Real 9-11 Research

[cant w8 4 2012]

I ain't lookin 2 you 4 answers,but i respect you're opinion.peace

[RandomGuy]

I ain't lookin 2 you 4 answers,but i respect you're opinion.peace

I'm an accountant, you shouldn't look to me for answers on things other than economics, finance, and general business advice.

I do this in my spare time, and gave the whole "grand evil conspiracy" bit a fair shake years ago.

I took what the "conspiracy" guys said and asked, and subjected it to a coldly rational look, and used what I knew of science, and what other experts knew, and found the whole "9-11 was an inside job" bit to be almost without exception to be absolute garbage.

None of it stood up to any reasonable degree, some of it was outright made up, and it was always based on bad science.

The more I have looked into it over the years, the more I see how illogical, dishonest, and deluded it is.

If there really is a big evil govenment conspiracy, then they will try to discredit the people who talk about that conspiracy by putting out stuff that is really obviously stupid and easily debunked.

Soooo.... even if the conspiracy guys are right, then some of them are either too stupid to see the obviously fake planted evidence/theories or some of them are PART of the evil conspiracy, and spreading stupid shit in the first place.

If there is no grand evil conspiracy then the conspiracy guys can't be evil and part of it, but they can certainly be stupid, and from everything I have seen, a lot of them definitely fit the bill.

[xrayzebra]

I'm an accountant, you shouldn't look to me for answers on things other than economics, finance, and general business advice.

I do this in my spare time, and gave the whole "grand evil conspiracy" bit a fair shake years ago.

I took what the "conspiracy" guys said and asked, and subjected it to a coldly rational look, and used what I knew of science, and what other experts knew, and found the whole "9-11 was an inside job" bit to be almost without exception to be absolute garbage.

None of it stood up to any reasonable degree, some of it was outright made up, and it was always based on bad science.

The more I have looked into it over the years, the more I see how illogical, dishonest, and deluded it is.

If there really is a big evil govenment conspiracy, then they will try to discredit the people who talk about that conspiracy by putting out stuff that is really obviously stupid and easily debunked.

Soooo.... even if the conspiracy guys are right, then some of them are either too stupid to see the obviously fake planted evidence/theories or some of them are PART of the evil conspiracy, and spreading stupid shit in the first place.

If there is no grand evil conspiracy then the conspiracy guys can't be evil and part of it, but they can certainly be stupid, and from everything I have seen, a lot of them definitely fit the bill.

Damit RG, you know the ray guns did the deed. I have it from a good source. It was posted on the forum. I think I was that posted it. So there!

[RandomGuy]

Damit RG, you know the ray guns did the deed. I have it from a good source. It was posted on the forum. I think I was that posted it. So there!

It's not real unless there is a youtube video... :lol

[cant w8 4 2012]

It's not real unless there is a youtube video... :lol

or unless an accountant said it :toast

[xrayzebra]

It's not real unless there is a youtube video... :lol

Damn I forgot that. Back to youtube and more research.

[RandomGuy]

or unless an accountant said it :toast

You don't have to be anything other than aware of the basic rules of logic and skepticism. That and intellectually honest.


All of which is really obviously lacking in most conspiragarbage websites.

[RandomGuy]

Bump. Cause it has reared its ugly head again.

[Nbadan]

I'm an accountant, you shouldn't look to me for answers on things other than economics, finance, and general business advice.

RG needs to follow his own advice...

[RandomGuy]

PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m

Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.

SOOOO

The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.

Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.

They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.

Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.

Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:


v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second

Substitute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m

This means the 30 floor section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.

Think about this for a moment.

The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.

Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing. :rolleyes

STILL FURTHER

Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.

IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.

Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)

What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?

Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.

ooooh, some integral calculus for Dan...

[Nbadan]

ooooh, some integral calculus for Dan...

:rolleyes

That's not integral cal.....go back to business school...

[ChumpDumper]

So is there an actual problem with his calculations or not?

[RandomGuy]

:rolleyes

That's not integral cal.....go back to business school...

So... it's actually simpler?

Then it should be very easy for you to double check my math.

Hell, I might even throw in an occasional purposeful mistake, just to see if you are paying attention.

[johnsmith]

RG owns all 9/11 threads. Cracks me up that no one can argue back with him because he actually throws in evidence, statistics, and math to back up his shit.



Dan, you're a fucking douche bag.

[RandomGuy]

Quite frankly the other starting assumption used by your outdated bit also was raised:

The collapse did not go from the top of the building height to ground level.

Both collapses started (gasp) where the planes and fires were, about 20-30 stories down the building, and the rubble pile was eventually about 4 stories above street level.

This means that the collapse of the building only really took 76-86 stories, not the full 110.

Shorter distance of collapse means less time for "free fall" than what is commonly put forth by the phsyics-challenged "twoofers".

If you actually go out to a calculator here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/flobi.html
You can get the free fall speed of an object dropped from, say, 86 stories or about 320 meters.
That ending velocity is about 79 m/s.
Stick that into the equation v= (g)(t) and you can easily solve, just as the professor did, for t.
79 = 9.8t
t = 7.95

So, the time that should be used for "free fall" is about 8 seconds, not 9.2.

This makes for an even bigger difference in the observed collapse times of 14 and 22+ seconds than 9 seconds.

Oops that must imply some resistance, because it took almost 2 and 3 times longer than "free fall".

Since the explosives theory DEPENDS on little to no resistance, and a large amount of resistance was observed, you MUST conclude that explosives were not used.

Hell, I might even throw in a link so you can use a calculator to double check my math.

[RandomGuy]

Bump.

[RandomGuy]

Still waiting for the guy with the math degree to double check my math.

Dan?

[Mr. Peabody]

Still waiting for the guy with the math degree to double check my math.

Dan?

Sorry man, I got a degree in Philosophy. I can't even prove that you exist.

[Nbadan]

So... it's actually simpler?

Then it should be very easy for you to double check my math.

Hell, I might even throw in an occasional purposeful mistake, just to see if you are paying attention.

:rolleyes

How can I logically argue with someone who doesn't even know the difference between integral calculus and physics..

[ChumpDumper]

How can we logically argue with someone who says the buildings next to WTC 7 were not damaged?

[RandomGuy]

:rolleyes

How can I logically argue with someone who doesn't even know the difference between integral calculus and physics..


How can I logically argue with a liar?

I noticed you still didn't bother double-checking my calculations, math-boy.

Prove the shill made a mistake.

Go on...

[Nbadan]

How can we logically argue with someone who says the buildings next to WTC 7 were not damaged?

Did any of the building next to WTC7 sustain damage that compromised the structural integrity of the building beyond mere facade damage? No.

See, that's why you can't argue or present alternative theories to Chumpy because he will completely ignore the strong points of your theory and center his attacks, not logical rebuttals, into parsing your words....

[Nbadan]

How can I logically argue with a liar?

I noticed you still didn't bother double-checking my calculations, math-boy.

Prove the shill made a mistake.

Go on...

I'll leave that to the junior physicists...when you present a mathematical computation worth examining maybe I'll give you an hour of my valuable time...I get paid 25/hour...

[RandomGuy]

Let’s do a quickie, common sense thought experiment to help understand what the “controlled demolition” theory is trying to say.

The controlled demolition theory rests on the following assumption: “the building was too strong to have collapsed from simple gravity”

Put another way “the building could easily absorb the energy of the falling section and not fully collapse”

Does this pass the common sense muster?

Let’s take an average guy off the street. He can hold a 100 pound bag over his head for a few minutes. Say he is balancing it on his head to make things simple. In terms of physics this means he is providing a force equal to gravity in order to hold this bag motionless.

This is what the lower 80 stories did for the upper 30 stories for 30 years before 9-11.

Now, one story is about 12.32 feet. The thirty floors started falling through the damaged sections, and at least one damaged, weakened floor gave way.

Take that bag away from our average guy and hold it 12.32 feet over his head. Now drop it on his head. What happens?

Ouch is right.

Let’s see how many pounds of force will be applied by that bag to the guy’s head.

KE is measured in joules. KE= ½* mass * velocity *velocity
First let’s convert to metric for ease of calculation.
Mass=45.36 kg http://manuelsweb.com/kg_lbs.htm
H = 12.32 feet = 3.65 meters http://www.saudia-online.com/conversion%20Table.htm
Ending velocity of bag= 8.45 meters/s http://tutor4physics.com/calculators.htm

KE= ½(45.36)(8.45)(8.45) = 1619 joules
Convert 1619 Joules back to food/pounds force a.k.a. weight = 598 http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/ccenrgy.htm (http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/ccenrgy.htm)

For the controlled demolition theory to be correct the guy’s head must be able to apply almost 598 foot/pounds of force to stop the bag after such a fall.

Is this reasonable? I think we can safely, and without the possibility of jail time for seriously injuring some poor test subject, conclude that it is not.

Maybe “Galileo” would like to put this theory’s primary assumption to the test with a 100 bag of bullshit?

The original Galileo was actually instrumental in noting that the rate of falling objects is not dependant on mass http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Smass.htm . Perhaps our modern, more retarded, version of the real scientist can contribute something to science and prove that his head can hold, even for a split second, an eleven hundred pound object.

Dan, or anyone else, please feel free to recheck my calculations here. I might have deliberately made a mistake just to see if you are really following along… ;)

Here's some more math. Still waiting...

[RandomGuy]

Did any of the building next to WTC7 sustain damage that compromised the structural integrity of the building beyond mere facade damage? No.

See, that's why you can't argue or present alternative theories to Chumpy because he will completely ignore the strong points of your theory and center his attacks, not logical rebuttals, into parsing your words....

_kSq663m0G8

[RandomGuy]

I have yet to see Dan do one of two things:

1) Answer an honest question

or

2) Subject my common sense math to any kind of double check.

Even when provided with online calculators, Dan cannot allow himself to challenge his own confirmation bias. He is not alone among the fervent followers of the 9-11 cult.

[RandomGuy]

(Begin EDIT)
FOR THOSE OF YOU READING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME, SEE PAGES 3 AND 4 for the NIST FAQ that answers the biggest "truther" questions.(end EDIT)

Since the 9-11 CTers like to copy and paste ad inifinitum, let's see if we can get some good stuff here.

It might surprise you CTers but there is a whole cottage industry built up around your bullshit.

They don't sell T-shirts, mugs, or crappy videos.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Here is a gem: The 9-11 "truthers" in their own "like, words". Icky.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7216643725166640147&hl=en

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

http://wtc.nist.gov/

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://www.911myths.com/

Best one out of all the lot so far:
http://www.debunking911.com/

Mike Walter talking about the plane hitting the pentagon, and how irritated he is with the 9-11 "truth" movement for lying about what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPUDktZpCU

Link to a TON of debunking links:
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

Here ARE SOME REALLY PRECIOUS LINKS.

9-11 "truth" scholars turning on each other. You thought they were unstable and kooky when they talk about the government, wait until they start talking about each other.

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


A whole page of youtube debunking videos (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=RKOwens4&p=r)

A whole page of decent debunking links and one of the best ones so far. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)

Go on Dan. Do some reading. Tell me what you see here.

All of the scientists who contribute to debunking your bullshit above can't be in on the conspiracy too, can they?

[Nbadan]

Even when provided with online calculators, Dan cannot allow himself to challenge his own confirmation bias. He is not alone among the fervent followers of the 9-11 cult.

I've never said I was a 911 truther...what I have said is that those who adhere to the 9/11 theories of the most lyingest administration in our nation's short history are bound to be shown to be fools by history...

[ChumpDumper]

I've never said I was a 911 truther...what I have said is that those who adhere to the 9/11 theories of the most lyingest administration in our nation's short history are bound to be shown to be fools by history...To what theory do you adhere, dan?

[Nbadan]

I adhere to the theory that you can't believe a damn thing this administration puts out..

[ChumpDumper]

I adhere to the theory that you can't believe a damn thing this administration puts out..So if everything they say is unbelievable, what is believable to you?

What do you believe really happened on 9/11?

[RandomGuy]

I've never said I was a 911 truther...what I have said is that those who adhere to the 9/11 theories of the most lyingest administration in our nation's short history are bound to be shown to be fools by history...

The Bush administration is too incompetant to do what you think it did.

I find it funny that you give them so much credit.

[Nbadan]

Who said anything about the Bush administration being behind 9/11? I certainly didn't.

[ChumpDumper]

So who are you saying is behind 9/11?

[xrayzebra]

So who are you saying is behind 9/11?

The ray guns.......or was it the crap cannon?

[RandomGuy]

bumpovatch. don't want to let this sink down to where I can't find it. Please pardon the "every other month" bump.

[Shastafarian]

bumpovatch. don't want to let this sink down to where I can't find it. Please pardon the "every other month" bump.

Why did no one say, "Physics equations rely on integral calculus. The equation that was used was derived using calculus."

[Tully365]

Sorry man, I got a degree in Philosophy. I can't even prove that you exist.

:lol

[RandomGuy]

Bumpski.

Mouse wants to see it again.

[Horn Tooter]

Bumpski.

Mouse wants to see it again.

Or maybe your just tooting your own horn again?

[RandomGuy]

Meh. I am less concerned about my ego than I am about letting this drop too far, and losing all the good links.

That would make me more lazy than anything else. :lol

[RandomGuy]

NIST will confirm that this was a controlled demolition some day, after Obama becomes president. Then they will shift the story and say the demolition of WTC 7 was engineered for safety reasons. Trail balloons have already been floated on this.


I guess we will get to find out if this prediction comes true.

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

[Example video transcript:]

Government Train Wreck: How government covers up freight train accidents…

"The noise sounded like two freight trains going over a trestle right over your head; it was an ugly roar. My wife said the noise when the house went was like a giant pencil sharpener working.”

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/1953beecher/storiesFJ.php

[Did a fright train pass over their head? Was there a giant pencil sharpener really over there heads?]

“While I was in my kitchen I heard this terrible roar coming," she said. "It sounded like a freight train coming right down my road here”

"It looks like it's been bombed. There's just a lot of destruction, a lot of debris," said Michael Bartz, a state emergency official. "

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WEATHER/09/02...nado/index.html

[Was it a bomb? Did a real freight train go down her road?]

"It indeed sounded like a freight train roaring past us, and when it was gone, we came out to find things a mess."

http://www.offenburger.com/farmarchive.asp?link=20040906

It came with "the roar of forty freight trains."

http://www.tornadochaser.com/UDALL/reports.htm

“It sounded like a freight train”.

http://www.disasternews.net/news/news.php?articleid=2954

“Before I reached the bottom of the stairs, I heard the sound of a roaring freight train”

[enter image of NOAA weather map an hour before the tornado touches down.]

As you can see, there was no tornado on that day, according to NOAA.

So why is the government covering up train derailments?

[enter sinister music]

In 2003 Amtrak was going bankrupt. They couldn't afford to rebuild the homes of Americans after a derailment.

ETC.. ETC..

This bit was funny. Hope it doesn't get missed.

[baseline bum]

Sorry man, I got a degree in Philosophy. I can't even prove that you exist.

:lmao

That is hilarious. Gives me flashbacks to my radical skepticism class where we tried to prove the existence of god when we couldn't prove the existence of ourselves. :lol

[RandomGuy]

:lmao

That is hilarious. Gives me flashbacks to my radical skepticism class where we tried to prove the existence of god when we couldn't prove the existence of ourselves. :lol

Heh, since you can't prove I exist, you don't mind me kicking you in the nuts then?


j/k

[LnGrrrR]

:lmao

That is hilarious. Gives me flashbacks to my radical skepticism class where we tried to prove the existence of god when we couldn't prove the existence of ourselves. :lol

Ha! That would have been an interesting class to sit in, I'm sure.

[Last Comic Standing]

You notice the same people who believe WTC7 collapsed due to fire,
are the same people who believe man evolved from the monkey.

[baseline bum]

You notice the same people who believe WTC7 collapsed due to fire,
are the same people who believe man evolved from the monkey.

Yes, they're the people with evidence on their side.

[RandomGuy]

You notice the same people who believe WTC7 collapsed due to fire,
are the same people who believe man evolved from the monkey.

By the by, humans didn't evolve from monkeys. Humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor.

Common mistake.

[Rohirrim]

And that ancestor was....

ManBearPig!

[RandomGuy]

And that ancestor was....

ManBearPig!

???

I hate missing out on the funny, can someone 'splain it to me?

[The Power Hour.]

xf69EEL3WBk

[RandomGuy]

Thanks. I needed to have my psyche scarred by another crappy South Park clip.

I hate the f***ing show. It used to be funny, but now they are just in it to see how far they can push the limits. Boooooringgg.

[ChumpDumper]

It would be better if you guys could add to the coversation with ideas and opions that may help expalin what took place on 9/11 rather than make it insult amateur night.Here ya go.

Have fun.

[mookie2001]

yall are chodes

yall are like those dudes in austin who have hosted the atheists hour for like ten years, yall love it so much, defend it so hard, making it clear there really is a god

[RandomGuy]

Here ya go.

Have fun.

I think he has given up trying to really prove his 9-11 bullpuckey. He has moved on to the next fairy tale about the earth only being 10,000 years old. :lol
HA!

[RandomGuy]

yall are chodes

yall are like those dudes in austin who have hosted the atheists hour for like ten years, yall love it so much, defend it so hard, making it clear there really is a god

Thank you for that mildly intelligible outburst. :lol

It made me laugh. It made me cry. It made me wonder what you have been drinking. It made me wonder why I am not drinking.

[mookie2001]

me like to think me different

[Nbadan]

...the Bush-9/11 faith crowd is incapable of abstract thought...either the Bush administration and Rudy 9u11ani acted heroically on and the days and months leading to 9/11 or they didn't...

Let's examine this premise...


"A chilling new detail of U.S. intelligence failures emerged Thursday, when the Justice Department disclosed that about 20 months before the Sept. 11 attacks, a CIA official had blocked a memo intended to alert the FBI that two known Al Qaeda operatives had entered the country.
The two men were among the 19 hijackers who crashed airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.

LA Times (06/10/05) [Reprinted at: informationclearinghouse.info]

strike 1...

---


"Five months before Sept. 11, 2001, the officers responsible for defending American airspace wanted to test their ability to prevent a hijacked airliner from being crashed into the Pentagon, but the scenario was rejected by the Joint Chiefs of Staff as impractical, a Joint Chiefs spokesman confirmed yesterday.

The disclosure was made after a government watchdog group released a leaked e-mail from a former official at the North American Air Defense Command. In the message, the official told colleagues a week after the attacks that in April 2001 NORAD requested that war games run by the Joint Chiefs include an ''event having a terrorist group hijack a commercial airline . . . and fly it into the Pentagon."

Last night, Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Commander Dan Hetlage confirmed the account, saying: ''That scenario was rejected because it would have become a whole exercise in and of itself. It wasn't looked on at the time as being practicable."

The NORAD proposal is the clearest sign yet that national security officials were worried before 9/11 about terrorists using hijacked airliners as missiles, despite testimony that senior leaders, including National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, didn't know of such concerns.

Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/04/14/pentagon_crash_too_unrealistic/)

Strike 2....

----


The so-called "Phoenix memo," written July 10, 2001, by FBI agent Kenneth Williams, cited supporters of Osama bin Laden "attending civil aviation universities/colleges in Arizona."

The memo apparently never reached the highest levels of the FBI, the CIA or the Justice Department until after September 11.

It states that law enforcement officials began examining questions about Arab students attending U.S. flight schools in April 2000, almost 17 months before the September 11 terrorist attacks. It is under renewed scrutiny amid questions over whether the government missed clues that might have alerted authorities to impending attacks on New York and Washington."

CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/05/21/phoenix.memo/)

Strike 3...

[ChumpDumper]

...the Bush-9/11 faith crowd is incapable of abstract thought...The so-called truther crowd is incapable of saying what they think really happened on 9/11.


either the Bush administration and Rudy 9u11ani acted heroically on and the days and months leading to 9/11 or they didn't...They didn't. The actual day of they did ok. It was a tough time.


Let's examine this premise...No, let's see you post what you think really happened on 9/11.

[Winehole23]

]

strike 1...



Strike 2....



Strike 3...



Just the place for a Snark" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;

Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.

Just the place for a Snark! I have said it
Twice:

That alone should encourage the crew.

Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."


http://books.google.com/books?id=kF4JAAAAQAAJ&dq=hunting+of+the+snark&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA3,M1

[ClingingMars]

"making fun of idiotic 9/11 truthers: so easy, conservatives and liberals can agree on it!"

-Mars

[RandomGuy]

Bump, cause I am gonna need a link to smack poor mouse on the nose again.

[Nbadan]

...7 years later NIST says that WTC7 collapsed caused by events that they themselves ruled out years earlier, but that's good enough for cum dumpster and Randomlie...

:lol

[ChumpDumper]

Highly inaccurate statement, but seven years later it begs the question:

What do you think really happened on 9/11, dan?

[DarrinS]

Highly inaccurate statement, but seven years later it begs the question:

What do you think really happened on 9/11, dan?


Garden gnomes. Just as likely as anything put forward by 911 twoofer idiots.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/7_garden_gnomes.jpg

[Nbadan]

:rolleyes

The NIST Report repeatedly makes claims that amazingly high fire temperatures were extant in the Towers, without any evidence. The Report itself contains evidence contradicting the claims.


Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (p 90/140)

The highest temperatures estimated for the samples was 250 ºC (482 ºF). That's consistent with the results of fire tests in uninsulated steel-framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 ºC (680 ºF). How interesting then, that NIST's sagging truss model has the truss heated to 700 ºC (1292 ºF).


A floor section was modeled to investigate failure modes and sequences of failures under combined gravity and thermal loads. The floor section was heated to 700 ºC (with a linear thermal gradient through the slab thickness from 700 ºC to 300 ºC at the top surface of the slab) over a period of 30 min. Initially the thermal expansion of the floor pushed the columns outward, but with increased temperatures, the floor sagged and the columns were pulled inward. (p 98/148)

...
Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.

The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.


Aside from isolated areas, perhaps protected by surviving gypsum walls, the cooler parts of this upper layer were at about 500 ºC, and in the vicinity of the active fires, the upper layer air temperatures reached 1,000 ºC. The aircraft fragments had broken through the core walls on the 94th through the 97th floors, and temperatures in the upper layers there were similar to those in the tenant spaces. (p 28/78)

Note the absurdity of asserting that the fires in the core were as intense as those in the tenant spaces when the core:

* Had very little fuel
* Was far from any source of fresh air
* Had huge steel columns to wick away the heat
* Does not show evidence of fires in any of the photographs or videos

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/docs/floortemps_f6_36.jpg



Furthermore, NIST's suggestion of extremely high core temperatures is contradicted by its own fire temperature simulations, such as the one illustrated above which show upper-level air temperatures in the core of mostly below 300 ºC.

Real 911 Research (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/)


http://allhatnocattle.net/bush-sheep.jpg
Sheeple

[DarrinS]

:rolleyes

The NIST Report repeatedly makes claims that amazingly high fire temperatures were extant in the Towers, without any evidence. The Report itself contains evidence contradicting the claims.



