One thing that I've wondered is how could they have prevented it from happening? What were these systems that were in place? Should they have fighters standing by to shoot down any planes that they may have thought might have been acting suspiciously? Imagine the outcry then if they'd pre-emptively shot down an airliner than subsequently just turned out to have a radio failure, say? The hijackers (assuming, for now, that there were), didn't have (according to the official version, at any rate) sophisticated weapons, just knives; and if they'd been prevented from taking them on board, they'd surely have improvised some other weapon. Should they have evacuated the Twin Towers? if they didn't have information as to an exact date, that would hardly seem to have been practical.

You are naive to the situation.

They knew who the hijackers were. They had a list of their names. They knew the terrorist group that was planning the attacks. They knew they were going to use planes in order to accomplish their task.

I'm truly amazed at the excuses people make for the government in regards to this information.

Did you know that they knew about the WTC 93 attack ahead of time also and didn't stop it? They had contact with a terrorist involved in the plot. Rather then go through with a plan to subsitute the explosive powder used to make the bomb with one that wouldn't cause any harm they chose to let the bomb be made and go off.

You read about some of this and it's plain as day. People simply refuse to believe it because they can't fathom the possibility. They begin to make excuses and bicker back and forth to the point of nitpicking over things that overlook what the true issue is.

You want to debate 9/11 and the governments role in it then you should start from the beginning. You should be discussing the prior knowledge of the event that the government had before you even get to the discussion of what really caused the buildings to collapse in the fashion that they did.

They had prior knowledge. Please don't be foolish enough to think they didn't realize this was a terrorist attack as soon as that first plane hit. They knew exactly what was going on. There shouldn't have been a single person at the top of the government who didn't realize a terrorist attack was taking place at that very moment. What does George Bush do though even after knwoledge of the first plane hitting? He goes and sits in a first grade classroom waiting for more destruction. Then after he gets told a second plane hit the other tower, he sits there reading with kids as if nothing is happening. Simply goes on with the scheduled events he had planned at the school. This is the President of the United States? It's a joke.

And yes, while I can't give detailed information off the top of my head for the exact protocol when events occur within the United States such as those that happened on 9/11, there is definately a system in place. There is a chain of command for who you contact and rely on to make important decisions. These events occured over hours and not a damn thing was done. No one took control. They all disappeared and/or were conveniently preoccupied. It's one hell of a coincidence that they were running a fake scenario of what was really happening on the exact same day, and at the exact same time this terrorist attack was taking place.

Instead of acknowledging all of that and questioning what, how, and why however, people would rather laugh and scoff at the notion of whether or not the buildings were a controlled demolition. Think about the other things first and figure that out. Once you do, then you'll realize why there are those that question exactly how and why those buildings fell along with a number of other things. Regardless of what really caused them to collapse, there is still so much more behind the scenes information that people refuse to acknowledge or discuss that points to the United States government purposely allowing these attacks to take place.

Ever thought that there might have been some small degree of confusion going on that morning, with people trying to find out what had happened? The first plane hit at 8:46 and the second at 9:03. That really wasn't that much time for them to find out what was going on. I mean, the first I heard on the radio was "a plane has flown into the World Trade Center". It didn't say an airliner, and it didn't say that it had been hijacked. Who knows, perhaps the president's advisors thought, when they first heard, what I suspect a lot of people did, that maybe it was a small Cessna or something flown by an inept learner pilot. Maybe GW Bush might not be an evil mastermind, but merely a slightly dim politician out of his depth whose advisors, probably, knew no more about what was happening than he did? Could the answer not, perhaps, simply be that people can't accept that the President of the United States might actually, just be slightly dim and out of his depth, and so has to be an evil mastermind? It's just my theory. I don't know. Maybe I'm just naive.

FINE! Give us names then or even one name so we can file charges or start prosecuting. You can't say they, the govt or Bush.
Well???

Right, cause I'm supposed to say know the names of everyone involved with receiving such information.

There is no question information was presented to the FBI about this well before 9/11 happened. Like I said, the government jerks people around and then the people that get screwed give them a free pass. No wonder it can't be any easier for them.

MK-Ultra - using mind control on their own citizens. They even admit to doing this and still people say it's no big deal. Wake up!

Hell, if they admit to doing things like that, why is it so hard to open your eyes and realize how incredibly messed up that is. Why is it so hard to see through the other nonsense they pull on us. It's disgusting. People refuse to believe anything could be corrupt eventhough you can see it everyday if you just read and quit being so willing to push everything aside that the government does.

You want names? Read through this thread to start: Knowledge of 9/11 8 months before it happened

Not just my post, but check out the info Q24 provides in this post alone within that thread: There is much evidence of prior knowledge and forewarning from genuine intelligence operatives that an attack was to occur.....

What do you have to say for it. Wait, I know, you'll turn it into nitpicking over the dumbest things instead of taking it for what is and truly understanding what was done and allowed to happen. People would rather try to shout louder then the other person and pick apart worthless pieces rather than open their eyes to what is presented in front of them.

They'll give a response like 74700 did and act as if the President of the United States has no freaking clue about what's going on in the world. How incredibly naive is that? Look into his family background - do you realize how ludicrous it is to suggest someone in his position and of his upbringing doesn't understand what's really going on.

People act like he's a head coach running an NFL franchise into the ground rather than realizing he is running an entire country. Not just any country, but one that has been long regarded as the best in the world in just about absolutely everything. It's astonishing how foolish people will be in refusing to question anything that they do.

And since you asked, I will try and look into what kind of names I can find, though I tend to believe Q24 will provide a good bit of that in the post I linked you to of his. I still have to read through some of what he presented myself before can truly give my own opinion of what he said.

