Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 30, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates








Truthdig Bazaar
‘A Billion Wicked Thoughts’

‘A Billion Wicked Thoughts’

By Ogi Ogas (Author), Sai Gaddam (Author)

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

9/11 Model Backs Up Tower Collapse Theory

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jun 20, 2007

A two-year study of the World Trade Center Towers’ collapse by Purdue University has reaffirmed the findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which suggested that the buildings crashed under their own weight after crucial support columns and fireproofing were damaged or destroyed. The research team released an animation of the first plane’s collision to show how heat and flame eventually brought the towers down.


Watch the animation:

AP via Yahoo:

The two-year Purdue University study, funded in part by the National Science Foundation, was the first to use 3-D animation to provide visual context to the attacks, said Christoph Hoffmann, a professor of computer science and one of the lead researchers on the project.

“One thing it does point out ... is the absolute essential nature of fireproofing steel structures,” Hoffmann told the Associated Press. “This is something that wasn’t done originally in the World Trade Center when it was built. It wasn’t code at that time.”

Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering and a lead investigator on the simulation, said Purdue researchers hope their work leads to better structural design and building codes to prevent similar collapses.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Len Hart, June 15, 2008 at 8:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Aluminum bodies are shown SLICING through steel girders like a hot knife through butter. But I’ve never seen butter slice though knives of any sort.

The Perdue study—in fact federally financed by folk who have an interest in promoting the official conspiracy theory—PROVES that anyone with 3DSMax can animate anything! And a good job of animated fiction it is too!

Disney animated a mouse! Does that mean Mickey is real?

Report this

By aries, July 12, 2007 at 4:59 pm Link to this comment

Sometimes I am just dumbfounded beyond words by the things presented to the American people by the powers that be, and they expect us to believe these lies. The sad thing is, so many would rather wave a flag and believe whatever they are told than open their eyes, get off their butts and do something. I just find it hard to comprehend that people can be so naive. This nation is being run by liars, criminals and cheap thugs…period!

Report this

By sdk, July 8, 2007 at 8:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am quite certian that they have introduced a lot of energy—unaccounted for in a real world model—to make their model exciting to watch.

Namely, they describe the event as like lava rushing through the structure.  Lava, like molten rocks and minerals?  Of course, no airplane can reach or sustain a the temperature of lave, and I pointed it out to the Purdue team.

They said the metaphor was perhaps exagerated, but believed that the temperatures were very high.  Really?  How does this happen?  Where is the energy coming from?

Small pertibations of initial conditions have dramatic consequences.  Studies in meterology noted how changes in the sixth decimal place of accuracy over time would produce much different results.  This was the birth of chaos theory.

This was a show—a spectacular display of programming.  But, it is not realistic.  Purdue needs to get off the computer, build a steel frame and launch a model plane into it, and see what happens.  It will not look so exciting, I am sure.

Report this

By cyrena, July 8, 2007 at 7:43 am Link to this comment

comment#85000 by CitizenDefender on 7/08 at 4:55 am

CitzDef:

I’ve saved the link to the video, and I’ll watch it later in the day.

And yes, I agree with all you’ve suggested. We need some accountability here, so we can get on with things. Otherwise, you are sadly correct, that we can’t expect anything to get better. We’re long over the cliff by now. All we can do is try to break the fall. Even that gets more and more difficult by the day.

Report this

By CitizenDefender, July 8, 2007 at 5:55 am Link to this comment

9/11 Model Backs Up Tower Collapse Theory-Like Hell it does!

The study was flawed but more accurate than many previous accounts. When the World Trade Center Buildings 1 and 2 collapsed at near freefall speed I was shocked. Then it gradually grew on me that demolition brought the towers down. But even that did not explain things like steel beams being turned to dust. Only a weapon unknown to the public could have done that. A particle beam weapon however could vibrate molecules in such a way as to change their very atomic structure.
Whether placed in space and directed toward the towers or located within close proximity makes little difference. The simple fact is our own government conveniently cleaned up the mess using demolition and exotic weapons turning the people trapped inside to dust. People if you are not being vigilant in making this administration accountable for all breaches to their oath of office then expect worse things to happen. The Bush administration going back to Bush, Sr. has created a Police State of our country all in the name of protecting us. I have included a 2 hour presentation by Alex Jones. If you have the time please watch it. http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=6bzgc63whs

Report this

By blog dog, June 27, 2007 at 9:41 pm Link to this comment

#81966 by 911truthdotorg on 6/27 at 7:26 pm
(113 comments total) — “Jon Stewart brought up the 9/11 Pentagon issue
just so he could mock it and the 9/11 Truthers.”

********** good point - just like Alex Cockburn, nobody made him author those diatribes against the 911 Truth movement. Now it could be that they’ve become irritated by people writing to them about their not lending their support, which they won’t do because they’re too chicken. Their irritation gets the better of them and instead of admitting that 911 lies from the regime fit perfectly with its lying about everything else, they mock the movement.

The real test would be this: if any of us enjoyed their salaries and moment of fame in the quicksilver celebrity firmament, would we risk it to throw in with the heavy lifting the rest of us are doing? There are a lot of us at it. Can you imagine either of their agents encouraging them to lend their voices? No way, it’s like this: “Hey take it easy. Sure, it was an inside job, but there’s a lot of 911 Truth advocates. You don’t need to ruin your career over it. Just wait till it picks up some more steam and is safer. Don’t touch it!”

But, as you point out, they do, in a glib way. At the end of the day a lot of social critics are simply glib. Anything’s fair game. You see it all the time in all these little crappy hippoisie Village Voice knock-offs. Every midsize city in the country’s got at least one. Glibness is their most common denominator — it’s de rigeur — it’s the Daily Show.

Report this

By 911truthdotorg, June 27, 2007 at 8:26 pm Link to this comment

blog dog -

Excellent point and I do understand that, but
Jon Stewart brought up the 9/11 Pentagon issue
just so he could mock it and the 9/11 Truthers.

The interview didn’t seem like it was going in that direction but he steered it that way. The author did not bring up 9/11.

It was deliberate on his part.

Google videos: 9/11 Press for Truth, Loose Change 2nd Edition

Report this

By PaulMagillSmith, June 27, 2007 at 1:33 am Link to this comment

After reading numerous (perhaps hundreds) of posts by Ernest Canning I find him to be literate & informed on a variety of issues. Originally he appeared very skeptical about thinking 911 was an ‘inside job’, but after viewing

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586

apparently he has changed his mind (smart people are able to do this when presented with logic & facts, despite political or religous inclinations). Because of my limited computer & connection capabilities I haven’t yet been able to view this video, but I intend to do so because I respect Ernest’s judgement, leading me to believe it more important than ‘Loose Change: 2nd Edition’, even, in the search for the truth of what really happened surrounding the events of 911.

For those of you who do take the time (he said it is worth the 2 hours of anyone’s time interested in truth) I would like your comments & opinions, but only if your views are constructive & expressed in a civil manner. Thanks

Report this

By blog dog, June 26, 2007 at 9:41 pm Link to this comment

RE: #81639 by 911truthdotorg on 6/26 at 8:12 pm
(111 comments total)

Jon Stewart is SO part of the problem!!

============ along with most media, academic and political figures — 911 Truth is the 3rd rail of all public life.

For those in positions of power, immune from such pressure (i.e. back-room, Capitol Hill deal makers, Wall Street and City of London financiers), the 911 coup is an open secret. The numerous limited hangouts (e.g. books by Ritter, Dremheller, Lance, Woodward, Ricks, et al) and efforts like the Iraq Study Group and now the call for a draw down from Lugar, are all designed to rein in the strangelove neocon madmen and their rogue network, before they start WWIII, but to do so without blowing the 911 cover up, triggering the biggest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War and precipitate a global financial meltdown.

Report this

By 911truthdotorg, June 26, 2007 at 9:12 pm Link to this comment

Jon Stewart is SO part of the problem!!

Last night (6/25/07) Jon Stewart from the Daily Show had an author on who had written a book about
the history of the Pentagon. His name is Steve Vogel and the book is titled
“The Pentagon - A History”.

Towards the end of the interview Jon Stewart starts making fun of those
“crazy conspiracy theories” that a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon and he asked
Mr. Vogel to debunk those theories.

Mr Vogel goes on to say (I’m paraphrasing) that all you have to do is talk to the family members
who died on the plane or in the Pentagon and once you see that reality you know what really
happened. 

My jaw just hit the floor!!  UNBELIEVABLE!!!

I don’t have a direct link because it’s a Flash video, but go here and do a search
for the video of Steve Vogel on 6/25/07.

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml

Report this

By PaulMagillSmith, June 24, 2007 at 11:18 am Link to this comment

RE: #80828 by cyrena on 6/23 at 9:20 pm
(124 comments total)

“Humm, interesting remark about the plastic on the nosecone. Admittedly, it’s been over 6 years since I’ve looked at the nosecone on a 757 or 767, but I’m pretty sure there isn’t any plastic on them.”

I’m not an expert on this part of the subject (maybe someone else is on this thread who has proper info?), but from something I saw somewhere the nosecones ARE made of plastic, because there are navigational instruments & sensors in them that would be adversely affected by a metal enclosure. With the high state of plastics technology today I imagine it would be impossible to determine their composition by merely looking at them, though.

Report this

By sdk, June 24, 2007 at 9:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

People need to read the Purdue team paper “A High-Quality Physically-Accurate Visualization of the September 11 Attack on the World Trade Center.”

The paper states “... On the one hand the simulation of the September 11 2001 Attack had to follow the laws of physics as closely as possible.” Are these laws negotiable?

Report this

By 911truthdotorg, June 24, 2007 at 9:20 am Link to this comment

If this Purdue animation is the supposed truth of what really happened on 9/11, I guess that means that every other animation in history is REAL!!

Mickey Mouse and all Disney characters are real!
Shrek!
Spiderman!
Superman!

I think you get my point.

Google videos: 9/11 Press for Truth, Loose Change 2nd Edition

Report this

By cyrena, June 23, 2007 at 10:20 pm Link to this comment

Humm, interesting remark about the plastic on the nosecone. Admittedly, it’s been over 6 years since I’ve looked at the nosecone on a 757 or 767, but I’m pretty sure there isn’t any plastic on them. That would worry me. The nosecone however, (plastic or not) would be unlikely to come out the other side of that building, -intact-. It defines that laws of everything, just like it defies the laws of -everything- to think that the airplanes alone, brought those towers down. It is an impossibility.

It is also totally outrageous to expect any rational person to accept that an airplane crashed into the pentagon, and everything just evaporated. That didn’t happen either. We know what airplane crash sites look like, (unfortunately, since they are not pretty sites) and 6 years later, I’m still looking for some signs that an airplane crash actually occured at the Pentagon.

And,

Report this

By myra99, June 23, 2007 at 1:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Emailed to 2500 opinion-shapers weekly
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
S O M E O F T H E A B O V E   N E W S      
====================::::::::::::::::::::::
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~::::::::::::
===================================:::::::
  Please post and forward as appropriate
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“....those who make blanket condemnations of “conspiracy theories” base their own view on a farfetched theory indeed, namely that whatever those in high office actually do, they are essentially men of goodwill. According to this school of special pleading - the ‘King can do no wrong’ doctrine suitably updated - it is entirely proper to praise an American President for skillfully engineering some desirable result, but to note the same skillful engineering of an indefensible one is to fall victim to ‘political paranoia’ and ‘conspiritorial fetishism’ on a par with subscribing to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion….”
  [From INDISPENSABLE ENEMIES The Politics of Misrule in America by Walter Karp]
======================================================

Jones Report - Michael Moore: “I support… a new investigation of this, before we get too far away from it.”
By Reprehensor
Created 2007-06-19 06:24
Discusses Explosions in Buildings, Demands ‘100 Angles’ of Pentagon Video, and Calls for a New Investigation—“They Haven’t Even Told Us Half the Truth.”

Aaron Dykes / Jones Report | June 19, 2007

Academy Award winner Michael Moore answered questions on 9/11 truth during a sneak peak of his new documentary, SiCKO, in New York . Our reporters were initially avoided by Moore, but he subsequently decided to approach We Are Change.org/ Infowars.com reporters for a discussion.

Moore brought up his lingering questions on 9/11, which are a clear departure from the ‘government negligence’ picture he painted in his film Fahrenheit 9/11, released some three years ago.

Moore told reporters, “I’ve had a number of firefighters tell me over the years and since Fahrenheit 9/11 that they heard these explosions—that they believe there’s MUCH more to the story than we’ve been told. I don’t think the official investigations have told us the complete truth—they haven’t even told us half the truth.”

Source URL:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/9427

======================================================

LATEST:
From Air America Radio’s The Thom Hartmann Program June 19 at about 11:25 AM Pacific time:

Thom Hartmann Program will devote “an entire [3 hour]show” to the raging 9/11 Truth vs. official conspiracy theory controversy, “sometime in the next couple of weeks.”

We believe we can count on this as a reliable promise.
We hope someone of the stature of Dr. David Ray Griffin (DEBUNKING THE DEBUNKERS)can make themselves available for this.

As they say in Seattle:IT’S GONNA BE A G R E A T SHOW!
DON’T MISS IT!

Report this

By sdk, June 23, 2007 at 12:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The video animation is impressive as a presentation.  However, the parameters defining their structures, etc.—the physical parameters defining their model are what really matter.

Purdue needs to produce a scholarly paper and the model code/parameters for independent verification. 

I cannot really believe their result, any more than I believe a real person can leap and bound like Lara Croft, unless I see the parameters.

But, in my years of work analysing missile tests, I have never seen a weapon that could produce the rapid and symmetrical failure that we saw on 911.  Who has?

Report this

By blog dog, June 23, 2007 at 1:42 am Link to this comment

#80626 by CB_Brooklyn on 6/23 at 12:12 am
(1 comments total)

If a 767 crashes into a building, is its plastic nosecone going to pop out the other side?

+++++  insightful - I heard intrepid Left Gatekeeper Laura Flanders dismiss a caller to her Radio Nation show, who wanted to discuss the Pentagon black op., with this amazing statement:  “Forget it, I talked to someone who told me they saw the nosecone of the plane in the wreckage.”

Picking a fight with so-called progressive voices is considered bad form by some. It’s hard to say how much slack Laura, Amy, Noam, et al should be cut. Some are calling them rich assets. Makes one wonder.

Report this

By CB_Brooklyn, June 23, 2007 at 1:12 am Link to this comment

If a 767 crashes into a building, is its plastic nosecone going to pop out the other side?

