HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » 9/11 Link To Saudi Arabia...

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 04:32 PM

9/11 Link To Saudi Arabia Is Topic Of 28 Redacted Pages In Government Report; Congressmen Push For R

Source: International Business Times

[font face="ariel"]9/11 Link To Saudi Arabia Is Topic Of 28 Redacted Pages In Government Report; Congressmen Push For Release[/font]

Since terrorists attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, victims’ loved ones, injured survivors, and members of the media have all tried without much success to discover the true nature of the relationship between the 19 hijackers – 15 of them Saudi nationals – and the Saudi Arabian government. Many news organizations reported that some of the terrorists were linked to the Saudi royals and that they even may have received financial support from them as well as from several mysterious, moneyed Saudi men living in San Diego.

Saudi Arabia has repeatedly denied any connection, and neither President George W. Bush nor President Obama has been forthcoming on this issue.

But earlier this year, Reps. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., and Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., were given access to the 28 redacted pages of the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry (JICI) of 9/11 issued in late 2002, which have been thought to hold some answers about the Saudi connection to the attack.

"I was absolutely shocked by what I read," Jones told International Business Times. "What was so surprising was that those whom we thought we could trust really disappointed me. I cannot go into it any more than that. I had to sign an oath that what I read had to remain confidential. But the information I read disappointed me greatly."...



Read more: http://www.ibtimes.com/911-link-saudi-arabia-topic-28-redacted-pages-government-report-congressmen-push-release-1501202

392 replies, 65001 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 393 replies Author Time Post
Reply 9/11 Link To Saudi Arabia Is Topic Of 28 Redacted Pages In Government Report; Congressmen Push For R (Original post)
Indi Guy Dec 2013 OP
Berlum Dec 2013 #1
Jesus Malverde Dec 2013 #94
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #103
TroglodyteScholar Dec 2013 #105
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #106
TroglodyteScholar Dec 2013 #109
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #114
Old and In the Way Dec 2013 #153
Zen Democrat Dec 2013 #177
warrant46 Dec 2013 #233
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #245
warrant46 Dec 2013 #247
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #249
eridani Dec 2013 #127
Jesus Malverde Dec 2013 #237
riverbendviewgal Dec 2013 #2
loudsue Dec 2013 #17
wildbilln864 Dec 2013 #45
loudsue Dec 2013 #55
lark Dec 2013 #138
Old and In the Way Dec 2013 #154
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #175
VanillaRhapsody Dec 2013 #3
mainstreetonce Dec 2013 #18
VanillaRhapsody Dec 2013 #21
VanillaRhapsody Dec 2013 #23
indepat Dec 2013 #57
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #84
indepat Dec 2013 #98
Berlum Dec 2013 #112
Raksha Dec 2013 #311
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #315
mainstreetonce Dec 2013 #340
Baitball Blogger Dec 2013 #4
Old and In the Way Dec 2013 #58
KamaAina Dec 2013 #76
Old and In the Way Dec 2013 #248
KamaAina Dec 2013 #251
Old and In the Way Dec 2013 #252
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #253
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #223
LiberalArkie Dec 2013 #377
Old and In the Way Dec 2013 #378
Blue_Tires Dec 2013 #134
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #155
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #217
Old and In the Way Dec 2013 #156
grahamhgreen Dec 2013 #332
Ezlivin Dec 2013 #5
billhicks76 Dec 2013 #12
cpwm17 Dec 2013 #20
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #22
billhicks76 Dec 2013 #52
Ezlivin Dec 2013 #26
cpwm17 Dec 2013 #41
wildbilln864 Dec 2013 #46
BelgianMadCow Dec 2013 #48
cpwm17 Dec 2013 #49
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #56
wildbilln864 Dec 2013 #81
barbtries Dec 2013 #141
cpwm17 Dec 2013 #168
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #169
wildbilln864 Dec 2013 #173
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #176
cpwm17 Dec 2013 #178
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #179
cpwm17 Dec 2013 #180
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #181
cpwm17 Dec 2013 #191
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #192
cpwm17 Dec 2013 #193
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #194
cpwm17 Dec 2013 #195
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #197
AZCat Dec 2013 #201
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #211
AZCat Dec 2013 #218
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #224
AZCat Dec 2013 #256
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #258
AZCat Dec 2013 #260
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #261
AZCat Dec 2013 #263
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #265
William Seger Dec 2013 #202
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #208
William Seger Dec 2013 #214
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #215
William Seger Dec 2013 #216
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #219
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #199
cpwm17 Dec 2013 #203
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #205
cpwm17 Dec 2013 #207
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #212
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #213
mallard Dec 2013 #325
cpwm17 Dec 2013 #331
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #333
AZCat Dec 2013 #338
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #339
AZCat Dec 2013 #350
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #345
AZCat Dec 2013 #353
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #355
AZCat Dec 2013 #356
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #362
AZCat Dec 2013 #364
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #366
AZCat Dec 2013 #367
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #370
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #373
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #375
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #376
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #343
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #347
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #349
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #351
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #357
AZCat Dec 2013 #358
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #209
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #221
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #225
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #226
Th1onein Dec 2013 #230
BelgianMadCow Dec 2013 #232
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #235
Jesus Malverde Dec 2013 #240
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #241
Old and In the Way Dec 2013 #243
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #244
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #246
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #250
AZCat Dec 2013 #257
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #259
AZCat Dec 2013 #262
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #264
AZCat Dec 2013 #267
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #268
AZCat Dec 2013 #271
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #269
AZCat Dec 2013 #273
wildbilln864 Jan 2014 #382
AZCat Dec 2013 #274
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #266
AZCat Dec 2013 #270
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #275
AZCat Dec 2013 #277
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #279
AZCat Dec 2013 #281
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #282
AZCat Dec 2013 #283
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #285
AZCat Dec 2013 #287
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #289
AZCat Dec 2013 #291
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #278
AZCat Dec 2013 #280
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #284
AZCat Dec 2013 #286
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #288
AZCat Dec 2013 #290
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #292
AZCat Dec 2013 #293
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #295
AZCat Dec 2013 #302
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #303
AZCat Dec 2013 #309
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #316
AZCat Dec 2013 #318
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #320
AZCat Dec 2013 #322
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #334
AZCat Dec 2013 #337
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #346
AZCat Dec 2013 #352
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #361
AZCat Dec 2013 #363
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #365
AZCat Dec 2013 #368
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #371
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #372
Old and In the Way Dec 2013 #304
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #305
AZCat Dec 2013 #307
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #312
AZCat Dec 2013 #317
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #319
AZCat Dec 2013 #321
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #323
AZCat Dec 2013 #324
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #326
AZCat Dec 2013 #327
Old and In the Way Dec 2013 #328
AZCat Dec 2013 #329
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #330
AZCat Dec 2013 #336
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #341
AZCat Dec 2013 #354
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #359
AZCat Dec 2013 #360
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #369
AZCat Dec 2013 #310
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #314
AZCat Dec 2013 #294
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #296
AZCat Dec 2013 #297
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #299
AZCat Dec 2013 #300
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #306
AZCat Dec 2013 #308
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #313
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #272
AZCat Dec 2013 #276
Th1onein Dec 2013 #229
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #254
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #51
cpwm17 Dec 2013 #59
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #71
billhicks76 Dec 2013 #96
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #53
Th1onein Dec 2013 #228
billhicks76 Dec 2013 #50
yurbud Dec 2013 #144
Th1onein Dec 2013 #227
Lenomsky Dec 2013 #27
closeupready Dec 2013 #6
leftyohiolib Dec 2013 #7
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2013 #8
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #15
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2013 #19
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #29
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2013 #43
yurbud Dec 2013 #101
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2013 #102
yurbud Dec 2013 #123
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2013 #140
yurbud Dec 2013 #142
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2013 #145
yurbud Dec 2013 #147
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2013 #148
yurbud Dec 2013 #170
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2013 #222
BelgianMadCow Dec 2013 #9
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #238
packman Dec 2013 #10
KansDem Dec 2013 #11
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #13
wildbilln864 Dec 2013 #54
Javaman Dec 2013 #14
loudsue Dec 2013 #31
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #34
loudsue Dec 2013 #38
blackspade Dec 2013 #16
FiveGoodMen Dec 2013 #161
Kingofalldems Dec 2013 #24
loudsue Dec 2013 #32
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #118
Old and In the Way Dec 2013 #157
Uncle Joe Dec 2013 #25
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #117
debunkthis Dec 2013 #28
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #30
AtheistCrusader Dec 2013 #35
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #36
AtheistCrusader Dec 2013 #37
debunkthis Dec 2013 #39
AtheistCrusader Dec 2013 #40
debunkthis Dec 2013 #63
AtheistCrusader Dec 2013 #64
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #75
debunkthis Dec 2013 #110
snooper2 Dec 2013 #131
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #136
snooper2 Dec 2013 #137
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #143
snooper2 Dec 2013 #146
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #149
ronnie624 Dec 2013 #120
questionseverything Dec 2013 #158
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #159
questionseverything Dec 2013 #164
Th1onein Dec 2013 #231
Jesus Malverde Dec 2013 #242
AtheistCrusader Dec 2013 #33
BelgianMadCow Dec 2013 #70
AtheistCrusader Dec 2013 #74
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #82
AtheistCrusader Dec 2013 #85
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #87
AtheistCrusader Dec 2013 #89
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #121
BelgianMadCow Dec 2013 #88
AtheistCrusader Dec 2013 #91
BelgianMadCow Dec 2013 #95
wildbilln864 Dec 2013 #90
yurbud Dec 2013 #124
wildbilln864 Dec 2013 #42
wildbilln864 Dec 2013 #44
Bradical79 Dec 2013 #47
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #139
mother earth Dec 2013 #60
AtheistCrusader Dec 2013 #61
mother earth Dec 2013 #65
AtheistCrusader Dec 2013 #66
mother earth Dec 2013 #68
AtheistCrusader Dec 2013 #69
mother earth Dec 2013 #72
AtheistCrusader Dec 2013 #73
mother earth Dec 2013 #77
AtheistCrusader Dec 2013 #78
mother earth Dec 2013 #79
AtheistCrusader Dec 2013 #80
mother earth Dec 2013 #83
AtheistCrusader Dec 2013 #86
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #93
cpwm17 Dec 2013 #107
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #125
AtheistCrusader Dec 2013 #119
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #182
AtheistCrusader Dec 2013 #183
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #184
AtheistCrusader Dec 2013 #186
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #189
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #185
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #187
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #188
noise Dec 2013 #196
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #220
noise Dec 2013 #234
Bradical79 Dec 2013 #150
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #152
ZombieHorde Dec 2013 #62
wildbilln864 Dec 2013 #67
Jesus Malverde Dec 2013 #92
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #97
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #190
yurbud Dec 2013 #99
KoKo Dec 2013 #111
yurbud Dec 2013 #100
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #104
wildbilln864 Dec 2013 #115
cpwm17 Dec 2013 #129
yurbud Dec 2013 #122
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #126
Old and In the Way Dec 2013 #162
yurbud Dec 2013 #171
blkmusclmachine Dec 2013 #108
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #113
KoKo Dec 2013 #116
Omaha Steve Dec 2013 #128
polynomial Dec 2013 #130
2banon Dec 2013 #198
BelgianMadCow Dec 2013 #200
2banon Dec 2013 #210
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #342
2banon Dec 2013 #344
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #348
Berlum Dec 2013 #132
DeSwiss Dec 2013 #133
JEB Dec 2013 #135
El Shaman Dec 2013 #151
Old and In the Way Dec 2013 #163
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #166
Old and In the Way Dec 2013 #167
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #206
Soundman Dec 2013 #160
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #165
mitty14u2 Dec 2013 #172
wildbilln864 Dec 2013 #174
BlueToTheBone Dec 2013 #204
Jesus Malverde Dec 2013 #236
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #239
cpwm17 Dec 2013 #379
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #380
wildbilln864 Jan 2014 #383
Indi Guy Jan 2014 #384
wildbilln864 Jan 2014 #385
Indi Guy Jan 2014 #386
wildbilln864 Jan 2014 #389
wildbilln864 Dec 2013 #255
TwilightGardener Dec 2013 #298
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #301
Name removed Dec 2013 #335
Indi Guy Dec 2013 #374
Indi Guy Jan 2014 #381
Uncle Joe Jan 2014 #387
wildbilln864 Jan 2014 #388
Indi Guy Jan 2014 #390
wildbilln864 Jan 2014 #391
Indi Guy Jan 2014 #392
wildbilln864 Jan 2014 #393

Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 04:34 PM

1. "Smirk." - xCommander AWOL Bush (R) & Dickie 'Five Military Deferments' Cheney (R)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 08:44 PM

94. Imagine your buddies has unlimited loot...

Think of all the good you could do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jesus Malverde (Reply #94)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 09:01 PM

103. As long as we're talking about rich Muslims

 

Here's something I don't get.

I see three plausible scenarios:

1. Osama did it, and the Muslim world approves
2. Osama did it, and the Muslim world disapproves
3. Osama didn't do it, and the Muslim world knows it

In cases 2 and 3, why doesn't some sheikh write a check for $20 million or so and make a gorgeous feature film saying Islam is a religion of peace, 9/11 was anti-Islamic, and Osama a) had-no-right-to do it or b) didn't do it.

In case 1, why doesn't some anonymous person make a gorgeous feature film saying yes, he did it because it was the only way of getting your attention, and here's why he did it.

Instead all we get is silence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #103)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 09:12 PM

105. "The Muslim world"

Yes, because the Muslim world isn't composed of individuals with varying views and life experience...

Do they hold meetings and vote on what the Muslim world thinks, or do they require someone like you to come along and tell them what they all think?

Your whole post was a waste. "The Muslim world" doesn't hold one single view on 9/11 any more than the Christian world does. Do you see?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TroglodyteScholar (Reply #105)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 09:20 PM

106. I wasn't talking about the Muslim World.

 

Last edited Tue Dec 10, 2013, 03:48 PM - Edit history (2)

I was talking about rich Muslims who are in a position to make a film.

