text:
Part 2 - Comments and Debate over 9.11 Skeptics v Logic, Science and Reason
Part 2 Comments and Debate over the hit piece article from the old site. You can read the original article here.
darkpolitricks says
I just want to post this link here which is an interview with a supposedly credible witness about how he was told 9.11 was a stand down and false flag attack and is willing to testify to that effect. He is an ex government insider and military man who actually taught false flag and stand down attacks himself and he has gone on record to state that a number of US government officials knew about the true nature of the attacks.
This article warrants some discussion on that page so please leave a comment >>
"Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under three different administrations Steve R. Pieczenik says he is prepared to tell a federal grand jury the name of a top general who told him directly 9/11 was a false flag attack"
http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2011/05/top-government-insider-bin-laden-died-in-2001-911-false-flag-attack/
May 30, 2011, 12:15 amReply
Albury says
William Rodriguez is willing to testify that a secret high-powered microwave weapon brought down UA 93, and that demolition explosives heard only on his floor blew off an elevator door and burned a guy with flaming jet fuel an hour and 42 minutes or more before a hi-rise collapsed from ~1200′ higher up. Even though he couldn't see the upper floors of the North Tower from his basement-level position, and no one who could corroborates his bunk, he says the alleged explosives went off before the plane hit. April Gallop won a lawsuit for damages against American Airlines, and is now willing to testify that no plane ever crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11, and that planted explosives and/or a missile injured her and her son. If this character is even real (peacenik?), he certainly wouldn't be the only one coming forward.
May 30, 2011, 1:32 pmReply
You will get people in search of the limelight willing to say anything but you will also get people with credible credentials who are willing to speak out.
We have had two ex government employees who were credible witnesses silenced by the Government for speaking out e.g Sibel Edmonds and Susan Lindauer (see her recent article on the PATRIOT ACT here >> http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2011/05/the-patriot-act-when-truth-becomes-treason/)
Yes there maybe some wacky witnesses who will claim to have met the man on the moon for a buck but it does not inspire confidence when the government tries to silence whistle blowers.
There are also many ex government officials and intelligence officers who have spoken out about 9.11. They have the experience in office, the contacts and therefore the information to know what they are talking about.
May 30, 2011, 11:47 pmReply
There's been plenty of legitimate give and take on some of the provisions of the Patriot Act, and Sibel Edmonds ruffled a few of the wrong feathers inside the FBI with her account of some intelligence failings that look more like 20/20 hindsight and were also noted by others without as much finger-pointing, but which of these ladies has claimed that Chimp and Deadeye planned or were in on the 9/11 plot, NORAD "stood down," a missile or explosives were used at the Pentagon, C/Ds brought down the WTC hi-rises, and UA 93 didn't crash at Shanksville the way its FDR, CVR, forensics analyses, and other sources of information say it did? What logic, reason, and/or scientific principles are these "truth movement" fabrications based on?
Here are some guys have no credible credentials whatsoever, lie about practically everything, and are right in the middle of some people's limelight:
http://www.911myths.com/LooseChangeCreatorsSpeak.pdf
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
Morgan Reynolds has very credible credentials, and thinks ~140-ton airliners just bounce off steel-framed hi-rises at 500 mph or so. Judy Wood has a doctorate in mechanical engineering, and sued the US government over the space beams that brought down the WTC buildings:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics0.HTM
Dr. Niels Harrit is a retired (?) associate professor of chemistry at the University of Copenhagen, and says that rust, aluminum, sulfur, silicon, etc. "reminded" him of a high explosive for which he and his equally credentialed colleagues don't even try to present exemplars for comparison. They also claim that painting it on vertical column surfaces will sever the steel when it's detonated, but are offended by the suggestion that they demonstrate it on video. Dr. Harrit also claims that "a hundred tons" of conventional high explosives, or enough to load up about 4 tri-axle trucks, augmented the nanothermite he was reminded of by his WTC dust sample findings, and were not only secretly gotten past bomb-sniffing dogs and other security in busy, constantly occupied office buildings prior to 9/11, but blew them up without leveling Lower Manhattan or even being heard above the rumble of the collapses.
http://ct911truth.org/911_movies/niels_harrit_interview_rt_i.html
It might depend a bit on how you define "credible."
May 31, 2011, 2:56 amReply
Well Scientists and academics disagree all the time on lots of issues. It is not hard to find people on both sides of most topics who would dispute any number of theories, historical perspectives or scientific studies this is why you have peer reviewed studies and open inquiries with witnesses and cross examination.
You are right in that it comes down to what and who you find credible and I am the first one to admit that there are many theories regarding 9.11 such as lasers from space and no planes that many people find wacky and crazy.
However whether or not you agree with the "credibility" of the witnesses many people from all walks of life from intelligence officers to congressmen to scientists and engineers and comman man and woman believe that the attack was "allowed to happen".
This would not involve hundreds of silent witnesses or even a complex conspiracy and I outlined this in an earlier article > http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2010/02/conspiracy-theories-and-the-911-attacks/.
However you didn't answer the question about the missing parts of the building in the NIST reports and whether or not you reject Stephen Jones peer reviewed studies on the explosive materials found in the dust from WTC out of hand?
I also notice you still have not commented on the one question I have kept trying to get you to answer since this conversation started.
Whether or not the WTC was brought down with explosives evidence does exist for foreknowledge which is what Susan Lindauer claims, the ABLE Danger program showed and the Israeli Spy ring seems to suggest.
Please can you at least answer me this one question >>
Are False Flag attacks a figment on everyone's imagination?
Have they never occurred throughout history?
Has Israel never carried out a False Flag attack to pin the blame on Muslims?
Are there not many people in the intelligence community who attest to their occurrence and who believe 9.11 was a stand down false flag attack?
You might not agree that 9.11 was one but do you at least admit they do happen?
I have no doubt that Harrit, Jones, et al. found sulfur, rust, aluminum, silicon, etc. in some WTC dust samples, and that it "reminded" them of whatever they think it did, even if they provided nothing for comparison. I do have some doubt about painting MICs or other high explosives on in-place steel columns and severing them with the stuff, but they're certainly welcome to demonstrate that amazing capability on video with some sample steel columns, something they refuse to do with no plausible explanation given.
There is zero evidence that al Qaeda needed any inside help or got it in order to hijack and crash some planes into targets, and irrefutable evidence, including their own boasts and lack of denial, showing that 9/11 was solely an al Qaeda project. Israel had nothing to do with it, nor did the US government, and nether has to make up reasons to blame Muslim terrorists for committing suicide atrocities.
I posted to another article here about "engineers," or something, and am still awaiting a response from you. The claim that the WTC fires were minor in any of the 3 collapsed hi-rises is absolutely absurd, as the links I posted clearly illustrate, unless photos, videos, and numerous eyewitness accounts aren't sufficient.
Just found the link:
http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2011/05/engineers-request-permission-to-speak-freely-regarding-world-trade-building-7/comment-page-1/#comment-19733
My May 20 comment there is getting lonely.
Hi Albury
Cheers for getting back to me. I have been away for a wedding so haven't checked the site for a while. Hopefully all your comments have been getting on ok.
I notice that you are very apt in the art of avoiding the questions actually asked of you and very good at answering your own version of said questions.
I didn't ask whether or not Islamic terrorists exist, they obviously do, along with terrorist groups of all other kinds. However if you read some recent (as well as ancient) history you will see that our own intelligence agencies have been entangled with terrorist groups of all kinds for various reasons for a very long time.
Unfortunately when you say no evidence exists that shows al-Qaeda needed help to plan or pull off the attacks what you really mean is this.
There is evidence of foreknowledge and intelligence agencies tracking the 9.11 hijackers including US agencies ( see ABLE danger ) and foreign agencies including Israeli agents and others ( see links in the article ).
However because we haven't yet had a full thorough investigation into the events of that day these key aspects have been under reported, hushed up ( as the FOX news investigation into Israeli foreknowledge was pulled after pressure from certain quarters) and left to people like myself to speculate on their importance in the overal picture.
What you cannot do is say no evidence exists because that is not true.
It is because the authorities seem to be so keen to ignore these key points that conspiracy theories flourish and people like me call for a proper investigation.
I will try and take a look at your other comment to see if I can make it less lonely but as I said before the article you refer to was not written by myself so they are not my claims.
I run a site that takes alternative points of view from various places and collate them so they can be accessed at one place. Unless the article says "by Dark Politricks" at the start it is not my own musings or thoughts on the subject. This is why I suggested posting your comments over at the original authors site as the discussion had already started and your comment would probably attract the debate it deserves.
June 5, 2011, 12:32 pmReply
The US indirectly aided Osama bin Laden and his "Arab Afghans" in the '80s, but has no history of aiding them directly, or of having any contact with them other than adversarial, and could easily have rationalized an Afghan invasion in 1998, after a different set of multiple suicide attacks was attributed to al Qaeda, or in 2001 in the aftermath of the 2000 USS Cole suicide attack that was attributed to them by the O'Neill team's FBI investigation in Aden, Yemen in late 2000 or early 2001. As difficult as it might be to believe, the US isn't so universally beloved that it has to invent its own enemies, nor is Israel, which had nothing to do with the 9/11 Islamists' suicide attacks except for existing. For a better understanding of al Qaeda's origins, motivations, evolution, and worldview, I'd recommend reading The Looming Tower, by Lawrence Wright, a Pulitzer Prize-winning book on the topic. It's simply taking a square peg and trying to fit it into a round hole to claim that the US government or anyone else being libeled and slandered by the 9/11 "truth movement" had a role in the 9/11 attacks other than being unprepared for them.
Since your article here delves deeply into the impossibility of secretly bombing busy, occupied office hi-rises on a workday in Lower Manhattan for no plausible reason except to lose money, and even the title implies that there's legitimate skepticism for the science presented by the highly-educated and credentialed engineers and other experts from NIST, FEMA, and other reputable organizations and agencies, I posted a number of facts and reasons for my belief that the controlled demolition "theory" is utter nonsense. So far, you've failed to address any of my comments on that issue substantively. Since Richard Gage is the chief promoter of this junk science and utter malarkey, I pointed out the absurdity and dishonesty of many of his principal claims. If you disagree with anything I posted, please feel free to explain why.
btw, I'm almost always immediately banned from posting on "forums" run by the 9/11 "truth movement's" proponents and followers, so thanks for allowing my comments to appear on your site. The worthless contributions from hapless fellows like "Suz" and Bill McKay make it very clear that they'd be much more content if I just disappeared, but it now appears that they have, undoubtedly to greener pastures full of gullible and uninformed people who agree with them.
June 5, 2011, 4:48 pmReply
Don't worry I won't ban you as long as you don't do anything to get me in trouble your views are welcome here even if I don't always agree with them.
Believe it or not I have read many books about al-Qaeda, the history of terrorism as well as interviews with people who have met with various jihadists such as Robert Fisk and interviews with terrorists themselves.
Unfortunately our history is littered with instances of intelligence agency co-operation or involvement with terrorist groups. I come from the UK and since the Northern Ireland peace agreement lots of evidence has come to light of various UK Military agencies such as the FRU allowing the murders of various people to occur to protect double agents that were deeply embedded within the IRA (read up about Stakeknife).
That is just a recent example but many others exist including the Lavon affair in which Israeli agents planned and carried out bombing attacks in Egypt which were then blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood.
This confirmed "false flag" attack was deeply embarrassing to the Israeli government of the time and it was not the first or last time the Mossad carried out attacks on western targets which were then blamed on Muslim organisations. Please read Victor Ostrovsky's 2 books on his time doing just that.
You are right in that we do not have to make up enemies as enough people all over the world hate us for our foreign policy. The main reasons being the US forces stationed in Saudi Arabia and the USA's unwavering support of Israel that means every-time a UN vote tries to censure that countries actions the US policy of vetoing it means that no action is ever taken.
However just because these groups exist and hate us already does not mean that their existence is not used and manipulated if they fit some geo-political goal that benefits the country doing the manipulating. The USA has over recent years been supporting a proscribed terrorist group named Jundallah that has been carrying out destabilising terrorist bombing attacks in Iran. I wonder why the USA would be doing that?
As stand down / false flag attacks are a reality as attested to by many ex intelligence agents and these agencies are well funded and staffed full of very clever people it would be very foolish for us to think that if they wanted to carry out an attack (or allow one that already existed to succeed) then they wouldn't be able to pull it off and leave all the right cookie crumbs in place.
I still haven't been able to pin down a response from you on whether or not you agree with historical record in that false flag attacks are a reality?
Whether you do or not I think the main reasons many people are so willing to believe that 9.11 could be one such stand down / false flag attack is that up until 9.11 the most co-ordinated and sophisticated al-Qaeda attack on the USA were the embassy truck bombings.
9.11 was a few times the magnitude of sophistication and involved so many successful co-incidences to have occurred for it to be successful that it either had to be such a massive failure in US intelligence and Defence that heads should have rolled (no such thing occurred – see the list of people who were promoted) or something else occurred that allowed all of the following to occur:
Ignored warnings from multiple foreign and domestic agencies that the attacks were about to occur.
Multiple plane hijackings that were all successful (in capturing the plane).
Hard to pull off plane trajectories into targets (the Pentagon attack involved a very complex dive and then a horizontal attack route at high speed and only a few feet from the ground. The pilot was reported by his instructor to be useless and many pilots believe he wasn't capable of pulling off such a manoeuvre)
No interceptions by NORAD and the co-incidence of "war games" on the same day.
3 WTC buildings all falling at breakneck speed into the ground.
The Twin Towers look like they literally explode as they fall and WTC-7 falls at speeds indistinguishable from freefall after eye witnesses report a countdown.
Even though there was damage to the bottom corner of the building the many videos show the building collapsing uniformly and seemingly from simultaneous catastrophic failures at all key points of the building making it not fall towards the point of least resistance but into its own footprint.
The reluctance of the government to hold a full inquiry into the events and then when the 9.11 commission is held it engages very unwillingly, prevents witnesses from being called, only allows 3rd hand testimony from tortured terrorists and then uses the findings as a building block to push for war with Iraq.
Now these may all be just co-incidences I agree but as I stated earlier it would be impossible for me to hold my own inquiry into the events of the day and until questions are resolved such as the nature of the CIA's co-operation with Bin Laden right up until 9.11 as Sibel Edmonds attested to and the nature of pre-knowledge by ABLE Danger and the Israeli Spy Ring that were tracking the hijackers then these questions are always going to remain and conspiracy theories will flourish in the absence of answers.
