Intentional Deception to start a war?

hmmmm.... how many times has history repeated itself?

Another popular technique to piss people off and start a war? Guantanamo Bay.

If you have not seen the pictures they didn't show on the mass media, trust me, the rest of the world was responsible enough to actually account for it happening.
America practically DENIES IT!! And the public was not shown the full scope for obvious reasons, it wasn't for them.

What can one say? It's yet another display of sheer brilliance, in a post by Czero.

I've come to expect no less.

Rest assured, Turbs, that your expectations of me mean about as much to me as my lack of any expectations of you mean to you.


Cz

What about the 2000 degree temperatures for weeks afterward???

how does a plane do that?

You must understand nearly EVERYTHING, loose change, the "truth" movement, 911 EVERYTHING, is Disinfo(being used to mislead)

how do they "trick" people into believing it? truth. plain and simple truth mixed with obvious errors so that it can be discredited.

Ive noticed that many different 911 "theories" have been raised, some due to the MASSIVE LACK OF EVIDENCE, as every "theory" shows, there are holes to plunder.

But, if the "truth" movement has a plant leading it, he will obviously lead them into a trap(as has been done), therefore they are discredited and people no longer listen to them. However, with every video, small snippets of truth shine through like diamonds...

Loose change showed how CRAPPY the overall evidence was, and touched on CIA operations involving "crashing planes into the WTC" Depicting it in many magazines and so forth.
The NIST report itself, ADMITS that it is not possible for a building like the WTC to collapse from "fire", just like the other tower and building 7.

It is... really... unintelligent to think that a building made from steel will cave due to fires...
Loose change again points out that NO BUILDINGS MADE WITH STEEL have EVER, i repeat EVER, been brought down by fire... even with EVERY FLOOR ON FIRE AND BURNING FOR 24+ hours, the STRUCTURE is ALWAYS LEFT.

This has NEVER happened before, but there's a catch.

The three buildings that were destroyed in 911, were the only buildings in history to have ever collapsed due to fire.

They know you get WHAT YOU ACCREDIT TO REALITY by watching "the news".
They know you are getting what YOU BELIEVE TO BE TRUTH SOLELY FROM THEM, and thus reality can be created.

Firefighter who did not see a plane
another person that did not see the plane you "saw"
impossible moving bridge...
Oddities, and a dead giveaway...
Audio and impossible angles

I said...

I've already mentioned that box-cutters can injure or kill someone. So can a corkscrew or scissors. But someone wielding a box-cutter/corkscrew/scissors is not going to subdue 20 or 30 people through intimidation. Your examples describe one-on-one incidents, where the perpetrator was able to threaten a single victim, at close range. Take a few seconds and Google "murder" with "corkscrew" or "scissors", and you'll find at least as many (and probably more) incidents using these "weapons", than there have been with box-cutters.



Because I took a few seconds to Google it, that's how. Try it for yourself, and you'll know it, too.




I agree, in general a slashing is more graphic, but less lethal, than a stabbing.



And that's my point - a box-cutter isn't going to scare 20-30 people into a state of cowering submission.



Sure. Just this morning, I nicked myself shaving !

But seriously, I'm sure you mean a severe slashing. No, I haven't seen it in person, only on TV news, etc. Some of it was very graphic footage. Have you seen it in person?

I said...

..even scissors are a better choice of weapon than box-cutters are.



You're claiming that scissors are only a better defensive weapon than box-cutters? Scissors (in general) are also a better offensive weapon than box-cutters.

You're also claiming that box-cutters are better than scissors "to scare people into being compliant". Neither of them are an effective weapon to scare people into compliance.

I said...

I've been in a couple of situations much more dangerous than this. When your survival is threatened, it (often) sparks an instinctive "fight or flight" response, and your adrenaline kicks in, big-time. Others may "freeze up" in fear, during the same situation.




LOL! Are you serious? How do you expect me to prove it, exactly? With a video? It may be difficult for you to believe, but nobody was toting a Handycam at the time!

Maybe you can "prove" that 19 hijackers took over the 4 planes on 9/11? Got any video evidence?

As for comparing situations, you're trying to move the goalposts, by bringing in the supposed Flt. 93 "passenger revolt" scenario. I was comparing the original 9/11 hijacker scenario, where (supposedly) the passengers were unaware of any plan to crash the planes. Don't try and claim now that Flt. 93 was the 9/11 hijacker situation being discussed and compared.

