-ups.

[karlrschneider]

257. How ironic is the 'comment' you have put in your profile. I quote:

"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

[dailykoff]

293. Peer-reviewed scientific journal confirming demolition hypothesis

right here: Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 1 - June 2006

link: http://www.journalof911studies.com

Contents:

WTC 7: A Short Computation,
Kenneth L. Kuttler

9/11 - Evidence for Controlled Demolition: a Short List of Observations,
Frank Legge

9/11 - Evidence Suggests Complicity: Inferences from Actions,
Frank Legge 16

The Flying Elephant: Evidence for Involvement of a Third Jet in the WTC Attacks, Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC1,
Gordon Ross

Editors:

Prof. Steven E. Jones
Department of Physics and Astronomy
N-269 Eyring Science Center
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah, USA 84602

Prof. Judy D. Wood
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Clemson University
Clemson, So. Carolina, USA 29634

[longship]

313. Great, a refereed journal with a 9/11 conspiracy agenda.

Now that's not what I meant by peer-reviewed journal.

That's like the Discovery Institute publishing a refereed journal because no biology journals will publish their intelligent design articles.

I looked at the paper entitled, "9/11 - Evidence for Controlled Demolition: a Short List of Observations" Sorry. This paper is bunk. Instead of examining the evidence and proceeding to the conclusion, it presumes the conclusion that demolition charges were used and cherry picks the data to fit this predetermined conclusion, ignoring the vast number of facts that clearly falsify such a conclusion. For that very reason, this paper would *never* pass referee muster in any academic journal. It stands the whole logical process of science on its head. It's like Alice's Red Queen, first the sentence and then the trial.

It is as I feared. The "Journal of 9/11 Studies", like the "Discovery Institute", has an agenda which trumps all facts and conclusions.

I'm afraid that I cannot endorse anything from this BYU professor, the good Prof. Steven Jones. My bunkum detector is pinned.

[dailykoff]

316. Um, it already passed "referee muster in any academic journal."

That's why you're reading it, or pretending to.

[longship]

319. Um, this journal was created solely to promote a flawed agenda.

That of the lunatic fringe who believe that ChimpCo MIHOP no matter what the facts are.

This is a prime example that the whole MIHOP deal is ideological and not after the truth, or the facts, or anything honorable. Like the rapture rightists, the necons, and all the rest, they issue only spewage sewage. The facts be damned.

This proves it.

MIHOP is a movement from the lunatic fringe.

[karlrschneider]

141. The "samples" could have come from anywhere.

There was no "chain of evidence" involved, no signed receipts, no custodial records, nothing but
some hunks of previously melted metal dug out of some dirt. If you tried to introduce that stuff
as evidence in any court in the land, it would be tossed out faster than you could say 'oops.'
Anyway, other than the traces of Sulfur he claims to have found, the composition of his 'samples'
is plain old vanilla structural steel. OH, MY GOD IT HAD IRON AND MAGNESIUM IN IT!!!!
:eyes:

[soothsayer]

168. hmmm, so why DID they get rid of all that forensic evidence so

quickly? ever ponder that one, perfessor?

[marions ghost]

253. the sulfur is key

apparently. The sulfur links it to Thermate. Thermate is what cuts steel in controlled demolition and would not be found if the building fell down without help. That's ALL he's saying.

If you are implying that the professor is lying (a fairly conservative man not known for lying) then I think the burden is on you to prove what his motive is.

[karlrschneider]

261. I don't think he is lying, I believe he is reporting what he found from

the samples he was GIVEN by unidentified persons, from unidentified sources. He was very parsimonious with details, such as the precise concentration of the various elements. In any case, Sulfur is hardly a rare element, it shows up practically everywhere including as you may know in rotten eggs. It is also present in most hydrocarbon fuels including gasoline and diesel.

However, although I don't know whether he has a 'motive' or 'agenda', I applaud his efforts to find
the truth because it's clear to me that Bushco is guilty of PLENTY concerning 9/11 and I don't think
it's necessary to get crazy beyond the point of what is patently obvious - that they acted irresponsibly at BEST and criminally incompetetent at worst. Bush's (non)-reaction at the Booker school, his flight to "get out of harm's way" and the failure of the military to catch up to hijacked planes is more than enough evidence of their malfeasance without getting into tinfoil territory. I
really do think that makes us look like idiots to a LOT of people, and rightly or wrongly, those perceptions do affect our ability to get rid of the bastards.

[marions ghost]

266. I think most people are smart enough

to sort out the arguments for themselves IF they get access to them. The Professor obviously knows how to tell the difference between a sample that contains expected levels of sulfur and levels found in cases where thermate has been used, I'm sure. He wouldn't go out on a limb with this if he didn't think the results looked fishy.

WE don't need to worry and fret about how WE are being 'perceived.' Not after the disaster this administration has become. Don't you think it's time to be stronger than that?

[karlrschneider]

272. The Professor is a physicist, not a chemistry expert.

And he was peripherally involved in the 'cold fusion' business a while back. His conclusions have been questioned widely in the scientific community (he never managed to get them published in a peer-reviewed publication) and even by some of his colleagues at BYU. I do NOT think he's a 'bad guy' by any stretch, but I question his 'findings' in an area not of his own expertise. But as to going 'out on a limb', that's hardly an obstacle to a tenured professor of whatever political stripe, it happens all the time.

But I DO worry about how 'we' are perceived, given the built-in advantage of DRE voting machines and the obvious willingness of the RW to screw us by whatever means that might occur to them. "We" can't afford another "close" election with so much on the line and I truly believe "we" aren't helping our own cause by advancing scenarios (it doesn't even matter if they're true or not) that are off-putting to middle-of-the-road voters who just might be of potential assistance. That's all I'm saying.

Let's get control of at least Congress, THEN we can pursue LIHOP/MIHOP at our leisure...meanwhile it isn't productive.

[marions ghost]

295. OK well...

And do you know the history of his publishing efforts? Have articles been submitted? It wouldn't surprise me if some BYU colleagues might not be so enthusiastic as it's a very conservative school. But Physics and Chemistry people associate all the time, and the two fields have a lot of crossover. I'm sure Jones got corroboration from chemists.

I think it's productive to pursue this topic at ANY time...not "when we get control of congress." Who knows when that'll be, given the propensity for manipulating elections? Let's see how Bob Bowman does in Florida, since he's openly running on the issue of reopening 9-11.