The groundbreaking 9/11 film “September Clues” offers NEW analysis and is a must watch for anyone interested in the real truth of 9/11.

See September Clues in the following five 10-minute segments:
(more to be made)


http://www.livevideo.com/video/6F393F4DE41C4CF798CBB438E6378129/september-clues-part1.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/2CE2112F00F24F4182C73582D0F89949/september-clues-part2.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/E0E8DC73928D42D4A01CF664B22E16B5/september-clues-part3.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/3F706266A8524D6AA3CCC4CFC2F0F257/september-clues-part4.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/0A68FD7C73F8440E9CDCAE38D86C5129/september-clues-part5.aspx

Report this

By 911truthdotorg, June 22, 2007 at 9:31 pm Link to this comment

New 9/11 Study Has Direct Links To Government, Pentagon Black Ops “Independent” study financed by Feds

Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, June 22, 2007
 
A newly released Purdue University animation showing how fire caused the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11 claims to be independent but in reality has been federally funded and was conducted by individuals with direct links to the Pentagon and the White House.

Earlier this week we covered the news that the new study roughly correlates with the findings of the 2005 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report and supports the official line that the airplanes stripped away crucial fireproofing material and that the weakened towers collapsed under their own weight.

While the New York Times today lauds the study as “a counterpoint to the conspiracy theories promulgated by such outspoken figures as Rosie O’Donnell”, Prisonplanet.com has actually done some research into the origins of the study.

In addition to the inerrant flaws and conflicts we pointed out in our previous article, it has now come to light that the so called “independent” structural engineers behind the study are anything but.

The Study was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), a federal agency created by Congress in 1950 “to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…”.

The board of the NSF was appointed by George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate. Its director, Dr. Arden L. Bement Jr, has worked for the Department of defense, where he was under secretary for research and engineering, and DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), which is responsible for the development of new technology for use by the military and famed for its black op projects and offshoot offices.

Last year the Bush Administration doubled the NSF’s budget to $6.02 billion.

At the time Arden L. Bement, Jr. stated:

“This is a great day for NSF, and that means it’s a great day for the nation, there has been a lot of rhetoric about doubling the NSF budget, but now the Administration is behind it. The FY 2007 Budget Request is the first installment. We are grateful to the Administration for its recognition and leadership,”


In addition it turns out that structural engineer Mete Sozen, the lead investigator in the Purdue study, was also on the American Society of Civil Engineers research team that confirmed the government’s story about the OKC bombing in 1995, despite the huge amounts of inconsistencies and conflicting testimony.

Coincidence?

From the ASCE web site

  Mete A. Sozen, Ph.D., S.E.
  Kettlehut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University
  Specialty: Behavior of reinforced-concrete structures

  Dr. Sozen is currently the Kettlehut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind. Prior to joining Purdue in 1994, Dr. Sozen was a professor of civil engineering at the University of Illinois for over 35 years. Dr. Sozen also served on the ASCE team that studied the Murrah Federal Office Building collapse.

So while it claims to be independent the study was in fact funded by the government and carried out by long time government hired hands. The study clearly set out not to attempt to discover anything new but to prove the preconceived official fire theory.

Again this underscores the fact that a truly independent investigation into 9/11 is the only way the mountains of evidence pointing towards a controlled demolition will even be considered.

Google videos: 9/11 Press for Truth, Loose Change 2nd Edition

Report this

By Frosted Flake, June 22, 2007 at 4:49 pm Link to this comment

Dialectics
Yes, I overreached a bit. I felt compelled to clarify in the direction you had pointed. I’m sorry it annoyed you. I meant to annoy KC.
Frosted Flake

Report this

By Truthnow, June 22, 2007 at 2:20 pm Link to this comment

One last thing. Archeon of thrace said that what we all thought were squibs were just pockets of air pressure.


Ok First if this were true would they not have been random burst and would we not have seen more of them in all places on the outside of the building? And what are the chances that all the pockets we see are located in the same areas of the towers? it seems to me that there is just a little too much coincidence that they all were in the same places.

And Now on to wtc7. Archeon have you seen the collapse videos? If not watch them again and tell me that the squibs in the upper right corner and up the middle were all just air pockets that happened to blow at the same time and in exactly the same places that a controlled demolitions squib’s would be at. Any mediocre police detective that was investigating this as a homicide case (which is what it is) would find all these coincidences just a little to coincidental to be a coincidence. I mean go to a prison and find out how many people are there that were convicted on circumstantial evidence. The bottom line is this, usually small amounts of coincidence is not coincidence at all but in fact was collaboration. And in the case of 9/11 The amount of coincidences is massive. which is highly unlikely to be just mere coincidence. In fact you have a better chance of winning the lottery than the possibility of all these coincidences being merely that.


Please do some research before you come up with your uninformed posts.

Report this

By Hemi*, June 22, 2007 at 2:00 pm Link to this comment

“The essential point of it is, in order to fall down, rather than sideways, the damage done to the towers and Building 7 (keep in mind we are talking about three seperate occasions) would have had to have been symmetrical. Otherwise, a part of the supporting structure would have held up longer than another part. This would have, of neccesity, resulted in a deflection of momenum to the side, in the direction of the side of the building that began to collapse first. Thus the analogy of the tree.” - Frosted Flake

Makes sense that at some point in these structures heat and physical damage was not evenly distributed by the random strikes of the planes.

“If no takers, we could instead consider what Dialectis pointed at in the objection made to my tree, that some of the steel structure remained intact (poking up out of the rubble) even though an entire world trade tower had fallen right atop.” - FF

There would have been no need to do as much to the bottom as the top, the bottom would not be falling much like a tree stump.

Good stuff FF!

Report this

By great_satan, June 22, 2007 at 1:20 pm Link to this comment

#80465 by Frosted Flake on 6/22 at 9:47 am
  FF, i agree. I was just saying the tree analogy doesn’t hold up to close scrutiny. Most analogy doesn’t.
  But as an example, trees are solid, buildings aren’t, so the specific comparison is week. I’ve completely believed the buildings were imploded from the moment I saw them come down almost six years ago.

Report this

By Truthnow, June 22, 2007 at 12:59 pm Link to this comment

OK first jon007. If you think that the government has never done anything like this before than you need to do some research. False flag terrorism has been the CIA’s best weapon in overthrowing numerous regimes. Check your history before you call this silly and insane instead of recognizing it for what it is. A form of control.

Next to mike in ny. Yes i read the news everday and trying to compare a tanker truck fire under an overpass to 110 story tall building which completley disintegrated is burying your head in the sand. the official reports admit that the steel never even reached tempuratures above 350 C from the steel they examined. and still how could it have possibly gotten hot enough to make three distinct pools of molten metal. But you just look at your overpass collapse and call it good.

One more thing for jon 007. There have been numerous reports of power shutdowns and work going on in those buildings in the weeks before 911. and remeber marvin bush was in charge of securcom up until 911. so is that just a coincedence. And did you also know about the billion dollar absetos removal that was need in the wtc towers. And dont forget that the towers were losing leasers and many even silverstein himself wanted to get rid of those towers. do some research on that.

And last but not least. TO NILROTH.

You call me a liar but now someone posted the link to thom hartman’s call so why no response. You need to seriously look at what i said and check to see if it is true. because it is and they wont debate. And why not cause you seem to be willing so why dont you do it.


thank you to all the 911 truthers who see that this is not a matter of left and right but a matter of right and wrong. to the rest of you enjoy american idol and your rfid chips and banker elitist controllers who are slowly implementing more and more control over you.

Report this

By Frosted Flake, June 22, 2007 at 10:54 am Link to this comment

You don’t like my tree? Aw, gee!

Allow me to address the objections.

It boggles the mind that someone would seriously compare the pancaking of the towers to that of a tree being cut down and not collapsing in upon itself. Trees, a solid mind you, are cut and/or burned from the outside, and when one outside area is weakened it topples over. All the World Trade Center towers prove is that the outside structure was far stronger than the buildings internal elements, even with airplane sized holes in them.

The error KC is making here is taking the events of 9/11 as if they were the standard against which reality is to be compared. This is backward. The correct thing to do is, take reality as the standard and compare the events of 9/11 to that standard. the differances noted are not problems with reality, the problems are with the official explanation of 9/11.

Dialecticks as well as KC take issue with the use of a tree a model for a rigid structure. I don’t claim it a perfect model, merely an accessable one. And I find the objections raised (so far) insufficient to motivate discarding it.

Examination ; Both objections suppose a massive structural failure in both towers, but suppose differant reasons. KC supposes…magic, it looks like. the reasoning seems to be ; the towers fell, KC can’t imagine why, he has heard that someone said he knew, so points in that general direction while calling me a fool. What I hear is not sufficiently organized to be suseptable to easy refutation, I would first have to make up KC’s mind, and then I could tell him why he is wrong. This is difficult. No doubt KC will find it offensive. But the alternative is to fail to respond to KC’s alledged point, and that ain’t gonna go.

There is two ways to read what KC wrote. 1/The impact severed columns which brought the towers down. Clearly, he couldn’t have meant that, for they didn’t come down immediatly. 2/Fire heated the (unbelievably massive 22” x 54” Steel) columns untill they buckled. Clearly, he couldn’t have meant that, for the fires were very hot for a very short time which ended quite a while before the towers suddenly collapsed straight down.

(Apologies. This post exceeded the 4000 character limit. I didn’t know about the limit. Rather than rewrite, I have cut the post in two. This is the first part, which I posted second - in order that it appear on the page in the correct order. I hope this is ok, that I am doing it correctly, and I hope I am not being annoying. I will avoid exceeding 4000 in future. FF)

Report this

By Frosted Flake, June 22, 2007 at 10:47 am Link to this comment

(apologies. I ran into the 4000 character cutoff. Rather that trying to rewrite, I have broken the post in two. Hope that is ok. Hope it matches up right. FF)

Dialectics, by contrast, objects that trees don’t collapse like buildings do when thier structure is cut up by demolition experts. Right. What I was saying is, buildings don’t collapse like buildings do when thier structure is cut up by demolition experts unless thier structure is ... cut up by demolition experts. In the absence of demolition experts, buildings which fall tend to fall over, not straight down. They tend to fall onto adjacent buildings, and if tall, then onto several adjacent buildings. It seems that where Dialectics and I part company is in considering how much larger a disaster 9/11 would have been had those towers collapsed without control. I admit that is scary to think about.

But the analogy of the tree stands. (pun…sorry) The essential point of it is, in order to fall down, rather than sideways, the damage done to the towers and Building 7 (keep in mind we are talking about three seperate occasions) would have had to have been symmetrical. Otherwise, a part of the supporting structure would have held up longer than another part. This would have, of neccesity, resulted in a deflection of momenum to the side, in the direction of the side of the building that began to collapse first. Thus the analogy of the tree. The failure of one column cannot cause a box beam structure to disintigrate, any more than cutting a tree causes it to disintegrate.

The evidence is, all three buildings failed in exactly the same way, symmetrically. Does anyone care to compute the odds of this happening by chance? If no takers, we could instead consider what Dialectis pointed at in the objection made to my tree, that some of the steel structure remained intact (poking up out of the rubble) even though an entire world trade tower had fallen right atop. This is the kind of strength built into the bones of that structure. Many seem to think the towers were made of paper mache’. But the truth is, they only looked that way, and only for a moment.
Frosted Flake

Report this

By great_satan, June 22, 2007 at 9:14 am Link to this comment

#80397 by Mekt_Ranzz on 6/22 at 6:41 am

The tree analogy is a good one!”

  The tree analogy doesn’t really hold up. I gave Frosted Flake a general “Amen,” but the analogy doesn’t endure close scrutiny.
  Trees do not implode when certain places in them are severed, unless its an old rotten. hollow tree.
  Buildings do implode when certain places in their supports are severed. However, buildings do not implode when the a chunk is taken out from the side of them.
  The weight of the upper 25% of a building doesn’t completely squash the mass of lower 75%, even if it kinda falls down on it a few stories.
  If this were the case, then certainly the top 99% of the building would have squashed the bottom 1% of the building from just standing there.
  Remove just a few strategic supports and it does just collapse on itself. This is not the case with trees.

  So, I hereby retitle the “Official Theory” the Djini theory. Bin Laden is actually a Djini. He eluded all those FBI agents and suppressed NORAD’s response and changed the laws of physics with his mystical Middle Eastern Djini powers. Bush Sr. found the lamp and passed it on to Jr. Jr just happened to say, “I wish I could be a popular president and all my buddies could get really rich.” The djini did the rest.

Report this

By Mekt_Ranzz, June 22, 2007 at 7:57 am Link to this comment

Niloroth said: 

“This proves one of 2 things, you are lying, or you unquestioningly parrot what your leaders tell you.  which is it?

And would you like to retract that before i prove you to be one or the other?”

My response:

“Thom Hartmann’s 9/11 Debate Challenge” (which so far has gotten about 100 responses from the 9/11 truth community and 0 from the defenders of the OCT [Official Conspiracy Theory])

http://www.911blogger.com/node/9431

Former attempts by Muckraker Report to set up a national 9/11 debate:

http://muckrakerreport.com/id292.html

http://muckrakerreport.com/id273.html

http://muckrakerreport.com/id264.html

Report this

By Mekt_Ranzz, June 22, 2007 at 7:41 am Link to this comment

The tree analogy is a good one! 

The reason is because one would have to imagine that a building would be constructed more sturdy than a tree. Since when cut in half, a tree topples over, no matter where it is damaged along its center support structure, one should expect that a building would do the same.  But the towers didn’t, which strongly implies that structurally, they were weaker than trees. 

When the towers collapsed, due to damage on just one or a few floors, they started to shred and pulverize to dust, leaving virtually nothing intact.  This is completely unlike every other building collapse up to and since 9/11!  And certainly, no tree has ever collapsed like that either!

So here is the order of examples of structural stability, 1 being the strongest; 4 being the weakest:

1.  All buildings except the twin towers and WTC7.
2.  All trees.
3.  The twin towers.
4.  WTC7 (because it wasn’t even hit by a plane     and it still collapsed).

Report this

By 911truthdotorg, June 21, 2007 at 8:28 pm Link to this comment

9/11 Bombshell: WTC7 Security Official Details Explosions Inside Building
Says bombs were going off in 7 before either tower collpased

Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
     

The Alex Jones show today welcomed Loose Change creators Dylan Avery and Jason
Burmas to discuss an exclusive interview they have conducted with an individual
with high level security clearance who was inside the Office of Emergency
Management in World Trade Center 7 and has descibed and detailed explosions
inside the building prior to the collapse of any of the buildings at ground zero
on 9/11.

