9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

[Sock Puppy]

I have never heard of any evidence that the explosion shot down through the shafts; only a theory with no evidence whatsoever.

An explosion could quite easily travel the length of the shaft; this is an open, natural conduit.

Yes, they did. Aside from the harm they did to atleast one person, they also weakened the foundation of the building.

But they failed, classically, to bring the building down; ergo, they did nothing. The objective of this mystical cabal of Lizardoids wasn't to hurt some yokel wandering about the basement, but to knock the building down. You are asking us to believe that they were so cunning, so eeevilly sneaky that they stage-managed two planes crashing into the Towers, one more into the Pentagon and one almost to the White House, planted explosives at the impact site and - since the claim is constantly made about flashes the length of the building - set off charges all through WTC 1 and 2...which all failed except for the ones i) right at the crash spot and ii) in the basement, where Crusty the janitor was surprised out of his perusal of the latest issue of Jugs, which I am sure he reads only for the articles.

We can say - again, referring to the position you're presenting - that none of the other charges either worked or even went off, because the collapse clearly occurred at the impact spot. Nowhere else do the Towers begin collapsing. Nowhere else do they start to crumble. Instead, it's the one big chunk in both cases falling down and riding the rubble to the bottom. Why didn't any of the other charges do the job? Wasn't the point to make the Tower collapse? On one hand, the Troof movement is arguing omnipotence; on the other, ineptitude.

It did indeed collapse from the top downward, but the bottom was no longer nearly as firm as it had been before that initial explosion.

If your head is falling off, frankly, it makes little difference how toned your bottom is, except perhaps to Suzanne Somers. (Summers? Sumers? Whatever. The one with the Thigh-a-ciser.) The problem is up top.

 

[scott3x]

Rodriguez probably deeply believes what he heard. However there is no evidence for explosions in the basement (apart from his testimony) and there is a very likely simple explanation.

Why do you believe that there is very likely a simple explanation other then explosives for his testimony? Anyway, you are mistaken as to Rodriguez as to Rodriguez being the only one to testify to this. Rememeber that I said that all 22 people who were on his floor heard it. And there are other written testimonies as well. Again from "The Terror Conspiracy":
"Many have wondered about the witnesses who claimed to have heard multiple explosions within the buildsings. One such witness was the head of WTC security, John O'Neill, who stated shortly before he himself became a victim that he helped dig out survivors on the 27th floor before the building collapse. Since the aircraft crashed into the 80th floor, what heavily damaged the 27th floor?

Another of those mentioning bombs was Louie Cacchioli, a fifty-one-year-old fireman assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem. "We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck", recalled Cacchioli. "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the twenty-fourth floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building." The fireman became trapped in the elevator but managed to escape with the use of tools.

Auxiliary Fire Lt. Paul Isaac, Jr., also mentioned bombs, telling internet reporter Randy Lavello that New York firemen were very upset by what they considered a cover-up in the WTC destruction. "Many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings", he said, "but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of the fact." Isaac, who was stationed at Engine 10 near the WTC in the late 1990s, said the higher-ups included the NYFD's antiterrorism consultant, James Woolsey, a former CIA director. "There were definitely bombs in those buildings", Isaac added.

He includes more testimonies, which I can include later if you like.

Getting a blank or no response is what you expect and doesn’t imply a conspiracy.

Well, in the end, perhaps they can only make you believe what you want to believe...

Our memory is not always reliable.

Very true. However, there are clearly elements within the government that would like to suppress certain inconvenient memories..

Very dramatic but he’s still alive right? Were there any details on who the reporter was?

No; honestly, I could even believe that the supposed reporter wasn't actually one. I can understand if he'd be hesitant to reveal his source in any case; remember, there are people who are afraid of losing their jobs here. And as this alleged reporter made clear, jobs might not be the only thing one might lose.

As I said he may deeply believe he is right but his testimony has a likely simple explanation and his conclusion contradicted by more reliable evidence.

What more reliable evidence are you referring to?

I thought fuel went down the shafts. I can’t even remember where I read that now. I’ll look it up.

That was the theory, yes. There is no evidence that this actually occurred.

No the building pancaked. For that to occur, the lower floors had to hold firm. Otherwise it would have collapsed from the bottom.

The theory that the building pancaked is a "plausible impossible" as David Ray Griffin has said. He explains why here:
http://truememes.com/mackey.html

In any case, you can weaken a structure without actually making it fall. Thing of the game Jenga. Here's a rather humourous link to it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFUQ47L8lYY&feature=related

Read what you are saying. It sounds like you are rationalizing how the collapse was nothing like a controlled demolition as proof somehow that it was a controlled demolition yet done cleverly.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the timing and manner in which the explosives were set off was done in such away to make it appear like explosives didn't take down the building. However, there are a lot of aspects of explosives that, atleast in this day and age, are simply too hard to hide. I haven't mentioned all of the evidence which points towards explosives being used, although I think others have probably already mentioned some other aspects of it here.

There is no evidence for bombs and the building certainly did not fall as if it had been bombed.

I've already shown you evidence that explosives were used. But I definitely recommend you check out David Ray Griffin's link on the collapse of the buildings to say why it was impossible for the building to have been brought down by the pancake theory:
http://truememes.com/mackey.html

You may have people who heard two bangs but that doesn’t equal a conspiracy.

Some people heard much more then just 2.

Once again why would you load up the building with bombs, which not one person saw, and then fly planes into it?

If the explosives were well hidden, they would be hard to see. As to the blasts of the explosives, atleast one person was severely injured because of one, as I've mentioned before.

The 9/11 section of this movie has been taken apart. If there is a particular part which you think is convincing then I will address that.

For starters, all the mentioning of explosions at around 42 minutes in the movie.

But why would you want that? Why go to the trouble? It would increase the cost, complexity and risk tenfold for the same result.

You are assuming that the planes, by themselves, would have brought down the buildings. Again I ask you to read David Ray Griffin's article, which shows that they would not have done so.

Perhaps but when the theories start to sound absurd maybe there is a problem.

Which theories in particular do you believe sound absurd?

So you could just blow up the empire state building instead…. OR blow up the WTC and also steal planes and fly them into just the right floors while setting off bombs in the basement at almost exactly the same time, and hope that no one notices…

Yes. Because if people became convinced that explosives were used, the next step would be to look for who planted those explosives...

From the beginning Manning believed that it was impossible for fire and the planes to bring the buildings down.

Considering all the firefighter testimonials who were in the building and heard and were rocked by the explosions, it's not hard to see why.

There was steel at the WTC site for months. Investigators had access to steel at the scrapyard.

Which investigators were they? The ones who were busy carting away the evidence? Again from "The Terror Conspiracy" (page 68-69):
"Concerns over the validity of the free-fall scenario based on fires in the buildings were echoed by Bush I administration official Morgan Reynolds, a Texas A & M Professor Emeritus of Economics who was also former chief economist for the Department of Labor and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis. Reynolds is also a leading member of scholarsfor911truth.org....

The professsor also joined the chorus of criticism levelled at FEMA officials for the rapid removal of WTC Debris, which prevented later study. "The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be saved for forensic analysis but FEMA had it destroyed before anyone could seriously investigate it", stated Reynolds. "FEMA was in position to take command because it had arrived the day before the attacks at New York's Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, "Tripod II", quite a coincidence. The authorities apparently considered the rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 1/2 hour lunch fired."
Responding to the question of why controlled demolitions have never been considered by the official government investigations of 9/11, Reynolds said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling"
Military affairs journalist Barbara Honnegger honed this argument to an even sharper point by offering the chilling conclusion that if bombs were planted inside both the Pentagon and the WTC buildings, it would have been difficult -if not impossible- for foreign terrorists to have the opportunity to plant and detonate such bombs."

I don’t. (No offense I don't think you are lying)

Glad to know you don't think I'm lying anyway. Hopefully now that I've added more testimonies, you'll think about this more...

Two planes full of jet fuel crash into two of the largest buildings in the world. The fire burns away and the buildings completely collapse. Should that be completely silent? Are you surprised that there were some explosions?

Some explosions? The building's concrete was pulverized. From close up, it seems obvious that the building isn't just falling down; pulverized material is exploding outwards as well. Please, just check out David Ray Griffin's link on the pancake theory..

With all the footage we have there is nothing about the collapse that gives any indication of a controlled demolition. Distorting witness testimony is desperate and dishonest.

Actually, there's a lot. You just have to know how to look. I'll try to get some links on this later..

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

Interesting link. I must admit I hadn't seen this before. It could still all have been planted as far as I'm concerned, but it seems to be a lot more then just the fuselage.

I know, I used to have a list of all the witnesses who describe seeing the plane. I’ll find it later.

Ok .

 

[craterchains (Norval]

, , , and you think that there are no "Information Aquisition and Control" (IAC) agents in all the forums. This scifoolems forum is full of them. There are very specific topics "they" will react to quite fast.

