There was no fucking 9/11 conspiracy. Only Bush admin incompetence

[Proud2BAmurkin]

There was only Bush administration incompetence that failed the US and let terrorists attack us on 9/11.

[matcom]

1. sorry

explain building #7

thanks for playing.

[grytpype]

2. Buildings fall down.

So what.

Thanks for checking under your tinfoil hat for termites.

[matcom]

4. buildings that weren't hit and weren't on fire just "fall down"?

thanks again

[darkism]

14. After 2 of the world's largest buildings fall down next door?

I would think that might damage the structural integrity of the surrounding buildings just a tad.

[matcom]

15. every engineer who studies building structures disagrees with you

you must be the lone 'building structure expert' holdout

congrats

[Che_Nuevara]

28. Really?

Have you spoken to them all? Asked them personally?

[matcom]

39. personally spoken with 2

read the opinions of about 10 others

thanks again

[walldude]

48. I also have a friend in demolitions....

and he just laughs when I ask him if the towers could have come down like that. He said the odds of two 100 story buildings coming straight down to the ground as if in a controlled demolition, from being hit on the top 30 floors, is in the billions. Billions.

[wtmusic]

49. Actually the odds of them "tipping over" is more remote

but I wouldn't want physics to ruin the discussion.

[walldude]

52. True, but we aren't talking about them tipping over are we?

If the buildings collapsed from the top down without the structure being weakened at the bottom and in the center then the debris would have spread out, as the debris fell onto stable parts of the building it should have been pushed out not folded in. 100 stories of debris landing perfectly on top of itself? My friend physics says uh... not!
on edit: http://physics911.net/ check it out...

[wtmusic]

150. Look, the "science" angle won't wash...

All you have to say is Ed Asner, 4-time Emmy award winner, star of television's "Mary Tyler Moore" show, says there's a "possible political blueprint":

http://wtc7.net/store/videos/proof/index.html

What can they possibly come back with for that?

:rofl: :tinfoilhat:

[Clark2008]

161. Only the tops would have "tipped over" if at all

and fallen to the ground in huge chunks.

The buildings would NOT have evaporated, though.

[benburch]

207. That would be a dynamical absurdity.

The buildings failed in the only way gravity and their gravitational potential energy would allow them to fail.

[dailykoff]

208. Back away from that Popular Mechanics article.

The Trade Center towers failed in the least possible way imaginable. Quarter-mile high structures do not politely reduce themselves to a shower of dust and rubble without a lot of assistance.

[benburch]

209. I'm a physicist and I reached my own conclusions.

Based on my own calculations actually done on the very day the event happened.

If Popular Mechanics said the same thing, they are correct.

[dailykoff]

210. Don't quit your day job

is all I'm gonna say. :shrug:

[benburch]

211. Based on what science?

Prove your point mathematically. (Hint: I know in advance that you cannot.)

[dailykoff]

212. It's called structural engineering

and I don't need to reinvent the wheel. The Internet is awash with perfectly understandable demonstrations but if you're really curious (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) I'd start here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapse.html

[benburch]

213. Saw that.

It's bunk.

Trust me, I have seen the "analysis" out there. Structural engineers don't deal in materials failure and don't understand it very well. They design structured NOT to fail, and can usually not tell you how they will fail when they do.

[dailykoff]

214. Well read the whole section

or at least click through it. The navigation links are at the top left. Click the > to move through the pages, which are very well illustrated and highly informative.

[petgoat]

217. "trust me," the motto of the 9/11 Commission. nt

[petgoat]

216. A dynamical absurdity? The law of the conservation of angular

momentum says that once the tremendous torque was applied to the top
section as shown here




the top should have kept on twisting, and fallen off the top of the tower.

[SidDithers]

218. You're correct...

if the tower had been a solid chunk.

But it wasn't. It was a hollow frame designed to support itself when pointing straight up. When it began twisting and leaning, gravity acted on the frame in a way for which it wasn't designed.

It's simple physics.

Sid

[AZCat]

219. SidDither's reply is correct.

Conservation of angular momentum is relatively easy to apply to rigid bodies, but when the object is changing (deforming) it gets pretty complicated (as I've noted before). Conservation of momentum (both linear and rotational) still must occur, but I'm not even sure if I know how to solve a multi-body dynamics problem like that (even with a strict set of conditions). It could be an interesting lunch discussion topic, though.

[dailykoff]

220. Wrong, but that's a common misconception

held by those who know very little about steel-frame structures and believe all the nonsense they see on TV "science" shows.

Highrises are built to withstand tremendous lateral as well as gravity loads and the WTC was not a house of cards.

[petgoat]

222. The WTC tower was built to withstand a hurricane.

Lateral forces were resisted by the matric of spandrel plates in the external walls,
by the cross-bracing in the core, and by the hat truss at the top.



AZCat's constant one liners to the effect that "it's so complicated that not
even an expert like me can understand it" are wearing thin.

It's freshman physics.

Certainly some energy would have been expended in nibbling away the structure
at the cutting edge of the bottom of the tilting section. This would have been
balanced by a reduction of stress at the upper heel. There is no reason to
think that it shouldn't have kept on tipping. IMHO

[AZCat]

225. It doesn't have to do with understanding it.

It has everything to do with being able to model these sort of events. It most certainly is freshman physics (if you take the right one) and that's why I'm surprised at the resistance. More of you should be familiar with the concept of multibody dynamics than apparently are.

[petgoat]

227. It's not multibody. The top of the tower tipped as a unit.

Even if the cutting edge was abraded by the structure below, there's no
reason the top wouldn't remain as a unit glued together by the hat truss,
keep on tipping, and fall off the top of the tower. Instead it turned
to dust in mid air.

[AZCat]

231. I disagree.

While the structure was rotating, I think the shift in gravity vector plus other changing forces would possibly deform the structure. Once you move away from the "rigid body" assumption, you have to deal with the problem as a multibody one - the various structural elements must be modelled individually because the relationships between them can (and perhaps did) change, along with possible deformations of the structural elements themselves. The structure may have remained connected together, but changes in the shape of the structure change how it rotates, just as an ice skater can change how fast he/she is rotating by changing poses.

[AZCat]

226. How would you classify those...

who don't watch TV and might know something about steel-frame structures, but still hold to the same ideas?

My point wsan't about lateral loads - I'm not an idiot - but apparently I am speaking a foreign language because none of you seems to be able to understand my explanations of a fairly simple physics concept.

[dailykoff]

229. I'd recommend summer school.

Just kidding. I think you're over-theorizing. It's really not that complicated. The upper sections were held together in the ways petgoat mentioned and also by beams in the floor assemblies, so they wouldn't have disintegrated. And even if they had, that still wouldn't have produced a catastrophic effect on the lower floors.

There are a lot of shysters out there using every trick in the book to throw us off the trail, and a lot of intelligent people have been fooled.

[AZCat]

230. But wouldn't the structure have deformed under the changed loads?

Doesn't rotating the structure (or at least the part that is loose) change the loading on the structural members? I would think that under the changed forces, deformations might have occurred that would absorb some of the rotational energy, or at least change the way the structure was rotating, just as an ice skater speeds up or slows down based on her rotational inertia.

There are a lot of shysters out there (I think on both sides) and intelligent people aren't necessarily more discriminating than anyone else when it comes to judging the reliability of sources. I don't really care about convincing anyone of anything, I just think this is an interesting problem - how to figure out what happened. I don't think that any revelations that occur will have a real effect on the power structure in this country - we've seen how easy it is for stories that are clearly not "theories" (conspiracy or not) to get ignored by the fourth estate and the opposition party. Even if you could prove that GWB had planted the explosives with his own bloody hands while snorting coke with his buddy Osama at his side, the response from the unwashed masses would be underwhelming IMO (though I might be a little cynical).

[dailykoff]

234. Probably, but it wouldn't come apart

and sure as hell wouldn't blow apart. Even masonry buildings hold together when they rotate off their foundations in earthquakes. The one steel building known to have toppled in a Mexican earthquake also held together.

The bigger question is, why were the top sections rotating in the first place? There wasn't near enough damage to the core columns to cause that, at least from the fires and planes.

[Opening_Day]

153. Really?

Got anything more than hearsay?

[matcom]

159. yup. i do.

Airline 'put options'

[Opening_Day]

178. And your wild imagination.

[dogday]

180. Just on the two Airlines that were involved

Put options before the event....

[rpgamerd00d]

46. wrong

This is an email from my friend, a PhD in Material Science
==============================================================

OK, read the first article "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D. and here are some problems with it. I've quoted bits out of the article and written responses.

-------
"Other explanations for the observations are sought, of course. For example, F. Greening has suggested that aluminum from the planes which struck the Towers could melt, and that this aluminum might fall on "rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions." So a few students and I did straightforward experiments by melting aluminum and dropping molten aluminum on pre-heated rusted steel surfaces. There were in fact NO "violent thermite" reactions seen. We observed that the temperature of the molten aluminum in contact with the rusty iron simply cooled at about 25 C per minute (using an infrared probe) until the aluminum solidified, so that any thermite reactions between the aluminum and iron oxide must have been minimal and did not compete with radiative and conductive cooling, thus NOT supporting predictions made by Greening. There was no observable damage or even warping of the steel. (See photograph below.) Nor were violent reactions observed when we dropped molten aluminum onto crushed gypsum and concrete (wet or dry) and rusty steel. These experiments lend no support whatever to the notion that molten aluminum in the WTC Towers could have destroyed the enormous steel columns in the cores of the buildings, even if those columns were rusty and somehow subjected to direct contact with molten aluminum."

Their experiment is flawed. By their own admission (and I agree with this, I've worked with substrates at this temperature and used pyrometers on them), steel at 650 C is glowing red/orange. In the photo, the rusty steel isn't glowing, and they say the molten aluminum cooled and solidified, showing that the steel was cooler then the aluminum. They haven't heated the steel up enough for the aluminum to react with it.

They also argue consistently through the paper that the hydrocarbon fire was cool, because of the black smoke. The fact that some parts of the fire were cool and gave off black smoke does NOT mean that the WHOLE FIRE was cool. Thats such a dubious conclusion that it makes me doubtful of any other ones the paper makes. Such as;

-----
"Then there is the rather mysterious sulfidation of the steel reported in this paper -- What is the origin of this sulfur? No solid answer is given in any of the official reports."