The interview, to be featured in the forthcoming Final Cut of Loose Change is
currently under wraps but the creators have allowed some details to leak purely
to protect themselves and the individual involved who has asked to remain
anonymous until the film is released.

We can reveal that the individual concerned was asked to report to building
seven with a city official after the first attack on the North tower but before
the second plane hit the South Tower and before their eventual collapse, in
order to provide the official with access to different floors of the building.

The city official he was escorting was attempting to reach Rudy Guiliani, who he
had determined was inside building 7 at that time. According to Avery and Burmas
this official now works for Guiliani partners.

The individual was also asked to provide access to the Office Of Emergency
Management on the 23rd floor of the building, this was the so called “bunker”
that was built inside WTC7 on the orders of Rudy Guiliani.

When he got there he found the office evacuated and after making some calls was
told to leave immediately.

It was at this point that he witnessed a bomb going off inside the building:

  “We subsequently went to the stairwell and were going down the stairs, when
we reached the sixth floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there
was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging, I had to
climb back up and now had to walk back up to the eighth floor. After getting to
the eighth floor everything was dark.”

The individual in a second clip detailed hearing further explosions and then
described what he saw when he got down to the lobby:

  “It was totally destroyed, it looked like King Kong had been through it and
stepped on it and it was so destroyed i didn’t know where I was. It was so
destroyed that had to take me out through a hole in the wall, a makeshift hole I
believe the fire department made to get me out.”

He was then told by firefighters to get twenty blocks away from the area because
explosions were going off all over the World Trade Center complex.

The key to this information is that the individual testifies this all happened
BEFORE either tower collapsed, thus building 7 was at that point completely
undamaged from any falling debris or resulting fires. It also means that
explosions were witnessed in WTC7 up to eight hours before its collapse at
around 5.30pm.

Avery says that he can and will prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the
individual was in building 7 on 9/11 and that what he is saying is accurate.

Google videos: 9/11 Press for Truth, Loose Change 2nd Edition

Report this

By KC, June 21, 2007 at 5:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It boggles the mind that someone would seriously compare the pancaking of the towers to that of a tree being cut down and not collapsing in upon itself. Trees, a solid mind you, are cut and/or burned from the outside, and when one outside area is weakened it topples over. All the World Trade Center towers prove is that the outside structure was far stronger than the buildings internal elements, even with airplane sized holes in them.

Report this

By great_satan, June 21, 2007 at 4:49 pm Link to this comment

Amen Frosted Flake.
  For anyone who thinks that rigging the towers collapse would be too elaborate, please read this.
  It is an interview, in layman’s terms about controlled demo. It is not from any context of 9/11 or any conspiracy theories. Its not done by Truthers or the governement. Its just a NOVA interview with a demolition engineer. However, the first part of it might provide a few clues.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html

Report this

By Frosted Flake, June 21, 2007 at 3:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Reboot. Perform common sense initialization. When complete, consider :

The first tower to fall landed at the foot of the other. This caused a small earthquake. That vibrated the tower yet standing, testing in the process, every weld, rivit, nut, bolt, column, beam and floorpan in the building. The tower remained standing, demonstrating itself sound in every detail. Twentyfive minutes later, minutes during which the building cooled, as the fires were largly out, and during which nothing else happened, the building suddenly collapsed.

In exactly the same way as the first had. This is a seperate, and entirely differant problem with the offical line. Cut a tree down. It falls over. Both world trade towers fell down. Both should have fallen over. Both were box structures made of the best available steel beams, each 22 inches thick and 54 inches wide. Both fell as if liquified.

And building Seven was “pulled”. Everyone got out, and then it collapsed on cue, into a pile 20 feet high and entirely within it’s original footprint.

Now, look. It is not that I don’t understand. I am aware how nice it would be (for some) if I were to shut off my B.S. Detector, and just believe what authority figures say, no matter what it is. But It is a bigger problem than that. It is my pride. I am just not that stupid, and I am too proud to pretend to be.
Frosted Flake

Report this

By great_satan, June 21, 2007 at 2:51 pm Link to this comment

John 0077:
  “I don’t want this to be the truth any more than I want a crazy ex-Marine shoot JFK with his rifle, but, absent a better explanation, that’s what happened.”

Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives. 1979.
“B. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.
C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.”

  The “conspiracy theory” is the official theory.

Report this

By niloroth, June 21, 2007 at 2:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

truthnow:

you said “One last thing to all of you that support this lie. There have been many invitations by memebers of the 911 truth movement to openly debate these questions and more with any one of the official theory supporters such as nist popular mechanics ETC. All have declined. No one will openly debate their theories. WHY? It seems to me that if the truth movements theories are just pointless blabber then these very qualified scientists should be able to debate them and put them to shame. But nope they wont do it. So Please tell me why? and dont give me any answers like they dont need to the evidence does it for them Cause that IS more BS. If it did nobody would question the official theory.”

This proves one of 2 things, you are lying, or you unquestioningly parrot what your leaders tell you.  which is it? 

And would you like to retract that before i prove you to be one or the other?

Report this

By great_satan, June 21, 2007 at 2:33 pm Link to this comment

There is some confusion as to what is being debated in general. It seems a diversion and a false progression in logic is implied.
  I have absolutely no problem with the fact that an airplane full of fuel (and maybe more,) could significantly damage the area of a building, even a steel girder building “designed to take the impact.” I mean we see that the external beams are cut like butter.
  I also don’t doubt that such damage could weaken those floors so that they could weaken the support for the upper floors. This is all within the realm of possibility and, perhaps, probability.

  But the logical fallacy is that this evidence then explains why the collapse of the upper stories onto those floors would make the whole tower go POOF!
These are two completely different arenas.

Report this
archeon of thrace's avatar

By archeon of thrace, June 21, 2007 at 2:32 pm Link to this comment

When talking about the temp of the fires in the WTC everyone forgets about the 1000’s of tons of paper, wooden furniture, wooden panelling, paint, fabrics etc that were in the various offices.  These when mixed into the jet fuel fire would have raised the temp of the fire to well within the range that would have weaken the steal beams to the point of collapse.  Anyone who uses a wood stove will know that paper burns hotter than almost anything else, many a stove has been ruined by uncontroled paper/cardboard fires.

The towers did not fall at free fall speeds, if they had they would not the tops would not have tried to over take the bottoms, which is why they started to twist and fall away from the parts of the building below the fires.

All structural steel loses strength rapidly when heated, when heated to only half of it’s melting point it has already lost mor than half it’s strength.

What everyone sees as “squibs” or explosions is merely air pressure for the inside of the collapsing buidings blowing out windows etc from the inside.

There is no conspiracy, except the one that claimed WMD’s in Iraq.

BTW, it is possible that the WTC contractors used substandard steel for some of the beams, trusses, and colums when the building was constructed.

Report this

By Louise, June 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#80098 by Chris
“I must ask this question:  Is Purdue on the government payroll?”

YES!
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4905202.html

I suggest the absence of common sense so prevalent among those determined to DEFEND the ADMINISTRATION and the NEOCONS and their OFFICIAL 9/11 story is motivated not by a desire for truth, but a FEAR of being labeled “CONSPIRACY THEORIST” a sad commentary on their professed desire to see honesty restored to our government and a better informed population.

In the forty’s and fifty’s, Architects and Engineers designing private residences using steel columns and beams, were met with opposition from fire insurance underwriters. Convinced that the steel would melt if the house caught fire, their ignorance led to municipalities refusing to issue building permits. And banks refusing to finance them.

By mid-fifty’s the industry got smart and today steel is often the most cost effective and safe way to build those mini-mansions every body wants.

Once, the rule of thumb was steel on steel, steel on concrete. But as stress, deflection and sheer factors became more prominent in design, steel on wood became acceptable and preferred in some cases. The insurance, permitting and financing industries have and do continue allowing the use of steel in residential as well as commercial construction.

The issue is no longer fire, since industry experts know the extreme temperatures required to deform steel rarely if ever are reached and sustained long enough to cause the steel to fail. That is a fact!

The safety factor has shifted to “connections,” how those respective materials are fastened together and to other structural members, like trusses and sheathing.

Which is probably why the FIRST explanation of 9/11 suggesting the failure of connections was put forth by Tim Wilkinson, Lecturer in Civil Engineering. http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

The thing that puzzles me about Wilkinsons “theory” is why he felt the need to put it on paper and get it published on 9/11.

Now, all you brainiacs who have devoted so much time and effort to DEFENDING the ADMINISTRATION and the NEOCONS and their refusal to conduct an honest investigation into all possible causes of 9/11 would do well to study the reality of steel construction before determining the impossible series of theory’s they have wasted many years trying to prove, are provable, because they simply are not!

Had the “officials” recognized early on the signs of a controlled demolition and listened to the statements from witness’s about hearing and seeing explosions, and about the lack of an inferno inside the towers, we wouldn’t be so busy trying to discredit each other here.

But, that didn’t happen. They needed “evidence” to prove an external “Islamic terrorist” cause. Highly visible planes coupled with “phone calls” from the hijacked and conveniently discovered “evidence” accomplished that.

Looking into the possibility the buildings were pre-wired with explosives would require a level of investigation that could lead to the discovery of party’s involved who were not the preferred targets.

Besides, as every neocon knows. The American people are dumb enough to believe anything, and can’t remember what they believe for more than a few weeks anyway.

Bush did not plan 9/11, nor did Osama. Bush has trouble saying anything impromptu. Had he known the facts, he would have blurted out too much, too soon. And, how many of you “experts” understand Arabic well enough to swear Osama took credit for it?

And, that picture of the Tower tipping as seen on Wilkinson’s site is one frame in a video. If the Tower had continued falling as shown, it would have tipped over leaving a good portion below standing.

What the frame does not show is the top pulling back slightly, straightening up and going down. Something you have seen, but may not have noticed in controlled demolitions.

Report this

By Chris, June 21, 2007 at 2:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think before any one of us discusses why we believe in the official story or why we believe in the conspiracy theories, we should first ask ourselves one question, “Why do I choose to believe this theory?”

Those who don’t believe the official government story do so because things just don’t add up, especially when scientists themselves are saying so.  Possibility and plausibility are too high for the official story to remain believable.

It seems to me that those who adhere to the official story put out by the government do so only because they don’t want to believe the alternative, that the United States government would never do such a thing as bomb its own buildings and murder its own people.  They’d rather believe that their government is the “good guy” and would never ever harm its own citizens because it doesn’t want global domination.

I ask you, is any government so honest that it would not lie to its own people?  Is there no case where a government has lied to its own people for any reason?  Do politicians never lie?  Who wouldn’t want global domination?

I say look at the reults of 9/11.  If it were not for the sickening tragedy that occured, would Americans have been for or against our government invading Afghanistan and Iraq?  Would there be any widespread fear of more terrorism in the U.S.?  Would we have any cause to have such fear that we would gladly trade our constitutionally-guaranteed liberties for security?.  Would the President be able to scrap the constitution (the one documentthat was designed to keep the government from becoming totalitarian), if it werent for the events of 9/11?

Over 200 years ago, Benjamin Franklin said that those who would trade their liberties for security deserve neither liberty nor security.

Why are we so trusting of our government?  Do you think that if our government did indeed want global domination, that it would not be willing to remove all barriers to its goal?  The presidents and prime ministers have names that will live forever in history books.  But we, the citizens, are nameless little bugs, easily crushed by the boot of government and more easily forgotten.

Report this

By blog dog, June 21, 2007 at 2:15 pm Link to this comment

RE: But here’s what those extraordinarily elaborate theories are competing with: A group of crazy fundamentalists who hijacked planes and flew them into buildings.

I don’t want this to be the truth any more than I want a crazy ex-Marine shoot JFK with his rifle, but, absent a better explanation, that’s what happened.

****** no matter how much anyone wants or doesn’t want either of these scenarios to be true, the bottom line is this: none of these patsies could realistically accomplish the mission. And herein lies the most useful application of your Occam’s razor: they simply lacked the skills required.

It works like this:

1. Patsies are put into play. They’re usually hapless useful fools, with legends built to serve the mission and attract attention (e.g. Atta, Oswald, McVeigh) which naturally leads to legitimate investigations

2. Moles, within the security agencies, block the investigations (as seen prior to 911) so as to prevent the patsies from being taken out of play before…

3. The professionals execute the operation and slip away, leaving the patsies to take the fall, literally in the case of 911 (e.g. the Able Danger patsies)

A classic black-op., by the book; if the effect is damaging to the social structure and resonates strongly enough through the media (e.g. 911, JFK, OKC) it becomes ultimately a psy-op. This is how geopolitics is distorted and manipulated and they’ve been doing it shamelessly for 50 years, with extensive historical precedence going back to ancient empires. Seneca counseled Nero: “The problem with fabricated terror is that every new incident must outdo the last.”

You must remember this: “The Central Intelligence Agency owns anyone of any significance in the major media.” — Former CIA Director William Colby

and this: “Deception is a state of mind and the mind of the State” - James Jesus Angleton, Head of CIA Counter Intelligence 1954-1974

Report this

By great_satan, June 21, 2007 at 2:06 pm Link to this comment

To Chris:
  Is Purdue on the gov’t payroll, you ask?
“The two-year Purdue University study, funded in part by the National Science Foundation,...”
  http://www.nsf.gov/
  yes, “dot gov.” The directors are appointed by the President and confirmed by congress like supreme court judges.

Report this

By great_satan, June 21, 2007 at 2:00 pm Link to this comment

Forgot to post that link for last post.
oops
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/02/no-george -monbiot-these-are-facts-of.html

Report this

By great_satan, June 21, 2007 at 1:58 pm Link to this comment

To Verne Arnold:
  Why do you ignore the facts? The shrub neo-cons have had Bin Laden in their employ for 20 plus years. I’ll repost the link already posted. There’s nothing flaky in it and the sources are quite tight.
  The controlled demo theory? I can’t believe we argue about it either. To me, the country was split in two the moment those suckers came down on national TV. There were those to whom it was utterly obvious that giant steel girdered sky scrapers don’t just “pancake” away to nothing in 10 seconds and those whose own common sense is over-ridden by “authority figures.” Its just a matter of the mass psychology of response to authority.
  Of course the neo-cons took advantage of it. I’m sure you’ve read all of the PNAC material. But taking advantage of it is no crime at all; just savvy politics. They wished for it, They got it. So maybe Bin Laden is just a Djini who granted their wish.
  We are all lost if this controlled demo stuff continues? Its the only thing that would actually stop the neo cons. Look at the dem’s little farce about funding the war. That is the sort of politics you want to continue? This “diversionary crap” is THE smoking gun.
  To me its like endless litigation as to whether someone with his head cut off died of a heart attack.Its just a shame that most of the litigators are college kids, and internet celebrity commentators. 