The highest temperatures estimated for the samples was 250 ºC (482 ºF). That's consistent with the results of fire tests in uninsulated steel-framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 ºC (680 ºF). How interesting then, that NIST's sagging truss model has the truss heated to 700 ºC (1292 ºF).



...
Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.

The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.



Note the absurdity of asserting that the fires in the core were as intense as those in the tenant spaces when the core:

* Had very little fuel
* Was far from any source of fresh air
* Had huge steel columns to wick away the heat
* Does not show evidence of fires in any of the photographs or videos

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/docs/floortemps_f6_36.jpg



Furthermore, NIST's suggestion of extremely high core temperatures is contradicted by its own fire temperature simulations, such as the one illustrated above which show upper-level air temperatures in the core of mostly below 300 ºC.

Real 911 Research (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/)


http://allhatnocattle.net/bush-sheep.jpg
Sheeple



:sleep

[DarrinS]

70NoVPls-gg

[lefty]

Mouse did it !!!

[ChumpDumper]

[Random bullshit to avoid the question he has been asked point blank for three years]What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[ChumpDumper]

Does not show evidence of fires in any of the photographs or videos:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

The bald-faced lies are the best.

[half a man]

Chump is right only half the time.

[Blake]

...7 years later NIST says that WTC7 collapsed caused by events that they themselves ruled out years earlier, but that's good enough for cum dumpster and Randomlie...

:lol

so what was the motive for WTC 7 to come down?

[RandomGuy]

:rolleyes

The NIST Report repeatedly makes claims that amazingly high fire temperatures were extant in the Towers, without any evidence. The Report itself contains evidence contradicting the claims.



The highest temperatures estimated for the samples was 250 ºC (482 ºF). That's consistent with the results of fire tests in uninsulated steel-framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 ºC (680 ºF). How interesting then, that NIST's sagging truss model has the truss heated to 700 ºC (1292 ºF).



...
Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.

The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.



Note the absurdity of asserting that the fires in the core were as intense as those in the tenant spaces when the core:

* Had very little fuel
* Was far from any source of fresh air
* Had huge steel columns to wick away the heat
* Does not show evidence of fires in any of the photographs or videos

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/docs/floortemps_f6_36.jpg



Furthermore, NIST's suggestion of extremely high core temperatures is contradicted by its own fire temperature simulations, such as the one illustrated above which show upper-level air temperatures in the core of mostly below 300 ºC.

Real 911 Research (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/)


http://allhatnocattle.net/bush-sheep.jpg
Sheeple

Did you even read what you copied and pasted?

[RandomGuy]

:rolleyes

The NIST Report repeatedly makes claims that amazingly high fire temperatures were extant in the Towers, without any evidence. The Report itself contains evidence contradicting the claims.).


Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (p 90/140)




The highest temperatures estimated for the samples was 250 ºC (482 ºF)

:lmao

That's just the first paragraph.

[RandomGuy]

:rolleyes

The NIST Report repeatedly makes claims that amazingly high fire temperatures were extant in the Towers, without any evidence. The Report itself contains evidence contradicting the claims.



The highest temperatures estimated for the samples was 250 ºC (482 ºF). That's consistent with the results of fire tests in uninsulated steel-framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 ºC (680 ºF). How interesting then, that NIST's sagging truss model has the truss heated to 700 ºC (1292 ºF).



...
Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.

The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.



Note the absurdity of asserting that the fires in the core were as intense as those in the tenant spaces when the core:

* Had very little fuel
* Was far from any source of fresh air
* Had huge steel columns to wick away the heat
* Does not show evidence of fires in any of the photographs or videos

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/docs/floortemps_f6_36.jpg



Furthermore, NIST's suggestion of extremely high core temperatures is contradicted by its own fire temperature simulations, such as the one illustrated above which show upper-level air temperatures in the core of mostly below 300 ºC.

Real 911 Research (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/)


http://allhatnocattle.net/bush-sheep.jpg
Sheeple

As a steel column is heated, its ability to support gravity loads and resist
lateral loads decreases. At temperatures of about 300 °C, steel loses about
20 percent of its yield strength (Figure 2–9). Under modest loads, steel is
elastic, that is, it can compress, or shorten, but will recover when loads are
removed. As the load increases, the steel becomes plastic, and the
shortening is unrecoverable. At still higher loads, the column buckles. At
temperatures above 500 ºC, the steel weakens, the loss of strength and
stiffness become significant, and the column's ability to carry its share of the
building loads decreases. It shortens due to a combination of plastic
deformation and an additional, time-dependent deformation called creep that can increase column
shortening and hasten buckling. Figure 2–10 indicates the rates at which structural steel could have been
heated by the WTC fires and the effect of the thermal insulation in slowing the heating process.6

[RandomGuy]

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/docs/floortemps_f6_36.jpg

Note this is a simulation of the first 15 minutes of the fire.

The fucktard analysis claims that there was no fuel, but somehow neglects to mention, as the NIST report does, that a good chunk of both aircraft remained in the buildings, and the force of the impact of the planes pushed all the available fuel, office furniture, cabinets, etc, into a big giant pile.

I also kind of fail to see how fucktard analysis can credibly make a claim of no extra input of air into a building with a plane-sized hole in it.

Can you explain that to me Dan?

[RandomGuy]

Seven major factors led to the collapse of WTC 1:
• Structural damage from the aircraft impact;
• Large amount of jet fuel sprayed into the building interior, that ignited widespread fires over
several floors;
• Dislodging of SFRM from structural members due to the aircraft impact, that enabled rapid
heating of the unprotected structural steel;
• Open paths for fire spread resulting from the open plan of the impact floors and the breaking
of partition walls by the impact debris;
• Weakened core columns that increased the load on the perimeter walls;
• Sagging of the south floors, that led to pull-in forces on the perimeter columns; and
• Bowed south perimeter columns that had a reduced capacity to carry loads.

[RandomGuy]

the core:


* Was far from any source of fresh air



The results of the visual analysis included:
• The locations of the broken windows, providing information on the source of air to feed the
fires within.
• Observations of the spread of fires.
• Documentation of the location of exterior damage from the aircraft impact and subsequent
structural changes in the buildings.
• Identification of the presence or absence of significant floor deterioration at the building
perimeter.
• Observations of certain actions by building occupants, such as breaking windows.

[RandomGuy]

The fires were started by ignition of the jet fuel, whose distribution was provided by the aircraft impact
simulations. The radiant energy from these short-lived fires heated the nearby combustibles, creating
flammable vapors. When these mixed with air in the right proportion within a grid cell, FDS burned the
mixture. This generated more energy, which heated the combustibles further, and continued the burning.

Why does all the fucktard 911 analysis assume that the fuel was the only thing flammable in the buildings?

[RandomGuy]

The use of an “average” gas temperature was not a satisfactory means of assessing the thermal
environment on floors this large and would also have led to large errors in the subsequent thermal and
structural analyses. The heat transferred to the structural components was largely by means of thermal
radiation, whose intensity is proportional to the fourth power of the gas temperature. At any given
location, the duration of temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the
calculated temperatures were near 500 °C or below. To put this in perspective, the radiative intensity onto
a truss surrounded by smoke-laden gases at 1,000 °C was approximately 7 times the value for gases at
500 °C.

[ChumpDumper]

Why does all the fucktard 911 analysis assume that the fuel was the only thing flammable in the buildings?C'mon, everyone knows there are no flammable materials in four or five acres of office space.

[RandomGuy]

bump. cause this shit has been done before.

[Nbadan]

C'mon, everyone knows there are no flammable materials in four or five acres of office space.

Gotta be careful with those high-rise paper fires, the building could come crashing down on you! :rolleyes

...GMAB....

[Nbadan]

The fucktard analysis claims that there was no fuel, but somehow neglects to mention, as the NIST report does, that a good chunk of both aircraft remained in the buildings, and the force of the impact of the planes pushed all the available fuel, office furniture, cabinets, etc, into a big giant pile.

...maybe in Tower 2, but even then, that would hardly begin to explain the collapse of the inner trusses that supported the elevator shafts...those must have failed for the buildings to have collapsed at, or near (depending on who you believe), free-fall speed...I'm more inclined to believe that these trusses must have been compromised than to believe in Chumpy's theory of complete core-failure....

[ChumpDumper]

From another thread:
Seriously, if one argues that the fires were not hot enough to weaken the steel to the point that it deformed under load, one has to come up with a plausible explanation why the steel deformed under load.

http://www.geocities.com/representativepress/WTCONE1023.jpg

The numbers in and around the red circle represent the amount in inches that the perimeter columns have deformed by 10:23 AM. They claim to be accurate within 6 inches -- so someone tell me what else other than heat could have deformed the steel in the floors, causing them to sag and pull in the perimeter columns, deforming them to the extent, 40 or 50 inches, clearly shown in this picture.

More pictures and text here: http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.htmldan, since you don't believe the heat of the fire caused the steel to progressively deform over time, please tell us what you personally think caused the steel to progressively deform over time while being exposed to the heat of the fire.

Be specific.

[ChumpDumper]

...maybe in Tower 2, but even then, that would hardly begin to explain the collapse of the inner trusses that supported the elevator shafts...those must have failed for the buildings to have collapsed at, or near (depending on who you believe), free-fall speed...I'm more inclined to believe that these trusses must have been compromised than to believe in Chumpy's theory of complete core-failure....How could there be complete core failure when 60+ stories of core sections remained standing after the initial collapse?

You have no arguments for yourself and you don't understand anyone else's.

Bravo.

[Nbadan]

The numbers in and around the red circle represent the amount in inches that the perimeter columns have deformed by 10:23 AM. They claim to be accurate within 6 inches -- so someone tell me what else other than heat could have deformed the steel in the floors, causing them to sag and pull in the perimeter columns, deforming them to the extent, 40 or 50 inches, clearly shown in this picture.

There is no way to tell if that specific floor was structurally compromised by the impact...I don't know anyone here who is claiming that some floors, especially those in or near the impact point did not fail....

[Nbadan]

How could there be complete core failure when 60+ stories of core sections remained standing after the initial collapse?

:rolleyes

...that was hardly standing....

[ChumpDumper]

There is no way to tell if that specific floor was structurally compromised by the impact...This was almost an hour and a half after the impact, and it was getting worse over time.
I don't know anyone here who is claiming that some floors, especially those in or near the impact point did not fail....These floors had not failed at this point -- they are still attached to the perimeter columns and pulling them in, causing the deformation.

You say that the heat could not have caused this -- so what are you saying did cause this?

Be specific.

[ChumpDumper]

:rolleyes

...that was hardly standing....Now you are saying they weren't standing.

Seriously dan, personal incredulity isn't cutting it here -- come up with an actual plausible alternative explanation for these events and we'll listen.

You have never done that in all these years -- why is that?

[Nbadan]

This was almost an hour and a half after the impact, and it was getting worse over time.

So what's it gonna be? either there was a great deal of debris, as thus a great deal of compromise because of weight and structural damage, or there wasn't...you can't have it both ways...

[Nbadan]

ou say that the heat could not have caused this -- so what are you saying did cause this?

..collapse of those specific floors...

[Nbadan]

Now you are saying they weren't standing.

Seriously dan, personal incredulity isn't cutting it here -- come up with an actual plausible alternative explanation for these events and we'll listen.

You have never done that in all these years -- why is that?

Not in the way they should have remained standing....this isn't personal... I may be the one posting these questions on this forum but its not like they aren't being asked in other forums...

[ChumpDumper]

So what's it gonna be? either there was a great deal of debris, as thus a great deal of compromise because of weight and structural damage, or there wasn't...you can't have it both ways...dan, read slowly or get someone to read it for you:

The floors here were still attached.

There is nothing else that could have pulled in the perimeter columns in such a manner.

If you have an alternative cause that could pull in the perimeter columns at the points where the floors were attached, please explain it to us in full.

[Nbadan]

If you have an alternative cause that could pull in the perimeter columns at the points where the floors were attached, please explain it to us in full.

So what your saying is that the building toppled over like a tree? Hmmm...must have missed that part..

[ChumpDumper]

Not in the way they should have remained standing.Explain to us all exactly how they should have remained standing. Be specific and give more reasoning than "I think that's how it should have looked."


...this isn't personal... I may be the one posting these questions on this forum but its not like they aren't being asked in other forums...This isn't personal -- you are not answering any questions that are asked of you.

[ChumpDumper]

So what your saying is that the building toppled over like a tree? Hmmm...must have missed that part..It started to, then gravity pulled it straight down.

That's how gravity works.

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/site1049.jpg
You did miss that part.

You continue to miss that part.

And many others.

So often that one can only conclude your continued ignorance is willful and disingenuous.

[Blake]

so why did anyone want wtc7 to come down?

[DarrinS]

so why did anyone want wtc7 to come down?


Because, as Americans, we wouldn't be outraged enough by terrorist attacks on the north tower, the south tower, and the Pentagon. But fuck with WTC7 and that's the final straw.

[911]

so why did anyone want wtc7 to come down?

The C.I.A.'s undercover New York station was in the 47-story building at 7 World Trade Center, one of the smaller office towers destroyed in the aftermath of the collapse of the twin towers that morning. All of the agency's employees at the site were safely evacuated soon after the hijacked planes hit the twin towers, the officials said.





The recovery of secret documents and other records from the New York station should follow well-rehearsed procedures laid out by the agency after the Iranian takeover of the United States Embassy in Tehran in 1979. The revolutionaries took over the embassy so rapidly that the C.I.A. station was not able to effectively destroy all of its documents, and the Iranians were later able to piece together shredded agency reports. Since that disaster, the agency has emphasized rigorous training and drills among its employees on how to quickly and effectively destroy and dispose of important documents in emergencies.

[ChumpDumper]

How could it be an undercover station if they were listed tenants of the building?

[911]

You can ask all kinds of questions, post all kinds of links, and you can make point after point, but there is nothing you can say or link me to that will explain why a second plane hit the WTC w/o a fighter jet in the area.
To me that stinks like a cover up and if you don't agree then your not after the truth you just want to spare with someone.

[ChumpDumper]

You can ask all kinds of questions, post all kinds of links, and you can make point after point, but there is nothing you can say or link me to that will explain why a second plane hit the WTC w/o a fighter jet in the areaThere was a huge delay in alerting the military because communication between the military and civilian aviation was pretty clunky back then. They didn't know where to go, partially because the military uses a different positioning system. When they did go, the ones closest to New York were sent over the ocean because no one knew from where the threat was coming.


To me that stinks like a cover up and if you don't agree then your not after the truth you just want to spare with someone.You've just proven you didn't look into answering your own questions.

Again.

You should really take a look at the links provided at the beginning of the thread. If you are really serious about finding answers, that is.

[Blake]

You can ask all kinds of questions, post all kinds of links, and you can make point after point, but there is nothing you can say or link me to that will explain why a second plane hit the WTC w/o a fighter jet in the area.
To me that stinks like a cover up and if you don't agree then your not after the truth you just want to spare with someone.

you can dodge all kinds of questions, posts all kinds of youtube videos and you can dismiss valid point after point, but there is nothing you can say or link that has or will ever explain why the bad guys wanted WTC 7 to come down.

What exactly does the CIA having an office there prove?

[RandomGuy]

You can ask all kinds of questions, post all kinds of links, and you can make point after point, but there is nothing you can say or link me to that will explain why a second plane hit the WTC w/o a fighter jet in the area.

How many planes were purposefully crashed into buildings by terrorists in the USA before 9-11?

[Nbadan]

How many planes were purposefully crashed into buildings by terrorists in the USA before 9-11?

It was an extra-ordinary day, that for sure, so lets not add to that day's uniqueness with wild stories about fires bringing down a steel structure....

[RandomGuy]

It was an extra-ordinary day, that for sure, so lets not add to that day's uniqueness with wild stories about fires and impact damage from 180 ton objects moving at 500 miles per hour bringing down a steel structure....

Fixed.

Unless of course you were talking about WTC7.


It was an extra-ordinary day, that for sure, so lets not add to that day's uniqueness with wild stories about fires that raged uncontrolled for hours and impact damage from other buildings falling on top of them bringing down a steel structure....

Just to cover the bases. Why does the "truther" crap only stand up if if half the truth left out, Dan?

[PandaSpur.]

How many planes were purposefully crashed into buildings by terrorists in the USA before 9-11?

They never got the chance.

HPFhiafftCk

[911]

How many planes were purposefully crashed into buildings by terrorists in the USA before 9-11?

How many Nuclear missiles have been shot at our nation? Does that mean you don't protect the country. What does one have to do with the other? I guess you should not wear seat belts if you have never crashed a car?

Oh wait I see your point! Now that 9/11 resulted in two huge towers coming down due to planes flying off course now we can start a safety measure?

Your going to have to raise the bar if you want me to continue with this one sided debate.

[ChumpDumper]

How many Nuclear missiles have been shot at our nation? Does that mean you don't protect the country. What does one have to do with the other? I guess you should not wear seat belts if you have never crashed a car?Seat belts were not standard in cars until the 1960s.


Oh wait I see your point! Now that 9/11 resulted in two huge towers coming down due to planes flying off course now we can start a safety measure?So now you know what the 9/11 Commission was for. Congratulations.


Your going to have to raise the bar if you want me to continue with this one sided debate.You're going to have to say what you think really happened on 9/11 to actually have a side in any debate.

[RandomGuy]

They never got the chance.

HPFhiafftCk

There is a vast difference between intercepting drug smugglers, and dogging a full passenger airliner with weapons hot.

[RandomGuy]

They never got the chance.

HPFhiafftCk

In other words, the answer is:

Zero.

No passenger jets were ever hi-jacked and slammed into buildings in the USA before 9-11

Now I understand that not everybody is old enough to remember what the world was like before 9-11-01, but terrorism wasn't considered much of a problem by the general public before then.

A minor problem yes, but not anywhere near the priority it was after. People had been screaming for better airport security for decades, and the public just wasn't willing to put up with the hassle.

To think that it was unusual for the jets not to have been intercepted as if a post 9-11 mindset was pervasive, are kidding themselves as to how the military dealt with such things.

[The Power Hour.]

There is a vast difference between intercepting drug smugglers, and dogging a full passenger airliner with weapons hot.

Your are the spin master!


SFAmuZDPXgI

[RandomGuy]

Your are the spin master!


SFAmuZDPXgI

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=323

[Nbadan]

that raged uncontrolled for hours and impact damage from other buildings falling on top of them

...NIST ruled out structural failure due to damage in its preliminary report, do you know more than NIST does? and the manner of collapse is inconsistent with collapse due to fire...if the building did collapse due to fire its more likely to collapse in sections not completely at once....the manner of collapse is more consistent with a complete collapse of the inner support core.....similar to WTC1 and WTC2...

[Nbadan]

....explosions?


972ETepp4GI

...

[Blake]

...NIST ruled out structural failure due to damage in its preliminary report, do you know more than NIST does?

the NIST has not changed it's stance that there were no sign of any explosives.

do you know more than NIST does?

[Nbadan]

...the NIST has not changed it's stance that there were no sign of any explosives.

...considering it took them the better part of 6 years to declare that fire brought down WTC7, I wouldn't trust NIST as a good source for the weather...

[ChumpDumper]

if the building did collapse due to fire its more likely to collapse in sectionsThat's great because it did collapse in sections.

1bjrAJVp4ds

I know that part of the collapse is always left out of twoofer videos, so you probably never saw it.

[ChumpDumper]

...considering it took them the better part of 6 years to declare that fire brought down WTC7, I wouldn't trust NIST as a good source for the weather...And whom should we trust? Someone who lied about their taking six years to determine what happened to WTC7?

It was three years, they were busy with the report on the twin towers. You know, the ones where people actually died.

[Galileo]

Best 9/11 Movies

9/11: Press For Truth

by the Jersey Girls

Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime

John Albanese

Loose Change 2nd Edition Recut

by Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, and Korey Rowe

Loose Change Final Cut

by Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, and Korey Rowe

Zeitgeist

[warning - contains controversial material]

http://www.barrettforcongress.us/libertarian.htm#9/11_Movies

[Nbadan]

...they were busy...

....lame....

...whatever...there needs to be a independent investigation by the best scientific minds in the world while there is still some physical evidence not lost or destroyed.....

[ChumpDumper]

....lame....You're saying they weren't? Everyone who isn't an idiot already knew some combination of structural damage and fire brought down WTC7.


...whatever...there needs to be a independent investigation by the best scientific minds in the world while there is still some physical evidence not lost or destroyed.........lame....

There isn't even one alternative theory that even passes a smell test. You yourself are afraid to post whatever half-assed theory you might have since you know it will be ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.

There will be no independent investigation by the best scientific minds because the best scientific minds know the issues have been answered to their satisfaction. All that's left are kooks and idiots -- you know, the kind of guys who write papers about the archaeological evidence of Jesus in the American continents.

And you.

[Blake]

...considering it took them the better part of 6 years to declare that fire brought down WTC7, I wouldn't trust NIST as a good source for the weather...

...considering the National Institue of Standards and Technology doeesn't really have much to do directly with weather forecasts, I don't trust them as a good source for the weather...

...considering it's been more than 7 years and there is still a lack of evidence concerning explosives, I don't trust you as a good source of 9/11 information...

[ChumpDumper]

....explosions?No.

Seriously, why would there need to be explosions 40 floors up when the main support trusses around the fifth floor had already failed and the buillding was already collapsing?

[911]

Do the math!

Collapsed buildings


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/e2465.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/building-collapse.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/collapsed_building4.jpg


http://s125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/?action=view&current=wtc-photo-cropped.jpg

WTC buildings.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/wtc-photo-cropped.jpg









Do the math!

[ChumpDumper]

You just proved the WTC buildings weren't brought down by an earthquake.

:tu

[Galileo]

Dr. Stevens Jones is the Next Galileo

Traces of explosives in 9/11 dust, scientists say

By Elaine Jarvik

April 6, 2009

Deseret News

Tiny red and gray chips found in the dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center contain highly explosive materials -- proof, according to a former BYU professor, that 9/11 is still a sinister mystery.

Physicist Steven E. Jones, who retired from Brigham Young University in 2006 after the school recoiled from the controversy surrounding his 9/11 theories, is one of nine authors on a paper published last week in the online, peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal. Also listed as authors are BYU physics professor Jeffrey Farrer and a professor of nanochemistry at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.

For several years, Jones has theorized that pre-positioned explosives, not fires from jet fuel, caused the rapid, symmetrical collapse of the two World Trade Center buildings, plus the collapse of a third building, WTC-7.

The newest research, according to the journal authors, shows that dust from the collapsing towers contained a "nano-thermite" material that is highly explosive. Although the article draws no conclusions about the source and purpose of the explosives, Jones has previously supported a theory that the collapse of the WTC towers was part of a government conspiracy to ignore warnings about the 9/11 terrorists so that the attack would propel America to wage war against Afghanistan and Iraq.

The next step, Jones said in a phone interview on Monday, is for someone to investigate "who made the stuff and why it was there."

A layer of dust lay over parts of Manhattan immediately following the collapse of the towers, and it was samples of this dust that Jones and fellow researchers requested in a 2006 paper, hoping to determine "the whole truth of the events of that day." They eventually tested four samples they received from New Yorkers.

