Seekin' that Ol' 911 Truth

911=PNAC, CIA, Mossad | 25.08.2006 16:55 | Repression | World

Before The Plant insults 911 Truth, he should read the last paragraph. It'll save us all some time ...

Seekin' that Ol' 911 Truth

James Patton

First two simple questions:

Q1: On September 11 2001, how many buildings collapsed in New York City?

A: Two? No, THREE. The Twin Towers were hit by aeroplanes, but WTC 7, a massive 47 storey steel-framed skyscraper also collapsed. It was NOT hit by a plane. The evidence is clear - this was a controlled demolition.

http://wtc7.net/

http://911physics.co.nr/ (Click on WTC 7 link)

Q2: How long did it take the FBI to bring charges against Usama bin Laden in connection with 911? One hour, eight hours, a day, a week?

A: Usama bin Laden is NOT on the FBI most wanted list in connection with 911. Why not? According to FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.”

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4673

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm (accessed 20 August 2006)

If you believe 911 was an inside job, YOU ARE NOT ALONE. Below are just a small selection amongst the millions of credible persons including engineers, scientists, intelligence analysts, actors, theologians, philosophers, authors, investigative journalists, lawyers, military personel, politicians, family members and eye-witnesses who believe the investigation into the events of September 11 2001 must urgently be reopened.

Seekin' that ol' 911 Truth August 2006

On July 29 and 30, and then again on August 1, something happened that increasing numbers of people believe is of great importance. On these dates C-SPAN rebroadcast a 911 panel discussion, held originally in late June, sponsored by an organization called the American Scholars’ Symposium to discuss what really happened on September 11, 2001.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/c-span_firestorm_911_truth_gains_momentum.htm

http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Series&Code=APS&ShowVidNum=10&
Rot_Cat_CD=APS&Rot_HT=206&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=100&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=100

Held in Los Angeles, the meeting lasted two days, and the C-SPAN rebroadcast covered one almost two-hour wrap-up session. The meeting was attended by 1,200 people interested in hearing something other than the official story of 9/11. The TV audience was evidently large enough to spur C-SPAN to broadcast the panel discussion five separate times in four days.

Even a month late, this is a lot of airtime for stories that many people call conspiracy theories!

The seekers after 911 truth have been around for almost 5 years now, and they're NOT GOING AWAY - they're growing day by day!

In April Charlie Sheen made national news (CNN Showbiz Tonight 7pm) three nights in a row, with coverage continuing every day the following week.

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/fourth-night-of-showbiz-tonights-sheen.html

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/280606juggernautoftruth.htm

What newsworthy event prompted such coverage? Mr. Sheen announced that he thinks the government has been covering up the truth about 9/11. Charlie thinks 9/11 was an inside job!

http://9eleven.info/

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060323162638376

Two of Sheen's fellow actors, Ed Asner and Ed Begley, Jr, agree with him.

http://www.911blimp.net/videos/EdAsner-UnityIsTheKey.mov

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7140359934129245752&q=Ed+Begley+911

And so does movie director Aaron Russo.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2947267143366647266&hl=en

Maybe you don’t care what they think, they're just actors. Perhaps you want the opinion of scientists. Well, how about an expert like Steven E Jones, professor of physics at BYU? Professor Jones has found forensic evidence of thermate, an explosive, being used to cut through key support pillars in the WTC buildings.

http://www.9eleven.info/911JonesPaperhtm7.htm

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=4688

http://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=Steven%20Jones%20Shows%20WTC%20Demolition%20Evidence.wmv

Or perhaps MIT Engineer Jeff King who also believes the WTC were brought down by a controlled demolition.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248&pl=true

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=related&search_query=
News+WTC+911+Conspiracy+Flight+77&search_sort=relevance&search_category=0&page=2

What about a mathematician? Professor of mathematics, University of Western Ontario, and founder of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven (SPINE), A.K Dewdney.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/operation_pearl.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._K._Dewdney

Maybe they’re too theoretical for you. You want someone from the applied sciences. May I suggest Clemson mechanical engineering professor Judy Wood?

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/mechanical-engineering-professor-from.html

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

Or how about Kevin Ryan, former department head at UL (Underwriter Laboratories), the company which certified the steel which went into the WTCs upon their construction, and inspected it after the WTC collapses in 2001. He found the official reports to be full of lies and contradictions.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451

http://www.snowshoefilms.com/

Maybe you don’t care for ’eggheads’.

http://www.st911.org/

http://physics911.net/spine.htm

http://911physics.co.nr/

You want to hear from true patriots, military men, like former head of Star Wars and air force colonel, Bob Bowman, who says the 'official story of 911 is a bunch of hogwash and impossible'.

http://benfrank.net/blog/2005/10/27/oil_mafia_treason/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/030306Evidence.htm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6900065571556128674

http://bowman2006.com/

Or USAF Col. (Ret) George Nelson, an authority on aircraft crash investigation.

http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm

Or former chief Pentagon arms negotiator for the Middle East, USAF Col. (Ret) Don de Grand-Pre

http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html

Or how about military men from other countries who are also skeptics of the 'official' story of 911? Here's a few:

Canadian National Defense Minister, the Honourable Paul Hellyer

http://www.septembereleventh.org/kc/multimedia/movies/Hellyer.mov

National Minister of Defense (Germany). Also, served as Minister of Technology Andreas Von Bulow.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274552561914055825

Former Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces, and chief of the department for General affairs in the Soviet Union 's ministry of Defense, General Leonid Ivashov

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NIM20060123&articleId=1788

Maybe military types scare you. How about a lady of letters like poet Erica Jong?

http://www.etruscanpress.org/02_september_11_2001.html

Maybe you’re not into poetry. Prose is more your style. How about Webster Tarpley author of 9/11 Synthetic Terror made in USA?

http://www.tarpley.net/welcome.html

Or authors Gore Vidal, Bill Douglas or Christopher Bollyn?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13969.htm

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/EnemyWithin.html

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bollynbeaten.htm

Or if you prefer your message in song, what about putting some of the hard questions to music? Les Visible: 9/11 Was An Inside Job (music)

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=97737

Maybe you don’t trust actors, authors, musicians or poets. You want to hear from a man of God. How about David Ray Griffin theologian, professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology?

