MSNBC : Did planes really bring down the World Trade Center?

[chat_noir]

Moderators, please don't move this to the September 11 forum. This is an MSM report.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=9d06140d-6e7e-4c83-ba21-481991123d70&f=copy

Accepted for publication:

Steven E. Jones, (2006). “Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?,” The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy, Volume 23, P. Zarembka, editor, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006.


Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

ABSTRACT


In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.

...

My reasons for advancing the explosive-demolition hypothesis while challenging the “official” fire-caused collapse hypothesis are these:



1. As you observed, WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and symmetrically -- even though fires were randomly scattered in the building. WTC 7 fell about seven hours after the Towers collapsed, even though no major persistent fires were visible. There were twenty-four huge steel support columns inside WTC 7 as well as huge trusses, arranged asymmetrically, along with approximately 57 perimeter columns. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.) A symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous “pulling” of most or all of the support columns. The Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the likelihood of complete and symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since asymmetrical failure is so much more likely. On the other hand, a major goal of controlled demolition using explosives is the complete and symmetrical collapse of buildings.

Concluding remarks in the FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse lend support to my arguments:

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse <“official theory”> remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)



http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

[jsamuel]

1. :O

Dang scientists and their crazy magic called "physics"!

[jsamuel]

2. Did Tucker think he could devote 2 minutes to this? You need at least 15.

[katinmn]

3. Amazing. Great paper.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

4. have you ever seen the amount of work involved

in a controlled demolition of a building? even a small one? do you seriously believe that the amount of explosive, the placement of those explosives and the support needed to bring down a building in that manner could possibly be hidden from the people in that building?

just damn...conspiracies of this nature would be nearly IMPOSSIBLE to hide...

subjektProdigal

[Solomon]

5. I disagree. After the attempted bombing of the towers in 1993

wouldn't it have made sense to purposely plant explosives in the building as a safeguard in the event it was attacked again?

Better to bring it down controlled than to let it topple over.

I think the explosives were placed in the buildings long before 9-11.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

6. sorry...just doesn't work

just too massive to hide...but I can see the logic in doing it...just not the feasibility.

subjektProdigal

[Norquist Nemesis]

9. Unless one has ties to the security company

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/security.html

:shrug:

[Marie26]

107. Why would they want to destroy WTC 7?

Even a conspiracy theory needs a motive. Why would they want to bring down this building?

[KatieB]

133. Structural problems in the building were going to force them to destroy it

but a natural disaster was covered by insurance. Saw this on a tv show somewhere...

[BattyDem]

136. Because of what was inside?

:shrug:

"FEMA's nonchalance about WTC-7’s collapse is stunning. Structural failures of this magnitude do not normally take place. In addition, there was high-profile, large-budget government agencies leasing office space in WTC-7 that day. Besides the SEC, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Department of Defense (DOD), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and New York’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM) were all tenants."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LOU308A.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"WTC 7 ... housed high-level government offices including the FBI, CIA and the Secret Service. WTC 7 was also the storage facility for millions of files pertaining to active cases involving international drug dealing, organized crime, terrorism and money laundering."

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/cnn_poll2.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Building 7 occupied a block to the north of the World Trade Center Plaza. Its 23rd floor held Mayor Giuliani's Emergency Command Center."

<snip>

"The other government agencies with offices in the building were the IRS, the US Secret Service, the SEC, and the CIA."

<snip>

"Large numbers of case files for ongoing investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) were reportedly destroyed in the collapse."

http://www.911review.com/attack/wtc/b7.html

[No Exit]

20. Sorry--just doesn't work.

The Official Story of 9/11--the one peddled by the administration and the neocons--is what "doesn't work" for me.

I don't claim to have all the answers. (That's what's wrong--anyone who disagrees with the Official Story is immediately told that if they don't have the full, 100% REAL explanation for 9/11, then they must be some "kook".) But what I do know for certain is that this administration and its neocons have LIED to us time and again, and I do not hesitate to assume that they are lying to us with their Official Story of 9/11.

The only thing remaining is to figure out what REALLY happened and who was REALLY responsible. This professor, Steven Jones, is trying to do that--in spite of the fact that the administration threatens, harms, smears, and marginalizes ANYONE who questions its official story on ANY subject, especially on the subject of 9/11.

Steven Jones, and the SIXTY professors who are said to agree with him that 9/11 causes/culpability are FAR from settled, deserve to be heard by the American people. After all, it was the American people who had to suffer through the hideous stories of how the 3000 citizens died. We owe it to those dead to find out the truth. We cannot find out the truth if we ridicule and marginalize anyone who tries to find the truth.

[tinrobot]

125. If you're looking for a conspiracy....

...focus on how 19 men, many with FBI files, got into the country, went to flight school and then boarded those planes.

[Kevin Fenton]

85. Refit

I agree with Solomon. Explosives planted after the 1993 bombing makes sense to me.

There was a major refit then. Also, lots of the central core columns (the ones that bore most of the load) were easily accessible from the elevator shafts. It certainly wouldn't be difficult to plant explosives there without being noticed.

[Imagevision]

143. The controlled collapse of WTC-7 [intentionally brought down]

A video of the collapse of Building WTC-7 of the World Trade Center shows the perfect controlled demolition of the building.
http://911review.org/Wiki/Building7Collapse.shtml

[Kevin Fenton]

83. Agree completely

The aim of the 1993 bombing was to topple the North Tower onto the South Tower, which would then have fallen onto other buildings in lower Manhattan. It's not just the property value and lives (the 1993 bombers estimated 250,000 fatalities) that would be lost, you also have to take the value of the information into account. Had it been successful, the 193 bombing would have totally crippled the US economy.

[mistertrickster]

116. Sorry, no. Buildings that big CAN'T topple over.

Each floor of the building was an ACRE in size. There's only one direction they can fall, and that's straight down.

We're used to everyday objects like drinking glasses that do fall over. But the amount of force it would take to push over one of the WTC towers is way more than a jet plane could generate--more than a thousand planes even.

When they become structurally unstable from overheated steel, say, they're going to go straight down like an accordion.

[Imagevision]

144. Topple this: Evidence of Explosives In The Twin Tower Collapses.

That such obvious evidence of explosives has remained "hidden in full view" approaches the unbelievable.
http://hawaii.indymedia.org/news/2003/06/2818_comment.php

[mistertrickster]

146. Physicists, metallugists, engineers and architects have no problem

with the way the Twin Towers collapsed and why.

But I'm supposed to ignore the (literally) rocket scientists at MIT and Stanford and believe some kid's internet site.

I don't think so . . . sorry.

[No Exit]

15. "nearly IMPOSSIBLE to hide"--like the conspiracy to hoodwink the

entire congress of the United States, the people of the United States, and even the intelligence community of the United States (who saw the scam but didn't have the power to completely prevent it) into believing (or at least following along from sheer helplessness) that Iraq was an imminent physical threat to the United States because it was getting nukes?

Like THAT conspiracy?

The fact is, there was SOME conspiracy going that brought down the WTC on 9/11/2001. The administration/neocon game has been to make people believe that it was a conspiracy of 19 Al Quaeda members, led by Osama Bin Laden. But why believe THAT conspiracy over other possibilities? Because "the administration tells us that that is the correct one, and the administration wouldn't lie about something that important"? Yeah... okay.:eyes:

[The Backlash Cometh]

42. They could have worked at night.

When no one was around to witness their behavior. Deliver the goods by day, install them by night. Ordinary people wouldn't have picked up on it.