It does not help the official story that documents such as Operation Northwoods exist, or Seymour Hersh's revelations that tactics such as the staging of a shoot them up in the Straights of Hormuz are routinely discussed as it shows that the US was perfectly willing to discuss the use of "False Flag" tactics throughout recent years.
Therefore when such a major attack that involves so many seemingly impossible co-incidences occur at the same time and no-one is held to account for it we should be asking why not.
Can you not agree that heads of agencies such as the CIA, NORAD, FBI etc should have rolled for the massive failure in intelligence that you believe 9.11 was and do you not think it suspicious that instead of being sacked major players were instead promoted?
Whilst you maybe right in your assertions that the 911Truth community is full of crazy outlandish theories and that various people might have been libelled the fact that 9.11 has been used to carry out the exact plans that the PNAC document so desired and has led to 10 years of wars, thousands of dead soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civillians as well as massive restrictions on civil liberties and freedoms at home is a just enough reason to demand that all questions have to be answered and no avenue should be unexplored.
Believe it or not I got an A* in history at school despite my shockingly bad state school education and I am willing to look at all angles whether or not they support my own hypothesis or contradict widely held beliefs. As you said in an earlier comment it comes down to credibility and who you find a credible witness.
If a proper inquiry were to be held witnesses who have made claims that contradict the official story or have made claims about explosives etc would have to be cross examined and prove their case. Surely that would be exactly what you would want to see?
I have seen online a clip from a TV show in which Thermate paint is applied to a steel beam to cut through it (I think from Jesse Ventura's show on 9.11) I guess that is not the clip you are referring to when you say you haven't seen proof of Thermate being used to cut through steel?
Please post a link to the Ventura clip, DP. There is simply not enough thermite in a thin, painted-on coating to heat up steel very much before it burned out, and it certainly wouldn't melt through a beam. I've seen one experiment with it that slowly made a mess out of the beam, but it was on a horizontal surface and took several minutes. Thermite's only popular with the 9/11 "truth movement" because it doesn't make an extremely loud telltale bang that's heard for many miles, but it isn't used in C/Ds because its effects on steel are too difficult to time with the precision of high explosives, and would just flash a little and fall off an in-place column and then sizzle on the concrete floor for a while before going out without doing any structural harm at all.
Harrit and Jones were actually "reminded" of nanothermite, which is a very high explosive that produces deafening bands and blinding flashes, but evidence of either an explosive or incendiary on any of the ends of columns and other structural steel at GZ was nil. If the Ventura demonstration even managed to sever a horizontal beam after a minute or two of sizzling brightly right on top of it, the mess it made would certainly have been noticed on steel at the WTC site.
The reports of explosions inside the burning buildings are irrefutable, but they didn't carry more than a few blocks or we wouldn't need the FDNY to tell us about them, didn't go off just prior to any main building collapse, weren't coming from the collapse initiation levels in any of the 3 buildings, and are easily explained by exploding transformers and tanks, partial collapses, debris falling enormous distances in the towers through shafts, BLEVEs, backdrafts, and other very common phenomena in hi-rise fires. The fact that practically no one in the FDNY is in the 9/11 "truth movement" should certainly speak for itself.
I'm much more interested in the "logic, reason and scientific principles" aspect of this discussion, but do not believe that any minor fudging of the facts leading to US war involvement justifies the idea that the US attacked itself on 9/11, or was guilty of anything except being caught unprepared for the world's first and only suicide operation yet using planes as weapons and killing nearly 3000 Americans and other innocent people. Paul pretty well summed it up earlier.
The scientific principles involved are the laws of gravity and conservation of motion. You ask for a video that proves that Thermite can cut through steel and I have managed to find a great video for you, so great I created an article for it >>
http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2011/06/physical-science-and-the-case-for-controlled-demolition-at-wtc-7/
I suggest watching the full video and all the experiments the engineer conducts including how thermite can cut a steel beam by using only a fraction of the amount people claim would be necessary to cause severe damage.
Also when people claim that X amount of explosives would have to be smuggled into the building, or huge amounts of Thermite powder or paint would be required to have been added to each column we should remember that by NIST's own logic a single point of failure led to a progressive collapse that saw the whole building sink simultaneously and evenly into it's own footprint.
Therefore if we accept NIST's reasoning we would only need enough explosives to weaken one key structural point rather than multiple key points.
It wouldn't even need to cut through the steel as we are accepting NIST's evidence that the fires only had to have been hot enough to weaken the steel rather than burn through it.
Therefore debunkers cannot have it both ways. Either NIST is right and then only enough explosive to weaken one key point would be required or they are wrong.
Anyhow you asked for some experiments to prove the science behind the claims of Thermite and controlled demolition and that video is full of them.
suz33 says
ive not gone anywhere you gormless shill, you still dont know how to answer simple questions i see, funny to watch you squirm as DP answers all your nonsense with logic, reason, common sense, scientific principles and a lot more patience and respect that a troll like you deserves. youre banned from other 9/11 websites because youre obviouly disingenous and out only to obfuscate and waste peoples time. you spend your lonely life arguing against an investigation into a crime that killed thousands, because you think evil doers attacked america because they hate your freedoms. lol – talk about hapless.
June 6, 2011, 6:09 amReply
You're a waste of bandwidth, Suz.. I'd post my compilation of about half of the profanity and insults you threw around on the last forum while you failed to discuss anything intelligently, but I'd most likely offend DP and his readers, and might even get banned for good cause for a change.
The "crime that killed thousands" was another suicide atrocity committed by bin Laden and al Qaeda, not by anyone you're libeling and slandering with your crap. Did you notice anyone in the world claiming that we got the wrong guy after the SEALs offed the slug on May 1? Why is only your 9/11 "truth movement" defending him from mass murder charges, instead of Muslims all over the world?
Go find a venue that allows you to express yourself the way you did where I first had to put up with you, since vulgar and childish name-calling and personal attacks are your only contribution. Jeezus, they walk among us…
despite the best efforts of the gormless shills, there are more new yorkers who support a new investigation than there are who dont
http://www.siena.edu/sri/research
9/11 truth = WINNING! sux to be u allblurry.
yeah, im such a waste of bandwidth, but you keep responding to me to avoid having to answer DPs questions, all getting a bit hard fot the shill eh?
because i dont wish to waste my time on you, i dont take you seriously. youre a gormless shill. its not childish name calling, its a statement of fact. evidenced by your nauseatingly prolific posts litterered all over the internet, the posts you make day in, day out, in your quest to be the internets most infamous 9/11 shill
what has bin laden + last may got to do with this? is it all getting a bit too hard for diddums eh? looking for a way out already eh? want to try the old tried and tested shill distracting tactic eh?
ignore me and answer DPs questions idiot. stop pretending you cant see them – you can insult me at gothamist.. ill find it..
and by the way,, who said thermite was painted on…? the fact is, they found evidence of thermite, and they havnt been able to prove otherwise. but i dont expect you to ever understand reason and logic, you ask questions like.. "well, duh.. whats stopping you from having your own investigation, nyuck nyuck nyuck"
grow a brain.
Suz: "and by the way,, who said thermite was painted on…?"
You've apparently read the Bentham farce as carefully as you read NCSTAR 1, 1A, and the 9/11 Commission Report, Suz. Jones, Harrit, et al. claim that NANO-thermite, not thermite, was painted on the steel columns, since rust, aluminum, sulfur, silicon, etc. "reminded" them of something, and they think they saw evidence of thin layers of it. Oddly enough, no one in your "truth movement" wants to demonstrate that amazing feat with some explosives and steel columns. I won't bother to explain to you why.
LIAR –
"Thus, the energetic nano-composite can be sprayed or even "painted" onto surfaces, effectively forming an energetic or even explosive paint."
they are not saying that is how it was used, just giving examples of methods of application. only the people who put it there would know how it was used. how about you explain what its doing there in the first place, just because there may have also been other elements as well.. how your debunking movent claims it was simply rust aluminium sulphur silicon etc.. does not rule out active nanothermite ( military grade ) being present. and dont go on with your usual rubbish that it was simply paintchips.. I think theyd know the difference. there are samples available for independent testing too, but i wont bother to explain to you why no government agencies have dared to have an independent analysis of the dust samples.
allblurry quote = "I'm much more interested in the "logic, reason and scientific principles" aspect of this discussion,"
then explain how building 7 lost all structural support across the entire building over approximately 8 floors in order for freefall acceleration, as acknowledged begrudginly by NIST, but never explained.. for a period of just over two seconds..
let me guess, youre going to refer me to the nist modelling, that doesnt match real world observations, a model which they will not release the input data for so NOONE can replicate the experiment..
June 10, 2011, 3:50 amReply
I don't know if you have seen my latest article yet or not but the video within it shows an engineer re-producing experiments that prove the science behind the claims of thermite / thermate being used at WTC-7.
June 10, 2011, 1:45 pmReply
The first video at your link shows that gravity pulls downward, DP, and the creator of it used good judgment in not comparing the audio of each building collapse.
Jonathan Cole has yet to show how explosives or incendiaries could possibly have been used in any WTC building. His first video made a few years ago showed what didn't cause the oxidation and sulfidation of the two small pieces of unidentified steel found in the debris, and the one with the thermite and contraptions not only would have been totally impractical on any of the columns at the WTC, it also left a mess that would have been noticed by the ironworkers and others who handled the steel during the cleanup. He also cited eyewitness accounts of rivers of molten steel in the debris, but didn't do any experiment that left steel molten for more than a minute or so. The metal pouring out of one corner of one tower was very likely aluminum from the fuselage of UA 175, since it came from the NE corner of the South Tower around the 81st floor.
NIST has stated that no steel melted to cause a collapse, but may have been produced in the debris fires:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
although seems rather unlikely, since no temperatures higher than ~1400 F were recorded:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
If Mr. Cole can come up with an explosive or incendiary that produces heat for months instead of for 3 minutes or so, his research would be highly worthwhile. I'd certainly rather heat my house with it instead of oil, which needs a constant supply and is quite expensive.
You asked for a video that showed that Thermite could cut through steel and I provided one for you.
The questions surrounding the hows, whys and implementation of any plan to bring the building down would need a proper inquiry to resolve.
The evidence is out there and there is science to back it up. Whether or not you or anyone else agrees with the implications is another matter altogether.
What I want is a proper investigation that covers all the bases touched upon. NIST have admitted they didn't even consider any form of explosive device in their investigation when they started out. Therefore the conclusion seems to have been pre-set at the off and if someone or some group of people had of used explosives they must be very happy with NIST for not even considering it.
Also you refer to the sound of the building collapse. The videos we have seen of the collapse have come from a variety of sources and most only show a second or two before the building collapses. The videos could have been shot from any number of distances, the audio edited or even muted so without analysing each source we cannot know what sound settings were configured on each recording device.
However many people including firefighters and first responders have attested to what they believed were explosions going off in the WTC before the collapse and recently a number of videos were released (but only after lengthy Freedom of Information requests) that showed the collapse of WTC-7 which showed signs of audio tampering as well as others that had clear loud bangs. These came out along with many new witnesses including Firemen and first responders who claim to have heard explosions before the collapse as well as claiming they overheard a 20 second countdown, were told about a controlled demolition and saw cutter charge flashes within the building.
We can debate the credibility of each witness, the sound of each bang, the length of time the Thermite would need to do its job or can we just admit that evidence DOES exist that needs further and proper scrutiny and the internet is most certainly not the best place to do it.
I am willing to let a truly independent investigation take place into the events of 9.11 and determine the merits of each piece of evidence. Why would you not want to settle this that way? Surely if you stand by NIST and the official story a truly independent investigation would back up your position?
The Cole video shows that with enough ingenuity and persistence, an incendiary can be made to create a mess out of steel that's underneath it, or is next to it as long as the incendiary is restrained by some sort of bulky contraption, DP. The experiment was done with easy access to the bare steel, no concerns about concealment or secrecy, no attempt to time these effects with any degree of precision, and no plane crashes or fires to contend with. I've seen no evidence that the FOIA was used or even needed to get the videos that the "truth movement" claims it wrested from NIST, no reason why NIST would refuse to hand them over voluntarily, or is even the only source for them, and they're just not all that significant. The eyewitnesses in them were mostly or all FDNY who were very close to the burning hi-rises, so the sounds were most likely exploding transformers, BLEVEs, flashbacks, partial collapses inside, falling debris, exploding tanks, and other common phenomena in hi-rise fires, since demolition explosives are heard for 10 miles or more. I've also seen no video of any collapse in which loud bangs immediately preceded the fall of the building, and secret countdowns would not only have been unnecessary, the alleged perps would be very stupid to transmit them over NYPD or FDNY frequencies. There's also a huge difference between thermite and nanothermite, and Harrit et al. claim to have discovered the latter, which is an extremely high explosive that everyone in Manhattan and North Jersey would have heard, but both would have left unmistakable evidence on the ends of the columns in the debris.
Another investigation of the WTC collapses would yield little to nothing that didn't come out in the NIST reports, and the majority who are asking for them aren't qualified to conduct them, but I have no objection whatsoever and wonder why they don't do it first and talk about it later. Some of the best SEs in the country contributed to the NIST WTC investigations, and comparable experts will only corroborate their collapse scenarios. What the "truth movement" is looking for isn't going to be found by checking the validity of those findings, and would have been found long before the investigations were formally started. There simply was no evidence in the debris to suggest a C/D, and if explosives had been involved, that would have been front-page news worldwide within a few days of sorting through the steel, if not well before that just prior to and while the hi-rises were in the process of collapsing.
Many of the tower perimeter columns near the collapse initiation levels were ejected away and separated from the main debris fields by the force of the falling tops, and a blind man would very quickly have seen the evidence of melted or explosively-cut ends if there'd been any. I only included the "melted" because you brought up thermite, but practically speaking, incendiaries would be useless in controlled demolitions, and are never used. The fact that they don't emit deafening bangs makes them appealing to some "researchers," however.
On an entirely different level, there was absolutely no plausible motive for adding to the damage already done by the planes and fires, and secretly planting explosives in busy, occupied hi-rises and the secretly detonating them would have been completely impossible. If you've ever even heard what a fragmentation grenade sounds like, keep in mind that they contain ~8 ounces of explosives. Harrit's claim of "a hundred tons" of conventional high explosives speaks for itself.
At least you are coming round to the idea of an investigation
Listen, I have no problem whatsoever being proved wrong and actually I have little wish to be proved right having never claimed to hold all the answers.
The only hypothesis I am putting forward is that enough evidence exists to mount an inquiry and that the only inquiry held so far was insufficient in it's scope and desire for clarity.
