The truth behind 9/11? - Part II

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.

But Leb, shouldn’t the credentials of those who are doing the peer review matter? It’s fine to have some chemists of physicists peer-review a paper about this subject, but engineers/demolition experts have more relevant education and practical experience, and their knowledge could account for something that a physicist or chemist, with no practical experience with this kind of event couldn’t. So with regards to peer review, I say it isn’t really a black and white issue.
However, it passed peer review either way, so now it’s up to other scientists to offer their opinions and rebuttals if they choose to

Search for and buy a documentary called “9/11 In Plane Site”
You can buy it here: policestate21.com/911trailer.html

After watching that, anyone who believed the US government was not keeping anything from the public and that this is NO conspiracy, will believe otherwise.
I showed this to a few people already who were very sure that there was no conspiracy, nothing to hide by Bush, and they are now sure it is totally the other way.

In fact, I don’t mean to offend anyone here but, anyone with half a brain would surely know that it IS a conspiracy, and it really makes sense.

Most people find it hard to believe that almost anything and everything that the US government says, is just a plot, and not truth. Such as the war in Iraq, the failure to assist victims of hurricane Katrina even the elections that take place, all rigged, all bullshit, I challenge anyone to point me otherwise, and I wish it wasn’t true, but it is.

I will challenge you on that, because I assure you, I have more than half a brain
The sad fact is that the war in Iraq, Katrina, the elections, they all show how fraudulent and incompetent the US administration is, but that doesn’t automatically equal a conspiracy theory, and I’m saying this as someone who has looked extensively into both sides of this debate.

It’s obviously naive to blindly trust everything your government tells you, but it’s equally naive to just jump ship upon hearing what some conspiracy theorists say as well. Some of the members of the 9/11 truth movement have good points and use real facts in their arguments, and some of them are just liars. So it’s okay to be skeptical, just make sure you’re skeptical of everyone.

There is a short film I saw recently called ‘The Usual Suspects’, very disturbing, but if you doubt the fact that their are religious extremists behind 9/11, then watch it…heck, watch it anyway, it’s something everyone should probably see.

ok thats fair, however I am not just throwing my speculation around and making accusations blindly. I have gathered evidence, have my own personal opinions and everything matches.

Let’s not jump around to too many conclusions but lets look at ONE topic. The hurricane Katrina.
ONE form of evidence is PROVEN and shown that George Bush and his administration, were SHOWN that the hurricane will be as devistating as it turned out to be. It was shown that much help would be needed and lots of supplies and re-inforcements would be needed. It was clearly evident (yes there is proof and if you want me to show you I will) that help WAS required.

And what happened? Was the administration THAT incompetant that it forgot? Did Bush and his members all forget to send reinforcements, support, help of all kinds, to the victims at New Orleans?
Of course they didn’t forget, a government THAT incompetant, now, come on? So what is the real reason? Care to explain it? Do you know? Does anyone? Nobody does?

Simple, mate, why should the government waste its time, its money, to help members of society that effectively provide little in tax return due to the poor health and state they are in. But its not just that, I am certain there are other reasons which I don’t know of, that aren’t being told to the public.

Answer me, tell me, why did Bush not supply hurricane Katrina victims with support when he KNEW what was coming to them.

That’s one small topic (compared to other ones), such as the war in Iraq, which is major, but lets keep it to this small topic, if you can clearly give me good reasons I will read and tell you what I think. But I am certain you won’t be able to, nobody is able to, not even Bush himself has given reasons for it, because he controls the media and therefore never has to answer to it.

Just because the media says something on TV or in the newspaper, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is true. We ARE going through the era of Hitler II. He used the same techniques that Bush is using now, made his own people (and allies to himself) believe that what they are doing is out of GOOD WILL, used propaganda is a very helpful tool, and what happened?
Now, same thing is occurring, only the death toll will be much worse, it has already been considerably bad, but will get much worse.
Don’t believe me? Wait some 3-6 years, and we will speak again, and you can tell me if I was wrong that we are going through the era of Hitler II.