Instead of a variety of views, all we get is silence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #106)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 09:50 PM

109. I must have misread your post...

...that has multiple references to what "the Muslim world" thinks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TroglodyteScholar (Reply #109)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 10:17 PM

114. I guess that just proves that, as I said, I don't get it. :>)

 

Last edited Tue Dec 10, 2013, 03:48 PM - Edit history (2)

I still don't understand why no rich Muslim has a strong enough opinion that he or she wants to share it.

I mean, it's not like the entire western world has to get together and achieve consensus before Robert Greenwald can make a film.

I would like to know how many in the Muslim world think Osama did it and approve of that, how many think he did it and disapprove, how many think he didn't do it, and how many have an opinion I haven't thought of yet.

In Egypt only 16% think al Qaeda did 9/11 and 12% think the USA did themselves.
In Jordan only 11% think al Qaeda did 9/11 and 17% think the USA did themselves.
In Palestine 42% think al Qaeda did 9/11 and 27% think the USA did themselves.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/535.php

A couple of years ago a poll in Afghanistan showed that 92% of the men had never heard of 9/11.
http://www.juancole.com/2010/11/southern-afghans-have-never-heard-of-911.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #106)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 03:24 PM

153. An Arab Prince wrote the City of NY a check for $10MM

no one wanted to cash it. Wonder why?

Do you remember how our media went around the world, right after 9/11, showing Muslims "celebrating?" Because we all know that a few fundie/radical Muslims speaks for all moderate Muslims, right? I don't recall our media being balanced on outpourings of solidarity for the Americans killed. A few years later, Cheney/Bush made sure that moderate Muslim voices were marginalized. Mission Accomplished!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #153)

Wed Dec 11, 2013, 12:45 AM

177. He's the one who was building the ground zero mosque, and he's been the #2 shareholder of NewsCorp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #153)

Sun Dec 15, 2013, 06:21 PM

233. Its all about the Benjamins and the Carlisle Connection

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrant46 (Reply #233)

Mon Dec 16, 2013, 06:14 PM

245. Hmmmmm. Seems like there's more there than one might imagine...

(Apr. 2003)The Carlyle Group, integrated by the Bush and bin Laden families awarded a billion dollar contract to "rebuild" Iraq: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/NEW304A.html

...the Carlyle Group is expected to be awarded a billion dollar contract by the US Government to help in the redevelopment of airfields and urban areas destroyed by Coalition aerial bombardments.

The Group is managed by a team of former US Government personnel including its president Frank Carlucci, former deputy director of the CIA before becoming Defence Secretary. His deputy is James Baker II, who was Secretary of State under George Bush senior. Several high profile former politicians are employed to represent the company overseas, among them John Major, former British Prime Minister, along with George Bush senior, one time CIA director before becoming US President.

The financial assets of the [font color="darkred"]Saudi Binladen Corporation (SBC)[/font] are also managed by the Carlyle Group. The SBC is headed up by members of Osama bin Laden’s family, who played a principle role in helping George W. Bush win petroleum concessions from Bahrain when he was head of the Texan oil company, Harken Energy Corporation - a deal that was to make the Bush family millions of dollars. Salem, Osama bin Laden’s brother, was represented on Harken’s board of directors by his American agent, James R. Bath.

The connection between the Bush and bin Laden families can also be traced to the collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) in the 1990s. Members of the Anglo Pakistani bank’s board of directors included Richard Helms and William Casey, business partners of George Bush senior and former CIA agents. During their time at BCCI both Helms and Casey worked alongside fellow director, Adnan Khasshoggi, who also represented the bin Laden family’s interests in the US.

The Portugal News has been told by a reliable source that the Carlyle Group meeting in Lisbon will discuss the relationship between the [font color="darkred"]Saudi Binladen Corporation (SBC)[/font] and Osama bin Laden. Many US officials claim that the [font color="darkred"]SBC[/font] continues to finance his political activities, and has done so for many years. If true, this would place George Bush senior and his colleagues at the Carlyle Group in an embarrassing position. As managers of SBC’s financial investments they might well be accused of indirectly aiding and abetting the United States’ number one enemy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #245)

Mon Dec 16, 2013, 09:33 PM

247. Birds of a feather---- flock----

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrant46 (Reply #247)

Mon Dec 16, 2013, 11:26 PM

249. Indeed. Here's an interesting article...

...from 10/03/01 -- Bush's Former Oil Company Linked To bin Laden Family

"When President George W. Bush froze assets connected to Osama bin Laden, he didn't tell the American people that the terrorist mastermind's late brother was an investor in the president's former oil business in Texas. He also hasn't leveled with the American public about his financial connections to a host of shady Saudi characters involved in drug cartels, gun smuggling, and terrorist networks."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 05:54 AM

127. These guys are obviously petrosexuals n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #127)

Mon Dec 16, 2013, 01:39 AM

237. Still funny ^^^^This^^^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 04:41 PM

2. What is on the recacted pages

probably the link between Chene, Bush and the Saudis for profit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverbendviewgal (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 05:44 PM

17. PNAC PNAC PNAC PNAC That is the document that spelled it out. And the bush crime family

and their multi-generation relationship with the Saudi Royal family was behind it all the way.

Texas = Oil
Saudi Arabia = Oil
Iraq war = Oil
Cheney = Halliburton & Brown & Root = Oil & Construction

Saudi Arabia = 6% Stakeholder in NewsCorp ( Fox News )

Follow the money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loudsue (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 06:40 PM

45. don't forget the Bin Ladens also! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 07:03 PM

55. Zzactly. Bin Ladens are the biggest construction co. for the Saudi royal family.

And ya know what? I don't think the Saudi people are all that in love with their royal family. But you know the royal family hates Americans....hell, we even let our women drive cars!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Reply #45)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 01:55 PM

138. The bin Laden's that were partners with HW Bush in a militiary supply company - Carlyle?

The bin Ladens' that were flown out of America on 9/11 so that the fbi couldn't interview them and find out they were partners with the Bushes/Cheney's in planning this atrocity - those folks?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #138)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 03:28 PM

154. Bin Ladens were in town on 9/11 for a board meeting with Bush, Sr. and the Carlyle Group.

Senior stayed at the WH the night before, while Jr. was in Florida. IIRC, Bush, Sr. hightailed it out of DC and went to Wisconsin(?) later that day. Probably didn't like the optics of that moment....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loudsue (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 11, 2013, 12:08 AM

175. PNAC's Open LETTER TO CLINTON - Run-up to War Officially Began in 1998 _ a brief synopsis...

Jan. 26, 1998. Open Letter to Clinton: Remove Saddam


PNAC's first public action:


"Turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. ... including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf." — January, 1998


Signed by the following members of the Bush Administration:

  • Rumsfeld

  • Wolfowitz

  • Perle

  • Bolton

  • Abrams

  • Armitage

  • Woolsey

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


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 04:47 PM

3. The only media personality I recall discussing the Saudi Royals involvement

 

was Randi Rhodes...she would talk about these documents and use the term "bawdy ababia" to discuss which country was redacted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 05:45 PM

18. Larry King

Larry King interviewing country singer Toby Keith told a story

On the morning of 9/11 Keith was in Kentucky bidding on a horse. There was a Saudi Prince also bidding.

Government cars and security officers came and took the Saudi Prince away.

Keith didn't know why.

He went into the house and saw the TV and saw what had just happened in NY.

The Saudi was taken to safety as soon as the first plane hit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainstreetonce (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 05:49 PM

21. No no no...that is NOT what I am talking about...

 

Randi was talking specifically about the redacted documents mentioned here....She had this conversation with someone who actually read the unredacted version...I believe it was former Senator Bob Graham! He was not allowed to reveal it...so Randi referred to it as "Bawdy Ababia".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainstreetonce (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 05:52 PM

23. Yes it was Senator Graham...

 

“I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia,” former Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, said in an affidavit filed as part of a lawsuit brought against the Saudi government and dozens of institutions in the country by families of Sept. 11 victims and others. Mr. Graham led a joint 2002 Congressional inquiry into the attacks.

His former Senate colleague, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a Democrat who served on the separate 9/11 Commission, said in a sworn affidavit of his own in the case that “significant questions remain unanswered” about the role of Saudi institutions. “Evidence relating to the plausible involvement of possible Saudi government agents in the September 11th attacks has never been fully pursued,” Mr. Kerrey said.

Their affidavits, which were filed on Friday and have not previously been disclosed, are part of a multibillion-dollar lawsuit that has wound its way through federal courts since 2002. An appellate court, reversing an earlier decision, said in November that foreign nations were not immune to lawsuits under certain terrorism claims, clearing the way for parts of the Saudi case to be reheard in United States District Court in Manhattan. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/us/graham-and-kerrey-see-possible-saudi-9-11-link.html?_r=0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 07:11 PM

57. Inquiring minds can't help but wonder who all are being protected in those redacted pages,

can't help but wonder who all were part of a conspiracy, if any.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to indepat (Reply #57)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 08:26 PM

84. That's none of your business! Government business is government business, and none of yours! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #84)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 08:52 PM

98. The bidness of America is bidness and the bidness of government is to nurture and

promote the vast profitability of bidness, in part, by a preposterously low effective bidness tax rate and a preposterously low minimum wage that is so low that government has to subsidize those working for bidness at the lower end of the wage scale. This American-styled fascism is all so simply implemented and easy to understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to indepat (Reply #57)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 10:09 PM

112. Republicon OCCULTISM works to keep America in the dark about 9/11

It is a darkside pox upon the US of A.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainstreetonce (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 11:47 PM

311. As soon as the FIRST plane hit, huh? How very interesting.

I haven't heard this story before. Obviously I never saw the Larry King interview either. Thanks for the information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raksha (Reply #311)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:13 AM

315. New to me, too.

 

Interesting how the feds can be proactive when they want to--for instance I believe the FBI team that went to investigate Paul Wellstone's plane crash actually left Minneapolis before Wellstone's plane took off from Minneapolis.

But when it comes to following around two known al Qaeda agents to see what they're up to and who they're up to it with--when al Qaeda's plot to fly hijacked airliners into the WTC has been known since 1995 and when those two agents have bought TEN airline tickets dated 9/11/01 under their own real names (or so says Bob Woodward)--they can't seem to get it together. Government incompetence, don't you know.

To be fair, I'd like to know the timeline on this story. Very possibly the FBI were already keeping a protective eye on the bin Ladens in Kentucky to keep them safe from local bigots and, if so, then as soon as they heard on the radio about an attack on the WTC they might phone the guy who was assigned to watch them and tell him to move them.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raksha (Reply #311)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:09 PM

340. You might be able to check

I posted that story on a board once before and I believe someone was able to go back in Larry King transcripts and check it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 04:50 PM

4. Bush was protecting his relationship with the Saudi princes?

So, maybe Iraq was the target all along?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 07:17 PM

58. No, just one big coincidence.

Cheney had those secret energy policy meetings in the Spring of 2001...the ones that we can't see who attended and what were the topics of discussion. Except for one map that clearly showed Iraq getting divvied up amongst a number of big oil companies.

So 15 of 19 hijackers were Saudis. What was the US response?

(1) Give the Royal Family, including bin Ladens, free passage out of the country while no one else could fly.
(2) Exit all US Saudi military bases.
(3) Take out SA's #1 threat - Hussein/Iraq. Iraq/Hussein had no connection with the 9/11 bombing.
(4) Disrupt the flow of Iraqi oil onto the world markets, thus making SA's product increase in value.

I don't know...seems like one big "quid pro quo" that involved the House of Saud, Big Oil, and the Bush administration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #58)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 08:06 PM

76. Actually, the airspace had just reopened

 

but it does seem awfully strange that dozens of Saudi royals, bin Laden relatives, etgc., would flee the country en masse during the week or so after Nineleven(TM).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #248)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 12:31 AM

251. If I'm wrong, the 9/11 Commission was, too

 

that's their official line.

Could this be this generation's Warren Commission?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #251)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 12:40 AM

252. Well, fu k them.

Only about 8 people believe the 9/11 Commision and all of them will tell me I'm wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #251)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 01:32 AM

253. Please see...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #58)

Sat Dec 14, 2013, 06:40 PM

223. ...So many 'coincidences' surrounding the entire matter.

I'll bet the 28 pages would clear allot of things up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #58)

Mon Dec 23, 2013, 09:08 AM

377. And don't forget that 1 plane was supposed to hit the white house

(5) Take out Bush and put Cheney in his place, but Bush went to Florida.
Or maybe
(5) They were wrong about White House, and it was supposed to hit the Capital?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #377)

Mon Dec 23, 2013, 09:35 AM

378. Pretty sure it would have been the Capitol.

The hijackers probably liked Tom Clancy's 'Debt of Honor'....I believe both 93 and 77 were late getting off the ground. See 77's rather odd flightpath around Kentucky...had both plans been on time, I think all 4 would have hit their targets on time with no one left wondering why the USAF was MIA. And there'd have been no Congress to stop Cheney/Bush from taking total control of the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 12:01 PM

134. +1

These documents, if ever revealed, will probably show at the least that the Iraq invasion was knowingly built on a litany of lies which started LONG before Colin Powell's dog-and-pony show before the United Nations...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #134)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 03:28 PM

155. Powell's inability to convince the UN should have clued Americans in.

 

But so many of us were so emotionally set on war. and so many of us who wanted to see better evidence were silent, and there's been a propaganda campaign for decades now causing us to diss the UN.

Even so-called liberals diss the UN and seem to have forgotten the fact war is legal only in the case of self-defense or when authorized by the UN. I wish we could learn the clear lessons from this history, but willful blindness seems to be epidemic these days.








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #155)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 06:32 PM

217. During those days there was an atmosphere of fear among politicians & journalists,...

...fear of being labeled "unpatriotic."

If you recall, most of those in leadership roles (Rep. and Dem.) and those who reported on them felt handcuffed, and would rarely express dissent -- and when they did so, it was in the most cryptic of terms.

