The truth behind 9/11? - Part II

Sure it bothers me, I don’t like Bush or most of the decisions he has made since his election but the only real “news” is this emerging conspiracy theory. It is common knowledge that Bin Laden was a CIA operative, that we supplied terrorist organizations with small arms and sold the government chemical weapons in the 80’s (bad idea). It is also common knowledge that Clinton set up a plan to completely eliminate the Al Quida terrorist network shortly before leaving office, but he decided to allow the new president initiate it so he wouldn’t be “handing him a war”, then you have the time it took for Bush to actually look at the documents which warned of an inevitable terrorist attack (and a warning from a FBI agent that commercial airliners could be used as an improvised weapon). He was too busy taking one of his cushy vacations in Texas to give a crap about threats to america from abroad. The warning was there and he failed to take the necessary action to try to prevent it from happening, period.

The reason why I’m focusing on the conspiracy theory is that the only topic of interest in this thread is the alleged planning of the Bush administration to commit the catastrophies on 9/11 to further their political agenda. The rest is basically old news.

moved into the existing 9/11 topic :moogle:

Some interesting turn of events have taken place. This was shown to me in another forum. Very surprising…

"C-SPAN has confirmed that their coverage of the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Panel Discussion will air on C-SPAN 1 on July 29th at :cool_raz:M (EST). The panel features incredible presentations by 9/11 Scholars for Truth founder James Fetzer, BYU Physics Professor Steven Jones, President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret., Filmmaker and Radio Broadcaster Alex Jones, and Terrorism Expert Webster Tarpley.

The appearance of this discussion on the nations premiere public affairs cable network is an incredible boon to the 9/11 Truth Movement. None of the 9/11 Truth events that C-SPAN has covered in the past are as hard-hitting as the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda program. This panel discussion cuts to the heart of the issue and exposes the events of September 11th, 2001 as a complex premeditated plot carried out by criminal elements within the U.S. Government as a pretext for launching a the endless War on Terror in which the globe is currently embroiled. C-SPANs coverage of this pivotal information will bring considerable national attention to the 9/11 Truth Movement. It will also lend further credibility to the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, the premiere organization within the movement for peer-reviewed scientific research on 9/11 issues.

Each member of the panel brought their own particular perspective and expertise to the discussion while each maintained throughout their comments that 9/11 was an inside job.

Alex Jones, a progenitor of the 9/11 Truth Movement introduced the panel and acted as moderator. Professor Steven E. Jones, an expert in Physics, re-capped his vital new research which has conclusively proven that demolition incendiaries were used to bring down World Trade Center and could have only been placed there in advance of 9/11.

As a Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota and a former Marine Corps officer, James Fetzer cut through the myths surrounding the 9/11 hijackers. Former Air Force Interceptor Pilot Robert Bowman brought up the lack of air defense on the day of 9/11 and shed light on the slough of drills conducted on 9/11 to distract the military and prevent Flights 11 & 77 from being shot down.

Finally Author and Historian Webster Tarpley tied all of the information together to paint a picture of 9/11. He described the drills, Bushs actions and the blow-by-blow details of that fateful day that revealed what could only be called the horrible truth of a conspiracy fact.

It is crucial that everyone see this historic panel discussion on C-SPAN. Tell your friends and family, email colleagues, and post links on message boards. This is an incredible step in spreading the word about the truth about 9/11.
The program will air on C-SPAN 1 at :cool_raz:M EST (7PM CST) on Saturday, July 29th and then air again for the West Coast at 11pm EST (10pm CST)."

I watched some of it on Google video, it was well done. The details about the sulfur incindiaries were very interesting…not that I think it means it’s an inside job, it just means thermite was used. If we jumped to the conclusion that the use of incindiaries meant it was an inside job, that would be bad science…still, it is interesting :yes:
I’d encourage everyone interested in this issue to watch this program.