Re --how "we" are perceived..."WE" don't have to do anything in lockstep as we are not Republicans. It's everyone out for themselves now. Everyone has to decide for themselves about 9-11...nobody needs to look for a Democratic view nor a Repuglican viewpoint on this. "Middle of the Road" voters--and just WHO are they now, after the Boosh disaster? Everyone is down on the administration. ABB has taken on a whole new meaning.

We don't need to worry about courting voters.
We need to worry about whether truth and justice will EVER be seen again in this country.

[suziedemocrat]

128. What is the truth then?

Anybody who believes either the official account 9/11 or this total lunacy has severely impaired credulity.

I find the 9/11 conspiracy theories over the top. I'm somewhat LIHOP though. What do YOU think happened?

[longship]

145. I don't know precisely.

I think the towers were brought down by the planes. Seemingly all the peer-reviewed literature says so. I think it is most likely that those 19 Arabs flew the planes into the buildings. We have sufficient evidence to believe that as well. Also, nobody has given a single fact that would make a reasonble and rational person doubt that terrorists did this. With zero doubts the Pentagon was hit by the airliner as documented. Again, no reasonable and rational person would doubt that.

Beyond that, I don't know nor will I speculate on what happened.

Now this is the important part. Because of these tin foil hat lunatics (and that is all they are) it is very likely that we will never know the whole truth. Because they suck up so much of the air in a room when somebody mentions 9/11, any attempt to get to the truth will forever be tainted by delusional kookiness.

[leesa]

160. So you actually believe the nonsense put out by the WH even though many

of those hijackers are alive. Oh brother!

[longship]

187. Your comment is totally illogical.

Are you attempting to set up a non-existent dichotomy here? That I must either accept the official 9/11 conclusions or your lunatic conspiracy? That's called excluded middle, one of the classic illogical arguments.

I do not believe the White House and the 9/11 conspiracies are delusional.
However, I *do* believe the facts.

What conspiracy kooks like you do, is to take and throw out the baby with the bath water. You do not like the conclusions of the 9/11 investigation--who would, the conclusions ignore many important facts. However, you seemingly want to throw out all the facts along with the flawed conclusions. Then, you seemingly want to make up all your own facts with no consideration to either the facts that you threw out, nor to the chain of evidence surrounding them.

You can't do that. It's called "cherry picking". You must accept all the facts or you shouldn't be playing the game. That's my main issue with you conspiracy kooks. You don't know how the game is played so you make up your own rules and then complain, fling ad hominems, and launch into all sorts of other patently illogical argument when somebody challenges you on it.


I suggest that you Google the "Baloney Detection Kit" and see what kind of criteria are required.

[Joe Chi Minh]

232. You and your pals don't know logic WHEN it hits you on the

head. If Einstein's eminent peers (and for the most part I use that term in quite a loose sense), had grasped the relationship between mathematics and a priori truth, and moreover had understood the significance of a priori truths, plain immutable logic, it would not have taken them so long to recognise the truths of his relativity theorems.

As Mort Orman MD wrote in is article here:

"But this was totally contrary to what everyone, including the world's leading scientists, believed.

This didn't stop Einstein, however. In 1905, he published his argument, including his conclusion that E=MC2, in a three-page paper entitled "Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend On It's Energy Content?" The paper had no footnotes and not one single reference to support it.

The scientific establishment went absolutely bonkers.

'Who does this Einstein think he is? How dare he contradict the fundamental principles of Newtonian physics. Where is his scientific evidence? What are his credentials for making such an assertion? This is preposterous....we can't allow people just to say things like this without proof! How dare he...this idea should be given no credence at all!'

What was Einstein's response? How did he deal with all the negative criticism coming his way? His response was simple and direct. Basically, he told the scientific community...

Check it out--you'll see that it's true!

As it turned out, Einstein was right. Twenty years later, when the technology became available to put Einstein's assumption to a rigorous scientific test, his theory was validated. Eventually, the whole world had to agree that Einstein's original "hunch" was correct. The truth (at least as far as we know it today) eventually won out, although it took a long, long time before it was fully embraced."

(Snip)

Why was Einstein so certain? Because he understood that logic doesn't lie. It took the mutts 20 years to be convinced of what he KNEW at the outset, because it related to a priori truths, and needed no half-baked scientismificists to check it out then or 20 years later.

What is so shameful about you lot is that you don't have to be an Einstein to see a pattern so monumentally bizarre that it could have only one explanation; and the ploys you engage in to rubbish it are itself a wonder to behold.

[Make7]

269. Facts relevant to the discussion at hand might be more appropriate. ( nt )

[MissWaverly]

134. did you actually listen to the broadcast

Mr. Bowman who is ex-military and running for the House of Representatives was an impressive
speaker, he flew over 100 combat missions in Nam, so he's not a tin hatted blogger and neither
is Professor Jones who is a physicist by training and has actually analyzed a sample from Ground
Zero. I didn't hear anything about remote control planes, hallograms or even Elvis. Mr. Bowman
says the most common argument you hear for what happened was Government incompetence. If that
is true and the government did nothing then 9-11 would not have happenened because those
airliners would have been intercepted following standard procedures. Sure sounds like
the real deal to me.

[longship]

147. I'm not saying that they are all kooks.

However, the extent to which the discussion is tainted by guided airliners, missiles, and controlled demolition--all of which can be easily dismissed as delusional--is the extent to which reasonable questions will likewise be labelled as delusional. The tin foil hat crowd preempts any reasonable discussion. They suck the air out of the room.

[leesa]

161. WHY can they be dismissed as delusional?

[longship]

171. Because they do not pass the Baloney Detection Kit tests.

Baloney Detection Kit

In fact, concerning the 9/11 conspiracies, the Baloney Meter is pinned at the top.
They fail all the tests.

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWatcher]

193. See Post #65

That's all you need to know.

You are wasting your time.

People like him have their minds made up, and they are closed to any other possibility. They have convinced themselves and at best will discourage and demonize and questioning of the "truth" that the government wants to be the "accepted" view, and at worst do anything they can to suppress those who are trying to question and seek real answers to the questions surrounding this event.

The tragedy is that people like him who are educated in the area of physics and other scientific areas of discipline could do so much good by actively encouraging or engaging in real investigation of this issue.

But they will not.

It is best to ignore them, go around them, dismiss them, and resist them.

Keep pressing for the truth.