Common wallboard in office walls is mostly gypsum, which has about 40% sulfur in it by weight. That took about a minute of research to find; pity the author of this article didn't put that much time in before making it a huge mystery.

-----
"The observed partly evaporated� steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5,180oF (~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel. (Recall that WTC 7 was not hit by a jet, so there was no jet fuel involved in the fires in this building.) "

As a note, standard JP7 jet fuel is basically slightly purified diesel. If WTC 7 had diesel in it, and it caught fire, it could do anything that jet fuel could do. I also saw another article refuting the claims on this web site that discussed the collapse of WTC 7 and stated that it had a very unusual support system which led to its collapse. I'm not qualified to judge that though.

In terms of whether jet fuel (or diesel) can get hot enough to melt steel, the thermal energy of combustion per pound is very similar to that of charcoal. You can't melt iron in your charcoal grill. Charcoal is, however, used in blast furnaces to get them to 3000 C to make steel. It all depends on the ventilation and the physical configuration of the area confining the flames.

If, as I suspect, the central elevator areas in the WTC acted as a chimney and provided a "furnace-like" location to melt the central beams of the WTC, it would explain most of their points quite well. The early drop of the central antenna, the puffs of "smoke" from the sides (the main support beams went first, and the perimeter beams mentioned above which didn't get heated much were nowhere near strong enough to support the towers, so they failed abruptly in multiple places). This is supported by eyewitness accounts I've read elsewhere that talk of flames coming down the elevator shaft at ground level within minutes of the impact.

----
"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.) "

The authors quoted a piece of the NIST report that dealt with analysis of beams which still had paint. Specifically, ones that *didn't* get heated much, around the perimeter. Evidently there wasn't much left of the core columns that actually supported the building. If anything, this argues against their main point.

-------
"Indeed, NIST makes the startling admission in a footnote on page 80 of their Final Report:

"The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached...(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)

"Again, on page 142, NIST admits that their computer simulation only proceeds until the building is poised for collapse�, thus ignoring any data from that time on.

"The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. ...(NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

"What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the buildings? What about the observed squibs? What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas in large pools in both Towers and WTC 7 as well? Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the buildings were poised for collapse.� Well, some of us want to look at ALL the data, without "black-box" computer simulations that are adjusted,� perhaps to make them fit the desired outcome. An hypothesis which is non-refutable is non-scientific. On the other hand, Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation which addresses and satisfies ALL the evidence is most probably correct."

I've talked to someone who studies rapid, high speed impact simulations. A simulation of the actual tower collapse *after* its reached the failure point is way, way beyond the state of the art of computer simulations, and would require completely different software then the simulation used for its initial failure. What he asks for doesn't exist, and can't exist, its not a conspiracy. For proof of this, look at the impact simulations they did on the space shuttle tiles that said striking foam wouldn't be a problem. When they did the experiment, it in fact blew a large hole in the graphite panels on the leading edge of the wing.

Heck, they were pushing the boundaries of state of the art to even try to simulate the fire and failure that caused the collapse. Which, to *my* satisfaction, explains why they made several different models and only used and tweaked the ones that matched what happened. Thats how they do weather prediction every day, and its how any useful "real world" computer modeling I've ever seen was done.

-----
"After presenting the material summarized here, including actually looking at and discussing the collapses of WTC 7 and the Towers, only one attendee disagreed (by hand-vote) that further investigation of the WTC collapses was called for."

I have never in my entire scientific career seen any scientist or engineer say "this subject doesn't need any more investigation.", not a huge surprise here, given the extreme complexity of the problem. :-)



Despite the web sites listing this as a "peer reviewed paper", the only place it seems that it is going to be published is in a "volume" being put out by the auther of one of the other papers on the web site. It doesn't count as peer reviewed until its in a scientific journal that exists independent of conspiracy buffs. It would obviously never be published in such; its extremely loaded language would prevent this, if not the major flaws I point out above.

I point out that the author carefully doesn't mention that controlled demolition of a building normally requires a substantial team of people working in a building for a week or two, drilling holes in support beams and stringing wires and such. This is not subtle. It also has never to my knowledge left pools of molten metal, since the explosions are over very quickly they certainly don't form puddles that are still molten weeks later. I suppose if you also applied a few tons of thermite all over the place you might achieve that, but then you need even more workmen and time, you would be working on huge sections of steel beams. To expect this work to go unnoticed in 3 buildings and such a large conspiracy to hold together for years afterwards seems to me to violate his Occams Razor test even more thoroughly then the fire theory.

I didn't have time to look much at the other "article" by Griffin, but like the one I discuss above, it would never pass muster in a true peer reviewed journal, and I saw a lot of problems just in the first readthrough. It is amusing that the two of them quote each other quite a bit as though they are independent experts, despite the fact they are writing (or have written) a book together.

Sorry, I'm not even close to convinced by the science in this work. Everything I have any expertise on is wrong, so I'm pretty dubious about the conclusions in areas I know less about.

[matcom]

50. wrong my ass

WTC 7 wasn't on fire. at least not from 'outside'

your "friend" is a kook with little "experience" in demolition (if any) OR structural engineering. i have personally spoken structural engineers (both of who are RW btw) and read at LEAST papers from 10 other independants who claim otherwise.

btw, 1 of the 2 who i have spoken to believe the terrorists planted the explosives :eyes: that took down #7. the other is a convert

[rpgamerd00d]

55. debunked again here:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

[SPKrazy]

96. Hmmmm An Agenda To "Debunk" Us Conspiracy Theorists?

I'm not a coincidence theorist

too many questions

too few answers

answer the questions * and we will know the truth

[petgoat]

120. The dishonest PM "straw man" hit piece was written by a

cousin of Michael Chertoff--a few weeks after a major purge of the PM editorial staff.

See Jim Hoffman's intelligent debunking of the stupid PM piece here:

http://911research.com/essays/gopm/index.html

[DIKB]

172. There is no mention

WHATSOFUCKINGEVER of the ENGINES from the plane that hit the Pentagon. 10 foot diameter twin engines, weighing THOUSANDS of pounds moving at 550 mph, and they disappear. There is no debris, and even if their assumptions are correct, there are GLARING fucking holes in their story.

They disregard it as though we're nuts, and explain it as such, "A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen" I've never heard anyone make such a ludicrous claim, yet they act as though we do.

There would have been scoring of the earth, at LEAST 3 holes from the nose and the engines. Not a perfect circle. If the wing was "sheared off" as they claim, WHERE IS THE WRECKAGE?????? There is none.

Accepting their story is more ridiculous and asinine than doubting/questioning it.

[Trish1168]

196. Oh yeah, the article written by Chertoff's brother-in-law!

Did you know that's who wrote that popular mechanics article?

[Trish1168]

198. Sorry. The article was written by Chertoff's cousin

Not his brother-in-law.

Not that it makes much difference.

[WoodrowFan]

60. you are wrong

there were fires all through the building and there was SEVERE damage from falling debris.

here, some reading that isn't tinfoil crap. Read these sites and learn

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911 /

http://www.911myths.com/index.html

[Maru Kitteh]

108. Shhhhh. Do not disturb the tinfoil service now in progress

9/11 has become the holy sacred Church of the tinfoil, and building #7 is one of the holy pillars of faith. It's martyrdom is not to be questioned.

[Trish1168]

199. It was a conspiracy, whether by Muslims or by our gov't (or both?)

By definition, it was a conspiracy. So, I guess if you believe it was Al Qaeda Muslim fanatics, that just gives you a tin-foil-hat to wear too.

Some of us don't trust the government. And for good reason.

So, maybe that just makes you, gullible!!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

206. I believe "tinfoil turban" is the proper terminology.

:)

[petgoat]

119. "SEVERE damage from falling debris. "

How come no pictures of the damage? How come FEMA didn't include it in its report.
FEMA said fires brought down WTC7, but they couldn't say how.

The reports of damage were mutually contradictory and thus lacked credibility.

[Tin Man]

168. WTC 7 caught fire, burned and collapsed in the same fashion as Towers 1&2

I've seen the video of WTC 7 burning. With the scope of the unfolding calamity, firefighters were unable to do anything other that let it burn - the core burned out of the building, and the structure collapsed upon itself very much like Towers 1 & 2

[petgoat]

185. WTC7's collapse requires that asymmetrical fires and random

structural insults caused 57 perimeter columns and 24 interior columns to fail
simultaneously.

You're buying that, even though neither FEMA/ASCE nor NIST could explain it?

[petgoat]

116. Your friend is intelligent, but poorly versed in the subject matter

The suggestion that the sulfidation attack on the steel came from drywall sulfur has been made
before. I'll suppose that Dr. Barnett of WPI, a professor of fire engineering, or other fire
investigators are qualified to judge whether drywall commonly evaporates steel in fires. If it
did, I think we would have heard about it by now.

The suggestion that the elevator shafts acted as chimneys to support high-temperature fires is
imaginative, but these areas were designed with fireblocks precisely to prevent that from happening.
The hypothesis that the evidence of these hot fires was vaporized is also creative, but I would
expect that some samples of partially-vaporized materials would remain to support it.

The impracticality of performing a computer simulation of the collapse mechanism does not change
the fact that spending $20 million on a collapse initiation investigation and then claiming that
collapse initiation = total progressive collapse is claiming to have proven what you've only
assumed, and thus specious and dishonest.

Drilling of support columns is normally done when demolishing concrete structures. The greater
difficulty of drilling steel makes me skeptical of the proposition that it is a normal part of
demolishing steel ones. According to the explosives expert Dr. Van Romero, a few charges in key
places could have brought the building down. According to Dr. Eagar's "zipper/pancake theory,"
which was conventional wisdom for three years, the building was a house of cards that could be
brought down simply through the failure of a few perimeter truss "clips" on one part of one floor.
The hypothesis that demolition of the towers was prohibitively complex is thus not justified. Office
buildings are normally greatly depopulated after midnight, and there would be much opportunity for
explosives crews to work in privacy.

Your friend's use of "quote marks" around "article" in describing a work he has not even "read"
indicates a "prejudiced" "attitude" on your friend's part, and his unwillingness to take the
time to read Dr. Griffin's well-written and pithy work shows your friend's laziness, not to
mention "innocence" of many important facts. Your friend's work, while intelligent, exhibits a leap
to judgment that is unscientific--and lacks peer review.

[One_Life_To_Give]

58. Thats not what ASCE reported

The Society of Civil Engineers investigation agrees with the official interpretation.

