Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: Delusional Liberal on November 28, 2006, 06:21:59 PM
-
AlterNet:
"At almost every progressive gathering where there's a question and answer session, someone or other vehemently raises 9/11 and espouses a grand conspiracy theory. If you haven't had the pleasure of enduring these rants, please let me share.
Here's what the conspiracists believe:
9/11 was an inside job.
Members of the Bush Administration ordered it, not Osama bin Laden.
Arab hijackers may not have done the deed.
On top of that, the Twin Towers fell not because of the impact of the airplanes and the ensuing fires but because the Bush Administration got agents to plant explosives at the base of those buildings.
Building 7, another high-rise at the World Trade Center that fell on 9/11, also came down by planted explosives.
The Pentagon was not hit by American Airlines Flight 77 but by a smaller plane or a missile.
And the Pennsylvania plane did not crash as a result of the revolt by the passengers but was brought down by the military.
I'm amazed at how many people give credence to these theories. Everyone's an engineer. People who never even took one college science course can now hold forth at great length on how the buildings at the World Trade Center could not possibly have collapsed in the way they did and why the Pentagon could not have been struck by that American Airlines jet.
Problem is, some of the best engineers in the country have studied these questions and come up with perfectly logical, scientific explanations for what happened.
The American Society of Civil Engineers and FEMA conducted an in-depth investigation of the World Trade Center. The team members included the director of the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the senior fire investigator for the National Fire Protection Association, professors of fire safety, and leaders of some of the top building design and engineering firms, including Skidmore Owings & Merrill in Chicago, Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire in Seattle, and Greenhorne & O'Mara in Maryland.
It concluded that massive structural damage caused by the crashing of the aircrafts into the buildings, combined with the subsequent fires, "were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures."
The National Institute of Standards and Technology did its own forty-three volume study of the Twin Towers. "Some 200 technical experts . . . reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, [and] performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations," the institute says.
It also concluded that a combination of the crash and the subsequent fires brought the towers down: "In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse."
Popular Mechanics, first in its March 2005 cover story and now in its expanded book, Debunking 9/11 Myths, after interviewing scores of other experts in the engineering field, takes apart the most popular contentions of the conspiracists. "In every case we examined, the key claims made by conspiracy theorists turned out to be mistaken, misinterpreted, or deliberately falsified," the book says.
I made a few calls myself, including to Gene Corley, who conducted the American Society of Civil Engineers/FEMA study, and to Mete Sozen, structural engineering professor at Purdue, who was one of the principal authors of "The Pentagon Building Performance Report" of January 2003, which was done under the auspices of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineering Institute. I also contacted engineering professors at MIT and other leading universities in the country, and none of them puts any stock in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. In fact, they view them as a huge waste of time. They are busy trying to figure out how to prevent buildings from falling in the future.
Of course, any conspiracy theorist worth his or her salt will claim that all these people are in on the plot. And that I am in on it, too.
Get over it.
The guru of the 9/11 conspiracy movement is David Ray Griffin, an emeritus professor not of engineering but of philosophy and theology at the Claremont School of Theology. First in The New Pearl Harbor and then in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions and now in Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11, Griffin has peddled his conspiracy theory.
He's not alone, of course. A myriad of websites devote themselves to this subject, and several films are circulating on it, including Loose Change. There's even a group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which insists "the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions." Most prominent among these is Steven E. Jones, professor of physics and astronomy at Brigham Young University, whose primary field is not engineering but cold fusion, according to Debunking 9/11 Myths.
The conspiracy theories are particularly popular on the left for a couple of understandable reasons. It's undeniable that Bush has ceaselessly seized on 9/11 to justify his warmaking abroad and his repressive policies at home. And then there's the notorious phrase in a document of the Project for the New American Century, the fount of neoconservativism, whose members included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and a host of other hawks who flew into the Bush Administration. That line, from the September 2000 study "Rebuilding America's Defenses," argues for transforming the U.S. military posture into a much more aggressive one, and for expanding the Pentagon's budget to reach $500 billion a year. The authors recognized that this transformation would be difficult to achieve quickly "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor."
Griffin and other leftwing conspiracy theorists put the two together, and voila. The attacks "were orchestrated in order to pave the way for launching unprovoked wars on two countries that provided no threat, whether imminent or long-term, to the people of the United States," he writes in Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11. "The Administration and its Pentagon even planned to use 9/11 as a pretext . . . to attack still more countries. The U.S. government was planning, therefore, to use the deaths of some 3,000 people (whom itself had killed) to justify wars that would most likely kill and maim many hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps millions."
Before taking some of the major conspiracy claims one by one, let's examine how outlandish the conspiracy theory is on its face.
First, Osama bin Laden has already claimed responsibility for the attack several times and boasted of the prowess of the suicide bombers who hijacked those planes. Why not take him at his word? And if bin Laden were working in cahoots with the Bush Administration, why was the President warned on August 6, 2001, in a Presidential daily briefing that Osama bin Laden was about to attack the United States? Wouldn't that risk exposing the conspiracy?
Second, if the Bush Administration plotters carried out 9/11 to justify attacking Iraq, why didn't they have Iraqi hijackers do the deed? In actuality, there was not a single Iraqi hijacker, and Bush propagandists had to do all sorts of gymnastics to link Iraq to the actual attackers.
Third, for this conspiracy to have succeeded, it would have had to have been amazingly vast: not only the high level members of the Bush Administration (including the head of the Secret Service, Griffin says in Christian Faith) and the explosives teams, but also many others.
Griffin, in Pearl Harbor, for instance, alleges that Mayor Rudolph Giuliani may have been involved. Griffin quotes Giuliani telling ABC News, "We were operating out of there [Building 7] when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse." Griffin says Giuliani had no obvious way of knowing that, and concludes: "Giuliani's statement provides, therefore, evidence someone, perhaps he himself, knew something that the firemen in the buildings did not know--which was perhaps that explosives had been placed in the buildings and were about to be set off." Is that really evidence? Isn't it much more likely that the firefighters told the mayor to leave because the fire itself was jeopardizing the building?
Griffin also alleges that Larry Silverstein, who leased the World Trade Center complex, was in on the deal so he could collect the insurance. (This claim--which he might as well have called "The Jew Cashed In"--dovetails with the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory popular in the Middle East that the Mossad blew up the towers and warned the thousands of Jews who would have been working there to stay home.)
In Pearl Harbor, Griffin quotes Silverstein in a 2002 PBS documentary recalling a conversation from the fire department commander on September 11 "telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." Griffin, who writes that Silverstein "made almost $500 million in profit from the collapse of Building 7," says by "pull it" Silverstein was recommending that the building be demolished by explosives. Silverstein has flat-out denied that. By "pulling it," he has said that he meant giving up on the firefighters' efforts to save the building.
Two books later, Griffin removes any ambiguity Silverstein's "assertion that Building 7 was brought down by explosives, whatever the motive behind it, explains why and how it collapsed," Griffin writes in Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11. But Silverstein never made such an assertion, and for Griffin to claim he did is, to say the least, a distortion.
The problems with a vast conspiracy theory are obvious. There's the likelihood that someone along the chain would squeal. Members of the government have been engaged in far less treasonous plots (such as Bush's designs on Iran), and whistleblowers have managed to get the information out to the likes of Seymour Hersh over at The New Yorker. And, on top of that, we're supposed to believe that this incompetent Administration, which brought you Katrina, was somehow able to execute this grand conspiracy?
"The government is not sufficiently competent to pull off such conspiracies and too leaky to keep them secret," said Richard Clarke, the one-time counterterrorism czar for Clinton and Bush, in a blurb for Debunking 9/11 Myths. Clarke has been a harsh critic of Bush, and he was a strong supporter of John Kerry. Don't you think Clarke would have blown the whistle had he known? And who was in a better position than he to know?
Finally, in Pearl Harbor, Griffin acknowledges one enormous, unfillable hole in the conspiracists' theory: If Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, where did it go? And where did all sixty-four people on board go? Griffin pathetically answers: "One cannot expect that the revisionists, being independent researchers with limited budgets and no power to subpoena testimony, could answer all the questions raised by their alternative scenario." But that doesn't stop him from speculating, in a ghoulish way, about one piece of evidence that contradicts his Flight 77 notion: the phone calls from conservative Barbara Olson, who was on Flight 77, to her husband, Ted Olson, Bush's solicitor general. Griffin casts doubt on whether the phone calls actually happened, noting that Olson "is very close to the Bush Administration." At least in Pearl Harbor, Griffin recognizes the weakness of this argument. The conspiracy theorists "still need to explain, of course, what became of Barbara Olson, and also whether it is plausible that Ted Olson would have participated in a plan with that outcome," he writes. In his latest book, though, Griffin does not appear bothered in the least, as he continues to cast doubt on Ted Olson's account. He has swept Barbara Olson and sixty-three other people under the rug.
On to some of Griffin's most oft-cited questions.
Why did dust clouds shoot out of the Twin Towers as they fell?
