Heres something else interesting...

According to a bio-doctor who has hard evidence, both the OKC bombing and WTC tower attacks were inside jobs, by shadow CIA agents called Mossad.

http://www.arcticbeacon.com

Worth looking at...

Doug E

re #1 Thanks, Doug ... but if you could link to an article rather than the home page of a website site, it would be a lot more useful.

I've known that something didn't jive with the 911 issue. It's good to see more people at least look at the facts and not what we were told to look at.

"we had to pull it"
Silverstein on a P.B.S documentary

"I didn't mean pull it"

In the NYP 05

Black boxes never found, NORAD, a passport found on the sidewalk at the base of the towers? Get real man!

To Mark:

You are right, the "official' story doesn't jive at all. It's bizarre that some still cling to it like a security blanket. Sad, really.

Here is a better link

Biologist doctor claims both OKC bombing and WTC fall were controlled inside job, has active on the scene evidence

Doug E.

To Doug Eldritch:

Notice how it says there are threats on the doctor's life? Just like the WTC janitor Rodriguez that is now fearing for his life for persistently telling the truth. It is usually a pretty good indicator that someone's struck a nerve so to speak and are onto the true story if their life is threatened by those they seek to expose.

It may take time, but the Truth will out.

What this bunch (not just Bush & co, but the entire Ruling Class who managed this affair) didn't count on was the power of the Internet. The information has been assimilated, correlated, cross-indexed and more will be put together in time. This story will be completed and clear long before the criminals have all died (as might've happened in a pre-Internet era).

Maybe "America" is dead. Maybe the idea that the Elite, such as our country's rich founders, can maintain their behind-the-scenes control of everything is coming to an end. Transparency seems inevitable and the criminals, like so many cockroaches, will scurry to the darkness.

Maybe a New America can arise, like the Phoenix from the ashes, to fly again.

Hope springs eternal, but first we must march through the Hell these criminals have wrought on us. Then we can overwhelm them, throw them out, punish them and move on.

Let's do it quickly and legally.

"Follow the money." - deepthroat

Kraig: Wayne Madsen has been threatened also, both of them know the truth about the 9/11 attacks....This is what I believe led to the 9/11 investigation now by Kerry/Collins on laundered money.

I think it was a Mossad inside job linked to **SPOILER** Israel and nobody, no one wans to talk about it.....

I also believe Cheney planned the whole thing, and has been working with them since 1979 or so......cutting deals for the expected oil refineries.

But, this is the truth beyond Bush, Rove or Clinton that not even the FBI wants to touch.......That is what is sick.....Fitzgerald probably knows it all too...

Why can't these people take the evidence before the media? Get on Air America/CNN and start blowing the 9/11 conspiracy apart before Curt Weldon blames it on dems!

Doug E.

TERROR ALERT!!

Karl Rove's friend Tom Ridge, dressing up like a terrorist again.

"We love peace, but on our terms."

This bunch of loser criminals is totally predictable....Of course Cheney and PNAC love peace....If you give them money and a few billion $$$ contracts for Halliburton, that is! >8-)

Hey wait a minute....they said the video is a shot of Adam Gadahn. It doesn't look anything at all like Gadahn....It looks like Rove in a costume, or Cheney's crony...

THEY ARE COMPLETELY PATHETIC.....IMPEACHMENT MUST BE MORE POSSIBLE THAN EVEN WE KNOW, OR THEY WOULDN'T BE AFRAID OF PEOPLE ABANDONING THEM....

:hehe:

Doug

CNN just had about twenty minutes of 9/11 stuff and in all of that they showed only about five seconds of "collapse" footage [it happened to be WTC # 7, the building that was hit with no plane and no significant debris but "collapsed" later in the day after Larry Silverstein said to go ahead and "pull" the building. Mr. Silverstein, the owner of the WTC buildings for all of six weeks before 9/11 took out a HUGE insurance policy on them, [collecting about $3.5 or $3.6 billion though he is in court currently trying to get it to be considered two separate incidents, one for each Twin Tower so he wants about $7 billion. As far as I know it is still pending.] CNN did not once mention the word "insurance" in its garbage about 9/11.

As for the WTC # 7 footage showing its very noticeable controlled demolition from various angles, see:

http://www.wtc7.net/

To Doug Eldritch:

You mentioned you thought it was Mossad, the Israeli spy (etc.) service; while Mossad certainly knew about it beforehand and may have assisted the C.I.A. etc. in some ways, and certainly had a few operatives in Manhattan within visual range (remember the three or four celebrating Israeli "college students" in Manhattan who were taking pictures of it and posing in front of it?) I feel pretty sure it was the C.I.A. that was most responsible for pulling the whole thing off, I don't think it was a Mossad plan but a C.I.A. one (remember Operation: Northwoods?) with possibly some Mossad assisstance along the way, particulary on the passport/identity theft of some totally uninvolved Saudis etc.

Besides the fact that this is the 4th Anniversary of 9-11, are there some particular reasons for the "big interest" in this information now . . . ?

Are there allegations that these types of actions occurred in re Katrina?

Besides what is already underway [civil litigation], how will a "new discussion of this information" generate a different result, investigation, or criminal prosecution?

[Not clear on what you want done with this information . . . use it for impeachment . . . ? ]

From what I can gather, anyone who "dares raise the possibility of an inside job" has a high burden of proof: What's new here; or are we saying that previous efforts to raise allegations [from sources you may not agree with] were inadequate; but suddenly we have new information that tips the balance?

It's all well and good to assert a specific conclusion, but you're being hypocritical --- you have ridiculed others for proposing similar conclusions using the same body of evidence.

You desire to have a very high burden of proof when others assert a conclusion, but you're not demonstrating that the body of evidence is more or less compelling with these new revelations.

Back in your court.

Brad did you mention the anti-aircraft missile system the pentagon has that David Ray Griffin talks about? How the anti-aircraft missile system deploys automatically if any non-military aircraft comes within a proximity of the pentagon and whitehouse. Only a military coded aircraft would be able to fly close unless someone switched off the system. So there's the big problem with the pentagon story.

I think it was BIGFOOT and WONDER WOMEN who did it!

It's so clear to me now!

Its all a conspiricy to keep you sixties rejects, and wannabes, unhappy adolescents!

I don't see much mention of the problematic phone calls (at least some said to be from cell phones), esp. the many from Flight 93 (The Let's Roll flight). Unlike building demolition, using a cell phone is something I'm familar with... and this really got to me. I'll only link two sites, but once you start following links there, you'll find yourself in a deep rabbit hole.

More Holes in the Official Story: The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls

snippets from various parts of the article-----

The 9/11 Commission's Report provides an almost visual description of the Arab hijackers. It depicts in minute detail events occurring inside the cabin of the four hijacked planes....In the absence of surviving passengers, this "corroborating evidence", was based on passengers' cell and air phone conversations with their loved ones.

The Report conveys the impression that cell phone ground-to-air communication from high altitude was of reasonably good quality, and that there was no major impediment or obstruction in wireless transmission.

Some of the conversations were with onboard air phones, which contrary to the cell phones provide for good quality transmission. The report does not draw a clear demarcation between the two types of calls.

More significantly, what this carefully drafted script fails to mention is that, given the prevailing technology in September 2001, it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to place a wireless cell call from an aircraft traveling at high speed above 8000 feet.

At least ten cell calls are reported to have taken place on flight 93. According to the Commission's account:

"At 9:32, a hijacker .. made or attempted to make the following announcement...

"Shortly thereafter, the passengers and flight crew began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones. These calls between family, friends, and colleagues took place until the end of the flight and provided those on the ground with firsthand accounts...."

9/11 Cellphone Calls - an Overview

Many links on this page. Here's just part of a comment posted on the page (I've condensed the snippet and edited out typos)

snippet----

Hi, I am a senior R.F. design engineer, and have built out systems for Sprint Verizon and other companies.
Interesting that most of the reports were of cell phones, then, they changed to Airphones later, (after a few people said that cell phones couldnt work.) I can accept the fact that some reporters may not have known the difference, or payed attention to the details, but it seemed to be too many reports to attribute to that. GTE/Verizon did state that they handled over 20 calls at a special call center set up just for Airphone.

The problem still remains though. A few victims relatives purposely said cell phones. CeeCee Lyles' husband said that he saw the caller ID, Ed Felt had called from a bathroom, and Airphone cords dont reach that far. Ted Olson first said that Barbara had used a cell phone, then he said she was in the bathroom, then he said she forgot her purse and had to borrow a credit card from someone to make an airphone call. His story kept changing.

If you look at the flight maps, most of the calls for flight 93 "should" have been made at 35,000ft or even above. I seriously doubt that happened. Even Airphones would have had a real problem at that altitude, unless there happened to be a antenna pointed right at them.

Personally, i think some of the calls (or people) were faked, and others may have been real, but from a different craft than flight 93.

-----more a link---

Most people believe the load of cr*p that has been dished out by MSM - that ObL and Muslim terrorists were responsible for 9/11. The "big interest" is that it was, in reality, some kind of an inside job (just exactly what kind of an inside job it was remains to be seen - at least hopefully scientific forensic studies can be carried out and some day we will know for sure what really happened). I am certain that the WTC towers and #7 were controlled demolitions. I'd like to know who was behind it and why. In the last few months, I've been feeling like I'm living in another reality. I believe that 9/11 was an inside job, that the 2004 election was stolen, that ObL is dead, and that the Iraq war was undertaken to get a US corporate foothold in the Middle East. It's weird to see newstories written by people who don't see these truths. I want to say "Wake up, people - open your eyes and see!!!"

RAYMOND I know GWB is GOD, it's a no brainer ,the DEVIL did it.

Is the new building 7 pre-wired for demolition?I watched the CNN International report on 911 and they interviewed Larry Silverstein and at the end of the report he commented that he was 74 years old and intended "to go out with a bang".

"Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html

Constant:
Much info about the inconsistencies of the official story about 9-11 have been around for quite a while. I looked into it for the first time months ago, and found a lot of info. This is not new, but more and more people are learning about it and talking about it.

What talking about it does, is wake people up to the fact that what we are being told is not the truth. This is very important. The powers-that-be find it so easy to fool people who cannot believe that the US would hurt its own people. If you firmly believe that the US would never hurt its own people, and you never read, view, or listen to anything that talks about the US hurting its own people, will you see it IF it happens? If you believe it possible, and that is occurs, would you be more likely to delve into details and look closely at the actions of the govt. Either way, isn't it a good idea to be as informed as possible and always be keeping a watchful eye on our leaders? I think the more people become aware that things are not as we are told, the more people will pay close attention, the harder it will be for it to happen over and over again.

Yes, people are starting to theorize about the truth about Katrina, and I do not believe we are being told the truth. Have you read the article linked here on Bradblog about the levees breaking because exposives were used? People are saying that the "negligence" in the handling of Katrina was all planned. And yes, some people are saying that the technology to control weather exists.

I do not think that the people who believe such horrible things have a heavy burden of proof. Even in the case of the wildest conspiracy theory, the people who cannot believe it are no more correct than the people who can accept it. Do I know that the levees broke due to the use of explosives? No. Do you know that explosives were not used? In the absense of first-hand experience, we all look at the information we receive and make up our own minds. More and more people are seeing that the official story of 9-11 does not fit together well.

Kraig:
A great summary of available info on 9-11. Thanks for taking the time. How long have you been researching 9-11?

Marian # 16

The wake-up call has happened; in the form of the Bush administrations lackadaisical response to horrible tragedy affecting the city of New Orleans.

If the people of america don't realize that this administration is intent on perpetrating a socio-economic cleansing of our nation then they are in for shock when hammer comes down on their little comfort zones.

We must remove these criminals NOW! Any delay only serves to futher immasculate the citizenry. They are diminishing our rights and increasing the burdens on the middle and lower income populace every day. Contact your elected officials, send e-mails leave, voice mails, don't let this coup go uncontested. Make a fight of it. Wake up the neighbors and tell them their country is being stolen slowly but surely.

A small pocket of us, have doubted the government's story, one an ex-airline pilot. Then when the administration dragged their feet for a commission to investigate the doubt grew.

After all, FDR began an investigation two weeks after Pearl Harbor.

Yes, the commission was rigged and all the phoney evidence. We too, say follow the money trail, stocks being traded just before, who owned the security company Marvin Bush and a cousin.

My only question, it had to take quite a few to pull this off and how do you quiet that many?

"You don't have to be an engineer or an explosives expert to be able to plainly see the explosions, also the "squibs" of dust jetting out of windows near the blasts, and watch as each building comes down in nine seconds, freefall rate, a feat impossible by the laws of physics"

I'm sorry but I AM an engineer, I love physics, and this is bullshit. Complete bullshit. I haven't seen ANYTHING ANYWHERE regarding the supposed explosive demolition of the WTC that can't more easily be explained without explosives. It is the only thing I see regularly on Brad Blog, Whatreallyhappened, Raw Story, etc that I completely disagree with. Buildings fall DOWN, not over. That's how gravity works. I freely associate myself with everything else these websites stand for. Please stop embarrassing me!

The squibs shooting out the sides of the building are obviously compressed air escaping from between collapsing floors and the failure of concrete material in the exterior of the building. Even if there were explosives these jets would be predominately the result of escaping air. It has to go somewhere! Oh, maybe the explosives made the air disappear!

The momentum of the twenty or thirty stories above the impact falling 10 feet would so completely overwhelm the floors below that it is impossible that the remaining floors would not fail instantly in a sequence that would eventually approached the speed of sound as it progressed.

There is no need to "explain" it with explosives. All that is needed is a structural failure on ONE floor and the WHOLE building is history and it is NATURAL that it would fall STRAIGHT down. That's how gravity works. Why on earth would it go any where else when that is obviously the path of least resistance.

Even the molten metal in the basement is a NATRUAL consequence of the jackhammer action of 100 stories failing in sequence. Just try to imagine the energy transmitted through the major structural beams during the collapse. If you beat on piece of steel with a hammer it gets hot. I would be amazed if the steel at the bottom of the structure DIDN'T get red hot. It's impossible to imagine with any engineering knowledge that it did not get red hot.

All this crap about there not being a fire is foolish. I seem to remember a billowing black cloud that was so massive that it was hard to imagine its size. It made Manhattan look small by comparison. Where there is smoke there is fire. NO GETTING AROUND THAT. And it doesn't have to be a jet fuel fire. I agree that the jet fuel was consumed in the first few minutes, but it set tons of other stuff on fire that burns hot enough to reduce the strength of steel considerably. The strength of steel is reduced progressively as it get hotter. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO MELT TO FAIL. Anyone that says the buildings should not have collapsed because the the fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel doesn't know what they are talking about. It only has to get hot enough that the designed in safety factor is reduce to zero. I agree the fire alone should not have been enough to initiate a major failure. But, combined with the structural weakening cause by the impact, the destruction of the sprinkler system, and the very sudden nature of the fire it is no surprise at all that the building collapsed. In fact I remember watching and thinking that it would eventually collapse and I remember thinking that it was natural that the south tower collapsed first since the impact was lower and the stresses in the impact area were much higher.

Getting back to the suddenness of the fire, and it was a sudden spread since any walls that would slow the spread were destroyed and the jet fuel probably ignited a very large area simultaneously. I think this was a major contributing factor. Steel expands when it get hot. The thermal expansion coefficient of steel is 12.5*10^-6 mm/mm/deg C. This means that if four stories of steel was heated 500 degrees C it would want to expand 3 inches. As it expands relative to the cooler side of the building it has to carry more and more of the load as it gets hotter and weaker. The cool stronger steel consequently carries less and less load. And the hot steel is already carrying more than it was designed to carry due to structural damage. There was no way to stop the fire until all the combustible material was gone and the fire's effect was a triple whammy on the structural integrity of the buildings steel.

I could go no and on, but I think I've made my point.

IMHO it was an inside job. The neo-cons facilitated it, maybe even planned it, but there is no way they had a team of explosives experts working in the WTC for a year in advance. There simply was no need for it either. WTC 7 is little more difficult to explain, but why bother.

BTW if a fire chief says "pull the building" he obviously means the building is to be abandoned and to pull his men out out, not pull the build down with his men in it. How can you not see that as the most likely explanation?

Texaslady #21

Money. These people wallow in it.

Sam, good point.

ONYX - then why all the secrecy and foot dragging, if there is nothing to hide except incompetency let all the information out.

How do you explain all the coincidences, mainly the stock being traded heavily, the meetings changing locations, the people warned not to be in the Trade centers that day? Why did it take so long for the Fighter planes to called into play?

And I have seen a building brought down and the implosion looked exactly like this, collapsing inward. An structural engineer with 25 years experience also concurred this was a building brought down, then suddenly changed his story when his Federal funding was jeopardized.

Again, why all the secrecy when there is nothing to hide?

ONYX #22

"Even the molten metal in the basement is a NATRUAL consequence of the jackhammer action of 100 stories failing in sequence."

Could you please cite your reference material for molten metal being created by "jackhammer action".

Also, us engineers check our work purty regular.

Please use spellcheck.

#22 onyx

Your comment made me ponder. Thanks for the info you provided.

What still gets me, however, as I am still pondering your comments, is why there was such an effort (by FEMA if I remember correctly) to get rid of the steel girders (whatever?) from WTC and melt them down elsewhere. I know this isn't a physics question, but that part of the post 9-11 activity does seem highly suspicious.

If they weren't removing evidence, what were they up to? This is not a rhetorical question- I'd like to know what your thoughts are on that part of the story.