One sample was from a man who had swept up a handful of dust on the Brooklyn Bridge, where he was walking when the second tower fell. As the journal authors note, "It was, therefore, definitely not contaminated by the steel-cutting or clean-up operations at Ground Zero, which began later. Furthermore, it is not mixed with dust from WTC-7, which fell hours later."

Another man collected dust in his apartment, about five blocks from the World Trade Center, on the morning of Sept. 12. There was a layer about an inch thick on a stack of folded laundry near an open window.

Red/gray chips, averaging in size between .2 and 3 mm, were found in all four dust samples. The chips were then analyzed using scanning electron microscopy and other high-tech tools.

The red layer of the chips, according to the researchers, contains a "highly energetic" form of thermite. While normal thermite (a mixture of finely granulated aluminum and an oxide of metal) can be incendiary, "super thermite" is explosive. He says there is no benign explanation for the thermite in the WTC dust.

Jones made headlines in 2005 when he argued that the rapid and symmetrical fall of the World Trade Center looked like the result of pre-positioned explosives. He argued that fires alone wouldn't have been hot enough to crumble the buildings; and that even if struck by planes, the towers should have been strong enough to support the weight of the tops as they crumbled -- unless they were leveled by explosives.

Essentially forced to retire, Jones says he is now paying for research out of his own pocket.

He likens himself to Galileo and Newton, who stood by their consciences. "I would like to think I could stand up for the truth," he says.

The dust study vindicates his earlier theories, Jones says, but he has mixed feelings about the implications. "As a young student said to me a while back: 'It's exciting from a scientific point of view, because things are now making sense. But I feel sad for my country.'?"

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/0,5143,705295677,00.html

[ChumpDumper]

the online, peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics JournalThe peers review the writers' check to see if it clears. If it does, they publish the paper.

[Blake]

were Galileo and Newton also members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

[Blake]

why are the "9-11 truth experts" always experts in fields that have very little to do with engineering?

[ChumpDumper]

From my cursory reading on this, it seems the twoofers have discovered the presence of red paint in the twin towers.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/Separated-At-Birth.jpg

[Galileo]

were Galileo and Newton also members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

Not Galileo, but Newton was a unitarian who believed that the prophecies of Daniel and the prophecies of Revelation could be quantified.

[Wild Cobra]

What's funny, is a Toofer would be able to find thermite in every General Motors 3rd generation LS series aluminum engine. I'd like their theory of why GM is making Termite engines!

[Blake]

Not Galileo, but Newton was a unitarian who believed that the prophecies of Daniel and the prophecies of Revelation could be quantified.

it was more of a smartass rhetorical question

[RandomGuy]

Seriously though.

Read the whole paper.

The authors attribute the dust to "super-thermite" or "nano-thermite", that is thermite that has been powderized or put into a gel-suspension. The supposition is that such a material was sprayed all over the building.

The FAIL is that the authors have taken a fairly quiet exothermic reaction, and then shoehorned their data to change normal thermite into a conventional explosive.

One of the graphs in the paper indicates that the amount of energy in the chips they examined had more energy per gram than HMX, a commercially available high-explosive.

So we are left with:


Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.


The 9-11 guys have taken the first steps towards using some actual science.

Honest skeptical questions:

Did the study consider alternate means of formation of the redish chips they studied, and compared those alternate means of formation to what was observed?

The confounding thing about their theory is that the formation of thermitic compounds in an aluminum and steel builiding during a conventional fire would be expected.

To be able to conclusively prove their theory, they would have to show that the chips they observed could NOT have been formed by other means, and MUST have been ONLY formed by unexploded "nano-thermite".

There is no evidence that this normal control-type examination was done. That makes it bad science, as I am sure someone else will point out.

Lastly, the problem remains for the "explosive" theory:

Since this paper posits really energetic explosives being used, this implies debris speeds in the range of thousands of feet per second.

Why was glass and small debris not scattered for miles around?
--The towers' upper floors were high enough off of the ground for the glass and small debris on those floors to have been propelled upwards of 2+ miles. Give me ONE instance of such debris hitting any one of the millions of people within that radius who came out to watch.

If this really was "massively energetic" explosives, why was this not clearly heard for tens of miles?
--I was within two blocks of a VERY small building demolition, and it was deafening, and extremely distinct. If two 100+ story buildings were demolished it would have to have been MUCH louder.


I do give you guys kudos for actually trying the science route, even if the paper had its flaws that were rather obvious in a quick reading.

[RandomGuy]

thermite
noun
(chemistry) a mixture of aluminium metal and ferric oxide; used in incendiary devices

So let me see if I get this right:

A building made out of aluminum and iron collapses, and the geniuses in the 9-11 movment find aluminum and iron dust in the debris?

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

(Begin EDIT)
FOR THOSE OF YOU READING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME, SEE PAGES 3 AND 4 for the NIST FAQ that answers the biggest "truther" questions.(end EDIT)

Since the 9-11 CTers like to copy and paste ad inifinitum, let's see if we can get some good stuff here.

It might surprise you CTers but there is a whole cottage industry built up around your bullshit.

They don't sell T-shirts, mugs, or crappy videos.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Here is a gem: The 9-11 "truthers" in their own "like, words". Icky.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7216643725166640147&hl=en

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

http://wtc.nist.gov/

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://www.911myths.com/

Best one out of all the lot so far:
http://www.debunking911.com/

Mike Walter talking about the plane hitting the pentagon, and how irritated he is with the 9-11 "truth" movement for lying about what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPUDktZpCU

Link to a TON of debunking links:
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

Here ARE SOME REALLY PRECIOUS LINKS.

9-11 "truth" scholars turning on each other. You thought they were unstable and kooky when they talk about the government, wait until they start talking about each other.

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


A whole page of youtube debunking videos (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=RKOwens4&p=r)

A whole page of decent debunking links and one of the best ones so far. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)

ba-da-bing

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

[RandomGuy]

Confessions of an ex-truther (http://extruther.blogspot.com/2007/10/truthers-strike-back.html)

The ranting and raving of someone who wasted a year of his life being sucked into the lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Monday, October 22, 2007
Truthers Strike Back!
Or I guess this should be called "The Trutherix" or "T for Truther," since those movies fit better for their worldview. I found it interesting that those in support of my blog were complimenting me with the likes of, "Welcome back from the dark side, Anakin," while the truthers were attempting to confine me to their fantasy world with, "Once you take the red pill, THEREZ NO GONE BACK!!1!" But I digress...

I was bored the other day and started bashing truthers on Blogger, and my words seem to have incited one truther to respond to my post... or well, snippets from various posts in no particular order, but more on that later.



1) The identities are in doubt, yet the government refused to correct them, or to admit they were unsure.

People whose photos appeared as the FBI's hijackers turned up alive. This is very strange.



Most "truthers" agree they existed, at least some number of them anyway. The "turning up alive" reports aren't all "debunked." Some had their identities stolen. So they actually were alive, so who was it that was supposed to be on the plane?

The other difficult part about the "hijackers" is that NONE OF THEM WERE RELIGIOUS. Why kill yourself "for Islam" if you're not even religious, and you ignore all your religious customs and dictates?

And yet another difficult problem about the hijackers is the drug smuggling that Daniel Hopsicker reported on at Huffman Aviation. Hopsicker ties Huffman aircraft back to the CIA, and to other aircraft used smuggling narcotics that met up with truncated flight plans in Mexico.

Yeah, and all your "proof" involves one or two articles that came out in the weeks immediately after the attacks. Turns out the name Mohammed and various surnames are pretty common in the Muslim world? Identities stolen? Ha, show me your "proof."

Same goes for your "explosive evidence" that they weren't religious. The only link you do provide is for this Hopsicker guy, who has nothing to do with the topic at hand. And your link doesn't even go to a direct post, but rather the main page of what looks to be another truther website. So much for your "research" and "evidence."



Well, I certainly believe all those eye witnesses talking about "explosions", "bombs in the buildings", "secondary devices" and other euphamisms. See this video:

Eyewitness & Media Accounts Of Bombs At The WTC on 9/11.

Why would all those people lie? Or, conversely, what exploded? (There was no natural gas in the towers.)

Most of your "witnesses" had their quotes taken out of context and completely misrepresented to fit your little theory. What about all the witnesses who claim these quotes were taken out of context? And even if witnesses do stick by the fact they heard explosions, so be it. Sure, someone can hear what they think is an explosion, but does that prove it to be so?

What exploded? Perhaps your ADHD is at it again, and you forgot that a commercial jetliner crashed through the building at 500 miles an hour! What about the raging inferno, caused by the jet fuel, which fell down the elevator shaft? Could it be that blazing elevator cars were falling from 1,000 feet and made a loud boom sound? I guess that wouldn't fit your little theory, so like every other fact in the world, its ignored.


"[Silverstein] got paid. It probably went into his company, for which he is a major shareholder. What's the point of that one?"

I love you truthers. Again, you take a quote out of context and make it seem like the point I'm arguing is that Larry got all the money for himself. OF COURSE, the payout went to his company... you know, to REBUILD. But again, you leave that point out. Again, in perhaps a language you can understand, SILVERSTEIN LOST MON$$$$EY ON THE DEALIOLOLOLOL!1!1!



As for BBC, they covered it up for five years, remember. Then they pretended they never knew about it (lie), which is impossible because as soon as their transmission mysteriously was cut over the satellite, the real building 7 went down in a blaze of glory. This was noticed immediately by BBC's reporter. They then -- when finally confronted over it -- said "We're not part of the conspiracy" in addition to claiming they lost the tapes (so they wouldn't have to apologize for it on the air). I do not trust the BBC. They doth protest too much.


They didn't cover anything up for 5 years. This video only surfaced among truthers this past February. You guys are so desperate to cherrypick and find any "evidence," that it seems like you searched the archives for months and found something you could come up with an elaborate explanation for.

Perhaps it was just the fact that it was fucking 9/11 and utter chaos in newsrooms throughout the world. You know, occam's razor-- the reporter was human and made a mistake in the confusion of the day? Could you identify Building 7 before you became a truther? If anything, the BBC report just confirms the fact that it was popular belief that the building was obviously unstable and in danger of coming down.



Dr. Steven Jones certainly has not ignored science or logic.

Dr. Jones' hard evidence of microscopic "steel spherules" in the dust of the WTC event is powerful stuff. Spheres like that could only have been formed in a molten state. They are corroborated by a US Geological Survey report.

Too bad Jones is a physicist, and not a structural engineer. You also mentioned Kevin Ryan, but I won't even quote that because he's just a lowly water tester. If Jones' work is 100% scientific, why won't any other structural engineer in the world back up his claims and, you know, peer-review his findings?

Yes, and the spheres... Wow, they're both round! Groundbreaking stuff. Molten state? Yeah, there were molten metals, but that doesn't mean it was molten steel. Planes are made of aluminum, you know.



As for demolition, there are strong grounds for suspecting it, including Griffin's "10 features" of controlled demolition. Couple that with the inverse, that these 10 features have NEVER been seen in any case other than a controlled demolition, never in history. That is at least enough to make it possible, if not proven.


Yes, but Griffin's 10 features all take place in the wrong order and over 90 minutes. The aspects all occur within a few seconds during a CD. Already brought it up here, but I guess you didn't read my blog as thoroughly as you thought.

And just because something is probable does not make it proven. You and Mike Ruppert would make good friends. Maybe you didn't know that, and that's why you're still wrapped up in all these conspiracy theories.


Danny Jowenko, who owns a controlled demolition company, looked at WTC7 and said, "This is controlled demolition." "It's been imploded." "A team of experts did this."

Is this the Dutch guy who watched it on TV? What about all the experts who actually had pieces of debris to analyze? What about every American engineer who has seen the collapse in the proper context who disagrees with you?

Alright, I'm getting tired of this...



You really do ramble around mentally.


Yes, as you cherrypick random quotes from different blog entries and post them in a rambling style all your own. Responding to your post has been extremely tedious, and I have a finance exam to study for. Because, you know, some of us have lives of our own and the ambition to excel(and not just panic about doomsday). You, my friend, are stuck in a lost cause.



So make your own pamphlet. Why is this such a difficult solution for you to come up with? Make your own movie. You already made your own blog. It doesn't enlighten, however.


You forget that I'm co-founder of 9/11 Truth UAlbany, the first 9/11 truth campus group to be officially recognized and funded by the university. What are your credentials?



How many anomalies do I need to type (yet again) to make this clear?

This is exactly my problem with the "truth" movement. You guys pile on so much BS like all the long-debunked claims in this very response and add it in with one or two legitimate facts like "bin Laden is not wanted for 9/11" and you think your case is astronomical. If it was, it'd be brought to trial right now by one of the victims. You guys can't even agree on anything within your movement! Unfortunately your theories are unfounded, your experts are nowhere to be found, and all that's left is a group of un-American narcissistic kooks who can agree on nothing but the "fact" that the government did it.
Posted by MikeyMetz at 4:23 PM

[Wild Cobra]

So let me see if I get this right:

A building made out of aluminum and iron collapses, and the geniuses in the 9-11 movment find aluminum and iron dust in the debris?

:lmao
That's the gist of it. That's why in the other thread in my first post (#11):

Yep, show how really dumb these conspiracy theorists really are.

Lets see... Iron oxide is rust... Doesn't steel rust under one of several conditions, including being expose to oxygen and heat.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was a steel building. I guess these guys think it was made of titanium.

What is the primary metal that airplanes are made of? Isn't it aluminum?

Apparently, the likes of Galileo don't know these elemental truths.
Post #12:

Don't you get it?

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would expect iron oxide and aluminum to be found together in the aftermath. It's expected when you combime aluminum, steel, and heat!

Absolutely ZERO proof of thermite.

[RandomGuy]

That's the gist of it. That's why in the other thread in my first post (#11):

Post #12:

My real problem with the "peer reviewed" paper was that they didn't even try to consider/eliminate other potential sources of "thermite".

Real science does that when making assertions of fact.

[RandomGuy]

(Begin EDIT)
FOR THOSE OF YOU READING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME, SEE PAGES 3 AND 4 for the NIST FAQ that answers the biggest "truther" questions.(end EDIT)

Since the 9-11 CTers like to copy and paste ad inifinitum, let's see if we can get some good stuff here.

It might surprise you CTers but there is a whole cottage industry built up around your bullshit.

They don't sell T-shirts, mugs, or crappy videos.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Here is a gem: The 9-11 "truthers" in their own "like, words". Icky.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7216643725166640147&hl=en

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

http://wtc.nist.gov/

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://www.911myths.com/

Best one out of all the lot so far:
http://www.debunking911.com/

Mike Walter talking about the plane hitting the pentagon, and how irritated he is with the 9-11 "truth" movement for lying about what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPUDktZpCU

Link to a TON of debunking links:
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

Here ARE SOME REALLY PRECIOUS LINKS.

9-11 "truth" scholars turning on each other. You thought they were unstable and kooky when they talk about the government, wait until they start talking about each other.

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


A whole page of youtube debunking videos (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=RKOwens4&p=r)

A whole page of decent debunking links and one of the best ones so far. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)

Just because this needs to be on every page of this thread...

[Blake]

pfftt.....is that all you got RG?

I think today is a win for the truthers!

[Wild Cobra]

pfftt.....is that all you got RG?

I think today is a win for the truthers!
How can it be a win? Most of us are simply tired of debating the same shit over and over.

I agree that they win in the area of stamina of repeating propaganda. They seem to never get tired.

[Blake]

How can it be a win? Most of us are simply tired of debating the same shit over and over.


RG is just posting things that Obama's fascist government wants you to hear.

...and now the truthers have found thermite at the scene.

game. set. match. victory for the truthers.

[Wild Cobra]

RG is just posting things that Obama's fascist government wants you to hear.

...and now the truthers have found thermite at the scene.

game. set. match. victory for the truthers.
But they didn't find thermite. They found iron oxide and aluminum. I would be shocked if they didn't find any considering all the iron and aluminum at the scene.

Wouldn't you?

[Blake]

But they didn't find thermite. They found iron oxide and aluminum. I would be shocked if they didn't find any considering all the iron and aluminum at the scene.

Wouldn't you?

no, very clearly there is a thread started that says "active thermitic dust found"

you're quick on the uptake.

[Wild Cobra]

Blake...

I'd like you to do an experiment.

Take a block of rusted steel and a block of aluminum. Rub them together and see what you get. Look at the residue with a microscope.

[ss1986v2]

no, very clearly there is a thread started that says "active thermitic dust found"

you're quick on the uptake.

thermite dust = iron oxide and aluminum. thats it.

[Blake]

Blake...

I'd like you to do an experiment.

Take a block of rusted steel and a block of aluminum. Rub them together and see what you get. Look at the residue with a microscope.

Do they sell blocks of rusted steel and aluminum at home depot?

[Blake]

thermite dust = iron oxide and aluminum. thats it.

right. active thermite dust that is highly explosive.

= bomb

[Nbadan]

...Instead of debunking real 9/11 questions RG sinks to debunking conspiracy theorists.....precious...

[Blake]

...Instead of debunking real 9/11 questions RG sinks to debunking conspiracy theorists.....precious...

what's your 9/11 question?

[Nbadan]

...rambling by RG..


And even if witnesses do stick by the fact they heard explosions, so be it. Sure, someone can hear what they think is an explosion, but does that prove it to be so?

Barry Jennings reiterated in the exclusive interview his confusion over the explanation for WTC7’s collapse– given that he clearly heard explosions inside the building:


“I’m just confused about one thing, and one thing only– why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place. I’m very confused about that. I know what I heard– I heard explosions. The explanation I got was it was the fuel-oil tank. I’m an old boiler guy– if it was a fuel-oil tank, it would have been one side of the building.”

That interview was not released until June 2008 at the request of Mr. Jennings, who had received numerous threats to his job and asked that it be left out of Loose Change: Final Cut because of those threats.

- Bruce Jennings


kRaKHq2dfCI

The 9/11 Commission was blocked in so many ways via "National Security" and other obstructive measures so many times that the DOJ was nearly sued for obstruction of justice. The Commission was a fraud; the NTSB took at least 2-4 years to conduct an investigation. the 911 Commission? Less than 1....

Compare that to Shyam Sunder, WTC/NIST lead investigator...


prvJDDST3DI

This guy is such as poor liar I'd love to get him on a Texas Hold-um table...

[Nbadan]

There you have it......NIST picked a theory that they hope most people will believe and accept as a ‘probable’ … ....it sounds good…it must be the truth!

:rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

Do they sell blocks of rusted steel and aluminum at home depot?
Hell, just find some rusted steel and an aluminum can. Maybe put some steel in the fireplace for a bit if you have one.

Why are you being so difficult? Afraid I'm right?

[Nbadan]

Hell, just find some rusted steel and an aluminum can. Maybe put some steel in the fireplace for a bit if you have one.

Why are you being so difficult? Afraid I'm right?

I think Blake was posting tongue-in-cheek

[Nbadan]

How bad was the obstruction of the 1-year 9/11 investigation?


Some members of the 9/11 Commission have criticized how the government formed and operated the commission, and allege omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission Report.[33][34][35] Commission co-chairs Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton wrote in their book "Without Precedent" that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail," and in an interview with CBC News, Mr. Hamilton complained of "poor access" and said that the Commission was unable to answer many of its questions about FAA and NORAD and White House activity. [36] He also acknowledged that NORAD had told the Commission things that were not true. [37] According to an article in Harpers, the Commissioners wrote that they threatened to seek prosecution of officials for criminal obstruction. [38]

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories)

If the Bush junta had nothing to hide why all the obstruction?

[Marcus Bryant]

If I had to pick a likely cover-up by the Feds, I'd go with the TWA flight that crashed off Long Island in the mid 90s. Of course there's plenty of mental masturbation required to find a conspiracy there too.

[Nbadan]

...that's not a bad one...I'd pick UFOs...

[Blake]

There you have it......NIST picked a theory that they hope most people will believe and accept as a ‘probable’ … ....it sounds good…it must be the truth!

:rolleyes

so instead of asking a real 9/11 question, you sink to debunking RG.

[Nbadan]

so instead of asking a real 9/11 question, you sink to debunking RG.

...your right...that's like picking on the gimpy kid....

[Blake]

...rambling by RG..


...rambling by dan..



Barry Jennings reiterated in the exclusive interview his confusion over the explanation for WTC7’s collapse– given that he clearly heard explosions inside the building:

did he clearly see explosives? a lot of things sound like explosions.

why did they need WTC7 to collapse?


The 9/11 Commission was blocked in so many ways via "National Security" and other obstructive measures so many times that the DOJ was nearly sued for obstruction of justice. The Commission was a fraud; the NTSB took at least 2-4 years to conduct an investigation. the 911 Commission? Less than 1....


NIST? around 6



Compare that to Shyam Sunder, WTC/NIST lead investigator...

This guy is such as poor liar I'd love to get him on a Texas Hold-um table...

what did he lie about?

[Blake]

...your right...that's like picking on the gimpy kid....

do you get owned by gimpy kids a lot?

[Blake]

...that's not a bad one...I'd pick UFOs...

what a shock.

yes, that was tongue in cheek.

[Nbadan]

...

:sleep

...

[Blake]

...

:sleep

...

so what was your real 9/11 question?

still waiting....

:sleep

[Nbadan]

....who made you Chumpy's bitch?

[Suns Fan]

Confessions of an ex-truther (http://extruther.blogspot.com/2007/10/truthers-strike-back.html)

The ranting and raving of someone who wasted a year of his life being sucked into the lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Monday, October 22, 2007
Truthers Strike Back!
Or I guess this should be called "The Trutherix" or "T for Truther," since those movies fit better for their worldview. I found it interesting that those in support of my blog were complimenting me with the likes of, "Welcome back from the dark side, Anakin," while the truthers were attempting to confine me to their fantasy world with, "Once you take the red pill, THEREZ NO GONE BACK!!1!" But I digress...

I was bored the other day and started bashing truthers on Blogger, and my words seem to have incited one truther to respond to my post... or well, snippets from various posts in no particular order, but more on that later.




Yeah, and all your "proof" involves one or two articles that came out in the weeks immediately after the attacks. Turns out the name Mohammed and various surnames are pretty common in the Muslim world? Identities stolen? Ha, show me your "proof."

Same goes for your "explosive evidence" that they weren't religious. The only link you do provide is for this Hopsicker guy, who has nothing to do with the topic at hand. And your link doesn't even go to a direct post, but rather the main page of what looks to be another truther website. So much for your "research" and "evidence."




Most of your "witnesses" had their quotes taken out of context and completely misrepresented to fit your little theory. What about all the witnesses who claim these quotes were taken out of context? And even if witnesses do stick by the fact they heard explosions, so be it. Sure, someone can hear what they think is an explosion, but does that prove it to be so?

What exploded? Perhaps your ADHD is at it again, and you forgot that a commercial jetliner crashed through the building at 500 miles an hour! What about the raging inferno, caused by the jet fuel, which fell down the elevator shaft? Could it be that blazing elevator cars were falling from 1,000 feet and made a loud boom sound? I guess that wouldn't fit your little theory, so like every other fact in the world, its ignored.