Best reguards
Norval

 

[KennyJC]

What experts we talking about here? People from FEMA, who were carting away the evidence? Or people from NIST, another part of the 'half-baked farce' as Bill Manning puts it?

Yes, 'experts' say there was no evidence. It took them 3 long months to get rid of it all, but they finally managed it.

Brent Blanchard and his team (amongst other experts on site) had nothing to do with the government.

Even volunteers were allowed on the site which I don't think is something that would be allowed to happen if there was evidence of controlled demolition everywhere in the rubble.

"At 5:20 P.M., WTC7 collapsed. I watched it happen from across the river, and no revisionism is going to screw with my recollection here --

This is just some random conspiracy theorist who doesn't have anything to offer. We can just watch the video of the collapse and we see what he saw.

The following page says that not only were explosions heard, but NIST ignored what they meant:
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html

"While NIST cherry-picks a feature of the Towers' destructions that differs from conventional, bottom-up demolitions, it conveniently ignores numerous features that are apparently unique to demolitions, including:

* Rapid onset, accompanied by sounds of explosions
* Radial symmetry about the building's vertical axis
* Consistent pulverization of non-metallic materials
* Total destruction of the building"

Accompanied by explosions? I have not heard any such thing in dozens of different cameras that recorded the collapse.

Even in controlled demolitions, pulverization isn't caused by explosives, it's caused by the more destructive downfall and collision with the ground and other parts of the building.

Were you about 1.5 miles from any of the towers?

No, but many people and cameras were and none describe loud explosions immediately before the towers collapsed.

Personally I think that, using some sophisticated techniques, the noise could be mitigated to some extent.

I'm all ears... what sophisticated techniques are there for silent bombs?

As to that dust cloud at the ending of that demonstration though.. remind you of something?

Dust clouds are not any indication of explosives. Dust clouds would be a feature of any building collapse whether it be controlled or otherwise.

I didn't see any windows being blown out from the buildings nearby in the demolition video you showed me, but perhaps some glass from nearby buildings did break? I haven't heard that none did. You could say it was debris, but perhaps it wasn't all debris..

That's because demolition teams probably protect windows. On 9/11 the only windows that broke were lower down where they had more chance of being hit by debris. We would have seen more uniform in window breakage if it was indeed a controlled demolition.

Not all government officials are corrupt. I never said that the people who had the incriminating evidence were corrupt. But if you blow up the building that houses the evidence of the ones who -are- corrupt, well, that can work out quite nicely for said corrupt officials.

Except that doing so would be impossible to go undetected. Just ask any demolition expert what goes into bringing a building down, then ask them if it would be possible to go it in a busy office building without anyone noticing.

If WTC7 had no structural damage, no fires, no firefighters saying that the building looked like it would collapse, then I would agree with you that there was something suspicious there.

I haven't seen such a claim, but I wouldn't trust NIST anyway.

You should. They are experts in their field. Just because their website has a .gov in it doesn't mean they would lie about what happened on 9/11. Remember when you said "not all government officials are corrupt"? Well NIST is comprised of 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel.

I thought you meant cameras in the basement. In any case, I definitely heard what sounded like a bunch of explosions. And the buildings definitely appear to be exploding; even one of the reporters said so "A huge explosion..".

This is where you prove your dishonesty. The cameras were a stones throw from the tower as it collapsed and no explosions were picked up. Then you go on to say that the inevitable rumble of the tower falling is in itself an explosion, which could loosely be true, except that the rumble of the tower is not a bomb. In controlled demolition you hear bombs going off BEFORE the tower falls, and even if they were somehow going off in real time as the building fell, to make it look like a pancake collapse, you would hear the sounds of explosives over the top of the rumble of the collapse.

I heard a bunch. They don't sound like the example demolition you showed me; it sounds more like there were a lot of small explosives instead of the larger ones in the example.

I heard no punctuation of explosives in the 2 videos I posted. Just the slow consistent rumble of the tower falling.

There is lots of evidence that shows that the this whole pancake collapse theory is a 'plausible impossible', as David Ray Griffin puts it. To find out why, you are going to have to look at the link I provide, because the argument is a bit long and there's no point in my copying it over here:
http://truememes.com/mackey.html

If the top half of the building begins to fall, it's not going to suddenly halt when it lands on the next floor. Each floor is not designed to hold up to the sudden jolt caused by the massive weight of floors above landing on to it. They cave in without much opposition.

I've already shown you evidence to the contrary in regards to witnesses.

They do nothing to describe controlled demolition. An explosion being heard in the basement over an hour before the building collapses does not lead to suspicions of controlled demolition. Especially when the basement played no part in the collapse of either tower. NIST already interviewed multiple people who describe explosive flames coming out of the elevator shafts in floors below where the plane hit.

Well, whatever it reminds you of, the point is there are a lot of people who believe that the official story regarding 9/11 is seriously flawed.

They would believe that regardless. From the moment the North tower was hit, it was set in stone that this was a government conspiracy in the minds of people like you.

I don't know, I'm not one of said victims. I have heard, however, that some of the calls were indeed made up, but not by the victims, who apparently never made the calls to begin with. If I were a victim and I had heard this, my anger would be towards the people making up stories.

The people making up the stories are people like you. The 'faked calls' conspiracy is one of the most disgusting lies repeated by conspiracy theorists. Many of the calls were indepth and very emotional for all concerned and along comes a fool like you to tell the families that it was faked.

The real question is, who is the sensible person? The person who refuses to listen to anything but the official story? Or the person who looks at all sides of the story in order to try to determine the truth.

Stop calling it the "official story". It's called history. This is why this why conspiracy threads are in "pseudoscience".

Yeah.. cheap thrills. To tell you the honest truth, it is -really- hard to deal with people who think that I'm a 'fool' getting 'cheap thrills' out of this. It's taken me a fair amount of time to learn what I know, and more time to research what I write in my articles here. So when I get comments like this.. it hurts. All I know is I'm trying to uncover the truth to the public.

You have gone out of your way to read books by worthless conspiracy writers and trust him over the experts in NIST amongst others.

 

[scott3x]

, , , and you think that there are no "Information Aquisition and Control" (IAC) agents in all the forums. This scifoolems forum is full of them. There are very specific topics "they" will react to quite fast.

Best reguards
Norval

I can easily believe they exist and that I am possibly arguing with one or 2 of them even as we speak. But I'm not certain. Perhaps this isn't the case. In the ending, all you can do is try to make your case, regardless of who's responding. Atleast it's not so systemic that the moderators themselves sensor me. I always keep in mind that when I'm responding to someone, they're probably not the only one who'll read it; ultimately, I think the main problem for most is they simply are in need of more information to get closer to the truth.

 

[KennyJC]

I can easily believe they exist and that I am possibly arguing with one or 2 of them even as we speak. But I'm not certain. Perhaps this isn't the case. In the ending, all you can do is try to make your case, regardless of who's responding. Atleast it's not so systemic that the moderators themselves sensor me. I always keep in mind that when I'm responding to someone, they're probably not the only one who'll read it; ultimately, I think the main problem for most is they simply are in need of more information to get closer to the truth.

HAHAHAHAHA!

 

[scott3x]

Brent Blanchard and his team (amongst other experts on site) had nothing to do with the government.

Jim Hoffman deals with Blanchard in the following article:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html

I didn't read beyond the beginning paragraph, which I'll excerpt:
"The article critiqued here, A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT , is one of several technical articles defending official explanations of the total collapses of the World Trade Center towers published shortly before the fifth anniversary of the 9/11/2001 attack.

Following publication of Blanchard's article, The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) published its Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). Whereas NIST relies heavily on the straw-man technique, primarily highlighting claims based on fallacies, Blanchard appears to address several serious arguments against the official explanations. However, he fails to articulate these arguments and skirts them with replies laced with fallacies."

Even volunteers were allowed on the site which I don't think is something that would be allowed to happen if there was evidence of controlled demolition everywhere in the rubble.

Alright, I'd like you to cite a source that contradicts the claims that the noted author Jim Marrs has brought up in his book, namely what I brought up in my opening paragraph in a post a little earlier in this thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1987002&postcount=205

This is just some random conspiracy theorist who doesn't have anything to offer. We can just watch the video of the collapse and we see what he saw.

Actually, I think I can agree with you here. The thing is, when I hear those buildings falling, I believe I hear explosives going off; a lot more of them then the sample demolition that was shown and I think they can certainly be confused with the building simply coming down, but I believe I can hear them. I must admit that to date I haven't seen a counter to the specific argument of whether the explosives should be heard more clearly. But simply because I haven't seen this issue addressed yet doesn't mean that an expert explanation isn't out there. I have also heard that one can see that the building was exploding and from some photos I've seen, not to mention some of the video, this definitely seems to be the case.

Accompanied by explosions? I have not heard any such thing in dozens of different cameras that recorded the collapse.

I think what it essentially boils down to is that what you take as the noise of the building alone, others take for noise of explosions as well as the building collapsing.