What scares me is that the CIA also had offices in that building. So, how could this go on without their knowledge?

[JackRiddler]

84. sorry - very lame

Since when do office workers in a skyscraper even know what the maintenance crews are doing? A dozen mercenaries in work uniforms with the right security clearance could prepare a demo easily, unquestioned, over weeks time, lugging up the stuff and taking their sweet time. Presumably implanting wireless explosives. (What's that pounding and welding noise? Oh it's the workers again. Hope they're done soon!)

The other lame assumption here is that it was a standard "controlled" demolition. The extreme care and work that goes into that is unnecessary in this case. Just make sure you use lots more explosive than necessary. Which is what it looks like, and why people question it.

Programming a sequence of explosions so that they occur from impact point down is well within the capability of my notebook computer.

There is no obstacle in what you say, it's just a variation on Condoleezza Rice's "no one could have imagined" excuse.

That proves nothing either way, but you have to come up with better explanations. Explain the jettisoning of core columns outwards by 250 feet. Explain the apparent squibs appearing below the collapse wave. Explain the speed of the collapse, the pyroclastic effects. Explain the immediate disposal of debris. Explain the weakening of the steel when the NIST simulation itself does not claim any temperatures were reached above 400 C.

EXPLAIN WTC 7.

I'm not married to demolition - 9/11 was an inside job anyway - but you'll have to do much better than that.

[StrafingMoose]

114. According to the official narrative about "these terrorists"

They can mostly do anything they want, and nothing the West can do to stop them - that's why it's a war that "won't end in our lifetime" and that's why you've got to have overbloated defense budgets, Patriot Act I, II, II.5, and so on. No debate here, that's their (Bush, Cheney, Clarke, Rumsfeld, etc) own words.

Hey, Rice & Bush said no one could ever envision atrocities such as flying planes in buildings - how about they haven't envisioned yet the rigging of a building?

[mirandapriestly]

140. delete, bad link

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

7. No, this is a silly theory

a little less silly then that the planes were actually holograms, granted, but silly nonetheless. It's the modern equivalent of "the driver shot JFK" or that the Zapbruder film was actually a CIA recreation.

Also, Jones article cites Christopher Bollyn - a Holocaust denier who has a less than credible reputation amoungst 'serious' 9-11 researchers.

I'll end on this paper:

Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America By Steven E. Jones
http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm

[jsamuel]

10. that paper is crap, but that paper has ZERO to do with physics

where as the one above has a lot to do with it. That is what he is a doctor in. Just saying...

[Stephanie]

8. Absolute bullshit - the fires in Building 7 burned all day long

The building was burning up until it collapsed. And what the hell does this mean?

Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.

It was Giuliani's diesel tanks on two separate floors that made the fire so intense. Low probability of occurence? What does that MEAN? Total bullshit.

[jsamuel]

11. "low probability of occurrence"

He said that the official Govt' report (I don't know which one) is the one that said that. Do you know which one he is referring to?

On Edit: I think it was the FEMA report said that this explanation had a "low probability of occurrence" and that the reason for the building's collapse is still largely unknown.

[Kevin Fenton]

87. FEMA

It was the FEMA/ACSE report that said that. They concentrated mostly on the Twin Towers. The NIST report on WTC 1 and 2 has been released, but we're still waiting for even a draft of the WTC 7 report.

[No Exit]

26. Bullshit.

Bullshit: to passively swallow the administration's/neocons' Official Story of 9/11.

Are we going to believe those LIARS??

Whatever you may think of Steven Jones, at least the fact that his article has been picked up by the MSM--at least that is a START towards getting towards the truth.

The administration/neocons don't rewrite history--they write it wrong beginning with the very first account of it!

PS Is this BYU professor a Mormon? Mormons believe all that stuff about fantastic appearances of God in the West. So I don't find it odd that he may have written that paper about "Jesus visiting North America."

But before you dismiss him (or any Mormon) for believing certain fantastical things, know that you must also therefore dismiss all Catholic scientists, because Catholics believe THAT THE VIRGIN MARY APPEARED TO A WOMAN IN A FIELD IN SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA!!!!!!

And get ready to dismiss all Jewish scientists. Or do you believe all the fantastical stories in the Old Testament?

And get ready to dismiss ANY scientist who follows ANY religion.

[pauldp]

135. thank you for making that point! n/t

[BamaBecky]

54. lol - nice try Steph

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

12. I saw a documentary on the structure of the towers that explains it

nicely.

Each floor is attached to the support colums by what might be called "L brackets". As the heat and stress from the damaged floors caused the brackets on each floor to snap, that weight came slamming straight down onto the floor beneath it. It would not take a great deal of time before all that accumulative weight suddenly descending floor by floor would cascade, and the result would be exactly what we saw.

Not a big mystery, and no explosives. Simple stress, metal fatigue, and heat. Pure physics.

[Stephanie]

13. A crane operator at the site told me exactly that

He said supports gave way and the floors pancaked, pulverizing everything in between, by which he meant the people. This was a guy who was hauling steel beams to the waterfront to be loaded onto barges. I spoke with him there, by the pier near Stuyvesant. Obviously if anything such as explosives had been used you would not have been able to hide it from the THOUSANDS of people who witnessed the event and the HUNDREDS who examined the debris minutely searching for body parts and personal items. This stuff really pisses me off. I think it's deliberate disinformation to diminish the REAL questions that have never been answered as to what the Bush administration knew and why they did nothing to stop it.

[janedoe]

74. "metal fatigue?"

What caused the "metal fatigue" you mention?
Also, I've never seen a fatigue failure cause anything go goo "poof" into powder, in mid air.

Say, if you're so easy to con.... no wonder why over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have been murdered.

[tinrobot]

130. Not fatigue, but heat from the fire.

Metal gets weak as it heats up and weakened joist supports could easily cause the failure.

Understanding and respecting science has nothing to do with being "conned", btw...

[Kevin Fenton]

90. Quality of documentaries

Just because it's in a documentary, doesn't make it true. The official line now is that the "L-bracket" failure theory (aka "angle clip failure") is wrong. NIST now claims that the "L-brackets" were so strong that when the floor trusses sagged the "L-brackets" pulled the outer wall in, causing the tower to collapse. Unfortunately for them, there's no evidence of any fire over 250 degrees C in the towers.

btw, how long do you think it took the towers to fall?

[HamdenRice]

14. On WTC7: Who you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?

--Richard Pryor

Really, every chance this topic gets out of the dungeon, I ask people to look at this video clip:

http://www.911hoax.com/gwtc7_1.asp?strPage=wtc7_1&intPage=60&PageNum=60

What is that if not demolition charges?

[Quixote1818]

17. That looks doctored not to mention the building doesn't collapse

where you see the charges go off. It looks totally fake to me. Sorry.

[HamdenRice]

22. If the video does not conform to the official conspiracy theory then ...

the video must be doctored. This video is available at many sites. It is not fake.

[mistertrickster]

119. Yup. That's what I noticed too. The building is already falling.

Wouldn't they have STARTED from the TOP? Also, the so-called "charges" only go off in one corner of the building. What about the other three corners? Nothing happening there.

Lastly, a burning building collapsing from the base would be kicking dust up and out; I'd imagine that it would escape from a series of broken windows just like it's doing here.

