Are 9-11 "conspiracy" theories going mainstream?

[marmar]

I swear I've heard more about 9-11 in the last week than I've heard in the last three years. There was the CSPAN airing of the 9-11 truth forum, and then I noticed this Washington Post story. These are topics no media outlet would dared have touch a couple of years ago.
Is it just me? :shrug:

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2006-08-02 12:31. Evidence
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General
By Dan Eggen, Washington Post

Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.

"We to this day don't know why NORAD told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

The rest of this article is at: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/13477

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

1. Why does ALL reporting about anything 9/11 automatically get labelled

as a "conspiracy theory"? Aren't we entitled to know about the real events of that day - the timelines, the responses, the actions and inactions without every story being put under that convenient umbrella?

[marmar]

2. Sorry about the subject line...I'm not trying to take an opinion on them..

Just pointing out the fact that subjects that were once taboo are now front and center. I agree that we need to know about what really happened.

[Clark2008]

58. When you think about it, the "official" story is a conspiracy theory.

After all, a conspiracy is simply two or more people colluding to commit a crime and we know what the government put together regarding that day is also just a theory.

So - I always say that the biggest conspiracy theory is the government's version. :evilgrin:

[screembloodymurder]

80. Could be worse, we could be called "liberal conspiracy theorist".

Seems to me that several in here are full time bashers. I wonder if they are paid to ridicule those of us who think "out of the box"?
We've been shoved into the basement and these people have nothing better to do than call us names. Why?

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. LOL watch out!

This thread will be moved in . . . .

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

4. 5....4....3....2....

into the hidden dungeon that is the 9-11 forum. A dark, scary, and confusing place.

[marmar]

6. I hope not...

I didn't intend the post as a discussion of the actual theories (which I know often gets them placed in that forum), but as a discussion of that fact that the theories seem to be getting more MSM play these days.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. Good luck with that

I have yet to post a topic that even mentions 9/11 that is not moved.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

10. There's even a couple UFO discussions that were moved into there recently.

Oh yeah, and if you haven't heard, my West Point charges were reduced to a $125 fine (paid for) and I didn't have to reappear in court. I just have to sign some papers when they come in the mail.

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. cool beans!

about your charges. Not cool beans about the UFO stuff. :)

[helderheid]

55. I managed twice which leads me to believe the OP is on to something.

[Zynx]

5. This sounds like an effort to hide incompetence, not a conspiracy.

[marmar]

7. True...

But I wonder how willing the Post would have been to cover this two years ago.

[GreenArrow]

15. so what's the difference

between a cover up and a conspiracy?

[Zynx]

16. A conspiracy in the context of 9/11 means government involvement in

the attacks, which is factually baseless. I've seen it all and heard it all.

A coverup of incompetence is standard operating procedure.

[GreenArrow]

23. still not sure what the difference is

Isn't a coverup itself a sort of conspiracy? Or, at least, isn't a coverup an aspect of a conpsiracy?

[Zynx]

49. It does not make it a conspiracy with government involvement.

I suppose there could be a "conspiracy" to shroud just how shockingly out of it the government was.

[John Q. Citizen]

86. And a conspiracy to not investigate who committed the crime. I'm

still waiting to know who bought all those "puts" (selling short) on companies adversely impacted by 9/11.

I'm still waiting for the indictment against the money backers of the hijackers. I'm still waiting for

an explanation of how three random events could cause three building to mimic controlled demolition.

And I'm still waiting to know why there was no air defense on 9/11.

Incompetence doesn't explain any of this. In fact it aids and abets the criminal conspiracy. Nobody is

THAT incompetent.

We are dealing with people who stole two US Presidential elections, drug the country into at least two wars that have paid off handsomely for friends of the administration, and who have succeeded in stealing our constitution.

Pretty good record of achievement for such incompetents

[wildbilln864]

26. Factually baseless!?

You are kidding right?
http://www.uads.org/u/looyah/Tarpley-911synthetic_terror_made_in_USA.pdf

[Zynx]

31. I'm not reading a 405 page PDF that has a chapter including the Mossad

:eyes:

[CoolOnion]

35. Just explain to me, somebody...

...why the buildings collapsed like they did. The fire was hot and melted the steel, they tell us. Then how come other buildings had fires that have raged all night, yet the steel structure is still intact after the fire is put out?

I'd just like a logical explanation for that much, anyway, then we can discuss how WTC 7 fell from "debris" hitting it.

[Zynx]

48. Let me ask you this, if you don't think they collapsed on their own,

what else did? There is clearly NOT a demolition.

Now, as to why they actually collapsed, first of all, the planes caused tremendous damage to the structures of the respective buildings without roaring jet fuel fires to make matters worse. Most of the structural supports of the WTC were in the middle of the towers which is where the planes cut through. The other supports, as by design, were the external steel beems themselves, though their load bearing capabilities were limited. Thus the extreme heat generated by the burning jet fuel would not have to be anywhere approaching being enough to bring down the buildings by itself, but just enough to further weaken the structure, which it did.

As for WTC 7, even IF it was a demolition, it should have been demolished. It was weakened badly by the collapses and would have been unable to be occupied again. Remember Liberty Tower across the street? They thought that might collapse weeks after the attacks and it wasn't right under the collapsing buildings. As such WTC 7 is explained pretty easily.

[femrap]

50. If that is your explanation for WTC 7....

I certainly hope you have no responsibilites in life other than asking if folks need fries with that.

Willful ignorance scares me more than anything.

[Zynx]

54. People who don't see reality scare me more than anything.

Those who wallow in conspiracy theories and delusions of large evil plots against the world by shadowy groups are frightening people.

I hope your responsbilities in life don't go beyond asking people on the street for change so you can buy two soft shell tacos and a soda at Taco Bell.

[carlvs]

61. I wouldn't trust a CTer with even that! (nt)

[Norrin Radd]

173. Who made you the arbiter of reality? n/t

[CJCRANE]

196. OK, on the subjext of conspiracies

what do you think the WHIG (White House Iraq Group) was?

What was Iran/Contra?

What was the Holocaust (before it became publicly known about)?

[DemonFighterLives]

51. i feel like I'm reading the talking points memo here

My goodness, I think it goes way beyond this.

[Zynx]

52. I feel like I'm talking to people in a psych ward here.

[DemonFighterLives]

57. Maybe you should check in

:9

[Zynx]

63. If I have to hear one more conspiracy theorist just assume that they are

right about the 9/11 attacks without actually thinking anything through objectively, I might have to.

[DemonFighterLives]

109. Not including me of course

I have thought it through and it fits the MO of the b*sh regime.
Add in the rest of the wicked planners/helpers and you have a conspiracy and War On, according to the will and testament of PNAC.

[helderheid]

56. WOW

:wow:

Drink kool-aid much?

[Zynx]

62. Accepting reality is drinking kool-aid...how?

[Clark2008]

66. Clearly not a demolition?

Yeah - buildings just fall in their own footprints without planning all the time.

:eyes:

[Zynx]

67. Where else was that much mass falling going to go?

It would have taken a lot of energy to push it to the sides.

[Clark2008]

69. The top of Tower II was already falling OVER

What SHOULD have happened - is physics are to be "believed" - is that the top would have come off and fallen over the side - but it didn't.

It was starting to topple over and then disintegrated into powder and the rest of the building went down. The physics of inertia would dictate that a moving object continues the same pattern. The top of this building clearly did not do that. The only way to thwart inertia is by adding a strong enough force to push it in another direction. And the only force strong enough to stop this was either the hand of God or explosives.

There's enough footage of this to see it plainly.

[Zynx]

71. Warning - the above post contains a poor understanding of physics.

Just three of the problems with that idea:

1. Any sideways sag of the building is extremely minor compared to the straight-down tug of gravity, which is acting independently on each of those slabs.

An uneven failure in the core would cause one side to drop before the other did. As soon as that horrible amount of force crushed what was left of the core because that remnant isn't designed to support the whole weight, it would fall straight down at an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2, minus the very minimal resistance that the remaining supports provided against that sort of pancake.

Gravity is the overwhelmingly dominant force in this scenario, and it does not tug to the side. The amount of sideways force required to overcome the inertia of even a single unconnected WTC floor slab being accelerated at 9.8m/s is quite enormous, let alone the entire above-impact sections of the towers.

2. Pulverizing tens of thousands of tons of concrete instantly (as you argue happened to the top) would require a tremendous amount of explosives. Demolition explosives are loud, bright, and easily observable.

Consider that controlled demolitions don't actually pulverize much of anything themselves. They chop the building into pieces that nicely crush each other. This does not work for pulverizing the top of the WTC before it hits the ground, as there is nothing for its potential energy to act on.

You want to blow it up before it hits the ground and does the work for you, you are talking many tons of high explosives. Visual evidence is rather inconsistant with this.

3. The entire idea of any sort of controlled demolition is dependent on some sort of demolition setup that could survive the shock, physical disruption and ensuing fire of the observed jetliner crash. Setting aside the large problem that requires complicity between the suicidal pilots of the jetliners and whoever was planting the explosives, that's going to be difficult to pull off. Controlled demolition is not easy stuff. The impacts shook the towers severely in addition to essentially cutting them in half for all purposes of wiring or det cord, and the massive fire that ensued after the fact heated not only the floors the flames were on but much of the rest of the towers *well* beyond temperatures any det cord is rated at to be reliably used, let alone not explode on its own in a very non-controlled fashion. The effects the fire would have had on any wiring running up the tower should also be rather obvious. It shouldn't *melt* copper wiring, but metals become gooey long before they actually melt.