Because, I am certain, that Bush wanted his approval ratings to go down, his public image to look bad, to put FEMA at risk of being dismantled, etc.

[/sarcasm]

Actually, I think it is possible for rich men to become obsessed with power and become completely insensitive to the public. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, after all.

By the way, I agree, Bush is a tyrant who should be removed from office. He is not the legitimate president and he is running the US into more trouble than it’s seen since the depression…now, does that mean he is involved is some sort of conspiracy? No, I don’t think so, because you don’t need 9/11 being an inside job to put this whole awful puzzle together.

But they don’t appear to be explosions at all, and this is plainly visible in any decent-quality video of the phenomenon. The squib begins quite slow, then increases in force as the building continues to fall. (Displayed quite well at this site.) You’re trying to claim that an explosive was positioned right on the edge of the building (which is pointless, as there are no supports there, and this would only serve to incite scepticism), and that it’s a “slow” explosive that gradually picks up pressure over time? That makes no sense to me. The theory that these squibs are caused by air being forced out of certain floors as the ceiling collapses on them makes much more sense in my opinion. Where else did all that air go? (Bearing in mind that office buildings are about 90-95% air.)

I haven’t responded to the pulverized concrete argument because I never saw it as a valid point. And I still don’t. Of course concrete is going to be pulverised to dust when a 400+ meter tall building weighing five-hundred thousand tons falls down on it. What did you expect to see? Large chunks of concrete perfectly intact? I’m just puzzled about why this is even an issue. Didn’t you see the giant cloud of dust that engulfed most of Manhattan right after the buildings fell? That kind of energy is almost unimaginable to us, and concrete is a very rigid substance that could easily be crushed into fine powder. When the old Canberra hospital was imploded about five years ago in my city, there was a problem, and one of the large cement stacks fell the wrong way (away from the building, instead of into it). When it hit the ground, with the help of no explosives whatsoever, it instantly disintegrated. It didn’t even bounce. It just fell into a pile of fine dust, with only a couple of fist-size chunks remaining. And this was only six or so stories tall. That’s just how cement/concrete behaves when a strong force is applied to it. It crumbles.

Agreed. I definitely would like to see some footage of the Pentagon incident released to the public. Something that actually shows the plane moments before impact. But with respect to eye-witness accounts, I tend to think they’re a little more valid in the Pentagon case, solely because people weren’t panicking when they reported seeing a 757 flying dangerously low to the highway. At the WTC, everyone thought Armageddon was upon them. They heard elevator shafts crashing to the lobby, and they thought it was an explosion. They saw burning jet fuel running down those shafts and spilling out onto the ground floor, and they thought a bomb had gone off in the basement. They had no idea what was happening, and their perception wasn’t anywhere near as reliable as that of the 300+ DC residents who calmly watched a massive plane cruise overhead in the direction of the Pentagon.

I’m doing both in equal amounts. I don’t think there’s any evidence that explosives were used, and I tend to think it makes sense that the collapsing floors within the building would be responsible for the visible ejection of debris (squibs) as well as causing the overall collapse to accumulate in speed rather than slow down. Bear in mind that the burden of proof isn’t on me. The cause of the collapse that we all witnessed (ie, the planes) is the “default” explanation, and you’re trying to provide alternatives. From what I can see, these alternatives don’t appear to stand up to criticism.

Again, it should be noted that very few supporters of the demolition theory actually possess qualifications in that or a related field. The link that Josh provided earlier shows that even Jones himself has no certified understanding of civil engineering, and neither did any of the people who peer reviewed his paper. That’s a very significant point. If a handful of software designers, some pastry chefs and a botanist all review my paper on quantum physics and can’t point out something that isn’t right, then it might as well not have been peer reviewed at all. A great deal of his information is simply wrong, and actual engineers (several of which are mentioned on the aforementioned link) can easily tear it to shreds.