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

The respected Presbyterian Press has recently published his book Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11

https://www.ppcbooks.com/index1.asp

Not just into Christianity? What about MUJCA-NET, a group of scholars, religious leaders and activists dedicated to uniting members of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths in pursuit of 9/11 truth.

http://mujca.com/

How about philosophers? What about distinguished McKnight professor of philosophy, Jim Fetzer.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/BigLies23Apr2006.html

Or Dr. Jim Hoffman?

http://911research.wtc7.net/

What could theologians and philosophers know about national security? You want to hear from insiders to the covert world. How about CIA analyst and former presidential adviser Ray McGovern, an expert on National Security who’s career spanned JFK to GHW Bush.

http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2006/01/interview_with_ray_mcgovern.html

Or Bill Christison, a former senior official of the CIA. He was a National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis before his retirement in 1979.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Christison14.htm

Or how about David Shayler, the MI5 Whistleblower?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/270605insidejob.htm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974

Or former cop Michael C. Ruppert?

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/store/books.shtml#ruby

Or former 9/11 Commission Member and democrat senator, Max Cleland, who blasts Bush and claims "The White House Has Played Cover-Up".

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/23/1546256

Other members of the 9/11 Commission panel also believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11.

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true."

http://unsungwar.com/

Or what about Republican Thomas Kean and Democrat Lee Hamilton, the two chairmen of the official government 9/11 Commission Report? In their book, “Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission.” Kean and Hamilton reveal that the US military committed perjury and lied about its failure to intercept the hijacked airliners.

"It proved difficult, if not impossible, to raise hard questions about 9/11 in New York without it being perceived as criticism of the individual police and firefighters or of Mayor Giuliani," Kean and Hamilton said.

The commission even debated referring the military’s lies to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.

Why should we assume that these admissions are the only coverups and lies in the 9/11 Commission Report?

http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?p=117589

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14531.htm

Or Cynthia McKinney, a five-term U.S. Congresswoman from Georgia's fourth district from 1993 to 2003, or Catherine Austin Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing under President George Bush Sr. and a former managing director and board member of Dillon, Read & Co. Inc.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041101130426916

Or Michael Meacher MP former UK Minister for the environment who says "The war on terror is bogus", or Andreas Von Bulow, former German Secretary Of Defense, who says "The official [9/11] story is so inadequate and far fetched that there must be a different one."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11222.htm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274552561914055825

Or Sibel Edmonds, a 32-year-old Turkish-American, who was hired as a translator by the FBI shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 because of her knowledge of Middle Eastern languages. She was fired less than a year later in March 2002 for reporting shoddy work and security breaches to her supervisors that could have prevented those attacks.

http://www.justacitizen.com/

Or Daniel Ellsburg, famous Vietnam 'Pentagon Papers' whistleblower and former American military analyst and Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (ISA), DOD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/07/daniel-ellsberg-comes-out-for-911.html

Or how about the FBI? Did you know that the reason Usama bin Laden isn't on their most wanted list in connection to 9/11 is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting him to the crimes?

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/06/fbi-states-no-hard-evidence-connects.html

What about another country's government, such as the Venezuelan government under Hugo Chavez, supported by billionaire philanthropist Jimmy Walter and WTC survivor William Rodriguez, which is set to launch an international investigation into 9/11?

http://www.iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/83785

Maybe they're all too far left for you! You want to hear from a Republican. How about Paul Craig Roberts assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan?

http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28070

http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2006/02/post.html

http://www.wanttoknow.info/050908insidejob911#roberts

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14531.htm

OK, he’s a Republican, but that was back in the Reagan days. So how about Ron Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul200.html

http://www.house.gov/paul/

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Ron_Paul
#Congressman_Ron_Paul_Admits_Conspiracy_to_Create_World_Government

Maybe you need to hear from someone in GW’s administration. How about Morgan Reynolds professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and chief economist for the US Department of Labor during Bush’s first term? He believes the events of 9/11 were a staged event, orchestrated by people within the Bush government.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

Since the attacks of 911 were obviously a crime, maybe you want to hear from trained legal minds. People whose job it is to carefully investigate the details of a crime and reach a well considered conclusion.

Well, how about attorney Philip Berg? Berg, who has filed a lawsuit against the Bush admin on behalf of WTC survivor William Rodriguez says "They (Bush et al) made it happen or let it happen. And if they let it happen, then they made it happen. And they must be held responsible."

http://www.911forthetruth.com/

Or attorney Stanley Hilton?

http://www.suetheterrorists.net/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Hilton

Or Bill Veale, with 30 years of legal experience. After much research he has come to the conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were in essence an inside job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U.S. government.

http://www.vealetruth.com/?page_id=6

Maybe none of the above does it for you. You want to hear from "eye-witnesses" - people who were there on the scene on that fateful day. May I suggest you listen to the firefighters who were in the building at the time?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248&pl=true

What about first responder, NY Fireman Lou Cacchioli who says the 9/11 Commission twisted his words. "I finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn't let me do that, I walked out.

"It was a disgrace to everyone, the victims and the family members who lost loved ones. I don't agree with the 9/11 Commission. The whole experience was terrible", Fireman Lou says.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/200705twistedwords.htm

Or perhaps to news reporters who were on the scene who repeatedly described hearing "explosions"?

http://tinyurl.com/bzg64 (you need to fast forward a little...)

http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html

Or how about WTC survivor William Rodriguez, a janitor who worked at the WTC for about 19 years, and was decorated as a 911 hero by Bush. He testifies that he heard and felt explosions in the basement of the North Tower BEFORE the planes hit overhead. William asks: "How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man's arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact?" It's a good question!

http://williamrodriguezwtc.blogspot.com/

http://www.911forthetruth.com/

What about the families who lost loved ones on 911?

http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

http://www.911truth.org/index.php?topic=endorsements

Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg, Patty Casazza and Monica Gabrielle of New Jersey lost their husbands Kenneth, Alan, Richard and John who all worked in the WTC. Sally Regenhard lost her firefighter son Christian, and Bob McIlvaine lost his son Bobby.

