A few questions for the conspiracy theorists.

[TheWraith]

If a building collapsing at the speed dictated by gravity is suspicious, how is a building supposed to collapse in a non-suspicious way?

Would you care to share video of what a non-suspicious collapse looks like?

If no plane hit the Pentagon, what happened to the plane and the passengers?

If you believe that they were killed, why would you beleive that any rational plotter would go to all the effort of using a missile or smaller plane to blow up the Pentagon, plus hiding and destroying the real flight and its people, when they could simply fly the plane into the building and not risk inconvenient witnesses?

As a corrolary, why do you insist on believing improbable, impractical and unneccessarily contorted theories about the execution of events, when simpler and more obvious explanations could still be made to fit your beliefs?

And do you ever consider the possibility that you're wrong?

[dailykoff]

1. There haven't been any such collapses.

Which is suspicious.

[quickesst]

2. Exactly...

I gotta chuckle at that one.:rofl: Only answer you could give. Thanks.
quickesst

[TheWraith]

6. You mean no building in history has ever collapsed?

If you're referring to the idea that no steel frame building has ever collapsed, you've wrong. If you're suggesting that no steel frame building has collapsed due to fire, you're still wrong, completely ignoring the structural damage.

So you're either hopelessly clueless, or simply changing the question that was asked in a nearly Rumsfeldian dodge of the truth.

[dailykoff]

7. Did I say that?

Hint: no.

[Make7]

9. OTOH, you have said that steel buildings only collapse from explosives.

"...steel buildings do not, repeat not collapse except through the use of explosives." - dailykoff

- Make7

[dailykoff]

11. Bingo

Now you're talking. Keep it up.

[Make7]

34. Was the McCormick Place Exhibition Center a steel building? YES or NO? nt.

[dailykoff]

35. see below

[Make7]

38. The correct answer was YES. It was steel and it collapsed due to fire.

Didn't you just confirm your previous statement: "... steel buildings do not, repeat not collapse except through the use of explosives"?

- Make7

[dailykoff]

51. not a highrise. Neither are the steel garden sheds

they sell at Home Depot, in case that's next.

[Make7]

75. "...over 500,000 square feet of exhibition space."

McCormick Place, an exhibition center on Chicago’s Lake Shore Drive, opened in November 1960. The center included a theater, several restaurants and banquet rooms, and over 500,000 square feet of exhibition space.

Comparing it to a shed would seem unreasonable to me.

Just so we are clear here, you are the one that said "...steel buildings do not, repeat not collapse except through the use of explosives." Is that correct?

- Make7

[dailykoff]

80. A big shed is still a shed,

and still irrelevant.

[Make7]

85. It's still a steel building that collapsed due to fire.

"...steel buildings do not, repeat not collapse except through the use of explosives." - dailykoff

- Make7

[Make7]

39. Was the Pino Suarez highrise a steel building? YES or NO? nt.

[dailykoff]

52. toppled in an earthquake, did not collapse. (n/t)

[Make7]

74. "Total collapse of the 21 story Pino Suarez tower..."

"Although steel structures generally performed well during the past earthquakes, severe damages were observed in the steel frames of the Morisada building in Sendai, Japan after the 1978 Miyagi-Oki earthquake (Wang and Lu, 1984). Total collapse of the 21 story Pino Suarez tower occurred during the 1985 Mexico City earthquake (Ger, Gheng and Lu, 1993). This building used a combination of concentrically braced frames and moment-resisting frames. The causes of these damages are now well understood. With continuing research on the various issues discussed, it is certain that improved seismic analysis and design methodologies for steel structures will evolve. These methodologies will help insure that severe damage or collapse will not occur in the future."


Source: Behavior of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas, page 51

- Make7

[dailykoff]

79. It toppled. Check the photos. (n/t)

[Make7]

83. The civil engineers that wrote that report forgot to look at the photos.

They must have forgotten to look at the photos because they thought it was a collapse.

Collapse Behavior of Pino Suarez Building During 1985 Mexico City Earthquake
Journal of Structural Engineering, Volume 119, Issue 3, pp. 852-870 (March 1993)

Jeng-Fuh Ger,¹ Associate Member, ASCE; Franklin Y. Cheng,² Fellow, ASCE; and Le-Wu Lu,³ Member, ASCE

 1 Postdoctoral Fellow of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO
 2 Curators' Prof. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO
 3 Prof. of Civ. Engrg., Lehigh Univ., Bethlehem, PA

- Make7

[wildbilln864]

8. Really?

No steel framed skyscrapers have ever completely collapsed due to a fire. I've heard this stated as fact and no one so far has disputed it until now. If you have evidence otherwise, please cite it. Otherwise you are being deceptive.

[TheWraith]

14. McCormick Place Exhibition Center, Chicago, 1967.

Steel frame building completely destroyed by fire. There was also a building somewhere in Brazil, I think, the name escapes me, which had 30 (of 45) floors collapse due to fire. Also steel frame. There are other examples.

Steel isn't magically immune to fire. It heats up the way anything does, and when it's hot it loses its strength, and that can cause collapse.

[dailykoff]

18. A shed is not a highrise. (n/t)

[Carefulplease]

21. What is your take on the steel structure of the Windsor Tower?

What caused the perimeter steel columns and the concrete floor slabs they supported to progressively collapse? What it thermite, high explosives or maybe an earthquake?

[dailykoff]

22. The Windsor was not a steel-framed building

and it didn't collapse, either.

[Carefulplease]

24. However much of the perimeter steel frame collapsed. Why?

My question isn't about steel-framed high-rises. It is about the progressive collapse of the steel frame of the Windsor Tower in Madrid.

The reinforced concrete core stood. But why did most of the steel frame above the mechanical floor collapse? What was the cause of the progressive collapse of so many concrete floor slabs? What caused the structural stell columns supporting them to fail? Was it thermite? Termites? Fire ants? Thermobaric weapons? A hurricane? A snowstorms? Something else?

[dailykoff]

27. Because it was a crappy unfireproofed curtain wall.

edit to add, and it burned for 23 hours. Also, the building had no sprinklers, was undergoing extensive renovation, and may have been torched.

[Carefulplease]

31. It really was fire alone that produced this collapse ?!

Edited to fix unit (gallons instead of tons)

You don't tell me!

And the perimeter steel structure was a "curtain wall"? You mean, this was an open plan floor design with the non-core structural columns pushed on the perimeter just like the WTC? You don't tell me!

It burned for 23 hours, but floors started to progressively collapse after about two and a half hour, didn't they? And the Windsor Tower wasn't even hit by a 150 tons aircraft delivering half a ton of TNT worth of kinetic energy and thousands of gallons of fuel to ignite huge fires instantly on half a dozen floors?

The sprinkler system wasn't operational? Just like the WTC's whose main pipes were taken out by the impacting aircrafts? You don't tell me!

Did not the "extensive renovation" involve the addition of fireproofing to the structural steel elements? Are you arguing that the possible addition of some such material really contributed to the collapse? You don't tell me!

[dailykoff]

32. Strain any harder

and you'll give yourself a hernia. That's quite a stinky.

[Carefulplease]

33. You have a fondness for unsubstantial one-liners...

I am just unspinning your spin...

Your take on the Windsor Tower case is peculiar.

Much of the steel frame progressively collapsed while the steel reinforced concrete core stood.

Your spin: The tower isn't a steel framed building.

The progressive collapse began two and a half hour after the fire started.

Your spin: It burned for 23 hours.

The design is similar to the WTC tower's in one respect: It had open-plan floors with perimeter column walls.

Your spin: The towers had crappy unfireproofed curtain walls.

They were in the process of upgrading the fire protection system. So, just as is the case of the WTC towers, the state of the fireproofing is an issue.

