firefighter engineering had quite a bit to say about the botched investigation and the reason for preserving evidence is one that the former prosecutor ghoulianni would have known for sure-- so quite trying to make up excuses for nist's lack of credibility it wasnt "collecting steel" it was preserving evidence and they did more than fail they absconded justice


WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse

As you mentioned, we have been over the other points ad nauseam but the following is too amusing to leave: -


And so official story followers should be embarrassed for gossiping about how complete building collapses are ‘oh so expected’ then completely failing to describe the process in the case of WTC7. The “domino” collapse theory you have vaguely described explains nothing and indeed if you attempted to put a timeline of progressive failure on WTC7 you would find that it simply does not fit. How can you promote an idea with no hint of a plausible theory?

Controlled demolition can clearly explain the WTC7 collapse in various ways. One possibility is that charges weakening the building throughout caused the structure below the penthouse to fail followed by low-level thermite charges to initiate the building collapse.

Got your note, thanks.

I need to do some reading. Mind you, my information is based on the Commission report and a couple of other sources. As stated in the report, bad information was flying wild that morning. The POUS had relayed engagement authority to the VP, who relayed it down the line (there were some conflicting chain of command issues as well, and air event conference problems). The NEADS did NOT relay this to the pilots as they were uncertain as to where it came from, and sought authentication. In any event, they were heading towards DC with the Langley birds (under no-fire ROE, rules of engagement), chasing what they (NEADS) were being told was AA11, when the AA757 hit the Pentagon. The pilots did not know what their mission was, and had been given no target, just a hurry to DC vector. Meanwhile, 2 F-16s from Andrews had been scrambled, NOT by NORAD and NOT under NORAD control, to protect the White House. These were "scrambled" by Secret Service, controlled by I don't know who (ATC?). This is bizzare, and completely against the idea of unified command. These birds were apparently going on "weapons free" (authorized to engage non responsive aircraft, gotten through a parallel command chain) vs the "weapons hold" ROE of the Langley/NORAD birds at that time (from NEADS, who had also been sent "free" ROE, but was verifying it).
I'm thinking the "orders still stand" was not a stand down (as fighters were already airborne), but for engagement ROE.
Either way, the NORAD birds were never in position to stop any of the attacks. They may have been able to stop the ill-fated Shanksville 757 had in continued inbound, had the identification and track information been passed to them and the ROE snafu been sorted out. But the idea of a fighter taking down an airliner is not taken lightly, and would have taken some time, ascertaining the situation and the threat in a timely fashion.
One other thing. The NORAD brass cocked it up big time in their reconstruction of that days events. Whether through CYA or just bad data, they claimed an intercept ability that they did not have-their assets were totally late and out of position. The data coming from the FAA was confused and often incorrect. There were procedural snafus (Langley birds heading to the offshore area in absence of any target data).

Apparently, NORAD started getting assets after the fact, and other armed fighters started showing up from non-alert, non-NORAD bases. Whether these flights were "self armed and launched" and went to NORAD when aloft, or were OPCON'd to NORAD fron the start, I don't know, But it was too late then anyway.

As I said, most of this is from the Commission reconstruction, and it all makes sense. If Cheney was confirming a "stand-down" order, he had 4-6 "renegades" airborne who didn't get the word.
And finally, no armed alert fighters were airborne for whatever regional or local exercise activities might have been going on. I can only think that the exercise went by the wayside very quickly. The NEADS certainly went real world in just a few seconds, in response to the non-standard call from the FAA center.
Having worked years in the Cheyenne Mtn Air Defense Center and Command Center, I can only wonder what was happening there that morning.

Hey, in all fairness, i think that anyone who is going to accuse the government of doing horrible things to their own citizens needs to do a little research on a website other than a conspiracy blog. and yes, i am mainly talking to zaus at this moment. because i'm not on this thread all that often, i can't really quote anyone or respond all that well. yeah, i know that the government has assassinated people and stuff like that, but when clinton was in office he went after al-Quaeda right after the first attack on the world trade centers. anyone who believes that our government supports al-Quaeda raise their hands. Anyone? Zaus, put your hand down. yes, i'm talking to you.