Thanks,

VG

Kraig: I know the american CIA had a hand in it just like Whitewater, Northwoods etc.

But what I can't get past is the Mossad....Do you think the CIA has really been working with the MOSSAD the whole time!????

I can't believe the RIDICULOUS silence.....even long after this cabal is gone and done away with, there is the prospect of the american empire never ending if this cancer is not rooted out.....

I feel like we'll have to replace everyone, all dems repubs all parties.....and put REAL WORKING PEOPLE into every office, someday just to get an internal investigation into what really went on with israel....

what the fuck is the real story......it sure isn't semitism....there is some ELITE group of evil, terrorist people with israeli blood and they are secretive vampires on the world........

Doug E.

When the conspiracy guys get cooking, it sounds like the perps were trying to leave as many clues as possible!

NO WAY the most incompetent administration in history brought off this operation. I think the catastrophe of New Orleans demonstrates that.

I also question the unspoken assumption of every conspiracy guy: that he's much cleverer than almost everyone else in the world. A quick glance at the conspiracy guys reveals them to be no smarter than anyone--au contraire.

If the perps existed, they would be neutralizing the conspiracy guys. This virtually proves the whole thing is a fantasy.

#27 Doug,

Woah, guy. Don't put all Israelis into the same fold. The Israelis I know are very much anti-Sharon et al. And, don't forget about the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.

Yitzhak Rabin assassination conspiracy theories

---snippet---

Yitzhak Rabin was often described as a "hawk turned dove" in the bitter and long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He had sought peace, and was in favor of compromises which were seen as acts of betrayal in certain quarters (some sects within Judaism interpreted that it would be a sin and a betrayal to give up any land even in return for peace). On November 4, 1995, he was shot in the back whilst returning to his car from a peace rally in Tel Aviv, and died later on the operating table of Ichilov Hospital. Yigal Amir, often described as a Jewish extremist, was apprehended within minutes by other people in the crowd. He did not deny having pointed and fired a gun at Rabin from within the crowd.

On the face of it, the matter was clear cut, and has been reported as such in the media. However, strong inconsistencies in the evidence have been alleged, both in the medical records, and in inquiry testimony.

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

SAM,

Sorry, I assumed that spell check would correct my frantic typing, but all cap words are ignored. I do make mistakes, but I'm not mistaken about this. Why do you believe it? What difference does it make whether explosives played a roll or it was only planes? It's obvious that our government had some hand in it. That's what outrages me. To spread thinly supported conspiracies about explosives only detracts from the reality of the crime.

Do you disagree with the concept that if you put energy into something it gets hot? Or do you disagree that the vertical structural elements of the building had to absorb massive amounts of energy?

The energy had to go somewhere. Some of it was dissipated as sound (explosions) some as heat.

BTW if you want to learn something about impact heating just Google it. You'll find some interesting stuff about ballistics, asteroid impacts and cold forging.

We're on the same side. I just don't want to get caught stretching the truth and prefer that others I respect don't either.

Valley Girl:

You still don't get it. There is still too many inconsistencies in the whole story!!!

It doesn't matter if all israelis are bad or not, what matters is a huge number of them are bad!!! A huge number of the mossad-government many who aren't even born there, are zionist terrorists and that has nothing to do with semitism!

The fact is they are TERRORISTS!!!! And they are terrorizing worldwide along with perpetrators like A.Q. Khan.

WHAT WILL IT TAKE FOR THEM TO BE ARRESTED?

We have splinter cells coming off in every direction in the USA, and the world fails to prosecute.

Also perry logan since we're on the subject of 9/11..... how can it all be a coincidence anymore if they hide the sheet metal?

Who says bush did 9/11 in this conspiracy report? Read the whole thing. Cheney and his agents could easily handle the job, they didn't need someone incompetent. Operation NORAD drills, 9/11 day...

Doug E.

@Doug.. (re: #5) - Read the last few paragraphs... it's a nice 'lil anecdote about a doctor... 9-11 theory and finally.. ALIENS!!!...

Personally I'd avoid that article as it doesn't substanciate anything it claims and it ends up taking a path that just makes the whole thing lose credibility... easy to ridicule

(and wouldn't the right-wingers love you using that story in an argument!!!.. they'd laught at it.)

--

The thing still rattling around my head is that the 4 planes turned off their transponders, assumably because it would cause confusion whilst the war-games were going on.

Questions...

Did they know that they could cause confusion so easily and avoid being shot down by simply doing this at that specific time?... (it seems like it!!)... and if so... how did they know? - If it wasn't for these two incidents coinciding... would they have been detected and shot down?

VG #26

I've heard this too, but haven't seen much supporting info. Anyone else know more?

I suspect that since the steel was probably the most valuable debris material that there were several immediate bids to take care of it. Once it is dug up it is of little value until it is converted. The contractor would want to move as fast as possible to maximise his profit.

Never-the-less FEMA does mysterious things

America must wake up to the real world,conspiracies are real. Facts are real. Conspiracy theories are nothing but a conspiracy that hasn't been confirmed yet.

Israel plays a large hand in everything,there are zionists all among us.It isn't disputed.Americans are currently incapable of investigating themselves,or investigating the truth about Israel and they may never know for several decades.

America must wake up,none of the official stories really pass the test.There is always a conspiracy,somewhere. Are there aliens?Who knows, but we may not be alone in the universe.One day americans and the world will know how other countries use them and pull their strings,oil for profit, and money for the rich and ignorant.Or poor and lazy.That day,I hope I live to see.

Signed,
America Must Wake Up

ONYX #22
a feat impossible by the laws of physics "The momentum of the twenty or thirty stories above the impact falling 10 feet would so completely overwhelm the floors below that it is impossible that the remaining floors would not fail instantly in a sequence that would eventually approached the speed of sound as it progressed."

WTF in the earths "gravity well" how the f#@K is it going to reach the speed of sound ,what 720ish miles per hour .Dream on ,where'd you study the laws of physics ,Bush U ?

WTC 7 is little more difficult to explain, but why bother.
WHY BOTHER GIVE ME A BREAK,nothing to see here ,move along now.
BTW if a fire chief says "pull the building" he obviously means the building is to be abandoned and to pull his men out out, not pull the build down with his men in it. How can you not see that as the most likely explanation?
How can you not see it .It wasn't the Fire Chief who said "pull the building" it was the lease holder."Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives."

When looking for the truth you cannot selectively disregard information that doesn't "fit" your conclusion.

A great man once said "Captain you carn't be changing the laws of physics"
mick

Doug #31

You read me wrong there. Of course I understand that there are too many inconsistencies in the whole story. See my post #15.

What you didn't get is that I was trying to tell you to be more selective in your finger pointing. We don't know that a huge number of Israelis (= Israeli citizens) are bad. Certainly some members of the current Israeli government and their cohorts are hugely hugely bad, but this is not the same thing. As we know from our experience with Bushco., a "select" group who are hugely hugely bad can do an incredible amount of damage.

VG

ONYX - Question why the secrecy? Why demand the drivers of the wrecked steel not stop between the site and the barges?

All this could be cleared up by the administration with allowing public access to the records. We are told who did it, so lets hear the rest.

All the public wants are answers to the questions that have been brought up. Show the security tapes of the plane flying into the Pentagon. That would be a major dent into any theory.

I get it but I doubt increasingly every day that its a select group......

The real "semites" have called the zionist, these people "anti-semites" since israel was formed.....I feel based on history they took over, and drove most real followers of juda out.....

And in our culture, in the society we treat all of it as superstition or anti-semitism when it is the biggest lie of all.......that's what I fear, things have never been what they seem.

And we're all along for the ride....

Doug E.

MMIXX,

When I was in college I worked summers blowing up mountains for Interstate Highway construction. I never heard anyone us the word "pull" to mean detonate the explosives. I heard "fire in the hole" "let it rip" a lot of other stuff I wouldn't print, but never "pull". Oops, I did heard them say every time "pull back". In other words, every one pull back to safe ground.

Granted, it's a different situation, but I just can't see the fire departement saying "take all our men out we are going to pull the building". I can see them saying "pull all the men out of the building it is not safe" or in short hand "pull the building". It makes too much sense.

Again, I don't want to give the impression to anyone that I believe the official story for a second. There certainly was a conspiracy, just no explosives. None were necessary either. The effect is the same with or without them, but if people say that explosives brought the building down it is easier for the conspirators to say we are just a bunch of kooks.

Onyx: How would you prove once and for all, whether it was explosives or a remote plane?

What kind of analysis has to happen, to disprove which theory is real. That building 7 either fell by controlled demolitions or by a remote/guided plane.

That's what I want to know....

Doug

ONYX
Larry Silverstein said "pull it" CNN showed it on air.

When I was 10-12 years old I would hang around the explosives guy at a local excavation project (sewer outfall thru sandstone ,20 to 30 meters deep in parts) and my job was to roll the packing plugs(sand rolled in paper tubes) that were put in the drill hole after the explosives were placed,it prevent the blast from jetting up .I think "fire in the hole" is the most common warning used including the army.I've also "played" with practice grenades with an army buddy of mine ,fire in the hole was the warning also.
A year or so ago I mixed up some "Thermite" in my garage ,its very simple ,aluminium power and rust in the correct ratio's.Hard to ignite but once it starts theres no way to put it out as it has the oxydizer(iron oxide) mixed in with the fuel(aluminium).The really cool thing about thermite is no toxic out gassing at all and the residue is pure iron ONLY.The main use of thermite is to cut steel RSJ's(beams) it has a low yeild as an explosive as it burns to slowly but will reach temperature that will easily cut steel.Please note that fires in the basement of the twin towers burnt for weeks after the collapse of the towers ,very much as thermite would.
These are the only steel frame buildings IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD that have collapsed due to fire.

I am a coppersmith by trade and understand working metal at near molten temperatures.
Free fall means unimpeded ,as we saw with the collapse of the towers ,this would require the whole frame of the towers to be "plastic to molten" to allow "free fall" speeds ,yes?

DOUG - I've never heard anything about a remote/guided plane hitting building 7. Could you elaborate?

I think WTC 1 and 2 collapsed because two planes either hijacked or remotely controlled slammed into them.

Proving that there were explosives might be easier that you think. I don't know enough to be sure, the dump site could be tested for chemical signatures for explosives. It would be very hard to eliminate them I would think. Anyone know more about explosives forensics?

The only thing I know about WTC 7 is that it had an unusual substructure that spanned some structure that predated its construction. I'm a little sparse on details, but the explanation that it was this unusual substructure, damage from WTC 1 and 2's collapse and a fire COULD explain the collapse. However I have to admit it is difficult to believe.

People keep saying , but it when straight down, imploded, like those demolitions you see on TV. Well, I say none of these people have seen a build collapse from structural failure. Neither have I, but I would not expect it to look much different.

Regarding the flack I got on the collapse approaching the speed of sound. Any engineer knows that strain travels through any material at the speed that sound travel through that same material. So, the upper limit on how fast the building can collapse is the speed of sound. Of course air resistance and sufficient time/distance for gravity to accelerate everything to that speed would slow it down a bit.

So, the upper limit on how fast the building can collapse is the speed of sound.

Would love to see the Math on that !

Hey all,

Late here and time for me to sign off. One thought I'll leave with, however. Even though Onyx's views (as a disbeliever of the official 9-11 story) about the building collapse, etc. don't sit well with some of you (myself, I'm still pondering) I think that it is valuable to hear all points of view. And, for those of you who have a stake in particular explanation or point of view, try not to take alternative views too personally, especially if they come from someone/ anyone who "gets it" that it was not what the official story says. Better we get the comeback here (on any part of the story). For myself, I'll be better prepared for any future discussion if I know what I might "hit" with, one way or the other.

VG

MMIIXX - "Free fall means unimpeded ,as we saw with the collapse of the towers ,this would require the whole frame of the towers to be "plastic to molten" to allow "free fall" speeds ,yes?"

Yes and no. If the driving force is sufficient steel can collapse at the speed of sound. That is the maximum speed that strain and therefore stress can travel in steel. If the driving force and the resisting force are in near equilibrium then it would go very slowly.

It all depends on the driving force and no one can argue that it was not enormous. It definitely was nowhere near equilibrium.

ONYX "If the driving force is sufficient steel can collapse at the speed of sound. That is the maximum speed that strain and therefore stress can travel in steel."
Wouldn't this only apply if the towers collapsed at the very moment of impact not more than an hour latter.Surely that is the time of maximum stress?

Onyx, I read about the stray plane hitting building 7 on one of the websites, I think it was 911truth.org

Regarding that, I don't think a simple fire could have collapsed building 7 when it was over an hour later.

Therefore it had to be some kind of controlled setup, either a demolition which you claim didn't happen, or another force of some kind or plane.

They did say they heard explosions in the basement. If these reports were verified you can prove once and for all whether it was a controlled demolition or something else, that's what I would say.

There would be less likely a scenario of the building just melting an hour later, and collapsing. That one is not believable.

Doug E.

Also at one point of the collapse you see the top section of the tower roll to one side and look like it was going to fall "over the side" of the building only to pull back and fall right down the center line .At this point all stresses from the top 20 or 30 floors would be removed from the remaining structure and should have been able to deflect the top section IF IT (the lower part )WASN"T DROPPING AT FREE FALL SPEED ALREADY.

VG#44 I take your point but we must agree to disagree if needed ,it not personal its fact checking.

MMIIXX - The impact was certainly a period of high stress, but the stress didn't immediately go back to pre-impact levels. The stress stayed pretty much where it was, elevated but still sound. Then the fire did a triple whammy on the steel. The heat reduced the strength, reduced the stiffness and caused thermal expansion.

When you heat steel it expands. A 500 degree increase over 4 floors would cause the vertical steel beams to try to lengthen 3 inches. This causes the load (weight of the building) to transfer from the stiffer/stronger cool structure away from the fire to the weaker/softer hot steel near the fire.

That combined with the destruction of smaller stabilizing structures caused the stress in some of the main load bearing beams to exceed the yield strength of the steel. This would lead to buckling and a acceleration of the twenty or thirty stories of building above the failure. Once this mass reached a certain speed (very slow) it can not be stopped. The building is history.

DOUG - "They did say they heard explosions in the basement. If these reports were verified you can prove once and for all whether it was a controlled demolition or something else, that's what I would say."

If you were standing in the WTC 7 basement when WTC 1 and 2 went down I can imagine that it sounded like a pretty big explosion, a bunch of them in fact. Also, in 1 and 2 anyone standing in the lobby or basement might think a big chunk of something falling down the an elevator shaft sounded like an explosion.

I heard a big explosion outside my office the other day. I don't know what it was and probably never will - nothing in paper. I suspect it was a sonic boom, but I haven't heard one of those since the 60's.

I agree that WTC 7 is mysterious, but I can think of some simpler explanations than a conspiracy that wired it with explosive while people were working in it for no apparent benefit to anyone except maybe the owner. Actually how would they hide all those wires and those detonators are pretty sensitive. Whoever did it, if they did it, took an enormous risk that some schmuck with a cellphone would get a little too close to one of the detonators and set the whole thing off prematurely. What mess that would have been to explain. There are easier ways to rip off the insurance industry.

Good night. Thanks for the opportunity to get my thoughts on this out into the open.

After recently viewing the following video, I began to have serious quiestions about the 9/11 Pentagon attack:

A Must See Video

I researched the topic on the Web and summarized what I found with the links below:

1. These links contain eyewitness feedback about the Pentagon attack:

Extensive Casualties' in Wake of Pentagon Attack

Three hours of terror and chaos that brought a nation to a halt

2. This article challenges the official version of the Sept. 11 Pentagon attack. It includes a photograph of the Department of Defenses's crusie missle, which is manufactured by Boeing, has a Global Positioning System navigation system, folded wings and tail surfaces that deploy, and a bunker buster nose cone.

Special Edition: The Pentagon Attack

3. The premise for this article is that a Boeing 757 did not strike the Pentagon. It includes a scaled illustration of a Boeing 757 in front of the hole in the Pentagon wall.

September 11, 2001 Revisited: Act II

4. This was my introduction to the fact that there was a simulation terrorist drill at the same time of the terrorist attack:

Four Star General Fired For Organizing Coup Against Neo-Cons?

5. More informtion on General Byrnes' command that conducted terrorist training simulations

Military Training Technology Online Archives

6. War games

Wargames Were Cover For the Operational Execution of 9/11

London Underground Bombing 'Exercises' Took Place at Same Time as Real Attack

Please ignore my previous message. I am new to posting on blogs.

Please click here to see comments #5 & 6.

{UPDATE: I've fixed the links in your previous message, so nobody has to ignore it any more! WP}

Please ignore my previous message. I am new to posting on blogs.

Click here to see my comments #5 & 6.

{UPDATE: I've fixed the links in your previous message, so nobody has to ignore it any more! WP}

All of the discussions about the chemistry of iron alloys and remote-controlled airlines are interesting and somewhat appropriate on this four-year anniversary of a tragedy. However, I think we should continue to focus on the truths we know: DSM, Rovegate, illegal war, incompetent administration, etc.

Let's join Cindy Sheehan in DC in two weeks and make that an event that the MSM cannot ignore. I dream about a better possibility in 2006 and then the healing can begin. Someday the historians may expose the truth of 911, but today we should focus on the truths we know.