My situations were indeed much more dangerous than the 9/11 passengers' situation, as noted previously.

I said...

My instinctive response in both situations was to "fight". During one of these incidents, I noticed that a few people around me froze up in fear. There was no "flight" option.



No, they shot bullets. I temporarily lost the hearing in my left ear when a gun was fired a few inches away from my head. Take my word for it, a bomb threat would be the least of your worries at that point.

I said...

But you haven't mentioned the most important point...

Even if all the passengers and flight attendants cowered in fear from a few hijackers wielding box-cutters, there's no way in hell the pilot and co-pilot would give up control of their aircraft to them. To claim they did so, on 4 different planes, all on the same day, is so far beyond absurd that it's laughable.



You're still not getting it. No PILOTS had ever done this before! SOP has always been to never relinquish control of your aircraft during flight to anyone (including crazed terrorists).

Do you think there is a good reason why this SOP might be considered so important? If you know any commercial pilots, they can tell you - a pilot giving up control of his aircraft is likely no better off than if he'd gone and crashed the plane himself!

Compare 9/11 to similar hijacking incidents, such as El Al Flight 219. Two hijackers with guns and grenades threatened to shoot people, or blow up the plane, if the pilot didn't let them into the cockpit. The pilot refused, and sent the plane into a deep nosedive to fling the hijackers upside down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson%27s_Field_hijackings

The purported 9/11 hijackers didn't have guns. And even if they claimed to have bombs, none were ever seen.

The official story is utter nonsense. It would have been extremely difficult for the (supposed) hijackers to take over even one of the planes. But four planes? That's absolute crap!



Yes, that's the official story. Too bad it's pure fiction, with B-movie dialogue.



No.



Simply because there was no flight option.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with "trying to be a hero". The only way to fully understand that point is by going through such an ordeal yourself. It occurs in many combat situations, serious crimes, etc. It's purely instinct. You aren't thinking about getting The Congressional Medal Of Honor, or hoping you'll become a national hero, if you go out and do 'this' or do 'that'. But it's not easy for many people to believe that, because - as I said - it has to be experienced personally.



No, it's not a contradiction, As I said earlier, the pilot may as well crash the plane himself if he gives up control of the aircraft. The best chance of survival - for both crew and passengers - is by the pilot(s) keeping control of his aircraft (especially during the flight). The pilot(s) always takes the position that he (they) alone is (are) fully responsible for the lives of those onboard. A pilot would have to be killed first, before he'd ever give up control of the plane to a terrorist.



Missing the point here.

We've been discussing a scenario with hijackers wielding box-cutters, period. I pointed out that 20-30 people will not cower in utter fear and terror in such a situation. Not from box-cutters. They don't have to act like a herd of cattle if they believe their survival is at stake. And the pilot will not give up control of the aircraft, which is really the most relevant issue.

Actually, the entirety of the situation is being missed here.

It isn't a situation where 20 people are cowering in fear from a guy with a box cutter... it is a matter of ONE person cowering in fear from a guy with a box cutter. These were a bunch of INDIVIDUALS on a flight that were afraid to act alone... not a TEAM of people that could act in concert against a common enemy. With a team, one person could be expected to "take one for the team" and jump a razor-wielder, knowing he'd have the crap cut out of him - just so the rest of the team could bum-rush the bad guy and finally disarm him.

The folks on the planes were NOT a team.

There was only ONE plane that had the passengers form something of a team... Flight 93. The individuals got together under a leader and acted en masse. THEY were successful in preventing the hijackers to complete their mission.

As it wasn't my theory in the first place, there is at least one person who agrees. In the first link, he mentions his qualifications:
"In the 1990s I was involved professionally in this field, specifically in robotizing the management of electronic file tapes and in managing the UPS systems of a leading Italian banking group, so I am well acquainted with the safety problems and the physical and chemical characteristics of these batteries."
I've no idea how many people would support the idea, it isn't widely known, but the only adverse comments I've seen come from q24, whose ignorance of all branches of engineering is truly impressive for someone who persists in debating engineering issues, and keithisco, who appeared to misunderstand my initial post and has yet to reply to my clarification.
Is keithisco an electrical engineer? If so, what are his comments on my links?
http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/0...or-of-wtc2.html
http://www.calicorp.com/articles/batteries-hazards.html

Despite our disagreements being nothing to do with ignorance and everything to do with the official story's lack of evidence and failure to satisfactorily answer questions, if what you say above is true, I do appear to be in good company: -