Yes, whilst perhaps “stand down” taken literally is not the best description, I think you nail here what the “orders” were - rules of engagement. As NORAD were apparently not authorised to shoot down targets until after Flight 93 crashed, this would imply the “orders” the Vice President mentions are specifically not to attempt engagement of the incoming Flight 77.



Or are you saying whilst NORAD had not been issued with shoot down orders, the Secret Service had?

Has anyone (looking at no one in particular *ahem* ) yet suggested that they brought down the Twin Towers using something developed by Tesla? Just give it time, and someone ( ) will, I bet.

pfft.... here are the facts--

9/11 Stand Down
www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ELS305A.html
by Mark Ellis
Exposing NORAD's "Wag the 911 Window Dressing Tale", using NORAD’s own Press Release and Fifth Grade Math

....MORE

Sunofone, have you looked at the 9/11 commission report, or are you simply dismissing it sight unseen?
The link you posted in interspersed with fact and fiction. Hijacks in the US were virtually nonexistant in many years prior to 9/11. Yes, there were procedures for responding to a hijacking, and they were onerous to say the least, assuming a "cooperative" situation. They were not followed due to confusion and lack of knowledge by the FAA folks. The first word came through completely unofficial channels and, based on the very vague information, Otis F-15s were placed on battle stations, a very specific posture. This was NOT a confirmed hijacking at this point, they were not scrambled at this point. There was no information, no target. You don't want to launch fighters and have them burning gas and endurance chasing ghosts. The actual communications chain goes up channel to FAA HQ, to the National Command Authorities, through JCS to NORAD down to the region...very time consuming. Never before had hijacked planes stopped squawking, stopped takling, changed course and run into skyscrapers. With no good comms, confusion was rampant and only the inadvertant transmission by the hijackers pretty well nailed down the hijack for the controller, who didn't know the correct process to get things rolling. There were other coordination and communications along the way.

The bolded part was just nonsense. The top speeds listed are the unclassified, clean top speed. With tanks, missiles and any hope of a reasonable endurance, fighters will not be blasting along in full 'burner with their hair on fire. The engines become akin to "rocket motors" in afterburner, with a matching fuel consumption rate. The real world is not nearly as "gee whiz" as TV would make you believe.

For Q24, I need to check on the timing of the ROE discussion between the POUS and VP, but I understand it was shortly after the VP was "propelled" from his desk to the bunker by the Secret Service. Then, the comms through the SecFef was fouled up, with him out on the lawn doing rescue stuff (nice thought, but not his mission, he had more pressing duties). As for the Andrews birds having the weapons free ROE with the NORAD birds still on weapons cold (having not being passed the weapons free order by NEADS), that was from the report. I need to see what was the deal with those Andrews planes, they were not being worked by NORAD I don't think, there was a seperate NCA chain going on there. Seemed the best situational awareness in the DC area was between Reagan Natl Tower and the Secret Service. NORAD only knew enough to get their Langley birds pointed towards DC after their detour to the offshore warning area, and they thought they were driving them towards AA11, based on nebulous and confusing FAA inputs.

It wasn't a good day, we were caught completely unprepared for the rapidly unfolding and unprecedented events that morning. The air defense system wasn't postured for it, the FAA had never experienced anything like it, softaware failures, confused communications. The response was just too late, but not due to sinister intent. Situational awareness just took a day off...

Hey, don't confuse someone who knows the Facts™ with the facts.

And who holds the ™ in the first place? surely not the individual, WE DONT HAVE MONEY, THEY DO.

The Commission Report alleges a shootdown order was confirmed between Bush and Cheney at around 10:18am. The “order” that Mineta was witness to was in place before his arrival at the PEOC at 09:20am. Of course, the Commission Report says that Cheney did not even arrive at the PEOC until 09:58am therefore implying the events in Mineta's account could never have occurred. Either the Commission or Minetta got this wrong.