We may never get to it, but we must at least try.

Shame on those who seek to discourage and suppress it.

[longship]

195. Argument from authority?

Sorry, arguments from authority don't wash.

In these matters there are no authorities. If you write about a claim, I will expect you to provide me with a citation to that claim. I do not accept opinions as valid, and certainly not ones under the guise of an authority.

Any authority in these matters is a collective entity. It's called peer-review.

Cite properly or I do not have to accept anything you write.

[MissWaverly]

197. sorry that you feel that way

people are sick from working at Ground Zero and we don't even really know what they were exposed
to and they are not getting compensated because it's not been proven that they were exposed
to toxic chemicals at ground zero. Did you know that nobody rec'd a dime in compensation for
the sinking of the Titanic; it was found to be caused by human error, the crew failed to
spot the iceberg in time. As they said last night, name one person who was punished for
negligence that led up to 9-11. You have to excuse me I am busy adjusting my tin foil
hat. PS My grandfather died from asthma but silly us; we thought he had black lung disease
from being a coal miner. Of course, how silly, since he had asthma and was not entitled
to compensation.

[helderheid]

210. exactly!

[MissWaverly]

215. It's the same strategy over and over again

The minute someone has a question then they are stomped down and ridiculed:
*this has happened over the 2000 election
*this has happened over the march to war in Iraq, if everything was a-okay, why has Pat
Roberts never released the results of the investigation on the lead up to war, if we
are good little voters we MAY see the results after the 06 election, we are talking about
something that happened 3-4 years ago, the Iraq War started in March of 03.
*this has happened over 9-11, both the things that happened before; on the day itself
and afterwards (the coverup)
*this happened for the anthrax mailings, investigation stopped at Ft. Detrick
*this happened in the 2004 election
*this happened over anyone questioning the handling of Hurricane Katrina
*this happened to anyone who had concerns over global warming

In every instance, anyone who questions these events is open to ridicule and treated as
a moonbat. I am not a moonbat, I have worked for over 30 years and I want answers, real
answers and I am tired of the American people getting s****d by an elitist government
who operate w/o restraints and w/o following the law. I do not believe anything this
administration says on any issue. If they said cars have 4 wheels I would have to go out
and look.

[Grateful for Hope]

386. Miss Waverly...I watched it tonight

and, I, too, was impressed with Bowman. He speaks very forcefully, and I would like to see him get elected.

[soothsayer]

143. And what brought down tower 7, not struck by a plane?

hmmmmmmm?

[Warpy]

153. I'm terribly skeptical, too

because it would have taken a team of Supermen to climb up to the floors directly under the impact point and set up a thermite reaction capable of melting the floor joists above.

All these conspiracy theories require either Supermen or suspending the laws of physics.

The collapse of the two towers has been adequately explained. The events that led up to it have not.

That is where the conspiracists should train their attention. They may actually figure something out.

[soothsayer]

172. oh, you think it was done right then, not in advance! Totally

done in advance.

[Warpy]

251. Well, how very prescient of them! They MUST BE GODS

to know where a plane was going to strike the building THIRTY YEARS LATER and set thermite and fuses in the potted plants.

By the way, have you ever DONE the thermite reaction? Do you know how big the one you're describing would have to be?

[leesa]

154. Well, Bush's brother Marvin was on the board of directors for the security

firm for WTC (and United). Perhaps that had something to do with it. Why do you call it lunacy when it is far more reasoned than the 9-11 account?

Are you afraid to find out the truth?

[LibraLiz1973]

196. Ummmm... WHAT??

Gonna need to see some proof of that.


Interesting...................

[helderheid]

212. wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Bush

"Marvin graduated from Woodberry Forest School in 1975, and also holds a B.S. from the University of Virginia. He spent most summers and holidays at the sprawling family estate, the Bush Compound. He was a director of the Sterling, Virginia company Securacom, also known as Stratesec, from 1993 until fiscal year 2000. The Securacom/Stratesec company was publicly traded and backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corporation."

and

"Securacom had a contract to provide security to the World Trade Center until the day it came down. Securacom also provided security services to Dulles airport."

[Name removed]

256. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[soothsayer]

174. And just cuz this has never caused a building to collapse before

or since? Oh, the magic planes and magic fires of 911 that make steel framed buildings fall! Of course, I forgot the terrorists all lit matches in their shoes to make the fires burn hotter, lol

[WinkyDink]

183. Well, the WTC, including #7, were the only buildings ever

to have collapsed from "fire", having been made with steel beams.

[seemslikeadream]

217. Remote controlled airliners? What utter bull shit? WELL WHAT IS THIS THEN?

Successful landing of remote controll plane 1984



"Before the final flight on December 1, 1984, more then four years of effort passed trying to set-up final impact conditions considered survivable by the FAA. During those years while 14 flights with crews were flown the following major efforts were underway: NASA Dryden developed the remote piloting techniques necessary for the B-720 to fly as a drone aircraft; General Electric installed and tested four degraders (one on each engine); and the FAA refined AMK (blending, testing, and fueling a full size aircraft). The 14 flights had 9 takeoffs, 13 landings and around 69 approaches, to about 150 feet above the prepared crash site, under remote control. "

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/CID/Small/index.html

[The Backlash Cometh]

136. Frankly, there was just So much information to absorb.

It was hard to determine what info will help us reach the most people, and what info is just background or historical information. Someone needs to go in and condense it and summarize with a strong conclusion.

[Behind the Aegis]

146. Rubbish!

I love how some here can excuse any act of aggression against the US and Israel as "false-flag," as if the other side never does anything. :eyes:

[Pastiche423]

156. Uh...

who was the "other side" on September 11, 2001?

Please provide your proof.

[Behind the Aegis]

158. The ones that flew the planes into the building...

...you know, the ones that actually destroyed lives and property.

[Jeroen]

164. You mean the ones interviewed by the BBC after 9/11?

The ones whose names where not on the passenger manifests?
The ones who left a ‘terrorist manual’ and a list of their group members in a rented car on the airport?

[Behind the Aegis]

169. Yeah...there is only one "John Smith" in the world too.

:eyes:

This bullshit that it was all an elaborate set up is nauseating!

