900 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

No debate is fair enough Swan.

As you probably already know, I rely alot on Common Sense in my analysis of the world around me.

Common Sense tells me that in a steel & concrete building such as were the towers, the vast bulk of the metal involved is steel.  That means that there is a high probability that any given sample of metal would be steel.  Further, I know from my own experiments many years ago that aluminum and lead can be made molten quite quickly, and just as quickly they return to the solid state when the heat source is removed. Thus it is unlikely that the minority metals, if I may use the term, were the ones seen by firemen and others.

Common Sense also demands that there be some sort of explanation for the SOURCE of the heat that made the metal molten and kept it that way.  There is such an explanation, and part of it is that the source WAS NOT gravity and jetfuel.  It is impossible for jetfuel and gravity to combine to produce the heat required.  And what about the heat that melted tires, blistered paint and broke out windows on passenger vehicles on the street?  Jetfuel, gravity and office furniture cannot do that, but something might.

Perhaps you don't quite understand the dust issue.  Samples were taken by several people, as the stuff was everywhere, and analyzed.  What it showed was the presence of the chemicals that are unique to the thermite reaction.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 12 August 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

As you probably already know, I rely alot on Common Sense in my analysis of the world around me.

Common Sense tells me that in a steel & concrete building such as were the towers, the vast bulk of the metal involved is steel.  That means that there is a high probability that any given sample of metal would be steel.

Check it out.

Quote

Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster

Aluminum was present in two significant forms at the World Trade Center on 9-11:
(i)  By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding
on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of
anodized 0.09 aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to
cover the fa€ade of each Twin Tower.  

(i) The other major source of aluminum at the WTC was the aluminum alloy
airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into the Twin Towers on the
morning of 9-11. It may be estimated that, on impact, these aircraft weighed
about 124,000 kg including fuel; of this weight, 46,000 kg comprised the
fuselage and 21,000 kg made up the mass of the wings – all of which were
fabricated from aluminum alloys. Modern airframes are invariably constructed
from series 2000 aluminum alloys. Alloy 2024 is a typical example containing
93 % Al, 4.5 % Cu, 1.5 % Mg, and 0.5 % each of Mn and Fe.

These metallic additions to aluminum lower the melting point of the alloy from a value of
660 C, for pure aluminum, to about 548  C for alloy 2024. This relatively
low temperature indicates that the fires within the Twin Towers were quite
capable of melting at least some of the Boeing 767 aluminum airframe
structures remaining in the WTC before its collapse.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

Quote

Further, I know from my own experiments many years ago that aluminum and lead can be made molten quite quickly, and just as quickly they return to the solid state when the heat source is removed. Thus it is unlikely that the minority metals, if I may use the term, were the ones seen by firemen and others.

No one saw molten steel.

Quote

Perhaps you don't quite understand the dust issue.  Samples were taken by several people, as the stuff was everywhere, and analyzed.  What it showed was the presence of the chemicals that are unique to the thermite reaction.

I have posted videos of thermite reactions, which did not leave behind a pile of molten steel after a period of time, so you are incorrect on this as well.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q,

Okay, I've found some additional info on your Israeli intelligence agents, mostly from what appears to be an ABC News investigation.  I wasn't aware of this so thanks for pointing it out.

• Most of the information comes from 'former intelligence officials', a consultant to ABC News, and that old media standby, 'sources', concerning some of the details tying in to the FBI and CIA; I'm not sure why these govt sources are believable but others are not.  Why is ABC News even giving this story legitimacy if they are so tied in with the govt and part of the 'establishment'?
  
• What happened to this 'vetting' process where people's loyalty is being confirmed to the point of no risk being involved?  Did this vetting process not bother to look into the possibility that their fellow conspirators are going to behave like immature frat-boys and take pictures of themselves dancing out in the open with the towers burning behind them?
  
• I'm having trouble finding a source for the detection of explosives in the van; they don't mention it on the ABC report concerning their ties to intelligence.  The only other thing I saw on it just mentions 'sources'.
  