To #50 Onyx:

Well, I really don't think someone snuck in and wired all this up the night before or something and I'm not trying to say they did, read how I wrote it out in the last part of my essay up there (and it WASN'T just about insurance $, that was just a benefit to them, not the reason for 9/11). No, I'm pretty sure that the explosives were installed years before, probably back in the aftermath of the 1993 WTC van bombing as a secret clause of the insurance companies just in case another bombing, earthquake etc. ever made the Twin Towers unstable they could be evacuated and brought down right into their footprints instead of risking them toppling over onto other buildings. They were wired to be set off from the mayor's emergency command center in the concrete bunker on floor 23 of WTC # 7, itself wired with explosives probably around the same time as the Twin Towers were wired up with charges, which explains why they brought WTC # 7 down later in the day as well, to destroy the evidence in the command center. The fact that Silverstein got $500 million from the destruction of WTC # 7 alone, not to mention for the Twin Towers' insurance policies was as I said just a benefit but not the motive. And if they were to have done this and had the charges in place for insurance reasons for several years, they certainly wouldn't have set it up so "one guy with a cell phone" could set the whole thing off accidentally. These are professionals. I go into more detail in the essay that this thread is all about, it's worth reading the whole thing.

To #54 TruthSeeker:

You said, "we should focus on the truths we know".
Spoken like someone who doesn't want to give 9/11 a real honest look, but instead, because Bush hasn't come on your television set and admitted to you that the Bushites are behind it you will give them the "benefit of the doubt". Did you actually read the essay on this thread? Did you watch the video footage of the obvious controlled demolitions of the Twin Towers and WTC # 7, conclusively proving the "official' 9/11 story is impossible? I know the truth is horrible but it is far better to face it, look at it, NOT shrink from it because it's "too uncomfortable to think about". The vast preponderance of evidence all shows 9/11 to have been an inside job. Sad but true. Scarier than some "nineteen hijackers with boxcutters that somehow magically shut down the world's most expensive Air Force for an HOUR AND TWENTY MINUTES while they meandered to their targets". Scarier and more unpleasant does not automatically = false.

To #49 Onyx:

What you wrote is not physically possible. There is no way that each Twin Tower collapsed in nine seconds which is FREEFALL RATE without explosives being used to disintegrate everything holding the buildings up. Period. How else could they "fall" at the rate an object falls through air unopposed? Otherwise you are talking something that defies physics and you may as well ask "Why didn't the building just up and float away like a soap bubble?". Because it's impossible. A nine second collapse for 110-story buildings are a rate of more than ten floors "collapsing" per second!! This is 100% IMPOSSIBLE without explosives. Period.

Add to that that the fires were nowhere near hot enough to "melt and buckle" the columns as per the long-discredited "pancake theory". No way. The smoke was what color? It was black, meaning an oxygen-starved fire, meaning a [as fires go] not-very-hot fire. Add to that the pictures, video etc. of people standing in the hole that the [remotely-piloted] tanker flew into, meaning it wasn't very hot there. Also note that the fire in the South Tower started lessening and dying before the "collapse". Also note that in no other time in recorded history has any skyscraper been accused of "collapsing" from fire. Ever. The WTC even had a much larger, much hotter, much longer-lasting fire in 1978 but came nowhere NEAR collapsing.

Above all else, just PLEASE watch the video footage of the "collapses" Onyx and you'll easily be able to see the explosions, also the "squibs" of dust jetting out of windows, and watch as they collapse at freefall rate, IMPOSSIBLE without explosives. The footage is in point #1 of the essay in this thread. It is damning to the Nth degree.

To #45 Onyx:

You said, "Yes and no", and "it all depends on the 'driving force'" as to whether a 110-story building can 'collapse' "at the speed of sound" and bear in mind, you are the one bringing up "the speed of sound" not the force of GRAVITY like we are talking about and the rate objects freefall.

What the f**k are you talking about??? The "driving force" I presume you so desperately refer to must be the force of the [drone] hitting it which occurred long before either Tower came down (and just W.T.F. "driving force" made the WTC # 7 "collapse" in an identical manner when NO plane etc. hit it and NO significant debris??) and by everyone's accounts the building did "sway" a little when the plane hit it but only for a couple seconds and well within its allowed tolerance that they figured on (for wind) in the design of it. This was quite a while before the 9:59 and 10:29 "collapses" of #2 and #1 respectively. And no matter what, there is no way that a skyscraper can collapse at the rate an object falls through air UNOPPOSED unless explosives were used. There IS NO WAY AROUND THIS. You are most certainly NOT an engineer, not even a train engineer and I know PRECISELY what you are trying to do.

Eric Hufschmidts 9-11 video sums it up--no way the official government version could be true.

I spoke with XX who worked among top brass at pentagon XX revealed our government scum were directly involved in the 9-11 scam.

Maybe the conspiracy is not just US or Israeli but it certainly was an INSIDE job.

Nah...

Look - the Bush administration has proven itself surprisingly incompetent and inept at any operation it has ever tried to pull off (the Iraq war, Katrina, Social Security reform etc. etc.), with the sole exception of PR.

Could those guys really be clever enough to pull off such a massive conspiracy? I think not. As Greg Palast put it when asked about administration foreknowledge: "Anyone who implies that George Bush knows anything at all better have damned strong evidence to support it."

9/11 conspiracy is an immense red herring, but with the enormous effort that has gone into "investigating" it some if it just might seem plausible. Unexplained happenings are sometimes unexplained for the simple reason that science hasn't caught up to a particular phenomenon - what precedence, what data do we have to assert anything about the effects of jets crashing into buildings?

There's certainly more dirt to dig about the incompetence and cronyism that allowed it to happen, but government foreknowledge? "Inside jobs"? Get real, they're mere human beings after all. Nixon didn't even manage to pull off a simple burglary, and that administration was far more clever and devious than the current Chimpocracy.

"The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty" - James Madison

"Knowledge is the antidote to fear" - Emmerson

Yeah...

Government foreknowledge? Duh.

They had 52 warnings. Say it with me, Fifty-two.

Then there is the Aug 6, pdb.

Of course there was the assassination warning in July at the G8 in Genoa. One of the multiple warnings, from Egypt, stated...planes, commanded by osama bin laden packed with explosives to fly into the meeting place. As such, the Italian government had spent an unprecedented amount of money on security, INCLUDING, surface to air missiles mounted on top of the buildings. Yeah, no warning.

Of course there is George W. Bush's own words as well.

In 1999, he made a speech at the citadel. In that speech HE warned about terrorists, HE warned about Iraq, HE also said Iran was DANGEROUSLY close to obtaining nookular weapons.

But here's the real kicker, HE ACTUALLY SAYS, that terrorists might try to hijack planes filled with explosives and use them as wmds. Then he tries to pretend his negligence is a failure of imagination...what an asshole.

So my foreigner friend, this is just a sample of foreknowledge and undeniable "imagination". You see, they have "imaginations" when it comes to scaring you into submission with their tall tales and reynolds wrap theories of the mystical bin laden.

But if you were really interested in discovering motive, means, and opportunity. Then you wouldn't be misdirecting this article would you? You would be demanding an INDEPENDENT investigation.

....and that scares you doesn't it? It should.

110 floors at the WTC - "collapsed" in under 10 seconds.

11 floors/ per second....any questions?

Who was installing the fiber optic upgrades that required the buildings to be "shut down" of all security months before?

http://www.119-questions.com/

who killed john o'neill?

http://movies06.archive...._ONeill_Short_106kbs.mov

The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
(or 115 LIES of the 9/11 commission)

http://www.infowars.com/...mission_571_page_lie.htm

Osama bin laden? yeah right and Iraq has WMDs too! I hear the terrorists might be your next door neighbor, better call fatherland security on them.

9/11: A barrel of conspiracies

http://web.mid-day.com/n...005/september/118397.htm

9/11, the Whistle-Blowers and the Cover-Up

http://www.livejournal.c...mparent7777/2656699.html

KRAIG - What is the rate of freefall? If you don't know what it is how can it be proof of much. Hint: its not a constant speed. Another hint: velocity = acceleration x time. Gravity accelerates mass

If the building fell at a constant velocity that is proof there was something impeding it fall.

I've seen all the videos and it all can be explained without explosives.

The fires don't have to be hot enough to melt the steel. Read my posts.

I am curious if anyone knows if someone"important" was killed in those towers. I mean we know beofre hand people were warned. But no CEO's or people with high end jobs were killed that i know of.

I concur with Onyx on all points. Winter, I recommend that you bounce articles like this one off a good engineer before posting them. To not do so injures your credibility, and that's something that's the thing the blog world is struggling so hard to build up.

To #63 Onyx:

I did read your posts and to say they are pathetic and laughable is being kind. Why are you pretending to be an engineer and now a physicist??
Who are you fooling?? Let's see. You said "If it fell at a constant velocity it's proof something was holding it up". Are you serious?? I mean really??
How many different times and how many different ways does someone have to tell you that each building "collapsed" at the rate objects freefall meaning it fell basically as fast as if someone had dropped an object from the 110th floor at the same instant the "collapse" started then it "collapsed" at the rate that object dropped from the top story would fall (in a vacuum). Get it yet? How much more explicit do I have to be??? It was FREEFALL RATE. Falling at a constant velocity DOES NOT prove that something was holding it up. If I dropped your stupid pathetic ass out of an airplane and you fell at a constant rate as you would, then does that mean something was "holding you up"? NO. It means you were obeying the laws of physics. It is not as incriminating that it fell at a constant rate BUT THAT IT FELL IN NINE SECONDS WHICH MEANS MORE THAN TEN FLOORS "COLLAPSING" PER SECOND!! THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES DISINTEGRATING EVERYTHING HOLDING IT UP, YOU F**KING DIPSHIT. You are embarrassing yourself. This has really been a good lesson in human psychology, particularly the pathetic lengths some people will go to in order to avoid seeing the truth. Sad, but somewhat fascinating like watching a train wreck in slow motion. I guess some people are just so morally cowardly that they can't bear to see unpleasant truths. Guess what? That doesn't make the truth go away. Watch the footage. If you don't see plainly the EXPLOSIONS, the "squibs" of dust and the total collapse in nine seconds then you aren't watching them. Also you might want to go to the links included in point #1 that contain survivor's stories saying they saw, heard, felt EXPLOSIONS and the video of firemen survivors saying the same thing. Tell the janitor Rodriguez there weren't any explosions, he was almost killed by them.

Furthermore, you might want to also check out the other eleven points showing 9/11 was an inside job, there isn't just one part to this essay. But first watch the video footage of the "collapses" as I and several other people have explained to you the manner in which they "collapsed" is 100% IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES.

Tell your boss Karl to send smarter trolls, you are a disgrace.

Onyx there's just one problem with your explanations. How did the north tower that was hit first, had fires raging longer and had a more direct hit fall after the south tower? The south tower was hit at a bad angle more of the jet fuel exploded on the outside of the building and yet it fell first. If all variables point to the melting of the steel causing a pancake effect then logically the north tower which had been on fire longer would have fell first. Also logically speaking with the angle the south tower was hit at knocking out a corner of the building the top of the building if the steel melted would have fell off in pieces towards manhattan before the rest of the building fell. Do you know how statistically impossible it is for 3 skyscrapers to fall the exact same way in the exact same town on the exact same day?

To #65 "Retired Engineer":

No you are certainly NOT an engineer, retired or otherwise. If you were then you would've likely read about how well-built the Twin Towers were and how they survived a MUCH hotter, MUCH larger, MUCH longer-lasting fire in 1978 without coming anywhere NEAR collapsing. You'd likely know how many redundancies were built into the design. You'd certainly know that skyscrapers don't behave like that, like all forty-seven of its huge main support columns and over a hundred smaller ones all turned to butter in an instant and it came down at freefall rate, IMPOSSIBLE without it being a controlled demolition. No, you are not fooling anyone worth fooling there chief. What's next, Karl sends us fake doctors? Call a fake doctor I've got a fake migraine headache. Piss off.

To #63 Onyx:

By the way, do you remember seeing those people jumping out of windows in the WTC? Notice the constant rate at which they fell? What was "holding them up" you effing moron?

Why do we even bother responding to these ignorant trolls when they prove their own ignorance with their own posts?

I am far from being an engineer. Let's look at this with common sense. It has been reported here that these are first steel structure building to collapse in a fire. There have been two recent fires, one in Brazil and one in Spain where the building did not collapse.
We do not have one building that collapsed here due to fire. We have TWO buildings that collapsed in the same way an hour apart. Does that not seem suspicious to anyone? Yet another great coincidence?
What are the odds of two planes hitting in two separate building and having enough heat to generate the destruction of the steel so the mass of the building falls? Maybe if one building would collapse then I would think this is possible. But we have two towers and a smaller building (building 7) that collapse. Now I ask you. What is more bizarre the original story or the conspiracy theory? Think about it!

To #67 Neo:

That's not the only problem with Onyx the ostrich troll's "argument", but one I forgot to mention. Yes Onyx, just how DID the much less-damaged, shorter-burning fire "cause" the South Tower to "collapse" first??? Especially when it's fires were dying down somewhat?

But he would be happy if that was the only thing proving him wrong. He is still trying to find new, more ridiculous and ever-more pathetic "reasons" why 110-story buildings come down in nine seconds at a rate of more than ten floors "collapsing" per second without the obvious (and only) answer, explosives. By the way Onyx, just what natural collapse causes all the concrete to be PULVERIZED into dust and fist-sized chunks? What kind of a natural collapse causes steel beams of considerable weight to be thrown a hundred feet outwards from the disintegrating building before they [the beams] fall? What kind of a natural collapse has CLEARLY VISIBLE EXPLOSIONS??? What kind of a natural collapse has CLEARLY VISIBLE DUST "SQUIBS"? This Onyx fellow needs to get his head examined.

To #70 Fat Karl:

Yes you're correct, the odds of that are astronomical. But if someone is determined to believe the "official" tripe even in the face of a mountain of evidence proving conclusively that it is false, they just write this off to being a "strange coincidence" just like the literally dozens of other "strange 9/11 coincidences" they childishly ignore. I tell ya', 9/11 must be the most "coincidental" day in recorded history!

To #70 Fat Karl:

Furthermore, it didn't generate nearly enough heat to compromise the integrity of the steel. Notice the smoke was black, meaning an oxygen-starved fire, which is [as fires go] a not-very-hot fire. For crying out loud, one of the last transmissions from the firefighters in the South Tower was that they only needed two hoses sent up to knock down what was LEFT of the fire there. THAT'S why it "collapsed" when it did; because the ones with the detonators were losing their "reason" for a "collapse" with the fires being almost done in the South Tower, so they set it off when it was soon to be extinguished, because if they had waited until the fire was out completely then even horses' asses like Onyx and "Retired [fake] 'Engineer'" wouldn't even be able to believe that it was caused by fire.

You are on the money Kraig. I relish the trolls attempt to enter into a dialogue regarding the collapse of the towers or even better, #7. Holding the facts up to their face quiets their spin-o-meter and soon you can hear the pitter patter of their cloven hooves trotting on to the next unsuspecting blog to try to poison the water.

None are so blind as those who will not see.

Matthew Henry

To #74 Sam:

Thanks Sam. It is kinda' fun now that you mention it.

We've got a yard full of dead trolls here. Someone want to drag them away? They're starting to stink.
Just keep on sending these mentally retarded trolls Rove, we've got something for them. Like lambs to the slaughter, I tell ya'.

Well, I think some people on this blog understand what I'm trying to say and I appreciate that. A few are just too stubborn or ignorant to even try.

BTW if I jumped out of a 110th story window I'd accelerate at 32.2 ft/sec/sec until the aerodynamic resistance reached 200 lbs balancing the forces produced by gravity. That would take about 481 ft. (the air would be holding me up, so to speak) I would continue falling the remaining distance at about 120mph. (for a human body - it is different for all objects based upon shape and density - concrete and steel would fall much faster) That means I'd hit the ground in 10.5 seconds at 120 mph. If there was no air I'd hit the ground in 9.2 seconds at 202 mph. Concrete and steel falling through air would be somewhere in between.

I did a quick calc (too involved to post here) that tells me the force required to stop a failure of one floor would be more than 10 times the load the structure could resist if the design factor of safety was 5. The resistance would only last 1/2 a second then the collapse would continue. Successive floors would offer less and less resistance. Obviously once the collapse progressed 10 or so floors the structure would offer insignificant resistance and should have gone all the way to the ground in about 10 seconds.

This is elementary physics that most kids should get in high school.

Kraig - I'd bounce this off an engineer you know before you embarrass yourself with any more trash talk. Also, don't forget - fundamentally I'm on your side. I don't believe the official story either.

It almost would seem that the trolls didn't even bother to read the other eleven damning points. They appear to be hung up on point #1 and finding it insurmountable.

To #76 Onyx:
You never get tired of embarrassing yourself, do you? You are more full of shit than a 10-acre pig farm. So what you're saying is that you would fall at 32.2 feet per second (that part is correct for once) and at about 481 feet you would somehow accelerate to 120 fps and fall the rest of the way? You say this is "elementary physics"? It is "elementary" bullshit. Oh, I get it, THAT's why when each person jumped out of the WTC windows they fell at 32.2 fps and then suddenly turned into a fireball at 481 ft. streaking toward the ground at 120 fps, right? Hey Onyx, it didn't happen that way; instead, the people jumping out the windows looked like...well, people jumping out of windows and plummeting to their deaths at 32.2 fps all the way. Guess their "aerodynamic resistance" (which isn't going to vary much since the buildings were tall but not nearly SO tall as to reach up into the upper atmosphere with thinner air) didn't reach "200 lbs." that in your fantasy world would both "balance the force of gravity" and somehow "accelerate" their speed to ridiculous rate. You are a world-class shitbrain and you never cease to prove it with every post.