I think I'll put that in my sig, thank you for the commendation.

And it begins. Ignoring the real purpose of the post to start with the nitpicking over the stupid things instead.

An I'm sorry, but your response as to what you propose Bush & Co. might have been thinking about when the first plane hit is very naive if that is what you truly believe about it.

Sure, you have someone who admits to knowing this and that, then when it comes to identify who is behind it, there is no one???
Before you cry murder, don't you want to make sure your witness has the tools(names) to back up his claims?
It's you who been had by the conspiracy theorist out to make money, so you wake up!

Give me names of who bought the explosives, planted the bomb, hid the planes. Can you even explain why United Airlines is playing along, it is their plane, right?

Show us then some criminal records of the Bush family, well?

It will maybe astonish you to know, but I'm not an admirer of GWB. I, however, think that's he's inept and out of his depth, rather than an evil mastermind.I don't think that's naive, i call it a different opinion from yours. Is it valid as an opinion? Every bit as valid as yours, I'd say. To believe that GWB is an evil mastermind takes just as much, if not a vastly bigger, leap of faith, than to think that he's inept and out of his depth. What evidence do you have that Bush is an evil genius? Bush, specifically, please, not the CIA or any of the vast number of other shadowy figures. What further evidence has he given, throughout his presidency, that he is an evil genius? Is Iraq evidence of his genius? I'd say it supports quite strongly the inept and out of his depth theory.

You act as if I have access to all the information that was presented to the FBI. You ask me to come up with things that are to a certain extent impossible for me to come up with given my limited resources.



When did I say anything about what you just mentioned. I said nothing of explosives, nothing about bombs being planted, nothing about planes being hidden, and not one word about United Airlines being "in" on anything. What I have said is that the government knew a terrorist group was planning on hijacking planes and flying them into the Twin Towers well before the attacks occurred. If you bothered to read the letter in the link I provided you, you would see that the FBI was given the names of 30 terrorists involved in this plan, where they were located, and the targets they planned to hit. If you choose to ignore that, then there is nothing I can do about it.



I guess you don't think people in powerful positions have ways of avoiding prosecution. Either way, if I take the time to research things I can point out a number of bizarre situations in which the Bush's are involved.

Criminal actions involving them isn't even what I was referring to. What I was referencing was the fact that their family has long been involved in politics and have held highly regarded positions within the United States for decades. If you don't think that places them in a position to know more then the average person, then again, you are being naive.

ETA: I notice you had nothing to say about the post by Q24 I linked you to providing even further evidence of 9/11 long before it happened.

You have limited resources you say, and yet you are easy to believe someone with limited resources?



And what makes you assume those who works at the FBI are as evil or worst than the terrorist?
What on earth do you have to label those at the FBI as such monsters, they have families too and are Americans themselve. Who has done more than you to protect this country.

And another thing, go research about ABLE DANGER. There was a wall or prohibition put up by the Clinton Administration in intelligence sharing between the CIA and FBI.




Oh yeah, then show us the record of involvement, a real record. Not from some blogs or gossip magazines.


Yes, they are a family of politicians. Does that make them criminals?

If it weren't for the fact he continues to push forward with this war despite the efforts of congress itself to try and stop it, I may be more inclined to believe what you have stated about Bush.

This war, which makes no sense right now, is the most important thing on his agenda. Why is that? Why did he have plans to attack Iraq before 9/11 ever happened? Why was Osama Bin Laden pinpointed as the mastermind behind 9/11, but instead of going after him we were sold on lies about the WMDs Saddam Hussien possessed and the danger he posed to the United States so we could invade Iraq instead?

Why did Bush & co. deny the fact they knew terrorists were planning to attack the WTC and other targets with hijacked planes and then use that stance to push forward with the Patriot Act and the need for a "War on Terror" so that all of us in the United States could sleep safer at night?

9/11 could have been prevented if they wanted to stop it from happening. They knew in advance it was beig planned. This nonsense that a "War on Terror" and the Patriot Act were/are needed in order to prevent this from happening again is BS when you realized they let the attack happen.

If George Bush is such a simpleton, how in the world was he ever put in position to run for President to begin with? Who are the people that thought highly enough of him that he became the Republican nominee in the first place? If he is so absolutely clueless to the point that the average American can realize this, why would people close to him have ever supported him enough for him to get where he is? It doesn't make sense.

As for George Bush and the evil mastermind scenario, that is never a phrase I have used. I will however, if/when I get the time try and post information for you that shows he isn't all that sweet and innocent a person/President.

You really believe that all those actually just showed up under the Bush Administration, and thta none of those links existed under the Clinton Administrations?
I'm not blaming Clinton here, just that assuming Bush ignored them and allowed it to happen means only Clinton did ignore it as well, right?

I would be inclined to agree with those pilots, who seem to be describing an almost aerobatic maneuver in a Boeing. There's no real data to substantiate whet they're talking about---but they're painting a picture of a spiral dive and an high g maneuver with steep banking that took place right overhead and saw this 757 precisely hit the Pentagon at its conclusion.

I might agree...but I've examined every piece of FDR data from that maneuver, and have concluded that it wasn't close to aerobatic.

It was a long sweeping maneuver, somewhat erratically flown, and was a 330 degree turn completed in ~ 3.7 min. This is about 1/2 of a standard rate turn....relatively mellow.

Airspeed was about 170 KTS at the beginning of the maneuver, and increased to about 300 KTS at the roll out. Then, the throttle was increased to full and airspeed built up quickly over the final 10-15 seconds as the jet approached the building.