[Quixote1818]

16. Question: Didn't the tower that was hit second (lower) come down first?

The reason this is significant is because the one hit second was impacted much lower then the first one I believe. A lower impact would leave much, much, much more weight on the damaged area and would then cause it to collapse first.

We have all watched the video of the buildings collapsing and it's very clear to me that the collapse starts EXACTLY where the plains hit. The probability of their being pre-positioned explosives in those exact areas is beyond reason.

Sorry, I don't believe their were explosives for a second. As for WTC 7, well no loud explosions were heard when it collapsed. It just collapsed and probably because their were fires burning all day long inside along with major structural damage caused by the twin towers falling.

[HamdenRice]

19. WTC7

WTC7 did not suffer significant damage from the impact of the planes or the collapse of the towers. It was a block north, separated from ground zero by a block of buildings.

The fires were relatively small and contained. Fires alone have never destroyed a steel frame building, including the Madrid tower fire that burned for over 24 hours.

[JHB]

80. There WAS significant damage to WTC7

Or doesn't having a corner of the building gouged out for at least 8 stories count as "significant damage"?

[Kevin Fenton]

93. Nice picture

If it was damaged on at that corner, shouldn't that corner have collapsed first?

[JHB]

94. Not necessarily...

...though it definitly became a weak point. Load would have been transferred to other sructural members, which could have contributed to the actual srtucutral failure elsewhere.

It might be worth noting, however, that this unsupported corner is the one under which the vertical line of windows is seen to blow out at the time of collapse.

[Kevin Fenton]

96. Fireproofing

What the picture also shows is that the facade is largely intact (and there are no fires - what time was it taken?). If the facade was intact, how come the fireproofing was stripped away from the columns that went first? If it wasn't stripped away, how come they got hot and failed at all? Or are you suggesting the fireproofing was deficient anyway?

[JHB]

101. I am "suggesting"...

...that the claims that WTC7 suffered "no significant damage" are about as accurate as the claims that it was "sheilded" by WTC6, or that the towers "fell in their own footprint".

[Kevin Fenton]

104. What does "significant" mean?

If you take it to mean "noteworthy" (one of the options suggested by by dictionary), then I guess the damage was significant.

But if you take it to mean that the external damage explains its collapse, then no, it wasn't.

NIST reasons that the Twin Towers fell because the plane impacts stripped fireproofing from 140,000 square feet of floor trusses and 82 of the 94 core columns (47 in each tower). As we can see from the photos, no such stripping of fireproofing occurred in WTC 7. So why did it collapse?

[tinrobot]

131. A building is a system...

Pull out one critical link, the whole system collapses. So, if the corner colapses, the entire building fails.

[Kevin Fenton]

137. Corner

WTC 7 was supported by 83 steel columns - the other 82 columns appear to be undamaged. Why do you think the corner column was a critical link? The building did not collapse at the corner.

[HamdenRice]

106. Not significant compared to other buildings that did not collapse

I am aware that there was a gash on the northwest corner. There was not a "flow" of debris into WTC7, however. And this gash was certainly not as significant as the damage to many buildings that remained standing and had to be demolished, like:

[Marleyb]

99. exactly

[KurtNYC]

108. One more for you - the Empire State Building hit 7/28/1945

At 9:40 a.m., as workers went about their business in the Catholic War Relief Office on the 79th floor, the B-25 crashed into that office at 322 kilometers per hour. The impact reportedly tore off the bomber’s wings, leaving a five meter by six meter hole in the building. One engine was catapulted through the Empire State Building, emerging on the opposite side and crashing through the roof of a neighboring building. The second engine and part of the bomber’s landing gear fell through an elevator shaft. When the plane hit, its fuel tanks were reported to have exploded, engulfing the 79th floor in flames.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/News/News8-0112.html

And it is still standing.

[mistertrickster]

120. They don't build 'em like they used to. NT

[tinrobot]

127. Apples and Oranges.

The Empire State building is clad in granite with very small windows. It is also a classic steel box frame construction. The B25 that hit it had a 67 ft wingspan, weight 20,000 pounds and has a crew of 10. Maximum speed is about 300 mph.

The WTC exterior was clad in glass with metal supports. It was built with a concrete core with the outer skin supporting the rest of the load. The 767 that hit it has has a 170 foot wingspan, weighs 450,000 pounds and carries 250 people. Maximum speeed is 550 mph.

[hack89]

115. Accounts of heavy damage from on scene firefighters..

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayd ...

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti:

I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visc ...


Battalion Chief John Norman:

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. .... but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.

We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norm ...

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyl

Also there was this:

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.


http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf

page 165

One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear.390 In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported
that the building’s floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors:
6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30.391 No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to
approximately 2:00 p.m.

The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building’s condition and FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires. A Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the
building reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor.392 He indicated that the stairway was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. The chiefs discussed the situation and the following conditions were identified:

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. 395, 396 The order terminated the ongoing rescue
operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

[Kevin Fenton]

92. Column thickness

The second (south) tower was impacted about 17 floors lower than the first (north) tower. The columns in the impact area of the south tower were obviously much thicker and stronger than the columns in the impact area in the north tower (because they had to support a greater weight), so that's not the reason it would have collapsed first. Throw in the factors that the fires in the south tower were not as fierce (the west side of no floor was affected) and the impact damage to the perimeter wall was not as great and I think you have a problem.

"We have all watched the video of the buildings collapsing and it's very clear to me that the collapse starts EXACTLY where the plains hit."
Are you sure? Which videos have you been watching?

[peace_on_earth]

18. Watch this video for evidence in support of his theory

http://www.vidilife.com/index.cfm?f=media.play&vchrMediaProgramIDCryp=02C9375E-006D-46A7-BEA7-2&action=1

I'd love to know what you think after you've seen it. (It's about ten minutes long.) Many mainstream media reporters, and firefighters, describe hearing explosions before the towers collapsed.

[Stephanie]

23. Utter BULLSHIT

Please cite the many media reporters and firefighters who heard explosions. They don't exist.

[HamdenRice]

25. That's just not true ...

The morning of 9/11 Dan Rather, and other anchors said they thought there were bombs going off. Rather described the collapse as controlled demolition.

[Stephanie]

72. Let's see the quote - in context

I really doubt that he meant that planted explosives brought down the building.

[janedoe]

77. I have a VCR recording off the air, live, from 9-11.

The evidence is there!

[Stephanie]

82. And yet you can't show it to me

Where is the quote?

[HamdenRice]

109. Dan Rather quote ...

The point isn't that Rather had proof, but that the unedited, stream of consciousness commentary of all the anchors was the same: gee this looks and sounds just like controlled demolition.

Here is Rather:

“Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”

CBS News anchor Dan Rather commenting on the collapse of Building 7 - September 11, 2001 at approx 5:30pm EST.

[HamdenRice]

110. Some more from the lawsuit

“There has just been a huge explosion. We can see a cascade of sparks and fire and now this. It looks almost like a mushroom cloud explosion. And I can’t, I’ll tell you that I can’t see that second building.”- Aaron Brown, anchor CNN NewsNight describing the demolition of the South Tower as he watches it live during live CNN broadcast on 9/11/01. (CNN Tribute, America Remembers: The Events of September 11 and America’s Response {Commemorative Edition} ) http://cnn.com/americaremembers

“There was this wall of smoke that just came up over the top of the buildings, maybe twenty, thirty stories tall, like a tidal wave. I grabbed my camera, the tripod and all I could think of at this point and time is, the building just collapsed, there’s a wall of smoke and debris coming at us. Is there gonna be another explosion? Is there gas? Is there chemicals? And we ran.”- Brian Kiederling, CNN videographer describing the demolition of the South Tower in an interview for the CNN documentary, America Remembers. (Ibid.)