Then even if Cheney has made the decision himself on a shootdown prior to 09:20am I find it completely unbelievable, bearing in mind Major General Arnold's testimony, that these orders would have taken over 45 minutes to reach NORAD.

I await with anticipation your response mrbusdriver, of precisely what Cheney’s “the orders still stand” was likely in reference to. Apparently though, the only conclusion is that this was a specific “do not engage/shootdown” order.

You haven't replied to my question, Zaus, so I'll post it again:



I'm not trying to attack your claims or anything, just trying to get the facts straight while still keeping an open mind.

Actually, normal peacetime ROE defaults to just that, "tail#/type", no orders need be given. It's the authorization to fire on a civilian craft (or anything else for that matter) that would require a specific NCA order. So an order not to fire from the President would not make sense...it's a given.
Going to run over and have a peek at the report, the ROE/NCA part gets pretty confused. Frankly, I'm not sure what orders those would be. The engagement order was discussed between POUS/VP while the VP was in the tunnel enroute the bunker IIRC. Mineta wasn't there in the small group.
Be back...

Yes, generally I agree. There are ways a “do not engage/shootdown” order could make sense though. For instance, the officers updating Cheney on the airliner's approach the Pentagon… is it possible they requested shootdown authority? After Cheney had replied negative, it would then be quite reasonable for the officer to later ask “do the orders still stand?”



Again I agree, though this is further confirmation a shootdown order had not been given at the time of the events described by Mineta.



Do you ever feel this “order” is one of those issues the 9/11 Commission Report should have investigated and clearly detailed? Why was the Commission misleading about Cheney's initial time of arrival at the PEOC? Why did Cheney not testify under oath to the Commission? Why would he only testify alongside Bush? Why was he not questioned specifically on Mineta’s account? Why are the answers to these questions not immediately available to us?

I notice that desperate people in a debate will dishonestly attempt to fictionalise the argument and misrepresent what the other side is saying rather than dealing with the real issues and evidence cited.

Stick to the subject, please.

Interesting. The Commission report gives a pretty detailed timeline of events, and Mineta's account doesn't fit. I'd like to read some of the other key player testimony. There is no mention of Mineta in the shelter, but that doesn't mean anything. I have no idea what order he was talking about, unless it was an hour later.

Some observations after wading through this mess...

The shelter was not communicating directly with NORAD. They were getting second hand info from the Secret Service who was getting it from a contact at the FAA. The data was not reliable. ROE direction was being passed to NMCC from the shelter. Where/how it went from there, I'm not certain. Passed via the Air Event/Threat Conference? There was an action message sent from CONR CC with the ROE to the NEADS, very late in the game.
The first inbound (80 miles etc) was based on "coasting" data of UAL93...it had crashed and the data tag was extrapolating along the last good information. It was a "ghost", relayed by FAA contact to Secret Service in the shelter. The VP appears to have confirmed the shootdown order 3 times as the phantom approached. No assets were CAP'ed over, or even near DC at the time.
Another track, same information chain, pops up 5-10 miles out. VP confirms engage ROE. Turns out to be medivac chopper. No air assets to respond.
The VP was relaying the ROE but no one was overhead to do anything with them. The NORAD fighters were heading inbound from the hold in the offshore warning airspace, and the Andrews fighters got airborne 15 minutes after the helicopter radar appearance. UA93 was a hole in the ground with no fighters remotely nearby. The Andrews fighters were apparently scrambled by the Secret Service guy in the shelter, who the Andrews fighter commander was forwarded to after freelancing an offer to support the DC defense. Not sure of the chain of events at Andrews leading up to this ad hoc scramble, arming up etc. I seem to recollect an account of fighters running on each other that day, this may explain that with different sets of fighters under different control agencies. (Maybe Andrews was operating "autonomously" on CAP?)