The turn was executed with about 30% thrust in, and bank angles that averaged about 25-30 degrees, and which were only about 10 degrees or so during the final seconds of turn. G loads were for the most part mellow...peaking at around 1.7 g during maximum bank angles, which peaked at around 40 degrees for a period of time in the turn. Well within the limit of the aircraft...probably uncomfortable for the passengers for a time, but not what I'd call extreme.

Maximum nose down peaked at about 9 degrees during the throttle up / final phase, and descent rate varied greatly, peaking at about 4500 feet per minute, and actually being as little as zero during the turn...averaging about 1850 feet per minute overall.

The "pilot" of this aircraft wasn't a pro, by any means. He flew the turning descent (not a spiral dive) erratically, with bank angles jumping all over the place, as well as pitch angles, and executed a turn that a professional could've done in a little more than half the time.

He knew how to reduce throttle at least, and did so. What I see in the data is a long, loping and somewhat erratically flown descending right turn. Then, the nose gets pushed down at the target and the throttles go to the wall for the last maybe 2.5 miles or so to the building


I see no data indicating a spiral dive. Just a long, lazy turn to dump altitude, and set up a bee line for the target...then, a high speed hold the nose down at between 6 and 9 degrees...ram the throttles forward and hold it real tight screaming bee line for the building.

The data I'm looking at, and the data your alleged pilots were looking at, seem to be two different sets.

Congres can it stop it now if they really want to. Cut the fundings.


Because he was never labeled as an evil person until he became the President .

I don't exactly trust the Clinton's either, so don't think I'm absolving him of anything simply because I've focused on Bush. The last thing I want is to see Hillary Clinton in the White House. I think it'd be an absolute disgrace if Americans were to allow two families alone to run the country for at least 24 years if Hillary Clinton were to be elected.

The simple truth is, I haven't read quite as much about the things surrounding Clinton's presidency as I have about Bush's. One reason for that is because George Bush is the present day commander in chief. The other reason is because when Clinton was President I was a lot younger and at a stage of my life where I didn't really read up on such things.

The fact I'm pointing the finger at Bush doesn't mean in any way, shape, or form that I'm absolving Clinton of ignoring certain things as well. The fact remains however that 9/11 happened on George Bush's watch.

I'd have to look into it more closely, but I don't believe it is as simple as you are suggesting. They have tried to cut the funding, George Bush simply doesn't care. Also, cutting the funding won't stop the war. Bush has vowed to follow this thing through regardless of what anyone else thinks or tells him. He's already had interviews in which he talks of how the most important thing for the next President will be to stick with this war regardless of what the public perception would be and the criticism they would have to face for doing so. He acts as if this is his war, and doesn't involve anyone else. He doesn't listen to what the people of America want or say regarding it.




That's not as true as you think. And also, simpleton does not = "evil person"

It is that simple believe it or not. No matter what effort Bush does it all comes down to Congress VOTING to cut or continue on funding the war. Did you even hear Congress bringing it up for a vote?
You have to remember Congress approved the war and so theay have the power to cut the fundings.



What criminal charges has Bush had against him prior to being the President? So, it is not as true as you think then.
Then what do you call someone who you assume has planned for a war from the moment he became a President and allowed a terrorist attack to justify his war?

Alright!!! At least we agreed with one thing. Anyone but Hillary.


I see, I suggest then you read further back in history. As I have suggested go research Able Danger, it will give you an understanding of events prior to 9/11. It is not a conspiracy, it's an actual event.

Georgey is a puppet, like most the other modern presidents, the "show" of politics for the masses, who have been so dumbed down they dont even realize they are being deceived on a regular basis.

If you cant see that, then you are their puppet as well, simply following whatever stupid "bait" they give you to justify war and the deaths of innocent people and our own generation. It is simply depopulation by the elite, "for the good of humanity". We are scheduled for WWIII to unfold just as it was written in revelations, because these same organizations have been around for awhile and know how to "manifest" whatever they chose.

It is the use of the will to affect the reality around them. "manifest destiny" was the term described to justify the slaughter and detainment and outright theft of american indians. Back then, do you think they cared whether they were peaceful or not? NO. They wanted the control over the land, and the indians were not warlike for the most part. They defended their lands as best they could with more primitive weapons. Now they are been brought under the fold and given rights to make money via the completely spiritually devoid gambling industry...

With that, i give you the knowledge gap of the last 100 years, this is a link to verified newspaper articles regarding Tesla and the amazing things he was capable of doing.
The modern "wizard" of the industrial age, even outshining Einstein in brilliance and application.
Einstein, in fact was a thief of idea's, working in a patent office with full access to all kinds of practical applications at the time.

Most fascinating of all, is the New York Herald Tribune article on Oct 15, 1911 entitled "Tesla's New Monarch of Machines" which illudes to Tesla having built a flying machine and a perfect pump/engine that is nearly indestructible... an excerpt...

You disagree with the 100+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals listed on Patriots Question 9/11 and that is fine; it is your opinion. The specific quotes I posted were only to show that your assertion - “Any professional pilot realizes what happed that day and knows that someone with little real training could've done it.” - was ill-informed.

You can argue in circles forever but all I am asserting is the given fact that reduced activity will produce a reduced reading – there is no disputing this; it cannot do anything else. You yourself then deduced the likelihood of the reduced readings being due to chance or reduced activity.



I am placing my bets on at least an 81% probability whilst you admit your own theory is at best a 19% chance – in the end it really is as simple as that.

Can you give a link to these “hundreds of thousands” of engineers you say support the official story? If they are independent, rather than affiliated with the government, all the better though that is not a prerequisite. I can list details of well in excess of 300 construction professionals who demand a new investigation into the collapses. I am thinking you are all talk and, when it comes to it, you will not be able to get close to even that number.