[petgoat]

123. You're wrong. Read the ASCE report. It says fires brought

the building down, but it can't explain how. Here's from the third sentence:

"{I}t appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from
the collapsing towers."

http://911research.com/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch5.htm

[katinmn]

77. engineers and physicists have published papers debunking

the official story in respected journals.

But BushCo ignores all experts from scientists talking about global warming to constitutional scholars trying to save the Constitution.

[LARED]

204. Really??

I'd love to see them. I've been searchng many years for engineers that published something in a respectded journal.

[On the Road]

151. You Mean Like the Engineers at NIST?

The ones who offered a detailed model of how the buildings fell?

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_april0505.htm

[Big Kahuna]

34. By some strange coincidence

none of the surrounding buildings, which were not owned by Larry Silverstein, fell down. One of them even had a building fall onto it, and it's still standing today.

[readmoreoften]

66. Bingo.

Closer buildings, those not owned by Silverstein, which took more damage, were fine.

[dogday]

And just weeks before he insured

the buildings for billions, in case of a terrorist attack....

[sabbat hunter]

200. he closed the deal

just weeks before the attacks. since the area was attacked by terrorists in 1993 any business man with a wee bit of smarts would want that included in his insurance policies

[readmoreoften]

64. WTC7 wasn't closer to the towers than buildings that are still standing.

WTC7 was further away from the towers than other buildings that only had a few windows blown out. It was obviously demolished. There's just no other explanation.

[bvar22]

76. There are MANY alternative explanations.

*

[readmoreoften]

85. yes, and demolition is no worse than any of them

Larry Silverstein pulled it for the insurance money, at minimum. Sorry, in NY we know what a scumbag he is.

[sabbat hunter]

202. the insurance money

barely will cover rebuilding costs, plus some lost revenue for the building being gone. he made no great money on the insurance. not to mention the time and money spent in court over the insurance.

he is no more of a scumbag than any other major developer.

[EVDebs]

117. And that's why the German insurance company is suing for fraud

Allianz Insurance Co. v. World Trade Center Properties

http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/southcentral/2002/01/14/features/19218.htm

[sabbat hunter]

201. that article is 4 years old

the force behind that case was if the WTC terror attacks were one attack or was each tower (1 and 2) getting hit seperate attacks. silverstein said they were two, the insurance company said one. the case was settled long ago. thats why rebuilding has been greenlighted.



try again

[EVDebs]

115. WTC 7 was two buildings away and not hit by a plane. Explain ?

[Tin Man]

170. Caught fire and collapsed just like Towers 1&2

I've seen the video of WTC 7 on fire. In the mayhem, firefighters were unable to take measures to control the fire - WTC 7 subsequently burned and collapsed in a fashion very similar to the Towers. The lesson is: uncontrolled fires may cause large buildings to collapse.

[Thorandmjolnir]

176. Correction

Uncontrolled fires may cause large buildings to collapse, if the building is located in the lower Manhattan. (These are the only steel buildings in the history of steel buildings to collapse supposedly due to fire.)

The Madrid fire of a steel building lasted for 24 hours and the building never collapsed.

[petgoat]

186. Uncontrolled fires cause buildings to collapse in a symmetrical

fashion. So now the scam of the highly paid controlled demolition contractors is up.
All this time they've been working weeks to prep a building.

Now we know that any idiot can just spread a few thousand gallons of diesel fuel
around, set it ablaze, and soon you'll have a near-free-fall-speed collapse right
down into its own footprint!

[sabbat hunter]

197. building 7 was on fire

and was heavily damaged.

[radwriter0555]

122. Buildings don't fall down. They're built to not fall down. BUT they can be

blown up by criminals and corrupt thugs.

You're in deep, deep denial.

[Mr_Spock]

145. PROVE the building was blown up.

And why? What reason would there be to blow up building #7??

It makes no logical sense at all!

I am completely baffled at the seeming insanity of the conspiracy theorists - please provide proof that it was blown up along with some logical explanation for doing such!!

Please??

I'm waiting.

[petgoat]

187. Can't prove it. The wreckage was destroyed in great haste by the

authorities. Since the collapse was considered an "act of war" instead of a crime,
it never got a proper investigation.

If you want to investigate, the fact that WTC7 contained offices of the CIA, the SEC, the
DoD, the OEM, the IRS, and the Secret Service might be of interest.

[Mr_Spock]

142. So we find one little thing we don't understand and make it a conspiracy?

:rofl:

I hope that a secondary building falling down due to the earthquake of two buildings falling combined with flying rubble isn't the only evidence there is that there is some bizarre conspiracy going on.

This is insanity - people are embarrassing DU by posting these insane theories and making US prove that they AREN'T true.

YOU PROVE THAT THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY AND 7 WAS NOT FELLED MY THE DAMAGE DUE TO OTHER BUILDINGS

You have a lot of nerve telling people to disprove a non-existent theory based on fantasy.

[petgoat]

144. Neither FEMA nor NIST mentions earthquake factors in their

evaluation of the collapse of Building 7.

[Mr_Spock]

146. Please explain any logical reason why felling a minor building means

anything in the grand scheme of things. Please, is anybody here going to provide any logical explanations, or is emotional blackmail and theory for the sake of theory the only thing that matters to some?

[petgoat]

148. It wasn't a minor building. It was a 47 story office building.

It housed offices of the CIA, SEC, DoD, OEM, and Secret Service.

If buildings just fall down for no reason, then insurance rates for high-rise buildings
should skyrocket.

It's difficult to provide a logical explanation for the collapse because instead of
studying this unprecedented event, the authorities shipped the steel off to India for
scrap.

Take a look at Appendix C to the FEMA report for analysis of one steel sample taken
from WTC7.

"{M}etallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel
phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing
intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese."

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

[Mr_Spock]

174. Is this significant after the other buildings collapsed?

I just don't understand why people think this is significant or why it matters that the building #7 fell. There were warnings that it might, then it did. So what.

I just don't understand the need for conspiracies - it won't bring back the dead and I saw a plane hit the second tower with my own eyes & all the missing planes were accounted for - what's the reason for the disbelief? To what end does the misdirection lead?

[petgoat]

182. why it matters that the building #7 fell.

Because it has not been explained, and the steel that would have explained it was
destroyed before an analysis could be done, and the notion that asymmetric and random
damage from fire and structural insult could cause a symmetric nearly-free-fall-speed
collapse is difficult to accept.

FEMA couldn't explain it, NIST can't explain it. And the idea that explaining it won't
bring back the dead leads to the idea that murderers sould go free because their victims
are....well, dead.

When you say you saw a plane hit WTC2 with your own eyes are you saying you were there,
or are you saying you saw it on TV? I saw the Titanic sink, and the battle of Normandy,
and ET flying across the moon "with my own eyes"--on TV.

[Mr_Spock]

183. Yeah, OK fellow

I can't even prove that either I or you "exist" in "reality" - doesn't change my argument WRT 9/11 and what clearly happened...

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[petgoat]

184. Oh your one of those "know nothings". Dr. David Ray Griffin

is an expert epistemologist, as is Dr. James Fetzer.

Both are founding members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.



http://www.st911.org/

I suggest you do some reading.


You didn't answer my question. Did you see the plane fly into WTC2 with your own
eyes or did you see it on TV? Do you recognize that there's a difference?

[Mr_Spock]

194. "Do you recognize that there's a difference?"

No, I know what I and thousands of other people saw. That is, unless I was a paranoid moonbat freak, then I might doubt the 20 cameras pointed at the building & thousands of witnesses who saw the plane hitting the tower simultaneously.

If you don't believe that then you're not mentally stable enough for me to even talk to.

[petgoat]

195. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the TV evidence.

You were the one with your "I can't even prove that either I or you 'exist' in 'reality'"
remark who seemed to want to move the discussion to the realm of abstract philosophy.

So we agree that what you see on TV is not what you see with your own eyes, but what you
see on TV with your own eyes.

Believe me I understand, these are difficult issues. My own struggle with them is fresh
in my mind. After 20 years of cynical apathy, I did not want to be distracted from my
stock quotes, and it is only through some coincidences and personal influences that I
started to think about these things.

[Phx_Dem]

203. did you see apollo 11 LM land on the moon with your own eyes...

or did you see it on TV? Do you recognize that there's a difference?

[Dinger]

3. Yeah, I'm Sure They'd Never MIHOP

No way:sarcasm:

[onehandle]

5. Yep. nt

[rainy]

6. What about the neo-cons, PNAC and having to have a reason to

attack a sovereign nation. They LIHOP without a doubt.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

7. Whew. Thank God You Just Put To Rest 5 Years Of Speculation From Millions

of people.

And to think, all this time all that was needed was for you to declare it to be so.

Thank you for this tremendous service you just provided! Millions and Millions of americans can sleep better tonight now knowing that the case is closed and they don't need to look any further! Thank you!

[matcom]

10. he/she is the next press secretary

:rofl:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. LMAO!

:spray:

[matcom]

18. "Tar-Babies" for EVERYONE!

:bounce:

[Cha]

98. Really! Cause I started

thinking I wouldn't put ANYTHING past the cheney dogs..now I know that was just CRAZY THOUGHTS! :crazy: :bounce:

[applegrove]

8. Thank you. More than a few sites have banned talk of 911 conspiracy

because there is overwhelming evidence that the WH ignored bin Laden (cased in Amber). Plus many sites felt it was freepers stirring the pot half the time.. playing with the minds of vulnerable people who felt they needed more information.

[flyarm]

29. and i as a flight crew for one of the airlines involved ..was involved in

a 15 person round table with one of the 9/11 commissioners at the university of tampa..and i was sitting 2 feet from this commissioner and i asked professional flight crew questions..very pertainant questions that were never answered by this commission..and my husband was there as well ..with a room full of reporters and college professors and phd's and i held up a picture of my flight school graduation with the man who started my airline at my wing ceremony...and i held it in this commissioners face and told him that the 2 things CRSMITH cared the most about were ..1. his crews and 2. his passengers safety...and i asked this commissioner questions every crew member i know wanted answered..and that son of a bitch would not answer one of my questions...and i had my husband prepped to ask two questions as well..that fucker didn't answer one of 5 questions my husband and i asked him...

and my husband was mad..my husband said our family always knew the risks with my job..but we always believed the truth would be known of any accident...

we now know differently..we know our government is complicit in thelies and deaths of thousands!

my husband was pissed with this commissioner...

i was in tears..as i knew we will now never know the full truth..and the coverups by media and yes even blogs and web sites is disgusting!

the commissioner was sweating and he could not look at me..he looked down...he could not and would not look me in the face ..and when asking the questions i was standing inches from him.

i can only hope those who were involved and those who covered up the lies..rot in a horrible hell!