Like every major topic from global warming to the need for war people will debate and disagree on the merits of each piece of evidence. However the Bush administration did themselves no favours whatsoever by the manner in which they conducted the 9.11 commission and the lack of openness and transparency has only fuelled conspiracy theories.
You might claim that the explosions other people heard could have been X, Y or Z but others and most certainly the people who are claiming to have overheard the countdown and explosions obviously have a different opinion. Why should your opinion trump first hand source material?
Also you mention the countdown but what about if the WTC-7 was brought down by controlled demolition (from quickly planted or pre-existing in built wiring) and at the time the people who engaged in the act had nothing to hide because they didn't think they were doing anything wrong.
Maybe after the fact the decision to "pull" the building was covered up for any number of reasons.
Maybe certain people thought that if they admitted to "pulling" WTC-7 then people wouldn't believe that WTC 1 & 2 collapsed from fires and plane impact alone.
Maybe the decision to not disclose this act was a badly chosen after thought that was taken for other reasons and at the time of pulling the building the firemen and first responders heard a countdown and saw cutter charges because that's what happened.
lol – youre debunking your own argument. you seem to think that no sort of explosive, no matter how unconventional, could account for the pools of molten metal, but apparently, according to your "evil-doers attacked us because they hate our freedoms" scenario, all you need do to produce molten pools of metal for months, is crash an airliner into your house.
then again, that doesnt always work either…
http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm
http://www.museumsyndicate.com/item.php?item=42125
i think the strain is getting to you
A "new and independent investigation" involving competent ASCE structural engineers and other experts comparable to the NIST WTC investigating teams will simply confirm the conclusions already reached by NIST, since the collapse scenarios are all realistic and based on the facts. Since Richard Gage and his "engineers" think thermite, nanothermite, or something "cuts through steel like a hot knife through butter," they need to find photos or eyewitness accounts of all of these alleged columns with ends that looked as though they'd been cut "like a hot knife through butter," instead of mechanically broken, with plates and 4 bolt holes in most cases.
"Pull" or "pull it" are not industry terms for bringing down buildings using explosives, and if certain people had admitted to doing the impossible, i.e. secretly demolishing a busy, occupied hi-rise in NYC, Silverstein's 12 insurance companies would definitely have made a case out of it, instead of simply contesting his claim that 2 plane crashes meant 2 separate incidents, and therefore 2 payouts. There was plenty of foreknowledge of the impending collapse of WTC 7 for up to 3 hours before ~5:22 PM, so it's obvious that the people there understood what happened. Once again, a countdown for a secret demolition would hardly have been necessary, since the FDNY had set up a safety perimeter hours before the collapse, and it would also be kinda stupid to transmit it on police or firefighters' frequencies. Do you even have a plausible motive and a culprit in mind for these alleged C/Ds, especially the non-fatal one LONG after the majority of 9/11's death and destruction was over?
Since Suz is still hanging around here for some reason, I'd also like to point out that debris fires burned at GZ for ~3 months, consuming normal office combustibles and producing heat sufficient to keep lead and aluminum molten for a very long time, and both metals were in abundance there. I've posted numerous objections to Gage's nonsense, but the claim that molten anything in those fires for months is evidence of controlled demolitions is one of his more idiotic ones. If you know of any explosive or incendiary that keeps any metal molten for more than a couple of minutes, please link me to it.
Sorry I haven't got back to you sooner but I have been very busy at work. Also I am really anoyed as I have just spent the last 30 minutes writing you a detailed response to your latest comment and then a power cut happened at work which meant I lost it all!
As I am about to go home and haven't got time to reconstruct it all this is just a short one but in response to your repeated claim that any new investigation into the collapse would only re-affirm NIST's conclusion the main problem is that anyone wanting to do such an investigation is hampered by the fact all
the evidence has gone.
NIST admit that their report provides a "probable collapse sequence" and that the "building and records kept within it were destroyed and the remains of the all buildings were disposed of before .. funding was available for this investigation" and that their probable collapse sequence is only proved with a computer model.
Without seeing their code for this model we will never know how probable their collapse sequence is and we still haven't got to the bottom of the missing building parts that NIST admitted were present in an interim report and the paritial heating during their model.
I did have a list of possible reasons for the collapse of WTC-7 but I will give them to you another day.
Quicly though I would like to say that "Pulling" a building is a term used in the industry when refering to bringing buildings down either by controlled demolition OR through the use of cranes and other tools e.g literally pulling a building down. I have seen numerous documentaries (unrelated to 9.11)
and news stories in which the building in question was "pulled" through controlled demolition. I guess the use of the term varies from company to company and maybe from country to country,
We have never, ever heard the term "pull it" being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with." -Brent Blanchard of Protec
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
There was no plausible reason for anyone being libeled by the 9/11 "truth movement" to have demolished WTC 7 or the towers, and "pull it" only became a "C/D term" while trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and falsely claim that Silverstein publicly admitted to demolishing WTC 7. Did he say that "we've had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is [blow up my almost fully-occupied 14 year-old hi-rise so I can lose more than $100 million/year in rent on it for more than 5 years, and collect insurance that goes to rebuilding and paying off creditors]," or was the "terrible loss of life" a reason not to fight the fires, since the building was becoming dangerous and there was no water pressure?
I posted my email to NYCCAN on May 14, and have seen no answers to any of the questions in it. Any thoughts on why all 12 of his insurers paid him a total of $4.68 BILLION if he admitted to blowing up his own property?
From the same site which discusses the history of explosives being used to bring a building down:
"Gradually they began to develop techniques to increase the efficiency of explosive charges, such as pre-cutting steel beams and attaching cables to certain columns to "pull" a structure in a given direction."
and from http://www.implosionworld.com/dyk2.html
"In the demolition industry, a blaster is usually trying to pull a structure away from adjacent exposures and towards an area large enough to contain the debris."
A proper search can find many other uses of the term which I can well imagine is used by many people as a generic term that refers to either literally "pulling" the building down with hooks or "pulling" parts of the building in on themselves through the use of charges.
Those were just two examples I found with a 2 minute Google search but there are many more and I am trying to find the documentary I watched which discussed the term in relation to controlled demolition.
As for why Larry's insurers paid him the insurance without contesting CD. I presume that they were in the same situation as most people in the after years of 9.11 and faced any number of problems including but not limited to:
-No evidence remained for any independent study into the cause of the buildings collapse to be conducted so even if they wanted to contest the claim, without access to any physical evidence they would be hard pressed to prove their case.
-Silverstein was trying to getting to permission to bring the building down from his insurers during the afternoon – as attested to by the FOX news reporter in his hit piece into Jesse Ventura. I don't know the ins and outs of the conversation so I don't know whether they agreed he could bring it down or not. If they had of agreed for safety reasons then he would still be liable for a payout.
-If they didn't agree and he did it anyway then without admitting that was the cause (and he publicly refuted that his "pull it" claim meant pull the building and instead meant pull the firefighters even though their weren't any inside the building at the time) then without proof any claim to the contrary would mean that they would be lumped in the conspiracy theorist camp and more than likely labelled unpatriotic for doubting the official story.
-If the building was pulled and then covered up it all depends on who had the power to want to keep this quiet. If the government knew the building had been pulled for legitimate reasons at the time (e.g safety) but didn't want the public to know that it had been pulled (due to reasons stated earlier) then they would have the power to pressurise the insurers into silence. The two terrorist attacks he claimed for were on WTC 1 and 2. Therefore the case of WTC-7's collapse has little to do with whether or not he was going to get paid for the Twin Towers. It all depends on whether or not the insurers told him he could bring it down.
-I doubt anyone would have been willing to stay working in WTC-7 after the attacks on the Twin Towers so he would lose the rent money anyway. Therefore maybe he was faced with a choice of keeping WTC-7 up and then having to pay huge amounts of money for a later demolition and clean-up or taking the opportunity to bring WTC-7 down whilst everyones attention was focused on the Twin Towers. Having the whole of WTC flattened so that it could be rebuilt might have been the more logical decision especially seeing that the government helped fund a lot of the clean up operation.
I also want to bring the topic back to pre-knowledge of the attacks as there is a lot of evidence for this from the ABLE Danger program which identified a number of the hijackers, to the Israeli spy ring that were following them around the country to the numerous other intelligence agencies who had spies / agents within the organisation and knew the attacks were imminent and warned the USA.
We also have numerous ex-government employees including the very credible Sibel Edmonds who has been ignored by the mainstream media and who has offered to tell her story but for her troubles has been gagged and blackballed.
We are talking about the collapse of WTC-7 which I believe should be seen on it's own rather than part of the overal stand down / false flag attack that was allowed to happen for geo-political reasons. Leaving aside WTC-7 for a minute lets debate why you believe that the US government is such a moral upstanding group of people who only go to war as a last resort and would never allow an attack on it's shores to happen so that it could be used as a pretext for expansion of its global power.
What I want to know Albury is whether or not you believe the US government is whiter than white and has never committed an underhand act in it's history. You should know the history of the CIA's overthrow of democratically elected governments around the world (read the Confessions of an Economic Hitman) and you should know of its dubious plans to stage false flag attacks from Cuba (operation Northwoods) to the bombings and terrorist attacks it carried out in Iran to overthrow Mossadegh as well as recent scandals such as the Iran-Contra, torturing of innocent suspects in Iraq and Gitmo and the oh so constitutional approved assassination squads that Cheney commanded.
Hopefully you have read the famous book War is Racket by the most decorated General in US history and know that people go to war to make money. Do you honestly believe that the current US geo-political strategy of implementing huge billion dollar imperial war bases across the Middle East is purely aimed at hunting down a few dozen al-Qaeda terrorists and has nothing to do with the plans laid out in the PNAC document, control of Middle Eastern Oil, Gas and other natural resources and a pre-emptive move to help thwart the expanding power of China?
I will be interested in your thoughts on that matter.
Pre-cutting steel is done with acetylene torches, and would literally be impossible to do secretly in occupied hi-rises because of the smoke detection equipment, security and maintenance staffs, and the fact that the columns were inaccessible without extensive and very messy demolition work just to get to the steel. If any pre-cutting had been done, the cleanup workers would also have seen it on the columns as they were pulled from the debris. No other cutting method is as quiet as a torch, and the access and security problems still apply. Pulling a structure with cables is not the same as imploding one with cutter charges, and the term "pull it" is not used as a general term for explosive demolition, nor would a real estate mogul know of the term if it were, and Silverstein's meaning was very obvious. He and the FDNY were discussing the appropriateness of THE FDNY's decision not to fight the fires in WTC 7, and to withdraw to a safe distance because of the previous "terrible loss of life [in the towers]." The FDNY's decision was made ~3 hours before the collapse, and this is why:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc
Silverstein's insurers fought him in court over the issue of whether two plane crashes meant two separate incidents or one, and they won in almost every case, but never questioned whether the building was demolished deliberately. Since 2 of them were Swiss, one Dutch, and one British, and billions of dollars were involved, I doubt whether patriotism entered into their decision. I've also never heard the transcript of any alleged call he may have made on 9/11 to any of his insurers, but buildings take months to rig for demolition, and aren't suddenly prepped in secret while they're on fire and no one's inside, nor do they sit there rigged "just in case." If WTC 7 had withstood the fires and been too badly damaged to repair, as happened in 1991 to One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, negotiations with the insurer would not have been done over the phone in a few minutes. Meridian was finally razed ~8 years later, and I'm sure the ~$300 million deal wasn't set with a quick phone call.
Watergate and Iran-Contra were two underhanded acts committed by US government officials, as were the unplanned and then exaggerated Tonkin incidents, and the now-declassified Operation Northwoods, which was never implemented and hardly involved the massive devastation of 9/11, but there isn't one shred of evidence that the US government knew about al Qaeda's "Planes Operation" in advance, or helped in any way with it. It simply doesn't take government insiders to slip ~20 operatives into the US, at least 4 of whom had FAA commercial pilot certificates, pick 4 or more wide-bodied planes going cross country and leaving at close to the same time, hijack them and then use them as weapons. It was also done too quickly to have gotten an effective response from the few fighters that NORAD kept on stand-by in 2001, and the results of the unprecedented national ATC Zero order, which wasn't given until ~8 minutes after AA 77 hit the Pentagon, are what really ended the nightmare for ATC and NEADS. Even as the airliners were complying, which involved transponder code changes as well as major course changes to get down at the nearest suitable airport, the few armed fighters that were aloft simply couldn't handle all of the potential threats. They weren't even all on the same frequency, since the Langley fighters were NORAD and the Andrews fighters were DCANG, and the Andrews planes were actually given a shoot-down order before the NORAD planes were, but by ~10 AM it was too late, even if they had acquired targets, which up to then they hadn't. It was so chaotic at that point that a low altitude Andrews fighter over DC was almost shot down by Langley fighters that had established combat air patrol ~4 miles higher.
Since you insist, despite the total lack of evidence, that WTC 7 was secretly demolished with explosives, and that the owner, despite losing hundreds of millions on WTC 7, and billions on the towers, was complicit, how have you managed to weave him into a coherent narrative with all of these alleged government and military insiders?
You obviously haven't read the last two times I said this but I will say it again >> Maybe the act of controlled demolition at WTC-7 had nothing to do whatsoever with any false flag / stand down which allowed the 9.11 attacks to succeed.
Maybe the building was brought down for totally independent reasons. The two events – WTC7 coming down and the actual pre-knowledge of 9.11 do not have to be linked at all.
However if someone did have pre-knowledge of the impending attacks the collapse of WTC could have been carried out as an extra benefit. Not only would a terrorist attack on the WTC give someone wanting to bring the WTC down for any reason the perfect excuse to do so (rebuilding the eyesore many New Yorkers complained about, covering up theft of gold, money or the destruction of many documents related to important SEC and other federal investigations or any other number of reasons I am not aparty to) but from a physcological view the collapse of the primary symbol of US
strength most definitley helped sell the future war we are still engaged in.
I am not claiming that Larry was "in on it" but evidence exists within the dust, the way the building collapsed, and from witnesses on the ground that CD occurred.
The difference between you and me is when I see evidence and questions that seem to go against the official story I want them properly investigated so that the truth can be discerned one way or another whereas you seem happy to just ignore them or brush them away with your own assumptions.
Believe it or not I am perfectly happy if after a proper independent investigation they conclude that these key pieces of evidence have perfectly logical explanations that don't involve any kind of shenanigans but I see the lack of willingness by the government to answer these questions as suspicious in the least as it is only the lack of openness that has led to the various theories that surround that day.