Your spin: One contributing cause of the collapse is that the building was undergoing "extensive renovation".

[TheWraith]

60. Bottom line, fire can collapse steel.

Steel, while strong, doesn't have any supernatural protection against the high temperatures of even a normal fire. Scale up the steel to the level of major support beams, scale up the fire to be fed by 24,000 gallons of high-quality aviation fuel, and then destroy or compromise many of the supports by flying a jetliner into them at 500 miles an hour, and you have a recipe for a structural failure. Arguing about what does and does not constitute a steel frame building doesn't change that.

[dailykoff]

61. You're grasping at straws.

There are different types of construction and comparing the steel in the Windsor building to the WTC is arguing from pure self-delusion. Ditto the McCormick hall.

[Carefulplease]

66. How was the steel of the Windsor Tower relevantly different? n/t

[dailykoff]

82. In every relevant way.

Do I really need to list them? :eyes:

p.s. if so it will have to wait until Friday.

[Carefulplease]

86. Yes, list them please, Friday or whenever suits you. n/t

[Sinti]

59. Roof collapse you can see in the pictures

The roof fell in. Not at all unusual. I'll continue to look for buildings that pancaked, but none of the ones I've seen so far had total structural failure. A floor or two collapsed and the progression was stopped by the lower supporting members, roof fell in, that sort of thing seems to be the norm. :shrug: If you can find one, preferably with pictures, please post it somewhere in this forum, I'd genuinely like to see it.

[mhatrw]

70. You have now answered you first question.

A partial collapse (like 30 of 45 floors) is one of the ways a high-rise can collapse without such collapse being highly suspicious.

[dailykoff]

81. Not really.

There is no instance of such a partial collapse occurring in a steel-framed highrise.

:shrug:

p.s. I'm guessing the "Brazil" building he's thinking of is the Windsor hotel in Madrid, which wasn't steel and in any case didn't lose a single floor.

[Carefulplease]

87. Oh Great Master of Spin...

p.s. I'm guessing the "Brazil" building he's thinking of is the Windsor hotel in Madrid, which wasn't steel and in any case didn't lose a single floor.

The Windsor Tower had both a perimeter steel frame and a reinforced concrete core. The core stood and much of the steel frame collapsed together with the concrete slabs it supported. Would the Tower have fared better if the core columns also had been built like the perimeter?

[DoYouEverWonder]

76. When someone has to resort

to put downs and insults it usually means they don't have facts to back up their arguments.

[greyl]

19. “These structures were so unique that their collapse does not represent

the performance expected of any other existing steel high-rise structure subjected to the same scenario”
- Professor Abolhassen Astaneh-Asl

________________________________

A roomful of engineers and analysts—whose own simulation studies revolve around more practical, everyday concerns like how much torque a new wrench design can sustain—got a sneak preview of those upcoming results at MSC. Software’s2006 Virtual Product Development Conference in Huntington Beach, CA, in July. http://vpd.mscsoftware.com/americas/

“The simulation model shows the plane slicing right through the outer walls of the as-built building like it was a thin soda can,” Astaneh-Asl explained to the spellbound crowd.

He described the issue in a nutshell: “Because of their unique design and the use of the so called “steel bearing wall” tube structural system, which as far as we know has never been used before or after its application in the WTC towers, the buildings essentially showed no resistance to the impact of a medium-sized plane flying into them at about 450miles per hour.”

Elaborating on the novelty of the design, he said that the notion of a ‘structural framing system’ simply didn’t apply in the case of the twin towers. “Rather than traditional columns and beams, the designers employed a steel bearing wall tube system for the perimeter and steel truss joists in the floors that connected the gravity load-carrying inner core columns to the outside perimeter steel bearing walls. The relatively thin steel bearing wall pre-fabricated units of the perimeter bearing tube were bolted together in a Lego-like fashion to expedite construction” he explained.

www.designnews.com/article/CA6363426.html

[dailykoff]

28. I'll bet he sold a lot of wrenches that day. (n/t)

[AZCat]

29. "Wenches" - not "wrenches" n/t

[greyl]

30. What a pitiful response! nt

[petgoat]

3. ..

how is a building supposed to collapse

Asymmetrical damage and asymmetrical fires should yield asymmetrical collapses, perhaps
partial collapses. The energy required to break apart the structure should absord
some of the energy of the collapse (at least in the early stages), slowing it down.

If no plane hit the Pentagon, what happened to the plane and the passengers?

Flown into the sea, maybe?

they could simply fly the plane into the building

Try flying a 270 degree turn while diving 7000 feet in two minutes, ending up just feet
off the ground and pointed in the right direction and then fly into a building just 80 feet
high. Hani Hanjour could not qualify to rent a Cessna a few weeks before 9/11. He was
that bad.

why do you insist on believing improbable, impractical and unneccessarily contorted
theories





Which is simpler?

1) After two hijacked planes had been flown into buildings, an inept pilot
managed to fly 450 miles into the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, execute a
"top gun" spiraling dive, and fly 400 mph just feet off the ground into a target 80 feet
high, which target happened to be the HQ of the most powerful military force the world has
ever seen.

2) Somebody lobbed a missile into the Pentagon.

Which is simpler?

1) Two aircraft inflicting asymmetrical strutural damage and smokey wimpy fires manage to
cause the total progressive collapse of two buildings built to resist hurricane winds.

2) Somebody planted explosives in the elevator shafts.

Which is simpler?

1) 4 hijacked planes escaped detection because FAA personnel violated their own procedures
and failed to report off-course aircraft to NORAD, even after 3 planes had been flown into
buildings.

2) The hijackers knew the war games would disrupt the air defense.

And do you ever consider the possibility that you're wrong?

Constantly. Which is why I prefer to do compare-and-contrast analysis rather than claim I
know the Truth.

One thing I can state confidently: The official story is implausible and full of holes,
the coverups are suspicious, and we need a new investigation.

[Klimmer]

4. Petgoat, well done. :-) eom

[TheWraith]

10. This is better.

<i>Asymmetrical damage and asymmetrical fires should yield asymmetrical collapses, perhaps partial collapses.</i>

Actually, the South Tower did have an asymmetrical collapse. If you watch the video, you'll notice that the top of the building tips over before it collapses, pivoting towards the side that the plane sliced through.

Partial collapses are increasingly unlikely as buildings get larger, because the mechanics needed to hold them upright are more complex, and the weight of any potential debris much higher. Each tower of the WTC weighed nearly half a million tons. At that size, any massive critical fault would quickly overwhelm the safety margins and result in a total collapse.

Try flying a 270 degree turn while diving 7000 feet in two minutes, ending up just feet off the ground and pointed in the right direction and then fly into a building just 80 feet high. Hani Hanjour could not qualify to rent a Cessna a few weeks before 9/11. He was
that bad.

Actually, that manuver was not intentional, and actually due to a lack of skill rather than an abundance. If you look at the path they took into Washington, it appears that they began turning with the intention of striking the river-wards side of the Pentagon, where the higher-ranking staff are. However, the pilot overestimated how fast you could turn a fully loaded 767, and ended up overshooting his target, ramming into a less critical part of the building.

Which is simpler?
1) After two hijacked planes had been flown into buildings, an inept pilot managed to fly 450 miles into the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, execute a "top gun" spiraling dive, and fly 400 mph just feet off the ground into a target 80 feet high, which target happened to be the HQ of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen.
2) Somebody lobbed a missile into the Pentagon.

The thing about the missile theory is that it's so convoluted as to require an almost science-fictionesqe suspension of disbelief. All the eyewitnesses who said they saw a plane were in on the conspiracy? The people who fired the missile? The people who disposed of the plane and passengers? The people who were running air traffic control? You'd need to have the guaranteed assurance of cooperation from all of these people, and anyone else who was within range to see what happened. And none of them ever decided to come forward and tell their side? No bits of the actual plane ever showed up?

