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!

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.

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

#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.

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

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

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.

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/inde x.jhtml

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9BofDUXv0

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

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,

#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.

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/6F393F4DE41C4CF798CBB43 8E6378129/september-clues-part1.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/2CE2112F00F24F4182C7358 2D0F89949/september-clues-part2.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/E0E8DC73928D42D4A01CF66 4B22E16B5/september-clues-part3.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/3F706266A8524D6AA3CCC4C FC2F0F257/september-clues-part4.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/0A68FD7C73F8440E9CDCAE3 8D86C5129/september-clues-part5.aspx

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

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

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.

“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!

#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.

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.

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)

(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

#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.

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

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).

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.