• Can you elucidate more what your theory is here?  If they are part of the plot, why are they driving around on 9/11 with a van that stinks of explosives?  Did they actually plant explosives that morning or something?  The head conspirators didn't see how immature these guys are and decided to keep them around on the day of the attack?
  
• Let's say they are Israeli intelligence agents.  What makes you think they are 'complicit' in 9/11?  How do you know that their only involvement wasn't just possibly that they knew the specifics, and when to expect the attack?  It's possible they did know details about the attack and purposely witnessed it; Israel had been warning the US preceding 9/11 anyway.  How are you differentiating the possibility of 'complicity' with that of 'apathy' if we grant for a moment that they are 'agents'?

It is a curious one, but there's still tons of missing information that I think you are filling in with pretty much guesswork.  Which would be fine if you weren't saying on a previous comment concerning these agents, "What evidence must be come up with to convince people?"  I don't know what you find so 'convincing' about this, there are other possibilities but maybe you have more detail to provide as to their exact role and what and when was their involvement with the plot.  I can't be convinced of anything unless I know what they purportedly did and evaluate that possibility versus other explanations.

More replies to come on your last comment and on 'foreknowledge' when I have time.  Also, if possible I'd like to try and move away from discussing what could be possible.  Again, I realize I'm responsible most likely for the multiple simultaneous threads, but I don't think I've ever said that anything 'couldn't' happen and thought I was dealing with the likelihood of certain points.  At this point I'd like to focus mostly on why you believe so strongly in a demolition, which I'm assuming is based on more than just what could be.

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 12 August 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

You know perfectly well that you are being deceptive here. For both towers, NIST determined that the less severe case gave the worst match. This means that the best match actually lies somewhere between "best estimate" and "more severe", and whether or not one of these remaining two cases gives a better match just determines where in the range the best match point lies. In both cases, NIST found that the tipping point for collapse initiation was also between the same two cases.

You consistently claim that this means that a collapse couldn't happen because the severe case was "beyond reality". However, the "best estimate" case is similarly "beyond reality" in the opposite direction, but you don't consider that this is significant. Instead, you have this totally unrealistic idea of how different the probabilities of the two cases are. The fact is, if a building is predicted to collapse within the range of probable measurement errors, no one in their right mind would stand inside it. The error ranges that you mistakenly think have such low probabilities of being exceeded are far smaller than the typical safety factor put on structural engineering calculations to allow for uncertainties in materials and construction.

It's as simple as this (representing NIST's three simulated cases on a scale of damage severity, compared to actual damage seen in photographic evidence): -



You can try to conceal the extent of the problem, but what this set of results indicate is that the more severe case did not happen - the hypothetical probabilities it is based upon are therefore irrelevent.

Further, a case closer to the best estimate (no collapse) case did happen.

We both know what NIST had to do to prove an impact and fire theory - that is, find a collapse case within the range of actual damage, i.e. a best match that produced collapse. NIST did not do this - the best match did not produce collapse and the only collapse case on record is one which extended the damage beyond that present on 9/11.

You can speculate there is a collapse case in that actual damage range all you like, but the fact is NIST never demonstrated it exists. All NIST did prove is that in likelihood the towers should not have collapsed: -

• The non-collapse range (from the less severe case to a point past the best estimate) was larger than the collapse range.
  
• The actual damage fell closer to the non-collapse case than the collapse case.

Try looking at the pure results, not what you prefer to believe.

flyingswan, on 12 August 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

I'm afraid that the mere mention of "molten steel" shows that you have not done your homework. While there is plenty of evidence of molten metal, there is not a single case of a temperature measurement, ie thermal imaging rather than a witness's opinion, that would indicate steel rather than a lower melting point material such as aluminium or lead.

The witnesses described melted beams. Of course logically this indicates steel.

There is also photographic evidence of melted steel sections.

The FEMA analysis of physical samples confirms the steel was melted: -

• "Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure."
  
• "Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 ^oC (1,800 ^oF) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel."