[flyarm]

182. actually the head of the fbi said many are still alive..if you question

that please go look it up!!

and do remember atta was on Abramoffs casino boat in John's Pass/ Treasure island fla 1 week before 9/11!

and 4 days prior to 9/11 on sept 7th 2001 Jeb wrote an executive order to begin the process of marshall law..why did he do that??

p.s. there were no hurricanes then!

fly

[Behind the Aegis]

190. .

:crazy:

Sometimes things just happen. Not everything is some big master plan. I am amazed at the level some people will go to.

[Name removed]

206. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

213. I am surprised I STILL haven't bought tinfoil stock! n/t

[flyarm]

231. i do agree there is alot of tin foil crap out there..but there are also

alot of facts that have been totally ignored!

my husband and i did a round table discussion with BoB Kerrey at the univ of Tampa..only 15 people were chosen to ask questions..

i had 3 questions prepared of inside airline info to base my questions..and i had my husband prepared to ask 2 questions..

the room was filled with professors and PHD's from the staff of Univ Of Tampa..

Mr Kerrey did not anwer one of my questions..and i was seated right in front of him..inches from him..he would not look my in the face let alone eyes..

and he refused to answer any of my professional questions..not one!!

nor did he answer my husbands questions..and my husband is in media..so my husband was not shy to ask the questions..and i can tell you my husband was furious..as was I..and all the academic people in the room were as well!

It was very emotional for me..and i held up my picture of my graduation from flight school in 1970 of getting my wings pinned on..and sitting in the front row next to my mother was C.R. SMITH..the founder of American Airlines..i was 19 yrs old..one of the youngest to ever graduate "stewardess training school " it was called at that time.

I said to Mr. Kerrey the two most important things to C.R. Smith were ..his crew's safety, and his passengers safety..

and i told him when he refused to answer my questions that C.R. Smith is now surely rolling over in his grave.
I also told him he was a fraud and the 9/11 commission is nothing but a big fat white wash!

fly

[flyarm]

234. oh and to add...if the correct questions are never asked ..you will never

have anything but bullshit as your answers!

fly

[Jeroen]

194. Would you believe me if I tell you that the name Al-Qaeda was made up

by the United States Justice Department in a office somewhere in the U.S.?
Osama bin Laden was supported by the CIA to fight the Russians in Afghanistan in the 80's .

Al-Qaeda (Arabic: القاعدة‎, translit: al-Qā'idah; "the foundation" or "the base") is an international fundamentalist Sunni Islamist paramilitary organization comprised of independent and collaborative cells that all profess the same cause of reducing outside influence upon Islamic affairs. Countries that list this group as a terrorist organization include the United States, <1> United Kingdom, <2> Canada, <3> and Australia <4>. Although al-Qaeda is philosophically heterogeneous in the context of Sunni Islam, the most (known) prominent members of this group are believed to have Salafi beliefs.

The origins of this group (at a later time given the name 'al-Qaeda' by the United States Justice Department) can be traced to a few weeks after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, when a cadre of non-Afghani, Arab Muslim fighters joined the largely United States and Pakistan-funded Afghan mujāhidīn anti-Soviet resistance movement (a guerrilla war against Soviet occupation forces and the Soviet-backed Afghan government). Osama bin Laden, a member of a prominent Saudi Arabian business family, led an informal grouping which became a leading fund raiser and recruitment agency for the Afghan cause in Muslim countries; it channeled Islamic fighters to the conflict, distributed money and provided logistical skills and resources to both fighting forces and Afghan refugees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

[Pastiche423]

180. Please name the "ones"

Who were they? Where is the proof?

[Name removed]

218. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JohnyCanuck]

176. Not to say that False Flag operations don't happen.

Just google Operation Gladio.

You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."

This was the essence of Operation Gladio, a decades-long covert campaign of terrorism and deceit directed by the intelligence services of the West -- against their own populations. Hundreds of innocent people were killed or maimed in terrorist attacks -- on train stations, supermarkets, cafes and offices -- which were then blamed on "leftist subversives" or other political opponents. The purpose, as stated above in sworn testimony by Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra, was to demonize designated enemies and frighten the public into supporting ever-increasing powers for government leaders -- and their elitist cronies.

First revealed by Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti in 1991, Gladio (from the Latin for "sword") is still protected to this day by its founding patrons, the CIA and MI6. Yet parliamentary investigations in Italy, Switzerland and Belgium have shaken out a few fragments of the truth over the years. These have been gathered in a new book, "NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe," by Daniele Ganser, as Lila Rajiva reports on CommonDreams.org.

Originally set up as a network of clandestine cells to be activated behind the lines in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, Gladio quickly expanded into a tool for political repression and manipulation, directed by NATO and Washington. Using right-wing militias, underworld figures, government provocateurs and secret military units, Gladio not only carried out widespread terrorism, assassinations and electoral subversion in democratic states such as Italy, France and West Germany, but also bolstered fascist tyrannies in Spain and Portugal, abetted the military coup in Greece and aided Turkey's repression of the Kurds.

SNIP

Indeed, it would not do for the families of the 85 people ripped apart by the Aug. 2, 1980 bombing of the Bologna train station to know that their loved ones had been murdered by "men inside Italian state institutions and ... men linked to the structures of United States intelligence," as the Italian Senate concluded after its investigation in 2000.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FLO502B.html

[vanlassie]

199. Remote Control Airliners- Fact or Fiction?

"Remote controlled airliners? What utter bull shit?"

Ummm.....not necessarily.
Isn't that what is also known as a drone?
This is something the Pentagon proposed using back in 1962 and they called it Operation Northwoods.


Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba , March 13, 1962, TOP SECRET, 15 pp.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

Go read it and then tell us if "remote control airliners" are considered fantasy or fact. Whether they were used or not is another thing, of course. But to dismiss the idea with such utter contempt?

To quote Bartcop "What WOULD evil men do to rule the world? Actually.....What wouldn't they do?"

[seemslikeadream]

225. Remote Control Airliners FACT FACT FACT GOVERNMENT PHOTO HERE

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/CID/Small/index.html

[flyarm]

248. seemslike a dream is 100% correct..and do remember

757's and 767's are completely computerized and can take off and land themselves!@
and doooo..

fly

[longship]

302. What happened to those three flights, then.

And all the people in those three flights. Why does all the evidence point to those very airliners (flights 11, 175 and 77) changing course to their prospective targets (ATC testamony) and colliding with the very buildings which were hit. Why do the onboard phone calls from passengers to people who are very, very close to them (and would recognize their voices) collaborate the fact that these flights were highjacked and flown into the vacinity of those buildings where they somehow magically disappeared precisely at the point that these remote controlled planes hit their target?