“The short cut taken by NIST in relying upon this theoretical work, allowed them to avoid a continuation of their examination to include the physical evidence available from the collapse. Such a continuation would have shown many points of evidence which cannot be readily explained by a collapse whose initiation and progression was caused as a result of aircraft impact and subsequent fires.”
Gordon Ross, BSc ME, M.Eng – Mechanical Engineer

"The NIST investigation of the WTC building failures was extensive, but NIST did not substantiate its conclusions experimentally. On the contrary, many of NIST’s tests contradicted its conclusions. Furthermore, there are several examples in which NIST chose to manipulate input data, and then certify its findings based upon the inevitable conclusions that derive from the manipulated input. One finds little acknowledgement on the part of NIST that uncertainties in its simulations translate into uncertainties in its findings.”
Eric Douglas – Registered Architect

“Upon reviewing the work of Prof. Jones, Jim Hoffman, and others, as well as NIST reports: my opinion is that these "collapses" could not have happened without the use of some sort of explosive, barring repeal of laws of physics!”
John Mizzi, B EE, PE – Licensed Professional Engineer

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.”
James Quintiere - Professor of Fire Protection Engineering

“I have carefully studied the Jones 2006 paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" and concluded that it is a rational step-by-step study that meets the accepted standards for scientific building research. His critical reviews of the FEMA, NIST, and 9/11 Commission reports are correct.”
J. Marx Ayres, BS ME, MS ME, PE – Mechanical Engineer

“The aircraft impact and fire severity effects were magnified in the NIST reports.”
“We will find that the government investigations into building collapse [at the World Trade Center] must consider controlled demolition as far more probable since fire effects collapse could never be duplicated. ...”
Edward S. Munyak, BS ME, MS Eng. Mgmt., PE – Licensed Professional Mechanical Engineer and Fire Protection Engineer

“In addition the NIST report in relation to collapse initiation is faulty and opposes the known material properties of structural grade steel and the associated heat transfer processes.”
Christopher Backus, BS ME – Senior Product Design Engineer

“When you’re ready to accept the fact that we still have a vital need for the truth, a good way of examining the many important facts NIST ignored, and considering what could have really happened in New York City, is to read Steven Jones’ historic paper.”
Kevin Ryan, BS Chem – Certified Quality Engineer
*Mr. Ryan was fired by Underwriters Laboratories 5 days after sending a letter to a NIST scientist pointing out inconsistencies in the NIST report on the causes of the building collapses at the World Trade Center and asking for clarification.

“And, in contrast to the Report's voluminous detail about the plane crashes, fires, and loss of life, it makes no attempt to characterize or explain the demolition-like features of the collapses -- such as their explosiveness, pulverization, verticality and nearly free-fall rapidity -- except for two sentences in a half-page section added to the Final Report to address criticisms of the Draft. NIST simply avoids these troublesome issues by placing them outside the scope of its investigation, claiming that "global collapse" was "inevitable" after the "initiation of collapse."”
Jim Hoffman, MFA – Software Engineer and Research Scientist

“The NIST and FEMA reports do not explain the collapse of WTC 7.”
Jon Jensen, BSc Physics – R&D Engineer, Aerospace Test Engineer, Manufacturing Engineer and Engineering Technician

The best chance of survival of the passengers and crew is for the pilots to do what the hijackers tell them. The pilots did not know the hijackers would take over flying the planes - pretty much every hijacking before 9/11 involved the pilots remaining in control of the aircraft, but flying and landing where the hijackers told them to. Once into the cockpit, having a knife at your throat is pretty good reason to get out of your seat or the hijackers could have straight out killed the pilots without any warning.

So - we both agree that the pilots would do best for the safety of the passengers and crew. My argument is that the pilots would allow the hijackers in to the cockpit because there's no reason to believe the hijackers would not allow the pilots to continue to safely control the plane to whatever destination they demanded. Doing so would also prevent the death of the crew who's life was being directly threatened by the people demanding access to the cockpit and also would stop them from carrying out the threat of exploding a bomb on board. Your argument is the pilots would ignore the hijackers, allow one of thier colleague's throats to be cut, allow any other passenger then to be taken and killed next, and possibley infuriate the hijackers to explode a bomb killing everyone on board.