~~

I know most conspiricists won't even bother reading that, but the fact is the laws of physics were not suspended on 9/11. Once you require them to be obeyed, an awful lot of the conspiracy stuff dies on its face - and it becomes clear that most conspiracists are just copy-pasting everything they can from the same sources or don't remotely know what they are talking about in the first place.

[Exiled in America]

112. Bingo. And what's said is it masks the REAL search for truth on 9/11

This "we faked the moon landings" type conspiratologist crowd (which is totally different from people who SUSPECT a conspiracy and cover-up about 9/11 then go on a RATIONAL PURSUIT OF TRUTH) does a huge disservice to those of us trying to get at the actual truth around that day.

[petgoat]

76. Once the rotation was started, it takes a lot of energy to stop it.

The top should have kept on rotating and fallen off the building.

[Carefulplease]

87. Rotating around which axis? n/t

[HughBeaumont]

68. Come on! People also get insanely LUCKY at the stock market too!!

I mean, giant amounts of puts on the WTC's biggest financial clients, airline stocks, gold, etc. days before the attacks? Mere coincidence and dumb luck. You can't tell me those legit traders knew anything ahead of time, sheesh . . .

And the FAA, NORAD, USAF performing a collective belly flop on that day only, despite how many THOUSANDs of hours of training to deal with attacks such as this? Incompetence. Occam's Razor people. It's just that simple.

Oh, and the heart of America's defense, let alone DC airspace, NOT being protected despite knowing about the WTC attacks for over an hour and knowledge of two stray planes, one of which mysteriously got lost in the tracking? Well, gee whillikers, SOMEone dropped the ball. Conspiracy . . you people are nutty. The 9/11 commission did a FINE job in explaining everything and if you disagree with that, you're a damned moonbat just like Paul Thompson who came up with all of this cockamamie claptrap . . .

giant amounts of :sarcasm: BTW.

[mhatrw]

72. Because Liberty Tower did NOT collapse, we need to ignore

the fact that WTC-7 -- the only steel-frame highrise ever to fall due to fire -- came down in the exact manner of a controlled demolition?

[vincent_vega_lives]

184. Fire ++

The unfought fire was certainly a MAJOR component of WTC 7 falling...BUT
did anyone here see the picture of the OTHER side of the building???

[petgoat]

75. "even IF it was a demolition, it should have been"

Doesn't it bother you just a teeny weeny bit that you defend your conventional
worldview by assuming that the government is lying to us about something they
should have no reason to lie about?

[CoolOnion]

81. If it collapsed on its own...

...how come buildings don't collapse every time there's a demolotion somewhere? Buildings get demolished in controlled explosions all the time, but surrounding buildings don't just fall down from the debris.

[Carefulplease]

88. Ergo, it was *not* controlled demolition. n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

90. No, all three buiding just appeared to be controlled demolistion.

But it's not a duck....

Even though it quacks and walks like one.

[Carefulplease]

92. They look just like gravity driven progressive collapses.

Edited to remove "n/t"

All three collapses are highly asymmetric, just like the damages they received from aircrafts/fires/debris were.

[dailykoff]

96. Just like all the others that have NEVER, EVER, NOT ONCE

occurred before or since? Thanks for reminding me!

:crazy:

[Carefulplease]

100. There have been dozens of gravity driven collapses.

Controlled demolitions are instances of gravity driven collapses. Bombs do not drive the collapse. They initiate it. The explosive charges only compromise a fraction of load bearing components. Gravity does the rest. Yet the uncontrolled kind does not look quite the same as the controlled one.

In the case of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, aircrafts/fires/debris did the same job explosives would have done. Unlike normal controlled demolitions, however, the collapses were highly asymmetric because the damages were also asymmetric. Also, the building were quite massive. There was no possibility for them to just "tip-over". WTC1 and WTC2 are rather cases of one building (above impact block) crashing down onto another rather than onto the ground.

[dailykoff]

102. Controlled demolitions are now "gravity driven collapses"?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
:rofl:

[dailykoff]

103. p.s. WTC7 was a typical implosion. 1 & 2

were something else altogether.

[Carefulplease]

146. WTC7 a typical implosion.

Can you reference one instance of a implosion (typical or not) of a building that produced even nearly as much damage to surrounding building as WTC7 did? This seems to be an implosion gone awfully wrong. The hired arsonists ought to be fired!

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch7.htm

Have a look at figures 7-7, 7-8, 7-13.

[greyl]

106. Can you give one example of a non-gravity driven collapse?

(As related to physical structures, not the stock market or arguments please.)

[Carefulplease]

121. I can not. Can you?

Gravity drives all building collapses. Collapse initiations can have varieties of causes.

When explosions take out critical load bearing members in a symmetrical fashion, gravity drives the structure down symmetrically.

When damage and/or fire lead critical load bearing members to fail, gravity drives the structure down asymmetrically. This was observed in WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. In the first two cases, the tower upper blocks above the damaged zone rotated towards the sides where perimeter walls were bowing in, the failure propagated around the perimeter, the already damaged cores yielded, and those blocks went crashing down while the floors pancaked.

The collapse of WTC7 is an even more irregular and chaotic event that might have occurred over a 8.2 to 17 seconds time interval.

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch5.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

[dailykoff]

129. I'll give you two: WTC 1 & 2. (n/t)

[dailykoff]

131. And just for the record, demolitions are NOT

"gravity driven progressive collapses." They're gravity-assisted, but they're driven by wrecking balls, dynamite, "fertilizer" (bwahahahah), or whatever else is used to knock the frames apart.

[AZCat]

132. I disagree.

The collapse would not happen without gravity. Without gravity, "wrecking balls, dynamite, "fertilizer" (bwahahahah), or whatever else is used to knock the frames apart" would only break the building in pieces. It takes gravity to pull all these pieces down to the ground.

[dailykoff]

133. Nopes. Gravity is always present. Wrecking balls aren't.

But yes, most collapses require the assistance of gravity.

[AZCat]

135. Again, I disagree.

I think all collapses require gravity. There must be some force working on the various bodies to push/pull them in the direction of the ground. Could you do it with explosives? I think with a building it would be virtually impossible, but I doubt anyone is going to fund an experiment in space where we get to blow up a building. :)

All explosives or a wrecking ball do is reduce a building to components that are not capable of resisting the pull of gravity.

[dailykoff]

137. Let;'s put it this way:

buildings are built to withstand gravity, wind, earthquakes. They're not built to withstand wrecking balls etc., which are needed to break the structural frames to pieces.

And frankly gravity did very little of the demo work on 1 & 2, but I suppose that's a matter of opinion.

[AZCat]

138. I think we are arguing about two different things.

I am simply saying that without gravity things will not fall down.

I think you are saying (and please correct me if I misunderstand) that gravity sometimes plays a part in separating a building into components vulnerable to gravity's pull.

Is this correct?

[dailykoff]

141. Possibly. Answers:

I am simply saying that without gravity things will not fall down.

--No kiddding. :)

I think you are saying (and please correct me if I misunderstand) that gravity sometimes plays a part in separating a building into components vulnerable to gravity's pull.

--Yes. Explosives, cutting charges, etc are needed to produce the collapse of steel-framed highrises. Masonry, maybe not, but there aren't many masonry highrises.

Is this correct?

--Yes.

[Carefulplease]

143. This is incorrect. Explosives are not needed.

There can be other causes such as fire. The reason many structural steel elements such as those of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC3 have prescribed fire ratings of two hours or so is to ensure that fires have an opportunity to migrate to other areas or be successfully fought before the structure could be fatally compromised by the heat.

[dailykoff]

145. I'm sorry, but you're dead wrong.

Fire has never produced the collapse of a highrise steel structure, and under the circumstances of 9/11, could not possibly have.

The fires were too short to do any structural damage whatsoever and there is absolutely no proof that they did.

[Carefulplease]

148. There is proof that the fires did structural damage to the WTC steel.

This is doccumented there.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_apndxD.pdf

[dailykoff]

153. Uh huh. Show me this "proof. " (n/t)

[mirandapriestly]

165. There is proof that "something" did damage to the steel

not fire, though...

[Carefulplease]

170. Something such as the heat from the fires!

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf

Have a look at the summary on p.107

It appears that the fires facilitated buckling of the inner webs of perimeter columns (as a probable result of differential thermal expansion). Weld fractures were seen to be initiated and propagated in the heat affected zones.

No part of these steel samples had melted. You can thus discount thermite as an explanation. Explosives wouldn't have made the perimeter columns buckle inward or spared colder structural elements (quite the contrary). You can discount them as well.

Notice also the interesting case of the "Single Column K-16" (pp 229-233) for a severe case of sulfidation and corrosion. The outer web was eaten all the way through. No melting there either. That was just slow and steady corrosion taking place in the debris pile while the columns was resting in a prone position.

[dailykoff]

172. There's absolutely no proof that the various deformations

described in the NIST report were produced by heat from burning jet fuel and office supplies.