FLY
IF I HAVE SPELLING MISTAKES SORRY I GET EMOTIONAL WHEN DISCUSSING THIS

[applegrove]

51. Sorry - I think you got me wrong. Of course the public deserves

information. More than this WH will give out. And if never having to admit you made a mistake (aka ignoring bin Landen for greener pastures in Oil Rich iraq at the time or whatever...)means you leave families and the industry lost - then that is unfair. Playing games about closing down the 911 commission early is right up there with much that they do. I don't know why they do it. Just that it stinks.

But I was referring to people who do not even believe that a plane flew into the Pentagon. Those are the ones who would benefit from a slow and long reconcilliation commission instead of being vulnerable to internet pranks and conspiracy. So these people are lost in space (not you) wondering how Bush managed to fly two planes into buildings and fake the pentagon. And it takes Judicial Watch to 5 years later give them a little bit more. Too late for them - their views have already solidified.

Most Americans have moved on. Freequent fliers maybe noticed massive changes at airports and reported them back to their families. MSM reported the changes. Nothing has happened since. Professionals such as yourself were given new training. The bookstores in airports (I read an article a little while ago) are full of books on Islam. That is an adult way. You take measures and have some control over your life. You learn. And move on. Because you have enough information to test that it is safe. And times are not as bad as they were on those dark days.

Sorry fly. Didn't mean to confuse or upset you.

[flyarm]

53. I DO NOT ..NOT BELIEVE A PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON..BUT...

NO 757 AIRCRAFT HIT THE PENTAGON!!

didn't happen..end of story...and i watched the tape all day today..and i will tell yo that was no 757!!

period!!

fly

almost all i flew were 75's and 76's!!

that was no 757!!

[Twist_U_Up]

90. perhaps this is why

[Twist_U_Up]

87. Damn Fly, Your story needs to get out !!

One of DUs most respected members and their face to face experience with the cover-up.

Front page stuff if you ask me.

so courageous

[katinmn]

103. Wow, I didn't know this, fly

How horrible to be in that situation and to be ignored.

[orleans]

113. great post--- who was the commissioner? n/t

[flyarm]

126. i wasn't going to say..but

i don;t think it really matters...BOB KERREY

FLY

[orleans]

138. wow...

you're right--it shouldn't matter--it doesn't matter--but i've got to be honest and admit that i'm rather surprised. (maybe i'm just too partisan--but i expected something like that to come from someone who was NOT a dem)

[Nitrogenica]

9. That's the right message. Until anything can be proven that's

what out drumbeat should be!!!

Bin Laden determined to strike US, Able Danger, and a disregard for any action on terrorism. Terrorism was Clinton's "distraction" from Lewinski, remember?

They failed us.

[darkism]

11. Here here!

Like I posted before in a different thread, the sheer amount of MIHOP floating around DU makes us look nuts.

They were planes. They were piloted by al-Qaeda guys. The real question is, how was something this huge able to fly under the radar* and allowed to happen?


* I seriously didn't mean that as a pun. I'm still going to hell for it. :o

[petgoat]

125. How do you know the planes were piloted by al Qaeda guys?

How did the planes fly under the radar? Mike Ruppert says there were six simultaneous
war games going on that day, and the false radar injects were involved.

So who told al Qaeda about the war games?

[BuyingThyme]

12. Not a chance.

[flyarm]

13. not buying...

and i was flight attend of the year for ny base for one of the two airlines involved...it was a conspiracy..

just use common sense...and you will see truth..
the "official story" in nothing but bullshit!

fly

[wtmusic]

16. Ed "Lou Grant" Asner says you might be wrong

How do you respond to THAT???

http://wtc7.net/store/videos/proof/index.html

[BeatleBoot]

26. Only that I had dinner with him in 1979

Got his autograph, too!

[wtmusic]

44. You gonna argue with a 4-time Emmy award winner? Hmm?

:shrug:

[IntravenousDemilo]

33. Whoops, bad link! 404

[quinnox]

19. wow,

maybe the post is sarcastic, but if not this is unusual. Almost all of duers are believers in some sort of conspiracy around that.

It gets really ridiculous in that 9/11 forum, there are now theories that the towers being hit by the planes was a hollywood production and there were doubles/clones of all the hijackers and more stuff that makes science fiction seem tame.

[featherman]

20. AGREE

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

21. Questionable ways of buildings going down not necessary to prove that it

was more than incompetence.

Links to film that was shown during the Tribeca Film Festival. It's called Everybody Gotta Know Sometime and it is a must see.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1178579
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x86965





v

[SnoopDog]

22. MIHOP...

Where were the fighter planes to take out the airliners?

Why was Bush not whisked away immediately at first notice of planes crashing into buildings? They could not know that there were no more planes - the secret service would have pulled Clinton out of his shoes to get him out of a published location. Bush just was allowed to sit there.

Why did tower 7 fall like a controlled demolition?

Why were air traffic controllers calls and other information shredded?

Why were we never shown the the video from the 7-eleven and hotel in front of the Pentagon?

No, these murderers planned and carried out this attack on our own soil. Look what they have done since then...

[BeatleBoot]

23. As Richard Clarke said on Bill Maher Last Week

There are two points the conspiracy folks accept that doesn't square with reality:

1) That the government is competent enough to pull off a conspiracy of this magnitude.

2) That the government can keep a secret.


My take (for what its worth):

1) You can't, in one breath say that the Bush Admnistration is incompetent, but then say "they were competent enough to pull off a conspiracy of this magnitude".

2) Go ask Bush/Cheney/Rove about leaks in the government. There is no way it could be kept secret.


on edit: spelling

[guinivere]

70. Thank you.

This conspiracy would have to involve so many people, such super careful planning and a zillion secrets. I don't think there is any way they could pull this off.

[petgoat]

129. The "conspiracy of thousands" meme is baloney

War games disrupted the air defense, Maltbie and Frasca obstructed FBI investigations,
Condi, Rummy, Myers, Cheney, and W did nothing. That's about all it takes.

[progressoid]

89. Yep - apparently there are a few thousand Americans willing to commit

treason and mass murder thousands of fellow Americans for ummm...George Bush? And never show remorse or let the cat out of the bag. :eyes:

People are taking the X-Files and Mission Impossible too seriously.

[Pacifist Patriot]

101. That is the part that bothers me.

I watched "Loose Change" this afternoon. While I have not accepted the filmmakers' conclusions, they do bring up a number of compelling questions that remain unanswered. I think there is yet another group of people who neither swallow the official story nor agree with most proposed counter-theories. Those of us who smell a rat but just don't know what that rat looks like.

[Griffy]

118. its not a secret.. or we wouldn't be discussing it!!

I always find that line amusing that people say they cant keep a secret, and they cant, and we know... we just cant prove it, especially without a serious investigation.

all I want to see is the Dept. of Transportation video from the highway that the plane flew past, or the video from the gas station on the other side of the road.

Ultimately we dont know what happened, and the lies muddy the water, perhaps we will find the truth someday... but this video only shows me something hit the Pentagon.

[petgoat]

128. Who says they're incompetent?

Bush stole three elections, and he'll steal a fourth.
He's looted the public treasury, enriched his cronies, and indulged a longtime
ambition to conquer Babylon. He's bankrupting the federal government and
so facilitating Grover Norquist's desire to drown it in his bathtub.

And who says 9/11 was competent?

W sat on his ass for half an hour so 77 could hit the Pentagon.
Cheney shot down 93, and the 9/11 Commission lied blatantly about
his wherabouts to cover it up.
The 9/11 Commission completely rewrote the NORAD timelines.
They used too much explosives on the WTC and made those huge mushroom clouds.
The 9/11 Commission was a blatant coverup.

As to secrecy, what's to keep secret? War games disrupted the air defense, and
shut down the Pentagon missile batteries. They're classified, so nobody can
talk about them.

[CJCRANE]

149. It's not whether

the govt can keep a secret that matters.

It's whether the MSM will ignore any discussion of incompetence, negligence or complicity on 9/11. And it does.

Govt officials can leak all they want but if whistleblowers are intimidated by the govt and ignored by the MSM then they might as well not exist.

[PaDem]

171. agree 100%

a cover up of this magnitude is virtually impossible.

[petgoat]

188. What's to cover up? The air defense was disrupted by six

simultaneous war games. Nobody can talk about the war games. Some have; they've been
reported in the media and in Crossing the Rubicon but does anybody care?

[Bouvet_Island]

205. This 100% number is interesting

Bush seldom aim for 100% anything. 50% of the population believing bin ladin was in bed with Saddam worked out plenty. 40-45 % of voters worked fine as well. As long as there is any control with media and evidence, it is very safe. Would you say Hitler would be able to cover up burning the reichstag?

The idea of "impossible" seems to hinge on the consept of americans being uniquely benign and not able to commit crimes that are not any shocking for anyone that read a tiny bit of history. Or what happens in Abu ghraib or Afghanistan. How far would you say the watergate burglars were from going clear? Deep throat, an exception or a normal case? Hitler burning the Reichstag, did he think it would matter if some people would catch onto his ploy in retrospect? Any good evidence released could be claimed to be fake in addition to be ignored eg effectively painted by the msm as insignificant. Fake intelligence isn't a new concept to people. The right have very intrisic experience with their own crowd that they are able to serve a completely made up reality. I would expect them to have tremendous confidence in what they could accomplish in terms of twisting reality with the media, even only their tiny share of it. Fox announcing the winner in the 2000 election, as an example.

They are making plain and obvious that the court system as well as congress could be counted as defeated, and I am counting the press as well. Eg they don't obey laws or courts and are not going to allow any real investigation. What other real threats exist? Rational People, even good scientists are evidently willing to defend the official version almost violently, way into no facts land.