Did you read the link you gave about the El Al flight where the pilot fought back? That link gave details about FIVE hijackings - four of which were successfull, where the hijackers gained access to the cockpit and the pilots did what they were told. Seriously - you say "A pilot would have to be killed first, before he'd ever give up control of the plane to a terrorist", you say it's impossible the four aircraft on 9/11 could have been hijacked and as proof you give a link which shows four aircraft being successfully hijacked?!

And the El Al flight is an example where one crew member on the flight deck DID want to do what the hijackers said, but the captain took a quick decision (overriding what his standard procedure told him he should have done). The whole incident was only prevented from being a much bigger bloodbath by there being an armed sky marshall on board and pure luck that a hand grenade did not explode!


As Malruhn pointed out, ever single person is an individual and would have to make that decision on their own. And as I pointed out in my previous point they would have to take that decision to take on four guys with knives without any knowledge that anyone else will help. And again you are ignoring the issue of seeing soneone being killed already and the threat of a bomb.

It's interesting you point out what people will do if they believe their survival is at stake. Of course the thing with a knife is, unless that person is right next to you your survival is NOT at stake. It's a lot more at stake if you try to attack them. And if someone has a bomb (or you think they do), then, again, you'd better be close to them and know how to disarm that bomb because otherwise running to attack them is just putting your survival at more risk. Ultimately, before 9/11 when the most likely thing to happen was the flight would be diverted and LAND SAFELY (where, if you wanted to overcome your attackers is a much safer place), the best thing for your survival is NOT to fight back.

You just reminded me... Daniel Lewin, a former officer of the Sayeret Matkal, an Israeli intelligence unit noted for dealing with counter-terrorism, was on Flight 11. He was sitting right next to the hijackers and the official story says he was killed when trying to intervene in the takeover. Not only Israeli intelligence on the ground you see ifisurvive; they were in the air too.

You're confusing two different situations. I'll explain this below...



No, the issue is control of the aircraft, not who is telling the pilot where to fly the plane.



A pilot doing what he is told is as entirely different thing than a pilot relinquishing control of his aircraft.



As I said, pilots are still in control of the plane if hijackers are telling them where to fly the plane. I'm well aware of such incidents as you describe taking place previously. But again, that is entirely different than a pilot relinquishing control of the aircraft.



Again, the relevant issue here is that the pilot did not give up control of the plane.



I agree with you here. I referred to this in my quote you've posted above.

Thinking you're going to be Rambo Jr. and be a national hero would be complete lunacy in the 9/11 situation described earlier (not Flt. 93).

My situations, as I said, were completely different than this. My survival (along with everyone else there) was indeed at stake.

My points regarding the box-cutters are that they are a poor choice of weapon, that they would not make 20-30 people cower in fear, and that they would not make the pilot give up control of his aircraft.

Like I say, ignorant of engineering, all you can do is cherry-pick quotes. You can't understand the errors that the likes of Hoffman, Ross and Ryan put into their arguments. You neglect the fact that others like Quintiere may express doubt about the NIST report, but that doesn't mean that they think controlled demolition was a possibility.
Incidentally, from this link:
http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/facts/mm/02_03/feb.cfm
"Jim Quintiere, professor of fire protection engineering, said the thickness of the surviving fire insulation in the World Trade Center towers, rather than the destruction of insulation during impact, explained why the towers collapsed when they did. The U.S. National Institute of Technology will soon be testing the theory."

They may not consider the CD theory the most probable theory, or may not even rank it in their 'top 10' collapse theories.

But on what valid basis would they simply rule out the CD theory as a possibility?

They can't, unless they can prove conclusively why it isn't possible.

wow... some people dont know ANYTHING!!!

controlled demolition...

yep... look at wtc 7... did you see it? no? well then your isht out of luck.

Apart from the sheer implausibility of someone prepping an occupied building for CD without anyone noticing, or of a CD system working after being hit by an aircraft and exposed to a fire, there's the complete absence of any evidence for CD - the lack of acoustic or seismic data from immediately before the collapses, no reports of explosive damage to the recovered steel, no nitrate residues, no witness reports of the smell of explosives even. The thermite/thermate theory gets around the acoustic/seismic problem, but is in even worse a position otherwise, with no plausible theory of how thermite could cut large columns, and again no residue (barium).

You made the claim you support it.






And it's the blood that causes hesitation.



Skin color can make people cower in submission, the right tone of voice can make people cower in submission, but a weapon that can do serious physical harm can't. No, you're wrong.





