Lies upon lies revealed by NYT and yet you would not investigate deeper? Most curious.

[Bonobo]

Seriously, is there nothing that would cause you to say "Hmmm, maybe just maybe the whole truth hasn't come out?"

At some point doesn't this necessitate another investigation if and only if because the investigations done to this point are now tainted with suspicion?

[Bolo Boffin]

1. This is about the Farmer article, right?

Farmer says that despite the problems, the 9/11 Commission got to the truth.

So if you're using Farmer to justify yet another investigation, you are doing so against what he said.

You know something? Maybe the "official story" is right. Ever considered that?

[Bonobo]

2. Yeah, I have considered it.

But it isn't really about Farmer.

It's about that fact that people that know more than me about physics/engineering seem to have real doubts about the way the collapse was studied/modeled.

I cannot be certain since I will never know enough about the technical side to satisfy myself.

Therefore, I try to rely upon a "consensus". A well-informed consensus among ALL those who DO understand engineering details.

Since it seems that a guy like Tony is still asking good questions, it suggests further studies are warranted.

That is really all it comes down to and no matter what you say, I have NOT made my mind up. I just still have a shadow of a doubt and am somewhat troubled by it.

[hack89]

5. Have you ever considered

that the fact that none of these "experts" are able to formulate a detailed and plausible theory as to how the WTC were demolished is significant? Eight years after fact don't you think someone in the truth movement can say "this is how it could have happened."? A plausible scenario with a plausible time line that doesn't depend on secret(imaginary) technology or techniques. Why is this so hard? Don't you think that showing that demolition was even possible would significantly advance the truther cause?

[spooked911]

7. nukes are not imaginary nor secret

and all the WTC evidence fits them

[HannibalCards]

9. False

No radiation - no nukes.

[spooked911]

10. how do you know there was no radiation?

actually there was elevated tritium and the WTC dust was slightly radioactive

[Bolo Boffin]

11. There was nothing like the radiation necessary to posit nuclear devices destroying the towers.

You're clutching that word "tritium" like a talisman.

[spooked911]

14. how can you be so sure about the radiation levels?

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Because people would have noticed half of Manhattan with radiation poisoning n/t

[spooked911]

20. Not so-- these were much smaller devices than say, Hiroshima.

Plus, low level radiation exposure would take years to show up in the general population. PLus of course, hundreds of GZ workers did develop cancer.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. Oh, really? Produce evidence of these magical mystery "fourth generation" nuclear devices

so powerful to "disintegrate" two immense office buildings and yet not kill hundreds of thousands of people within a month.

You on this issue are living in a fantasy world.

[spooked911]

31. I didn't say they were "fourth generation"

and I have no idea where you are getting the "hundreds of thousands of people within a month" figure from. As I said, these were small devices contained within the towers.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. You never, ever have called your postulated nuclear devices "fourth generation"

Never, never, ever.

Is that your final answer?

[spooked911]

42. I'm not saying I never called them fourth generation

I probably did some time back, maybe a year or two ago.

Currently I don't think they used fourth generation devices.

[Bolo Boffin]

43. Fifth, then? Third?

Which direction in imaginary grades of nuclear devices have you begun to espouse?

[HannibalCards]

12. A Frisbee

that glows in the dark is "slightly radioactive". There was (and is) not enough radioactivity at Ground Zero to indicate any kind of nuclear blast.

[spooked911]

16. what do you base that on?

[William Seger]

17. In the first place, you're confusing radiation with radioactive

Radiation is a noun; radioactive is an adjective. Radiation consists of high-energy photons (gamma rays and x-rays), high-speed electrons (beta particles), helium nuclei (alpha particles), neutrons, and neutrinos. These particles and photons are what cause "radiation poisoning" by damaging or killing cells. The reactions that produce any type of nuclear explosion always release a huge amount of radiation, since that's what must feed the rapid nuclear chain reaction. Radioactive material, on the other hand, is anything that emits radiation, but it's at a much lower rate than any nuclear explosion. The neutrons in radiation (and only the neutrons) are capable of creating radioactive material ("fall-out") by making other atoms unstable, which of course can be dangerous itself, primarily because it can be spread over a wide area from the nuclear blast. But it's not nearly as immediately deadly as the direct radiation from the explosive nuclear chain reaction itself.

The direct radiation from even the smallest theoretically possible nuclear bomb at the WTC would have caused at least thousands of deaths within 24 hours, and at least tens of thousands more within a month or so. That the actual count was exactly zero is absolutely incontrovertible, irrefutable proof there were no nuclear bombs, of any size, set off in the middle of Manhattan. Period.