Or, as Griffin poses it in Pearl Harbor: "What other than explosives could turn concrete into powder and then eject it horizontally 150 feet or more?"
Corley, who headed up the investigation for the American Society of Civil Engineers and FEMA, gives a quick response to that. "That is simply the air pressure being pushed down," he says. "Once the collapse started, then you had roughly a twenty-story building and roughly a thirty-story building acting as a very large mass to push everything down. The air pressure gets quite something, and the windows on the lower floors break, and you see puffs of smoke coming out of them." Debunking 9/11 Myths offers the same explanation and cites structural engineer Jon Magnusson, who says this expulsion of air and debris is fairly common when buildings collapse.
Why did the tower that was hit second fall first?
"All other things being equal, then, the tower that was struck first should have collapsed first. And yet, although the South Tower was struck seventeen minutes later than the North Tower, it collapsed twenty-nine minutes earlier," writes Griffin in Pearl Harbor. The fact that the South Tower fell first, he concludes, "suggests that the collapse of these buildings was caused by something other than the fires."
But all things weren't equal. "The damage done to the second building was more serious than the damage done to the first," says Corley.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology concurs. Its "Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers" notes that ten core columns were severed in the South Tower, whereas only six were severed in the North. And 20,000 more square feet of insulation was stripped from the trusses in the South Tower than the North. The report "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001."
What about Building 7?
This is a favorite of the conspiracy theorists, since the planes did not strike this structure. But the building did sustain damage from the debris of the Twin Towers. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately ten stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out," Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, told Popular Mechanics.
What's more, the fire in the building lasted for about eight hours, in part because there were fuel tanks in the basement and on some of the floors. "The building was designed for a fire duration of no more than about three hours," says Corley. "Eight hours was way more than what that building was designed for." (Corley, by the way, also headed up the investigation of the Murrah Building's collapse in Oklahoma City.)
The National Institute of Standards and Technology is still studying the collapse of Building 7, but its initial report says: "NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition."
What about the Pentagon?
Conspiracy theorists will bend your ear explaining that the American Airlines Boeing 757 couldn't possibly have made such a small hole in the Pentagon. Griffin in Pearl Harbor: "The orifice created by the impact . . . was at most eighteen feet in diameter. Is it not absurd to suggest that a Boeing 757 created and then disappeared into such a small hole? . . . Can anyone seriously believe that a 125-foot-wide airplane created and then went inside a hole less than twenty-feet wide?"
First of all, the hole was actually ninety feet wide, according to the "Pentagon Building Performance Report" of January 2003, which the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineering Institute put out. And Professor Sozen of Purdue, one of the authors of that report, has an explanation.
"The reinforced columns of the Pentagon destroyed the wings," says Sozen. "That's why the hole is smaller. It had to be smaller." Since working on that report, Sozen has designed simulations at Purdue, and his results correspond with what happened to Flight 77, he says. Sozen, who identifies himself as a progressive, says it is "ridiculous to deny" that the American Airlines plane hit the Pentagon. And, he adds, if Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, where did it go and "what happened to the people in that plane"?
But we know what happened to them. They died at the Pentagon. "All but five of the 189 people who died on the aircraft and in the Pentagon were later identified through DNA testing," according to Debunking 9/11 Myths.
Finally, was Flight 93 shot down?
Griffin and many other conspiracists allege that Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, was brought down not by the passengers struggling with the hijackers but by a U.S. missile. But we know from cell phone conversations that passengers on board that plane planned on confronting the hijackers. And, as Debunking 9/11 Myths notes, "a Cleveland air traffic controller assigned to Flight 93 heard signs of a struggle in the cockpit, followed shortly by screaming."
Tapes of the conversations at the northeast regional headquarters for the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) confirm this, as Michael Bronner has shown in his August article for Vanity Fair entitled "9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes." Major Kevin Nasypany was the facility's mission-crew commander that day, and the tapes show him frantically trying to figure what was going on and whether he had orders to shoot Flight 93 down.
"Gimme the call sign," he says at 10:07. "Gimme the whole nine yards. . . . Let's get some info, real quick. They got a bomb?"
But, as Bronner reports, by then "everyone on board is already dead. Following the passengers' counterattack, the plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania at 10:03 a.m."
The man who headed up the crash site investigation there was Matthew McCormick, a thirty-three-year veteran at the National Transportation Safety Board. "From my investigation there was no pre-impact stress to the airplane," he told the Debunking authors.
To be sure, there are discrepancies and omissions in The 9/11 Commission Report, and the Pentagon and FAA appear to have not been fully truthful and forthcoming about what happened that day. Not every riddle that Griffin and other conspiracists pose has a ready answer. But almost all of their major assertions are baseless. And their own theories have such gigantic holes and require such monumental leaps of logic that they discredit themselves.
At bottom, the 9/11 conspiracy theories are profoundly irrational and unscientific. It is more than passing strange that progressives, who so revere science on such issues as tobacco, stem cells, evolution, and global warming, are so willing to abandon science and give in to fantasy on the subject of 9/11.
The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a cul-de-sac. They lead nowhere. And they aren't necessary to prove the venality of the Bush Administration. There's plenty of that proof lying around. We don't need to make it up."
-
great post. but you have to understand your gonna be dealing with idiots that wont comprehend a word of that.
-
few weeks ago I wrote a column on the anniversary of 9/11 that offhandedly dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theorists as "clinically insane." I expected a little bit of heat in response, but nothing could have prepared me for the deluge of fuck-you mail that I actually got. Apparently every third person in the United States thinks George Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.
"You're just another MSM-whore left gatekeeper paid off by corporate America," said one writer. "What you do isn't journalism at all, you dick," said another. "You're the one who's clinically insane," barked a third, before educating me on the supposed anomalies of physics involved with the collapse of WTC-7.
I have two basic gripes with the 9/11 Truth movement. The first is that it gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of this administration. I have no doubt that every time one of those Loose Change dickwads opens his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes. In fact, if there were any conspiracy here, I'd be far more inclined to believe that this whole movement was cooked up by Karl Rove as a kind of mass cyber-provocation, along the lines of Gordon Liddy hiring hippie peace protesters to piss in the lobbies of hotels where campaign reporters were staying.
Secondly, it's bad enough that people in this country think Tim LaHaye is a prophet and Sean Hannity is an objective newsman. But if large numbers of people in this country can swallow 9/11 conspiracy theory without puking, all hope is lost. Our best hope is that the Japanese take pity on us and allow us to serve as industrial slaves in their future empire, farming sushi rice and assembling robot toys.
I don't have the space here to address every single reason why 9/11 conspiracy theory is so shamefully stupid, so I'll have to be content with just one point: 9/11 Truth is the lowest form of conspiracy theory, because it doesn't offer an affirmative theory of the crime.
Forget for a minute all those Internet tales about inexplicable skyscraper fires, strange holes in the ground at Shanksville and mysterious flight manifestoes. What is the theory of the crime, according to the 9/11 Truth movement?
Strikingly, there is no obvious answer to that question, since for all the many articles about "Able Danger" and the witnesses who heard explosions at Ground Zero, there is not -- at least not that I could find -- a single document anywhere that lays out a single, concrete theory of what happened, who ordered what and when they ordered it, and why. There obviously is such a theory, but it has to be pieced together by implication, by paying attention to the various assertions of 9/11 lore (the towers were mined, the Pentagon was really hit by a cruise missile, etc.) and then assembling them later on into one single story. But the funny thing is, when you put together all of those disparate theories, you get the dumbest story since Roman Polanski's Pirates.
The specifics vary, but the basic gist of what They Say Happened goes something like this:
A group of power-hungry neocons, led by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Bush and others and organizationally represented by groups like the Project for the New American Century, seeks to bring about a "Pearl-Harbor-like event" that would accelerate a rightist revolution, laying the political foundation for invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Your basic Reichstag fire scenario, logical enough so far. Except in this story, the Reichstag fire is an immensely complicated media hoax; the conspirators plot to topple the World Trade Center and pin a series of hijackings on a group of Sunni extremists with alleged ties to Al Qaeda. How do they topple the Trade Center? Well, they make use of NORAD's expertise in flying remote-control aircraft and actually fly two such remote-control aircraft into the Towers (in another version of the story, they conspire with Al Qaeda terrorists to actually hijack the planes), then pass the planes off as commercial jetliners in the media. But it isn't the plane crashes that topple the buildings, but bombs planted in the Towers that do the trick.
For good measure -- apparently to lend credence to the hijacking story -- they then fake another hijacking/crash in the Pentagon, where there actually is no plane crash at all but instead a hole created by a cruise missile attack, fired by a mysterious "white jet" that after the attack circles the White House for some time, inspiring the attention of Secret Service agents who point at it curiously from the ground (apparently these White House Secret Service agents were not in on the plot, although FBI agents on scene at Ground Zero and in Shanksville and elsewhere were).