The basis of the argument is the concept of risk management being impossible. I would like to turn it on its head, how could Bin ladin have calculated risk for a task like this? Planes in the air for hours, a system in place to stop it that Norad itself says it was only luck (eg war games) saving the hijackers from. It seems Bin ladin picked the date out of terror considerations (symbolizing the two towers and being the number to 911), not intel considerations (there will be lots of confusion for traffic controllers 14th of march). How would he have gotten the up to date knowledge about the level of defense at the pentagon? what about managing passengers over time, with cell phones? What about the flying skills of the pilots, or technical problems? What about getting a completely full plane for some unknown reason, even overbooking? Airport security? He really believes in the Hand of God ... ?

[coalition_unwilling]

233. My feeling (for what it's worth) is not that this was a

"Bush Administartion" conspiracy en masse, but rather a rogue intel Black Ops (perhaps gone awry). But BFEE were fully prepared to take advantage of the opportunities this new Pearl Harbor afforded.

Here's the thing that gets me and I've never seen a convincing explanation for it:

According to the official narrative, Bush and his entourage knew while in the Florida classroom that a second plane had hit the WTC. In "Fahrenheit 9/11," you see Andrew Card whisper the news into Bush's ear. At that exact point, the Secret Service could have had no way of knowing that Bush was not a target, because there were so many planes in the sky at that moment and no way of knowing which, if any, had been hijacked. So why did the Secret Service not immediately whisk Bush away from a publicly known location? For all anyone knew, the hijackers might have hijacked a plane and be heading for that Florida classroom.

The fact that Bush was allowed to continue his photo op at the classroom suggests that someone high up knew Bush was not a target and not at risk. Now how could he or she have known that without having at least a tangential connection to the plot? HOW DID THEY KNOW BUSH WASN'T AT RISK?

[KingFlorez]

24. Thank you

Let's stick to facts here, they ignored the warnings and that is the way they are responsible.

[Initech]

25. Same incompetence that led to Katrina, right?

And the NSA wiretaps, and the Dubai ports deal, and the Iraq war, and impending war with Iran, and so on...

:popcorn:

[earth mom]

134. Amazing how that "incompetence" gets them everything they want.

:sarcasm:

:puke:

[petgoat]

141. I was involved with a woman like that, once. Beautiful, smart,

sensitive, cultured--and drug addicted. She taught me a lot about denial.

[pauldp]

27. Bull. Explain the Pakistani ISI connection to 911.

General Ahmad paid Atta $100,000 leading up to the attacks.
We sure as fuck didn't invade Pakistan did we?
Explain the PNAC desire for a "New Pearl Harbor"
Just coincidence?

Ask Halliburton, GE, Bechtel, Unocal and Exxon Mobil if this administration has been incompetent.

explain the evidence presented in this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6757267008400743688

Wake the fuck up America.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

45. Not to mention that 5 or 6 of the hijackers attended....

...U. S. military schools.

How is that possible without those individuals being officers in a foreign military?

Answer? It's not.

[Johonny]

30. Isn't there room for both

It's been my experience that government incompetence is generally covered up by conspiracy. The 9/11 conspiracy started on 9/12 when the administration started playing cover thy butt.

[rman]

165. If it's due to incompetence, then how can they be competent enough

to cover it up?
I mean they screw up everything they touch - that it, if you assume they are actually trying to do the Right Thing(tm)... And supposedly it is all due to incompetence - that makes for massive, all-pervasive incompetence.

[rpgamerd00d]

31. You are right, but the DU CT folks won't listen to reason

I guarentee they have never read all the data on the internet refuting LIHOP/MIHOP unequivocally.
100% guarentee it.

[pauldp]

37. Have you seen this?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6757267008400743688

[rpgamerd00d]

40. Spamming that video won't magically make it true.

[pauldp]

42. So what about the ISI connection? n/t

[readmoreoften]

68. Paid off people fabricating information for the MSM won't make it false

There is still plenty to be skeptical about with 9-11. If you don't see the massive discrepancies then you are just as willfully ignorant as the most knuckleheaded and outlandish theorists.

Oh, and by the way, you are also a conspiracy theorist. A bunch of guys in caves in Afghanistan conspired-- with the help of no governments, but an international cartel of religious extremists-- to unleash a massive assault on the US and got away with it because they are so damned brilliant and networked. In fact, they are so wily and brilliant, we can't even catch the "mastermind".

Please. It reads like a comic book plot.

[katinmn]

106. Hey, I'm halfway through that right now

Great video!

[wtmusic]

32. Vast Volumes of Dust

"Such behavior clearly indicates the input of huge quantities of heat far in excess of what the friction of a gravity-driven collapse could produce."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/dust.html

It's SCIENCE, man. Proof that Big Brother pushed the button.

:rofl:

[rpgamerd00d]

35. 911research has already been debunked, many times.

This is an email from my friend, a PhD in Material Science
==============================================================

OK, read the first article "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D. and here are some problems with it. I've quoted bits out of the article and written responses.

-------
"Other explanations for the observations are sought, of course. For example, F. Greening has suggested that aluminum from the planes which struck the Towers could melt, and that this aluminum might fall on "rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions." So a few students and I did straightforward experiments by melting aluminum and dropping molten aluminum on pre-heated rusted steel surfaces. There were in fact NO "violent thermite" reactions seen. We observed that the temperature of the molten aluminum in contact with the rusty iron simply cooled at about 25 C per minute (using an infrared probe) until the aluminum solidified, so that any thermite reactions between the aluminum and iron oxide must have been minimal and did not compete with radiative and conductive cooling, thus NOT supporting predictions made by Greening. There was no observable damage or even warping of the steel. (See photograph below.) Nor were violent reactions observed when we dropped molten aluminum onto crushed gypsum and concrete (wet or dry) and rusty steel. These experiments lend no support whatever to the notion that molten aluminum in the WTC Towers could have destroyed the enormous steel columns in the cores of the buildings, even if those columns were rusty and somehow subjected to direct contact with molten aluminum."

Their experiment is flawed. By their own admission (and I agree with this, I've worked with substrates at this temperature and used pyrometers on them), steel at 650 C is glowing red/orange. In the photo, the rusty steel isn't glowing, and they say the molten aluminum cooled and solidified, showing that the steel was cooler then the aluminum. They haven't heated the steel up enough for the aluminum to react with it.

They also argue consistently through the paper that the hydrocarbon fire was cool, because of the black smoke. The fact that some parts of the fire were cool and gave off black smoke does NOT mean that the WHOLE FIRE was cool. Thats such a dubious conclusion that it makes me doubtful of any other ones the paper makes. Such as;

-----
"Then there is the rather mysterious sulfidation of the steel reported in this paper -- What is the origin of this sulfur? No solid answer is given in any of the official reports."

Common wallboard in office walls is mostly gypsum, which has about 40% sulfur in it by weight. That took about a minute of research to find; pity the author of this article didn't put that much time in before making it a huge mystery.

-----
"The observed partly evaporated� steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5,180oF (~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel. (Recall that WTC 7 was not hit by a jet, so there was no jet fuel involved in the fires in this building.) "

As a note, standard JP7 jet fuel is basically slightly purified diesel. If WTC 7 had diesel in it, and it caught fire, it could do anything that jet fuel could do. I also saw another article refuting the claims on this web site that discussed the collapse of WTC 7 and stated that it had a very unusual support system which led to its collapse. I'm not qualified to judge that though.

In terms of whether jet fuel (or diesel) can get hot enough to melt steel, the thermal energy of combustion per pound is very similar to that of charcoal. You can't melt iron in your charcoal grill. Charcoal is, however, used in blast furnaces to get them to 3000 C to make steel. It all depends on the ventilation and the physical configuration of the area confining the flames.

If, as I suspect, the central elevator areas in the WTC acted as a chimney and provided a "furnace-like" location to melt the central beams of the WTC, it would explain most of their points quite well. The early drop of the central antenna, the puffs of "smoke" from the sides (the main support beams went first, and the perimeter beams mentioned above which didn't get heated much were nowhere near strong enough to support the towers, so they failed abruptly in multiple places). This is supported by eyewitness accounts I've read elsewhere that talk of flames coming down the elevator shaft at ground level within minutes of the impact.

----
"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.) "

The authors quoted a piece of the NIST report that dealt with analysis of beams which still had paint. Specifically, ones that *didn't* get heated much, around the perimeter. Evidently there wasn't much left of the core columns that actually supported the building. If anything, this argues against their main point.

-------
"Indeed, NIST makes the startling admission in a footnote on page 80 of their Final Report:

"The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached...(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)

"Again, on page 142, NIST admits that their computer simulation only proceeds until the building is poised for collapse�, thus ignoring any data from that time on.

"The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. ...(NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

"What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the buildings? What about the observed squibs? What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas in large pools in both Towers and WTC 7 as well? Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the buildings were poised for collapse.� Well, some of us want to look at ALL the data, without "black-box" computer simulations that are adjusted,� perhaps to make them fit the desired outcome. An hypothesis which is non-refutable is non-scientific. On the other hand, Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation which addresses and satisfies ALL the evidence is most probably correct."

I've talked to someone who studies rapid, high speed impact simulations. A simulation of the actual tower collapse *after* its reached the failure point is way, way beyond the state of the art of computer simulations, and would require completely different software then the simulation used for its initial failure. What he asks for doesn't exist, and can't exist, its not a conspiracy. For proof of this, look at the impact simulations they did on the space shuttle tiles that said striking foam wouldn't be a problem. When they did the experiment, it in fact blew a large hole in the graphite panels on the leading edge of the wing.

Heck, they were pushing the boundaries of state of the art to even try to simulate the fire and failure that caused the collapse. Which, to *my* satisfaction, explains why they made several different models and only used and tweaked the ones that matched what happened. Thats how they do weather prediction every day, and its how any useful "real world" computer modeling I've ever seen was done.

-----
"After presenting the material summarized here, including actually looking at and discussing the collapses of WTC 7 and the Towers, only one attendee disagreed (by hand-vote) that further investigation of the WTC collapses was called for."

I have never in my entire scientific career seen any scientist or engineer say "this subject doesn't need any more investigation.", not a huge surprise here, given the extreme complexity of the problem. :-)



Despite the web sites listing this as a "peer reviewed paper", the only place it seems that it is going to be published is in a "volume" being put out by the auther of one of the other papers on the web site. It doesn't count as peer reviewed until its in a scientific journal that exists independent of conspiracy buffs. It would obviously never be published in such; its extremely loaded language would prevent this, if not the major flaws I point out above.

