Third Party & Independents Archives

From 9/11 Truth to Political Reform

For evidence that America’s political system is a criminal conspiracy, open your mind to piles of new analyses that prove beyond doubt that the official 9/11 story is a lie. Years of a bipartisan cover-up of 9/11 lies make it much more than one horrendous past event. It endures in infamy as a symptom of a corrupt and dishonest government.

Every day we pay for what 9/11 and its cover-up have burdened us with, including the costly Iraq war and the erosion of the rule of law and constitutional rights. Power elites have suppressed the truth because they fear what will happen when the public understands that 9/11 was not accomplished solely by foreign terrorists.

Technically sound analyses of what happened at the World Trade Center have unequivocally shown that the official 9/11 story is not credible. Truth seekers have met their burden of proof; the government has not met theirs. Simply put, controlled demolition brought down three buildings, not fires from the impact of planes on two of them. Not only was the US government involved, it has also conspired to hide the truth from the public. Why? Republican and Democratic politicians and power elites fear that 9/11 truth will remove what little public trust remains in government. The truth will produce political instability, perhaps breaking the two-party stranglehold on our political system. And it should. And it must, if we are to finally obtain the deep political reforms our nation desperately needs.

The decline started before George W. Bush and his criminal co-conspirators accelerated it with their blatant disregard for the rule of law and our Constitution. It will continue, even with a Democratic administration, unless we reform our political system. We must remind Americans that our nation was born in an insurrectionist, populist rebellion against political tyranny – and that 9/11 teaches us that we need a Second American Revolution. We must destroy the domestic Axis of Arrogance of our plutocracy more than fear a foreign Axis of Evil. How?

A vast nationwide grassroots 9/11 truth movement is ignored by the mainstream news media. Its success will be the catalyst for renewing American democracy. It will produce a shock wave that rattles the brains of all Americans: Shock therapy from a truth so powerful and unsettling that Americans finally see the decline of American democracy that allowed 9/11 and its cover-up.

Make no mistake, the 9/11 truth movement holds the future of the United States. We are not subversive “conspiracy theorists” or enablers of foreign terrorism. We are patriotic warriors working to nullify group delusion produced by government propaganda. Dozens of books and websites reveal countless technical contradictions and inconsistencies with the official government 9/11 story and the laws of physics. The weight of the evidence supports one painful verdict: Our federal government played a role, probably through a large “black op.” The “why” is obvious: To justify an unjust war to serve corporate interests and greed.

Here is our opportunity: To make 9/11 the tipping point for American democracy renewal. Our enemies fear that if this movement succeeds, their plutocratic, elitist cabal – the Axis of Arrogance – run by the two-party duopoly will collapse. Corruption keeps our political system stable – truth must clean it up. Instability is the necessary price for restoring democracy.

A Paradigm Shift

9/11 lies have sustained the ruling terrorism-threat paradigm. 9/11 truth must energize a new political-reform paradigm. Patriotism framed as defending the nation against terrorism must be replaced by patriotism focused on repairing American democracy.

Already, status quo protectionists lie about us to defeat our movement. Things will get worse as our movement draws closer to bringing down the corrupt political system. And we are getting closer. Only 16 percent of Americans believe that members of the Bush administration are telling the truth about what they knew about terrorist attacks on the US prior to 9/11, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll. But what people say in polls is not the same as coming out publicly and vociferously for 9/11 truth, or seeing the roots of 9/11 in the decay of American democracy, not merely the actions of a few evil people.

The deceived public must be re-educated to see the arrogant power elites running our national plutocracy as worse than radical Islamic terrorists. Paul Craig Roberts captured the essence of the problem: “Americans think their danger is terrorists. They don't understand the terrorists cannot take away habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution. ... The terrorists are not anything like the threat that we face to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution from our own government in the name of fighting terrorism. Americans just aren't able to perceive that.”

9/11 is a history lesson to inform the nation about democracy decline. As John McMurtry asked, “So which goes - the faith in America’s greatness and goodness in the world, or the facts which disclose the opposite at the very top?” We must always remember that Americans are better than their government. They do not get the government they deserve. They get the government that the rich and powerful impose. That must end.

We confront more than power elites. There is psychological resistance of millions of Americans to painful 9/11 truth – a shameful, “unthinkable” truth about their elected government. Even if they have doubts about the official story, they instinctively recoil and erect mental barriers to block out the full truth. They want to keep believing that they live in a great democracy. They want to believe that when the Bush administration is replaced our democracy will be in good shape again. Hard to accept that 9/11 truth could not have been suppressed this long without the tacit or explicit approval of Democratic politicians and power brokers.

It is as if we are telling children that their parents are mass murderers. Distracted, time-poor, depressed, political disengaged, cynical and insecure Americans do not want to hear that their government had a hand in 9/11. That for years their two-party-controlled government has blatantly lied to them. That thousands of good Americans have died and been terribly injured in a war propped up by the false-flag 9/11 fiction. In sum, that despite elections a vast criminal conspiracy has been so successful for so long. Such thoughts hurt.

Also, political instability is scary to ordinary Americans. But stability based on corruption and lies is destructive. Only when Americans see 9/11 as a political attack (by Americans on Americans) – not solely a terrorist attack (by foreigners on Americans) – will they understand that revealing 9/11 truth must lead to major political reforms. Instability is the cost of democracy renewal.

Here are powerful messages: The collapse of the rule of law is more important than the collapse of buildings. Countless more have died because of 9/11 than on 9/11. The events of 9/11 ultimately are less important than the reasons for and consequences of 9/11.

As John McMurtry said, “[9/11] allowed an illegitimate administration to transmute into America’s patriotic champion at war - above accountability and the rule of law. ‘Defending America from another terrorist attack’ became a political blank check for corporate corruption of government expenditures with impunity, war criminal acts and threats across the Islamic and alternative third world, and attacks on civil rights and commons at home.” All this persists as 9/11 lies persist.

Despite record-low levels of public trust in Congress and the president, too many Americans still believe that elections are the path to major political reforms. Despite a solid history of campaign lies from politicians, and overwhelming belief that the nation is on the wrong track, Americans keep hoping that they can vote their way into a better future. Most Americans do not have a Boston Tea Party mentality. They are unready to revolt despite revolting conditions. Our truth movement must help Americans accept painful truth and its political fallout. We must put all the technical truth discovered by reputable scientists and engineers to work for systemic reforms.

We must do more than oust the official story and obtain a new 9/11 investigation that now has wide support by hundreds of respected Americans. We must guide Americans into a more patriotic and courageous mental state. We must help Americans become outraged and rebellious, yet also optimistic about major political reforms.

Political Strategy

Success against the power elites running and ruining our nation requires building an army of Americans openly revolting against the two-party corporatist state now in control. The 9/11 truth movement must use political strategies to defeat the status quo political establishment. Here are three actions.

First, with detailed technical analyses unequivocally proving that the official story is false, the movement can draft a bill that might be titled The 9/11 Truth Act of 2008. This proposed federal legislation should be delivered to every member of the House and Senate early next year. It would clarify the investigation: What its scope and objectives must be. What reliable entity, public or private or a combination, must be used. How the public must be given opportunities to present information. What resources must be provided and what time frame must be adhered to.

We must take the initiative and specify exactly what kind of new official 9/11 investigation is necessary, recognizing that professionals in the truth movement have limited resources and cannot address all questions. The 9/11 truth movement itself must define exactly what the first real credible and comprehensive government sponsored investigation must consist of. We can have no confidence in anything that the political establishment might devise to silence our movement. We must tell the public, the media and the political world what is required to reveal the total truth as to what caused, for example, the collapse of three World Trade Center buildings, especially building 7 not even hit by a plane.

Developing and submitting this legislation must then be followed up by all 9/11 groups urging their supporters to bombard Congress with demands for hearings and passage of the bill. This is the way to engage more Americans politically to obtain full 9/11 truth.

However, few politicians’ comments support the truth movement. A rare statement came from presidential candidate Ron Paul. In a radio interview in January, 2007 he said that the 9/11 investigations to date are “more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.” However, later in the year when he became more visible he was asked about the possibility of the official story being orchestrated by the government. He said emphatically “absolutely not.” In another interview, when asked whether he thought 9/11 was an inside job that our government made happen, he responded forcefully “No.” So apparently Paul sees a cover-up but not about the involvement of our government. Would he support legislation for a new investigation?

Thus the second critical political action is this: Proclaim that only politicians that actively support passage of our legislation will earn support in the 2008 elections from the millions of Americans doubting the official 9/11 story. This threat is an absolute necessity. If the legislation is not passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush, then we must aggressively support a boycott on voting for all Democrats and Republicans in the 2008 federal elections.

Third, all those committed to 9/11 truth should honor what the Founders gave us in our Constitution in case some day Americans lost confidence in the federal government, especially in Congress. That day has arrived. 9/11 was that day. They gave us the option in Article V for a convention of state delegates to propose constitutional amendments. We must see SYSTEM reforms as only achievable through constitutional amendments that Congress will never propose nor achieve through normal legislation.

Congress and the entire elitist political establishment have intentionally denied us a convention for over 200 years. The one and only requirement in Article V has more than been satisfied by over 500 state applications from all 50 states. Enough is enough. Our truth movement should join the effort of Friends of the Article V Convention by urging truth group members to join FOAVC. The political establishment fears both 9/11 truth and an Article V convention. We must grasp that 9/11 truth can bring us to the brink of political reforms and the convention is the process to obtain them.

Conclusion

The 9/11 truth movement must also be a political movement – but not in any partisan sense. 9/11 truth can help Americans take back their country. 9/11 truth can end the criminal, corrupt and conniving plutocracy that stole our government and mutilated our democracy.

We must transform 9/11 from a catalyzing event for imperialistic war-mongering to one for democracy renewal. We must convert terrorist-transfixed fear into political reform enthusiasm.

The pursuit of truth is not always the pursuit of happiness – not when the truth hurts. The 9/11 truth movement is not about finding immediate happiness. It is about rebooting American democracy and, after accomplishing that, earning happiness.

Posted by Joel S. Hirschhorn at December 25, 2007 4:18 PM
Comments
Comment #241434

Joel,

On Christmas, really? We need to hear moronic arguments about controlled demolition, which have not only been proven false over and over again, but which make little sense in the timeframe and considering that ‘freaking huge airliners’ had just hit the towers (something you can’t say didn’t happen, we have the videotape), on a day when we are all trying to celebrate and enjoy peace?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 25, 2007 5:17 PM
Comment #241443

I really wish that this hadn’t been posted when I am about to leave for a week’s vacation, because this really deserves a response.

It’s crap.

ae911Truth doesn’t provide sound analysis. It’s a combination of ridiculous ideas, bad science, misunderstanding of physics and logic, and a whopping load of conspiracy theory. Each of the 35 “characteristics” mentioned on the right part of the page is inaccurate, either in not knowing what is reasonable to expect in a collapse, or in misinterpreting what actually happened. Squibs don’t behave how truthers claim they do, the buildings didn’t collapse anywhere near free fall, they collapsed in a means that would be expected after an impact by a jumbo jet full of fuel, Thermite and Thermite were never found (and wouldn’t explain what they are claimed to explain), the temperatures were definitely enough to soften steel, etc., etc., etc…

If you really think the “truther” movement uses any version of reality, logic, physics, or respect for fellow Americans, watch Screw Loose Change, a video that annotates the most visible “truther” movie with a rebuttal based on reality.

Joel, you’re beating a dead horse using the same “logic” and techniques that are used to claim that the moon landing was a hoax, to discount Global Warming, to discount Evolution, and to support UFO sightings. Please take another look based on reality, not on political leanings.

And I say this as a committed Liberal who has never trusted a word George Bush has ever said.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 25, 2007 8:14 PM
Comment #241444

I agree with Rhinehold. Mr. Hirschhorn, your topic sux and your timing REALLY sux. I did not comprehend that the “independent” column could have degenerated into this - but I’ve been proven wrong before. Except when it comes to the Truther movement. I will say nothing of the arguments for or against the tin-foil-hat movement except that if an eighteen-year-old can molest a streetwalk in a drunken stupor as happened recently, then I suppose that anything, no matter how awful, is possible.

Posted by: Grant W. at December 25, 2007 8:19 PM
Comment #241446

Joel,

The next time youi are in a mood to bring forth a comedy skit like this one, please post it on April Fool’s Day.uch more appropriate and it would be in keeping with the spirit of the day.

Seriously, it appears you have fallen under the spell of the woefully ignorant, scientifically challenged, and folks who see a conspiracy in everything that happens around them. Please do not fall for this dreck. Check out some good texts on explosives, controlled demolition, high temperature metallurgy, and high rise building techniques. I believe you will find that 99.9% of the “facts” quoted by the “Truthers” are either inaccurate or the product of seriously disturbed imaginations.

Goodness knows I am no fan of this Administration, and am not a person with tremendous faith in government under the best of conditions, but I can say that I have read quite a bit of the conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 and I have yet to see one that holds up under scrutiny. Yes, mistakes were made, intelligence was mishandled, and people died as a result(although I have read one theory that states that no one died in the attacks, that the “bodies were crash dummies!”. But I have seen no credible evidence that it was an “inside job”.

You obviously are an intelligent, aware person. Pleae put those qualities to use in exposing the conspiracy theorists for the shams they are.

Old Gouch

Posted by: Old Grouch at December 25, 2007 9:16 PM
Comment #241447

I gotta go with the sanity crowd here. This is nugging futs.

Personally, I think aliens have body snatched the entire western governmental bodies.

Take me to your leader.

Nanu Nanu.

Posted by: googlumpus at December 25, 2007 9:33 PM
Comment #241449

Bill Clinton could have easily ignored the heckler at his little wife rally, but he didn’t. He said, “HOW DARE YOU! HOW DARE YOU!”
It sounded like he was saying “He he, Trust me!”

Bill O’Rielly could have ignored Charlie Sheen but he didn’t. He devoted minutes of his show telling Mr. Sheen, “Don’t do it. Don’t ruin your career.”

Sean Hannity has no problem denouncing “conspiracy theorists” on his show.
and ignoring Ron Paul. My opinion is Ron Paul is conscious of the fact he may be murdered if he gets nominated. Any one who could murder thousands of people would have no problem finding another Hinckley or Oswald.

I don’t think my first thought of a controlled demolition when I saw the towers fall is moronic. It’s obvious. There was no resistance.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 25, 2007 9:55 PM
Comment #241450

If the pancake theory was accurate you would have a stack of pancakes in the footprint, not dust.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 25, 2007 10:01 PM
Comment #241451

If the fire was so intense why was a lady in a blue shirt standing in a hole at the point of entry waving at helicopters?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 25, 2007 10:04 PM
Comment #241452

Why did building 7 drop like the bottom was pulled out from under it?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 25, 2007 10:05 PM
Comment #241453

Was the building constructed with re-bar coated with an explosive with “Planned Obsolesence” being the motive?

Was the rebar used coated with an explosive material and is this a standard practice in the construction Industry?

These are questions that need to be answered.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 25, 2007 10:09 PM
Comment #241454
I don’t think my first thought of a controlled demolition when I saw the towers fall is moronic. It’s obvious. There was no resistance.

Yes, there was. If there were no resistance, then the buildings would have fallen at free-fall speed; they didn’t (if you disagree, look at the pieces of the buildings that were ejected, and see that they fall to the ground seconds before the collapse proceeds that far).

Also, there’s a misconception about how strong a building’s supports should be. Specifically, a structure that is sufficiently strong for a static load (when nothing is collapsing down upon it with momentum) can be nowhere nearly strong enough to handle the dynamic load of dozens of stories falling down upon them.

Having the initial impression that the fall was without resistance isn’t moronic; denying the engineering analysis that completely disproves the notion is.

If the pancake theory was accurate you would have a stack of pancakes in the footprint, not dust.

That’s based on a bad premise. The initial idea was pancake theory, but the official analysis was something else.

And the amount of energy involved in a collapse is more than enough to break the acres and acres of sheet rock to dust.

If the fire was so intense why was a lady in a blue shirt standing in a hole at the point of entry waving at helicopters?

Because the fire was intense somewhere else. If you look at the famous pictures, you can see the fire raging two floors above.

Why did building 7 drop like the bottom was pulled out from under it?

It didn’t. It looks like that from one angle, but it didn’t actually fall that way. It fell as quickly as it did because a 100-story building collapsed on it, starting fires that rages unabated for seven hours (an unprecedented situation in world history).

Was the building constructed with re-bar coated with an explosive with “Planned Obsolesence” being the motive?
Was the rebar used coated with an explosive material and is this a standard practice in the construction Industry?