Even in controlled demolitions, pulverization isn't caused by explosives, it's caused by the more destructive downfall and collision with the ground and other parts of the building.

That's not what Jim Marrs is saying. Can you cite a source?

No, but many people and cameras were and none describe loud explosions immediately before the towers collapsed.

Please; a lot of people describe hearing huge explosions or bombs. One of the clips shown here (perhaps you showed it to me) has a reporter saying so.

I'm all ears... what sophisticated techniques are there for silent bombs?

I never said silent bombs, just bombs that make less noise then a typical demolition; I'm fairly convinced that essentially the World Trade buildings had a lot of smaller bombs instead of just a few big ones to mitigate the sound. I'm not the only one who believes they saw small explosions; from "The Terror Conspiracy" (page 41):
Ross Milanyth watched the horror at the WTC from his office window on the 22nd floor of a building a couple of blocks away. "[I saw] small explosions on each floor. And after it all cleared, all that was left of the buildings, you could just see the steel girders in like a triangular sail shape. The structure was completely gone", he said.

Dust clouds are not any indication of explosives. Dust clouds would be a feature of any building collapse whether it be controlled or otherwise.

Do you have a video wherein a normal building falls without the use of explosives so we could compare?

That's because demolition teams probably protect windows. On 9/11 the only windows that broke were lower down where they had more chance of being hit by debris. We would have seen more uniform in window breakage if it was indeed a controlled demolition.

Can you cite a source for this? I also think that using a lot of small explosives might have mitigated this but I freely admit this is speculation on my part. However, I'm certainly not the only one who believes there were multiple small explosions. From "The Terror Conspiracy", page 47:
Paramedic Daniel Rivera: "At first I thought it was- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear, 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'? That's exactly what- because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down."

Except that doing so would be impossible to go undetected. Just ask any demolition expert what goes into bringing a building down, then ask them if it would be possible to go it in a busy office building without anyone noticing.

I never said that it went unnoticed. I brought it up in an earlier post in another thread here; there were some emergency drills before 9/11 that were in fact used to place bombs throughout the building. Again from ""The Terror Conspiracy":
"..if there were bombs in the towers, how did they get there?

With the buildings turned to powdered ash and the metal quickly hauled away, no one will ever be certain but some interesting theories have been advanced...

..[a] theory emerged after Ben Fountain, a financial analyst who worked on the 47th floor of the South Tower, told People magazine that in the weeks preceeding 9/11 there were numerous unusual and unannounced "drills" in which sections of both towers as well as Building 7 were evacuated for "security reasons." These drills could have provided a perfect cover for persons planting explosives.

Reporting in The American Reporter, an electronic daily newspaper, Margie Burns cited President Bush's younger brother, Marvin P. Bush, as a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm.

Securacom has since changed its name to Stratesec, but is still backed by KuwAm. Marvin Bush, who did not respond to repeated interview requests from The American Reporter, is no longer on the board of either company and has not been linked with any terrorist activities. According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."

Many people lost their lives in the collapse of the Twin Towers because the public address system advised workers to return to their desks. Who exactly ordered that broadcast over the loudspeakers in the South Tower as workers were trying to evacute, "Remain calm, damage is in Tower One. Return to your desks."? Many people lost their lives because of these announcements. Minutes later the towers collapsed unexpectedly."

If WTC7 had no structural damage, no fires, no firefighters saying that the building looked like it would collapse, then I would agree with you that there was something suspicious there.

Can you cite me an article who shows who started saying it would collapse? From what I remember, it wasn't a firefighter..

You should. [NIST] are experts in their field. Just because their website has a .gov in it doesn't mean they would lie about what happened on 9/11.

True. However, if they felt they might get fired from their jobs if they were to disagree with the party line to much, as was Kevin R. Ryan, they may be more cautious about drawing certain conclusions. From "The Terror Conspiracy", page 53-54:
"A number of experts have disputed the claim that melting structural steel brought down the Twin Towers.
Kevin R. Ryan, was a site manager from Environmental Health Laboratories Inc. in South Bend, IN, a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL), the giant product safety testing firm. In 2003, Ryan wrote to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the Metallurgy Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Material Science and Engineering Laboratory, challenging the theory that burning jet fuel weakened the towers' structural steel, causing them to fall.
In this communication, Ryan wrote: "As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings... the samples we certified met all requirements... the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel."
Ryan went on to question the conclusions of "experts", including Dr. Hyman Brown, who have claimed that the towers collapse was caused by structural steel melting at temperatures of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit.
Reiterating that his company had certified the steel to withstand temperatures of 2000 degrees for several hours, Ryan wrote: "I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not metl until reaching red-hot temperatures of 3000F. Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all"
"This story just does not add up", Ryan concluded. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be a great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company."
Although Ryan made it clear that he was speaking only for himself, not his company, his employers' reaction was decisive. On November 2004, the South Bend Tribune carried this headline: "South Bend firm's lab director fired after questioning federal prove". UL officials denied any testing of the WTC steel and said Ryan was terminated because his letter was written "without the UL's knowledge or authorization."

Remember when you said "not all government officials are corrupt"? Well NIST is comprised of 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel.

I'm sure most would like to keep their jobs too.

This is where you prove your dishonesty. The cameras were a stones throw from the tower as it collapsed and no explosions were picked up. Then you go on to say that the inevitable rumble of the tower falling is in itself an explosion, which could loosely be true, except that the rumble of the tower is not a bomb. In controlled demolition you hear bombs going off BEFORE the tower falls, and even if they were somehow going off in real time as the building fell, to make it look like a pancake collapse, you would hear the sounds of explosives over the top of the rumble of the collapse. I heard no punctuation of explosives in the 2 videos I posted. Just the slow consistent rumble of the tower falling.

I and others believe we can hear them, you and others don't. Because of this, I think we should try to look for more conclusive evidence..

If the top half of the building begins to fall, it's not going to suddenly halt when it lands on the next floor. Each floor is not designed to hold up to the sudden jolt caused by the massive weight of floors above landing on to it. They cave in without much opposition.

It seems you keep on ignoring the link I'm sending you, so I'll put the first paragraph, in the hopes that it'll encourage you to read further in:
"Why Have So Many Been Taken for a Ride?

One of the problems we have with the fraudulent claims that are made regarding the existence of self-crushing steel frame buildings is the fact that many people lack an intuitive sense of the strength and resilience of these structures. They have allowed themselves to become convinced by an alleged scenario that is physically impossible. My Erector Set illustration is intended to address this problem."

Here's the rest:
http://truememes.com/mackey.html

They do nothing to describe controlled demolition. An explosion being heard in the basement over an hour before the building collapses does not lead to suspicions of controlled demolition.

I will admit I'm not sure why an explosive device would have been used at that time. I believe it was used to initially weaken the building; perhaps it was done so they wouldn't have to use so much explosives when the building actually came down.

Especially when the basement played no part in the collapse of either tower.

I have seen no evidence of that so far.

NIST already interviewed multiple people who describe explosive flames coming out of the elevator shafts in floors below where the plane hit.

I wonder if they interviewed Mike Pecoraro. From "The Terror Conspiracy", page 43:
"Mike Pecoraro told The Chief Engineer magazine he was working in the 6th sub-basement of the North Tower when the lights flickered. This was followed by a loud explosion. Pecoraro and a coworker made their way up to a C level machine shop but found it "gone." "There was nothing there but rubble", recalled Pecoraro. "We're talking about a 50-ton hydraulic press- gone!"
Working their way upwards to a parking garage, the pair found it too was destroyed. "There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor and you can't see anything", Pecoraro recalled. Ascending two more levels to the tower's lobby, they were astonished to find more debris including a 300-pound steel and concrete fire door wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil." By now, Pecoraro was convinced that a bomb had gone off in the building.

I wouldn't expect that to be many. Regardless, their demonstrations at ground zero (especially on anniversaries) reminds me of fundamentalists protesting at the funerals of gay people.

Well, whatever it reminds you of, the point is there are a lot of people who believe that the official story regarding 9/11 is seriously flawed.

They would believe that regardless. From the moment the North tower was hit, it was set in stone that this was a government conspiracy in the minds of people like you.

Actually, it wasn't. I saw the North tower being hit live and I had no idea who had done it. Then, when reports started streaming in that it was Bin Laden, I believed it. I hadn't even read a book by Jim Marrs yet. It was soon after that, however, that my brother passed me the first book I was to read from Jim, called "Rule by Secrecy".

The people making up the stories are people like you. The 'faked calls' conspiracy is one of the most disgusting lies repeated by conspiracy theorists. Many of the calls were indepth and very emotional for all concerned and along comes a fool like you to tell the families that it was faked.

I never said that -all- the calls were faked. I strongly remember, however, that there was a lot of people questioning the calls from the plane that was allegedly heading for the pentagon.

Stop calling it the "official story". It's called history. This is why this why conspiracy threads are in "pseudoscience".