The NIST basically describes in ridiculous detail what everybody already knew: the frames were ripped apart. QUESTION: WHERE ARE THE FIRE-BUCKLED CORE COLUMNS THAT SUPPOSEDLY FAILED? Both entire buildings fell to the ground, and if fires had caused these failures, every single core column would have been buckled from the oh-so-intense flames.

Obviously, that isn't what happened.

[Carefulplease]

174. No that is not "the" question. That was not even your question.

What you claimed was:

Fire has never produced the collapse of a highrise steel structure, and under the circumstances of 9/11, could not possibly have.

The fires were too short to do any structural damage whatsoever and there is absolutely no proof that they did. (Your emphasis)

First, I pointed out that most of the structural steel columns of the burning Windsor Tower failed. You seem committed to ignore that evidence.

Second, I point you to much indirect and even some direct evidence of fire induced damage to the structural steel structure. So it isn't true that there isn't any. You ignore the presented evidence and ask for more. That is not a fruitful way to proceed.

[dailykoff]

175. Faith is not proof, and there is absolutely no proof

that fires caused damage to any structural elements of the WTC, let alone the core columns, which are the only things that matter.

Here's a hint: there are plenty of pictures of fire-buckled steel columns from the unfireproofed curtain walls of the Windsor tower, which burned for something like 23 hours.

So where's the evidence of those 10,340 fire-buckled WTC core columns?

There isn't any.

[Carefulplease]

177. No faith required...

Faith is not proof, and there is absolutely no proof
that fires caused damage to any structural elements of the WTC, let alone the core columns, which are the only things that matter.

What about the evidence presented in post #167 regarding preferential inner web buckling of fire exposed perimeter columns and the fracture of heat affected welds? Are you going to deny that perimeter columns and truss floors were structural elements of the towers as well? What is the reason for this sudden focus on core columns alone? What of the damage they received from the aircraft impacts? What caused the floor sagging and the resulting pull in of the perimeter columns if not the fires?

NIST has few unambiguous samples of fire exposed steel. Were they wrong to reject evidence that was ambiguous between pre- and post-collapse damage/fires?

Here's a hint: there are plenty of pictures of fire-buckled steel columns from the unfireproofed curtain walls of the Windsor tower, which burned for something like 23 hours.

And there are pictures of WTC perimeter walls bowing in. How long the fire burned in the Windsor tower is not relevant. The fires started at 23h00 and the collapses began two and a half hour later. (The timeline is referenced in my post #160.) The Windsor Towers weren't damaged by an aircraft hit and the fires weren't ignited all at once on multiple floors. The fires in the Windsor Tower developed normally from a single location and spread over time. You yourself objected to the relevance of the comparison!

So where's the evidence of those 10,340 fire-buckled WTC core columns?

It is sufficient that fires weakened just a few. The NIST finite element simulation and fire model suggest that fires only weakened a few. Load redistribution and the damage already incurred are responsible for the progression of the global failure. Whoever suggested that fires weakened every one single columns segments on all 110 floors?

[dailykoff]

178. Every single core column failed.

Please show me the evidence that even one of those 10,340 column failures was caused by a room fire.

[Carefulplease]

181. You are not interested in direct evidence any more?

Your number is a bit off. There weren't 47 * 110 * 2 core columns. The individual box columns segments and beams typically spanned multiple floors (usually 3 if I recall correctly.) But that's beside the point. Why this restrition of focus to the core columns suddenly? This was not the sole object of you recent enquiry. You asked for evidence regarding "any" structural members...

The few core column samples (from only 4 recovered columns among 329 candidates for fire exposure) tested by NIST using metallographic analysis do not show evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degree C for a significant amount of time.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf

However, columns can buckle as a result from temperature differentials much less than that. You probably know about thermal expansion. This is what kills trusses.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6B.pdf

So, NIST has no direct metallographic evidence for heat damage to core columns resulting from fires, thermite reactions, microwave beams (Hoffman's former theory) or any other cause. There is no direct evidence that explosives were used either. If your stringent standards of proof are to be applied across the board are we to conclude that the Twin Towers are still standing?

Could we rather discuss the strong direct evidence for other heat/fire related structural damages that in all likelihood contributed to the demise of the towers? Or is this evidence now taboo? I provided some of it (message #165). Did you not request it yourself?

[dailykoff]

182. I've seen nothing BUT direct evidence

that the towers were demolished with explosives and/or other engineered devices.

There is no conceivable mechanism by which room fires could have leveled those two buildings and the NIST has presented no evidence direct or otherwise of any miracles.

Sorry, you lose.

[Carefulplease]

183. "Sorry, you lose." ?

You make up the rules. I lose then, if you say so.

(At least, you've learnt a few things about the Windsor Tower.)

[vincent_vega_lives]

188. Holly Crap thats lame

You just said jack shit about the subject at hand and quite a bit about yourself all at once.

[vincent_vega_lives]

187. Why NOT fire?

What is the evidence for that claim?

[vincent_vega_lives]

186. Basic Stuff

The Bigger They Come, the Harder They Fall
The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm

BTW: Controlled demolition refers to both Explosive Demolition and Mechanical demolition.

[dailykoff]

194. For basic concrete feed mills

and sometimes not even then.

[CoolOnion]

115. I've seen a building withstand a tornado

Sure, the building was uninhabitable afterwards, but it was still standing. It was brought down <b>two years later</b> by a controlled demolition. (When the controlled demolotion happened, there were no buildings nearby that spontaneously collapsed, either).

So buildings in New York City are so poorly built that debris from nearby buildings collapsing will bring them down?

[Carefulplease]

122. They were burning too.

Why don't you factor in the fires too? Firemen usually fight fires when they occur in high rise steel framed buildings. In the cases of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 the fires weren't fought *at all*.

[CoolOnion]

127. I've also seen films of buildings on fire

I've seen films of buildings on fire before, too, where the fire raged all night--but in the morning, the steel "skeleton" was still standing.

[Carefulplease]

144. And some building have had bombs exploding in them.

And they stood. Does it mean that controlled demolition is impossible?

Much of the structural steel framing of the Windsor Tower in Madrid collapsed as a result of fire alone.

[dailykoff]

147. There was no structural steel framing in the Windsor tower.

The frame was concrete. The curtain wall was lightweight, non-structural steel. Don't you ever check your facts?

[Carefulplease]

150. Yes there was.

http://www.theconcretecentre.org/PDF/CQSummer2006.pdf
http://www.uk-bar.org/fire.htm

I would not call steel columns that are supporting floor slabs "non-structural".

[dailykoff]

152. Your sources call it a "curtain wall facade"

and that's exactly what it was -- a lightweight, nonstructural curtain wall. Incidentally that's what the photos also show (no closeup photos in your links, which are pretty unscientific).

Strike three, you're out.

[Carefulplease]

154. "Collapse of the steel perimeter columns and the floor slabs (...)"

Why is that not structural failure? Were the floors also decorative?

[dailykoff]

155. Who says one caused the other?

Oh, "The Concrete Centre."

:rofl:

p.s. look at a decent photo and you'll see the concrete columns holding up the floors directly behind the flimsy steel columns holding up the flimsy nonstructural curtain wall.

[Carefulplease]

156. Can you read "floor slabs (...) progressively collapsed" ?

"A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1)."

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

Yes, the reinforced concrete core and floors stood up, unlike the steel columns and vast perimeter floor areas. That's the point!

[dailykoff]

157. Yes, I've seen that web page

and here's the problem: the pictures appear to be taken after the building has already started to be dismantled. Notice the wrecking crane at the top of the first picture. Also comapare the photo of the collapsed floors to the picture in this link:

http://www.theconcretecentre.org/PDF/CQSummer2006.pdf

Notice that the floor damage in the MACE photo is much greater than in the pdf photo. Dunno why, but he's exaggerating the extent of collapse.

There are really no plausible comparisons between the Windsor fire and the WTC demolitions.

[Carefulplease]

160. No, he's not exagerating the extent of the collapse.

All the structural steel columns supporting the perimeter floor slabs above the 20th floor collapsed. My previous link has a picture of the collapsed structure taken while the fires still rage. The picture you focus on was taken after the remnant core of the upper core was removed. Just count the remaining storeys. This was a 32-storey building.

I am not the one making an unqualified comparison with the WTC. I was responding to your:

"I've seen films of buildings on fire before, too, where the fire raged all night--but in the morning, the steel "skeleton" was still standing."

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

Have a look at Table 2 "Estimated time frame of collapses (NILIM 2005)
Time Collapse Situation":

1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed
1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed
1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed
Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor
2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed
2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed
3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed
Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor
3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor
4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down

[Make7]

159. Carefulplease, this may be of interest to you:

hack89: "This must be an act... no one could be so dense. End of thread - you win - bye"

dailykoff: "Thanks, nice to see you finally got it."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=103656#103794

- Make7

[dailykoff]

162. And another one bites the dust.

Nice that you noticed. :hi:

[Make7]

163. It's nice that I noticed you are just an act? ( n/t )

[vincent_vega_lives]

189. Where is this claim made?

"So buildings in New York City are so poorly built that debris from nearby buildings collapsing will bring them down?"

[John Q. Citizen]

116. Gravity driven progressive collapes?

Controlled demolitions are gravity driven. That's why they fall instead of float. And they fall in a progressive, or stagiated fashion, just like the twin towers and #7.