Which is simpler?
1) Two aircraft inflicting asymmetrical strutural damage and smokey wimpy fires manage to
cause the total progressive collapse of two buildings built to resist hurricane winds.
2) Somebody planted explosives in the elevator shafts.

Jet fuel does not make a "smokey wimpy fire." If you think it does, feel free to try putting out 24,000 gallons of jet fuel, burning at 1,000 degrees, in an enclosed space. That supposed story about the firefighters saying they could put it out--I don't know if that anecdote is even true, or if it's an urban legend. But if someone actually did say that, than they were clearly mistaken as to where the main fire was. 24,000 gallons of jet fuel do not simply vanish, and none of the people here who brazenly say that these fires couldn't damage the steel supports know what the hell they're talking about.

And yes, I think it's not unreasonable to assume that when a building weighing in at nearly 500 kilotons of steel and concrete has a large number of its support beams snapped in a violent manner, and the rest subjected to a 1,000 degree fire, that the building could lose integrity. Compare that to the alternative: a conspiracy spooled out over years, involving hundreds, possibly thousands of people, where not one person has ever admitted anything, or a single guilty conscience prompted confession, or a scrap of written evidence discovered.

Which is simpler?
1) 4 hijacked planes escaped detection because FAA personnel violated their own procedures
and failed to report off-course aircraft to NORAD, even after 3 planes had been flown into
buildings.
2) The hijackers knew the war games would disrupt the air defense.

How about this option: misunderstandings, confusion and panic over what was happening, what proceedures to follow, who was in control, etcetera resulted in information not being passed along properly, people not doing their jobs in a professional manner, and rules not being followed. If you listen to the air traffic tapes, it's clear that at a lot of points people don't understand what's going on, assuming that there's been an accidental crash or the like, or they're simply out of it and not responding properly. Occam's razor: the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

[Carefulplease]

13. TheWraith, better done. :-) eom

[TheWraith]

15. Addition on the subject of the fire.

I found out that that claim about what the firefighters said is actually true, but with a big astrisk. The firefighters who made that report were on the 78th floor, two floors below the point where fire was visible from the outside of the building, and five or more floors below the main body of the fire.

[planeman]

40. A fine synopsis regarding these outlandish theories.

As you quite rightly accentuate, the implication of a missile being fired is bordering on insanity.I was there.I saw the plane as it banked and hit the South Tower.And yet these anonymouse "9-11 truthlings " continue to insist with this missile rubbish.There was no missile.Just a plane flown by Islamic Arab extremists..The heat generated by the burning jet fuel weakened the structural supports of the building causing it to collapse.Amen.

[mhatrw]

71. You must be joking.

Actually, the South Tower did have an asymmetrical collapse. If you watch the video, you'll notice that the top of the building tips over before it collapses, pivoting towards the side that the plane sliced through.

Right. So why didn't it finish toppling over?

Partial collapses are increasingly unlikely as buildings get larger, because the mechanics needed to hold them upright are more complex, and the weight of any potential debris much higher. Each tower of the WTC weighed nearly half a million tons. At that size, any massive critical fault would quickly overwhelm the safety margins and result in a total collapse.

At any point each structure was designed to support far more than the weight of the building above it.

Actually, that manuver was not intentional, and actually due to a lack of skill rather than an abundance. If you look at the path they took into Washington, it appears that they began turning with the intention of striking the river-wards side of the Pentagon, where the higher-ranking staff are. However, the pilot overestimated how fast you could turn a fully loaded 767, and ended up overshooting his target, ramming into a less critical part of the building.

Exactly. All the terrorist pilots obviously lacked skill compared to our USAF pilots. That's why their passenger jets beat our air defense's fighter jets to 3 targets (including the Pentagon) successfully and only a passenger revolt stopped them from reaching the fourth over 100 minutes after the first hijacking report.

Jet fuel does not make a "smokey wimpy fire." If you think it does, feel free to try putting out 24,000 gallons of jet fuel, burning at 1,000 degrees, in an enclosed space.

What does the actual physical evidence that NIST recovered say about the fires caused by this jet fuel? It says that less than 1% of the recovered pieces in the vicinity of observed fires showed any signs of being heated in excess of 250C before the tower collapses. Further, no recovered metal showed any signs of being heated in excess of 600C.

But why should we believe what the evidence actually says when you've created a far simpler fantasy world for us?

How about this option: misunderstandings, confusion and panic over what was happening, what proceedures to follow, who was in control, etcetera resulted in information not being passed along properly, people not doing their jobs in a professional manner, and rules not being followed. If you listen to the air traffic tapes, it's clear that at a lot of points people don't understand what's going on, assuming that there's been an accidental crash or the like, or they're simply out of it and not responding properly. Occam's razor: the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

Here is what Occam's Razor actually says: entities should not be multiplied beyond what is necessary to explain a phenomenon.

Your theory proposes a veritable slew of entities:

1) misunderstandings
2) confusion
3) panic over what was happening
4) incompetence
5) lack of control
6) compromised lines of communication
7) rules not being followed

that explain nothing.

If you are correct, please tell us exactly who was accountable for which errors and what discipline each accountable party received.

[BootinUp]

73. How about upper structures in motion?

Can the structure below stop them? Overcome the small matter of inertia? Maybe thats what Live load means in the building design specifications. Live as in catch me I'm falling.

[hack89]

78. Physics challenged?

1. Compare the lateral forces to the force of gravity. Once the top was separated from the lower floors the only direction it was going was down - the direction of gravity.

2. Learn the difference between dynamic and static loads. The load handling capability of each floor refers to static loading. Once all that weight is moving the dynamic loading is orders of magnitude bigger. A simple thought experiment. I could balance a 25 pound weight on your head with no problem (a little uncomfortable perhaps.) Your skull can handle a static weight of 25 pounds. Would you let me drop that same weight on your head from 10 feet? 25 feet? 100 feet? Of course not - it would crush your skull like an egg shell.


Your fire argument is disingenuous as NIST only recovered 1 percent of the steel. That is too small a sample to make such a definitive statement. The proof of the strength of the fires is clearly evident in the smoke plumes. Think for second about how much energy was required to lift a massive column of hot air and particulate matter miles into the atmosphere - it was visible from space. What other source of energy was there besides fire?

[TheWraith]

89. Not in the least. Are you?

Right. So why didn't it finish toppling over?

It did. The small lateral motion caused by the failure of the supports on one side couldn't alter the fact that gravity was a far stronger influence. Hence, most of the upper section landed on the lower section of the tower, triggering a catastrophic collapse of that section.

At any point each structure was designed to support far more than the weight of the building above it.

Yes. And the INERTIA of having the upper sections collapse and land on the lower sections massively outpaced the safety margin. That's what shock ratings and dynamic loads are all about. Even if a given section was capable of holding twice the weight of the building above it, given inertia that upper section might produce a shock of ten or twenty times its normal weight when it lands. The longer the drop, the greater the power.

Exactly. All the terrorist pilots obviously lacked skill compared to our USAF pilots. That's why their passenger jets beat our air defense's fighter jets to 3 targets (including the Pentagon) successfully and only a passenger revolt stopped them from reaching the fourth over 100 minutes after the first hijacking report.

Well for one thing, jets weren't even scrambled until it was practically too late. And furthermore, the intercept pilots were trying to find a couple airliners out of hundreds of the things in the air, without the benefit of transponders. Is it really that much of a surprise they couldn't do it in four minutes or less?