It wasn’t.

These are questions that need to be answered.

And they have been. I hope you pay attention to the answers instead of parroting questions that have reasonable answers.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 25, 2007 10:14 PM
Comment #241455

Thank You Mr. LawnBoy,

You’ve clipped the top off of my responses in a most efficient manner. What solution do you have for the Root problem?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 25, 2007 10:23 PM
Comment #241456

Siesmic activity should be examined. Camera activity (vibration) should be examined.

Timeline related to these events should be examined.

People with independant sources of information should be allowed the opportunity to present this information to an investigative body responsible to the public.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 25, 2007 10:29 PM
Comment #241457

What’s the root problem? Not being able to answer the ridiculous notions? Try reading this refutation of one of the more respected books from the truther movement.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 25, 2007 10:37 PM
Comment #241458

http://911myths.com/

Why is this link necessary if there is no doubt?

Christ took a beating in the beginning of this comments section but no substance was present.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 25, 2007 10:49 PM
Comment #241459
Why is this link necessary if there is no doubt?

Because of moron conspiracy theorists who are trying to use the tragic deaths of thousands of American citizens as fuel for their hate-filled insane rantings not having the capacity for human decency to stop or any capacity for intelligent thought, continuing to pump out nonsensical churn in the political landscape, trying to pass this nonsense on to other unsuspecting non-thinking morons?

Just a thought…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 25, 2007 11:05 PM
Comment #241462
Siesmic activity should be examined. Camera activity (vibration) should be examined.
Timeline related to these events should be examined.

These examinations have been done, and they all agree with the official story, not with a controlled demolition hypothesis. See the link I gave above for more details.

People with independant sources of information should be allowed the opportunity to present this information to an investigative body responsible to the public.

That has been done by many peer-reviewed scientific papers. Although some independent papers have minor disagreements with the NIST report, all confirm that the collapse was caused by a collision and a massive jet fuel fire, not by controlled demolition.

Why is this link necessary if there is no doubt?

Is the argument here that the existence of a resource that disproves a silly notion should be taken as a sign that the silly notion has merit? Are you serious? There’s a great site that establishes point-by-point why claims that the moon landing was faked are ridiculous. Would you say that the existence of a site proving that the moon landing happen should be taken as a reason to believe in the hoax?

You can’t be serious.

Such sites exist because there are two types of people: those that believe in silly notions, and those who wish to show that the notions are silly.

As I said above, I wish I were able to continue addressing the misconceptions about what happened, but I’ll be driving for about 10 hours tomorrow, and I think my wife is about to tear this laptop from my hands. Maybe I’ll have a chance again, but reading the refutation link and watching the annotated “Screw Loose Change” video will answer lots of your questions… if you’re willing…

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 25, 2007 11:26 PM
Comment #241463

Hey LawnBoy, Rhinehold, don’t justify these guys (Joel and Willie) by dignifying their nonsense with a rebuttal. You can’t stop their fingers typing any more than you can get their neurons to start firing correctly. They will attract the dumbest quartile of the bell curve that reads the nonsense on this page, and they’ll have a hard time convincing those not yet deprived of sanity. After a while you realize the tin-foil-hatters just don’t buy reality and shut themselves away from it, so shoving your foot in their door’s a waste of your valuable time.

Posted by: Grant W. at December 25, 2007 11:59 PM
Comment #241472

Grant,
I applaud them. This is a debate site and all of us think the other guy is nuts once in a while. I’ve argued these points too many times to do it again, but I appreciate their efforts.

Posted by: googlumpus at December 26, 2007 11:24 AM
Comment #241474

…and the Roswell aliens are on ice at Area 51.

…and the Mafia, CIA and Castro killed JFK.

…and the FBI killed MLK.

…and the Mafia killed RFK.

…and the video of two aircraft crashing into the World Trade Center was dummied up.

…and the 3,000 people that died on 9/11 were not crushed by the World Trade Center falling…they were killed with a Klingon Death Ray.

I can’t write any more just now. The dog is trying to eat my tinfoil hat.

Posted by: Jim T at December 26, 2007 11:32 AM
Comment #241490

Jim T…

You forgot…

…Landing on the moon was done with trick photography.

Posted by: cliff at December 26, 2007 2:36 PM
Comment #241496

Grant W., Jim T., cliff—-if these posts are so upsetting, you have the option to not expose yourselves to them. Grant, you’re dangerously close to censorship by naming names and making your attacks personal.
This isn’t the first thread dedicated to this subject, and as long as anyone still has questions or doubts, the posts will continue.

Posted by: Jane Doe at December 26, 2007 4:35 PM
Comment #241499

“This isn’t the first thread dedicated to this subject.”
Then I suppose I’ll have to revisit the archives, won’t I?

I’ve seen so much Trutherism for such a long time that I’d snapped a long time ago. I worry that a lie often repeated could be believed eventually and I think that’s a valid fear. In general I believe in free will and do not condone nor intend to practice censorship. My opinions are my own and I take responsibility for them.

But all aside I’m glad to see that link to badastronomy. I greatly admire Phil Plait and once worked online with his bautforum co-admin.

Posted by: Grant W. at December 26, 2007 6:35 PM
Comment #241545

There are many understandable reasons for so much controversy about this:

  • For one thing, it is complex.

  • It is truly difficult and time consuming to read all of the issues on both sides of the argument.

  • Many of the issues require considerable research.

  • Some of the issues require some understanding of material science, chemistry, alloys, and molecular structures.

  • Thus, 100% certainty (either way) is not really that easy.

  • Many of the events can be explained by BOTH the demolition theory and the non-demolition collapse theory.
Because of the complexity, I don’t think (in my opinion) it is fair to label those that believe in a conspiracy as lunatics or extremists. Many of these complexities is part of the reason why 40% of Americans suspect a conspiracy, and it seems to me that it is difficult to be 100% certain (either way) about 911 without considerable research. Therefore, in terms of probability, and I could be wrong, in my opinion (with about 95% probability), the WTC towers (including WTC7 which had been weakened by massive modifications in 1989) were not brought down by demolition, and there was not a conspiracy behind the demolition.

But I would not denigrate anyone who believes otherwise or questions what happened on 11-SEP-2001, BECAUSE of the following:

  • (01) Few of us (if anyone) can really be 100% certain, and it is hard to speak in terms of 100% certainty about something so complex, where so many things look similar to a demolition. There is a chance (though it seems small in my opinion) that it really was a conspiracy by some within our own government (i.e. specifically, a demolition). If true, it was incredibly successful at keeping many things a secret, and/or obscuring the truth with disinformation. And this may be why 40% of Americans believe 11-SEP-2001 was a result of a conspiracy by some in our own government. It looked like a demolition (but from the top down, instead of bottom).

  • (02) some chemicals were similar to those in explosives (but it does not prove explosives were used).

  • (03) Secrecy and obstruciton, naturally, fueled theories and suspicion. It’s really quite understandable, and many hours (or days, or weeks) of analysis is required to really give an educated opinion. Especially when there are numerous circumstantial facts that can easily lend to different conclusions.

  • (04) The federal government and the FBI failed miserably to prevent what could have been prevented. Afterall, you’d think half a trillion or so per year would be enough to stop what many warned us about. Rick Rescorla (head of security for Morgan Stanely) and his friend Dan Hill predicted it. They showed with flight simulator how easy it would be to fly into the WTC towers, Pentagon, White House, Empire State Building, etc. We were warned many times to secure cock pit doors. The day before 11-SEP-2001, Rumsfeld had received a nebulous warning of Al-Qaeada threat; still perhaps a good reason to maybe secure cockpit doors? Rick Rescorla (who died on 11-SEP-2001) even asked Morgan Stanley to move out of the WTC towers. Also, Rick Rescorla predicted the attack on the WTC in 1993. It wasn’t until after the bombing in 1993 that people started taking him more seriously when he started building evacuation drills.

  • (05) The secracy, lies, twisting the truth, and many other things raise suspicions. Many Americans are distrusting because the already know they have been lied to about other major issues. For example: No WMD ? OOPs (Other Occupationist Proponents) raises questions about motivations. Even Greenspans and Kissinger say Iraq is largely about the oil.

  • (06) Wildly underestimating the cost of the war

  • (07) Announcement that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended” aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, below a “Mission Accomplished” banner – more U.S. soldiers have died in combat since George Bush (43)’s announcement than before it

  • (08) Awarding multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts to Halliburton in Iraq, which then repeatedly overcharged the government and served troops dirty food.

  • (09) Diverting $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without informing Congress.

  • (10) Having no real plan for the occupation of Iraq, much less an exit plan.

  • (11) Allowing several members of the Bin Laden family to leave the country just days after 9/11, some of them without being questioned by the FBI.

  • (12) Telling Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan about plans to go to war with Iraq before Secretary of State Colin Powell.

  • (13) Ignoring the advice Gen. Eric Shinseki regarding the need for more troops in Iraq; Now George Bush (43) is belatedly adding troops, having allowed the security situation to deteriorate in exactly the way Shinseki said it would if there were not enough troops.

  • (14) Threatening to veto the Homeland Security department; George Bush (43) later said it “provides the ability for our agencies to coordinate better and to work together better than it was before.”

  • (15) Repeated statements that cleverly misled Americans that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda and Iraq and 11-SEP-2001.

  • (16) No real sense of urgency about terrorism or Al Qaeda before 11-SEP-2001.

  • (17) Reducing resources and troop levels in Afghanistan and out before it was fully secure. But then, there’s not much oil in Afghanistan, eh?

  • (18) Not committing US ground troops to the capture of Osama Bin Laden, when he was cornered in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan in November, 2001. All these things make people suspicious.

  • (19) George Bush (43) Administration opposed an independent inquiry into the intelligence failures surrounding WMD – later, upon signing off on just such a commission, George Bush (43) claimed he was “determined to make sure that American intelligence is as accurate as possible for every challenge in the future.”

  • (20) G.W. George Bush (43) (43) called the “war on terror” a “crusade”, claimed that Iraq is the “front on the war on terror”, and said “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories”. Yeah? Where are they?

  • (21) Reluctance to adhere to 911 Commission recommendations.

  • (22) There is a lot of information flying all about that looks credible. For example, many box columns were cut at an angle with torches. This fueled theories about shape charges and thermate. Then some chemical analysis showed the possibility of thermate. But there were other things (other than thermate) that could explain the existence of certain elements and compounds (e.g. percentages of Chromium and Manganese in the steel). Thus, it is difficult to conclude either way whether thermate was or was not used.

  • (23) Squibs of smoke and dust are alleged to be from explosives. However, that can also be explained by other things making it difficult to conclude either way. For example, some interior floors could have already been collapsing while the exterior columns had not yet started to collapse, and those collapsing interior floors could have caused the squibs. Or, the core column could have started collapsing before the exterior columns, causing interior floors to collapse slightly ahead of the exterior columns, which could have caused the squibs.

  • (24) Pulverized dust are alleged to be from explosives. However, that can also be explained by other things making it diffuclt to conclude either way.

  • (25) There are many things making it difficult to conclude either way. Also, there appears to be more web-sites and you tube videos claiming the WTC towers were demolished than those that disagree.

  • (26) The available evidence lends more to the higher probability that it was more likely (e.g. more than 51% likelihood) a collapse caused by impact and fire from large jets striking them. WTC7 is most likely the result of fire on the lower floors, defects from massive modificaitons to the building in 1989 (e.g. $200 million spent cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies, and other improvements in its million square feet of space), and the near-by collapse of (2 x 510,000,000 kg) = 2 x 1124,360,000,000 lbs = 2.249 Billion lbs in about 12 seconds. But the absence of conclusive evidence either way fuels distrust and suspicions.
If the WTC towers were not demolished by explosives (i.e. if no conspiracy existed), what should be learned from all of this is:
  • (a) It is understandable why 40% of Americans believe in a demolition conspiracy when you consider the secrecy, corruption, incompetence, failure to connect the dots, failure to heed warnings, and dishonsesty of the government. It all fuels conspiracy theories and distrust. And rightfully so, because if allowed to continue to grow more corrupt, the next time something happens, it may very well be a real conspiracy.

  • (b) The WTC towers were not very sturdy, and WTC7 was weakened by massive alterations, and investigations should be done to find out if other towers may be vulnerable to collapse. Also, bringing down WTC7 without an impact to it only raises more suspicions of a conspiracy theory which seems to be something that conspirators would want to avoid.

  • (c) We know we have been lied to by government. It’s not the first time, and it won’t be the last. It is understandable that people are angry and suspicious. However, in a voting nation (at least, while we still have the right to vote and/or get an accurate vote-count), the people have the abiliity to change their government if they so choose. That can not happen by repeatedly rewarding corrupt, FOR-SALE, irresponsible, incompetent, incumbent politicians with a 96.5% re-election rate (since year 1980). In fact, that will guarantee that it grows more corrupt, incompetent, and dishonest, and the electorate therefore has the government that they deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 27, 2007 11:02 AM
Comment #241559

Moron, fool, nugging futs, tinfoil hat, comedy skit, has been used on the writer of this article. (Critiquing the Messenger?) Yet, if any who have responded to this article negatively had taken a look at the second link posted, they could have seen his biography:

Joel S. Hirschhorn, BS Metallurgical Engineering, MS Metallurgical Engineering, PhD Materials Engineering – Professor of Metallurgical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison 1965 - 1978. Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment 1978 - 1990. Testified more than 50 times before Congress on technology, science, and environmental issues. Former Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources, National Governors Association. Dr. Hirschhorn has been a consultant to industrial and chemical companies, DOE laboratories, state governments, and public interest organizations. Co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org. Member, Board of Directors, National Foundation for Environmental Education. Member, Board of Directors, Sustainability Now! Author of more than 150 papers, articles, guest editorials, and book chapters on environmental science and technology. Author of Delusional Democracy: Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government (2007), Sprawl Kills (2005), New Community Design to the Rescue (2001), Growing pains: Quality of Life in the New Economy (2000), Prosperity without Pollution (1991), Materials Science (1975), Introduction to Powder Metallurgy (1969).

None too shabby. What about the rest of the people listed in that same link? Are all of these people, their credentials, and the things they’ve had to say about 9/11 also to be considered a group of morons and fools?

Maybe the negative responders would like to put up their own credentials on this subject? Just for the sake of comparison?

Joel Hirschorn:

However, few politicians’ comments support the truth movement. A rare statement came from presidential candidate Ron Paul. In a radio interview in January, 2007 he said that the 9/11 investigations to date are “more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.” However, later in the year when he became more visible he was asked about the possibility of the official story being orchestrated by the government. He said emphatically “absolutely not.” In another interview, when asked whether he thought 9/11 was an inside job that our government made happen, he responded forcefully “No.” So apparently Paul sees a cover-up but not about the involvement of our government.

Dennis Kucinich has also made statements saying he wants a better investigation into 9/11. They can be found on the second link that was posted in your article. To date he hasn’t backtracked on any of them, nor has he started defending the Bush Administration without any real proof, the way that Paul seems to be doing.

Lawnboy:

And I say this as a committed Liberal who has never trusted a word George Bush has ever said.

Except when it comes to 9/11? On that single subject you believe that Bush and the members of his administration, and the people who were in charge of investigating 9/11 have all been very truthful and above board?
Even though the Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war and occupation, NSA spying on and wiretapping Americans, total repudiation of the Geneva Conventions by instituting torture and disappearing people to foreign gulags, and the repeal of Habeas Corpus have all used 9/11 as their justification for these crimes against the We the People and our rule of law?
Even after Able Danger was revealed?

The way I see it, if it’s going to be considered somehow acceptable (although it isn’t to me) that pallet-loads constituting many billions of U.S. dollars have simply been ripped off and disappeared in Iraq, then what is the big problem with using a much smaller chunk of U.S. dollars for a truly comprehensive and completely independent investigation of all the details and events of 9/11?
That more was spent on the Monica Lewinsky/Clinton investigation, and deemed justifiable by so many, seems obscene and insane.

I also don’t understand all the name-calling directed at people who would like a better investigation. The obvious resistance so many people have shown toward the idea of this country gaining a more detailed understanding of this monumental and law-altering event doesn’t make a grain of sense to me.

In my opinion: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

Posted by: veritas vincit at December 27, 2007 1:07 PM
Comment #241563

It is always amazing the complicated theories that people will believe.

I am convinced it was space aliens who did the deed. They have long infiltrated our society. If you don’t believe me, take a look at Dennis Kucinich. He is not of our planet.