To THOMAS BILLIS:
  Its not to convince “conspiracy theorists.” I say we name the term “corruption theory.” It’s just to to give the sheeple who might be swayed by the mass of “corruption theory” info one little piece of “reputable” science to “bring them back to their senses.” The wandering sheep can now return safely to the flock, assured their shepherds aren’t going to slaughter them.

Report this

By Joseph, June 21, 2007 at 1:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As a Licensed Professional Civil Engineer who has substantial experience with structural steel, I’ve long believed explosives were used to bring down the twin towers.  How they were placed without anyone noticing, I don’t know.  How and why should have been answered by an investigation a long time ago.  That they weren’t is telling.

Report this

By Mark in NY, June 21, 2007 at 1:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Fire from burning fuel can, does, and has melted steel.  Do any of these head-in-the-sand conspiracy freaks read the news?  Here’s a link:

http://losangeles.broowaha.com/article.php?id=1416

Don’t pay attention to the snarkiness, it’s just hard not to make fun of these idiots who claim otherwise.

Report this

By Chris, June 21, 2007 at 1:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I must ask this question:  Is Purdue on the government payroll?

The steel beams in the towers had a melting point of 2800°F, and could withstand 2000°F for 3 to 4 continuous hours before softening even a little bit.  The hydrocarbon jet fuel does not burn any hotter than 1800°.  It took only an hour and a half for the towers to fall.  The towers fell at free-fall speed, which happened because an energy greater than gravity assisted in the beam failure—an energy from controlled explosions inside the towers.  The controlled demolition explosions, which occured on the levels below the “mushroom” head of the collapsing structure as it was collapsing, were visible to the human eye, but were not noticed by most people because they were not looking.  Surviving firefighters who were inside the towers heard consecutive explosions before the towers began to collapse.  This was verified by seismic readings of the area at the time.

So jet fuel, most of which was released away from the towers upon impact with the buildings, was not hot enough to melt the steel beams, and the towers fell the same exact way other buildings fall during controlled demolitions, and we’re all supposed to believe the official propaganda? 

Who is paying Purdue to tow the Party line?

Report this

By Jon0077, June 21, 2007 at 12:56 pm Link to this comment

Although I disagree with our present government leaders, along with most liberals, and I feel skeptical about their policies, that doesn’t mean that just because we have evidence of their lying, subterfuges, and deceptions, that they would pull off a silly and insane plan to murder innocent Americans and destroy property. Consider that our government leaders failed to protect us and had ample warning of the attacks or, perhaps, even let the Muslim terrorists cause a new “Pearl Harbor” for nefarious political purposes. This would give them reason to conceal information without needing to resort to silly demolition, missile-attack theories. Surely this hypothesis, at least, gives a more likely reason for any alleged cover-up. But after examining these conspiracy theories, I kept asking myself, “Why don’t these conspiracy theorists provide the evidence?”

For example, how could one not question the demolition theory of the WTC buildings? Think of all the people that would have to install explosives in every story of the buildings, lay miles of electrical detonation wires. It usually takes months for professional detonation crews to set up a large building for destruction and they also spend lots of time weakening structural columns with saws and torches. Imagine trying to hide all this among thousands of WTC employees, employers, security guards, maintenance engineers, cleaning crews, etc. It would take hundreds of Tom Cruse-like Mission Impossible experts to pull it off (which of course, represents fiction). Revealingly, none of the conspiracy inventors ever mentions these problems or provide scenarios of how the conspirators could pull it off without anyone finding out.

Then they present non sequitur arguments such as the ‘melting point of steel problem.’ They claim that steel melts at a higher temperature than the burning temperature of jet fuel, therefore the steel could not have melted. So what? Since when does steel have to melt before it fails? Haven’t they ever heard of low temperature forging, steel mills, or seen how a metal worker can easily bend a red-hot steel bar with a hammer? Steel will lose about half its structural strength (depending on is carbon content) at around 500 degress C. And on and on it goes, each claim as silly as the next.

The problem is, once you look into it, the many criticisms still don’t make it plausible that the events were significantly different than the official version. What matters is not whether the official version contains messy realities, but whether one can construct an alternate version of events that makes more sense than the official story. To date, this has not been done in a way that is not laughably improbable. The problem with virtually all conspiracy theories is that they necessarily require a massive number of diverse people, many of them without apparent motivation, all managing to pull of a complex series of tasks over a long period of time with complete secrecy and success.

Possible? Sure.

But here’s what those extraordinarily elaborate theories are competing with: A group of crazy fundamentalists who hijacked planes and flew them into buildings.

I don’t want this to be the truth any more than I want a crazy ex-Marine shoot JFK with his rifle, but, absent a better explanation, that’s what happened.

Report this

By Peter Hollings, June 21, 2007 at 12:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Purdue simulation did not cover the collapses of the towers. It modeled the impacts and subsequent fires (not including WTC 7 which collapsed although it was not struck by an airplane). So, it does not contribute to our understanding of how the collapses could have occurred at nearly free-fall speeds. However, physical laws dictate that the upper stories could not have fallen at these speeds if the lower floors obstructed their collapses. How, other than controlled demolition, could the lower floors have been rapidly moved out of the way?

Report this

By Truthnow, June 21, 2007 at 11:45 am Link to this comment

I only have one question for all of you that want to believe the official story. Do you have any idea how steel works? Any at all. I mean YOU try to tell me that the fires were so hot that the steel bent and gave way. That is purely BS. Now how many time on your controlled hydrocarbon fire gas range has it got so hot your pan melted? And another question. How Did this supposedly roaring fire that burned for an hour, bend and weaken the steel at the base of the building. Oh wait, Once the top collapsed then it subsequently crushed the bottom all the way down and those massive fires had already weakened the steel at the bottom so it gave no resistance.
ok more bs from you guys. Steel is not weak. Have you ever cut steel. I know i have and it takes some intense heat just to melt it. Mind you that a cutting torch uses oxygen to blow out the steel that was melted by the heat. There is now that these fires could have weakened the steel in an hour enough to cause total collapse. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. Oh and remember that NIST even admits those fires never got that hot.

ONE LAST THING. Yes building 7 did sustain some damage from the collapses of 1 and 2 but just how much is very hard to tell with the photos available. But lets just say it did have severe damage to the one side. IF this had caused collapse it would have collapsed in that direction. Are you going to tell me that when i watch the video that i am supposed to believe that is why it is collapsing. COME ON. YOU can see the explosions or squibs going off plain as day. What if not explosives are those from? WTC7 imploded and if you cant see that when you watch it collapse then you are out of touch with reality.


One last thing to all of you that support this lie. There have been many invitations by memebers of the 911 truth movement to openly debate these questions and more with any one of the official theory supporters such as nist popular mechanics ETC. All have declined. No one will openly debate their theories. WHY? It seems to me that if the truth movements theories are just pointless blabber then these very qualified scientists should be able to debate them and put them to shame. But nope they wont do it. So Please tell me why? and dont give me any answers like they dont need to the evidence does it for them Cause that IS more BS. If it did nobody would question the official theory.

Report this

By John Doraemi, June 21, 2007 at 11:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“If Purdue University did the srtudy to convince the conspiracy theorists the error of their ways they wasted two years of their lives.”

They appear to have used inflated data to ensure that the correct results would happen. 

NIST did something similar.  When actual fire tests were performed with a recreation of the World Trade Center structure, they found no bowing in the trusses with the temperatures attributed to the actual fires on 9/11, in the times that they burned. 

So they turned up the heat, and they let the fires go longer.

Only 3 inches of bowing was finally observed in trusses after longer, hotter fires in the simulation.

This was turned into 40 inches of bowing for the computer models to sell America on this theory. 

Garbage in, garbage out.  It’s an old story.

Dr. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan address it issue more fully, if you’re interested.

“If God opened up the heavans and in a large booming voice said the kids from Purdue are right they would answer he always favored Purdue.”

Read the rebuttals before engaging in weak propaganda exercises.  (Really, are left websites giving out cash prizes for propaganda nowadays?) 

“I do not think the conspiratists understand the magnitude of the conspiracy they are talking about,”

I don’t think the ignorant understand the magnitude of the effect of 9/11 on civilisation.  Nor do they understand the magnitude of the cover up.  Since you don’t know (and don’t care) about the actual events, how can you purport to educate us on the “magnitude of the conspiracy?”

“Every renown architect, every renown mechanical engineeer would have to have the lid put on them.”

Here’s where we can open up the shades on your ignorance:

140 architects and mechanical engineers were just added to the “Patriots Question 9/11”  group.  Here’s the link:

http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

All these old, tired arguments are being busted open.

“Not all people who are expert in this field are republicans.”

Some prominent Republicans are crying foul.  Try to keep up.

“The democrats to be able to say that this administration masterminded the 911 attack would give the democrats power for a generation.”

It is a bipartisan cover up ...  because Israel is involved.  That’s how the media and the Democrats are cowed.  It’s obvious if you investigate the Mossad operation in NYC on 9/11.  Google Paul Kurzberg (Mossad).

“An administration so incompetent as to be a joke is behind this plot.”

Bullshit argument.  We have evidence of what they did to shut down investigations.  We have the Air Force standdown, and Cheney’s illegal orders during the attacks.  We have Rumsfeld MIA when his “approval” was needed to launch interceptors.  We have Bush treasonously sitting there while “America is under attack,” in a preannounced open location.  We have lies that there were “no warnings.”  We have so many warnings that the “system was blinking red” all summer long.  We have Bush pulled out of his hotel in Genoa Italy for a warning of a suicide skyjacking, and anti-aircraft weaponry placed around Genoa airport in July 2001.  We have meeting after meeting where these specific warnings were passed along, and ignored by the cabinet, only to be lied about later.

Is anyone seeing a pattern here?

“Who do they think the mastermind was Harriet Miers?”

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Netanyahu.  Some CIA were also involved, but harder to pin down, obviously. 

We have the Pakistanis and Saudis involved in limited roles, though not clear exactly what they believed they were doing.

The first step is admitting your ignorance.  The next step is doing something about it.  Unfortunately, for you guys (an endless supply of you), your first step is to ridicule ideas that are foreign to you, and create a mythology around that.

Pakistan and 9/11
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/05/pakistani-smoking-gun-of-911.html

Report this

By John Doraemi, June 21, 2007 at 11:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

More…

“Listen, you are being used.  You think Alex Jones isn’t making a nice buck off the trafic to his website? “

This is completely irrelevant.  There are 70 million (at last poll) in our camp.  You think we are all making a profit in our “cottage industry?”

You use smear after smear, and you admit you don’t bother studying the issue.  This is crass ignorance, and nothing beside.

“You are all being used, and you are being used for profit and/or political gain.”

Well since we are cast out of the two major parties, who won’t entertain the notion that anyone in government, war criminal Bush/Cheney on down would ever consider doing anything that would harm an American citizen, period, ever, I’d say you’re full of shit.  We have gained nothing politically, and many who have uttered the notion of US government complicity have lost jobs, been persecuted, and continue to be.

Your entire mischaracterization of everything related stems from your crass ignorance of these issues. 

”  And you aren’t even questioning it.  These are lies and half truths, that die easily in the light of even slight skepticism.”

I skewered Skeptic Magazine recently, which should interest you.  I being the skeptic here, you being an ignorant knee jerker and all.

“Skeptics” or Dupes? Skeptic Magazine Not So Skeptical of 9/11 Lies
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/06/skeptics-or-dupes-skeptic-magazine-not.html

“You people aren’t even trying to find the other side.”

You don’t know what you’re talking about, again.  David Ray Griffin’s Debunking 9/11 Debunking has responded with devastating force to the Popular Mechanics types and their lies.

Since all we get in corporate media, and the left faux “alternative” sites, like this one, is THE OTHER SIDE, I’d say we are quite versed in your half assed smears and ignorant excuses for avoiding looking at the evidence.


”  Say what you want, you are the equivalent of Flat Earthers, Young Earth Creationists, and Holocaust Deniers.  That is not company i would want to keep.”

If you can’t find the evidence that the true story of 9/11 has been covered up and remains hidden from the public, then you’re just not sharp enough to bother with any longer.

“If there is a conspiracy, it is about everything that happened after this attack,”

How do you deal with people who want to wish away known, printed, verified facts?

And why is this “conspiracy” after the fact acceptable to you?  Why are you attacking US if the US government committed a “conspiracy” to cover up 9/11?  Why are you on their side, helping them keep it secret?  We are the ones trying to expose it, certainly not them, and certainly not you.

” but you folks are happily running around with lies and delusions about what happened before it.”

I post facts.  The facts paint a nasty picture that indicates wrongdoing at the top.  Many relevant FBI agents have spoken out in the most harsh terms about the actions of their superiors, pre-911.  You may not like hearing about it, but tough shit.


”  You loose [sic] credibility with the pre9/11 stupidity, and then no one takes you seriously when you talk about the aftermath.”

It’s all generalisations and smear with this guy.  The entire period up to 9/11 is “stupidity” and is off limits for discussion.  Wow.


“You folks are some of the best friends this administration has, and you don’t even realize it. “

Check the mirror, genius.

Report this

By John Doraemi, June 21, 2007 at 11:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The casual “debunkers,” as ignorant as usual—

“you say that the evidence is overwhelming.  This it true, but it is overwhelming that it was the fire and the damage that brought it down.”

Not true.  The manner of the collapses appears to be controlled demolition.  Collapses don’t explode outward with massive “pyroclastic flows” of powdered concrete.  Find me one case in all of history where a “collapse” behaved in that manner.  You won’t.

“MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, they all knew [WTC7] was going to come down, they were told.  No secret scriptwas needed, everyone F’n knew it.”

It’s hard to have a conversation with someone who can’t distinguish between concepts like “knew” and “suspected.”

The only way anyone could “know” WTC7 would fall, is if they made it fall.  The rest is conjecture, theory, hypothesis, etc.  Skyscrapers have never fallen from fire.  They are designed to withstand fire.  These are basic 101 concepts that you should have been introduced to by now.