I point out that the author carefully doesn't mention that controlled demolition of a building normally requires a substantial team of people working in a building for a week or two, drilling holes in support beams and stringing wires and such. This is not subtle. It also has never to my knowledge left pools of molten metal, since the explosions are over very quickly they certainly don't form puddles that are still molten weeks later. I suppose if you also applied a few tons of thermite all over the place you might achieve that, but then you need even more workmen and time, you would be working on huge sections of steel beams. To expect this work to go unnoticed in 3 buildings and such a large conspiracy to hold together for years afterwards seems to me to violate his Occams Razor test even more thoroughly then the fire theory.

I didn't have time to look much at the other "article" by Griffin, but like the one I discuss above, it would never pass muster in a true peer reviewed journal, and I saw a lot of problems just in the first readthrough. It is amusing that the two of them quote each other quite a bit as though they are independent experts, despite the fact they are writing (or have written) a book together.

Sorry, I'm not even close to convinced by the science in this work. Everything I have any expertise on is wrong, so I'm pretty dubious about the conclusions in areas I know less about.

[wtmusic]

47. But..but...the dust...there's so much dust...

:cry:

[petgoat]

132. Dust 3" thick all over lower Manhattan. All the concrete floors

were pulverized. Show me the pictures of the broken floor slabs we should see on the
wreckage pile. You can't. There aren't any.

[wtmusic]

140. Tell me why there should be any broken slabs.

You can't. There weren't any.

:tinfoilhat:

[petgoat]

143. There should be broken slabs because every floor had a

4" layer of concrete on it. That concrete turned to dust in the air.
110 floors, 4" of concrete, is 440" of concrete--that's a stack of concrete
37' high. Got a picture of anything that looks like that?

[One_Life_To_Give]

65. Steel truss roofs fail 20 minutes after fire inception

A standard rule of thumb for the fire service. 20 minutes after the initial flame starts in any warehouse fire, the steel truss roof will fail. If the sprinklers can't contain it and the fire department can't get there in time that roof will fail. The rule was created to give incident commanders a way to judge when the risk may be too high to bother going in after the fire. As the roof in all liklihood will fail on the fire crews.

Open loading bay doors and the like don't change this. The heat builds in the steel just enough to weaken it.

[petgoat]

133. Warehouse roofs are irrelevant. They are not fireproofed. nt

[One_Life_To_Give]

167. Fireproofing only relates to time

If the fireproofing remains intact it will delay the eventual weakening of the steal. But given enough time it will still get hot and therefore loose its strength.

[petgoat]

181. Given the great heat-conduction capacity of steel, the

proposition that localized fires weakened the steel is suspect. The only samples
extant (FEMA Appendix C) suggest that the steel was weakened by sulfidation attack.

[rman]

158. ah, an anonymous expert

covering for the govt.

[petgoat]

189. Who offers his expert opinion on works he hasn't read. nt

[William769]

36. I agree 100%

Thanks for posting.

[pauldp]

38. Have you seen this?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6757267008400743688

[Media_Lies_Daily]

41. Right. The NeoCons have proven how trustworthy they are since 911....

...Is that really what you want us to believe?

[Balbus]

43. Bullshit! Ever see 'War of the Worlds'?

Then you'd understand.

[ScreamingMeemie]

54. Hide thread is your friend in times like this.

I find the conversation interesting, no matter my belief. If you feel thusly, post it in one of the other 800 threads and move on. Unless you have further proof to the contrary to extend. :hi:

[Turbineguy]

56. OK, let's look at it this way:

Would it not have been better and more impressive to catch these guys in the process of getting on the planes and then unmasking the conspiracy to do the attacks? This was done during the Clinton Administration (the ten planes about to cross from Asia to the US), but Clinton did not have Karl Rove to help him out.

Would not Rove have started the Republican Bullshit Machine and told us how brilliant Bush had been and convinced us that attacking Afghanistan to get that bin Laden guy and subsequently attacking Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein was an excellent way to deal with this? Remember it was all the Republicans who condemned Clinton for doing the same, but since when has hypocrisy been a problem for these guys?

If the Bush Administration was clever enough to pull off such an intricate plan as the 9/11 attacks, get away with it for so long, why not just sucker the hijackers in and then betray them. Who you gonna believe: Mohamed Atta or the President of the United States?

It was a coincidence and confluence of gross incompetence followed by a massive cover up of that incompetence. Nobody wanted to step forward and say: "Yes, I'm one of the idiots that helped the hijackers kill your loved ones by ignoring the danger they presented!"

The only people who have apologized are in fact people who were warning about the danger.

The PNAC could have achieved their aims in the same way if the hijackers had been caught.

[pauldp]

61. "The PNAC could have achieved their aims"

The PNAC specifically stated that it would take a catastrophic and catalyzing event.
What you describe would not have been catastrophic enough for them.

If 911 was an inside job the administration would not have "done it"
It would most likely have been done by the same black ops guys who
have assassinated world leaders and started military coups around the world (try reading "Confessions of an Economic Hit man" by Perkins)
Those guys are VERY competent and they NEVER talk.

[petgoat]

135. PNAC could have achieved their aims in the same way

Not if their aim was to create a 30 Years War to justify increases to military spending
that is nearly as much as the rest of the planet combined. (And also to satisfy their
Armageddon-Fantasizing base.)

They wanted a War of Civilizations, and needed to create terror to justify it. Catching
the conspiracy would have been like shooting down the Japanese dive bombers before Pearl
Harbor. It would have made the threat seem negligible, the war won.

[Terran1212]

57. Agree completely

[WoodrowFan]

59. THANK YOU!

:yourock:

[Jacobin]

62. I agree with that. The speculation sport on DU about this

is a real distraction. I wish these threads could go into the 9/11 room.

What I don't get is that erstwhile informed democrats can't get it through their heads that there are some muslims who really really really really fucking hate this country and carried this out.

[pauldp]

67. What I don't get is

that erstwhile informed democrats can't get it through their heads that
muslims who really really fucking hate this country were manipulated by the ISI and the CIA for 15 years in Afganistan.
So we are supposed to believe those organizations suddenly in the late '90s stopped having an influence
over said radical muslims?
:eyes:

[Jacobin]

92. On Afghanistan

During the cold war, the USSR was bogged down there much like we were bogged down in Viet Nam. It sapped their military strength and created problems with their morale. Just as the USSR gave arms and support to the north vietnamese, we gave aid and support to the mujahadeen, including Osama bin Laden.

I believe your statement that we had 'influence' over the insurgents fighting against the Russian invaders misses the point.

It was a marriage of convenience. The mujahadeen wanted arms to repel the russian invaders and we wanted to screw with the russians for our own purposes. Obviously, neither of us had much influence or control over the other, viz: 9/11

How do you translate that into them being willing to attack the US for a Northwoods (or whatever its called) styled attack to allow the neo-cons to have cover for their warmongering?

[pauldp]

109. Why would they know it was to benefit the Neo Cons?

They (the Islamist patsies) could have thought they were striking a blow against the great Satan.

The ISI is well known to have connections with Al Qaeda. Just look at Kashmere. Omar Saeed Sheikh
is a prime example. Pakistan has long desired weapons (F-16s etc.) from the US.
So the Pakistani ISI would have had the motive and the means to help the US pull it off.
Not to mention the fact that the ISI and the CIA have a long history including the
establishment of the madrassas that indoctrinated the fanatics.
It was also reported by India that the ISI helped pay for 911.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=107432

This of course was ignored by US media except for one poor WSJ reporter - Daniel Pearl
and we know what happened to him. Of course the 91 Commission made no mention of
the ISI connection. In fact they said the financing of 911 was of no real importance.

[Turbineguy]

177. A even cursery examination

of the economic situation in predominently Muslim countries would support this. The gross disparity of wealth coupled with the increasing knowledge of the fact. Saudi prinses lolling on the French Riviera juxtaposed against the declining opportunity for many to have some sort of meaningful and pleasant life diminishes. The hopelessness of an ever larger segment of the popluation (whether real or percieved).

When someone is at the point where becoming a suicide bomber is a reasonable course of action, what can be done?

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[guinivere]

73. No, it's not true.

But if you agree with that blogger then this isn't the place for you.

[BlueEyedSon]

79. I love that someone wastes their precious time doing this.

Wonder if the RNC or some thinktank is paying them......?

[RandomKoolzip]

82. Dude, while you were posting that just now, Hillary Clinton

and Janet Reno just took your guns away. Whoops!

[undeterred]

69. You should look into it the way that some people here at DU have

and learn the truth.

[Pacifist Patriot]

71. I believe its both. A conspiracy AND incompetence.

So there.

[IndyOp]

72. Are we supposed to just believe your assertion or do you have

some evidence you would like to present? Explanations of items like William Rodriguez's report that a bomb went off in the basement of the first tower hit and as someone who was hurt was running up the stairs with skin peeling off of them the plane struck the tower. Rodriquez says: Bomb, then plane. There may or may not have been a fire ball that rushed down the elevators and exploded in the lobby making it look sooty, but Rodriguez (the last person taken alive from the tower, who was honored at the White House) -- says: Bomb first, then plane.

I don't believe incompetence. I believe LIHOP.

:shrug:

[MrSlayer]

74. Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Others see it differently.

[BlueEyedSon]

75. PNAC's "New Pearl Harbor"... how conveeeeenient!

[driver8]

83. Exactly!! The PNAC writes that they need a "new Pearl Harbor"

and lo and behold, they got one!! Who woulda thunk it? Now if that's not a one in a billion miracle, then I don't know what is.

Not to mention:

No secret service action.
No fighter planes launched.
Both buildings fall straight down.
Air traffic controller tapes taken.

Nope...the government definitely didn't have anything to do with it.

Case closed.

[BlueEyedSon]

164. The "falling straight down" is a matter of physics. Falling up would

have been impossible (or falling sideways, but you get the point).

[petgoat]

190. Falling straight down is a matter of the simultaneous failure

of all supporting columns despite the fact that the damage and the fires were
asymmetrical.

[Gregorian]

78. Then where was NORAD?

They go into action automatically. Unless someone very high-up says for them to stay on the ground.


Nope. Just look at Bush's face when Andrew Card bends over. If that isn't the guiltiest thing one's ever seen...

Why did Bush and Cheney have to hold hands together for the 911 commission? And why not under oath?

Why did they fly the Bin Laden family out of the country?

A "new Pearl Harbor"? I mean, come on.

And what about all of the Mohammed Atta sightings just before 911?