Posted by: Jack at December 27, 2007 1:31 PM
Comment #241566
and the Mafia killed RFK

Guess you didn’t read the book, either…

Posted by: Rachel at December 27, 2007 1:56 PM
Comment #241581
Yet, if any who have responded to this article negatively had taken a look at the second link posted, they could have seen his biography

I’ve looked at his resume before, and it is impressive. Unfortunately for you, I’m not so easily swayed by the “appeal to authority” logical fallicy when the appeal is for something illogical. If you really want to see impressive credentials, look at the people that Joel claims are liars. Whoa.

I could put my credentials up (a couple of Engineering degrees), but it’s really irrelevant. It doesn’t matter that Joel has the degrees on his wall if the facts aren’t on his side.

Except when it comes to 9/11? On that single subject you believe that Bush and the members of his administration, and the people who were in charge of investigating 9/11 have all been very truthful and above board?

No, because it’s not the Bush administration I’m trusting here. It’s the thousands of trained and expert engineers and scientists who have looked at the evidence and found no support whatsoever for the MIHOP or LIHOP hypotheses, or for a controlled demolition. Joel and his group are in the tiny percentage, the lunatic fringe. The facts don’t support him.

Do I think that the Bush administration has been 100% truthful in reaction to 9/11 and how they parlayed that into an ill-advised war? Of course not. However, that’s completely irrelevant to the factual analsysis of what happened on 9/11. The underlying premise of Joel’s article, that his side “have met their burden of proof” is completely false. The rest is useless after that.

Even though the Patriot Act…
Yep, the administration lied and made bad decisions on those things. That doesn’t mean physics changed or that expert engineering analysis is no longer valid.
I also don’t understand all the name-calling directed at people who would like a better investigation.

Because it’s a huge waste of time, money, energy, and ideas. The investigations have been done. Independent peer-reviewed articles confirm the investigations.

Your argument here is like saying we should have infinite investigations into whether the moon landings happened, because there’s no harm in investigating. Yes, there is harm if it leads people like Joel into calling for revolutions based on invalid logic.

Posted by: LanwBoy at December 27, 2007 5:34 PM
Comment #241583

“…have all used 9/11 as their justification for these crimes against the We the People and our rule of law”

Really? Then what the hell was clinton using as justification when committing similar crimes against We the People?

Oh well Veritas, at least I’m with Joel on 9-11.

Posted by: kctim at December 27, 2007 5:42 PM
Comment #241585

Perhaps the narrow minded need an obvious connection to link two circumstances. 1+1=2. If I could only be so nieve as to ignore the obvious, stick my head in the sand, and continually scream “BUT THEY SAID…!”

Here’s an article that doesn’t add up.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 27, 2007 5:53 PM
Comment #241586

Well, despite my own leaning against any conspiracy theory, I’m not inclined to want to denigrate those that disagree, because after looking a reams and reams of issues, and the arguments on BOTH sides, it’s not easy to be 100% certain, since I was not privy to all of the evidence.

There are many reputable people on both sides of this issue, and I think the reason is because there are plausible explanations and arguments for BOTH theories. I think the evidence leans against a conspiracy theory, but I recognize that I could be wrong since I never had access to any of the evidence; only what others have reported.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 27, 2007 6:47 PM
Comment #241588

On the other hand, I’m 99.99% certain that the U.S. actually went to the moon, because it was watched by other nations (via telescopes).

Do you really think Russia wasn’t watching the whole thing?

I’ve seen numerous theories that the U.S. Moon landings were a hoax. Never mind that there is a ranging mirror on the moon for reflecting lasers (among other evidence, like moon rocks that have been shared world wide). How did that mirror get there?

Posted by: d.a.n at December 27, 2007 6:54 PM
Comment #241590

You don’t see anything on YouTube other than what is in the media. Where are all the cell phone photos and videos?

That’s a good question! Are they all destroyed or are people hording them?

Does China have forensic evidence we need to get to the bottom of this?

Only a stupid backward and incompetent leader of a foreign government would accept the refuse of this disaster and completely destroy it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 27, 2007 7:09 PM
Comment #241594
I’m not so easily swayed by the “appeal to authority” logical fallicy when the appeal is for something illogical.

A better understanding of what happened on 9/11 is illogical. Because FEMA and NIST did an absolutely perfect job of explaining all of the details, even though they didn’t demand access to all of the facts, and because they had already predetermined that it was the planes alone that had brought down both WTC towers. Well before they had even begun their studies. Very scientific approach, to be sure. The fact that they reached differing conclusions on what had exactly caused the total collapses of both WTC towers is understandable and really managed to clear things up. As was ignoring trying to explain WTC7 entirely. The 9/11 Commission did an absolutely perfect job, too. The proof of that was their brilliant decision that something such as Able Danger meant nothing, and therefore, shouldn’t be included in the report. All entirely logical. Thanks so much. It makes so much sense now.
How silly for anyone to demand another investigation when perfection has already been achieved.

It’s the thousands of trained and expert engineers and scientists who have looked at the evidence

To what evidence do you refer? Because several among those who were involved in the official investigations have begun to question whether they had enough of the evidence they needed, and to wonder whether or not the reports that carry their portions of contributed data were actually well conducted over all.

Do I think that the Bush administration has been 100% truthful in reaction to 9/11 and how they parlayed that into an ill-advised war? Of course not. However, that’s completely irrelevant to the factual analsysis of what happened on 9/11.

No, it isn’t. Because most of us assumed that we had something very expensive and efficient we called NORAD. So why were two airplanes allowed to fly all the way into NYC to hit the WTC? How about the Pentagon? Wouldn’t you have thought an airplane being hijacked and then allowed to fly into THAT particular building would have been a virtual impossibility before 9/11?
Why were there no large identifiable pieces of aircraft at the Pentagon? Why were there no large identifiable pieces of aircraft at Shanksville?
Since when do giant aircraft engines just disappear?
Some of the most simple sorts of questions have never been logically explained.

That doesn’t mean physics have changed

If aircraft engines made of incredibly thick, solid metal can totally disappear, simply because the planes they were attached to crashed, or when the gigantic metal girders at the cores of enormous skyscrapers can all come completely down just like a house of cards because a single airplane has flown into the space that surrounded them, while everything else the building was made of is exploded into tiny particles of dust, maybe that does mean the laws of physics have changed.
Or at least they must have on that day, right?

Your argument here is like saying we should have infinite investigations into whether the moon landings happened, because there’s no harm in investigating.

Landing on the Moon didn’t murder of three thousand of our people. “Infinite” investigations into the why and how of those murders isn’t what is necessary. Only a single thorough one, independently conducted, which attempts to take all possible relevant information into account, is necessary.
We haven’t had that kind of an investigation, yet.
We should.
There is much harm in the fact that our government representatives have continued to neglect their duty to make such an investigation happen. It has made people even more suspicious and distrustful of our government than many already were (which was plenty). The fact that the 9/11 Truth Movement has grown exponentially larger every year, while they continue to entirely ignore the increasing demands for some more truthful, logical, and complete answers to so many questions, is proof positive that grave harm is being done.

Posted by: veritas vincit at December 27, 2007 8:20 PM
Comment #241596
while they the media continue to entirely ignore the increasing demands for some more truthful, logical, and complete answers to so many questions, is proof positive that grave harm is being done
Posted by: Weary Willie at December 27, 2007 8:41 PM
Comment #241597

Government officials neglecting their duties…Thats a good one they are always neglecting their duties.

Appears to me that bush just wanted to go out of office as if he had truly done something for this country. But , In reality he wanted war so conspiracy of the WTC was planned.

I seen the videos, yes htem planes crashed into the towers, but why did the buildings fall straight down? Why did the tops of the buildins that were hit not just fall over leaving the rest of the building to stand? And true there has never been any evidence of a plane debri at the Pentagon?

Conspiracy to start a war and bring down the economy? Maybe and maybe.

Posted by: Peggles at December 27, 2007 8:44 PM
Comment #241601
Why were there no large identifiable pieces of aircraft at the Pentagon? Why were there no large identifiable pieces of aircraft at Shanksville? Since when do giant aircraft engines just disappear?

Thank you for so ably demonstrating that you aren’t aware of the facts. The engines didn’t just disappear. There are many “large identifiable pieces of aircraft at the Pentagon”. Parts of the plane at Shanksville were found.

This is what I was talking about earlier - claims are made by truthers that there are unanswered questions when the answers are clear to those who wish to see them.

Because most of us assumed that we had something very expensive and efficient we called NORAD. So why were two airplanes allowed to fly all the way into NYC to hit the WTC?

That you assumed NORAD would protect against this is irrelevant - your assumption is wrong. First, NORAD was designed to defend against an attack from abroad; it wasn’t looking for internal attacks. Second, the air traffic controllers and the military didn’t know where the hijackers were going. Third, they didn’t know that the hijackers were intending to use the planes as missiles instead of as bargaining chips - as every previous domestic hijacking had been done.

You’re claiming as evidence of conspiracy the fact that people at the time didn’t have the knowledge that you have only in hindsight. It’s a truly silly argument.

I seen the videos, yes htem planes crashed into the towers, but why did the buildings fall straight down? Why did the tops of the buildins that were hit not just fall over leaving the rest of the building to stand? And true there has never been any evidence of a plane debri at the Pentagon?

The answer to the first two questions is that a “straight down” collapse is what is to be expected for such a large building. Perhaps you’ve seen scale models that show a result of tipping, but the effects at play don’t scale linearly; the area moment of inertia is the resistence to tipping, and it scales to the fourth power of length. This means that, for such a large building, the path of least resistance is straight down. See page 108 of this analysis if you want to understand the engineering and physics at play.

For the second question, see my link above that disproves the notion that plane parts weren’t found.

I’m not going to defend the Bush Administration’s reaction to 9/11 or defend the Patriot Act or the decision to invade Iraq. I’m not going to say that the NIST or other investigations were perfect. And I’m not going to say that the Bush Administration didn’t try to cover their butts during the investigations. However, there is no evidence whatsoever for a controlled demolition, and the “evidence” that has been trotted out here is easily refuted by massive amounts of evidence that can easily be found.

There are lots of reasons to dislike the Bush Administration. We don’t need to ignore reality and investigations and evidence and logic and engineering and knowledge to try to frame them for 3000 deaths in order to add another readon.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 27, 2007 9:41 PM
Comment #241602
Why were there no large identifiable pieces of aircraft at the Pentagon? Why were there no large identifiable pieces of aircraft at Shanksville? Since when do giant aircraft engines just disappear?

Thank you for so ably demonstrating that you aren’t aware of the facts. We found many “large identifiable pieces of aircraft at the Pentagon” (including the enginers). Parts of the plane at Shanksville were found.

This is what I was talking about earlier - truthers acts as though they are just asking unanswered questions when the answers are there. What does it take to make people see those answers? I would hope the links above would be enough, but somehow it seems that dozens of photographs are not acceptable evidence, but rumors of bad initial reporting is.

Because most of us assumed that we had something very expensive and efficient we called NORAD. So why were two airplanes allowed to fly all the way into NYC to hit the WTC?

That you assumed NORAD would protect against this is irrelevant - your assumption is wrong. First, NORAD was designed to defend against an attack from abroad; it wasn’t looking for internal attacks. Second, the air traffic controllers and the military didn’t know where the hijackers were going. Third, they didn’t know that the hijackers were intending to use the planes as missiles instead of as bargaining chips - as every previous domestic hijacking had been done.

You’re claiming as evidence of conspiracy the fact that people at the time didn’t have the knowledge that you have only in hindsight. It’s a truly silly argument.

I seen the videos, yes htem planes crashed into the towers, but why did the buildings fall straight down? Why did the tops of the buildins that were hit not just fall over leaving the rest of the building to stand? And true there has never been any evidence of a plane debri at the Pentagon?

The answer to the first two questions is that a “straight down” collapse is what is to be expected for such a large building. Perhaps you’ve seen scale models that show a result of tipping, but the effects at play don’t scale linearly; the area moment of inertia is the resistence to tipping, and it scales to the fourth power of length. This means that, for such a large building, the path of least resistance is straight down. See page 108 of this analysis if you want to understand the engineering and physics at play.

For the second question, see my link above that disproves the notion that plane parts weren’t found.

I’m not going to defend the Bush Administration’s reaction to 9/11 or defend the Patriot Act or the decision to invade Iraq. I’m not going to say that the NIST or other investigations were perfect. And I’m not going to say that the Bush Administration didn’t try to cover their butts during the investigations. However, there is no evidence whatsoever for a controlled demolition, and the “evidence” that has been trotted out here is easily refuted by massive amounts of evidence that can easily be found.

There are lots of reasons to dislike the Bush Administration. We don’t need to ignore reality and investigations and evidence and logic and engineering and knowledge to try to frame them for 3000 deaths in order to add another reason.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 27, 2007 9:44 PM
Comment #241606

http://911myths.com/html/pentagon_15.html

This hole was made by a jet airliner?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 27, 2007 10:31 PM
Comment #241607

Let’s see how someone with there head in the sand can explain a hole without an aircraft in it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 27, 2007 10:34 PM
Comment #241615

“We found many “large identifiable pieces of aircraft at the Pentagon” (including the enginers).”

Here are some better pictures for you to look at. (Btw, theres a small problem with the one partial piece of an “enginer” that was found in the wreckage. It doesn’t match up in size to that of a 757.)
link #1
link #2

Maybe you’d like to help me Hunt the Boeing!?

Posted by: veritas vincit at December 28, 2007 12:59 AM
Comment #241616

“Parts of the plane at Shanksville were found.”

Sort of. There was a smoking hole in the ground, lots of small pieces of metal and other litter and trash, but no real parts of an airplane that looked like what is usually the site of a crash. In fact, they found these small debris scattered in a very wide area well before the smoking hole in the ground. Again, and just like with the Pentagon, part of an engine part was later found, but it was in the bottom of a small lake, about a mile away from the smoking hole of the “crash site.”
Maybe Flight 93 didn’t actually crash the way they said it did? If it had been shot down by another plane, that might explain the wide scatter of debris, and the fact that an engine part was found a mile away in the lake. Yet, if that was in fact the case, the heroic “Let’s Roll” story where the passengers fought with the hijackers wouldn’t exactly ring true, would it?

Posted by: veritas vincit at December 28, 2007 1:14 AM
Comment #241617

I forgot to mention that with Flight 93 they did find the black box and the voice recorder when they later dug down into the smoking hole with a backhoe. They were perfectly intact.

Posted by: veritas vincit at December 28, 2007 1:21 AM
Comment #241619
That you assumed NORAD would protect against this is irrelevant - your assumption is wrong. First, NORAD was designed to defend against an attack from abroad; it wasn’t looking for internal attacks. Second, the air traffic controllers and the military didn’t know where the hijackers were going. Third, they didn’t know that the hijackers were intending to use the planes as missiles instead of as bargaining chips - as every previous domestic hijacking had been done.

Well, these three comments are all incredibly easy to refute. In fact, all I really have to do is cut and paste a bit from this webpage to offer up the actual facts of these matters.

1) AWOL Chain of Command a. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers. b. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying.

2) Air Defense Failures
a. The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights.
b. Timelines: The various responsible agencies - NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, USAF, as well as the 9/11 Commission - gave radically different explanations for the failure (in some cases upheld for years), such that several officials must have lied; but none were held accountable.
c. Was there an air defense standdown?

3) Pentagon Strike
How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation”s capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?

4) Wargames
a. US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon.
b. The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue? There is evidence that the wargames created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were “real world or exercise.” Did wargames serve as the cover for air defense sabotage, and/or the execution of an “inside job”?

So when Condi and Bush said that they simply “couldn’t imagine” people ever using planes as missiles, they were blatantly and shamelessly lying to America. As usual.
After the first terrorist attack on the WTC, I would have assumed that the security minded would naturally entertain thoughts that the same location might become a target once again. Especially when planes fully loaded with fuel were hijacked from Boston and suddenly turned south.
I would also think that the hour and twenty minutes that NORAD had after learning that several planes had been hijacked would have been more than enough time to prepare to shoot down anything that came anywhere near the Pentagon.
But just as you said, these assumptions of mine were obviously wrong. I disagree however, that they are irrelevant.

Posted by: veritas vincit at December 28, 2007 3:35 AM
Comment #241630
This hole was made by a jet airliner?

Yes, obviously so. Perhaps you can tell the family of those who were on that plane what really happened to them if they didn’t die as they hit the pentagon, how the phone calls from those on board who told their loves ones that they were flying right at the pentagon were spared and ‘something else’ made that whole?

Let’s see how someone with there head in the sand can explain a hole without an aircraft in it.