Lastly, again apparently to lend weight to the whole hijacking cover story, they burn a big hole in the ground in Pennsylvania and claim that a jet went down there, crashed by a bunch of brave fictional civilians who fictionally storm the fictional plane cabin. The real-life wife of one of the fictional heroes, Lisa Beamer, then writes a convincingly self-serving paean/memoir to her dead husband, again lending tremendous verisimilitude to the hijacking story. These guys are good!
Just imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone:
BUSH: So, what's the plan again?
CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.
RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.
CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.
RUMSFELD: We won't?
CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.
RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?
CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.
BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?
RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!
CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.
RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.
CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.
BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?
CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.
BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?
CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.
BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?
CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?
RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.
BUSH: Oh, OK.
RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.
BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?
CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!
RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!
BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? Shit, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?
RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!
ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!
You get the idea. None of this stuff makes any sense at all. If you just need an excuse to assume authoritarian powers, why fake a plane crash in Shanksville? What the hell does that accomplish? If you're using bombs, why fake a hijacking, why use remote-control planes? If the entire government apparatus is in on the scam, then why bother going to all this murderous trouble at all -- only to go to war a year later with a country no one even bothered to falsely blame for the attacks? You won't see any of this explored in 9/11 Truth lore, because the "conspiracy" they're describing is impossible everywhere outside a Zucker brothers movie -- unbelievably stupid in its conception, pointlessly baroque and excessive in its particulars, but flawless in its execution, with no concrete evidence left behind and tens of thousands keeping their roles a secret forever.
We are to imagine that not one of Bush's zillions of murderous confederates would slip and leave real incriminating evidence anywhere along the way, forcing us to deduce this massive crime via things like the shaking of a documentary filmmaker's tripod before the Towers' collapse (aha, see that shaking -- it must have been a bomb planted by the president and his ten thousand allies!). Richard Nixon was a hundred times smarter than Bush, and he couldn't prevent leaks and cries of anguished pseudo-conscience from sprouting among a dozen intimately involved conspirators -- but under the 9/11 conspiracy theory, even the lowest FBI agent used to seal off the crime scene never squeaks. It's absurd.
I challenge a 9/11 Truth leader like Loose Change writer Dylan Avery to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot -- not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter. And without that, all the rest of it is bosh and bunkum, on the order of the "sonar evidence" proving the existence of the Loch Ness monster. If you can't put all of these alleged scientific impossibilities together into a story that makes sense, then all you're doing is jerking off -- and it's not like no one's ever done that on the Internet before.
Whenever anyone chooses to dismiss 9/11 conspiracy theorists, accusations fly; the Internet screams that you've aided and abetted George Bush. I disagree. To me, the 9/11 Truth movement is, itself, a classic example of the pathology of George Bush's America. Bush has presided over a country that has become hopelessly divided into insoluble, paranoid tribes, one of which happens to be Bush's own government. All of these tribes have things in common; they're insular movements that construct their own reality by cherry-picking the evidence they like from the vast information marketplace, violently disbelieve in the humanity of those outside their ranks, and lavishly praise their own movement mediocrities as great thinkers and achievers. There are as many Thomas Paines in the 9/11 Truth movement as there are Isaac Newtons among the Intelligent Design crowd.
There's not a whole lot of difference, psychologically, between Sean Hannity's followers believing liberals to be the same as terrorists, and 9/11 Truthers believing even the lowest soldier or rank-and-file FAA or NORAD official to be a cold-blooded mass murderer. In both cases you have to be far gone enough into your private world of silly tribal bullshit that the concept of "your fellow citizen" has ceased to have any meaning whatsoever. It may be that America has become too big and complicated for most people to deal with being part of. People are longing for a smaller, stupider reality. Some, like Bush, sell a prepackaged version. Others just make theirs up out of thin air. God help us.
-
What they are going to do is ask common sense questions about the physical and scientific probabilities of what occured with those issues you listed.
Unfortunatly the common sense questions are based on a non-understanding of physics and or a refusal to see any of the possibilities of the events happening the way they did happen.
Example:
WTC7: How could a building come down that fast without explosives?
Answer: 8 hours of fire and exploding gas tanks.
Rebuttal: No way that could have happened. Show me a building that was brought down by fire in the past. Therefore it must have been an inside job becuase WTC7 went down in way that is outside of the accepted "uneducated" conclusion of people who are not experts in this field.
And the then we go round and round.
-
i love how you guys make the blanket statement that anyone with doubts(CT's) believe ALL those claims you listed ::)
id still love to hear an ADEQUATE explaination for wtc7.
-
i love how you guys make the blanket statement that anyone with doubts(CT's) believe ALL those claims you listed ::)
id still love to hear an ADEQUATE explaination for wtc7.
What's adequate?
Weaken structure from debree + fires + gas tanks blowing up at foundation of building with basement = building collapse?
Oh yeah! the way it collapsed!
So if you stack blocks to form a builing with many rooms it woud be impossible for it collapse all at once if you weaken it and knocked blocks out of the bottom? Would it fall all at once every time? probably not, but it would some of the times.
-
How about an adequate explanation of how the great pyramid was built? Becuase if you can't give one then it HAD to be built by aliens!
-
stop trying to bring common sense into this, ozmo.
-
stop trying to bring common sense into this, ozmo.
Yeah, as often as i lean to the left even i can't buy into the 9/11 CT's ;D
-
LOL. I'm pulling up a chair to watch the meltdowns . . .
-
that's your idea of "common sense"???
-
How about an adequate explanation of how the great pyramid was built? Becuase if you can't give one then it HAD to be built by aliens!
thats another great mystery, the great pyramid and how exactly it was built! wondering about that has nothing to do with 'aliens'. it was built by people, some people, somehow.
-
What's adequate?
Weaken structure from debree + fires + gas tanks blowing up at foundation of building with basement = building collapse?
Oh yeah! the way it collapsed!
So if you stack blocks to form a builing with many rooms it woud be impossible for it collapse all at once if you weaken it and knocked blocks out of the bottom? Would it fall all at once every time? probably not, but it would some of the times.
yes but 'debris' hit all the other buildings around it as well, including smaller, older buildings. the other buildings around it had not only lots of visible debris damage on the outside, but what appeared to be worse fires as well. wtc looked very nearly pristine in all pics and video ive seen of it right up to its collapse...other buildings near it burnt to a crisp and ended up burned out shells, but remained standing. wtc had virtually no 'devistating debris damage' visible, had a small amount of smoke coming from it, then suddenly fell straight down in the most textbook collapse possible. not to mention douchebag admitted to 'pulling it'. hell the newscasters even said on air, when it fell, that it was brought down. then later they said 'oh it fell on its own'.
i dont really buy 99% of these other 'theories' but everything about the wtc7 thing seems pretty damn strange to me.
-
yes but 'debris' hit all the other buildings around it as well, including smaller, older buildings. the other buildings around it had not only lots of visible debris damage on the outside, but what appeared to be worse fires as well. wtc looked very nearly pristine in all pics and video ive seen of it right up to its collapse...other buildings near it burnt to a crisp and ended up burned out shells, but remained standing. wtc had virtually no 'devistating debris damage' visible, had a small amount of smoke coming from it, then suddenly fell straight down in the most textbook collapse possible. not to mention douchebag admitted to 'pulling it'. hell the newscasters even said on air, when it fell, that it was brought down. then later they said 'oh it fell on its own'.
i dont really buy 99% of these other 'theories' but everything about the wtc7 thing seems pretty damn strange to me.
ive posted the stuff before. but unlike some of the other buildings around, wtc 7 had a very unique design. the lot where wtc7 stood was not intended for a 50 storie building. the architects had to make many adjustments for the building to work. in its design if one piece of the structure is damaged the rest of the support beams go with it.
"pull it" is what fireman say when they need everyone to get out and to desert a fire.
-
ive posted the stuff before. but unlike some of the other buildings around, wtc 7 had a very unique design. the lot where wtc7 stood was not intended for a 50 storie building. the architects had to make many adjustments for the building to work. in its design if one piece of the structure is damaged the rest of the support beams go with it.
"pull it" is what fireman say when they need everyone to get out and to desert a fire.
this sounds very strange...whats different about that particular lot, when virtually every peice of manhattan has no problem supporting skyscrapers?
also its kinda weird to go ahead and design a building where 'if one peice of the structure is damaged the rest of the support beams go with it'....
id love to believe this, and will have no hesitation in doing so, if you can give a few more sound details.
-
thats another great mystery, the great pyramid and how exactly it was built! wondering about that has nothing to do with 'aliens'. it was built by people, some people, somehow.
Oh I agree. I've done research on the great pyramid before.
My point is that the logic i used to point to aliens is the same logic used in the 9/11 CT's to point to an inside job.
-
yes but 'debris' hit all the other buildings around it as well, including smaller, older buildings. the other buildings around it had not only lots of visible debris damage on the outside, but what appeared to be worse fires as well. wtc looked very nearly pristine in all pics and video ive seen of it right up to its collapse...other buildings near it burnt to a crisp and ended up burned out shells, but remained standing. wtc had virtually no 'devistating debris damage' visible, had a small amount of smoke coming from it, then suddenly fell straight down in the most textbook collapse possible. not to mention douchebag admitted to 'pulling it'. hell the newscasters even said on air, when it fell, that it was brought down. then later they said 'oh it fell on its own'.
i dont really buy 99% of these other 'theories' but everything about the wtc7 thing seems pretty damn strange to me.