Well, with yet another recent terrorist scare I’ve been looking into some more information, and I believe that the damage caused to the pentagon is consistent with the plain that was supposed to have hit it. I refer everyone to the fact that this part of Loose Change, the video I mentioned before, was probably full of inaccuracies (see here, first video at the top of the page, about 15 minutes in, though I hope you all watch the whole thing), along with this computer model of the crash. Also, consider that they have identified nearly all the human remains (including everyone who was on flight 93).
I’ve also come across a lot of information about the collapse of WTC 7, like how it was on fire, was beginning to sag, and was damaged from when the towers fell on it. Unlike other buildings which have survived fires throughout history, firefighters didn’t have sufficient access to control the fires. Remember also that the steel didn’t have to melt (it probably didn’t melt anyway), because steel looses 50% of it’s strength at 650 degrees Celsius, much lower than the burning temperature of jet fuel and certainly much more lower that the burning temperature of office furniture, computers and other hydrocarbons that were in those buildings. This, plus the sturctural damage, engineers say, was enough to destroy the building.

Also check out www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com if you like.

Just dropped by so figured I’ll contribute here.

In the absence of decent video footage showing the impact (which the government does have, we know that for a fact), we are still talking about maybes and could-haves. Personally, I think a stronger argument for conspiracy at the Pentagon comes from the nature of the manouvre performed. Consider the following:

Danielle O’Brien, air-traffic controller at Dulles airport, in Washington D.C., told ABC News, “At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol”. As far as she and her colleagues were concerned, there was no doubt, “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane,” says O’Brien. “You don’t fly a 757 in that manner. It’s unsafe.”

So with regard the Pentagon, I’d still demand to see multiple video footage of the approach and impact, and I think the footage released so far has been totally inadequate (not one has shown a plane).

It is true that reports exist which highlight the damage done to Building 7. But I still consider all three collapses highly suspect, for the same reasons as before: they were 1) fast, 2) total and 3) symmetrical. Unlike at the Pentagon we have clear video evidence to examine, and I just can’t help but come to the conclusion that the collapses were explosive in nature (and you’re right that this doesnt automatically lead to inside involvement, but what other options are there? It sure rules out the official theory). Debris was pushed outwards (especially clear with the larger twin towers) and concrete was pulvarised into dust. The “pancake” theory still doesnt do it for me, and I’ve read analysis and counter-analysis The collapse was just too fast for it, there’d have been waay too much resistance (and this is forgetting the central columns entirely).

So my point is: even if the three buildings were damaged directly and indirectly by the planes’ impacts, that still doesnt account for the complete nature of the collapses. Here’s a good video with plenty of eyewitness accounts and some pretty outrageous video footage (honestly, look closely at the collapses, the way the floors blow out): infowars.net/articles/August2006 … osives.htm

And while you’re at it, here’s an excellent video(better than Loose Change) that can really educate you about the highly suspicious circumstances before 9/11: video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc … n+sometime

I’ve really had to take a step back from this debate and re-analyse the evidence, since seeing www.911myths.com But, while the defense of the official argument has caused me pause for thought, there are still too many problems. And the actions of the Bush administration are still as suspicious as ever.

As for the UK terror threat… dude, you have to remember it is officially acknowledged that our police force lied to us about the Menenez shooting. How are we supposed to trust them after that? My verdict is still: “The War on Terror” is phony.

I agree, and I’d like to see some more of that footage myself, but after seeing that forensic computer model and how the projected impact is exactly consistent with the damage the plane is supposed to have caused (both to the pentagon as well as the light poles, wire spools on the ground, etc.), I’m pretty sure it was a plane that struck it, seeing as how the bodies of the victims (from the plane in question) have been identified.
I also agree that the way the terrorists flew the planes was unsafe, but then again, they were ultimately going to crash them into buildings (not safe at all) and they probably had never actually flown an airliner before.

I read an interesting piece of information on this. It went something like, since that the towers had an open floor design, the steel trusses holding the walls together were like if two people faced each other and held hands, then leaned backwards. Holding hands would hold these people up, but if they let go, they’d all fall away from each other. That is what experts believe happened to WTC1 and 2. The steel trusses warped, and the walls were no longer supported by the trusses, cause everything above those areas to fall, which then crushed the floors below as they fell.
It’s true the towers fell fast, nearly free fall, but not at free fall. You can see this because pieces of debris falling off the buildings hit the ground before the entire building does.
Also the collapses were not perfectly symmetrical - the ‘Screw Loose Change’ film I provided shows another viewpoint of the collapses, and you can see that they are not symmetrical.