I love you truthers. Again, you take a quote out of context and make it seem like the point I'm arguing is that Larry got all the money for himself. OF COURSE, the payout went to his company... you know, to REBUILD. But again, you leave that point out. Again, in perhaps a language you can understand, SILVERSTEIN LOST MON$$$$EY ON THE DEALIOLOLOLOL!1!1!





They didn't cover anything up for 5 years. This video only surfaced among truthers this past February. You guys are so desperate to cherrypick and find any "evidence," that it seems like you searched the archives for months and found something you could come up with an elaborate explanation for.

Perhaps it was just the fact that it was fucking 9/11 and utter chaos in newsrooms throughout the world. You know, occam's razor-- the reporter was human and made a mistake in the confusion of the day? Could you identify Building 7 before you became a truther? If anything, the BBC report just confirms the fact that it was popular belief that the building was obviously unstable and in danger of coming down.




Too bad Jones is a physicist, and not a structural engineer. You also mentioned Kevin Ryan, but I won't even quote that because he's just a lowly water tester. If Jones' work is 100% scientific, why won't any other structural engineer in the world back up his claims and, you know, peer-review his findings?

Yes, and the spheres... Wow, they're both round! Groundbreaking stuff. Molten state? Yeah, there were molten metals, but that doesn't mean it was molten steel. Planes are made of aluminum, you know.





Yes, but Griffin's 10 features all take place in the wrong order and over 90 minutes. The aspects all occur within a few seconds during a CD. Already brought it up here, but I guess you didn't read my blog as thoroughly as you thought.

And just because something is probable does not make it proven. You and Mike Ruppert would make good friends. Maybe you didn't know that, and that's why you're still wrapped up in all these conspiracy theories.


Danny Jowenko, who owns a controlled demolition company, looked at WTC7 and said, "This is controlled demolition." "It's been imploded." "A team of experts did this."

Is this the Dutch guy who watched it on TV? What about all the experts who actually had pieces of debris to analyze? What about every American engineer who has seen the collapse in the proper context who disagrees with you?

Alright, I'm getting tired of this...





Yes, as you cherrypick random quotes from different blog entries and post them in a rambling style all your own. Responding to your post has been extremely tedious, and I have a finance exam to study for. Because, you know, some of us have lives of our own and the ambition to excel(and not just panic about doomsday). You, my friend, are stuck in a lost cause.





You forget that I'm co-founder of 9/11 Truth UAlbany, the first 9/11 truth campus group to be officially recognized and funded by the university. What are your credentials?




This is exactly my problem with the "truth" movement. You guys pile on so much BS like all the long-debunked claims in this very response and add it in with one or two legitimate facts like "bin Laden is not wanted for 9/11" and you think your case is astronomical. If it was, it'd be brought to trial right now by one of the victims. You guys can't even agree on anything within your movement! Unfortunately your theories are unfounded, your experts are nowhere to be found, and all that's left is a group of un-American narcissistic kooks who can agree on nothing but the "fact" that the government did it.
Posted by MikeyMetz at 4:23 PM

This man has passion!

[mouse]

....who made you Chumpy's bitch?

Chump does have his followers. these salad tossing fools will drink the grape kool-aid and give their lives to the almighty savior ChumpDumper.

Chump could say termites brought down wtc7 and they would agree with him.

[Wild Cobra]

If I had to pick a likely cover-up by the Feds, I'd go with the TWA flight that crashed off Long Island in the mid 90s. Of course there's plenty of mental masturbation required to find a conspiracy there too.
You mean flight 800?

That is one that I believe may have been a cover up. I think the Clinton administration had it shot down, kept it secret, then though president Bush was suppose to know what could happen. It's at least plausable, but if that's the truth. So be it. That plane may have been hijacked by terrorists, and they may have developed better techniques for 9/11. Possible flight 93 was also shot down, but credit given to those on board.

However...

I will never believe without real evidence that this was a conspiracy outside of the terrorist world.

[RandomGuy]

How bad was the obstruction of the 1-year 9/11 investigation?

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories)

If the Bush junta had nothing to hide why all the obstruction?

In case you forgot about what was going on in the first year or three after 09-11-01, Congress and the American people were screaming for somebody in the government to blame, i.e. a scapegoat.

Who the hell would want to be honest and freely admit to anything even remotely close to looking like they might have been "asleep at the switch"?

Answer THAT question Dan, and you have the answer to your "cover-up".

[RandomGuy]

(Begin EDIT)
FOR THOSE OF YOU READING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME, SEE PAGES 3 AND 4 for the NIST FAQ that answers the biggest "truther" questions.(end EDIT)

Since the 9-11 CTers like to copy and paste ad inifinitum, let's see if we can get some good stuff here.

It might surprise you CTers but there is a whole cottage industry built up around your bullshit.

They don't sell T-shirts, mugs, or crappy videos.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Here is a gem: The 9-11 "truthers" in their own "like, words". Icky.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7216643725166640147&hl=en

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

http://wtc.nist.gov/

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://www.911myths.com/

Best one out of all the lot so far:
http://www.debunking911.com/

Mike Walter talking about the plane hitting the pentagon, and how irritated he is with the 9-11 "truth" movement for lying about what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPUDktZpCU

Link to a TON of debunking links:
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

Here ARE SOME REALLY PRECIOUS LINKS.

9-11 "truth" scholars turning on each other. You thought they were unstable and kooky when they talk about the government, wait until they start talking about each other.

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


A whole page of youtube debunking videos (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=RKOwens4&p=r)

A whole page of decent debunking links and one of the best ones so far. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)

Ramble ramble ramble.

"thermite"! mumble mumble bumble...

"pull it"! TWITTTER, twitter twitter...

"explosions" doodle doodle dee...

[The Power Hour.]

Ramble ramble ramble.

"thermite"! mumble mumble bumble...

"pull it"! TWITTTER, twitter twitter...

"explosions" doodle doodle dee...

Bush himself could visit you in your trailer to tell you they used explosives on 911 and you will still not believe, that is how thick headed you seem to be about the truth.

[911]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-51323.png
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-51085.png

[Blake]

....who made you Chumpy's bitch?

what space alien from area 51 made you his?

what is your real 9/11 question?

[911]

If you don't think this looks like an explosion you need glasses.




http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-50115.png

[Blake]

that is how thick headed you seem to be about the truth.

what is the truth?

[Blake]

If you don't think this looks like an explosion you need glasses.

I'm sure it also sounded like an explosion.

[RandomGuy]

If you don't think this looks like an explosion you need glasses.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-50115.png

The nano-thermite high energy explosives found in the paper you cited would not create debris trajectories that shallow.

High explosives, by definition, create rather flat debris trajectories, as the thousand+ feet per second blast waves would throw the debris out pretty fast.

Given that gravity pulls things downwards at 30 feet per second per second, and this picture was taken within a few seconds of the start of the collapse, it shows debris moving more down than away by a large margin doesn't it?

That is absolutely NOT what an explosion should "look like".

[Phineas J. Whoopee]

The nano-thermite high energy explosives found in the paper you cited would not create debris trajectories that shallow.

High explosives, by definition, create rather flat debris trajectories, as the thousand+ feet per second blast waves would throw the debris out pretty fast.

Given that gravity pulls things downwards at 30 feet per second per second, and this picture was taken within a few seconds of the start of the collapse, it shows debris moving more down than away by a large margin doesn't it?

That is absolutely NOT what an explosion should "look like".

I'd have to agree with your analysis. The conspiracy theories simply do not add up.

[Laker Lanny]

I'd have to agree with your analysis. The conspiracy theories simply do not add up.

Tell that to the family's who lost love ones during 9/11 what doesn't add up.

[DarrinS]

Tell that to the family's who lost love ones during 9/11 what doesn't add up.


They are probably insulted by the "twoof" movement.

[Wild Cobra]

They are probably insulted by the "twoof" movement.
No shit. I bet most are.

[mookie2001]

i know for a fact that the families of the people who died on 9/11 have all read the 9/11 commission report, believe it 100% and have no further questions

[“bright and shiny”]

9/11 Families
demand answers


http://www.oilempire.us/911families.html

O_t74I-nLas

Sept. 11 Widows Demand Answers

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060412225938604

[Galileo]

Exotic High Tech Explosives Positively Identified in World Trade Center Dust

— Editor

A ground-breaking scientific paper confirmed this week that red-gray flakes found throughout multiple samples of WTC dust are actually unexploded fragments of nanothermite, an exotic high-tech explosive.

The samples were taken from far-separated locations in Manhattan, some as early as 10 minutes after the second tower (WTC 1) collapsed, ruling out any possible contamination from cleanup operations.

Authored by an international team of physicists, chemists, and others, the research paper was titled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe." It was published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Vol. 2., and is available online for free download. The lead author is Niels H. Harrit of the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen.

The paper ends with the statement, "Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material."

Ordinary thermite burns quickly and can melt through steel, but it is not explosive. Nanothermite, however, can be formulated as a high explosive. It is stable when wet and can be applied like paint.

The presence of pre-planted explosives in the WTC buildings calls into question the official story that the buildings were destroyed by the airplane collisions and fire alone. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the official government agency that investigated the building collapses, did not test for residues of explosives.

Richard Gage, AIA, said, "This peer-reviewed scientific study of the disturbing contents of the WTC dust is yet another smoking gun proving to the over 600 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) who I represent that a real investigation must be carried out immediately as to the actual cause of the destruction of the 3 WTC high-rises on 9/11."

One of the paper's co-authors is AE911Truth researcher/editor Gregg Roberts. When Roberts signed the AE911Truth petition demanding a new 9/11 investigation, he wrote, "What struck me on 9/11 was how much dust was created." Now, over 7 years later, Roberts has an intimate appreciation for that dust. The steel was removed and destroyed very quickly after the catastrophe, despite loud protests from fire fighters and others. It was destruction of the primary evidence at a crime scene. The dust, however, remains as a key piece of physical evidence.

The nine co-authors are Niels H. Harrit, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, Jeffrey Farrer, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Steven E. Jones, S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, Kevin R. Ryan, 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, Frank M. Legge, Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia, Daniel Farnsworth, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Gregg Roberts, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA, James R. Gourley, International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX, and Bradley R. Larsen, S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/51

[DarrinS]

A twoofer waters her lawn.


hhybdXlx-14

[MavTalker]

Exotic High Tech Explosives Positively Identified in World Trade Center Dust

— Editor

A ground-breaking scientific paper confirmed this week that red-gray flakes found throughout multiple samples of WTC dust are actually unexploded fragments of nanothermite, an exotic high-tech explosive.

The samples were taken from far-separated locations in Manhattan, some as early as 10 minutes after the second tower (WTC 1) collapsed, ruling out any possible contamination from cleanup operations.

Authored by an international team of physicists, chemists, and others, the research paper was titled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe." It was published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Vol. 2., and is available online for free download. The lead author is Niels H. Harrit of the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen.

The paper ends with the statement, "Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material."

Ordinary thermite burns quickly and can melt through steel, but it is not explosive. Nanothermite, however, can be formulated as a high explosive. It is stable when wet and can be applied like paint.

The presence of pre-planted explosives in the WTC buildings calls into question the official story that the buildings were destroyed by the airplane collisions and fire alone. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the official government agency that investigated the building collapses, did not test for residues of explosives.

Richard Gage, AIA, said, "This peer-reviewed scientific study of the disturbing contents of the WTC dust is yet another smoking gun proving to the over 600 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) who I represent that a real investigation must be carried out immediately as to the actual cause of the destruction of the 3 WTC high-rises on 9/11."

One of the paper's co-authors is AE911Truth researcher/editor Gregg Roberts. When Roberts signed the AE911Truth petition demanding a new 9/11 investigation, he wrote, "What struck me on 9/11 was how much dust was created." Now, over 7 years later, Roberts has an intimate appreciation for that dust. The steel was removed and destroyed very quickly after the catastrophe, despite loud protests from fire fighters and others. It was destruction of the primary evidence at a crime scene. The dust, however, remains as a key piece of physical evidence.

The nine co-authors are Niels H. Harrit, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, Jeffrey Farrer, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Steven E. Jones, S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, Kevin R. Ryan, 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, Frank M. Legge, Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia, Daniel Farnsworth, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Gregg Roberts, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA, James R. Gourley, International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX, and Bradley R. Larsen, S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/51


/thread :tu

[Blake]

/thread :tu

if this is /thread, then what are you doing wasting time here?

you should be taking this definitive proof and running it to the media and to the 9-11 families that you brought up.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

This is the stupidest thread ever.

[Galileo]

if this is /thread, then what are you doing wasting time here?

you should be taking this definitive proof and running it to the media and to the 9-11 families that you brought up.

Google 'Press For Truth'. They already know about it.

[Blake]

Google 'Press For Truth'. They already know about it.

so if it's truth, why aren't the you, the media and these families pressing the issue in a court of law?

it's a shame that some of these people that have suffered such a hard loss are getting duped into donating to a bogus website like 9/11: press for truth which gives them some kind of weird false hope.

[man on wire]

bogus website like 9/11: press for truth which gives them some kind of weird false hope.


Its more than you and your lover Chump gives us.

[Blake]

Its more than you and your lover Chump gives us.

more bogus information doesn't equal better information.

NIST reports are enough.

you fail again, mouse.

[dirk4mvp]

lol 9-11 conspiracies

[RandomGuy]

(Begin EDIT)
FOR THOSE OF YOU READING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME, SEE PAGES 3 AND 4 for the NIST FAQ that answers the biggest "truther" questions.(end EDIT)

Since the 9-11 CTers like to copy and paste ad inifinitum, let's see if we can get some good stuff here.

It might surprise you CTers but there is a whole cottage industry built up around your bullshit.

They don't sell T-shirts, mugs, or crappy videos.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Here is a gem: The 9-11 "truthers" in their own "like, words". Icky.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7216643725166640147&hl=en

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

http://wtc.nist.gov/

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://www.911myths.com/

Best one out of all the lot so far:
http://www.debunking911.com/

Mike Walter talking about the plane hitting the pentagon, and how irritated he is with the 9-11 "truth" movement for lying about what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPUDktZpCU

Link to a TON of debunking links:
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

Here ARE SOME REALLY PRECIOUS LINKS.

9-11 "truth" scholars turning on each other. You thought they were unstable and kooky when they talk about the government, wait until they start talking about each other.

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


A whole page of youtube debunking videos (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=RKOwens4&p=r)

A whole page of decent debunking links and one of the best ones so far. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)

Yet another page, that must have this group of links.

[Galileo]

Thermite Experiment!

Some clips of Thermite from Brainiac science abuse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM

[Galileo]

Nobel Laureates Have Endorsed Bentham Science Journals

Richard R. Ernst
Swiss Federal
Inst. of Technology,
Switzerland

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1991
For his contributions to the development of the methodology of high resolution nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy.

"Current Medicinal Chemistry has established itself as an important review journal in the field of medicinal chemistry. It provides research scientists in the field with comprehensive review articles written by eminent experts. It allows them to keep abreast with the latest relevant developments. The journal is highly recommended to all scientists active in the field of medicinal chemistry."

Sir James W. Black
London University,
King's College Hospital
London, U.K.

The Nobel Prize in Physiology 1988
For the discoveries of important principles for drug treatment.

"Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry provides medicinal chemists and scientists in allied disciplines an invaluable resource for thematic coverage of keen new developments in their field of study."

Robert Huber
Max-Planck-Institut
für Biochemie Martinsried,
Martinsried, Germany

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1988
For the determination of the three-dimensional structure of a photosynthetic reaction centre.

"Current Medicinal Chemistry is a frontier review journal, which contains comprehensive reviews written by leading scientists in their respective fields. The journal presents the latest developments in various areas of medicinal chemistry. I strongly recommend it to scientists working in the field."

"Current Genomics represents a frontier review journal, which contains comprehensive reviews written by leading scientists in the respective fields. This journal presents the latest developments in the area of genomics. This is strongly recommended."

"The 4 new journals Recent Patents on Anti-Cancer Drug Discovery, Recent Patents on Cardiovascular Drug Discovery, Recent Patents on CNS Drug Discovery, Recent Patents on Anti-Infective Drug Discovery are important patents journals in the field of Anti-Cancer Drug Discovery, Cardiovascular Drug Discovery, CNS Drug Discovery and Anti-Infective Drug Discovery, which should provide research scientists in the fields with recent developments in various frontier areas. These journals are strongly recommended to the scientific community".

Jean-Marie Lehn
Université Louis Pasteur Strasbourg, France

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1987
For the development and use of molecules with structure-specific interactions of high selectivity.

"In view of the growing volume of literature, the role of a high quality review journal has become increasingly important.
Current Medicinal Chemistry presents expert overviews in the field of medicinal chemistry of general interest to the scientific community."

"In view of the growing volume of literature, the role of high quality review journals has become increasingly important.
Current Drug Targets is an important journal in the field of medicinal chemistry and drug design, which is strongly recommended to the scientific community."

"Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry represents an important review journal of great value to pharmaceutical scientists."

"Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry is recommended as a forum for the publication and review of important aspects of medicinal chemistry including the design and synthesis of compound libraries for bioactivity testing."

Herbert C. Brown † (1912 - 2004)
Purdue University
West Lafayette, USA

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1979
For the development of the use of boron- and phosphorus-containing compounds, respectively, into important reagents in organic synthesis.

"Current Medicinal Chemistry has established itself as an important review journal in the field of medicinal chemistry. It provides research scientists in the field with comprehensive review articles written by eminent experts. It allows them to keep abreast with the latest relevant developments. The journal is highly recommended to all scientists active in the field of medicinal chemistry."

"Current Organic Chemistry is an important review journal, which should prove to be of wide interest to organic chemists and provide them with a convenient means of keeping up with the current flood of advances in the field."

Sir Derek H. R. Barton † (1918 - 1998)
Imperial College
London, U.K.

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1969
For the development of the concept of conformation and its application in chemistry.

"Current Medicinal Chemistry represents an important review journal of great value to medicinal chemists in universities and pharmaceutical industries."

"Current Organic Chemistry is an important chemistry review journal, which will present frontier reviews in organic chemistry. The journal will prove to be a very useful source of up-to-date information. The eminent international stature of the Guest Editors will guarantee the high standards expected of an international journal."

http://www.bentham.org/Nobel.htm

[Blake]

why are there always a bunch of physicists and chemists among other unrelated fields in your quack group of conspiracy nuts and never any real structural engineers?

[Galileo]

why are there always a bunch of physicists and chemists among other unrelated fields in your quack group of conspiracy nuts and never any real structural engineers?

dumbshit, they are testing for thermite.

[Blake]

dumbshit, they are testing for thermite.

you stupid hack, we've already covered this.

but keep on, loser.

[Galileo]

you stupid hack, we've already covered this.

but keep on, loser.

you stupid git! Why would you need a structural engineer to test for thermite? Do your effin homework!

[mookie2001]

LOOSE CHANGE OHHH BUSTED good one random guy you win

now form your own commission

[ChumpDumper]

Nobel Laureates Have Endorsed Bentham Science Journals

Richard R. Ernst
Swiss Federal
Inst. of Technology,
Switzerland

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1991
For his contributions to the development of the methodology of high resolution nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy.

"Current Medicinal Chemistry has established itself as an important review journal in the field of medicinal chemistry. It provides research scientists in the field with comprehensive review articles written by eminent experts. It allows them to keep abreast with the latest relevant developments. The journal is highly recommended to all scientists active in the field of medicinal chemistry."

Sir James W. Black
London University,
King's College Hospital
London, U.K.

The Nobel Prize in Physiology 1988
For the discoveries of important principles for drug treatment.

"Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry provides medicinal chemists and scientists in allied disciplines an invaluable resource for thematic coverage of keen new developments in their field of study."

Robert Huber
Max-Planck-Institut
für Biochemie Martinsried,
Martinsried, Germany

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1988
For the determination of the three-dimensional structure of a photosynthetic reaction centre.

"Current Medicinal Chemistry is a frontier review journal, which contains comprehensive reviews written by leading scientists in their respective fields. The journal presents the latest developments in various areas of medicinal chemistry. I strongly recommend it to scientists working in the field."

"Current Genomics represents a frontier review journal, which contains comprehensive reviews written by leading scientists in the respective fields. This journal presents the latest developments in the area of genomics. This is strongly recommended."

"The 4 new journals Recent Patents on Anti-Cancer Drug Discovery, Recent Patents on Cardiovascular Drug Discovery, Recent Patents on CNS Drug Discovery, Recent Patents on Anti-Infective Drug Discovery are important patents journals in the field of Anti-Cancer Drug Discovery, Cardiovascular Drug Discovery, CNS Drug Discovery and Anti-Infective Drug Discovery, which should provide research scientists in the fields with recent developments in various frontier areas. These journals are strongly recommended to the scientific community".

Jean-Marie Lehn
Université Louis Pasteur Strasbourg, France

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1987
For the development and use of molecules with structure-specific interactions of high selectivity.

"In view of the growing volume of literature, the role of a high quality review journal has become increasingly important.
Current Medicinal Chemistry presents expert overviews in the field of medicinal chemistry of general interest to the scientific community."

"In view of the growing volume of literature, the role of high quality review journals has become increasingly important.
Current Drug Targets is an important journal in the field of medicinal chemistry and drug design, which is strongly recommended to the scientific community."

"Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry represents an important review journal of great value to pharmaceutical scientists."

"Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry is recommended as a forum for the publication and review of important aspects of medicinal chemistry including the design and synthesis of compound libraries for bioactivity testing."

Herbert C. Brown † (1912 - 2004)
Purdue University
West Lafayette, USA

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1979
For the development of the use of boron- and phosphorus-containing compounds, respectively, into important reagents in organic synthesis.

"Current Medicinal Chemistry has established itself as an important review journal in the field of medicinal chemistry. It provides research scientists in the field with comprehensive review articles written by eminent experts. It allows them to keep abreast with the latest relevant developments. The journal is highly recommended to all scientists active in the field of medicinal chemistry."

"Current Organic Chemistry is an important review journal, which should prove to be of wide interest to organic chemists and provide them with a convenient means of keeping up with the current flood of advances in the field."

Sir Derek H. R. Barton † (1918 - 1998)
Imperial College
London, U.K.

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1969
For the development of the concept of conformation and its application in chemistry.

"Current Medicinal Chemistry represents an important review journal of great value to medicinal chemists in universities and pharmaceutical industries."

"Current Organic Chemistry is an important chemistry review journal, which will present frontier reviews in organic chemistry. The journal will prove to be a very useful source of up-to-date information. The eminent international stature of the Guest Editors will guarantee the high standards expected of an international journal."

http://www.bentham.org/Nobel.htmIf any of those guys reviewed the red paint paper, I'd like to hear about it.

[Blake]

you stupid git! Why would you need a structural engineer to test for thermite? Do your effin homework!

because no engineer in his right mind who has looked at the evidence thinks that the buildings were demolished.

do your effin homework!