Yep. Unless you nick an artery a stab wound isn't going to cause much blood flow. Seeing a hard slash leaving meat hanging and a lot of blood causes problems for most people



Yes they are.



So you and yours were so threatened, in a situation much more dangerous than the victims aboard those flights, there was no flight option so you handled it yourself and didn't file a police report, and managed to get out unharmed (Well unharmed enough you didn't need medical attention.)




Aside from the phone calls, and cockpit recordings?



... I didn't bring 93 up... Even if I did it would be moving the goalposts though. The passengers on other three planes though they had the option of waiting it out like every other hijacking the passengers of 93 found out what was happening and that gave them the courage to revolt.


No they weren't and its laughable (in a sad way)that you would think so.





So what were the other attackers doing? They just stood and waited patiently for you to finish them off one by one?

Oh, and just so you know, NO, you weren't in as much danger as the people on those flights even if your story is true.



You're still not getting it. Pre 9/11 it wasn't uncommon to leave the cockpit door unlocked. Hell sometimes they left it open. Do you think a hijacker bent on using a plane as a weapon is going to be polite and ask the pilot to please give up his seat?



... Comparing a flight from El AL to 9/11. A flight from a country that has to deal with terrorist acts FAR more than the US has. FAR more hijackings. Wow...



No, it's not.





Prove it.

You believe that a passport can survive a plane impact and magically fall to the ground intact. Then you believe this is actual "evidence" that said person was a "hijacker" on the plane that exploded... leaving PAPER untouched by FIRE...

STEEL DOESN'T BURN OR MELT until 2000 degrees, the WTC steel was graded for almost 3000. Kerosene burns up very quickly, and it takes 45 MINUTES for STEEL to get to a melting point IF THE TEMPERATURE IS OVER 2000 DEGREES for that time.

A plane... simply cant do that, and it is blatantly obvious. It is also blatantly obvious the WHOLE 911 coverage was BS.

Populace control means you can make war whenever you want, and if you think this war on "terrorism" is anything more than a populace control technique so the people wont revolt, you have fallen for their game, and it is YOUR FAULT. But, trust me, reality is much better than fantasy.

You're confusing "possibility" with "probability". Is it possible for a passport to survive a airliner crash? Certainly... many times at crash sites there are lots of personal items that are left essentially "unscathed". Is it probable for that one particular passport to have survived the crash? Yes it is probable in the sense that it is not possible to entirely rule out the fact that is could happen, but the likelihood of it happening is extremely low.



Raw iron melts at about 2800 degrees F. Refined steel melts at about 2500 - 2700 degrees F, depending on the type of steel. However, steel starts to lose its structural stability and load bearing strength at far less temperatures.



Correct... A plane, alone, with no other contributing factors, should not be able to do that. However, given that the plane itself was not the only contributing factor in this case, it is obvious to some, with the available evidence taken into account, that the events happened exactly as reported, just as it is "obvious" to some, despite a lack of conclusive evidence, that there must have been some kind of conspiracy at work.


Cz

Yes. You remember those huge fireballs from the towers? Have you seen those pics of paper littering the streets?



Steel weakens at far lower temperatures though. Centuries of blacksmiths know this.



Yes it can.



No, reality tends to be boring, which is why people, play MMORPGs, or D&D, or LARPs, or dream up fantasies of shadowy cabals controlling the masses and keeping them in a Matrix like "false world.

Yes. As well as the wallets with currency, credit cards, jewelry, purses, even mail that was eventually delivered. And this seat cushion from one of the planes
http://www.pbase.com/peteburke73/image/1459719/large
Small pieces of debris often survive plane crashes or similar disasters. You didn't hear much about the other fragile items recovered because finding Joe Nobody's Blockbuster card isn't nearly as newsworthy as a passport from a perpetrator.
After the Columbia disaster they found mission patches and even some live worms from one of the experiments.
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts10...rms_030501.html


I believe it wasn't even needed as evidence as their identities were established through other means.

As the terrorists were in the cockpit of the airliner, going over 600mph, why is it so impossible that damaged, yet unburnt, items (such as a passport) might have been carried though the glass and plaster dividing walls ahead of the resultant fireball. The fuel exploded out of the opposite side of the impact, showing that the momentum impelled the kerosene through the structure, before it oxidized.

The point is anyone who believes the official story should go and check themselves into a mental institution.

You ACTUALLY ADMIT to believing that this is evidence against the "hijacker", you believe "paper" survived an explosion that "melted" steel...