None of these people are satisfied with the official story of what happened on 9/11. Will you listen to their questions?

http://www.911pressfortruth.com/families

Well, if you don't believe any of them, why not listen to the OWNER of the WTC, Larry Silverstein, who admits on Public Broadcast Television that explosives were used to demolish WTC building #7?!

Yes, Silverstein, who had conveniently insured these buildings (which had been ordered to be dismantled due to safety hazards) for billions of dollars just weeks before 911, said on public television:

"(The Fire Department) were not sure that they were gonna be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we´ve had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. They made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"

In the demolition industry, “pull” is the common term they use for demolishing buildings with carefully positioned explosives, an operation that can take seasoned professionals weeks to plan.

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/rosebud/wtc_7_archivel.htm

http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html

http://www.wtc7.net/

http://911physics.co.nr/ (Click on WTC 7 link)

So even the building owner admits that explosives were used to demolish at least one of the three WTC buildings!

And if planning to demolish WTC 7 had been carefully prepared for weeks, why not the other two?

Maybe you don’t want to listen to any of these individuals, but the fact is, a lot of Americans agree with them. Like the 83% of over 50,000 CNN Showbiz Tonight online poll respondents who think the government is covering up the truth of 9/11.

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/fourth-night-of-showbiz-tonights-sheen.html

Or a Scripps Howard News Service/Ohio University poll taken from July 6 to 24, 2006, concluded that “more than a third [36 percent] of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them, so that the United States could go to war in the Middle East.” A poll done by the Zogby polling organization two months earlier, between May 12 and 16, 2006, concluded that 42 percent of Americans believed there had indeed been a cover-up of the true events of 9/11, and an additional 10 percent of Americans were “unsure.”

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Christison14.htm

Maybe you don’t care what the American people think?

Yea, we know.

[Ref.

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=11205 ]

- -

WHAT POSSIBLE MOTIVES COULD THERE BE FOR A 9/11 INSIDE JOB??

These are some of the plutocracy's 'foreign policy' and other lesser goals that 9/11 (the "new Pearl Harbor") has helped them to pursue:

* to get the American people's support for an endless bogus "war on terror" which will ensure continued gargantuan military budgets. This will continue to enrich and empower the plutocracy and the military/industrial complex.

http://www.addictedtowar.com/

* the WTC buildings needed massive repairs - or to be demolished altogether - which would have caused a financial loss to the owners. But instead the owner (the Silverstein group), who had conveniently insured the WTC complex against terrorism only weeks before, got paid out billions in insurance, allowing them to not only rebuild, but make a hefty profit also

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/08/16/18297965.php

* insider trading - there were 'put options' placed on airline stocks (a sort of bet that the stock will go down) days before the attacks which made someone millions of dollars

* to help James Baker negotiate massive repatriations from Iraq to Kuwait, making the Bush family/Carlysle Group billions in the process.

* it has been suggested there was a massive amount of gold bullion in the basement beneath the WTC that was looted on 9/11 (unconfirmed).

* the removal of Saddam Hussein

* the removal of the Taliban

* a possible war on Iran?

* to help further the goals of Israel

* the establishment of permanent military bases in the oil rich Middle East

* to keep the price of oil artificially high, so as to ensure continued massive profits for the OPEC countries/oil companies.

http://www.gregpalast.com/big-oil-and-the-trillion-dollar-war-bonus

http://www.gregpalast.com/the-best-thing-in-the-world-for-big-oil

* the spread of "globalisation" and "corporatism" (i.e. big business and money) e.g. massive contracts for Halliburton and other crony firms with ties to Washington, control of the production and price of oil

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

* "a means to install a unipolar world with a sole world headquarters, a pretext to erase national borders and to establish the rule of a new world elite” and

* “is a phenomenon that combines the use of terror by state and non-state political structures as a means to attain their political objectives through people’s intimidation, psychological and social destabilization, the elimination of resistance from power organizations and the creation of appropriate conditions for the manipulation of the countries’ policies and the behavior of people.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NIM20060123&articleId=1788

* arguably to reassert their control of the opium trade (if this sounds crazy, then remember, Britain had opium wars with China in the 19th Century to keep control of this lucrative trade, so this is nothing new). btw, Afghanistan is the world's leading producer of opium.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060816/ap_on_re_as/afghan_opium_boom

* to establish a precedent for the role of "pre-emptive" war in their efforts to shape the world according to their belief systems (this will make their next "pre-emptive" war easier to push through).

* to shake the "Vietnam Syndrome" and get the American people accustomed to the deaths of thousands of their sons (about 2,800 so far plus tens of thousands more maimed or injured) in order to serve the goals of the plutocracy

* the spread of "democracy" (TM) and "freedom" (TM) across the Middle East

( For example, I believe Hitler was sincere in his desire to establish a "glorious thousand year Reich". Likewise, the ideologues in Washington also have certain belief systems about how the world should be, and are more than willing to use violence and military force to achieve their aims.

This isn't conspiracy theory, btw. Just look at the "shock & awe" campaign which murdered and maimed tens of thousands of innocent people in Baghdad, or you can read their own words here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/ Read through their visions for the world, and see how many you agree with.)

* to pass legislation that removes the rights of dissenters who object to these goals (e.g. the PATRIOT Act, 'anti-terrorism' laws, government domestic surveillance etc.)

So there are plenty of motives for a 9/11 inside job!