NIST could come up with a plausible mechanism for a flying pig, also verified by lab tests and computer simulations… so? Getting a mechanism that matches with observable reality is another matter. NIST’s pig, based on the real animal, would not fly as they wanted it to, so they simply gave it wings and problem solved. Some people will not realise how close this scenario really is to NIST's ‘investigation’ but I would suggest those who have not done so should look into it themselves.

Hello again, Q24. I haven't been following this thread very carefully because I just don't have flyingswan's near-infinite patience when dealing with this particular topic. I did see your "analysis" of the seismic data, though, and since you're still discussing it, I thought I'd add a few comments of my own. Here's the chart you originally posted a few weeks ago:

QUOTE (Q24 @ Mar 12 2008, 04:06 PM)

The seismic data is certainly interesting. I have been reading a few different opinions on the data and have compared it with video footage myself. I am sure people will interpret the information differently but below are my findings for the collapse of WTC1: -

• The first red line indicates the initial collapse movement of the upper block.
• The second red line indicates the first debris reaching ground level.
• The third red line indicates beginning of the main debris field impacting the ground.

The above conclusions were drawn from a comparison of the graph and this video evidence of the collapse which seems as good as any.

I'm afraid your complete lack of understanding of even the basics of seismology has led you to make some pretty gross errors in your "analysis" of this seismogram. Your conclusions are completely unfounded and amount to nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.

Your first basic error is that you have completely ignored signal propagation time. The chart above shows the East-West component of ground velocity for the Lamont-Doherty seismometer located at the Palisades, NY station (PAL). It is 34 kilometers north/northeast of the World Trade Center site. According to reference (1) below, the primary signals arriving at PAL during the incidents of 9/11 were short-period Rayleigh surface waves (Rg) which propagate through the local rock structure at 2 kilometers per second:

QUOTE (Seismic waves generated by aircraft impacts and building collapses at WTC)

Six stations within the greater Metropolitan New York region (Fig. 2) recorded the two tower collapses. Vertical-component records are shown in Figure 3 as a record section of distance as a function of travel time. The dotted lines indicate velocities from 1.5 to 2.5 km/s assuming propagation along straight paths from the WTC to the stations. Unlike signals at distant stations, the predominant waves are surface waves of short period (about 1 s) called Rg with group velocities between 2.3 and 1.5 km/s. GPD only recorded horizontal components.

Your chart shows the seismometer trace beginning at 10:28:30. The collapse begins at 10:28:31, at t=1 second on the chart. With 34 kilometers to travel at 2 km/s, the Rg waves from the START of the collapse don't arrive at the PAL seismometer until about t=18 seconds on that chart, just about where you've drawn your last red line. You're marking off events that can't possibly be seen in the data because the signals haven't yet arrived at the seismometer!

This propagation delay is clearly shown in Fig. 3 from reference (1):



This chart shows the data from the collapse of WTC-1 as recorded by several seismometers in the area. The locations are sorted by distance from the WTC, and you can clearly see that the signal arrival delay is a function of distance from the source.

This is also very clearly shown in this chart prepared by Lamont-Doherty for the Popular Mechanics article on 9/11 (see Ref. 3 below):



This chart shows both aircraft impacts and both tower collapses as recorded by the PAL seismometer. Time zero for all for signals is the start of the event. Notice that the Rg waves in each trace begin arriving at PAL at almost precisely the same time, just short of 17 seconds after the start of each event.


Your second major error is that you seem to be assuming that a seismometer records a perfect signal in which every squiggle can be traced back to some distinct event at the source. That's just not true. Seismic events generate multiple types of waves which travel at different speeds and will arrive at a distant seismometer at different times. Even waves of the same type can reflect around inside the earth, resulting in multiple arrivals of the same signal at different times, like a voice echoing through a canyon. As flyingswan has been telling you, seismic waves are periodic oscillations and when different signals overlap, they can cancel or enhance each other. See here for some good information on the different types of seismic waves.

Here's a quote from reference (1), referring to an earlier study of the rock formations around the WTC:

QUOTE (Seismic waves generated by aircraft impacts and building collapses at WTC)

Anderson and Dorman also observed strong lateral refraction of Rg waves caused by the
contrast in shallow rock properties at the boundary of the high and low velocity rocks of the
Manhattan Prong and Newark Basin. Waves propagated to Palisades followed paths through
both provinces, resulting in multiple arrivals of Rg. On the basis of polarization analysis, several
of those wave packets arrived from quite different directions than those predicted for straight-line
propagation. Seismic waves at PAL and MANY also are more complex than those at the other
stations of Figure 3, probably indicative of arrivals refracted through the two terrains. At MANY
10s separates two arrivals.

The constructive interference of two Rg phases at PAL may well account for the large arrivals
on the E-W component even though the azimuth of the direct path from WTC to PAL is
NNE. We do not interpret them necessarily as Love waves; hence, a source with a horizontal
component is not required to explain them. (We verified that the components and polarities of
the digital data at PAL were correct using recordings of distant earthquakes close in time to the
WTC events.).

See the comment about constructive interference on the E-W component at PAL? That's the same signal you've been looking at. It's not just a simple, direct record of the collapse. The authors believe it's a mix of at least two overlapping "echoes" of the Rg waves created during the collapse. Also note their comment about the signals received at the MANY seismometer. Take a look at the MANY trace in Fig. 3 above. Notice that there are two distinct periods of high activity separated by about 10 seconds. Did the tower collapse twice, 10 seconds apart? No, of course not. You're seeing the same seismic signal that has traveled through two different paths to reach the seismometer.