I want to hear what happened to those planes and why the civilian ATC system didn't pick their disappearance on their radar, or the appearance of these other "remote controlled" airliners.

I want to hear how all that was accomplished in detail.

This I've got to hear...

[Joe Chi Minh]

242. These would be know-alls are plain ignorant; plane ignorant, too,

it seems.

[laruemtt]

155. 40 posts and still in GD???

10....9....8.....7.....6.....5...........

[LibraLiz1973]

201. If you believe 9/11 happened as you saw it that day....

How do you explain the size of the hole in the Pentagon? How do you explain the fact that SO MANY people on the ground at WTC thought that the buildings came down as the result of a controlled demo? How do you explain the lack of wreckage in Pennsylvania?


I'm not saying there is a conspiracy and I'm not saying there is not. I'm just curious how you support either conclusion.


I admit it- I'm on the fence. In all honesty, many things just don't add up. I've read the 9/11 Commission Report. Even they manage to poke holes in some of the generally accepted facts. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that the Pentagon plane just disappeared. If it was actually a missile, where are the passengers of the plane that supposedly crashed? Why would our government blow up the WTC buildings?

[LunaSea]

238. Confused about the Pentagon plane?

Perhaps this might help-

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

# Review the facts
# Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 is 13 feet wide/high)
# Rims found in building match those of a 757
# Small turbine engine outside is an APU
# Same engine has been clearly stated to not match a Global Hawk engine
# Blue seats from 757 laying on ground in photos
# Part of "American" fuselage logo visible in more than 1 photo
# Engine parts photographed inside match a Rolls-Royce RB211
# Structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes
# Large diesel generator in front of building hit by a large heavy object
# Large diesel engine outside is spun towards the building - could not be result of bomb blast or missile explosion
# Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner
# Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon
# 60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage

[longship]

303. That's "Just the facts, Ma'am"

Thank you for the facts.

BTW, did you know that Paul Begala (CNN-Crossfire) was one of the Pentagon witnesses?

There were many known DC people on those three freeways in the vacinity of the Pentagon that morning. After all, it was rush hour. All who were there saw an airliner. None saw a missile. All the witnesses who saw it hit, saw an airliner hit.

But this, and all the rest of your facts, doesn't stop the conspiracy kooks from claiming it was a missile. And, of course, they never explain what happened to the airliner full of people. Typical of all moonshine.

[tabatha]

204. for all the theories of the demolition,

please see

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939

[QuettaKid]

229. when you have an afternoon to kill.

Have a look at this thread. More answers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x93668

[lonestarnot]

233. I watched it beginning to end and wish they had done a better

job. I for one believe MIHOP.

[flyarm]

237. i agree ..i did not think it was all it should have been ..seemed

like a campaign for the one man who said very little..and it was not very well done..
too fractured ..

i was pretty disappointed ..

fly

[lonestarnot]

239. Sometimes when people and information is suppressed for

so long, when information does begin to come out it comes out disjointed. I think it is information suppression syndrome.

[flyarm]

247. don't get me wrong ..i am thrilled it was on cspan..i called all my NJ

friemds and begged them to watch it...

i just think it could have been presented better..but i will take what i can get..to get some truth out there and at least get people discussing ..

this discussion has been too long delayed!

fly

[Jeanette in FL]

241. It was a 2 day event

There are 4 cd's of the full event for sale. There is a link over in the Sept. 11 forum.

There is just so much information to get out to the general public.

Even when I am in a discussion with people who totally believe in the gov't line on Sept. 11th, and you try to get so much information out there, it sounds so fractured. But I agree with your assessment.

[Justice Is Comin]

245. Things that make me want to go hmmmmmmm.

Can cell phones be used at altitude with continual clarity? Don't know.

Why does a guy call his mother and use his first and last name? More than strange.

How does a cockpit recorder record conversation that takes place in the rear of the plane? Now that's a deusy.

If true, and a FBI agent informed superiors over 700 times that he had concerns, that one dense bunch of superiors.

A PDB tells bush Bin Laden is about to strike in the U.S. And they were warned about airplanes being used to fly into buildings. But ho hum.

How do 19 Arabs manange to not appear on the passenger manifest?

How does a building manage to fall straight down on itself that was not impacted by anything? It becomes even more bizarre if you posture that something did fall against it, because then it certainly wouldn't fall straight down. Demolition experts say they would have difficulty making an implosion that perfect.

Why were all the civil defense forces purposely sent to maneuvers that morning taking them away from the area of New York City?

What is Mohammed Atta, the master captain in charge of his other "terrorist" troops doing on Abramhoffs boat?

Why has there not been a trace of human remains found in the debris?

How does Mohammed Atta just barely get to Boston Logan in time to get on the plane for a supposed act that had been planned for years and when he's the most important person in the plot?


Not even the National Enquirer has been able to explain this stuff.

[flyarm]

263. other questions ..two af fighters were flying over pinelands in NJ

and they were never called..and Mc Guire was told to stand down..why????

and ..they were correct..the cockpit recorder will not pick up voices from the cabin..other wise the cockpit recorder would have too much junk from the cabin crew in the galleys!
with all the noise from the ovens and carts, bathrooms, dishes and glasses clinking.....and general cabin crew chit chat..it would make the cockpit recordings impossible to hear..and i am talking the front of the cabin!! next to cockpit!



fly

[longship]

288. Gees, ya gotta think a little.

* Cell phones do *not* work well at altitude. But they do work better at lower altitude where these planes were flying. Plus, if you were on one of these planes wouldn't you try to contact a loved one like a spouse? If you got disconnected, wouldn't you try again? I would.

* I don't know about the first/last name thing. I have no idea why. Is this a reason to conclude that the thousands of people who actually witnessed airliners crash into the buildings were delusional, or lying? I'd prefer you just chalk this up to "I don't know why".

* I'm not aware of this cockpit recorder deal. A clarification would be helpful. Also, please provide an authoritative citation.

* Ignoring the PDB is a biggie. It labels ChimpCo yet again as an incompetent regime. But given that, how can you then claim that this incompetent regime has somehow successfully pulled off the wildest and most global conspiracy of all time, involving remote controlled airplanes, planting of controlled demolitions in huge skyscrapers without detection, disappearing whole airliners complete with passengers, convincing thousands of people to lie and say a missile is a large airliner, convincing hundreds (thousands) of on-scene firemen/police/accident investigators to lie, etc.