SO WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Even if you are still skeptical, but think there are too many questions about the events of September 11 2001 that need answers, here are a few suggestions:

Ask Oprah to host a three-part special that investigates 9/11

http://oprah.bravocharlie911.com/

Sign the petition to release the 9/11 information that is currently being held by the U.S. government to an independent review:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172

Get informed and share these links to several 9/11 investigative documentaries with your friends:

Loose Change Second Edition Not perfect, but well researched and very thought provoking.

http://unsungwar.com/

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6272212643859761010&q=Loose+Change+editionb

http://www.loosechange911.com

911: In Plane Site Hard-hitting investigative journalism.

http://unsungwar.com/

911 Press for the Truth The families of 911 victims speak out and question the official story of 911.

http://www.911pressfortruth.com/

Rise Short and sweet - to the point!

http://unsungwar.com/videos/Rise.swf

9/11 Revisited This film provides stunning evidence that pre-planted explosives were used in the complete demolition of the WTC twin towers and WTC 7.

http://911revisited.infad.net/video.html

9/11 Eyewitness A rigorous scientific analysis of the destruction of the WTC towers.

http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/911Eyewitness.php

Here is an archive of a large selection of thought provoking documentaries you may like to check out.

http://www.question911.com/links.php

http://www.universalseed.org/

"The most powerful weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." Don't give them yours!

http://www.snowshoefilms.com/

Perspective 9-11 This research will give you an insight into the story behind the 9-11 attacks.

http://tinyurl.com/layem

American Scholars’ Symposium Scholarly panel which met in Los Angeles for two days to discuss what really happened on September 11, 2001. The consensus: no doubt, it was an inside job.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/c-span_firestorm_911_truth_gains_momentum.htm

http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Series&Code=APS&ShowVidNum=
10&Rot_Cat_CD=APS&Rot_HT=206&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=100&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=100

Everybody's Gotta Learn Some Time Compelling film outlining many disturbing and heavily censored facts associated with the worst terrorist attacks in American history.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8372366181300641663

David Shayler - ex-MI5 whistleblower David Shayler introduces 911 Truth Bristol's ‘Face the Facts’ and explains why 911 is of vital importance today.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2953150409490347185

Unitarian pastor Davidson Loehr explains the PNAC drive to reshape a new world order and the connection to the attacks of 9/11.

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/170806_austin_pastor.html

Pentagon Strike** What hit the Pentagon?

http://unsungwar.com/videos/pentagonstrike.swf

9/11 Special: Dutch Television Documentary (20 minutes) Two senior government ministers express grave doubts about the official 9/11 stories and the so-called "war on terror".

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11222.htm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274552561914055825

Discover the Truth about the Events surrounding 9-11-01 via Video Presentations from some of the top Scholars, Researchers, and Analysts from the International Community.

http://911busters.com/

TerrorStorm (Alex Jones) Alex Jones' latest film covers in detail the proven history of government sponsored terrorism, and focuses on the 7/7 London bombings and 9/11.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947

http://www.lastingnetworks.com/alex/

911: The Greatest Lie Ever Sold by Anthony Hilder Sometimes quite opinionated, a bit long, but some valuable information never-the-less. Worth watching.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6952102263921897950&hl=en

911 Guilt: The Proof is in Your Hands A Video Exposing the Core Facts of the September 11th Attack

http://wtc7.net/store/videos/proof/index.html

Watch David Ray Griffin, professor of theology, and other speakers who speak candidly and lucidly about the events of 911.

http://911busters.com/911_new_video_productions/index.html

. . .

And finally, if you still think it's all bunkum and you can debunk the 9/11 "tin-foil hat" conspiracy brigade, then take the million dollar challenge! I'm sure you could use a spare million bucks?

http://www.reopen911.org/Contest.htm

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/seekin.php

911=PNAC, CIA, Mossad

The speed of the collapse is key -- close to free fall speeds can only be achieved with large additional inputs of energy:

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

Interestingly the people behind the official story (NIST) are not prepared to publically defend their story in a debate with those who don't believe them -- see this article (reproduced below):

http://www.teamliberty.net/id273.html

What is really bizzare is that some anti-capitalist activists in the UK (I'm 90% convinced that "Anti Bullshit Action" and "Spook Plant" are genuine activists, "Architect" however... well who knows, his only political activity seems to be defending the US Governments story about 9/11...) are so much more keen to defend the absurd story for the US Government than it's authors...

----------------------

Change in Venue or Date will not Alter Decision

July 3, 2006 -- As a direct result of the government scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) producing and providing for public consumption, an unsustainable theory of how the World Trade Center North Tower and South Tower each collapsed at freefall speed on September 11, 2001, tens of millions of Americans, and millions more people abroad, now rightly question whether the U.S. government's account of what happened on 9/11 is the truth. Confronted with the overwhelming amount of independent research conducted and compiled since 9/11 that clearly and fairly challenges the validity of the government's "pancake theory" of collapse, the Muckraker Report decided to host a [1]National 9/11 Debate with the hope that the U.S. government would take this opportunity to answer many of the unanswered questions pertaining to 9/11. The fact is that the gap between what the government has told the mainstream media parrots regarding September 11, 2001, and what
independent researchers and real journalists have uncovered, is too large and obnoxious to be left unchecked.

For example, Dr. Judy Wood, professor of Mechanical Engineering has offered research titled, [2]A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory. In her research, Dr. Judy Wood addresses the simplicity of the science that clearly dismisses the government's current theory of collapse as a false statement. Why the mainstream media news editors are unwilling or unable to wrap their minds around the fact that if a billiard ball were to be dropped from 1,362 feet (height of the South Tower) in a vacuum, meaning no air resistance to slow the ball's dissent, according to Professor Woods and easily validated by any mechanical engineer or physics professor, the billiard ball would require 9.22 seconds to hit the ground. How then did the towers collapse in 10 seconds and 11.4 seconds, and why has not one member of the mainstream media insisted on honest answers from the government in this regard?

The fact is that the government's account of how the twin towers collapsed has already been proven false. The laws of gravity alone dictate that for the twin towers to have collapsed according to the NIST "pancake theory" required at least a 30 second collapse cycle. The North Tower collapsed 11.4 seconds. The South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. The actual collapse time of each tower disproves the government's theory. As much as the hysterical neo con mouthpieces want to label those of us not confused by the facts as conspiracy theorists, the scientific evidence remains that the twin towers could not have collapsed as the government claims.

Regardless of what you want to believe about the events of September 11, 2001, believing the government's "pancake theory" is to believe a completely false statement. In the final scientific analysis -- the "pancake theory" fails. As desperate as the mainstream media is to not allow Internet news sources to prove how the U.S. government played the editors at ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC, Associated Press, Reuters, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, etc. like big time fools regarding 9/11 events, the scientific facts dictate that the time is fast approaching when the editors at these media outlets will have to realize, research, and reconcile the fact that the government has yet to produce a theory on the collapse sequence of the twin towers or the phantom collapse of World Trade Center Building Seven that can be scientifically-validated through the peer evaluation process.