Such was the chilling nature of rhetoric coming from the WH. ...And such was the atmosphere established which allowed for the passage of The 'Patriot' Act -- the single most un-American piece of legislation passed in modern times.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #134)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 03:35 PM

156. I think the framework can be found in the PNAC documents, and the implementation

in Cheney's "secret" energy meetings that were started very early in their administration...probably about 5 minutes after the inauguration. I wonder if there isn't linkage to these secret meetings...

<>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 02:56 AM

332. likely

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 04:55 PM

5. Don't question authority

We have the official story. There is no need for further investigation. There is no need to re-hash what our elected officials have told us. They have our best interests in mind. They would not deceive us. Belief in any theory that varies from the official account is discouraged; the thinking has already been done for you. Just believe. Trust. Obey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ezlivin (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 05:27 PM

12. Exactly

 

Last edited Mon Dec 9, 2013, 06:55 PM - Edit history (1)

Those coincidence theorists who smear so-called truthers by mislabeling them and trying to equate them with Birthers are a disgusting lot and do our democracy a disservice as they enable high crimes. This isn't about typing on a birth certificate. It's about an event we were told would have to change our whole way of life forever and allow the government and corporate contractors into every aspect of our private life to controls us. Stop conflating the two and do something constructive to bring us back out humanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billhicks76 (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 05:47 PM

20. The so so-called "Truthers" generally claim that the Saudis didn't do 9-11

 

so this is just more potential evidence that the "Truthers" are wrong. And since they have already been proven to be spectacularly wrong on just about everything, we didn't need any more evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 05:51 PM

22. It seems you're not interested in what really happened, not interested in government secrecy,

 

not interested in justice for the families and the victims, not interested in the proposition that in an Open Society the people have the right to know about the events that changed their lives and their culture.

It seems that as you see it, there's the Official Story, and there's the "Truthers'" story, and if the "Truthers" are wrong, then we should have no concern about whether the official story is true or not.

Is that an unfair characterization of your position--or simply a brutally clear one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 07:00 PM

52. Very Eloquent

 

And spot on

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 05:54 PM

26. Actually those who are seeking the truth about 9/11

generally claim that the official story is wrong. Nearly all of them would like to see a new investigation take place and the investigators given the power to subpoena.

If you believe the official story, why not relax? Take it easy. You know the truth. It was given to you by our trusty public servants. You can take comfort in your belief that you were not lied to and mislead. Why waste your time even discussing alternate theories or those who create them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ezlivin (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 06:30 PM

41. I don't believe in any "official story"

 

I believe what the evidence tells. Saying that the US Government lied about facts concerning 9-11 is an assumed but important fact that the truthers have not uncovered and they deserve no credit what-so ever.

"Truthers" don't believe in the evidence. They have a religious faith-based belief on how 9-11 went down and no amount of evidence is sufficient to change their opinion.

This news concerning Saudi involvement is consistent with what many believe about 9-11 and totally inconsistent with the Truthers' made up nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #41)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 06:46 PM

46. Nonsense! a truther(as I am) merely knows we were lied to and wants the truth! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 06:52 PM

48. +1 simple as that

official story = obvious BS. Dunno what happened, do know the event has been totally exploited and is still serving to instill obedience-inducing fear of terra terra in people. So the truth needs to come to light. Glad to see a push for it from such unsuspect (well, you know what I mean) quarters as US politicians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 06:53 PM

49. I'm not a truther and I know we were lied to

 

So if you want to know what happened your beliefs should be consistent with known facts.

This news concerning Saudi involvement contradicts most claims made by truthers. But since we already knew about Saudi involvement in 9-11, it is impossible for any more news concerning Saudi involvement to make the truthers any more wrong than they already are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 07:07 PM

56. And it seems that all you're interested in is truthers being wrong.

 

You don't seem to care about getting to the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 08:20 PM

81. you're correct that you're not a truther....

 

you're a no-truther. As you don't really want to know. An anti-truther...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Reply #46)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 02:18 PM

141. thank you wildbill

call me a "truther" the way wingnuts call me a liberal - as if it's a dirty word. i want the truth and i know i haven't learned it yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to barbtries (Reply #141)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 05:14 PM

168. A "Truther" comes with a whole lot of baggage

 

including many BS claims concerning how 9-11 went down. To claim that the government lied is not a significant breakthrough. Since when haven't any government lied?

Truthers' claims generally completely contradict this OP. This OP completely supports what I, and many others, believe about 9-11.

The Bush Administration covered up for the Saudis, who were the culprits on 9-11, and they blamed the Afghans and more importantly the Iraqis. "Truthers" help the Bush Administration by claiming the Saudis weren't involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #168)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 05:31 PM

169. On Planet Cpwm, a "truther" comes with a whole lot of baggage

 

.... loaded on him or her by cpwm.

A Truther is someone who wants to truth about what happened about 9/11, and is not willing (as cwpm is) to accept lies as the normal state of affairs.

What "Truthers" claim the Saudis weren't involved? Do any of these alleged truthers have names? And when did you become an expert on what Truthers believe?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #168)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 06:52 PM

173. yada yada, blah blah! thanks for your opinion...

 

no matter how incorrect it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #168)

Wed Dec 11, 2013, 12:38 AM

176. Doesn't it raise your suspicions when emotional rhetoric is developed which is intended to...

...vilify selected groups while other rhetoric is put in place to create an emotional bond?

I'm suspicious of any whose agenda attempts to put the truth, and those who seek it, in a bad light. I am equally suspicious of those who attempt to put lipstick on what is clearly a pig.

For example, Vietnam War protestes were call by V.P. Agnew, "...an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.". Conversely Reagan called the Mujahideen, "freedom fighters" (& the CIA backed them, including Bin Laden, with arms & finances).

When I hear the term "truther" it always causes me to question the intellectual honesty of the user of the term, rather than the target thereof. Does this resonate with you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #176)

Wed Dec 11, 2013, 12:47 AM

178. They are self described as "truthers"

 

They are poorly named. They ignore actual evidence. They ignore actual science. They don't use common sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #178)

Wed Dec 11, 2013, 01:16 AM

179. I don't believe you are correct.

As I recall, they co-opted the name the same way Obama co-opted "Obamacare." If I'm wrong about this point I'll accept the criticism.

As for your assertions that,"They ignore actual evidence. They ignore actual science. They don't use common sense.", Wow! Can't you hear how revolting is your grand over-generalization and obvious contempt? As if to backup my earlier point, such negatively charged prejudicial speech says far more about you the speaker than the objects of your blanket attempt at character assassination.

I'll also add that since your assertions are rooted in base emotion rather than logical argument -- there is no logical reason for any objective observer to give your thoughts a modicum of consideration, let alone credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #179)

Wed Dec 11, 2013, 08:38 AM

180. Visit the Creative Speculation Group

 

or any other place where truthers hang out. They make claim after claim that is demonstrably false (their level of crazy would be funny if it weren't true) and almost the only people that correct them are non-truthers:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1135

A frequent claim by truthers is that the Saudis weren't involved. That would contradict your OP. Your OP has nothing to do with the truthers and is consistent with what many others believe (correctly in my opinion) about the Bush Administration during their quest for war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #180)

Wed Dec 11, 2013, 02:22 PM

181. I'm familiar with that forum and also with...

...http://www.911truth.org where many very reasonable and respectable professionals have presented cogent and well documented volumes of investigative work which contradict the official version of events.

Sure, there are rabid conspiratorialists around who won't listen to reason; but I've seen much of the opposite as well -- people who refuse to evaluate solid contradictory evidence because, in their arrogance, they are dismissive of anything which doesn't fit into their entrenched position.

I think it's unwise to over-generalize regarding either camp; wouldn't you agree?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #181)

Wed Dec 11, 2013, 07:25 PM

191. 911Truth.org loses all credibility when they promote nonsense

 

such as:

"the demolition-like collapse of the Twin Towers and of a third skyscraper, WTC 7"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #191)

Thu Dec 12, 2013, 02:12 AM

192. Really?

You don't see any resemblance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #192)

Thu Dec 12, 2013, 09:00 AM

193. Obviously they are promoting demolitions of the buildings

 

Last edited Wed Dec 18, 2013, 11:26 PM - Edit history (1)

That's just nuts. Actual scientists have studied the collapses in detail and they understand why they collapsed like they did. But "truthers make extremely far-fetched claims and ignore science. Their methods are identical to the creationists.

At first the self-described "truthers" claimed that the two towers collapsed too neatly into their own footprints (LOL) which allegedly too much resembled controlled demolitions. That claim is less common now, for obvious reasons. Now many claim that the towers' collapses were too messy and they must have been taken down by large (but strangely not audible on videos) explosions. So no matter how they collapsed, they were going to claim demolition.

Truthers then transfered many of their favorite arguments from the towers to WTC7, which was struck hard by WTC1 and collapsed by the large and uncontrolled fires. They didn't want their old arguments to go to waste.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #193)

Thu Dec 12, 2013, 03:39 PM

194. That's all very interesting, but it doesn't answer my question.

You said, "911Truth.org loses all credibility when they promote nonsense such as: 'the demolition-like collapse of the Twin Towers and of a third skyscraper, WTC 7.' "

I asked, and still ask -- do you see any resemblance (between the fall of the towers & a demolition)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #194)

Thu Dec 12, 2013, 04:08 PM

195. Gravity pulls towards the center of mass of an object

 

Last edited Thu Dec 12, 2013, 08:19 PM - Edit history (1)

including towards the center of mass of the earth. The towers and all buildings demolished in demolitions must follow this known law of gravity. When demolished, a building will fall down towards the center of mass of the earth. The larger, taller, more massive, and less solid the building, the more vertical the collapse will be. Plus collapse direction is also influenced by the nature of the damage, of course.

My response pointed out how truthers are determined to make the collapses appear to be demolitions. That's the point of my second paragraph in my response:

At first the self-described "truthers" claimed that the two towers collapsed too neatly into their own footprints (LOL) which allegedly too much resembled controlled demolitions. That claim is less common now, for obvious reasons. Now many claim that the towers collapses were too messy and they must have been taken down by large (but strangely not audible on videos) explosions. So no matter how they collapsed, they were going to claim demolition.

They saw the towers collapse in the direction of gravity and determined that they looked like controlled demolitions, even though they made contradictory observations about the collapses. (it's obvious my answer is no)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #195)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 02:06 AM

197. Gravity pulls toward the center of mass of the system, i.e., the earth.

 

For a relatively light body (the top structure of the towers) to fall through the path of greatest resistance (the much more heavily-constructed lower body of the towers) rather than find its way to a path of lesser resistance (falling off) raises a lot of suspicions for those versed in the fundamental laws of physics.

The government agency charged with explaining why and how the towers collapsed claims that it did not analyze the collapses. Well why the hell not? Was it because their preliminary analysis revealed politically incorrect truths?

Democracy needs honest and complete investigations. The lack of same furthers the nihilistic cynicism that has captured this land.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #197)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 09:33 AM

201. That's not what I experienced at all.

From what I remember, the bulk of people versed in the fundamental laws of physics that I knew at the time of the collapses were not actually surprised by the nature of the collapses. It has not changed much since then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #201)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 02:36 PM

211. Most structural engineers were surprised when the towers fell, says NOVA.

 

One structural engineer has quite a touching story--the engineers in his small firm were watching TV that morning, and when the first tower fell, they were all flabbergasted. They were all so ashamed that they hadn't predicted the collapse that they didn't want to talk about the subject, didn't want to think about it for many months afterward.

Another structural engineer sent out a questionnaire to 100 of his colleagues asking about their knowledge of the events of 9/11 and their attitudes and beliefs. Only 2 of the 100 were willing to fill out the questionnaire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #211)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 10:55 PM

218. That's not my experience.

There were a few engineers who found the collapses suspicious, but most of those I talked with in the decade after the collapses have seemed comfortable with the conclusion that the collapses were normal. Maybe NOVA's experience was different?

If I got a questionnaire from a colleague about September 11th I wouldn't answer it either - why would I want to discuss conspiracy theories in real life with a group of people who aren't known for their rational behavior? At least here I have the protection of anonymity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #218)

Sun Dec 15, 2013, 01:26 PM

224. Maybe the engineers you've talked to are afraid to challenge groupthink?

 


It seems that most are. After all, from 2002 to 2005, few engineers had the courage and honesty to challenge FEMA's ridiculous zipper/pancake theory. You and your friends were quite comfortable with that, right? And it turned out to be not just wrong, but ridiculous.

What makes you assume that the questionnaire was about conspiracy theories?
And why must you characterize answering a questionnaire as "discussing"?
And why must you lump our licensed engineer with a group?

You don't just put your thumb on the scale, you climb onto the side you want to weight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #224)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 10:32 PM

256. Engineers are no better than any other group of people - maybe worse.

Engineers are inherently conservative, so it's a bit much to expect them to regularly think outside the box.

That said, plenty of us had vested professional interest in the causes of the collapses. Designers of buildings do care about their work, and it was important that we knew why the buildings collapsed so we could determine what changes (if any) were merited to our standards of design, or even the building codes.

Engineering professionals may have disagreed about the specific cause of the collapses (lacking the information that was later available from sources such as the NIST reports) but it was difficult to find one who gave "alternate" theories any serious consideration, because they simply weren't credible in most cases. There will always be exceptions like Judy Wood, who has a PhD. in mechanical engineering and supports alternative theories, but they were (and are still) in a small minority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #256)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:03 PM

258. 40 PhD engineers in AE911Truth are calling for new investigations.