* How could they not be on the manifests? The airliners reported their names to the media. They had to be on the manifests for that to happen.

* Tall buildings (50 stories / 110 stories) cannot fall like a domino. They do not have sufficient lateral strength to hold together while they topple. Shear forces would pull them apart and the result would be a pile of rubble more or less centered at the buildings footings.

* Civil defense manuevers? Sounds like more disinformation from our tin foil hat crowd. Authoritative citation, please.

* Abramoff/Atta on boat. Gambling maybe? Authoritative citation, please.

* No traces of human remains. This is a shameful and outright lie. Just ask any of the firemen and rescue workers who worked at ground zero. Why would you believe anybody who spews such an outrageous distortion of reality?

* Atta arriving at last minute. Who knows? Unexpected heavy traffic, maybe. It happens to me, too. I try to be early for flights, but sometimes the situation prevents me and I have to run to the gate to get there on time. It's happened on vacations which I've had planned for many months. Why would you attribute something sinister to something that is so damned common?

[flyarm]

308. i do not know where you got or get your info but please do some reading

before you make comments that are incorrect!

I know American Airlines never gave out the hijackers names from any manifest..

do some reading pleaseeeeeeeeee!

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DAV411A.html



(b) What were the specific interests that prompted AA to engage in a massive P/R efforts on the very day of the attacks? A hint is given in the statement by Weber Shandwick that it was necessary for AA to "ensure consistent communications with all audiences". In his email of November 7, 2004, Tim Doke shed some light on the term "consistent communications" by saying: "Lots of people claimed to have knowledge or theories about what happened that they shared with any reporter who would listen. It was important for us to go ‘off the record’ with certain media who were straying from the facts as we, at AA, uniquely knew them. We did this to prevent inacurate reporting." However, in his email he maintained that "employees who were in contact with the terrorists on the ground were fully interviewed by the FBI, but had no desire to speak to the media. Of course, they could not talk to reporters anyway under the FBI's restrictions."

PARTICIPATING IN THE COVER-UP?

It is argued here that the information AA did not want to "leak" to the public was the same information that AA refuses to reveal to the families of the victims and to the public in general since 9/11. Such information includes:

(a) Names of ground personnel who saw off the passengers and crew at the departure gate on 9/11 and could testify on what they saw;

(b) Authentified copies of the flight manifests, which would show the names of the alleged hijackers and of the passengers;

(c) Copies of boarding cards, which would show the names of the alleged hijackers and of the passengers and confirm their seat numbers;

[Justice Is Comin]

317. If Vincent Bugliosi took this case file into a

criminal court with rules of evidence and all these anaomlies and started calling witnesses, he would have puddles of sweat on the floor all around the witness chair.

Of course the tape of the passengers talking about using the beverage cart to ram the cockpit door was played in the Moussaui trial. And it's on the *cough* ...cockpit recorder?

The 911 report of collapse time of the building being approximately 10 seconds stands physics on its head. Free fall is 9.2 for 1,350 feet. That's falling through nothing but AIR. Stand an egg on its end and try to crush it with your hand.

To say nothing about the thermal melting temperature of steel being approximately 2,700 degrees and jet fuel fire thermal intensity maximum under the best conditions is 1,800. Plus a flammable fuel fire of that origin is about one of the hottest fires there is.

And I believe these steel members were certified by UL to withstand 2,000 degrees for SIX HOURS.


Nope, that's too much odor coming from that woodpile for there not to be a skunk in there someplace.

[flyarm]

323. why is this man not in prison for destroying evidence of an air crash?

this is so against the law..why was this man never charged and put in prison?

or under oath by the 9/11 commission????

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/10_20a/briefs/187259-1.html

According to the report given to the 9/11 Commission by Department of Transportation Inspector General Kenneth Mead, the audiotape was crushed in the hand of the unnamed FAA employee, then cut into small pieces and tossed into different trash cans around the ARTCC building.


May 10, 2004

FAA Manager Mangled, Cut, Destroyed 9/11 Tapes
By Liz Swaine, Newswriter, Editor



Information provided to the commission investigating the U.S. government's response to terrorist threats prior to September 11, 2001, names an FAA quality manager in the destruction of an audiotape made in the aftermath of the 9/11 hijackings. Each of at least six air traffic controllers and some ten other employees who were on the job at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) in Ronkonkoma, N.Y., during the World Trade Center attacks gathered several hours after to recall their version of events. But that tape, which could have helped determine how the agency responded to clues that four planes had been hijacked, was destroyed before it was ever heard. In fact, officials at the ARTCC were never even told of the tape's existence.

[flyarm]

325. again why is this man not in prison?????????

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6892-2004May6?language=printer

washingtonpost.com
Controllers' 9/11 Tape Destroyed, Report Says

By Sara Kehaulani Goo
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 7, 2004; Page A02


Six air traffic controllers provided accounts of their communications with hijacked planes on Sept. 11, 2001, on a tape recording that was later destroyed by a Federal Aviation Administration manager, according to a government investigative report issued yesterday.

It is unclear what was on the tape, but its destruction did little to dispel the appearance that government officials withheld evidence, the report by the Department of Transportation inspector general said.

The report found that an FAA manager tape-recorded an hour-long interview with the controllers just hours after the hijacked aircraft crashed into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. His intention was to provide the information quickly to the FBI. But months after the recording, the tape was never turned over to the FBI and another FAA manager decided on his own to destroy the tape, crushing it with his hand, cutting it into small pieces and depositing the pieces into several trash cans, the report said.

The existence of the tape and its destruction were revealed in a report that initially was to find whether the FAA had fully cooperated with an independent panel investigating the terrorist attacks after the panel complained last fall that it needed more information from the agency. Inspector General Kenneth M. Mead found that the FAA never intentionally withheld information, but he condemned the managers' actions and said they were required to keep such evidence for five years.

The report said investigators were told that the tape was never listened to, copied or transcribed.

[Bolo Boffin]

330. That tape violated ATC labor contracts.

The ATCs were all interviewed properly, in accordance with their contracts, within a couple of days. My source for this is MercutioATC, who is, as you may have guessed, an ATC who would know.

So save your outrage for something worth getting upset over, like dead babies in the Middle East.