You say that it would take a long time to set up a building for controlled demolition and I agree. However if you watch the video with the leading controlled demolition expert in Europe you will see that he claims it would be possible to set a building up very quickly in a few hours if required by placing charges at a few key areas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I&feature=player_embedded
He is also very shocked when told that this building fell at the WTC on 9.11 and he is happy to assert that it looked like a perfect example of a controlled demolition.
Most CD are done over a number of days and the main reason so much time is spent setting a CS up is to ensure that the building falls smoothly and in on itself without causing damage to other nearby buildings. However as WTC-7 was part of a larger complex of already or partially destroyed buildings there was little need for the same level of carefullness so a quick job could have been attempted with a few key charges placed on central columns.
However there is also the theory that the buildings were already pre-set with charges or the wiring required to set off the charges. A number of theories abound surrounding this (not all that I agree with but I will list some anyway)
-Some people claim the collapse was done with an underground mini nuclear bomb. An explosion deep underground would destroy enough WTC foundations to make the possibility of all buildings in the surrounding area skink in to them. The leading proponent of this is a Russian nuclear specialist with links to the intelligence community. He also
claims that a very famous Mossad chief (Mike Harari) has been bragging about how 9.11 was "his plan". You can listen to an interview with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aGY5oWffas
Even if his claims of a mini nuke are unfounded the claims of a foreign agent claiming responsibility for the 9.11 attack should be investigated at the very least.
-Other people including one of the original architects of the WTC has made claims that during the building of the WTC he was asked about the best way to pre-wire the building in case it needed to be brought down. If the buildings were built with the necessary wiring inside them then it would make it very easy to attach the neccessary charges when required. You can listen to his interview here in which he discusses the pre wiring of WTC >> http://www.darkpolitricks.com/audio/laffoleywtc.mp3.
-Others claim that after the 1993 WTC bombing the buildings were pre-wired to ensure that they could be collapsed without affecting other nearby buildings and that business owners were wary of staying in the vicinity because of the the threat of another attack >> http://www.serendipity.li/wtc6.htm.
-Apparently the Port Authority refused to hand over blueprints for the twin towers — crucial for evaluating the wreckage — until Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers signed a waiver saying his team would not use the plans in a lawsuit against the FEMA — New York Daily News, 2002-03-07. I don't know if there exists a publiclly viewable version of the latest plans for the WTC (post 93) but it would be interesting to view them.
-A number of scientists and chemists have studied the dust from the WTC and concluded that it contains explosive materials. They have issued peer reviewed studies into this which is one better than NIST who have still not released the programming code that their whole hypothisis of collapse is based upon.
You claim that people are slandering those scientists who work for NIST however dismissing scientists and engineers out of hand who have risked their reputations and careers to investigate the WTC collapse is on the same par. It is very easy to follow the party line and whistleblowers and people who criticise officialdom should be applauded not derided and instead of dismissing them out of hand with low blows they should be debated and their arguments refuted through logic and experimentation.
Here are some videos from a couple of scientists who analysed the collapse of WTC-7, the dust from WTC and the Nano Thermate particles they found within the dust.
They helped peer review the Stephen Jones study into the WTC-7 dust and were asked to either confirm or deny his conclusion that these particles were explosive materials.
Niels Harrit PHD Chemist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lU-vu2JvZY&feature=player_embedded
Mark Basile – Chemical Engineer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc&feature=player_embedded#at=30
Unlike you it seems I find all these points troubling at the very least and I would love to get to the bottom of all them. I cannot believe that you can dismiss out of hand the claims of respected engineers, chemists, scientists and intelligence officers who have made serious accusations. Whilst I happily admit that not all of them may be correct they should at least merit a proper investigation so that their claims can be either ruled out or confirmed.
I would also like you to explain how WTC-7 fell at speeds indisguishable from freefall when no controlled demoltions were involved. Pancaking has been ruled out and if the building pancacked the top floors would hit subsequent floors and other building structures slowing down the collapse. However when we watch the collapse of WTC-7 side by side with a confirmed controlled demolition and see the exact same behaviour we need to know why the building fell at the speed it did and in the manner it did when no explosives were used to remove supporting columns similutaneously.
NIST has confirmed the finding that the upper part of WTC 7 free fall drops (acceleration 9.82 m/s²) for 2.25 seconds during the collapse, i.e. there is no support/resistance of the upper part above floor 16, when it displaces downward abt 32 meters. According NIST the constant acceleration of the roofline is 32.196 feet/s² or 9.814 m/s² between time 1.75 and 4 seconds when the roofline velocity increases from 11.57 to 84.01 feet/s or 3.52 to 25.61 m/s! This acceleration is equivalent to gravity acceleration = 100% free fall drop. The average speed during this time is 14.56 m/s and the total free fall displacement is 32.77 meters. Free fall drop means not doing any
work (including destorying structure below) apart from falling.
Therefore this means that a structure of 32.77 height must have been destroyed completely for the roofline to free fall drop through it. How was this destroyed?
A free falling part of the building does not apply any forces or loads on anything (except the air it drops through) until it contacts the floor or another part of the building. So how can the upper part of the building (above floor 14) damage the lower part (below floor 14) as suggested by NIST during these 2.25 seconds? What kind of structural analysis is done when no loads except air resistance are applied?
Furthermore – NIST suggests that the upper part C deforms itself during these 2.25 seconds … when no forces (except air resistance) at all are applied to it (all masses of the upper part are in free fall drop!). Same question … how can a free fall dropping upper part C deform when no force is being applied to it to make it deform.
NIST has been asked these questions … and could not reply! Maybe you can shed some light on this problem for us Albury as it a key question that most definitly reguires a logical answer if it is to silence the doubters.
There was no evidence of a controlled demolition witnessed before or during the WTC collapses or found in the debris, despite the quote mining of witnesses for the use of the word "explosion," the fact that buildings collapse downward when influenced by gravity, or the claim by Harrit, et al. that common substances "remind" them of something. Please note that Dr. Harrit also claims that "a hundred tons" or more of RDX or other conventional explosives, i.e. enough to fill up 4 tri-axle trucks, was also secretly planted and detonated in WTC buildings on 9/11, and judge his credibility accordingly. Jones is also a prolific liar, as these links clearly illustrate:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/canofficefirescauselargesteelcolumnsandb
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/stevene.jones'thermitethermateclaims
Needless to say, honest scientists don't try to pass off photos of the glow from a halogen lamp as evidence of molten steel, or torch-cut columns as evidence of a thermite cut. He also claims that WTC 7's facade collapsed in 6.5 seconds, which is easily debunked just by looking at videos of it and trying to time it. Collapse times are not evidence of what caused a collapse, but Gage, Jones, Ryan, and others in the 9/11 "truth movement" can't even get them right:
http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/39/qLShZOvxVe4
Chandler's precious ~2.25 seconds from t=1.75 to t=4 seconds, when WTC 7's facade dropped at a rate indiscernible from free fall is also very easily explained by looking at the modeling in NCSTAR 1A, and he's neglected to calculate the times for various segments of the collapse under the Probable Collapse Sequence posited by NIST. Considering that he knows nothing at all about construction, demolition, or structural engineering and obsesses solely over something as irrelevant as collapse times, you might want to consider his reasons for such an obvious oversight.
I've been in commercial construction management for quite a few years, and the claim that buildings are rigged for explosive demolition during their construction almost leaves me speechless. I don't know how to explain to someone who could possibly believe that how preposterous the claim is, but do you know of any other modern, occupied buildings in the US that are rigged to explode, or pre-wired to be demolished? It was built in 1987, was bringing in more than $100 million/year, and was constructed right over an existing ConEd substation that served a great deal of Lower Manhattan. If you think Larry Silverstein could just drop it whenever he wanted, and for no apparent reason, what do you suppose all of his tenants and Consolidated Edison thought of the idea?
Dr Harrit is one person with his own claims and is talking about the use of convential explosives. If modern highy advanced and probably military grade (and therefore classified) explosives were used then the amounts would be much less.
I have already shown you that a small amount of homemade thermite could cut through a steel column and there is no doubt that many classified explosives and other weapons exist in this day and age that we don't know about and if used would do the job much better and with much
less amounts.
As I said in earlier comment you cannot have it both ways as if you follow NIST's theory of progressive collapse from an initial point of weakness in the structure that was able to pull the building down evenly, extremely fast and not towards the point of least resistence then you have to agree that anyone wishing to destroy the same building with explosives would only need enough to weaken one key structural point.
As you said yourself it wouldn't even need to cut through the steel like butter it would only need to cause the same level of structural weakness that NIST is claiming happened due to fire alone.
Also you are right in that I do not know whether the buildings were pre-wired or not but this does not have to mean that the buildings were occupied for years whilst explosives sat all around the occupants only
that the neccessary wiring was built into the building so that the explosives could be attached when and if required at a later point.
This would make the setting up of a controlled demolition a lot quicker as only the neccessary explosives would need to be attached and the wiring to connect them would already exist. Without the explosives attached inside the building there would be no danger to the occupants.
You might dismiss this possibility but one of the WTC architects does not and in the interview I provided he claims that during the buildings construction people were discussing the best way of setting it up for demolition.
Why would they need to be thinking about bringing down a building before it had already been built? I don't know but this is just one of many questions it seems you don't care about the answer to which I would like to know.
You can dismiss all these allegations and witnesses out of hand replacing their own perspecitives and possible knowledge with your own conjecture
but that is never going to settle this debate.
Hi DP
You've already dismissed 220+ NIST engineers, scientists, and other highly-qualified experts, and for the worst of all possible reasons: you have a preconceived notion that runs contrary to their research, and assume that they're lying to you because they're government-sponsored. You also gladly accept theories from people I've proved to you are liars, and you not only seem to believe that buildings are prepped or partially prepped for demolition during their construction, but that a self-described Dutch C/D expert can look at a grainy, sound-free video of a falling building and tell exactly what happened inside to cause it to collapse. CDI and Protec were at GZ, and no one from either company believes that any WTC building collapsed because of explosives, and "It Looks Like A Controlled Demolition" just isn't very scientific:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM
You're right that WTC 7 was found to be extremely vulnerable to structural collapse, and a few cutter charges on Column 79 would have triggered it, but no evidence of that was observed just prior to ~5:22 PM, no explosions inside at earlier times were even close to being as loud as demolition explosives, nor would they have had a delayed reaction of hours, and no explosively-severed steel was found in the debris. If you add to that the lack of motive, the fact that planting explosives secretly in occupied office buildings is impossible, and that they don't work too well in raging fires, plus the fact that they'd have been redundant, you don't have much of a case.
My only pre-conceived notion is that there a number of unanswered questions or dubious points and allegations that I would like to know the answers to whereas you don't seem to think there is anything to worry about.
I don't dismiss the NIST engineers and scientists I only claim that the basis for their report into WTC-7 rests on shaky ground due to the nature of the problems they themselves reveal i.e no physical evidence existed at the time of their investigation and their collapse sequence theory (for it is only a theory) relies purely on a computer model that they won't release the code for.
If they have nothing to hide then this would be no problem whatsoever would it? Maybe it is because they know the computer model was developed with pre-conceived ideas (of a fire induced collapse) at the outset rather than starting with an open mind like any proper criminal investigation would. Their computer model report has not been peer reviewed whilst Stephen Jones and all the other Scientists who reported on the existence of explosive materials in the dust has been. In the world of science surely a peer reviewed report trumps one which hasn't been?
Also you dismiss a number of credible ex government and military employees like Sibel Edmonds, Susan Lindauer and Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer plus many other whistle-blowers who have all risked their reputations, their careers, imprisonment and other severe punishment for going public with important first hand knowledge that the US government knew about the 9.11 attacks in advance. I for one find this very important and want to know why the US Government chose to silence these people instead of explaining their action instead.
Why would someone risk being imprisoned, ridiculed and maybe even assassinated just for "5 minutes of fame" as Sibel Edmonds has done with her claims that "Bin Laden worked with the CIA right up until 9.11". These are not loner types who sit in their parents basements obsessed with rock stars or actors and who try to harm them just so they can be noticed. They are people who have been security cleared at some of the highest levels and have suffered immensely for telling the world what they know.
You admit that only one structural column would need to be destroyed for the building to collapse but claim no sound of an explosion was heard even though many first responders, fire fighters, police and public have gone to record to say they heard explosives throughout the day. However leaving that aside what about if the incendiary that caused the structural weakness was not a loud bomb but rather a slow burning accelerant that burnt at high temperatures over a number of hours causing more and more weakness the longer it burnt.
You also forget that in the days after 9.11 the whole of your country was like the incredible hulk who had just found out his wife had died and wanted revenge. Remember Bush's famous "You're either with us or against us" speech? Remember how quickly Bin Laden's name was put in the frame for the attack and how there seemed no counter arguments to the official story at the time. The country was in a patriotic fervour and anyone who dared stick their head above the parapet and put an alternate point of view across of the events of that day was pilloried in the press and hounded from their jobs like Stephen Jones was.
Many people have questions about the events of 9.11 that they would like to be answered.
Many people are too scared to ask these questions for fear of being called a conspiracy theorist. unpatriotic or much worse.
There could be a multitude of reasons to why people have chosen to keep their mouths shut and follow the official storyline.
Even so there are still a large number of people who have decided that the conversion of their beloved country from a beacon of freedom and liberty into a high tech surveillance state where a million people have top secret security clearance, where the PATRIOT ACT has removed all semblance of due legal process and in which torture is no longer outlawed but seen as a legitimate interrogation tool and in which the only thing keeping the country running seems to be fear and a multitude of unpopular foreign wars as something worth speaking out about.
I for one would like to see America return to the country it was designed to be and I would also like to know the answers to all the questions and points raised in my article whether you dismiss them or not.
Thanks for commenting
Edmonds' claim that bin Laden worked with the CIA right up until 9/11 may be partially true, since US intelligence did use the mujahideen in the 1980s Soviet conflict, and his jihadists from SA and other countries were a small factor in the ousting of the USSR from Afghanistan. She's vague on what "worked with" means, and it appears that the alleged relationship was comparable to a bite from a pet dog on its owner. Bin Laden was clearly behind 9/11, as well as the 2 US embassy bombings, the Cole attack, and other terrorist activities throughout the world, usually involving suicide, which is certainly an al Qaeda trademark. To my knowledge, she hasn't claimed that the WTC hi-rises were bombed on 9/11, and would have no basis for that belief.