To #76 Onyx:

You said, "Don't forget, I'm on your side, I don't believe the official story either".

Onyx, sorry but you're not fooling anyone. I can see very plainly what you are; you're a troll sent to pretend to agree with what is in this essay all EXCEPT for the most obvious, most damning evidence; you have done nothing but try in increasingly feeble, increasingly laughable ways to try to "prove" that the cat with the yellow feathers stuck to his mouth didn't really eat the canary. You are fooling no-one. There's even a website that takes the same tack, the "I know the 'official' story is garbage, but please IGNORE the most obvious damning evidence of theWTC collapses, because we don't need that to sink the 'official' story". No, nobody NEEDS this to prove the 'official' story is B.S. but it IS the most OBVIOUS, in-your-face evidence and those like yourself who strain so hard to disprove the airtight facts while unconvincingly "claiming" you really don't believe the "official" story are fooling NO-ONE. Give it up. You can't win. The laws of physics were most certainly NOT suspended on 9/11 no matter how badly you want them to have been.

Kraig - up to now I thought you were just a very disagreeable person that was just being stubborn. Now I'm convinced that you have virtually zero reading comprehension. You can't even get the units of measure correct. The acceleration of gravity is 32.2 ft/sec/sec. Not 32 fps. Fps is a velocity. The 120 I quoted was in mph not fps. 120 mph is 176 fps - not a big difference as you imply.

You are doing more to destroy the credibility of this blog than any troll I've read here in the last 6 months.

Ok folks.. I'm not an engineer (well, I'm a software engineer, but that's a different school).. but I did take Physics in school, and I love physics..

Onyx, Retired Engineer, here is the problem with your reasoning.

First, as was pointed out, there was a PERSON standing in the hole made by a plane crashing into the building. Simple logic dictates that the ENTIRE area had to at least been COOL enough to allow a human being to be present, a temperature MUCH lower than something that fatigues steel. That means, the steel stabilized in temperature at some point, so most of the "fatigue" would have been normalized, right? Simply put.. If the steel cooled down enough to allow a person to walk around, it certianly wasn't hot enough to be having an "active" effect on the metal (that is, if it was weak and failing, movement should have been noticed).

Basically, you are saying that the floors below the top 20-30 collapsed without shedding any energy at all from the floors above it. While you are correct that "free fall" is acceleration (until you hit critical velocity), but it is acceleration "without obstruction". Clearly, if there are only 30 floors falling into a structure with floors/supports/machinery/walls/etc etc, it will NOT fall at "free fall acceleration rates".. right? Yes, there is a possiblity that the beams got fatigued and the top fell into the floor below, but the overall acceleration rate would NOT be at "free fall", it would be at "(free fall) - (energy absorbed into the tons and tons of mass that needed to be accelerated below any given point)".. which is something MUCH slower.

Also consider that, as was pointed out above, the TOP of one of the towers STARTED to fall OVER.. not down. Just after it started to "fall over", it then went into a straight down fall (again, at free fall speeds) which can ONLY happen if the underlying structure that was acting as the levering anchor GOES AWAY, and that will only happen "if it's pulled", so to speak.

Also, I've seen buildings fall (don't remember where, exactly..). They do NOT go straight down.. know why? the structure holding the building up is not consistent. Some parts are stronger than others and offer more resistence and start shifting the building in some direction other than "straight down". Just like the top that magically changed direction.. it was falling "off" the top of the rest of the structure.. it was falling "onto" that hole from the crash, but would have kept on that direction.. momentum, don't cha know..

Another tid-bit about "construction".. There are many reports of the MASSIVE center structures that would have been left at least PARTIALLY standing as the building "fell around them".. Pancaking doesn't destroy "all structural components", it causes the building to fall "around" and "away from" the external structures. When a building "pancakes", the floors break away from the support structures, but the support structures remain largly intact. (watch some of the stuff on TLC and History channel if you want to see examples of "known pancaking"). For the kind of pancaking that is being claimed in the WTC scenario, you are also "crushing" all of the steel beams, not just having things break away.. That sheds a LOT of energy and prevents free-fall speeds as well..

Here's another nice tidbit.. how is it that "just falling" caused EVERY SINGLE BEAM to break into "truck sized parts"? that's not a natural phenomenon.. not by a long shot. At a minimum, the top 30 floors, as they "crushed" into the ground, would have had pieces twisted and intact that were 30 - 40 ft long (only 3 or 4 stories, mind you). Yet, it was reported that -every- piece of metal that was picked up and put on trucks was "perfect truck length".. It was also stated that, with pancaking, given the size of the main internal load bearing columns, they should have been sticking up 30 - 40 feet above the rubble as the floors "pancaked away" from their supports.. Also, the crushing weight of the building seems kind of suspect to me to have been enough to "powerderize" as much concrete as was done. MOST of the 'crete would have "exploded into chunks", not turned into dust..

As for WTC 7, saying "well, that's harder to explain" is an understatement. The 9/11 comission figured that to, so they just refused to comment on it (in detail).. uh, yeah.. it's hard to explain.. cause there is NO other explination for that building.. the fire was small, there was no reason that building failed.

We can all agree that the whole thing stinks. But, to try and twist Physics into something it isn't to allow for a theory that doesn't hold water seems silly to me. I've seen buildings "fall", and it's in slow motion when it does.. it takes time for them to build up speed as the weight and momentum becomes enough to negate the structure under them. 30 floors, starting from a stop, do NOT move at "free fall speeds".. and, as we can see from one tower, do NOT spontaniously change direction (from falling 'over' to falling 'down'). I've also seen a LOT of buildings demolished.. and they DO fall at near free-fall speed, and DO fall straight down and DO cause 'crete to turn to dust..

The more I see of the images of the towers coming down, the more it looks like "pop pop pop pop pop".. beams shooting out 30 ft, HUGE dust clouds, building switching direction, and a building that wasn't in trouble falling in from the top/center first, then right into a nice little pile.. That doesn't happen in natural events..

To #76 Onyx:

As I sit here and pick out of my teeth the remains of your latest feeble "riposte", I can't help but notice you said you "did a quick calc" that's conveniently "too long" [read total B.S.] to post here" on your imaginary calculator and somehow you "found" that and I quote, "Obviously once the collapse progressed 10 or so floors the structure would offer insignificant resistance and should have gone down to the ground in ten seconds". R.O.F.L.M.A.O. at this nonsense that once again proves your ignorance. So what you're saying is that once ten floors "collapsed" then the rest of the floors would somehow offer "less and less resistance". Exactly HOW, Mr. pretend genious? HOW ON EARTH did the "collapse" of ten floors negate the support of close to a hundred floors worth of building holding it up that in your fantasy world somehow "offer less and less resistance"?? This is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. You are saying that "obviously" the 'collapse' of ten floors in a 110-story skyscraper will automatically turn the rest of it into a substance offering no more resistance than butter? You are truly out of your effing mind.

Kraig - I base my opinion on mathematical analysis. Simple math says there is no need for explosives to explain the collapse. Any high school student who took and got a B or better in physics should be able to follow my reasoning and follow up with some intelligent questions or comments.

You and the others should just take it or leave it as you see fit. I don't understand why you are so afraid of my opinion that you feel it is necessary to so frantically trash, misstate and ignore the meaning of what I have to say.

Maybe you're the real troll.

It is obvious you have no regard for dispassionate analysis and the truth that it can reveal.

To #80 Onyx:

Ah I see you did say 120 mph not 120 fps... I read it too quickly and gave you the benefit of the doubt; You are claiming that you would accelerate to 120 mph by the time you hit the ground or going from 32 fps to 176 fps at 481 ft... And you don't see how patently ridiculous this is? You didn't notice that none of the jumpers had this "strange phenomenon" you described happen to them?? Also, as Savanster pointed out, talking about freefall rate with NO OPPOSITION is a HELL of a lot different than trying to explain freefall rate with most of the building between you and the ground. Read Savanster's post if you actually want to learn something. But you obviously don't want to learn anything, otherwise you wouldn't be pathetically clinging to ridiculous notions like you have been in spite of the preponderance of evidence. You are impressing nobody.

To #83 Onyx:

Believe me, nobody is afraid of your opinion, it's about as scary as Woody Allen. You claim to make "calculations" that make NO sense but nevertheless in your warped mind "prove" that a 110-story building can come down in nine seconds as if there was nothing but air holding it up. As many people on here have explained to you in a variety of ways, this IS IMPOSSIBLE. Period. You may not want to believe it. You may be too chickenshit to believe it. It might destroy your fragile belief system. But guess what? You not believing the truth and coming up with what you think are "scientific" explanations to try to explain how this occurred without resorting to the obvious only answer of explosives (which one can SEE the explosions from with their own EYES if one watches the video footage) does not make it so. Continuing to try to was a little while ago funny, but is getting increasingly tiresome. You are never going to get anyone on here to "see" your fake "reasons" for the physics-defying 'collapses' of the Twin Towers AND the WTC #7 except of course any other mentally-challenged trolls who might wander in to get embarrassed. You are getting no traction because your "logic" defies logic and your "physics" defies physics. There IS NO EXPLAINING away the "collapses" of the WTC without accounting for demolitions. Period. We have hashed and rehashed this and it is getting tiresome. How many times do we have to prove you wrong? Yesterday you were claiming that a "driving force" pushing them to the ground in nine seconds was somehow related to the impact of the planes. Today you try to reinvent physics another way in claiming that "obviously" the nearly a hundred floors would offer "little or no resistance". And you don't see this as being bizarre, totally at odds with reality and downright stupid??

Kraig:

Remember when we talked about Mossad, well Tony Blair has come out with his advisor and made a statement about who influenced war with Iraq, Iran.

"Tony Blair decided to wage war on Iraq after coming under the influence of a "sinister" group of Jews and Freemasons, a Muslim barrister who advises the Prime Minister has claimed.
Ahmad Thomson, from the Association of Muslim Lawyers, said Mr Blair was the latest in a long line of politicians to have been influenced by the group which saw the attack on Saddam Hussein as a way to control the Middle East.

A Government source said: "It is by talking to people with varying views that we find out what the range of opinions is. It doesn't mean we agree with what they are saying."
Tony Blair discusses group that pushed him into the war

I'm afraid I agree with Tony Blair completely. The problem we americans face, and indeed the world is for over 20 years we have been far too trusting of other countries, especially Israel.

Granted I do not think it was true Jews who were behind this. In fact, this seems to be an elite group of Zionist israelites who deny everything good the jewish stand for. I've read about them....I have read alot about their past, and this isn't a simple issue this is a very dangerous game....

PNAC and the AEI are made up of freemason zionists, and they are totally obedient to a twisted form of orthodox capitalism....the opposite of judaism.

In fact I really wish people would see the writing on the wall.....we have a serious flaw in our society.

Doug Eldritch

Savantster - Thanks for your reasonable post. I still maintain that everything you bring up can be explained without resorting to the use of explosive. However, I guess I have to admit that it is at least theoretically conceivable that explosives were used, but for them to be responsible for even a tiny proportion of the destruction, that is attributed to them as proof of their existence, there would have had to have been hundreds of tons. If that was the case the building would have gone in all directions at once. A small amount maybe - but I still see no proof. The means and a motive for doing so also seem pretty weak to me, but that is just my opinion.

There is no point in even trying to discuss the facts with someone who can't even bring himself to admit that nearly a hundred stories worth of skyscraper would offer (MUCH) more resistance than air. If you can't wrap your mind around this fact then you have nothing of value to contribute, just nonsense.

#83

And yet all your mathematical analysis cannot account for the North Tower falling after the South Tower when the North Tower was struck first and more directly and had longer time to burn, pancake, etc. The south tower was clipped on a corner. The center of the tower had strong supports and even if the corner was gone the support would have remained. You are basically saying that the buildings fell because of the extreme heat and then the weight being too much for the rest of the building to support. So why did the north tower fall last?

To #87 Onyx:

More nonsense. You claim "if [explosives were used] then the building would have gone in all directions at once"... Hmmm... Guess that's why when a demolitions company is hired to "implode" a building they say, "Ah, just put those charges anywhere Jed... Don't really matter where, seein' as it's gonna go every which way anyhow no matter what we do".
No, in the real world they install the cutting charges PRECISELY where they are needed to bring the building down in a PREDICTABLE manner... That explains why it is called CONTROLLED demolitions. If you have ever seen one (which I am starting to doubt) you would know that they DON'T "just fly everywhere at once" but instead they always come straight down into their footprint without damaging nearby buildings. This is why they hire professionals to do it, not Onyx with his distaste for reality.

Kraig - may last post on this subject.

Please print out my posts and take them to your nearest high school physics teacher and ask him/her to explain it all to you. It's not proof but it is a very reasonable and probable explanation.

Good stuff, but a word of warning about some of the gatekeeper/disinfo sites to which the article links:

There is a pattern which can be easily recognized: the bogus 9/11 Commission totally ignored all the juicy evidence, while the gatekeepers within the 9/11 truth movement minimize and totally dismiss all the juiciest evidence.

Example 1: The 9/11 Commission totally ignored Bush's incriminating 9/11 witness statements. OTOH, the sites whatreallyhappened.com and emerors-clothes.com, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE, (mis)label Bush's statements as "lies" and then dismiss them. The site cooperativeresearch.org, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE, labels Bush's statements "impossible" and thus dismisses them. (Just because it was impossible for you or I to have seen the 1st WTC impact on TV before 9 am on 9/11 does not mean that it was impossible for POTUS to have done so!)

Example 2: The 9/11 Commission totally ignored The Naudet video "flash frame". 9/11 truth 'leaders' Kyle Hence and David Kubiak (911truth.org) dishonestly minimize ("it's only 2 pixels") the phenomenon and then totally dismiss it.

Example 3: the 9/11 Commission totally ignored the government's own The Pentagon Video Frame Evidence in its report, which is full of omissions. In 'response', John Judge and 911citizenswatch.org produced their own 149-page "omission report" to document the omissions in the government's report. And yet these self-proclaimed leaders of the 911 truth movement totally failed to mention this smokingest-gun omission!

The difference between totally ignoring evidence and totally dismissing meaningful evidence is moot. These people are gatekeepers!!!

Here's another 'coincidence': George Bush, the 9/11 Commission, as well as that recently-aired National Geographic propaganda piece all trace 9/11 back to caves in Afghanistan and "al Queda". Well guess what? So does the timeline of 911 truther "Paul Thompson" (cooperativeresearch.org).

Are we men, or are we a bunch of "coincidence theorists"?

To #89 Neo:

Yes, he can't explain that one either Neo and it is no use trying to get him to. It is just another uncomfortable, inconvenient fact that he tries to gloss over with fake "calculations" and lame, physics-defying excuses. He can't explain the "tipping" of the top of it and its subsequent "change of direction" either. Can't explain why the WTC # 7 "collapsed" in an identical manner to the Twin Towers but was hit by no plane and no significant debris. What can I say to get through to someone who ignores inconvenient facts like a five year old? I guess the answer is "nothing", just embarrass them and tell them to piss off.

Onyx,

I am interested in your side of the story. You seem to be in good command of the science side of this incident. So I ask of two things from you:

1) So that no one has questions, can you please present your credentials? (Ph.D. in Physics, Engineering etc. with a specialty in blah blah blah, Yale University, 1973 or whatever).
2) Once your credentials have been established, can you help to provide your assessment? I am especially looking for what you think happened, from start to finish. (I am looking to build a case to pin this crime on the White House.) Firm evidence with your professional assessment, please.

Kindly advise.

Neo - I remember thinking right after the south tower collapsed that it made sense that it went first. The off center hit caused asymmetrical loss of support and asymmetrical heating (read previous post to see why that is important). Also the impact was lower thus any small failure would allow the momentum of the much greater weight to cascade into full failure.

The slight tipping of the tower followed by a straight down collapse makes sense as well. If the failure was asymmetrical the tower would start by tipping slightly. Caused weigh being transferred toward the failure until it gave away completely. Then the weight would transfer right back to the now hopelessly over stressed, intact, structure. Once the remaining support buckled the building would go straight down. The slight amount of angular momentum imparted by the initial asymmetrical failure would of course be preserved, but might be hard to see. I'd have to look at the video again to see if I can see it.

Another one down: Mike Brown resigns from FEMA

MSNBC: Mike Brown Resigns

Michael Brown has permanently resigned, and Bush* approvals continue to fall!!!

WHO'S REALLY RESPONSIBLE?!?? WE NEED BUSH, CHENEY TO RESIGN!!!!!!

Force Bush to Resign immediately people, everyone hates him and hes become a casualty to the republicans. Then we only have to deal with Cheney/Hastert. Force him to resign, think about it: We can't impeach him immediately and it will take a while to convict him. We can't go after him either for at least 4 months until washington is cleaned up. Just pressure him to do the right thing and resign....

To save face, I believe Bush would resign. Cheney will never do anything like that but we can boot Bush out of there, and start shaming the R's!!!!

Doug E.

MrBlueSky - BSME with 25 years of manufacturing and product design experience. I have over 100 patents and product based upon my patents and designs have produced sales of over $3 billion.

I'd love to help out nailing the crooks.

A great free documentary is available.

911 confronting the evidence.
available at
http://www.reopen911.org

other great docs are
-911 in plane site
-911 greatest lie ever sold
-David Ray Griffins university of wisconsin, madison speach
also read his book THE NEW PEARL HARBOR
-of course painful deceptions by Eric Hufschmid
-911 loose change

http://www.question911.com has video of most of these.