The fact is that scientists outside the government's control have been conducting peer evaluation of the NIST scientists and their "pancake theory" for years now, and the government theory has failed to pass the test. Its failure to pass the test means that the government has yet to provide a sustainable explanation of how the twin towers collapsed.

This is not unusual in the scientific community; the process of working hypothesis, research, presenting a theory, subjecting the theory to peer evaluation, and then if failing peer evaluation, returning to the research and even the hypothesis. What is different in this instance though is the stakes; and they couldn't be higher because so much of what the U.S. government has done since 9/11 is contingent on the majority of the public believing that those twin towers collapsed as the result of the airplane impacts. With an estimated 42% of the American public now skeptical of the 9/11 Commission Report as well as the NIST "pancake theory"; the government knows it is losing the information war on 9/11, and has recently began to mount its predictable counter-offensive.

That could explain why the mainstream media is starting to invite professors that disagree with the government scientists onto its wide variety of canned news shows and into its newspaper pages -- not to give these heroic Americans a fair, non-hostile venue to present their findings -- but to smear their credibility and label them as conspiracy nuts! Who then, I ask you, is the conspiracy nut? Those that display contempt prior to investigation, those that blindly believe a government account that defies the laws of physics and gravity, or those that point out that the elapsed collapse times of the North Tower and South Tower completely eliminate the possibility that the government's "pancake theory" has any merit whatsoever.

When faced with the challenge of a National 9/11 Debate, the Muckraker Report turned to the well-respected work of Professor Jones and Professor Fetzer at [3]Scholars for 9/11 Truth. The Muckraker Report contacted Professor Fetzer and asked if he could assemble a highly qualified seven-member civilian debate team that would be willing to debate a seven-member government debate team regarding the government's account of 9/11 events. Professor Fetzer had a team assembled in two weeks. With the civilian debate team in place, the Muckraker Report identified twenty-nine potential government debate team members to include the ten members of the 9/11 Commission and the thirteen NIST scientists responsible for the government's "pancake theory" of collapse. Each of these potential government debate team members was mailed numerous invitations. Five of the 9/11 Commissioners had staffers contact the Muckraker Report via telephone to decline invitation due to "prior commitments".

However, the thirteen NIST scientists remained silent.

After three separate mailings of hard copy invitations to the NIST scientists, on June 8, 2006 the Muckraker Report received e-mail from NIST that said, "The project leaders of the NIST World Trade Center investigation team respectfully decline your invitations to participate in the National 9/11 Debate on September 16, 2006." Not to be deterred, on June 20, 2006 the Muckraker Report e-mailed Michael E. Newman, NIST Director of Media Relations, and asked if there was a better date, time, and location for NIST to participate in the National 9/11 Debate.

On June 25, 2006, NIST Director of Media Relations, Michael E. Newman responded:

The members of the NIST WTC Investigation Team has [sic] respectfully declined your invitation to participate in the National 9/11 Debate. A change in venue or date will not alter that decision.

A change of venue or date will not alter that decision. Fascinating! What Newman is telling the world is that the public servants at NIST, the people paid by the U.S. taxpayers, will never, ever publicly debate their peers regarding the "pancake theory" of collapse of WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7. Taxpayers should be outraged! The public needs to demand accountability. Apparently, the Gang of 13 at NIST does not believe they are accountable to the people. That needs to change, pronto! Newman has repeatedly told the Muckraker Report that NIST "stands solidly behind the collapse mechanisms for each tower and the sequences of events (from aircraft impact to collapse) as described in the report." The truth is that NIST is hiding behind its unsustainable theory and dares not publicly debate the merits of its report.

When it comes to alternative hypotheses, NIST had none. When challenged on the work of [4]BYU Professor Steven Jones and the preliminary analysis of steel debris from ground zero indicating incendiary devices, with the release of the conclusive evidence imminent, Newman said, "NIST respects the opinions of others who do not agree with the findings in its report on the collapses of WTC-1 and WTC-2." To translate this government rhetoric: Even if Jesus Christ descended from heaven, walked into NIST headquarters holding a piece of molten steel from ground zero along with unequivocal evidence of incendiary device compounds and chemicals found on the steel, substances such as Thermate, Newman and the Neo Cons, (That would be a great name for a punk rock band!) would respect the opinion of the Lord, but it wouldn't change their report. And make no mistake about it -- the NIST report on probable collapse sequence of the twin towers is a blind and baseless opinion, a complete waste of
taxpayer dollars, and one of the most atrocious lies every told to the American people!

The Muckraker Report asked Newman if NIST tested any of the steel from the twin towers for trace evidence of common controlled demolition compounds. NIST refuses to answer this question directly. Even when challenged for a simple "yes" or "no" answer to a simple "yes" or "no" question, Newman instead offered this response.

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001.

Well, no kidding Newman! If NIST didn't look for corroborating evidence of controlled demolition, no doubt NIST didn't find any. The question is, "Did NIST test for controlled demolition evidence?" The answer is NO it did not - yet another reason to dismiss the entire NIST report as pure government propaganda. Did NIST test for what BYU Professor Steven Jones is now testing for and finding, and what will NIST do with solid scientific evidence that proves that controlled demolition compounds were part of the collapse sequence of the twin towers? Unless the public demands otherwise, NIST will continue to hide solidly behind its work!

This is one lie that cannot be allowed to stand. It must be broken. The truth must prevail. Too much privacy and liberty, and too many lives have already been lost because of this lie. The stakes simply could not be any higher at this time. Lives are at risk -- to include yours and mine. Never give up!

References

1.

http://www.teamliberty.net/id244.html
2.

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
3.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
4.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/200606scientificanalysis.htm

Comments

Hide the following 21 comments

Structural Engineers

25.08.2006 17:11

Download: 2006-08-24 Fetzer 2 - mp3 6.9M

The defenders of the official conspiracy theory, who post a lot of comments to this site, consider that since structural engineers haven't spoken out to contradict the official conspiracy theory regarding the structural failure of the 3 sky scrapers that this means that it must be true.