What does the actual physical evidence that NIST recovered say about the fires caused by this jet fuel? It says that less than 1% of the recovered pieces in the vicinity of observed fires showed any signs of being heated in excess of 250C before the tower collapses. Further, no recovered metal showed any signs of being heated in excess of 600C.

As I recall, didn't NIST only recover about 1/100th of the steel? So any conclusions that they draw are from a pretty small sampling, and the steel least likely to be recovered would also be the most damaged.

Here is what Occam's Razor actually says: entities should not be multiplied beyond what is necessary to explain a phenomenon.

Whereas your theories only have people planting bombs in the World Trade Center, missing planes, mystery hijackers, and thousands of people who would have to know of or be involved with such a plot in order to carry it off.

I think we'll stick with my explanation.

[TomClash]

84. I think the 2 WTC collapse is incorrect

The "asymmetrical collapse" was barely noticeable and was not at the point of impact but quite far above it. Thereafter the building collapsed almost uniformly. And then why didn't 1 WTC collapse asymmetrically?

[Sinti]

5. Well...

First question, more slowly, there's this thing called resistance. Steel should not instantly break as if there's nothing there. The building wasn't made of toothpicks, you know. Keep in mind, the lower portions, which were not damaged by fire or airplane crash, had been supporting the upper portions for nearly 30 years, yet they all gave way, nice and symmetrical, as if they'd all been hit at the same time? It's suspicious.

Steel melts and deforms like you can see in the picture below. Notice the blackened steel frame of a building in the middle. It's leaning over to the side, burned out completely, this is what happens.

http://www.photoschule.com/webinfo/ausgabe_14/New%20York,%202001%20-%20Ruins%20of%20World%20Trade%20Center.jpg

As far as the plane and the Pentagon - I believe a plane hit the Pentagon :shrug:

Why do you insist on believing improbable, impractical and unnecessarily contorted coincidence theories regarding 9/11. You do understand that the WTC and Pentagon are only single threads in this fabric, yes? Is there a point at which you draw the line, where it's not just incompetence, but malfeasance? If so, where is that line? What action on the part of the government would it take for you to say, hey, they meant to do that?

Edited to add:

Do I ever consider that I'm wrong? I would dearly love to be wrong. I follow up on things to try to prove myself wrong. The idea that I'm right makes my blood run cold. I can't, however, force myself believe the 9/11 fairytale. Willful ignorance is reprehensible in my personal view, therefore I will not be willfully ignorant, dig?

[TheWraith]

12. Yes, exactly.

A fire that can warp steel like that on the OUTSIDE of the building can do even worst to the steel on the INSIDE of the building where it can build up more heat. The supports that weren't snapped or damaged by the impact would have been superheated by the fire, weakening them and reducing their ability to support the strucure above them until they snapped.

Each tower weighed almost a half a million tons. Even a portion of that weight, collapsing onto the next uncompromised floor, would twist and snap the steel support beams, crashing through to the next floor, and the next, in fractions of a second. The supports were designed to work together in holding it up, not to bear up under a collapse like that.

And frankly, I've never seen this evidence of an elaborate tapestry of reasons to think that 9/11 was a government conspiracy. Perhaps you'd like to show me.

[HughBeaumont]

17. Read "The Terror Timeline".

All facts. You got no missiles, pod people, holograms, grassy knolls, aliens, not even an hors d'ouevre of controlled demo or Pentagate when reading this book. It's all about putting two and two together and you absolutely cannot blame it on mere incompetence after reading this. The incompetence theory cannot even BEGIN to explain how a supposedly iron-clad and highly advanced military, intelligence and other governmental programs which you give over half of your tax dollars to every year, performed a wholesale belly-flop on that day only. Let's forget that several of the hijackers were on numerous terrorist watch lists and were still allowed to board airplanes. Let's set aside the even more ridiculous notion that four planes were hijacked simultaneously and not a damned thing was done to stop them. How is incompetence supposed to be believed when considering that highly-trained-in-this-sort-of-situation NORAD and the FAA knew a full HOUR that two planes crashed into the WTC, and Flight 77 was STILL not only allowed to penetrate and fly all over sacred DC airspace, but crash into the heart of America's defense as WELL? I'm sorry your bullshit detector needs a battery recharge, but don't call US moonbats because of it.

The biggest pile of stench to me is the enormous amount of puts placed on the WTC's biggest clients, Airline stocks, gold, etc. days before 9/11. Know of any traders who are such experts in their field that they can place the farm on specific companies in specific industries and LO AND BEHOLD on Monday, something catastrophic happens with nearly every one of those specific companies? I'd sure like to meet this team of Jane Dixons, wouldn't you? Maybe they can predict some Powerball numbers for me.

[Sinti]

26. I'll offer a quick and dirty, if you care to you can read the Timeline

It's a lot of information:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

They moved war games that would normally take place in October to coincide with other training exercises taking place on 9/11. This preoccupied those who would have defended us. Consider the ATC/FAA/NORAD standard operating procedures, a plane turns off its transponder, you send up jets to find out what happened, and possibly bring them down. This type of thing happened/happens basically once a day or more (averaged out over the course of a year). It's nothing new or unusual.

On 9/11 everybody had their heads on backward. I don't believe there was a "stand down order" as some do, there didn't need to be. The exercises included inputs into the radar system and no one seemed to know what was happening. The then head of NORAD, rather than being demoted or something of the kind, was promoted to heading up the new NORTHCOM. He's now retired.

Even if they hadn't been chasing their tails at NORAD, the SOP for sending up jets was changed months before. They couldn't go until Rummy gave the okay according to the new reg.

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were in a meeting together when the Towers were hit. They knew we were under attack, yet Wolfie himself said they "didn't think there was anything they could do," so they continued with their meeting. They continued with their meeting until the Pentagon itself was hit. Does that sound like an even remotely reasonable thing to do when we're under attack? There was nothing they could do?

General Montague Winfield, Deputy Director for Operations for the National Military Command Center (the war room) had Captain Leidig, a rookie, take over his role as the NMCC’s Director of Operations from 8:30 to 10:30 on the morning of 9/11. Leidig relieved him minutes after Flight 11 was identified as hijacked. After the Towers were hit, he still left him in charge. It was Leidig's first day on that job, he had only qualified to do this one month before.

General Mahmud Ahmed The head of the ISI (Pakistan Intelligence) was in a meeting with Porter Goss and Bob Graham (chairs of the Intelligence Committee) on the morning of 9/11, while we were being attacked. Seems reasonable that the head of the ISI would be meeting with our intelligence folk, until you find out that he had wired $100000 wired directly to Mohamed Atta, via an underling but on his command. Mahmud later had to step down because of this. Porter Goss and Bob Graham went on to head the Joint Inquiry into 9/11, and of course Goss did a tour as head of the CIA clearing out the anti-Bush folk in there.

Thomas Pickard, acting head of the FBI at the time, tried to warn Ashcroft to prevent 9/11 and Ashcroft told him, "I don't want to hear any more about that." Several FBI field agents (look up Robert Wright, Harry Samit, and Colleen Rowley if you're interested) were stopped cold in their investigations. No one wanted them to investigate what was about to happen. The official story seems to say this happened because it would have implicated close friends of the * crime family, namely the Saudi Royals and the bin Ladens. John O'Neill, the top anti-terrorist guy at the FBI, quit, and wound up going to work at WTC, because the FBI would not let him do his job.

Follow the money, it's where all good investigations go if they plan on getting anywhere. The money came from *'s friends, other than the Paki Intel general guy mentioned above, who I've read was pretty much hand-picked by our CIA. Prince Bandar's wife (that's the infamous Bandar Bush) made direct payments to hijackers (Saudi women are allowed to handle their own money? Since when?) The bin Laden family financed a great deal of the operations, though they say they've disowned their won and so on. The bin Laden's have also gained quite handsomely from the post-9/11 military spend frenzy, BTW. Then there's a man named Khalid bin Mahfouz old BCCI chum of poppy and banker for the CIA, he also financed their operations. He's a can of worms all to himself.