I'll never forget when, was it Dan Rather, said live, "that looks just like a controlled demolition." Or maybe he's not to be trusted, who knows. That's what the right wing says anyway. Maybe they are right about Dan.

I've never witnessed a live demolition of a large skyscapper but I've seen TV/video.

I think Dan was right. They did look like controlled demolitions. All three.

You seem 100% certain that they weren't. How come?

[Jazz2006]

94. They only "appeared" that way to those who do not

fully engage the brain before leaping to unfounded conclusions.

There is nothing about the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 that look anything even remotely like controlled demolitions. There have been links posted here numerous times to controlled demolition sites, and it is glaringly apparent that the collapse of the towers did not at all resemble pre-planned, pre-planted, pre-rigged buildings or controlled demos. Moreover, there is no evidence of any pre-planted explosives.

WTC7 looks a little different because the only views of its collapse are filmed from a distance on the side of the building that does not actually show the damage that it had sustained, and because the failure in WTC7 was a much lower point, below that of the camera angle.

But there is still no getting around the fact that WTC7 had sustained serious damage from the fallout of the towers that, in the expert opinions of firefighters on the scene, rendered the building unsalvagable in the unique circumstances of the day.

Had WTC7 been the only building in trouble that day, there is no doubt that they would have tried to save it; had they not had thousands of people trapped and/or dead across the street, I suspect that their decisions may have been different. But in the real world that they had to deal with that day - across the street, two massive towers had collapsed to the ground, there were hundreds of firefighters dead or trapped, close to three thousand civilians dead or trapped, and WTC7 was an empty building that had been successfully evacuated.

Having already lost more than 300 firefighters in WTC1 and WTC2, nearly 1500 civilians in one tower and another 600 in the other, and faced with a seriously damaged building and negligible firefighting capacity due to broken water mains and standpipe systems, they were right about their assessment that the building would collapse and that it was better to let the empty building fall without further loss of life than it was to risk the lives of hundreds more. Early in the afternoon, they determined that the building was not salvageable in the unique circumstances of the day and they did the right thing in ordering their teams out, maintaining a collapse zone, and making sure that no more lives were lost unnecessarily.

It was only an empty building, after all.

[dailykoff]

97. Right, highrises self-destruct all the time!

Nothing strange about that!

:crazy:

[Jazz2006]

98. Oh, googly eyes. That makes it all clear.

:crazy:

(P.S. You should be careful ~ some of your pals here find the use of the word "crazy" and presumably the use of the "crazy" smiley terribly offensive.) It doesn't bother me in the least, but.... some of your nearest and dearest here seem to really take offence to it.

And as for the post to which you were purportedly responding, what on earth ever gave you the idea that anyone said anything about buildings "self destructing"?

Talk about :crazy:

[Jazz2006]

180. Nobody said anything about buildings self destructing...except you.

[DemonFighterLives]

110. Not Salvageable

"So we decided to pull it"- Silverstien

[Carefulplease]

123. You are misquoting Silverstein.

They decided (NYFD, not Silverstein) to pull the firefighting operation. They pulled the firefighters from the area.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

[DemonFighterLives]

125. Nice try

What gives that site any credibility.
Here is the quote from your link:
Silverstein's Quote:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

--
Pull it means the building not the team in my humble opinion.
What is Silverstein now an expert in Fire Dept. Lingo?
How many millions or billions did he receive again?

Nothing explains the fact of the building imploding like it did.
:dem:

[Carefulplease]

140. What gives the site credibility is that they do not misquote.

You quoted Silverstein thus:

"So we decided to pull it"- Silverstien

Can you find just one similar misrepresentation on the page I referenced?

[Jazz2006]

192. Exactly.

It is CTers and self-proclaimed "truthseekers" who consistently rely upon misquoting and cherrypicking to try to make their "points" ~ the Debunking911 site does not. Nor does the 911myths site and various other debunking sites. The truth does not require - and is not served by - misquoting and cherrypicking. It is not merely coincidental that the CT sites all rely upon such dishonest tactics ... while hawking their dvds and tee shirts.

Edit: typo.

[Jazz2006]

179. What part of "not salvageable" do you take issue with?

Is there anything at all in my post that you take issue with?

[vincent_vega_lives]

185. The way WTC 7 vs WTC 1&2 collapsed

were COMPLETELY different. The fact that you state all three were controlled demolition proves that you really have no clue what controlled demolition is or how it works.

[John Q. Citizen]

89. Why did all three building exhibit the stagiated collapse, near free fall

and almost straight down of controlled demolition resulting from three random events?

Perhaps, as you say, #7 should have been demolished. So how was that done? They planted the explosives the week before, because they knew that after 9/11 it would have to come down?

I think you may be on to something....

[Carefulplease]

93. What would have stopped them from falling with near "g" accel. ? n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

136. Nothing, after the supporting columns were knocked out with

explosives and thermate.

[Carefulplease]

142. But the acceleration was not nearly 9.81 m/s^2. It was significantly less.

And it has been measured to be significantly less than g. How do you explain this if the supporting structure was blown out in advance of the falling mass from above crushing it?

See Figure 1 at the end of this paper.

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

The author also demonstrates that the yield strain capacity of the structure supporting the floors below is very small as compared with the kinetic energy of the falling mass above. There would really be no need for additional explosives once the support columns failed at the level of the damaged floors. (Granting for the sake of argument that damage and fire alone wouldn't have initiated the failure.)

[Opusnone]

36. Do you support a TRUE investigation of 9-11?

Since the 9-11 Commission was lied to and followed by reporting half-truths, etc.

If there is nothing to hide, or nothing to learn then what is the harm? I'm sure with a billion dollars or so we could get to the meat of the story.
It is the defining moment of our time and has future repercussions for generations to come.

Shouldn't it be investigated like the crime it was?

[Zynx]

46. Why would I want to waste a billion dollars on that?

For the love of God, there is no evidence at all of a conspiracy.

[mhatrw]

73. Why investigate 9/11 indeed?

When you consider how well the 9/11 Commission answered all the victims' families' questions ...

http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php

[petgoat]

77. They answered 9% of the questions. nt

[mirandapriestly]

166. That pretty much sums up your motivations.eom

[wildbilln864]

40. well of course you won't if...

you wish to deny the truth. You don't have to read it all. It's very good reading though.
911 WAS an inside job!

[Zynx]

43. What truth?

All I have ever seen is a bunch of lies, conjecture, and misinformation.

[pauldp]

82. Please explain the Pakistani ISI connection. n/t

[Bryan Sacks]

83. don't hold your breath, Paul

I love these OCT know-it-alls. Love to debunk pods and holograms and even demolition, but when it comes to substantive claims that are beyond dispute. . .

crickets.

Hope this is the exception.

[pauldp]

84. I won't. And I don't expect a response.

But I just thought I'd ask.
;-)

[greyl]

99. The question was "What truth?"

Your very vague response, "please explain the Pakistani ISI connection", doesn't answer the question or supply any truth.

Which connection are you thinking of? The one between ISI and Atta? Between ISI and Osama's reported dialysis? Between ISI and the CIA? Bob Graham's breakfast with ISI General Ahmad?
Tarpley's pdf, which was the specific sub-topic here, only mentions the ISI once. "Before we criticize Pakistan, though, we should realize that the ISI in this case was probably acting on US instructions, as it generally does."

Furthermore, the connection I imagine you're making is in direct contradiction to many of the lies, conjectures, and misinformation presented in this forum. That brings it back to the question you didn't answer, "What truth?"

[pauldp]

107. 9/11 funds came from Pakistan.

It's still up on the Times of India site.

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

At the beginning of the sub-thread Zynx said: "government involvement is factually baseless.I've seen it all and heard it all."

I'm just checking to make sure he really has heard it all, and get his input on some credible evidence. All of the things
you mentioned could be considered part of the Pakistan/ISI connection to 911 as well.

Also reported in the press in India and Pakistan but of course not here:

<snip>
New Delhi, March 12: The Pakistan foreign office had paid tens of thousands of dollars to lobbyists in the US to get anti-Pakistan references dropped from the 9/11 inquiry commission report, The Friday Times has claimed.
<snip>?
The report quoted an officer as saying that dramatic changes were made in the final draft of the inquiry commission after the lobbyists got to work. The panel was formed to probe the September 11 terror attack and make suggestions to fight terrorism.
<snip>

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060313/asp/nation/story_5962372.asp

So in truth Greyl, these stories are explosive are they not?

:grr:

I mean according to a respected Pakistani paper and a respected Indian paper - 911 Commission was bribed by
Pakistani officials, yet no press about it in the States. WHAT THE FUCK?!

Is it not true that these issues deserve IMMEDIATE attention by our press and a full investigation?
Or should we just call Pakistan our trusted ally in the war on terror and keep giving them weapons and hope they catch Bin Laden some day?

Are these articles lies and conjectures? The TRUTH Greyl is that it fucking stinks... and you know it stinks.

[greyl]

108. That's somewhat better, however

the ties to Pakistani money don't directly implicate our government in regards to foreknowledge. You've provided links that support the claim that the investigation after 9/11 was purposefully crippled, but I don't see facts that say "US government knowingly involved in planning and/or executing the attacks."