There are many problems with this, two of them being:

1. Structural engineers have not written critiques of the main documents questioning the official conspiracy theory regarding the structural failure of the 3 sky scrapers:

A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory
by Judy Wood, Ph.D.

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
By Prof. Steven E. Jones
Physicist and Archaeometrist

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

2. Some structual engineers have spoken out to contradict the official conspiracy theory regarding the structural failure of the 3 sky scrapers -- listen to the attached audio file, 9 mins 11 seconds into it there is an interview with a structural engineer.

shadowplay

and so, shadowplay ?

25.08.2006 18:29

OK shadowplay - what's your point? Really? You are going to try to convince people that the WTC buildings came down because 2 aircraft crashed into them (even tho' both were built to withstand such an eventuality) or that jet fuel burnt so hot that it caused concrete, steel, glass, and all office furnishings to vaporise into dust particles and that thermal imaging recorded intense heat from ground zero for several days afterwards? Or perhaps you are going to claim that WTC7 collapsed because of a few insignificant fires burning in the upper floors? Or are you going to argue that the US was so poor it needed whatever money it could raise from from selling the debris off to China and India to recycle within 2 weeks of the incident when there has never been any other occasion in US history when such a catastrophe was swept under the NTSB's radar and out of their reach so quickly? Or what shadowplay?
What is it that you really think happened that fateful day? Come on - just spit it out! You really buy the "official" theory (which is actually a conspiracy or as you might like to call it "conspiraloon") even though several panel members of the 9-11 commission are now harbouring serious doubts about what was disclosed. How do you account for all the inconsistencies and all of the convenient activities of the war games, the red herrings, and the futility of Bush reading a story about goats to school kids, or his subsequent lies?

Let's turn the tables around for a change: you account for how this event unfolded like the 9-11 commission and the Bush administration (incl FOX and CNN &C.) would like the public to believe. Go on: I publically challenge you to put up or shut up.

I am sick of useful idiots like yourself who don't have any good theories of their own, but diss as "conspiraloon" any salient and logical reasoning that uncovers the "conspiraloon" of the neo-Con desire to have their new Pearl Harbor to launch a 50 year war on the Middle East and human rights everywhere.

So, the gaunlet is thrown ...

dr jeckyl does not hyde

Conspiraloon Spin

25.08.2006 18:41

Those who suggest controllede demolition fail to prove their case, time and time again. See, by way of example, this thread:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/08/348600.html?c=on

For ease of reference, I'll repost the true facts behind WTC3:

Fact: WTC 7 was struck by falling debris from the WTC 1 & 2 collapses . And we don't mean wee bits of glass, lads.

Fact: WTC 7 was left to burn unchecked for close to 7 hours without any firefighting attempts.

Fact: Tens of thousands of gallons of diesel fueled the fires on the 5, 6 & 7 levels.

Fact: WTC 7 was considered dangerous and unstable by firecrews on the ground over 5 hours before it collapsed, including reports of a large buldge developing.

Fact: 3 hours before the collapse, WTC 7 was reported as having 6 major fires on differening levels.

Fact: WTC 7 was build using a unique system of cantilevers and trusses used to transfer load between the support columns and hold the building up over the con-edison substation.

Fact: WTC 7 had been structuarally modified, including the addition of two mechanical plant rooms at roof level, resulting in additional critical loading to three of the main columns.

Fact: WTC 7 began the collapse internally, evidenced by the plant rooms (East first) falling into the building, a full 6 secondss prior to the outer facade starting to come down.

Fact: The collapse of WTC 7 casued serious damage to several of the nearby buildings and clogged up the streets.

These are the facts, taken from engineer's reports and fire crews witness statments. Most CT sites either ignore these facts, or handwave them away, however all of these have been testifided to by the firecrews in various interviews or can be located in the Preliminary NIST report into WTC 7.

Instead, the CT sites post selective images and talk - endlessley - about the "pull it" quote, even though (and let's be clear on this) that's not the term we use in controlled demolition anyway!

You'll see that on the previous thread I posted photographic evidence that the CT mob were wrong. You'll also see that they failed to respond, chaging subject time and time again.

Draw your own conclusions.

Architect

Alas

25.08.2006 19:34

The one name you missed from your list that once convinced will change it all is Joe Public.

ventura

collect the $1 million architect

25.08.2006 19:58

okay you got me architect: the $1 mill is yours!! Damn - you've convinced me alright ;-)

What the fick.........

25.08.2006 20:04

Ah what the hell. Maybe it's the drink.. I dunno.. but I've had enough of this.

YES, it obviously was a controlled demolition.

I just don't think I can stand it any more, hovering around this website waiting to pounce on anything that might get near the truth. I have my wife and kids to think about. Look lads, I'm really sorry, I know they'll be after my ass but.. hey.. you guys were right all along.

no really ...

25.08.2006 20:57

Hi Architect

I meant not to piss you off but to indicate that as far as I am concerned your lucid portrayal of how it really went down ("flying debris and diesel fuel") - pun intended - with all the impuning that you are a demolitions expert ("the "pull it" quote, even though (and let's be clear on this) that's not the term *we* use in controlled demolition anyway!") or some expert on the subject. Maybe you are ... but really: gasoline and debris collapsing a building that must have undergone stringent civil engineering torque and stress resiliency tests, at the least. And that would've undergone systematic and regularly scheduled maintenance tests, and all of this passed by the US government's own civil engineers. Your argument can be summarised thus: "it was the architecture, stoopid!!"

Well, there goes that conspiracy. I only thought that it might have been brought down through the government's own incompetence or direct involvement. :)

So if you are so convinced Architect in the inferiority of the architectural design and/or structuiral engineering of WTC7 (and may we presume also the twin towers?) which was responsible for bringing it down due to gasoline and debris, why don't you just write up your hypothesis, reference it accordingly and smooth out the wrinkles before publically collecting that $1m the OP offered. Let's face it - this monetary enticement is not new - other sites have offered this ... and yet, interestingly enough, all of the architects and civil and structural engineers must obviously be quite well off because none of them have stepped forward to collect the prize.