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, but I was involved in other things and spent much of my spare time here:
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/riba-comes-under-fire-for-hosting-'bonkers'-9/11-talk/5020382.article#commentsubmitted
where I wasn't greeted by some of your like-minded colleagues half as graciously as you've been on this forum.
I brought out in that discussion, which is ongoing, that Column 79 was a W14 X 730, with a cross-sectional area of 215 sq. in. of steel and a weight/lin. ft. of 730#. Loss of lateral support for ~9 stories caused it to buckle, but any explosives powerful enough to have affected it structurally would have been heard for many miles, assuming that it's even possible to use explosives on something that massive. The flanges were each nearly FIVE INCHES THICK.
Long time no speak.
I thought that being a pro 9.11 commenter you might have got bored with our verbose conversation and maybe preferred the thrill of more "lively" environment.
As for Sibel Edmonds, the problem is that she hasn't been allowed to tell everything she knows due to her unenviable old title of being the "most gagged person in the world" and we wouldn't even know if she was still covered by any National Security Letters brought in by the PATRIOT ACT as if you are covered by one you are not allowed to even speak about it.
I for one would like to know everything she has to tell us about her knowledge of the US government ties to bin Laden and al-Qaeda including why they used them to help de-stabilise parts of the world they wanted access to (Central Asia) and not just what she is allowed to tell us over at http://www.boilingfrogspost.com.
You failed to mention the Operation ABLE DANGER program which identified the key 9.11 hijackers long before they flew into the twin towers. How do we know that this operation which was highly successful at predicting terrorist plots wasn't used as a way of allowing one of these plots to succeed thus bringing in their much wanted PATRIOT ACT? It seems that either someone chose to throw this very important and useful information into the bin or they chose to keep silent for some reason….
The PATRIOT Act by the way was written a long long time ago, way before 9.11, and had been sitting on a dusty shelf somewhere waiting for an appropriate and severe enough emergency to be brought out and implemented.
We cannot forget how the Anthrax attack helped push this nasty piece of legislation through without most members of Congress even bothering to read it, and all the unhelpful labels of "Anti American" and "Un-Patriotic" being flown in the direction of anyone who didn't want to enter a decade of un-ending war with a word (terror) that cannot and never will or could be beaten.
Anyhow this central column in the WTC could have been blown up partially in any one of the many explosions heard throughout the day and attested to by numerous witnesses. Having a partial explosion that would be enough to severley damage a core column occur hours before collapse seems like a perfect plan as it means there would be no immediate explosion preceding the collapse. The weakened column would slowly weaken progressively more and more over the day before giving way. However this doesn't answer all the witnesses who claim to have heard a countdown, saw cutter flashes and heard explosions just before the WTC-7 collapse. Either they are all lying or they are sick individuals to make such stuff up. I for one would like to put them all in the witness box and hear their story.
If a proper criminal investigation into 9.11 were held then those people I mentioned in my last comment as well as the many witnesses from the day itself would have been called to attest to their stories, their version of the loud bangs and flashes and the 3 main names I mentioned previously would have testified about the fore-knowledge of the plot along with many other people who have since come out to say the story we have been told does not fit the events of the day.
As I hope you read in this post the 9.11 commissioners have said all of the following:
The 9/11 Commission's co-chairs said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements.
9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue.
9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"
9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up"
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ." He also says that it might take "a permanent 9/11 commission" to end the remaining mysteries of September 11.
And the Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry – recently said "At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened". He also said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true."
How can that be satisfactory to anyone who had any links to those tragic events?
I want to know 100% the truth, every little factoid and event of the day and I have no personal ties to that horrible event.
As an American I would have thought the truth and nothing but the truth would have been the ideal not a pipe dream.
Anyhow good to hear from you again and thanks for commenting.
Sibel Edmonds and the 9/11 Commission members are not claiming that 9/11 was an "inside job," and Cleland resigned because he wanted the PDBs released, along with other classified material that would have embarrassed our "war president" and possibly compromised intelligence sources. He's also vehemently anti-Iraq War, as am I, and wanted to make a statement. No commission member has ever taken issue with the key findings of the 9/11 Commission Report, i.e. that 9/11 was an al Qaeda suicide attack carried out by 19 Muslim terrorists who hijacked and crashed 4 airliners. The WTC collapses were not examined by them, and no mention of WTC 7 is included for reasons very obvious just from looking at the contents page or understanding the scope of the investigation.
One or 2 eyewitnesses near the WTC who claim to have heard countdowns on FDNY radios in earshot of hundreds of people, or think they heard demolition explosives are not going to trump the thousands of people there who reported no such thing, and the fact that not one suspiciously-severed piece of structural steel was found in the debris. Demolition explosives are heard for many miles, and even the FDNY who've been quote mined for the word "explosion" do not believe that the sounds were related to any building collapse, or they'd be in the 9/11 "truth movement," which few to none are.
Are you saying the piece of metal with swiss cheese holes in it was not suspicious? Also how would anyone wanting to investigate the evidence ever be able to – seeing that it has all been shipped off, buried or destroyed before a proper forensic examination could be carried out.
The evidence Sibel Edmonds reveals goes towards the bigger picture of foreknowledge. She claims that Bin Laden & al-Qaeda worked closely with the US government "up until" 9.11. I want to know what this kind of work was and what it involved.
An inside job could just mean that segments of the US intelligence agencies or government knew an attack was planned and did nothing to stop it. Sibel Edmonds evidence seems to fit in with that theory as does the ABLE Danger program which identified some of the lead hijackers of the attacks. As does the Israeli spy ring that were following the hijackers around the USA sometimes living next door to them as well as their "documenting the event" by filming the attacks as they occurred. As does all the other foreign agencies who told the US that the attacks were about to happen.
The commissioners may not have said explicitly that it was "inside job" but they have said that the inquiry was thwarted by the Bush administration at every turn.
I want to know why they would do such things as preventing the commissioners from interviewing key witnesses, having chaperones to answer questions for people (intimidation), block certain aspects of the investigation from happening, prevent key witnesses from appearing under oath and why some of the commissioners claim that the story the public has been told is nowhere near the truth of the day.
These quotes may not relate to them believing it was an inside job but they clearly reveal that the only inquiry held so far has been a crock of shit.
If anyone really cared about the victims of 9.11 they would hold a full public inquiry as well as proper criminal investigation whether or not they believed it was an inside job, another intelligence agencies plan, Muslim hijackers just getting amazingly lucky or being allowed to succeed.
Hi DP-
I'm saying that 2 small and nondescript pieces of steel that exhibited unusual corrosion characteristics are not evidence of explosives, incendiaries, or controlled demolition, and Drs. Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson agree with that assessment. If the 9/11 "truth movement" believes otherwise, they're certainly free to duplicate the "Swiss cheese" effect on some sample steel pieces using the C/D method of their choice. The conclusion of the 3 WPI researchers was that it occurred over a months-long period in the debris fires, and had nothing at all to do with a WTC collapse. Since Gage and others have erroneously cited the ~2.25 seconds of free fall as proof that all 81 WTC 7 columns were severed all at once at some level, there should at least have been a few columns found with melted or explosively-severed ends on them, and there simply weren't any. Numerous PANYNJ, FEMA BPAT, ASCE, SEAoNY, NSF, and other engineers were at the site immediately after 9/11 and throughout the entire ~8-month cleanup, and that's certainly long enough to spot evidence like that. Some of the steel is still in Hangar 17 at JFK, and NIST has some in storage at their Gaithersburg, MD site.
Hijacking and crashing planes did not require any government help in 2001, nor did suicide attacks against US embassies or destroyers, and many airliners had previously been successfully hijacked in US airspace, so citing any contrived connection between al Qaeda and US agencies is somewhere between specious and meaningless. Because of the Iran hostage crisis a decade earlier, we also aided Saddam Hussein in the '80s during the Iraq-Iran War, but that hardly makes the case that he was a US ally. Bin Laden's Arab-Afghans indirectly benefited from covert US aid to the mujahideen during the Afghan struggle to get rid of the Soviets in the '80s, but our 1990 intervention in Kuwait and establishment of military bases in Saudi Arabia at their invitation were the main motivation for the anti-US hatred expressed here:
http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen2.htm
Lawrence Wright explains the political realities in The Looming Tower, as does Richard Clarke in Against All Enemies. There were many dots that could have been connected, and the 9/11 Commission was pressured by the Bush Administration not to release PDBs and other sensitive intelligence material for both legitimate security reasons as well as political ones, but evidence of complicity or specific foreknowledge does not exist, and certainly would have surfaced by now. If GeeDubya really just wanted an excuse to invade Afghanistan, the Cole was a perfect one handed to him just in time for his inauguration, and the incompetent boob did absolutely nothing about it for nearly 8 months. Go figure…
My own humble opinion is that at the bare minimum the attacks were known about in advance (ABLE Danger, Informers within al-Qaeda, Israeli cells following the terrorists about, foreign agencies informing the US about them and so on) and that as some point in the chain of intelligence that leads to the top a decision was made to either ignore OR allow the attack to proceed.
Whether or not any controlled demolitions brought down any towers does not negate this evidence of pre-knowledge and as of yet a proper criminal investigation has not been carried out.
You might feel that the whole 9.11 attack fits neatly into the official story box but millions don't including engineers, demolition experts, scientists philosophers, ex-military men, current military men, politicians, architects, fire fighters, first responders, many average citizens and 6 out of 10 9.11 commissioners who claim they were lied to by the White House and prevented from speaking to key witnesses including the landlord who rented apartments to the hijackers and who was apparently an FBI informant.
I want to know why the FBI hid this witness and why the White House prevented him from appearing. What motives were behind that act. Maybe nothing at all but maybe it was because he had learned about the attacks and told relevant authorities. Maybe his evidence would have revealed fore-knowledge of the attacks. Without hearing his evidence we won't know will we?
People claim it was just a massive co-incidence, that everything fell right for the terrorists on the day of their plan but the number of failures on the part of the US government seems quite high and in the region of probability that suggests some form of deliberate inaction at the very least. The fact that all the key names I mention in my article were promoted and not sacked for gross negligence surely suggests some kind of foul play at some level.
Why didn't the Pentagon shoot down the in coming bogey, supposedly the most heavily defended area in the world yet a hijacked plane could fly straight into the most secure building in the world without even a gun shot fired back in defence.
Why did the plane not scorch the grass, and how did the inept pilot perform such complex manoeuvres or keep such a powerful plane horizontal above the ground at such a small height at a high speed and why is the only tape of the plane worse than useless. Add to that the flight data released after a FOI request that shows the plane flew over the building. Either that data has been tampered with or something else happened. What do you think?
You don't have to believe in all the various conspiracy theories (which I don't) to want a proper investigation. But if even the commissioners believe the truth wasn't found from their lousy commission that was basically used as a pretext for starting a 2nd front in Iraq then surely most logically sound people would as well.
You don't have to believe in nano-thermite, super lasers, mini nukes or stand downs to know that unanswered questions remain and deserve explanation.
Considering the fact that Reagan National Airport is ~1 mile from the Pentagon and has a runway pointed right at its NE corner, I'm rather glad that AA 77 wasn't shot down, but I'm also wondering what you think might have done that. Despite the absurd fabrications from David Ray Griffin, there were no antiaircraft missile batteries installed there in 2001, and setting them up to shoot down any plane flying over those populated areas and not transmitting a "friendly" IFF signal that close to Reagan and Dulles does not sound like a very good idea to me.
Hani Hanjour received a commercial pilot certificate from the FAA in April, 1999, so regardless of the truther yarn about his inexperience in flying Cessnas, he was obviously not "inept" at steering Boeing wide-bodied twins into huge targets in perfect weather. A 757 going ~800 fps would be unlikely to scorch ground under it even if it were on fire, which AA 77 wasn't, and its momentum carried the wreckage inward, not out onto the lawn. More than 130 live eyewitnesses reported seeing a plane at the approximate time ATC tracked AA 77 to that location, and I'm unaware of any who said they saw anything else. Thousands of people witnessed the wreckage, and American Airlines paid undisclosed amounts to Pentagon victims not covered by the 9/11 VCF, so I'm not sure how much more clear and convincing the evidence could be.
Given the impossibility of keeping secrets in Washington, DC, and the information we do have on al Qaeda and 9/11, I think it's pretty obvious that the Bush Administration was simply caught off guard. There's no evidence of specific foreknowledge of the "Planes Operation," and the Lawrence Wright and Richard Clarke books I cited delve into the intelligence failings that led to the attack. Hijacking and crashing 4 planes just wasn't that difficult in 2001. Once again, if GeeDubya was just looking for an excuse to invade Afghanistan, the Cole attack was a perfectly good one, and he did nothing about it for 8 months. His later blunder into Iraq is not evidence of anything more than incompetent leadership, and some hysteria prompted by the stunning devastation caused by a very simple but unprecedented tactic. Reading more into 9/11 seems unwarranted to me.
You seem to put a lot of faith in witness statements that were taken from people at the Pentagon yet you seem to dismiss them out of hand at the WTC.
Do you only believe those witness statements that fit with your pre-conceived ideas of what happened or would you like to have each and every single witness statement analysed for potential bias, fabrication, embellishment or "truthfulness" which a proper inquiry would do? I would prefer the latter approach and I also believe witness statements should be an important piece of evidence whether at the Pentagon OR at the WTC.
As you are an expert on the Pentagon can you tell us why there are no wing imprints either side of the building that the nose hit. The various films of the WTC impacts show the two planes and their wings at various angles gliding into the building along with the rest of the plane at the same speed it was before impact. Therefore we should expect the same behaviour at the Pentagon should we not? Even if they crunched up on impact there would be signs of damage along the walls that do not exist from early photos before the wall collapsed.
Even if one wing had fallen off when it hit the ground (and there is no evidence of that in any photos or from any of the numerous witness statements that said it looked like no plane had crashed at all due to the lack of physical evidence) then the other wing would have at least hit the building and left some kind of mark.
Also you claim the downforce of a plane flying 400 mph at only 30ft above the ground would not have caused any damage to the ground or caused an early crash but many experienced pilots refute this claim saying that it would be impossible for a plane of this size to fly that fast at such a small height parallel above the ground without crashing. If many experienced pilots have not been able to reproduce this feat on flight simulators then inexperienced pilots should find the feat extra hard to accomplish. These pilots may have been very lucky or they may have had the help of guidance systems or some other explanation may exist that the release of many tapes surrounding the Pentagon should help clear up.
Also can you explain the the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB which shows a discrepancy in the height of Flight 77 in that it's actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than claimed. You can find details over at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html which has a detailed analysis of the flight recorder data.