The oscillations you're picking out as evidence of a controlled demolition may be noise in the system, may be a truck driving down a nearby road, or may be faster-traveling L or S waves from the WTC collapse. Only an expert looking at all the data can tell the difference. Did you know that the PAL seismometer records motion in three axes? You've only shown the E-W trace. Have you looked at the data for the N-S axis or the vertical axis?

I'll also point out this interesting quote from reference (1):

QUOTE (Seismic waves generated by aircraft impacts and building collapses at WTC)

A truck bomb at the WTC in 1993, in which approximately 0.5 tons of explosive were detonated, was not detected seismically, even at a station only 16 km away.

So, the half-ton truck bomb detonating below the WTC wasn't detectable at any of the seismic stations in the area, yet the individual blasts of your supposed "stealth" demolition charges high in the towers were clearly recorded at a station 34 kilometers away. Is that what you're claiming?


References
1) Kim, W.-Y., et al. (2001), Seismic waves generated by aircraft impacts and building collapses at World Trade Center, New York City, Eos Trans. AGU, 82(47), 565. (link)
2) Kim, W.-Y., and Baum, G. R., Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack, Report to the Maryland Depart of Natural Resources, spring 2002. (link)
3) Debunking the 9/11 Myths, Popular Mechanics Special Report, Pg. 5 (link)

The discrepancy you just pointed out amounts to a difference of nearly 50%.

I again offer the analogy of a 4 foot tall tower with matchstick support beams and flooring made of playing cards having a bowling ball dropped onto it. The bowling ball will fall with near free fall speed.

You keep emphasizing an irrelevant point. The only valid point of contention here is whether or not the tons of ignited jet fuel could weaken the building to the point that the weakest portion of the building collapsed. Because once the weight of the building above the failure point collapsed, the building would have no other choice than to pancake down in an orderly fashion. It would pancake rather than topple because the elevator shafts and outer support beams would act as guides that route any lateral movement back to the center. The path of least resistance in such a structure is straight down.

And when the entire weight of the building above the current floor suddenly smashes down onto a single floor that is only held up by brackets (which were only designed to bear the weight of a single floor) then you get the bowling ball through a matchstick tower effect.

Yeah, let's leave racism out of this discussion. I don't know why the concrete was pulverized to dust, nor why there was molten
metal in the debris (if indeed that is true). It is not so hard to understand why buried portions of the building would burn for weeks. As for the speed of collapse---it doesn't seem so different from deliberately imploded buildings. I didn't know there were explosions in the basements of the buildings. Do you have any references or evidence of that? As for myself, I am perfectly satisfied with the explanations given on PBS or CNN.

~~Cebrakon

Repoman, your bowling ball and matchstick analogy is flawed in a simple regard.

As you progress down the floors the support structure is designed to resist much greater weight loads then the upper floors. While the actual floors themselves only bear the weight intended for office utility, the structural supports are the real quandary here. For instance, the 90th floor would be designed to carry any and all loads of the upper 20 floors...but the lower you go, the more the mass load increases.

Each floor is dispensing mass to the central support columns and the outer wall columns...so in turn the amount of mass increases dramatically as you go down...so too does the overall resistance designed into the structural supports. Not to mention the addition of torque to the overall structure in the form of wind resistance in gale force conditions...that and the obvious fact that the towers did not fall from being struck by airliners alone.

The question here should be easily rectified through a series of force equations and stress analyses on the steel constructs based upon the blueprints.

Oh yeah...I forgot...the blueprints to a series of buildings no longer in existence are deemed national security secrets.

No - you are still misinterpreting what Rodriguez is actually saying. Here's the quote, one more time...

"Last, funny everybody brings the position that the ball of fire went down the center elevator shaft and exploded in the basement.."

Rodriguez isn't questioning the existence of a fireball. He is disputing the assertion that the fireball "went down the center elevator shaft and exploded in the basement".

If he was disputing the existence of a fireball, he would have said something to that effect. For example, if he'd said "Last, funny everybody brings the position that there was a ball of fire...", at least you would have a valid argument (that he disputed the existence of a fireball).

Do you understand the distinction?



First, a point that needs to be clarified...



That was largely due to the way you first brought it to my attention...



You started off the 'quote' with “(911myths.com) says.., which makes it look like "911myths.com" is being quoted (ie: the website's author). So that's why I assumed it wasn't a quote from Rodriguez.

It further confused matters when you didn't provide a direct link to the quote on the source you first cited - 911myths.com. You subsequently posted another link for the quote.. http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dazinith/...85844162914307/

Anyway, I just wanted to clarify this minor point first.


As for the quote, you've made the same mistake. Again, Rodriguez isn't questioning the existence of a fireball. He is disputing Roberts' assertions ('theory') about the fireball.



That it's sorely lacking.


You have shown no evidence for your (or Roberts') claims against Rodriguez, flyingswan.

Sure...



Chart from the link below... (pg. xl)

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1C.pdf

These were programs that required special inspection by engineers, not standard maintenance crews. The last structural integrity inspection for "Accessible Columns" took place in 1998, and these inspections were very limited -



(pg. 49 from above link)

A crew servicing the elevators isn't going to see squat.



It was a separate structure added to the original WTC 7 structure. Obviously it's going to fall - the entire building collapses!



No, I didn't say that it would "emerge without being damaged". But it was structurally reinforced...

The east side of the floor was reinforced to carry the east penthouse and its contents. Specifics of this reinforcement are not available at this time.