[flyarm]

346. totally incorrect!! all evidence must by federal law be kept for 5 years..

irregardless of union contracts..see bold area!!

thats nonsence!!

By Sara Kehaulani Goo
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 7, 2004; Page A02

Six air traffic controllers provided accounts of their communications with hijacked planes on Sept. 11, 2001, on a tape recording that was later destroyed by a Federal Aviation Administration manager, according to a government investigative report issued yesterday.

It is unclear what was on the tape, but its destruction did little to dispel the appearance that government officials withheld evidence, the report by the Department of Transportation inspector general said.

Controllers' 9/11 Tape Destroyed, Report Says

FAA Inspector General Kenneth M. Mead issued the report. (Ray Lustig -- The Washington Post)


The report found that an FAA manager tape-recorded an hour-long interview with the controllers just hours after the hijacked aircraft crashed into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. His intention was to provide the information quickly to the FBI. But months after the recording, the tape was never turned over to the FBI and another FAA manager decided on his own to destroy the tape, crushing it with his hand, cutting it into small pieces and depositing the pieces into several trash cans, the report said.

The existence of the tape and its destruction were revealed in a report that initially was to find whether the FAA had fully cooperated with an independent panel investigating the terrorist attacks after the panel complained last fall that it needed more information from the agency. Inspector General Kenneth M. Mead found that the FAA never intentionally withheld information, but he condemned the managers' actions and said they were required to keep such evidence for five years.


edit to add link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A6892-2004May6¬Found=true

[Bolo Boffin]

350. No, I'm correct.

The tape violated union labor contracts, and that's why the manager destroyed it.

The ATCs were later interviewed in accordance with their contracts, and none of their information was lost.

Everything I've said is correct.

[flyarm]

343. this was article by Gail Sheehy about the AA flt 11 and two brave f/a's

this was an article by Gail Sheehy...unfortunately it is no longer avail without paying for it..but the entire article can be found at this web site,,please do read it all!!
i will post on two separate posts..

http://www.dangerouscitizen.com/Articles/1156.aspx

American Airlines officials had to know there was nothing traditional about this hijacking, because two of their flight attendants, Madeline (Amy) Sweeney and Betty Ong, were calmly and bravely transmitting the most illuminating details anyone has yet heard. Ms. Ong’s tape was played in a public commission hearing in January, prompting family members to demand that the F.B.I. honor their rights under the Victims Assistance Act to hear any and all calls made from the stricken planes that day. Ms. Sweeney’s name was cited only in passing at that earlier hearing. And when the president and chief executive of American Airlines, Gerard Arpey, testified, he never mentioned Ms. Sweeney or the cache of information she had provided American Airlines officials so early in the unfolding disaster.

Since then, Mike Sweeney, her widowed husband, has been troubled by the disconnect between the airline’s ignoring of his wife’s efforts, and the fact that the F.B.I. awarded her its highest civilian honor. He was first informed about the new tape two weeks previously by the U.S. attorney’s office in Virginia. David Novak, an assistant U.S. attorney involved in prosecuting the Moussaoui case, told Mr. Sweeney that the existence of the tape was news to him and offered him a private hearing.

"I was shocked that I’m finding out, almost three years later, there was a tape with information given by my wife that was very crucial to the happenings of 9/11," Mr. Sweeney told me. "Suddenly it miraculously appears and falls into the hands of F.B.I.? Why and how and for what reason was it suppressed? Why did it surface now? Is there information on that tape that is of concern to other law-enforcement agencies?"

The gut-churning question that has kept the widowed father of two young children on edge for so long is this: "When and how was this information about the hijackers used? Were Amy’s last moments put to the best use to protect and save others?"

Now he believes the answer is no.

[flyarm]

344. part 2

http://www.dangerouscitizen.com/Articles/1156.aspx

On the American Airlines tape played at the meeting, a voice is heard relaying to the airline’s headquarters the blow-by-blow account by Ms. Sweeney of mayhem aboard Flight 11. The flight attendant had gone face to face with the hijackers, and reported they had shown her what appeared to be a bomb, with red and yellow wires. The young blond mother of two had secreted herself in the next-to-last passenger row and used an AirFone card, given to her by another flight attendant, Sara Low, to call the airline’s flight-services office at Boston’s Logan airport.

"This is Amy Sweeney," she reported. "I’m on Flight 11—this plane has been hijacked." She was disconnected. She called back: "Listen to me, and listen to me very carefully." Within seconds, her befuddled respondent was replaced by a voice she knew.

"Amy, this is Michael Woodward."

The American Airlines flight-service manager had been friends with Ms. Sweeney for a decade and didn’t have to waste time verifying that this wasn’t a hoax. Ms. Sweeney repeated, "Michael, this plane has been hijacked."

Since there was no tape machine in his office, Woodward began repeating the flight attendant’s alarming account to a colleague, Nancy Wyatt, the supervisor of pursers at Logan. On another phone, Ms. Wyatt was simultaneously transmitting Ms. Sweeney’s words to the airline’s Fort Worth headquarters. It was that relayed account that was played for the families.

[flyarm]

336. this is a partial letter from a man who worked for underwriters Lab

i say partial letter as there is no link and as per du rules i can not post it all..if you are interested i will try to pm it to anyone interested..i have had it in my files..for a very long time!

this was written by:

Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is
the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of
the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great
importance.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need
to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel
components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting
information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last
year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the
story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all
requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was
working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year.
I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models
of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to
indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal
stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how
the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC
construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at
2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to
collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The
steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that
quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National
Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center
collapse support Brown’s theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time
temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to
temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the
steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all
agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot
temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F
would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at
all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear
things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by
the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel
as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint
deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted
that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your
comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of
only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a
thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings,
as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the
building’s steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this
summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make
clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above
250C"( 500f). To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures
need to be above1100C ( 2000f) (6). However, this new summary report suggests that
much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a
matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften
or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet
fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those
towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans.
Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures
around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a
safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my
company.

[Bolo Boffin]

337. Gee, I've never seen that around here before...

:sarcasm:

[flyarm]

349. i am so glad you...

have read that :sarcasm:

but i was replying to someone else...:eyes:

and since you are so informed..why are you here??:sarcasm:

of course there are others who may not have had the opportunity to read it..

but i am sure you do not care, if others have all the knowledge you have!!:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

i salute your extraordinary knowledge..