And that's without even considering the electromagnetic pulse that every video camera within a couple of miles would have recorded...

There is zero evidence of "mini-nukes" on 9/11, Spooky. It's a completely idiotic theory, and it will never yield anything but ridicule.

[spooked911]

18. I'm not confusing anything

"The direct radiation from even the smallest theoretically possible nuclear bomb at the WTC would have caused at least thousands of deaths within 24 hours, and at least tens of thousands more within a month or so."

That's pure bull. Clearly I am positing much much smaller bombs than at Hiroshima, and the main people who were affected by the blasts were in the towers. You know darn well hundreds of ground zero workers got sick and got cancer-- likely from radiation exposure. But the other key fact is that only mini-nukes can explain the complete pattern of destruction of the towers and the heat that remained in the rubble for months later.

[AZCat]

19. Your "facts" are strangely non-factual. n/t

[Realityhack]

34. Is it still strange if we are talking about spooked? n/t

[William Seger]

21. Low levels of radiation cause cancer

High levels cause death within a day to a month. You cannot have a nuclear explosion that doesn't release high levels of radiation because high levels of radiation cause nuclear explosions. Ain't no bull, Spooky; it's physics.

ETA: And of course, low levels of radiation is not by any means the only thing that causes cancer.

[William Seger]

22. And, BTW...

> But the other key fact is that only mini-nukes can explain the complete pattern of destruction of the towers ...

Baloney. None of the various "explosive" theories of WTC destruction hold water because there is simply no evidence of any explosions of that magnitude: no "explosive" sound that comes anywhere near the volume that would be produced by that much explosives; no seismic disturbances larger than would be expected by a gravitational collapse; and no high-speed ejecta that accompanies any kind of supersonic shockwave, which is how explosions destroy things.

> and the heat that remained in the rubble for months later.

Baloney. Yet another appeal to imaginary physics, which seems to be your only area of expertise. If radioactive material was causing that much heat for that long, it would have also been releasing enough radiation to cause more "radiation poisoning" deaths, which is immediate cell damage to vital organs, not cancer. Again, there were exactly zero radiation poisoning deaths in Manhattan. Neither radiation nor thermite explain the heat that lasted for weeks; the only thing that explains it is building contents still burning. And what was found as they dug up the rubble? Building contents still burning.

[icee2]

23. How loud would they have to be?

Regardless of the sound volume, the explosions were powerful enough to turn two 110 story buildings into fine particle dust, and
NO gravitational collapse could have possibly done that.

[William Seger]

24. No need to explain

... things that didn't happen.



And anyway, your statement makes no sense whatever: How could explosions be "powerful enough to turn two 110 story buildings into fine particle dust," "regardless of the sound volume?" What, exactly, do you imagine an "explosion" to be?

[icee2]

25. Yes. It's pretty obvious.

How could explosions be "powerful enough to turn two 110 story buildings into fine particle dust, regardless of the sound volume?

Small nukes. Just like the poster (s.911) said.

[William Seger]

26. WTF? Obvious to whom?

Let me ask again: What, exactly, to you imagine an explosion to be?

[icee2]

28. We disagree. You must be an OCTer. I'm not. n/t

[William Seger]

29. So, your silent explosion theory ...

... is derived from your beliefs about 9/11, rather than the other way around?

[icee2]

30. My theory is that 9/11 was an inside job. n/t

[Realityhack]

35. Lets see.

Your theory is:
There was an explosion or explosions capable of turning a 110 story building into "fine particle dust".
But these explosions were so quiet that they can not be heard on the various audio recordings of the event?

How quiet exactly do you think you can make a NUCLEAR BOMB?

We aren't talking about some firecrackers here. Explosions produce shock waves... hence the big fucking bang that you would have heard if there had been one.

[SDuderstadt]

38. No, these would be "silent nuclear weapons:...

you know, some "secret government technology" they're hiding from everyone.

[spooked911]

41. Sound...

First, we don't have really good, high quality audio of the sound from close up (that I know of). Rick Siegel had some audio with explosions right before the towers came down, but he was some ways away and there might be some dispute about his footage.

Second, MANY witnesses described extremely loud noises as the bldg came down, and specifically "explosions".

Third, it's not clear what mini/micro-nukes going off in the center of a steel framed tower hundreds of feet up would sound like, exactly.

Fourth, any sound I say is an explosion you would say is just the sound of the bldg collapsing-- and I don't think you are saying the bldg came down silently.

[spooked911]

32. sigh

the fact is, you don't know WHAT the sounds were like, nor do you know what mini-nukes going off inside a massive steel tower that is coming apart would sound like.