“There was this tumbleweed of debris that came at the building and the building had all glass windows, so as the debris was coming toward me, over the tops of everything, the brightness of the sun was just completely blacked-out. And it became almost like nighttime and then there was just silence and there weren’t any more ambulances. You couldn’t hear the police cars. You couldn’t hear the people in the street anymore. And I walked up to the glass and looked out and it almost looked like a blizzard had hit New York. There was this snow everywhere. And there was just no noise coming from down toward the World Trade Center.” – Rose Arce, CNN producer describing her experience as the South Tower was demolished, in an interview for the CNN documentary, America Remembers. (Ibid)

“We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the second trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building. ” – Louie Cacchioli, 20 year veteran of the New York Fire Department, Engine 47, describing explosions in the South Tower before it’s collapse. (Unsigned. “Our Heroes/United in Courage” People.com 9/12/01; archived online at http://propagandamatrix.com/louie_cacchioli.htm and People Weekly 9/24/01)

“The building came down so orderly, floor by floor, that I presumed it was a controlled demolition.I hoped that it was. Maybe they got all the people out and now they’re bringing the building down to prevent mass casualties.”- WNYC radio reporter and NPR contributor, Beth Fertig (Bull, Chris, and Sam Erman, At Ground Zero: 25 Stories From Young Reporters Who Were There. New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 2002: 184

“As more and more and more and more and more emergency vehicles descended on the World Trade Center, I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low- frequency that precipitates the unthinkable – a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion.” – Neil deGrasse Tyson, Director of the Hayden Planetarium of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City and Vice President of The Planetary Society, commenting on the demolition of the South Tower as he witnessed it from his apartment six blocks away. (An Eyewitness Account of the World Trade Center Attacks from Neil deGrasse Tyson, The Planetary Society, September 12th 2001; online at http://www.planetary.org/html/society/advisors/sept11account.html )

“There was an explosion – I didn’t think it was an explosion – but the base of the building shook. I felt it shake …then when we were outside, the second explosion happened and then there was a series of explosions…We can only wonder at the kind of damage – the kind of human damage – that was caused by those explosions – those series of explosions.” – Steve Evans, BBC employee commenting on the demolition of the South Tower. (Eyewitnesses Tell of Horror, BBC, September 11th 2001; online at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1537500.stm )

“I heard this metallic roar, looked up and saw what I thought was just a peculiar site of individual floors, one after the other exploding outward. I thought to myself, “My God, they’re going to bring the building down.” And they, whoever they are, had set charges. In fact the building was imploding down.
I saw the explosions, and I thought, ‘This is not a good place to be, because we’re too close to the building, and it’s too easy for the building to topple over.’” – John Bussey, foreign editor for the Wall Street Journal describing the demolition of the South Tower. (The Newseum with Cathy Trost and Alicia C. Shepard. Running Toward Danger: Stories Behind The Breaking News of 9/11. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002: 87

“I was frantically punching my cell phone number and one of the things I hit was my Chicago producer’s number. I told them I was on my way to the World Trade Center. As I said that, the first collapse of the tower happened. I was on the line and said, ‘Oh my God, there’s been an explosion.’”- Carol Marin, contributing reporter to CBS News. (Ibid.: 91)

http://suetheterrorists.net/

<edited>

[Stephanie]

113. Aaron Brown said it was "like a mushroom cloud explosion."

Therefore obviously a nuclear bomb was set off inside the WTC. No doubt. Aaron Brown said so.

[janedoe]

126. Please review my post.

I said "I have a VCR recording off the air, live, from 9-11."

I don't think I gave any indication that I can't show it to you. You're welcome to come to my house and view it.

Where is the quote:
The quote begins at around 9:55 AM.

There are plenty of other documents available, even here in this forum! Philb has done a wonderful job of entering a lot of the quotes from the newly released interviews with the firemen and EMS folks on 9-11.

The documents were released in August, so just look back in the list of 9-11 threads and you're bound to find MANY quotes.

I just know from my own VCR tape (not heresay) what several witness were saying, live, as it happened. The particular caller I remember was frantically telling of the explosions -- BEFORE the first building fell.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

28. Go to the 9/11 Forum. They have transcripts from the firemen. Also

eyewitness reports from others who worked or were on the site, including a person who received a medal for heroism on that day. A janitor. It is Not Bullshit Stephanie.

[No Exit]

31. BULL-F**KINGSHIT!!

You forget the way the feds have held so much information from the public. How do we know what's in that information?

Here's the REAL bullshit: "Nineteen Arabs, under the direction of Osama Bin Laden, plotted and successfully brought down the WTC and made a hole in the Pentagon and in a field in PA, killing 2800+ people... and our government was powerless to stop them."

WHY would you believe a story that is peddled (no--I mean, forcefed) by THIS lying administration and its lying minions???

I don't have all the answers to 9/11. I just know that if the administration says it happened a certain way, then that is SURELY not the way it happened. Because this administration LIES all the time.

[HamdenRice]

44. I agree even if I wouldn't use your language ...

but my feelings are -- how do you know when the bushistas are lying? When their lips are moving.

Why do people give them the benefit of the doubt when they lied about everything else? And the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming of administration malfeasance re 9/11.

I have started thinking of people who reflexively believe the official conspiracy theory -- you know a guy in a cave in the most primitive country on earth circumventing the most sophisticated air defense system in human history with box cutters -- as Official Conspiracy Theory Apologists -- OCTA's.

[No Exit]

53. LOL, thank you; my language was borrowed from the poster

to whom I responded--and, yes, it was, shall we say, enhanced.

Sorry, I just feel outrage at people who, wittingly or unwittingly, allow themselves to be used by this lying administration. And that's what happens: people who cry "bullshit" at everyone who tries to find out the real story of 9/11 are AIDING and ABETTING this mal-administration in its quest to spread its lies.

[earth mom]

59. Agree with you totally.

Anything and everything that comes from Bush Inc., can't be trusted; it's all blatant lies sugar coated with doublespeak. I wouldn't put anything past them-they are more than capable of bringing those buildings down by controlled demolition and hiding it all in the ductwork and between floors. Jeez...it is BEYOND OBVIOUS that those buildings came down just like they do in Vegas when they take out the old casinos!

I'm quite content to wear my :tinfoilhat: proudly because I'm sure those of us who do will have the last laugh at those who think wearing them is foolish. :P

[Tuesday_Morning]

75. Not to mention how much the bushistas ...

...have benefitted from 911.

It would be irresponsible not to question all their "true stories".

[Stephanie]

66. I do believe they LIHOP, at the very least

But I think this planted explosives story is disinformation to discredit the legitimate questions that have not yet been answered, such as why Bush ignored the August PDB, etcetera. You prefer to draw your conclusions from an internet video rather than the THOUSANDS OF EYEWITNESSES who were there that day. I live right up the street from the WTC. I am sick of this bullshit story.

[HamdenRice]

102. LIHOP?!? That's a crazy bat-shit conspiracy theory!

See my point? Basically we all have questions about 9/11, and a lot of people, perhaps the majority in this country would dismiss LIHOP as wild eyed conspiracy theory.