What happened at BBC was that:

1) They reported several times that it HAD FALLEN.  The anchor in Britain confirmed it, while the NY reporter stood in front of the windowwith the building visible in the background.

2) The NY video feed cut out 2-5 minutes before the actual demolition (I mean purported “collapse”).  This avoided the uncomfortable scenario where the building fell to the ground right behind the person who said it already fell.

3) This fact of pre-announcement was covered up by BBC for 5 years.  The BBC form letter I received lied, saying that they had never heard of this before, which is of course nonsense since the demolition/collapse of WTC7 less than 2 blocks from Jane Standley’s location would have shook the building and been quite noticeable AT THE TIME, ON THAT DAY.

4) BBC went into cover up mode and actually claims to have lost/destroyed all the live footage from 9/11.  You can’t make this stuff up. 

“Seriously, the quality level of “evidence” keeps sinking and sinking.  Do some real research, don’t just read prisonplanet and watch loose change.”

Dr. Steven Jones has hard evidence that the dust around the towers contains large amounts of steel “spherules” that could only have been created when the steel was in molten form (as in explosives / incendiary cutter charges).

What do you know of the “evidence” anyway?  Five years of incriminating facts point a very disturbing picture of the top of the US government pre-9/11.  That is always ignored by you high dudgeon pinheads who believe that you are just too smart to bother looking at the evidence.

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/02/no-george-monbiot-these-are-facts-of.html

“It is taking me mere seconds do think about what you people are posting and then responding.”

That’s because you have no idea what you are talking about.

”  Or if i don’t have an answer, it only takes a few minutes to read up about it and then find counterpoints.”

This is to brag about?  What sort of mentality thinks that September 11th 2001 is worth whatever pops into his head, or whatever propaganda that supports his preconception he can find off google?

Report this

By blog dog, June 21, 2007 at 11:10 am Link to this comment

#79997 by niloroth on 6/21 at 8:12 am - “You loose credibility with the pre9/11 stupidity, and then no one takes you seriously when you talk about the aftermath.  You folks are some of the best friends this administration has, and you don’t even realize it..”

***** wrong - 911 is the lynchpin to bringing down this criminal regime - a postition supported 100% by former Lt. Col. USAF, Dr. Robert Bowman - http://www.thepatriots.us/

The regime, at every turn, cites “the lessons of 911.” The regime lied about everything since 911. Only a fool would believe they didn’t lie about 911 too.

David Ray Griffin’s “911 Commission Report - Omissions and Distortions” discredits the 911 Commission Report with thoroughly researched arguments and exposes it as an abject cover up.

Griffin’s most recent book, “Debunking 911 Debunking” takes on and carefully deconstructs the most oft-cited “evidence” and publications used in supporting the Official Conspiracy Theory:
1. NORAD Tapes
2. “Without Precedent” by Kean and Hamilton
3. NIST Report
4. “Debunking 9/11 Myths” by Popular Mechanics

I’ll concede one point to you: Loose Change is for children. For the most insightful and historically-based work on 911,  go to this lecture by Webster Griffin Tarpley, author of “911 Synthetic Terror - Made in USA”

A/V
http://www.911busters.com/New_911_Evidence/WMV/Webster_Tarpley_NYC.wmv

audio only
http://www.911busters.com/New_911_Evidence/MP3/Webster_Tarpley_NYC.html

“911 Synthetic Terror - Made in USA” - hit No. 1 at Amazon in 2006 - former CIA analyst, Rober Steele, who wrote, “It is with great sadness that I conclude that this book is the strongest of the 770+ books I have reviewed here at Amazon, almost all non-fiction.”                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
http://www.amazon.com/9-11-Synthetic-Terror-Fourth/dp/0930852370

recommended companion: “George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography“ also by Webster Griffin Tarpley

...and, never forget: “The Central Intelligence Agency owns anyone of any significance in the major media.” — Former CIA Director William Colby

Report this

By Mark in NY, June 21, 2007 at 10:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Here’s another razor for friend Occam:

Anyone who’s ever tried to get an insurance claim paid knows how dearly those firms grip every penny before letting it be pried loose.  Yet, they paid the WTC claims.  If there were even a SHRED of credible evidence to the contrary, do you think they’d not be in court fighting it?  Is that a glimmer of common sense I now see in your eye, replacing the befuddled fog?  I hope so.

Report this
archeon of thrace's avatar

By archeon of thrace, June 21, 2007 at 10:13 am Link to this comment

I think that we should apply Ocams Razor to these conspiracey thoeries.

The alleged conspiracies are so complex, so convoluted, so cumbersom that it would be impossible to keep everyone involved silent, or even to hide any aspect of the conspiracy.

It is far simpler that jet fuel burns, the planes were fully fueled, the fuel started a mini fire storm, steel loses strenght when heated, buidings made of steel that are on fire collapse under their own weight, this is more likely the more weight is above where the fire is.

The steel beams and girders don’t even have to “melt” they just have to get hot.  Anyone who has ever worked with metal will know that to bend steel you heat it.  The acceleration of the top of the building after only a few beams and columns failed would have created dynamic forces (potential energy) that the lower beams and columns were not designed to withstand.  It was like a 100000 ton sledge hammer driving down on the floors of the building below the fire.

The real conspiracy is the conspiracy of american external policies that interfer in the operation of soverieng forieng nations.  Where we americans support brutal dictators, and murderous regimes for the benifit of our military industrial complex.  Where we support opressive monarchies (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait) for a guarantee of access to their oil.

Report this

By Mark in NY, June 21, 2007 at 10:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The only story here is the perceived need to do the study in the first place.  Why elevate the conspiracy idiots’ paranoid fantasies to the level of actually needing to be refuted?  They have grassy knolls instead of brains; ignore them, it’s the best method of making such morons go away.

Report this

By niloroth, June 21, 2007 at 9:12 am Link to this comment

Blog Dog:

you say that the evidence is overwhelming.  This it true, but it is overwhelming that it was the fire and the damage that brought it down.

1) I can not reply to an unnamed source about what they may or may not have seen.  Until their identity can be confirmed their story is fairy tale.  I have a source that says chuck norris destroyed WTC7 by kicking it, and he saw it.  Disprove that.  I will even make up an audio clip if you need one.  Your source is not verified.

2) The BBC news report was in error.  Simple as that.  Prove to me that no other news reporter in the history of television, has ever made a glaring mistake before, and then maybe you have a case.  However, this isn’t the case.  But i will cede you one point, they knew it was going to come down.  However, so did everyone else.  MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, they all knew it was going to come down, they were told.  No secret scriptwas needed, everyone F’n knew it. 

Seriously, the quality level of “evidence” keeps sinking and sinking.  Do some real research, don’t just read prisonplanet and watch loose change.  Anyone can do that and come away from it thinking they are right.  Just like you can look to the left when you cross the street, and then assume there are no cars to the right based on what you see, however, that is not a good idea.  It is taking me mere seconds do think about what you people are posting and then responding.  Or if i don’t have an answer, it only takes a few minutes to read up about it and then find counterpoints. 

Listen, you are being used.  You think Alex Jones isn’t making a nice buck off the trafic to his website?  You don’t think it is strange that Dylan Avery, after 2 failed attempts to get into film school, all the sudden comes up with this controversial mocumentary that has his name all over the place?  You think no one is going to profit from loose change once it hits the theaters? (if the ever release it?  Strange they have to make a 3rd version, i thought they knew the story already.  Truth must be tricky.)

You are all being used, and you are being used for profit and/or political gain.  And you aren’t even questioning it.  These are lies and half truths, that die easily in the light of even slight skepticism.  You people aren’t even trying to find the other side.  Say what you want, you are the equivalent of Flat Earthers, Young Earth Creationists, and Holocaust Deniers.  That is not company i would want to keep. 

And i really think that Verne Arnold nailed it.  If there is a conspiracy, it is about everything that happened after this attack, but you folks are happily running around with lies and delusions about what happened before it.  You loose credibility with the pre9/11 stupidity, and then no one takes you seriously when you talk about the aftermath.  You folks are some of the best friends this administration has, and you don’t even realize it.

Report this

By Louise, June 21, 2007 at 8:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#79561 by Chaseme
“Who paid Purdue for this “visualization research”?”

*President Bush Proposes to Double the National Science Foundation Budget: http://csd.tamu.edu/news_item.2006-03-02.1870688104

But before you read that, you may want to read this,
*Simulation Finds 9/11 Fireproofing Key:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4905202.html

The Federal government paid for this visualization research.

“Okay, what happened to those wings and all of that fuel at the Pentagon?”

Whatever happened, the REASON for it’s happening is clear. To create confusion and disinformation, and most of all to get those who know darn full well the “official” WTC theory is absolute crap, to fight among themselves.

#79543 by Christopher Robin

“I’m surprised it required a two year study to conclude this? (taxpayer funded I suppose?)”

This is not the first study, or the first computer model. The first one, interposing the “official” theory over the known construction, finally produced a “pancaking” of the floors. However no matter how hard they tried, they could not bring down the central core vertical columns. Not even in their own computer model.

They also were unable to duplicate complete disintegration as the floors collapsed. Rather the model produced a stack of collapsed floors. Obviously someone realized, if they were going to get a computer model to do what they wanted, they had to go beyond known fact and do a little creative imagining.

“Structural damage aside, fireproofing sprayed on beams is not impact resistant, once it’s knocked off the steel, those areas become exposed to the full temperature of the fire.”

The temperatures NEVER reached a sustained temperature high enough to melt steel. Sorry, that just never happened.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.html
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/psyopnews1.htm

Missing in this discussion. How come nobody’s asked why there was insulation missing on some of the structure?

Clue: It did not get “knocked off.”

Answer?

Seems the asbestos insulation was being removed. Was that because of safety, or because the New York Port Authority wanted to implode the buildings, but couldn’t until the asbestos hazard had been removed?

You probably didn’t know those towers were costing the tax-payers of New York a fortune to keep open. You probably didn’t know the folks there hated those Towers. You probably didn’t know the Port Authority had commissioned a study on the cost and feasibility of imploding them, which led to the plan to remove the insulation, on-going until Real Estate Developer Larry Silverstein rode in and rescued them on July 24, 2001.

Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).

A quick look at a few metal suppliers’ websites will show you the temperatures and length of exposure required to melt steel columns and beams.

Cast iron has a melting temperature of 1150 to 1200 °C About 300 degrees lower than the melting point of pure iron. When’s the last time you melted your cooking pot over that roaring campfire?

But your campfire never gets that hot. That’s right, most fires never get that hot. If your campfire got hot enough to melt your cast iron cooking pot, it would melt you.

Come on folks, do you really believe the same guys that can’t find Osama, can’t control the country they invaded, couldn’t respond adequately to the warnings given prior to Katrina, can’t keep up with requests for passports, and have virtually zero success in proving the guilt of all the alleged “terrorists” they’ve nabbed, [not counting “confessions” obtained through torture] could “solve” the crime of the century, with so-called proof no less, before lunchtime?

Report this

By Verne Arnold, June 21, 2007 at 8:10 am Link to this comment

#79733 by Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD on 6/20 at 2:45 pm

Thanks for your comment.

I’m afraid the forum here is skewed.  They miss the forest for the trees.  We are lost if this present, controlled demolition conspiracy crap continues.  Bin Laden himself stated that he was somewhat surprised at the effectiveness of the attack, but very happy with the results.  Sure, ya’ll will say, see…even he didn’t know.  Oh?  But he was in on the conspiracy.  Bull, it just exceeded his expectation.   

Yes…there most certainly is a conspiracy.  It’s the shrubs neo-cons taking total control of our government!!!  It’s the shrubs neo-con taking complete advantage of the 911 tragedy…this presented the golden opportunity.  And the twisted f#@*s grabbed it!  Come on guys and gals…look at what’s really going on here!  The neo-cons are taking maximum advantage of this tragedy…riding the wave of fear.  Shame on us for giving in to this cheap shot.  Where is the American that marshaled after Pearl Harbor?  This was not an America reacting to fear…this was a very pissed off America that knew what to do…and by God did it.  And…very big and…it didn’t cost us our constitution or our freedom from privacy violations…and this was an all out, down and dirty, war of the whole world.  I don’t want to lose my country!  You make me tired with all this diversionary crap!

Report this

By Dr. Nonothingatall, Phud, June 21, 2007 at 6:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You “controlled demolition theorists” are whacko!  There may be a conspiracy here, but it certainly is not the controlled demolition of the two towers!

Jeez, give it a rest!  The conspiracy (if there is one) is the consequent response by the shrub.

The conspiracy opportunity, supplied by the Saudi’s, is what this administration saw as the chance to take over the complete control of this country.  And you, in your ignorance and fear gave the shrub “carte blanc” to do this!  You are directly responsible for this shit!!!

You have been duped by a moron!  Actually the neo-cons behind the moron!  You just can’t see the strings controlling the marionette (remember Howdy Doody)!

Sure…rail all you want…allow yourselves to be distracted by the oldest game going (it’s magic, look here while I fool you there) …get a grip or go down taking the once great U.S. with you!  We, America, can not afford any illusions…you must see clearly or…………die!

Report this

By IDoubtIT, June 21, 2007 at 6:08 am Link to this comment

Computer simulations can be made to do anything the programmer wants. They are like Disney animations. Disney can make elephants fly and anyone who believes this propaganda is a DUMBO. Next week they are releasing 2 new simulations that prove pigs fly and the sun revolves around the earth.

Report this

By THOMAS BILLIS, June 21, 2007 at 4:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If Purdue University did the srtudy to convince the conspiracy theorists the error of their ways they wasted two years of their lives.If God opened up the heavans and in a large booming voice said the kids from Purdue are right they would answer he always favored Purdue.I do not think the conspiratists understand the magnitude of the conspiracy they are talking about,Every renown architect, every renown mechanical engineeer would have to have the lid put on them.Not all people who are expert in this field are republicans.The democrats to be able to say that this administration masterminded the 911 attack would give the democrats power for a generation.An administration so incompetent as to be a joke is behind this plot.Who do they think the mastermind was Harriet Miers?

Report this

By PaulMagillSmith, June 21, 2007 at 3:13 am Link to this comment

I just spent about three hours looking at evidence (print, photos, videos) after doing a simple Google search of ‘WTC Explosives Evidence’. Pretty overwhelming (especially the photo of a steel girder with melted ends that would not be possible from jet fuel alone).