I’ll be sure to watch it :smile:

I agree. I still think this is about money. I don’t buy Alex Jones’ take on the whole situation where the ‘New World Order’ is out to get us :roll: - this is as simple as greedy rich men taking advantage of a horrible situation.
Anyway, I’ll be sure to watch those videos :smile:

Hey Josh, great to be debating with you again, although obviously it would be nice if we were discussing a more positive topic. The sad thing about this is that no normal human being would choose for either theory to be correct, the implications of both are very grim indeed (choose your enemy: foreign or domestic). But obviously it’s important to have a clear idea of what happened during what has proved to be politically the most signifigant day of our lives to date.

Yes, I’ve seen that computer model, and it certainly was impressive, with the lamp-posts and all. I was a little confused with regard their use of the CCTV footage right at the end though. They seem to clearly identify the plane in that one frame released by the government, and when I go back and check the footage elsewhere I just can’t see it. There’s something white at the extreme right of the shot, but it seems to me to be a lot closer to camera than suggested in the computer sim.

But hey: this is all besides the point. The government should release clear and unambiguous footage as obviously that will tell us much more than any computer simulation. Although… there is still one possibility that wouldnt be ruled out, and that is that the plane was controlled by remote control. I’m still amazed at how well that guy is supposed to have flown it. He basically cut the pentagon’s lawn with a commercial jet.

True, I thought the “unsafe” comment was a little strange, and I was going to omit it from my cut-and-paste job. But then I thought that would be highly dishonest of me. But still, a room of qualified air traffic controllers said they thought it was a military plane.

Yeah, this sounds like what’s commonly known as the “pancake” theory. When you talk about the “steel trusses” warping, do you mean the outer walls or the central load-bearing steel columns? The experts who spoke at the C-SPAN braodcasted event accused the official theory of ignoring the central columns.

The video evidence clearly shows materials being propelled out of the towers at points lower than the main collapse, and the alternative theory proposes that these were caused by explosions rigged to cut the load-bearing core columns. I need to know if there is a rival official theory to explain their failure.

I think the buildings’ collapses were not perfectly symmetrical in the sense that they were not at absolute free fall speed: but in both categories they came close. I don’t think even acknowledged controlled demolitions fall at actual free fall speed and are perfectly symmetrical. Such ideals are things to aim for, to be close is good enough. If they had collapsed for the official reasons offered, I don’t think they should have been anywhere near close (see Jim Fetzer’s comments on the time taken for collapse).

Remember, the central columns below the point of impact would have been entirely un-damaged. For them all to fail in the fashion they did, to come straight down like that, with video evidence of what appear to be explosions going off below the main collapse, is suggestive of demolition. Also the damage suffered by Building 7 was in no way symmetrical, the debris would have hit it from one side only (although I do agree the damage to it would seem to be heavier than I implied earlier in the thread).

And all that pulverised concrete, is there any official explanation for that? It does seem that, if there was a demolition job, a different technique was used for B7 than for the TT, but then they are very different kinds of buildings.

Well what do you make of Alex’s “Bohemia Grove” stuff? I’m not really sure how far to follow him down his particular rabbit hole. But I’m convinced the Operation Northwoods documents are real, and if that’s the case it’s highly doubtful that they represent a one-off, isolated kind of idea.

But anyway, Jones has stuck his neck out and made another prediction/prophecy of major attack. It actually made at least one major news station too, and he believes that this in itself may have prevented the event. But whether he’s OTT or not, I think he’s alright (although I was not impressed with the homophobic element of one of his latest rants. That’s his Christian side coming out, no doubt).

I’m all in favour of the government releasing clearer tapes, in fact, I think that the fact that they haven’t shows how badly they’re handling this situation. But, I’m very skeptical of a conspiracy theory because it’s not unreasonable to assume that militant fanatics with lots of money could do something like this, and if there were a conspiracy afoot, why would the government conspire to kill thousands of Americans, along with thousands more Iraqis and Afghans, but do nothing to stop people like Alex Jones from making their documentaries…it just doesn’t make any sense to me.