The meaning attributed to those news items is at issue.
That's where the conjecture, leading questions, and hasty judgements come in.

[pauldp]

120. What do you think the meaning of those news items is?

Why would the 911 commission coverup the fact that the ISI paid for 911?
Why would the US reward Pakistan with weapons and "ally in the war on terror"
status if they helped pay for the worst terrorist attack in US history?
Also, it cetainly once again destroys the credibility of the 911 Commission.
Given the history of cooperation between the ISI and the CIA this certainly
could be evidence of US government involvement, and to dismiss it out of hand
as having no greater implications is truly puzzling.

[DemonFighterLives]

111. Is this related to the Saudi Arabia flap

After the 911 Omissions report came out, Saudi Arabia was up in arms about "The Complicity of Some Other Country".
Maybe I have been away to long, but thanks for the Pakistani stuff.
They are dubby's buds helping hide Osama.
:dem:

[pauldp]

124. Not sure. Do you have a link? n/t

[DemonFighterLives]

126. There was mention of another country involved in 911

28 pages redacted and the Saudi's took offense because some believed it was them.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/02/world/main566375.shtml
clip..
Sources tell CBS News the redacted section lays out a money trail between Saudi Arabia and supporters of al Qaeda, reports Chief White House Correspondent John Roberts.

Among others, it singles out Omar al-Bayoumi, who gave financial assistance to Sept. 11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar.

The Saudi government has asserted it had no involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.


Here is another:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/25/1436226


snip...
The report also raises more questions about a foreign government's complicity in the attacks: longtime U.S. ally, Saudi Arabia.

The report finds that the Saudi Arabian government thwarted efforts to prevent the rise of Al-Qaeda and stop attacks as well as provided financial and logistical support to the Saudi-born 9/11 hijackers. 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi Arabian.

Large sections of the report explaining how the Saudis did not cooperate remains classified. The Washington Post reports an entire 28-page section detailing whether Saudi Arabia was somehow implicated in 9/11 is missing. This despite a seven-month campaign by congressional investigators and others to have them made public.

The CIA argued that disclosure of the details could upset relations with a key US ally.

====
Hope these help.
:dem:

[pauldp]

134. Thanks for that. n/t

[DemonFighterLives]

139. You're welcome

:kick:

[Name removed]

70. Deleted sub-thread

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

[htuttle]

21. There's really only one way to determine that

...and that would be with as full and proper investigation, including following up on all the information that the official 9/11 commission neglected to deal with, such as the NORAD tapes. The lapses by NORAD indicate at LEAST a catastrophic failure of our military agencies occured on 9/11. If NORAD's actions (or lack thereof) on 9/11 are never evaluated, there's absolutely no guarantee the exact same scenario couldn't happen again.

By failing to investigate this properly, both the Executive and Legislative branches are failing to fulfill their responsibilities on almost every level.

In any case, there's absolutely no way to look at just what's in this article and make an assumption that it's nothing but an effort to hide incompetence (and if it were, shouldn't that incompetence be reviewed and dealt with?).

[JohnyCanuck]

22. AKA a limited hangout n/t

[petgoat]

74. Not hide it. Give an impression that they're exposing it.

Incompetence has been the official story all along.

They'd have us believe that after three hijacked planes had been flown into
buildings, FAA officials stood around blithering about whether to notify
NORAD about flight 93.

[dailykoff]

91. That's my guess too.

The chain of custody of these tapes is pretty suspicious -- from the Pentagon to a producer of United 93, who then writes a story for Vanity Fair?

I don't see a lot of objectivity here.

[Ian_rd]

9. The word "conspiracy" should not be a discussion killer

Who here thinks the Government does NOT engage in conspiracies? I don't see any hands. No one? No one? Bueller?

Of course there was a conspiracy. How many ex-pentagon personnel and how much more evidence do we need to know that the Iraq War was a conspiracy?

Even with photos of earth from space, some still believe the earth is flat.

[Orrex]

14. The word *is* a discussion killer; a new word should be chosen

Sorry, but that's how it goes.

If you refer to a "9-11 Conspiracy," you're automatically hitching your views to the "Vast Rightwing Conspiracy" and the far-out ramblings of every crazy person who thinks that the CIA is controlling his mind. That's the reality, and ignoring it or wishing it would go away won't make any difference. It doesn't help that for every person who wants to know why Ashcroft didn't fly that morning, there are 100 who believe that George W. Bush personally planted the explosives in WTC7. And it seems that, as in all things, the crazier the advocate, the louder his voice.

Heck, even if you don't use the word "conspiracy" in describing your 9-11 theories, the term will be immediately applied to your arguments unless you provide a more compelling word to use in its place.

That's life. Plenty of words are inextricably bound with a single connotation, no matter how valid other uses of those words might be. Try using "abortion" or "ejaculation" at your next staff meeting with anything other than their most familiar meanings, and see what kind of response you get.

If proponents of the MIHOP and LIHOP theories desire real credibility in the media, it will be necessary for them to adopt (or at least effect) an air of objectivity and draft, persuade, or hire media-savvy spokespersons who can make their arguments in a compelling fashion without seeming insane. I've seen plenty of 9-11 discussions (like the one aired this past weekend on CSPAN) in which the speaker clutches the desk or microphone, white-knuckled, while apoplectically frothing about the evil machinations of Cheney and his servitors.

Perception is the biggest obstacle to be overcome here; the message will follow in time, but the first goal must be to win over public perception while shedding the image of the stereotypical tinfoiler.

[Jazz2006]

101. Very well said, that.

Perception is everything.

[mirandapriestly]

105. I don't see anyone calling themselves "conspiracy theorists"

that is something that the believers of the bush administration version label those who question the government's role in 9-11 as a way of discrediting them. Maybe YOU need people to have corporate logos and blowdryed hair to believe them, but the majority of posts I read in response to the CSPAN speakers were positive and the majority of DUERs do not believe the official version.

[Nitty-Gritty]

117. A well-reasoned conspiracy theory is more persuasive than a

catch-all "coincidence" theory. Conspiracy theories, as a rational attempt to understand events whose origins and obvious goals are unknowable due to lack of hard evidence, make far more common sense than random coincidence, as an explanation of complex events like 9/11.

[mirandapriestly]

118. Absolutely

but I think when people hear the phrase "conspiracy theory", they tend to tune out and not take the information seriously, even if it is well reasoned. I just don't like the way the word is used in the media. I personally think conspiracies happen all the time, with this bunch in Washington it is a matter of policy.

[Make7]

161. "... I pretended I wasn't one." - mirandapriestly

mirandapriestly wrote:

At first I thought it was real and I emailed the guy pretending to admire his other "work". He told me he had got a lot of mail from crazy conspiracy theorists, so I pretended I wasn't one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=70977&mesg_id=98045

:) Make7

[mirandapriestly]

167. He would consider me to be a " crazy conspiracy theorist"

is what my use of the word "one" refers to, HIS use of the word. That would be apparent to most people who were thinking analytically, unless they were trying to discredit another poster and didn't have anything better to use.
A person who concluded from reading my post that I considered myself "crazy" might have a tendency to take things literally and not think abstractly . People like that are hard to communicate with.

[Grateful for Hope]

168. Your meaning was clear enough to me, MP

But, perhaps it might have been better to say something like "you did not let on about your beliefs because he thinks people who believe (or think) like you are crazy conspiracy theorists" just so those who have a bit of trouble with comprehension would not have to struggle to understand what you meant.

[Make7]

169. I was just amused by your wording of that sentence.

Didn't you notice the smiley face in my last post? It's sometimes funny what one runs across when searching previous threads.

- Make7

[Jazz2006]

171. I think that takes "post of the year" for unintentional humour and

unintentional *oops* honesty.

"...I emailed the guy pretending to admire his other "work". He told me he had got a lot of mail from crazy conspiracy theorists, so I pretended I wasn't one."

:rofl:

Edit to remove references to the poster known as nittygritty/uppanotch/buddy/americus/killtown/etal because the poster known as "mirandapriestly" isn't them but someone wearing a tin hat might read it the wrong way.

[mirandapriestly]

176. so you are saying that I am a crazy conspiracy theorist?

that is what I take the statement "unintentional honesty" to mean.

[tanyev]

11. Or maybe the truth is finally going mainstream.

[marmar]

12. Very true...

:think:

[originalpckelly]

13. I think it is a reasonable thought. Look at all the power the President...

has claimed. Why would Judy Miller know about some big terrorist attack, before 9/11? Why did John Ashcroft know to stop taking commercial jets? Why did the President receive the August 6th PDB, and not do anything about it?

Perhaps the most frightening of all, as a recent report by Bloomberg news states, the NSA program of spying STARTED BEFORE 9/11.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE&refer=

I don't think many of the conspiracy theories are accurate, but I do believe it is at least somewhat possible that our government or the Bush administration specifically, let 9/11 happen.

[SpiralHawk]

17. Bush's Pentagon had an hour warning, but could not muster a pea shooter

on 9/11 to defend themselves or the capital city of the United States of America.

Pathetic.

That's what you get when the pResident is an AWOL phony, and the vice pResident got FIVE MILITARY DEFERMENTS because he "had other priorities."

Why do the republicons bend over and follow these AWOL stooges?