Also I suggest reading this article I wrote about the Pentagon attack some time ago which hopefully shows you that I am not unflexible in my position. I just want real answers to the many many discrepencies and probelematic issues that have been left to websites and indepedent researchers to investigate.
The link is here > http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2010/09/9-11-wtc-7-and-the-pentagon-attack/
I put a lot of faith in consistent eyewitness statements from any of the crash locations, and am wondering why you think I don't. Dozens of first responders reported hearing explosions inside the burning WTC buildings at various times prior to the collapses, but demolition charges aren't just heard by people within a block or two, and they immediately precede or accompany a collapse instead of going off randomly for an hour or more prior to one. They also leave explosively-severed steel in the debris, and I have a lot of faith in the belief that the cleanup workers wouldn't have missed something that obvious on column ends. Since the 9/11 Commission didn't investigate any WTC collapse, it's understandable that they didn't seek a lot of redundant eyewitness testimony to the common sounds of explosions in burning buildings at the WTC, and the NIST investigators were looking for the causes of the collapses, not an affirmation of the obvious fact that transformers and tanks blew up, BLEVEs, flashovers, and backdrafts may have occurred, and that debris falling 1000 or more feet through utility or express elevator shafts makes a loud noise when it hits the bottom.
AA 77's outer wings did not have the KE to penetrate a masonry facade, but the fuselage, especially the lower portion of it with the frame, and the inner portions of the wings did. By contrast, the WTC towers had only glass and 14″ square columns with 1/4″ walls for resistance, so most of the wings penetrated the exterior. In all 3 crashes, the planes were traveling at 650-800 fps, so it's unreasonable to assume that components of them would instantly switch direction and head the other way. I'm also unaware of any downward force that would have disturbed the lawn one iota, since AA 77 cleared it by 30′ or more. There are plenty of pilots in the employ of American Airlines, the FAA, and the NTSB, and I know of none who've claimed that anything done on 9/11 at the Pentagon was impossible. What seems impossible to me is the faking of Boeing 757 wreckage and contents that would fool thousands of live eyewitnesses to it in the following hours and days.
Digital FDRs do not record in real time, but have a several second time delay, and AA 77 was descending as it approached, so the last recorded altitude was well before impact. Both "black boxes" were recovered inside the Pentagon, but since you're apparently assuming that they were planted, how difficult would it have been to put data on the FDR that coincided with the impact elevation? Why not superimpose a speeding 757 on some surveillance footage and foist that on us too? 2 airliners very obviously hit the WTC towers, and there's overwhelming evidence that a 3rd one was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon in the same coordinated suicide attack:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary
Surveillance equipment is too slow to capture something moving that fast, but ~130 live eyewitnesses reported seeing the plane approach and/or crash, some of them even identifying the model and airline. None that I know of reported seeing anything else, and the damage pattern was inconsistent with any other hypothesis.
You are quite good at rebutting things I didn't say I notice
I didn't say that the wings would penetrate the building only that they don't seem to have left any mark at all. Even if they fell off immediately shouldn't some kind of mark be left on the wall? From the pictures I have seen no such marking exists at all but surely some kind of marking should exist where they hit the building even if minimal damage occurred.
I take it you didn't read the article I sent a link to >> http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2010/09/9-11-wtc-7-and-the-pentagon-attack/
as you would see that my position on the Pentagon isn't too far from yours and I actually posted a video of a plane disappearing into nothing when it hit a wall during a test to see what would happen if a plane met an immovable object.
During this test the plane turned into a million pieced and the wall (probably quite similar to the material the Pentagon wall was made from) remained standing with not much damage (Watch the slowed down later parts of the film).
From that film alone (not an exact comparison I admit) it would suggest the nose of the plane wouldn't have got as deep into the Pentagon as is reported however a proper experiment with similar materials would be great to watch.
I also notice you didn't answer the main point about the dodgy altitude data that was released by the NTSB that is in direct contradiction to the single film footage released so far of the planes impact. If we are relying on science alone and not false witness testimony then questions like altitude data from the plane and the corresponding heights of poles, video cameras and so on need to be addressed. I would like to hear your thoughts on that.
Also regarding the multitude of cameras that should have caught the flights inbound entry and impact even if the cameras are of not a high quality or only showed a slight portion of entry or impact or nothing at all then they should still be released to the public.
Holding footage back only feeds conspiracy theories and not does help get to the bottom of any questions. If the government didn't want all these theories to abound for a decade and more then surely releasing all the CCTV and other video footage that was taken by FBI types from nearby garages, hotels and the Pentagon would be a good way to start.
Believe it or not I am looking for the truth whatever that may be.
From the feeble attempts at an inquiry so far and the dramatic changes that US society has gone through from beacon of freedom to an Army fetish loving, TSA Groin Grabbing, Illegal Searching, liberty grabbing, Unwarranted phone tapping, war mongering, torture accepting, detention without charge allowing, security letter signing 4th Reich type of state that many people are fearful of going to or having their troops turn up on their land – it is only right we try to find this truth.
Your current President promised such a change only to turn his back on nearly all his promises regarding the rise of the security state so it is clear Politicians will not save your country.
I don't know what you'd like President Obama to do to prevent explosives and other weapons from being carried aboard airliners, DP, but it seems unlikely to me that GeeDubya and Co. murdered a bunch of Americans for the privilege of grabbing people's groins.
I've never seen a clear photo of the Pentagon entry hole prior to the collapse ~20 minutes after impact, but there's simply too much evidence that AA 77 hit it to conclude that it didn't or couldn't have. The angle of incidence put the left wing nearly perpendicular to the outer wall, and the right wing apparently left enough of an impression for the investigators:
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
Your video of an F-4 crashing into a ~12′-thick concrete wall has no relevance at all to the crash of AA 77, since the Pentagon walls were 3 wythes of brick and some re-bar, and F-4s have<20 757.="" a="" and="" contact="" could="" first="" for="" have="" honestly="" if="" incident="" including="" information="" links="" list="" long="" looking="" lot="" mass="" of="" on="" other="" p="" questions:="" re="" responders="" the="" these="" truth="" with="" witnesses="" you="">
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/pentagonattackpage2
I wouldn't expect surveillance cameras to produce an image of something going ~800'/second, and I think it's highly unlikely that there were very many of them pointed at that area. As I said previously, it wouldn't have been terribly difficult to insert a fake 757 into surveillance footage, or to have put the correct impact elevation into the FDR if it had been planted. It would be impossible to fake a wreckage scene inside, complete with bodies, or what was left of them. 58 of the 59 passengers were identified through dental records, DNA, etc., and even some of the 5 hijackers were matched to DNA:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/01/02/remains-of-the-day.html
I am not saying that "something" didn't hit the Pentagon and you must remember that a missile is just an automated flying machine. A plane being remotely controlled or controlled by on-board mechanisms which remove the pilots ability to control the plane would also count (in my mind at least) as a missile.
I have never claimed George Dubya was involved in 9.11 in any way. As i say in one of my first paragraphs he can hardly manage his own mind let alone a conspiracy the size of 9.11
However the same people who wrote the PNAC document that called for a rebuilding of America's defences, a build up of forces in the Middle East to control the flow of oil and a ring of bases to prevent the expansion of China and a resurgent Russia were the same people that were now in power e.g Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz etc.
The 9.11 attacks must have seemed like a wet dream to them as it meant they could enact all those plans that had been set on a shelf somewhere just waiting for a "new pear harbour" to occur to stir the US public up enough to go ahead with any plans for a global war and a crack down on civil liberties at home.
The reasons I mentioned the TSA, the PATRIOT Act, the loss of civil liberties, the no fly lists, the endless wars, the normalisation of torture and detention without trial is that your country has become a scary place to live and if these events are in anyway linked to a pre-conceived plan to start the "clash of civilisations" that has been talked about for many years and which 9.11 was the catalyst then we should get to the bottom of it.
I think on that link I sent you there was a photo of the hole in the Pentagon wall which the nose of the plane/missile struck before the rest of the wall collapsed however no markings of plane wings can be seen either side of the hole.
The point of the video showing the plane disappearing into nothing when it hit the wall was actually backing up non conspirational claims that a plane hitting an immovable object would have left a lot of wreckage. The film clearly shows the the plane destroys into nothing but most of the wall remains. In that respect I am actually supporting the notion of a plane/missile hitting the Pentaon and not leaving that much rubbish.
You yourself admit that photos and films can be doctored and false images inserted. Where does that leave your position on some of the shots of planes entering tower 2 which seem to have been faked e.g the plane gliding straight into the building at the same speed in air as in concrete and steel with no damage (as in the film of my plane hitting a wall) and any evidence of planted evidence of plane parts which could have been doctored (I'm not saying they were but with modern photo manipulation tools it's very easy to fake very realistic looking movies)
re 9/11 + OBL 1 hr of common + sense logic = gormless shills totally debunked
Paul Craig Roberts joins us to discuss the September 11 terrorist attacks as the defining event of our time, which has launched our nation on interminable wars of aggression, a domestic police state where the American President is a Caesar and completely above the law. He describes the US corporate media's role today, which is to serve the government and the interest groups that empower the government, their astonishing blackout on legitimate investigations regarding 9/11 such as the investigation results supported by more than 1500 architects, and how currently the majority of Americans are ruled by propaganda and with little regard for truth and little access to it. Mr. Roberts talks about the conflicting, ever-changing and in many ways dubious accounts of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the Military Industrial Complex' need for the next 'black hat,' the question of China, and more!
Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has been reporting on executive branch and cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. He has written or co-written eight books, contributed chapters to numerous books, and has published many articles in journals of scholarship. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how Americans lost the protection of law, has been released by Random House. Mr. Roberts has testified before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic policy, and has been a critic of both Democratic and Republican administrations. His writings frequently appear on OpEdNews, Prisonplanet.com, Antiwar.com, Lew Rockwell's web site, CounterPunch, and the American Free Press.
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/06/02/podcast-show-45/
allblurry – "There was no evidence of a controlled demolition witnessed before or during the WTC collapses or found in the debris,"
lol – well..apart from all the evidence that DP refers to in his original article.. such a ridiculous statement is but further evidence of what a ridiculous gormless shill you are.
that, along with all your other obfuscating "facts and figures" requires and deserves no response, and nothing but contempt.
Don Flauntleroy D. says
Nicely argued DP. It's obvious Albury et al is working to a script, which it seems has come to its end, no doubt though, to be repeated again elsewhere, like a tired old lament, in the vain attempt to hold on to the last brain dead believers of the official *conspiracy.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Conspiracy-Theory-by-paul-craig-roberts-110620-169.html
July 4, 2011, 10:36 pmReply
Thanks Don.
I also love Paul Craig Robert's articles and I usually try to get as many links to his pieces as possible on here as not only do they usually make great reading but it just goes to show that people from all stratas of society from mere consumer/workers like myself to engineers, economists, scientists, architects, military men and even current and ex politicians have real problems and unanswered questions with the official narrative surrounding 9.11.
more blatant albury shill lies…
"Bin Laden was clearly behind 9/11"
not according to the FBI he wasnt..
cmon gormless, its like youre not even trying now…
post some/any evidence to back up your bullshit… then let the authorities in on your little secret…
honestly… give up your stupid crap
July 14, 2011, 11:52 pmReply
Actually Suzie, according to the FBI he was:
http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/the-terrorist-threat-confronting-the-united-states
August 10, 2011, 9:28 pmReply
Scott Ewing says
Albury Smith sat on the uncensored.co.nz website every day last year for about eight months until I blocked him.
The following quote sums up his behavior there pretty well:
'A paid back-room mole to infiltrate every possible 9/11 chat room, message board, and forum to create as much din, disruption, "noise," and chaos as possible which constantly litters and pollutes the soup;
effectively preventing most people from focusing on Israel's central role in 9/11.
A seeming obsession with minutiae where researchers spend an inordinate amount of time endlessly fixating on the tiniest of details without stepping back and exposing the bigger picture and its subsequent ramifications.
Or else they'll engage in rhetorical debates for debate's sake; all of which is sterile, self-contained, and circular in nature.'
July 26, 2011, 1:40 amReply
so its not just me then, lol
nice to know, thanks Scott.
im sure dp came to this conclusion right away as well, but just enjoys rubbing alburys nose in his own excrement with logic, reason, scientific principles and common sense, too much to say anything as easy as and obvious as … albury smith, youre a gormless 911 shill..
uncensored.co.nz looks a great site.. thanks to both you and DP for what you do.. and albury.. i know youre reading this ..
sux2beU (_X_) bwahahahahahahhaha
July 29, 2011, 12:10 amReply
For anyone here who's interested, this is how it went on Scott Ewing's dog-and-pony show:
http://uncensored.co.nz/2010/07/09/medical-professionals-for-911-truth/
I was banned, i.e. censored on a site that calls itself "uncensored," for attempting to discuss the topic intelligently. Please note the "contributions" from him and his friends.
August 11, 2011, 12:28 pmReply
Frankly says
@ Albury
"Given the impossibility of keeping secrets in Washington, DC, "
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/05/daniel-ellsberg-secrets-can-be-kept.html
Yawn, keep telling yourself that TROLL, you might even believe it yourself one day, in the meantime, the rest of us just treat your ad nauseam defecations all over the internet with the derision it deserves.
August 11, 2011, 7:16 amReply
Here's a starting list of some of the people behind this conspiracy:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/someoftheagencies%2Corganizationsandindivi
The problem with that list Albury is that you are presuming that any conspiracy was a widely known one.
If you read any of the many available books on CIA or KGB tactics used in the Cold War you will know about compartmentalisation when it comes to false flag operations. This is where mini teams of people work on large projects without realising the true nature of the overall aim. It is used in business as well as the military to this day and is a common "need to know" tactic which means only one or two people know the true overall aim of the project.
Not only "could" 9.11 be an example of this but if you follow the "Letting it happen on purpose" theory then all of these people wouldn't even have been involved in the conspiracy at any level whatsoever.
As ABLE Danger showed the 9.11 hijackers were identified months before 9.11 happened. Was their info just thrown in the bin or was it taken to a higher level in the government or DOD where a decision was made to "allow the attacks to happen" for the reasons outlined in the PNAC. A document co-authored by some of the same people now sitting in the seats of power during Bush's presidency.
The Israeli's obviously knew it was about to happen as they followed the hijackers around the country and the US knew it from ABLE Danger.
Other foreign agencies told the Americans it was about to occur and the Pakistani ISI chief who ordered the wiring of thousands of $$ to the lead hijacker was having top level meetings with the heads of US Intel on the day of 9.11.