The US is Nazi germany after they invaded Poland.

Two things that take a bit more explaining... with the second one still needing a new 'official' version.

Failing to investigate this, even if the aim is just to catch Al-Qaeda planting charges in the lobby (rather than for the purposes of validating our conpsiracy theory), is incompetent... so... were these claims (bomb in the lobby, etc.) ever investigated? ... or were witness statements ignored?

Is there any way to re-open the 9/11 commission and force it to provide new answers for everything that has been contradicted? - Keeping investigation open until those answers are found?

---

WHY NOT LOPSIDED?:
(Source: Daily Mail)
"The initial hit on the North Tower, for example, destroyed 33 of the 59 columns in its north face. This meant the damage was asymmetrical, so any resulting collapse would surely have been lopsided.

In fact, the building fell evenly. The TV aerial on the summit sank vertically, in a straight line."

---

LOBBY EXPLOSION - OR JET FUEL FIREBALL?:
(Source: Daily Mail)
"There were other strange anomalies. According to the Kean Commission, when the first plane struck: ‘A jet fuel fireball erupted and shot down a bank of elevators, bursting into numerous lower floors, including the lobby level, and the basement four storeys below ground.’

Unlikely, say Henshall and Morgan. A firm by a French documentary crew, who by chance were following a New York firefighting team that day, shows the first men arriving. The lobby was covered in fine debris and the windows were shattered but there was none of the soot or oily residue that burning jet fuel would have left behind.

..and..

"Some firefighters told reporters that day that they thought there had been bombs in the building – before apparently being silenced by their chiefs."

---

weird.

Onyx,

Thanks for your credentials. Those should be good enough to get the ball rolling.

Can you help to advise what you believe to have happened that day? (Professional Opinion is considered primary evidence just as much as facts and statistics.)

As for your comment:

Quote

I’d love to help out nailing the crooks.

End Quote

Amen to that! I just worry, however, that the evidence is moving way too slowly. The people involved are holding their cards close to their chests (or however that analogy goes!) My guess is that they are being paid off (remember this? – $9 Billion goes missing in Iraq ) and their rewards for compliance are great.

I am just afraid that when the case is finally ready to move forward, all of the players are going to be in their rocking chairs at the nursing home, laughing at all of us. (one scenario: “Yes, I did cause the 9/11 attacks but I’ve only got six months to live, the doctors say, so what can you all do to me???” – George W. Bush in the year 2025.)

Onyx,

Really.. are you trying to say that it's "reasonable" that an object weighing un-tolled tons starts on a certian path/arc, then magically disconnects from it's supporting structure (seemingly the only SOUND structure left) and falls directly down?

First off, for that to even be -remotely- possible, you would have to presume that the underlying system was coming down -anyway-, which flies in the face of a "pancake progression", right? If the "rest of the building" was sound, structurally intact, how does the "top" that is "weak above a certian point" breaking free cause the "rest of the building to fall down"? That makes no sense to me. Given your assertation that the "pancake" theory is accurate, you have to PROVE that the TOP that was weak CRUSHED the rest.. not that it "fell enough to break free, then changed directions". Momentum.. "good" steel holding it up and not being as weak as the (now proved NOT) super-heated steel that failed? that metal wouldn't "break", it would bend.. and stay intact on that "good side" and, if anything, once that "top part" leaned enough, hold it up or pull that side INTO the building, letting the leaning part fall off the side.

Again, the fires in the south tower were pretty much out.. the fires were cold.. nothing at ground level even -remotely- supports "pancaking".. and your own admission is you have NO idea how controlled demo works (lots of us do).

Someone standing in the hole shows it was cool, and still standing.. if it were to fall, how long did your calculations show it would take for that mass, starting from 0, take before it superceded any potential structural integrity of the floors below? Work with me here.. I'm trying to show you where your flaw is.. you're saying "once it got moving fast enough it would be kind of like a free fall since there is so much mass moving, the integrity of the lower parts wouldn't even matter".. I'm saying "yeah, but how long before that threshold is achieved.. as if it takes longer than a second or so, the -fact- that the -entire- building was down in 'free-fall time' -proves- there was "no resistence at all, not even a little", and therefore PROVES that the "pancake theory" is FALSE".. That's all.

People have shown that the fires weren't hot enough to cause the massive failure (a requirement for your argument).. your own math claims 'a lengthy calculation" that shows that "after some threshold" it "mimics free-fall", and I ask "yeah, but how much -extra- time are you not accounting for? and, there is ZERO tolerance here since the building -did- fall at free-fall speeds.. therefore, it IGNORES your rampup calc..

Simply put, as fantastic as it sounds, explosives are a very reasonable expliation.. in all of it disturbing and disgusting implications. Physics (combined with the actual events, not some hypothetical) denies the ability for "pancaking".. simple as that. The lack of standing center columns sticking up 40 - 60 feet says that it didn't "fall around the supports", which is required for pancaking.. the perfectly sized metal conflicts with pancaking.. etc etc.. interstingly, though.. all the "evidence" is -consistent- with controlled demo. See why people are kind of pissed that ALL that material was conviently (and illegally) removed and destroyed?

Kraig said:

"Falling at a constant velocity DOES NOT prove that something was holding it up. If I dropped your stupid pathetic ass out of an airplane and you fell at a constant rate as you would, then does that mean something was "holding you up" "

Yes - air is holding you up.

Gravity is acceleration. It is a constant. At the end of the first second the velocity in a vacuum is 32 feet per second. At the end of the second # 2 velocity is 64 feet per second. At the end of second # 3 it is 96 feet per second. And so on.

In a vacuum this acceleration is constant and keeps building. This is how we are able to sling shot spacecraft around the sun and other planets to achieve the velocities required to reach far into space.

Here on the earth we have a large mitigating factor - air resistance. In the prescence of air the human body reaches a speed of around 120 miles per hour due to the resistance of the air mass. This is refered to as Terminal Velocity. As pointed out by others here the terminal velocity of an object is dependant on its mass and shape. That is why a bowling ball and feather fall at different rates in the air, but if you put them in a vacuum they will fall at the same rate.

This is not meant to prove or disprove the theories, just trying to clear up the science

I'm still out on whether it was as orchestrated as some claim, but there definately were a lot of missed cues to say the least. Also the response of Bush and others sure makes me wonder.

To #92 Blimp Pilot:

Anyone who is honestly a coincidence theorist, meaning anyone who believes all the "strange coincidences" on 9/11, of which there are legions, are just harmless coincidences and not damning evidence, is an idiot, simply put. I link to the Blimp in at least one of the references and I would never knowingly link to disinfo sites (like "Oilempire.us") which is why I didn't link to them, they take the same perspective on 9/11 as the troll Onyx who would agree with everything else except the most obvious evidence of the controlled demolitions. I wouldn't knowingly link to any disinfo site and any "gatekeeper" sites you mentioned I was not aware until now that they were, as I probably searched and ran across it in reference to a particular aspect of it or a tidbit of information seen elsewhere.
If by "coincidence theorists here" you meant the link to the Rigorousintuition site's page regarding the "Coincidence Theorist's guide to 9/11" it's an excellent piece and I'm certain its title is meant sarcastically, as in "here's all the things about 9/11 that someone has to believe were just coincidences to believe the 'official' garbage". I am certainly not a "coincidence theorist", I know the 'official' 9/11 story is bull, I know it was an inside job and I have for a while now. I want the truth to come out just as you do and I would surely never link to sites I knew were crap disinfo 9/11 sites. As for the Naudet brothers' footage, I included a link to that, it's in the conclusion part where I mention the North Tower being struck by something that's definately not a Boeing 757, it's there. As for John Judge, I link to a good article by him regarding the Air Force impotence issue, it's in there in #3. Look, most all of the facts that damn the Bushites are individually widely-known things but rarely put together, like Bush being allowed to stay in Booker Elementary for almost an hour and the impotence of the Air Force for an hour and twenty minutes, the lack of wings, tail section, fuselage etc. on the Pentagon's lawn, the incredibly obvious "hijacker's" passport "found" [read: planted] near the WTC rubble and turned in, the at least seven "hijackers" turning up alive later, the painfully obvious controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC # 7, stuff like this that's out there all over the place even reported by the mainstream media whores like the Washington Times having an article about Morgan Reynolds saying he's pretty sure 9/11 was an inside job, which I included along with a link to another site featuring the same story. Just because I linked to the Washington Times by NO means am I saying that they are a decent media outlet but that it is such that EVEN the Wash. Times had to say something about Reynolds' statements, so please do not think the one reference to the Wash.Times is an endorsement of them or anything, just saying "look, even the MSM is saying something about it" in addition to having a link to another site listed before it and one after it as other references. So any link to a MSM article was done to say, "see even THEY said something about it". As for any disinfo, I knew there were disinfo sites in existence but I never knew they were as pervasive as you are saying. By them being pervasive even proves our point further though, as they are getting nervous; by their very need to HAVE disinfo sites operating proves their guilt, and proves us right. So I would never knowingly link to even an article that was true but happened to be thrown into a disinfo site, which is apparantly what happened in a couple cases you said, so I apologize for any bad links in the above and would ask they be disregarded then if they have turned out to be disifo sites. I read several good articles on Whatreallyhappened.com and didn't run across what you attributed to them or anything hinky in any of the several I read, so I figured it was a truthful site. Same for the Emperors-clothes website, I read several of their articles dealing with different aspects of 9/11 and they were alright articles, so I figured they were on our side. I know every link to an article that's from Whatreallyhappened and emperors-clothes deals with a matter that can be corroborated elsewhere regardless, so they aren't really important to proving the case. So in sum, any bad links I made were unintentional and the overall essay, including every point, is very true, very provable and damning. Just disregard the few bad apples.

To #101 BlueBear:

Well yes, of course air would be holding someone up to an extent as air resistence, I didn't mean otherwise, just that someone freefalling through air (as opposed to a vacuum) would still not represent the kind of resistance anywhere near solid objects like "falling through" a building holding someone up. So yes, of course you are right that the air would be "holding someone up" so to speak as resistance but I meant relatively speaking falling through air (unopposed except by air resistance) versus "falling" through close to a hundred stories of a 110-story building which would be far greater of a resistance it's "collapsing" in nine seconds. So yes, I should have been clearer on that.

To #100 Savanster:

That's what we've all been trying to explain in various ways to Onyx and he still wants to pretend that it's somehow possible for everything holding the buildings up just all of a sudden to start "collapsing" and meeting essentially no more resistance in falling in nine seconds than if falling through air. Common sense tells us this is a patently ridiculous notion. You explained in detail exactly how this impossible. He's a troll, he's sent to do this, we'll never get through to him.

As for what you said about the use of explosives being "as fantastic as it sounds", it really isn't fantastic as I'm presuming you are thinking of them as having been installed sometime just before 9/11 which would be admittedly difficult to conceal such an involved task in a short amount of time, and I doubt that this is the way they did it. Most likely the explosives were installed years before (this is in the conclusion of the essay) back in the aftermath of the 1993 WTC van bombing as a clause of the insurance companies just in case another bombing or an earthquake, etc. made the Twin Towers unstable they could be evacuated and brought straight down into their footprints with no risk of them toppling over onto other buildings, wired to be set off from the mayor's emergency command center in the concrete bunker on floor 23 of the WTC # 7 building, itself wired with explosives. When the fire in the South Tower, never very hot as fires go (note the black smoke = oxygen-starved fire) started dying the one with the detonators in the command bunker set off the S. Tower's charges, and exactly 30 min. later the N. Tower's charges went, and later in the day they "pulled" the WTC # 7 to destroy the evidence in the command center. This is likely what happened.

#95

How would it make perfect sense Onyx? If the plane hit on a weird angle and knocked out the corner the force of the impact following the laws of physics would have caused what was rest of the building above where the plane hit to react and fall towards the direction the plane came from. The top of the building would have toppled away from the rest of the mass instead of away and then straight down. You would have seen chunks of the building fall away from the rest of the building. The strong center of the building would have stayed intact until the rest of the building fell. This is not the case. The floors did not separate from the center of the building before collapse.
Then there is the conspiracy theory you want us to believe that somehow the plane hitting the south tower at a corner would have caused most of the fuel to be burned upon collision. So then you are asking us to believe that the compromised fuel somehow spread and melted an average of a quarter of a ton of steel per gallon and suddenly burned superhot to the point of melting steel which is carefully achieved with a torch and you're saying that they achieved what is normally harder to do with just jet fuel.
If jet fuel could burn hot enough to melt the steel certainly the jet fuel in airplane jets would be hot enough to melt the engines on an airplane while it is being used.
Wouldn't the supposedly superheated melted steel near the crash site have weighed less than the unmelted steel above the crash? So wouldn't this cause the now heavier materials on top to topple outward away from the building? So now you are asking us to forgo the laws of physics twice to come to the conclusion you did. The fires in the south tower were not nearly as hot as the fires in the North Tower might have been

Interesting qualifications Onyx - what experience do you have in the fabrication and construction of steel and cement high rise buidlings? - what experience do you have with construction grade steel? - what experience do you have with the materials used in the aerospace industry? - what experience do you have with kerosine fuel and how it reacts in combination with steel and cement and duralumin?

Since we've got a lot of engineers and scientists onboard, I've got a question or two.

One of the links Kraig gives is Calculations on the Possible Use of Thermite to Melt Sections of the WTC Core Columns. I'd skimmed this article before, but not with a hard eye- it does give detailed calculations, however.

At the time, it seemed quite plausible to me that IF thermite (or similar) was used, then heat to the steel columns above (fire) would then ignite thermite in/on next lower columns, causing them to collapse, more heat to next columns down, igniting thermite, etc. etc. causing serial collapse.

The author discusses two possibilities (as I understand it) thermite within the columns, or thermite in material wrapped around the columns. To me, the latter seemed much more doable. The author says the material wrapped around only needed to be ~ 2" thick. [Quote from article: In short, if a coating slightly less than 2" thick of a thermite coating were applied to the outer surface of any box column, that is sufficient chemical compound to melt that column section. A protective, insulating and cosmetic/ disguising layer (e.g. fiberglass/ foam) 1" or less would also be helpful.]

So, starting from the assumption that the "wrap around" method was used, I've got some questions, which are interrelated. Did columns on every floor need to be wrapped? How much of a column would need to be wrapped? Given that it would have taken a certain amount of time for the thermite melting reaction(s) to occur (in series) how does this compare with the total amount of time it took for any of the WTC buildings to collapse?

Or, maybe you have to start from the time it took to collapse and calculate backwards as to the placement and amount of thermite? I assume that in starting with the "time for collapse" as the "given", there will be a large number of possible "solutions" for variables as to the extent of wrapping on individual columns, and the floor-interval of wrapped columns. But, what I'm asking, really (or trying to!), is whether there are plausible "solutions" i.e. can the time required for collapse, the properties of thermite, and a "doable" placement of wrapping be reconciled? I've previously assumed so, without thinking too hard about it, but would appreciate more educated views.

Oh, one last thing. Kraig, while you link the "thermite" reference, you also propose that explosives were used. Looks like the author does not consider thermite an explosive, or not a "high explosive" anyway. Just asking for clarification.

---snip from Calculations on the Possible Use of Thermite to Melt Sections of the WTC Core Columns

The thermite reaction produces great heat, capable of melting steel, and since it does not produce reactant gases, there would not be the high explosive signature of a massive shock wave. It is the rapid production and heating of gas reaction products that causes destructive shock waves from high explosives.

--------

Thanks, VG

oh, p.s. great pix of ordinary skillet melting via thermite reaction are here

Here's a couple links that explore the idea of the charges having been installed years before or built into the building during its construction as a "failsafe" self-destruct mechanism:

http://www.serendipity.li/wtc6.htm
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

To #107 Valley Girl:

I believe you are correct in thermite being considered a low explosive rather than high explosive. There is always the possibility of course that thermite might not have been the only type used, just used to cut the steel columns or at least the largest ones with some type of regular high explosive like TNT, or the British RDX, or C4 plastique etc. being used also elsewhere in them. What makes one think thermite was at least one type of the charges involved are the hot spots under the WTC rubble still hot weeks after 9/11, pretty much unexplainable otherwise.

Neo #105 said:

"If jet fuel could burn hot enough to melt the steel certainly the jet fuel in airplane jets would be hot enough to melt the engines on an airplane while it is being used."

The parts of a jet engine directly in contact with the combustion products are alloys with much higher melting temps than structural steel.

Several years ago at a local drag race they placed an old wreck in back off two jet powered dragsters.

There had been a blown engine on the track and for entertainment while that was being cleaned up, they took turns firing their afterburners and in a very short time the old car was reduced to not much more than the frame and engine block.

Of course that was under perfect conditions of air/fuel mixture with compression etc.

In the type of fire involved 9-11 the temperatures would be substantialy less - thus the black smoke and soot - all products of incomplete combustion.

It would be almost a certainty that both thermite and high explosives were used.
The high explosives would account for the obvious "squibs" of dust jetting out of windows, very noticeable in the video footage of the "collapses":

http://www.plaguepuppy.n...ollapse%20update/#videos
http://www.plaguepuppy.n...ic_html/video%20archive/
http://www.globalresearc....net/viewtopic.php?t=523
http://www.reopen911.org...s_and_videos.htm#Painful
http://wtc.macroshaft.org/mov/
http://www.wtc7.net/
http://www.911review.org/Wiki/Sept11Videos.shtml

Kraig #109

Thanks.