[CoolOnion]

18. Here's the real "conspiracy theory"...

...a bunch of guys with box cutters hijacked planes and flew it into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, which fell in seconds, because the buildings were so delicate that a fireball was able to collapse them. (But wait, you say, what about photographs of buildings that were on fire for hours without the steel "skeleton" collapsing...never mind about that, the government conspiracy theorists say. Back to our story...)

Tower 7 fell on its own, after being hit by debris from the other two towers.

Okay, I don't know about the rest of you, but I've heard just about enough of the official "conspiracy theory." I'm long past ready to hear what really happened. Was it a "shock and awe" exercise to make U.S. citizens acquiescent and willing to go along with anything recommended by the Project for the New American Century? Was the date "9-11" picked so we'd remember it because of our emergency number 911?

I'm a grownup, I can handle the truth.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

19. Did anybody watch Nightline last night? I saw a promo for the

showing that said they were going to ask questions about the official report on 9/11 - really meant to watch it but ended up with Colbert and some funny before going to bed.

I remember something about where was NORAD on 9/11 and why didn't it intercept those airplanes. Hope someone caught the report and could bring me up to date.

Was just wondering if Nightline did a credible job or it took a air ball swing at a wiffle ball of truthiness. (Isn't it sad that we have to wonder if truth will be reported or expect another white wash? We no longer expect a fair, unbiased report - that truth is a rarity instead of the norm.)

[CoolOnion]

34. I missed it.

I'd also like to hear from someone who saw it. It's a terrible thing to ask if our own government was involved, but somebody has to start asking some tough questions.

The way they cleaned up in such a hurry, I doubt we'll ever know the whole story.

[TNOE]

38. I watched the first of it

and when I saw they were going with the "outdated equipment" angle, I turned it off.

[Flying Dream Blues]

29. You're right...the official story is the one that is hard to believe.

Show me the "factual basis" for this version. I smelled a rat (or at least knew something wasn't right) from day one, but the need to believe is a powerful one. Based on the avalanche of lies and deception we've been treated to by this group, why would we not question their version of the event which has fueled their master plan? Not questioning this is what defies logic for me.

[CoolOnion]

33. I didn't "get it" 'til they explained "shock and awe"

When we bombed Iraq and the pundits all aglow over the "shock and awe" of it, it dawned on me that the PNAC crowd might have done the same thing on 9/11. They shocked us into not noticing that they cleaned up the crime scene in too big a hurry, among other things.

[mirandapriestly]

119. Wow, good point, never thought of that.eom

[HamdenRice]

20. This post has not yet been consigned to the dungeon QED nt

[bobbolink]

24. kick this up!

[antigone382]

27. It's building publicity for a movie. That's all.

"World Trade Center" is coming out, so they're discussing things related to it. It isn't exactly some grand media plot, it's just the way things work. High profile movie comes out, media focuses on stories that bear some relation to it. They're not going to seriously re-examine anything, trust me.

[marmar]

28. I hadn't even thought about that angle of it...

Largely because I have no interest in that movie.

[lies and propaganda]

30. WAPO just doesnt want to be the next NYT

im glad the word is getting out but I see right through their motivations.

[bobbolink]

32. This is such good news! Thanks for posting this! Although...

I must admit, that anything about this makes me get very teary.

I learned during Vietnam just how treacherous my country can be, but this is a whole other order of magnitude, and makes me very sad to know just how evil ...evil....EVIL the power behind the throne is here.

But, the truth MUST come out if we are to regain our country, so I hope this is the beginning of the awakening of the USians to what really happened!

Thanks again for posting this-- a good way to start the day!

:applause:

[marmar]

37. "just how treacherous my country can be"

That's something that a lot of Americans still seem unwilling to accept. That our government could in fact be capable of such treachery.

[bobbolink]

78. Yes, "treachery" -- rhymes with "treasonous"... ^_^

I easily remember during Vietnam, how shocked I was to find out what my country was *really* doing. It was depressing, and shocking to me. I bounced back and forth between being depressed and being stunned for quite a while, as I read underground newspapers, went to teachins, and heard what my (ex) husbands profs were saying.

I'll never forget just how much it affected me emotionally, and how I struggled with it. That's why I can cut some slack with those who remain in denial. I think they recognize, at some level, that if they allow themselves to know the truth, it will be almost more than they can handle. That doesn't mean we quit working to inform people, but it means having a bit of understanding for the denial process. "Shock and awe" isn't easy to handle when it's your emotions about finding out the treachery of the country you have always loved, and especially those who have served their country.

I find myself, even now, when I"ve had 40 years to assimilate the shock and add more (Iran Contra, etc!!), that this whole 9/11 thing really has me in a state of ...well, shock. Yes, I can believe this criminal element would do such a thing, but.... on the other hand, it's so hard to believe just how EVIL it really is.

So, I can understand those who would doubt and be in denial.

But, push on we must. Our Republic hangs in the balance!!

Thanks again for posting this!

[Generator]

39. One way to tell is how long this stays in general discussion

Fingers crossed. It's not going away for moi as long as I'm breathing. Being lied to about your government's complicity/negligience is not something you get over when it's killed thousands of your own and lied lied lied and used it to further it's own agenda. Which reminds me-(shameless plug) V for Vendetta is now out on DVD. It's the closest thing we've got to a documentary of the Bush years. At least in intent to terrorize if NOTHING else.

[wildbilln864]

41. It's amazing...

this is still in GD! Fantastic!
kick!!!

[earth mom]

42. I gotta say it....WE TOLD YOU SO! eom

[QuettaKid]

44. It will be on the radio today. Diane Rehm Show. 10 A.M. est.

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/08/03.php#11705

[helderheid]

60. thanks! That's NOW!

:woohoo:

[converted_democrat]

45. I watched the discussion about 9-11 on C-Span.. It was great..

I don't know what the truth is, but people should be allowed to discuss and investigate the issue without hassle.. If they (this administration) didn't do anything wrong, than they have nothing to hide, right? K&R

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

47. Related poll:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x101276

[DemonFighterLives]

53. Happy to see the discussion above board

DU is a great place, but putting this topic in the basement doesn't help the truthseekers.

I think it is fair to say that No one has the full story and I am amazed that these stumbling bums did such a good job of confusing the people.

DU rocks! :yourock:

[lonestarnot]

59. It's about fucking time wouldn't you say?

[PATRICK]

64. It might be part of a process

and maybe not an altogether hopeful one. For me I think of the Kennedy assassination, the blundering, fact wiping hands, funeral celebrating news coverage. Then the tedious, tendentious, wise and verbose, august Warren Commission. Back then we did not have the Internet dialog to expose the crap going on behind closed doors or the inadequacies of news and government investigations. We did not know about the LBJ/Hoover shutdown of all investigations which was later presented as worry about too much fallout- of one kind or another.

Things leaked and oozed around the establishment cover on its epic book. Cubans, the secret CIA within the CIA. The simmering period was aided by several investigators, some nuts to be sure, and finally one lone prosecutor's office in New Orleans which unfortunately for the government was a nexus for a lot of very dirty and illegal job incest involving the mafia, Cubans, FBI and CIA. It became a cottage industry that the news people handled or scoffed at somewhat then as now. Garrison fizzled- that was all that counted for the news people but the real awakening to the cover up and the murk itself had happened. maybe from the mania of vengeance and fury people had passed to being conspiracy aficionados and making the mystery itself a new cult of paranoia and gnostic privilege. Then the Church commission started digging- and shut itself down, this time leaning hard on the now widespread popular belief in the conspiracy.

We came to accept not the BS and the cover up(news people STILL do and make occasional spiteful efforts to prop it up) but to accept that we were never going farther than that. Weird. History and justice living in a dead end street. It was just one a few symptoms of the cancer that began before JFK but certainly flowered dominantly after him.

Now we have a similar process, with a people more mature, with a cover up more studied by citizens instantly sharing on the Internet and more immaturely perpetrated by discredited cronies and idiots. Gone is Dulles who told the young aspiring bureaucrats before him that they had a larger duty not to upset the unnatural order of DC in the Cold War. Now we just have a sorry show with PR designed to promote complete ignorance and flaunt total lack of accountability. better to bomb a thousand babies in our wrath than to hold anyone responsible to account. In the sixties it was dark and insane and power centered. Power needed no PR. Today it is absurd, insane and pathetic.

We have quickly progressed thanks to Bush tanking in a matter of a short time what it took the missteps of LBJ and Nixon to do and thanks to a superior set of investigations by "amateurs" shared and scrutinized by a large interactive community. Now the mood is settled in, forgetting the rage and pain and meaning or 9/11 to one of fear, secrecy and belligerence. Instead of trying to take those delayed and prohibited baby steps toward the real questions: What happened? Who is accountable? What will we do about it? we sit dismayed on our couches or crouched before our keyboards ceding the ground to the garbage, the secrecy, the lawlessness, the power of scoundrels and incompetents.

Garrison had one thing right. There is more than enough for a real grand jury(grand juries) and an investigation commensurate with the crime and the national security to drag people before the questions, meting out firings, indictments, impeachments and harsh sentences. Anything else sacrifices everything that is true or real on the altar of self preservation of those likely targets. Talk about tax breaks for the rich. This whole way of life is skewed to make everything go dark so the few who stole leadership can hide and prosper. We cannot survive merely making a debate about the cottage industry or the popular culture of 9/11 guessing games. We need the law. We need our nation and civil government. We need the truth. It doesn't matter how many people believe in this or that if nothing is going to be done about ruthlessly getting to the facts. Those facts need the power of tough and powerful AG's and prosecutors and investigators.