I think it depends on how you look at it. I’ve read reports that he was actually a bad pilot, since no one in their right mind would attempt to maneuver a plane like that, he could have stalled it and went into a free-fall; probably not something he intended to do.

True enough.
You know, I recently watched a documentary on 9/11, and the air traffic controllers who were monitoring the situation were guests on the show, and they talked about how none of them had ever seen anything like what happened on that day. When I think about it, I just don’t find O’Brien’s comment that out of the ordinary, considering the transponders of the planes were turned off, communications were being ignored and the planes were behaving erratically.

The theory I’ve heard, part of ‘the official theory’, is that compressed air from the collapses is being blown out the sides of the buildings. If you watch the videos of the collapse, you’ll notice that the blasts coming out of the buildings are moving at the same speed as the building is falling. If they had been ‘squibs’, they would have travelled much faster, before the building started to fall. I wanted to see for myself so I watched some buildings being blown up (on video of course) and it’s true, the squibs are travelling faster than the blasts coming from WTC 1 and 2.

We should also remember that the buildings didn’t fall all at once as in a controlled demolition, they fell from the top down, buildings aren’t typically demolished in this way. It’s the pancaking theory again, the top sections crush the sections below as they fall. Also, the two towers had an open floor design, so much of the weight of the building was also distributed via the walls, as well as those columns; once those metal beams started to warp and let go of the walls, the building’s integrity would have been badly compromised.

Well I’m no expert but I have built with concrete before, it it is quite brittle. In fact, water is around 10 times a dense as concrete, just to give you an idea, so I don’t know, maybe this is just a shot in the dark, but several million tonnes of concrete and steel all falling down on top of itself might be pulverized a little bit.
However I do agree that WTC 7’s collapse is weird. As far as I know, it’s still not conclusive as to what exactly caused it to fall. Sure, it was on fire, sure there was diesel in the basement that probably fueled the fire, sure it was damaged from the North Tower’s fall, but according to engineers, it should have been able to withstand that stuff, which has actually led engineers to re-evaluate the way the engineer buildings to withstand fire.

Yeah, I think North-woods was real, but the fact that those documents have been declassified show that the government is being honest about it’s past, it’s being accountable to the people. Why would the government declassify something that would incriminate them the future, if they really were the ones to carry out 9/11? It doesn’t add up, at least to me.
But about Jones, I think he’s quite a character :content:
I don’t like his christian bias, which does show through his work quite a bit. As for Bohemian grove, I watched his film ‘Dark Secrets of Bohemian grove’. It certainly sounds like they do weird stuff there, which doesn’t bother me much. What bothers me is that these powerful people don’t tell the public this stuff, because I believe politicians should be absolutely accountable to the public in not only their policies, but also their businesses and interests, as well as what they do at their Gentleman’s Clubs.

…and it’s nice to discuss all this with you as well :smile:

An open letter that was released recently, written by Brent Blancard, the Senior editor of implosionworld.com and the Director of Operations at Protec Documentation Inc., a company that monitors and documents demolitions, and performs them as well. In other words, this guy is an expert. I encourage everyone to read this. You’ll need Acrobat reader to open it.

Excellent find, Josh. I think the statements in this report are pretty conclusive. There doesn’t seem to be a single shred of evidence supporting the assertion that explosives were used to bring down the towers. Not a single claim withstands in spite of the explanations provided in this document.

Really, though, is this a surprise? It was obvious from the very beginning the the towers began collapsing from the point of impact, not from the ground floors (which would have implied controlled demolition). How could the explosives have been planted prior to the events of Sep 11, and how could they have withstood the destruction of the impacts (along with the intense fires) for nearly an hour before being set off? I think people just got carried away by the thrill of conspiracy.

Whether it was an inside job or not (and I’m not discounting the possibility that it was), the towers fell, without a doubt, from the impact of the planes and the resulting fires, and not for any other reason.

This is all very confusing. There is some many things and so many bizzare conspiracies that i don’t really know what to beleive.