Acutally, the link you provided pretty much sums it up. Perhaps you should read it beyond the first couple of paragraphs were both the ‘there was no plane’ and ‘a missle blew up the pentagon’ are both completely debunked…

Sort of. There was a smoking hole in the ground, lots of small pieces of metal and other litter and trash, but no real parts of an airplane that looked like what is usually the site of a crash. In fact, they found these small debris scattered in a very wide area well before the smoking hole in the ground. Again, and just like with the Pentagon, part of an engine part was later found, but it was in the bottom of a small lake, about a mile away from the smoking hole of the “crash site.”

From your own link:

No airplane?

Given this statement, it remains a mystery as to how WDR executives can continue to claim that Stull’s “statements were not misquoted or distorted in the film.” It is also quite telling that “Neville from the farm” does not appear in the film, nor does anyone else who could possibly refute the authors’ claims.

“Mr. Stull did not tell us anything about witnesses who had seen the plane,” Wisnewski told Der Spiegel. That’s certainly possible, but they do exist, and they’re not difficult to find.

One of them is Lee Purbaugh, a laborer from Shanksville. The moment that seemed “like an eternity” to him has remained deeply embedded in his memory. He says that an “unbelievably loud roar” caused him to look up at the sky, where the giant airplane suddenly seemed suspended “practically over my head.” Seconds later, at 10:06 a.m., the Boeing plunged into the ground.

Another witness is named Eric Peterson. He was standing in his store when he heard the noise of the plane’s engines. He stepped outside and watched the United Airlines jet until it disappeared behind a nearby hill. Then a fireball erupted. Peterson immediately jumped into his SUV and drove to the site of the crash.

When he arrived, he saw aircraft debris spread across a large area surrounding the impact crater, which he said was “still burning.” According to Peterson, “bits of clothing were hanging” in the branches of the surrounding trees.

There was so much evidence of a plane crash lying around that FBI employees and crash investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) spent thirteen days recovering the wreckage. The heaviest piece of wreckage that was found, part of an engine, weighed almost a ton. This was certainly much heavier than the supposedly “indefinable ‘scrap’ found at the ‘crash site’ of flight UA 93,” about which Wisnewski speculates.

Moreover, there was nothing particularly mysterious about the subsequent handling of the wreckage. For the duration of the investigation, the remains of the jet were placed under an FBI guard. Once the investigators had completed their search for evidence, the standard procedure following a plane crash was followed. The parts were returned to the owner of the aircraft. In the case of the United Airlines Boeing, the owner was the airline’s insurance company, the United States Aircraft Insurance Group (USAIG), which is headquartered in New York. USAIG still owns the physical reminders of this murderous event. In spite of this body of evidence, WDR’s television director, Ulrich Deppendorf, is “simply unable to imagine that the facts are incorrect” as far as the film is concerned. But Deppendorf should have known better.

That’s because WDR author Wisnewski had always found the truth to be a rather complex affair - a thought pattern common to all conspiracy theorists, says US historian Pipes: “Beginning with the assumption that appearances are deceiving, they reject common knowledge and search for exotic and relatively unknown possibilities. A predilection for the improbable … gives their data its typical and unmistakable quality.”

I think that that one line says it all. “That’s because WDR author Wisnewski had always found the truth to be a rather complex affair”

Continuing on with the trash…

Maybe Flight 93 didn’t actually crash the way they said it did? If it had been shot down by another plane, that might explain the wide scatter of debris, and the fact that an engine part was found a mile away in the lake. Yet, if that was in fact the case, the heroic “Let’s Roll” story where the passengers fought with the hijackers wouldn’t exactly ring true, would it?

Except there are dozens of phone calls, recorded and available, that detail exactly what did happen from the people who were on board at the time. That the cockpit recorder was found and the transcripts available online…

Are you one of those guys who, when they see a person on film committing a crime, still think they didn’t do it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 28, 2007 9:28 AM
Comment #241631

BTW, This is the kind of moronity that we are dealing with here, from the 911truth.org site:

Did the Shanksville crash occur at 10:06 (according to a seismic report) or 10:03 (according to the 9/11 Commission)

There it is! The smoking gun that the crash really didn’t happen at all! Why, it must have been in those three minutes when the aliens snatched up flight 93 giving the US only just enough time to fire and detonate a missle from NORAD and law several tons of debris around the explosion site to make it LOOK like a plane crash!

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 28, 2007 9:31 AM
Comment #241632
It failed to even test for the possibility of explosives. (Why not clear this up?)

The same reason they didn’t test for hydrochloric acid being place on the structural beams in a drip-drip manner for several weeks before the towers fell, or that they didn’t test for Goldfinger’s lair to be under the twin towers and they fell because 007 was able to escape from his death device by moving the laser away at the last second, accidentally taking down the towers just minutes after the planes hit the tower…

because the notion is idiotic and the OBVIOUS reason that the towers fell was because two big freaking planes filled to the brim with explosive jet fuel hit them?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 28, 2007 9:38 AM
Comment #241633

My biggest problem with this demolition theory is… Why? Why would the government want to destroy the buildings in the first place? I can see no concrete reason. (Oww, bad pun, sorry, not intentional)

Now the idea that the Bushies knew that attacks were coming and let it happen…. that I can get behind.

L

Posted by: leatherankh at December 28, 2007 9:40 AM
Comment #241634
This hole was made by a jet airliner?

Yep. Do you know why it’s smaller than you’d expect? It’s not because it’s the initial impact that was made by a missile. No, it’s because that’s a picture of an exit hole through one of the rings of the Pentagon. Heck, the explanation is right on the page you linked to. The initial impact entry hole was much bigger.

Let’s see how someone with there head in the sand can explain a hole without an aircraft in it.

Willie, that’s the link I provided. If you read it, you’ll see that there was actually an aircraft there. The claim that no plane parts were there was the result of a misinterpretation of someone saying that the plane was completely demolished to smithereens. In fact, though, many plane parts were later found.

Here are some better pictures for you to look at.

Those pictures aren’t better; they’re different. And they show nothing that can’t be explained by a 757 hitting the Pentagon. Let’s look for a moment at the alternate hypothesis proposed here; that one or more missiles was used to simulate a plane attack. Then how did the massive debris field of plane parts and engine parts, etc. get there? Are we to believe that within minutes of the attack that a massive effort was undertaken to place plane parts strategically in the lawn in front of the Pentagon and even within the burning Pentagon itself? Wouldn’t someone have noticed the dozens or hundreds of personnel using huge machinery to haul in the parts in the middle of the attack? Of course. Your theory is hogwash, in direct contravention of the facts on the ground. If your idea were true, what happened to the passengers and crew of the plane? What happened to the plane itself?

In order to believe your idea, we have to pile myth upon conspiracy upon illogic.

There was a smoking hole in the ground, lots of small pieces of metal and other litter and trash, but no real parts of an airplane that looked like what is usually the site of a crash.

Read through the link that both Willie and I provided. It talks about many, many pieces of debris, including engines, found around the site. That there wasn’t a huge piece of fuselage is to be expected - that was also true of plane crashes in Colorado and near Pittsburgh in the 1990s that happened when a plane slammed directly into the ground at high speed. To claim that there’s no evidence of a plane crash is a myth. To claim that the evidence was planted ahead of time has not factual support. The claim that the physical evidence seen must be part of a hoax is just grasping at straws, trying to make the evidence match a preordained result instead of deriving a conclusion from the evidence.

I really have to do is cut and paste a bit from this webpage to offer up the actual facts …

That might be true, if that webpage were a source of actual fact. Instead, it’s a propagator of myths. Reality is much different.

For example, that using a plane as a missile had been considered was true. However, it had never been done. So, to require the air traffic controllers and the military to have assumed that as the most likely possibility doesn’t make sense. Also, you didn’t address the fact that NORAD was focused on external events, or that they didn’t know where the planes were going. You’re creating a myth based on perfect hindsight.

But just as you said, these assumptions of mine were obviously wrong.

Yep. I’m glad you see it. Maybe you can start moving to a reality-based interpretation now that you’re starting to discard obviously invalid assumptions.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 28, 2007 9:45 AM
Comment #241638

Television Footage of the mostly empty smoking hole.
I see no large chunks of aircraft there. It was reported that nothing much larger than a briefcase was found at the crater. Larger pieces of the plane were found further away.

What happened with all the jet fuel? It was fully loaded for a long flight. So, why didn’t it continue to burn hot for a long time?

I understand that a plane crashing would cause everything to break up, but
how is it possible that human remains were found miles away from the point of impact? Debris floating six miles away in a lake?

In fact, it was reported that very small pieces of debris were found as far as eight miles away.

Much more likely that a regular crash, Flight 93 either had a bomb on board that blew while they were still in the air, or another plane must have shot it out of the sky.

Posted by: veritas vincit at December 28, 2007 11:40 AM
Comment #241641

First 2 of those links don’t work. Here they are again:
TV footage of empty smoking hole.
Where is the Fuel?

Posted by: veritas vincit at December 28, 2007 12:00 PM
Comment #241642

I sometimes wonder why physics is not taught as a requirement in all high schools, most of this nonsense would stop pretty quickly…

Unfortunately, without giving a physics lesson to someone who refuses to listen to reality, it makes it hard to point out the obvious flaws in the conspiracy theories. No matter how many times the same points are debunked and proven wrong over and over and over again…

Apparenlty, according to veritas vincit, when a plane crash lands at an angle at several hundred miles an hour with a large amount of jet fuel on board, it is suppose to all stay contained within a few hundred feet of itself, nearly intact and not create a ‘mushroom cloud’.

Much more likely that a regular crash, Flight 93 either had a bomb on board that blew while they were still in the air, or another plane must have shot it out of the sky.

Except for all of those eye-witnesses, cell phone recordings, plane to land phone recordings, black box recording, trajectory recordings, etc…

All of which make it impossible that 93 blew up in mid air or was shot down.

Pesky facts, always ruin a good conspiracy theory…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 28, 2007 12:05 PM
Comment #241644

“You’re creating a myth”

Right, every one who looks questioningly at the official myths of 9/11 has to be creating one for themselves. While those who go along with the official myth can’t ask too many questions, or demand any logical answers.

Posted by: veritas vincit at December 28, 2007 12:19 PM
Comment #241646
Apparenlty, according to veritas vincit, when a plane crash lands at an angle at several hundred miles an hour with a large amount of jet fuel on board, it is suppose to all stay contained within a few hundred feet of itself, nearly intact

Maybe half a mile or thereabouts, with at least a few large pieces of engine and fuselage somewhere near the impact crater. But definitely not “miles away” with debris six and even eight miles away.

But it’s much more fun to put words in someones mouth, isn’t it? That way you can continue to call them a moron.

“and not create a ‘mushroom cloud’.”

Actually, a large cloud of black smoke from all those gallons of jet fuel would be something I’d expect to see in the aftermath of such a crash. But that isn’t what witnesses described, or what firefighters confronted in Shanksville.

Posted by: veritas vincit at December 28, 2007 12:33 PM
Comment #241650

First, let me address the merits of judging what evidence is or is not there by video.

Or rather, the lack of same.

The Camera always lies, which is to say, it never tells the complete truth.

It always makes me sad to see people pour over shapes on a video or a photograph, working at the bleeding edge of the resolution, the exposure and the angle to try and make out something like a missile or something else. As a person who got his degree in this subject, I know just how foolhardy this is.

First, once you get down to basic pixels, which is what often happens, your ability to properly make out shapes is by definition curbed. Random noise and the blurred outlines of shapes, digital artifacts can become meaningful to those looking for that meaning.

It also means that for all intents and purposes, anything smaller than pixel size is invisible. This becomes particularly important when we’re dealing with Standard Definition NTSC cameras, which were by far the most common cameras of choice documenting the disaster. There are things you simply won’t see with the camera that might nonetheless be there.

Second, Virtually all video of the event is two dimensional, and taken from a certain point of view. The price paid for any optical point of view, whether by eye or by camera, is that you can’t see anything not in your line of sight, anything obscured by objects in front of you. People often become narrowly focused on what the camera shows, to the point of denying anything not shown. This becomes especially pernicious when dealing with events and evidence of events that by necessity occurs beyond what the Camera can show, which would be things out of the frame, and things that cannot be seen visibly from the vantage point.

Third, people in the 9/11 Contrarian community are often hung up on what things look like. Even when you’re looking with your own two eyes, though, appearances can be deceiving. We process what we see by what we know. Perception is not necessarily truth. People say that the towers must have suffered a controlled demolition, since the towers fell vertically, rather than tilt over rigidly like dominos. They cite inwards folding on WTC7 as a basis for their suspicions. They point to the dust clouds, par for the course where such demolitions are concerned.

What is not considered is that these are signs of certain physical aspects of an uncontrolled collapse that would be shared with a controlled demolition. First, both kinds of buildings would have a certain kind of inertia, meaning that parts of the building would not easily be pushed laterally. They might turn, this way or that, if the compromise of the structure is uneven, catapulted away by the torque between what the material is falling on and it’s own gravitational acceleration, but it will rarely have a great deal of force shoving it sideways. Hence, vertical collapse.

Most controlled demolitions attempt to turn the falling debris inwards, collapsing the right parts of the building first, to pull the other parts away from other buildings and the people in the area. One visible discrepancy in the 9/11 skeptic’s account is the haphazard nature of the collapse. If you take a good look at the material as it falls, it blossoms out from the sides, falls outwards. Even WTC7 fell out into the street.

The dust clouds are often cited as evidence of controlled Demolition. what makes this not unique to controlled demolition are two facts that allow it to happen regardless of the nature of the collapse: First, buildings are mostly made of air. During a collapse, the air gets pushed out. Second, the material, which included tons and tons of sheetrock, would have been pulverized regardless of the reason for the collapse.

Air gets pushed out, with pulverized building materials, and you get the same kinds of clouds either way.

The folks looking for truth in video are looking in the wrong place. For video to be meaningful, the rest of the context must be examined, physical evidence, understanding of the situations in question. Otherwise, you literally won’t know what you’re looking at.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 28, 2007 1:16 PM
Comment #241651
But that isn’t what witnesses described

So, now you are ok with accepting what witnesses say they saw, but when they say they saw a plane crash land and then explode, they are not to be believed?

One of them is Lee Purbaugh, a laborer from Shanksville. The moment that seemed “like an eternity” to him has remained deeply embedded in his memory. He says that an “unbelievably loud roar” caused him to look up at the sky, where the giant airplane suddenly seemed suspended “practically over my head.” Seconds later, at 10:06 a.m., the Boeing plunged into the ground.

Another witness is named Eric Peterson. He was standing in his store when he heard the noise of the plane’s engines. He stepped outside and watched the United Airlines jet until it disappeared behind a nearby hill. Then a fireball erupted. Peterson immediately jumped into his SUV and drove to the site of the crash.

When he arrived, he saw aircraft debris spread across a large area surrounding the impact crater, which he said was “still burning.” According to Peterson, “bits of clothing were hanging” in the branches of the surrounding trees.

There was so much evidence of a plane crash lying around that FBI employees and crash investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) spent thirteen days recovering the wreckage. The heaviest piece of wreckage that was found, part of an engine, weighed almost a ton. This was certainly much heavier than the supposedly “indefinable ‘scrap’ found at the ‘crash site’ of flight UA 93,” about which Wisnewski speculates.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 28, 2007 1:17 PM
Comment #241655

http://www.rense.com/general63/wte.htm

WAS THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK COMPLETELY EMPTIED OF GOLD IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK ON 9-11-01?

On the morning of September 11, 2001, there were $167 billion dollars in gold bars in Federal Reserve vaults in the basement of the World Trade Center.

Since the destruction of the twin towers, there has been much speculation as to what might have become of all of the gold.

A female caller to the Bill Bochiers radio program on WLW, Cincinnati (11-06-04) told of a report from her friend who worked at the WTC. The friend said that on the morning of 9-11 she was on her way to her job at the World Trade Center, along the route she normally took. As she turned a corner at the base of the Center, she saw two large flat bed trucks parked at one of the entrances. One of the trucks had already been loaded and had its contents covered by a large tarp. The second truck was in the process of having its bed loaded with stacks of solid gold bars.

Both sides of the street were lined by black uniformed troops with machine guns who kept an eye on the operation and on the surrounding area.

The bewildered woman kept a distance from the activity and watched as the second truck was loaded, and its contents covered with a tarp. The two trucks were then driven away with the soldiers traveling along as escort.

The woman was so stunned by what she had seen that she turned around and did not report to work that morning, which, as it turned out, most probably saved her life when the towers were attacked and destroyed only about an hour later.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 28, 2007 1:48 PM
Comment #241656

LOL! So, an anonymous caller to a talk show (they are always 100% credible to begin with) tells of us a friend, again anonymous, about this removal of gold, which no one else saw or has come forward to admit to seeing though it was one of the busiest places in the United States, and this was so devastating to her that she didn’t go to work? (Why would the moving of some gold bars keep her from going to work? Am I missing the logic here?)