What would it mean for our elections if everyone knew and agreed that the voting and voter lists were rigged if not a single aspect of the law or the political machinery ever acted on the obvious, popular link to a suppressed truth? Yet that is the way of everything, absolutely everything in our society. We get as far as knowing, among ourselves in the vast majority(almost absolute majority of the informed, sane and intelligent) about ALL the things not a single part of the establishment will move on. That is no more acceptable than a God Emperor. Less so, in fact, yet our craven leaders and media gatekeepers will settle for the masses to have dark feelings and moods if they can still be diverted away from doing anything about it. They laugh about our discussions they way they laugh about people believing in flying saucers or astrology(maybe not that because most of them believe that too), but they laugh nervously and with the irritation of people caught betraying their duties.

[pauldp]

85. Good post.

"our craven leaders and media gatekeepers will settle for the masses to have dark feelings and moods if they can still be diverted away from doing anything about it."

So true. Now how do we get the leverage we need to get those elusive AG's and prosecutors to really go after the truth?

[DemonFighterLives]

113. Powerful Post

I'm glad I found it.

:yourock:

[John Q. Citizen]

149. Patrick, your post deserves it's own thread. I encourage you to

rewrite your opening to inform a new reader what you are responding to and keeping the rest.

Very powerful!

[MadHound]

65. I imagine that 9-11 is going to follow the same trajectory as Kennedy

At first the nation was in shock over the Kennedy assasination, and the "official version" embodied in the Warren Commission Report was accepted as gospel. However many so called "conspiracy theorists" started tearing into it, even though they were labeled as crackpots and crazy. Their momentum built however, and more and more of the truth that they ferreted out became more and more mainstream, until by the time the seventies rolled around the vast majority of Americans were laughingly scornful of the "magic bullet theory". In fact the cries for the truth became so loud that Congress was forced to investigate the matter. They formed the House Subcommittee on Assasinations, whose real task was to put this matter to rest once and for all, and not to give credence to any other theory than that which was presented in the Warren Report. However so much evidence was brought in by credible witnesses and researchers that the HSA was forced to publish the finding that the Kennedy assasination was the result of a conspiracy. And then, rather than following through on finding who was part of that conspiracy, who besides Oswald was involved, the government let the matter drop, and hoped that it would all go away, which it has, excepting for the increasing resurgence of interest like that which surrounded the release of the Stone movie JFK.

I imagine that 9-11 is going to follow the same trajectory. We are now far enough away from the events that people are starting to openly question the official version of events, looking to answer many of the questions that surround that event, wanting answers to the many contradictions of that day. Right now these people are being labeled as crackpots, kooks, conspiracy theorists and worse. Yet the groundswell is starting to build, and I imagine that in fifteen, twenty years it will reach a point where our government can't ignore it any more. So they will form a commission whose unofficial task will be to whitewash the whole matter, and when they find that they simply can't, then they will reluctantly release a report stating that the official story isn't true, and then let the whole matter sink into the depths of history.

And just like the Kennedy assasination, the full truth of 9-11 won't be known until several decades from now, if ever.

[petgoat]

79. There's a big difference.

The JFK investigations did not point at the current administration.
The JFK investigators did not have the internet. We have a virtual
think thank available.
The JFK investigators did not have our video technology. We can stream onthe
net, we can pass around DVDs, we can show movies in libraries and rented
theaters and churches and even in the park.

[quicknthedead]

95. The Smoking Gun - Sept. 11th Plane Impact Time Discrepancies

The Smoking Gun - Sept. 11th Plane Impact Time Discrepancies


The facts are simple and few, yet extremely powerful for what they mean: US Government complicity in 9/11/01.

Facts by themselves are simple and mean something, but these facts lead to a true smoking gun. I know of no other regarding 9/11. Do you? A smoking gun that can be given in a court of law?

What is presented here is no theory. It is factual data of “impact times” from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University (LDEO) that differs significantly from factual data of impact times given in the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report.

LDEO
Link: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html
(note: all times precise to plus or minus 1 to 2 seconds)



9/11 Commission Timeline
Link: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html
(note: both impact times are the only ones on the page precise to the second)



This is the data:

<“Impact Times”>
LDEO
8:46:26 and 9:02:54


9/11 Commission
8:46:40 and 9:03:11

Respective Differences
14 seconds
17 seconds

After reflecting upon these timing discrepancies and what they mean, indicting evidence appears of something very wrong with the official explanation about what happened. Lest we forget, America still owes it to those who perished on 9/11, and their families and friends, to get to the bottom of this; justice has yet to be served on those responsible.

Both impacts are important. This happened twice, and comparing LDEO versus the 9/11 Commission Report, there are similar time disparities (respective differences of 14 and 17 seconds). Consider these as extremely close to the differential, because when consideration is given to the seismic wave, amplitude, and duration, understand that the dominant period is extremely short and occurs near the beginning of the signal.

We have LDEO on record stating times of plus or minus 1 to 2 seconds, which is a high degree of precision. Would they publish if a 95% level of confidence had not been achieved for the data? No. LDEO was then (and still is) a prestigious scientific entity; and no one has challenged their data for 9/11/01. We should trust their seismic data.

Is there any expected time delay between the initiation of the "impact" pulse and the reception of the seismic signal? From study, it is understood that this factor is already accounted for in the software logic used. Besides, if this were a factor, it would make the disparity greater, thereby yielding even greater time differences; however, the differences we have already are compelling.

Two questions:
(1) Is there any motive behind having two sets of impact times?
(2) What is the significance, if any, of having two different sets of impact times?

Addressing Question (1): Motive probably had nothing to do with our now having two different sets of impact times; also, more than likely, no one lied in all this with the information each entity published. Probably the 9/11 Commission made a simple error of missed oversight. They should have noticed the disparity in impact times and looked into the matter. This is their error. They never saw the disparities, or, if they did, they never attempted to resolve them. Then, years later, somebody happened to notice them by chance. The Commission either did not care, did not bother to ask LDEO, did not consider it at all, or, more than likely, was not even aware of the Lamont-Doherty seismic data regarding “impact times”. If they had known, someone at the Commission would surely have envisioned possible future repercussions of having two sets of factual data on impact times (such as is happening now). This would be (and now is) a conflict of data from two highly reliable sources—something that is to be avoided in one’s life and affairs. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

The problem probably came about by having two different groups of people working during two different time periods. They just happened to intersect on a single data point by either accident, neglect, or whatever. Actually, it was the Commission who did the “intersecting” as LDEO was published long before the Commission came into being. LDEO did their job on 9/11 and believed at the time that their seismic data, precise to the second, represented the impacts on the towers (this is key because what they thought were “impacts” is now brought into question). Another key here is “at the time”. Think about it. LDEO had these two small seismic spikes at the general time of the impacts, so they must have naturally thought they were the impacts. This is understandable, especially in the light of that horrible day.

However, the 9/11 Commission’s precision times came much later, at a different time period, and only after much analysis and effort. They are basically based upon: "We have determined that the impact time was 9:03:11 based on our analysis of FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic." <9/11 Commission Report, pg 460, Note 130>:

http://www.insightful.com/infact/911/corpus/report_470_460.html
(Note 130 is the basis for WTC1 & WTC2 precision impact times to the second)



This is an entirely different set of data than LDEO, but it too is highly accurate and precise; e.g., consider the technology needed and used in the space program; and although different, these technologies are similar in many ways; and one critical way they are similar is that they both must be precise in the area of timing; and so they are. It is known that the FAA tracked AA Flight 11 under four different stations using Primary Radar Return, and all times were being recorded to the second.

So, this is probably how these two extremely precise but different data sets came about for the same event (plane impact) and appear before us now. However, it does not matter how they came into being. What is important is that both sets are precise to the second.

Also important is: Are the two data sets correct?

As pointed out above, the LDEO set should be correct. The 9/11 Commission’s set should be trustworthy as well. This is because both entities came up with their conclusive data under similar conditions and constraints: required, high precision parameters; working in the face of high visibility in the wake of a national tragedy; and finally, the general understanding of what these entities were attempting to do (i.e., to get it right). There is no reason to disbelieve either data set.

Addressing Question (2): What is the significance, if any, of the different impact times?
Yes, there is significance and it goes to the next level; this is the heart of the matter.

The Commission Report must have the correct impact times because this is what they were specifically looking at: flight data that ultimately ended at precise terminations (to the second) when the towers were struck. There is no question: precisely, AA Flight 77 died at 8:46:40 and UA Flight 175 at 9:03:11 . So, if the planes impacted the towers at those times, what were these earlier times as noted by LDEO due to notable seismic spikes (~14 and ~17 seconds earlier)?

What first caught my eye last week about this was the implausibility of “impact times” by LDEO. I thought, “How can such a huge jet airliner impact WTC1 above the 90th floor and we end up with energy transference traveling all the way down to the earth (even through the massive multi-level sub-basement structure) sufficiently so as to be picked up by LDEO as a seismic spike?” This still makes no sense. Energy from the impact should have been mostly absorbed by the building’s immense structure and mass.