 

How many PhD engineers are willing to stick their necks out and defend NIST's half-an-investigation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #258)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:23 PM

260. Lots, probably.

Most don't care enough about refuting the ridiculous theories proposed by some of those opposed to the NIST conclusions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #260)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:26 PM

261. Probably. IOW, you can't name anyone.

 

I didn't say anything about refuting theories. I said defending the official report. And you can't name one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #261)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:27 PM

263. It's not really that interesting a question for me.

Like I said below, I've played this game before and I find it boring. You can go and move the goalposts on your own, or find a different partner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #263)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:29 PM

265. Right, you're more comfortable with your evidence-free assumptions.

 

Heaven forbid you should actually support them! That's too boring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #197)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 10:42 AM

202. Actually, it's those versed in "truther" pseudo-science

... courtesy of the likes of Richard Gage, who gullibly believe that the buildings should have toppled over like trees if they weren't controlled demolitions. As we have already been discussing (or rather, as I have been discussing and you have been ignoring), "those versed in the fundamental laws of physics" such as Professor Bazant, understand that toppling over like a tree would require pushing the center of mass of the falling block 100 feet to the side, to the edge of the building, and that by Newton's 3rd Law, there would be an equal and opposite reaction on the structure below for that to happen. Those who are also versed in structural mechanics, such as Professor Bazant (who has written 6 textbooks and over 450 peer-reviewed articles on the subject) are able to calculate that the necessary reactive force was about 10 times what the tower structures could resist. To "those versed in the fundamental laws of physics" that means that down was the only way the top blocks could go once the tilting pivot points succumbed to that horizontal force.

The "path of least resistance" applies to liquids flowing downhill: When they encounter an obstacle, they are free to flow to the side. To the the extent that the buildings behaved like a liquid in following the "path of least resistance," about 95% of the rubble ended up outside the building footprints, because it spilled over the sides of the falling pile of debris, but that happened only after it had contributed to the dynamic impulse force that destroyed the structure below the falling mass.

"Truthers" who create mysteries out of their own ignorance and then simply refuse to have those mysteries solved are also refusing to be among "those versed in the fundamental laws of physics." But that doesn't stop them from blathering about the "laws of physics" on message boards anyway.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #202)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 01:59 PM

208. Nobody says that buildings injured at the top should topple from the bottom.

 

You make stuff up.

Dr. Bazant's thesis was not endorsed by the governmental body responsible for explaining the collapses--probably for the simple reason that it bears no resemblance to what actually happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #208)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 03:34 PM

214. LOL, when I was a little kid...

... I noticed that if you stack up blocks until the top blocks tip over, the blocks below the tipping point will be kicked in the opposite direction. It wasn't until much later that I understood why, however.

And I already showed you this on the CS board, which demonstrates Dr. Bazant's "thesis":



When the columns along one side buckled, the top block began to tip over, with the columns on the opposite side acting as a pivot. As Bazant explained in the article that you apparently didn't read, the top block is actually trying to rotate around its center of mass, and the columns on the opposite side were unable to restrain the horizontal force that developed, so the top block has broken free of the structure and is falling straight down while continuing to rotate.

You can buttress your willful ignorance with willful blindness if you find that comforting, but if you then go out on the net yammering about "those versed in the laws of physics" and "bears no resemblance to what actually happened," you're just making yourself look foolish. Suit yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #214)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 04:13 PM

215. You have changed the subject from your false claim

 

... that truthers think the buildings should have toppled like trees (from the bottom) to a different issue--the rotation of the top "block" in one of the towers.

This is typical behavior of yours. When you're shown to be FOS in one issue you change the subject to another issue to try to give the impression that you weren't FoS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #215)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 05:07 PM

216. Bullshit

I said absolutely nothing about "from the bottom)" and I'm not responsible for your reading comprehension difficulties. "Truthers" claim that the top block should have toppled over the side, like a cut tree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #216)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 10:55 PM

219. You said in post 202 "toppled over like trees". Trees topple from the bottom.

 

You can't even remember what you wrote a few hours before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #195)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 02:53 AM

199. I respect your stance on the events of that day...

...and I'm not saying you're wrong. But I am sorry to say that I simply don't believe that you can see no similarity between a demolition and particularly the collapse of WTC 7.

Please view these short videos (I chose these because they simply show events w/o political posturing). It defies logic to conceive that any objective observer could not see a resemblance:




"Nonsense?" ...Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #199)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 11:42 AM

203. The towers looked nothing like controlled demolitions

 

they were chaotic messes. The collapses of the towers are what started truthers to claim that there where controlled demolitions on 9-11. For years truthers claimed that the towers collapsed at free-fall speed into their own footprints. The great internet scientists took the word of some con-artists and never bothered to time the collapses or note the obvious fact that the towers collapsed over a wide area and significantly slower than free-fall speed.

Like manna from heaven, truthers discovered WTC7 which looked more like a controlled demolition than the towers. The chaotic mess of WTC7's collapse was contained inside its outer shell. It is very strange watching it gracefully fall in silence. That is something we're not used to observing, including in controlled demolitions.

You should notice that whenever truthers run comparisons of WTC7 and controlled demolitions they always turn the sound off. They sound nothing alike. Controlled demolitions are deafeningly loud.

It's obvious what took WTC7 down. Actual scientists have studied the collapse in detail, and they use this important information for future design of tall buildings: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1135337#post33

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #203)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 12:49 PM

205. I think you've got things a little backward here.

But firstly, thank you for admitting that you see (if not hear) some resemblance between the WTC 7 and a demolition (so much for this being nonsense).

You say, "Like manna from heaven, truthers discovered WTC7 which looked more like a controlled demolition than the towers." I doubt that this is the case for many of those who question the official story. Most of those I've talked to don't see WTC 7 as a validation of their previously conceived notions, but rather a powerful reason to begin questioning the government narrative in the first place.

...Additionally, I see no difference between your almost religious adherence to your entrenched position -- and the midset you accuse the truthers of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #205)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 01:54 PM

207. It's bat-shit crazy to believe that the buildings were taken down by demolitions

 

That scenario makes absolutely no sense and they didn't collapse like any demolition ever done before. They were NOT like a controlled demolition.

It would have been humanly impossible to set up any kind of controlled demolition without being caught. There's no way that such a team could have even been assymbled.

The large fires started by WTC1 would have destroyed the demolition set-up. They had no way of knowing that any of the towers would have damaged WTC7 or set it on fire, because if not, there would have been no way of explaining WTC7's collapse.

It takes no effort to think of many more reasons why a controlled demolition is nuts.

Incredible claims require incredible evidence. You have none, but only faith. Science is the opposite of religion. Science and common sense are on my side.

We all saw the aircraft hit the towers that were flown by the mostly Saudi terrorists. It's a simple plan that is relatively easy to pull off, as long as you have terrorists willing to die for their plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #207)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 02:57 PM

212. Why do you think access was impossible?

 

Most of the towers' main structural columns were accessible for most of their length from the towers' 15 miles of elevator shafts--and as it happens, there was a nine-month elevator renovations project before 9/11, which would have made the presence of workmen in there unremarkable.

NIST claims that the collapse of WTC7 began when part of floor 13 fell down and took out parts of the floors below. FEMA tells us that floors 14, 15, 16, and 17 were vacant.

Why does the controlled demolition scenario make no sense? How do you know that fires would have destroyed a demolition setup? What is there in an elevator shaft to burn? WTC7s collapse would have been unremarkable had it taken place when it was hidden in the dust from WTC1. There would be no need to explain--it would be assumed that it was knocked down by debris from WTC1.

If you want science to be on your side, you should be demanding new investigations that fulfill NIST's objective of explaining why and how the towers collapsed, and explain the ten essential mysteries of the collapses that NIST dodged.

NIST claims that it did not analyze the towers' collapses. How scientific is that?

What is easy about flying hijacked airliners hundreds of miles in a country that a) has the most expensive military force in the world and b) has known about your plot and its targets since 1995 and c) has had warnings from 13 foreign countries and 4 FBI offices and the CIA? The plan itself was daft. How could they expect to pull that off? NORAD had already drilled on a hijacked-airliner-into-WTC scenario. The Mossad had named Mohammed Atta, Marwan al Shehhi, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi in their warning of 19 terrorists inside the USA planning something big. Almihdhar and Alhazmi were known al Qaeda agents, known to be in the country, and bought 10 airline tickets dated 9/11/01 under their own real names.

Your belief that pulling such a loony plot off was "simple" and "easy" is an article of religious faith with you, and contrary to reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #207)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 03:04 PM

213. I have made no claims other than to question yours,...

...that it is "silliness" to see a similarity between the collapse of WTC 7 and a demolition; and you've subsequently stipulated to that resemblance.

Your opinion that, "It's bat-shit crazy to believe that the buildings were taken down by demolitions" is precisely that -- your opinion, along with your opinion that science and common sense are on your side. "Common sense" might cause an objective observer to question the science behind 2 planes knocking down 3 steel skyscrapers. Wouldn't you agree?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #207)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 01:15 AM

325. Your take on the physical evidence is radically dogmatic...

... and you are sincere only in knowing what you want everyone to believe. It is a version compatible with the official one, which you admit involves lies ... apparently to maintain a margin of credibility. We can only agree that Bush was an idiot, not that he may have been duped.

"They were NOT like a controlled demolition."

They were like nothing other than controlled demolitions. What else would a controled demolition look like, please? Have you not seen the collapse of WTC7?

You claim the Saudis MUST have done it because their people were told to leave and ... took off like guilty people would. Is that not perhaps how things were made to look, along with 16 Saudi faces up on the media within hours as the accused? That's really not exactly strong evidence.

Too bad you won't reveal reasons for your dedicated loyalty to upholding the BS official line, thus indirectly to actual parties responsible and all their successful NWO neocon pals.

You talk about belief in science and evidence but don't provide much. The fires weren't even hot enough to melt steel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mallard (Reply #325)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 02:44 AM

331. So it appears that you disagree with the OP and Sen. Bob Graham

 

concerning Saudi Arabia's involvement in 9-11.

"They were like nothing other than controlled demolitions. What else would a controlled demolition look like, please? Have you not seen the collapse of WTC7?"

Large aircraft struck the towers. The towers fell down, striking neighboring structures on the way down. Get over it. Gravity doesn't give up, whether it's in controlled demolitions or in buildings taken down with fire. Gravity pulls straight down. Have you not heard the collapse of WTC7?

"You claim the Saudis MUST have done it because their people were told to leave and ... took off like guilty people would. Is that not perhaps how things were made to look, along with 16 Saudi faces up on the media within hours as the accused? That's really not exactly strong evidence."

The terrorists didn't try to hide their identities. It wasn't difficult to find out who they were. Plus, Osama took credit for 9-11 multiple times, including here on this video in 2004, translated by Al Jazeera. Osama would never conspire with Bush to attack the US: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014667635#post129

"Too bad you won't reveal reasons for your dedicated loyalty to upholding the BS official line"

So I'm in on the conspiracy? Can't you understand that people can honestly take positions different than you?

"You talk about belief in science and evidence but don't provide much. The fires weren't even hot enough to melt steel."

No one claims that the steel was melted. Anyone that knows anything about any of the buildings' collapses on 9-11 knows that the steel didn't melt, or need to melt for the buildings to collapse. The fires were plenty hot enough to significantly weaken and expand the steel which led to the buildings to collapse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #331)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 03:13 AM

333. Just a couple of things for now...

  • You say, "Gravity pulls straight down" and of course you're right. Then explain how 4 ton steel girders were thrown 200 yards from the towers.

  • You also say that, "the steel didn't melt, or need to melt for the buildings to collapse" and again you are correct. So explain why molten metal was discovered in the basements of all three buildings weeks after their collapse.


FYI, the distance the girders were thrown and the discovery of the molten metal are facts. If you insist I'll post these for you, or you could look them up yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #333)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 08:18 AM

338. Neither of those is that surprising, really.

While some of the debris from the buildings fell away from the base, the bulk of the material went pretty much straight down. This isn't any different from other collisions. The towers had a large amount of potential energy and some of that was translated into lateral kinetic energy because of nonaxial collisions. 200 yards isn't that far when you consider how big the buildings were. You can even do a basic energy calculation to figure out what impulse energy needed to be applied to the various objects to get them to travel that far, and it's not significant compared to the overall energy budget.

It's important to note that not all metal is steel, and the melting points of several metals (lead, for example) that would have been found in the World Trade Center are much lower than steel. Unfortunately nobody seems to have any information on which metals were found melted, or where, or in what quantities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #338)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 11:28 AM

339. For the time being...

...let's focus on the molten metal.

First of all, molten lead (like molten alluminum) is silvery in color -- not orange:


Tower #1 ..2 months later

More importantlly there is incontrovertable proof that thermate (a highly refined and more powerful version of thermite) was found in great quantities in the dust at ground zero. ...And molten iron is a biproduct of the thermite/thermate reaction. Here is an excerpt from a peer reviewed study indicating this fact (to my understanding none of NIST's findings were peer reviewed):

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later.

The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite.

Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic. http://www.bollyn.com/public/Active_Thermite_at_WTC.pdf


Billions of Previously Molten Iron Spheres in WTC Dust, Reveal Use of Thermitic Materials




So an educated guess as to the molten metal in question would be that it is indeed iron. Although you probably don't agree, do you find this a reasonable conclusion to reach?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #339)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 10:45 PM

350. Are you arguing that materials can be determined from colors in photos?

That's not as simple as most people think.

First, the appearance of any surface is dependent on a number of factors, including reflection of direct or ambient light, emittance (a temperature dependent property), or transmittance (not likely a significant factor in this case). This multivariate dependency alone makes it difficult to determine material without additional information.

Second, photos (and especially internet images) are notoriously poor recordings of color. The camera settings, digital format, or post-processing can change what appears in the image. Relying on them can again lead to difficulties in a correct determination of material.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #338)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 02:15 PM

345. So you are claiming that Professors of Engineering don't know steel when they see it?

 

Dr. Astaneh Asl said "I saw melting of girders", and he has pictures to prove it. Are you claiming that there were aluminum or lead girders in the WTC?

Dr. James Glanz, a PhD astrophysicist, reported a stalagmite of formerly molten steel.

Leslie Robertson said he saw "Like a little river of molten steel, flowing".

Captain Philip Ruvolo, FDNY, said he saw "molten steel, running down the channel rails, like lava, like you were in a foundry."

Dr. Steven Jones claims to have access to a 40-pound ingot of melted steel or iron found at Ground Zero. He has pictures.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/126315/Answers-to-911-Objections-and-Questions-Prof-Stephen-E-Jones-Pres
(see slides 70 to 75).