The west penthouse roof was framed in steel with the floor slab increased to a 6 in. thickness. The framing and roof reinforcement for the east penthouse and the mechanical equipment screenwall are not available at this time.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

Hmm. There is structural info on the west penthouse, but the structural info on the east penthouse is "not available at this time".

That was from NIST's June 2004 Progress Report.

In 2008, that info is still "not available" !

Any professional pilot who analyzed the FDR data I saw couldn't possibly have considered the maneuver impossible, nor professionally executed. If these 100 pilots and aviation professionals you cite are real...they obviously looked at very different data from that which I looked at.

That's the point. The FDR data from FLT 77 is massive, and readily available to look at. Unless this data is faked, which is highly unlikely, someone's seen something else...

Haven't read through the entire thread, but I did want to point this out:

FBI documents contradict 9/11 Commission reportLarisa Alexandrovna
Published: Thursday February 28, 2008
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/FBI_document...ssion_0228.html

There is a reason this kind of information doesn't get wide coverage in the M$M.

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that this kind of thing could be allowed or even assisted by forces within our government. This has been done before and if we refuse to learn from history I guarantee it will happen again.

You've proven nothing. There is no comparison between doing a detailed structural inspection, which probably involves taking off some of the fireproofing to look at the actual steel, and just being in the core area to work and noticing a vast array of explosive charges that wasn't there the last time you looked.

Quite, so why does it need a separate demolition sequence?

Quibble as much as you like, it still looks to me as if he is saying, in both quotes, that the survival of the liftman disproves the fireball theory.

Perhaps you should have done a little more research before making such a strong statement just on the basis of your own assumption.

Roberts' original link was dead, so I googled for the alternate one.

As I see it, you are the one who has made an inaccurate claim about Rodriguez. Roberts has just quoted him accurately and shown that his current story contradicts his original one.

Check my quote, I said there were hundreds of thousands of structural engineers in the world. Google for their professional bodies and see how many members each has. How many of your mere hundreds are actually structural engineers?

Ah yes, your abyssmal ignorance of structural engineering really qualifies you to make that sort of claim. I don't recall your thermite theory having any problem matching observable reality, because whatever that reality is, you can come up with an explanation.
However, the bottom line is that NIST came up with a prediction from the impact that included the observed bowing, while all you have is a lot of handwaving without any technical foundation.

The molten steel was admitted, infact the molten steel was there for a month at ground zero... I talked extensively with someone who saw it(the aftermath).

The NIST report is an outright admittance that our government is lying, and popular mechanics has all the means in the world to "debunk" the 911 conspiracy theories.
It is a publication of the Hearst Foundation, heavy ties to the rockefeller's, and a US weapons contractor!!!


This is a link explaining many of the impossibilities of the NIST, showing you all what YOU are calling truth to protect your flawed realities.

This is the Bohemian Grove members who concocted this idea to fool you...
Check out a couple of the "camps" listed and see who stays?
Stowaway (Rockefeller Family Members/Oil Companies/Banking/Think Tanks); Hill Billies (Big Business/Banking/Politics/Universities/Media); Owls Nest (U.S. Presidents/Military/Defense Contractors); Isle of Aves (Military/Defense Contractors).
Those are some... HHMMMM the biggest names in
Military...
US and other Political figures...
Entertainment(Movie stars that want to enslave YOU)...
and the worlds largest bankers the rockefeller's(The head of the Trilateral Commision, owner of our unconstitutional "income tax", Leader of the CFR, which BTW wants to enslave you and has as one of its fine Elite members Angelina Jolie!!! Who goes around looking all hot fighting the "illuminati" in skin tight clothes, time to stop laughing...)

A Confession from John D. Rockefeller from his Memoirs, page 405, you wouldn't believe it, but i bought the damn thing just to see and lo and behold...

"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."


A sound clip of Nixon talking about bohemian grove, the people who are Ruling Elite, as has always been the case for thousands of years...
An all mens group of greedy, powerful satan worshipers having a gay vacation while ruling the world!!!

Rocawear? Nelly, 50 cent, the whole mainstream including all of its permutations glorifying sex, needless drugs and violent "gangsta" behavia, complete with crunk juice...

im sorry i have to break it to you... but...
Does this?
Or this? "Roc la familia?"
Look like this in any way shape or form?

My point, do you think they are joking when they claim rockefeller as their master... I mean the entire "rap" scene IS the embodiment of worshiping money and "what it can get you"

Now, some fun! NOT.

The tower of babel(a most magnificent link, however please turn your speakers down lest the volume startle you...), was usually depicted as massive spiraling building, and was in the book of genesis described as "the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech...". The king at the time happened to be "Nimrod".
Another Spiraling building was planned to be built in the 1920's by a Vladimir Tatlin...

It was supposed to be the largest building ever built and it was designed to look like this and dwarf the Eiffel Tower

Why the Spiral? Because the Spiral pattern is present in all things, from galaxies to your DNA and everything in between.
Open your Eyes...
When all the people speak the same language...
The Tallest buildings in the world...
The largest "Pillars" of the financial world...

All on the Island of Manhattan, or Atum?

Take a deep breath, and click here...

This is the "spire" left by the north tower, this is a REAL clip from CNN. In my belief it is faked, but it hardly matter's the smoke was obviously billowing in reverse, because what is more important is the fact that you realize what is going on...


The new tallest building in the world...
But, who just took over??? oh jesus, its the Ruling Elite's Egocentric Mongoloid UberMetatropolis Dubai!! [/url]
One World... in dubai...

Scare you yet? Its all the same people behind the whole thing. In fact its always been the same people, and the game is as old as you could possibly imagine...
The subliminal messages using the twin towers as their carrier are everywhere, and have been an image subconsciously recognized so often when the real thing happened, everyone knew the drill...