Also available through some links after that Google search are quotes from numerous NYPD firefighters, captains, & chiefs on the scene who report numerous other explosions sounding like a planned demolition. 

All you doubters…DO YOUR HOMEWORK!!!

Report this

By republicanSScareme, June 21, 2007 at 2:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The animated video doesn’t prove anything.  Why describe it as some kind of proof of the government’s story?

I’m disappointed with Truthdig and Robert Scheer.

Report this

By John Hanks, June 21, 2007 at 1:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

At this point, the real evidence exists in the endless distortions and cover-ups by government and the media.  Our opinion about the murder weapon and the cause of death might change, but we still know who the main suspects are.  I will continue to assume that the Israel/Neo-con connection, plus the Saudi Connection, plus the GOP Organized Crime Connection are true.

Report this

By blog dog, June 20, 2007 at 11:49 pm Link to this comment

RE: #79880 by niloroth on 6/20 at 9:55 pm — 1) Damage, you are completely discounting the damage that was done to WTC7.  I have said this 3 times so far i think in this thread, there was damage to WTC7.  It wasn’t just a fire.

************ I am not going to argue with anyone about how buildings fall down - the evidence is overwhelming that 911 was a coup d’ètat and it’s an open secret in the corridors of power around the world - however, since we now have on record from a security official, who was at WTC7, who has come forward to say that he saw explosions inside WTC7 even before the towers came down - from that and other evidence (BBC reporter telling of it’s collapse before a skyline in which it’s still standing)...I submit: end of Controlled Demolition Argument - check it for yourselves here: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/190607interview.htmhttp://www.prisonplanet.com/audio/190607clips2.mp3 - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1554791603726971013&q=bbc+solomon+brothers+building&total=76&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Report this

By niloroth, June 20, 2007 at 10:55 pm Link to this comment

Dialecticks:

“Having done your research, please tell us or link us to what steel girdered building completely collapse all at once due to fire.”

1) Damage, you are completely discounting the damage that was done to WTC7.  I have said this 3 times so far i think in this thread, there was damage to WTC7.  It wasn’t just a fire.  I can’t really believe that people are still trotting this same line out in the same way.  This is how i know if i am dealing with someone who has just watched loose change 3 times and feels like they are an expert, or if it is someone who has done some research and has taken the time to actually think their position through.  If you bring out the “only time in history” argument, you really havn’t done your homework.

2) Even leaving the external damage out of the equation, are you saying that it is absolutely, 100% imposable, under any circumstances, for a building to fall due to fire?  Are you really saying that simply because something has never happened before, it never ever can happed? 

Now, on to your questions about physical evidence,

1) What do you mean by shattered?  You mean the way the truth movement has tried to spin the fact that the top of the towers are falling over past the rest of the falling building?  See, thats their attempt to get around the evidence that puts the lie to the whole “free fall speed” issue.  But lets ask you, what is free fall?  Are you saying that the top of the towers hit the ground as if there was nothing at all in the way on it’s path to the ground?  And you have that all timed out do you?  Thats rather impressive, seeing as no one can see it hit because of all the smoke and debris.  Not to mention that physics dictates that even an expertly designed implosion will not be a true free fall, but you believe that a quicky job done in a building with thousands of potential witnesses, without most of the prep work that goes into a real demolition was able to achieve free fall?  Explain.

2)Molten steel in the basement.  Who tested it to tell it was steal?  Ever seen mercury?  melted aluminum?  melted steel?  Do you know the difference on site?  Show me one picture of a pillar that was cut at a 45 degree angle by thermite.  And make sure it is from before the rescue crews got in there.  If you can’t figure out why that might be, go ask a welder how he would take down a standing steel girder. 

3) sulfer: insecticides.  Iron: dyes, pigments. aluminum oxide: Hip and other joint replacement materials.  Come on, that was to easy. 

4) Some of the towers were send away to be reused. Much of it went to various places to be studied and looked at later.  Are you atempting to imply that simply because we didn’t leave all of it there in a big pile, that it is proof of a conspiracy? 

5) What evidence, and if it was absent, how do you know it was there in the first place?

Report this

By great_satan, June 20, 2007 at 10:06 pm Link to this comment

“Creationism is pseudo-science.  As I mentioned in my previous post, I tend to include most of these things as roughly the same.  I think the reason you may see fewer people of the ‘creationist’ viewpoint who would support the 9/11 truth version is because believing it was terrorism gives them ammunition against islam.  A better question would be how many people trained as scientists, engineers, doctors and mathematicians believe the official story. Ie. People trained to use a critical mind, and have interests in actual empirical evidence.”
  Good points. i am especially glad to be reasonably arguing than name calling. I had just seen too much of the “conspiracy folk” stating evidence and the “official story” side, replyng with “you’re a whacko!”
  I fully support the most scientific and rational approach to this. Both sides however, are guilty of varying degrees of nonsense. I am quite flustered by the fuzzy pics and the narrator saying, “do you see the missile shooting out?” No I don’t.
  I do think that a good lot of the folk who support the official story don’t have a good reason for doing so besides believing what they hear on TV.

  The trouble with the opinions of the engineers and such at present is that many who have been vocal against the official story, have lost their position.  Speaking of historical precedent, what oppressive regime doesn’t quickly stifle the “Intelligencia.” So it is hard to really gather such opinions in mass. Every opressive regime gains control of the scholars and the media as swiftly as possible.

  So far as your remarks about black ops and so forth. Governments are incompetent at governing. That’s why its so easy to pull of being a War president. As far as 9/11 goes; its not really covered up, save the Commission Report, which if one examines that process, is more evidence of guilt than otherwise. The government gets aawy with stuff we never even begin to hear about. There is an Intelligence technique called “limited hangout.”  The method is to leak and expose a little aspect of a story, make a big deal out of it, fire a couple of people and move on. The ress goes after the story like starved dogs. The NSA has been recording and listening to US convo and tranmission for a long time. They make a big deal that Bush is considering letting them do it, and it seems like we’re on to something big. Again historical precedent…they’ve even got a word for it. Google, “limited hangout.”

Report this

By john doraemi, June 20, 2007 at 9:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“20,000 people involved?  Sure, that sounds reasonable.  No, actually, it sounds irrational. “

That’s a straw man.  You pick a wildly exaggerated number and pretend that’s what WE said.

Are you going to debate honestly? 

You need to understand a few things then.

1) Operations can be (and of course always are) compartmentalized.  Knowledge is withheld.  There is a “need to know,” and if you don’t need to know, then you don’t. 

Far from your “20,000” figure, the number of active participants could be several dozen.  Others were caught looking “incompetent”, which was the cover story that your crowd just loves to pretend is the total story, when in fact—and I suspect you know this—it is not.

Senator Bob Graham has told us that “foreign governments” assisted the alleged hijackers, and this remains covered up to this day.  That’s not cover up by “incompetence.”  This is an example of deliberate cover up and the shutting down of investigations into WHO ATTACKED US ON 9-11.

2) Numerous, numerous witnesses reported “explosions” at the site that day.  We are not making this up, far from it.  The evidence existed first.  If you’re going to belligerently say that 200 people, and numerous credible news reports about bombs in the buildings are just not relevant (as the government “investigations” did), then you are clearly not interested in looking at the evidence, and your opinion is worthless.  These are facts that can’t just be ignored because you don’t feel like looking at them.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7094370627958457222&hl=en


3) There is strong evidence that an Israeli Mossad operation was active in NYC related to the attacks.  Urban Moving Systems was their base of operations, and they used multiple vans and multiple teams of operatives.  Approximately 200 Israeli agents were detained related to 9/11, and this matter was immediately made “classified.”  The agents were released quietly and this remains classified to this day.  Needless to say, none of this appeared in the two cover ups that purported to investigate the attacks.

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/03/limits-of-ketchams-counterpunchs.html

And here’s something that just never happened in Orwellian America (CBS News):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up0Bvwwx9hA&mode=related&search;=

Until we know exactly what happened, we cannot say how many people were involved (nor their identities).  We do know that unacceptable behavior was exhibited by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld that morning.  Further unacceptable “testimony”, not under oath, with no notes allowed to be taken, occured later.  If you’re going to attempt to abvolve these individuals of complicity, you really should find out what they did, and did not do, on the morning of September 11th 2001.

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

Report this

By sal, June 20, 2007 at 9:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Very disappointing that so many people see this as “confirmation” of the official explanation while this study adds little to it. The most significant addition (yet still very far from “confirmation”)  would be proof of fireproofing having been dislodged.

However,... I cannot find any paper that would describe how and how much of the fireproofing was dislodged (should I ingeniously deduce it from the animation??). Has the Purdue’s study been peer-reviewed and/or published?

Anyways,
Prof. Popescu who designed animation software himself points out FLAWS in the simulation:
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/papers/popescu/popescuWTCVIS07.pdf
on Page 6 we read:

“One of the shortcomings of the simulation is that the dispersing fuel is treated by LS-DYNA as a non-volatile liquid. However, it created an explosion and subsequent fire. Thus, SPH elements should have a death frame associated that attenuates the mass of liquid over time. This and other fire-related effects should be revisited in future work.”

Another thing is that animation shows bare columns without gypsum walls, furniture, etc. I ask: how could they confirm that fireproofing was dislodged if they didn’t include all the other stuff, like walls, that covered columns?

Has anyone seen a paper that describes this alleged dislodging scientifically?

As for now, we only have Mr. Soze’s (check K.Ryan’s article on him and his fellows) outrageous statements which try to confirm official explanation and bolster it with Purdue’s study. Soze’s managed to include “column buckling”, “heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel.”, “collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut” in his statement about Purdue’s study, while this study has NOTHING to do with those topics. OUTRAGEOUS!

The worst thing is that mainstream media will buy it,
as all debunkers swallow it without a thought.

Report this

By great_satan, June 20, 2007 at 9:36 pm Link to this comment

To niloroth
  Having done your research, please tell us or link us to what steel girdered building completely collapse all at once due to fire.
  I agree about much of the research and I think about every piece of 911Truth is mixed with more or less far fetched ideas and dubious assembling of presented information, which ultimately discredits.
  But the idea is not far fetched, it is simple detective reasoning. If one assembles the facts, the most likely culprits are the neoconservative faction in the US Gov and their associates in big business. Don’t forget that nearly every financial institution collaborated with Enron, so nothing can be considered preposterous if there is historical precedent for such an occurrence.

  The primary basis for belief in the “official story’s” acceptance is that it is espoused by mass media and politicians. Basically, “It’s what they say on TV.”
  The Motive, Means,physical evidence, witnesses and affiliations. Detective basics.
Motive:
1, The WTC leaser netted five billion dollars from the collapse.
2. The PNAC initiative manifest in less than five years.
3. Boeing’s gross on defense contracts, has increased 10 billion since 2001.
4. Giuliani is running for president.

Means
1. No need for missile theories. Boeing makes missiles and all four airplanes. Simple as installing a guidance system in the autopilots.
2. Bush family closely involved with the security service for the WTC, which was indeed closed off and powered down portions of the buildings in the weeks preceding the attacks. The building was rewired for internet access with security cams off. All security records and such were kept in WTC7.
3. Dick Cheney’s direct control over NORAD during the time of the attacks.

Physical evidence.
1. The uniform fall of the towers at free fall speed. Big one. The fact that the very tops of the towers were completely shattered. This is probably the least likely thing empirically.
2. The Molten steal in the basements. Pillars cut at even 45 degree angles as in controlled demo.
3. Traces of sulfer, iron and alluminum oxide.
4. Absence of the towers themselves, the mass of which was transported out of the country.
5. Absence of evidence lost in collapse of WTC7
Witnesses.
1. Repeated reports of explosions through WTC just prior to collapse
2. Repeated reports of Explosions in the basement.

Affiliation
1. Bin Laden family/Bush Famliy/CIA/Al Qaida connections (myriad and long term.) 
2. Governor Kean’s affiliation with the Administration.

  These are just the most obvious questions and very suspicious aspects to the whole affair. No theories of missiles, transforming airplanes,no photos of dust and steel shooting out of a collapsing building, no pods under planes, no claims that all TV footage was doctored and no slowed down footage that doesn’t seem to show anything unusual at all.

Report this

By niloroth, June 20, 2007 at 9:11 pm Link to this comment

Dialecticks:

Creationism is pseudo-science.  As I mentioned in my previous post, I tend to include most of these things as roughly the same.  I think the reason you may see fewer people of the ‘creationist’ viewpoint who would support the 9/11 truth version is because believing it was terrorism gives them ammunition against islam.  A better question would be how many people trained as scientists, engineers, doctors and mathematicians believe the official story. Ie. People trained to use a critical mind, and have interests in actual empirical evidence. 

jim snosh:

You raise in interesting question.  “government is incompetent but when it comes diabolical plots and black operations that incompetence suddenly disappears”  Can you explain that?  People who on the one hand can’t even keep the fact that they are using illegal email addresses hidden have now pulled of a faking of one of the biggest terrorist attacks in history, and no one is any the wiser?  How many people were involved?  Heck, just the NIST has about 4,000 people working for them.  Add in the CIA, the FBI, the pilots, the people at the pentagon, all the people who installed the explosive charges, the security guards who looked the other way while tons of explosives were put into place,  the air traffic controllers, and countless others, and what are we looking at?  20,000 people involved?  Sure, that sounds reasonable.  No, actually, it sounds irrational. 

Paolo:

Since you are the building expert, can you tell me a little more about that whole “buildings are built to withstand airplane hits” thing?  Who requires the engineers to address such things?  And what kind of plane and load on that plane was it rated for?  Sources would be nice as well.  You have already done the research on this right, so this should be easy for you.

Mekt_Ranzz:

The other buildings are completely intact?  Are we looking at the same picture?  Look again, the building in the bottom center is missing part of the roof and what looks to be some damage to the side facing WTC7, the buildings to the top of the picture are damaged, and the one to on the left side looks to have some damage at the base.  How did that happen?  Did WTC7 in fact not fall into its own footprint, or was that damage from the towers?  These being the same towers you probably think didn’t hit WTC7, as inferred from your statement “This is because the asymmetric nature of the damage building 7 is reported to have experienced would have led to it likely toppling over—not collapsing symmetrically—or perhaps falling part of the way down arresting a few floors below the start of the collapse wave.”  You can’t have it both ways, your statement implies there was no structural damage to WTC7 from the collapse of the towers, which means that all the damage to the buildings around WTC7 had to have been done by WTC7, which means it didn’t fall into it’s own footprint.  Or if it did fall into it’s own footprint, then obviously the damage is from the towers, but how would they damage all the buildings around WTC7 and not do any damage to WTC7? 