The only pics available are of only 3 sides of WTC7.
As for the other buildings:
Is it possible to damage that "building of blocks" by throwing things at it and still it doesn't fall? Yes.
-
It took one week to investigate JFK, Pearl harbor, and the Challenger.
Why did it take 441 days to start 911 investigation, and only after lal evidence had been melted?
Do you know the latest list of former Bush1, bush2 and Reagan cabinet members calling it an inside job?
Dude, if they'll kill americans, they'll put up websites with fake info, don't be gullibe.
And we don't want a conviction - we want an investigation. If it was not an inside job, then they have nothing to worry about. But you must admit accoring to polls there are seriously tens of millions here - and HUNDREDS of millions worldwide, calling it an inside job.
It took 7 months to convince me, and i've got an MBA, undergrad in history - i should have understood the economics and the precedent behind it. I can imagine it might take other longer. God bless them on their journey to finding the truth.
-
It took one week to investigate JFK, Pearl harbor, and the Challenger.
Why did it take 441 days to start 911 investigation, and only after lal evidence had been melted?
Do you know the latest list of former Bush1, bush2 and Reagan cabinet members calling it an inside job?
Dude, if they'll kill americans, they'll put up websites with fake info, don't be gullibe.
And we don't want a conviction - we want an investigation. If it was not an inside job, then they have nothing to worry about. But you must admit accoring to polls there are seriously tens of millions here - and HUNDREDS of millions worldwide, calling it an inside job.
It took 7 months to convince me, and i've got an MBA, undergrad in history - i should have understood the economics and the precedent behind it. I can imagine it might take other longer. God bless them on their journey to finding the truth.
you're simply the best, 240. it was worth waiting for you to post. :-* :-* :-*
-
Delusional, let's get a feel for your reality.
1) Did LBJ order the USS liberty to be sunk by the Israelis in 1967 in a failed bid to get us into war with Russia?
2) Did the US lie about the Gulf of Tonken to get us into Viet Nam?
3) Did the US DoD plan a 911-style attack in the early 60s in which fake terror attacks and fake plane crashes would occur to motivate the US pop to support war with Cuba?
4) Was a US president asked in 1964 to change JFK's autopsy to reflect a bullet hitting 2 inches lower than it actually had?
The answer to all four is a resounding YES, and these are all provable. back then, skeptics were probably mocked by pompous, ignorant people who believed what the TV told them. But history has shown the US govt lied in a historid manner (and illegal in some of them) in order to achieve military goals.
Can you at the very least admit these 4 events occurred so we can start on a level field of discussion in that YES, the US govt has used false attacks and coverups in the past causing loss of American lives?
-
you're simply the best, 240. it was worth waiting for you to post. :-* :-* :-*
happy to oblige, my friend. Europe is starting their own 911 investigation, and the 911 truth movement is going to march to the white house lawn on 9/11/07. It continues to grow.
-
9/11 in australia means the 9th of november! :o
-
9/11 in australia means the 9th of november! :o
what?!?!? Once again, America is out of step with the rest of the world.
PS. How's the Australian 9/11 investigation coming?
-
we simply do not have enough info at this point to start drawing conclusions with 100% confidence on EXACTLY
who
how
why
Most can agree that 4 planes were "hijacked" and two apparently flew into the WTC 1 and 2 (those "events" can be acknowledged without having to believe they were the sole procuring cause of other events)
Another one supposedly hit the Pentagon but there are alot of anomolies in that narrative (if there weren't then we wouldn't even be having this discussion)
Another one supposedly "crashed" in PA
WTC7 is not related directly to any of those events but presents it own series of conundrums
Again - at this point not enough info for me to conclusively say who, how or why
Other than that I'm open to all points additional sources of info. The more info the better.
Would anyone in any field say their beliefs were immune to additonal info???
-
A second 9/11 investigation would be painful, but would unite our nation.
-
1) Did LBJ order the USS liberty to be sunk by the Israelis in 1967 in a failed bid to get us into war with Russia?
2) Did the US lie about the Gulf of Tonken to get us into Viet Nam?
3) Did the US DoD plan a 911-style attack in the early 60s in which fake terror attacks and fake plane crashes would occur to motivate the US pop to support war with Cuba?
4) Was a US president asked in 1964 to change JFK's autopsy to reflect a bullet hitting 2 inches lower than it actually had?
The answer to all four is a resounding YES, and these are all provable. back then, skeptics were probably mocked by pompous, ignorant people who believed what the TV told them. But history has shown the US govt lied in a historid manner (and illegal in some of them) in order to achieve military goals.
Can you at the very least admit these 4 events occurred so we can start on a level field of discussion in that YES, the US govt has used false attacks and coverups in the past causing loss of American lives?
Delusional, why won't you answer these 4 quesitons?
-
As someone infinitely better informed than you on 3 out of the 4 topics, I'll answer.
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. If I could do a young Marilyn Monroe before I die, I really wouldn't give a shit about what happens to me.
-
As someone infinitely better informed than you on 3 out of the 4 topics, I'll answer.
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. If I could do a young Marilyn Monroe before I die, I really wouldn't give a shit about what happens to me.
It's hard to argue with you when you won't consider facts.
I invite any observers of this conversation to research the Gulf of Tonken declassified docs which admit the attack was a fabrication of middle mgmt at the pentagon to influence decision to attack. I invite you all to research the USS liberty and 2005 declassified documents involving the ISR attack and more importantly, LBJ's ordered inaction.
And sweet jesus, al-gebra, you're embarassing yourself. go google 'Operation Northwoods' and you'll learn all about the eerily-similar 911 plot hatched by the Dod in the 60's which was killed by JFK. You claim to be better informed but you don't know about northwoods? wow...
-
3) Did the US DoD plan a 911-style attack in the early 60s in which fake terror attacks and fake plane crashes would occur to motivate the US pop to support war with Cuba?
As someone infinitely better informed than you on 3 out of the 4 topics, I'll answer.
3. No
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Fucking A, dude.
-
what?!?!? Once again, America is out of step with the rest of the world.
PS. How's the Australian 9/11 investigation coming?
yeah its good thanks
-
woohoo . . . wikipedia. my sources are a little better. and, i'll bet that the article doesn't agree w what you say . . . as I said, 240, you play fast and loose. you get no points for that.
Now where's my money? >:(
-
woohoo . . . wikipedia. my sources are a little better. and, i'll bet that the article doesn't agree w what you say . . . as I said, 240, you play fast and loose. you get no points for that.
Now where's my money? >:(
send me your paypal info.
Are you seriously saying wikipedia 'made up' Operation northwoods?
If you'd read the link, it contains links to the original declassified DoD documents. Are you then saying that wiki forges govt documents?
*Who* is playing it fast and loose now? I provide concrete proof of a us govt plan to fake flag terror attack. You reply with accusations that wiki is committing forgeries here?
-
send me your paypal info.
Are you seriously saying wikipedia 'made up' Operation northwoods?
If you'd read the link, it contains links to the original declassified DoD documents. Are you then saying that wiki forges govt documents?
*Who* is playing it fast and loose now? I provide concrete proof of a us govt plan to fake flag terror attack. You reply with accusations that wiki is committing forgeries here?
what's paypal?
j/k
I want cash >:(
I'm not saying the documents were forged. what i'm saying is that you and the authors of that article are trying to take a yard where there's an inch.
here's an analogy:
The OLC wrote a memo saying the president had the right to define torture narrowly, and that Cong (never mind the judiciary) should butt out.
That doesn't mean thatBush or Cong or the judicial dept endorsed the memo.
and it doesn't mean the govt endorsed your plan either.
hth, but I really doubt it will.
fast and loose. like i said.
-
why are you changing the subject?
Yes or No? Did the Us govt hatch a plot to false flag terror and plane crash in order to motivate the us population?
Yes or no? Read Northwoods - it details it very clearly.
-
algebra, you took it from discussion to insults, and claimed you knew more about the topics than I do.
Please tell us about operation northwoods. You see what I wrote, and you said 'no'.
Please tell us, since you know more about it than I do. thanks in advance!
-
Which part of "No" is unclear?
Military planners have lots of ideas . . . and Northwoods was not the craziest by far.
Like i said, i didn't expect you to understand. but maybe someone else will.
-
Which part of "No" is unclear?
Military planners have lots of ideas . . . and Northwoods was not the craziest by far.
Like i said, i didn't expect you to understand. but maybe someone else will.
"3) Did the US DoD plan a 911-style attack in the early 60s in which fake terror attacks and fake plane crashes would occur to motivate the US pop to support war with Cuba?"
The DoD presented it to JFK. They wanted to do it. He declined, and fired Lemitzer I think, for proposing it.