Perhaps it's what will be in the history books, but it is also the official story. There are lots of people, however, who hope that the history books will be a little more honest. As to why these threads are in pseudoscience, I think a little info from the sticky in this forum is in order:

"Pseudoscience is a forum dedicated to Theories and Science that currently aren't scientifically proven and untested."

True enough, it hasn't been proven that 9/11 was an inside job. But I think the evidence suggesting this is much stronger then the official story and I'm far from alone on that belief.

You have gone out of your way to read books by worthless conspiracy writers and trust him over the experts in NIST amongst others.

Alright, I've made it clear that I don't trust NIST experts. And I think it's equally clear that you don't trust certain writers I've quoted. But while I am fine with you pointing out what you find flawed in the writings of my sources, I don't really see how you help your argument by saying they're worthless. I think we should simply let the best argument win instead of just insulting the sources we use or (worse yet) each other.

 

[EndLightEnd]

But while I am fine with you pointing out what you find flawed in the writings of my sources, I don't really see how you help your argument by saying they're worthless. I think we should simply let the best argument win instead of just insulting the sources we use or (worse yet) each other.

Impossible. Kenny has made it quite clear that anyone who questions the governments story is scum, trash, not to be respected; right Kenny?

 

[scott3x]

Impossible. Kenny has made it quite clear that anyone who questions the governments story is scum, trash, not to be respected; right Kenny?

Laugh . He couldn't really have such a 'with us or against us' mentality now, could he?

 

[scott3x]

Scott, that isn't true; it specifies that the collapse was due to fire.

I never denied that; I was simply saying that they're FEMA conclusions, not facts.

Having said the above, there is no need to disprove the theory of demolition. From the first paragraph of the FEMA report:
"WTC 7 collapsed on September 11, 2001, at 5:20 PM. There were no known casualties due to this collapse. The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers. Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings."

Well, atleast they have the honesty to mention that there is no prior record of fire collapsing fire-protected steel buildings. I'm also happy that they atleast said "it appears the collapse was due primarily to fires" instead of simply 'the collapse was due primarily to fires". But while your claim that they have no need to disprove the theory of demolition is clearly true (after all, they didn't), it leads one to ask, why is it that they didn't explore this possibility?

Frankly: look at bloody Figure 5-5.

Couldn't find it; it seems to go from figure 5-2 to figure 5-7.

Are they bloody kidding? There are steel girders just floating on concrete, seemingly; the "cantilevers" from Figure 5-10, their inside ends just wobbling in space without steel underneath, just riding on the concrete, seemingly. Were they utterly, horribly mad when they built this monstrosity? I'm not surprised in the least that it fell. "Transfer girders", my arse.

Why can't you consider the possibility that explosives caused this?

I have; and Dylan Avery is a disingenuous twit. I recommend "Screw Loose Change", which goes through each of Dylan Avery's hypotheses and debunks them one by one.

4 minutes and change into it, I found it did no such thing. The first 4 minutes seem to be trying to establish that the director of loose change isn't connecting to 9/11 yet. Perhaps assuming he's preaching to people who want to believe him, he's countering the obvious comparisons to 9/11 that loose change is showing even as he's saying that there's no connections being drawn. A little after 4 minutes, the director of it seems to be either a very bad reader or deliberately lying when he says that a NORAD exercise had "nothing to do with planes being used as missiles", even as the article reads "One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center". I decided I'd stop watching at that point.

One thing that SLC actually missed, I think, was that Dylan Avery deliberately moves his camera angle at the Pentagon in order to avoid the massive, massive hole in the side of the building where the plane went in, then promptly holds the telescope up to his eyepatch and announces "I cannot see the impact". (I should probably write these guys about this...or maybe they did get this part. Can't remember.)

Yes, it's a big hole, but as the video shows, it's not big enough for the plane that supposedly crashed there. The other issue is the fact that one sees a hole.. and not much else. I know, there are some pictures of some plane debris that was allegedly from the plane in question, but atleast in the case of the fuselage, a lot of experts believe it was planted there later, since it wasn't showing in the original pictures.

So should we similarly discredit the memories of the people who claim they heard a bomb go off in the towers?

I had a strong feeling those lines would be used against my arguments at some point, laugh ;-). Memories can be distorted, yes. However, when a lot of people are claiming to hear bombs going off -despite- the official story that there were no bombs and firefighters even being threatened to not talk about such things.. you get the idea that these claims are perhaps based on a little harder evidence. The type of evidence that killed some of them.

They have done. From the parking lot camera alone, with its measly one-frame-per-second, you can see that it's a plane hitting the building. Hell, you can practically read the bloody markings on the tailfin.

You have a link to this supposedly crystal clear image?

And look, in that video (and I know you know which one I'm talking about) and tell me: just how big a missile is this then? Because it looks to be about the size of a passenger plane. It's absurdly huge. Look at the perspective of the thing.

If you're talking of the classic crash vid, all I can see is an explosion. However, I googled vids and came up with this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vnu_yiUzls
Assuming this is a real video, it looks like a missile to me.

Nicer and spookier are relative things. For some people, it's nicer and more reassuring to believe that the US government did it, rather than examine the religious ideologies behind terrorism, because that might get one thinking the fearful thought "Just how prevalent is this opinion, anyway?" Then that leads to the worry that we enable this form of hatred both by US behaviour abroad and by the economics of the petroleum industry, the largest single transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. It's much easier simply to blame the US government, close one's eyes, and let the excited hypothalmus go back to sleep..

Ok, I can certainly agree that there are people who think that government agencies such as the CIA are responsible for more then they actually are. But this doesn't mean that they haven't gotten their hands fairly dirty over the years. I remember a line from Zeitgeist that I really liked. It went:
"They must find it hard, those who take authority for the truth, rather then truth as the authority."

I'll follow the evidence the evidence as much as I can, even if it leads to places that aren't pretty. As long as you can do the same, I think we can make progress.

...as we ponder whether to buy the red Che shirt or the keffiya at Urban Outfitters on Saturday.

Rest assured that I've never bought either. I respect Che but I know how violent he was at times. My personal way of doing things is more along the ways of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Anyway, I didn't even know what a keffiya was until I googled it right now. Seriously, I think in general only arab or muslim men use that.

 

[scott3x]

An explosion could quite easily travel the length of the shaft; this is an open, natural conduit.

The question is, is there any evidence that this actually happened? Firefighters thought the fire was controllable from the 78th floor (page 51, "The Terror Conspiracy"); and yet there were fireballs getting all the way down to the basement? And, ofcourse, a fireball couldn't do all the damage that was found down there anyway.

But they failed, classically, to bring the building down; ergo, they did nothing.

If you momentarily assume that the powers that did this really did want to hide the fact that the building was brought down by demolition, they would obviously not want to bring the building down from the bottom. To do so would have given up the ghost that the planes brought down the building. It seems clear that what they would have wanted to do was to weaken the building so that when the secondary bombings occured, it would come down. This also would make it so that the secondary bombings wouldn't have to be so powerful and thus not so loud as well.

The objective of this mystical cabal of Lizardoids wasn't to hurt some yokel wandering about the basement, but to knock the building down. You are asking us to believe that they were so cunning, so eeevilly sneaky that they stage-managed two planes crashing into the Towers, one more into the Pentagon and one almost to the White House, planted explosives at the impact site and - since the claim is constantly made about flashes the length of the building - set off charges all through WTC 1 and 2...which all failed except for the ones i) right at the crash spot and ii) in the basement, where Crusty the janitor was surprised out of his perusal of the latest issue of Jugs, which I am sure he reads only for the articles.

It sounds funny, but there was more then a janitor in the basement; 22 people heard the explosions in one of the towers. And there are a fair amount of testimonials which I have already brought up. And I never said that any of the explosions failed to do what it was supposed to do, namely, that when the building came down, it would do so in a way that would make it appear as a result of the plane crashes. And for a lot of people who don't have the time to do the research, they can (and have) been led to believe this. I and many others, however, don't fit that mold.

If your head is falling off, frankly, it makes little difference how toned your bottom is, except perhaps to Suzanne Somers. (Summers? Sumers? Whatever. The one with the Thigh-a-ciser.) The problem is up top.

A building isn't like a person's body; it's more jenga; weaken it sufficiently by taking out pieces (or blowing them up) and it'll fall at essentially free fall speed. If you don't, however, it won't. The irrationality of the pancake collapse is made quite clear in the following article:
http://truememes.com/mackey.html

You might want to read a little bit about the official story supporter as well:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

And if you really want to get into it, you can try to go through this (I've only read the beginning, but it's certainly a lot of info):
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html

 

[scott3x]

double entry by mistake.