Does the antenna dip, or does it lean to one side?  And are you sure that is what you are seeing through all the smoke?  If it goes straight down, that could mean on thing, if it goes to the side, another.  And then it also depends on what side it tipped.

Report this

By john doraemi, June 20, 2007 at 9:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Rebuttal (with links to other studies) at: http://www.911blogger.com/node/9467

Apparently Purdue has taken some liberties with the NIST data, exaggerating the damage that was presumed by the NIST investigators, and increasing the fuel amounts and the effects of the fuel.

What we should be up in arms about is why more than 99% of the steel evidence was sent to Asia for immediate meltdown, rather than held for forensic investigation.  That was quite illegal, being evidence in the murders of 3000 people. 

If you want a fuller understanding of September 11th, rather than the little snapshots you get hereabouts, see how these more than 70 disturbing facts cast the attacks in a quite different light:

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/02/no-george-monbiot-these-are-facts-of.html

Report this

By jimbobuddy, June 20, 2007 at 9:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bob is right. Some people hate Bush SO much that they invent a simplistic fantasy that makes him responsible for EVERYTHING. These people display the inverse of faith based “reasoning”. It somehow comforts them to think that we werent attacked by 19 Wahabists. No, it was George Bush - that grinning ,spoiled , village idiot. The complexity of thinking that facing the truth that the facts of the events of that awful day describe is too much work for their McBrains. It would require them to construct a theory of the crime that actually comports with the laws of physics and human psychology . I suggest that people start with the NIST report, which did actual scientific experiments, and used well understood physical principles, and data( like the temperature of burning jet ‘A’, and the temp at which structural steel loses 50 percent of it’s strength). Next , try to understand that the mental processes that you must ascribe to the thousands of people involved in this conspiracy dont exist in the human psyche. Bill Clinton couldnt keep a blowjob secret(for those of you that cant count either, thats just TWO people)! But those wearing tin hats are suggesting that the most horrendous crime ever committed in this country against Americans, by hundreds or thousands of other Americans has been kept secret by those same murderers. Doesnt pass the laugh test. I’m done wasting time on this, now. But these wierd conspironuts have this need to have one nasty villain - W -  responsible, instead of trying to think through, and understand the genesis of this violent spasm from the medeval core of salaficism.
  I’m out.

Report this

By 911truthdotorg, June 20, 2007 at 8:47 pm Link to this comment

NewLeft -

I agree with you 1,000%! The politics behind 9/11 is the real story, but that is way too complicated for the average American to absorb.

I put the Google video of 9/11 Press for Truth on every post I do here in the hope that maybe one person who hasn’t seen it will watch it. I’d love to know if anyone has. I’ve handed out the DVD’s to friends and they refuse to watch it! Because they won’t even contemplate that their government was somehow involved! That’s why. Some have told me that.

It is so frighteningly sad how cowardly the American people are. Or should I say Sheeple.

On the Chris Mathews Show last Sat, he asked the panel if there was any way that bush could save his “legacy” at this point. Everyone said “No” except for Tucker Carlson. He said only if we have another terror attack. Mark my words, there will be another “terror attack” before the 2008 election.

This country is doomed if the truth of 9/11 doesn’t come out before they do the next one. Doomed.

Google videos: 9/11 Press for Truth, Loose Change 2nd Edition

Report this

By cyrena, June 20, 2007 at 8:25 pm Link to this comment

by Tom Doff on 6/20 at 7:50 am
(Unregistered commenter)

I didn’t even know we needed a ‘Tower Collapse Theory’.

I though they collapsed because a group of Saudis got pissed at the way arabs have been treated by the US and Israel for decades, and finding that they had no means of recourse other than violence, decided to fly a couple of planes into the buildings to draw attention to their plight, and not-so-incidentally, destroy a US landmark that was a symbol of the financial hegemony which was harming the muslim world, and a bunch of zionists who were pulling the strings of the hegemony on a day-to-day basis.

**************************************
I agree Tom. THIS is the explanation for what happened on 9-11, and it didn’t come without warning.
Wasn’t even the first time.

However, in previous event’s the Arabs have have sometimes succeeded in getting us to back off of their space, once they commit one of these atrocious events. (i.e Sudan and Blackhawk Down, same thing with Beirut).

So, it’s not like anybody was particularly surprised, if they resorted to that again, and managed to attach their whole extremist ideology to it as well, to advance the cause, because the cause is not new. They’ve been resisting the effects and symbols of Western hedgemony for decades, pretty much the same way that I’m sure most Westerners would resist a complete domination of Islamic culture or tradition here at home.

Just the thought that ANY OTHER NATION, has even an “INCH” of military control here on our own soil, would send me into some sort of an “episode”.

I mean, imagine that, for any one of us…We leave home for work, or school, or anything else, and get to the end of the block, and there on the corner is Saudi Military Base. Drive down the coast 35 miles or so, and pass a huge naval contingent from IRAN, sitting out there in the Pacific…pick any spot.

Then, pass through or go around a few dozen checkpoints, set up by the Israeli Military, and finally make it to the office near San Pedro, where I pass another checkpoint controlled by our OWN military.

Has there ever been a time in the history of our own nation, when we’ve had internationally recognized military forces, (other than our OWN)living amongst us on our soil? (I’m talking post-revolutionary America, after we stole it from the Natives)

It’s never really happened, unless we consider the wars with Mexico, when we extended hegemony there, and that somehow doesn’t seem to count. It’s just not the same as knowing that the U.S. military has occupied so many of the other nations of the world, and I don’t get why we should be surprised that they don’t like it.

Report this

By niloroth, June 20, 2007 at 8:12 pm Link to this comment

markloveshawaii:

Even your own first link proves the point about not using “pull” to denote imploding a building.  Pull in the way it is used by the demolition people in that video are referring to using wires to pull down a structure, or to guide parts of a structure during an implosion.  Did you even watch and/or read the links you gave me?  I really would be interested to know what 10 videos you have watched, cause i think if you have watched them, you either were really distracted, or you didn’t even begin to think about it with a skeptical mind.

Here in lies a problem with i think most of the people who are reading this thread, and commenting in it.  Many of the things you are saying is not only unsubstantiated, but are in many cases, non factual.  You have a preconceived view about what happened on 9/11, and you are simply going out and absorbing things to support your beliefs.  You are all the same as those who believe in creationism, Intelligent Design, and a flat earth.  You are most likely immune to doubt, because you can always fall back on “god did it” or “it was a conspiracy”, or some other defense. 

Look, when i first heard about loose change, i was really interested, a friend of mine who had seen it and i talked about it over a few drinks.  It seemed from what he said it was very compelling, and it was.  I went home that night and watched the whole thing, and then hit some web sites to learn more about it.  I was up way to late that night and my performance at work the next day suffered because of it.  I was all kinds of excited, because i had new knowledge, and new things to think about.  I like being in that state.  I am also however a skeptic, and i love tearing anything and everything apart, to see if it can really stand up to reason and the light of investigation.  So i started checking out some other sites, getting the other side, because i love comparing two sides to one issue.  Loose change, really didn’t fair so well.  Probably the reason they cut version 2.  Cleared up a few things, tried to remove some really glaring mistakes, and added a bit new stuff.  Still doesn’t hold up that well to scrutiny.

Still have not given up researching this, or really anything.  And i am not saying that everything i wonder about the events on 9/11 have been answered, but i am more than willing, and have, looked at both sides.  And i have decided to go with the side that gives full and complete answers, not the side that needs to use half truths, misquotes, quotes taken out of context, misdirection, or even out right lies to make their case. 

The fact that the whole “WTC7 was the first time a fire collapsed a skyscraper” argument is still being trotted out is proof that none of you have done any research on the other side, and have not given any skeptical thought to the argument.  Stop acting like sheep, do some research, read the other side, and think about what people are telling you.  Its really not that hard, but i guess it is quickly becoming a lost art.

Report this

By great_satan, June 20, 2007 at 7:53 pm Link to this comment

It would be interesting to see a cross poll of beliefs.
  I’m sure a lot of so-called conspiracy theorists might wind up believing in various aspects of sensationalist pseudo-science, especially the believers in no plane theories, that the TV footage was all doctored and so forth.
  On the other hand, it would be interesting to see how who believe the official story also believe in creationism as empirical fact.
  I am really noticing that the believers in the offiical theories and the espouser’s of it, don’t even try to explain anything. They just revert to emotional name calling.
  It would be interesting to formulate a combined IQ test and poll regarding this issue.

Report this

By Louise, June 20, 2007 at 7:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#79739 by Bob

“They can’t scratch their tushies now without someone’s nose up it.”

***
Not true sir. We still have to rely on press people independent or owned to give us much of the information that leads to a blog and sometimes to an investigation.
***

“There are enough blatant crimes that this president has committed to impeach him.”

***
While you and I may feel the evidence is there, until a formal investigation is conducted by Congress, resulting in charges being brought and then proven to the satisfaction of the Senate, all we can do is get angrier and more frustrated. Which by the way is the very best reason why we should demand a thorough honest investigation into 9/11. Because had it not been for 9/11 there never would have been ...

An attack on Afghanistan.

The infamous “Enemy Combatant Detainee” legislation.

Kidnappings, assassinations, torture, murder and disappearing’s.

An attack on Iraq.

Patriot one and two.

The Military Commissions Act.

And dozens of other abuses to numerous to list, but you probably know them all.

And most important, Bush would have been laughed out of office in 2003.

In other words, 9/11 gave Bush the excuse he needed to commit all those blatant crimes you mention!

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN COINCIDENCE! Not this time for sure!

How on earth does someone pull off such a plan? How come no-one with a conscience is stepping forward with the truth?

Obvious answer. No-one who was privy to the plan has a conscience.

But I believe another reason is fear and shame. The vast majority of players in the 9/11 murder probably didn’t realize until long after the fact they had played a role. Those who know and don’t care, and sit silent have been handsomely rewarded for their silence.

Those who know and fear for their life or the lives of their family sit silent.

Those who fear losing a lifetime of work in their career sit silent.

But sir, what you and I saw on 9/11 were buildings being imploded by controlled demolition. Somewhere deep in your rational mind, you know that as well as I do, but choose to be part of the REAL conspiracy.

The conspiracy that created the “official” 9/11 story.

I saw what I saw. I know what I saw, and I will believe the evidence of my eyes before I will ever believe anything coming out of a republican controlled Washington DC, congress, prez or press.

And finally, I could refer you to hundreds of photos, [possibly thousands, I’ve never counted] study’s and links proving the lie. Or proving the official story is the real conspiracy, but I wont bother. The one thing I have learned for sure, is how pointless it is to try and pry open a closed mind.

For those who still have an open mind and the ability to handle the truth I will be happy too.
Well, at least to the degree ‘truthdig’ will allow it.

Report this

By great_satan, June 20, 2007 at 7:34 pm Link to this comment

J KOCH
“Two big fuel-filled planes smashed into two towers whose designers never guessed the resulting temperatures.  The exact sequence of destruction is open to discussion.  But those who suggest it started by anything else offer no proof of other explosive charges or how they could have been placed secretly in buildings where 1000s worked daily.”

    Incorrect. I figured this was the wink link in the whole argument. Turns out that the security company in charge of WTC is directly likked to Bush family, by brother Marvin and cousin (somebody Walker,) The buildings were floor by floor powered down and evacuated (1st time ever at WTC.) Engineers from these companies rolled in and drilled and wired for hours and hours the weeks before 9-1. Five days prior, the bomb sniffing dogs, present from the 93 bombing were evacuated.

Report this

By jim snosh, June 20, 2007 at 6:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

NIST and almost every government funded institution has lost complete and total legitimacy, creditability with me. i would never trust any government or institution again. these institutions have all the money power and crowd control weapons you could dream of. your right, government is incompetent but when it comes diabolical plots and black operations that incompetence suddenly disappears.. and why do we give these people 0 of our yearly income? all through history governments have been taken over by people who thrive on power and control, these types of people are in both parties. both parties are a joke. dont expect government or any government to solve any problem. when you give up your liberty for safety you almost never get back safety, you get tyranny and that was then entire plan from the very beginning..

Report this

By blog dog, June 20, 2007 at 6:37 pm Link to this comment

RE: •  #79691 by NewLeft on 6/20 at 1:04 pm — “Why, WHY do truthers refuse to recognize that the real meat of 9/11 conspiracy evidence lies in a) the well-documented collaboration between the CIA, Pakistani ISI, and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and b) the startling failure of the world’s most expensive national defense system? Don’t any of you think it’s strange that no one has been held to account for the failures that allowed those planes to stay on their suicidal courses? Is anyone so naive as to think that the ties between the CIA and Islamic extremists simply, miraculously evaporated? At the very least, there are ISI operatives currently inside several Muhajid groups. Bush would have, did, HAD TO know ahead of time. The other possibility, of course, is that elements of our own intelligence community spurred Atta and co. to action.

=========== elements of our own intelligence community - there you have it - the 911 coup d’ètat - not a lead-ass buearaucracy like FEMA or NIST - a rogue network of Iran-Contra vintage - in service to execute the most spectacularly lethal false flag provocation since Nero burned Rome - in service to a cabal of finance oligarchs.

Moreover, the only warning Bush followed was to ignore intelligence warnings from around the world - agents are everywhere and many picked up on the planning of 9/11 - and in the US intelligence community a network of moles, in service to the rogue network killed all investigations that led to their patsies and professionals charged with carrying it out - conduited through the 15+ drills being run that very day (at least one simulating exactly what happened)...your 19 patsies were Able Danger operatives.

Finally, when it happened, Bush too was targeted - follow it up: “Angle is Next,” the threat to Air Force One, phoned in with enough top-secret code to force the POTUS to fly to Offut to take personal control of the nuclear trigger. Since that day, the rogue network has been calling all geopolitical shots. And if they start loosing control they will do something even bigger - that is unless the less-than-stragelove faction (not at all happy with the way things are going) can manage to rein them in - this is what the Iraq Study Group was all about.

The 911 Coup is an open secret in the corridors of power around the world - the scramble is on the rein in the madmen without blowing the coverup and triggering the biggest constitutional crisis since the Civil War, precipitating a global financial meltdown.