Just a quick post here to counter the main claim that seems to have been made here (expert testimony with regard collapse of the towers):

Structural engineer Charles N. Pegelow speaks with Jim Fetzer about the collapse (download the second hour of the show to hear Charles): mp3.rbnlive.com/Fetzer06.html

For those who may doubt his expertise on the subject, his qualifications are as follows:

So, y’know, I don’t think the issue is as settled as, say, Atheist claims, and to be honest I also take his explanation for conspiracy theories somewhat personally. The reasons people adopt alternative views on world events are more complicated than you suggest. Yes, some may be sucked in by the hype and find it alluring in some way. But others may have actually thought it through and come to the conclusion that the facts support it, or at least support it better than any competing theories.

Anyway I’m actually going to listen to that interview now, but as far as I can tell he’s sceptical of the official pancake collapse theory. Just keep thinking for yourselves about this topic, keep a close eye on your governments…

PS Oh and one other point which I offer here purely to show just how complicated and downright difficult it is to get to the truth of things:

The other day I read a site that forwarded the idea that the Northwoods documents are fakes. They refer to people being “on holiday” which, as they correctly point out, is mostly a British expression. Americans much more usually say “on vacation”. So if Northwoods was supposed to have been written by the US military, that’s some evidence against it being authentic.

But then… is there something to explain that particular anomally?! This is all about the problem of epistemology, just how to know stuff. Sure isnt easy.

PPS Proper response to your post coming up soon Josh.

I don’t think it is at all. That seems like a horrible peice of evidence against Northwoods. I live in America, and I have heard people say “on holiday” several, several times.

I think you’d be hard-pushed to find a situation they are handling particularly well right now…

Well, militant fanatics don’t come any richer than the Neo-Cons.
But really the pertinent questions to ask are with regard the specifics:

  • is it reasonable to assume that the impact of the planes alone can account for the nature of the three collapses?

  • is it reasonable to assume that a newbie pilot could perform manouvres of the kind required at the pentagon?

  • is it reasonable to assume that the two statements ‘President’ George Bush made with regard to seeing the first plane hit were both honest errors? (and why hasnt he been subject to cross-examination with regard those statements by the commission anyway?)

Reason for killing the Americans: to stir up fear/hatred in American populace at large (see: Northwoods, I believe the word used there is “galvanizing”)
Reason to kill Iraqis and Afghans: to gain control of oil supplies for financial gain (see: where troops were first posted to defend in Iraq… and remind me, just what does Iraq have to do with 9/11 anyway? Hasnt Bush recently stated to the press it had nothing to do with it?)
Reason to kill Alex Jones: to provide 9/11 skeptics with further evidence?

Besides, he may still get his, although of course they’ll likely spin it to appear as a suicide due to mental imbalance… but I’m getting ahead of myself now.

(R.I.P Dr David Kelly, Hunter S Thompson and Diana, Princess of Wales)

re: pentagon

This just shows that it was an exceptional manouvre. His goal was not to land the plane safely, his goal was to slam into the pentagon (much lower target than the WTC). It is surprising to me that he attained that goal as perfectly as he did.

But then, if the plane was not a commercial airliner, there is the possibility that the manouvre was quite standard. Which just highlights the urgent need for the government to release some footage.

re: possible squibs

In my post I was referring to the materials ejected from the WTC below the main point of collapse. These are separate from the main collapse and therefore are not at the speed of the collapse and are, in effect, occuring before the building (or at least that part of it) began to fall.

Well ok, but lack of proof for my theory does not prove yours. If the materials ejected are due to compressed air, how do you explain the fact that some of these blasts are occuring at a location considerably lower than the main collapse area? There are also the alleged basement explosions that occur as the planes first hit, which would seem to be another anomally supported by some video evidence (and testimony from Rodriguez, last man out of the towers).

Would you say WTC 7 was more in line with the demolition hypothesis then? That seemed to pretty much give-way all over very, very quickly.

As for the main towers, I appreciate what you’re saying here, and I’m going to give it more thought and research, but the main features of the collapse still don’t fit with the pancake day hypothesis, for me. I don’t think it explains the behaviour of the upper floors (also pulverised into concrete despite not being ‘pancaked’ upon), I don’t think it explains the behaviour of the lower floors (failing in the same way as the damaged upper floors so easily), and I don’t think it explains the previously-mentioned blasts occuring well below the main collapse area (debatably even in the basement).