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #345)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 10:55 PM

353. Anybody can be mistaken, no matter what the qualifications.

Also adding to the confusion is the question of when fire damage occurred. Pre-collapse is much more relevant to the causes of the collapses, but it can be difficult to distinguish pre-collapse from post-collapse fire damage. The NIST and their consultants have some criteria they can apply, but it's not always useful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #353)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 12:48 AM

355. What about melting of girders do you not understand? Do you think there were lead girders?

 

Dr. Glanz is a journalist. Do you think he would claim the stalagmite was steel without making some effort to verify that it was not aluminum or lead?

Your denial of reality is quite telling. Thanks for that.

It can be quite convenient to obscure the difference between pre-collapse and post-collapse occurrences when you have decided that you need not explain post-collapse. NIST can not even explain the putativie post-collapse melting of girders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #355)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:18 AM

356. Narratives are one thing, hard evidence another.

I expect consistent skepticism. Is it that difficult?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #356)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 02:29 AM

362. Indeed they are. Which is why NIST's narrative is an unacceptable substitute for hard evidence. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #362)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 02:32 AM

364. Gosh, if only they had hard evidence.

Those 10,000 pages must contain something. Oh wait, you claimed that nobody could ever read the whole thing! Then what was I doing all that time while I was reading what passes for "hard evidence" in the professional community?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #364)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 02:11 PM

366. The 10,000 pages contain only a one-paragraph narration of the propagation of the collapse

 


... apparently at the speed of sound from one side of the building to the other across a robust and heavily cross-braced steel core that from all available evidence was not heated above 480 degrees F. There are no caluculations to support this narrative. We are expected to take it on faith.

A faith-based narrative is not hard evidence. And the 10,000 pages that do not provide hard evidence of NIST's collapse mechanism are not hard evidence of the collapse mechanism.

I never said nobody could read the whole thing. I once knew an Aspie kid who read the entire encyclopedia. Maybe you're him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #366)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 10:28 PM

367. It has more than that.

It's okay to admit you haven't read the reports - plenty of people haven't. It's quite another thing to make claims about the contents when you haven't bothered to read them. That's an arrogant and ignorant approach.

It's interesting that you bring up the speed of sound. Why in the world would that be relevant?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #367)

Sat Dec 21, 2013, 04:30 PM

370. Oh, so it's two paragraphs? It's been a while since I've looked at it. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #345)

Sun Dec 22, 2013, 06:43 PM

373. At the link you posted...

...I came across the mention of the "scientific method" (which I hadn't thought much about since my days in Chem & Physics lab).

What do you know of NIST's adherence to this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #373)

Mon Dec 23, 2013, 12:20 AM

375. The Scientific Method

 

You can see Dr. Lynn Margulis fulminating about NIST's crimes against it in this video.



She goes into more detail in this one:



To examine the investigation of WTC7 in terms of its adherence to the scientific method is very interesting. I don't have time to go into it now.

It's complicated, because all the elements below can be analyzed in terms of the entire loop, and because many of the hypotheses have not been subjected to experiment.


1. We OBSERVE that planes hit the buildings.
comment: serious investigators do not dispute this.

2. We OBSERVE that the buildings did not fall down after the plane strikes.
comment: no one disputes this

3. We OBSERVE that there were fires, and the buildings fell down after the fires.
comment: no one disputes this

4. We HYPOTHESIZE that the fires weakened the steel in the buildings, so the towers fell.

5. We EXPERIMENT on the steel samples that have been preserved for our study to determine the temperatures
that they experienced.

5. We OBSERVE that not one piece of the collected core steel showed heating above 250 C, and that's not hot
enough to weaken it.

6. We HYPOTHESIZE that the core steel samples that were collected are not a representative sample of the steel
that was weakened.
comment: no experiments to test this hypothesis were done. Investigation of this observation terminated.

6. We OBSERVE from FEMA Appendix C that there was a high temp (1000 C) sulfidation attack on the steel.

7. We HYPOTHESIZE that the sulfidation attacks took place after the buildings fell down.
comment: no experiments to test this hypothesis were done. Investigation of this observation terminated.

8. We OBSERVE that we have no evidence that the building fell because the steel was weakened.

9. We HYPOTHESIZE that the structural damage from the plane was worse than we thought, and that the fire damage
was more widespread than we thought--that fireproofing was stripped off to weaken the steel represented by samples
that we don't have.

10. We EXPERIMENT on the fireproofing damage. We shoot a shotgun at a piece of fireproofed steel to show that flying
debris can remove fireproofing.
comment: I know little about the fireproofing damage, because few people can be found who will advocate for it. Consider that flying airplane wreckage was spread out over about six floors, and thus the damage was limited, on any particular floor, to a particular swathe.

11. We EXPERIMENT on the airplane damage. We run computer models. We make reasonable estimates for WTC1 that the plane
severed one core column, it severed 3 core columns, it severed 6 core columns.
comment: I don't know how you can suppose that 6 core columns severed is reasonable. Flying an airplane through a steel wall reduces it to aluminum confetti. There are FIVE high-mass components available to inflict structural damage: two engines, two wing landing gear, and one nosewheel/keel/ wingbox complex. Five shots. We reject the estimates of 1 and 3 core columns damaged and decide that 6 core columns must have been damaged --because the lower estimates did not yield a collapse when we plugged them into our computer model.

OK, that's a start. If it's anyone's interested we can go wider and deeper. It would be fascinating to make a total flow chart of the investigation of the towers, and interview participants, and find out where exactly the investigation was short-circuited and thwarted.











Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #375)

Mon Dec 23, 2013, 01:35 AM

376. Thank you for responding.

I found it interesting that Dr. Margulis characterized NIST's work as not science at all. In real science one doesn't bend or ignore incontrovertible data in order to support a chosen hypothesis. She calls that propaganda, and lying. As if to make her point, there is this:

9/11: NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #331)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 01:49 PM

343. Large aircraft struck the towers. The towers fell down.

 

Have you never heard of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? It is often exploited by magicians and other illusionists.

I waved my magic wand. And then there was a rabbit in my hat! Sirhan Sirhan fired his gun 8 times and RFK fell to the floor. (Never mind that Sirhan was in front of RFK and all the 3 shots that hit him came from behind.)

Why would you think Osama would never conspire with Bush? According to the conservative French newspaper Le Figaro, Osama met with a CIA guy, Larry Mitchell, in Dubai in July of 2001. According to Sibel Edmonds al Qaeda was in the employ of the USA right up until 9/11.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, current head of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden’s deputy at the time, had innumerable, regular meetings at the U.S. embassy in Baku, Azerbaijan, with U.S. military and intelligence officials between 1997 and 2001, as part of an operation known as ‘Gladio B’. Al-Zawahiri, she charged, as well as various members of the bin Laden family and other mujahedeen, were transported on NATO planes to various parts of Central Asia and the Balkans to participate in Pentagon-backed destabilization operations.

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/05/17/breaking-news-how-the-sunday-times-investigative-series-on-sibel-edmonds-us-ties-to-al-qaeda-chief-was-spiked/

Yes, people do claim that steel melted. 8 PhDs and an FDNY Captain have reported melted steel at Ground Zero. One of them was the President of Notre Dame University. Two were college professors of engineering--MIT and Berkeley. 3 of them issued a report on steel samples that the NYT called partially "evaporated" and "vaporized" and characterized as "perhaps the deepest mystery" of Ground Zero.

NIST has no core steel samples to support your claim that the fires were hot enough to weaken the steel. Their core steel samples only show heating to 480 degrees F.

It appears that you get your talking points from propaganda websites that have little regard for truth.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #343)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 02:58 PM

347. It appears that you don't read very carefully.

...And up until now, I have been very respectful in our exchanges -- so why have you resorted to emotionally based insults?

Reading carefully, you will observe that I made no mention whatsoever of steel (let alone claimed that the fires were hot enough to weaken it).

I presented a peer reviewed paper documenting the presence of a thermitic compound and its byproduct -- molten iron present as microspheres in abundence in dust samples taken immediately following the disaster. Also, I therby suggested that an educated guess as to the molten metal found at ground zero 2 months later would be that it is iron as well.

And finally, given the documentation provided, I said, "So an educated guess as to the molten metal in question would be that it is indeed iron. Although you probably don't agree, do you find this a reasonable conclusion to reach?" ...which question still stands.

...and I'll thank you for allowing this exchange remain free of ad hominim aspursions, and remain a respectful dialogue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #347)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 08:54 PM

349. It appears that you mistook my response to cpwm for a response to you.

 

My tone was somewhat testy, I admit. I get very annoyed when people such as cpwm make confident and careless assertions (like "No one claims that the steel was melted" that are contrary to fact.

You might be interested in my post #345, which has a picture of what Dr. Jones claims is a 40-pound ingot of melted iron taken from Ground Zero. IIRC, Dr. Jones's belief that this is iron and not steel was based on the lack of chromium in it. IIRC A36 structural steel has no chromium in it, so perhaps Dr. Jones could be wrong about that.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #349)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 10:45 PM

351. I owe you an apology.

Yeah, I thought you were someone else responding to me.

And yeah, dealing with cpwm can be a strain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #351)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:34 AM

357. Not at all. You made an understandable error. The non-indented posts are confusing. nt

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #357)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:38 AM

358. There's a way to view sub-threads that shows indenting.

Make7, another poster here, showed me how to do it once. I'll see if I can find his instructions, because it comes in useful for sprawling threads like this one.


On Edit: I can't find the instructions. I'll have to send a message Make7.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #203)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 02:26 PM

209. There was nothing chaotic about the towers' collapse. The order is the surprising thing.

 

The towers come down floor by floor by floor, spewing dust out in a symmetrical pattern, and they come down completely.

NIST's Dr. Shyam Sunder told NOVA that the towers collapsed in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, he said that was the time of free fall, and he has never corrected that statement. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html

The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds. . . . And it essentially came down in free fall.


NIST's report says in section 6.14.4 that the buildings came down essentially in free fall.

If you disagree with NIST, then you should be calling for new investigations.

It is interesting that you invoke WTC7's silence. You claim there was an invisible, internal, chaotic collapse--which must have been a silent one. I've never heard any audio reflecting 47 concrete floors pounding into each other. Have you? Also, where's the dust from this silent internal collapse? The towers spewed out dust in all directions as they collapsed. How come no dust was ejected out of the windows of WTC7?

If it's so obvious what took WTC7 down, why did it take NIST six years to cobble together a report? In the past, what was accepted as "obvious" about WTC7 was that it fell from massive structural damage caused by impact of tower debris, and it fell from massive fires fueled by diesel fuel tanks. Now we know that those "obvious" explanations are not true. NIST says that non-fire-related structural damage played no part in collapse initiation, and that diesel fuel played no part in the fires--they were ordinary office fires.

If it's so obvious what took WTC7 down, how come their animated simulations bear to resemblance to reality? The sims show the building folding up like a wet paper bag--which is what you'd expect from a building with no floors inside it. In the actual collapse the building looks like it has its floors inside it.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #209)

Sat Dec 14, 2013, 03:37 PM

221. Well stated. Also, although it's obvious that WTC7 fell virtually at free fall speed as well...

...what's not so obvious is how localized damage and office fires could have caused such a catastrophic and global collapse.

I welcome hearing both sides of this issue. I just don't like it when one or the other side plays fast & loose with the facts in order to present their argument as a forgone conclusion, and in so doing denigrates those who present to the opposing side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #221)

Sun Dec 15, 2013, 01:30 PM

225. Too many advocates of 9/11 conspiracy theories make repulsive (and unconvincing) claims of proof. nt

 

Last edited Mon Dec 16, 2013, 03:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #225)

Sun Dec 15, 2013, 04:29 PM

226. Yes; and on the other side of the coin...

...we have those who promulgate the government narrative with a rabid and unrestrained contempt for any and all who would have the audacity to disagree -- regardless of the reasonableness of the dissenter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #203)

Sun Dec 15, 2013, 05:37 PM

230. And the twenty-two witnesses who heard explosions and saw the cracks they caused

in the walls of the buildings BEFORE any planes hit the towers? Are they all just a bunch of liars, insane, conspiracy theorists, too?

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/ExplosionInTowerBeforeJetHitByFurlongAndRoss.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #230)

Sun Dec 15, 2013, 06:12 PM

232. That is remarkable testimony

in many ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Reply #232)

Sun Dec 15, 2013, 11:32 PM

235. This is interesting...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #235)

Mon Dec 16, 2013, 04:12 AM

240. Very Interesting thanks!...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jesus Malverde (Reply #240)

Mon Dec 16, 2013, 04:29 AM

241. Checkout...

...post # 239 while you're at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #199)

Mon Dec 16, 2013, 11:56 AM

243. I wonder why there is no similar august body of architects, physic experts, and engineers

Last edited Mon Dec 16, 2013, 03:50 PM - Edit history (1)

that support the official story of how the towers came down?

Seems to me that, as the top few stories crumble, there would have been some amount of lag time with the below undamaged floor until that floor collapses from the added weight, then a shorter lagtime as the next story collapses from the added weight, eventually working its way down to the bottom....in about 5 minutes or so. To see all 3 towers go down at close to free fall speed - as if the bottom of the structures are gone - is nonsensical...and my opinion hasn't changed, regardless of what the "anti-truthers" have posted here over the years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #243)

Mon Dec 16, 2013, 02:41 PM

244. Common sense demands that...

...these kinds of questions be asked; and absent common sense answers, the door is open for speculation in every area of this event. ...And as I posted earlier, I think it's a common sense to question how 2 planes can utterly demolish 3 steel framed skyscrapers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #244)

Mon Dec 16, 2013, 08:45 PM

246. It's common sense to ask that the government deliver the objectives of the reports.

 

Last edited Tue Dec 17, 2013, 12:44 AM - Edit history (1)

The #1 objective on the NIST report on the towers was to explain why and how the towers collapse.