[Blake]

If any of those guys reviewed the red paint paper, I'd like to hear about it.

I'd like to hear how Professor Jones ruled out the red paint......

among many other things that seem to be lacking in common sense here.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.debunk911myths.org/

http://www.jod911.com/


PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m

Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.

SOOOO

The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.

Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.

They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.

Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.

Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:


v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second

Substitute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m

This means the 30 floor section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.

Think about this for a moment.

The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.

Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing. :rolleyes

STILL FURTHER

Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.

IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.

Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)

What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?

Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.

[RandomGuy]

One would reasonably have expected that some portions of the massive central steel core would have remained standing in these circumstances. It didn't. All 44 columns were brought to the ground in - relatively speaking - small lengths.



PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m

Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.

SOOOO

The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.

Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.

They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.

Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.

Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:


v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second

Substitute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m

This means the 30 floor section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.

Think about this for a moment.

The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.

Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing. :rolleyes

STILL FURTHER

Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.

IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.

Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)

What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?

Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.

ll

[RandomGuy]

By the by, here is how the official report plays out the initial collapse, essentially the same for both buildings based on my reading of the NIST report. Feel free to read the thing and correct this with a better understanding if you so choose.

Airliner impacts building. Collision injects fire and initial fuel into an office environment filled with other fuel, such as plastic, paper, and furniture, in addition to literally knocking the thin coating of spray on insulation from the structural steel. Simultaineous fires start in multiple floors of the building in wide sections of those floors, in addition to weakening the structure.

In the damaged sections, you have the remaining load bearing structure taking up the extra load from the portions that were destroyed from the collision.

Add to this extra load stress per column (both inner and outer), additional lateral (sideways) stresses are placed from expanding trusses exposed to heat. With the additional load, and weakened by fire, the hottest columns start exhibiting "plasticity" and begin to sag, pulling on the connecting floor, and pulling the face of the building inwards at the floor/wall joints.

Eventually, some part of the buildng gives way, and this instantly places more stress on the remaining structure, itself nearing limits of load/stress capacity. This results in a rather rapid collapse of nearby sections and simple physics do the rest.

Did the structural steel melt? No. You don't have to even get close to melting point to get loss of strength. Medieval blacksmiths didn't have near the ability to melt iron or steel, but could get it hot enough to work with hammer and anvil into swords, armor, horseshoes, and all manner of things.
Steel loses about 20% of its load bearing capacity at 300C, and some portions of the fires were hotter than that.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—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, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

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.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006_clip_image002.jpg
Diagram of Composite WTC Floor System

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

[mouse]

Oh so you get a pass when it comes to pasting something off the www but we don't?

[RandomGuy]

Just because someone doesn't think WTC7 fell due to gravity why should you feel you have to insult them, or call them out as a nut?

I think the the government is hiding something about the Pentagon attack why should I be grouped in with the conspiracy nuts?

Your lack of common sense clouds your mind to enable to properly cipher a good honest question from an off the wall theory tells me your small brain is very limited. And i mean that not as an insult, but as an honest observation from your postings I have read.

Hiding what exactly?

There was a LOT of ass-covering after 9-11 as people sought very hard not to be blamed for being "asleep at the switch".

The final truth is that a LOT of people were partly responsible for what happened, but there is a vast gulf between active conspiracy to cause it and simple grabasstic bumbling.

I would be way more inclined to be nice if the truthers could come up with SOME logical explanation or coherent theory.

If you don't agree with my logic, then tell me what part about the liar/stupid bit is really wrong?

[RandomGuy]

oh so you get a pass when it comes to pasting something off the www but we don't?

sosdd

[mouse]

Ted Olson's Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials

Ted Olson's Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials
by David Ray Griffin

Late in the day on 9/11, CNN put out a story that began: “Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN.” According to this story, Olson reported that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,” saying that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters.”2

Ted Olson’s report was very important. It provided the only evidence that American 77, which was said to have struck the Pentagon, had still been aloft after it had disappeared from FAA radar around 9:00 AM (there had been reports, after this disappearance, that an airliner had crashed on the Ohio-Kentucky border). Also, Barbara Olson had been a very well-known commentator on CNN. The report that she died in a plane that had been hijacked by Arab Muslims was an important factor in getting the nation’s support for the Bush administration’s “war on terror.” Ted Olson’s report was important in still another way, being the sole source of the widely accepted idea that the hijackers had box cutters.3

However, although Ted Olson’s report of phone calls from his wife has been a central pillar of the official account of 9/11, this report has been completely undermined.

Olson’s Self-Contradictions

Olson began this process of undermining by means of self-contradictions. He first told CNN, as we have seen, that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone.” But he contradicted this claim on September 14, telling Hannity and Colmes that she had reached him by calling the Department of Justice collect. Therefore, she must have been using the “airplane phone,” he surmised, because “she somehow didn’t have access to her credit cards.”4 However, this version of Olson’s story, besides contradicting his first version, was even self-contradictory, because a credit card is needed to activate a passenger-seat phone.

Later that same day, moreover, Olson told Larry King Live that the second call from his wife suddenly went dead because “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well.”5 After that return to his first version, he finally settled on the second version, saying that his wife had called collect and hence must have used “the phone in the passengers’ seats” because she did not have her purse.6

By finally settling on this story, Olson avoided a technological pitfall. Given the cell phone system employed in 2001, high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners were impossible, or at least virtually so (Olson’s statement that “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well” was a considerable understatement). The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004.7

However, Olson’s second story, besides being self-contradictory, was contradicted by American Airlines.

American Airlines Contradicts Olson’s Second Version

A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”8

In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the FBI.

Olson’s Story Contradicted by the FBI

The most serious official contradiction of Ted Olson’s story came in 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The evidence presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0 seconds.”9 According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone.

Back on 9/11, the FBI itself had interviewed Olson. A report of that interview indicates that Olson told the FBI agents that his wife had called him twice from Flight 77.10 And yet the FBI’s report on calls from Flight 77, presented in 2006, indicated that no such calls occurred.

This was an amazing development: The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and yet its report undermined the well-publicized claim of the DOJ’s former solicitor general that he had received two calls from his wife on 9/11.

Olson’s Story Also Rejected by Pentagon Historians

Ted Olson’s story has also been quietly rejected by the historians who wrote Pentagon 9/11, a treatment of the Pentagon attack put out by the Department of Defense.11

According to Olson, his wife had said that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers.”12 This is an inherently implausible scenario. We are supposed to believe that 60-some people, including the two pilots, were held at bay by three or four men (one or two of the hijackers would have been in the cockpit) with knives and boxcutters. This scenario becomes even more absurd when we realize that the alleged hijackers were all small, unathletic men (the 9/11 Commission pointed out that even “[t]he so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing, as the majority of them were between 5’5” and 5’7” in height and slender in build”13), and that the pilot, Charles “Chic” Burlingame, was a weightlifter and a boxer, who was described as “really tough” by one of his erstwhile opponents.14 Also, the idea that Burlingame would have turned over the plane to hijackers was rejected by his brother, who said: “I don't know what happened in that cockpit, but I'm sure that they would have had to incapacitate him or kill him because he would have done anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that airplane.”15

Pentagon historians, in any case, did not accept the Olson story, according to which Burlingame and his co-pilot did give up their plane and were in the back with the passengers and other crew members. They instead wrote that “the attackers either incapacitated or murdered the two pilots.”16

Conclusion

This rejection of Ted Olson’s story by American Airlines, the Pentagon, and especially the FBI is a development of utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife.17 In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well?

The fact that Ted Olson’s report has been contradicted by other defenders of the official story about 9/11 provides grounds for demanding a new investigation of 9/11. This internal contradiction is, moreover, only one of 25 such contradictions discussed in my most recent book, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press.

[mouse]

September 11, 2001: Lies, Coverups and Deceptions

The following people question the government's version of 9/11, or the government's openness in providing information about the September 11 attacks.

9/11 COMMISSIONERS

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation".

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."

9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".

9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that “We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way - conflicts of interest".

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."

CONGRESS

According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, a U.S. government informant was the landlord to two of the hijackers for over a year (but the White House refused to let the 9/11 inquiry interview him).

Current U.S. Senator (Patrick Leahy) states "The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?"

Current Republican Congressman (Ron Paul) calls for a new 9/11 investigation and states that "we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on"

Current Democratic Congressman (Dennis Kucinich) hints that we aren't being told the truth about 9/11

Former Democratic Senator (Mike Gravel) states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don't know the truth about 9/11

Former Republican Senator (Lincoln Chaffee) endorses a new 9/11 investigation

Former U.S. Democratic Congressman (Dan Hamburg) says that the U.S. government "assisted" in the 9/11 attacks, stating that "I think there was a lot of help from the inside"

Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee (Curt Weldon) has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job
MILITARY LEADERS

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog that doesn't hunt" (bio)

Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that 9/11 was an inside job. He also said:

"If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!"

U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel Davis) stated:

"there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth. It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.' "

President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a member of a group which doubts the government's version of 9/11

U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said "We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time."

Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official (Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski) finds various aspects of 9/11 suspicious

Lieutenant colonel, 24-year Air Force career, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at the Defense Language Institute (Lt. Colonel Steve Butler) said "Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism."

Two-Star general (Major General Albert Stubbelbine) questions the attack on the Pentagon

U.S. Air Force fighter pilot, former instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons School and NATO’s Tactical Leadership Program, with a 20-year Air Force career (Lt. Colonel Guy S. Razer) said the following:

"I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government ....

Those of us in the military took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.

We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of treason!"

U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, a fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown and a 21-year Marine Corps career (Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford) believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and said:

"This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush Bashing. It's about our country, our constitution, and our future. ...

Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.

If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you? ....

Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle it? ..."

U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' pilot (Commander Ralph Kolstad) who questions the official account of 9/11 and is calling for a new investigation, says "When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story".

The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S. Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility

Additionally, numerous military leaders from allied governments have questioned 9/11, such as:

Canadian Minister of Defense, the top military leader of Canada (Paul Hellyer)

Assistant German Defense Minister (Andreas Von Bulow)

Commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy (Anatoli Kornukov)

Chief of staff of the Russian armed forces (General Leonid Ivashov)

INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS

Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg recently said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers". He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath.

A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.

A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. ... All three [buildings that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11."

20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that "9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was probably an inside job (see Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).

A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called "perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East”, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that"the evidence points at" 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job .

The Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup."

Professor of History and International Relations, University of Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency, former military attaché in China, with a 21-year career in U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army) questions the government's version of the events of 9/11.

The head of all U.S. intelligence, the Director of National Intelligence (Mike McConnel) said "9/11 should have and could have been prevented"

A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation (they were ignored).

SCIENTISTS

A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition

A world-renowned scientist, recipient of the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement (Dr. Lynn Margulis) said:

"I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken."

The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable."

The principal electrical engineer for the entire World Trade Center complex, who was "very familiar with the structures and [the Twin Towers'] conceptual design parameters" (Richard F. Humenn), stated that "the mass and strength of the structure should have survived the localized damage caused by the planes and burning jet fuel . . . . the fuel and planes alone did not bring the Towers down."

Former Director for Research, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and Flight Research Program Manager for NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, who holds masters degrees in both physics and engineering (Dwain A. Deets) says:

"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Centers on 9/11].''

A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics from a top university, and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects (Dr. Steven E. Jones) stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition

A U.S. physics professor who teaches at several universities (Dr. Crockett Grabbe) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition

An expert on demolition (Bent Lund) said that the trade centers were brought down with explosives (in Danish)
A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded

A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety Technology Authority (Dr. Heikki Kurttila) stated regarding WTC 7 that "The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."

A 13-year professor of metallurgical engineering at a U.S. university, with a PhD in materials engineering, a former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member (Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn), is calling for a new investigation of 9/11

A Danish professor of chemistry (Dr. Niels Harrit) said, in a mainstream Danish newspaper, "WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building would have fallen in that direction. You don't have to be a woodcutter to grasp this" (translated)

A former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles and professor emeritus, mathematics and computer science at a university concluded (Dr. Bruce R. Henry) that the Twin Towers "were brought down by planted explosives."

A mechanical engineer with 20 years experience as a Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs, who is a contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S. Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities, a board member of the Northern California - Nevada Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, currently serving as Fire Protection Engineer for the city of San Jose, California, the 10th largest city in the United States (Edward S. Munyak) believes that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition.

The former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S. Department of Energy, and former Director of the Office of Engineering at the Public Service Commission in Washington, D.C., who is a mechanical engineer (Enver Masud) , does not believe the official story, and believes that there is a prima facie case for controlled demolition of the World Trade Center.
A professor of mathematics (Gary Welz) said "The official explanation that I've heard doesn't make sense because it doesn't explain why I heard and felt an explosion before the South Tower fell and why the concrete was pulverized"

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS

A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this)

Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)
Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)

Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin

Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)

Haluk Akol, Structural Engineer and architect (ret.)

Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer

William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College

An architect, member of the American Institute of Architects, who has been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use (Richard Gage) disputes the claim that fire and airplane damage brought down the World Trade Centers and believes there is strong evidence of controlled demolition (many other architects who question 9/11 are listed here)

LEGAL SCHOLARS

Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Former Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation; former Professor of Aviation, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation and Professor of Public Policy, Ohio State University (Mary Schiavo) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign; a leading practitioner and advocate of international law; responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court, with a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University (Dr. Francis Boyle) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Former prosecutor in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the U.S. Justice Department and a key member of Attorney General Bobby Kennedy’s anti-corruption task force; former assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois (J. Terrence "Terry" Brunner) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University; in 2001 served on the three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission on Kosovo (Richard Falk) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Director, Center for Human Rights, University of Iowa; Fellow, World Academy of Art and Science. Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American Journal of International Law (Burns H. Weston) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Former president of the National Lawyers Guild (C. Peter Erlinder), who signed a petition calling for a real investigation into 9/11. And see petition.

Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Troy University; associate General Counsel, National Association of Federal Agents; Retired Agent in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs, responsible for the internal integrity and security for areas encompassing nine states and two foreign locations; former Federal Sky Marshall; 27-year U.S. Customs career (Mark Conrad) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Professor of Law, University of Freiburg; former Minister of Justice of West Germany (Horst Ehmke) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Director of Academic Programs, Institute for Policy and Economic Development, University of Texas, El Paso, specializing in executive branch secrecy policy, governmental abuse, and law and bureaucracy; former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer; author of several books on law and political theory (Dr. William G. Weaver) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Famed trial attorney (Gerry Spence) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Former Instructor of Criminal Trial Practice, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley 11-year teaching career. Retired Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, California 31-year career (William Veale) said:

"When you grow up in the United States, there are some bedrock principles that require concerted effort to discard. One is the simplest: that our leaders are good and decent people whose efforts may occasionally warrant criticism but never because of malice or venality... But one grows up. ... And with the lawyer's training comes the reliance on evidence and the facts that persuade... After a lot of reading, thought, study, and commiseration, I have come to the conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were, in their essence, an inside job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U S government."

FAMILY MEMBERS AND HEROIC FIRST RESPONDERS

A common criticism of those who question 9/11 is that they are being "disrespectful to the victims and their families".

However, half of the victim's families believe that 9/11 was an inside job (according to the head of the largest 9/11 family group, Bill Doyle) (and listen to this interview). Many family and friends of victims not only support the search for 9/11 truth, but they demand it (please ignore the partisan tone). See also this interview.

Indeed, it has now become so clear that the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash that the same 9/11 widows who called for the creation of the 9/11 Commission are now demanding a NEW investigation (see also this video).

And dying heroes, soon-to-be victims themselves, the first responders who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11, say that controlled demolition brought down the Twin Towers and that a real investigation is necessary.

PSYCHIATRISTS AND PSYCHOLOGISTS

Finally, those who attack people who question the government's version of 9/11 as "crazy" may wish to review the list of mental health professionals who have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false:

Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD

Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz

Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD

Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R. Komisaruk

Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward

Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino

Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther

Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral Studies Ralph Metzner

Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor

Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris

Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech

Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser

THOUSANDS OF OTHERS



The roster above is only a sample. There are too many Ph.D. scientists and engineers, architects, military and intelligence officials, politicians, legal scholars and other highly-credible people who question 9/11 -- literally thousands -- to list in one place. Here are a few additional people to consider:

The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission

Former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and who handled two actual hijackings (Robin Hordon) says that 9/11 could not have occurred as the government says, and that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off.

Perhaps "the premiere collapse expert in the country", who 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to as a "very, very respected expert on building collapse", the head of the New York Fire Department's Special Operations Command and the most highly decorated firefighter in its NYFD history, who had previously "commanded rescue operations at many difficult and complex disasters, including the Oklahoma City Bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, and many natural disasters worldwide" thought that the collapse of the South Tower was caused by bombs, because the collapse of the building was too even to have been caused by anything else.

Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who's who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11

Former FBI agent (Robert Wright) says "The FBI, rather than trying to prevent a terrorist attack, was merely gathering intelligence so they would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred."
Former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice's Inspector General and several senators have called extremely credible (Sibel Edmonds), said "If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up". She also is leaning towards the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. Some of her allegations have been confirmed in the British press.



Michael Rivero - historian, scientist, visual artist and journalist - is the webmaster of What Really Happened, a website that contains reams of factual information that discredits every aspect of the government's conspiracy theory that 19 men armed with box cutters shut down NORAD and the Air Force.
http://www.911summary.com/

[mouse]

September 11, 2001: Lies, Coverups and Deceptions

The following people question the government's version of 9/11, or the government's openness in providing information about the September 11 attacks.

9/11 COMMISSIONERS

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation".

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."

9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".

9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that “We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way - conflicts of interest".

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."

CONGRESS

According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, a U.S. government informant was the landlord to two of the hijackers for over a year (but the White House refused to let the 9/11 inquiry interview him).

Current U.S. Senator (Patrick Leahy) states "The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?"

Current Republican Congressman (Ron Paul) calls for a new 9/11 investigation and states that "we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on"

Current Democratic Congressman (Dennis Kucinich) hints that we aren't being told the truth about 9/11

Former Democratic Senator (Mike Gravel) states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don't know the truth about 9/11

Former Republican Senator (Lincoln Chaffee) endorses a new 9/11 investigation

Former U.S. Democratic Congressman (Dan Hamburg) says that the U.S. government "assisted" in the 9/11 attacks, stating that "I think there was a lot of help from the inside"

Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee (Curt Weldon) has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job
MILITARY LEADERS

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog that doesn't hunt" (bio)

Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that 9/11 was an inside job. He also said:

"If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!"

U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel Davis) stated:

"there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth. It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.' "

President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a member of a group which doubts the government's version of 9/11

U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said "We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time."

Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official (Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski) finds various aspects of 9/11 suspicious

Lieutenant colonel, 24-year Air Force career, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at the Defense Language Institute (Lt. Colonel Steve Butler) said "Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism."

Two-Star general (Major General Albert Stubbelbine) questions the attack on the Pentagon

U.S. Air Force fighter pilot, former instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons School and NATO’s Tactical Leadership Program, with a 20-year Air Force career (Lt. Colonel Guy S. Razer) said the following:

"I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government ....

Those of us in the military took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.

We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of treason!"

U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, a fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown and a 21-year Marine Corps career (Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford) believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and said:

"This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush Bashing. It's about our country, our constitution, and our future. ...

Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.

If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you? ....

Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle it? ..."

U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' pilot (Commander Ralph Kolstad) who questions the official account of 9/11 and is calling for a new investigation, says "When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story".

The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S. Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility

Additionally, numerous military leaders from allied governments have questioned 9/11, such as:

Canadian Minister of Defense, the top military leader of Canada (Paul Hellyer)

Assistant German Defense Minister (Andreas Von Bulow)

Commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy (Anatoli Kornukov)

Chief of staff of the Russian armed forces (General Leonid Ivashov)

INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS

Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg recently said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers". He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath.

A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.

A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. ... All three [buildings that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11."

20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that "9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was probably an inside job (see Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).

A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called "perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East”, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that"the evidence points at" 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job .

The Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup."

Professor of History and International Relations, University of Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency, former military attaché in China, with a 21-year career in U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army) questions the government's version of the events of 9/11.

The head of all U.S. intelligence, the Director of National Intelligence (Mike McConnel) said "9/11 should have and could have been prevented"

A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation (they were ignored).

SCIENTISTS

A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition

A world-renowned scientist, recipient of the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement (Dr. Lynn Margulis) said:

"I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken."

The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable."

The principal electrical engineer for the entire World Trade Center complex, who was "very familiar with the structures and [the Twin Towers'] conceptual design parameters" (Richard F. Humenn), stated that "the mass and strength of the structure should have survived the localized damage caused by the planes and burning jet fuel . . . . the fuel and planes alone did not bring the Towers down."

Former Director for Research, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and Flight Research Program Manager for NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, who holds masters degrees in both physics and engineering (Dwain A. Deets) says:

"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Centers on 9/11].''

A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics from a top university, and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects (Dr. Steven E. Jones) stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition

A U.S. physics professor who teaches at several universities (Dr. Crockett Grabbe) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition

An expert on demolition (Bent Lund) said that the trade centers were brought down with explosives (in Danish)
A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded

A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety Technology Authority (Dr. Heikki Kurttila) stated regarding WTC 7 that "The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."

A 13-year professor of metallurgical engineering at a U.S. university, with a PhD in materials engineering, a former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member (Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn), is calling for a new investigation of 9/11

A Danish professor of chemistry (Dr. Niels Harrit) said, in a mainstream Danish newspaper, "WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building would have fallen in that direction. You don't have to be a woodcutter to grasp this" (translated)

A former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles and professor emeritus, mathematics and computer science at a university concluded (Dr. Bruce R. Henry) that the Twin Towers "were brought down by planted explosives."

A mechanical engineer with 20 years experience as a Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs, who is a contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S. Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities, a board member of the Northern California - Nevada Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, currently serving as Fire Protection Engineer for the city of San Jose, California, the 10th largest city in the United States (Edward S. Munyak) believes that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition.

The former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S. Department of Energy, and former Director of the Office of Engineering at the Public Service Commission in Washington, D.C., who is a mechanical engineer (Enver Masud) , does not believe the official story, and believes that there is a prima facie case for controlled demolition of the World Trade Center.
A professor of mathematics (Gary Welz) said "The official explanation that I've heard doesn't make sense because it doesn't explain why I heard and felt an explosion before the South Tower fell and why the concrete was pulverized"

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS

A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this)

Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)
Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)

Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin

Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)

Haluk Akol, Structural Engineer and architect (ret.)

Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer

William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College

An architect, member of the American Institute of Architects, who has been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use (Richard Gage) disputes the claim that fire and airplane damage brought down the World Trade Centers and believes there is strong evidence of controlled demolition (many other architects who question 9/11 are listed here)

LEGAL SCHOLARS

Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Former Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation; former Professor of Aviation, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation and Professor of Public Policy, Ohio State University (Mary Schiavo) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign; a leading practitioner and advocate of international law; responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court, with a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University (Dr. Francis Boyle) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Former prosecutor in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the U.S. Justice Department and a key member of Attorney General Bobby Kennedy’s anti-corruption task force; former assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois (J. Terrence "Terry" Brunner) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University; in 2001 served on the three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission on Kosovo (Richard Falk) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Director, Center for Human Rights, University of Iowa; Fellow, World Academy of Art and Science. Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American Journal of International Law (Burns H. Weston) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Former president of the National Lawyers Guild (C. Peter Erlinder), who signed a petition calling for a real investigation into 9/11. And see petition.

Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Troy University; associate General Counsel, National Association of Federal Agents; Retired Agent in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs, responsible for the internal integrity and security for areas encompassing nine states and two foreign locations; former Federal Sky Marshall; 27-year U.S. Customs career (Mark Conrad) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Professor of Law, University of Freiburg; former Minister of Justice of West Germany (Horst Ehmke) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Director of Academic Programs, Institute for Policy and Economic Development, University of Texas, El Paso, specializing in executive branch secrecy policy, governmental abuse, and law and bureaucracy; former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer; author of several books on law and political theory (Dr. William G. Weaver) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Famed trial attorney (Gerry Spence) questions the government's version of 9/11.

Former Instructor of Criminal Trial Practice, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley 11-year teaching career. Retired Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, California 31-year career (William Veale) said:

"When you grow up in the United States, there are some bedrock principles that require concerted effort to discard. One is the simplest: that our leaders are good and decent people whose efforts may occasionally warrant criticism but never because of malice or venality... But one grows up. ... And with the lawyer's training comes the reliance on evidence and the facts that persuade... After a lot of reading, thought, study, and commiseration, I have come to the conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were, in their essence, an inside job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U S government."

FAMILY MEMBERS AND HEROIC FIRST RESPONDERS

A common criticism of those who question 9/11 is that they are being "disrespectful to the victims and their families".

However, half of the victim's families believe that 9/11 was an inside job (according to the head of the largest 9/11 family group, Bill Doyle) (and listen to this interview). Many family and friends of victims not only support the search for 9/11 truth, but they demand it (please ignore the partisan tone). See also this interview.

Indeed, it has now become so clear that the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash that the same 9/11 widows who called for the creation of the 9/11 Commission are now demanding a NEW investigation (see also this video).

And dying heroes, soon-to-be victims themselves, the first responders who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11, say that controlled demolition brought down the Twin Towers and that a real investigation is necessary.

PSYCHIATRISTS AND PSYCHOLOGISTS

Finally, those who attack people who question the government's version of 9/11 as "crazy" may wish to review the list of mental health professionals who have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false:

Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD

Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz

Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD

Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R. Komisaruk

Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward

Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino

Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther

Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral Studies Ralph Metzner

Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor

Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris

Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech

Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser

THOUSANDS OF OTHERS



The roster above is only a sample. There are too many Ph.D. scientists and engineers, architects, military and intelligence officials, politicians, legal scholars and other highly-credible people who question 9/11 -- literally thousands -- to list in one place. Here are a few additional people to consider:

The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission

Former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and who handled two actual hijackings (Robin Hordon) says that 9/11 could not have occurred as the government says, and that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off.

Perhaps "the premiere collapse expert in the country", who 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to as a "very, very respected expert on building collapse", the head of the New York Fire Department's Special Operations Command and the most highly decorated firefighter in its NYFD history, who had previously "commanded rescue operations at many difficult and complex disasters, including the Oklahoma City Bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, and many natural disasters worldwide" thought that the collapse of the South Tower was caused by bombs, because the collapse of the building was too even to have been caused by anything else.

Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who's who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11

Former FBI agent (Robert Wright) says "The FBI, rather than trying to prevent a terrorist attack, was merely gathering intelligence so they would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred."
Former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice's Inspector General and several senators have called extremely credible (Sibel Edmonds), said "If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up". She also is leaning towards the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. Some of her allegations have been confirmed in the British press.



Michael Rivero - historian, scientist, visual artist and journalist - is the webmaster of What Really Happened, a website that contains reams of factual information that discredits every aspect of the government's conspiracy theory that 19 men armed with box cutters shut down NORAD and the Air Force.
http://www.911summary.com/

[RandomGuy]

mmmm.... pissing contest.

You're welcome to it mouse. Have a good easter, I have to get some work done today.

Take care, and adios! :toast

[mouse]

6KLc0_La6p8

[mouse]

Fact:

Osama bin Laden: "I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. ... The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States." - Click here for more info related to Osama bin Laden

On the morning of September 11th, 2001, Dick Cheney was running several war games in the north eastern portion of the United States. These drills included many hijacking scenarios, where commercial jets were hijacked and flown into buildings. At the same time Cheney had arranged for a drill involving a bio attack on NY. This resulted in FEMA setting up a command post on pier 29 in New York on September 10th.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4172548494462929899&hl=en

TArbhaU7LDc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TArbhaU7LDc
Above Video: The Underlying Politics of 9/11
See the full version of this video and the rest of our free on-line 9/11 videos here: Click here.
We add new videos regularly.
Free to view when you sign up for our FREE newsletter.

Some of these drill were scheduled for later in the year but Dick Cheney rescheduled them and made sure that they all took place on the same day. This was unprecedented.

The war games involved live fly exercises, and electronic drills where fake blips were placed on radar screens. Cheney was in charge of a communications system that superseded those of the FAA, NORAD and NEADS. Some of the drills possibly included remote control planes.

Dick Cheney is member of the Project for a New American Century. This is an organization of political ideologues (neocons) who wrote detailed plans than included invading Afghanistan, Iraq & the middle east. Their goal is ensure America is the only super power in the world. You can research their work for it is public information. Members of PNAC include Donald Rumsfeld and more than ten members of the Bush foreign & defense policy teams. In their documentation they openly state that the public and Congress would not accept their agenda and that the transition would be a slow one “absent a catalyzing and catastrophic event like a New Pearl Harbor!”

Cheney was in a position to have the air defense agencies stand down.

From from September 2000 to June 2001, 67 planes steered off course. All 67 times our air defense systems worked as they should, and interceptors were launched. You may remember this happening when Payne Stewart and his crew died in flight. On September 11th, 2001, when Dick Cheney was running his war games, 4 jet airliners were supposedly hijacked, and all our systems that have worked flawlessly 67 times that year, failed. Coincidence?

While these facts seem to incriminate Cheney, all you can do within reason is ask these questions:

*
Was Cheney in a position to have the defense systems stand down?
*
Did Cheney, a member of PNAC, a group who expressed the fact that their agenda would be better accepted if we had a “new Pearl Harbor”, have a motive? Did he benefit from the events?
*
Could the events have been an accident? Could the drills have gone bad?
*
Why did the 9/11 Commission Report omit the information about the drills, making only 1 mention of them in a single footnote. The report only mentioned 1 drill, and falsely described it as a drill to defend against Russian Bombers. In the age of ICBMs, are we to believe that we have to practice defending the nation against Russian bombers in the north eastern portion of the US?
*
Why have the news media neglected to inform the public of Cheney’s actions that day?
*
Why did Bush and Cheney insist on being questioned by the commission together, without being taped, without taking an oath and with no records kept?
*
If you did not know this information, you have to ask yourself why it is not common knowledge? You also have to ask what else don’t you know?
*
In the years following the event, have you ever heard from the people who you were told committed these acts? Or, have you only been told why this happened by the people who want you to believe their story.

Use your common sense. Do you think the global intelligence powers failed this badly? Do you think men who could barely pilot a 2 seat plane can navigate across several states and find their target? Are you that gullible? Have some self respect, and think before you believe what you are told.



cyBL9ETL5FY

NORAD Stand-Down on 9/11: Not Just Simple Incompetence


Watch Loose Change Second Edition On Line Free - Click Here! - This is a MUST watch video for anybody who wants to know more about the events of 9/11 than you have heard on your TV sets!

9/11 conspiracy “theory” or is it reasonable suspicion based on evidence?

*
Is it Really Crazy to Think That the Bush Administration are Involved in the Events of 9/11? Not If You Understood Their Beliefs & Agenda! It is About Time You Learned About The Bush Administration! - You have seen massive amounts of evidence debunking the official conspiracy theory of 9/11. You have seen tons of proof that the official story is a mountain of outright lies. However you still can not believe that your beloved president or his administration would do anything that bad to Americans. Well meet the neocons! Understand their philosophy and you will understand why you should suspect these people of being involved in the events of September 11th, 2001. - A MUST READ FOR ALL!
*
TvNewsLIES Challenges Believers of the Official Version of 9/11: - Where the Hell is YOUR proof?
*
9/11 - ALLTHE PROOF YOU NEED! - A 9/11 CHECKMATE - Some things are so disturbing that they are almost impossible to believe. That is why, in the 9/11 enigma, less is more. - Until these questions are answered there is no need to establish more doubt. What we have here is solid undisputed evidence that we were never told the truth.
*
9/11, Iraq & PNAC - The Connection is Clear & Undeniable - THE COMMON SENSE CONNECTION: THESE MEN LIED IN ORDER TO START A WAR AND IN THE PROCESS THEY SACRIFICED THE LIVES OF OVER 2000 AMERICAN SOLDIERS. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT THEY DID NOT SACRIFICE 3000 TOTAL STRANGERS ON 9/11/2001 FOR THE SAME PURPOSE?

EXPERT: Source: FromtheWilderness.com

Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney

There are 3 major points made within this book that are crucial to proving Cheney's guilt. I shall first list them and then go on to prove each point as laid out in Crossing the Rubicon.

1. Means - Dick Cheney and the Secret Service: Dick Cheney was running a completely separate chain of Command & Control via the Secret Service, assuring the paralysis of Air Force response on 9/11. The Secret Service has the technology to see the same radar screens the FAA sees in real time. They also have the legal authority and technological capability to take supreme command in cases of national emergency. Dick Cheney was the acting Commander in Chief on 9/11. (Click here for a summary of these points)

2. Motive - Peak Oil: At some point between 2000 and 2007, world oil production reaches its peak; from that point on, every barrel of oil is going to be harder to find, more expensive to recover, and more valuable to those who recover and control it. Dick Cheney was well aware of the coming Peak Oil crisis at least as early as 1999, and 9/11 provided the pretext for the series of energy wars that Cheney stated, "will not end in our lifetime." (Click here for a summary of these points)

3. Opportunity - 9/11 War Games: The Air Force was running multiple war games on the morning of 9/11 simulating hijackings over the continental United States that included (at least) one "live-fly" exercise as well as simulations that placed "false blips" on FAA radar screens. These war games eerily mirrored the real events of 9/11 to the point of the Air Force running drills involving hijacked aircraft as the 9/11 plot actually unfolded. The war games & terror drills played a critical role in ensuring no Air Force fighter jocks - who had trained their entire lives for this moment - would be able to prevent the attacks from succeeding. These exercises were under Dick Cheney's management. (Click here for a summary of these points)

Full article - click here.

9/11 news e-mailed to you daily!
JOIN the TvNewsLies headlines mailing list. Details here



C-911-Fr-cover-R-webSM
Celcius 9/11DVD
The International Citizens’ Inquiry into the events of 9/11 on Video.

Alarming facts are presented during the International Citizens' Inquiry into the events of 9/11. You will learn how the official 9/11 Commission report was little more than a white wash! - Click here to get this DVD!

“It is reported that more than half of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein is responsible for the terrorist attacks of 9/11. This means that the U.S. media have utterly, spectacularly, shamefully and pathetically failed.”

Statement by Michael Ruppert' - I will name Richard Cheney as the prime suspect in the mass murders of 9/11 and will establish that, not only was he a planner in the attacks, but also that on the day of the attacks he was running a completely separate Command, Control and Communications system which was superceding any orders being issued by the NMCC [National Military Command Center], or the White House Situation Room. Click here for more information and to get a DVD of Michael Ruppert’s lecture.

Government Insider Says Bush Authorized 911 Attacks - Keep in mind when reading this, that the man being interviewed is no two-bit internet conspiracy buff. - "This (9/11) was all planned. This was a government-ordered operation. Bush personally signed the order. He personally authorized the attacks. He is guilty of treason and mass murder." --Stanley Hilton

Amaray_LooseChange_Final-co125
What if the WTC was not hit by a commercial airliner?

A Note About “Conspiracy Theories”.

TVNL Comment: 9/11 was the perfect excuse for the Bush/PNAC administration to proceed with their entire agenda. Take notice on how many times you have heard this phrase from the administration: “9/11 changed everything”. It is their stock excuse for everything. They needed it; they asked for it, they closed their eyes and let it happen, and now they are benefiting from it. The Bush administration is carrying out the “crime of all time”!

"Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again, - -
The eternal years of God are hers;
But Error, wounded, writhes in pain,
And dies among his worshippers." - Senator Robert Byrd - May 21, 2003.

Download this flyer; force the media to cover the 9/11 cover up!

911_top_logo
911 In Plane Site
The FIRST 911 Video to Present VIDEO EVIDENCE - NOT THEORIES

Click here for the preview and to get the DVD or VHS tape!
$18 minimum donation.

From Dave vonKleist, co-host of "The Power Hour" radio program and writer/producer of the album "Will Someone Listen" & William Lewis, producer/director of "American Freedom News" and "TruNews" comes a full length documentary exposing one of the largest conspiracies ever uncovered. With the pounding force of a sledgehammer you will find yourself horrified and astonished at the shear scope of the largest transgressions ever carried out against the people of the United States and indeed... of the entire world.

911dvd_sm
Click here for the preview and to get the DVD or VHS tape!
$18 minimum donation.

9-11: "Bush Knew - An American Requiem" A Must see! Click here!