All the people who should have been fired were promoted (a sure sign of complicity some might say) and no proper criminal investigation has ever been carried out.
The person who had all the fingers pointing at him a Mr bin Laden denied all involvement in the interview he gave a few days after 9.11 occurred >> http://www.darkpolitricks.com/an-interview-with-usama-bin-laden-from-28th-september-2001/ and this goes against nearly every terrorists behaviour in known history as there is no point in carrying out an attack if you don't want people to know the reasons behind it (see IRA, Taliban, FARQ, ETA and any other terrorist group you can think of and how they claim responsibility almost straight after the attack with some groups even claiming responsibility for attacks they didn't even commit)
Seeing we will never know whether he was murdered recently or ages ago due to a co-incidental camera outage during the raid in Abbottabad and the refusal to release any photos – INCLUDING any from the cameras each SEAL was supposedly carrying on their helmets (a shot could easily have been taken before he was killed) then we will never know whether he was complicit or not. The FBI sure don't think he was and if he was the reason for the attacks we should be home from AFPAK with our feet up saying "job done".
There are more pieces to this puzzle than just the events of the day and no-one is claiming a thousand or more people had to be in on some huge conspiracy. At the minimum it would only require a few key decision makers in the intelligence chain and a small team to control the hijackers or remotely fly in the planes (depending on your point of view).
If you were being sought for the 9/11 atrocity by the US military, would you deny it once right after the event, when you hadn't escaped to safety, or repeatedly during the following 9+ years? Why has no other al Qaeda member denied their planning and execution of the "planes operation"?
The Obama administration handled the release of information on OBL's demise the best they could. They apparently didn't want to capture him, since that would undoubtedly have triggered hijackings and hostage-taking by al Qaeda to gain his release, and would have cost millions in security, etc. if we ever brought the bastard to trial, and they didn't want to create a shrine for his followers, so they dumped the carcass at sea. The body was conclusively identified from the DNA, and the photos were shown to members of congress. Public release of them would have been very controversial and inflammatory, as well as being rather grisly, so I think they used good judgment.
I don't see any problem with the list I posted, nor do I see how that many intelligent and informed people could all have been duped. There were no reasons for LIHOP mentioned in the PNAC document you're referring to, which did not advocate a "new Pearl Harbor." Why would it have been necessary to "control the hijackers"?
Healthy Skeptic says
"They apparently didn't want to capture him, since that would undoubtedly have triggered hijackings and hostage-taking by al Qaeda to gain his release"
Oh yes, UNDOUBTABLY! lol
You've done nothing but parrot the official version of events.
What you fail to understand, or refuse to acknowledge, is that despite the governments and their agents best efforts to conflict and confuse, a lot of people simply dont trust the official version of events.
http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/Parents_and_Community/Community_Page/SRI/Independent_Research/Building%207%20Poll%20Results.pdf
( That number is even higher in other, more enlightened than America, parts of the world )
You have provided no answers in your blatant transparent attempt to obfuscate and detract, which is why noone trusts a word you say either. Give up your day job.
Most terrorists commit terrorist acts because they want the world to know they did it and why they did it. They have a cause they are fighting for and if they commit an act like the USS Cole or Embassy Bombings which they took credit for then why not the 9.11 attacks?
The Seal team who attacked the bin Laden compound all had cameras on their helmets. They could have easily released photos of bin Laden before a single shot had been fired.
The excuse given at the time for not releasing the photos was that they were too gruesome and would stir certain people in the Muslim world up by showing their "martyr" in such a horrible deformed way. The shot shown to Congress was the dead body shot where parts of his head were hanging off.
A shot from the Seal teams camera before this shooting would have led to rest any rumours that he wasn't there, that the whole thing was staged and so on.
I get your drift about a shrine for people to go and worship at but when the US captured Saddam Hussein we paraded him in front of the worlds media and we even allowed people to film his execution.
With bin Laden all we have is the word of Obama that bin Laden was in the compound, that we killed him and due to no body no independent analysis can be done.
If he had died years ago as many claimed then DNA would exist that could be used to "provef" it was him and if his body was on ice as other claim then a thawed out and shot to fuck body would make some great photos.
This is just another case of the government choosing secrecy over transparency. If they didn't want conspiracy theories to flourish after the attack then the easy way would be to show proof of his existence within the building before the attack (from the surveillance they did in the months leading up to it OR during the attack) and some kind of photo of him during the raid or after his death.
Once again they seem to want conspiracy theories to multiply rather than nip them all in the bud at the earliest opportunity.
HairyMary says
It can be said that something definitely hit the pentagon. It can also be said it was definitey a missile.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/29/911-video-of-missile-hitting-pentagon-leaked/
Everyone knows it was a missile.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73psegkg69c
http://www.rense.com/general67/radfdf.htm
http://www.odeion.org/cruisemissile/index.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlnQTcLHaMM
Extreme temperatures at "Ground Zero" for weeks after the event that can not be accounted for by "ordinary combustables" credibly explained at link below.
http://www.911thology.cn/911thology.html
September 6, 2011, 10:23 amReply
Well if you read the site regularly you will have notice that I did put up a similar article that shows the same video.
http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2011/09/911-gordon-duff-discusses-new-video-of-cruise-missile-attack-on-press-tv/
My statement that anything that flies automatically is a missile is true, the size of the missile and what type of missile is still up for debate though. As far as I know Gordon Duff hasn't revealed the manufacturer of the missile if not an automated plane? If he has please let me know.
Also if you have read the comments you will notice I have raised the issue of no wing marks on the small hole in the building, the deep penetration and the lack of flying skills of the reported pilot as well as the number of experienced pilots who have said it would be difficult to fly a plane of that size, that fast so close to the ground.
September 6, 2011, 11:47 pmReply
patrick appleton says
Okay, if you want support then do a bit more research. The Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth have been well exposed as being the enemy of any truth other than the half truth they have been created to peddle. If you haven't come to that conclusion then you'd best get your head out of your ass and do some RESEARCH not just parrot other peoples disinformation. Trust no one. So far Dr. Judy Woods has come up with some excellent data and I'd suggest you start there. Chances are you are just peddling disinfo on behalf of the elites anyway or maybe you just got sucked in by the A & E for 9/11 truth like I did a long time ago.
Also this article is a bit cumbersome, I have all day and night and all week, all year to read this stuff but most people wont stay focused on a bible sized article. If you want to get peoples attention, start by asking the simple 9/11questions that defy physics and logic, you can ask your own questions and simplify them instead of printed questions that take a half an hour to read and look like they were written by government bureaucrats. EG: Why did the towers turn to dust?
EG How can a jet fuel fire turn a 500,000 ton building into dust and allow survivors on the 14th floor to see nothing but blue sky above them?? How did the 70 floors above them disappear? I hope this is of some help. Remember you are trying to interest people who are just becoming aware of the 9/11 hoax so keep it simple and short. You can add the indepth section for grown ups on another page.
February 17, 2013, 1:01 pmReply
I am well aware of Judy's work and I am sure there are miltary weapons in use today that we have no comprehension of including energy weapons – as seen by the dead bodies of Iraqi's who were literally melted from the inside out (microwaved).
The article is just one I have written on the subject and I can assure you I have no connection with the government – if I did I wouldn't be writing articles such as "the guide to no comment interviews" or other anti-government articles.
There are shorter articles on the site and I have heard numerous theories on the subject from thermite, to lasers from space, a TV hoax with no planes and mini nukes under the buildings.
My aim with the article is to
a) prove that our governments have a history of false flag attacks
b) show that the people who wrote the PNAC document were in power, wanted 9.11 to happen and were talking about false flag attacks
c) show that we cannot believe government agencies when they tell us "the truth" and the 9.11 commission was not a criminal investigation but just a fraud in which the 6/10 of the commissioners know it's not the full truth and was used to push for a war with Iraq.
d) and most importantly push for a proper investigation.
Where that leads I don't know but until a real investigation is held we will never know so that has to be the starting basis whether you believe in thermite or lasers or other energy weapons.
Motive, means, opportunity
April 9, 2013, 4:48 pmReply
TJ says
"-4 planes were successfully hijacked at the same time by a few men on each plane armed only with rudimentary weapons.
-Not one of these successful hijacked planes was met with a challenge from the US air force which was the standard practise.
-Not one camera in the most monitored and controlled part of airspace in the US managed to catch the incoming flight 77 as it hit the Pentagon.
-The biggest coincidence is that 3 tall steel framed skysrapers, all owned by the same person, collapsed into their own footprint after short fires. Never before had a building like this collapse from fire alone and although two buildings were hit by planes the building structures were designed to withstand such impacts and the other building wasn't hit by a plane at all. To have one building collapse looking exactly like a controlled demolition is unlucky, to have two is careless but three is downright freaky. What are the chances that a mile and a half of combined buildings would all collapse at almost freefall speed in the manner expected from controlled collapses but not be caused by explosives at all."
1. Hijacking a plane is not hugely difficult and has of course been done many times. 9/11 was not even the first time multiple aircraft had been hijacked. All that is required for that is enough hijackers and enough tickets to get them aboard.
2. There was not sufficient time for the U.S. air defense system to react. Look at the time-line of events. NEADS had 9 minutes warning between being informed Flight 11 was hijacked and when it hit 1 World Trade Center. Flights 175, 77 and 93 all crashed before NEADS was informed they were hijacked. An alert fighter takes 15 minutes just to get off the ground, then it has to reach altitude and find its target – which in this case was 150 miles away. In the decade prior to 9/11 the only intercept of a domestic flight took 74 minutes.
3. Not true. A security camera at a parking lot gate at the Pentagon caught images of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. Generally speaking, security cameras are slow (1 fps typical), low-resulution devices aimed to see things on the ground – people and vehicles. To catch a useful image of an aircraft flying at more than 500 mph requires a high-resolution camera shooting at hundreds of frames per second and aimed at the exact point in the vast sky the aircraft occupied. People don't think about this kind of very important stuff. Besides, this is a giant Red Herring, a ruse, a deliberate deception to distract the ignorant and gullible from the overwhelming physical evidence and eyewitness testimony that proves beyond any reasonable doubt Flight 77 crashed there:
*Flight 77 and everyone aboard her took off that morning and never landed, anywhere.
*Radar from 6 sites positive tracked 77 from take-off to impact
*The FDR from 77 was recovered in the Pentagon and its data exactly matches radar
*Remains from everyone aboard 77 were recovered at the Pentagon
*The damage pattern caused 77 – downed light poles, a tree , etc
*136 witnesses are on record as seeing 77 hit the Pentagon. Zero saw anything else.
*Substantial quantities of debris positively identified as belonging to 77 were recovered at the site.
4. Nonsense. 10 buildings were destroyed in New York that morning, not 3. Of those 7 were leased by one man (Larry Silverstein, who for some CT'ers provides the required "Evil Jew" element to the plot). Two of those buildings – 1 & 2 World Trade Center were hit by large aircraft impacting with the energy of a 2,000 lb bunker-busting bomb. This caused MASSIVE FIRES simultaneously on MULTIPLE FLOORS which, combined with the structural damage from impact eventually caused the buildings to exceed their design limits and collapse. Far from "falling in their own footprint" these 1 acre buildings created a damage pattern covering 16 acres and destroyed 8 other buildings. A 9th building, 7 World Trade Center, was severely damaged by the collapse of 1 WTC and suffered massive, well-documented fires on multiple floors. This building too eventually collapsed from its damage, destroying one other building in the process, causing a billion dollars in damage to another and blocking 3 major streets – again, far outside its own footprint.
It is not true that 1 & 2 WTC were "designed" to survive the impact of a large aircraft. This was not a design requirement nor part of the building code. A crude study was done in 1964 to assess what might happen if a Boeing 707 on landing approach hit a tower and the conclusion was the building would remain standing after impact. The study did not look into the effects of subsequent fires at all, just the initial impact and it is worth noting the actual impacts the towers recieved were 5 to 7 times greater in terms of kinetic energy yet they still stood for an hour or more. That is impressive.
None of the buildings fell in a way that is even remotely consistent with a "controlled demolition" and in fact can be characterized by how uncontrolled they were. Also, free-fall speed is a bogus argument. How fast something falls tells you nothing about WHY it fell – unsupported CT fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding. The physics of 9/11 are quite simple; Fire + Time + Gravity = Collapse
The "never happened before" meme like is another deliberate deception. It implies that because it had never happened before it can not happen, which is of course ridiculous. Before 1903 man had never flown before. Before 1969 he had never walked on the Moon. Open any history book, it is full of things that had never happened before. On 9/11 lots of things occurred that had never happened before. Flying jetliners at high speed into a tall buildings in a crowded city for example.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000453?journalCode=jsendh&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mmIjDfpTeMc
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc&feature=player_embedded
http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911d.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm
May 1, 2013, 7:03 pmReply
Are you telling me that in all the videos there are of WTC-7 collapse it does not look in the slightest like a controlled demolition?
I am not saying there are not logical and rational explainations for every occurrence that happened that day just that there has never been a proper criminal investigation (forensic) that tested for explosives etc and other aspects of the days events. Parts of the US government had alread identified the hijackers and Israeli spies were following them around the USA. If they knew they were up to something then why didn't they warn the US and if they did warn them then why didn't the US act on the intel (and many other countries gave the same intel as well).
We have a FOX reporter confirming that Larry was trying to get permission from his insurance company to pull WTC-7 down all day, and there are witnesses who overheard a countdown and saw cutter flashes as it fell. We can either dismiss all this evidence or we can investigate it.
Even if WTC-7 fell due to a controlled demolition it does not neccessarily mean that a) other buildings were or b) the cover up was linked to anything else.
There might have been legitimite reasons to pull WTC-7 but people might have worried that admitting they did pull it would then push more suspicion onto the other buildings. Therefore denial might have been a decision taken at early stages which was regretted later.
If the final NIST report dismissed it's own findings from it's intermim report (the missing stucts etc) and can only rely on a computer model to "prove" it's collapse then there is a legitimate question which many people want answering that remains still. As a computer developer I know – crap in – crap out – so anyone can make a computer model that proves X causes Y depending on the parameters. Why NIST cannot release the parameters and the code they used to prove their collapse scenario by fire I don't know but it would surely help put conspiracy theories to bed – no?
Also you are right, many other buildings collapsed that day. However only 3 collapsed in the manner that could be compared to a demolition of some sort. 1 & 2 with their pulverised dust and 7 with the admitted free fall of over 2 seconds by NIST.