Jones is working on the thermate hypothesis, and hopefully that will soon be fleshed out into as much detail as the official pancake day theory. But while many details are still missing, what I do know is that, like the intelligence agencies and air defences before them, those buildings failed spectacularly.

Make of that what you will.

Look at that: the eleventh of september re-wrote the way the professionals look at building safety. Who’d have guessed that over-designed buildings like that could spontaneously self-demolish the way they did? (apparently not many)

Me too (thanks Daylight for the linguistic info there)

Really?!

I think it has much more to do with some document declassification act or other (excuse lack of citation, but I have read of it. Might even have been connected to the release of documents following the JFK investigation). Looks like it dodged the shredder to me. Certainly hasnt received anywhere near enough media attention, it’s an absolutely outrageous document. I don’t blame Jones for bringing it up every five minutes.

Where would the world be without em?!

You think? I think he keeps it pretty much out of the way. I only really noticed it during his “new 9/11 prediction” broadcast recently, and even then it was indirect (no mention of the J-man or the Big Book). But he’d gotten himself really, really agitated over the latest “terror alerts” here in the UK so I’m inclined to let it slide.

Hence the aptly chosen title: Dark Secrets of Bohemian Grove. I applaud Jones for making that and it gives me some extra confidence in his work.

And about that “weird stuff” in there: it is important to know what they are doing, and who they are doing it. If Jones is right, and that important, powerful people who effect the lives of millions, are performing “cremation of care” rituals, during which they destroy their guilt and conscience for performing immoral acts, then well…it’s in the public interest to know. It’s like “why are you doing that?!?”

And that sacrifice ritual… Jones actually does them a favour of assuming it was a dummy up there being “sacrificed”. But I’ve read somewhere of dead kids turning up in the woods round that area, and of a cameraman going back to re-investigate being killed. I may be mistaken in the former, or it may be coincidence, but if the latter is true then I definitely think Jones is onto something.

It is acknowledged that the inside of the building collapsed much faster than the outside walls. Upwards of twenty floors at a time had already given way below what we could see as the point of collapse from the outside. This was covered in the document Josh linked to.

There were no explosions anywhere near the scene for the duration of that day. Seismologists working independently of the government scan the area consistently, and the only noticeable vibrations appeared during the actual collapse of the towers. This was covered in the document Josh linked to.

You, uh… did actually read the document, right? :smile:

Eye-witness accounts are useless. Completely and utterly useless. People don’t know what they’re seeing and hearing when they’re panicking and don’t know what’s going on. Instead, we have to rely on empirical evidence. We can safely prove that there were no explosives used on the ground floor during the collapse of the towers, as the seismologists’ readings are definitive.

There also doesn’t appear to be any evidence that explosives were used higher up in the tower, as the impact of the plane and heat of the resulting fire is enough to convince most experts that a total collapse was to be expected from the factors involved.

None of us know anything about building demolition, so it’s pointless to argue over the supposed squibs, the definition of “to pull a building”, or the pancake theory. Qualified experts mostly agree that nothing we weren’t able to see had to be responsible for the collapse. I don’t know what else to say.

Just a quick comment on this-

Why would a government demolish a building in a typical fashion if it was going to blame the building’s collapse on something other than demolition? Just because a building was not demolished in a typical fashion does not mean it wasn’t demolished.

Yep, very true. It would be amazingly suspicious if the building failed on the ground floor, and collapsed in a typical implosion. Even the government wouldn’t make it that obvious.

However, given that the point of collapse began at the precise set of floors that were struck by each plane (this can be seen in every video and cannot be disputed), it begins to make less sense that explosives were used:

  1. How were the explosives brought into the building and then positioned all throughout those several floors without anybody noticing?

  2. How did the explosives remain in working condition despite the Hellish conditions on the affected floors? Explosives don’t like fire, and simply would not have withstood the heat for a full hour before being remotely detonated.

  3. If any explosives capable of bringing down a building of that size were set off prior to the collapse itself, they would have registered on the seismologists’ readouts. This point seems to have been ignored so far, but it’s very valid, and at the very least proves that no bombs were set off on the ground and basement levels.