Then I recalled reading a while back about accounts of people who experienced explosions down in the basements before the planes struck. The following is an excerpt about one of them, an eyewitness at WTC1 by the name of William Rodriguez:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/deanna17.htm

-------
Arriving at 8:30 on the morning of 9-11 he went to the maintenance office located on the first sublevel, one of six sub-basements beneath ground level. There were a total of fourteen people in the office at that same time. As he was discussing the day’s tasks with others, there was a very loud massive explosion which seemed to emanate from between sub-basement B2 and B3. There were an additional twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.

At first he thought it was a generator that had exploded. But the cement walls in the office cracked from the explosion. “When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking.” said Rodriguez, who was crowded together with fourteen other people in the office including Anthony Saltamachia, his supervisor for the American Building Maintenance Company.

Just seconds later there was another explosion way above which made the building oscillate momentarily. This, he was later told, was a plane hitting the tower at about the 90th floor. Upon hearing about the plane, he immediately thought of the people up in the restaurant. Then there were other explosions just above B1 and individuals started heading for the loading dock to escape the explosion’s resulting rampant fire. When asked later about those first explosions he said: “I would know if an explosion was from the bottom or the top of the building.” He heard explosions both before and after the plane hit the tower.
-------

This provides the plausible answer as to what LDEO picked up as a seismic spike moments before the plane struck the tower.

Again, the question: What caused the earlier seismic spike picked up by LDEO?

There are only two logical choices: either (A) a true seismic event (a very small earthquake tremor; and, yes, this would mean the eyewitnesses who said explosions happened before the plane struck are not telling the truth), or (B) very large explosion(s).

It could not possibly have been a very small earthquake. Why? Because this same, exact scenario happened again a few minutes later at WTC2, both spikes occurring within a brief 15-minute period under the most unusual circumstances. The odds of this happening by chance go beyond the pale, beyond the realms of possibility (you don’t need to be a statistician to see this). This only happens when man is involved.

The earlier seismic spikes had to have been (B): very large explosion(s). Middle Eastern terrorists could not possibly have been responsible; they do not have the wherewithal for this kind of scale.

It is more than remarkable that the 9/11 Commission, although it did hear the testimony of William Rodriguez regarding the explosions in the basements, did not deem this important enough to be included in their Final Report.

It should have been.

This is what really happened:

Explosion(s) Meant to Coincide……………
<“Impact Times”>
LDEO
8:46:26 and 9:02:54

Respective Differences
14 seconds
17 seconds

With

……………Planes Impacting Towers

9/11 Commission
8:46:40 and 9:03:11

(The explosions were more than likely done to prepare the buildings for final controlled demolition later by implosion.)

To sum up: This is no conspiracy theory. Why?
This is not theory. These are facts.

But it is definitely a conspiracy.

This isn’t rocket science (it is simple).
This is the smoking gun (it is solid evidence).
It has legs (knowledge of this is now spreading).
And this dog can hunt.

What must be done? Two extremely important things:

(1) A new independent, quasi-private-public, non-politicized 9/11 investigation must be formed at once to approach and pursue this for what it really is: the crime of the century. America needs good police detective work here—and the conspirators need to be identified, apprehended, jailed, and brought to justice…now.

(2) The 9/11 Commission and the Bush Administration must answer this question immediately:

WHAT CAUSED THOSE SEISMIC SPIKES?

They must answer, they must answer now—and if they don’t, it is the same as admitting guilt.

The entire US Government is not bad; just the few rogue conspirators who did 9/11—those who committed mass murder, treason, and betrayal to America.

May God help us.
Craig T. Furlong
Huntington Beach, CA USA
July 31, 2006

PS IMPORTANT—ASAP, please send this message far and wide

[mirandapriestly]

104. That is the first time I have read that

very good thinking...so, the LDEO "impacts" were the seismic "spikes" and the 911 Commission "impacts" were from flight data and they do not correspond with each other, so something other than the "impacts" caused the spikes on the LDEO, right? However, could it be that it was not possible to get precise times from flight/radar data? (I'm not doubting you, I just don't understand how FAA or whomever interprets their flight information)
Welcome to DU! :hi:

[quicknthedead]

128. Times Are Accurate: I've researched it. No reason to believe otherwise.

Hi, mirandapriestly,

No. The FAA, the space program, etc. live and die by getting it to the second. There is nothing out there that questions their times, either.

Goes for Lamont-Doherty as well.

Please spread this message all you can. I believe we are running out of time.

Thanks!

Craig

[DemonFighterLives]

114. Welc ome to DU!

Interesting stuff.
:dem:

[quicknthedead]

130. More Than Interesting...

If you think about it a little, it's enough to put a crack in the emperor's palace--and he has no clothes.

This is hard, factual evidence that has the potential to bust this 9/11 coverup wide-open.

We need to see these murdering traitors apprehended and brought to justice now!

The cat's out of the bag on this. It is spreading on the internet and is the hottest thing to hit the 9/11 Truth Movement because it is simple, factual evidence--no theory here.

[John Q. Citizen]

151. The fact that there are corresponding discrepancies

for both towers is particularly of interest.

Is there a sesmic spike for the demolition of #7?

I recall Loose Change used sesmic evidence to make the point that explosions were indeed going off after the impacts.

There is a lot of very good research occuring. Dr. Jones thermitic research looks very interesting, and this time descrepancy you write about is very interesting also.

Between the media push by activists and the continuing scientific research, we need to push for criminal accountability. I think Dr. Jones has someone scared. There seems to be a major push to discredit/undermine his work. However, if planted incendiary/explosive evidence is confirmed (and your sesmic/flight data observation supports that line inquirey) then the logical conclusion is whoever did it had access to the buildings prior to 9/11. Not bloody likely that would be the accused 19 hijackers.

We need to push for grand jury investigations. State grand juries and local grand juries are probably our best bet politically. Anyone know if a local or state grand jury can investigate the death of a citizen, even if that death occured in another jurisdiction? How about State local grand jury from the airliner departure points?

[quicknthedead]

158. Yes, the coverup is unraveling quickly now...

Go here to see Lamont-Doherty's data for the seismic records for 9/11:

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

The spike for WTC7 was

.6 on the Richter,

but the spikes for the explosions in the basements for both towers (before the planes impacted) were

.9 and
.7

Are we to believe planes hitting buildings up near the 90th floor cause GREATER seismic readings (and this is logarithmic data which makes the disparities even greater) than a 47-story building coming down?

This is damning evidence of US government involvment and coverup.

I agree 100% with you regarding the push for serious investigations.
This crime of the century is not going to go away.

(excerpt from this thread topic "THE SMOKING GUN")
What must be done? Two things:

(1) A new independent, quasi-private-public, non-politicized 9/11 investigation must be formed at once to approach and pursue this for what it really is: the crime of the century. Good detective work is what is needed—the conspirators must be identified, apprehended, jailed, and brought to justice as soon as possible.

(2) The 9/11 Commission and the Bush Administration must answer this question:

WHAT CAUSED THESE SEISMIC SPIKES BEFORE THE PLANE IMPACTS?

They must answer, they must answer now—and if they do not, it is the same as an admission of guilt.

A rogue element of conspirators with the US Government committed mass murder, treason, and betrayal to America on September 11, 2001.

[vincent_vega_lives]

190. LDEO's Arthur Lerner-Lam dissagrees

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground.

http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/story11_16_01.html

[quicknthedead]

191. We're talking about seismic data on the plane impacts, not the towers

Can't you read?

[Carefulplease]

193. No evidence of bombs there...

The spike for WTC7 was

.6 on the Richter,

but the spikes for the explosions in the basements for both towers (before the planes impacted) were

.9 and
.7

Are we to believe planes hitting buildings up near the 90th floor cause GREATER seismic readings (and this is logarithmic data which makes the disparities even greater) than a 47-story building coming down?

The aircraft impacts released roughly 3 Gigajoule of energy, or 1 ton of TNT, each. They released this energy within 1/4 of a second or so (averaging 12 Gigawatt). (Width of the towers: 63.7m ; Speed of the planes ~220m/s) They produced focused shear waves in few columns, which traveled down to the ground where they set longitudinal seismic waves efficiently.

The collapse of WTC7 released roughly 250 Gigajoule of energy over a roughly 17 seconds interval (averaging 15 Gigawatt) . The collapse occurred over a wide unfocussed area while transmitting downward momentum to the ground which might not be as effective a process for producing longitudinal seismic waves. The Richter scale is indicative of peak intensities, also. So it is not directly indicative of the overall energetic output of events.

So, we have 12GW aircraft impacts vs. 15GW progressive building collapse.

So, things aren't that straightforward.

[quicknthedead]

195. Excellent Answer

I can see your point and can envision it means -- yes, you are right...about WTC7! However, you are wrong about the planes causing these spikes.

The planes did not strike the towers until 14 and 17 seconds later, per the 9/11 Commission Final Report:

<“Impact Times”>
LDEO
8:46:26 and 9:02:54


9/11 Commission
8:46:40 and 9:03:11

Respective Differences
14 seconds
17 seconds

[savemefromdumbya]

164. I think that people are now wary of the government

especially after the deal on Iraq