Yes I know you like to quibble about the intricacies of "corrosion" and "melting" but in the end it makes no difference.

You choose to focus on "aluminium or lead" only because that is what you prefer to believe, once again.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 12 August 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

Most of the information comes from 'former intelligence officials', a consultant to ABC News, and that old media standby, 'sources', concerning some of the details tying in to the FBI and CIA; I'm not sure why these govt sources are believable but others are not. Why is ABC News even giving this story legitimacy if they are so tied in with the govt and part of the 'establishment'?

I'm not sure why this is relevant. Are we supposed to ignore the reports? If you think my treatment of sources unfair then please give a specific case in contrast so that I might explain.

Liquid Gardens, on 12 August 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

What happened to this 'vetting' process where people's loyalty is being confirmed to the point of no risk being involved? Did this vetting process not bother to look into the possibility that their fellow conspirators are going to behave like immature frat-boys and take pictures of themselves dancing out in the open with the towers burning behind them?

The vetting process I described was to determine those committed to the cause, not necessarily levels of maturity.

Liquid Gardens, on 12 August 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

I'm having trouble finding a source for the detection of explosives in the van; they don't mention it on the ABC report concerning their ties to intelligence. The only other thing I saw on it just mentions 'sources'.

There were numerous unconfirmed reports of explosives discovered in the mens' van which were later retracted: -




The question to ask is, from where did these reports come? From thin air? There is usually some spark of truth that ignites false reports. I believe this news article may contain the answer: -

Five men detained as suspect conspirators
New Jersey News - Sep. 12th, 2001

This article contains some specific details and quotes where, rather than breaking news of the day before, there had been time to reflect and gather information on events. What is described is that the van was stopped and bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives. As a precaution, Route 3 was shut down in both directions and after 30 minutes the FBI ordered evacuation of a nearby motel. Packages in the van were x-rayed by the bomb squad although no explosives were actually found to be present.

What appears to have happened is that suspicion of explosives was triggered by reaction of the bomb-sniffing dogs and led to initial media reports overstating the situation. Then I looked into the accuracy of bomb-sniffing dogs and found it can be anywhere from 60 to 95%. Further, the dogs are more often found to be mistaken where detection of a substance is missed rather than reacting to something that isn’t actually there. Therefore it follows that there is at least a 60% possibility that the dogs did detect some type of explosive residue in the van.

Liquid Gardens, on 12 August 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

Can you elucidate more what your theory is here? If they are part of the plot, why are they driving around on 9/11 with a van that stinks of explosives? Did they actually plant explosives that morning or something? The head conspirators didn't see how immature these guys are and decided to keep them around on the day of the attack?

The theory is that these men at some time transported the explosives used in the tower demolitions. Again we need an investigation to confirm the facts. Did this company ever visit the WTC, transporting goods to any of the tenants?

Liquid Gardens, on 12 August 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

Let's say they are Israeli intelligence agents. What makes you think they are 'complicit' in 9/11? How do you know that their only involvement wasn't just possibly that they knew the specifics, and when to expect the attack? It's possible they did know details about the attack and purposely witnessed it; Israel had been warning the US preceding 9/11 anyway. How are you differentiating the possibility of 'complicity' with that of 'apathy' if we grant for a moment that they are 'agents'?

The celebration of the attacks.
The indication of explosives in the mens' van (not to mention presence of the WTC demolitions).
The failed lie detector tests.
The fact the men were arrested at the scene, on the day, in direct relation to the attacks.
The fact the front company owner did not want to answer questions.
The fact that political powers wanted the investigation shutdown.

If these were good guy agents who had tried to warn America but been ignored, then why not come clean, rather than all of the above?

Perhaps I should ask, how are you differentiating the possibility of 'complicity' with that of 'apathy'?

I would like a full and public investigation to determine all of this beyond doubt. Yet do you know what mention these men received in the 9/11 Commission report? Nothing, not a word.

[skyeagle409]

What's the melting point of steel?