-
He declined, and fired Lemitzer I think, for proposing it.
executive declined, cong didn't vote on it, and the judiciary didn't rule on it. Should I take this as your concession? Pl. see all the posts on this pg before responding.
-
Military planners have lots of ideas . . . and Northwoods was not the craziest by far.
Compare 1961 to 2001.
it's just like if Rummy brought Bush a covert plan called "Operation 911".
JFK had the moral integrity to reject the document and fire the man.
Do you think GW Bush would have the strength and moral integrity to fire Rummy for proposing such an idea?
-
executive declined, cong didn't see it, and the judiciary didn't rule on it. Should I take this as your concession? Pl. see all the posts on this pg before responding.
So um, you're saying all secret military operations are approved by congress and jud? Um, no.
You're talking declared acts of war. This was a black bag op. Cong never would have seen it.
-
You guys had a crack at that pic with the 74 bands?
man I'm doin my head in!
-
So um, you're saying all secret military operations are approved by congress and jud? Um, no.
You're talking declared acts of war. This was a black bag op. Cong never would have seen it.
so if the exec declines, and cong and the judiciary don't know, then how is it the US govt's plan?
-
so if the exec declines, and cong and the judiciary don't know, then how is it the US govt's plan?
exactly! you now have completely made my point about really bad things being done, with only a very small % of the US govt knowing about it!
IF JFK had okay'd it, we would have had staged street bombings in Miami and fake plane crashes. (Those are in northwoods.) Congress wouldn't have known anything but what they saw on the news.
See how 9/11 could have happened? DoD & White house staff are major neocons - you know many of them wrote that PNAC documents in which they called for a 'second pearl harbor to justify aggression in mid east'. Congress wouldn't have known - and anyone who called it an inside job after 9/11 was scorned terribly in the press.
I'm smiling because I think it's getting clearer now - 911 could have happened with a small group at DoD and a small group at the white house. 99% of our govt would know nothing, and IMO most of them are good people who love their country and wuld have balked at such an idea.
-
LOL. I'm pulling up a chair to watch the meltdowns . . .
;D Me too. Haven't made it through the entire thread yet . . . .
-
i've got an MBA, undergrad in history - i should have understood the economics and the precedent behind it.
You forgot "I'm a Republican." Can BB or someone just make this a sticky so you don't have to say it like every day? In case you haven't noticed, it doesn't enhance your credibility.
-
Most can agree that 4 planes were "hijacked" and two apparently flew into the WTC 1 and 2 (those "events" can be acknowledged without having to believe they were the sole procuring cause of other events)
Most? You mean the numerous shots of the planes flying into the WTC buildings could have been faked? :o
-
Most? You mean the numerous shots of the planes flying into the WTC buildings could have been faked? :o
I know, in your blindness and willingness only to swallow what if given to you by the oh-so-honest Bush admin, you haven't read anything from the skeptics.
But some people believe flight 77 (pentagon) was a little different from the "5 guys stab their way into the cockpit then crash it. For one, there was some event in which a crash was reported at the oh/kentucky border during the time flight 77 fell off the radar magically for 5 minutes. Flight 77 had no listed flight plan like the others that day. Many anomalies with the passenger list - including the fact that no tickets were sold to any arabs. No autopsy was done on any arabs. No arabs on the flight manifests. I can share the complete list of oddities which make many wonder. Then you look at the crash site - a hole which is smaller than the fuselage, through three newly reinforced building, no jet fuel burning you see at other crashes, and somehow 125 tons of airplane converted itself to less than one ton of debris, along with witness statement huge discrepencies, and the fact all 80 videotapes somehow malfunctioned.
Nice little story.
-
240, you make me sad for this country :'(
delusional, keep up the good work.
-
240, you make me sad for this country :'(
delusional, keep up the good work.
Think about who you endorse.
Last night, delusional called for the extermination of any people who don't believe Bush's story on 911.
And as much as you deny it, what I am doing is working for the COnstitution. Sounds like you're working for a particular political party.
-
'al-gebra', 'beach bum', and 'delusional liberal' are the kind of guys who require an officially-sanctioned major university study in order to accept that the sky is in fact blue.
-
'al-gebra', 'beach bum', and 'delusional liberal' are the kind of guys who require an officially-sanctioned major university study in order to accept that the sky is in fact blue.
They care more about winning arguments than about what is right and wrong. In truth, no American should argue against a second 911 inevstigation. Anything which will prevent the next one from happening agian is a good thing.
Problem is, so many people buy into the political party "my party is better than your party" lie sold by cable news. They blindly support anything their party does, and blindly criticize anything the other party does. I bet BB, AlG, and DL would be screaming for an investigation if it had happened on kerry's dime.
-
well said 240, dont get frustrated the people need ya
-
'al-gebra', 'beach bum', and 'delusional liberal' are the kind of guys who require an officially-sanctioned major university study in order to accept that the sky is in fact blue.
The sky is blue?? Prove it.
-
They care more about winning arguments than about what is right and wrong. In truth, no American should argue against a second 911 inevstigation. Anything which will prevent the next one from happening agian is a good thing.
Problem is, so many people buy into the political party "my party is better than your party" lie sold by cable news. They blindly support anything their party does, and blindly criticize anything the other party does. I bet BB, AlG, and DL would be screaming for an investigation if it had happened on kerry's dime.
Look, I'm not partisan at all, just because I believe 911 was a vast leftwing conspiracy.
-
Look, I'm not partisan at all, just because I believe 911 was a vast leftwing conspiracy.
I'm glad it's a joke to you. To me it is not.
-
I'm glad it's a joke to you. To me it is not.
Whose laughing? I demand an investigation.
-
Whose laughing? I demand an investigation.
Good to hear!
-
The sky is blue?? Prove it.
actually, the sky just appears to be blue
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html
-
actually, the sky just appears to be blue
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html
I knew it! Man we've been lied to. . . .
-
whenever someone tells me they believe it was one of those conspiracy theories,I pat them on the head and say 'ok chuckles, take this xanax and lay down for a bit'
-
They care more about winning arguments than about what is right and wrong. In truth, no American should argue against a second 911 inevstigation. Anything which will prevent the next one from happening agian is a good thing.
Problem is, so many people buy into the political party "my party is better than your party" lie sold by cable news. They blindly support anything their party does, and blindly criticize anything the other party does. I bet BB, AlG, and DL would be screaming for an investigation if it had happened on kerry's dime.
240-
If you truely didn't want to in this argument you would have dropped after the first time you mentioned it.
Secondly if you didn't want to win the argue you wouldn't call people names that argue against you.
Third you want a criminal investigation. None of the other investigations were.
If the investigations were criminal, you would need evidence that people lied or tried to kill Americans.
There is not enough evidence to try the government.
The fact is that there are new investigations performed in as an academic exercise by different groups.
-
If you recall, after rounds of kennedy investigations, there was one man charged.
In Pearl Harbor, the generals who were shown to be at fault started pointing fingers and revealing what they had previously hid- that they indeed did pass information up the chain.
And I love to debate this - because you'll notice most people here will attack me (which I could give a shit about) but they'll very rarely take on the physical evidence, the warnings, the lies on the stand, the economic indicators, etc etc. And everytime a newb apppears and reads it, chances are, if he looks at the evidence, he might click and realize we need a second investigation.
-
And everytime a newb apppears and reads it, chances are, if he looks at the evidence, he might click and realize we need a second investigation.
that's the sad part, that someone will actually believe that crap.
I knew it! Man we've been lied to. . . .
beach, you da man!! ;D
-
that's the sad part, that someone will actually believe that crap.
Many people are misinformed. Last night, AlG and I debated about Operation Northwoods, a DoD plan to self-attack in the 60s and blame it on Cuba. By the end of the conversation, he went from "it didn't exist" and implying wiki made it up (including govt documents), all the way to "yes, the dept of Defense and JFK could have launched self-attacks without congress knowing, but JFK declined"
So there is growth. He went from just kicking 240, to seriously thinking about the avenues which false-flag attack plans HAVE moved all the way to the president. If the same thing happened in 2001 as in 1961, and Bush didn't have the mortal courage to tell the DoD "NO!", then it starts to make sense.
Also, mighty, have you looked at the list of republicans calling for a second investigation? The father of the Star Wars Sat. Defense program, Dr Robert bowman. Some reagan, Bush1 & 2 former cabinet members. A few retired CIA guys. FBI too. The weird thing is, it's not about party affiliation to them - it's about thoroughly finding out who helped kill 3000 Americans.
mighty, if there's a small % chance that the people who helped 3000 died are still walking free, YOU would want them caught, wouldn't ya?
-
Your assumption that more information would come out of a second investigation is wrong..
No one will talk without amnesty and in your investigation there will be no amnesty only a good old fashioned witch hunt.
-
actually, the sky just appears to be blue
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html
;D
you bastard, i knew someone would point this out!
-
I knew it! Man we've been lied to. . . .
well I don't know who told you the sky was blue. More likely you looked up and thought it was blue. This might be a good example of how ones eyes can be deceiving or maybe just an example that the truth is not always as it appears to your eyes. Kind of like a plane flew into a building (something you can see with your own eyes) and then concluding that that event is what caused the building to collapse. The two are not necessarily associated. They could be, but one is not necessarily proof of the other.