A lot of questions and missing details, not sure what the Mineta discrepency is about. The timing is way off.

Multiple, parallel chains of command, inaccurate/misleading target info, lousy/informal lines of communications. "Improvised" is a good description...

NORAD got the ROE from an action message from CONR CC at/after 1031, but did not immediately relay it to the pilots. The Andrews fighters, under Secret Service/whoever scramble got the ROE fom their commander, who got it from the Secret Service guy in the shelter, with the VP. How it was "authenticated" is a question.

Really messy.

Sorry i missed your last post, and true it is, he wasn't found alive, but seriously here who has less cred? The guy who got 1 guy's name wrong, or the governmental agencies that got 7 people's names wrong, if not all of them?

Everyone got to see their faces in the mass media, regardless of whether they did anything at all, and then how could they if they were alive and well and NOT on the planes?

EDIT: tyop... lol

If all the information is there, why doesn't a court case succeed? Fact is, you lack any credible "smoking gun", and you always will.

Possibly, though I wouldn't put money on it either way.

What is firefighter engineering? Source?

If you can't come up with something that hasn't been debated to death already, why do you bother.

You do love to pretend to misunderstand my points, don't you?
You asked for the sort of detail that is simply not available and likely never will be. You did that to try and embarrass me. However, that sort of detail is not a requirement. Long ago on the other thread, I described a general process, based on my knowledge of engineering, that would fit the evidence. Subsequently, a structural engineer has run a computational model and published an article describing a similar process to mine with extra supporting evidence. If you claim that it doesn't fit the evidence, the onus is on you to prove that statement, not just repeat your unsupported opinion ad nauseam.
On the other hand, you have utterly failed to provide any sort of technical argument to support your CD theory, not just the fine detail that you expect me to produce, but even a general reason for the way the collapse happened.

Why? Where is the reason for any of this? You keep saying this, but you never say why there should have been that long delay.

the collpases themselves,preserved on video for all to see, are all that is necessary to prove beyond doubt that the building were demolished

Your controlled demolition theory is hardly proven beyond doubt. I certainly doubt that they were demolished by any other means than having aircraft flown into them or other buildings fall on them.

There is no end of “smoking guns” that altogether make an overwhelming case for the inside job. That anyone may choose to make up excuses or be ignorant of the evidence does not mean it isn’t there.

As for the courts - in a world where power did not corrupt then no doubt with presentation of the full evidence a case would succeed. In reality the US Judiciary is not so perfect. Just a couple of examples: -

The Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy shows how the President can pick and choose attorneys at a whim. The courts, the Supreme Court at least, are for the government more than for the people.

The current Attorney General, an Orthodox Jew hand picked by the President, made campaign contributions to Giuliani for president and Joe Lieberman for Senate as well as judging in the litigation between Larry Silverstein and several insurance companies arising from 9/11.

The Neocons in the US Administration are not going to sit idly by and allow their own court to sentence them.



The Communist, Marinus van der Lubbe, in 1933 was found guilty by the German court of starting the Reichstag fire. In 1967 a West German court reduced van de Lubbe’s sentence for arson and treason to a prison term of eight years. In 1980 the same court lifted the sentence entirely, but the German federal court reversed this decision. And now, 75 years after the event, van der Lubbe’s conviction has been overturned by the German federal prosecutor under a 1998 law that allows pardons for people convicted of crimes under the Nazi regime. This complete reversal, not only in the court’s judgement but also seemingly in the public view, has taken 75 years to come about.

In regard to evidence of an inside job, the 9/11 attacks and Reichstag fire have much in common – pretexts which each have their “smoking guns” and yet are disputed. I would surmise the only reason anyone would proclaim one is possible, and the other not, is due to nothing more than the 68 years between events.