That depends on the alloy of steel you are talking about. The term alloy is almost always used incorrectly these days, especially amongst bicyclists. They use the term to mean aluminum. What the term alloy really means is a mixture of metals, any kind of metals. Almost all metal used today is a mixture and therefore an alloy.

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

Addendum (8/26/2011): I answered this question many years ago and it has been referenced in many different web sites and reports. There has been one misrepresentation that has come from that. Many sites refer to the difference in the melting point of steel and the burning temperature of jet fuel as proof that the World Trade Center could not have fallen from the aircraft fires. What those authors fail to note is that while steel melts at around 1,370°C (2500°F) it begins to lose its strength at a much lower temperature. The steel structure of the World Trade Center would not have to melt in order for the buildings to lose their structural integrity. Steel can be soft at 538°C (1,000°F) well below the burning temperature of jet fuel.

http://education.jla...ngpoint_01.html



Aluminium, Melting point

1,221° F (660.4° C)


Lead, Melting point

621.5° F (327.5° C)

Edited by skyeagle409, 13 August 2012 - 02:57 AM.

[skyeagle409]

About the NIST World Trade Center Investigation


Team Members
http://www.nist.gov/...eam_members.cfm


SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Objective 1: Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft.

The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components (core columns, floors, and perimeter columns) that were directly impacted by the aircraft or associated debris. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multi-floor fires. The robustness of the perimeter frame-tube system and the large size of the buildings helped the towers withstand the impact. The structural system redistributed loads from places of aircraft impact, avoiding larger scale damage upon impact. The hat truss, a feature atop each tower which was intended to support a television antenna, prevented earlier collapse of the building core. In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse.

In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors.

In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and the south sides of the building.

WTC2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core, including one of the heavily loaded corner columns, and there were early and persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the aircraft had extensively dislodged insulation from the structural steel.

The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.
In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower.

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001.  NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.

http://www.nist.gov/...c/wtc_about.cfm

Edited by skyeagle409, 13 August 2012 - 03:07 AM.

[skyeagle409]

The Five Israeli Men: No ‘Pre-Knowledge’

Sources also said that even if the men were spies, there is no evidence to conclude they had advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11. The investigation, at the end of the day, after all the polygraphs, all of the field work, all the cross-checking, the intelligence work, concluded that they probably did not have advance knowledge of 9/11,"

Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of operations for counterterrorism with the CIA
__________________________________________________________________________________

Police confirm arrests but deny explosives find

NYPD officers have confirmed the arrest of three men on the New Jersey turn-pike. However officials denied any explosives were found in the van.

http://www.911myths....d_of_explosives


On CBS Tuesday night there was a report -- originated by its New York station, WCBS -- that a van filled with explosives had been found on the George Washington Bridge. Though men in a van were detained, the vehicle did not contain explosives.

Still, CBS said the report was based on trusted sources and the station corrected it when it learned that the report was in dispute.

(New York Times

Edited by skyeagle409, 13 August 2012 - 04:09 AM.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 13 August 2012 - 01:29 AM, said:

It's as simple as this (representing NIST's three simulated cases on a scale of damage severity, compared to actual damage seen in photographic evidence): -

Thanks for the diagram, it makes my point very well.  The tipping point for collapse is between the "best estimate" and "more severe" cases, so therefore the range of possible tipping points overlaps the range of best match to the damage.

Your "beyond reality" is a complete misrepresentation of this situation.

Quote

The FEMA analysis of physical samples confirms the steel was melted: -

• "Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure."
  
• "Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 ^oC (1,800 ^oF) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel."

Yes I know you like to quibble about the intricacies of "corrosion" and "melting" but in the end it makes no difference.

It is not a quibble, the two processes are completely different.  You are highlighting words that don't mean what you want them to mean.  One process leads to a pool of molten metal, the other leads, at much lower temperatures, to a crumbling away of the surface layers.  Since the whole "molten steel" argument is about temperatures, evidence for the presence of a lower-temperature process is not relevant.

I've explained this before to you.  I'm sorry you don't seem able to understand it.