A Spider man Poster with the twin towers reflected within the eye

The new "Dark Knight" movie, of which one person has already been sacrificed for

Within the windows, stand the twin towers...

We Own the Night Between these shadowy figures stands the two towers...
You really think it wasnt planned?

Enchanted, where the real world and the animated world collide

Transformers... Choose your Side.

Thats just movie posters!!

For more on movements of the "artificial collective consciousness" as i like to call it (because it is manipulated for the purpose of control), i refer you
here and

here.
Open your mind for one moment, check the facts presented about the esoteric significance of symbolism and its roll of late.
I Promise you, this is no joke, this is reality as it is, not as it is believed to be.


By the same person, a short 3 video study of several themes...

I dare anyone to try and refute what is claimed above, any attempt at doing so is simply the complete misunderstanding of ancient symbolism as it has been used for thousands of years...

Some examples...
The pyramid as seen from above(or from outside to inside)

Little did you know it is at work in this ancient depiction

As well as... The Last Supper This shape is alive and kicking?

Escher

Why, a simple reason actually. Sacred Geometry(math, the infinite). Within 2 dimensions it can mimic 3 dimensions, within 3 dimensions you can use it to build structures from stone without mortar and without reducing integrity. Hence "Free" set free by knowledge of mathematics, "Mason" as in can build with stones.

They were the ancient mob that controlled the construction of everything from churches to houses by this method.

It is not my responsibility to teach you anything, but this little bit is too much for most people anyway.
This is how Escher, and many others, stopped seeing what they thought was there, and started realizing what IS there.
Math, and here it is with six equal sides.
A hexagon...
a simple, six sided 2 dimensional representation. What do we have encoded within the mathematics itself? As if the design of the universe wasn't complex enough, its reflection of simplicity is always the most pleasurable.


This is what is really there, within the hexagram is the cube, and the impossible cube as seen above.

Treat the center as the foreground and background and you get a cube. Treat the center point as if it IS one point, and connect it to its corresponding points within a plane... and whalla, the mixing of "perspective's" that produces an "impossible" image, yet in all reality, if it is feasible to math, what absurd logic denotes it is still impossible?!?!??

Back to pyramids... Two individuals who made exceedingly great strides throughout their lives... for better or for worse...
Aleister Crowley
Nikola Tesla

Both visited Giza, and were permitted to enter the pyramids. These are documented and verifiable on request, if you so wish to challenge that statement.

Another famous cuboid representation comes from the temple's of Egypt also.

Metatrons Cube
Here is a link explaining more about it

We find it is intimately connected to the "Seed of Life" and the "Flower of Life". These are both ancient Egyptian symbols depicting the growth of consciousness and its beginnings. They are also like the hexagram/cube "more than meets the eye"... They also encompass ALL of the known platonic solids to date, the states matter naturally forms. They didn't have microscope's to my knowledge...

Why then, is "Megatron" searching for the "all spark" which brings "life to all things" in the new movie transformers?

Why do you think?
Now, what is the subliminal message here, or are they really just throwing it in your face?
On the side of Megatron's police car...


Oh yes... the veil of knowledge has always been kept quite close, and quite hidden from your view. If you think this is anything, you are far mistaken, this barely touches the surface of the Mega Ritual's being performed by our luciferian corporate ruling elite.

I hope this has shed some light on the incredibly dangerous time we are living in, and the even more dangerous times ahead.

EDIT: God help us, i hope this living planet has some kind of natural defense against this cancer!!!!

Yes, Zaus, frequently.

You can argue in circles yourself, but the fact remains that you are trying to find patterns in random variations. You also misunderstand what the probability means, see below.

Check what that is a probability of: 19% chance that both traces will show an abnormally low reading within one second of a randomly selected time. It does not mean that there is an 81% chance that there really were low inputs at those times, because of the lack of direct connection between the input levels and the trace readings. You are effectively looking at the chances that a coin will come up heads if tossed three times (12.5%) and then saying that a coin that does just that has an 87.5% chance of having two heads.

Hello, Pericynthion


Your first critical error is to presume I ignored the signal propagation time, when in fact it is one of the very first things I considered in marking the graph.

Your second basic error is to assume the time of 10:28:31 is for the initial collapse movement of WTC1. You correctly identify that an event occurring at this time will appear on the graph in the position of my last red line, ie approximately t=18, though this particular event is the main debris field impacting the ground; not the initial collapse movement. See NIST NCSTAR 1-6, pg.298, which states at 10:28:20 “Tower began to collapse”. Adding a 17s propagation time, readings should then appear on the graph at approximately t=7. The link you provided states for Palisades, “Origin times with an uncertainty of 2 s were calculated from the arrival times of Rg waves at PAL using a velocity of 2 km/s.” The line I inserted indicating the initial collapse movement of the upper block is well within t=7±2

Further, if you are still not convinced and believe the first collapse reading does not arrive until t=18, I would very much like to know why there should be so much activity prior to this. We can see here - http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html - that the readings from t=6 through to t=18 for the WTC1 collapse are at the approximate ML (only slightly below) of those for the airliner impacts; highly indicative that the structure is taking damage during this time.

I will add as well that you are the first person I have come across who believes the greatest readings are those of the collapses beginning. All other sources, whether for or against the official story, agree that the largest readings are of the debris impacting the ground – NIST’s FAQ, speaking of the main reading, “The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground”, or 911 Research, “At about 12 seconds into this event [the beginning of collapse], this signal is eclipsed by the much larger disturbance of thousands of tons of material impacting the ground.” Therefore, timing backwards from the main debris field impacting the ground to the initial collapse movement also supports that my first line is in the approximate correct position.