NIST did not even try to explain how. They claim they didn't analyze the collapses. So we need an investigation with state of the art computer modeling that analyzes the collapses and examines the 10 essential mysteries associated with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #246)

Mon Dec 16, 2013, 11:50 PM

250. From everything I've read...

...it seems that NIST's reporting consistently falls short of the precision and empirical objectivity one would expect from the 'National Institute of Standards and Technology.' This is no surprise however, given the other areas of government that shrink from full disclosure the facts here.

For example, please read & respond to post #239 which deals with such problems associated with the 9/11 commission (and subsequent report).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #243)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 10:34 PM

257. Most of the relevant professional organizations agree with the conclusions of the NIST.

Is that not enough?

It's not just the added weight that causes collapse - it's the dynamic loading, which can be many times the carrying capacity of the structure. Failure happens much more quickly than you might think. I've done a simple momentum transfer calculation and come up with collapse times that are in the ballpark of the actual durations of the collapses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #257)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:06 PM

259. Failing to dispute the conclusions is hardly agreeing with the conclusions.

 

I bet you can not name even one PhD engineer who will publicly endorse NIST's collapse sequence.

If you can, I bet that person has professional ties to NIST.

Dynamic loading explains how a collapse keeps going after a certain threshold is reached.

Dynamic loading does not explain how you get to that threshold.

How come NIST didn't include your momentum transfer calcs in their reports? Because they didn't like the results?

Do you honestly expect us the accept the calculations an anonymous internet poster claims he did as a substitute for the ones NIST claims they didn't do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #259)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:26 PM

262. I'm not going to bet, because it's not that interesting a consideration.

You'll just keep moving the goalposts, and I've played this game enough to find it boring by now.

What do you know about dynamic loading? Not much, based on your posts in the "Creative Speculation" forum. I'll rely on my own calculations rather than your unsupported claims, thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #262)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:28 PM

264. I don't need to know anything about dynamic loading.

 

All I need to know is that NIST only gave us half a report and that seems to be good enough for you.

Your habitual allusion to your own omniscience is becoming quite tiresome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #264)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:36 PM

267. You don't? Then why are you making claims about it?

Perhaps you should stick to arguing about topics where you have sufficient knowledge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #267)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:37 PM

268. Please respond to post # 266 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #268)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:41 PM

271. Please have a little patience. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #267)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:38 PM

269. I'm not. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #269)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:43 PM

273. That's not what your post says.

And nice edit, by the way. Again with the late edit, after I've already responded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #262)

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 04:53 AM

382. It must be pretty damned interesting because it keeps.....

 

your ass and a few others coming around here to argue the points! Guess you've been coming here to get bored for many years now. And guess what. Not once have you convinced anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #259)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:45 PM

274. Since you edited to include another section after I responded...

I don't expect anyone to accept my calculations as a substitute for anything (especially since I didn't provide them here). I expect the competent posters to do their own, because that's what I would do (and did). I'm certainly not going to advocate for blind acceptance of someone else's claims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #257)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:31 PM

266. How can organizations concur with conclusions NIST has refused to publish?

Director of NIST: Disclosure of data "might jeopardize public safety"

FINDING REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION

http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf


Pursuant to Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, I (Patrick Gallagher) hereby find that the disclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST", in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11,2001, might jeopardize public safety. Therefore, NIST shall not release the following information:

  • 1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

  • 2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

~
Patrick Gallagher
Director National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dated: JUL 09 2009


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #266)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:40 PM

270. That isn't the conclusions.

It's the intermediate work that informed the conclusions.

But to answer the question you meant to ask, I don't know. I would be surprised if any organizations were willing to admit to possibly endangering public safety by supporting the release of that information, but I would also be surprised to find any organizations supported not releasing the information either. I think it's a stupid idea not to release the info, but I don't think there would be anything earth-shaking in the files.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #270)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:46 PM

275. What about the thermal expansion calcs that NIST refused to release on grounds of public safety?

 

I guess you're right, their release of calcs that turn out to be fraudulent wouldn't be so earth-shaking.

After all, we already know that they lost the shear studs and the stiffener plates that got in the way of their girder walk-off theory. So fudging the calcs wouldn't be much of a surprise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #275)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:48 PM

277. Again, you should refrain from discussing topics out of your bailiwick.

The thermal expansion calcs are not earth-shaking. None of their data is out of line with what the rest of the professional community expected.

Do you have a problem with this? Then why don't you set up your own experiments to validate your suspicions? That's what i do. It's entertaining and educational at the same time!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #277)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:55 PM

279. There is no reason for me to do calculations NIST refuses to release.

 

Besides, if NIST's calculations are a threat to public safety, how could mine be any less so? I wouldn't want DHS breathing down my neck because I'd done calcs threatening public safety!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #279)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:03 AM

281. Again, your logic is bizarre.

Are you seriously going to use the NIST's lame excuse for not releasing information as an excuse not to perform a reality check on your own?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #281)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:06 AM

282. The reality is that their calcs have not been released. No check on that is necesary. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #282)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:07 AM

283. Sure it is.

Thank goodness actual qualified professionals care more than you do, and have gone through the trouble of checking on their own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #283)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:29 AM

285. They haven't checked that the calcs have been released, because they haven't been. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #285)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:34 AM

287. They've checked by doing their own work. All competent professionals should...

be in the habit of doing so, because that's the nature of due diligence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #287)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:37 AM

289. Doing their own work is not releasing the calcs. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #289)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:38 AM

291. I think you've lost the thread of this conversation.

Please back up and begin again. Do not pass "Go", do not collect $200.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #270)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:53 PM

278. Does the fact that NIST won't release data which appear to be crucial to their conclusions...

...give you any pause? In other words, are you still totally comfortable with your agreement with NIST, knowing that it's withholding these data?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #278)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:02 AM

280. I don't remember saying I agreed with the NIST.

While the engineering community doesn't question the "planes/fire" cause of the collapses, there are still plenty of things to squabble about. It's been a looooooong time since the NIST's recommendations to the various building code/standard organizations were produced and my memory isn't good enough to recall all the details, but there was plenty of vigorous debate over the particulars. A good deal of this questioning was driven by independent work that resulted in different conclusions. Again, the devil is in the details - nobody was seriously quibbling about the "planes/fire" thing.

The reality is that the impacts, subsequent fires and damage, and the collapses were complicated, nonlinear time-dependent events that are pretty much impossible to replicate, even considering the sophisticated computer models of today. That means a lot of guesswork has to go into the models, and your specific sequence of events depends strongly on the assumptions you make when creating the models. Different groups make different assumptions, and therefore get different results (usually with different tools, as well). But in the end, they all lead to a global runaway collapse.

Would it be interesting to look at the NIST's data? Sure, but it's no better than anyone else's (except maybe more detailed).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #280)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:22 AM

284. Thanks for the honest explanations & responses to my questions.

Don't you think that the data developed by National Institute of Standards and Technology should of a much higher "standard" anyone else's?

Also, what's your opinion regarding NIST's refusal to publish crucial data? I appreciate that you agree that it's stupid; but (assuming for the moment that there's no threat to public safety in its release) what might you speculate as to the real reasons for their decision?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #284)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:29 AM

286. I would hope the NIST's info is better quality.

They produce lots of research that is the basis for building safety. Their fire science is pretty darn good, for example, and I would think it to be a reasonable expectation that all their work be held to the same standard.

Honestly, who knows? There could be all sorts of reasons: the data got lost or corrupted and nobody wants to admit it; the data shows shoddy modelling techniques and the NIST is embarrassed to show they paid somebody for poor quality work; there's a political dimension that isn't apparent to any of us (Bush-era secrecy, possibly); they are afraid of a deluge of questions from people who are picking through their numbers and they don't think they have the resources to respond.

None of these are significant (other than losing the data - you probably can't recover from that) and shouldn't hold up the release, but again I don't think this changes anything. Anybody who wanted to check the NIST's work built their own models anyway, and that way you can reduce the likelihood that the other models replicate possible errors in the NIST models.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #286)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:35 AM

288. NIST's WTC7 models bear no resemblance to reality.

 

They show the building folding up like a wet paper bag.

The reality of the building that we see collapsing is that it looks like it still has its floors in place, keeping its shape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #288)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:37 AM

290. Interestingly enough, I was surprised when the NIST modelled the collapse.

I thought it was a dumb idea, because I figured laypeople who don't know much about modelling would misunderstand the purpose of the simulation and nitpick about apparent disconnects between the results and the actual event. I have been (disappointingly) proven correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #290)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:39 AM

292. Yeah, the real collapse turned out to be simpler than a tortured, complicated model.

 

Funny how GIGO turns out that way sometimes, huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #292)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:41 AM

293. How many times do I need to remind you it's not a good idea...

to try to engage in a discussion where you lack the understanding to be a productive participant? Only someone who doesn't really understand would describe the collapse as "simple" as compared to a computer model of the event.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #293)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 01:18 AM

295. It's not simple to someone who labors to complicate it, that's for certain. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #295)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 08:49 AM

302. That doesn't make any sense.

Who is laboring to make this more complicated? It's already complicated enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #302)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 11:10 AM

303. That makes perfect sense. Lawyers labor to complicate every issue to gain advantage

 

Last edited Wed Dec 18, 2013, 09:10 PM - Edit history (1)

... for their clients and, more importantly, a profit opportunity and field of entrepreneurial endeavor for themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #303)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 10:40 PM

309. Why are we talking about lawyers?

Please forgive me, but I've lost the thread of this conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #309)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:19 AM

316. Because some of us around here act like public-spirited citizens seeking investigations`

 

... in pursuit of justice and some others around here act like defense attorneys for the accused seeking to obstruct investigation by all available means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #316)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:32 AM

318. To which group belong the posters who think they know something about physics...

but repeatedly make basic mistakes, and then become hostile and argumentative when those mistakes are noted? Is that the public-spirited citizens, or the lawyers? I'm a little lost with your analogy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #318)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:36 AM

320. Claiming mistakes is not noting them. You make empty claims.

 

Some people are seeking complete and honest investigations so that the victims of 9/11 can have justice.

It's only because some people are determined to obstruct that quest that we haven't had them.

The 9/11 widows are still looking for answers to 273 of their 300 questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #320)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:40 AM

322. You posted a definition of kinetic energy, claiming that was the energy equation.

That's a pretty big mistake, considering you're trying to make physics-based arguments about acceleration and momentum transfer of falling bodies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #322)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 03:23 AM

334. I posted the equation for kinetic energy. You're playing some juvenile game. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #334)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 08:03 AM

337. I'm not the one pretending to know something about a subject...

when I obviously don't. That would be you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #337)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 02:20 PM

346. Obsessive posting of empty claims makes a guy look foolish.

 

You wouldn't want to look like that guy, would you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #346)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 10:46 PM

352. That's why my claims aren't empty.

Problem solved, at least for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #352)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 02:28 AM

361. Your claims aren't empty to you.

 

The unsubstantiated opinions of an anonymous internet poster are empty to me.

If you base your opinions on such evidence, as you seem to expect us to, you have a very muddled epistemology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #361)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 02:30 AM

363. Unsubstantiated in what way?

Because I won't spoon-feed basic physics to you, while the answers are only a Google search away? That's an interesting expectation of yours. Life must be pretty disappointing for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #363)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 02:04 PM

365. Unsubstantiated in that your assertions reference no authority but that of an

 

... anonymous internet poster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #365)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 10:29 PM

368. I don't rely on my authority.

Your mistakes are easily checked with a little Google work. That you haven't bothered to do this yourself is pretty telling - it appears you're more interested in defending your ego than the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #368)

Sat Dec 21, 2013, 04:31 PM

371. You expect me to. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #368)

Sun Dec 22, 2013, 12:35 AM

372. I'm curious.

I know that this is on a different tack, but I'd like to get your take on this earlier post. The videos are extremely short -- ...post #239

Anyone else viewing, I'd welcome your response also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #288)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 06:02 PM

304. Really, NIST published this as their model of how WTC 7 went down?

Unbelievable. How many years did they have to make the model physics agree with the reality of the collapse?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #304)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 07:28 PM

305. Also note, they cut off the animation before the collapse is finished.

 

Why would they do that--except if the second half of the animation does something way out of character, like topple to the south?

Also note, NIST's draft WTC7 report claimed several times that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles" (i.e., the laws of physics). In the final report (wherein they were forced to admit that the building came down at freefall for 2.25 seconds) they removed every single instance of that claim.

I sure would have enjoyed being a fly on the wall for the discussion that led to that edit. If we can get enough interest in the issue, I bet whistleblowers will come forward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #305)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 10:38 PM

307. I think you're making much ado about nothing.

The simulation of the collapse simply isn't interesting to actual professionals, for reasons I've posted ad infinitum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #307)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:03 AM

312. NIST's implicit admission that their analysis is inconsistent with laws of physics is nothing? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #312)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:27 AM

317. I think you're reading too much into this.

Not surprising, considering how little you think of the NIST in general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #317)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:32 AM

319. Given your apparent emotional investment in the notion of NIST's integrity, no surprise there. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #319)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:38 AM

321. What investment is that?

Oh right, you can't find any evidence to support your claim, but that's not going to stop you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #321)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 01:05 AM

323. Oh, you haven't spent many years here bullying people who question the official reports?

 

Oh, I'm sorry. That must be some other AZCat with his signature idiot-weariness.

Who would spend his time doing that? Why? Who would spend hundreds of hours over many years trying to convince Chemtrailers and Sasquatch hunters that there's nothing there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #323)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 01:09 AM

324. No, I haven't.

Please point out any bullying - that's probably against the DU terms of service, and should be identified to the group hosts.

One can easily ask why someone with a demonstrably poor grasp of physics would persist in trying to make arguments based on flawed physics, with an accompanying hostile attitude when the mistakes are identified by others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #324)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 01:19 AM

326. Making empty claims that I have a poor grasp of physics is not bullying?

 

Your profile indicates that in ten years you've made 8,000 posts.