This stuff just keeps getting better.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 28, 2007 1:56 PM
Comment #241658

Yea, apearantly they made little commerative coins out of 167 billion dollars worth of gold.
Or am I missing something?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 28, 2007 1:59 PM
Comment #241659
So, now you are ok with accepting what witnesses say they saw, but when they say they saw a plane crash land and then explode, they are not to be believed?

There were many witnesses in Shanksville. They saw different things. If you’re interested, you can read what has been compiled here.

Small debris found as far as eight miles away.
Human remains found “miles away.”
Engine part a mile away in a small lake.
Nothing bigger than a briefcase around the impact crater.
An impact crater that burned, but not for a long time, nor did it scorch everything around it.
Even though there had been a large amount of jet fuel in the plane.

From only these facts alone, it seems to me like the plane would have had to either explode while still in the air due to a problem with the plane, or a bomb, or because it had been fired upon. Yet it was claimed to be only a crash.

What does it seem like to you?

Posted by: veritas vincit at December 28, 2007 2:28 PM
Comment #241669

“What does it seem like to you?”

A jumbo jet, going at an extremely high rate of speed, breaking apart, losing fuel and finally crashing?

Who knows?

Posted by: kctim at December 28, 2007 4:41 PM
Comment #241676

Finally, an admittion that there are unknowns. It’s much better than name calling.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 28, 2007 5:20 PM
Comment #241683

Veritas-
The reports indicated that Flight 93 essentially took a nose-dive into the ground going at hundreds of miles an hour. We can assume it came in at an angle, but not perfectly downwards. It hit pretty hard, but we’re not talking a real solid object. Jet aircraft are built light, so when they hit something rigid like a building or the ground, and even at low speeds, they get torn to pieces on impact.

This was a high-speed, likely deliberate crash. you won’t find much intact. The fuel would likely go up all at once, because the shredded superstructure of the craft wouldn’t be able to hold together for a nice, long burn, and the fuel itself would probably be all atomized by the violence of the aircraft’s destruction

As for the distances that some of the pieces were found at? If you slam an aircraft into the ground at hundreds of miles an hour, not all of it’s going to stay in one place, obviously. Even with astronomical objects like asteroids, impacts will spray debris from the object all over the place, smaller than it use to be of course.

I would say that the plane would likely have been in better shape had it been shot down. Most of the time, shot-down aircraft crash because they break apart in mid-air. then things would merely fall to the ground, impacting much more slowly than otherwise (relatively speaking. Terminal velocity is still a rather undesirable impact speed)

At the end of the day, I think a lot of this skepticism is more about inappropriate expectations for how planes crash and/or are shot down.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 28, 2007 6:47 PM
Comment #241684

kctim:

A jumbo jet, going at an extremely high rate of speed, breaking apart, losing fuel and finally crashing?

Yes, breaking apart starting from at least eight miles away, according to the debris that were found. But why did it begin breaking apart? Did the white plane that so many witnesses describe have anything to do with it?
Should we give any credence to the people that thought they heard the sound of a missile?
What about the fact that people reported that the lights went out just before the crash? One of the witnesses had this to say:

So I was sitting there talking to another guy and I was telling him about, you know he said: “Did you see the plane crash,” and whatever, “Was you there?” and anything and I told him the whole story and I was explaining to him about whenever we were standing in the office and the lights flickered, and everything, and there was another gentleman sitting in the room in front of me that was retired from the Air Force and soon as he heard me say that he immediately stopped me and said, “Tell me this…” and I told him and he said, “Well, I’m retired from the Air Force.” He said that plane was shot down and I said, “Why?” and he said because whenever the flickered, they zap the radar frequency on everything before they shoot and he said, “That’s why your lights flickered. Your lights didn’t flicker from the impact, your lights flickered because they zapped the radar system before they shot it.”

kctim:

Who knows?

Maybe the guy who was flying the white plane?
Lots of questions have never been addressed, answered, or probed sufficiently. Which is exactly why a thorough independent investigation seems like a very good idea.

WW:

Finally, an admittion that there are unknowns. It’s much better than name calling.

It is very nice to hear someone say that, rather than act like every detail of any importance has already been answered. That’s not to say that every question can or will be answered, but I think we must at least support the idea of getting a better investigation than the ones we have had thus far.

SD:

As for the distances that some of the pieces were found at? If you slam an aircraft into the ground at hundreds of miles an hour, not all of it’s going to stay in one place, obviously. Even with astronomical objects like asteroids, impacts will spray debris from the object all over the place, smaller than it use to be of course.

But what you’re describing would mean the debris would have been more likely to spray out and fly in every direction. They didn’t do so at Shanksville. There was a clear path the debris took, leading right up to the impact crater. Interestingly enough, the one object that doesn’t fit into that clear path, was the big engine part that was found in the lake. That was located a mile beyond the impact hole, on the opposite side away from the rest of the debris path.

Posted by: veritas vincit at December 28, 2007 7:35 PM
Comment #241686

So, in order to frame people we don’t like for 3000 murders, we’re reduced to looking at a single frame of a photograph from a particular direction of a smoke plume and comparing that plume from an explosion to other plumes from explosion.

How ridiculous.

How did the plume look from other directions? How did the smoke look later, after the initial plume was gone? What assumptions are we making about the plane crash?

So many assumptions… So much contrary evidence ignored…

Sigh.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 28, 2007 9:02 PM
Comment #241689

Lawnboy, are you addressing your comments to anyone in particular?

Nevermind, I’ll bite. (Even despite the “sigh” and obvious hostility vibe.)
To what “plume” are you exactly referring? Lots of plumes on 9/11, you know.

Assumptions about the plane crash…
I guess you mean the one in Shanksville?
Well, assuming things is often what people end up doing when there are a lot of puzzling questions, but not too many logical answers given out, or explained, or even taken into consideration. So, I guess I’m certainly guilty of that when it comes to 9/11.
How about you? Any assumptions you want to make? Or has everything been answered officially and satisfactorily in your mind?

Contrary evidence…? Against what? A plume? The plane crash?
If you’ve got contrary evidence to share, I’m certainly willing to take a look at it.

Btw, since this thread is about 9/11, and because your name is Lawnboy, maybe you’ll get a chuckle out of this.

Posted by: veritas vincit at December 28, 2007 10:26 PM
Comment #241691

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/psyopnews1.htm
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/psyopnews2.htm

So let’s us also pause, now. Let’s jam our emotional hats down firmly and take a look at the MONEY. Let’s take a good HARD look at the money. Let’s follow the MONEY. Because, there is a mountain of blood-soaked money riding on all this.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_fire.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_woman.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_fire.html

Have a good think about the account of Mr Praimnath. The plane impacted the floor he was on, and yet it he saw only flames flickering about.
If the official account of the WTC fires were true then Mr Praimnath would not have survived because the floor he was on would have been consumed by an 800ºC inferno.
The fact that he is alive proves an inferno did not exist.


The Wrong Tower Fell First
The 9/11 WTC Collapses: An Audio-Video Analysis

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 28, 2007 10:48 PM
Comment #241696
My biggest problem with this demolition theory is… Why? Why would the government want to destroy the buildings in the first place?

Because you need to instill enough fear in enough people to make them give up their constitutional rights and let you rule by fiat…sure works good for most dictators…

Posted by: Rachel at December 28, 2007 11:22 PM
Comment #241701
To what “plume” are you exactly referring? Lots of plumes on 9/11, you know.

I was responding to the link that said that 9/11 was MIHOP because the smoke plume didn’t look right.

Well, assuming things is often what people end up doing when there are a lot of puzzling questions, but not too many logical answers given out, or explained, or even taken into consideration.

Perhaps in general, this is true. However, in this case, as in the Pentagon and at the towers, the answers are there, even if you’re unwilling to accept them.

Contrary evidence…? Against what?

Against every claim made here yet. There was a claim here that there were no plane parts at the Pentagon - a claim contrary to reality. There was a claim here that there were no plane parts in Shanksville - a claim contrary to reality. There was a claim here that the WTC towers should have tipped over - a claim contrary to reality. There was a claim… There was a claim…

For example, there’s an entire page about how much more pristine the lawn would be than it would have been if it had been hit, concluding that the Pentagon must have been hit by something other than a passenger 757. Of course, this isn’t really a problem for the reality of what happened because it simply means that a few eyewitnesses were wrong; the plane didn’t hit the ground. Wow! The evidence matches the official explanation!

The reality is that 19 Arab hijackers took over four planes and crashed two into the WTC, one into the Pentagon, and would have crashed another into (we think) the Capital. Those crashes took the lives of over 3000 Americans. All the physical evidence agrees with this chain of events.

Isn’t a plot by 19 people who hate America (plus their oversees supporters) enough of a conspiracy? Why is it necessary to create another conspiracy that relies on misunderstanding engineering and physics, that would require something like 600,000 people to be in on it, that imagines that planes holding hundreds of civilians just disappeared without any later trace of the civilians, and that relies on ignoring simple answers to questions that are repeatedly parrotted (as though they are unanswered)?

Isn’t the real conspiracy that happened enough?

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 29, 2007 12:08 AM
Comment #241706
However, in this case, as in the Pentagon and at the towers, the answers are there,

Personally, not enough of them are there for me. In fact, I feel many factors were never even addressed, let alone answered. For you, it seems that the information you’ve received has answered everything officially and satisfactorily.

So naturally, your version of “reality” and mine are going to be different.

even if you’re unwilling to accept them.

Yes. I am unwilling to accept a large portion of the information that I have received from our government on the topic of what took place on 9/11.
To be perfectly honest, I think that a whole lot of the information that has been given out during the Bush/Cheney years has been shot full of lies, and nonsense, and propaganda. They have been aided in this by a huge number of their fellow politicians and powerful supporters who have been more than happy to assist them in feeding all this BS to the American public. It is also obvious to me that these people have paired that with a level of secrecy and lawlessness that I consider both extremely dangerous, and a serious threat to American Democracy.

Far too many questions that I have (about 9/11 and on a huge number of other issues) are never addressed with solid, reasonable, logical answers. So I find myself having to frequently reject, rather than accept.

All the physical evidence agrees with this chain of events.

I strongly disagree. And I resent all the rude hostility and name-calling that this evokes as a reaction. Still, negative reactions of that sort don’t have the power to stop me from thinking, or questioning things, or demanding answers.

I don’t consider it at all patriotic to shut off my brain in order to go along. Not for Bush/Cheney and the Cons, or the 9/11 Commission, or FEMA, or NIST, not for anyone. Not even for the Democrats, although I am a member (often disgruntled).

conspiracy that relies on misunderstanding engineering and physics,

Strange. I can’t help but wonder why the demand for a more comprehensive investigation into 9/11 would so upset or enrage someone who is an engineer, especially when the NIST report was so inadequate and inclusive.

Posted by: veritas vincit at December 29, 2007 2:34 AM
Comment #241709

Portion of an article from the The Mirror, UK:

WHAT DID HAPPEN TO FLIGHT 93?
RICHARD WALLACE, US Editor, examines riddle of hijacked jet as he visits crash site

THE unmarked military-style jet swooped down at high speed through the valley, twice circled the smouldering black scar where Flight 93 had careered into the ground just seconds earlier and then hurtled off over the horizon.

At least six eyewitnesses saw the mysterious aircraft on the morning of September 11 last year. But the US authorities deny it ever existed.

So when George Bush laid a wreath yesterday at the crash site in a remote valley outside Shanksville, Pennsylvania, he was one of only a handful of people who know what really happened to the 40 innocents and four hijackers aboard the doomed United Airlines Boeing 757-200.

Those unimaginable final seconds as passengers showed courageous defiance apparently wrestling for control of the aircraft have become one of the defining images of the tragedy.

And “Let’s roll” - ringleader Todd Beamer’s no-nonsense call to arms - became a defining battle cry in America’s war on terror.
[note: Beamer’s wife trademarked this “war on terror battle cry” a short time after 9/11.]

But of the four aircraft taken on September 11, the exact fate of Flight 93 after its two-hour journey is proving difficult for US officials to explain.

What was the white jet doing there and why won’t they admit to its presence? Why did other witnesses see smoke and flames trailing from Flight 93 as it fell from the sky, indicating a possible explosion aboard?

Or - and this is proving to be the most uncomfortable question of all - in the moments before the airliner piled into the black, spongey earth at 575mph did an American fighter pilot have to do the unthinkable and shoot down a US civil airliner?

Susan Mcelwain, 51, who lives two miles from the site, knows what she saw - the white plane rocketed directly over her head.

“It came right over me, I reckon just 40 or 50ft above my mini-van,” she recalled. “It was so low I ducked instinctively. It was travelling real fast, but hardly made any sound.

“Then it disappeared behind some trees. A few seconds later I heard this great explosion and saw this fireball rise up over the trees, so I figured the jet had crashed. The ground really shook. So I dialled 911 and told them what happened.

“I’d heard nothing about the other attacks and it was only when I got home and saw the TV that I realised it wasn’t the white jet, but Flight 93.

I didn’t think much more about it until the authorities started to say there had been no other plane. The plane I saw was heading right to the point where Flight 93 crashed and must have been there at the very moment it came down.

“There’s no way I imagined this plane - it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look.

“It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side. I haven’t found one like it on the internet. It definitely wasn’t one of those executive jets. The FBI came and talked to me and said there was no plane around.

“Then they changed their story and tried to say it was a plane taking pictures of the crash 3,000ft up.

“But I saw it and it was there before the crash and it was 40ft above my head. They did not want my story - nobody here did.”

Mrs Mcelwain, who looks after special needs children, is further convinced the whole truth has yet to come out because of a phone call she had within hours from the wife of an air force friend of the family.

“She said her husband had called her that morning and said ‘I can’t talk, but we’ve just shot a plane down,’ ” Susan said. “I presumed they meant Flight 93. I have no doubt those brave people on board tried to do something, but I don’t believe what happened on the plane brought it down.

“If they shot it down, or something else happened, everyone, especially the victims’ families, have a right to know.”

Lee Purbaugh, 32, was the only person to see the last seconds of Flight 93 as it came down on former strip-mining land at precisely 10.06am - and he also saw the white jet.

He was working at the Rollock Inc. scrapyard on a ridge overlooking the point of impact, less than half a mile away. “I heard this real loud noise coming over my head,” he told the Daily Mirror. “I looked up and it was Flight 93, barely 50ft above me. It was coming down in a 45 degree and rocking from side to side. Then the nose suddenly dipped and it just crashed into the ground. There was this big fireball and then a huge cloud of smoke.”

But did he see another plane? “Yes, there was another plane,” Lee said. “I didn’t get a good look but it was white and it circled the area about twice and then it flew off over the horizon.”

Tom Spinelli, 28, was working at India Lake Marina, a mile and a half away. “I saw the white plane,” he said.

“It was flying around all over the place like it was looking for something. I saw it before and after the crash.”

India Lake also contributes to the view there was an explosion on board before the Newark-San Francisco flight came down. Debris rained down on the lake - a curious feat if, as the US government insists, there was no mid-air explosion and the plane was intact until it hit the ground.

“It was mainly mail, bits of in-flight magazine and scraps of seat cloth,” Tom said. “The authorities say it was blown here by the wind.” But there was only a 10mph breeze and you were a mile and a half away? Tom raised his eyebrows, rolled his eyes and said: “Yeah, that’s what they reckon.”

Light debris was also found eight miles away in New Baltimore. A section of engine weighing a ton was located 2,000 yards - over a mile -from the crash site. Theorists point out a Sidewinder heat-seeking missile attacks the hottest part of aircraft - the engine.

The authorities say the impact bounced it there. But the few pieces of surviving fuselage, local coroner Wallace Miller told us, were “no bigger than a carrier bag”.

Nearly all the passengers were reduced to charcoal on impact and the largest piece of human tissue found was a section of spine eight inches long.

CURIOUSLY, military officials insist there was never any pursuit of Flight 93, although they were informed that it was a suspected hijack at 9.16am, 50 minutes before the plane came down.

At 9.35am they assumed it was heading for Washington DC after it changed course in a 180 degree turn and three F-16s - top speed 1,800mph - now patrolling over the capital were told to “protect the White House at all costs”.

An anonymous flight controller said on the day that an F-16 was “in hot pursuit” of Flight 93 - Washington to Shanksville is seven to 10 minutes flying time.

A few minutes before the crash Bill Wright, piloting a single-engine Piper, could see Flight 93 three miles away, but was suddenly told to turn away and land immediately without explanation.