In short Architect: before you lamblast some or other ideas that you disagree with - put your money where your mouth is and explain it for us poor tin-foil hat brigade ... but just subject it to the rigours of an objectively robust standard. Until then, the pro-9-11 commission arguments are far fetched, are based on an anachronistic faith in the virtue of the governmental administration and is therefore largely ahistorical, and just do not regard the reach one must make to comprehend that the City of New York allowed such feeble and unstable buildings so high above the streets of Manhattan. Let's all blame them for the collapse of the WTC!! Those must have been the most vulnerable buildings ever constructed. Jeez - no wonder those terrorists targetted them: anyone would want to issue put options on any airline just in case. Interesting that that didn't happen until the days before 9/11. Put it in context Architect, or come up with some pretty hard hitting scientifically robust case ... worth $1m to you - if you can pull it off. Otherwise, yes, please: just let the drink dull you completely. ;-)

Aye, right

25.08.2006 21:07

..because if a expert in tooth enamel, a physicist, and a theologian say it's a conspiracy then they have to be right.

By the way, it's a bit obvious that someone is posting in my name when the use Americanisms. What's wrong, USA sites fed upo with conspiraloon spam?

tum - te - tum ...

25.08.2006 21:58

Sorry Architect ... I wasn't sure if you were explaining how the WTC collapsed so you could be eligible to collect your prize, or merely ducking and weaving ... .

... we're waiting ... or does your failure to follow through simply reiterate the depth and veracity of the original conspiraloon (aka "official") 9-11 story and its cartoon physics?

... :-)

Whit?!

26.08.2006 09:00

Dr. J

"gasoline and debris collapsing a building that must have undergone stringent civil engineering torque and stress resiliency tests, at the least. "

I design tall buildings for a living, mate. Trust me - we don't do any such tests post construction/completion. You can't test for the kind of stresses and load paths that are applicable. But if you think we do - or should - then I'd love to see a link and some firm evidence/techniques.

"Your argument can be summarised thus: "it was the architecture, stoopid!!"

We design buildings against a fairly rigorous series of factors - shear, wind forces, earthquake (well, not in Britain really), normal fires, and so on. We build in safety margins. In the case of WTC1 and 2 they even allowed for a modest aircraft impact.

But what no-one can design for is a fully laden aircraft taking out a significant proportion of the structure, the ensuing explosion then taking out the fire protection, followed by a fire which does - well, exactly what fires are expected to do when there is no protection.

Trust me, I'm pretty damned familiar with the various UK codes of practice and building regs. No-where does it say "plane proof". Ironically, if we were designing (say) courts or police stations, or even the Scottish Parliament, then there is guidance regarding "normal" IRA vehicle mounted bombs and mortar attacks - BECAUSE WE KNEW THESE MIGHT HAPPEN!

So you tell me, in what way was the design "defective"? It wasn't. It just wasn't designed to deal with that level of damage.

And before you say designs are perfect, you want to go and learn about the Citicorp tower.

I was working on the buildings

26.08.2006 10:11

Oh yeah Mr architect I was on the buildings for a good few years and i well remember the big knob architects
coming out to put right their numerous fuck ups , pipes passing through solid concrete foundations and the like they were on my weeks wages per hour whilst doing so.
I remember one complete moron who after a series of fuck ups came out with his slide rule and worked out the levels on the site I was working on. The (paddy) ganger man who was going to put the kerbs in did a simple sum, on one of the said kerbstones, with a bit of chalk, he maintained that the arsehole was 9" out .
Although this was about thirty years ago I can still remember Mr Big's reply (arrogant shit in a full length sheepskin coat).
That afternoon we are going well dumpers full of concrete and bashing the kerbs in and I say to paddy we're going well. He replied that it made no difference as they would all be pulled out in the morning. They were !!
I also did quite a bit of demolition work and things didn't always go to plan, maybe a gas main or some water pipes would would hold up half a building .Not like watching the twin towers come down like a pack of cards
surely even an eegit like yourself would be somewhat suspicious ?
I always thought that Pol Pot would have worked wonders for the european professional classes !

Paddy

still waiting for Architect to claim the moolah

26.08.2006 11:13

Ya well Architect - that's all very well and good, but if you are so convinced that two planes heavy with jet fuel can pancake ... no pulverise! concrte, steel, glass and untold amounts of office furnishings into fine grain powder, where buildings will fall into their own footprint at approx 10 metre per second (actual 9.8 mps, but I'll give you .2 mps) and then lo and behold WTC7 does exactly the same thing from comparatively little direct damage then those must have been the worse design ever in the history of architecture. You should nominate those buildings to be studied as worst cases for RIBA, so that those designs are *never* replicated!! But, let's face it: the buildings withstood the direct impact of the planes, so they couldn't have been that weak!

Anyway sport - if you are so convinced that it was the design flaws + planes = 3 WTC buildings demise then please go and collect that monetary prize. I suspect that you won't because there are just too many anomalies for you to work through in a cogent and compelling manner, anomalies that do not get cohered in your architecture was poor, jet fuel was hot theory.

Don't forget to wear a tux when you collect the money Architect: it'll be a huge phot op - the laws of physics have been successfully explained away by an architect no less. Not only will you be $1 million richer, you'll also be able to write a book, do the TV show circuit - heck, you might even receive an honourary doctorate in structural engineering from a respected US university. After all - it's not everyday that Newtonian physics gets such a drubbing.

Answer the questions...

26.08.2006 17:08

Dr. J.

Take a good look at this thread:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/08/348600.html?c=on

It's quite clear - photos and everything that WTC 7 didn't fall the way you said it did. Don't waste my time making unfounded assertions - go through these photos, tell me where the analysis is wrong, provide substantiation. Because unless you can, it's just all hot air mate.

"design flaws + planes = 3 WTC buildings demise "

That's not what I said, and fine you know it. Let's make this easy:

Plane ------ impact -------damaged structural members

Plane -------impact --------explosion ------more structural damage -------damaged fire proofing

Fire -------- damaged fire proofing -----------steel weakens and fails

Now the impact of fire on structural steel is indisputable. Steel can and does fail under normal fire loadings, and this is recognised in every set of building regs in the western world. Always has been.