That's a lot of bullying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #326)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 01:20 AM

327. Making empty claims might be.

Fortunately for me I have plenty of evidence supporting my claims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #317)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 01:31 AM

328. What is the reality?

What I see or what the goverment/NIST tells me is the truth? I kow wnat I saw, but I should believe the same government that lied about a a false cacucus belli about Iraq? We killed 100's of thousands of innocent Iraqi's based on bullshit 9/11 findings...and I should believe you? You and the people that support Bush/Cheney I n the official CT are enablers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #328)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 01:39 AM

329. I think that's a false construct.

Just because the government has been known to lie doesn't mean they always do. While I'm no fan of George Bush and don't trust what he says (because of a long history of lying, both personally and professionally), he did promote exercise as a component of a healthy lifestyle and that's typically regarded as a true claim by most people.

Besides, where does the NIST claim their collapse simulation for WTC7 is identical to the actual collapse? I hope they didn't make this claim, because that would be pretty stupid of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #329)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 02:19 AM

330. Sorry, but I have to chime in here.

To me it's outside the realm of logic to exclude the fact that my government has lied to me from the calculus of whether or not believe said government's narrative visa vi one of the most seminal events in our nation's history.

If I know that a surgeon "has been known" to commit malpractice, I'm certainly not going to roll the dice and have him cut on me. Would it be logical for me to think, "So what about his history; there are plenty of his patients who seem to be doing fine."?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #330)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 08:03 AM

336. I didn't say you shouldn't consider that it might lie.

I said that you shouldn't use the fact that it does lie to conclude that it always lies. Because that simply isn't true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #336)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 01:15 PM

341. I get that; but...

...in the context of your argument you were basically assenting to the poster's assertion that we were lied into Iraq. Implicit in you statement (that the government doesn't always lie) is that there's no compelling reason to question the government's veracity visa vi its version of the events of 9/11. Am I apprehending this correctly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #341)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 11:00 PM

354. You can always question. In fact, it's an important component...

in a functioning democracy (at least in my opinion). You should question government reports, no matter the topic. However, there is still a point when you can determine the likelihood of a falsehood is low and move on. It's certainly possible the September 11th attacks were orchestrated in a manner similar to some of the more outrageous theories, but it is unlikely (or impossible, in the case of a few poorly constructed theories).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #354)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:53 AM

359. On the basis of protecting democracy alone

 

... allowing the authorities to sequester information on bogus grounds is unacceptable.

Even people who think the controlled demolitionists are FoS should be demanding that NIST release the information and not hide behind ridiculous claims of protecting public safety.

Obama's Justice Department even advocated that FOIA requests could be met by lying claims that the docs did not exist if the agency did not want to release them. After public outcry, they backed down on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #359)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:56 AM

360. While I'm not out demonstrating in the streets...

and while I don't agree we need to be demanding the results (I just don't think the missing information is that relevant), I agree with your general intent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #359)

Sat Dec 21, 2013, 03:28 AM

369. Public safety???

How is public safety served by withholding data that should help architects design safer buildings?

Also, if NIST wanted to be perceived as more credible, it would it would serve them well to published some peer reviewed papers on this subject.

Interesting how secrecy can make people think "cover-up." ...Then one may ask, "What truth (if revealed) could be so bad that NIST would rather be under a decade+ long cloud of suspicion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #304)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 10:41 PM

310. It's a lost cause, in my opinion.

Modelling nonlinear systems is a mug's game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #310)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:05 AM

314. Thanks for sharing. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #284)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:53 AM

294. You're welcome, by the way. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #294)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 01:37 AM

296. Yeah, we're so lucky to have someone here who knows all the secrets of all the secret modeling

 

that was done in secret by all these secret institutions that validates all the secret data that NIST won't release--so we don't have to worry our pretty little heads about them. Gosh, I feel ever so much better now!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #296)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 01:41 AM

297. I'm not sure where you get these ridiculous notions.

There's no rational connection between your post and the one you responded to. Was it really necessary, or perhaps just misplaced?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #297)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 01:53 AM

299. You forgot post 280? Did someone else write it? nt

 

Last edited Wed Dec 18, 2013, 09:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #299)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 01:56 AM

300. Then why didn't you respond to that instead of #294?

#294 wasn't even in response to a post of yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #300)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 07:32 PM

306. 'Cause I like to think I'm cutting edge, looking forward, not back. Y'know? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #306)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 10:39 PM

308. That isn't consistent with your posting history, in my opinion.

You've made a habit of responding to posts that are years old (at least in the "Creative Speculation" group). That doesn't strike me as behavior consistent with someone who is "cutting edge" or "looking forward".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #308)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:04 AM

313. If you don't know that cutting edge often involves very old stuff

 

Last edited Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:52 AM - Edit history (1)

... you must be very narrowly educated.

Dredging up truths that some sophist squelched is often cutting edge. Those dusty rare books (the kind you must wear gloves to handle) sometimes contain wonders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #266)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:42 PM

272. Oooo! Oooo! I know! I know!

 

See there are all these anonymous guys on the internet who are really smart, and they've done all the calculations and they know everything, but they won't share their calculations or their knowledge because we're too dumb to understand but we should just trust them, they know.

So we don't need complete and honest government reports, because these anonymous guys have all the answers, and they know the reports are good enough for government work, and that's all we need to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #272)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:47 PM

276. That's a strange approach.

I would not recommend trusting the work of anyone else. You should do your own calculations as a matter of habit, because it never hurts to check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #168)

Sun Dec 15, 2013, 05:15 PM

229. Wow, and here's the 911 truth dot org site publishing an article on the Saudis

possible involvement in 911. Who woulda thunk it?

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20131127180310708

Clearly, you are wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #229)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 12:25 PM

254. That is a very interesting and pertinent article.


Wednesday, November 27 2013

So if Saudi Arabia's having so much influence on U.S. foreign policy, shouldn't we pay attention to the words of Senator Bob Graham, who wrote a book, Intelligence Matters: The CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia, and the Failure of America's War on Terror? In that book he said fairly strong things about Saudi Arabia. Here's what Senator Bob Graham wrote towards the end of his book. I believe--and I'm adding a word here to give it context--there is a state-sponsored terrorist support network that still exists, largely undamaged, within the United States."

The whole book is about the role of Saudi Arabia and its connection to 9/11. And according to Bob Graham, members of the Saudi government and royal family were directly connected to inspiring, funding, and helping support the organization of certain 9/11 conspirators. That came about as a result of his work as chair of the congressional joint committee on 9/11. So if we're going to look at today's effect and role of Saudi Arabia on current policy and the important role it's playing, we should also pay attention to the recent history of Saudi Arabia. Click Here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #41)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 07:00 PM

51. Condi lied under oath when she claimed that the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" memo

 

... was "not a warning".

I guess you weren't paying attention. The memo warned of preparations for hijackings and planned attacks inside the US.

Dr. Philip Zelikow, Condi's buddy and the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, was overheard telephoning the CIA authors of the memo and asking them to corroborate Condi's statement. (See Shenon, p. 374) They refused.

There were warnings from `13 foreign countries, and 4 FBI offices. The CIA briefed Condi on 5/30 and 7/10 about the dire nature of the al Qaeda threat. Tenet and Blee agreed that had she acted on their warnings, 9/11 might have been prevented. Cofer Black said they did everything but pull the trigger to the gun they were holding to her head.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #51)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 07:23 PM

59. Government officials, like everybody else, lie to cover their own butts

 

The Bush administration sucked and they were too stupid to care about the American people.

It's somewhat plausible, but probably not provable, that individuals in the Bush administration didn't really care if we were struck by a terrorist attack since that would give them an excuse to push for their own selfish agenda. But it isn't plausible that they all conspired to allow a terrorist attack that they knew was coming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #59)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 07:52 PM

71. So at 2:30 you claim that truthers can't show that the government lied

 

... and at 3:23 you say that the government lies routinely, but it doesn't matter.

There were FBI agents who were dying to testify about their frustrated investigations, but they could not do so unless they were subpoenaed, and they were not subpoenaed.

What's wrong with having an honest and thorough investigation first, with all the documents released and all the witnesses subpoenaed, before deciding what's plausible and implausible?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #51)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 08:49 PM

96. She Lied About This Too

 

She would swear under oath firstly which is disconcerting. AND, as reported on CNN in 2000, the US had anti-aircraft artillery installed around the island of Genoa for the G8 meeting that year because they were afraid of terrorists using planes as kamikaze bombs...it was right there on CNN on tv and even I rembered it so ypu can bet Condi knew and was just afraid of herself being blamed. People who apologize for these insidious sleezeballs are part of the problem. I'm assuming they aren't sick-puppeted military contractors paid to post here of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #41)


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #41)

Sun Dec 15, 2013, 05:08 PM

228. You mean the evidence that the government wants you to believe, don't you?

Of course, there's a lot of evidence we'll never have the benefit of, because the steel was shipped out as soon as possible--shipped from one of the biggest crime scenese since the Jonestown Massacre. I ask you: WHO benefits from the immediate disposal of evidence at the crime scene?

And then there's the evidence of military grade thermite at the scene, and months of molten metal cooling at the scene. (You don't get molten metal with a fire caused by the burning of jet fuel, or even the burning of the building and it's contents.)

And then there's the over 2000 engineering and architectural professionals who provide testimony that the planes could not have caused the collapse of the buildings, and Building Seven, itself, which was not hit by a plane at all, collapsing. In fact, this is the first time in history that not one, not two, but three steel frame buildings have ever collapsed because of fire.

You are asking us to suspend belief in the laws of physics, and instead, believe only certain evidence, all the while, hiding other evidence behind the excuse of "national security."

I think not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 06:59 PM

50. Not One Unified View

 

There isn't just one view and it's the questions that are important. Those who believe in a cabal of those in our government facilitating this once they got warning could easily see Saudi and maybe another country working with Cheney's ilk. This is just too big and influential an event to ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #20)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 02:47 PM

144. there's more than one set of questions about 9/11 & more than one person asking or trying to answer

This is a different category of issue than controlled demolition, thermite, and what exactly hit the Pentagon.

Those are a far second in my mind from who backed it in governments, why, and what can or should be done about it.

Those questions I just asked could prove the whole War on Terror is a lie, which must people seem to already intuitively know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 15, 2013, 04:57 PM

227. "Truthers," as the name implies, are demanding the truth from our government.

Which they have yet to get. They don't necessarily all say that the Saudis were or were not behind the attack. What they do say is that we do not have the truth in our hands, and they are absolutely correct in that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ezlivin (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 05:57 PM

27. Brilliant post ..

.. made me laugh - common sense yet sheeple munch grass (not that type silly).

Nice post 'beLIEve .. like Chris Angel).

I'm no troofer but certain individuals had prior knowledge or benefited or .. or .. self interest me finks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 05:00 PM

6. Of course. How can this possibly be such a surprise

 

to anyone with a brain since 9/11/01? He's playing dumb, because he's a Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 05:06 PM

7. of course the saudis are responsible they wanted the troops we had there at the airbase

 

from the first gulf war gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 05:40 PM

15. Great clip, but it says nothing about the news in the OP that...

...congressmen are pushing for the release of 28 redacted pages in the government report.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 06:03 PM

29. Once again...

...a great excerpt. I don't intend on getting into an argument with someone who clearly agrees with me philosophically. I just want my OP article seen as the news which it is -- that congressmen are pushing for the release of the redacted pages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 06:35 PM

43. Considering the Bush / FOX "News" / Saudi relationship I figure there are SEVERAL smoking guns.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 08:58 PM

101. it was more than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #101)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 09:00 PM

102. Well sure it was. Suicide crazies are made to order there.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #102)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 04:01 AM

123. aren't you at least a little curious what went on with the Saudi gov't and 9/11, given that the whol

"War on Terror" was supposed to be to prevent more 9/11's, but the country most responsible wasn't punished at all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #123)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 02:03 PM

140. I get that the Republicans run by Cheney used 9/11 as if it was a gift....

 

They never cared about those who died.

Hell, the Right Wing was criticizing the 9/11 widows and were FIXATED on the money donated to the children. They just HATE the idea that the kids could be "set for life" over it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #140)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 02:42 PM

142. does it matter to you whether they just "used" it versus at minimum protecting those actually guilty

from any punishment?

Or that since the guilty were close allies of the administration whether there was any collusion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #142)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 02:47 PM

145. Sure, but every time anyone mentions actions against the Saudis we hear they're too big to fail.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #145)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 02:52 PM

147. What they did needs to at least be made clear, so the public can evaluate whether "too big to fail"

is a legitimate argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #147)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 02:55 PM

148. There are some people in this country who believe it was Hollywood Liberals.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #145)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 06:24 PM

170. the bigger they are, the more they need to take a fall for their crimes

Should the cops spend more time going after kids shooting spitballs than serial killers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #170)

Sat Dec 14, 2013, 04:17 PM

222. The bigger they are, the more people WANT to see them fall.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 05:15 PM

9. Here's former senator with first-hand knowledge, Bob Graham on the same matter:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 16, 2013, 03:49 AM

238. Good post...

...thank you.

I'll be posting more on him & others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 05:16 PM

10. And I still say

Old man Bush sent his son, George W., to Saudi Arabia during his "formative" years to spend time with the Saudi princes. You aren't going to tell me that that kiss, holding hands, and affectionate gaze he gave him when he visited the White House doesn't speak volumes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0R6QFwKWFpA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 05:25 PM

11. "You think I want to send my son to die in Kuwait?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 05:33 PM

13. 2003 CBS report claims the 28 pages are about Saudi involvement

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-wont-reveal-saudi-9-11-info-30-07-2003/

Sources tell CBS the redacted section lays out a money trail between Saudi Arabia and supporters of al Qaeda, reports CBS White House Chief Correspondent John Roberts.

Among others, it singles out Omar al-Bayoumi, who gave financial assistance to 9-11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar.

The FBI charges al-Bayoumi, an official of the Saudi civil aviation authority, never lacked for money and is believed to have received funds from a charitable trust run by the wife of the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. The Saudis, for all their protestations of cooperating in the war on terror, still refuse to allow the FBI access to al-Bayoumi.