I asked for details of your WTC7 “domino” collapse theory for no other reason than understanding and to enable a fair evaluation. It says a lot that you admittedly construe the lack of detail to be embarrassing. What you are effectively telling me is there is no plausible process whereby your theory can be fit to the witnessed collapse. The detail is absolutely necessary – just saying “column 79 failed due to heating, leading to progressive virtually symmetrical, near freefall, complete collapse” is nothing more than hand-waving.



How can anyone disprove a half-theory that is unproven to begin with?



I have demonstrated that the delay between initial charges and the main building collapse is apparent in many other controlled demolitions: -

JL Hudson Department demolition - 5 second delay
Fort Worth demolition - 5 second delay
Maputo building demolition - 8 second delay
Honolulu demolition - 9 second delay.

In the WTC7 demolition, the delay between initial charges causing the penthouse collapse and the main building collapse was approximately 7 seconds. This time delay fits in very well with the above controlled demolitions.

Mineta states with certainty that he arrived at the PEOC at 9:20am. I agree that the 9/11 Commission left this vital testimony out of the final report – it didn’t get dubbed the ‘Omission’ Report by sceptics for nothing.



Do you believe a new and independent investigation would be worthwhile to clear-up these issues, mrbusdriver?




For want of any better explanation, the following events fit the evidence: -

The Vice President, Dick Cheney, was aware of the airliner approaching the Pentagon shortly before Norman Mineta’s arrival at 9:20am. During this time, the military had enquired to the Vice President about shootdown authority to which Cheney denied the request, ie an “order” at that time that no shootdown was to occur. The officer giving Cheney status updates on the incoming airliner and becoming increasingly concerned at its proximity asked, “Do the orders still stand?” Through this prevention of the military to act, Cheney ensured beyond doubt that the airliner reached its target. The 9/11 Commission, wanting to absolve the Vice President of any responsibility, adapted their timeline and deliberately omitted Minetta’s testimony.

Is the above plausible? If not, why not? Does anybody have a better explanation?

I don't think the VP had the authority to give a shootdown order. In any case, there would be no order to give as peacetime ROE was still in effect. The President is the one that calls weapons free. Also, regardless of the ROE, there were no planes in the area to engage the AA77 inbound the Pentagon. Any engagement orders would be a moot point at that time. A hold fire would be as inapplicable as a cleared to engage call, noone hearing it was in a position to have it matter.
The inbound was being reported erroneously as the missing AA11, with a third, unknown flight, having hit the North WTC tower, such was the confused information coming from the FAA.

The only place where I can see the "orders still stand" situation is with the crashed UAL93's coasting symbology being sent from FAA via phone to the Secret Service in the shelter, with the 80 mile inbound calls. The VP confirmed the orders twice, once around 1000-1015 and the second time 1012-1018. He had already spoken to the POUS previously (~1003 after entering the shelter) to get the authorities. At 1018 he again spoke to the POUS to confirm the authority. The ghost track went away. I can see such "orders still stand" comments in this situation. The only discrepency is the time. Everything indicates that Cheney was swept off his chair and hustled to the shelter as AA77 was approaching the Pentagon, not well before that. The only account I've seen doesn't have the VP there at 9:20. Are there any other accounts or testimony supporting Mineta's timeline?

Q24,
I don't know if you've seen this site. I invite you to read, and listen to, this information. It's from the NEADS tapes of that morning, and presents a pretty good account of what was happening that morning at the "operator" level. No NCA,, no NMCC, just folks reacting to a wildly escalating situation.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feature.../08/norad200608

I have no reason to doubt this information at all, warts and all.

Cheney is no ordinary Vice POTUS. He is, in effect, a co-POTUS, and this is not only obvious, it was declared by Cheney in a conversation he had with former Vice POTUS Dan Quayle (PBS Frontline: Cheney's Law). With regard to the shoot-down order, or whether Cheney had authority in crisis?

Amendment 25 to the U.S. Constitution:
Section. 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

If POTUS was incommunicado, under duress, or otherwise incapacitated, I suspect that Cheney and whichever Executive officers were available could pass POTUS powers to Cheney...