Think about this. Bush sits at Booker - he just sits there after he knows we're under attack. Rummy and Wolfie just continue their meeting until the Pentagon is hit, then they spring into action. Winfield leaves this noob in charge of the war room after he knows we're under attack. The Saudis and Pakis paid for the attack, yet they're our good friends and allies in this GWOT. People that should have been demoted or fired were promoted. Now we're in "the Long War" or "world war III" as * likes to call it. Who's making the bank on this? Cui Bono?

I could go on for a long time, this just touches on a few things, but I think you'll get the point if you're going to. Honestly, the more you find out, the harder it is to believe the fairytale
.

[BootinUp]

37. Edited

Its a mix of what can't be proved with what doesn't mean squat with a healthy dose of conspiratorial spin.

[Sinti]

49. I only posted Facts that are not in dispute.

You can't argue the facts, so you like many others here resort to lame attempts at ridicule. It doesn't bother you that *'s friends paid for the event. It doesn't bother you that they went out of their way to enable. You add nothing to the debate. Have a nice deaf/blind life.

[BootinUp]

56. Ok....I'll spend more time answering you

sorry for the short non answer. But I am not blind or deaf to your claims I just do not see anything damning here.

>>>They moved war games that would normally take place in October to coincide with other training exercises taking place on 9/11. This preoccupied those who would have defended us.

Ok, but the coincidence of dates does not strengthen any theory unless you can show it was not a coincidence i.e. evidence of plotting/communication regarding the dates of the excercise in connection with a discussion of a terrorist attack. Why should a judge even grant you a warrant to look into that? He the judge, will make the reasonable assumption that the dates were a coincidence.


>>>Consider the ATC/FAA/NORAD standard operating procedures, a plane turns off its transponder, you send up jets to find out what happened, and possibly bring them down. This type of thing happened/happens basically once a day or more (averaged out over the course of a year). It's nothing new or unusual.

Do you have a link to a credible source on this?


>>>On 9/11 everybody had their heads on backward. I don't believe there was a "stand down order" as some do, there didn't need to be. The exercises included inputs into the radar system and no one seemed to know what was happening. The then head of NORAD, rather than being demoted or something of the kind, was promoted to heading up the new NORTHCOM. He's now retired.

Everything I have seen indicates that the ATC/FAA dropped the ball more than NORAD. But the whole system appears to have underestimated the threat. There are lots of people that have not been held accountable for the incompetence that allowed 911 to happen.


>>>Even if they hadn't been chasing their tails at NORAD, the SOP for sending up jets was changed months before. They couldn't go until Rummy gave the okay according to the new reg.

credible source that I can look at?


>>>Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were in a meeting together when the Towers were hit. They knew we were under attack, yet Wolfie himself said they "didn't think there was anything they could do," so they continued with their meeting. They continued with their meeting until the Pentagon itself was hit. Does that sound like an even remotely reasonable thing to do when we're under attack? There was nothing they could do?

I need to see this in context. Where did you get this info. It could mean they didn't know enough to suspect an intentional attack yet.


>>>General Montague Winfield, Deputy Director for Operations for the National Military Command Center (the war room) had Captain Leidig, a rookie, take over his role as the NMCC’s Director of Operations from 8:30 to 10:30 on the morning of 9/11. Leidig relieved him minutes after Flight 11 was identified as hijacked. After the Towers were hit, he still left him in charge. It was Leidig's first day on that job, he had only qualified to do this one month before.

Link for me to look at? Doubtful it can be confirmed as part of a conspiracy.

>>>General Mahmud Ahmed The head of the ISI (Pakistan Intelligence) was in a meeting with Porter Goss and Bob Graham (chairs of the Intelligence Committee) on the morning of 9/11, while we were being attacked. Seems reasonable that the head of the ISI would be meeting with our intelligence folk, until you find out that he had wired $100000 wired directly to Mohamed Atta, via an underling but on his command. Mahmud later had to step down because of this. Porter Goss and Bob Graham went on to head the Joint Inquiry into 9/11, and of course Goss did a tour as head of the CIA clearing out the anti-Bush folk in there.

So what are you suggesting other than this guy was bad and had direct connections to al Qaeda? Is that Grahams or Goss's fault that they didn't know that? They colluded with him? Are you seriously saying they colluded with him?

>>>Thomas Pickard, acting head of the FBI at the time, tried to warn Ashcroft to prevent 9/11 and Ashcroft told him, "I don't want to hear any more about that." Several FBI field agents (look up Robert Wright, Harry Samit, and Colleen Rowley if you're interested) were stopped cold in their investigations. No one wanted them to investigate what was about to happen.

I have already said in another post what I think about the FBI inability to stop the attack. Look below in this thread.

>>> The official story seems to say this happened because it would have implicated close friends of the * crime family, namely the Saudi Royals and the bin Ladens. John O'Neill, the top anti-terrorist guy at the FBI, quit, and wound up going to work at WTC, because the FBI would not let him do his job.

I doubt that is the official story. Sounds more like a conspiracy theory. where did you get that interpretation or is there a link to an official document or why do you describe it as official?

>>>>Follow the money, it's where all good investigations go if they plan on getting anywhere. The money came from *'s friends, other than the Paki Intel general guy mentioned above, who I've read was pretty much hand-picked by our CIA. Prince Bandar's wife (that's the infamous Bandar Bush) made direct payments to hijackers (Saudi women are allowed to handle their own money? Since when?) The bin Laden family financed a great deal of the operations, though they say they've disowned their won and so on. The bin Laden's have also gained quite handsomely from the post-9/11 military spend frenzy, BTW. Then there's a man named Khalid bin Mahfouz old BCCI chum of poppy and banker for the CIA, he also financed their operations. He's a can of worms all to himself.

The Middle East is one of the richest places in the world. Americans WILL do business there. The intelligence people WILL have contacts there. Middle Easterners that are rich and nuts may support terrorists. We may or may not be able to prove it since banking is done differently in these countries. You can fault them for doing business with shady characters but you can't convince reasonable people there is a conspiracy for American officials to murder Americans with no evidence other than they did business together and he was a bad man so they must be bad.

>>>Think about this. Bush sits at Booker - he just sits there after he knows we're under attack. Rummy and Wolfie just continue their meeting until the Pentagon is hit, then they spring into action. Winfield leaves this noob in charge of the war room after he knows we're under attack. The Saudis and Pakis paid for the attack, yet they're our good friends and allies in this GWOT. People that should have been demoted or fired were promoted. Now we're in "the Long War" or "world war III" as * likes to call it. Who's making the bank on this? Cui Bono?

I think I have already responded to this stuff above.

>>>I could go on for a long time, this just touches on a few things, but I think you'll get the point if you're going to. Honestly, the more you find out, the harder it is to believe the fairytale

[TheWraith]

63. I'll go ahead and assume that all or most of that is true...

Even so, I don't see it quite the same way.

They moved war games that would normally take place in October to coincide with other training exercises taking place on 9/11.

And how often, I have to ask, does the military run wargames, simulations, training scenarios, etcetera? Is this the first time that they've ever done such a thing, or isn't there a decent chance that with nothing going on anywhere else in the world any kind of real immediate action might have coincided with some kind of training event?

This type of thing happened/happens basically once a day or more (averaged out over the course of a year). It's nothing new or unusual.