You believe that Satam Al Suqami was on flight 11... and he is alive to this day.

Yes the same "hijacker" who's face was there for you(among the other 19) to hate for killing innocent americans... never did a thing.

Who's reality is skewed when this is what you attest to "truth"? Or "Rational".

WTF.

Turbs, I am a bit confused about what your argument is as you seem to be agreeing with a lot of my points and not really arguing your case apart from repeating your disbelief.

I’m still unsure of why you are still pushing the 20-30 people thing. The passengers are sitting in rows of seats, unarmed, the hijackers standing up with knives (however feeble you think them to be) that gives them immediate advantage. At the initial point of hijack, your 20-30 people would be scattered about an aircraft. Many would be blocked by other passengers and/or in a window seat so would have to climb over seats just to stand up and/or would have to run down a narrow aisle in order to reach the hijackers. So that reduces your 20-30 to 4 or so who would have reasonable access to attack. For each of those people remaining their ‘fight/flight’ mechanism would have to overcome their initial shock of what’s happened, the realisation that they would have to take on (again, with no knowledge that anyone else would help) multiple men with knives, endangering themselves and possibly others, when sitting in their seat would be the safest option. That’s if the ‘fight/flight’ mechanism kicked in, as we discussed knives not pointed straight at them wouldn’t necessarily do so. Add on top of that, if the hijackers had grabbed someone and held a knife to their throat, which would reduce someone’s desire to attack further (in fear the person would be killed by their actions). Add on top of that if someone had already been killed (seeing someone murdered, blood everywhere), that would reduce the likelihood again. Add on top of that if the hijackers shouted they had a bomb it would be even more reduced.

Once the initial shock is over and the hijackers have control of the plane the passengers would be able to group together more and build up courage. But by then an off-putting bomb threat (which you keep ignoring) would be easily established. And the belief that they would soon be safely landing would prevent any immediate group attacks. So what is your argument?

You agree (and have provided proof in a link you have provided) that pilots would allow the hijackers into the cockpit; you just think that once they had done so they would not allow them to take control of flying the aircraft – what is your argument here?! The hijackers do not have to politely ask the pilots to do anything, they have knives - they can kill the pilots (you've alreay agreed, and links have proved box cutters can kill). If you cannot imagine how they could have taken over the plane you must have a very limited imagination. Logically, on entering the cockpit one pilot would be at the door, the other at the controls. One pilot could have been removed from the cockpit (and either killed or just moved away, with the belief the other pilot would still be in control), and then the other pilot killed. Or both pilots could have been asked to sit in their seats and then killed from behind. Or even if the hijackers immediately burst in and attacked the first pilot he would be killed quickly and the second pilot would have little time to do anything and would have to climb awkwardly out of his seat before being able to defend himself from multiple attackers with knives. Are any of these scenarios unrealistic to you – why is any of this so ‘unimaginable’ to you?

No. The critical supports could only be seen and accessed by authorized personnel. The elevator shafts had sealed access doors, restricted to office workers.

You investigate the actual evidence first, and follow that to wherever it leads you. You don't begin by speculating on what would be required to collapse it by a CD. If the evidence leads you to a CD, then it doesn't matter how difficult it would have been to prep the explosives.



Same as above. You go where the evidence takes you, to find out the cause(s) of collapse. If the evidence shows a CD, then you can speculate on the technical details involved in the CD.



Wrong.



No, there is seismic data which shows the greatest spikes occurred at the initiation of the collapse - before the debris had even started to hit the ground.



They never searched for steel with explosive damage! They only looked for steel which fit in with their pre-determined theory a of fire / impact damage collapse. Steel which didn't meet this criteria was never sought out or collected.



Same as above. They never looked for nitrate residues, or any other evidence of explosives, in the steel.



There were hundreds of witness reports of the sound of explosives, including many firefighters inside and nearby the buildings.



Superthermite has been cited as a plausible source for cutting columns. Such residue (as I said) was never sought out by NIST's steel recovery team.

But Steven Jones does have physical evidence of thermite residue - several samples.

The CD theory of collapse has a wealth of valid supporting evidence. It can't simply be dismissed or ignored.

So that would be the majority of th world?



Yes
http://nancyandjackrudolph.com/Sept.%2011,...termath%202.jpg

I
http://www.petrifiedtruth.com/archives/WTC_firefighters.jpg

Do.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...l%3Den%26sa%3DG
A whole lot of paper in those pics.