We all have to draw our lines somewhere, don't we? For me, no plane at the pentagon, flying holograms, missiles from the Woolworth building-- all these are crazy to me, just as controlled demolition is to you. But I would put controlled demolition of WTC7 -- or maybe I would call it demolition assist -- on the "plausible so lets investigate" side of the line, after which everything else is crazy.

[screembloodymurder]

98. You'd have to be nuts to believe that.

But you forgot to mention, they had box cutters.

[peace_on_earth]

33. Have you watched the video? n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

45. Oral History of Firefighters and Rescue Workers

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=51793

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

48. Testimony from WTC HERO William Rodriquez!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=46525

[Stephanie]

65. that testimony says nothing about explosions

nothing at all - and I am not going to comb through your previous link looking to prove your assertion

[BamaBecky]

56. You can argue all day with folks like this

better to find folks with good critical thinking skills! Folks that are paid to foil these discussions, or folks that will be spewing the same ole tired arguments 25 years from now are to be AVOIDED. Spread the light of truth far and wide! Send them to the many many truth sites on the web. Tell them about the books by Griffin, Tarpley, Robert Gaylon Ross, and David Icke. Tell them about all the videos that graphic-ly show the truth! Listen to www.meria.net Avoid these "light benders", save your precious breath and your energy - they will just absorb it and laugh at you!

You will never have a LOGICAL discussion with these types!

Bama

[jbnow]

73. I won't try to find it now

but when the transcripts of firefighters were released I tool a look at a few of them. There were so many that I just randomly selected names that caught my eye. They first one I came to reported it as bombs going off before the building collapsed.

I don't have an opinion on how the buildings collapsed. I don't understand enough about how it works. I would guess that the structure starting to collapse could sound like bombs, much like the way people heard explosions before the levee failed in NOLA.

But it surprised me enough to read about bombs that I did go to 9/11 forum and posted it on some thread there with the quote and a link. People had found others reporting the same thing. If it's easy I will try to find that later.

My word likely doesn't mean much but I had to respond to "utter bullshit" regarding there being reports.

[jbnow]

76. I found

the post I made earlier on
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=51793#52401">this thread

I wrote:43. By chance the 1st I opened was EDWARD CACHIA
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110251.PDF">Cachia
on page 5 it says
Cachia
As my officer and I were looking at the
south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a
lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit,
because we originally had thought there was like
an internal detonation explosives because it went
in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then
the tower came down.

[mistertrickster]

124. That would be consistent with one square acre of steel crashing down

on another one.

[Thtwudbeme]

21. I have enjoyed reading the comments on DU everytime this article gets

posted.

Not once have I seen ANY DUer write, "Well...he is a Dr. of Physics, so I can't wait to see this published, and read the reviews by his peers."

Not once.

However, I do read a good many opinions by "experts" who are never willing to show their published research in the field, or offer any real reviews of this work.

[Demit]

29. You're not convinced by the crane operator's summation? (snark)

Or the "it's simple" or "not a big mystery" refutations here?

I agree, T, it's interesting to read these knee-jerk lay people repudiations of what hundreds of scientists have been studying for a couple of years now. Engineers and physicists who are after all only calling for more complete scrutiny and testing.

[No Exit]

36. Ain't that the truth!

"Engineers and physicists who are after all only calling for more complete scrutiny and testing."

Exactly! Look at the hostility!

Those people who cry "bullshit" every time some scientist TRIES to find out what really happened--those people are THE GOOD LITTLE GERMANS THAT MAKE THIS ADMINISTRATION'S (AND THE NEOCONS') HEARTS WARM!

[Stephanie]

69. Where do YOU live, Ms. Snark?

Not in Manhattan, I'd guess. I was down near the site every single weekend. I talked to people there. What is knee-jerk about that? There were thousands of people there that day and hundreds more involved in the recovery and clean up. And yet NO EVIDENCE has come forth for this ridiculous theory. Nobody saw the explosives planted, nobody saw them EXPLODE, and nobody found evidence of them in the clean-up when workers were LITERALLY SIFTING through the wreckage looking for body parts. This is a DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN to discredit the legitimate unanswered questions about what Bush knew and why he didn't do anything about it. Snark all you want. It's crap.

[Thtwudbeme]

78. Stephanie, it's OK to disagree.

However, as an ex-paramedic on a fire department, I have to say this: the metal from the WTC's were not fully evaluated for "cause of failure" by any teams of independent scientists--

Those people sifting through the mess were not all...in fact most of them were not...trained to look for evidence.

The reason I know this is because I continued for a long time to read the journals and trade mags for firefighters...at one point there was an article questioning why this was not done.

As far as comments made that day...as a veteran of many stressful scenes ...it's very hard to have decent recall of what one really heard, or what a person really said.

I think that if the scientists are interested in looking for cause, they need to be given the tools they request: we might just learn something.

Stephanie

[Stephanie]

81. You do understand that 50,000 people worked in those towers

There were MANY THOUSANDS of witnesses, not just the emergency personnel.

_____________________

http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/structure.php

June 25, 2003
New instrument tests the metal of WTC steel

A new instrument at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that operates like an air-powered battering ram is being used to study steel salvaged from the World Trade Center (WTC).

_____________________

[Thtwudbeme]

91. Yes, I do. And I also know that "recall" is flawed

I don't care if there were 150,000 people there.

The "flawed recall" is so well documented that some judges won't even accept "eyewitness" testimony.

Stress and fear do funny things to our memories.

I am not saying anyone heard explosions, all I am saying is "Give our scientists the documents and evidence they need to make a determination of why the buildings came down." That's all.

I wasn't there--I have no opinion of my own---however, I do like research and evidence....and I think it needs to be examined.

As far as the "witness" remarks...I never really pay any attention to that stuff---emperical, physical evidence is what interests me.

Stephanie

[Stephanie]

97. did you look at the articles at the civil engineering site I linked above?

if you would like to read the scientific studies. And do you honestly in your heart believe that more than 50,000 could all have the same faulty memory? Honestly?

[Thtwudbeme]

128. I am sorry...but, I doubt all "50,000" people were interviewed

it is very often that people get caught up in a group-think situation.

I will read the evidence that you posted...unfortunately I am at the end of a semester from HELL in school...and am facing a Latin test tomorrow that is going to make or break my grade...and two papers for two upper level religion classes due...on Buddhism of all things.

God help me!

I will take another hard look at your posts when I can; you know I have always respected you as a poster...and I see this as a possible emotional hotspot for you. I hate to say this, but I have almost no ties whatsoever to NYC...so, for me it's a rather "distant" problem when compared to someone such as yourself who is a resident.

See you soon,

(the other not so famous) Stephanie

[jsamuel]

47. "read the reviews by his peers"

I would love to see that. If other Doctors prove his hypothesis is wrong, then that is that. If they have to say they can't prove him wrong, then that will be interesting too.

[northzax]

67. I've read the article

it has been accepted for peer review by a fourth rate maxist-economics journal. NOT a physics journal, not an engineering journal. So the people reviewing it arent' enginners or physicists.

In fact, this is such a prestigious journal that it doesn't appear to be in the collections of the School of Advanced and International Studies (Johns Hopkins) Kennedy School of Government (Harvard) Maxwell (Syracuse) School of Foreign Service (Georgetown) or Elliot (G. Washington) maybe they're all in on it?