But I am no Constitutional scholar.


1st Edit: Cheney's Law Interview
Barton Gellman
The Washington Post
Dan Quayle went to see Dick Cheney, who he'd known for a long time, right around inauguration day in Bush's first term. He sort of went in, one vice president to another, to let him know how things were going to be. And he said, "You know, Dick, you're going to be doing a lot of traveling, going to a lot of funerals, lot of fundraisers. You're going to be doing the things that presidents don't want to do, and that your president doesn't want to do." And Cheney just looked at him with that little half-grin and raised his eyebrow and said, "I have a different understanding with the president." He didn't elaborate too much, and he doesn't tend to elaborate very often, but they talked a bit more about it. What Quayle told The Washington Post is that Cheney was going to be, in effect, a super-chief of staff.

Ex Post: Here's a link to Cheney's Law

You asked me "Did it also lack the aluminium, because I don't recall Jones finding aluminium oxide, either?" That's why I pointed out that aluminum was found.

Aluminum-oxide is released into the air as a whitish ash (smoke) when thermite burns. So most of it will blow away into the air. Should some of it settle down and contact the molten metal, it will just float on top of this molten material, and it won't bond with the iron, etc. And that's why Al203 won't be a component found within the solidified slag.



Your comments are ridiculous, since you refuse to look at the videos of Jones' presentation (that I linked for your benefit) which would have explained these points for you.



No. I cited NIST's FAQ, which is not the same thing as NIST's final report. The FAQ page discusses issues which came up after the final report was released. And the main point I was making was that NIST clearly stated that the fires could not melt the steel.



I've already told you that Jones' samples is evidence, as are the videos/photos and first-hand eyewitness accounts.



Well, it sure looks to me like you're trying to think up lame excuses for them.



So this inadequacy isn't relevant? The 'most qualified group' to investigate whether or not fires initiated the collapses....has no expertise in fires?? Come on, that's absurd.



Even FEMA and NIST state that the jet fuel burned away within the first few minutes. Are you disagreeing with NIST on this point?



I only "attributed" it to NASA once, when I first made it up as a joke. Not twice. The next time I noted it - replying to MID - was to point out that it was meant as a joke (tongue-in-cheek).



The only one who should be "admitting" to deception is yourself, flyingswan. You are being deliberately dishonest, by continuing to ignore my clarification. As I've told you over and over - I needed to explain I made it up as a joke, because it had been misinterpreted. Indeed, you can "squirm as much as you want", but that is the absolute truth of the matter. Get over it, once and for all.



What nonsense! "Making up" something for a joke is entirely different than "making up" something to deliberately deceive others. The difference between the two is completely relevant.

It was a joke. A pro-hoax joke. Since I am pro-hoax, I found humor in it. You are seeing it from the other side, so it's not very surprising that you wouldn't see the humor in it. That's why I later went through the joke in detail, and even came up with an analogy - to try and make you understand it from my point-of-view.

But what have you offered to support your argument? Nothing.

You claim that it wasn't a joke, that it wasn't meant as a joke. You argue that I made it up to deceive everyone.

So - How would it benefit my pro-hoax argument to try and 'fool' people into thinking the quote was genuine? It wouldn't.

If it did, then you would certainly have come up with a reason or two it helps my case, by this point.

It's time you stop this BS argument, because you just look worse and worse by continuing on with it.

Q24-

I get a few demerits for being a hypocrit (and chiding you again). But, here it is.

First of all, NIST will enlighten all, when their report on WTC 7 is issued (within the year). You might wait until then to form an opinion.

Here is mine. More common sense, no bull.

WTC 7 was randomly struck by falling debris. That same debris randomly ruined water mains. The building randomly caught on fire. When the emergency water supply in the upper floors was exhausted, that was the end. The structure was left to burn, because no water was available due to random events.

The area was evacuated by Chief Nigro, who replaced a randomly killed fellow firechief. Other working firemen were aware of the lost cause the building presented. It was said to be leaning, at one point.