[flyingswan]

Babe Ruth, on 12 August 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

Perhaps you don't quite understand the dust issue.  Samples were taken by several people, as the stuff was everywhere, and analyzed.  What it showed was the presence of the chemicals that are unique to the thermite reaction.

On the contrary, the closest match found so far for the alleged thermite is actually a type of primer.
http://oystein-debat...e-standard.html

This is old news, you shouldn't rely solely on sources on one side of the argument.

[Babe Ruth]

I see, a type of primer for paint?  I wonder who this Oystein guy is?

And a jetfuel fire and gravitational collapse created all the dust somehow, and the dust contained the primer for the paint, in quatities large enough to cover half of Manhattan with dust a few inches thick?

That sounds mysteriously like the claim to Weapons of Mass Distraction.  It sounds a bit suspicious, considering the others who have identified the dust as being the by-product of the thermite reaction.

[skyeagle409]

flyingswan, on 13 August 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

And a jetfuel fire and gravitational collapse created all the dust somehow, and the dust contained the primer for the paint, in quatities large enough to cover half of Manhattan with dust a few inches thick?

That sounds mysteriously like the claim to Weapons of Mass Distraction.  It sounds a bit suspicious, considering the others who have identified the dust as being the by-product of the thermite reaction.

He is correct, and no evidence of thermite cutting was ever found on the steel columns. So once again, have you ever wondered why thermite is not widely used by demolition companies?

Edited by skyeagle409, 13 August 2012 - 07:18 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

ALWAYS consider the source.....

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 13 August 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

ALWAYS consider the source.....

Let's just say, where the facts and evidence leads.

[Liquid Gardens]

Re: foreknowledge

Quote

The deformation you reference is not the type of a widespread or increasing severity witnessed in fire damaged buildings. The bulge at the south-west corner of WTC7 existed early in the day, from the time a corner was taken out of the building by the falling tower debris. There was then no further change in the building condition over the following hours right up until approximately 10 seconds prior global collapse initiation; a sudden event by all accounts which the prior deformation you reference (on the complete opposite side of the building) had nothing to do with.

I'm sorry Q, but I have trouble reading this as something other than, 'yes, there was structural deformation which goes against the idea that 7 was demolished but it doesn't count'. With regard to foreknowledge, the reported bulging and leaning don't even necessarily need to have caused the collapse; they only need to concern the firefighters that 7 was at risk of collapsiing.

From the other thread of yours, I believe this is your overall point: "Not one of the firefighters expected WTC7 to come down of their own independent judgment. The fire fighters expected the building to come down because that is what they were told was going to happen." That's one way of phrasing it. Another way is, 'the firefighters feared that WTC7 would collapse and that was buttressed by an unnamed technical expert'. I don't know if it's intentional, but you seem to be positioning this as if the firefighters had no reason to fear the collapse of 7, while standing in the rubble of WTC1 and 2, which I find absurd. Also, I would call hours of fires spreading a 'further change in the building condition'.

Q24, on 13 August 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

I'm not sure why this is relevant. Are we supposed to ignore the reports? If you think my treatment of sources unfair then please give a specific case in contrast so that I might explain.

Vince Cannistraro is one of the people, if not the person, who noted that a couple of these Israelis were found in an intelligence database.  As Sky noted above, Cannistraro also says there is no indication that they had foreknowledge of the attack.  "Are we supposed to ignore the reports?"  I'm not saying you are unfair, but you seem to have just accepted one finding from the same person and disregarded the other.

Quote

The vetting process I described was to determine those committed to the cause, not necessarily levels of maturity.

But you just admitted, "The risks and investigative leads certainly increase if the demolition were not covert.", and further that all 'they' needed to do is look at the agents' dossier to determine accurately what they need to know concerning their psychology.  Why choose these dolts, surely there are many Zionist agents available?  These guys certainly increased the risks and leads, but were for some reason still included.