True, however, planes off course usually aren't intercepted in anything close to real time. Payne Stewart's Learjet, which people tend to use as an example of fast reaction, wasn't intercepted until an hour and 18 minutes after it went off course. Part of the reason for this is that if the military scrambled every time that any plane went off course, there would be more like a hundred intercept flights a day.

Even if they hadn't been chasing their tails at NORAD, the SOP for sending up jets was changed months before. They couldn't go until Rummy gave the okay according to the new reg.

Actually, reviews of that new proceedure determined that they didn't significantly affect the deployment of intercept flights.

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were in a meeting together when the Towers were hit. They knew we were under attack, yet Wolfie himself said they "didn't think there was anything they could do," so they continued with their meeting. They continued with their meeting until the Pentagon itself was hit. Does that sound like an even remotely reasonable thing to do when we're under attack? There was nothing they could do?

So Wolfie's a self-obsessed asshole who lives in his own private bubble. That's not exactly news to me.

General Montague Winfield, Deputy Director for Operations for the National Military Command Center (the war room) had Captain Leidig, a rookie, take over his role as the NMCC’s Director of Operations from 8:30 to 10:30 on the morning of 9/11. Leidig relieved him minutes after Flight 11 was identified as hijacked. After the Towers were hit, he still left him in charge. It was Leidig's first day on that job, he had only qualified to do this one month before.

Sounds more like Winfield fell down on the job, either because he had other things he wanted to do, or whatever. I think you'd have a hard time piecing this into a conspiracy theory. If it were a conspiracy, wouldn't the General want to stay in charge, make sure everything went smoothly, rather than turn it over to the new guy--presumably not in the loop--who might bring the whole thing crashing down?

General Mahmud Ahmed The head of the ISI (Pakistan Intelligence) was in a meeting with Porter Goss and Bob Graham (chairs of the Intelligence Committee) on the morning of 9/11, while we were being attacked. Seems reasonable that the head of the ISI would be meeting with our intelligence folk, until you find out that he had wired $100000 wired directly to Mohamed Atta, via an underling but on his command.

Ties between the governments of our supposed friends like Pakistan & Saudi Arabia, and terrorist groups, are hardly new. Half the Saudi royal family has money in banned organizations, and I'd assume the same to be true for the Pakis.

Thomas Pickard, acting head of the FBI at the time, tried to warn Ashcroft to prevent 9/11 and Ashcroft told him, "I don't want to hear any more about that." Several FBI field agents (look up Robert Wright, Harry Samit, and Colleen Rowley if you're interested) were stopped cold in their investigations. No one wanted them to investigate what was about to happen.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. The truth is that by and large, they couldn't get anyone to listen to them because the higherups had other things on their minds. It's well established that Ashcroft, for instance, was more interested in naked statures and internet porn than counter-terrorism, and the boys like Wolfie and Rummy were already looking for an excuse to invade Iraq.

And yes, there was some stifling of certain avenues in the direction of the Saudis. Given that the Bush family is practically owned and operated by the royal family, I'm hardly surprised, and see no need for an explanation more nefarious than greed and influence-peddling, being that the Bushes are also in the pocket of the oil industry.

[Sinti]

67. My few paragraphs barely scratch the surface. If you're interested

you can find out more on your own.

Real-time response was not necessary, they had plenty of time. Payne Stewart is a really bad example. They knew who he was, where he was heading, how much fuel he had, etc. His plane was no threat, except for the fact that it could have crashed into a populated area.

FWIW the Pickard statement came directly from his 9/11 Commission testimony, and was later backed up by others questioned by the Commission.


Ties between the governments of our supposed friends like Pakistan & Saudi Arabia, and terrorist groups, are hardly new.

This is okay with you? You don't think this is questionable, given this whole GWOT and all? Would they not be governments supporting terror then? Why do they get a pass?

I see you don't touch the Friends of Bush Club paid for this agony aspect. That doesn't bother you either, I guess.

I have to ask - as I have asked others, is there a point at which you draw the line. Is there anything that would cause you to say "hey, they did that on purpose". Should we all view each thread in the web as just one isolated mistake, and never try to take a step back to see the shape of the web itself? Do they get an eternal get out of jail free card?

[BootinUp]

68. The only way to investigate the White House fully

or other members of congress is to take back the congress. I don't have a problem pushing for those investigations. But don't hold your breath if there is a Republican controlled congress...and don't be surprised if the American people turn against the idea of further investigations if the people pushing it are claiming that bombs brought down the WTC, or the Pentagon was not hit by a plane.

[Grateful for Hope]

72. Such excellent questions, Sinti

You continue to astound me.

[Sinti]

77. Gee thanks

:blush:

[Sven77]

16. heres a little gem

Capt. Charles Burlingame, who had been a Navy F-4 pilot and once worked on anti-terrorism strategies in the Pentagon
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38407-2001Sep15

so the pilot of flight 77 which crashed in the pentagon was doing terror drills a year before 9/11 ? coincidence ?

[TheWraith]

64. That claim has been long since debunked.

The guy worked on anti-terrorism strategies at the Pentagon prior to his leaving the active military in 1979. He left the reserves in 1996. He was not and could not have been involved in any drills that took place in 2000, and the article you cited as supposed proof doesn't say that he was.

[Bryan Sacks]

20. Welcome, TheWraith

Sorry to greet you with this, but: your questions pertain to some of the least important issues surrounding 9/11 skepticism. The Pentagon strike and the collapse of the Twin Towers are among the least-knowable elements of the 9/11 story, IMHO. Why focus on them? Disproving the conspiracist line on these points makes literally no ground toward discrediting the entirely reasonable claim that 9/11 was in part an inside job. If you don't know why that's so, better get cracking on your research.

[Carefulplease]

23. I beg to disagree...

This forum is the right venue to challenge claims and thesis that are advanced and defended by many on this forum! There is no indication that TheWraith is going to only focus on the issues discussed in this thread.

[Bryan Sacks]

41. Do whatever you like

Challenge whatever you like. This is the place, by all means. I just wanted to point out that by STARTING with these subjects we have reason to ask whether he's chosen his first questions wisely.

If there is a complaint in my response, it's another instance of my general complaint to those who pay too much attention to the most spectacular theories. If you are truly interested in getting the full story, why on earth would you start with the most spectacular theories which also happen to be the least amenable to consensus-building and a general proof? It could be simply that these are the views by which the '9/11 truth movement' are known to new inquirers, and while I will greet new inquirers no matter where is their point of their entry, I'm going to encourage that they not get distracted by matters which do not determine the truth or falsity of the complicity conjecture.

[Make7]

43. New inquirers?

TheWraith has been around for quite some time. Here is a post from June 15, 2004.

It seems rather unnecessary for you to welcome him, since he has been here longer than you have according to your profile.

- Make7

[BootinUp]

44. lol. n/t

[BootinUp]

45. I'm new, but he hasn't answered my question

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=109563&mesg_id=109736

[Bryan Sacks]

54. I stand corrected

Sorry, TheWraith

[greyl]

25. "among the least-knowable elements of the 9/11 story" ?

Please, share your wisdom with the CTists who believe they know about such things from eating up CT breadcrumbs. I'm sure they'll cease and desist immediately.

Or, are you using the defense of the true believer : "It's not a matter of logic, reasoning, and empirical evidence - it's a matter of faith." ?

[Bryan Sacks]

42. You are making jokes

But to me this is a serious matter. There are clear-thinking people in this forum who would disagree with me on the subject of demolition, yet I respect their opinions. People like Petgoat, the former stickdog, Sinti, maybe KJF (I'm not sure of his/her views on this), for instance. I have great respect for their arguments, however, because I can see that they are carefully come upon.

I don't bother with wild, ridiculous theories and obstinate posters after an honest try with them (see my comments about the (no plane at Shanksville" nonsense).