Building contents don't burn underground for months, without oxygen, after extensive water was sprayed on them.

And of COURSE there was radiation poisoning. Everyone knows hundreds of GZ workers have gotten sick and gotten cancer. The PTB just won't blame it on radiation. The radiation was limited to certain spots-- not everyone got it. Radioactivity falls off dramatically over distance and shielding.

[Realityhack]

36. Please for fucks sake learn some physics and biology.

Your posts don't make any sense. One second you are talking about cancer the next second you are talking about radiation poisoning.

They are separate things. Completely, totally, entirely, separate.

We 'don't know what a nuclear bomb going off in a building would sound like'?!? We don't have to know the exact pitch of the sound to say that any explosion capable of ripping apart the building would be VERY clearly audible.

[spooked911]

40. Obvously they are different things, I never said they were the same.

Don't get your knickers in a twist.

Ground zero workers got sick early on from what I say is radiation poisoning (e.g. one guy said his teeth fell out), and years later hundreds of them have gotten cancer.

As far as the sounds:
1) we don't know what it exactly sounded like because we don't have good audio
2) any sounds I say are an explosion, you are likely to say is just from the building collapsing

[Realityhack]

44. The problem is that you are off by orders of magnitude.

Yes a little bit of radiation could cause people to develop cancer later. But that is quite a few orders of magnitude from what is released in a nuclear chain reaction resulting in a nuclear explosion.

The same goes for sound. Things that sound like explosions are to be reasonably expected when a 110 story building comes crashing to the ground. But a nuclear bomb is going to create a very clear shock-wave that is orders of magnitude larger.

The same for things being ejected from the building. We expect things to be thrown out as massive forces smash huge beams like toothpicks under a car. But a bomb would result in much faster ejections, more of them, and visible shock-waves. All quite obvious because they would be off by a great deal.

You claim that 'china syndrome' (which you seem to have invented) accounts for the heat at ground zero. If that kind of heat was being generated by radioactive decay the amount of radioactive material AND the amount of radiation would be off the fucking charts. There would be thousands dead from it not 0.

Your ideas are just loony.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

45. Building contents still burning

And what was found as they dug up the rubble? Building contents still burning.

I've not heard of any "contents", what I've heard was there was virtually nothing left of the 'contents'.

I'm not trying to be a smartass here so could you provide me with some links to some evidence of these contents.

I remember they were hauling stuff away in buckets, hand pails.

Thanks.

[OnTheOtherHand]

6. seriously, have you ever read a board where evolution is debated?

Y'know, there are folks out there with PhDs who write books purporting to debunk evolutionary theory. They know more about their areas of expertise than I do. That doesn't mean that their arguments are or should be persuasive.

You may need to sharpen your thinking about "consensus." Truthfully, when we are outside our knowledge bases, it isn't easy for us to judge which questions are good ones. It takes work.

[Realityhack]

37. If you expect a consensus from ALL those who claim to 'understand' something...

or have a degree in the field you are going to die waiting.

[rschop]

13. Farmer says that despite the problems, the 9/11 Commission got to the truth.

Farmer says that despite the problems, the 9/11 Commission got to the truth.

Despite what Farmer said, the 9/11 Commission did not get to the truth, not even close.

The 9/11 Commission had all of the information from the DOJ IG investigation. In spite of this, the 9/11 Commission carefully and deliberately hid the fact that the CIA in a massive criminal conspiracy had withheld the information on the al Qaeda planning meeting at Kuala Lumpur from the FBI Cole bombing investigators. The 9/11 Commission then either minimized or covered over the fact that groups at the FBI that had been subjugated by the CIA intentionally and knowing also not only hid this same information from the FBI Cole investigators but then ultimately shut down all FBI criminal investigations of al Qaeda terrorists found to be inside of the US including the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, who had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting planning the Cole bombing with Khallad Bin Attash.

The CIA had been desperately hiding the fact that Khallad Bin Attash, mastermind of the Cole bombing, had been at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi planning the Cole bombing, from the FBI criminal investigators who were investigating this al Qaeda attack.

The CIA apparently did not want anyone to know that they, the CIA, had all of the people at the Kuala Lumpur meeting photographed and even identified and then just let them walk away to carry out the attack on the USS Cole. The attacks on 9/11 were also planned at the Kuala Lumpur meeting so by hiding their culpability in the attack on the USS Cole they hid the information that the FBI needed to have been able to prevent the attacks on 9/11.