Maybe you can tell us what you think should have happened after the planes hit the building?

FAO dr jeckyl

26.08.2006 20:17

"dr jeckyl", my comment above:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/08/349116.html?c=on#c154801

Was totally misunderstood by you in the following comment:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/08/349116.html?c=on#c154807

If you look at the thread here:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/08/347911.html?c=on#comments

You will find that "anti-bullshit action" considers that:

"There is not one structural engineer in the whole world that thinks the towers couldn't have collapsed because of the impact of the planes, alongside the fires causing the steel trusses to lose their structural integrity (not melt that is a red herring, nobody makes that claim)."

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/08/347911.html?c=on#c154029

My comment above pointed out that at least one structural engineer has come out to disagree with the official conspiracy theory -- he was interviewed by Jim Fetzer 2 days ago -- listen to the MP3 to hear this, skip the first 9 mins 11 seconds...

Perhaps you know of Jim Fetzer -- he set up Scholars for 9/11 Truth, with Steven E. Jones:

http://st911.org/

The Speed of the Collapse

26.08.2006 20:50

Ahem

27.08.2006 18:56

"What is really bizzare is that some anti-capitalist activists in the UK (I'm 90% convinced that "Anti Bullshit Action" and "Spook Plant" are genuine activists, "Architect" however... well who knows, his only political activity seems to be defending the US Governments story about 9/11...) are so much more keen to defend the absurd story for the US Government than it's authors... "

What's wrong? A wee ad hominen easier than responding to the points made, eh? Especially the lies that the earlier posters told about WTC7?

no way to free fall

27.08.2006 23:12

architect, there is physically no way those buildings could free fall without supports being pulled out of the way by a demo or thermite. no matter how much you bluster about your degree and experience you can't change the laws of physics. and paddy's response was spot on with regard to engineers' credibility when it comes to common sense - you guys ain't perfect and you kiss up to get jobs. finally, nobody has proven the gov't contention but they have provided many reasons to question an unproven hypothesis (the quotes of the firemen at the scene who claim to have witnessed and heard demo-like blasts should be enough to the least investigate the matter). why the closed mind?

aron

'scuse me

28.08.2006 11:43

Aron

Are you claiming, conclusively, that the towers fell at free fall speed. What time do you put on it, exactly?

And do you have a problem with the calculations in Greening's paper?

Nothingness, As Predicted

28.08.2006 18:11

What really damns the Official Conspiracy Theory is the complete inability of the Bush/PNAC Regime - the people who've used this "Useful Crisis" to kick-start plans for widespread military aggression created in 1992 - to provide the missing key and independently-verifiable evidence which would exist, and be forthcoming, if the Theory was true.

Unless they can do that, the defenders of the Official Theory might as well save their breath ...

And finally, if you still think it's all bunkum and you can debunk the 9/11 "tin-foil hat" conspiracy brigade, then take the million dollar challenge! I'm sure you could use a spare million bucks?

Amazing!

28.08.2006 21:56

911 has a post which doesnt say "the LIARS who brought you WMD" or somesuch!

response to architect

29.08.2006 10:48

Hi again - sorry for the hiatus: I was away from this infernal machine.

Just as a matter of interest for you, Architect, here is a quote from one of your professional comrades for you to chew over:

As architect and physicist Dave Heller (2005) explains:

"The floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?. . . In [the method known as controlled demolition], each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously, and in virtual freefall."

It also interesting to note that the 9-11 Commission report also cites the collapse of each building lasted no longer than 10 seconds, which is what you'd expect from free falling, rather than the pancaking theory subscribed to by the Commission (which is one of the numerous inconsistencies of that report).

You might also want to check out

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/MIHOP which has a slew of info about the twin towers and wtc7 for your reading/viewing/listening pleasure. You'll also note on this site a quote which underscores the degree of resiliency built into the WTC construction from the get-go:

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting". Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, January 25, 2001

You see Architect, all jokes about the $1 million reward aside, what you are faced with is two very difficult and irreconciliable options: on the one hand, there are terrorists who against all odds were able to fly jet airliners into the WTC (no small feat in itself) and into the Pentagon (with all the skill required for that to transpire) and then the collapsing buildings which for the first time ever defy all known laws of physics (including structural physics - your profession) three times in a row ... which merely increases the improbability of this whole fiasco and challenges the sanity of anyone who has to undergo the cognitive acrobatics to follow and swallow the official line. On the other hand though, you have to deal with the unpleasant thought that either the US government let it happen on purpose (LIHOP) or made it happen on purpose (MIHOP). Either of these sub-options suggest varying degrees of complicity on the part of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove/Wolfowitz cabal, and leads one to question the degree of complicity and benefit for this cabal to LIHOP or MIHOP. Either way, the generally affable and unsuspecting Joe Q. Citizen is confronted with a tremendous mind-fuck (aka cognitive dissonance), the most common response to which is simply to either shut off the cognitions that lead to the dissonance or to engage in some form of denial, such as the somnabulistic shuffle that most US and UK citizenry have been doing for the last 4 1/2 years.

To accept the official story means denying most of what we know about Newtonian physics (at least) as well as accepting on trust some pretty far-fetched stories about flying abilities of some terrorists (many of whom are still reported to be alive!!) together with the worst lapse of American security in US military history ... all of which is very convenient, but like all lies - the story is too convenient. Or, one must begin questioning the official dogma on this and the moment one does that, where one ends up no-one knows because the official story doesn't mesh. Therefore, just how much is not being revealed. One doesn't need an alternative theory as such, because the official story is way beyond reasonable doubt and involves too many contortions. Following Occam's famous razor in which we are asked not to include unnecessary premises to support an argument when the most obvious and simplest explain the case equally well ... the conclusion is that through LIHOP or MIHOP, the US government knows a lot more than it has revealed hitherto. That is where the the enquiry needs to be directed, and that is the thrust of many (not all, I'd agree) of the 9-11 truth-type groups: trying to pin the US government down to come clean about one of the most significant and geo-politically changing events in our history.