* The Smoking Gun?
*
George W. Bush - Strong on National Defense - Protecting America
* Bush/Bin Laden - A long warm relationship dating back 20 years. - How Bush stopped Bin Laden investigation prior to 9/11
* Domestic and International Warnings
* The Cover Up - This continues to this day.
* TvNewsLies.org Tracks the Hearings
* The Iraq Connection
* 9/11 – US Complicity: Implausible, or Very Probable? - Questions for the People Who Believe the Official Conspiracy Theory
*
9/11-PNAC, 9/11-PNAC - SHOULD BE THE #1 TOPIC OF DISCUSSION
A WAKE-UP CALL THE ALTERNATIVE AND LIBERAL MEDIA:
TO STOP IGNORING 9/11 AND THE PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY
*
9/11, Iraq & PNAC - The Connection is Clear & Undeniable - THE COMMON SENSE CONNECTION: THESE MEN LIED IN ORDER TO START A WAR AND IN THE PROCESS THEY SACRIFICED THE LIVES OF OVER 2000 AMERICAN SOLDIERS. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT THEY DID NOT SACRIFICE 3000 TOTAL STRANGERS ON 9/11/2001 FOR THE SAME PURPOSE?
*
Cheney’s Energy Meetings, Iraq Oil & 9/11 - A TVNL Reminder
*
Flying a Plane Into the World Trade Center Why Not Fly Out of LaGuardia - Once again, I ask you: would hijackers planning on attacking New York City, a city with 3 airports within direct eyesight of the intended target, choose to launch their attack from 190 miles away when they could have launched their attack from a distance of less than 15 miles? We are told that these ‘hijackers’ were such geniuses that they could deceive the most sophisticated air defense system in history.
*
BYU Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples - Building Collapses an Inside Job - Based on chemical analysis of WTC structural steel residue, a Brigham Young University physics professor has identified the material as Thermate. Thermate is the controlled demolition explosive thermite plus sulfur. Sulfur cases the thermite to burn hotter, cutting steel quickly and leaving trails of yellow colored residue.
*
Former Head Of Star Wars Program Says Cheney Main 911 Suspect - Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret., the former head of the Star Wars missile defense program under Presidents Ford and Carter has gone public to say that the official version of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory and his main suspect for the architect of the attack is Vice President Dick Cheney. - He said it is plausible that the entire chain of military command were unaware of what was taking place and were used as tools by the people pulling the strings behind the attack.
*
Alex Jones Responds To Ben Chertoff, Popular Mechanics Debunking Campaign - Popular Mechanics attributed false arguments to researchers and then attacked them. On top of that they lied outright by claiming that there was only one intercept of errant aircraft before 9/11.
*
Reply to Popular Mechanics re 911 - It is not the intention of this article to defend all of the "Claims" given by Popular Mechanics. Some of them may in fact be ludicrous. This is the "straw man" tactic, where an intellectually dishonest proponent sets up some ridiculous claim, which he attributes to "conspiracy theorists", and then proceeds to knock it down. This tactic is well-known to intelligent people, though apparently Popular Mechanics does not regard its readership as belonging to that class.
*
US 'let slip 9/11 hijacker 13 times' - A secret Pentagon unit had Mohammed Atta, the 9/11 ringleader, in its crosshairs 13 times before the 2001 attacks, a US congressman has claimed citing the unit's records. - Weldon said he now had proof there had been several attempts to transfer the information to the FBI, but they were blocked by lawyers for the administration of George Bush.
* Why isn't the truth out there? - The willingness of journalists to accepts the establishment's view of the events of, and after, 9/11 is truly staggering, says Paul Donovan - One of the major weaknesses of journalism today is how easily some are seduced by power. The premier role of the journalist should be as a check on power, however, many seem to turn this dictum on its head and get greater job satisfaction as parrots of the official truth.
* Was 9/11 Permitted to Happen? - Remember, 10 members of the Bush administration were part of a think tank, PNAC, that openly stated that it needed “A New Pearl Harbor”.
* Bush Clan - They actually said they needed “a New Pearl Harbor”. What a coincidence, they got one! Go figure!
* Map: Hijacked 9/11 Flights and Military Bases - The flights went through some of the most heavily militarized parts of the country, yet nothing could be done to stop them?
* FBI’s Top Al Quaeda Expert Resigns - Dies at His New Job on 9/11 as Head Of Security at the WTC.
*
On 9/11, CIA Was Running Simulation of a Plane Crashing into a Building - Here's another admission which destroys the government's lie that it couldn't possibly have foreseen the use of planes to ram buildings.
*
Missile & remote control systems added to small jets before 9-11; same parts found at Pentagon - Two civilian defense contractor employees--told to remain silent--say other workers quietly retro-fitted missile and remote control systems onto A-3 jets at Colorado public airport prior to September 11 when similar A-3 parts much smaller than a Boeing 757 were found at Pentagon - Presidential candidate says scores of retired and active military and intelligence officials would testify before current grand jury probing government involvement in 9/11 attacks
* The day before.
* The OJ response - Bush’s response as the attacks unfolded. See the video.
* The Secret Saudi Flight on 9-13 Could be the Key to the Bush-Saudi-Al Qaeda Connection
* 5 Israelis detained for `puzzling behavior' after WTC tragedy
* Reporters are Afraid to ask Questions; Fear Retribution.
* 7 Accused Hijackers Found Alive!
* FBI Denies Mix-Up Of 9/11 Terrorists - The Saudi Arabian Embassy insists that some innocents have been maligned by a rush to identify the Sept. 11 perpetrators.
* The Jackson Stephens link to the "hijacker" training airport
* FBI Admits: No Evidence Links 'Hijackers' to 9-11
* Senator: At Least One Foreign Country Assisted the 9/11 Terrorists
* Bush Knew - Collection of articles.
* People’s Investigation - Loads of information here.
* Did Bush Lie? - Very interesting commentary.
* Time Line of Documents - Very well organizes set of documentation. Very interesting read.
* CANADIAN BROADCASTER: " U.S. government's "official" version of 9/11 is the greatest deception ever launched."
* 9/11 v The Truth Comes Out Israel's 9/11 connection exposed
* Bush Divulges 9-11 Complicity Again?
* Bush reveals first thought: There's one terrible pilot - George Bush added a new and bizarre twist last night to the folklore surrounding September 11
* Bush Saw The First Plane Hit The WTC On TV????
* THE GREAT 9/11 COINCIDENCE
* Exposing NORAD's Wag The 911 Window Dressing Tale Using NORAD’s Own Press Release And Fifth Grade Math
* Russian MP claims US carried out September 11 attacks
* Barbs aside, 9/11 questions aren't going away
* Called Off - A secret FBI plan to arrest Osama bin Laden three years before the Sept. 11 attacks was called off,
* Americans must lose sheepishness about 9/11
* 9/11: Why Weren't U.S. Fighters Scrambled?
* 9/11 movie paints Bush as hero
* The origins of 11 September? - Far from being invented by terror masterminds, the idea behind the 11 September attacks may have come from an unlikely group of playboys who frequented bars in Manila, the Philippines, BBC Two's Correspondent reveals.
*
The mystery surrounding the death of John O'Neill: - In the immediate aftermath of the destruction of the World Trade Center, the finger of guilt was directed toward the only plausible author for such a sophisticated and ruthless act of terror - Osama bin Laden...
*
Media Silent on Clark's 9/11 Comments - Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks-- starting that very day. Clark said that he'd been called on September 11 and urged to link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a lack of evidence.
*
9/11 "Conspiracies" and the Defactualisation of Analysis - How Ideologues on the Left and Right Theorise Vacuously to Support Baseless Supposition
*
The Attack Has Been Spectacular - Regardless how anyone frames it, the White House duped us. - A MUST READ!
* The World Trade Center Demolition and the So-Called War on Terrorism
*
Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77
*
U.S. report on 9/11 to be 'explosive' - Government errors, Saudi ties to terrorists among highlights - The report will show that top Bush administration officials were warned in the summer of 2001 that the al Qaeda terrorist network had plans to hijack aircraft and launch a ``spectacular attack.''
*
German disbelief over 9/11 - One-third of Germans under age 30 believe the U.S. government may have sponsored the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, according to a poll. - And about 20 percent of Germans in all age groups hold this view, according to a survey of 1,000 people conducted for the weekly Die Zeit. - TVNL comment: Maybe their press is telling them all the facts.
*
Read Between the Lines of Those 28 Missing Pages - Yet even in its sanitized version, the bipartisan report, long delayed by an embarrassed White House, makes clear that the U.S. should have focused on Saudi Arabia, and not Iraq, in the aftermath of Sept. 11.
*
9/11 Report - The real Saudi Ties are U.S. Ties - No longer do we ask why the Saudi information is still classified, but which Saudi ties can be traced back to the United States? And who forced the classification? Who are these suspects President Bush is so scared to have mentioned?
*
The 9/11 Report Raises More Serious Questions About The White House Statements On Intelligence - Bluntly stated, either the Bush White House knew about the potential of terrorists flying airplanes into skyscrapers (notwithstanding their claims to the contrary), or the CIA failed to give the White House this essential information, which it possessed and provided to others.
*
Arrogance, or something darker? - If you want to know why 9/11 was allowed to happen you may not have to look any further than the Oval Office. - A little more than a month before the attack, in his Aug. 6 daily intelligence briefing, Bush was "told that morning of the al-Qaida terror network's interest in conducting a strike within the U.S., and that it might involve highjacked airplanes," reports the Wall Street Journal (7/24/03.) - Why didn't he order airlines to be alerted, inform the Federal Aviation Administration of the threat, put the military air commands on a high level of readiness and tell the FBI, CIA and INS to be super vigilant? - He brushed the warning aside - Perhaps it wasn't arrogance that made the PNAC-influenced administration dismiss multiple warnings of a terrorist attack using highjacked airliners. The truth may be far darker.- Here's the chilling kicker: To convince the American people to spend extra billions for defense instead of on Social Security, Medicare, etc., PNAC suggested it would take a "catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." (PNAC's exact words.)
*
Gov't: Hijacker Crashed Flight 93 on 9/11 - U.S. investigators now believe that a hijacker in the cockpit aboard United Airlines Flight 93 instructed terrorist-pilot Ziad Jarrah to crash the jetliner into a Pennsylvania field because of a passenger uprising in the cabin.
*
U.S. Faces Challenges at German 9/11 Trial - Defense May Call Secretly Held Witnesses and Invoke Conspiracy Theories - The defense said further that it might attempt to explore theories that the hijackings served the foreign policy goals of U.S. conservatives by creating a pretext to transform the U.S. military posture in the world. "It appears the U.S.A. was aware of the political advantages of the attack on the World Trade Center, as an idea, in advance," defense attorney Michael Rosenthal said.
*
September 11th And The Bush Administration - Compelling Evidence for Complicity -Newspapers across the country call for an investigation into Bush’s lies about the reasons for war on Iraq. Many people may accept the fact of Bush’s false pretext for a war on Arab people in a distant place, especially after the fact. However, few people will be as accepting if it is shown that this Administration was complicit in acts of atrocities against its own people.
*
Miscalculating Sept. 11’s aftermath - On 9/11, Bush was handed a historic opportunity. He blew it - REMEMBER? THE French newspaper Le Monde, never one for trans-Atlantic sentimentalism, proclaimed, “We are all Americans.” The band outside Buckingham Palace played “The Star-Spangled Banner” during a changing of the guard, as thousands of Londoners tearfully waved American flags. Most significant, the European leaders of NATO, for the first time in the organization’s history, invoked Article 5 of its charter, calling on its 19 member-nations to treat the attack on America as an attack on them all — a particularly moving gesture, as Article 5 had been intended to guarantee American retaliation against an attack on Europe. - But the Bush administration brushed aside these supportive gestures — and that may loom as the greatest tragedy of Sept. 11, apart from the tolls taken by the attack itself.
*
Rich firms 'got 9/11 fund millions' - The $539m World Trade Center Business Recovery Grant was meant to provide an emergency lifeline for restaurants and retailers in Lower Manhattan. - But, according to the New York Times, $144m - about 27% of the money - went to wealthy investment firms and financial traders. - Another $50m was given to law firms - few of which faced dire threats about their future, the paper says. - Far smaller amounts went to small businesses that were dependent on the foot traffic that largely disappeared after the attack, the report adds. - The 669 small businesses that were located in the World Trade Center itself, for instance, received $38m.
*
What You Think You Know About Sept. 11 …… but don't. - The Saudi government paid off al-Qaida in exchange for immunity from terror attacks. Saudi princes knew in advance about the Sept. 11 attacks. Most of the Saudi officials who assisted al-Qaida all died mysteriously soon thereafter. - The misconception: No one could have predicted the Sept. 11 attacks. Since 9/11, President Bush and his team have repeatedly insisted that the attacks were inconceivable. David Corn chronicles these claims in his new book The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception. In May 2002, for example, Condoleezza Rice said, "I don't think anyone could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center." Ari Fleischer echoed her, "Never did we imagine what would take place on Sept. 11 where people use those airplanes as missiles and weapons." What's wrong with the story: In fact, there were tons of warnings of exactly this kind of attack.
*
Lessons from Sept. 11 - "Cost of Empire": the high price of U.S. policies - Was al-Qaida behind the operation? Most likely, but not for certain. Secretary of State Colin Powell promised a white paper proving al-Qaida's guilt. It never came. - A tape that surfaced in late 2001 purporting to show Osama bin Laden gleefully chortling over the attacks, was seen by many in the Arab and Muslim world as a crude fake. Nothing can excuse the sickening barbarity of the 9/11 attacks. But nothing should excuse America's pre-attack delusions of Olympian immunity from the ills of the outside world, some caused by U.S. policies.
*
Cheney's Role In 911 Put On Center Stage By British MP - For the first time, a prominent British political figure has aired his suspicions, that the group around U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney may have intentionally caused, or allowed to happen, the mega-terrorism in New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, to set into motion an era of neo-imperial wars. Labour Party Member of Parliament Michael Meacher wrote a major feature focussing on Cheney's Project for a New American Century
*
NO ALERT ISSUED ON 9-11 (by FCC) as (p)RESIDENT BUSH DIDN'T ORDER ONE! - (1) the EAS system was not activated on 9/11/01. (2) a decision to activate EAS would be made by the president (for national level) or by the affected state (for state level), or by local authorities, so the FCC has no information on why EAS was not used that day.
*
AP: Terrorist Says 9/11 Plot Began in '96 - AP Exclusive: 9/11 Mastermind Says He Discussed Plot With Terror Leader Osama Bin Laden in 1996 - Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, has told American interrogators that he first discussed the plot with Osama bin Laden in 1996 and that the original plan called for hijacking five commercial jets on each U.S. coast before it was modified several times, according to interrogation reports reviewed by The Associated Press.
*
Report Fuels Fear That City Won't Get All of Promised 9/11 Aid - In essence, the report says, the city may never know how much of the $5 billion in so-called Liberty Zone tax benefits are ever used.There is a growing consensus among state and city officials that the tax benefits are worth far less than the $5 billion federal officials originally estimated. - "It's disturbing," said Representative Carolyn B. Maloney of Manhattan. "They're not going to have any records of how much was spent, or the value of what we've gotten. New York deserves to get the full $21.4 billion it was promised."
*
Truth, Lies, and The Legend of 9/11
*
Intelligence Chief says Sept. 11 Attacks not Planned in Hamburg - Heinz Fromm, the head of Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, told a court in Hamburg on Friday that he believed the devastating terrorist attacks that leveled New York’s World Trade Center were planned by the Islamic extremist group al Qaeda in Afghanistan in the late 1990s. - "The September 11 attacks were not planned in Hamburg, rather, as far as we know, this happened in Afghanistan," Fromm told the court.
*
The Official Legend of 9/11 is a fabricated Setup: Exposed: The June 2002 Plan to Market a New 9/11 Mastermind - In these series of selected excerpts from Chaim Kupferberg's landmark article, Kupferberg reveals the marketing plan to introduce Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to the public as the 9/11 mastermind in June 2002 - and the subsequent coincidences, contradictions, and anomalies which expose the Official Legend of 9/11 as a prefabricated set-up.
*
The CBC examines theories (reasonable suspision) surrounding 9/11.
*
Five Israelis were seen filming as jet liners ploughed into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 - Were they part of a massive spy ring which shadowed the 9/11 hijackers and knew that al-Qaeda planned a devastating terrorist attack on the USA? Neil Mackay investigates - Their discovery and arrest that morning is a matter of indisputable fact. To those who have investigated just what the Israelis were up to that day, the case raises one dreadful possibility: that Israeli intelligence had been shadowing the al-Qaeda hijackers as they moved from the Middle East through Europe and into America where they trained as pilots and prepared to suicide-bomb the symbolic heart of the United States. And the motive? To bind America in blood and mutual suffering to the Israeli cause.
*
When Breathing Is Believing - From the first days after Sept. 11, 2001, the fears and unknowns about health and air quality in Lower Manhattan were compounded by the politics that swirl, as always, around the Environmental Protection Agency. - An arm of the federal government that is second-guessed and distrusted as perhaps no other had been put in charge of the environmental response
*
Media Silence on 9/11 - Conspiracy theories about these events flourish because independently verified information has yet to see the light of day. More importantly no one has been held accountable for any lapses or misjudgments that left our country undefended.
*
9/11 IN NEVERNEVERLAND Press Ignores Widow's Bush Treason Lawsuit - Widow's Bush Treason Suit Vanishes in Blink of Media Eye - "The decision 'not to do the story' appears to be multiplying all over the - nation." - "Whoever said `no news is good news,' was BADLY misinformed." - TVNL Comment: This has been buried by the US media along with such little stories as Dick Cheney’s energy policy meetings, George. W. Bush’s military record, every single piece of information related to 9/11, felons appointed by Bush and PNAC taking over the nation. Liberal media? Show us a liberal media? this is a lapdog controlled media the likes of which the world has never seen before.
*
The WTC Towers Collapse: an Enormous Insurance Scam - On the 23rd July, 2001, just seven weeks previous to the World Trade Center demolitions, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey signed a deal with a consortium (Larry Silverstein, Westfield America Inc and Lloyd Goldman) led by Larry Silverstein for a 99 year lease of the World Trade Center complex. The leased buildings included WTCs One, Two, Four, Five and 400,000 square feet of retail space. The Marriott Hotel (WTC 3), U.S. Customs building (WTC 6) and Silverstein's own 47-story office building (WTC 7) were already under lease. Silverstein is seeking $7.2 billion from insurers for the destruction of the center. Here are few articles concerning the World Trade Center deal and consequent legal wrangle.
*
Wesley Clark Calls 9-11 Assertions 'Lies' - Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark said ``the two greatest lies'' of the last three years were that the Sept. 11 attacks could not have been prevented and that a future attack is inevitable.
*
How the '20th Hijacker' Got Turned Away - The FBI has since concluded that the would-be visitor, who carries the common Saudi name of al-Qahtani, may well have been the elusive "20th hijacker" who was supposed to be aboard United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in the fields of Pennsylvania on the morning of 9/11.
*
Silverstein, FDNY Decided to 'Pull WTC 7': An In-Depth Analysis - We know that the term 'pull it' means to bring the building down by means of explosives because in the same documentary a cleanup worker (in December 2001) refers to the demolition of WTC Building 6 when he says, "...we're getting ready to pull the building six."
*
U.S. repeatedly asked Taliban to expel bin Laden - Declassified cable details years of negotiations - The U.S. government asked the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to expel or hand over Osama bin Laden more than two dozen times between September 1996 and summer 2001, according to a recently declassified State Department cable. - At one point, a Taliban spokesman also told a U.S. official that his government could not expel bin Laden because it "would result in the downfall of the Taliban." - The cable recounts, in chronological order, a series of attempts to get bin Laden out of Afghanistan that continued before and after the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998, which the United States linked to al Qaeda. The U.S. government warned the Taliban, for example, in September 1998, that they would be held accountable for any future terrorist actions by bin Laden.
*
No Hijackers For 911 - Repentant arms dealer reveals disgruntled U.S. military on the verge of revolt - "These planes were being piloted by remote control, probably an AWACs aircraft taking over that airplane or airplanes or drones, unmanned drones. And flying them at 5 and 8 G-force that no pilot could withstand. So, in short, and if you read books 2 and 3, you will discover how and why this came about."
*
Documentation of Plans to Crash Airplanes Into Buildings that Bush and Condi Claim They Knew Nothing About: They Lie, Assassinate People's Characters Instead of Refuting Their Evidence -- and They are, Most Dangerous to the Nation, Incompetent. - A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
*
Terror experts 'almost quit' in frustration with Bush - The Bush administration's failure to prevent the 11 September attacks came under even fiercer scrutiny yesterday, when it emerged that two veteran CIA counter-terrorism experts were so frustrated in summer 2001 that they considered resigning and making public their fears about an imminent terrorist strike against US targets. - Not so, the White House counters. The Bush administration was focused on the terrorism problem but wanted to come up with a new strategic plan for the full destruction of al-Qa'ida, rather than "swatting flies", as Mr Bush is said to have described the existing policy. - But that explanation does not deal with another point of contention yesterday, the President's daily, top-secret, intelligence briefing from the CIA on 6 August 2001, which the White House has refused to release. It is known however that this "PDB" warned of the possibility of terrorists using airliners for an attack - leading to accusations of a cover-up.
*
DOJ Asked FBI Translator To Change Pre 9-11 Intercepts - FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds, was offered a substantial raise and a full time job in order to not go public that she had been asked by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to retranslate and adjust the translations of [terrorist] subject intercepts that had been received before September 11, 2001 by the FBI and CIA.
*
Thinking Unthinkable Thoughts - Theologian Charges White House Complicity in 9/11 Attack - In his latest book, The New Pearl Harbor — released just two weeks ago — Griffin all but accuses the Bush administration of taking a dive on September 11 and giving Al Qaeda terrorists an unobstructed shot at the World Trade Center. According to Griffin, a case can be made that the Bush administration arranged the attack, or allowed it to happen.
*
NORAD had drills of jets as weapons - In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.
*
The Fatal Flaw In The 911 Coverup - Why can no one name the hijackers or prove they flew the planes?
*
Missed Opportunity - FBI Agent Was Prevented From Relaying Warning on 9/11 Hijackers - More than a year before 9/11, CIA officials prevented an FBI agent working with the CIA from passing vital information to his agency on two suspected al Qaeda members — men who later would become Sept. 11 hijackers.
*
Bizarre New Link In Berg Murder - But CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin reports on what is turning into a bizarre mystery with a connection to 9/11. - U.S. officials say the FBI questioned Berg in 2002 after a computer password Berg used in college turned up in the possession of Zaccarias Moussaoui, the al Qaeda operative arrested shortly before 9/11 for his suspicious activity at a flight school in Minnesota.
*
Review: Fahrenheit 9/11 - There is highly selective editing, but the story is not totally one-sided. For example, there are soldiers in Iraq who believe in their mission, as well as those who say they are disillusioned. - But the movie's conclusions - true or otherwise - and highly emotional interviews with bereaved parents and injured soldiers will have a big impact on audiences around the world.
*
Anti-Bush film tops Cannes awards - Director Michael Moore's controversial anti-Bush documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 has won the prestigious Palme d'Or best film award at the Cannes festival. - It was the first documentary to win the top prize since Jacques Cousteau's The Silent World in 1956. - The film received a 15-minute standing ovation when it was screened on Monday.
*
The Explosion of the 9-11 Truth Movement -- U.S. Media's Dirty Little Secret - A mass movement and a mountain of disturbing evidence has been growing beneath the radar of U.S. media. The U.S. media (including alternative media) has done an extraordinarily superhuman job of "hearing" "seeing" and "speaking no evil." However many researchers, ordinary citizens, and journalists began to smell something rotten . . . not in Denmark . . . but rather, right here in the good ol' US of A.
*
9-11 'Drills': Interview of Stanley Hilton - attorney for 9/11 taxpayers’ lawsuit, Sept 10, 2004 - "Individuals that work in NORAD as well as the Air Force have stated this, off the record, but the point is, yes, this was not just five drills but at least 35 drills over at least two months before September 11th. Everything was planned, the exact location……"
*
"The Nation" magazine uses a CIA agent to declare Cheney innocent of complicity in 9/11 (just in time for the "election") - Well, FBI field agents like Robert Wright and Colleen Rowley who desperately tried to prevent 9/11 were stopped by one man, Special Supervisory Agent David Frasca --- not by the entire FBI. All that's required are a few well-placed, key people. As for keeping it a secret, of course the big crimes can't be kept secret. That's where The Nation comes in.
*
9/11 a CIA- MOSSAD False Flag Operation - 9/11 is an Expression of a Deep and Abiding Crisis in the Capitalist World Order: On-line Video
*
TvNewsLies.org’s Suggested Reading

[mouse]

The Mother of All Lies About 9/11
Barbara Olson's "Phone Call" From Flight 77


http://www.geocities.com/subliminalsuggestion/Olson1a.gif


This is a story about a little white lie that bred dozens of other little white lies, then hundreds of bigger white lies and so on, to the point where the first little white lie must be credited as the “Mother of All Lies” about events on 11 September 2001. For this was the little white lie that first activated the American psyche, generated mass loathing, and enabled media manipulation of the global population.
Without this little white lie there would have been no Arab Hijackers, no Osama Bin Laden directing operations from afar, and no “War on Terror” in Afghanistan and occupied Palestine. Clearly the lie was so clever and diabolical in nature, it must have been generated by the “Power Elite” in one of its more earthly manifestations. Perhaps it was the work of the Council on Foreign Relations, or the Trilateral Commission?
No, it was not. Though at the time the little white lie was flagged with a powerful political name, there was and remains no evidence to support the connection. Just like the corrupt and premature Lee Harvey Oswald story in 1963, there are verifiable fatal errors which ultimately prove the little white lie was solely the work of members of the media. Only they had access, and only they had the methods and means.
The little white lie was about Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator for CNN and wife of US Solicitor General Ted Olson. Now deceased, Mrs Olson is alleged to have twice called her husband from an American Airlines Flight 77 seat-telephone, before the aircraft slammed into the Pentagon. This unsubstantiated claim, reported by CNN remarkably quickly at 2.06 am EDT [0606 GMT] on September 12, was the solitary foundation on which the spurious “Hijacker” story was built.
Without the “eminent” Barbara Olson and her alleged emotional telephone calls, there would never be any proof that humans played a role in the hijack and destruction of the four aircraft that day. Lookalike claims surfaced several days later on September 16 about passenger Todd Beamer and others, but it is critically important to remember here that the Barbara Olson story was the only one on September 11 and. 12. It was beyond question the artificial “seed” that started the media snowball rolling down the hill.
And once the snowball started rolling down the hill, it artfully picked up Osama Bin Laden and a host of other “terrorists” on the way. By noon on September 12, every paid glassy-eyed media commentator in America was either spilling his guts about those “Terrible Muslim hijackers”, or liberating hitherto classified information about Osama Bin Laden. “Oh sure, it was Bin Laden,” they said blithely, oblivious to anything apart from their television appearance fees.
The deliberate little white lie was essential. Ask yourself: What would most Americans have been thinking about on September 12, if CNN had not provided this timely fiction? Would anyone anywhere have really believed the insane government story about failed Cessna pilots with box cutters taking over heavy jets, then hurling them expertly around the sky like polished Top Guns from the film of the same name? Of course not! As previously stated there would have been no Osama Bin Laden, and no “War on Terror” in Afghanistan and occupied Palestine.
This report is designed to examine the sequence of the Olson events and lay them bare for public examination. Dates and times are of crucial importance here, so if this report seems tedious try to bear with me. Before moving on to discuss the impossibility of the alleged calls, we first need to examine how CNN managed to “find out” about them, reported here in the September 12 CNN story at 2.06 am EDT:
“Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN. Shortly afterwards Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon” … “Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters. She felt nobody was in charge and asked her husband to tell the pilot what to do.”
At no point in the above report does CNN quote Ted Olson directly. If the report was authentic and 100% attributable, it would have been phrased quite differently. Instead of “Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel…”, the passage would read approximately:- Mr Olson told CNN, “My wife said all passengers and flight personnel…” Whoever wrote this story was certainly not in direct contact with US Solicitor General Ted Olson.
Think about it, people! If you knew or suspected your spouse’s aircraft had just fireballed inside the Pentagon building, how would you spend the rest of the day? Initially you would certainly be in deep shock and unwilling to believe the reports. Then you would start to gather your wits together, a slow process in itself. After that and depending on individual personality, you might drive over to the Pentagon on the off chance your spouse survived the horrific crash, or you might go home and wait for emergency services to bring you the inevitable bad news. As a matter of record, Ted Olson did not return to work until six days later.
About the last thing on your mind [especially if you happened to be the US Solicitor General], would be to pick up a telephone and call the CNN Atlanta news desk in order to give them a “scoop”. As a seasoned politician you would already know that all matters involving national security must first be vetted by the National Security Council. Under the extraordinary circumstances and security overkill existing on September 11, this vetting process would have taken a minimum of two days, and more likely three.
The timing of the CNN news release about Barbara Olson, is therefore as impossible as the New Zealand press release back in 1963 about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. As reported independently by Colonel Fletcher Prouty USAF (Retired), whoever set Kennedy up, accidentally launched a full international newswire biography on obscure “killer” Lee Harvey Oswald, without first taking the trouble to check his world clock.
It was still “yesterday” in New Zealand on the other side of the International Date Line when the biography was wired from New York, enabling the Christchurch Star newspaper was able to print a story about Oswald as the prime suspect in its morning edition, several hours before he was first accused of the crime by Dallas police.
If the CNN story about Ted Olson had been correct, and he really had called them about Barbara on September 11, then he would most surely have followed the telephone call up a few days later with a tasteful “one-on-one” television interview, telling the hushed and respectful interviewer about how badly he missed his wife, and about the sheer horror of it all.
There is no record of any such interview in the CNN or other archives. Indeed, if you key “Barbara Olson” into the CNN search engine, it returns only two related articles. The first is the creative invention on September 12 at 2.06 am EDT [0606 GMT], and the second is on December 12, about President Bush, who led a White House memorial that began at 8:46 a.m. EST, the moment the first hijacked plane hit the World Trade Center three months before. CNN includes this comment about Ted Olson:
“In a poignant remembrance at the Justice Department, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson referred to "the sufferings we have all experienced." He made no direct reference to the death of his wife, Barbara Olson, who was a passenger aboard the American Airlines flight that crashed into the Pentagon…”
Regarding the same event, Fox News reports that, extraordinarily, Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson then said Barbara Olson's call, made "in the midst of terrible danger and turmoil swirling around her," was a "clarion call that awakened our nation's leaders to the true nature of the events of Sept. 11."
So Ted Olson avoided making any direct personal reference to the death of his wife. Clearly this was not good enough for someone somewhere. By the sixth month anniversary of the attack, Ted Olson was allegedly interviewed by London Telegraph reporter Toby Harnden, with his exclusive story “She Asked Me How To Stop The Plane” appearing in that London newspaper on March 5, thereafter renamed and syndicated around dozens of western countries as “Revenge Of The Spitfire”, finally appearing in the West Australian newspaper on Saturday March 23, 2002.
I have diligently tried to find a copy of this story in an American newspaper but have so far failed. The reasons for this rather perverse “external” publication of Ted Olson’s story are not yet clear, but it seems fair to observe that if he is ever challenged by a Senate Select Committee about the veracity of his claims, the story could not be used against him because it was published outside American sovereign territory.
Regardless of the real reason or reasons for its publication, the story seems to have matured a lot since the first decoy news release by CNN early on September 12, 2001. Here we have considerably more detail, some of which is frankly impossible. In the alleged words of US Solicitor General Theodore Olson:
“She [Barbara] had trouble getting through, because she wasn’t using her cell phone – she was using the phone in the passengers’ seats,” said Mr Olson. “I guess she didn’t have her purse, because she was calling collect, and she was trying to get through to the Department of Justice, which is never very easy.” … “She wanted to know ‘What can I tell the pilot? What can I do? How can I stop this?’ ”
"What Can I tell the pilot?" Yes indeed! The forged Barbara Olson telephone call claims that the flight deck crew were with her at the back of the aircraft, presumably politely ushered down there by the box cutter-wielding Muslim maniacs, who for some bizarre reason decided not to cut their throats on the flight deck. Have you ever heard anything quite so ridiculous?
But it is at this juncture that we finally have the terminal error. Though the American Airlines Boeing 757 is fitted with individual telephones at each seat position, they are not of the variety where you can simply pick up the handset and ask for an operator. On many aircraft you can talk from one seat to another in the aircraft free of charge, but if you wish to access the outside world you must first swipe your credit card through the telephone. By Ted Olson’s own admission, Barbara did not have a credit card with her.
It gets worse. On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup" charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter. The setup charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network. Under these circumstances the passengers’ seat phone on a Boeing 757 is a much use as a plastic toy.
Perhaps Ted Olson made a mistake and Barbara managed to borrow a credit card from a fellow passenger? Not a chance. If Barbara had done so, once swiped through the phone, the credit card would have enabled her to call whoever she wanted to for as long as she liked, negating any requirement to call collect.
Sadly perhaps, the Olson telephone call claim is proved untrue. Any American official wishing to challenge this has only to subpoena the telephone company and Justice Department records. There will be no charge originating from American Airlines 77 to the US Solicitor General.
Even without this hard proof, the chances of meaningfully using a seat-telephone on Flight 77 were nil. We know from the intermittent glimpses of the aircraft the air traffic controllers had on the radar scopes, that Flight 77 was travelling at extreme speed at very low level, pulling high “G’ turns in the process.
Under these circumstances it would be difficult even reaching a phone, much less using it. Finally, the phones on the Boeing 757 rely on either ground cell phone towers or satellite bounce in order to maintain a stable connection. At very low altitude and extreme speed, the violent changes in aircraft attitude would render the normal telephone links completely unusable.
Exactly the same applies with United Airlines Flight 93 that crashed before reaching any targets. The aircraft was all over the place at extreme speed on radar, but as with Flight 77 we are asked to believe that the “hijackers” allowed a passenger called Todd Beamer to place a thirteen minute telephone call. Very considerate of them. The Pittsburg Channel put it this way in a story first posted at 1.38 pm EDT on September 16, 2001:
“Todd Beamer placed a call on one of the Boeing 757's on-board telephones and spoke for 13 minutes with GTE operator Lisa D. Jefferson, Beamer's wife said. He provided detailed information about the hijacking and -- after the operator told him about the morning's World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks - said he and others on the plane were planning to act against the terrorists aboard.” Note here that Mrs Lisa Beamer did not receive a telephone call from Todd personally, but was later “told” by an operator that her husband had allegedly called. Just another unfortunate media con job for the trash can.
As previously stated it is the Barbara Olson story that really counts, a view reinforced by the recent antics of the London print media. The photo at the top of this page is a copy of that printed in the West Australian newspaper. You only have to study it closely for a second to realize its full subliminal potential.
Here is a studious and obviously very honest man. The US Solicitor General sits in front of a wall lined with leather-bound volumes of Supreme Court Arguments, with a photo of his dead wife displayed prominently in front of him. Does anyone out there seriously believe that this man, a bastion of US law, would tell even a minor lie on a matter as grave as national security?
Theodore Olson’s own words indicate that he would be prepared to do rather more than that On March 21, 2002 on its page A35, the Washington Post newspaper printed an article titled “The Limits of Lying” by Jim Hoagland, who writes that a statement by Solicitor General Theodore Olson in the Supreme Court has the ring of perverse honesty.
Addressing the Supreme Court of the United States of America, US Solicitor General Theodore Olson said it is "easy to imagine an infinite number of situations . . . where government officials might quite legitimately have reasons to give false information out."