-
Your assumption that more information would come out of a second investigation is wrong..
No one will talk without amnesty and in your investigation there will be no amnesty only a good old fashioned witch hunt.
Already more information has come out, dum dum :)
They already know loads more about the collapses, there are many more video angles which have trickled in. Firefighters' accounts of explosions and sequential floor blasts way before the collapse - all this has surfaced since then. Also there are many people whose info was never even heard by the FIRST 911 commission - so to a second investigation, that is very much new information.
Honestly joker, do you research the points you try to make, or do you just wing it?
-
honestly, all you CT'ers, get a clue. Focus on your life instead of this mumbo jumbo
-
You want a criminal investigation. My point is that there would be no more information during a second investigation because anyone with information would use the 5th amendment.
But then you don't read your own constitution and are to busy calling me names.
Criminal matters are far different then a normal senate enquiry.
I already stated that there are numerous ongoing investigations being performed through out academia, but you ignored that post too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident)
Vietnam's Navy Anniversary Day is August 5, the date of the second attack, Vietnamese time, where "one of our torpedo squadrons chased the U.S.S. Maddox from our coastal waters, our first victory over the U.S. Navy". [8]
The Incident
Daniel Ellsberg, who was on duty in the Pentagon that night receiving messages from the ship, reports that the ships were on a secret mission (codenamed DESOTO Patrols) near North Vietnamese territorial waters. Their purpose was to provoke the North Vietnamese into turning on their coastal defense radar so it could be plotted. [citation needed]
On July 31, 1964, the American destroyer USS Maddox (DD-731) began a reconnaissance mission in the Gulf of Tonkin. Admiral George Stephen Morrison, father of The Doors' Jim Morrison, and the youngest Admiral in U.S. Naval History, was in command of the local fleet from his flagship USS Bon Homme Richard (CVA-31). The ship was under orders to not be closer than eight miles from the North's coast and four miles from Hon Nieu island. [1] When the South Vietnamese commando raid was being carried out against Hon Nieu, the ship was 120 miles away from the attacked area. [2]
On August 2 the Maddox was attacked by three North Vietnamese patrol boats 28 miles away from the North Vietnamese coast and inside international waters, while heading deeper inside those waters. [3] The Maddox evaded a torpedo attack and chased the ships away. The Maddox, suffering only very minor damage by a single machine gun bullet, retired to South Vietnamese waters where she was joined by the destroyer Turner Joy.
On August 4, another DESOTO patrol to North Vietnam coast was launched by Maddox and the Turner Joy. This time orders indicated that the ship was to be no more than 11 miles from the coast of North Vietnam. [4] The latter received radar and radio signals that they believed to signal another attack by the North Vietnamese. For some two hours the ships fired on radar targets and maneuvered vigorously amid electronic and visual reports of foes. It is highly unlikely that any North Vietnamese forces were actually in the area during this gunfight. Captain John J. Herrick even admitted that it was nothing more than an "overeager sonarman" who "was hearing his ship's own propeller beat."
Although information obtained well after the fact indicates that there was actually no North Vietnamese attack that night, U.S. authorities and all of the crew at the time said they were convinced at the time that an attack had taken place. As a result, planes from the carriers Ticonderoga and Constellation were sent to hit North Vietnamese torpedo boat bases and fuel facilities (Operation Pierce Arrow).
Differing views of the Incident
There are differing views about whether the August 2 incident was provoked by the U.S. One view is that the actions of the Maddox were provocative to the North Vietnamese because they coincided with the covert South Vietnamese raids. The destroyer's presence also may have been mistaken by the North Vietnamese as a sign that it was also involved in the raids.
Others, such as U.S. Admiral Grant Sharp, Commander in Chief of the Pacific at the time, maintained that U.S. actions did not provoke the confirmed August 2 attack. He claims that North Vietnamese radar tracked the Maddox along the coast, thus being aware that the destroyer had not actually attacked North Vietnam. Yet they ordered their PT boats to engage it anyway. He also notes that orders given to the Maddox to stay eight miles from the North Vietnamese coast put the ship inside international waters, as North Vietnam claimed only five nautical miles as their ocean territory. In addition, many nations had previously carried out similar missions all over the world, and the USS John R. Craig had earlier conducted an intelligence-gathering mission in similar circumstances without incident. [5]
-
240-
Hire a lawyer and bring charges against the government.
Provide the defense lawyer with all of your information and your 1 expert witness and see where this goes.
You constantly ignore the fact that all most every person in structural and material engineering think your wrong.
Convince them to step forward wit your massive amount of evidence and your groups massive knowledge on how buildings collapse.
Look at the conspiracy website, they claim things like pancaking buildings or show sides of building that were away from the blast.
Conspiracy theorists ignore that WTC 7 was full of fuel for the whole downtown area.
Conspiracy theorists also don't wait for actual reports to debate and instead come up with their own theories.
Maybe you should wait until the WTC 7 report comes out before you speak like you know structural engineering.
-
joker, NORAD and/or FAA agents have already perjured themselves during the first investigation.
There are about 20 people whom the 911 Scholars would love to get on the stand. They believe these people, by virtue of their positions and actions that day, and actions since, will open a lot of doors.
Weird... it seems like you're saying "even if they did do it, they're gonna get away with it, so let's not do anything at all". At the very least, if anyone in govt or military is involved, they will lose their current position if proven involved.
-
'al-gebra', 'beach bum', and 'delusional liberal' are the kind of guys who require an officially-sanctioned major university study in order to accept that the sky is in fact blue.
To correct you the sky isnt blue, it just appears blue due to the color/light bouncing off the ocean. you can accept that the sky is blue. might i suggest you see the forrest from the trees?
and yea 9/11 was a huge conspiracy 240 and his buddies have tons of quality info to back it up that can not be denied, can you guys see that by the way the conspiracy is only popular on the internet boards and credible people like Alex Jones ::)
-
any information can be skewed to endorse one persons views, if someone wants to believe there was more to 911 than everyone else there can be "evidence" to back that up that's why compelling arguements can be made for both sides, evidence can be interperated so many different ways depending on how you look at it...there will never be a "final ruling" on this just like nobody will ever know who really shot jfk.
-
and yea 9/11 was a huge conspiracy 240 and his buddies have tons of quality info to back it up that can not be denied, can you guys see that by the way the conspiracy is only popular on the internet boards and credible people like Alex Jones ::)
Have you been to any college campus in America? It's everywhere. And these people will soon be voting, running for office, and paying taxes/donating to compaigns.
Just because men in their 50-60s who run the 5 major media outlets aren't going to talk about it, this next generation is. God, some of you guys are so blind, arguing against evidence you haven't looked at.
-
You misunderstand again.
Academia will do a great job investigating 9-11.
You want a criminal investigation.
Criminal investigations have things like due process and examination of evidence.
Your evidence that government performed terrorist attacks on America is nonexistent, since it can not be confirmed experts, and most would be thrown out before trial.
-
what if one man grows a conscience and starts talking?
With the emotion of a lot of pissed off americans as a motivator, some lawmakers/prosecutors might actually do their job and turn the screws in some people. And since many more people had to have been invovled in the coverup/nondiscuss/blackout on the topic, one or two of them will certainly come fwd.
And you know in DC there are many people who know or suspect something, and they're all going to get busy as 08 comes up.
Is there ANY DOUBT in anyone's mind, that if conclusive evidence came out that 911 was an inside job and that the Bush White house was in on it... is there any doubt at all that the dems would win the white house? LOL>>> Imagine an "october surprise" in which Condi is implicated in 9/11, and she happens to be the VP on the ticket. WHo knows... perhaps there are a few shrewd people with a little info who might leak it at a time which benefits them.
-
what if one man grows a conscience and starts talking?
If someone directly involved talked things would be different.
But I don't argue in speculation.
-
Have you been to any college campus in America? It's everywhere. And these people will soon be voting, running for office, and paying taxes/donating to compaigns.
Just because men in their 50-60s who run the 5 major media outlets aren't going to talk about it, this next generation is. God, some of you guys are so blind, arguing against evidence you haven't looked at.
umm yes i have just the other day actually. and youre wrong its not everywhere. and how would you know its "everywhere" on college campuses? have you been to all of them? how about the majority of them? so how would you know? again youre assuming, kinda like you and the other CT's always do. just because you may have been on one college campus where it may have been acknowledged doesnt mean there is an uprising in any college campuses in america. and CT's have been around for fifty years or more so what happened to their theories when they were preaching it way back when?..nothing. those people turn into Alex Jones type and eventually have to give up their cause and concentrate on making money and their family....they grow up. while the steadfast CT's who were in college get left behind and end up preaching their theories on public access tv.