Source? I’ve never heard this before, and I’d be interested to find out more about it. Though I’m sure every sizable building has regular periods of down-time as they’re inspected, repaired, or whatever. I won’t say it’s impossible for people to smuggle the explosives into the building (there’s no time limit, so we have to allow for the possibility of it happening), but it seems unlikely that they could be set up on several support poles around the building without anyone noticing them for weeks, months or years.

The keyword there being “imagine.” It’s all well and good to say, “They’re the military, I’m sure they have some kind of top-secret explosive that can withstand temperatures capable of warping steel and still be capable of receiving remote signals to detonate,” but you’ll need to back that up with something. Explosives are volatile by nature, and we’re talking about every square inch of the affected floors being baked in 1000+ degrees for an hour. I don’t buy it. I think those extreme temperatures and the damage that the planes did to the support columns is enough in itself.

What ideas? That a plane can bring down a building? I’m just working with what we can see. You’re the one with ideas that require further evidence and explanations, and so far they just don’t hold up in my view.

Are you sure you’re reading the links that have been posted in here? In the entire official 9/11 Conspiracy Movement, only two members actually have qualifications in engineering. And of those, one doesn’t seem to have finished his degree yet, and the other is 82 years old. You’ll be hard pressed to find a qualified engineer who agrees that the buildings probably would not have fallen without the aid of explosives. This page comments on most of the big voices who have come forth and protested the official story. It also shows that very few of them can back up their assertions with the appropriate qualifications. Maybe a few engineers support the conspiracy, but it seems that the vast majority of them aren’t questioning the likeliness of the official story. To them, it makes sense exactly as we see it.

I don’t want to sound repetitive, but more attention really should be paid to the people supporting both sides of the argument, and what experience or qualifications they have. A couple of engineers giving a presentation about how suspicious the events were doesn’t outweigh a dozen others who firmly maintain that it was a legitimate collapse resulting from the known causes.

But it still doesn’t make sense. “Pull” isn’t used in the demolitions business to mean "implode/explode.”. It (officially) means to tie ropes around any remaining structures or wall segments that survived the implosion and pulling them over with bulldozers. Everyone has said this. Also, fire fighters don’t destroy buildings. Never have, never will. The comment about “pulling” can only mean, “Get everyone out of there.” Conspiracy websites like to cut small sections out of longer quotes to help their cause, but if you read the full transcripts of recorded conversation on that day, it really does look like the reference was intended to mean clear the area, as building 7 was apparently unstable and about to fall down.

I don’t know anything about this, so I have no thoughts on it. However, I am aware that Bush was sitting in an elementary school classroom at the moment that the first plane hit, so I’m not going to buy into what you’re probably suggesting here. He was obviously just referring to watching it on TV after the event, as he simply wasn’t anywhere near the site at the time, and this is verifiable. It wasn’t televised until later that day, but I’m sure the President had access to recordings long before the media.

Oh, and wait a minute… the first hit wasn’t televised until the next day? What are you talking about? The first hit was played over and over on the same day (heck, I watched it myself) just an hour or so after the plane hit. Both collisions, the second one being filmed live because all the film crews had arrived on the scene long before then, were played repeatedly.

No, no, no! Having something “peer reviewed” doesn’t immediately grant it some kind of magically appointed, indisputable validity. It depends entirely on who reviews your paper, and in this case, it appears all the wrong people were chosen. Not Jones himself, nor any of the people he showed his paper to, were qualified to comment on the validity of his claims. It would be like you writing a paper on why the buildings had to have been rigged with explosives, then showing it to your friends (who all major in Philosophy) before getting it published. It was an illegitimate paper, and actual structural engineers all but laugh when they read it.

Oh, and Stranger, you should never base your views on one video that was put together by conspiracy advocates. They intentionally skip over or change information to suit their cause, and if you do a little research, you’ll probably find that virtually no part of these videos can be trusted. Read a bunch of websites for and against the conspiracy, then make up your mind. You’ll find that it’s a more complicated issue than it first appears. Just, for the love of God, don’t restrict all your research time to pro-conspiracy pages. There’s a great deal of information they don’t like to mention.