One of my best friends is named Jim Brown. Yet he's White... And he never played professional Football!... and he's only 34!!!! How is this possible!?!?!?!


Yours is.

I told you how to prove it to yourself, by Googling it. Do you need me to Google it for you in person, because it's beyond your ability?



What's that supposed to mean? That 20-30 white people cowered in fear whenever James Earl Jones came in the room and said something?

You forgot to take your meds again, didn't you?



Prove it.



Correct.



Cite your sources for this.



It only reveals your sheer ignorance when you start making idiotic claims regarding events you know absolutely nothing about. It's quite pathetic.



If you ever grow up and show some sign of maturity, I'll be more than happy to discuss the details with you...



...but I really doubt you ever will.



You seem to think a pilot will politely give up control of his plane to a hijacker wielding a box-cutter.



Prove it.

The sheer irony of you, of all people, making this statement, Turbs, is just incredible, since this seems to be what you do on an amazingly regular basis....


Cz

Obviously...



Let me get this straight... the "hijacker's" passport was... found... among those thousands upon thousands of sheets of paper that were obviously not in the original blast zone where a plane with full fuel tanks EXPLODED reaching temperatures of 1500+ degrees... especially right between the wings, where the blast from BOTH TANKS EXPLODING SIMULTANEOUSLY reached eachother.

So needle in a haystack + impossible physics + invincible paper + same "hijacker" is alive still. Yeah, i stand by "check yourself into a mental institution".



no comment.

So all the authorized personnel, ie the building maintenance staff, were in on it?

Which is why I mentioned the lack of evidence.

Have you actually looked at the seismic evidence? It looks nothing like you claim:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html

And none of the thousands of people who participated in the clean-up would have recognized explosive damage?

Same as above.

Do you expect a burning building to be silent, of course there were sounds like explosions. It's evidence of explosives that is missing.

And has this method ever been demonstrated on the scale of a building column?

He has sulphur, which happens to be a common constituent of everyday materials, but no barium, which is much less common.

It has nothing, so that is why it is ignored.

Sometimes, you sit down to your keyboard to construct a rational response... and then you decide...

... it's just not worth the effort.

You brought up the claim you support it.




Nope. It means exactly what it says.




http://archive.thisislancashire.co.uk/1999/11/23/749820.html
http://www.cnn.com/US/9708/27/crips.bloods/
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0050,gonn...2a,20625,1.html



uh-huh.





http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Ameri...1_-_Phone_calls
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Unite...3_-_Phone_calls
Note that they cite their sources too.





Pot, meet kettle. Or are you now going to claim you been on a plane that was hijacked and you bravely fought back saving the passengers?




Uh-huh.




No, I think they didn't have a choice.





http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

So, are you going to prove the story is "absolute crap"?

Better get to work on that then.



They explain it quite well here.
http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html



See above. Oh, and also this.
http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html





Do you believe that only in the western world can two different people have the same name?

Hmmm, maybe I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here, but before any detailed analysis of seismic charts goes back and forth I thought I'd raise it...

Turbs, from my understanding of what you're saying you think the greatest seismic reading happens at the point of collapse (indicating explosives going off), then further but lesser seismic readings happen as the building starts to fall and impacts the ground?

Before the collapse of the first tower things were relatively quiet and thousands of people were observing. If, just before the tower collapsed, there was an explosive event more violent than than one of the largest buildings in the world falling to the ground, do we not think that every single person watching, everyone within a mile or so listening distance and every camera filming that day would have noticed it?

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.

Now the important part. Between the initiation of collapse and the 10s mark in the figure, this is where the upper block falls through its own height. This area shows minor activity/spikes and actually calms just before the 10s mark. This is what I would expect to see if the momentum of the upper block was actually slowing.

The remainder of the collapse from the 10s mark leading up to the first debris reaching the ground shows increased activity. There are a series of well spaced spikes that I have marked out with red dots. It is this area that seems to be indicative of explosives used to continue the collapses after the thermite initiated fall of the upper block.

The same observations can be made of the WTC2 collapse, with initial activity of the upper block followed by nearly one second of calm before a series of larger spikes.

As well as confirming the near freefall collapse time of approximately 10-14 seconds, the above also fits with the demolition process I have previously stated: -

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

It now appears I can add seismic evidence as supportive of the third step.

There's a calm point later in the middle of your 'explosive' spikes, after your spikes, in the middle of the main collapse. And the first collaspe graph is far more random.