-
well sir, i work on two, and i frequent the 911 truth movement boards where they travel from school to school and encourage kids to investigate teh day further. the pics of the events - sometimes there are hundreds of kids who will watch a documentary or two, then it'll turn into an all-weekend research/discussion thing as they will reserach it together. Remember, some freshmen were 12 or 13 on 9/11, and don't remember much about it other than what they saw once on the news. It's a sobering experience for some of them who have never seen WTC7 fall, or who learn for the first time that the US informed India and UK about it's plan to invade Afghanistan a full 2 - 3 months BEFORE 9/11.
Perhaps you don't want to know about it. But many americans do.
-
well sir, i work on two, and i frequent the 911 truth movement boards where they travel from school to school and encourage kids to investigate teh day further. the pics of the events - sometimes there are hundreds of kids who will watch a documentary or two, then it'll turn into an all-weekend research/discussion thing as they will reserach it together. Remember, some freshmen were 12 or 13 on 9/11, and don't remember much about it other than what they saw once on the news. It's a sobering experience for some of them who have never seen WTC7 fall, or who learn for the first time that the US informed India and UK about it's plan to invade Afghanistan a full 2 - 3 months BEFORE 9/11.
Perhaps you don't want to know about it. But many americans do.
Doesn't something have to be proven true, before it can be considered the truth.
Your movement should be called the assumption movement or denial movement.
How about the criminal investigation movement.
As I have said many times it is good to see that your movement knows more than the experts investigating WTC 7 or the structural and material scientists that worked on the Pentagon or WTC 1 & 2 investigations.
-
The 911 truth movment is a movement to get the truth about what happened on 9/11.
They don't claim to have every answer. But they do believe there should be a second investigation.
If no one did anything wrong, why not do it? look at the poll data and see that tens of millions doubt the 911 story (this cannot be disputed).
Unite the country, fill in in the holes.
-
Think about who you endorse.
Last night, delusional called for the extermination of any people who don't believe Bush's story on 911.
And as much as you deny it, what I am doing is working for the COnstitution. Sounds like you're working for a particular political party.
i don't give a rat's end who i endorse. has nothing to do with it.
you completely ignore anything that doesn't support your "beliefs".
some people in this world are too smart for their own good, and i'm not mentioning any names. some things in this world ARE what they seem. accept it. you can spout off about any topic on 9/11, why this, why that, we need this or that answered. if you put anything under a microscope you will find flaws. you and everyone that really believes this crap are wasting your time. you are wrong. NOTHING you ever do will ever change that. 9/11 happened just the way it did. imagine the good you could do if you focused all this energy on something positive.
enough about the political views. i'm with beach on this one, the lefties done it. i want the clintons investigated.
nothing personal......i still love ya :-*
-
well sir, i work on two, and i frequent the 911 truth movement boards where they travel from school to school and encourage kids to investigate teh day further. the pics of the events - sometimes there are hundreds of kids who will watch a documentary or two, then it'll turn into an all-weekend research/discussion thing as they will reserach it together. Remember, some freshmen were 12 or 13 on 9/11, and don't remember much about it other than what they saw once on the news. It's a sobering experience for some of them who have never seen WTC7 fall, or who learn for the first time that the US informed India and UK about it's plan to invade Afghanistan a full 2 - 3 months BEFORE 9/11.
Perhaps you don't want to know about it. But many americans do.
why am i not surprised you use the "truth movement boards" isnt that an oxymoron? how do you know its the truth? because you believe it is? and i am also not surprised you aim for kids being that they often can be lead to believe anything. smart move on your part.
i mean if i were to start propaganda i would begin with kids also,
-
You obviously haven't researched it.
Anyone who spends one hours looking at the anomalies of 9/11 will at the very least quesiton things a bit.
There are lies, there are holes, and if you study the collapses, there are scientific impossibilities. The collapses violate the laws of physics.
-
You obviously haven't researched it.
Anyone who spends one hours looking at the anomalies of 9/11 will at the very least quesiton things a bit.
There are lies, there are holes, and if you study the collapses, there are scientific impossibilities. The collapses violate the laws of physics.
All true except what's bolded.
-
The blue media piece, filmed from across the river, shows 3 anomalies which violate the laws of physics. One was the momentum of the falling top of the South tower - it should have followed the path of least resistance, which happened to be it's angle, and topple. Instead, after starting a 50 foot fall OUTWARD and down, it stopped, lost all momentum and fell straight down as the formerly completely intact floors below it all lost structural integrity simultaneously.
The second was the trajectory at which pieces were fired outward. You had steel beams, at the TOP of the tower, being launched 500 feet horizontally, after falling ten feet. Completely impossible with the energy it had accumulated from falling ten feet.
The third is the fact it fell faster than freefall - a vacuum was created in which not even air slowed down the fall, much less those pesky 80-90 floors. A true pancake collapse would have taken 45 to 80 seconds.
-
I just graduated from college in May and i can say I heard people discussing or seen something about 9/11 CT not ONE single time. Not once. This is with some of myfriends believing israel is a country of terrorists and others who think Che was a great man. So you think this conspiracy would be brought up once. Maybe it was, but never in my presence. Notta once.
But, "its all over college campusus"
-
The blue media piece, filmed from across the river, shows 3 anomalies which violate the laws of physics. One was the momentum of the falling top of the South tower - it should have followed the path of least resistance, which happened to be it's angle, and topple. Instead, after starting a 50 foot fall OUTWARD and down, it stopped, lost all momentum and fell straight down as the formerly completely intact floors below it all lost structural integrity simultaneously.
The second was the trajectory at which pieces were fired outward. You had steel beams, at the TOP of the tower, being launched 500 feet horizontally, after falling ten feet. Completely impossible with the energy it had accumulated from falling ten feet.
The third is the fact it fell faster than freefall - a vacuum was created in which not even air slowed down the fall, much less those pesky 80-90 floors. A true pancake collapse would have taken 45 to 80 seconds.
Nope. too many variables in those buildings. (passenger jet slamming into a 100 story building) Variables those crack pot people who claim to be experts and do not have ALL the information or the expertise to make a accurate conclusion.
Go back to the building of blocks. You could get all kinds of different falling patterns with the same damage.
-
I just graduated from college in May and i can say I heard people discussing or seen something about 9/11 CT not ONE single time. Not once. This is with some of myfriends believing israel is a country of terrorists and others who think Che was a great man. So you think this conspiracy would be brought up once. Maybe it was, but never in my presence. Notta once.
But, "its all over college campusus"
I agree. I teach on a college campus and a grand total of one of my 22 students this semester talked about that CT nonsense.
-
I agree. I teach on a college campus and a grand total of one of my 22 students this semester talked about that CT nonsense.
Was he mocked for it?
4.5% of your students had the courage to speak on it. Makes you wonder how many didn't say anything.
-
Was he mocked for it?
4.5% of your students had the courage to speak on it. Makes you wonder how many didn't say anything.
By some. We discussed it in class. You cannot discuss this nonsense with rational people without having at least some of them mock you. But the point is I doubt it is all over college campuses as you stated.
-
By some. We discussed it in class. You cannot discuss this nonsense with rational people without having at least some of them mock you. But the point is I doubt it is all over college campuses as you stated.
See, in person I can speak and convey thoughts much better than typing. I think that I could have had those kids taking notes and going home and researching it on their own.
Did the US really tell other nations we were hitting Afghan, 3 months before, down to the exact week?
Did the US really negotiate with Taliban for oil pipeline, went bad, and we promised war?
Did the Taliban really offer to give up OBL to a tribunal but we refused?
Did GER really warn us aobut 9/11?
Who had breakfast with who on 9/11?
What did Cheney say to an aide as the plane approached?
Where have the 80+ Pentagon videos gone?
Why did WTC7 fall?
Gimme 5 minutes, I would do nothing but ask questions. And if they can apply research skills with an open mind, who knows what would happen.
-
See, in person I can speak and convey thoughts much better than typing. I think that I could have had those kids taking notes and going home and researching it on their own.
Did the US really tell other nations we were hitting Afghan, 3 months before, down to the exact week?
Did the US really negotiate with Taliban for oil pipeline, went bad, and we promised war?
Did the Taliban really offer to give up OBL to a tribunal but we refused?
Did GER really warn us aobut 9/11?
Who had breakfast with who on 9/11?
What did Cheney say to an aide as the plane approached?
Where have the 80+ Pentagon videos gone?
Why did WTC7 fall?
Gimme 5 minutes, I would do nothing but ask questions. And if they can apply research skills with an open mind, who knows what would happen.
I would let you do a standup routine for my undergrads, because I routinely bring in guest speakers, but not for my grad students. On second thought, no I wouldn't. I have no desire to become the laughingstock of the university. They would pull my teacher card. :)
-
I used to be a teacher, BB. I know you that only courageous people will rock the boat. Luckily, some of your fellow Americans have it. ;)
-
I used to be a teacher, BB. I know you that only courageous people will rock the boat. Luckily, some of your fellow Americans have it. ;)
lol. Yeah. Like 2 or 3 fools in the entire country who bring this stuff up in college classrooms and get profiled during a "Nutty Professors" segment on T.V. Good professors at good colleges and universities discuss controversial topics all the time. The fact they won't touch this nonsense speaks volumes.