Electronic Hijack The First 9/11 Shoe Bomber Vialls Home
The Mother of All Lies About 9/11
Barbara Olson's "Phone Call" From Flight 77

Copyright Joe Vialls, 27 March 2002
Ted Olson in his Washington Office

[mouse]

Bush Defector To Demolish
911 Lies


The former top economist in Bush's Department of Labor, Morgan Reynolds, will speak out on the 9/11 inside job at the State Historical Society, University of Wisconsin-Madison on Saturday, May 6th. The film Loose Change will be shown, and refreshments served, starting at 1 p.m, and Reynolds will speak at 3:00 p.m.

Dr. Reynolds, who holds three U.W.-Madison degrees, and who is currently Professor of Economics at Texas A&M University, will present evidence that top Bush Administration officials orchestrated the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and the murder of almost 2,500 Americans, as a pretext for initiating their pre-planned "long war" in the Middle East.

"While more Americans doubt the 9/11 story every week, evidence abounds that many have a mental block against rational examination of the evidence about 9/11" writes Dr. Reynolds in a recent article. This mental block, he thinks, amounts to willful ignorance-not just about 9/11, but about history.

"Governments throughout history have provoked or staged attacks on their own people to serve the powers behind the throne ('the money power'), glorify themselves, engage in vast government spending, reward friends, exert domestic control, stimulate the juices of war, annex neighbors and pursue vast geostrategic rearrangements (the 'global domination project)" Reynolds asserts. He notes that every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on the "Operation Northwoods" plan to murder Americans in fake "Cuban terrorist" attacks in 1962. The planned Operation Northwoods murders of ordinary Americans in fake terrorist bombings and a fake "airliner shoot-down" would have involved hundreds of military and intelligence personnel. Yet the existence of Operation Northwoods was successfully kept secret from the American people for forty years until James Bamford revealed it in his book Body of Secrets, published in January 2002.

Though government officials have historically been able to successfully conceal their fake or arranged war-trigger attacks long enough to avoid being hanged for treason, Reynolds thinks the 9/11 cover-up has already unraveled. "Skepticism about conspiracy, small or large, is somewhat beside the point in the case of 9/11 because the official Osama-and-Nineteen-Young-Arabs (ONYA) conspiracy tale is so farcical and impossible. Nearly everyone in America has easy access to the internet and hundreds of websites expose the 9/11 fraud." (Morgan Reynolds, "Conspiracy and Closed Minds on 9/11": http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911 )

Reynolds argues that the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 were destroyed in a manner that can only be explained by controlled demolition with pre-planted explosives-which should not be surprising, since no steel framed high-rises have ever collapsed in the way the three World Trade Center buildings did for any other reason. In his article "Why Did the World Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?" Reynolds writes that among the many features of the WTC demolitions that suggest explosives, rather than jet-fuel fires, are:

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

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

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

4. WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams (pp. 68-9).

5. In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC lease-holder, recalled talking to the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 and said, ".maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.

6. FEMA, given the uninviting task of explaining the collapse of Building 7 with mention of demolition verboten admitted that the best it could come up with had "only a low probability of occurrence."

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

Professional demolition, by contrast, can explain all of these facts and more. Demolition means placing explosives throughout a building, and detonating them in sequence to weaken "the structure so it collapses or folds in upon itself". In conventional demolitions gravity does most of the work, although it probably did a minority on

9/11, so heavily were the towers honeycombed with explosives.

1. Each WTC building collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed (approximately 10 seconds or less).

2. Each building collapsed, for the most part, into its own footprint.

3. Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone (".workers can't even find concrete. 'It's all dust,' [the official] said").

4. Dust exploded horizontally for a couple hundred feet, as did debris, at the beginning of each tower's collapse.

5. Collapses were total, leaving none of the massive core columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air.

6. Salvage experts were amazed at how small the debris stacks were.

7. The steel beams and columns came down in sections under 30 feet long and had no signs of "softening"; there was little left but shorn sections of steel and a few bits of concrete.

8. Photos and videos of the collapses all show "demolition waves," meaning "confluent rows of small explosions" along floors (blast sequences).

9. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings.

10. Each collapse had detectable seismic vibrations suggestive of underground explosions, similar to the 2.3 earthquake magnitude from a demolition like the Seattle Kingdome (p. 108).

11. Each collapse produced molten steel identical to that generated by explosives, resulting in "hot spots" that persisted for months (the two hottest spots at WTC-2 and WTC-7 were approximately 1,350o F five days after being continuously flooded with water, a temperature high enough to melt aluminum (p. 70). ("Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?" by Morgan Reynolds: http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911 )

The apparent demolition of the three skyscrapers, and a perhaps inadvertent statement by heavily-insured WTC landlord Larry Silverstein that WTC-7 was "pulled" (slang for "demolished") can be viewed on many 9/11 truth DVDs and web-videos, including Loose Change, 9/11 Eyewitness, 9/11 and the American Empire, (Dr. David Griffin), and 9/11 Revisited (Dr. Steven Jones). Dr. Reynolds' articles on 9/11 and other matters can be found at http://nomoregames.net .
The videos, and further information about Dr. Reynolds' May 6th speech, are available from the event's sponsor, the Madison-based Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth: http://mujca.com

[mouse]

Dude there is 10 times more shit about 9/11 and lies then there is about guys like you debunking the truth. You may as well not want to get into a copy and paste war, its a battle you can't win.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=Rg2&q=lies+about+911&btnG=Search

[The Power Hour.]

Multiply that with multiple screen names and your severely fucked!

[Alex Jones]

My advise would be to pick up what is left from your wannabe debunking ass and find a nice religious vs evolution topic! :tu

[RandomGuy]

My advise would be to pick up what is left from your wannabe debunking ass and find a nice religious vs evolution topic! :tu

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=584

[RandomGuy]

Multiply that with multiple screen names and your severely fucked!

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=315

Yawn. YOU'RE

[RandomGuy]

YTNRkb7AaQk

[RandomGuy]

9/11 Debunked: WTC - No Pools of Molten Steel
7YXzjAKJQOg


This is one of my favs. It shows the 9-11 movement actively faking evidence.

Have you watched it mouse?

What do you have to say about the footage?

[RandomGuy]

9/11 Debunked: Thermate Chemical Signatures Disproven
OWpC_1WP8do

[RandomGuy]

9/11 Truthers: Meet Alex Jones

4ikRc4ER2xY

[RandomGuy]

9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed
qLShZOvxVe4

[RandomGuy]

9/11 Debunked: Columns Cut not by Thermite
ySHgiUxnLC0

[RandomGuy]

9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible
tacYjsS-g6k

[RandomGuy]

(Begin EDIT)
FOR THOSE OF YOU READING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME, SEE PAGES 3 AND 4 for the NIST FAQ that answers the biggest "truther" questions.(end EDIT)

Since the 9-11 CTers like to copy and paste ad inifinitum, let's see if we can get some good stuff here.

It might surprise you CTers but there is a whole cottage industry built up around your bullshit.

They don't sell T-shirts, mugs, or crappy videos.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Here is a gem: The 9-11 "truthers" in their own "like, words". Icky.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7216643725166640147&hl=en

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

http://wtc.nist.gov/

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://www.911myths.com/

Best one out of all the lot so far:
http://www.debunking911.com/

Mike Walter talking about the plane hitting the pentagon, and how irritated he is with the 9-11 "truth" movement for lying about what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPUDktZpCU

Link to a TON of debunking links:
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

Here ARE SOME REALLY PRECIOUS LINKS.

9-11 "truth" scholars turning on each other. You thought they were unstable and kooky when they talk about the government, wait until they start talking about each other.

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


A whole page of youtube debunking videos (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=RKOwens4&p=r)

A whole page of decent debunking links and one of the best ones so far. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)

[RandomGuy]

9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center "Topple-Over" Scenario
V9Mhhvl7vWk

[mouse]

9/11 Debunked: WTC - No Pools of Molten Steel
7YXzjAKJQOg


This is one of my favs. It shows the 9-11 movement actively faking evidence.

Have you watched it mouse?

What do you have to say about the footage?

First off I apologize Sundays are not good days when your stealing your neighbors wiFi signal. They are at home watching movies and playing online games. I was only able to get 1mb downloads it would have took me days to reply and to upload the pictures I have that will debunk your poor attempt to debunk my evidence.

Another thing since I am here you will notice if i see something that may disprove something I once believed in I will take it under consideration and after doing further research i will give it the credit its due.

Unlike Chump who doesn't care if 12 CIA men come to his trailer and tell him the WTC buildings had explosives and we planted them, here are the photos, Chump would just dismiss the men and say..
"so...what do you really think happened on 9/11?"

After all I never said I support all theories. I just question them and don't like being labeled a tin foil hat wearing Big Foot groupie.

with that said, lets begin.................

first off did you actually look at the youtube video before you posted it? They contradict themselves after every statement.

They say there is no molten steel but there could be pools of molten metal? are we going to split hairs on every issue?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/RTM-3/91111111.jpg

Another thing you and Chump hate when we bring up eye witnesses, and someone heard a bomb, someone saw something, etc....

you guys don't like here say info but then you try and use it? why do you get a pass?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/RTM-3/91111.jpg

I am not sure who benefits from this statement, It looks like they are trying to cover their tracks.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/RTM-3/911111.jpg


And this one? come on brah! hollow beams and tunnels have oxygen to keep large fires burning? This one makes your you tube friends look like conspiracy theorist. are you sure you agree with this one? Its borderline speculation and extreme exaggeration at best.

Everyone knows the largest piece of office furniture rescue workers found was no bigger than a phone key pad and yet now all of a sudden there is this huge pile of office supplies?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/RTM-3/9111111.jpg

The one about lying about the photo of bright light and maybe doctoring it up if that is true, then it was wrong.

[ChumpDumper]

They say there is no molten steel but there could be pools of molten metal? are we going to split hairs on every issue?Is all molten metal necessarily molten steel?

No.

Is there a significant difference in temperature between molten aluminum and molten steel?

Yes.

Can an average eyewitness tell the difference between molten steel and molten aluminum in debris piles just by looking at it?

No.

Do truthers try to distort eyewitness accounts in an attempt to force a conclusion that all molten metal must be molten steel?

Yes.

Have we gone over every point mouse tries to bring up in every 9/11 thread several times before only to have him change the subject to another YouTube video or bloatGIF?

Yes.

[Wild Cobra]

You all know that Chump and I usually disagree, but he is right.

Why is this evidence so hard to understand?

Metal DOES NOT mean steel!

That one photo is absolutely a clear fake!

When any of you truthers come up with some reliable evidence, I'll start believing you. I have never seen any evidence from truthers that wasn't easily explained as something else.

[Laker Lanny]

Did gravity and kerosene bring down wtc towers?

No.

Is there much more evidence to support lies on 9/11?

Yes.

Can an average poster on this board disagree with Chump or Blake?

No.

Do Chump and Cobra always feel they are right no matter what?

Yes.
After all the links have been posted and evidence has been presented does Chump still ask, "what do you think really happened on 9/11?"

Yes.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/RTM-3/kobe-in-bed.gif

[mouse]

Those youtube videos anyone can make them. I can make one saying it was the ghost of Elvis that brought down the twin towers. How is it when we post you tube videos we are brain washed sheep, but when you guys post you tube videos your very smart in finding such evidence.



You guys can debate on if something was steel, iron, aluminum or copper.. etc...till the cows come home ,that doesn't explain how fast the towers came down with parts flying 500 feet away and pulverizing the concrete.

Not to mention the firemen having to change out their boots every 8 hours due to very high heat, a heat you don't get from airplane fuel that was 70 stories above but from some sort of explosive materials in the basement.

Keep posting the bogus debunking videos they are very entertaining. :tu

[ChumpDumper]

Those youtube videos anyone can make them. I can make one saying it was the ghost of Elvis that brought down the twin towers. How is it when we post you tube videos we are brain washed sheep, but when you guys post you tube videos your very smart in finding such evidence.It's the content therein.


You guys can debate on if something was steel, iron, aluminum or copper.. etc...till the cows come home ,that doesn't explain how fast the towers came down with parts flying 500 feet away and pulverizing the concrete.Changing the subject is a good idea at this point -- but next time try something we haven't already gone over multiple times.


Not to mention the firemen having to change out their boots every 8 hours due to very high heat, a heat you don't get from airplane fuel that was 70 stories above but from some sort of explosive materials in the basement.Explosive materials explode. They don't burn for weeks. The jet fuel burned off fairly quickly; it was the other materials in the building that burned longer.


Keep posting the bogus debunking videos they are very entertaining. :tuThey get the job done. You have done nothing to refute their content.

[RandomGuy]

with that said, lets begin.................

first off did you actually look at the youtube video before you posted it? They contradict themselves after every statement.

Acutally they don't.


They say there is no molten steel but there could be pools of molten metal? are we going to split hairs on every issue?

They don't say there is no molten steel. They say that there is no real way to conclusively say exactly what the metal is.

They do provide a plausible explanation, i.e. it is very probable that the metal was aluminum.

This is far from "splitting hairs". If thermite was used, one would expect to see molten steel. One would also have expected the rubble pile to have been too hot to get near for days. Rescuers were combing through the rubble within hours.

This is a rather huge point that completely eliminates the possibility of massive amounts of thermite having been used.

IF that much thermite was used to melt/explode the building, THEN the resulting rubble pile would have been MASSIVELY hot, and could not have been entered without the shiny-ass thermal suits. That much thermite would have made the rubble so hot that it would have outright melted any glass within a block radius.


Another thing you and Chump hate when we bring up eye witnesses, and someone heard a bomb, someone saw something, etc....

you guys don't like here say info but then you try and use it? why do you get a pass?

The video, and it premise relies in no instance on heresay. This is where you are factually incorrect. It points out exactly the opposite in fact.


And this one? come on brah! hollow beams and tunnels have oxygen to keep large fires burning? This one makes your you tube friends look like conspiracy theorist. are you sure you agree with this one? Its borderline speculation and extreme exaggeration at best.

How would *you* describe underground pipe access tunnels, the subway track leading into and out of the crushed subway station, and numerous other "tubes" leading into the former skyscapers?

hmm?



Everyone knows the largest piece of office furniture rescue workers found was no bigger than a phone key pad and yet now all of a sudden there is this huge pile of office supplies?

If I take a desk, and a chair, and a cabinet full of paper, run it through an industrial grade shredder, have I modified it's chemical composition?


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/RTM-3/9111111.jpg

The one about lying about the photo of bright light and maybe doctoring it up if that is true, then it was wrong.

Yes, it was wrong.

That picture, of firefighters around "molten steel" was forwarded and displayed very prominently on many conspiracy websites.

"Look at the firefighters around the melted steel, see how brightly it is glowing, that PROVES thermite was used because what else could cause steel to melt?"

The faulty assumption, i.e. there was molten steel, causes the whole argument to collapse.

If you cannot conclusively prove molten steel, you cannot conclusively prove anything based on that assumption.

I would love anybody who says that it was thermite, even non-existant explosive nano-thermite to show me, even roughly, how much force/chemical energy was released and explain the contradictions *I* have brought up.

Namely:

If it was outright explosives, where are the reports of glass flying for miles?

If it was non-explosive thermite, why was the rubble pile so cool?

[mouse]

Explosive materials explode. They don't burn for weeks.

Then you never heard of Depleted uranium missiles the heat can burn for days. The Military uses it.


http://www.shunpiking.com/DODU/images/Afghan_village_bombed.jpg

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/2527/9908131bjn9.jpg

http://www.greatdreams.com/death/depleted_uranium_alert.jpg






The jet fuel burned off fairly quickly; it was the other materials in the building that burned longer.
.

How would a jet fire 70 stories above make a huge fire in the basement that burned for weeks? If anything the fire would have been on the surface. These fires where buried deep covered by rubble that was not on fire above it.


If you live in a three story house you can't blame your couch that is on the first floor being on fire due to a fire that was on the third floor and have the second floor untouched. How could a fire skip through all that 80 story rubble just to start up in the basement? You have to keep it real and say maybe there was some sort of fire already in the basement if not then your not following you own rules of common sense,

You can't tell me that this picture of very hot debris is from a pile of rubble that just happened to burn day after day with extreme high temperatures.
without some sort of thermite. look at the dripping metal you all claim was not there.

http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/2169/moltensteelenclose5mt.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

Then you never heard of Depleted uranium missiles the heat can burn for days. The Military uses it.Actually I have only heard of their use in anti-armor bullets and artillery. Please tell us all about their use in missiles as a long-burning incendiary.


How would a jet fire 70 stories above make a huge fire in the basement that burned for weeks? If anything the fire would have been on the surface. These fires where buried deep covered by rubble that was not on fire above it.How do people get from the ground floors to the upper floors of a building?



If you live in a three story house you can't blame your couch that is on the first floor being on fire due to a fire that was on the third floor and have the second floor untouched. How could a fire skip through all that 80 story rubble just to start up in the basement? You have to keep it real and say maybe there was some sort of fire already in the basement if not then your not following you own rules of common sense,If a plane flew into the third floor of a house and fuel and burning debris fell down the stairs -- or indeed the elevator shaft (my mom had a three floor condo with an elevator) -- it could very possibly ignite my couch.


You can't tell me that this picture of very hot debris is from a pile of rubble that just happened to burn day after day with extreme high temperatures.

http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/2169/moltensteelenclose5mt.jpgI can tell you with great certainty that it is not molten.

[mouse]

Yes, it was wrong.

That picture, of firefighters around "molten steel" was forwarded and displayed very prominently on many conspiracy websites.

"Look at the firefighters around the melted steel, see how brightly it is glowing, that PROVES thermite was used because what else could cause steel to melt?"

Ok if I agree that photo was doctored or miss used to prove another point then you have to do the same when I show you photos of something that looks fake also. And speaking of photos why would your boys from the cia/fbi not show any photos or videos of the pentagon?

Why don't I see you or your pal Chump call them out for keeping info from the public? If it was the other way around and Alex Jones had 80 different camera angles of the pentagon and it showed a plane not a drone or missile hit the pentagon and did not want to share them you would be calling him out, wouldn't you?






If it was outright explosives, where are the reports of glass flying for miles?

The explosives in the basement would not shoot glass miles out in the public.

And besides this type of charge cuts through the metal its not like dynamite and just blows everything up like in a coal mine.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/RTM-3/I-Beam-ShapeCharges.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/RTM-3/vlcsnap-157042.png



If it was non-explosive thermite, why was the rubble pile so cool?


According to the rescue workers they had to change out their boots every few days cause they would melt.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JdFs87ua_1s/SBeQyY8vYbI/AAAAAAAAESQ/9iGIT2bM1Ec/s1600-h/911moltensteel222222.jpg



And what would you say made these sparks?

http://9eleven.info/moltenstreamthermate.jpg

Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Molten Steel

Molten STEEL Flowed Under Ground Zero for Months After 9/11
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
In response to the numerous reports of molten metal under ground zero, defenders of the official version of 9/11 have tried to argue that it was not steel, but some other kind of metal with a lower melting point.Well, here are what top experts who eyewitnessed the molten metal say:
The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC purportedly described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks (page 3)
A retired professor of physics and atmospheric science said "in mid-October when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December"
The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel"
Hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires" (pay-per-view)
An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them
According to reporter Christopher Bollyn, Mark Loizeaux, president the world's top demolition company, and Peter Tully, head of a large construction firm, said the following:

Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of “literally molten steel” in the rubble.Loizeaux confirmed this: “Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements,” he said, “at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.”The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” he said. He confirmed that molten steel was also found at WTC 7, which mysteriously collapsed in the late afternoon.Here's what eyewitness firefighters say:
New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel"
A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a "foundry" or like "lava"
According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots"
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel" Here's what other eyewitnesses say:
A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano
An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet"
A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams"
An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel"
A witness said “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel”
A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains..." The fact that there was molten steel under ground zero for months after 9/11 is very odd, especially since firefighters sprayed millions of gallons of water on the fires and applied high-tech fire retardants.