 

[shaman_]

Why do you believe that there is very likely a simple explanation other then explosives for his testimony? Anyway, you are mistaken as to Rodriguez as to Rodriguez being the only one to testify to this. Rememeber that I said that all 22 people who were on his floor heard it. And there are other written testimonies as well. Again from "The Terror Conspiracy":
"Many have wondered about the witnesses who claimed to have heard multiple explosions within the buildsings. One such witness was the head of WTC security, John O'Neill, who stated shortly before he himself became a victim that he helped dig out survivors on the 27th floor before the building collapse. Since the aircraft crashed into the 80th floor, what heavily damaged the 27th floor?

Be more specific or post the source for this. O'neill helped people on the way down and there was damage on the way down. The whole building rocked when the plane hit and then fuel ignited. The whole building was damaged in some way. Those on the lower floors thought an earthquake had hit.

Another of those mentioning bombs was Louie Cacchioli, a fifty-one-year-old fireman assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem. "We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck", recalled Cacchioli. "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the twenty-fourth floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building." The fireman became trapped in the elevator but managed to escape with the use of tools.

Cacchioli later found out that it was in fact not a bomb which caused the explosion. It may certainly have sounded like a bomb at the time because it went 'bang'. Firefighters aren't able to destinguish between the explosion from a bomb or one of the many other explosions which happened that day.

Auxiliary Fire Lt. Paul Isaac, Jr., also mentioned bombs, telling internet reporter Randy Lavello that New York firemen were very upset by what they considered a cover-up in the WTC destruction. "Many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings", he said, "but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of the fact." Isaac, who was stationed at Engine 10 near the WTC in the late 1990s, said the higher-ups included the NYFD's antiterrorism consultant, James Woolsey, a former CIA director. "There were definitely bombs in those buildings", Isaac added.

Apparently thats been posted around the internet for years but Isaac never said it. Check your source.

Meanwhile here is Isaac telling the loose change guys where to go. About 6 minutes in.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7440129306993364432&pl=true

He includes more testimonies, which I can include later if you like.

There were tens of thousands of testimonies given to describe that day. That some of them say they heard something that sounded like a bomb is not surprising at all. Keep in mind that terrorists did bomb the building eight years earlier. If you hear an explosion how else do you describe it? The quote mining that CTers use to peddle nonsense about bombs is desperate, dishonest and pathetic.

Well, in the end, perhaps they can only make you believe what you want to believe...
Very true. However, there are clearly elements within the government that would like to suppress certain inconvenient memories..
No; honestly, I could even believe that the supposed reporter wasn't actually one. I can understand if he'd be hesitant to reveal his source in any case; remember, there are people who are afraid of losing their jobs here. And as this alleged reporter made clear, jobs might not be the only thing one might lose.

So you claim but the loose change guys are all alive as well. Many people have released books attacking the official story.. In fact no one appears to have been stopped at any point. So stories like these sound like embellishment or outright fantasy.

What more reliable evidence are you referring to?

Footage from every angle of the buildings showing a collapse unlike a controlled demolition and with no evidence of bombs at all.

That was the theory, yes. There is no evidence that this actually occurred.

It makes sense and it generally accepted by all that the fuel traveled down the shafts. There is plenty of evidence of fire reaching the lower floors via the elevators. It's just that CTers determine that it could only have come from bombs. If you really must deny this I can find some.

The theory that the building pancaked is a "plausible impossible" as David Ray Griffin has said. He explains why here:
http://truememes.com/mackey.html

So you are claiming that the pancaking didn't happen? Was there explosives on every single floor (not affected by jet fuel of course) going off in perfect timing to create the perfect impression of pancaking?

In any case, you can weaken a structure without actually making it fall. Thing of the game Jenga. Here's a rather humourous link to it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFUQ47L8lYY&feature=related

The floors collapsed one by one from the point of impact at the top. If the bottom was weakened the building would have just collapsed at the bottom. It didn't. The whole idea of bombs on the bottom floors is absurd.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the timing and manner in which the explosives were set off was done in such away to make it appear like explosives didn't take down the building. However, there are a lot of aspects of explosives that, atleast in this day and age, are simply too hard to hide. I haven't mentioned all of the evidence which points towards explosives being used, although I think others have probably already mentioned some other aspects of it here.

I've already shown you evidence that explosives were used. But I definitely recommend you check out David Ray Griffin's link on the collapse of the buildings to say why it was impossible for the building to have been brought down by the pancake theory:
http://truememes.com/mackey.html

You have posted witness testimony of people who heard explosions...... Bombs are not the only thing that can cause large banging noises...

Some people heard much more then just 2.

There were two initial bangs. After the fuel spread around there were lots more.

If the explosives were well hidden, they would be hard to see. As to the blasts of the explosives, atleast one person was severely injured because of one, as I've mentioned before.

For starters, all the mentioning of explosions at around 42 minutes in the movie.

You are assuming that the planes, by themselves, would have brought down the buildings.

Explosives by themselves would have brought down the buildings! Why hijack planes and fly them into the building? Even if the planes hadn't destroyed the buildings it would have caused a fair amount of damage don't you think?

Again I ask you to read David Ray Griffin's article, which shows that they would not have done so.

Griffin is a retired professor of religion and theology

Which theories in particular do you believe sound absurd?

Are you serious? Read my last couple of posts again.

Yes. Because if people became convinced that explosives were used, the next step would be to look for who planted those explosives...

If the US are able to frame Al Queda for the hijacking of planes it would be just as easy to frame them for planting explosives..

Considering all the firefighter testimonials who were in the building and heard and were rocked by the explosions, it's not hard to see why.

Which investigators were they? The ones who were busy carting away the evidence? Again from "The Terror Conspiracy" (page 68-69):
"Concerns over the validity of the free-fall scenario based on fires in the buildings were echoed by Bush I administration official Morgan Reynolds, a Texas A & M Professor Emeritus of Economics who was also former chief economist for the Department of Labor and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis. Reynolds is also a leading member of scholarsfor911truth.org....

The professsor also joined the chorus of criticism levelled at FEMA officials for the rapid removal of WTC Debris, which prevented later study.

Rapid removal? It took months to remove it.

"The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be saved for forensic analysis but FEMA had it destroyed before anyone could seriously investigate it", stated Reynolds. "FEMA was in position to take command because it had arrived the day before the attacks at New York's Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, "Tripod II", quite a coincidence.

Nonsense. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060704_tripod_fema.html

The authorities apparently considered the rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 1/2 hour lunch fired."
Responding to the question of why controlled demolitions have never been considered by the official government investigations of 9/11, Reynolds said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling"
Military affairs journalist Barbara Honnegger honed this argument to an even sharper point by offering the chilling conclusion that if bombs were planted inside both the Pentagon and the WTC buildings, it would have been difficult -if not impossible- for foreign terrorists to have the opportunity to plant and detonate such bombs."

Samples were taken and were analysed. Thousands assisted in the clean up. No bombs or anything suspicious was found.

Glad to know you don't think I'm lying anyway. Hopefully now that I've added more testimonies, you'll think about this more...

Some explosions? The building's concrete was pulverized. From close up, it seems obvious that the building isn't just falling down; pulverized material is exploding outwards as well. Please, just check out David Ray Griffin's link on the pancake theory..

Actually, there's a lot. You just have to know how to look. ..

All your sources fall apart under a bit of scrutiny. The CTer is prepared to do the five minutes work to read about the conspiracy but not do the ten minutes of work required to see that it is nonsense.

Ok .

I can't find the one I was looking for. This one will do.
http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0082_b_They saw the aircraft.htm

 

[nietzschefan]

William Cooper predicted 9/11, that it would be blamed on Osama, that it would in fact be perpetrated some arm of the U.S Black Budget. His original broadcast is 1 hour long - worth the wait, if you want o skip to the meat of it, how Alex Jones one month later copies him(thus instantly turning the information "for crazies only"), here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WVanCwB38c

He exposes Alex Jones as a CIA Agent for misinformation. If any of you have seen Alex's shit, you know it's total bullshit, from his neverending diatribes to his mind control music/sounds in the background.

This is the whole broadcast by William Cooper in June:

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=18637850 It's at about the 22min mark.

Yes, William Cooper was an absolute conspiracy theorist. He also predicted 9/11 in June 2001. He said Osama would be blamed and it would be total bullshit.

President Bill Clinton, declared William "Bill" Cooper "the most dangerous man on radio", in 1998.

He was shot dead by Deputies and FBI in Nov 2001 on a warrant that was over a month old, at his home(where he had been living quite openly for that month). His death is under very odd circumstances and still evasively explained to this day. The media at the time described him as a Militia member, which he wasn't.

 

[Sock Puppy]

The question is, is there any evidence that this actually happened? Firefighters thought the fire was controllable from the 78th floor (page 51, "The Terror Conspiracy"); and yet there were fireballs getting all the way down to the basement? And, ofcourse, a fireball couldn't do all the damage that was found down there anyway.

In case you forget, there was also the minor matter of a hundred stories of building or so falling on it. But let's see this link.

If you momentarily assume that the powers that did this really did want to hide the fact that the building was brought down by demolition, they would obviously not want to bring the building down from the bottom.