I just found this today, from the same site as the ‘Screw Loose Change’ video. It’s another excellent document debunking the copnspiracy theories.

screwloosechange.xbehome.com/fst/FST-D1.pdf

Some good info. Thx Josh, I read through parts of it (not all, because i dont have the time) and a lot of it is good info, and I took it in and accept it… but he didn’t address all aspects of the conspiracies, I guess only the parts that he could answer to.

And the part about WTC7, he has good info on that however the fact that the media didn’t even mention that this building had been destroyed, is just bizaar. Ok the main attention is to the main 2 towers and the pentagon, but you would think that they would at least mention that another World Trade Center bulding had also collapsed.
Instead they didn’t mention it because it was not important? Doesn’t sound right. Every bit of information, everything that occurred, is extremely important and should all have been stated as it happened, or at least mentioned after.
TO THIS DAY none of the major US networks have mentioned it… Why not? A world trade center building was destroyed, not important? Even if the local post office building was destroyed, blown up for any reason, it would be big news, but wait, world trade center building number 7? Ahh not relevant to even mention since our main focus is on the twin towers…

Anyway, im not saying that this particular one is definitely a consipracy, I am saying I don’t know, I don’t know why they didn’t mention it, and the reasons provided so far are not enough to make me 100% believe… It is still just a strange occurance.

There’s also a few other things i don’t agree with or think havn’t been addressed, or talked about properly, but this author has a lot of good info he has obviously done a respectable job in taking a lot of evidence before talking his mind.

Well I don’t know about the American media, but here in Canada it was reported. I watched coverage on it on two different major stations, the CBC and CTV, however I’ve gotta say I find it hard to believe that it wasn’t covered. Are you sure absolutley no network looked WTC 7?

I’m sure some TV network covered the collapse of WTC7. Stranger, unless you have a prestigious source for that info, or you have spent months on end sitting in front of every report major news networks have done on 9/11, you have no place making that claim. That seems outragous to me.

havn’t heard anything myself and if its been said then im sorry I missed it.

I do recall though someone speaking out about this at a protest who stated it had not been talked of by the media and that it is suspecious, the fact that they didn’t give an investigation as to why that occurred…
just what i heard… maybe i over analysed,

tonight loose change 2nd edition gets aired on dutch national television. Here in the media in the news, people have been talking about the conspiracy theories, and trying to see what’s true about it and what not. They have been showing the collapsing towers and the explosions, and the supposed plane that hit the pentagon already in other talk shows.

Well people! Round here, it’s Septemeber 11th. I haven’t seen any thing new about the 911 theories on tv, but heard that so many diffrent things were supposed to be released today. Has anyone seen or heard anything?

Speaking of which, last night the CBC played two documentries about 9/11 last night. The first about the events leading to 9/11 and the second about how the workers at ground zero are experiencing health problems because of the environment they were working in. I only got to see the first one and the last 10 minutes of the second one, but after watching the first one I’m having even more trouble with the fact that people are still believing the stuff in Loose Change. What I mean is, just watch Loose Change and then research this stuff, and you’ll see how many errors there are, it’s almost mind blowing

Anyways Q I’m happy that this movie will be played. I believe that if more people watch it, it’ll inspire everyone to go and research this for themselves so they can get to the bottom of things, because dis-information helps no one, especially in a case like this.

Atheist:

I have already mentioned in this thread that the pro-official story material out there has proved to be much stronger than I originally thought (I actually linked to 911myths at one point). I’ve re-examined my beliefs with regard 911 and, although I’m not yet in favour of the official theory, I am much less certain with regards what happened. But back to the specifics:

re: the collapses

I accept the analysis of the “squibs” and, to some degree, the points you make with regard concrete pulverisation. That video footage does seem to suggest the expulsions were caused by air pressure, and I’m not sure what happens when you drop concrete from that kind of height.