Check out the latest copy of RiPE: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka/homepage.htm note the strong emphasis on the physical sciences.

[goclark]

24. Very interesting,very...

Hopefully the MSM will allow this to be explored.

[geek tragedy]

27. This wasn't submitted to an engineering or scientific journal.

Rather, to a fringe/radical political one. Gee, I wonder why.

[peace_on_earth]

32. Actually BYU (Brigham Young Univ.) appears to be standing behind him...n/t

[geek tragedy]

35. Schools don't endorse everything their professors write. eom

[peace_on_earth]

39. And his paper is sitting on BYU's server

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Also see: http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_314234334.html

And this:
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html

[geek tragedy]

40. Doesn't mean they endorse it--just that he's allowed to use their webspace

due to his relationship with the school.

[peace_on_earth]

46. Excerpt re: his discussion with sixty people at BYU...

"10. I presented my objections to the “official” theory at a seminar at BYU on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed evidence and scientific arguments for the explosive demolition theory. In attendance were faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and Mathematics – and perhaps other departments as I did not recognize all of the people present. Two local universities were represented (BYU and Utah Valley State College).

The discussion was vigorous and lasted nearly two hours. It ended only when a university class needed the room. After presenting the material summarized here, including actually looking at and discussing the collapses of WTC 7 and the Towers, all except one attendee agreed (by hand-vote) that further investigation of the WTC collapses was called for. The next day, the dissenting professor said he had further thought about it and now agreed that more investigation was needed. He joined the others in hoping that the 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage held by NIST plus others held by the FBI would be released for independent scrutiny; photos largely from private photographers (NIST, 2005, p. 81). We call for the release of these data to a cross-disciplinary, preferably international team of scientists and engineers."

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

You're right, this does not mean BYU itself agrees with him. But clearly he has the support of sixty others from academia.

[northzax]

70. he says.

I want names. were these professors looking to get tenure? graduate assistants?

I can tell you I had the agreement of 60 people, but what does that mean, exactly, without a letter from one of them?

And I don't think anyone doesn't want more investigation, buildings failed, and we need to learn every lesson we can from them so it doesn't happen again. All the images and video should be available, no question. that's what the 60 'agreed to' not that Jones is right.

[No Exit]

37. Gee, maybe the other journals are afraid of retaliation from the

administration. Gosh, why would they be afraid of that? (Anyone know? Mr. Ritter? Mr. Wilson? Mrs. Wilson?)

[geek tragedy]

41. That's what the Intelligent Design people say. eom

[northzax]

68. you mean Nature?

published outside the US? there are a hundred journals outside the US that wouldn't fear retaliation. Maybe a French Engineering journal? or a German Physics journal?

I want to know where he submitted it that refused it. I bet he didn't submit this to any first or second rank journals.

[longship]

30. This is complete rubbish.

It should be filed in the same circular receptable as the papers which say that no airplanes hit the towers or the Pentagon. Argument from incredulity is fatuous. Equating an unlikely event as an impossible event is worse than fatuous.

[No Exit]

43. Fatuous: Unquestioningly swallowing the Official Story

of 9/11, which this corrupt, lying, administration has obviously successfully slipped down your throat.

Got an engineering or physics Ph.D.?

I don't, either. I don't have all the answers to 9/11. But I will not denigrate someone who tries to find the real truth of 9/11--because the Official Story is very unlikely to be the truth, because that story comes to us from known liars.

The Bush administration and its minions LOVE people like you, who ridicule and drive away ANYONE who ever questions the conclusions which the Bush administration and its minions MANDATE that you, I, and everyone else believe.

[longship]

58. You defend one argument from incredulity with another?

I have a degree in physics.

What I am *not* questioning is the multiple *independent* studies which show how the WTC collapsed.

This is convenient for me because it means that I don't need invisible demolition charges set by invisible demolition experts. I don't need any mysteriously disappearing airliners with hundreds of passengers also mysteriously disappearing. I don't need to posit that building should collapse in any other way that physics says they should collapse.

It also means that I do not need to accept any more arguments from incredulity.

[Redstone]

34. MSM or not, it's still bullshit.

Christ, I'm tired of hearing this crap.

And, have you considered the fact that this is popping up on an MSM website just might be another "distraction" cooked up by the Administration? (Now THERE's a conspiracy that's real!)

Redstone

[No Exit]

51. LOL!

Look at the conspiracy nut!

Some people find it possible to follow more than one story at a time.

I know the administration often tries distractions. I know the administration twists the (whore) media.

But I fail to see how the administration would benefit by distracting the public from a story about its TREASON, by directing the public to a story about the MURDER of 2800+ Americans, by someone whose actions clearly benefitted the administration.

Because, when you ask the question "cui bono" about 9/11, the answer is: George W. Bush and his gang.

[newportdadde]

38. The smoking man is behind it all! Coverup, Conspiracy I tell you!

:tinfoilhat:

Sorry but this stuff is just a little to :tinfoilhat:. Maybe we need Scully and Mulder in on this one?

:tinfoilhat:

Occam's_Razor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

[No Exit]

49. The administration LOVES people like you.

We sure wouldn't want to be taken in by some scam artist, would we?

We sure want the world to know that WE would never buy into some scam! No sir, WE are too smart for that!!

So what if it turned out to be a flawed or "tinfoil hat" theory? I don't know that it is, since I don't hold a PhD in physics or engineering.

But--so what if it turned out to be wrong? Would having believed it be any more embarrassing than having unquestioningly swallowed the story forcefed by THIS LYING SACK OF SHIT ADMINISTRATION AND ITS MINIONS?

I don't have to "prove I'm too smart" by automatically labeling as "tinfoil hat" every unorthodox theory that is proposed. You shouldn't, either.

[mirandapriestly]

141. Good post,, exactly...I hate those"tinfoil hat" remarks

people KNOW the msm and this administration lie about everything, but they are willing to except the preposterous official 911 story

[HamdenRice]

50. Apply occam's razor to this:

I dare you -- or are you afraid to look?

http://www.911hoax.com/gwtc7_1.asp?strPage=wtc7_1&intPage=60&PageNum=60

[fooj]

I think you hit the nail right on the head...

"Or are you afraid to look?"

It's much easier to yell "Bullshit", isn't it? How sad is that?

Peace.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

71. The Mods see fit to exile this to the dark corners of DU and yet they

still allow other 9/11 threads to stand. ie There is one about Conservatives being behind 9/11. As long as it doesn't have to do with bucking the original fairy tale, it is allowed to remain in GD. Now if DU accepts that the liars that make up this administration can take us into a war, where close to 2100 of our soldiers have died, thousands maimed and over 100,000 Iraqis killed, lied about the reasons for going to war...why do they believe the official 9/11 story?

BTW.... hi dear fooj and peace!

[screembloodymurder]

100. I'm no longer contributing to the DU

because of their censorship. When the MSM has been bought and paid for, and the truth is hidden or destroyed; then logic and proportion is all we got left.

[PATRICK]

52. The timing of the story also fits a pattern

Now that the Gospel of the 911 Commission is placed on the altar of the media and the evasion of the details successfully accomplished ANY titillating thesis can be trotted out almost Bigfoot fashion, to toy with the public's natural but ineffectual suspicions fostered in the murk of cover=ups covered up with total impunity. This is so predictable as to be actually insulting, but of course the focus is on the quaint theorist, contained rendered harmless and part of info strip tease that is going nowhere- ever- on the MSM.