So what possible good could such charges do, then? It's extremely obvious that it was the top part of the building, and the top part only, that fell. It simply fell like a mallet. Strength below it had little or nothing to do with it; how could an individual floor resist the falling of 30 or so stories above it?

It sounds funny, but there was more then a janitor in the basement; 22 people heard the explosions in one of the towers. And there are a fair amount of testimonials which I have already brought up. And I never said that any of the explosions failed to do what it was supposed to do, namely, that when the building came down, it would do so in a way that would make it appear as a result of the plane crashes. And for a lot of people who don't have the time to do the research, they can (and have) been led to believe this. I and many others, however, don't fit that mold.

Well, I have some time to research this, and my expectation is that the explosions were transformers or the like going up.

A building isn't like a person's body; it's more jenga; weaken it sufficiently by taking out pieces (or blowing them up) and it'll fall at essentially free fall speed. If you don't, however, it won't. The irrationality of the pancake collapse is made quite clear in the following article:

But I'm not a pancake supporter. I'm a "boulderist". The upper thirty or so stories acted like a giant boulder once the supports collapsed at the strike point. Now, this is similar to the pancake theory (whether or not it's accurate), but hinged more on the point that as the mass above strikes something, it's not the entire building that's resisting as if it were a human bodybuilder or something, but rather that only the floor it meets provides any significant resistance. The upper mass was simply too large.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

The guy writing this hasn't even heard of James Randi. That doesn't bode well. I've no idea what these "shotgun tests" he refers to represent, but I infer that someone used a shotgun to take off fireproofing from a plate or something, to which the author objects. I'm unable to evaluate any of their claims or the author's counter-claims, yet it's hard to deny the importance of the fireproofing being able to be dislodged at all given the circumstances. To be blunt: we're talking about hitting it with a plane, here. If that isn't enough to exceed the manufacturer's standard for adhesion, it's hard to imagine what would be. A ship hitting it? A nuclear strike? Superman? It was struck by a passenger airplane. That's a substantial impact.

 

[KennyJC]

Jim Hoffman deals with Blanchard in the following article:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html

I didn't read beyond the beginning paragraph, which I'll excerpt:
"The article critiqued here, A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT , is one of several technical articles defending official explanations of the total collapses of the World Trade Center towers published shortly before the fifth anniversary of the 9/11/2001 attack.

Following publication of Blanchard's article, The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) published its Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). Whereas NIST relies heavily on the straw-man technique, primarily highlighting claims based on fallacies, Blanchard appears to address several serious arguments against the official explanations. However, he fails to articulate these arguments and skirts them with replies laced with fallacies."

Fallacies and strawman.. haha. It really is ironic hearing truthers say these words. Reminds me of the debate at ground zero between Mark Roberts and Alex Jones when Alex Jones pretty much said nothing but “strawman” because he simply didn't know how to refute all the facts that Mark Roberts had to offer.

Alright, I'd like you to cite a source that contradicts the claims that the noted author Jim Marrs has brought up in his book, namely what I brought up in my opening paragraph in a post a little earlier in this thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1987002&postcount=205

Noted fictional author in my opinion.

Asides from the fact investigators were in ground zero from 9/11, they also knew where the steel was being stored. However, if it was a demolition, then examining ground zero for demolition materials would have been more important than investigating the metal in a scrap yard were demolition materials were not.

Actually, I think I can agree with you here. The thing is, when I hear those buildings falling, I believe I hear explosives going off; a lot more of them then the sample demolition that was shown and I think they can certainly be confused with the building simply coming down, but I believe I can hear them. I must admit that to date I haven't seen a counter to the specific argument of whether the explosives should be heard more clearly. But simply because I haven't seen this issue addressed yet doesn't mean that an expert explanation isn't out there. I have also heard that one can see that the building was exploding and from some photos I've seen, not to mention some of the video, this definitely seems to be the case.

Yes I think you’ve made it quite clear that you are dishonest enough to claim that the sound of a 110 story falling is supposed to be the sound of bombs.

I think what it essentially boils down to is that what you take as the noise of the building alone, others take for noise of explosions as well as the building collapsing.

There are no distinct sounds when the tower is collapsing, just a singular rumble. Thus you are being a liar if you think you can hear punctuated explosives throughout. Especially when you consider the sound of bombs would be loud enough to smash windows and be heard for miles, neither of which occurred.

That's not what Jim Marrs is saying. Can you cite a source?

I don’t need to cite a source, because it’s common sense. Watch an actual controlled demolition, and you will see that the building is more or less intact as it falls until it comes in contact with the ground or other parts of the building. WTC 1 & 2 was different from a controlled demolition as it was obliterated in mid-air due to the nature of a pancake collapse were a lot of impacts are taking place. If you don’t think that a pancake collapse was what caused this obliteration of building materials, then the bombs required to do such tremendous damage would no doubt be heard over the noise of the tower falling. So not only would you need bombs to initiate a collapse, but you’d also need extra bombs to account for the extra building damage in mid-air that you claim was apparently nothing to do with a pancake collapse.

Please; a lot of people describe hearing huge explosions or bombs. One of the clips shown here (perhaps you showed it to me) has a reporter saying so.

The clip I gave you was from a reporter live on the scene. He heard a noise, looked up, saw smoke (more accurately: dust) coming from the building. His account in no way contradicts what I am able to see with my own eyes and ears. Again, it’s really dishonest of you to try and use this to your gain. If I was standing where he was standing and watching the whole thing live for the first time, I may even call it an “explosion” in the first few seconds. That however, wouldn’t make it so. There's a difference between watching and hearing it on the day and watching it and hearing it with hindsight.

I never said silent bombs, just bombs that make less noise then a typical demolition; I'm fairly convinced that essentially the World Trade buildings had a lot of smaller bombs instead of just a few big ones to mitigate the sound.

I say that is not possible. If you have a column you want to blow up, adding lots of smaller bombs instead of one big one does nothing to reduce noise. Hell, I’m not sure if lots of smaller explosions would even get the job done. This is where we really need an expert in controlled demolition to answer these specific claims. Since you have no experts in controlled demolition on your side, I guess they side with me on this one.

Even if it was more smaller bombs, then that means you have to use waaaay more materials in the set up making it far more conspicuous and risky for the conspirators.

I'm not the only one who believes they saw small explosions; from "The Terror Conspiracy" (page 41):
Ross Milanyth watched the horror at the WTC from his office window on the 22nd floor of a building a couple of blocks away. "[I saw] small explosions on each floor. And after it all cleared, all that was left of the buildings, you could just see the steel girders in like a triangular sail shape. The structure was completely gone", he said.

We’ve already established that people witnessing this event in real time said the word “explosion” to pretty much describe anything that made a noise. Since we actually have very good video footage of the collapse of the towers we can get a better understanding of the “explosions”. I don’t see or hear explosions typical of demolitions in the tower. The dust is both from air being compressed and blown out away from the tower, and also from the breakup of building materials.

Do you have a video wherein a normal building falls without the use of explosives so we could compare?

Yes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_pUQnU7Eoo&feature=related

Watch from the 2 minute mark. It shows a 10 story apartment building collapsing due to fire. Note the subsequent dust cloud.

Can you cite a source for this? I also think that using a lot of small explosives might have mitigated this but I freely admit this is speculation on my part. However, I'm certainly not the only one who believes there were multiple small explosions. From "The Terror Conspiracy", page 47:
Paramedic Daniel Rivera: "At first I thought it was- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear, 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'? That's exactly what- because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down."

I also read quote from a firefighter saying he could hear the floors slam into each other and described no explosives. Maybe this was the ‘pop, pop, pop’ sound this guy heard? Quotes using similes aren’t very compelling.

I never said that it went unnoticed. I brought it up in an earlier post in another thread here; there were some emergency drills before 9/11 that were in fact used to place bombs throughout the building. Again from ""The Terror Conspiracy":
"..if there were bombs in the towers, how did they get there?

With the buildings turned to powdered ash and the metal quickly hauled away, no one will ever be certain but some interesting theories have been advanced...

..[a] theory emerged after Ben Fountain, a financial analyst who worked on the 47th floor of the South Tower, told People magazine that in the weeks preceeding 9/11 there were numerous unusual and unannounced "drills" in which sections of both towers as well as Building 7 were evacuated for "security reasons." These drills could have provided a perfect cover for persons planting explosives.

This is total bullshit. Your dishonesty is once again revealed when apparent security breaches were infact used to placed bombs throughout the building. Note how you confidently state something there is no evidence for.

So lets examine this claim. How many evacuations were there? How long did they last? Let’s remember that demolition experts say it takes months to rig a 30 story building for demolition, and also remember that this is with abandoned buildings were they don’t have to worry about concealing the massive amounts of materials.

These were 110 story buildings, and they had to worry about the materials being noticed. You also state there were smaller bombs used, thus lots more work would be required, lots more materials, more miles of detonation cord. At this point I think the people “in on it” would just say “To hell with this, just crash a plane into it and that’ll be enough to get us in Iraq”.