And what about the hijackers living with an FBI employee?

And what about the flight school that was bought just before 911, used almost exclusively for foreign students (where is was only used for Americans up until then). Where there was 40 pounds of heroine shipped around in a jet, caught, and totally unpunished? And Jeb Bush flying around in that same plane?

Why did the steel from the WTC get shipped to Japan and melted immediately?

And where is Bin Laden?

[orleans]

111. good questions--i've always thought that about bush's stupid

expression: GUILT!!! "oh, shit! it's happening!"

(his excuse how he didn't leave the classroom because he didn't want to scare the kids--and he props himself up in front of a bunch of kids when he does the press conference a half hour later--when he says our country is under attack--there are kids all around him!)


is this thread still in general discussion? i was suprised to find it here.

[Jason9612]

80. I agree, 9/11 was not a conspiracy theory at ALL

[corbett]

81. Take The $1,000,000 Challenge, Then Try To Convince Us

You offer opinion. They offer facts!

www.reopen911.org

[readmoreoften]

86. Awesome the OP is gonna be RICH! /nt

[Beam Me Up]

84. There was a fucking 9/11 conspiracy. Bush admin incompetence

had nothing to do with its execution, which was pulled off with military precision (being as it was an hierarchical, 'need to know' special 'black-op' operation ). The only thing the administration had to do was pave the way for it (blind eye), let it pass (blind eye), and cover it up, and that they did -- incompetently, perhaps, but well enough that most people LIKE YOU still believe their outrageous lies.

Less evidence has been presented to back up the claims of the Bush administration regarding 9/11 than was provided to prove Sadam Hussein had WMD. FAR LESS.

Where is the evidence we were promised proving conclusively OBL was behind 9/11?

The 9/11 Comission report is a White Wash.

[Balbus]

88. They let the asylum door open for a day and you have to go and

whip them up into a frenzy. Shame on you. :spank:

[Twist_U_Up]

93. are we crazy or are you blind ?

[Balbus]

94. I think you're bat-shit crazy!

You asked :shrug:

[Twist_U_Up]

100. So are these people then

nice crowd to be associated with I suppose.

http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

Carol Ashley, mother of Janice Ashley, 25
Fred Alger Management, 93rd floor, WTC Tower One
Hometown: Rockville Centre, NY
Member: Skyscraper Safety Campaign, Voices of September 11th,


Kristen Breitweiser, wife of Ronald Breitweiser, 39
Fiduciary Trust International, WTC Tower Two
Hometown: Middletown Township, NJ
Co-Chair, September 11th Advocates


Patty Casazza, wife of John F. Casazza, 38
Cantor Fitzgerald, 104th floor, WTC Tower One
Hometown: Colts Neck, NJ
Co-Chair, September 11th Advocates


Beverly Eckert, wife of Sean Rooney
Aon, WTC Tower Two
Hometown: Stamford, CT
Member: Skyscraper Safety Campaign, Coalition of 9/11 Families,
Families of September 11th, Fix the Fund, 9/11 Families for a Secure America,
9/11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, 9/11 Families to Bankrupt Terrorism


Mary Fetchet, mother of Bradley James Fetchet, 24
Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, 89th floor, WTC Tower Two
Hometown: New Canaan, CT
Chair, Voices of September 11th
Member: Skyscraper Safety Campaign, Coalition of 9/11 Families,
LMDC Families Advisory Council


Monica Gabrielle , wife of Richard Gabrielle
Aon, WTC Tower Two
Hometown: Manhattan, NY and CT
Co-Chair, Skyscraper Safety Campaign


Bill Harvey, husband of Sara Manley Harvey, 31
Fred Alger Management, 93rd floor, WTC Tower One
Hometown: Manhattan, NY
Member: Voices of September 11th


Mindy Kleinberg, wife of Alan Kleinberg, 39
Cantor Fitzgerald, 104th floor, WTC Tower One
Hometown: East Brunswick, NJ
Co-Chair, September 11th Advocates


Carie Lemack, daughter of Judy Larocque
Market Perspectives; passenger, American Airlines Flight 11
Hometown: Cambridge, MA
Co-Founder and Vice-President, Families of September 11th


Sally Regenhard, mother of Christian Michael Otto Regenhard, 28
Probationary Firefighter, L131, Red Hook, missing at WTC
Hometown: Bronx, NY
Founder and Chairperson, Skyscraper Safety Campaign
Member: Coalition of 9/11 Families, 9/11 Families for a Secure America,
LMDC Families Advisory Council


Lorie Van Auken, wife of Kenneth Van Auken, 47
Cantor Fitzgerald, 105th floor, WTC Tower One
Hometown: East Brunswick, NJ
Co-Chair, September 11th Advocates


Robin Wiener, sister of Jeffrey Wiener, 33
Marsh Risk Technologies, 96th floor, WTC Tower One
Hometown: Washington, D.C.
Board Member, Families of September 11th
Member: Voices of September 11, Give Your Voice,
WTC United Family Group

[Balbus]

102. Tell me what their DU names are and I'll let you know.

[Jacobin]

95. Isn't there a special, um, room for 9/11 thingys?

:shrug:

Just askin

[Balbus]

99. That's the asylum door I was referring to.

[Twist_U_Up]

91. psst

[katinmn]

104. what are those red lines?

[kster]

97. I have trouble with the story, three guys

that learned how to fly a plane something like this one


Where able to beat our guys to their target, three times in one day and one of them targets being the most gaurded building on the planet. They might have got one of their targets, but they did not beat our guys three times in one day.




Think about it.

[stepnw1f]

105. YYYYYUPP...

the video is bullshit. If a plane hit the Pentagon, then reveal the footage... ALL of it. Anyone else think it's odd that they can't show all footage, before and after impact? I'd say they were brain dead...

[orleans]

112. no no no --- they think WE are brain dead

(what about that video they confiscated from that gas station? and the other video i heard about from a nearby hotel?

the pentagon is saying--THE PLANE THE PLANE!



and we're saying: what freakin plane???

(what "fantasy island" are the pentagon freaks living on?)

[leesa]

107. Disagree completely. Way too many unanswered questions

This was not incompetence, it was planned. Cutting up the air traffic controllers tape without transcribing, copying or even listening to it and throwing it away in multiple wastebaskets is incompetence? Nope, too many things wrong with this day. Too much obstruction and destruction of evidence.

And that silly 19 hijackers with box cutter story...!!!!

[kster]

110. 19 box cutters And the guy who ran the operation lived in a cave

and he was on the dialysis machine :rofl: :rofl:

[glitch]

114. If you conspire to be incompetent, is it a conspiracy or incompetence?

If you conspire to be incompetent and succeed, is it still incompetence?
:P

[spacelady]

121. And I believe the US Government about the evils of

marijuana too. We are only told what's good for us to know, right? I know, off the subject, but jeez.

[eridani]

124. Everybody needs to remember to K.I.S.S. off

Keep It Simple, Stupid!

Simplest explanation for complicity is this. Some people in the admin knew the date of the attack from their Saudi contacts, who had been informed of the date but not the operational details. One of them ordered a series of military exercises for the same day mimicking the actual attack to ensure that the response was confused. The person who gave the order would have had to know none of the operational details. They would have had their Pearl Harbor even if none of the buildings in NYC actually fell.

[petgoat]

139. The collapse of the towers was essential.

The whole thing is a work of art. Had the towers stood, they would have been a symbol of
endurance. (Our Flag Was Still There) Fallen, they were a symbol of the fragility of
civilization and its vulnerability to attack by fanatics with boxcutters.

Those pictures looking into the blazing inferno in the Pentagon were essential to the idea
of the blazing inferno in the WTC towers.

The downing of 93 was essential to the idea of the fanatical suicide hijackers.

[eridani]

163. Plenty was left standing at Pearl Harbor

The collapse of the towers was icing on the cake.

[petgoat]

179. Five battleships were sunk. Plenty was left standing on 9/11,

too. I don't get your point.

[Harper_is_Bush]

127. Isn't there a 9/11 forum where this shit belongs?

[Yollam]

137. I'm not a 9-11 buff, but the topic is not "shit".

And forever shunting it aside into other forums is an unfortunate choice. I understand the desire for DU not to appear to be "conspiracy theory central", but the fact is that there were a lot of very fishy things about 9-11 and Bushco's pathetic response to it. Keeping all such discussion in a 9-11 ghetto is counterproductive to more people learning more about it, IMO.

[Harper_is_Bush]

173. It's just too bad

that the topics choke everything else out if allowed to remain in a main forum.

And it's too bad that there's far too much shit, yes SHIT which is thrown in the mix. Did you see the topic with the pictures of a supposed car? What absolute tripe.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

147. You act like someone who knows something about....

..."shit"...maybe you can point the way.

[Harper_is_Bush]

166. With pleasure

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=125

[earth mom]

130. Wow-Denial is a powerful thing!

:wow:

Denial that is in full force as evidenced by some of the posts on this thread. I am astounded that there are still people here on DU-who, after all the lies and b.s we've gone through at the mercy of the pretzeldent & co-just don't WANT to believe that he and his buddies are capable of such evil.

Okay. So tell me this. How is "incompetence" any different than "let it happen on purpose"? Bush was supposedly briefed about an attack on the WTC before 9/11 happened-and he ignored that intelligence!

In my book that "incompetence" equals LIHOP. Same-Same.

As for MIHOP....it is NOT impossible and more than likely EXTREMELY probable.

[shance]

131. We have the most restricted air space in the world.

In addition, the World Trade Centers were the most structurely sound buildings built in NYC. The security was iron clad. Nobody entered those buildings and got past the first floor without somebody granting them access. Even then, security was the most stringent.

Back to our air space. No one blows their nose on a plane without our towers knowing about it, or having access to such knowledge.

The people that did this, are people that had carte blanche access to these aircrafts and these buildings.

Carte blanche.

Nobody enters American Air space or the World Trade Center without being invited and monitored.

[Yollam]

136. There was at the least a massive conspiracy to cover up the incompetence.

Whether it was deliberately allowed to happen remains to be proven, but the number of coincidences and missed chances at apprehension, etc. do tend to raise eyebrows, as does the slow jet fighter response and military war game scheduled for that very day.

All that aside, Buscho clearly ignored numerous clear warnings of an attack, then resisted every effort at an investigation into the attacks, then failed to cooperate with the investigation when it began. That cover-up and the whitewash report that followed it clearly qualify as a huge conspiracy to me.