If you have a smoking gun, why can't you convince more people of your case?
Citizens of many countries died in the 911 attacks, so why limit yourself to US courts? Surely, if you had any proper evidence, it could be taken to a court somewhere.

Oh dear me, I think this is an example of Godwin's Law in action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

I didn't say there was no plausible process. I have a plausible process, but I am not able to say exactly which of the many possible collapse sequences was the one that actually happened. This goes back to my car analogy. I may not be able to give an exact sequence of the way various components of the car fail structurally as it hits a tree, but that does not mean that a car which hits a tree will not fail structurally at all.

Now, now, you made a claim that my theory doesn't fit the evidence, so it is up to you to explain why you think that.

You show a lot of examples where the building is cut into separate free-standing segments before the segments are brought down, but you have no example of the top of a building being cut off from and fall down onto what is beneath it, nor have you come up with a reason why anyone would want to do this.

I didn't say there was no plausible process. I have a plausible process, but I am not able to say exactly which of the many possible collapse sequences was the one that actually happened. This goes back to my car analogy. I may not be able to give an exact sequence of the way various components of the car fail structurally as it hits a tree, but that does not mean that a car which hits a tree will not fail structurally at all.

Now, now, you made a claim that my theory doesn't fit the evidence, so it is up to you to explain why you think that.

You show a lot of examples where the building is cut into separate free-standing segments before the segments are brought down, but you have no example of the top of a building being cut off from and fall down onto what is beneath it, nor have you come up with a reason why anyone would want to do this.

I didn't say there was no plausible process. I have a plausible process, but I am not able to say exactly which of the many possible collapse sequences was the one that actually happened. This goes back to my car analogy. I may not be able to give an exact sequence of the way various components of the car fail structurally as it hits a tree, but that does not mean that a car which hits a tree will not fail structurally at all.

Now, now, you made a claim that my theory doesn't fit the evidence, so it is up to you to explain why you think that.

You show a lot of examples where the building is cut into separate free-standing segments before the segments are brought down, but you have no example of the top of a building being cut off from and fall down onto what is beneath it, nor have you come up with a reason why anyone would want to do this.

Isn't Jones supposed to have examined dust samples? Where did he find his iron microspheres?

A video isn't a recognised way of presenting a technical paper. Too easy to flim-flam the audience if they can't check back and forth through the argument.

Without evidence that steel was actually melted, what does this matter?

Apart from the iron microspheres, which are a normal product of construction work, what evidence?

Suit yourself. From your posting history, I find that the way things look to you have little connection with the way things are.

NIST has expertise in fire engineering, they also have structural engineers, so they have both areas of expertise needed.
http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/

No, but you seemed to be making a general rather than a 911-specific point, your mention of "seconds" being certainly nothing like 911. In general, fuel-fed fires can burn a long time given the right conditions, in the case of the towers it was only around ten minutes or so.

If you mean your post #406, you were still not making it clear that you had made up the quote, only that your post #397 was "mostly tongue in cheek". You let it go for six days, until people started questioning other aspects of that post, before making this admission.
You still don't get it, do you? As the mod Waspie Dwarf said:
"You will have to be very careful in future Turbonium. You have effectively admitted to lying. How do you expect anyone to take anything you say on any subject seriously from now on?"
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...3834&st=409
Is there any reason I should take you seriously again? I certainly ceased to do so after that episode, and your Trieste thread didn't help your reputation at all.

I look forward to reading the final WTC7 report, merril.

I’m preparing myself for a preconceived conclusion ‘backed-up’ by building/fire computer simulations which are not supported, contradicted even in places, by photographic, witness or physical evidence, all followed by a vague description of progressive failure leading only up to the point of collapse initiation.

We will see how enlightening it is… or not, though I have a sneaking suspicion it will fuel rather than end the debate.