The question is: why do you??? You don't appear to be stupid. You must understand the limits of a forum like this. Ignoring the ridiculous is the only strategy that can be sure to work. If you don't ignore them, you are rightfully open to 'motive suspicion' from those who question why you don't.

IMHO, of course.

[greyl]

58. Ah, a fallacious Appeal to Gravity.

Care to address my point?
Why don't you, with the same air of seriousness, reprimand those who try to spread "wild, ridiculous theories"?

Bryan Sacks - "Ignoring the ridiculous is the only strategy that can be sure to work."

How did you come upon that conclusion? To paraphrase Gandhi, "First we ignore them, then we laugh at them, then we fight them, but by then they're so out of control that they've already won".
I've seen the benefits of confronting ignorance with education, and sometimes I enjoy taking part in the fight. Ya know, one could take your original assertion farther and decide it's best to live in the woods with no electricity and ignore everything, because our entire culture is ridiculous and paying even a penny in taxes only contributes to its collapse.
At the moment, I'm on a less extreme path.

[BootinUp]

36. Ok....then could you

put in rough order what are the top points in the conspiricist line of an inside job? I should say your line, because each conspiracist can make their own claim there. Or are you keeping it a secret so we can't demolish it into little bitty pieces? :)

[Bryan Sacks]

46. done it many times here, Jim. some places to start:

The following all support, but do not prove, complicity in some form:

1. Pakistani Connection - an impossible connection to explain without destroying the official story.

2. Obstructed/thwarted FBI investigations -their timing, the tenacity with which they were blocked, the lying by RFU officials regarding their knowledge of the Phoenix memo, are all consistent with foreknowledge of the plot

3. David Schippers' public statements of FBI foreknowledge

4. Sibel Edmonds' statements regarding documents she saw, dated April 2001, indicating FBI agents knew a plot very, very much like the 9/11 plot was coming

5. Insider trading anomalies pre-9/11. Do not attempt to discount this until you read both Alan Poteshman's article on the subject (Univ of Illinois, I believe) and Paul Zarembka's piece in "The Hidden History of 9/11".

6. the fixing of the 9/11 Commission - see my paper in "The Hidden History of 9/11"

7. the failure to explain the AWOL chain of command on the morning of 9/11

8. the suppression of the fact of multiple war gaming on 9/11, and the failure to honestly investigate its impact on the response that morning

9. the true nature of the relationship b/ US intelligence and Osama Bin laden -

10. The burying of the testimony by Norman Mineta, Peter Lance, Behrooz Sarshar, Sibel edmonds and others, by the 9/11 Commisison, all of which bore directly on the subject of 9/11.

there's much, much, much more.

[BootinUp]

47. Thanks, my initial thoughts

I'll answer back as I have time here's a start:

>>1. Pakistani Connection - an impossible connection to explain without destroying the official story.

You haven't said what it is about the relationship between our country and Pakistan that bothers you so much. Lets just say I am highly skeptical that is will be hard to explain or that you have any facts that are so incriminating.

>>2. Obstructed/thwarted FBI investigations -their timing, the tenacity with which they were blocked, the lying by RFU officials regarding their knowledge of the Phoenix memo, are all consistent with foreknowledge of the plot

Its also consistent with an agency having set a relatively low priority on terrorism and being insufficiently staffed and having no regular communications on these issues with CIA and other agencies and not following up and lets not forget general incompetence. Your conclusion requires an assumption of inherent evil in the form of allowing attacks inside our borders on purpose which is well beyond mere greed, corruption, and incompetence. I don't start from the same place. You must prove beyond a doubt such a claim my friend.

I'll get back to you with more of my thoughts later.

[Bryan Sacks]

50. Jim, i look forward to it.

And let's try to keep it respectful. I'm happy to bring what time I can to bear on these questions, and all I ask is that your mind truly be open.

I have to say, I'm already a bit disappointed by the fact that you don't know what is suggested by the term 'Pakistani Connection' as it pertains to 9/11, since it's very common knowledge among 9/11 researchers and skeptics. But that aside, on we go. I'll get back in a few hours.

edited for typos

[BootinUp]

48. more elaboration on #2

>>2. Obstructed/thwarted FBI investigations -their timing, the tenacity with which they were blocked, the lying by RFU officials regarding their knowledge of the Phoenix memo, are all consistent with foreknowledge of the plot

Continuing from my previous post. What would it take to prove your claim? Thats going to take a smoking gun that shows that the agents with knowledge knew the dates and the terrorist cells and that all that was transmitted to the top FBI director, or CIA director, or Bush, or Cheney or Condi Rice. If any of those had the date of the attack and the information on the 4 groups of hijackers well then you have something there. Otherwise all you have is a boss saying, I can't give you more agents to run that down right now, I've got other priorities, I know they are a threat so is this and this and this. Bad judgement? SURE. But what agent had the whole fucking story? They needed more resources assigned to run it down, thats where we fucked up.

[Bryan Sacks]

53. you may misunderstand my purpose

It is not my job to prove anything conclusive about who had what knowledge when. It is enough to show that there is a concerted effort to lie to the public about what was known when. The idea is to break the iron faith in american exceptionalism, not to prove a conspiracy. What I am saying, and you have not disproven this, is that the degree of unpunished lying and obstruction by FBI headquarters is consistent with a concerted effort to keep the plot from being discovered (e.g., by not allowing Moussaoui's computer to be searched prior to 9/11). If this is so, why has complicity been ruled out? There are no good grounds for it, just the same old tired ones that 'no one would ever do something like that.'

There is solid evidence that Dave Frasca lied to the Joint Inquiry when he told them that he had not seen the Phoenix Memo prior to 9/11. You acknowledge this, or no? It wasn't only bad judgment, if it was bad judgment at all. He did not say, "Sure, I knew about Ken Williams' memo, but still thought that Moussaoui didn't pose a sufficient threat to warrant a search of his laptop." he said, in essence, "I did not see the Phoenix Memo until after 9/11." Many, including "law enforcement officials and members of congress, believe he lying about that.

And to your suggestion that there has to be some grand conspiracy to explain my claim, it's not so. A person like Frasca, for instance, doesn't have to have knowledge of anything, and yet he can play a key role in a conspiracy not of his own making. In theory, he could have been told by a superior: "Listen, we have something else going on that requires that the Minneapolis investigation get cooled off for a while. It could jeopardize what we're doing somewhere else."

A question to you: if incompetence is the likeliest explanation, please answer the following:

1. Why were the FBI incompetents not only not reprimanded or fired, but guven promotions shortly after 9/11?

2. What PROOF is there of incompetence? I se evidence that would support a number of theories, including incompetence. what proof is there of incompetence?

[Bryan Sacks]

55. more on point 1

From something I wrote a while back:

"One of the most egregious areas of the Commission's whitewash of the available evidence concerns its conclusion that "the US government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9-11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance."? (Commission Report, p. 172).

It's understandable why the Commission would wish its reader accept this ludicrous claim, considering that one of the likely funders of the plot, Pakistani ISI Director Mahmud Ahmad, was visiting US National Security advisors the week prior to September 11, 2001, and actually having breakfast in Washington DC the morning of 9-11 with Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss. These two congressmen would go on chair the Congressional Joint Inquiry into the 9-11 attacks. Goss, of course, also became Director of the CIA in 2004.

On October 6, 2001, CNN reported that US authorities believed Saeed Shiekh, a notorious Pakistani-born terrorist, had been the paymaster who sent multiple payments to the alleged hijackers, including one of $100,000 in the days prior to the attack. Shockingly, the next day stories began coming out of India and Pakistan that ISI director Mahmud Ahmad had authorized the payment Sheikh made to the alleged hijackers. (See "The War on Truth," Nafeez Ahmed, 2005)

On October 8, Ahmad was forced out of his post on the pretext of a reshuffling of General Pervez Musharraf's cabinet, yet Ahmad remains unindicted to this day.