In short, I get a headache when I imagine how impossible it would be to demolish two 110 story right under peoples noses without them suspecting a thing. No 9/11 truther has ever said how this would be remotely feasible.

To say it could all be done in some brief security checks is a vast over-simplification.

Reporting in The American Reporter, an electronic daily newspaper, Margie Burns cited President Bush's younger brother, Marvin P. Bush, as a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm.

Securacom has since changed its name to Stratesec, but is still backed by KuwAm. Marvin Bush, who did not respond to repeated interview requests from The American Reporter, is no longer on the board of either company and has not been linked with any terrorist activities. According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."

Debunked:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh8hErn2UZU

Many people lost their lives in the collapse of the Twin Towers because the public address system advised workers to return to their desks. Who exactly ordered that broadcast over the loudspeakers in the South Tower as workers were trying to evacute, "Remain calm, damage is in Tower One. Return to your desks."? Many people lost their lives because of these announcements. Minutes later the towers collapsed unexpectedly."

So you are turning this into something sinister? Was this announcer supposed to have a crystal ball and predict that another plane would hit the South tower? Or that any of the buildings would have collapsed? Or would you rather assume was he some guy with a trench coat, sunglasses, a gentleman’s hat whilst smoking a cigarette?

Can you cite me an article who shows who started saying it would collapse? From what I remember, it wasn't a firefighter..

Dan Nigro the fire commander that day ordered an evacuation area around the building because the “buildings integrity was in serious doubt”. There are many other quotes from firefighters stating how bad the condition of WTC7 and that they didn’t like the idea of going in there and they thought it would come down.

I’ve posted all these quotes when debating Ganymede. I really don’t want to have to go get them again as I’m suffering quote fatigue. Take my word for it, or read my previous posts to Ganymede, or look them up yourself. I’ve done this before ad-nauseum.

True. However, if they felt they might get fired from their jobs if they were to disagree with the party line to much

Baseless assertion. Reminds me of when Jason Bermas said the firefighters were paid off.

as was Kevin R. Ryan, they may be more cautious about drawing certain conclusions. From "The Terror Conspiracy", page 53-54:
"A number of experts have disputed the claim that melting structural steel brought down the Twin Towers.
Kevin R. Ryan, was a site manager from Environmental Health Laboratories Inc. in South Bend, IN, a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL), the giant product safety testing firm. In 2003, Ryan wrote to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the Metallurgy Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Material Science and Engineering Laboratory, challenging the theory that burning jet fuel weakened the towers' structural steel, causing them to fall.
In this communication, Ryan wrote: "As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings... the samples we certified met all requirements... the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel."
Ryan went on to question the conclusions of "experts", including Dr. Hyman Brown, who have claimed that the towers collapse was caused by structural steel melting at temperatures of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit.
Reiterating that his company had certified the steel to withstand temperatures of 2000 degrees for several hours, Ryan wrote: "I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not metl until reaching red-hot temperatures of 3000F. Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all"
"This story just does not add up", Ryan concluded. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be a great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company."

Note when he says “2,000F would melt high grade steel”. That’s not what any expert says. 2,000F reduces the strength of steel by 50%? I forget by how much percentage, but it’s significant.

Then you have the towers bowing in at the areas most affected by heat which just proves that the trusses were losing their strength and this, strangely enough, is where the collapse is silently initiated. I am still waiting on a single 9/11 truther explaining why this happened if they want us to believe in the “bomb” hypothesis. Even the Loose Change crew had to concede in a debate with Mark Roberts that the collapse initiated from fire weakening the steel.

I'm sure most would like to keep their jobs too.

Well I have to agree that they would probably lose their jobs. Just like any biologist would probably lose their job from a respected company if they said evolution didn’t happen. To say something stupid when there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary would mean you have no access to the best jobs in a scientific field.

It seems you keep on ignoring the link I'm sending you, so I'll put the first paragraph, in the hopes that it'll encourage you to read further in:
"Why Have So Many Been Taken for a Ride?

One of the problems we have with the fraudulent claims that are made regarding the existence of self-crushing steel frame buildings is the fact that many people lack an intuitive sense of the strength and resilience of these structures. They have allowed themselves to become convinced by an alleged scenario that is physically impossible. My Erector Set illustration is intended to address this problem."

Here's the rest:
http://truememes.com/mackey.html

You know, when the leading “experts” in the 9/11 truth movement compare the WTC to cardboard boxes, they instantly have zero credibility:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFVoencqfZw

I laughed out loud when I saw this.

I will admit I'm not sure why an explosive device would have been used at that time. I believe it was used to initially weaken the building; perhaps it was done so they wouldn't have to use so much explosives when the building actually came down.

Perhaps these “explosions” in the basement or in the lobby were elevator cars free falling then crashing into the ground floor?

These explosions did nothing to "weaken the building". The fact that all of the lower floors remained standing should tell you this. The basement played no part in the collapse of the tower. Each floor was perfectly intact until it was pancaked from the floor above. Your ‘weakening’ claim is absolutely irrelevant and a very thin justification for a serious and farfetched claim.

I have seen no evidence of that so far.

Watch a video of the collapse, retard.

I wonder if they interviewed Mike Pecoraro. From "The Terror Conspiracy", page 43:
"Mike Pecoraro told The Chief Engineer magazine he was working in the 6th sub-basement of the North Tower when the lights flickered. This was followed by a loud explosion. Pecoraro and a coworker made their way up to a C level machine shop but found it "gone." "There was nothing there but rubble", recalled Pecoraro. "We're talking about a 50-ton hydraulic press- gone!"
Working their way upwards to a parking garage, the pair found it too was destroyed. "There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor and you can't see anything", Pecoraro recalled. Ascending two more levels to the tower's lobby, they were astonished to find more debris including a 300-pound steel and concrete fire door wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil." By now, Pecoraro was convinced that a bomb had gone off in the building.

I notice you didn’t include this part of his quote:
Pecoraro says he only later hears that “jet fuel actually came down the elevator shaft, blew off all the (elevator) doors and flames rolled through the lobby. That explained all the burnt people and why everything was sooted in the lobby.”

Perhaps it's what will be in the history books, but it is also the official story. There are lots of people, however, who hope that the history books will be a little more honest. As to why these threads are in pseudoscience, I think a little info from the sticky in this forum is in order:

Evidence my friend… The 9/11 truther movement has no credible evidence. I have not heard any that is credible, and I value evidence over anything else. Believe me, I am not biased towards the government. I have a scientific mind and I would blindly follow the facts ignoring all else. When I read truther material, I constantly see lies and deception. I see quotes taken out of their full context, I see facts misinterpreted and serious claims which are conjecture.

Alright, I've made it clear that I don't trust NIST experts. And I think it's equally clear that you don't trust certain writers I've quoted. But while I am fine with you pointing out what you find flawed in the writings of my sources, I don't really see how you help your argument by saying they're worthless. I think we should simply let the best argument win instead of just insulting the sources we use or (worse yet) each other.

The facts have already dictated the argument. I mean we’ve all seen videos of truthers arguing at the top of their voices at ground zero, but the louder you shout does not mean it becomes more true. I can spot propaganda when I see it.

If it really was a controlled demolition, then I and the demolition companies would know about it and voice it.

 

[scott3x]

...you are mistaken as to Rodriguez being the only one to testify to this. Rememeber that I said that all 22 people who were on his floor heard it. And there are other written testimonies as well. Again from "The Terror Conspiracy":
"Many have wondered about the witnesses who claimed to have heard multiple explosions within the buildings. One such witness was the head of WTC security, John O'Neill, who stated shortly before he himself became a victim that he helped dig out survivors on the 27th floor before the building collapse. Since the aircraft crashed into the 80th floor, what heavily damaged the 27th floor?

Be more specific or post the source for this.

I already posted the source: the book "The Terror Conspiracy", by Jim Marrs. As to more specific, it's on page 40. I got my copy from the local library network. Anyway, if you want to know more about O'Neill, you can check out his wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._O'Neill

O'neill helped people on the way down and there was damage on the way down. The whole building rocked when the plane hit and then fuel ignited. The whole building was damaged in some way. Those on the lower floors thought an earthquake had hit.

Yes, various parts of the building were indeed damaged before it went down. Those on the lower floors felt explosives and I've already cited lots of evidence that makes this clear, but I guess you can continue to contend that what did most of the damage was the planes, despite all the evidence that the most likely explanation are explosives.

Cacchioli later found out that it was in fact not a bomb which caused the explosion. It may certainly have sounded like a bomb at the time because it went 'bang'. Firefighters aren't able to destinguish between the explosion from a bomb or one of the many other explosions which happened that day.

Or maybe they were afraid for their jobs and persuaded themselves that it couldn't have been explosives. Last I heard, explosions don't come from buildings collapsing, by the way.

Apparently thats been posted around the internet for years but Isaac never said it. Check your source.