Unless you are technically trained in analysing seismographs or have an odd hobby looking at them regularly I would be amazed if you 'expect' to see anything. Realistically you are intepreting the data based on your belief of the events - the graphs could look any of a dozen different ways and you would still be able to say the same thing. Similarly anyone not believing the CD theory could come up with a reason for any part of the graph looking like it does, say they 'expect' it to look like that and it would have equal worth.


The part you identify as the top collapsing is a series of well spaces spikes as well, I'm not sure why you find the later ones so indicative. Are you suggesting your eight dots indicate eight big explosions, as that wouldn't make a lot of sense? They would have to be pretty huge explosions. The spikes are about the same size or even larger than the spikes caused by the airline's impacting and resulting exposions. That would be a lot more observable than the puffs coming from the building you believe to be squibs.

If you're just saying you think general explosions are going on at this point I don't know what your argument is. How big do your explosives have to be to take out columns / how many? How is the graph indicative of this happening and not just the graph or a large building collapsing? What's your interpretation of the graph after your eight spikes?


To be fair I think, so far, "It now appears, even though I have no training or experience to justify it, I can interpret seismic evidence as I please and without any compelling arguments in order to verify any pre-conceived opinions I already have, even if relevant seismographic experts disagree with me." seems more accurate.

Some Basics

No. Only authorized personnel had access to these areas. What in the world makes you think that every one of them had to be involved? Get a grip.



The steel was removed from Ground Zero at lightning speed. They looked for survivors in the rubble. There wasn't any time to browse through the steel.

The actual steel recovery was at the Fresh Kills landfill site. They searched / retrieved only the steel that met the list of specific criteria they were given.

Nobody was looking for - or retrieving - any steel that didn't meet those specific criteria. Do you actually think they would have retrieved all sorts of steel they weren't even looking for in the first place? They couldn't even find any steel that DID meet their criteria!!



There were multiple explosions heard before the collapses even began. Those are not the sounds created by a burning building.



He has much more than sulfur, and he also explains why no barium is required. You'd know that if you took the time to read his papers.

Maybe you'd also like to try and tell me how much more you know about my personal experiences than I do?

Pretend you know what really happened, since I was only there, and you weren't.

Your posts have become a sheer waste of time and space, so what's the harm if you add one more onto the smelly heap?

Any maintenance man might need to look behind the walls at any time. Unless the lot of them were in on it, what's to stop an innocent one stumbling on the charges?

Ground Zero took months to clear, and engineers were looking at the evidence before it was cleared to Fresh Kills. They included CD experts who would have recognised the evidence for a CD if it had been there:
http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Hea...R/20011001b.asp

What makes you think that nothing in a burning building can explode, or break with an explosion-like sound. get a grip.

Must be new since the last time I bothered to look. Got a link?

In the official story, the collapses are one continuous movement, gaining momentum from the initiation – thus the supposed reason for minor resistance and near freefall. If this were the case, there should equally be continuous activity levels throughout the collapse (between the first and second red lines before debris begins impacting the ground). That the calm section, just prior to the 10s mark, coincides with the end of the upper block fall before increased activity resumes, appears indicative of a transition phase from one method of collapse to another.



I understand we could interpret the fall of the upper block, between the first red line and 10s mark, as a series of spikes. There is though no doubt that after the calm section and 10s point, the spikes are both sharper and larger.

Yes, I am saying the spikes marked with dots could be in part indicative of demolition charges and agree they show approximately equivalent seismic activity to the airliner impacts. The airliners crudely severed some columns and the demolition charges would more efficiently cut many columns so the equivalent readings are reasonable. The charges detonating would be focussed on columns and at the central core area of the Tower. As demolition charges do not contain gallons of jet fuel and would not be at the building perimeter, there is no reason whatsoever they should be visually comparable to the airliner impacts. The visible squibs though could well be indicative of the pressure wave these charges create.



I am not suggesting general explosions; I am suggesting demolition charges with the force to cut the main columns of the core structure. Precisely how many were required I could only speculate on without knowing the full building details but the charges are not particularly large in relation to the column at all - see photograph here.

After the eight spikes, we can see the activity levels reducing back to that of the initial upper block fall as what is remaining of the devastated structure breaks up. There is additional disturbance in the reading here that would be indicative of the first lighter debris impacting the ground. Obviously after the last red line where the largest activity begins is where the main debris of an approximately half million ton building starts impacting the ground.