Quote

There were numerous unconfirmed reports of explosives discovered in the mens' van which were later retracted: -

The question to ask is, from where did these reports come? From thin air? There is usually some spark of truth that ignites false reports. I believe this news article may contain the answer: -

Five men detained as suspect conspirators
New Jersey News - Sep. 12th, 2001

This article contains some specific details and quotes where, rather than breaking news of the day before, there had been time to reflect and gather information on events. What is described is that the van was stopped and bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives. As a precaution, Route 3 was shut down in both directions and after 30 minutes the FBI ordered evacuation of a nearby motel. Packages in the van were x-rayed by the bomb squad although no explosives were actually found to be present.

What appears to have happened is that suspicion of explosives was triggered by reaction of the bomb-sniffing dogs and led to initial media reports overstating the situation. Then I looked into the accuracy of bomb-sniffing dogs and found it can be anywhere from 60 to 95%. Further, the dogs are more often found to be mistaken where detection of a substance is missed rather than reacting to something that isn’t actually there. Therefore it follows that there is at least a 60% possibility that the dogs did detect some type of explosive residue in the van.

Dogs can also generate false positives due to tips from their handlers profiling the suspects, not sure if this is being included in your possibility calculation.  Where did the reports that the State Dept had been bombed also come from on 9/11, if not largely 'thin air'?  I do appreciate you hedging your confidence in this point however by noting that it may be overstated and recognizing the possibility of false positives.

Quote

The theory is that these men at some time transported the explosives used in the tower demolitions.

..and that the conspirators did not think it was a good idea to get these guys out of the NY area and allowed them to keep driving the van they transported the bombs in.  These guys are really top-of-the-line intelligence agents?

Regarding your points why you think they are involved:

The celebration of the attacks.  - They would have reason to celebrate assuming they are pro-Israel and know who committed the attack, as they know the US will respond against their enemies.  I'm sure they weren't the only Israelis who were pleased for that reason.  You're assuming that the celebration is that the mission was completed successfully I think when there are more parsimonious explanations.
The indication of explosives in the mens' van (not to mention presence of the WTC demolitions).  - Possible explosives, which if detected are from an unknown source.  Not sure what you mean by 'presence of the WTC demolitions', unless you're just explaining this from your point of view, since I'm not really convinced at this point that there was a demolition involved.
The failed lie detector tests. - Polygraph test are notoriously unreliable.
The fact the men were arrested at the scene, on the day, in direct relation to the attacks. - 'At the scene' being in New Jersey, but fine close enough.  One of the callers to the police thought they were 'Palestinians' which was wrong.  I don't know what the fact that they were arrested shows; I thought they were arrested mainly because they celebrated and were thereby suspicious.
The fact the front company owner did not want to answer questions. - Ha, yes, because when you're being investigated criminally, all good lawyers recommend that you talk to the press and law enforcement...
The fact that political powers wanted the investigation shutdown. - Wanted the investigation shut down or found nothing to link them specifically to the attacks?

Quote

If these were good guy agents who had tried to warn America but been ignored, then why not come clean, rather than all of the above?

They're intelligence agents supposedly.  Aren't intelligence agents specifically trained to resist efforts to get them to 'come clean' about anything that suggests they're actually intelligence agents?  Maybe they knew the specifics but didn't want to say anything hoping, correctly, that the attack would result in our attack of their enemies.  That is orthogonal to whether there was a demolition involved or not.

Quote

Perhaps I should ask, how are you differentiating the possibility of 'complicity' with that of 'apathy'?

I'm not necessarily nor do I need to; I'm not claiming that it is a 'blatant' demolition and using these guys as evidence.  I think apathy is at least as reasonable an explanation as them being part of a demolition plot which, at this point, I'm skeptical even needed to happen in the first place let alone that there's any good evidence for it.

Quote

I would like a full and public investigation to determine all of this beyond doubt. Yet do you know what mention these men received in the 9/11 Commission report? Nothing, not a word.

There are a couple possibilities why they weren't mentioned.  One is that they were indeed involved in a demolition and 'they' in the govt covered it up.  Another is that they are actually Israeli intelligence agents with an undefined mission and were investigated and not found to have any involvement in the attacks.