I get it about the hot spots. Also, selective wrapping of columns with material containing thermite could have accounted for the conveniently truck-length dimensions of the columns that were shipped off (at least as I understand it).

BTW, the author used "thermite" as a basis for his calculations, but didn't rule out other possibilities for some other thermite-equivalent (tho I don't think he meant alternatives that were "high explosives"?).

So, re: other previous questions of mine, could wrapped thermite placement alone (or similar) have accounted for the collapse-- or does one have to invoke additional "high explosives" to get the building to come down in the time that it did? Just trying to make sure that I understand.

Thanks,

VG

p.s. any comments about my post #15? No one has taken up that issue here, so far. From what I've read, some of the "phone people" suggest that there may be enough hard evidence still available (if they could only get at it), in the form of phone logs, etc. to provide the "straw" or whatever, that will finally undo the official version.

...and explaining the concrete pulverized into a whole lot of dust and some small chunks.

...and high explosive explains the concrete pulverized into a whole lot of dust and some small chunks.

sorry for the double post, I didn't think it posted.

Savantster - the answers to most of your question are in my previous posts.

I'll go into a little more detail regarding your momentum questions.

If the upper stories started to tip they certainly would continue tipping unless acted upon by a restoring force. However, once the structure holding everything up fails the predominate action will be straight down. The rotation would probably still be there but hard to see through the expanding rubble cloud being ejected by the air rushing out from between the floors. Almost half million cubic feet per floor of air has be ejected from between the floors in less than a second. It has to go somewhere!

Here's a calculated collapse scenario:

Assume the building weighs 500,000 tons. If there is a failure on say the 85th floor and the upper 25 stories start to accelerate downward at 1/4 of a G (that's 25% of free-fall acceleration - a conservative estimate) until it impacts the next floor (approx 13 foot fall) it will have enough momentum to stress the steel in the remaining 85 floors to its elastic limit in less than 1/2 a second. The elastic compression will be about 7.3 feet over the entire height of the building below the failure. Go beyond that and the yield strength of the steel is exceeded for the entire height of the building below the failure. All the steel is now in plastic deformation and the collapse has only gone about 20 feet.

In order for the structure to decelerate this moving mass in the available 7.3 feet of elastic travel and survive it would have to exert a force of 37,368,000,000 lbs. If the design safety factor for the building is 5 then the force that it can resist is 3,420,000,000 lbs. This is less than a tenth of what is necessary. The top 25 floors will continue with only a small decrease in speed before accelerating to an even higher speed to the next floor.

When it hits the next floor the steel would already be well beyond it elastic limit and deforming plastically at a fraction of it original strength. By the time 10 floor have failed the resistance of the structure is insignificant and the building will fall at very close to free fall (32.2 ft/second/second)

Let' be conservative and say it accelerates at an average of 1/2 a G for the first ten floors and then at 95% of G for the remaining 75 floors. Time to full collapse would then be 11.7 seconds.

Regrading the person standing in the hole:

If I try put myself in her shoes I imagine that I would be trying to find a way out ASAP. It would be very obvious to me that the big hole in the side of building was not an appropriate way out. I'd stay as far way from that unstable ledge, 75 stores up, as I could. Unless it was the only cool place on the floor. The air rushing in to feed the fire would keep it cool.

I can't possibly know what was going through her mind at the time. Maybe she thought a helicopter would pick her up, but my scenario seems more plausible to me. If there were no fires or small fires why would she stand there? I'd be digging around in the rubble looking for the fire exits.

Kraig #114--

What types of materials are normally used in controlled demolitions? Many people have said that the collapses looked like controlled demolitions, but haven't explained how these are normally done, at least in terms of explosives/ placement etc. You may well have provided a link to this kind of specific info, in which case could you point me to it? Otherwise, maybe there's another link you know of that does so? I'll try to google it, and get back to you if I find that kind of link, but as I'm multi-tasking (!) it might be a while.

Thanks, VG

p.s. trust you won't forget about the other questions in #112!

To #112 Valley Girl:

It would probably be a combination of the two, the thermite for cutting the core support columns likely in the sub-basement levels especially and high explosive for blast effect to pulverize the concrete, and cause the "squibs" shooting out of windows that we see.

As for your question about wrapping it, I am no explosives expert of course but from what I understand it is set up in such a way (because the main support columns are huge) so as to cut through it at the same time from both sides, and they have to make sure that each pair go off simultaneously, otherwise the charge on one side/half would only sever it part the way and it would produce (though it's a "low" explosive) enough of a shock to dislodge its opposite number from its place and screw up the cut. Beyond that I don't know exactly "how" they wrap it or put it on each side.

Regarding your question of #15 post about the "phone calls", these were faked to try to "flesh out" the story more (in Olson on Flight 77's fake phone call), and as a flag-waving, tear-jerker of a patriotic crapaganda feast, the "Flight that fought back" (the Todd Beamer fiction). A good article explaining how the "cell phone calls" were impossible at that altitude and some other impossibilities of the "phone call" fiction, see:

http://www.geocities.com...nalsuggestion/olson.html

If you don't believe that plastically deforming steel at a high rate of speed will produce a lot of heat try this simple experiment.

Take a steel wire coat hanger. Bend it sharply back and forth through about 90 degrees twenty time as fast as you can. Then grab the bend with your fingers. Kraig, you should try to hold it for twenty seconds. I'm sure your faith in your beliefs will get you through the pain.

To #114 Valley Girl:

You asked about what materials are used in a controlled demolition, if you mean like the det. cord and such? If someone was just "imploding" an old building to demolish it I would imagine they would have all the charges placed in the places needed to sever the main columns and smaller supporting network of steel and they place the charges in such a way as to make the pieces, segments of the building etc. fall in the direction and the manner they want them to (all planned in advance of course), they would use blasting caps to set off each charge and there would be an [electric] detonator cord (comes in a spool and is not a burning type of fuze) wiring each charge or set of charges to one or several detonators, not the old-timey plunger type anymore of course but for a while it was common to use one with a turning handle on the top and there were later (I guess still current?) a type you squeeze. Beyond that, I would definately say safety goggles. If someone was building it into the structure as it was built or adding it years ago in the 1990s then time wouldn't have been a factor and they would have all the numerous det. cords etc. concealed within walls and such. Some websites explaining the demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC # 7 from an engineer/ demolitions expert's point of view:
http://members.surfeu.fi/11syyskuu/soldier5.htm
http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm
http://www.prisonplanet....21104easilywithstood.htm

And here's the homepage of a company called Controlled Demolitions Inc., (they are mentioned in point #10 in the essay):
http://controlled-demolition.com/

To #119 Onyx:

Well, I'm not disagreeing that plastically deforming steel at a high rate of speed would produce a lot of heat. It wouldn't seem to make sense if you could for example cut a piece of steel with a cutting charge and it makes no heat in doing so. Yep we can agree on that one.

It makes a good bit of heat.

#119

So you're claiming the steel beams bent back and forth so many times they melted? So if they melted while in mid bent wouldn't the laws of physics make the steal move outward away from the building or push the steel inward against the other material pushing the other material once again away from the building. Since we are now saying the material below the crash area was superheated how would the south tower with the superheated crash area be able to start falling one way and then suddenly go back to center if the part on top would probably be heavier at this point because of the intense heat changing the structure of the beams? Again how is Kerosene able to heat high enough to even make the beams start to create the friction you describe? You would need each gallon left in the plane to superheat a quarter ton of steel each within.

Now the south tower which was struck at an angle collapsed within about 40 minutes while the North Tower which was hit harder, more directly, and had a bigger fire going on took a whole 102 minutes to collapse. Maybe you'd like to put out the Titanic theory next with the clipping of the sides doing the south tower in. You're talking about intense fires raging for almost 2 hours in the north tower before it collapsed and somehow the south towers which most likely had the least amount of fuel burning inside the building collapse interestingly and yet fell straight down like the 2 other miraculous pancake style falls that day.

I still would like to hear you explain building 7 for the crowd Onyx.

You guys are hopeless. See ya later.

Wow, I never thought I'd see the day Brad Blog has an in-depth article and discussion on this topic. Not that I'm opposed.

Even without looking at any of the evidence, the behavior of the Bushies--opposing any investigation and then using 9-11 to usher in their much-desired Patriot Act--the bullshit meter begins to clang.

We saw how they controlled the media with the election, killing any mention of fraud. But I think they did an even better job of controlling this one.

Now that Bush is losing popularity, it may embolden those who know the truth, whatever it is, to come forward. In the meantime, even Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy are sticking to the official story--we were attacked by al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and the coverup was simply because the administration was asleep at the wheel.

If you're referring to heat in reference to the area of the woman standing by the hole in the side of the building, regardless of what is going through her mind, she is standing there like she's taking a view from up there and the fires in the Tower couldn't have heated up the steel hot enough to either make this woman move or to compromise the steel, as we have said many times that the fire's smoke was black meaning it's oxygen-starved.

Perhaps that's where he was going with the heat routine, not sure. Either way Onyx seems determined to avoid reality.

#124

Yeah figures we ask you valid questions about the towers defying the laws of physics and you try flashing credentials and then run from actual questions. You answered a whole one question from me and even then didn't answer it to the extent to stave off any doubt. Why don't you just tell us who you really are Scott McClellan.

Hey, Onyx agreed Bushco was behind it, just didn't buy the controlled demolition theory. Neither does the esteemed Ernest Partridge (read his the Crisis Papers):

http://www.crisispapers....rg/features/ep-blogs.htm

An except:

"If, in fact, the professor is right, then the WTC caper was an amazing feat of timing and coordination. I dare say an unbelievable feat.

Consider:

1. No one doubts that the towers were hit by commercial airliners. There were hundreds of eyewitnesses, and the impacts were recorded on tape, which we all have seen many times.

2. It is also certain that the planes were taken over by “Arab-looking” and Arabic-speaking hijackers. This was observed and reported by the flight crew and passengers on the doomed airliners.

3. As we have all seen many times, the collapse of both towers began at the points of impact. The south tower, you may recall, tilted at that point as it began to fall --- as you can see here.

Given all this, this must be the scenario that Prof. Griffin would have us believe.

1. The caper involved ultra-right conspirators (The CIA? Neo-Cons? Busheviks? Who knows?) allied with a bunch of Arabs who were somehow persuaded to sacrifice their lives for some unidentified (and scarcely imaginable) purpose in concert with the domestic conspirators.

2. The demolition charges were set to go off at the moment of impact, which means that the conspiracy involved the convergence of two separate chains of events.

3. Those who set the charges had the uncanny knowledge beforehand of exactly where the planes would hit the towers, and placed the explosives at those locations. (Otherwise, the towers would not have begun to collapse at the points of impact). Furthermore, the charges would have to survive the impacts and the conflagration of jet fuel before they were set off.

4. If, as claimed, charges were placed at the basement or at floors below the points of impact, the buildings would have collapsed at the base or intermediate floors. They didn't..."

Hey Brad or WP - Seriously some of these guys are doing a lot of damage to your credibility. Diverse, well supported, opinions are no longer welcomed here. Speak up.

Kraig pls check email

#130

Onyx you were the one who claimed everyone here was hopeless and claimed you were walking away. Not answering questions and then telling everyone they are hopeless impugns your own credibility. I asked you questions which would have you further clarify the Titanic corner gash which brought down the South Tower in around 40 minutes compared to the more direct assault on the North Tower which took almost 2 hours to fall after raging fires. Wouldn't your theory about the pancake effect and the melted beams be somewhat incredible considering that the North Tower had more time for the steel beams to become structurally unsound enough to make it pancake down near the same amount of time the south tower, which only was hit on the corner, had?

Once again most of the jet fuel from the south tower was burned off in the explosion so that leaves how many gallons of fuel to "melt" the sufficient amount of beams to create a pancake effect? With the black smoke as others have noticed this would result in an oxygen starved environment. Fires need oxygen to consume in order to create a chain reaction.

So then how do you explain the other fires in other steel structured buildings not bringing down the buildings? These fires had more oxygen to make the fires burn hotter, which would give it more energy to melt steel beams and create your pancake theory.

How do you also explain the seismic reading on the ground before the collapse of the buildings? Unless the collapse started from below the crash zone.

http://www.freedom-priva...ages/seismic-wave-24.gif

Jet fuel only burns at 875 degrees it does not get hotter than that magically no matter how much you want it to. If the jet fuel got as hot as you claimed the jet engines would melt. Jet fuel is comparable to kerosine. Which is still not hot enough to melt the beams.

The towers were built to withstand the collision of a boeing 707 which is somewhat similiar to the planes that hit the towers.

Hi Jim #129

Re: point #2 (first) "It is also certain that the planes were taken over by “Arab-looking” and Arabic- speaking hijackers. This was observed and reported by the flight crew and passengers on the doomed airliners."

I've been looking into the "observations" about hijackers on the doomed airliners. See #15 above. Most of the very "visual" info about the hijackers comes from cell phone or airphone reports (?) from those those aboard Flt. 93, the "let's roll" flight that vaporized into the Shanksville field. I think there are very good reasons to question the authenticity of these calls. I'll go back and see what I make of calls from the other flights. Flt. 93 certainly was the basis for much of the Commission's report re: details of highjackers but/and there are some very big holes in the 911 Comission's investigation of the phone calls.

Best, VG

Wow! This is quite a thread!

I've been away for most of the past two days and didn't know what I would find when I got back; I am not surprised to see a lot of heat and not much light. For the record, and in case anyone cares, I disagree with many of the comments on this thread, maybe even most of them ... sadly, I do not have enough time to list 'em all, let alone refute 'em ... but one comment in particular is begging for a reply, so here goes:

In comment #130 Onyx wrote:

"Hey Brad or WP - Seriously some of these guys are doing a lot of damage to your credibility. Diverse, well supported, opinions are no longer welcomed here. Speak up."

As I see it, in general, our role here is to provide a place where a discussion can happen, NOT to control it.

In particular, nobody should assume that Brad agrees with anything posted here unless it has his name on it. And nobody should assume that I agree with anything posted here unless it has my name on it. Anyone with access to the internet can say virtually anything they want on this blog, and they do ... how does this damage our credibility?

Brad hasn't said a single thing on this thread --- for that matter he hasn't said anything about 9/11 for a long long time --- and I fail to see how comments written by others can damage his credibility.

As for me, I have said very little here, partly because I've been so busy --- and away from my desk for most of the past two days --- and partly because I have wanted to let the discussion take whatever course it was going to take, as I usually do ... I can't say I'm happy with where it has gone, but then again I am not in control of it. I don't see how this damages my credibility either.

Free speech gets messy sometimes; we don't pretend otherwise. YOU can say anything you want to say here but it doesn't damage MY credibility. I can say anything I want to say here but it doesn't damage YOURS. And when I say "YOU", I don't mean anyone in particular; I mean everyone.

Do you want me to get more specific? OK... I disagree with Onyx's assertion that the collapse of the towers can be explained more easily without explosives than with them (see comment #22). I believe he's entitled to his opinion, but I don't happen to agree with it. Those collapses looked to me like controlled demolitions on the day, and I haven't seen anything in the intervening four years that has made me change my mind ... But on the other hand, there is absolutely no truth in Kraig's assertion that free-fall means constant velocity (see comment #66), and I was dismayed to read of his apparent lack of understanding of the difference between velocity and acceleration. I have also been disappointed to see him continuing to attack the authors of comments, rather than the arguments they have advanced ...

I agree with Valley Girl who said (in comment #44) "I think it's valuable to hear all points of view" ... I thank her for that comment ... I also thank Mr BlueSky and Bluebear2 for their calm and measured contributions... there have been some good constructive comments from others as well; please forgive me if you have made one or more of them but I haven't thanked you personally.

In conclusion, it would please me greatly if everyone who is heated about this thread would step away from their keyboards ... and I wouldn't even mind if this thread fizzled out entirely.

Thank you all very much and goodnight.

Hello #5,

It says on the article about the doctor: "“He told me they removed two softball size micro-chip nukes as well as removing C-4 pineapples and many C-4 placer charges systematically put throughout the building."

Now a nuclear device requires enormous pressure to start the nuclear reaction, and therefore the shell of the device needs to be very strong. A conventional explosive charge is being used to create enough pressure inside the casing of the bomb. Therefore, I would find it extremely unlikely that there would be softball-sized nukes out there.

Any nuclear engineers out there with more knowledge?

The credibility of the Brad Blog is threatened here, I feel...unfortunately.

Why do people think the credibility of Brad Blog is threatened by the free dialogue here? Does free dialogue threaten some people? I think it m;ust.

The current administration won't allow any people with dissenting views into their events featuring bu$h & other members of his cabinet .. events funded by taxpayer money. It's very insulting.

So - we happen to have a place here where we can share differing points of view --- and have spats once in awhile. Everybody here is encouraged to study many sources as well as provide links or names of articles/books/etc. so the information can be researched by others who so desire. That's the way it should be. That's the way of discovery and it's feared by propagandists.

a few comments for Komoel re #135 --

[1] This is an open blog ... anyone can post anything here and many people do ... Comments posted here do not necessarily represent the position of The BRAD BLOG. We make no attempt to validate or screen the comments. Therefore, if you see a comment here which you find incredible, I suggest you should question the credibility of the author of the comment, rather than the credibility of the entire blog. Or better yet, perhaps you should question the credibility of the author of the article (in this case, Greg Syzmanski) ... or even the credibility of the doctor who was quoted in the article (Dr. Bill Deagle) ... But then again,

[2] Maybe we should do some research before we question anyone's credibility... According to the Wikipedia,

The Mk-54 Davy Crockett was designed to be fired from the M-388 recoilless rifle. Weighing only 23 kg, the warhead in its casing was 400 mm by 273 mm. It was first tested in October 1958

So ... that weapon was not really too much bigger than a softball, and it was first tested almost 47 years ago. With more modern materials, it may be quite possible to build a sufficiently strong casing that is no larger than a softball ... I don't know for sure, and if I did, I probably wouldn't be allowed to tell you anyway.