:sarcasm: :patriot:

but please do leave it up to others to read and decide for themselves what is important info, for themselves..

:loveya:

fly

[mirandapriestly]

354. That letter is great, here is a link to a new paper

called Propping up the War on terror.Lies about the WTC by
NIST and Underwriters Laboratories the official cters on this forum DO NOT want people posting about Kevin Ryan.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/RyanK_PostingVersion.htm

[flyarm]

362. YES I KNOW..AND THANK YOU..AND I

often notice there are some here that love to stop the flow of info to new people..

i do not go into wild conspiracy stuff..but it seems there are some who do not want people with real knowledge getting truth out there..

just think of the secrets being kept...this is dangerous stuff..and the powers behind it have too much invested,..and too much money on the line..worldwide

very powerful people..and if their secrets are exposed..well you can imagine the ramifications ..can't you??


so the attempt to quiet real info..is paramount to them!

if you get my drift..

thanks for the link...

fly

[greyl]

342. Emotional appeals aren't valid appeals. Please read:

The Boston Globe reported on its web site Thursday that it had obtained a copy of the complete manifest list of the planes hijacked from Boston.

The Globe said according to the manifest, Mohamed Atta, one of the suspected terrorists, was assigned seat 8D in business class on American Airlines Flight 11, directly across the aisle from Hollywood producer David Angell and his wife, Lynn, who were in seats 8A and 8B, respectively. Seated next to Atta in seat 8G was Abdul Alomari. FBI investigators have searched Alomari's home in Vero Beach.

The Globe reported the passenger list for United Air Lines Flight 175 shows that Marwan Alshehri got on the plane that left Boston and slammed into one of the Manhattan skyscrapers 15 minutes after Flight 11...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/14/national/main311268.shtml

MORE

[flyarm]

347. i did not say the manifest wasn't reported but i said

american airlines never gave out the hijackers name from the manifest..the government did!

[greyl]

352. Baloney!

You said "I know American Airlines never gave out the hijackers names from any manifest."

[flyarm]

361. precisely...

what part of that do you not understand...
american never gave out the names of the hijackers from the manifests..

the government gave out the names of the hijackers..

[CJCRANE]

246. Just follow the money.

Who transferred the $500,000 to the hijackers and who are those people connected to politically.

That's all that needs to be asked.

Forget controlled demolitions, remote-controlled planes etc.

on edit: corrected subject line to add "the"

[pberq]

396. Yes!! Exactly!

This is so important. "Experts" can brought out to argue either way on things like controlled demolitions, but the money trail is an entirely different matter.

If someone has a link to evidence of the money trail, please post it.

[tabatha]

273. the science of it

Here is an article by Jones to read and analyze.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Note the following section:

2. Observed Temperatures around 1000°C and Sulfidation in WTC 7 Steel

One of the relatively few previous peer-reviewed papers relating to the WTC collapses provides "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7." This brief but important letter states:

While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.

[flyarm]

338. see my post #336...

and welcome to du!!

[tabatha]

368. thanks for the welcome

Thanks for that info; I have pasted it into a file on my computer.

Please see my post #360.
This discussion has only served to make me believe that it was an inside job.
I read Steve Jones' article about three times, and have come away with a simple concept.

The official story is that the concrete floors pancaked into each other, so collapsing the building(s).
(The remnants of the buildings should provide evidence of that (broken slabs), but don't).
The 911 truth-seekers think that the concrete was pulverized by explosives.

All of the concrete was pulverized - and slabs slamming into slabs does not result in pulverizing.
Which concrete provided the powerful force of the supposed concrete slabs collapsing each floor?

Hence the 911 truth-seekers are correct - it was controlled demolition.

Also, it is very difficult to explain pancaking for the pulverization of the 30-story block that was falling sideways off the top of the south tower by itself. The whole entity was falling as a unit and was heading into an adajcent building. Yet it was turned into powder in mid-air. And this powder flew off the sides of the building - it did not provide the force to collapse floors beneath the top 30 floors.

I would happily read and digest any other explanations for the above - to try to cement :-) or otherwise my belief of what happened.

[dailykoff]

285. Yep. All the wretched RW nuttery that JFK vetoed, and more.

Makes ya sick but there it is.

[Grateful for Hope]

345. I'd like to keep this thread kicked

Hope2006:

Ok...so we are both sure we are right

so then, it makes both sides of our arguments laced with "confirmation bias".

I am willing to admit that I have a bias, and, I am surprised that you are not.

But then, those of us who seek the truth while admitting we have a bias, are far more likely
to find the truth.

Boloboffin:

Keep laying that flattering unction to your soul.
For all the good it will do you.

And then Boloboffin:

I know you are but what am I?

Maturity in action.

This is a good post to keep kicked.

[Bolo Boffin]

351. Sheesh.

Somebody's got an obsession...
Somebody's got an obsession...

[mirandapriestly]

355. Yes you do boloboffin

you have an obsession with people who disagree with the governments version of events on 9-11. Why is that?

[Bolo Boffin]

356. Sheesh.

Somebody's off on a tangent...
Somebody's off on a tangent...

[Grateful for Hope]

372. Agreed. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

374. Why do you feel the need to kick a 400 post thread, Hope? n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

376. isn't that what you just did? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

379. I know you did, but what did I do? n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

381. .....

:rofl:

[greyl]

358. Kick it an provide zero relevant facts about 9/11 Truth?

Typical.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

364. just an opinion

like most of garbage you post..

[Make7]

369. the

[Bolo Boffin]

370. What kills me:

Hope2006 felt the need to kick a thread that's gotten over four hundred posts in a day.

Yes, I know - it's a composite of all the spam threads about the C-Span broadcast. But there were still about a hundred and fifty in this thread before the mods started compiling them together.

One can only laugh, in the most "immature" manner possible.

[Grateful for Hope]

375. You are right

The thread does not need to be kicked. All one has to do is read the thread for him/herself to get what I was trying to point out.

[Bolo Boffin]

380. Ooo, I feel thoroughly chastised!

Spank me again, mommy.

/sarcasm

[Nitty-Gritty]

391. Exactly. It's kinda obvious, eh what? EOM

nt

[mirandapriestly]

388. kickeom

[FoxOnTheRun]

394. Oh boy

What heppened to the DVD edition of this conference? Is it to buy somewhere?

[rman]

398. selfdelete

[seemslikeadream]

399. KICK?