At 9.58am a 911 call - the last mobile phone contact from Flight 93 - was made from one of the airliner’s toilets by passenger Edward Felt.

Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor who answered it, said on the day: “He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down.

“He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn’t know where. And then we lost contact with him.” Glenn Cramer has now been gagged by the FBI.

Also, according to sources, the last seconds of the cockpit voice recorder are the loud sounds of wind, hinting at a possible hole somewhere in the fuselage. What caused the smoke and explosion? Why the wind sounds?

The FBI’s later explanation for the white jet was that a passing civilian Fairchild Falcon 20 jet was asked to descend from 34,000ft to 5,000ft some minutes after the crash to give co-ordinates for the site. The plane and pilot have never been produced or identified. Susan Mcelwain says a Falcon 20 was not the plane she saw.

FURTHER verification that some kind of military aircraft was operating in the area is scientifically irrefutable.

At 9.22am a sonic boom - caused by supersonic flight - was picked up by an earthquake monitoring station in southern Pennsylvania, 60 miles from Shanksville.

That Todd Beamer and others launched an assault on the hijackers there is no doubt. The brief extracts released from audio tapes indicate a fierce struggle going on at the cockpit door.

But nobody - official or otherwise - has categorically said the group got into the cockpit or that their actions led to the crash. Those final, agonising moments are mere presumption.

President Bush and his team have the whole story. So why aren’t they telling the rest of us?

Posted by: veritas vincit at December 29, 2007 3:25 AM
Comment #241713
And I resent all the rude hostility and name-calling that this evokes as a reaction.

And I resent Joel’s attempt to foment revolution based on a pack of transparent lies.

I don’t consider it at all patriotic to shut off my brain in order to go along.

We’re not asking you to shut off your brain. We’re asking you to turn it on. Learn some engineering, some logic, some common sense. Then you’ll see that what you’re parroting here are combinations of lies and ludicrousness. We’ve already rebutted dozens of the the “truther” arguments here using evidence and logic. How many times do we have to show you that you’ve swallowed a pack of lies and illogic before you start to question yourself?

Strange. I can’t help but wonder why the demand for a more comprehensive investigation into 9/11 would so upset or enrage someone who is an engineer, especially when the NIST report was so inadequate and inclusive.

Because there would be no point whatsoever. While the NIST report wasn’t perfect (nothing done by humans ever is), it conclusively demonstrated that the WTC towers fell due to understandable physical consequences of lightly-designed buildings being slammed into by jumbo jets full of highly-explosive fuel. The conclusions of the NIST report have been analyzed by dozens of independent peer-reviewed papers that sometimes quibble with details, but always confirm the essential result.

So, we could spend the time, money, energy, and national strife that would be required for a new investigation, and it would be a waste of time, money, and energy. Based on all the evidence we’ve seen and all the independent peer-reviewed analysis of the existing investigations, it’s certain that the result of the new investigation would be essentially the same as what we’ve already seen.

Would you be happy then? Of course not. Because you wouldn’t be happy with the result, you would claim that the investigation itself were tainted and imperfect and call for yet another investigation. Repeat ad infinitum.

That’s why I’m opposed to it. Dozens of independent investigations and peer-reviewed analyses have been undertaken by qualified researchers, scientists, and engineers. The conclusions have been unanimous.

David Ray Griffin wrote a book that supposedly debunked the NIST report, but his book is completely full of holes. Griffin’s claims are influential in the truther movement, but the analysis I link to here shows that he relies on taking quotes out of context, bad math, misreading graphs, misunderstanding physics and engineering, and generally not knowing what he’s talking about. The analysis I link to even admits that there are some problems with the NIST report, but that the problems aren’t nearly big enough to provide a logical opening for consideration of controlled demolition or MIHOP - there’s just no evidence whatsoever for the truther position.

And I resent all the rude hostility and name-calling that this evokes as a reaction.

I haven’t really called you any names (“truther” is the only name I’ve used, and that’s the name of the movement). However, I will admit that I’m hostile. I just can’t help it. I’m always hostile to the promotion of pseudoscience and misinformation in American society, whether it’s 9/11 truthers, Creationism, moon landing hoaxers, Reoswell believers, astrologers, climate change deniers, or whatever. Whenever there’s a concerted effort to deny the results of honest scientific inquiry in order to support an agenda, I am hostile. It’s especially true in a case like this one where the goal by some is to use the lies to start a revolution.

BTW, the Flight 93 white jet story has an answer. Once again, the mysterious claim is easily resolved by the reality of the situation. Will you take this part of the myth out of your bag of tricks? Or perhaps will you realize that once again you are relying on misinformation and start to open your mind to what really happened?

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 29, 2007 9:28 AM
Comment #241714

The fact that David Ray Griffin was a professor of philosophy of religion and theology;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ray_Griffin
may have contributed to his lack of actual knowledge of the subject.

Posted by: Rocky at December 29, 2007 9:48 AM
Comment #241717

veritas,

Let’s assume for a moment that the questions I am about to ask are just honest questions, not an attack on anyone that believes in, let’s say, alternate theories of what happened on Sept. 11th.

Is it possible that a Boeing 757-200 aircraft, with a cruising speed of approx. 500mph and a cruising altitude of over 30,000ft, could reach supersonic speeds during a dive at an angle 45 degrees?

Could it be possible that the aircraft could break up during said dive?

Is it possible that the inertia (every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed) of an engine, with a mass of over a ton, could cause it to roll to it’s resting place, far from where the plane impacted?

If an air to air missile actually shot down a jetliner, fully loaded with fuel, of the size of a 757, would not the debris be scattered over hundreds of miles, not confined to 70 acres?

If the plane actually was shot down, why would there be such a huge impact crater?

Finally, even if said missile was a dud, and merely put a hole in the plane, how long would anyone survive the change in cabin pressure, even in the plane’s bathroom?

Remember, these are just questions.

Posted by: Rocky at December 29, 2007 10:17 AM
Comment #241725

Further to Rocky’s questions:

If the theory is that a missile or bomb blew up the plane in flight, what is the relevance that the smoke plume (at one point from one angle) looks something like a smoke plume that resulted from a ground-based ordinance explosion?

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 29, 2007 12:31 PM
Comment #241729

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

WTC Steel Removal
The Expeditious Destruction of the Evidence at Ground Zero

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/steel.html

No such effort was made to preserve the evidence of the unprecedented and unexplained collapses of skyscrapers WTC 1, WTC 2, and Building 7 in lower Manhattan — easily the three largest and least understood structural failures in World history. Indeed the evidence was destroyed with remarkable speed and efficiency.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 29, 2007 12:49 PM
Comment #241733

http://bogusstory.com/911_inside_job.html


Close US Gov Ties with Terrorists
The 9/11 Commission Report (July 22, 2004): “…none of the measures adopted by the U.S. government from 1998 to 2001 disturbed or even delayed the progress of the al Qaeda plot.”

According to published and confirmed mainstream reports Mohammed Atta, whom the Pentagon had knowledge of in the middle of 2000, was wired $100,000 by the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI, just prior to the attacks. The man who approved this wire, General Ahmad was meeting with top officials of the US government, including Intelligence Committee Chairmen Porter Goss (R-FL) and Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) on the morning of the 9/11 attacks. The FBI confirmed on ABC News (This Week, September 30, 2001) that the payment had come from banks in Pakistan. Amidst the scandal that linked him to the payment, ISI director-general Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad was retired early by Pakistan’s Military Dictator Musharraf,…

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 29, 2007 2:24 PM
Comment #241735

Willie,

The claims that the evidence was destroyed are just plain wrong:

Many of the sites who talk about this like to emphasise the “speed” of the recycling operation. For example:

…the steel beams were quickly recycled before investigators even had the chance to look at them…
http://www.the7thfire.com/9-11/Pastore_Investigation_of_%209-11/chapter_13—collapse_of_the_WTC.htm

Sounds suspect, right? But it’s also untrue. First, the steel wasn’t entirely cleared from the site until May 2002, not perhaps as quick as the claims suggest.

May 29 2002: As the last steel column of the demolished World Trade Center was removed Tuesday, construction workers at the site were honored for their work there since September 11th.
http://www.wndu.com/news/052002/news_14322.php

Further, the recycling did not happen “before investigators even had the chance to look at them”. Here’s Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Performance Assessment Team, in his testimony to the House of Representatives:

“There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures”.
www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm

The claims rests on the premise that every piece of metal would need to be preserved indefinitely to be able to tell the story. However, the collision zones of the buildings was less than 10% of each building. That means that over 90% of the material would show nothing other than the results of the collapse, giving no information about the cause of the collapse.

Additionally, every piece of metal taken from the site was looked at on site, and then kept at a scrap metal yard later for another examination. After those examinations, the metal that had no unique story to tell was recycled, but the important, interesting, and relevant parts of the collapsed building were kept.

This story, while frequently retold, is simply another example of creating a false impression of suspicion by looking at only a selection of the information. It’s another false question that has already been simply and logically answered.

Don’t you get tired of realizing that you’re asking questions that have real, simple answers?

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 29, 2007 2:35 PM
Comment #241736

Willie,

The claims that the evidence was destroyed are just plain wrong:

Many of the sites who talk about this like to emphasise the “speed” of the recycling operation. For example:

…the steel beams were quickly recycled before investigators even had the chance to look at them…

Sounds suspect, right? But it’s also untrue. First, the steel wasn’t entirely cleared from the site until May 2002, not perhaps as quick as the claims suggest.

May 29 2002: As the last steel column of the demolished World Trade Center was removed Tuesday, construction workers at the site were honored for their work there since September 11th.
http://www.wndu.com/news/052002/news_14322.php

Further, the recycling did not happen “before investigators even had the chance to look at them”. Here’s Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Performance Assessment Team, in his testimony to the House of Representatives:

“There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures”.
www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm

The claims rests on the premise that every piece of metal would need to be preserved indefinitely to be able to tell the story. However, the collision zones of the buildings was less than 10% of each building. That means that over 90% of the material would show nothing other than the results of the collapse, giving no information about the cause of the collapse.

Additionally, every piece of metal taken from the site was looked at on site, and then kept at a scrap metal yard later for another examination. After those examinations, the metal that had no unique story to tell was recycled, but the important, interesting, and relevant parts of the collapsed building were kept.

This story, while frequently retold, is simply another example of creating a false impression of suspicion by looking at only a selection of the information. It’s another false question that has already been simply and logically answered.

Don’t you get tired of realizing that you’re asking questions that have real, simple answers?

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 29, 2007 2:37 PM
Comment #241737

The 90% of the building that you claim is irrelevant is what needs to be examined. There is no need to examine the 10% collision zone unless you only want to confirm your position.

…90% of the material would show nothing…

This is an assumption. Don’t criticize others and then do the same.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 29, 2007 3:01 PM
Comment #241739

If only the airplane was involved the entire airplane would be gathered and reassembled.

Where are the photos and news stories depicting the reconstruction of the pentagon and pensylvania aircrafts? There is none because it “liquified”?! It buried itself in the ground?!

They underestimated the people’s ability to think for themselves.

They underestimated the ability of the entire world viewing this event in real time. They underestimated the ability of the people to gather and share information on their own. They underestimated the amount of technology recording the event.

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 29, 2007 3:54 PM
Comment #241740

If that 16 foot hole in the pentagon was caused by the aircraft’s nose…

WHERE IS THE AIRCRAFT’S NOSE?!

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 29, 2007 4:01 PM
Comment #241741

Oh yea! It liquified.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 29, 2007 4:02 PM
Comment #241742

Veritas Vincit-
The Plane impacted the ground at 563 mph. These things are basically light shells of Aluminum/Magnesium alloys, and it was full of fuel for a transcontinental flight.

The flightspeed at that attitude was likely far beyond the designed tolerances of the aircraft. This thing might go at sub-mach speed in the thin air six or seven miles up, but doing that through the thick atmosphere close to the ground could have started breaking up the aircraft, especially in a stressful nose dive the jet was never designed to make much less survive.

Another source of debris would be whatever sprayed from the impact or blasted out of it.

The trouble here is that you’re trying to fit the facts to a conclusion rather than trying to understand the behavior of such systems in real life.

Weary Willie-
Please don’t hand me this info-populism BS. EVERYbody likes to claim that they’re in possession of the truth. Unfortunately, a lot of ignorance, pop culture myths, application of limited expertise, and other factors interfere with the grasp of some on what’s really true.

I once was a big “mysteries of the unknown”, conspiracy theory sort of person. What finally disenchanted me, at the end of the day, was my inability to nail down straight answers coming from these people. Everything was special pleading, the proof was always concealed, and those who didn’t believe were just dupes and pawns, if not conspirators themselves.

A great deal of the 9/11 truth movement stuff betrays fundametal misunderstandings about how crashes occur, how buildings take and tolerate damage, how metal behaves at high temperature, and how the movies and our pop culture conceptions differ from reality.

At the end of the day, the 9/11 truth movement is about what people want to believe, as opposed to what really went down. People would rather think they were deliberately hoaxed on 9/11, than let down. They would rather see the Bush administration as malicious master planners, than ambitious, arrogant, and ultimately incompetent bumblers.

All things considered, if you look at the Iraq war, you see precisely how terrible these people are at what they do. No politician in his right mind would put his party in these positions. Such masterful conspirators could have planted WMD, found terrorists, and engineered Iraq without anybody knowing it. These people aren’t the geniuses it would take to pull this off before everybody’s eyes. They’re the kind of people who leave tape on the door and pull third-rate burglaries.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 29, 2007 4:53 PM
Comment #241743

We’er back to degredation and name calling?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 29, 2007 5:28 PM
Comment #241744
This is an assumption. Don’t criticize others and then do the same.

Fair point, but not relevant. My point is that they looked at all the collected materials before it was recycled, and that only a small percentage showed any reason to be kept for further study. That the small percentage that needed to be kept was from the collision zone was further evidence discovered in the process that the collision zone was the important part. It was a conclusion by them based on evidence, not a conclusion driving the evidence, as you inferred from my statement.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 29, 2007 5:57 PM
Comment #241745
Where are the photos and news stories depicting the reconstruction of the pentagon and pensylvania aircrafts? There is none because it “liquified”?! It buried itself in the ground?!

Who are you quoting the with word “liquified”? No one used it here before you, so congrats on your straw man argument. Let’s add that to the list of logical fallacies that are necessary to support the truther claims.

Contrary to your claims, parts of the nose were found. Inside the Pentagon were found nose parts, cockpit parts, a cockpit seat, a plane tire, landing gear, engines, and even burned bodies still in their seats. To claim that anything but a 757 hit the Pentagon is a clear affront to evidence and reality.

And I don’t know of others making the claim is that the 16-ft hole was caused solely by the nose. The exterior hole was caused by the entire fuselage, and the interior holes were caused (if I recall correctly) by the engines, which were found inside the building.

In asking for photos and stories of the reconstructed planes, are you saying that a fully reconstructed plane would convince you? Or is it just another diversionary tactic, requiring more from reality than should reasonably be expected? Anyway, I linked above to pictures of unequivocal plane debris from the Pentagon crash, and here are unimpeachable pictures of plane debris in Pennsylvania. If this evidence doesn’t sway you, why would more of the same do any better?

They underestimated the amount of technology recording the event.

Heck, you don’t even read the links you’ve provided. Earlier, your link on Shankesville was really a disproof of your position. And now, the link on the seismic shocks is a refutation of the idea that there was anything in the seismic recordings but a record of falling rubble.

I repeat, the amount of technology recording the event supports the official theory.

Or, are you really on the anti-truther side, presenting links showing the ludicrousness of the position as a form of satire? If so, I salute you!

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 29, 2007 6:26 PM
Comment #241746

It amazes me how the few can get away with hounding the many into submittion.

Constant, repetitive, denial is the key. Throw in some condescending irrelevance, make the opponent repeat themselves and then hound them for repeating themselves. Manufacture a mistake and then hound them for making that mistake.

It reminds me of Neanderthals poking the butt of a mammoth. Primative but effective.


Posted by: Weary Willie at December 29, 2007 7:07 PM
Comment #241747
Constant, repetitive, denial is the key.

That’s interesting spin and interpretation for having your butt handed to you continually for not knowing what you’re talking about. We’ve proved you wrong many times using facts and evidence. You’re the one in denial, aren’t you?

Manufacture a mistake and then hound them for making that mistake.

This is precisely the tactic you and your allies use continually.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 29, 2007 7:14 PM
Comment #241748

I have only quoted others. I have only asked questions.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 29, 2007 8:14 PM
Comment #241749
I have only quoted others. I have only asked questions.