Further investigations needed" says it all. If we had further investigations we might get at more important questions than the WTC grassy knoll and invisible smoking gun that are truly distractions those responsible(to some certain criminal degree) for the loss of life must be
really chuckling at.

[peace_on_earth]

55. Let's all take a deep breath and understand the resistance to this...

...is a perfectly natural response. Some of us have been studying the evidence about 9/11 for a very long time, so this doesn't surprise us at all (except that it has made the MSM). It's just more evidence to show a REAL investigation is needed. Others are new to this information, or have heard whacko theories that allowed them to then discount even the hard evidence.

It is understandable that there is tremendous psychological resistance for an act so horrific that it's really difficult to comprehend. The first few days after I found out about this, I was horrified, and said, "They wouldn't do this! Not to Americans! No way!!" Then, after researching and reading everything I could get my hands on (some good, some bogus), I formed my own opinion. Now after so many years of lies, I do not put it past them.

Give doubters a few days of researching, and they too may come to the realization that the "official story" just doesn't add up.

Again, I urge you all to watch this video--it may just change your mind:
http://www.vidilife.com/index.cfm?f=media.play&vchrMediaProgramIDCryp=02C9375E-006D-46A7-BEA7-2&action=1

[SittingBull]

57. Well said n/t

[HamdenRice]

60. Excellent post! and Katrina showed us all what they "could" do ...

Any resistance I had to LIHOP melted after seeing that they were capable of losing one of our greatest cities and ports, and allowing the bodies of Americans to rot on the streets for New Orleans for weeks.

[earth mom]

64. Great minds think alike!

Didn't see your post before I posted mine. :)

[earth mom]

63. All anyone has to do is look to Katrina and the NOLA victims

to see that MIHOP is totally possible and probable via Bush Inc. Controlled demolition fits in neatly with their plans since they obviously did NOT want to ruin ALL of Wall Street. There was money to be made in the market immediately afterwards after all. :sarcasm: :puke:

[Nothing Without Hope]

123. Well said. The professor also comments on this resistance in his

"Afterword" in his paper:

Link to paper in the OP.

AFTERWARD

In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the carefully planned use of explosives. I have presented ample evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is testable and falsifiable and yet has not been seriously considered in any of the studies funded by the US government.

At the same time, I acknowledge that other notions have sprung up in the near vacuum of official consideration of this very plausible hypothesis. These notions must be subjected to careful scrutiny. I by no means endorse all such ideas. For example, the video “In Plane Site” promotes the theory that a “pod” holds a missile under the wing of the 757 which hit WTC 2 (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). Careful inspection of the undercarriage of a standard 757 leads to the explanation that the so-called “pod” was merely a reflection from the bulged undercarriage (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). I find that the “pod theory” is very weak and distracts from central issues.

Again, there is a notion that something other than Boeing jetliners hit the WTC Towers (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). Scrutiny of photographs and videos provides compelling evidence that jets did in fact hit these buildings (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). A March 2005 article in Popular Mechanics focuses on poorly-supported claims and proceeds to ridicule the whole “9-11 truth movement” (Chertoff, 2005). Serious replies to this article have already been written (Hoffman, 2005; Baker, 2005; serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm).

Those espousing weak or untestable claims should realize that they may be damaging the effort to achieve a rational debate of important issues by poisoning the process with “junk science”. Likewise, the notion that the “explosive demolition” hypothesis should not be debated since it would imply a “conspiracy theory” departs from good science as well as from numerous historical precedents of empirical conspiracies (Jones, 2005). Scientific inquiry is not or should not be dictated by politics (Mooney, 2005).

[Nothing Without Hope]

61. Too bad this was moved to the "crazy conspiracy" forum. At least

these days topics in that forum can still reach the Greatest page. (That's not true for the "conspiracy theory" closet of the Israel/Palestine forum, where anything dealing with the involvement of the AIPAC lobby with US politics is dumped into invisibility. Once there, no post can be voted onto the greatest page - try and you get an error message.)

Thanks for posting this.

[texpatriot2004]

62. The connection b/w AIPAC & the US is NO "conspiracy theory"

I agree with you that it is wrong for those threads to be relegated to invisibility.

[Nothing Without Hope]

112. Yes, not only a major error in judgement, it's disheartening censorship

One recent thread ASKED for info about any interrelations/history of the AIPAC lobby and the PNAC principals and agenda. This was posted in GD, I believe. Relevant articles and links (from "mainstream" sources like Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker) were posted from a number of contributors, including me, and there was useful discussion.

Although this had NOTHING to do with Israel/Palestine relations, the thread was soon stripped of its greatest votes and dumped into that forum. Then, in a second-strike move, the moderator there LOCKED it with the "explanation" that ONLY THREADS WITH A RECENT ARTICLE IN THE OPENING POST WERE ALLOWED IN THAT FORUM!!!!

It's blatant censorship about an extremely important issue. With the ongoing Franklin spy scandal, it's hardly a "conspiracy theory" that some AIPAC top people worked with elements of the Administration to advance PNAC goals and provide contacts in the Israeli government with classified information. It's the subject of a federal INDICTMENT and many "mainstream" articles.

Which were, of course, taken out of discussion by locking the thread because the OP had a question instead of a "current article."

There is just no way that 9/11 unfolded the way the Administration insists that it did. In fact, it's literally impossible because the story was CHANGED multiple times, for example about why the figher/interceptor planes never challenged the attacking planes over their long, long flights into the most intensely protected airspace on the planet.

By the way, the head of NORAD on 9/11, General Eberhard, was never held accountable for deaths due to this "lapse." Instead, the grateful Bush Administration chose him as the first head of the new military über - organization NorthCom when it was formed in 2002. And oh, are there ever a lot of hair-raising facts about NorthCom...

[On the Road]

79. The "Squibs" are Interesting

In one of the the twin towers, there is a descending series of flashes just below the edge of the collapse. It appears that the center of the structure caved in first, and that these flashes are the leading edge of the collapse as seen from outside the building.

The interesting thing about this clip is that the squibs move upward. I don't know what other hypotheses there are for something traveling upwards like this.

Of course, there's also the possibility the tape was doctored. At least one of the clips frequently circulated appears to be altered, namely the one showing an altered fuselage of the aircraft and a missile being fired at point-blank range.

If fuel fires could weaken the twin towers enough to cause the collapse, I don't see why a fire in WTC7 couldn't do the same thing. Wiring every floor with explosive seems difficult to believe. But it would be nice to know about those squibs.

[lostexpectation]

86. heres goes

i also try to avoid 9/11 distraction but the squibs thing, I immediately thought the dust plumes (not flashes) were simply dust and debris being forced (by air etc) through the larger corridors as the floors above collapsed obvious really.

[On the Road]

111. Hadn't Thought of That

I believe there were some explosions near the ground floors of the twin towers (eg, windows being blown out) that were attributed to jet fuel falling down elevator and ventilation shafts. Would that process result in upward movement of some kind for WTC7?

[troubleinwinter]

88. Whatever the facts are....

there has been no forensic analysis of the remains. The materials were shipped offshore and melted down/recycled.

Some of the many videos of the other planes have not been released.

Makes me wonder about a lot of things.