Report this

By Fred, June 20, 2007 at 6:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is such utter propagandistic tripe, what complete nonsense. I’ve been hearing and reading a lot lately about the dumbing down of American institutes and Purdue is obviously leading the pack.

Does this model explain how 10+ floors per second were smashed into dust, leveling the towers at near freefall speed to allow the upper floors to pass through the path of MOST resistance(straight down through the undamaged floors below)? The answer is painfully obvious.

This means plane debris + kerosene destroyed all 47 core columns evenly, many of them cut at sharp 45 degree angles looking remarkably like cutter charges, which held the building up since the early seventies. NIST used computer models as well as I recall, which was the only way they could make the government’s theory work. Computer models can be rigged to reveal any results desired; None of the real-world fire tests caused even partial collapse, despite burning hotter and longer than the fires in the WTC complex.

Report this

By markloveshawaii, June 20, 2007 at 6:16 pm Link to this comment

niloroth

  ” “Pull it” has never been used in demolitions as a way to express imploding a building.  However, pulling a team of firefighters, or soldiers, out of a bad situation is common.  I can’t tell you why he worded it that way, but it seems far more likely that he was talking about the fire fighter teams rather than the structure.  And even if he has no reasonable reason the have said that, are you telling me you would be making 100% sense while watching all that on tv and being personally effected?  “

You need to do some research
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNEoiOP76QQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awcqSy_UsXs

Sorry for not knowing how to make them Links, lol maybe I should research that.

I’ve watched at least 10 videos where controled demos have been called pulled or pull it

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, June 20, 2007 at 5:34 pm Link to this comment

I propose an experiment:

The next time a large, steel-framed building is due for demolition, get a jet plane loaded with fuel, run it on automatic pilot, and see if you can take down the building, all the way to the foundation, by impacting it on the top 25 percent of the structure.

If the folks conducting “computer simulations” or the folks at Popular Mechanics think their explanation is believable, it should be easy to duplicate, also.

If not, the total collapse of three skyscrapers, one of which was not even hit by an airplane, remains a pretty amazing feat of skill and luck.

Also, does it not seem logical that an airplane impact, if it could bring down such a structure, would do so asymmetrically? One would expect the damage on one side of the skyscraper to be more severe, and lead to toppling, rather than perfect, vertical collapse.

These skyscrapers, by the way, were designed specifically to withstand the impact of a jet plane; it’s one of the contingencies the engineers are required to address, along with hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes.

Report this

By Caver, June 20, 2007 at 4:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Wow! This computer model PROVES the planes brought down the Towers!

And some other computer models PROVE that Global Warming is a manmade apocalypse! Except for the computer models that PROVE a new Ice Age is coming.

Hey! How about a computer model of Noah’s Ark? That will PROVE that Creationism is a fact!

Sorry about that. The fact is, a computer model is just a model. It may or may not be a reliable representative of actual events in the real world; the only way to know is to be familiar with not only the facts of the real world, but also the facts and assumptions made in the creation of the model. In this case, NO ONE knows the facts of the real world to which the model is supposed to correspond. Simple things such as “Did one of the Tower business occupants install curtain walls or cubicles that would have funneled or even slightly redirected the fuel?” “Exactly how much fuel went down the elevator shafts?” Even such basic physics as how tangible objects react to extreme shock loading are very much debatable. (Sure F=ma, but what happens when the rate of change of acceleration is very high - or even the rate of change of the rate of change is high. These are not trivial questions.) In addition, we members of the public know essentially NOTHING about the program that created the animation. Is it good? Really good? It may be 99% excellent with only a very critical 1% flaw in its reasoning.

We don’t know. The truth is, the most we can truthfully say about the whole cartoon sequence is “Hey, nice piece of animation.” As for what bearing it has on the events of 911 we know absolutely zero, zilch, nada.

Report this

By John F. Butterfield, June 20, 2007 at 4:32 pm Link to this comment

If this animation impressed me, I would suggest that we use old airplanes to demolish old buildings rather than controlled demolitions. It doesn’t and I don’t.

Report this

By Bob, June 20, 2007 at 3:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You “truthers” have been watching too much CSI.  I hate Bush as much as any sane person, but consider this (since some of you are bringing up Occam!): this gov’t can’t cover up their real crimes, which are faaaaaar less complex than this one would be, with fewer operatives involved, and you think they could cover something like THIS up????  Give me air.  They can’t scratch their tushies now without somone’s nose up it.

There are enough blatant crimes that this president has committed to impeach him.  Don’t start cooking up this stuff.  Watch Lost and tell Congress to enforce the law and you’ll be happy.

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, June 20, 2007 at 3:45 pm Link to this comment

Jim, Verne is right about wood vs. steel in construction.  The heat in a fireplace is usually not sufficient to melt a steel grate but often does bend it.  If they made a carrying beam out of steel the same dimensions as a wood carrying beam, then the steel might have a chance of outlasting the wood.  But the steel in a construction carrying beam is usually much less than an inch thick and succumbs to heat, which is why, in a house, for example, wood trumps steel, which is what Verne means.

Report this

By Hemi*, June 20, 2007 at 3:41 pm Link to this comment

“You Americans have some vivid imaginations and need to get a grip on reality. You may not know it, but your media is making you stupid; and they thrive of it.” - Sam I am

Sam, the FBI reported that fourteen out of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia with the others from the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon or Egypt. That sounds reasonable. This is where it gets weird, despite this FBI intelligence we are fighting the “war on terror” in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Where is the reality you would have us “grip”?

And what, if not the media, is making you stupid?

Report this

By cyrena, June 20, 2007 at 3:35 pm Link to this comment

Unfortunately, this study/recreation didn’t help me, but I admit that I know next to nothing about demolitions, or the technicalities of fire, or buildings in general. So, this wouldn’t really help me understand that aspect of it.

HOWEVER, there is still so very much that this does not explain, or answer. It shows us a 3-D version of what happened inside that one Tower, after it was hit. It still doesn’t explain WTC7 (because I don’t believe that it was hit by another “building”)and it doesn’t explain the Pentagon AT ALL.

It also doesn’t explain all of the “related” stuff, because when we put it all together, it means that the system failed AT EVERY POINT, beginning with how 19 highjackers were able to even board those 4 airplanes (obviously with weapons of some sort) at the same time, with no hitch-ups or questions by any airport personnel. (actually, a few of these highjackers were noted by airport personnel, through standard security profiling procedures, but they got on anyway).

It also doesn’t explain why so many major airports had such limited traffic for that time of the year. As a matter of fact, I was traveling more than usual in the weeks and days preceeding these attacks, and shared musings with fellow airline employees, about how unusually “quiet” things were then, even though the period between early September and early Novemember are traditionally lower volume months for airline travel in the U.S. STILL, it was unusually “quiet” during that time, and none of those airplanes had much of a passenger load. (all were at far less than even half capacity.)

And, there’s just too much other stuff that doesn’t “fit”. Nothing of what we do know, has been PROVEN to be an “inside job”, leaving me to speculate that the administration probably was NOT involved in the planning of it. Rather, they simply avoided responding to all of the earlier warnings. and ALLOWED the attacks to continue through what must have been the original plan of the hijackers.

Here again, there is no concrete “proof” of that, because “intent” is too difficult to prove. But, there are a million holes in the “official version” of this, and at some point in time, we might find out. I’m not holding out a lot of hope on that though, if only because so much information (like the video tapes near the Pentagon, that would have recorded what actually happened) were mysteriously removed before any official had time to do an investigation. We have to assume that this information has been destroyed, because it never made it into the record. Neither did any of the information from the flight data recorders, which should have been a cornerstone of ANY such investigation.

Nope, too many holes, too many things that have no explanation, and too many irregularities in the overall picture. The “odds” just aren’t realistic. And, since it’s been nearly six years, we’ve had time to hear from the terrorists who actually PLANNED it, to discover that even THEY were surprised by the enormity of the damage.

I’m not sure we’ll ever know.

Report this

By Tony B., June 20, 2007 at 3:33 pm Link to this comment

NEWLEFT,
Thank you.  I couldn’t have said it better, myself.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, June 20, 2007 at 3:20 pm Link to this comment

Quote #79541 by markloveshawaii on 6/20 at 6:03 am: “...Fine and dandy the computer makes a decision weather or not a building falls down but what about building 7 there was no plane that hit it and fire has NEVER in the history of the world brought down a skyscraper.  Wheres the computer rundown for that?  And how did it fall perfectly? If fire caused that than controlled demolition experts would use fire unstead of many months of preperation and lots of expensive c4…!”

There was already “a two-year study”  by many university construction engineers and demolition explosives experts who concluded that it was a suspicious incident. the stiuation with building 7 confirms that in the worst way. You can add the strike on the Pentagon which also has many anomalous factors and it looks like an inside job. Everything on the net, and there is heaps, supports that - http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php

Just add in Wolfowitz’s comments from 2000 and in June 2001 and you get a dangerous picture that still acn’t be wished away -  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article432446.ece Actually, isn’t this just something which has been trotted out to help whitewash his past sins?

Report this
James V's avatar

By James V, June 20, 2007 at 3:20 pm Link to this comment

Ummm, OK.

So we now have a big ‘ole study, with all the appropriate experts and CG models, showing that Fox Mulder was wrong in his theory about why these building fell. SHOCKING! Big friggin’ deal.

Hey, I have an idea. Why don’t we take some experts and CG renderings and do an investigation as to why in the hell we attacked Iraq for it? At least that could actually be a useful exercise. I never bought into the conspiracy theories in regards to the towers. Our gov’t has it’s collective head too far up it’s ass and it’s hands in the cookiejar to be bothered. To be honest I just don’t think it’s capable of anything so sophisticated. So why are we wasting time and energy on this silliness instead of on other much more productive queries?

Report this

By Hemi*, June 20, 2007 at 3:18 pm Link to this comment

If the 9/11 attack and collapse were legit, why are we not “bringing democracy” to the home contries (Saudi Arabia and Egypt) of the attackers? Oh that’s right, the Bushes have a timeshare in Saudi Arabia. My bad!

Report this

By Mekt_Ranzz, June 20, 2007 at 2:54 pm Link to this comment

Niloroth: 

The JPG photo you linked to DOES show that WTC 7 collapsed into its own footprint.  Look at the adjacent buildings.  They’re completely intact—which was no doubt the point of making the collapse symmetrical.  This was obviously an engineered event; that you can’t see that astonishes me.

As for your link to the video of the WTC 7 “15” second collapse, wherein the penthouse caves in early on, it hardly debunks the controlled demolition theory; if anything, it suggests it further. Notice that the central support columns appear to have been severed first—with the penthouse cave-in being the first indication of this—followed by the subsequent at or near free-fall speed of collapse.

To better make my point, consider the collapse of the north tower.  Right before it occurs, the antenna dips a bit, which suggests that the central columns were severed first, followed soon afterward by the building collapse at or near free fall speed.

Regardless, 15 seconds is still way too fast for what one could estimate for any kind of asymmetrical fire-induced collapse (of which, historically, there have been none).  This is because the asymmetric nature of the damage building 7 is reported to have experienced would have led to it likely toppling over—not collapsing symmetrically—or perhaps falling part of the way down arresting a few floors below the start of the collapse wave.

Report this

By JohnDWoodSr, June 20, 2007 at 2:29 pm Link to this comment

In light of all of the illegalities and murderous actions of the Bush administration since 9/11, I believe that the attacks on the WTC towers,Pentagon, and the thwarted attack on either the Capitol or White House were carried out with the complicity of some highly placed members of the Government and the military. The fact that every fighter that could have responded to the highjackings was on maneuvers with Nato forces participating in “war games” on the very day of the attacks is more coincidence than I’m prepared to accept. The subsequent destruction of control tower tapes,etc. only firms up my belief.
That said, however, I must say that the theories about explosives being pre-set into the WTC is a little nutso because it was totally unnecessary to bring the buildings down. The damage was done and the attacks successful when the planes were hijacked and flown into their targets. At that point the U.S. had been damaged by AlQuaeda, and there was no need for the buildings to be brought down.That was just windowdressing-the icing on the cake-a performance bonus no one planned.

Report this

By JKoch, June 20, 2007 at 2:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Two big fuel-filled planes smashed into two towers whose designers never guessed the resulting temperatures.  The exact sequence of destruction is open to discussion.  But those who suggest it started by anything else offer no proof of other explosive charges or how they could have been placed secretly in buildings where 1000s worked daily.

The other buildings damaged in the event present a merkier story.  No one wante to refurbish the old BT building and insurance is covering the dismantlement.  The old DBL building was a curious case, but foul play, if any, was more likely geared to financial ends.  Investigations have unearthed various frauds to claim insurance or survivor benefits, but (so far) none involve that building.

There is nothing to suggest any scheme hatched in advance by any cabal other than the Egyptians and Saudis who hijacked and flew the planes.  The one real mystery, that does not seem to bother the conspiracy theorists, is why so many Americans still think that Iraqis were behind the 1993 or 2001 attacks, why so many continue to buy the idea that we are in Iraq to avenge 9/11, or why they think that the continued quagmire somehow prevents another 9/11.

Report this

By NewLeft, June 20, 2007 at 2:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Now, I’ll state it straightaway - I am a 9-11 truther. The most frustrating, irritating, illogical thing about the movement I’ve found since I started researching is this focus on buildings, controlled demolitions, and no-plane theories.

Put simply, NONE of the physical evidence even matters. In fact, CD discussion are straw-men, red herrings whose conclusion is inconsequential.

Why, WHY do truthers refuse to recognize that the real meat of 9/11 conspiracy evidence lies in a) the well-documented collaboration between the CIA, Pakistani ISI, and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and b) the startling failure of the world’s most expensive national defense system? Don’t any of you think it’s strange that no one has been held to account for the failures that allowed those planes to stay on their suicidal courses? Is anyone so naive as to think that the ties between the CIA and Islamic extremists simply, miraculously evaporated? At the very least, there are ISI operatives currently inside several Muhajid groups. Bush would have, did, HAD TO know ahead of time. The other possibility, of course, is that elements of our own intelligence community spurred Atta and co. to action.

I really am shocked by the continued ignorance I see in the Truth movement. These two issues are REAL issues, things we can trace, things that no one can deny. STOP ALL THE NONSENSE ABOUT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS OR THIS MOVEMENT IS DOOMED TO FAILURE. I’m quite certain that the true organizers of 9/11 couldn’t be happier that we’ve spent 6 years quibbling over these inane details while ignoring the two elephants in our room. They must be laughing it up.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.