Thanks WP.

I think we all needed to hear from someone everyone here respects. I wasn't asking for any kind of censorship, just a message that people posting here should be respected and the only thing that should be attacked are the arguments. It's the only way a productive discussion can ensue. Respect for other opinions is the credibility that this blog stands upon. That's all I wanted. Thanks

If you're interested I have spreadsheet that mathematically demonstrates that a major structural failure of one floor of the impact site will cause the whole building to collapse at very near free-fall.

It's conceivable the initial failure could have been helped along by explosives, but explosives would be a fart in windstorm once the collapse really got going.

I don't have a website so I can't post a link to the spreadsheet but I could upload it to BB if you'd tell me how.

I for one would like to see the calculations. Did you also put together any graphs detailing your hypothesis?

Winter Patriot #135

And others. My humble apologies, no intention to upset anyone or prevent discussion.

Some more discussion: The nuclear device described in Wikipedia is an artillery device, where the impact energy participates in the ignition process and thus greatly reducing or eliminating the need of ignition energy from a conventional explosive. Further reading the article indicates the round is actually 78.7cm (2.6ft) long. Also, surely all the Geiger meters in the area would have been screaming?

Actually the type of the explosive is not important. What is, is that where do we find us if the governement actually had something to do with 9/11, other than just screwing up the investigation and the starting a useless war?

Hello again,

I actually found one small atomic device that would be possible to hide in a building, not exactly a softball, but not huge either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/...omic_Demolition_Munition

I just can't see how it is so difficult for anyone to understand that it is impossible for a skyscraper to telescope down on itself at the rate it would fall through air without explosives disintegrating all that should have been holding it up. It doesn't happen in the real world. We can pretend that things can pass through solid objects as effortlessly as gliding through air but that doesn't make it true. All the fake "calculations" in the world will not change this. If someone doubts this, try passing through your front door without opening it.

Jim at #129 .. allow me to clarify some misgivings you have.

Presumtions.. #2.. arabs.. VG discussed that.. #3.. both collapses start at the impact site.. I'm not sure about the north tower (one that didn't start leaning), but the south tower started "falling OFF", then came straight down.. The north tower looked to just start coming down like in a controlled demo.. top floors first.. I'd have to watch the footage quite a bit to see if I could find evidence that explosions were above the damage first.. (both of these are explainable by someone going into the towers and cutting the demo system just below impact points, that would prevent any demo charges, if present, from going off.. only those BELOW the impact points would be in play. People were in and out of those towers for quite a while).

False conclusions.. #1 .. no need for any Arabs to be involved.. hell, 7 of those accused were alive and well after the attack. #2.. The explosions did NOT occur when the planes hit, they occured when the buildings came down. Setting of charges did NOT need to be done at "just the right time" when the planes hit, they needed to occur during the dropping of the buildings.. #3.. the "damage" for a controlled demo doesn't just occur at one point (at the impact area).. there is NO need to know "precisely" where the planes would hit (and if they were drones, they hit "about" where they were guided to, which could be planned.. and there are "flashes" just before BOTH planes hit the buildings which impiles missles or pre-set demo-charges or -something-). #4 Controlled demo would NOT start at the basement.. That would be one of the last things to go.. If you topple the basement first, and don't have it PERFECT, the building would fall in some uncertian direction.. pulling each floor from the top down, letting each one fall into the "hole" below, is how controled demo works.. normally from the inside out, top to bottom so everything falls "into the middle"..

Onyx.. First.. you are saying that, being conservative, that it would take over 2 extra seconds for pancaking to occur over what -we witnessed-.. that is, you suggest 11+ seconds, it took 9.. -that- is our point. Spontanious "pancaking" doesn't hold up to the "facts".. yes, we all agree that a building -could- pancake, and it would be kind of quick once it got moving (all that mass overloading the structural integrity, etc etc).. but from start to finish, it takes LONGER than, say, controlled demo.. Second.. The top floors of the south tower started "falling over".. no question. You are saying that the supports for it all gave way and it stopped its rotation (lost the anchor/lever point) and started falling "down" at that point.. Ok.. I can see how it would have stopped the arch and started down.. yet, we still have this question. if it was arching, it was moving in direction X.. it will -continue- with movement in that direction, correct? granted, it also started moving Y (down), but had X as an unchangable component.. you said the dust cloud got too big and we didn't see where that top went.. but you should be able to come up with a simulation (or someone with resources and authority) that would plot those top floors all the way to the ground.. I'm guessing, they would be BEYOND the edge of the block/containment site. That is also why I think they pulled that building when they did.. Those floors didn't just look to go "down", the "arc" looked to stop.. like as the weight of the building UNDER those floors pulled the top floors back into controlled parameters. Also, notice how NONE of the floors near the damaged section look to have "seperated"? if the top was on an arc and "broke free", there should have been tearing along the opposite side.. and, you are saying that all the center columns would have had to given out .. Just seems like too much would have had to happen that didn't, yet.. if the floors under it were "let go" (that 13ft/floor you were talking about) and the structural integrity was still in tact, -that- would start pulling the top floors "down".

And, the point (as was made again) about the woman is.. the entire space where the fire/crash -started- was cool enough to allow a human being to be present.. for that to happen, the environment had to be below a certian temperature.. Human beings can NOT live in temperatures that can deform steel.. -that-s the point.. the entire structure in that area (the worst damaged) was COOL enough to allow a human to survive there, clearly -way- too cool to be effecting industrial steel. all the damage would have had to have happened and the structure slumping at that point.. the falling would have had to start occuring (and could have) but I'd think we'd see a slow crushing of -that- floor (and 2 or 3 around it) as the entire process starts.. but, we don't.. it all just "falls".. again, seems strange. Your arguments discuss what happens well after the system is falling.. but doesn't seem to explain the start of it (like the magical 2+ seconds needed that we just don't see in the video).

And, again, there were HOTTER fires in the towers in '78 that did NOT pull the building.. how does that work? did they change out the steel with weaker stuff?

Hello all, I urge everyone to please view this short video regarding 9/11, it is VERY compelling. I found it on a link from the smirking chimp site, and in it you can see the explosions going off 20to 30 floors below the collapsing of the towers. Why did security call off the bomb sniffing dogs a week before 9/11?Why did an Israeli shipping company move out a week before 9/11 and they BROKE their lease? The smoke after the collapse burned white which indicates explosives. What about the "put options" trading regarding the airlines and Cantor Fitzgerald right before 9/11? Why did the towers "pulverize" into fine dust?? Come on people, I know it is difficult to believe but the "official" story reeks to high heaven. What about the hot spots that smoldered for weeks after? Explain the "seismic spikes" right before the towers fell. Sorry I can't do links but the video can be viewed at www.enwhore.com/viewmovie.php?mid=797 Humans close their minds to things that are too psychologically painful to bear. What are the chances of three buildings falling in exactly the same way on the same day, when never in history has a building collapsed because of fire, and no the bombs were not planted years before, VIEW THE VIDEO PLEASE!! Sorry the site is trashy, but it is the video that I hope everyone will view! Thank-you to all of you for reading my post and hopefully viewing the video.

It would have been far too risky to plant those bombs years before, no, the people who were the masterminds of this diabolical plot were very cunning indeed. It is interesting that a witness near the pentagon smelled thermite, and the smoke at ground zero burned white which is indicative of thermite. Source at: www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm Those bombs were planted in WTC weekend right before 9/11 , again please view the video at: www.enwhore.com/viewmovie.php?mid=797 Thanx again.

It really isn't that important what my theory of 9/11 is.

The most important point is that the government's theory is impossible!

The energy released in the collapse of the towers was equivalent to 200 tons of TNT or 3.5 tractor trailers full of TNT. If explosives played any significant roll in pulverizing the concrete, heating the steel, speeding the fall, making the smoke turn white, etc there would have to have been at least 10 tons of it and probably more like 100 tons.

Kinda hard to place all that in a weekend (or even a year) without anyone noticing.

Do the math!

Energy in ft-lbs = weight in lbs-f x 1/2 the height of the building in feet. One ton of TNT = 3,086,000,000 ft-lbs. So, 500,000 tons x 2000 lbs/ton x 1368/2 ft /3,085,000,000 ft-lbs/ton of TNT = 222 tons of TNT

Onyx, again.. you don't get how Demolitions work..

You don't need "all that much" explosive to "break a joint".. once you break several joints, you don't need to break them all.. you let the "physics" do the work.. If you brought in a few hundred pounds of C4, you could break some key structures and drop the entire buildling.

Although.. they are saying that each floor had a lot of pop to take them all out and break up all the steal.. yeah, that sounds a bit much to me too, but then, this whole thing doesn't make sense. Nor does the official explination since those planes hitting the buildings seem like it wasn't enough to do what they claim they did.

One possibility that "works" is that the building was rigged during construction, or shortly there after.. as a contingency plan. I would think some people with proof would come forward and say something like "you know, those buildings are wired for emergency situtations.. if someone comprimised the system, they could have dropped the entire building".. but to do that, if it's true, is to tell EVERYONE in the U.S. that there is a good chance that their hi-rise building is wired, and that would scare the crap out of a lot of people.. Keeping it a secert seems likely, even if it means helping the Admin get away with this murder/autrocity.. *shrug*

Still not buying the "it just decided to fall" story though, too many other reasons to susspect foul play.. like shutting down the buildings for security upgrades.. by Cousin to Shrubman? stinky.. all the witnesses who say they heard explosions? sure, some might have confused the pancaking for "booms" of explosives, but not all the "professionals" who were hushed after the fact.

we live in a world where many many nasty things are going on.. to believe it's not "likely" or "possible" for the government to have set this up, and think there aren't enough nut-jobs in our government/country to help do such a thing is to deny reality. There are a lot of nasty people out there. People who want enthnic cleansing, people who want to be rich, people who torture puppies and rape children.. I think coming up with a few dozen wack-jobs to bomb the towers would be a simple matter.. Hell, our government is claiming that a few wack-jobs from Al-Qaeda did just that, right?

ONYX
"The energy released in the COLLAPSE of the towers was equivalent to 200 tons of TNT"

If I was to hang a load of 100 tons from a steel cable and place 100 grams of thermite on that cable then ignite the thermite ,the cable would fail ,the 100 tons would fall,yes .
Therefore your statement is false even if your "Energy in ft-lbs = weight in lbs-f x 1/2 the height of the building in feet. One ton of TNT = 3,086,000,000 ft-lbs. So, 500,000 tons x 2000 lbs/ton x 1368/2 ft /3,085,000,000 ft-lbs/ton of TNT = 222 tons of TNT" is correct.

Please tell me how much TNT controlled demolition companys typically use .

Figures lie ,lairs figure.

I read a story shortly after 911 about one of the truck driver transporting the scrap steel from the tower site to the docks.
Well ALL of the trucks were monitored by realtime GPS and this guy decide to grab lunch at his favourite deli which was only a block from his assigned route,anyway it cost him his job.

My question is WHY would you track the disposal of the evidence if there was nothing suspect going on ,why doesn't every university in the country have a sample of this miracle steel to study its failure ,you have many buildings relying on this type of steel .

Jeeesh, I didn't say it would take 100 tons to bring down the tower. I said if you are going to attribute the powered concrete, red hot steel, speed of the fall, etc to the explosives there would need to be at least 10 tons of it to e much more than fart in a windstorm. Less than 10 tons exploding in an event that released over 200 TNT-tons of energy would not produce everything that is attributed to them.

There are lots of mysteries with 911, but this isn't on of them IMHO.

I've also said in previous posts that explosives could conceivably have been used to help the collapse get started but the amount needed to do that would probably not be evident. There are lot of logistical problems with that, though it is conceivable.

JEEESH you did say ...
"Kinda hard to place all that in a weekend (or even a year) without anyone noticing.

Do the math!"

you implied as much

Savantster 148 - That is exactly the point I've been trying make but so many here just read a bunch of crap into what I say. It's frustrating.

A tiny amount of explosives or thermite could have been used to get things going. It wasn't necessary, but some one might have thought that kind of insurance was important enough to take the risk of doing it.

Almost all of the supposed "evidence" of explosives that are bandied about, like powered concrete, red hot steel, free-fall rates, etc don't hold up to simple scientific scrutiny.

I've held out on posting a recent thought of mine until I've thought it through for a while, but here goes.

If I were one of the conspirators and I needed to make absolutely sure the buildings came down after the planes hit, I would have simply packed thermite between the fire insulation and the primary support steel in such a way that the jet fuel fire ignited the thermite. No detonators, wires, explosives, timing equipment, delicate blasting caps or demolition experts needed. One man could do it. The planes were the detonators. One could easily drill a number inconspicuous holes in the insulation and pour the thermite from an inconspicuous bag. If it was discovered during maintenance it wouldn't look too suspicious. A hell of lot less suspicious than wires, blasting caps and explosives. It could be done easily on enough floors that precise fore-knowledge of the plane impact location was unnecessary. I just can't believe anyone thought that would be necessary, but who knows.

It could explain why all the steel was "disappeared".

Thermite needs a ignition temperature of more that 1500 C ,no amount of "jet fuel" will ignite it ! Not a gallon not 1000 gallons .Kerosene burns at about 800C (from memory only) and will not replace the need for a "primer charge".

The spreadsheet with which Onyx has done his calculations, and which he has mentioned above (especially comment #138) is now available here: WTCfreefall.xls

FYI

The 9-11 Commission Report can be downloaded from this link.

A highly regarded critique, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, can be purchased via this link to Powell's (my favorite online bookstore) or found elsewhere.

Re #153, #154

Hmmm... maybe there was "something else" besides jet fuel aboard the planes that struck WTC 1/2. (Doesn't explain WTC 7, tho.)

Also, see my post #107 re: thermite- somewhat relevant, and not all of the questions have been answered, tho I understand that that might not be possible!

VG see my #154 re. thermite ignition temperatures

And yet in all of this Jet Fuel does not heat up hot enough to melt steel or even weaken it.

MMIIXX #157

Hi. I did see your comment, and that's why I said "maybe there was something else besides jet fuel on the planes"-- i.e. explosives. (Still problem with WTC 7, of course.) So, I didn't mean to imply that I hadn't registered your post #157 as an answer to one of the questions I had asked before. Au contraire. It helped me understand that IF thermite was involved, there nonetheless had to be something extra, someplace, from somewhere to really heat things up.

Thanks, VG

ONYX # 153
Just a thought. If you are alleging the planes were utilized as the detonaters to ignite the thermite, (even though the kerosene could not reach ignition temperature as pointed out in #154) why would there be a delay after the impact and before the collapse? Additionally, the towers fell in reverse order of attack. Any calculations that can explain this anomaly?

VG the way I would set up something like this is to first rent some office space that requires/allows access to the building 24/7 for staff and TRUCKs .Then over time gain access to the "core " structure (possibly as maintinence crews look-a-likes) then at my timing, place thermite strip charges on every second floor (over time) within the "core structure" ,I would/could consider using existing wiring of the building to carry the "detonation command" to the individual floors (that way the charges on the floors above the impact would be disabled -handy ay).Using electronics you could easily allow for time delays between floors etc. to create a more natural collapse.
Once all this work was complete I would quit on my lease and bugger off out of the building and rent another one in view of the "wired building" so I could stand on the roof of my truck (say a removalist truck) to watch the fireworks with my camera at the ready.

Would make a great "B Grade" movie don't you think.
P.S. Thermite can be packaged in any shape ,any size and I think you can purchase strips that can be cut to length ,it is HARD to ignite because of the high temperatures needed and therefore safe to handle .

Asbestos was used thro-out these buildings and the cost of removal would have been higher than the insurance cost and if I had sucked in the dust on 911 I would be getting test done in the future if any lung troubles develop as a result of exposure to Asbestos.

If I catch someone lying to me just once I'm very reluctant to trust them again .

#162 MMIIXX

Yeah, great B grade movie!!!

So, let's see what I've understood, and what I haven't. re: my earlier post about "thermite" way back at #107, the link I referenced considered two ways of placing thermite- fill the core of the columns, or wrap the columns with material containing thermite (only needs to be 2" thick). I thought that the wrap method was more "doable". (Wrap= strip?). Sounds like you agree according to your scenario. Right or wrong?

Next part, I'm lost. What is the "detonation command" that you refer to actually detonating? I assume from what I've learned so far that it has to be something "high explosive"/ high temp/ not thermite. Bear with me, I don't know much about how buildings are demolished, and, as it's late in the eve here, I don't have much heart for googling.

So, some kind of electrical signal can set off "charges" in a timed fashion? I assume you don't mean charges = thermite, correct? So, somehow all of those little electrons get the high temp explosive to explode? (Again, it's late in the eve- it's really meant as a serious question, tho it might not sound like it )

Thanks for all of the info so far. I am enjoying the comments on this thread, even if others aren't!

VG

VG
So, somehow all of those little electrons get the high temp explosive to explode?