The other buildings were prime examples of buildings that looked like they had toppled over or were crushed by debris and many were left half/quarter standing. Only WTC-7 fell like a controlled demoliton in a way that the top demolition experts in the world could not believe it wasn't a controlled demoition when told / shown it falling.
As for the Pentagon plane – I agree a plane did hit it – but I also think the pilots were probably incapable of such complex manoeuvres. Many pilots have gone on the record to say they couldn't have pulled off such a complex dive and parrallel decent into the building. Whether they are right or not I don't know but the flight recorder equipment shows inconsistencies and releasing all CCTV (whether it showed anything or not) would also reduce any conspiracy talk. There are many ways a plane could have hit that building including remote control or other pilots but as my father says (who worked designing plane rocket engines for his whole career) to fly that fast and low from the ground would be nearly impossible.
It is the cover up – the silencing of witnesses at the enquiry, the 6 out of 10 commissioners who believe the whole story was not told, the people who were promoted who should have been sacked for their intel failures, the refusal of CCTV to be shown, the use of the inquiry to push for war with Iraq, the hiding of key witnesses by the White House and the stalling, and refusal of 100% co-operation that leads people to believe that the Bush regime had some sort of cover up. If they hadn't have acted in that manner then maybe things would be different.
All I want is a proper inquiry. So do many people. Hundreds if not thousands of people have died from the toxic soup left from the burning wreck of ground zero and they at least deserver a proper explaination to why they were lied to and not given proper health care afterwards.
Your country has spent the last decade at war.
You are still basically living under Emergency / Martial law.
You have thrown away the liberty and freedom your Presidents claimed the Muslims attacked you because they hated it – bascially doing their job for them.
You now let your President kill US citizens on demand, the NDAA and PATRIOT ACT are Orwellian bills that have ripped your Bill of Rights to shreds.
Drones fly the skies of the US as well as Pakistan.
Heroin crops that were reduced to almost nil by the Taliban in 2000 are now up to record highs.
The leaders you have installed in both Iraq and Afghanistan are corrupt and have no concept of human rights. The people of those countries would have a hard time deciding whether they were better off now than 10 years ago.
Big companies have made billions from the death and destruction across the Middle East.
Thousands of US/UK soldiers have died or will die from the depleted uranium and other weaponary they used during the conflict.
The war in the Stan won't be won and once the allies pull out the Taliban will resume control. The trillions of dollars that have bankrupted the US will have all been wasted in vain and you won't be any safer now than you were before 9.11.
In fact there are probably more people in the world prepared to go Jihad on US soil than ever before due to the misguied wars that could have been swerved.
May 4, 2013, 2:48 amReply
Patrick in Michigan says
9/11 toofers are so stupid.
It was a terrorist attack, get over it.
December 11, 2013, 11:59 amReply
darkpolitics says
Nice reply. Note you didn't try and answer any of the outstanding questions like or rebut anything at all. Just a stupid response really. Please at least attempt to answer some of the questions like?
All information in these questions can be found on this and many other sites as well as MSM sites on Google like the BBC, FOX, CNN etc.
1. Why do so many New Yorkers want a new investigtion and why did the New York Council prevent this from happening even though they had enough votes to carry this out?
2. Why have 6 out of 10 of the 9.11 commissions claim that the "whole truth wasn't told and may never be known", or that "the story we were told was vastly different from the one the public has been sold". Also that the White House Lied to them, the CIA and FBI withheld evidence and prevented (even hiding) witnesses to prevent them from appearing and obstructed the commission.
3. Why and how did Israeli agents (the art spy ring) claim they were sent to "document the event" – what event were they sent to document and how did they know it would happen before time? This clip of their interview on Israeli TV is easily found on Youtube.
4. Why were Israeli Mossad agents following the 9.11 hijackers around the USA in the year before hand? Did they know a plot was happening or were they ensuring it did happen? Did they tell the US agencies about it (obviously not or it would have been stopped OR maybe allowed to happen on purpose)
5. Why was the NIST report on WTC7 filled will so many holes, missing building parts, computer models that were based on incorrect input parameters and a scenario which didn't lool like the collapse. A collapse in which multiple witnesses heard countdowns, saw flash cutter explosions and heard explosions. One in which the laws of physics were broken by an admitted free fall collapse of over 2 seconds occurring. Something not possible unless all resistence had been removed somehow – something a fire would not be capable of doing.
6. Why did Pearl Harbour have 7 inquiries yet 9.11 have a single one, an underfunded, reluctunantly held inquiry that was only opened after massive pressure from victims families. You would think they would want to answer ALL the questions not just cover them up with paper thin lies. In fact the inquiry was in place of a proper criminal investigation (which has never been held into the events of the day) and used to sell the war on terror. A horrible term that has been used to take away all your liberties and freedoms that George Bush claimed the terrorists "hated you for". So you have basically done the terrorists job for them by handing over your freedoms on a plate.
8. How do you respond to Norman Mineta's testimony which proves Dick Cheney was lying about his timings. Also what was meant by the "orders still stand" comment he said to an underling as the bogey came nearer and nearer to the Pentagon. If the orders were to shoot down the bogey then why did nothing happen? We can deduce from this that the orders were to do NOTHING and allow the building to be hit. Otherwise the orders would have been the opposite of what actually happened.
9. Do you believe in massive co-incidence theories over conspiracy theories? Do you believe conspiries like JFK, the Lavron Affair and the Suez War never happened? Do you think all the criminal trials each year in which conspiracy is involved are fake or that only small criminals carry out conspiracies NEVER high up rich powerful people with the means and methods to control the outcome and the medias response to the event? First we have 3 tall steel framed buildings collapsed by fire alone on same day, owned by same person. We also have all of the planes successfully hijacked by ruidmentary weapons and easily hijacked with no NORAD response (after a very recent change in the re-action protocol that would have meant a speedy response by planes only months before). What about the massive war games exercise using the same targets on the same day as the attack which confused so many FAA workers they didn't know if the attacks were real or part of the exercise. If this exercise had not been carried out appropriate measures could have been taken to take out the planes – whose idea was it to have this exercise on 9.11.
10. Why was bin-Ladens name get put out as the prime suspect and tried by media without any criminal investigation – even going to war with Afghanistan before the evidence the Taliban wanted to see happened. If bin-Laden was the mastermind why did't we prove it with evidence and then show the world? Instead within hours of the attack we had tried and convicted him even though he adnitted in an interview that he had nothing to do with it. Even the FBI admit there is not enough evidence to link him to 9.11 unlike USS Cole etc. Also Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was supposedly behind the attacks so why do people think bin-Laden was behind it?
11. Why were plans to invade Afghanistan already drawn up before 9.11. Why did G W Bush want to invade Iraq before 9.11 and use it as an excuse to do so when the country had nothing to do with the attacks. Do you see no link with the PNAC document and the acts ofthe people who wrote it who were in power at the time? Was that just co-incidence as well?
12. Just becuause Islamic terrorists may have been behind the plane controlers it does not mean the attack was either co-opted (informers, plants telling CIA/Mossad handlers about the attacks like the previous WTC bombind in which the FBI agent was told NOT to replace the real explosive with fake material ensuring people died), or that the terrorist cells were not fake or owned (there exists plenty of evidence of fake al-Qaeda cells being created by Mossad to scare their own people). bin-Laden worked with the CIA during the war against USSR in the Stan in the 80's where he was declared a freedom fighter and the US gave the Mujahideen Weapons, $$ and training. Blow Back is the word I believe yet Sibel Edmonds (the most gagged woman in US history) has claimed bin-Laden and al-Qaeda had close links right up to 9.11. CIA agents visited him in hospital just before the attacks. We have helped the al-Qaeda linked KLA (Kosovan Liberation Army – a terrorist organisation also helped by al-Qaeda) in the war with Serbia. MI6 paid the LIFG another al-Qaeda linked organisation to try and kill Gaddafi and we have just had a close shave in Syria which was only stopped by US soldiers bravely claiming they did not sign up to fight in the US military to fight alongside al-Qaeda. Therefore the US links with this organisation are closer than you think.
13. And what of ABLE Danger a program which identified the hijackers yet was ignored and shut down. Did someone want the attacks to happen? Terrorists were given passports by US consultates so they could be trained to fight the Soviets. The same consulates were told to give 9.11 hijackers passports even though they were on no fly lists – why?
They are just a tiny amount of questions you failed to even respond to. Either they don't matter or you don't care that your Goverment has closer ties to al-Qaeda than you would like – which is it?
December 11, 2013, 1:51 pmReply
ewingsc says
The first documentary on the 9/11 'debate'
has just been released – and is probably the best doco on 9/11 that I've yet seen.
It can be found by putting 'New Pearl Harbour'
into youtube.
Part 3 is the best part – as it deals with the WTC demolitions.
One question the shills can't answer is :
'How did WTC 7 achieve a period of freefall
– without the use of controlled demolition technology ?'
December 16, 2013, 1:36 amReply
I agree. The free fall for 2+ seconds is troubling and NIST say a single point of weakness was the initaition for the buildings collapse which dosen't logially explain how the bulding fell looking as if multiple points of the structure had been destroyed, removed, demolished etc.
Yes there are lots of great new 9.11 docs out which seem to be putting it all together not just raising more questions which is good. I have seen many lately.
There is a good video on the Pentagon attack and an talk by an ex Reagan administration official which explains both by why some people say they saw a plane fly into the building and why the entry hole doesn't look big enough. See this article which contains the videos and the conclusion > http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2013/08/is-the-pentagon-attack-finally-solved/
Roger Charlesworth says
This is a massive subject and I apologise in advance if my issue has been referenced above. I understand a plaque has recently been placed at Ground Zero showing all the names of all those who died. Does that include the passengers of the planes and their crew? I have never heard of anyone who has a relative who was a passenger and who died. This is extremely easy to check on. The airline pilots association could also give feedback. Even BOEING must have information on replacement parts if they were subsequently supplied to those specific aircraft after 911.
January 31, 2014, 12:57 pmReply
It hasn't been discussed. I have heard that at least 2 of the planes flight numbers are supposed to be still in use and the link to the article below discusses issues related to the flights, passengers, phone calls and so on. Showing how the timings of the calls don't match up with the official story and how the FBI changed their events when it came to the trials.
http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2012/03/the-911-passenger-paradox-what-happened-to-flight-93/
I think David Ray Griffin has a whole article on that side of things somewhere as well which may be linked to from that essay.
Also you might find something in this video or the interview with David Ray Griffin on TalkSport > http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2013/07/9-11-remaining-questions-and-no-answers/
I am pretty sure he documented each call and how it didn't match with the trial evidence or logistics at the time.
How true that all is only a full criminal investigation can tell us – which is what I think the US needs not a phony – pro-Iraq war commission where evidence is ignored or left out and the CIA/White House can ignore questions and hide witnesses etc.
January 31, 2014, 4:01 pmReply
Baron says
Excellent but too elaborate. You assume you are debating with a person that really wants to listen.
Why not just say:- 3000 innocent people were murdered in the World Trade Centre so it was officially a 'crime scene'. The state took away the evidence before an investigation had taken place, therefore, the state is guilty of covering-up a crime. What reason could they have for doing that?
March 21, 2015, 2:11 pmReply
Continuing the Discussion
Tweets that mention 9.11 sceptics versus logic, reason and scientific principles | Dark Politricks -- Topsy.com linked to this post on October 23, 2010
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by DarkPolitricks, Dark Politricks RT. Dark Politricks RT said: New article on darkpolitricks: 9.11 Sceptics versus logic, reason and scientific principles http://bit.ly/a64NMM #911 #Cheney #conspiracy […]
Tom Ridge, Bin Laden and the War on Terror | ctrlZworld linked to this post on January 30, 2011
[…] has no authority explained the collapse of WTC-7 the third tower, not hit by a plane, that collapsed into it's own footprint later that day. A […]
June 10, 2011: Today's Alternative News « Sheep Pee! linked to this post on June 10, 2011
[…] 9.11 skeptics versus logic, reason and scientific principles June 10, 2011 […]
Does the American public want more of the same, or more of the same under a different name? | Hot to Spot linked to this post on February 13, 2012
[…] against the American people and the countries they went to war against. He has not investigated the events of 9.11 which still remain the catalyst for the transformation of America into the militarised Police state […]
9.11, WTC-7 and the Pentagon attacks that have led to 11 years of war « Dark Politics linked to this post on September 11, 2012
[…] you have not read this article already I suggest reading it as well as the comment debate below as it shows the sort of people we are up […]
Just a few of the things we have done wrong in the last ten years « Dark Politics linked to this poston September 22, 2012
[…] A flawed NIST report that differed from it's intermediary report by having missing building parts and relying on a computer model with loaded parameters such as only heating certain parts of the building to make it collapse. Anyone can make anything happen with a computer model if they set the parameters correctly and play with them until they get the desired result. […]
'Knocked out with metal bars for lack of anesthesia' – report details collapse of Syria's healthcare | ChildreninShadow.wordpress.com linked to this post on March 10, 2014
[…] 9.11 skeptics versus logic, reason and scientific principlesRated 5/5 (31 Votes) […]
9/11 The Anatomy of a Great Deception – Please Watch This Is If You Want To Know The Basics About 9/1 Conspiracy Theories | Dark Politics linked to this post on October 27, 2014
Labels: 9.11, 9.11 Debate, 9/11, al-Qaeda, bin-Laden, Comments, Debate, Dick Cheney, Iraq war, No Planes, PNAC, Twin Towers, war, WTC-7
The Drug Laws Need Rethinking
Terrorism is not an excuse for the loss of our lib...
What's the difference between a Cult and Organised...
CIA and its links to the Opium trade in Afghanistan
9.11 cannot be forgotten, the trolls are out smear...
Does Anti-Zionism equate to Anti-Semitism
What level of tyranny will it take for Americans t...
Amerika, A modern day East Germany
Israel Massacre Kids and Women with Snipers - Worl...
Remember The Pentagon Plane Attack Impossibilities
9.11 and the clash of civilisations
Part 2 - Comments and Debate over 9.11 Skeptics v ...
Comments and debate over the 9.11 Skeptics versus ...
9.11 skeptics versus logic, reason and scientific ...
A CIA Agents Deathbed Confession to Demolishing WT...
Who Owns The Bank Of England?
Alternative Media Under Attack and a History of Do...
Rand Paul: 'Extraordinary Moment' When Senate Pass...
Nancy Pelosi Says She Would "Close Ther Government...
Israels Hasbara Brigades Attack Any YouTube channe...
Trump threatens a revolution if Congress tries to ...