[Recursion]

152. One set of data I would like to see from LIHOP/MIHOP people:

A lot of the LIHOP and MIHOP arguments I see get their force from the alleged unlikeliness of certain coincidences. I say "alleged" not because I know they are not unlikely, but because I think we just don't have the data to know how likely any of these are. I'll list some here in particular, having just watched "Everybody Has to Learn Sometime":

1. The mayor of SF got a warning the day before not to fly for security reasons. How often does the mayor of a large city get warnings like that? I don't know.
2. The general in charge of the Pentagon war room asked somebody to stand in for him that morning. How long does the CO ask an OD to do that in that billet? I don't know.
3. Several generals changed their travel plans a few days before citing security reasons. How often do flag officers change travel plans for security reasons? I don't know, and movements of flag officers have been classified for decades now so it's hard to tell (in fact, back in the '90s they used to pull a trick on people with phone watch, calling up and asking where the general was. If you said "Oh he's in San Diego for two more days", you'd have a red-faced gunnery sergeant screaming at you that you just told Osama bin Laden where the general was. Yes, we knew about Osama bin Laden back then. Yes, we were worried he'd try to attack generals.)
4. The movie mentioned that jets were scrambled 61 times in 2001 before 9/11, what I don't know is how often they were *not* scrambled for flight anamolies, or to ask it another way, how many potentially scramble-able anomolies were there in 2001 before 9/11?

I ask out of a general skepticism towards any claim I see made, not out of any particular animus towards these theories. I would just like to know what the actual data for coincidences like these are.

[Beam Me Up]

154. I know you mean well but

there is a problem with what you are asking. Most of the people involved in 9/11 discovery research are individuals with little money doing what they can in their spare time mostly using the internet. Most of them are not professional investigators or journalists. Most of them are simply individuals with little experience even in the conspiracy field. The producers of one of (if not the) most watched 9/11 conspiracy videos, "Loose Chage Second Edition," had no knowledge of the conspiracy community before they began putting their video together. One of the things that is remarkable is that it is, for the most part, a truly 'grass roots' movement. Many people have contributed their small piece. Others have become more prominent and publicly outspoken but the vast majority are just anonymous individuals such as myself (and I was in it from day 1).

The questions you ask are legitimate questions and I do not have the answers. I'd wager there are few, if any, in the community who do. Perhaps someone will have the time and interest to try and answer these questions, perhaps not.

Here's a suggestion: WHY DON'T YOU DO IT? I mean, the answers to these questions are THE answers to these questions; the answers aren't dependent upon WHO does the research. Most of us out here have busted our butts to do the research we have -- and do all the work necessary to try and get the word out to the public (a word that the corporate media does NOT echo, except derisively) that there is something VERY VERY suspicious about the events of 9/11. The interpretation of these events presented by our government via the FBI, the Joint Chiefs, our pResident, Cabanet members, members of Congress -- all echoed by the corporate owned media -- is the cornerstone for RADICAL policy both foreign and domestic. It is presented as being unquestionable fact; indeed their 9/11 Commission begins from the assumption that the FBI and CIA are not lying to us when they tell us it was OBL and al Quida, even though they promise yet never present the 'compelling evidence' they have which proves their assertions conclusively. Same as the release of the Video today. Although it does NOT show a 7x7 hitting the Pentagon, it is presented as compelling evidence of the very thing it does not prove.

I do not know what the hell happened on 9/11. How could I, or anyone, without a lot of money for a thorough investigation not to mention subpoena power AND very high clearance possibly "know"? It really should not be our responsibility to answer all these questions and the very fact that no one in the government OR the media is sincerely asking them, to me, IS THE MOST INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE OF ALL.

Beyond what they have told us, they do not want us to know what happened that day. Period.

[LunaC]

155. How is it

That this thread with 911 in the title gets to stay in GD when one of my recent posts only mentioned 911 in a link in the OP and it got instantly whisked away to the dungeon?

Check it out…
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1194952&mesg_id=1194952

[autorank]

156. It's called not being able to read and act on a memo. The AZ FBI

agent sent a memo well in advance of the event to tip anyone off. It was not taken seriously, even thought HQ knew that they were "using planes" and planned to attack buildings with those planes. They'd even tried once.

I often think of that memo and the stupidity of the "central office" in not being able to recognize that gem. I'm sure it's one of many.

And for that simple bureaucratic incompetence, we have the TSA, the Iraq War and, worst of all, all the dead, injured, and their loved ones in NYC and DC who have to live with this stupidity.

In all likelihood, it wasn't a conspiracy before the fact, it was a Confederacy of Dunces!!! Would the Dunces engage in foul acts to cover up their incompetence or would they use this tragic event as an excuse for domestic dictatorship and foreign misadventure...you bet they would, which is why I say...

IMPEACH BUSH, CHENEY, & ALL OF THE JUDICIAL APPOINTEES, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM...

[petgoat]

191. And why would you assume that blocking the Ken Williams

investigation was stupidity? Do you assume that Diebold voting machines are buggy and insecure
because of stupidity?

[rman]

157. How does incompetence explain not acting on the many warnings

that the Bush admin received from various agancies about an impending terrorist attack on the US?

Such as the infamous Daily Presidential Briefing

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/

Washington, D.C., 12 April 2004 - President Bush on Saturday, 10 April 2004, became the first sitting president ever to release publicly even a portion of his Daily Brief from the CIA. The page-and-a-half section of the President's Daily Brief from 6 August 2001, headlined "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US", had generated the most contentious questioning in last week's testimony by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice before the commission investigating the September 11th attacks. Dr. Rice continued to insist that the Brief did not amount to a real warning, while several commissioners seemed to think otherwise.

[Tripmann]

160. Any DUer that thinks it was purely incompetence

should read "the new pearl harbour. It puts things in a logical perspective.

[petgoat]

192. The New Pearl Harbor can be read, searched, and downloaded

for free here:

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php

[Warren Stupidity]

162. It is a good day when we get this out in the open again.

I'm glad we've had a chance to rehash this debate. I'm sorry for all of those who think this discussion ought to be banned to the 9-11 ghetto because 'it embarasses DU'. People need to question the official story ABOUT EVERYTHING at this point. Isn't that obvious by now? Isn't it obvious that this regime has lied about everything that they have done? That they have shown no hesitation when it cames to killing people, lots of people, if they believe it will further their goals?

People need to understand, at a minimum, that the PNAC papers document the primary motivation for *IHOP, and that this one fact behind all the conspiracy theories is not even debatable. They had motive and opportunity.

[Puglover]

169. Has anyone noticed that the OP hasn't posted a single thing

on this thread but his one line hit and run? What bullshit.

[HughBeaumont]

175. Not incompetence. NOT at all.

Read the Terror Timeline. Too much failure by the military, FAA, airline security and defense dept. for ONE DAY only? Too much knowledge flowing about the Arab communities worldwide previous to that day. What of the puts? What of WTC 7? The stand-down? How little we still know about the Pentagon? Where's the thourough independent investigation? They knew and did nothing. MIHOP.

Look in the mirror and tell yourself this - your government IS that evil. Deny all you want, it's the truth. People that make less than 50 million a year mean shiz-NIT to this bunch. And they get away with it because people steadfastly believe them.

[Debunking911]

193. I have often thought

that the real conspiracy may be Rove behind the 911 conspiracy theories. It's not lost on me that Tucker Carlson was one of the only people to have had Jones on his show. It's also not lost on me that one of Bush's X staff has joined the movement. Someone who claims planes didn't even hit the towers. Why?

It takes focus away from Bush's incompetence

It makes liberals look like loons

It conflates this with other real conspiracies which have far more evidence behind. Muddy the waters...

I'm not really into conspiracy theories but this does make some sense.

[Name removed]

215. Deleted message

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

[Ezlivin]

221. Sept. 10 - Pentagon lost $2.3 trillion - guess where it gets hit on 9/11?

Rumsfeld said on September 10: "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions" (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml)

The next day, September 11, the Pentagon is hit. But where?

"The impact area included both the Navy operations center and the office complex of the National Guard and Army Reserve. It was also the end of the fiscal year and important budget information was in the damaged area." -Arlington County After-Action Report

"Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck." - South Coast Today/Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (12/20/01)

Nah, it's just another one of those strange coincidences that happened on 9/11, right?

We shouldn't suspect anything after the Pentagon announces it's lost track of $2.3 trillion and then just happens to have a terrorist strike on the newly renovated side where the accountants are sitting, right?

[petgoat]

223. A vital point, EZ. I'd heard it was the Naval Intelligence

office that was working on the budget stuff, but never checked it out.

Do you happen to have links about Resource Services? I'd like to know
more about this.

[mirandapriestly]

228. Naval Intelligence moved in 1969

it looks like. I heard the woman scientist who is an expert on nuclear weapons say it was N.I. on,of course, Loose Change. But it's pretty clear from the casualty lists that they weren't in that corridor.
In 1969, some of the command's major elements -- the Naval Investigative Service Headquarters, portions of the Naval Scientific and Technical Intelligence Center (NAVSTIC), and the Naval Intelligence Processing System Support Activity (NIPSSA) --- began moving from the Pentagon and the Naval Security Station on Nebraska Avenue to the Hoffman Building in Alexandria, Virginia. The move was finally completed in October 1969.

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/oni/fac_desc.htm

[Americus]

232. Naval Intelligence is who Bob Woodward for. Oswald, too. n/t

n/t

[mirandapriestly]

224. I spent a few hours reading about that

and the excuse for why they could not give a financial statement was that "they lost so many "financial management personnel" on Sept 11

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/include/detail/story...

"Of course the Department of the Army, headed by former Enron executive Thomas White,
had an excuse. In a shocking appeal to sentiment it says it didn't publish a
"stand-alone" financial statement for 2001 because of "the LOSS OF FINANCIAL-MANAGEMENT
PERSONNEL sustained during the Sept. 11 terrorist attack."
(my emphasis)

You can see from looking at the casualty lists , how many budget analysts, etc.. died. I read it was intelligence, too, but it doesn't look that way when you see who died, maybe it was financial people within intelligence. A lot of the money they were asking for was to go to black ops. I wonder if a lot of that money didn't go to intelligence to run 9-11 and it's aftermath, and they wanted to hide it so they "hit" the records & the people who knew on 9-11.