It is well worth reading this short section, The 'Large Spikes' Were Preceded by Smaller Signals, from the 911 Research article I quoted which analyses and confirms the initial collapse readings are shown on the seismograph prior to that of the debris impacting the ground.



Your third significant error is to suppose I am not listening to and accounting for flyingswan’s input. Although every reading is in fact a given of a specific occurrence, even if such as from two signals coming together or a form of seismic ‘echo’, I realise due to the complexity involved this cannot always be realistically traced back to a precise event. In summary, I understand there can be a degree of chance or seeming randomness in the seismic readings. In addition to all of this, I also understand that a reduced reading on a seismograph could well indicate the obvious possibility of reduced seismic activity.

The question then is, as I have been discussing with flyingswan, what is the likelihood of a given reading occurring due to chance or design, not once but in the case of both collapses, in conjunction with a specific observable event? The “given reading” referred to is the reduced activity I have highlighted mid-collapse and the “observable event” being the moment the upper block has fallen through its height. If it happened only once I would be content to write this off as chance. When the reduced reading mid-collapse in both Towers occurs in conjunction with the same observable event in the case of both Towers, I am more inclined to deduce it is by design, ie due to an event, rather than chance.

Indeed, flyingswan has calculated the probability of the readings coinciding with those events by chance to be approximately 19%. Notwithstanding my belief that this probability is generously high, it still leaves the 81% likelihood that the readings were actually caused specifically by reduced seismic activity at that time.



Yes, I do see that comment, though there is no indication in the text that it refers to the reduced reading I have highlighted just before 10s. Also here, the authors use terms such as “may well” and “not necessarily”, indicating that discussed above – there is a degree of possibility the readings could be for one reason or another. Anyhow, if you think the comment does refer to the reduced signal I have been looking at, then it contradicts your original assertion that a signal is not received until t=18. Can we have some consistency in your argument please.



There is a large difference between the pressure blast of a single truck bomb and the force of demolition charges placed directly against the main structural columns. Do you really need me to explain why? As mentioned above, the increased collapse activity I mark out as perhaps indicative of demolition charges is approximately on the level of the impacts which is to be expected, ie both impacts and demolition charges would cause damage/severing of the core columns. In any case, although the increased activity levels during the second phase of collapse (that of the lower blocks commencing from t=10), could possibly indicate explosives, no, that is not my main claim.

The real claim I am making is that the reduced seismic reading mid-collapse may be indicative of reduced activity and further, a reduction of the collapse momentum – in all, constant activity, followed by reduced activity, moving to increased activity. This is not supportive of the official progressive collapse theory where activity should be at a constant or gradually increasing level throughout. It is though supportive of these two distinct phases of controlled demolition: -

1. Thermite/thermate charges (apparent from evidence presented by Professor S Jones and visible flowing from WTC2) initiated the collapse.
   
   
2. Further conventional demolition charges (evident through explosive ‘squibs’ during collapse) removed remaining resistance from the structure resulting in a symmetrical, near freefall collapse.

Thank you for your comments, Pericynthion. As you admit to not doing so, it may be useful to read the thread carefully and also compare the seismic records to video evidence if you intend to carry on with this discussion.

You implied that "hundreds of thousands" of engineers agree with the official story though when asked for evidence of this, as suspected, you fall short. Silence or no comment does not constitute agreement and by no means does membership of a professional body automatically indicate agreement with publications of such an organisation. The bottom line is I can supply more credentials of construction professionals with accompanying quotes opposing NIST's 'investigation' than you can supply in its favour. Would you like to put that to the test? I didn't think so.



It doesn't take a biologist, veterinary surgeon or livestock farmer for me to claim that pigs do not have wings. Though if such a professional did make the claim of a flying pig, I am sure there would be fools who nodded in agreement as they queued to see it.



No, in the coin example you give there are multiple outcomes whereas the seismic reading I am concerned with is due to either chance or design only. Reduced seismic activity will produce a reduced reading 100% of the time, therefore removing the 19% probability this could be due to chance leaves the 81% probability it was due to a specific event reading.

That is a red herring. Nobody here is trying to say that the WTC couldn't support itself. If someone was to disagree with what you just said, they would have to say that the WTC never existed because it wasn't engineered to hold itself up. Therefore, since everyone here knows that the WTC held itself up just fine for nearly 30 years, it is probably safe to say that your explanation is not overly relevant.

Well then, how come it fell if the lower structures were carefully designed so as to prevent the building from collapsing under its own weight even before the building was finished?

The building was not engineered so as to prevent a collapse when the weight of the building above the impact points (16 floors in the case of WTC1 and 33 floors in the case of WTC2) with the momentum of gravity was suddenly upon it.

Let's take this a step further. How over-engineered do you think the floors of the WTC were? You have already implied that the relatively small metal fasteners which held up the 77th floor should have been able to actually hold up 33 more floor - even when those floors fell on top of it.

OK. Fair enough. But where do you draw the line? Do you think every floor of the WTC should be able to hold up 60 floors? 85 floors? 100 floors?

The point everyone misses about the floors ability to hold up weight is the simple fact that the designers of the WTC built it to withstand an impact with a plane. Even with the jet fuel burning it was not enough to weaken the structure. The main supports were still intact after the crash and as the world saw, the jet fuel went up in a fireball OUTSIDE the WTC on both crashes. To prove this look at the official footage of people appearing in the hole moments after the crash.

What makes alot of sense is the use of thermite which has been proven by a physicist/researcher and