9/11 Families ask Obama to release the 28 pages:
http://www.motleyrice.com/news/view/911-families-call-upon-president-obama-to-release-28-redacted-pages-1028

President Obama assured the 9/11 Families shortly after taking office in 2009 that he would release the pages. To learn the truth and prevent future terrorist attacks, the group asks him to keep his promise.

“The transparency begins with the 28 pages, but it extends much further,” the letter states. “For example, we are closely monitoring a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in which plaintiffs are suing the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, regarding an investigation involving a Saudi family, former residents of Sarasota, FL, who may have provided aid or assistance to the 9/11 hijackers. We understand that plaintiffs in that case have also requested Part Four of the report of the Joint Inquiry.”

Former Senator Bob Graham, co-chair of the 9/11 Joint Congressional Investigation, has provided declarations that the investigation of the Sarasota family was not disclosed to him or his co-chair, Porter Goss. He also states that, when he learned of the investigation in 2011, he asked the same question of the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, and they confirmed that they had not been aware of the FBI’s investigation either.



Bin Laden Reported to have Met with Saudi Intelligence Chief 2 Months Before 9/11

(Note Prince Turki al Faisal would later become Ambassador to the USA, replacing the former Ambassador known as "Bandar Bush"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/nov/01/afghanistan.terrorism

Bin Laden is reported to have arrived in Dubai on July 4 from Quetta in Pakistan with his own personal doctor, nurse and four bodyguards, to be treated in the urology department. While there he was visited by several members of his family and Saudi personalities . . . . Bin Laden was also visited by Prince Turki al Faisal, then head of Saudi intelligence, who had long had links with the Taliban, and Bin Laden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 07:03 PM

54. Tim Osman! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 05:34 PM

14. If wikileaks or anonymous were to release anything, these 28 pages would be it...

they alone would make everything else fall into place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 06:05 PM

31. From your lips to Anonymous/Wikileaks ears.

This needs to see the light of day somewhere besides DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loudsue (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 06:07 PM

34. Wikileaks declared a long time ago that they don't do 9/11.

 

Probably a wise decision, as they could easily be victimized by fake documents if they did. And true documents might not believed and might hurt their credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 06:11 PM

38. I can understand their position.

There will open up other avenues. I'm just worried we're going to get the same magic 17 hijacker bullets, like that one magic bullet that was supposedly involved in the JFK deal. At this level of national/historical involvement, there is no single person that could pull all that off, or in the 9/11 case, no majik 19 or 17 saudi hijackers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 05:42 PM

16. This is the reason why CTs linger about 9/11

There are so many unanswered questions that the government does not want to see the light of day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 04:01 PM

161. That, and the fact that it would have been near impossible for one guy to bring four planes down

spontaneously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 05:53 PM

24. Didn't Bush stroll down the lane holding hands

with a Saudi prince?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 06:06 PM

32. Kissed him, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loudsue (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 11:24 PM

118. Isn't that what's done...

...when you're in bed with someone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #118)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 03:43 PM

157. In this particular case, it was America that got screwed. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 05:54 PM

25. Conspiracies don't exist, there is nothing to see, here, go back to sleep.

Thanks for the thread, Indi Guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 10:35 PM

117. Thanks Joe. For the record...

Webster's definition:

con·spir·a·cy noun \kən-ˈspir-ə-sē\

: a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal

: the act of secretly planning to do something that is harmful or illegal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 06:00 PM

28. There are many unanswered questions regarding the events of 9/11

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to debunkthis (Reply #28)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 06:04 PM

30. I'll debunk that. Those cuts were made in the cleanup process by a thermal lance.

 

See the notch in the high side? That's where they stuck the lance through a hole and cut the low side. See the slag flow on the low side showing the cut was from inside?

There are 2100 architects and engineers for truth calling for new investigations. They debunked that evidence 5 years ago at least. Skepticism is a good thing, but confirmation bias is a bad thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 06:08 PM

35. Holy shit

Same team, at last.

High-five.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #35)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 06:09 PM

36. I don't think so. I'm on the side of truth. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 06:09 PM

37. Uh-huh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 06:13 PM

39. That is a first responder in the lower left image

 

not a member of a demolition crew...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to debunkthis (Reply #39)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 06:20 PM

40. Firefighters were present at all stages of debris removal.

Here's some, lower left.



And, center screen, surrounded by steel workers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #40)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 07:30 PM

63. Ok then

 

Last edited Mon Dec 9, 2013, 08:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Here is another image which appears to show a cut core column, captured by helicopter just after the collapse:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to debunkthis (Reply #63)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 07:34 PM

64. Define 'just after the collapse'.

I note the giant plume of shit is gone. So it couldn't have been THAT 'just after the collapse'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to debunkthis (Reply #63)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 08:02 PM

75. What that shows is not an angle-cut column but a perimeter column module perched at the top

 

Last edited Mon Dec 9, 2013, 10:40 PM - Edit history (1)

of a big hole in the roof of WTC6 (in the center of the image below)
http ://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/010919-N-5471P-515_WTC_Ground_Zero.jpg

The interior of WTC1 is to the right (we can see part of the NE corner still standing). The collapsed WTC7 is to the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #75)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 09:56 PM

110. Hmmm...

 

perhaps you are correct about this image, I'll compare these when I get a chance. Regardless, there is ample evidence and eyewitness account of that terrible day to discredit the NIST report ( including statements made by members of the 9/11 Commission itself ) and provide justification for a new and independent investigation. All of this can be found online for those who care to do a bit of research.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to debunkthis (Reply #110)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 10:23 AM

131. and with that, Truthy to POWER!

 

LOL...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #131)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 12:53 PM

136. There's a lot of nonsense floating around the internet--and a lot of the 9/11 stuff is like

 

... Dan Rather's TANG memo. Deceptive plants obscure underlying truths.

2100 architects and engineers are calling for new 9/11 investigations. Their 90-minute video "9/11 Explosive Evidence" can be seen for free on youtube.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #136)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 01:15 PM

137. LOL, I know all about Richard Gage- just like his buddy Alex Jones

 

I guess the NIST is in on the conspiracy as well


Thermite! Molten Steel! Controlled Demolition! CGI Planes!


"In 2005, a report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the destruction of the World Trade Center towers was initiated by a "progressive collapse" caused by the jet impacts and the resultant fires. A 2008 NIST report described a similar progressive collapse as the cause of the destruction of the third tallest building located at the World Trade Center site, the 7 WTC. Many mainstream scientists choose not to debate proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories, saying they do not want to lend them unwarranted credibility.[47]"

The best part

After the publication of the results of NIST's inquiry into the collapse of 7 WTC, Richard Gage called a news conference,[6] and leaders of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth dismissed NIST's investigation as flawed. When told of the claims, Shyam Sunder, lead investigator from NIST, responded: "I am really not a psychologist. Our job was to come up with the best science."[7]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #137)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 02:45 PM

143. A PhD structural engineer can not refute criticisms of his report and must resort

 

to ad hominem attack instead, and you find that admirable? Is "I am not a psychologist" an engineering argument? Is "ROFL" good science?

In the technical briefing on the draft WTC7 report in August, 2008, Dr. Sunder denied that any freefall collapse had taken place. And he explained why it could NOT take place. He said: “Free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it…. There was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous.”

In the final report NIST was forced to admit that 2.25 seconds of the collapse was in freefall. They also removed from the final report every instance of the draft's claim that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles". (I sure would have liked to have been a fly on the wall for the discussion about that!)

Regarding the report on the towers, NIST only did half the job. The objective was to explain why and how the towers collapsed. But they claim they did not analyze the collapses! They cut off their analysis at the moment the collapse began, and thus they dodged ALL of the mysteries of the collapses. Is that "the best science"? Is such a dereliction of duty acceptable for a democracy?

There are 78 structural engineers, 40 PhD engineers, and 38 high rise architects among the architects and engineers for truth. They are not paid by the Department of Commerce, as NIST is. Perhaps you should consider that before you assume that they don't know what they're talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #143)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 02:50 PM

146. Dude or Dudette, you folks have had over a decade now---You got nothing

 

Not one fucking person who has any factual evidence of a massive conspiracy that in theory would take hundreds, if not thousands of people "in the know" to pull off.


If you want to keep the company of birthers and alex jones type conspiracy crackpots that's your prerogative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #146)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 03:05 PM

149. So now you change the subject from Dr. Sunder's apparent inability to refute criticism

 

... to a "massive conspiracy".

Why would it take thousands to pull it off?

Conventional engineering wisdom from 2002 to 2005 was that a few truss anchors in the towers had failed, causing the floors to "unzip" and then come down in a "pancake" collapse. If that's true, a suicide guy operating a high-speed cutting disk could have cut enough trusses in 20 minutes to bring a tower down. Dr. Van Romero, an explosives expert, opined that a few charges in key places could bring the towers down.

NIST's theory about WTC7 is that one girder failed, causing a chain reaction that brought the whole building down. If that's true, then only one girder need be cut at one end and the whole building comes down.

Much has been accomplished in ten years. The official reports have been shown to be scientifically flawed and incomplete and very likely dishonest. The need for new investigations has been demonstrated, and the government's secrecy betrays them. For instance, one structural engineer wanted to see NIST's worksheets on their calculations for the thermal expansion that they claim pushed the inciting girder off its seat. His request was refused on grounds that release of those calcs might endanger public safety. It's ridiculous! There is no secret to thermal expansion calcs. It's simple textbook stuff. NIST didn't want anyone checking their work, so they keep the worksheets secret.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 02:37 AM

120. Good post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 03:45 PM

158. got a link for that ?

or pics of the demo crew "cleaning up"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Ace Acme (Reply #159)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 04:29 PM

164. all those links say is

the pic is not dated.....so it COULD be from clean up

and the pic shows some steel was cut in clean up (duh!)

nothing is debunked at those links that i can see

for me the symmetrical collapse of building 7 is the smoking gun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to questionseverything (Reply #164)

Sun Dec 15, 2013, 06:02 PM

231. The meme that the collapse was caused by the planes hitting was put out quickly:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #231)

Mon Dec 16, 2013, 04:58 AM

242. That was awkward. thanks !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to debunkthis (Reply #28)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 06:07 PM

33. Boring attempt.

That is not a 'linear shaped charge', that is activity by workers in the wreckage at ground zero to cut up and remove wreckage.

Please do not disrupt a political thread about 9/11 with a actual evidence, with made-up fantasies.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 07:52 PM

70. Here's a better challenge for you. WTC 7 collapse



I'm a materials engineer. Steel frame skyscrapers falling straight down (through the path of greatest resistance) at freefall speed as a result of assymmetrical collateral damage (from the WTC 1 and 2 collapse) and office fires simply does not compute. Does it, to you?

Note that you don't need to spend time on what DID happen then. I don't know, I just know the official explanation is physical nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Reply #70)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 08:01 PM

74. You are distracting from an actual issue.

Most of the hijackers were Saudi. Their leader was Saudi. The Saudi Royal Family arguably had a stronger 'special relationship' with the Bush admin, than the UK enjoys with the US. This material was redacted, and members of the Saudi royal family, and others, were treated with special dispensation in the aftermath.

That is a real issue from stem to stern all by itself.

WTC7's exterior cantilever steel frame falling to the ground at speeds fully explained by the collapse of the interior supports well before motion is apparent from the outside, and your understanding of it, is irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #74)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 08:21 PM

82. The Distraction is Pertinent

 

... because doubts about the integrity and completeness of he "scientific" investigation of what happened at Ground Zero can certainly lend weight to wishes for more disclosure about other elements of the 9/11 investigations.

And "fully explained"? Shyam Sunder said in a public technical briefing that the visible collapse could not have been at free fall because free fall would require that there was no structural support. "There was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

Later, of course he was forced to admit that there was a period of free fall in the collapse--which implies that the structural resistance was neutralized and everything WAS instantaneous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #82)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 08:26 PM

85. The Saudi revelations/redactions are a political issue, relevant regardless of whether

WTC collapsed due to natural forces expected from the fire, or otherwise. There is likely nothing 'scientific'ally relevant in those redacted documents. It is entirely politically relevant.

The two have nothing whatsoever to do with each other, and discussion about WTC7's failure mode is not relevant. Materials shatter when stressed beyond tolerance. They fail, quite spectacularly. The interior supports of WTC7 fail prior to the start of that ridiculous 'video analysis' of WTC by A&E/Truth liars, because as you can see in the video, the penthouse roofline equipment has already fallen... somewhere. I'll give you one guess where 'somewhere' is, and to help you along, it's because the building collapse is already well underway, even though not otherwise visible from the exterior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #85)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 08:33 PM

87. Doubts about the integrity of an official gov't report during a time of politicized science

 

are certainly related to the political issue of redactions of another official report.

Much as I hate to let your irrational argument stand unchallenged, out of deference to the subject matter of the OP I will rein in the impulse to continue a line that could hijack the thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #87)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 08:35 PM

89. Not hijacking it was also my intent.

I want to know what was in those redacted documents. I tend to assume they MUST be damaging to one party or another, or perhaps all.

I don't particularly see the links between the two reports, but since I cannot know the contents of the Saudi reports at this time, I will defer judgment on that issue until the material DOES become public.

Hopefully before certain relevant parties have died of old age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #89)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 03:07 AM

121. The very fact of the redactions to the official government report...

...opens the door to all manner of speculation.

While it's important to keep this thread on topic, it's also reasonable to expect that those who question the veracity of the government narrative visa vi the Saudi connection may extend their questioning into other areas of "official" reporting.

It is unreasonable to expect the official version of events (of and surrounding 9/11) to be trusted in every area -- after officials have proven themselves to be less than honest and forthcoming in one such critical area.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #74)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 08:35 PM

88. I OPd on DU about the Saudi issue weeks ago. And I'm free to discuss anything I want

like you are free to not respond, or do so in passing condenscension.

Not even NIST's simulation looks even remotely like what my own lying eyes see. A simulation whose parameters they didn't disclose because it might jeopardize public safety.

Flies in the face of what science is supposed to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Reply #88)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 08:38 PM

91. You are free to state anything you want.

Discussion requires responding parties.