A Second compound that is electronically ignited is in contact with the thermite ,it has a high burning temperature but I don’t think it has to be what you would call “high explosive” . This compound is more dangerous to handle but only a small amount would be needed compared to the amount of thermite.Its a primer charge ,most explosives do.Sort of like a bullet ,in as much as you have cordite as the main charge and a percussion cap to fire the cordite (main charge if you like).

I got to wondering about the statements I'd heard that the blueprints for the WTC were not available. The link I'm giving has a lot of other discussion, but the snippet gives the part that I'm interested in. Anyone have more info about the role of FEMA in providing/ not providing WTC blueprints to the 911 Commission?

WTC blueprints part of discussion on this thread

snippet---

146 pieces of steel, were saved for future study.

http://911research.wtc7....dian2/wtc/WTC_apndxD.htm

Of course, what was 'tested' on those 146 pieces that wasn't salvaged is dependent on how much faith you put into FEMA's report as no independent tests were able to occur.

FEMA are also the ones who won't allow ANYONE (even the 9/11 commission) to view the original WTC blueprints. Instead, if you look at the 9/11 commission footnotes, they use an 'undated FEMA WTC Blueprint' as their entire reference as would NIST and other 'official' studies.

What's hidden in the original plans? Funny that the engineers of WTC said it should never have collapsed.

-------

#165 MMIIXX

Thanks for the info. It's now really, really late here. Of course, I have further questions, but they might not make sense right now. I'll post them anon, after I have a good night's sleep!

Thanks again, VG

F.A.A. Alerted on Qaeda in '98, 9/11 Panel Said
Much of the material now restored in the public version of the commission's report centered on the warnings the F.A.A. received about the threat of hijackings, including 52 intelligence documents in the months before the Sept. 11 attacks that mentioned Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden.

PLAY SPOT THE DIFFERENCE...
A LESS EDITED REPORT

MMIIXX-

What I had not realized until recently is that Allbaugh was head of FEMA 2001-2003. Hard to keep track of all of the BCFOL activities.

Unacceptable”: The Federal Response to Katrina

-----snippets---

President George W. Bush’s opinion of FEMA was evident the month he was inaugurated when he appointed Joseph Allbaugh to head the agency. Allbaugh, who had been Bush’s chief of staff when he was governor and then ran the 2000 political campaign, had no disaster experience. Allbaugh left FEMA after two years to become a lobbyist, often for companies interested in contracts in Iraq. To fill Allbaugh’s position, Bush appointed Brown to be FEMA director.

By not listening to the best advice that emergency management professionals gave before and after Homeland Security, and by hiring political cronies, George W., Bush assured an ineffective federal agency.

It probably didn’t matter what the workers thought or that the senior staff weren’t professionals, President Bush had every intention of reducing FEMA’s power, possibly even dismantling it. Four months after becoming president, true to his philosophy of reducing government and contracting with private business to receive government funds for doing the government’s job, Bush began slashing FEMA’s budget and responsibilities.

--------

Valley Girl
What's hidden in the original plans? Funny that the engineers of WTC said it should never have collapsed.

maybe only "inspection acess panels" info for the structual members ,maybe.

It's not just the total collapse of WTC 7. There is the video of the firehouse interview with veteran NYC firefighters who were contemporaneous eye witnesses to the collapse. They describe sequential bombs going off using words such as "like charges were planted" and "boom boom boom boom". Steel girder buildings do not collapse into their own footprint from two or three office fires not even encompassing an entire floor.

There is no doubt in my mind that these buildings were brought down with the aid of demolition charges. How they got there is unknown. Additionally, William Rodriguez, a worker in the sub-basemants of the WTC complex personally helped save the lives of other workers injured by explosions in the sub-basements. He gave testimony to the 911 Commission that was conveniently omitted from the final report.

Nice try, but I'm not biting...

From the evidence shown, the official explanation that the structural members were superheated from ignited jet fuel holds firm. It fits all the facts and evidence. No way were the towers to collapse from the impacts alone - but the fuel burns at an extremely high temp. which weakened the main supports and caused the domino effect you see in the video. Remember that the tower's support came from a central set of columns, not the outer corners of the structure. Once those columns gave way, the collapse happened downard and INWARD.

Face it - Clinton worked hard to undermine our security and the terrorists took advantage of it. We practically opened the door for them to come it and hit us.

Comments about the 'steel' have not included the prime question of the 'steel' itself.

What do we know of the 'steel' is basically nothing except that it was removed and sent away so quickly that it implies a reason which had to be hidden--a 'conspiracy'--heaven forbid.

But we do know that the post collpase 'steel' was in handy little 30 foot sections. How interesting. Did the 'steel' arrive to the WTC constuction site in 30 foot sections? Did the 'steel' fail at 30 foot sections because the bonding was inferior? Certainly the 30 foot sections just not just perched one on the other? To heavy to topple .

Were the joints just token spot welded. Or welded with inferior grade welding rods? Or bonded with 'crazy glue? Don't laugh, crazy glue was used in some high grade constuction. The welds should have been the strongest part of the roughly 1300 foot columns of steel. But if not bonded (and bolted) correctly could fail.

That may explain why the earlier attempt to damage one of the towers with the exploded car bomb in the parking area was done. Because 'someone' knew that the columns could fail with a good shake--that did not work but the the same 'someone' knew the columns had faults and that crashing the towers with planes loaded with large quantities of fuel which would cause enough heat to soften bad welds or cook off bonding sites to do severe damage and collapse.

The same someone made sure the 'steel' went away asap and that the building and safety 'specs' and inspection reports went missing asap.

From the events of 911, the Iraq invasion and now the Katrina disaster we know the bushmob is just simply incompetent. Or do we?

The mob was very competent in quickly gathering up all the 'evidence' and sending it away or hiding it on 911, in making sure mutilevels of govenment did not respond on 911 and multilevels of goverment were primed for failure in anticipation of Katrina.

So we can put the blame on lower level incompetents or even the high level bush 'the likeable dope' himself while the bigger culprits like Carlyle, Helliburton smirk in the wings and count the loot.

Mr.William Rodriguez is in fear for his life.

Cheneys the evildoer bush is just a frontman, cheney run 911 from the bunker.

I found the following link recently and think it should be included here:

Operation Pearl

By DONNA DE LA CRUZ, Associated Press Writer Thu Sep 15,11:27 PM ET
Weldon: Atta Papers Destroyed on Orders
WASHINGTON - A
Pentagon employee was ordered to destroy documents that identified Mohamed Atta as a terrorist two years before the 2001 attacks, a congressman said Thursday.
The employee is prepared to testify next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee and was expected to identify the person who ordered him to destroy the large volume of documents, said Rep. Curt Weldon (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa.

Weldon declined to identify the employee, citing confidentiality matters. Weldon described the documents as "2.5 terabytes" — as much as one-fourth of all the printed materials in the
Library of Congress, he added.

#173

Nice try stu but you are wrong again. Jet fuel only burns to 875 degrees which is not enough to melt the steel. You're trying to ask us to believe that out of all the things engineers could use to melt steel they could save money and spend 1 dollar a gallon on jet fuel to melt the steel. That's simply not the case stu. It is evidenced by the black smoke that the fire wasn't even burning hot enough let alone in the south tower which had only hit the corner of the building with most of its jet fuel being burned outward. What was left was not enough to cover the area needed to melt the steel even if it could get hot enough. If this was the case as you claimed Stu then the North Tower which was hit first burned longer and had a more direct hit would have collapsed first but it didnt. It took the north tower almost 2 hours after it was hit while the south tower fell within 40 minutes.

As for your claim about Clinton he actually increased the counter-terrorism budget during his term to cold war levels. It was Bush Jr. who gutted our capablities by taking the drones off OBL. Calling off the death squads. Sacking the hart-rudman report and showing little to no concern about terrorism. It was your own Orin Hatch who thought terrorism was a made up fake issue when Clinton tried to pass the anti-terrorism legislations and your group watered it down.

Let's also not neglect the other eleven points, each one helping to nail the coffin shut on the "official" story.

re #178 Good post, Neo --- it's kinda like shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it?

Kraig

Throughout this topic you have derided and scorned Onyx’s reasoned, expert comments. Instead of refuting his comments with scientific evidence, you shrilly called him an asshole and other names and his science bunk. Yet you have not offered up ONE piece of evidence yourself.

If your proof is to say “watch the video”, then come on over to my house because I have some really good magic tricks to show you. In fact my six yr old could fool you with one of her tricks.

The collapse of the towers in all probability would be the result of the plane crashes. All the denials are just a smokescreen to the truth. The guesses put forward are for the most part just too improbable to be called theories.

The conclusion that the black smoke means that the fires were not hot is bunk. Generally black smoke is an indication of oxygen-starved combustion, but not always. Some materials will combust with a high portion of carbon released yet be of a high temperature, such as plastics. Alternatively, the black smoke could have come from surrounding areas of the buildings burning at lower temperatures while deeper inside or adjacent areas were burning at very hot temperatures.

It is assumed that most of the jet fuel burned off relatively and so would not have been the cause of the collapse. This does not explain away that the jet fuel, which would burn at much higher temperatures, ignited other materials. It was these “other materials” that created the intense smoke and heat. Remember that there was no water to cool the fire or structure.

With the failure of the support structures the weight above would cause the steel girders to buckle. At the first small amount of buckle the weight would be transferred to adjoining girders, which also in a near same state, would lose their integrity. This process would be quick and catastrophic.

That each piece of steel removed was “truck sized” is not a problem. The collapse caused the steel to twist and bend into a large mass of spaghetti. During the rescue and later cleanup, the steel was cut to remove it from the pile. Not every piece removed was “truck size” although much was. Depending on the removal, some steel was only a few feet, or even smaller, in length.

Early on organized crime tried to get a hold of the scrap steel being removed from the site. Therefore the drivers were forbidden to stop or deviate from their assigned routes to prevent this problem. The steel girders had been encased in asbestos and therefore were protected from the fire, for the most part, but not the heat. The steel, therefore, would not have much in the way of traceable evidence. In contrast, the concrete would contain any detonation evidence and it was not quickly discarded.

As the buildings collapsed, the air that had been inside each floor would be expelled as the above ceiling moved towards the floor. The compressed air would take the route of least resistance out, which would be the buckling windows. This compressed air would also “shoot” out dust from the collapsing floors above.

WTC #7shared some underground shoring and support with the towers. It would have been greatly weakened by the collapse of the towers. As the towers collapsed, each floor hitting the one beneath would be akin to a giant hammer hitting a large steel drift into the ground. The resulting vibration damaged several nearby buildings. This effect would sound like one massive roar although it was actually many hammer blows in very quick succession. The heat from the collapse (and from the hammer blows) would be great enough to cause fires underground that could very well have caused any fire in #7.

These hammer blows would cause extreme vibrations that would break up concrete into small pieces. Another cause of the small pieces would be the distance fallen, the speed of impact, and the later hitting of other debris from above. Concrete is a brittle material. It takes a load, or compression, well, but not tension or torque, which would happen with the falling building. These hammer blows from the collapsing building would travel faster then the speed of sound. I am not going to look up the exact speed but it is several times the speed of sound through air.

When a Fire Chief says to “pull the building”, he means that it must be evacuated as its collapse is imminent. If some demolition engineer had used the term then maybe some further meaning could have been put into it. But it was the Fire Chief that made the call.

I am not an architect. I am an electrical engineer and remember enough about physics to know that the aircraft crashing into it most probably caused the WTC’s collapse. You do your cause no good by calling Onyx “moron” because you cannot understand basic physics. Maybe you would like to post your own credentials to back up your claims about the WTC collapse and Onyx’s mental abilities.

As a disclaimer, I do not like Bush, would never consider voting for him, strongly believe that Bush has caused more damage to this country then can be calculated, and Republicans hijacked the 2000 and 2004 elections.

This is SO stupid! You people have nothing better to do than to try to find fault with an administration that has busted their ass and people who have died to give you the freedoms and civil liberties which you now enjoy. Try to act more like Americans and get over it. Get a job, go to the gym, do anything you can to keep your mind from dreaming up stupid conspiracy theories which compel you to question the methods for which you are provided these freedoms.

Sincerely,
U.S. Army Veteran
Proud American
Bush Supporter

Hello y'all! You know I've studied this subject for many, many moons and I've forgotten more about it than a lot of Americans ever knew. I'm looking for something

I vaguely remember but just can't seem to locate. Does anybody (MMIIXX ??) remember something about a heavy iron (or some sort of metal) generator (or other piece of equipment) in the basement of one of the WTC buildings that was blown apart & noted by someone who reported it .. somewhere .. before the building fell?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Please forgive if I'm repeating something in the following that has already been touched on in this thread which nearly trembles under the weight of comments and links.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

#181 said: "When a Fire Chief says to “pull the building”, he means that it must be evacuated as its collapse is imminent. If some demolition engineer had used the term then maybe some further meaning could have been put into it. But it was the Fire Chief that made the call."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Silverstein, on PBS speaks clearly: [LINK ] A PBS documentary about the 9/11/01 attack, America Rebuilds, features an interview with the leaseholder of the destroyed WTC complex, Larry Silverstein. In it, [he] makes the following statement:

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

This statement seems to suggest that the FDNY decided to demolish the building in accordance with Silverstein's suggestion, since the phrase "pull it" in this context apparently means to demolish the building. This interpretation is supported by a statement by a Ground Zero worker in the same documentary:

... "we're getting ready to pull the building six."

Building 6 was one of the badly damaged low-rise buildings in the WTC complex that had to be demolished as part of the cleanup operation.

An alternative interpretation of Silverstein's statement is that "pull it" refers to withdrawing firefighters from the building. However, according to FEMA's report there were no manual firefighting operations in Building 7, so there would not have been any firefighters to "pull".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In relation to Silverstein's properties ... they are the only buildings to EVER fall from fire (especially look at WT7) and on 9/11 it's quite interesting that ONLY SILVERSTEIN properties fell.

Of further interest ... please read about Silverstein's purchase of the lease on these buildings and the condition they were in. They had been notorious for losing money each year. Silverstein purchased the lease only 7 weeks before 9/11.

AND [LINK] --- [snip] … the towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards [including asbestos /kira] in the years since the towers were built. Other New York developers had been driven into bankruptcy by the costly mandated renovations, and $200 million represented an entire year's worth of revenues from the World Trade Towers. [snip]

REMEMBER - Larry Silverstein, despite not being the owner of the buildings, was the sole beneficiary of the insurance indemnity payments of more than 7 billion Dollars. Good for Larry that he had not forgotten to increase the insurance policies, just in time, when he signed the lease three months before the catastrophe happened: "Larry Silverstein, since July landlord of the towers, demands from the insurers 7,2 billion Dollars compensation, his speaker, Steve Solomon, said. ... The Port Authorities of New York and New Jersey, owners of the WTC, agree with Silverstein's demand." --Die Welt, Berlin, Oct 10, 2001."

Correction to my #183:

"they are the only buildings to EVER fall from fire" should have read ---

...the only steel-framed skyscrapers to EVER fall from fire.

#182 michael --- I'm glad you're happy living in your close-minded world. But I'm not happy that you apparently don't understand the fact that freedoms & civil liberties have diminished greatly under this bu$h administration. You don't understand that bu$h lied - using several different lies in succession when one after the other failed - about his reason for going to war with Iraq. Not one of the reasons has proved true.

No, we aren't simply trying to "find fault" as you suggest. We want to know the truth. We don't want any more deaths for lies.

As far as "acting like Americans" goes --- I leave you with some words spoken by great American Patriots:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched.

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
~~ Thomas Jefferson, 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

No government ought to be without censors & where the press is free, none ever will. ~~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Washington, September 9, 1792, 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." ~~ Samuel Adams

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." ~~ Barry Goldwater

If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it. ~~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Lewis, Jr., May 9, 1798 - 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace.

"When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking," said Rodriguez, who was huddled together with at least 14 other people in the office.

Rodriguez said Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Co., was one of the people in the room who stands ready to verify his story.

"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."

"I know there were explosives placed below the trade center. I helped a man to safety who is living proof, living proof the government story is a lie and a cover-up.
"I have tried to tell my story to everybody, but nobody wants to listen. It is very strange what is going on here in supposedly the most democratic country in the world. In my home country of Puerto Rico and all the other Latin American countries, I have been allowed to tell my story uncensored. But here, I can’t even say a word."

After Rodriguez escorted David to safety outside the WTC, he returned to lead the others in the basement to safety as well. While there, he also helped two other men trapped and drowning in the basement elevator shaft, another result he says of the explosives placed below the tower.

In fact, after leading these men to safety, he even made another trip back into the north tower, against police orders, in order to rescue people from the top floors.

"I never could make it to the top, but I got up to the 33rd floor after getting some of my equipment and a face mask out of the janitor’s closet," said Rodriguez, adding he heard a series of small explosions going off between the 20th and 30th floors, unrelated to the airplane strike, while making his way through the stairwell to the top floors.

"Also, when I was on the 33rd floor, I heard strange sounds coming form the 34th floor, loud noises like someone moving and thumping heavy equipment and furniture. I knew this floor was empty and stripped due to construction work so I avoided it and continued to make my way up the stairs."

Maybe the towers were ment to collapse when the planes hit but Cheneys timing was off with the demolition charges.That way no "first responder" would have been lost.
Rodriguezvs.Bush & friends

they just happen to be running war games too ?

Warren Buffett Offutt AFB

wikipedia september 11th planning and execution

global guardian

911 video and photo analysis

Information about how to pass drug and alcohol employee test