It’s amazing how some conspiracy advocates will cling to ideas that make no sense at all, so long as they appear to support the theory. For example, lease owners never, ever have any say in whether or not their buildings is demolished amidst a crisis. So even if that’s what Silverstein meant with his “pull” comment (and it isn’t, as that term simply doesn’t mean what conspiros claim it does), they wouldn’t have listened to him.

But let’s not allow logic and knowledge to interfere with the fun. :grin:

Like Atheist said, I’d call that suspicious, but on the other hand you have to consider what it would have taken to demolish those buildings, conventionally or not.
First, you’d have to wire the buildings, which int his case wopuld take monthes, if not years. You’d have to hide a demolition team from security, janitorial staff, and workers. Then, those charges would have to survive plane crashes, and fires - very long burning fires in WTC 7’s case. This is covered in the document I presented.

I’m also not convinced of the thermite theory. All Dr. Jones found was sulfur on the metal - I watched him give his speach about in on CSPAN. That is shockingly bad science comming from a guy with a Ph.D. That sulfur could have come from anywhere (welding torches, etc.), and had FEMA or anyone else been suspicious of thermite being used, they probably would have mentioned something while they were testing the debris, until is was completely removed nearly one year later.

This page talks about Prof. Steven E. Jones and his credentials.

Before I address what has been posted here since my last post, I’d like to share some thoughts on a news feature I heard on BBC Radio 4 earlier today. It is not directly related to 9/11 but I believe it to be relevent.

The feature was about Turkey and the controversies surrounding its possible acceptance into the European Union. There is a controversy surrounding whether Turkey is a sufficiently secular country for inclusion. The two main parties involved are the Turkish military and a new Islamic group. The Islamic group seem to want to reintroduce a link between religion and the state, and ultimately incorporate some elements of Sharia law, and the military is opposed to this. The military has, in the recent past, instigated multiple coups in order to guide the country back to what they see as the right direction whenever they feel it is being led astray. The spokesperson put this in these terms: “we want to prevent democracy from destroying itself” (in reference to a democratically elected un-democratic party).

Now, a representative from the military was interviewed, and took the opportunity to show the interviewer his photo collection of how helpful they have been for the people. But this was followed by an interview with a survivor of a bomb attack in Turkey. The incident occured as follows:

Two grenades were thrown into a civilian bar in the centre of a town, and they detonated, causing death and destruction. People nearby had the presence of mind to pursue the two men responsible and they cornered them at their getaway vehicle. In the vehicle was found military ID that identified them as military men.

The programme then interviewed a former military man, who only agreed to conduct the interview on the condition his voice was distorted. He explained that this was a common military tactic that all states incorporate into their strategy, and the function was to instill fear in the local population that could be redirected at the enemies of the military (the Islamic group, who would, had the military guys fled the scene as planned, have been blamed for the attack and labelled terrorists). When questioned who would have known about it, he said it would certainly have been 4 star generals. When told the military strongly denied these charges, he laughed and said “of course, what they did was illegal” and also spoke of the aborted investigation into the incident (which didnt go any further than the two men and getaway driver).

It all reminded me, of course, of the fairly recent events in Iraq involving soldiers of my own country. Two of these soldiers were arrested after an attempted bombing of a civilian Iraqi area, by the Iraqi police (acknowledged allies with the British and American forces). The British military then proceeded to bulldoze the Iraqi police station holding these two men and “rescue” them.

So, if it seems that these kinds of tactics really are as commonplace in the minds of military thinkers as it seems (and once again I remind you all of Operation Northwoods) then it is definitely our duty as thinking citizens of the free world to carefully scrutinise 9/11 in order to ascertain whether it was such an operation. Ok, so that’s all I wanted to say with regards that, direct reply to 9/11 stuff coming up…

So the interiors of the buildings were collapsing even faster than we had initially thought; the lower floors were giving way at a speed even closer to freefall than we can observe externally (which was already very fast). I don’t see how this helps your case, and I don’t see how the explusions of matter from the lower floors can be accounted for merely by air pressure. For one thing, they were highly concentrated, and precisely patterned (blasting out of the center of multiple sides) and the buildings didnt have a structure that would have concentrated the air explusions like that (in isolated, straight and powerful bursts).