[Jim Lane]

89. What would be the motivation for destroying WTC 7?

Let's assume for the sake of the argument that someone wanted to simulate a terrorist attack, and succeeded in planting explosives in the Twin Towers and in persuading everyone that the towers had been felled by hijacked airplanes. That would've been enough to accomplish any goals of such a conspiracy. Why add in the destruction of the much less prominent Building 7, creating additional opportunity for the conspiracy to be uncovered, with no significant gain to balance this downside?

[Kevin Fenton]

95. If you ask me...

The firemen had no idea what happened to the twin towers and lost a lot of men there. Once they got everybody out of WTC 7, they didn't want to go back in to fight the fire (lack of men, lack of equipment, the mission had been designated a resuce operation, not a fire-fighting operation - because they couldn't find the fires in the towers at the start), so they gave their OK to demolish it. I suppose they were thinking, "If two skyscrapers have collapsed today, then another might. Let's take no chances." I don't blame them, I just think they should say. WTC 7 fell in a completely different way to the Twin Towers as well.

[HamdenRice]

103. Enron, Bin laden, lot's of sick stuff ...

One motivation that has been tossed around is what was housed in 7 -- the NY offices of the Secret Service, CIA, SEC, IRS and other agencies.

Many investigations of corporate wrongdoing were essentially ended because the files were all destroyed, as were ongoing investigations of terrorism out of the NY federal offices.

Some have suggested it was to destroy evidence concerning the attackes themselves.

[killtown]

105. Possible motives...

Corrupt Corporations benefitted...

"Maybe no financial institution lost more critical documents than the Securities and Exchange Commission, which had its New York regional office at 7 World Trade Center. While the regulatory agency was fortunate in that it lost no employees in the terror attacks, it suffered setbacks in a number of long-running securities investigations." - TheStreet.com (9/09/02)

This is interesting...

Secret C.I.A. Site in New York Was Destroyed on Sept. 11
"The C.I.A.'s undercover New York station was in the 47-story building at 7 World Trade Center, one of the smaller office towers destroyed in the aftermath of the collapse of the twin towers that morning." - New York Times (11/04/01)

Larry "Pull it" Silverstein made a cool $478 mil off of it...

"Reports from several sources indicate that Silverstein Properties may use part of the proceeds from an imminent insurance settlement to buy out bondholders on the mortgage of 7 World Trade Center.
Industrial Risk Insurers is set to pay around $861 million to Silverstein for the lost building, which the company has owned since the 1980's, long before it acquired the master lease on the WTC. The debt on the property is around $383 million, much of it securitized as mortgage bonds." - Insurance Journal (06/07/02)

And remember...

"A private developer little known to the general public, Silverstein signed a 99-year lease for the twin towers just six weeks before the attack.
His lease with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey remains in place, making Silverstein, 72, a key figure in the rebuilding of the site." - CBS Interactive

More on the WTC 7...

Was the WTC 7 pulled?

[Jim Lane]

138. Silverstein's role

I don't know if you're suggesting something suspicious about the timing (that Silverstein signed the lease only six weeks before the attack). The practical consequence was that all the paperwork on the insurance hadn't been completed. After September 11, there was litigation between Silverstein and the insurers in which one issue was exactly which version of the documents was in force. If Silverstein had been up to anything shady, he would've been more diligent -- indeed, he would've been fanatically concerned -- about getting the insurance coverage settled and airtight.

[killtown]

145. Oh Silverstein has been fanatical about the insurance $$$

"Silverstein is reported in some quarters to have spent as much as $200 million on lawyers, as he pursues demands for as much as $7 billion from his insurers." - Boston Herald (06/03/05)

[tinrobot]

117. Unanswered questions...

Sure explosives could take down a building and I'm sure the good professor makes a case that expolsives could possibly have taken down the buildings.

But... there several nagging questions that I don't see answered by the professor or anyone else.

1) Why would some group of people go through all the trouble and logistical nightmares of hijacking four planes just to crash them into buildings that were already rigged to explode?

2) The process of rigging a building for controlled demolition is not trivial. How did some group of people manage to rip down the walls of the WTC, plant hundreds of charges and string thousands of yards of wire without being detected? Not only that, but do it in three separate buildings.

3) Why did the buildings fail at the point where the planes impacted? Were the pilots that good so they hit at the exact same place where the explosives were planted?

Someone please give me a good explaination of those points.

[Nothing Without Hope]

118. another thread on this Tucker Carson interview is here:

It links to the interview transcript.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2252328
thread title (11/15): Questioning What Happened On 911

Carlson basically accuses the professor of giving aid and comfort to evil Muslims. Excerpt:

CARLSON: I'm sure your writings greeted with just glee in Islamabad, and Peshawar and places like that. But for Americans.

JONES: Well, I haven't received notes from there, but just good people. I have Muslim friends. Let me read, for example, but I'm not going to let you off the hook. I really want to do this experiment with you.

CARLSON: We don't have a lot of time for experiments, Professor. But if you could just ... give us one thing to hold onto. How-you make these claims, or appear to make these claims ...

JONES: Tucker, sure, sure. Let's start with the collapse of Building seven. Can you roll the video clip that I sent to you?

but of course they didn't show the video.

[Nothing Without Hope]

121. READ THE AFTERWARD IN THE PROF'S PAPER - good advice:

Link to paper in the OP.

AFTERWARD

In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the carefully planned use of explosives. I have presented ample evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is testable and falsifiable and yet has not been seriously considered in any of the studies funded by the US government.

At the same time, I acknowledge that other notions have sprung up in the near vacuum of official consideration of this very plausible hypothesis. These notions must be subjected to careful scrutiny. I by no means endorse all such ideas. For example, the video “In Plane Site” promotes the theory that a “pod” holds a missile under the wing of the 757 which hit WTC 2 (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). Careful inspection of the undercarriage of a standard 757 leads to the explanation that the so-called “pod” was merely a reflection from the bulged undercarriage (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). I find that the “pod theory” is very weak and distracts from central issues.

Again, there is a notion that something other than Boeing jetliners hit the WTC Towers (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). Scrutiny of photographs and videos provides compelling evidence that jets did in fact hit these buildings (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). A March 2005 article in Popular Mechanics focuses on poorly-supported claims and proceeds to ridicule the whole “9-11 truth movement” (Chertoff, 2005). Serious replies to this article have already been written (Hoffman, 2005; Baker, 2005; serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm).

Those espousing weak or untestable claims should realize that they may be damaging the effort to achieve a rational debate of important issues by poisoning the process with “junk science”. Likewise, the notion that the “explosive demolition” hypothesis should not be debated since it would imply a “conspiracy theory” departs from good science as well as from numerous historical precedents of empirical conspiracies (Jones, 2005). Scientific inquiry is not or should not be dictated by politics (Mooney, 2005).

[KatieB]

132. When I saw the buildings fall I said "That looks just like demolition work

If you've ever seen a building imploded on purpose (Discovery ran a series on them), it looked exactly the same.

[Nothing Without Hope]

122. "Error: you can't recommend threads from this forum."

Can't let those "conspiracy theories" out of the bag. At least now they don't strip away the Greatest votes they get before they get dumped into the 9/11 forum.

[pauldp]

129. So is DU censoring more tha MSNBC now? nt

[corbett]

134. Make Sure That These Folks Have Your Stuff

https://secure.reopen911.org/freedvd.php

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mirandapriestly]

142. scary, huh? nt

[JackieO]

147. Yeah, and I guess it's against the rules

to comment on the censorship here. Who knew?