Yes, but have you listened when given answers? And have you realized that the questions you ask are based on false premises, thereby manufacturing mistakes?

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 29, 2007 8:24 PM
Comment #241751

Willie,

Your not a hounded martyr, just propagating falsehood and myth.

Posted by: googlumpus at December 29, 2007 8:30 PM
Comment #241754

Weary Willie-
Look, the biggest question here is, where’s your solid case? Where’s your convincing case, where you aren’t relying on the notion that somebody’s absconded with your most persuasive evidence?

If real-world evidence is not allowed to provide the boundary for what’s considered speculation and imagination, and what’s considered real, then you can claim practically anything, and the only thing that would defined what was believed from what was distrusted would be the blarney of the person relating the tale.

As a writer, I’ve come to gain quite a bit of respect for the power of persuasive bullshit. Enough to know how seductive stories can be, and the mental support they lend to bad ideas as well as good.

I don’t see you as a martyr. I see you as a person unable to properly defend what he claims.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 29, 2007 9:57 PM
Comment #241780
Weary Willie wrote: Where are the photos and news stories depicting the reconstruction of the pentagon and pensylvania aircrafts? There is none because it “liquified”?! It buried itself in the ground?!

If the plane hit the ground at 300+ mph, there won’t be much left. What metal is not incinerated will be blown to tiny bits, which gives an idea what will happen to flesh and bone. To be spread over 70 acres is not really a very large area.

I’m not denigrating anyone for their 911 beliefs and/or suspicions, because there is so much evidence and it makes a strong circumstantial case. I was suspicious myself due to WTC7, until I later learned that WTC7 had been compromised in 1989 by massive ($200 million in modifications) to create larger rooms.

However, in my opinion, I think it is unlikely that 911 was a result of a conspiracy within our own government. I’m not ruling out a conspiracy completely, since I didn’t see all of the evidence myself (i.e. only what has been reported on both sides of the issue), but the bulk of evidence seems to lean (i.e. 95%) against a conspiracy within our government.

However, I do think there was massive incompetence, fumbling, and stumbling, and ignoring predictions of the very thing that happened on 11-SEP-2001. The federal government and the FBI failed miserably to prevent what could have been prevented. Afterall, you’d think over half a trillion dollar$ (or more) per year would be enough to connect some dots and stop what many repeatedly warned us about. Rick Rescorla (head of WTC Security for Morgan Stanely) and his friend Dan Hill predicted it. They showed with a flight simulator (game) how easy it would be to fly into the WTC towers, Pentagon, White House, Empire State Building, etc. We were warned many times to secure cock pit doors. The day before 11-SEP-2001, Rumsfeld had received a nebulous warning of Al-Qaeada threat; still perhaps a good reason to maybe secure cockpit doors? Rick Rescorla (who died on 11-SEP-2001) even asked Morgan Stanley to move out of the WTC towers. Also, Rick Rescorla predicted the first attack on the WTC in 1993. It wasn’t until after the first attack with the bombing of the WTC in 1993 that people started taking Rick Rescorla more seriously when he started building-evacuation drills. The seceacy, lies, twisting the truth, and many other things by the administration have definitely raise suspicions. Many Americans are distrusting because the already know they have been lied to about other major issues (e..g No WMD ?).

  • Posted by: d.a.n at December 30, 2007 1:28 PM
    Comment #241783

    Stephen,

    “All things considered, if you look at the Iraq war, you see precisely how terrible these people are at what they do. No politician in his right mind would put his party in these positions. Such masterful conspirators could have planted WMD, found terrorists, and engineered Iraq without anybody knowing it. These people aren’t the geniuses it would take to pull this off before everybody’s eyes. They’re the kind of people who leave tape on the door and pull third-rate burglaries.”

    This is of course not true, but ironically is probably what they want you to believe. It’s a running joke among many progressives about how “incompetent” the people running the country are and how they suppposedly can’t do anything right. Actually, they’ve managed to get just about everything they ever wanted. And no matter what, it’s the outraged left who can’t seem to win any meaningful victories of any sort, who can’t figure anything out, and can’t push its agenda in any successful way. Even if Bush himself is moronic, do you actually think if there was a convert operation that he personally was directing the whole thing? This seems to be one of the fallacies of the “anti-conspiracy theory” progressive movement, that Bush himself must control everything and that his personal intelligence is actually that relevant.

    As for Iraq, they did manage to fool everyone into invading a small oil-rich country that posed no threat to us. There was obviously no need to plant WMDS when so many people just watch Fox news and accept whatever they’re told. And if you think their goal really is to create a stable democracy and infrastructure for the Iraqi people, out of the goodness of their hearts, you must also believe Bush when he claims to have a plan to make the US less dependent on oil.

    Posted by: thom at December 30, 2007 2:40 PM
    Comment #241786

    Lawnboy:

    Learn some engineering,

    I read the NIST report and thought there were some obvious problems with it. I was therefore interested to learn that engineers with a lot of professional experience thought so too. People such as Joel Hirschorn, and others like:

    Edward S. Munyak, BS ME, MS Eng. Mgmt., PE – Licensed Professional Mechanical Engineer and Fire Protection Engineer, State of California. 20 years experience as a Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs. Contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S. Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities. Member, Board of Directors, Northern California - Nevada Chapter, Society of Fire Protection Engineers. Currently Fire Protection Engineer for the city of San Jose, CA, 10th largest city in the U.S.

    Who has had this to say:

    Presentation at the 2007 National Fire Protection Association World Fire Safety Conference “High Rise Buildings and Large Fires - Structural loads & thermal strain - What can happen” 6/4/07:

    “We will find that the government investigations into building collapse [at the World Trade Center] must consider controlled demolition as far more probable since fire effects collapse could never be duplicated. …

    - The concentric nearly freefall speed exhibited by each building was identical to most controlled demolitions.

    - The aircraft impact and fire severity effects were magnified in the NIST reports.

    - Collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7 were not caused by fire effects. …

    The NIST fire results proved that the fire loading in WTC was consistent with all building code assumptions and that the steel frame temperatures were not even close to the critical temperature of steel 593 degree Centigrade. Analysis also showed that the fire in WTC 2 [South Tower] was almost under control and running out of fuel when it suddenly and totally failed in less than one hour. Analysis further shows that the fire was oxygen starved hence not nearly at hot as other high rise fires. The official reports and conclusions had many technical distortions and obfuscations of the excellent research input in arriving at a flawed, politically driven conclusion of building performance.”

    Presentation to the Northern California - Nevada Chapter, Society of Fire Protection Engineers 4/21/06: “A steel frame building with the mass of WTC 1 or 2 could have partial structural collapse after aircraft impact only if the heat output was at least 100 times the heat release rate of the accountable fuel load and ventilation conditions in the south tower. This fire would need to involve every floor from impact floor to the roof with most windows broken and providing plenty of oxygen as in the Edificio Windsor fire in Madrid. This most severe fire would need to burn for at least 12 hours before loss of strength from heat; and thermal strains from expansion and contraction caused partial collapse.”
    Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition: “I have collaborated with a research chemical engineer (P.E. in CA also) and he has worked with NIST reports that positively show that the jet fuel contributed very little to the duration of the fires and that in fact all the fires were very weak in historical perspective. They were oxygen starved as evidenced by the black smoke. If you dig deeper into the NIST reports they confirm that steel temperatures were low. I presented for continuing education credits at the NFPA World Safety Conference in Boston, MA 6/4/2007. My presentation showed that all three WTC “collapses” have no resemblance to any previous high rise fire, full scale fire tests in the UK involving much higher steel temperatures, or computer simulations using finite element analysis. “

    Lawnboy:

    some logic, some common sense.

    Critiquing the messenger. Assuming that others must be stupid and unreasonable because they hold a different opinion from your own. I’m not impressed with this debating tactic. It demonstrates either insecurity, or a ridiculous surplus of ego.

    Then you’ll see that what you’re parroting here are combinations of lies and ludicrousness.

    Likewise.

    We’ve already rebutted dozens of the the “truther” arguments here using evidence and logic.

    I don’t think so. I’m asking questions about things that haven’t added up to me, and I would like to see an independent investigation that doesn’t rely on everyone taking the governments word for everything or having to suspend their disbelief. What I’ve seen here in this thread is a lot of browbeating and several links to the opinions of those on single website who wish to reinforce the idea that all the questions have already been sufficiently answered. That doesn’t constitute enough “evidence” for me.

    It seems as though this enrages many of you. I suppose because you are all convinced beyond any shred of reasonable doubt that the “logic” that comprises the official story has been more than adequate.

    Even though the investigations up until now have yielded glaring omissions of important facts. Or have used suspect scientific methods and modeling. Or, in many cases, have seen certain pieces of evidence never even released by the FBI (for example, all of the video footage from the many cameras located at and around the Pentagon), while others have been made unobtainable.

    A good example of what has been unobtainable would be the pieces of 757 that were recovered from Flight 93.

    Though this was a crime scene, rather than an accident scene, it was treated as though it was a little bit of both, on the whims of the government. People at the scene when the FBI arrived were threated away, and no one who wasn’t handpicked was ever allowed anywhere near the “crashsite”. Not just the public, but members of the media and the press (actually the public and the media is still not allowed anywhere near that area).

    This is why there are so few pictures of the initial scene, or of the efforts to recover what was in the ground. They claim that most of the plane buried itself 40-50ft into that rather small hole, yet there are no pictures of them unearthing what should have been the telescoped, melted and mangled mess of an enormous 757 that had entered the ground at high speed.

    None of the pictures of what was supposedly recovered there was even released at all until the Moussaoui Trial in 2006. And when they were, the closest they come to showing what was recovered in that hole look like carefully staged pictures of the blackbox and voice recorder against a dirt background, and of an engine part, partially embedded and partially brushed clean of dirt, with the bucket of a backhoe carefully poised beside it. They also give us a shot of the single piece left of the fuselage of that enormous 757 - not a piece of wing or the tail of that plane as we might expect, but a 6x7 piece from a side passenger area. Very fishy.

    On the other hand, it was treated much like an accident scene, since it was claimed that everything that was recovered there was given to United Airlines. As though the few scraps that were left of that terrorist hijacked and crashed 757 constituted only the wreckage from an accidental crash.

    How many times do we have to show you that you’ve swallowed a pack of lies and illogic before you start to question yourself?

    Likewise.

    Posted by: veritas vincit at December 30, 2007 3:49 PM
    Comment #241788

    Rocky:

    veritas,

    Let’s assume for a moment that the questions I am about to ask are just honest questions, not an attack on anyone that believes in, let’s say, alternate theories of what happened on Sept. 11th.

    I never have a problem with honest questions.

    Is it possible that a Boeing 757-200 aircraft, with a cruising speed of approx. 500mph and a cruising altitude of over 30,000ft, could reach supersonic speeds during a dive at an angle 45 degrees?

    Maybe. They would have had to be falling at the rate of 761mph to reach Mach I and create a sonic boom. It would be nice if we had an investigation where those who are professional experts on air crashes could look at everything, including the fact that the plane might have already been holed from eight miles back before the crash, and speculate on whether a sonic boom would have been possible.

    “Could it be possible that the aircraft could break up during said dive?”

    If it did, it broke up into very small pieces.

    “Is it possible that the inertia (every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed) of an engine, with a mass of over a ton, could cause it to roll to it’s resting place, far from where the plane impacted?”

    No, not rolled. It was reported that what was found in the pond was a part of the fan from one of the engines. I also doubt it rolled because there is actually a thick stand of forest trees between where the plane crashed and where the pond is located about a mile away.

    If an air to air missile actually shot down a jetliner, fully loaded with fuel, of the size of a 757, would not the debris be scattered over hundreds of miles, not confined to 70 acres?

    I’m not an expert on such things, and I don’t claim to be. Although, I would like to see some experts answer these sorts of questions.
    As it is, they’ve ignored them entirely.

    If the plane actually was shot down, why would there be such a huge impact crater?

    Actually, the crater isn’t that huge judging by the photographs that we have to look at. Other similar crashes have made much larger impact craters. The one in Lockerbie, Scotland, for example. Big pieces of engines, wings, and fuselage in that crash, too.

    Finally, even if said missile was a dud, and merely put a hole in the plane, how long would anyone survive the change in cabin pressure, even in the plane’s bathroom?

    Couldn’t tell you. Although that seems to me like the kind of question that might never be answered at all, other than to say that those poor people must have gone through hell.

    If that’s how they died, that is. When I look at the impact crater, and at the pictures they’ve given us thus far, sometimes I’m not so sure it went the way they said it did.
    Strangely enough there was a report that United Flight 93 landed at Cleveland airport after the crash had taken place on 9/11.

    Remember, these are just questions.

    Keep asking. Yours are as good as mine.

    Posted by: veritas vincit at December 30, 2007 4:32 PM
    Comment #241794

    Veritas,
    Talking to certain supporters of the official story made me realize that 99% of the time the same people have never actually considered any alternative explanations or spend any effort investigating it. There are usually a few token slogans such as claiming that “Bush is dumb” (as if George Bush himself must have personally directed it) or that to pull off a conspiracy it takes too many people so it’s too hard to keep it a secret (neither of which is necessarily true). It’s just sort of taken for granted that “9-11 truthers” are all just a bunch of whackos. Anyone who questions the official story is lumped into the same villified group. Ironically in other parts of the world it’s sort of just assumed that 9/11 is a lie.


    Unfortunately I think the official 9/11 is the last great myth of Bush-era America. Few people, right or left, honestly believe the administration, Congress, or the media actually care about doing what’s good for America anymore. Most people have woken up to the fact that America was defrauded with the Iraqi WMD hoax, while the further parts of the left have been against it nearly from the beginning. Even then I think to really look into 9/11 and what might have happened is just too much even for them. The idea that the whole establishment is little more than a sham, for liberals to admit those nutty pro-gun anti-government whackos were right all along, that our government leaders could really be that evil is just a little too much.

    The same people will love to rail about “corporate America” and trade agreements as well as take it for granted that the Bush administration is run by liars and war profiteers and and wouldn’t hesitate to start a war if it meant profits for them (this applies to certain libertarians as well). But then talk about alternate explanations for 9/11 and suddenly you’d think you’d mentioned the idea of voting for Kucinich to a Rush Limbaugh fan. I think the automatic disdain for so-called “conspiracy theories”, that no matter what the system is still functioning is why the modern left will continue to be a failure in making any meaningful changes, as it always has since at least the Reagan revolution.

    Posted by: thom at December 30, 2007 7:13 PM
    Comment #241796
    A good example of what has been unobtainable would be the pieces of 757 that were recovered from Flight 93.

    We’ve provided links to many pictures of this debris. Why is that unacceptable to you? Do you really expect that it’s normal from any accident and/or crime scene to have anything more?

    And of course, even if the pieces were mailed directly to your house, you would claim that the debris was faked.

    You mentioned that a few engineers disagree with the NIST report. However, those Engineers haven’t been able to back up their concerns with peer-reviewed papers. Doesn’t that seem like a concern to you? The reality is that there will be a few on the fringe of any proven scientific conclusion; after all, there are some PhD paleontologists who accept young-earth creationism. They believe what they want to believe, whatever the evidence. If Munyak really had the conclusions he thought he had, he would be able to publish. He can’t for a very important reason - he’s wrong.

    I’ve linked a couple of times to an extensively researched and footnoted rebuttal to claims that the engineering behind the NIST report doesn’t stand up. If

    I don’t think you are stupid, like you inferred. Your writing is too sophisticated for me to think that. Instead, you are just wrong, and the facts are conclusively not on your side.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at December 30, 2007 8:14 PM
    Comment #241802
    How many times do we have to show you that you’ve swallowed a pack of lies and illogic before you start to question yourself?
    Likewise.

    Using the word “Likewise” implies that you have at some point given reason to say we’re wrong. It’s just not true.

    In contrast, we’ve shown photos of things you and your allies have said don’t exist, explained Engineering and Physics concepts you and your allies didn’t understand, and explained why questions you and your allies have asked are based on invalid premises.

    “Likewise” does not apply.

    I’d like to say a bit more about Munyak and Joel. You point to Joel as a potential expert that agrees with you. However, have you noticed how he uses his Engineering expertise to prove his point? Me neither. In his three articles about 9/11 on WB, he has yet to provide a single bit of analysis or reasoning for his position. He simply puts it out and hopes that his credentials will sway us. It’s a limp attempt at “appeal to authority”. As far as I know, he’s a truther because that’s what his horoscpe told him to say - he’s useless as a reference.

    For Munyak, he presented at a conference. The standard of proof for presenting at a conference is exceedingly low. In contrast, dozens of peer-reviewed papers have demonstrated the errors in his thinking. Which is more credible?