But hey at least you've got the "911 Scholars." ;D
-
beach bum, what do you think of that CNN poll (84% believe WH is lying about something on 911)?
Or the scrippts poll (36% call 911 an inside job). On the zogby poll (49% of NY want new investigation)?
While 1 in 22 of your student might have felt brave enough to risk ridicule, the numbers show there are a lot more. Tonight I brought it up with 3 casual friends, just for the hell of it (usually I don't discuss politics with friends unless they start it). One of them started telling me I should 'check out this loose change movie - it'll blow your mind". I smiled. The second friend (works in construction) just shook his head and said 'fucking explosives in towers' and went on with things. Third friend "I don't believe that 9/11 crap" then bit his nails, shuffled a menu, and sipped cup nervously.
Pretty good microcosm of society. 1/3 of them are very active. 1/3 know but are just mad. 1/3 nervously deny it.
-
beach bum, what do you think of that CNN poll (84% believe WH is lying about something on 911)?
Or the scrippts poll (36% call 911 an inside job). On the zogby poll (49% of NY want new investigation)?
While 1 in 22 of your student might have felt brave enough to risk ridicule, the numbers show there are a lot more. Tonight I brought it up with 3 casual friends, just for the hell of it (usually I don't discuss politics with friends unless they start it). One of them started telling me I should 'check out this loose change movie - it'll blow your mind". I smiled. The second friend (works in construction) just shook his head and said 'fucking explosives in towers' and went on with things. Third friend "I don't believe that 9/11 crap" then bit his nails, shuffled a menu, and sipped cup nervously.
Pretty good microcosm of society. 1/3 of them are very active. 1/3 know but are just mad. 1/3 nervously deny it.
For the record, 1 of 22 brought the subject up. He didn't endorse that loony conspiracy.
What do I think of your claims about polls? First, I don't trust your information. You constantly make stuff up. Second, ask me what I think about a poll of people who believe we faked the moon landing.
I wonder how many professors teach their history students that we faked the moon landing? You know what? Our history books are straight up lying to millions of innocent, impressionable little kids about landing on the moon. What are we going to do about this 204? It's outrageous, no?
-
What do I think of your claims about polls? First, I don't trust your information. You constantly make stuff up.
CNN made it up?
Zogby made it up?
Scrippt made it up?
I'm calling you out BB. You accuse me of making up my numbers. Please show me where they lied, or more reliable polling data that you have from a more reliable source. yes, please show me a more reliable source than Zogby. That would be splendid.
(BTW, when your only defense of your position is "Zogby is a biased lying company with bad information" you embarass yourself. HTH)
-
The blue media piece, filmed from across the river, shows 3 anomalies which violate the laws of physics. One was the momentum of the falling top of the South tower - it should have followed the path of least resistance, which happened to be it's angle, and topple. Instead, after starting a 50 foot fall OUTWARD and down, it stopped, lost all momentum and fell straight down as the formerly completely intact floors below it all lost structural integrity simultaneously.
The second was the trajectory at which pieces were fired outward. You had steel beams, at the TOP of the tower, being launched 500 feet horizontally, after falling ten feet. Completely impossible with the energy it had accumulated from falling ten feet.
The third is the fact it fell faster than freefall - a vacuum was created in which not even air slowed down the fall, much less those pesky 80-90 floors. A true pancake collapse would have taken 45 to 80 seconds.
I have not watched the tape but I'll say this about "the laws of physics". All laws and theories have to be proven, now the laws of physics have been proven but no testing has ever been done that mimic the exact set of circumstances that occoured in this scenerio, I'm sure there are variables that would present themselves in this situation that could never be recreated in a controlled enviorement so anybody that has a theory about why a tower fell has nothing more than a theory, there are so many variables it's virtually impossible to say this is the exact outcome of a plane hitting a tower...
-
nothing to do with a plane - we're talking fire and a building. When the collapse started, the top 20 floors were falling at a trajectory which changed in midair. The support under it was constant, acted upon only by the force from the falling 20 stories. The fact that the building suddenly gave out at the same rate as the air resistance gave out is astounding.
-
nothing to do with a plane - we're talking fire and a building. When the collapse started, the top 20 floors were falling at a trajectory which changed in midair. The support under it was constant, acted upon only by the force from the falling 20 stories. The fact that the building suddenly gave out at the same rate as the air resistance gave out is astounding.
I don't remember everything that went down and I have not watched the videos in along time...what started the fire?
-
240 - You are not up to date on how buildings collapse, but I will forgive you since you are not a structural engineer.
Your explanation is how building would collapse if was pancaked.
As NIST has stated they buildings didn't pancake.
.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
-
NIST is a govt agency, commissioned by the White house to deliver them a report which they then released.
EPA is a govt agency, commissioned by the White house to deliver them a report which they then released.
We know the White House doctored the EPA report with lies that endangered lives to meet its own agenda.
Do you really trust the NIST report, despite this? If I cooked you breakfast and you got violently ill, would you happily accept the lunch I hand you?
-
just curious, what did NIST say about those 47 central columns?
-
NIST is a govt agency, commissioned by the White house to deliver them a report which they then released.
EPA is a govt agency, commissioned by the White house to deliver them a report which they then released.
We know the White House doctored the EPA report with lies that endangered lives to meet its own agenda.
Do you really trust the NIST report, despite this? If I cooked you breakfast and you got violently ill, would you happily accept the lunch I hand you?
Did you ever take a logic class.
Your argument is right of the holy grail. Fast forward to lynching the witch.
Also the EPA report was changed from using the word definitely to probably. I posted this stuff a while ago.
Your argument is flawed in this way.
If you cooked breakfast and I got violently, I wouldn't trust you. But I would trust the 200 people that were experts and were legally bound to protect my health and if they approved then I would eat it.
I put my faith in science. You place your faith in your observations.
Look up the folly of Aristotle and his belief on observation and not using the scientific method.
-
CNN made it up?
Zogby made it up?
Scrippt made it up?
I'm calling you out BB. You accuse me of making up my numbers. Please show me where they lied, or more reliable polling data that you have from a more reliable source. yes, please show me a more reliable source than Zogby. That would be splendid.
(BTW, when your only defense of your position is "Zogby is a biased lying company with bad information" you embarass yourself. HTH)
I am not doing your homework for you and I am not saying the numbers you cited are accurate or inaccurate. What I'm saying is I don't trust you.
And I'm calling you out on the outrageous misinformation campaign going on in our schools. What are we going to do about the moon landing lies being crammed down the throats of American kids across the country? What did you do when you were a teacher?
-
240 knows more about structural engineering and physics than professional scientists with Ph.D's. He's a renaissance man. ::)
-
240, your right. Everyone involved or approached in the inside job has kept their mouth shut. So has every expert in the fields regarding the investigation. So has every person working for the 9/11 commision, and any other government reports.
Is it probable that the 9/11 commission wasn't totally accurate. Of course. Politicians, agencies want to cover their ass as much as possible. Does that mean that it was an absurdly complex inside job? No, not by a long shot.
-
from Wikipedia:
Whitman was appointed by Bush as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. As head of the EPA, she challenged the validity of a government-commissioned report suggesting a human contribution to global warming.[citation needed]
Whitman appeared twice in New York City after the September 11 attacks to inform New Yorkers that the toxins released by the attacks posed no threat to their health.[citation needed] On September 18 the EPA released a report in which Whitman said, "Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink."[1] Later, a 2003 report by the EPA's inspector general determined that such assurances were misleading, since when the statements were made the EPA "did not have sufficient data and analyses" to justify them.[2] Further, the report found that the White House had "convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones" by having the National Security Council control EPA communications after the September 11 attacks[3][4]. Although according to some sources the air was safe for Manhattan residents,[citation needed] Whitman was careful to note that the air on the actual World Trade Center site was not clean and had elevated chemical levels that would be detrimental to the workers there.[citation needed] As a result, even though they were not required to do so, the EPA itself provided thousands of respirators for workers to wear during their efforts.
On June 27, 2003, Whitman resigned from her position to spend more time with her family.
On February 2, 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Deborah A. Batts issued a ruling rejecting Whitman's request for immunity in a 2004 class action lawsuit brought by a group who claimed exposure to hazardous debris from the collapse of the World Trade Center. The judge stated that "No reasonable person would have thought that telling thousands of people that it was safe to return to lower Manhattan, while knowing that such return could pose long-term health risks and other dire consequences, was conduct sanctioned by our laws," and called Whitman's actions "conscience-shocking."[5].
-
NIST is a govt agency, commissioned by the White house to deliver them a report which they then released.
EPA is a govt agency, commissioned by the White house to deliver them a report which they then released.
We know the White House doctored the EPA report with lies that endangered lives to meet its own agenda.
Do you really trust the NIST report, despite this? If I cooked you breakfast and you got violently ill, would you happily accept the lunch I hand you?
this is a perfect example of why you cant argue with ct'ers. all facts are just brushed off. its sad