To hide this information from the FBI Cole bombing investigators the CIA had taken over the ITOS unit at FBI HQ and the office of the Director of the FBI, at the time headed by Louis Freeh

On August 22, 2001 FBI Agent Margaret Gillespie at the CIA Bin Laden unit found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US and took this information to both FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi and CIA officer Tom Wilshire, who at this time was liaison to Michael Rolince head of the FBI ITOS unit.

When Wilshire and Corsi were informed that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, it is clear that Wilshire, and Corsi knew immediately that these long time al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US only in order to take part in the horrific al Qaeda attack that both the CIA and FBI HQ had been warned about. See DE #939 entered into the defense exhibits for the Moussaoui trial. Wilshire had clearly indicated this in his email on July 23, 2001, detailed in DE 939.

In spite of knowing that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack, Corsi shuts down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar by telling him in a phone conversation with her boss Rod Middleton, on August 28, 2001 that he and his team cannot start any investigation or be part of any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi because the information they would need came from the NSA and the NSA would not allow, without written permission, this information to go to FBI criminal investigators. See DE 449 the release the NSA gave Dina Corsi on August 27, 2001.

But Corsi had been hiding the fact that she already had been given permission to give the NSA information to Bongardt and his team on August 27, 2001, the day before she and Middleton told him that he had to shut down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

When Bongardt protested and asks Corsi to get a ruling from the NSLU at the FBI HQ, the FBI legal unit, to see if he and his team could investigate Mihdhar and Hazmi, since he was clearly aware these al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US for no other reason than to carry out an al Qaeda terrorists attack, she fabricates the attorneys ruling and says the attorney had ruled he could not take part in any investigation of Mihdhar when the attorney had ruled just the opposite and said Bongardt and his team could take part in any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, see p 538 footnote 81, 9/11 Commission report. Note this information was buried at the very back of the 9/11 Commission report in a footnote in point 8 type, intentionally obscuring the massive significance of this information.

On August 29, Bongardt is told to destroy all of the information he has on Mihdhar and “to stand down” and have nothing to do with any investigation of Mihdhar by Corsi and a CIA officer at the CTC unit of the CIA, that must have been Tom Wilshire, according to Lawrence Wright who had interviewed FBI Agent Steve Bongardt for his book Looming Tower.

At the time she tells Bongardt this, she, Wilshire, and the CIA and many other people at FBI HQ all know that the CIA had been deliberately hiding the photograph of Khallad Bin Attash taken at the Kuala Lumpur meeting planning the Cole bombing with Mihdhar and Hazmi from Bongardt and his team of Cole investigators, to insure that Bongardt would not have enough information to be able start an investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. This photograph of Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur directly connected the mastermind of the Cole bombing to Mihdhar and Hazmi and their planning of the Cole bombing at that meeting.

But on August 30, 2001, one day after Wilshire and Corsi had shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, the photograph of Khallad Bin Attash is sent by Wilshire, and the CIA to Rod Middleton, Corsi’s boss. While Middleton along with Corsi had told Bongardt on August 28, 2001 that he could not take part in any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, on August 30, 2001 Middleton now had the photographic proof that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with Khallad Bin Attash, information that meant there was no longer any possible justification to prevent Bongardt from immediately investigating and searching for both Mihdhar and Hazmi

Wilshire had been forbidden twice in July from turning the information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting over to the FBI by his managers at the CTC unit at the CIA, managers that included Richard Blee, Cofer Black and George Tenet.

Since both Wilshire and Corsi were acting under orders from higher level CIA and FBI managers, it is impossible to believe that when these people at the CIA and FBI HQ shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that they all did not know that as a direct result of their actions that thousands of Americans were now going to perish in the massive al Qaeda attacks that they had all been warned about since April 2001.

Withholding this information and shutting down FBI Agents Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi directly lead to the deaths of almost 3000 people on 9/11.

Since the 9/11 Commission had access of all of this information that came from the DOJ IG interviews of FBI agents and CIA officers, there is no possible excuse why this information on the deliberate and intentionally actions at the CIA and FBI to allow the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11 was not exposed by their investigation and report.

Time after time as you go through the 9/11 Commission report you can actually see where it had been deliberately obfuscated, obscured or where they had intentionally left out critical information to hide the CIA and FBI HQ culpability in allowing the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

Framer not only got in wrong, he got it dead wrong.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

4. More of your smears, dude...

why don't you give it a rest?

[icee2]

8. Problems (some of the many)

Who could be trusted to head an investigation?

How would you know if what they uncovered is the truth?

How would you decide the limits of what and who could be investigated?

How much authority would be needed that could realistically be granted to conduct such an investigation?

Lots of problems IMO. I don't believe the OCT, but a new investigation might backfire on truth seekers.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!