Well note that I did say “alleged basement explosions”. I wasnt sure about this, although I do remember seeing some video evidence of some large basement explosions somewhere.

Well ok, I will study the seismology evidence in more detail, but these findings do not discount the possibility of explosions up in the towers being involved in the collapse.

Also, I’d like to reiterate one of my main objections to the pancake theory which is highly relevent here, yet you don’t seem to have addressed at all, but to do this I’ll post from 911research.wtc7.net as they put it more concisely than I probably can (bold emphasis mine):

So, basically, the concrete-pulverisation problem. So yes, the building fell from the point at where the planes hit, but it also dissolved from that point and above in a manner that is unaccounted for.

Well, in that case the eyewitness reports that were used to determine what occured at the Pentagon must be treated with equal scepticism. Considering the well-known problems with the use of eyewitness testimony, there is an even more pressing need for the government to release footage of the Pentagon impact, at least to the commision. The qualified eyewitness testimony I’ve mentioned before (the room full of air traffic controllers) came from a source away from the main area of chaos, and could therefore be seen as of more use.

I think the reality is that eyewitness accounts are somewhat useful, but shouldnt be treated as gospel.

I dispute this on the usual grounds (the nature of the collapse), but shall forward here for clarity the “concrete-pulverisation” problem (which you have currently not addressed at all).

Are you claiming the US military could not have the resources to orchestrate such a demolition?

And also I think it is important to notice here that you have shifted from defending the pancake day theory to attacking the demolition hypothesis. And even if you “disprove” the demolition hypothesis, that does not prove pancake day.

There was apparently some “powerdown” time prior to 9/11 during which some “workmen” were allowed access to the towers. Now whether that can provide sufficient time for it all to be rigged is something the demolition hypothesis guys will have to ascertain.

I’d imagine the US military has some pretty nifty explosives.

If you look once again at the concrete-pulverisation problem, it could be explained by a sequential detonation of bombs from the higher levels down. I wasnt sure about the basement bomb hypothesis to begin with, to be honest, although I’m going to go over the evidence again.

Well of course you’ll say that. Your ideas don’t make sense to me either.

Here’s what Silverstein actually said (bold emphasis mine):

So, according to Silverstein’s testimony, the following occured:

  1. He suggested “pulling” to the fire department
  2. the fire department made the decision to “pull”
  3. they all watched the building collapse

Now, so far, there have been two offered definitions of “pull” in this context: a) demolish and b) remove firefighters from the area

So, either way, it seems that there was a chrnological link between what Silverstein said and what happened. Seems possible that people did listen to him, it was an exceptional day, you’d need to cross-examine everyone thoroughly to get some idea of whether standard proceedure was followed.

But while you’re bringing up personal testimony, I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts on Bush’s statements. He said, on two separate occasions, that he saw the first plane hit, and thought “now that’s one bad pilot”. The first hit was not televised until the next day.

All of these guys should be getting fiercely cross-examined in a court of law.

Lets not allow rhetorical techniques to interfere with the logic and reasoning, more like. Although I don’t deny that, whatever the subject matter, debating is fun. It’s also important though.

Josh: with regard the link attacking prof Jones.

They open by questioning the validity of the peer-review process (bold emphasis mine):

"His paper was peer reviewed but not by a civil engineering journal. One would think a serious professor would get his paper peer reviewed by a scientific journal which specializes in the field they are writing the paper on. "

What I’m saying is his paper was either peer reviewed, or it wasnt. They have acknowledged that it has been peer reviewed. Their objection isnt more substantial than saying “it wasnt peer reviewed by some body who share our views”.

Besides, despite what has been said here, there are qualified experts who have been on-record supporting the demolition hypothesis. I have linked to a radio interview with one such professional in my last long post, there is also the firefighters journal that was outraged by the collapses, and then there was the professional who remarked just after 9/11 on how demolition-like the collapses were… only to retract his statement much later, without elaborating on why. I have a long and detailed pro-demolition scientific piece that is pro-demolition, by a prof Green or Greening perhaps. It’s on my computer, I’ll find and post it here later.