My source is "The Terror Conspiracy". What's your source stating that Isaac never said it?

Meanwhile here is Isaac telling the loose change guys where to go. About 6 minutes in.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7440129306993364432&pl=true

No; honestly, I could even believe that the supposed reporter wasn't actually one. I can understand if he'd be hesitant to reveal his source in any case; remember, there are people who are afraid of losing their jobs here. And as this alleged reporter made clear, jobs might not be the only thing one might lose.

So you claim but the loose change guys are all alive as well. Many people have released books attacking the official story.. In fact no one appears to have been stopped at any point. So stories like these sound like embellishment or outright fantasy.

Nietzschefan seems to have pointed out a case where that's not the case:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1989038&postcount=170

I have pointed out that firemen were afraid of losing their jobs for speaking out and there was a case wherein someone actually did lose his job for questioning the NIST's findings in the "Conspiracy Theories" thread here. I'll repost the material in this one. Again, From "The Terror Conspiracy", page 53-54:
"A number of experts have disputed the claim that melting structural steel brought down the Twin Towers.
Kevin R. Ryan, was a site manager from Environmental Health Laboratories Inc. in South Bend, IN, a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL), the giant product safety testing firm. In 2003, Ryan wrote to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the Metallurgy Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Material Science and Engineering Laboratory, challenging the theory that burning jet fuel weakened the towers' structural steel, causing them to fall.
In this communication, Ryan wrote: "As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings... the samples we certified met all requirements... the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel."
Ryan went on to question the conclusions of "experts", including Dr. Hyman Brown, who have claimed that the towers collapse was caused by structural steel melting at temperatures of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit.
Reiterating that his company had certified the steel to withstand temperatures of 2000 degrees for several hours, Ryan wrote: "I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not metl until reaching red-hot temperatures of 3000F. Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all"
"This story just does not add up", Ryan concluded. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be a great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company."
Although Ryan made it clear that he was speaking only for himself, not his company, his employers' reaction was decisive. On November 2004, the South Bend Tribune carried this headline: "South Bend firm's lab director fired after questioning federal prove". UL officials denied any testing of the WTC steel and said Ryan was terminated because his letter was written "without the UL's knowledge or authorization."

Footage from every angle of the buildings showing a collapse unlike a controlled demolition and with no evidence of bombs at all.

You clearly haven't seen the videos that have been annotated by conspiracy theorists who believe the government played a part. Zeitgeist's video would show you a thing or 2, you may consider watching it.

It makes sense and it's generally accepted by all that the fuel traveled down the shafts.

Cite me one source that states that it's "generally accepted by all".

There is plenty of evidence of fire reaching the lower floors via the elevators. It's just that CTers determine that it could only have come from bombs. If you really must deny this I can find some.

I have seen no evidence, but if you have some, I would certainly like to see it.

So you are claiming that the pancaking didn't happen? Was there explosives on every single floor (not affected by jet fuel of course) going off in perfect timing to create the perfect impression of pancaking?

Yes, this is exactly what is claimed by some people. Having seen the videos, with highlights to direct my gaze at certain parts, I myself feel I have seen this. Again, from "The Terror Conspiracy", page 41:
"Ross Milanyth watched the horror at the WTC from his office window on the 22nd floor of a building a couple of blocks away. "[I saw] small explosions on each floor. And after it all cleared, all that was left of the buildings, you could just see the steel girders in like a triangular sail shape. The structure was just completely gone", he said.

The floors collapsed one by one from the point of impact at the top. If the bottom was weakened the building would have just collapsed at the bottom. It didn't. The whole idea of bombs on the bottom floors is absurd.

No, it just means there were explosives on many floors, if not all of them.

You have posted witness testimony of people who heard explosions...... Bombs are not the only thing that can cause large banging noises...

Ok, what's your theory? The discredited pancake collapse?

There were two initial bangs. After the fuel spread around there were lots more.

What evidence do you have that the fuel spread around anyway? From what I heard, the fires were barely maintaining their own where the planes hit. Firefighters thought the fires were controllable ("The Terror Conspiracy", page 51, title of section).

Explosives by themselves would have brought down the buildings!

True

Why hijack planes and fly them into the building?

In magic tricks, it's called misdirection. The argument is that the people who planted the explosives didn't want the public to know that, because the people who did it don't want to get caught. Currently, the most plausible explanation that I've found were that they were members of the security apparatus for the WTC. I wrote about it in the "Conspiracy Theories" thread, here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1988341&postcount=214 (do a search for unnoticed).

Even if the planes hadn't destroyed the buildings it would have caused a fair amount of damage don't you think?

Yes, but nowhere near the damage that was actually caused. The first time the World Trade Center was bombed, it didn't do nearly the amount of damage that those who planned it (and I have heard that it was an inside job that time too) had hoped for. The argument is they wanted to do a lot more damage this time so that they could wage wars in foreign lands, acquire some oil reserves and restrict american freedoms with things such as the patriot act.

Griffin is a retired professor of religion and theology

What's your point? I'm not a professor of anything and yet I'm doing fairly good in this discussion. Being an expert only means that you were taught by an official school on something. There are many other ways of learning things. Some very successful people didn't even finish a post secondary education and yet are doing just fine; Bill Gates, for instance. Similarly, if you're afraid that drawing certain conclusions may get you demoted, stagnate your position in a company or even get you fired, you may find it prudent to avoid such conclusions, regardless of your expertise. And then there are those who actually have benefitted from the consequences of 9/11, such as Ryan Mackey. He's put a lot of effort into criticizing David Ray Griffin, but then, he seems to be profiting nicely from the consequences of 9/11 as well, as can be seen here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf
His criticisms are shot down anyway, here:
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html

Which theories in particular do you believe sound absurd?

Are you serious? Read my last couple of posts again.

Yes, I'm serious, and no, I'm not going to rummage through your last few posts to try and figure out which theories you had in mind. If you don't want to answer the question, just let it rest.

If the US are able to frame Al Queda for the hijacking of planes it would be just as easy to frame them for planting explosives..

There I would disagree with you. While it's not so hard for a few fanatics to board a plane, it's another story entirely for them to be entrusted with the security of the World Trade Center.

Rapid removal? It took months to remove it.

Yes, rapid removal, given the sheer volume of it. We're not talking about the demolition of a house here.

Nonsense. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060704_tripod_fema.html

I highly respect Michael Ruppert, as do the directors from Zeitgeist and I would think that Jim Marrs does as well. As I've mentioned before, Jim isn't infallible and it may well be that he was fooled in this particular case. Are you saying that you're a fan of Michael Ruppert as well?

Samples were taken and were analysed.

I have heard that some pieces of metal were indeed taken for analysis, but the argument is that it was far too little. I'm also curious to know why you think the rubble's destination was so guarded that they had to track it via GPS and fire a guy for taking a 1 1/2 hour lunch break?

Thousands assisted in the clean up.

Fine, but how many were allowed to actually analyze the rubble?

No bombs or anything suspicious was found.

I advise that you take a look at the movie zeitgeist, at 54:40.

All your sources fall apart under a bit of scrutiny.

If that were so, you wouldn't still be debating things with me. One thing I do notice, however, is that you're a lot thinner on sources then I am.

The CTer is prepared to do the five minutes work to read about the conspiracy but not do the ten minutes of work required to see that it is nonsense.

And you base this conclusion on what, exactly?

I can't find the one I was looking for. This one will do.
http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0082_b_They saw the aircraft.htm

Ok. But I never denied that there were people who believed they saw a plane hit the Pentagon. I did say, however, that I don't believe many people have seen a missile in flight, and so I can imagine that many might confuse a missile for a plane. I also posted an apparently new video of the crash, wherein a missile seems to be clearly seen in one of the 2 threads on 9/11 I've been writing in in this forum. I'm not sure if it's a legit video (I found it on youtube), but if it is, I think it should be getting a lot more coverage.

 

[KennyJC]

Impossible. Kenny has made it quite clear that anyone who questions the governments story is scum, trash, not to be respected; right Kenny?

I never said that about anybody who questions the government. I believe everybody should question and criticize the government.

But the rest of your post is 100% accurate when I say people like you are scum and not to be respected. I value rationality over any paranoid propaganda that has no fact-based foundation.

 

[scott3x]

William Cooper predicted 9/11, that it would be blamed on Osama, that it would in fact be perpetrated some arm of the U.S Black Budget. His original broadcast is 1 hour long - worth the wait, if you want o skip to the meat of it, how Alex Jones one month later copies him(thus instantly turning the information "for crazies only"), here it is:

Interesting, although the editing of the video is a little too psychedelic for me right now. I believe I may have already heard his story from Jim Marrs, but I'm not sure if it's the same guy or someone else.

 

[John99]

Those on the lower floors felt explosives

or explosions?

If that were so, you wouldn't still be debating things with me. One thing I do notice, however, is that you're a lot thinner on sources then I am.

its quality not quantity.