    Posted by: LawnBoy at December 30, 2007 9:41 PM
    Comment #241803
    I don’t think my first thought of a controlled demolition when I saw the towers fall is moronic. It’s obvious. There was no resistance.
    Yes, there was. If there were no resistance, then the buildings would have fallen at free-fall speed; they didn’t (if you disagree, look at the pieces of the buildings that were ejected, and see that they fall to the ground seconds before the collapse proceeds that far).

    http://www.rense.com/general28/ioff.htm

    The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

    The top of the building was traveling at 136 fps and 171 fps respectively.

    Also, there’s a misconception about how strong a building’s supports should be. Specifically, a structure that is sufficiently strong for a static load (when nothing is collapsing down upon it with momentum) can be nowhere nearly strong enough to handle the dynamic load of dozens of stories falling down upon them.

    Why did they collapse in the first place?

    http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5296


    Posted by: Weary Willie at December 30, 2007 9:52 PM
    Comment #241804

    Perhaps if it was burning like this I could believe fire caused the collapse.


    Having the initial impression that the fall was without resistance isn’t moronic; denying the engineering analysis that completely disproves the notion is.

    It’s hard to imagine even being able to survive without ever having a “gut feeling”

    If the pancake theory was accurate you would have a stack of pancakes in the footprint, not dust.

    That’s based on a bad premise. The initial idea was pancake theory, but the official analysis was something else.

    I’m laughing so hard I can only quote veritas vincit;

    How many times do we have to show you that you’ve swallowed a pack of lies and illogic before you start to question yourself?
    Likewise


    And the amount of energy involved in a collapse is more than enough to break the acres and acres of sheet rock to dust.

    Why is Sheet rock empasized? Why didn’t you say reinforced concrete in a metal pan that make up the floors?

    If the fire was so intense why was a lady in a blue shirt standing in a hole at the point of entry waving at helicopters?
    Because the fire was intense somewhere else. If you look at the famous pictures, you can see the fire raging two floors above.

    Why was the fire somewhere else if the plane went into the building at the location she was standing. The fuel tanks didn’t survive the entry into the building. They didn’t bounce up 2 floors and then rupture to spread the jet fuel at that location. Did they? And if the jet fuel burned off before the lady exposed herself where is the jet fuel that melted the supports?

    Why did building 7 drop like the bottom was pulled out from under it?
    It didn’t. It looks like that from one angle, but it didn’t actually fall that way. It fell as quickly as it did because a 100-story building collapsed on it, starting fires that rages unabated for seven hours (an unprecedented situation in world history).
    An unprecedented situation in world history

    Yer makin’ me eyebrows chuckle ^^ there matie!
    Let me again refer you to …

    Perhaps if it was burning like this


    Was the building constructed with re-bar coated with an explosive with “Planned Obsolesence” being the motive?
    Was the rebar used coated with an explosive material and is this a standard practice in the construction Industry?

    It wasn’t.

    That’s it? And I’m suppose to fold up my tent and go home now? Prove it! Show me the blueprints of these buildings. (or can’t they be found?) Show me the receipts for the purchase of the rebar used to construct this building. Since you’re so sure

    It wasn’t.

    Then prove it. You expect the same from me.

    These are questions that need to be answered.
    And they have been. I hope you pay attention to the answers instead of parroting questions that have reasonable answers. Posted by: LawnBoy at December 25, 2007 10:14 PM

    This is not only false, it’s insulting. You ridicule my question and ridicule my rejection of your answers, or lack of.

    HOW DARE YOU! HOW DARE YOU!

    Posted by: Weary Willie at December 30, 2007 9:53 PM
    Comment #241811

    Willie,

    Regarding, the Madrid fire, it’s a completely different case. The building in Madrid has a concrete core, and it’s that concrete core that didn’t fail. The WTC buildings didn’t have a concrete core at all. In fact, the steel framed portions of the Madrid building (the only portions similar at all to the design of the WTC buildings) collapsed completely. The lesson from the Madrid building is that a steel-frame building without a concrete core would collapse completely as a result of an unabated fire - which is exactly what happened on 9/11.

    I’m not sure what you think the velocity of the tops of the buildings at collapse means, so I’m not sure what you’re asking me to refute. I’m really not sure why you think it needs to be in bold.

    In terms of the length of collapse, the seismic records clearly indicate that the collapses took at least 15 seconds (see page 48). The measurements from Palisades are the measurement of how long the debris was hitting the ground, not how long the entire collapse took.

    So, the spike was the result of the initial debris hitting the ground, not a ground-level explosion (of which there was no other evidence, as there would have been had it happened).

    Posted by: LawnBoy at December 31, 2007 12:02 AM
    Comment #241814

    veritas,

    I hate to say this, but the only logical answer to every question I asked is yes, all of them are indeed possible.
    My point in asking those questions wasn’t to make anyone feel foolish, or to demean anyone, it was to point out just how illogical these conspiracy theories are.

    Why would a government murder thousands of it’s own people?
    Where would they hide the smoking gun, knowing full well it’s discovery would cause a very bloody revolution?
    How, and better yet where, would our government recruit the tens of thousands of people, in every branch of our government, and beyond, and where would they come up with the money necessary to keep these folks quiet and still pull off a plan of this magnitude?
    If we are to believe the reason was to drag us into a “war” with Iraq, with nearly a year and half to plan it, why did we go into Iraq so utterly unprepared to actually secure Iraq?

    As far as convening an independent investigation, where are we going to find anyone that’s unbiased to investigate?

    Do I believe that it is impossible these conspiracy theories are true?
    No, everything is possible, but the odds are greater that I will win the PowerBall this coming Wednesday.

    BTW, the speed of sound is 761 miles per hour at sea level. Due to the change in temperature, as one rises in altitude, the speed of sound slows down at a lower temperature.


    Willie,

    Oh, please!

    Posted by: Rocky at December 31, 2007 12:18 AM
    Comment #241820

    Oh, please! What?

    Posted by: Weary Willie at December 31, 2007 12:43 AM
    Comment #241821
    It’s hard to imagine even being able to survive without ever having a “gut feeling”

    Absolutely. We as a species would never have survived had we not inherited the instinct to trust our gut; fight or flight is useful. However, we as a species would never have advanced socially, intellectually, and economically if we hadn’t evolved the ability to think through our problems and come to reasonable, intelligent conclusions that are superior to gut feelings.

    Your gut feeling wasn’t moronic, but you should be able to see beyond it based on the evidence; that’s part of what makes you a human.

    I’m laughing so hard I can only quote veritas vincit;
    How many times do we have to show you that you’ve swallowed a pack of lies and illogic before you start to question yourself?

    ??? Why are you laughing so hard? You brought up a point that questioned the official theory, but I pointed out that you were questioning the initial hypothesis instead.

    I fail to see the humor in understanding a process that improves conclusions based on further evidence and new information. Why do you find the scientific process laughable?

    Anyway, there were some parts of the collapse that might have been layered like pancakes, but the extreme forces of the collapse and 99 days of post-collapse burning distorted many things in the debris pile. Going back to your original claim, I have no idea what you thought you were disproving in the initial theory, but your statement had many problems.

    Why is Sheet rock empasized? Why didn’t you say reinforced concrete in a metal pan that make up the floors?

    Because you talked about dust. The gypsum that makes up sheet rock is atomized to dust very easily, so it doesn’t take much energy to make dust. Also, there are acres upon acres of sheet rock in an office building as large as the WTC building. So, when you try to present a point along the lines that the existence of dust should be a problem for the official theory, I was countering with the observation that there should be dust.

    Why was the fire somewhere else if the plane went into the building at the location she was standing. The fuel tanks didn’t survive the entry into the building. They didn’t bounce up 2 floors and then rupture to spread the jet fuel at that location. Did they? And if the jet fuel burned off before the lady exposed herself where is the jet fuel that melted the supports?

    The fire visible two floors above her is in a different part of the impact zone. We don’t know where she came from (or where she was during the collision), but there’s nothing impossible or implausible about this scenario: a woman being in the vicinity of the lower part of the collision zone but surviving the initial impact; the jet fuel explodes into the building, away from the entrance; the fire rises up through the building over time; and the winds blow into the building from the direction of the photographer. Thus, it’s not impossible that there was no fire at that particular part of the opening at that point, and she came out to get away from the smoke. It’s amazing, but it’s not unbelievable.

    I’m not saying that all the jet fuel burned off before the picture was taken; I’m saying that there was no jet fuel at that precise location. It’s a huge difference.

    Yer makin’ me eyebrows chuckle ^^ there matie! Let me again refer you to…

    Perhaps if it was burning like this

    I’ll refer to my above reply that points out how bad the Madrid building analogy is for your argument. Further, though, you seem not to be aware of how badly WTC7 was burning. The south facade of the building (the side hit by the falling debris of the towers) was completely obscured by the huge amounts of smoke pouring from the large fires. The combination of the fires and the huge gouges carved out of the building by the falling towers caused the collapse.

    My statement that it was unprecendented in world history was accurate, because I was referring to more than just the fires burning:

    a 100-story building collapsed on it, starting fires that rages unabated for seven hours (an unprecedented situation in world history)

    Seven hours of fire isn’t unprecedented; seven hours of fire after a 100-story building collapse on it is unprecedented.

    Finally, there’s some recent analysis by structural engineers that the collapse of WTC7 could have happened as the result of something as simple as the failure of a single column. If you look at pictures of the Madrid building by the end you see that many steel columns of the building collapsed completely. Again, the Madrid building fire supports the official theory.

    That’s it? And I’m suppose to fold up my tent and go home now? Prove it!

    Nope. This one you have to prove first. You’re making a completely bizarre, outlandish claim. It’s so far out there that there’s nothing for me to disprove. At least provide some context so we can (as we have so many other times so far) show you what you have wrong.

    The only thing I’ve found on this with quick searches is speculation that coating the rebar with C4 might have led to a quick collapse. That’s a hypothesis, not a fact. How exactly do you want me to disprove a hypothesis that has no supporting evidence? I would think that the complete lack of evidence for the truth of the claim would be sufficient. Unless you provide a blueprint or evidence of a sample of unexploded C4 or C4 residue from Ground Zero, then you have no evidence whatsoever for your claim.

    So, prove your outlandish claim that has no supporting evidence. Until you do, the total lack of evidence supporting your claim indicates that I’m certainly right.

    And they have been. I hope you pay attention to the answers instead of parroting questions that have reasonable answers.
    This is not only false, it’s insulting. You ridicule my question and ridicule my rejection of your answers, or lack of.

    HOW DARE YOU! HOW DARE YOU!

    So, except for the one case where your claim has no evidentiary support at all and you’re requiring me to prove a negative (which is impossible), I’ve shown you that your questions (which you admit to having copied from others) have reasonable answers. What is so daring about an accurate description of the debate?

    How about I claim that your overuse of bold and ALLCAPS is insulting, and then we’d be even?

    Posted by: LawnBoy at December 31, 2007 1:09 AM
    Comment #241823

    I’m glad you feel better about yourself now and I am glad my use of caps has leveled the playing field.

    Posted by: Weary Willie at December 31, 2007 2:04 AM
    Comment #241851

    Joel,
    I applaud you for raising the issue of conspiracy on the part of the federal government in the 9/11 catastrophe, but I do not agree with your analyses and conclusions that the government was actually involved in carrying out the demonic act. However, I do agree with you and other commentators (e.g., Hirschborn, d.a.n., veritas vincit) that the Busch administration was not forthright and truthful regarding its handling of the terrorist threat. Mistakes and incomptence on the part of the White House, CIA, FBI are blatantly evident.
    Also, conspiracies and counter-conspiracies permeate virtually every aspect of our daily, professional, and political life, subverting the processes, values, and tenets upon which the U.S. and other democracies are founded. We ignore this fact at our peril.
    There are two books, Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley and the Yankee and Cowboy War by Carl Oglesby, written several years ago that may shed light on past and current ominous events and conspiracies (e.g., Watergate, the Vietnam and Irag wars, the asassinations of JFK and MLK,Jr.).

    Reginald Beal
    zeus@matchtal.com



    Posted by: Reginald Beal at December 31, 2007 1:36 PM
    Comment #241960

    Which is it?

    Is George W. a brilliant mastermind that can pull off a major conspiracy or is he a bumbling bafoon that could not orchestrate a trip to the john?

    You cannot have it both ways so which is it?

    Besides, it seems to me if he could pull off 9/11 then why all the oops with the war? I mean come on, WMD’s could certainly have been produced a lot easier than this whole conspiracy!!!! I guess he was just too tired from this conspiracy to be able to function properly….lololol…LMAO…get it together people…

    Posted by: Traci at January 2, 2008 12:07 PM
    Comment #241967

    Rocky, just a slight correction for you —
    You said
    BTW, the speed of sound is 761 miles per hour at sea level. Due to the change in temperature, as one rises in altitude, the speed of sound slows down at a lower temperature

    It is not temperature that alters the speed of sound with altitude — it is air pressure (actually to be more concise — the density of air — less dense air results in slower speed of sound)

    Posted by: Russ at January 2, 2008 1:58 PM
    Comment #241968

    Rocky
    I apologize — I stand corrected — Temperature is the main factor affecting the speed of sound in the atmosphere —
    Sorry Dude!

    Posted by: Russ at January 2, 2008 2:02 PM
    Comment #241994
    Is George W. a brilliant mastermind that can pull off a major conspiracy

    Not a chance. I think if 9/11 was orchestrated by anyone it would have had to be arranged by a certain segment of powerful people in the CIA. I also think it would have taken quite a few years to set everything up. We’re talking maybe even as long ago as the tenure of Bush Sr. (who as we all know, had formerly been the director of the CIA) and right through the Clinton years.
    There is also the possibility that the CIA did not actually plan it themselves, but may have simply allowed it all to happen. Google Able Danger and you’ll see what I mean.
    It is a fact that many of the most powerful necons had been very eager for “A New Pearl Harbor” that would give them an excuse to remake the Middle East and start an endless war that would naturally profit them enormously. 9/11 has served them extremely well in that regard.

    So, while I think it’s entirely possible that Bush/Cheney may know plenty about what actually happened, and am sure that he and certain members of his administration don’t want the American people to know the full truth, I for one have never thought for a moment that they could be the actual masterminds behind it.

    Posted by: veritas vincit at January 2, 2008 7:10 PM
    Comment #241996

    Rocky and Russ,
    Perhaps you’d find
    this article
    interesting.
    Or perhaps not.

    I’m pretty much done trying to convince anyone here, and I was going to leave it at what I’d already written, but I decided to conclude with a few more thoughts instead.

    You’ve seen the links I’ve supplied in this thread. I hope you’ve understood that I don’t necessarily agree with everything that is in them. The only reason I linked to them was because I think they’ve done a great job there of compiling most of the pictures and evidence that exists about Flight 93.


    This website
    while not exactly current, and not nearly as interested in making various definitive statements, actually does an even better job of studying and searching to get to the bottom of the same sorts of questions that I still have about what exactly might have taken place in Shanksville PA on 9/11.

    To sum up: I think that a great deal of the evidence, or glaring lack thereof, demonstrates that our government has not been truthful about what happened on 9/11. I also think it’s obvious that their intention is to not ever disclose all of the facts regarding the full story.
    Despite that, I’m sure we could still get to the bottom of many lingering questions. So, like Joel Hirschorn and a vast number of many other Americans, I’d like to see us have a truly comprehensive independent investigation.

    Veritas Vincit (Truth Prevails)

    Posted by: veritas vincit at January 2, 2008 7:13 PM
    Comment #242003

    http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/kirby/2007/0206.html

    Posted by: Weary Willie at January 2, 2008 8:36 PM
    Comment #242011

    Veritas,

    Thanks for the link, however nowhere in this thread have I stated an opinion as to whether Flight 93 was shot down or not.
    I think your link misses the point, as I don’t believe that “accountability” is any reason to deny whether Flight 93 was shot down.
    If, as the link speculates, our military was involved in the crash, I don’t have any problem with the idea at all. If indeed that was the case, and if the flight was headed to the Capitol, or the White House, and had destroyed or damaged either of those buildings, I believe it would have been a more serious blow to the American psyche than the WTC coming down.

    We, you and I haven’t had any “harsh” words during this discussion. I believe you’re entitled to your opinion, but I just can’t wrap my head around any but the widely excepted explanation that has already been released.
    I think there are far bigger issues that deserve far more attention, and I view this whole conspiracy thing as a distraction from the bigger picture.

    Let us agree to disagree, and get on with the really important issues that face this country.

    Posted by: Rocky at January 2, 2008 9:46 PM
    Post a comment