But at the end of the day the key features of the collapse still don’t add up for me. I know you are claiming they were slower than freefall, but they were still exceptionally fast collapses. In addition to that, they followed the path of most resistance. And, of course, they were total. I have since seen a documentary about a small group of survivors who emerged from the rubble, and they were mentioning that some of the support beams were cut (the show was in no way related to the conspiracy theories though).

So the collapses are still suspicious to me. But I take your points on board. I realise now that some of the evidence conspiracy theorists use is not as strong as it first appears to be.

I’ve recently flown for the first time and the experience added to my scepticism with regard the efficiency with which the hijackers hit their targets.

Basically my stance here has shifted from “9/11 was an inside job… and I have the proof!!” to “9/11 smells incredibly fishy to me… but proof is hard to come by”

Your interpretation of the “squibs” I can possibly go with, but there would have been huge resistance to the falling floors from the undamaged lower floors.

To be honest I’m sceptical of the whole thing, the point of how the planes were caused to impact the buildings.

Anyway, it’s a big patchwork because, as I’m British, I’m following the British counter-terrosism situation very closely. One overlap is with regard the Pakistani intelligence agency (ISI?). One terrorism suspect here in the uk alleges that they have been setting up training facilities for terrorists, and he has ceased answering questions about them due to possible danger to his family. The connection to 9/11? The Pakistani ISI (or someone associated) wired money to Mo Atta pre-911. This is on record, excuse lack of citation. And yet there is no attack on Pakistan by the US.

While on the topic, do you have any arguments with regards the events pre-9/11 such as the above mentioned wiring of money?

I’m not stooping to the level of persisting with 911 conspiracy claims just because I don’t like the Bush administration, I do genuinely think there’s something wrong with the official version of 911. But you guys have certainly shown that my case is very hard to prove. Jesus, do you guys know that one of the main officers responsible for the Menenez shooting here in London recently got PROMOTION?

Sure, maybe you interpret conspiracy theories as social phenomenon, but with the kind of political goings-on we witness in the world today, I hardly think it surprising that people don’t trust their governments.

Well fine, but I linked to an interview with a very highly qualified guy in my last post, with much experience in a relevent field. I’m kinda tired right now so I’ll offer the cop-out answer that I feel intuitively that there is something wrong with the collapses.

And this is flat-out incorrect (as far as I’m aware). The only footage of the first impact itself was picked up by that documentary crew following the NY firefighters that day. It wasnt aired until the next day. The second impact was caught from many angles and was replayed over and over and over, but obviously the first one caught the media by surprise. The footage only made it out the next day.

But there may be some decent explanation for Bush’s statement. Silverstein’s statement is certainly far from the confession I first thought it was. I mean fair play to you official story guys, you’ve got some strong stuff, and we conspiracy nuts will certainly have to raise our game to stay in this.

And I’m not mindlessly clinging to the conspiracy side here, I’ve given this a lot of thought lately… and although, once again, I have to say I’m very impressed with the material you’ve presented, it still doesnt persuade me.

Definitely on the backfoot though.

Hey, what happened to that post complimenting us for keeping it civil? I liked that!

Interesting quote from a 9/11 sceptic blog:

I feel this is certainly true, and I’ve learnt some lessons lately by reading defenders of the official theory. I feel I shall be largely inactive on this issue until I re-clarify my position on it.

9/11 conspiracy? lies spread in order to gain political power , in other words the “spreading 9/11 conspirace idea” - conspiracy is the only true thing here , you all have to look at the big picture for once and relize all the loose changers an 911truthers make up evidence in order to spread it to gain power from 9/11 like they say the us goverment at the time did it or whatever in other words they USE it for personal gain.

Bullsh*t. I have heard that claim many, many times before, and it is sort of absurd. What political gain are they making here? If you take note of who believes in the theories, there are almost no Republicans, almost no former Bush supporters. Most who believed what they saw in Loose Change and the other 9/11 truth videos were already opposed to the Bush/Neo-Con agenda. Bush probably lost five votes to Avery, Jones, and the bunch.