Saeed Shiekh continued to live openly in Pakistan until early 2002, when, amazingly, he was charged with the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. In most reportage on the Pearl murder case, Shiekh's connection to the funding of the 9-11 plot was not mentioned. Further, Sheikh's name underwent an extraordinary evolution in press accounts, which made it very difficult for the uninformed reader to conclude that he was in fact the same person who had been identified by Indian intelligence as the paymaster for the 9-11 plot (See "The Many Faces of Saeed Shiekh," Paul Thompson, 2003).

The silence of the US press on this story is one of the most damning elements of its failure to present a complete picture of the attacks to US readers. The Commission, however, ought to have known better. It cannot be reasonably concluded that none of the Commissioners knew of this story, since Senator Graham and Representative Goss unquestionably knew the fate of their breakfast guest on 9-11, as did, undoubtedly, other National Security officials. The Commission's staffers would easily have come across such reports in the course of conducting their investigation. The Commission's contention that "we have seen no evidence that any foreign government or foreign government official”supplied any funding" for the 9-11 plot is powerful evidence that the Commission was willfully blind to this sort of evidence.

Others, however, are not. The information connecting Sheikh and Ahmad to Atta has been confirmed, for instance, by respected Pakistani journalist Amir Mir (Asia Times, 1/27/05). What an Indian strategic analyst called an "astonishing measure of American forbearance" toward the Pakistani government has aroused suspicions that perhaps "September 11 had been organized by Islamabad with the help of al-Qaeda at US behest after the neo-conservatives ruling the US needed a pretext for fulfilling their imperialist agenda." (Asia Times, 1/27/05)

There is much evidence as well that the Commission made a political decision, one not in keeping with its supposed interest in providing the "fullest possible account" of the 9-11 attacks”to purposely leave out sensitive information suggesting financial support for Osama Bin Laden emanating from within the Saudi government (Griffin, 2005, pp. 65-70). These omissions quite clearly put the lie to the Commission's stated aim of providing a thorough report, independent of political influences."

So let me ask you: what should be concluded from this? As David Ray Griffin has pointed out, imagine it was not some anonymous Pakistani general who had helped fund the plot, but Saddam Hussein. Do you think most Americans would have heard of this story by now? Why such silence mon the part of the media regarding this explosive story?

[BootinUp]

57. The incompetence is mostly in the White House

In other words, the rules pertaining to terrorist investigations, overlaps between the FBI and CIA lead to delays or complete breakdowns. Whose fault was that? Primarily the fault of Bush and Condi for not pushing the FBI and CIA to cooperate together and to use Richard Clarkes recommendations before the attack instead of after the attack.

The extent of incompetence at lower levels has been hidden, they have been protected, in order to protect those at the top. I never denied that. I never denied that the investigation was not obstructed. The congress has been a willing partner to helpt he White House excape accountability. Thats why 2006 congressional elections is so important.

As to conspiracies to allow the attacks on our own soil. no sir. I cannot swallow it. Incompetence, ignoring the warnings, not supplying enough resources and leadership to get to all the cells in time, not enough foresight to increase airport security, all that. They are guilty of.

[Bryan Sacks]

62. Hey, no problem

You can't swallow it. Far be it from me to force-feed it to you.

[KJF]

65. This and that

(1) If you haven't seen this yet, you might like to have a look at it:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/KJF/15

(2) I'm a he.

(3) I think the WTC was probably demolished with explosives.

(4) Apparrently (this is supposedly in the One Percent Doctrine, which I haven't read yet - it's winging its way to me) the FBI actually requested intelligence from calls to the number (a communications hub in Sana'a, Yemen) the hijackers were calling from the States/was calling the hijackers in the States. However, the NSA, which intercepted the calls, didn't provide the FBI with the information for a reason that has not yet been ascertained. Wouldn't it have been a good idea to ascertain that reason?

[mhatrw]

69. A considered response.

If a building collapsing at the speed dictated by gravity is suspicious, how is a building supposed to collapse in a non-suspicious way?

Asymmetrically, partially and less than the speed of gravity.

Would you care to share video of what a non-suspicious collapse looks like?

Here's what controlled demolition looks like:



If no plane hit the Pentagon, what happened to the plane and the passengers?

If a 767 hit the Pentagon, where did the engines hit the wall? Where did the tail hit the wall? What happened to the wings and tail? Just wondering.

If you believe that they were killed, why would you believe that any rational plotter would go to all the effort of using a missile or smaller plane to blow up the Pentagon, plus hiding and destroying the real flight and its people, when they could simply fly the plane into the building and not risk inconvenient witnesses?

If you believe that a 767 hit the Pentagon, why would the government withhold video footage showing this? Does that make any sense to you?

As a corollary, why do you insist on believing improbable, impractical and unnecessarily contorted theories about the execution of events, when simpler and more obvious explanations could still be made to fit your beliefs?

Whether or not a 767 hit the Pentagon, which is nothing but one of literally hundreds of unanswered questions about the events of 9/11, there is nothing simple about our government's explanation of how 19 Arabs outwitted our entire military, intelligence and justice departments for 2 years in the run up to 9/11 and managed to outrun the entire US air defense for a full two hours on the day of 9/11.

Finally, what's more believable to you -- that a ragtag team of 19 Arabs brandishing boxcutters (2 of whom spent months basically living with an FBI informant) managed to pull off 9/11 without any help from any powerful well-placed insiders or that this same 19 managed to pull off 9/11 with some assistance from a few powerful well-placed insiders? Why?

[TheWraith]

88. A considered rebuttal.

Asymmetrically, partially and less than the speed of gravity.

The towers did collapse asymmetrically. A partial collapse is almost impossible when you're talking about a half million ton structure that goes almost straight up. Any collapse of the upper sections would overwhelm and crush the lower sections, destroying the rest of the building in seconds. As for the speed, what do you expect for it to do, pause in between levels? I'm sure that if it had collapsed in several phases, that would have been viewed as evidence of demolition too.

Here's what controlled demolition looks like:

A collapse which looks nothing like the collapse of the towers. Try looking at the WTC collapse footage again, and you'll notice that there's really very little similarity. For instance, the top of the South tower tips over in the direction of where the plane severed the most supports. Are you suggesting that that didn't happen? Or the fact that the towers are clearly disintegrating as they come down, throwing debris all over hell, which a controlled demolition doesn't do.

And in any event, didn't I ask what a NON-suspicious collapse looks like? And you gave me video of controlled demolition?

If a 767 hit the Pentagon, where did the engines hit the wall? Where did the tail hit the wall? What happened to the wings and tail? Just wondering.

You didn't answer my question. If you seriously believe that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, what happened to the plane and the passengers? Contrary to popular opinion around here, you can't simply throw around allusions and loaded questions and call that proof. You actually have to account for the holes in your theory.

But just to be a good sport, I'll answer your question. If you look closely at the photographs, you can see the impression of where the forward part of the wings hit the Pentagon wall. Being that that wall is made of 18 inches of reenforced stone, backed by six inches of kevlar webbing, it would have proven stronger than the thin steel skin and skeleton of an airplane wing, which is deliberately designed to be as light as possible. The wings would have been bent back by the combination of impacting the wall, and being dragged forward by the inertia of the main fuselage where it had broken through.

how 19 Arabs outwitted our entire military, intelligence and justice departments for 2 years in the run up to 9/11 and managed to outrun the entire US air defense for a full two hours

It's a simple enough equation if you're not seeking a reason for paranoia. Surprise + inititive + confusion + mistakes = Visitors 3, Home 0.