The impression I get is that more people are becoming aware of the 9/11 false flag all the time. You only have to look at the growing number of people listed on sites like Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to know that. I see people moving from the ‘official’ story to an alternative understanding but never the reverse. Getting people to look at the evidence in the first place is the main challenge.

What would be the purpose of making the 9/11 case in a foreign court? We already know that political figures in other countries severely doubt the ‘official’ story including, amongst others, Michael Meacher of the UK, Francesco Cossiga of Italy and Andreas von Bulow of Germany.



Read your link properly – Goodwin’s law “does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate,” and Goodwin himself has stated that valid comparisons can be made. Now, as we were discussing how knowledge and understanding of the 9/11 false flag may develop over time, the Reichstag fire is a completely relevant historical precedent.

This is like trying to get blood out of a stone. Ok, out of the supposed many possible sequences, can you detail just your most plausible hypothetical process for WTC7?



As I said, you currently do not have a theory – just hand-waving. I can demonstrate your method using the car analogy...



What if I said the damage above (which is the product of a car bomb) was actually caused by a crash? The car impacted a tree causing the damage seen to the front corner nearest the camera and further distorted the body. The engine then caught fire, spreading through the rest of the car and caused the fuel tank to explode. Ta-daa! That is exactly what you are doing with your WTC7 theory.



The reason for weakening the structure at a high level in a controlled demolition can be to ensure that nothing like this happens and that the building collapses completely. I believe the WTC7 penthouse failure was possibly a by-product of this initial weakening. In the Fort Worth demolition (the most similar of the structures to WTC7) the building does not fall in segments, but as one piece.

If you think that less than a tenth of one percent of the architects and engineers is a significant number, dream on.
I mentioned a non-US court because you implied that the US government would unduly influence a US court. The fact that you seem very unwilling to try any court anywhere looks like a lack of confidence in your evidence.

You are comparing the US government to the Nazis, perhaps you could start a new thread to justify this viewpoint.
My personal opinion is that the evidence of who started the Reichstag fire is far from clear-cut, and the fine old Scottish verdict of "not proven" would have been appropriate.

OK, column 79 gives way. Load redistribution causes first columns 76 and 80, then more columns to the south and west to fail, so that a large part of the internal structure falls. The upper floor structures are not strong enough to pull the upper walls out of line. Falling debris then reaches the reinforced floors 5 to 7 which pull the outer walls out of vertical at that level, bringing down the outer structure.

Now I've given my sequence, where's your charge location and timing data?

That's not my car, that's your car. Your car has evidence of damage from explosives, which is what you wished you had for WTC.
My car has the front pushed back a metre but little damage to the rear.

As one piece, quite. No sign of the top moving at all before the main charges fire. You still lack anything like WTC7.

The 360+ members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are significant enough to frighten you into making unfounded and slanderous accusations about their credentials. Certainly, as we have seen, the number is more significant than the handful of independent construction professionals who actually support the ‘official’ story. This is before adding the hundreds more technical professionals, current and former government employees and a large percentage of the public who doubt the ‘official’ story.



I asked – what would be the purpose of making the 9/11 case in a foreign court?



That we happen to be dealing with ‘the Nazis’ in this example is neither here nor there. The observation is that clarity and acceptance of a false flag event appears to increase over time. And so the same will be true of 9/11.

Well, at least you are trying at last but unfortunately are still frantically hand-waving rather than being precise. I have a few questions: -

Can you define the “more columns” you mention?
How long approximately are you assuming between the failure of each column?
How did this “large part of the structure” detach itself from the external columns?
How did falling debris “pull the outer walls out of vertical” and only at the lower floors?
Which walls were these?
What happened to the internal columns 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 and 72?
What happened to the large number of perimeter columns on the West of the building?
How did the West façade begin its collapse at precisely the same time as the East façade?

If you can answer those just so that you have a theory in place, I will then be able to show how it is wrong.



The whole reason for asking for your process in detail is because the characteristics of the collapse do not appear to be ‘natural’, ie virtually symmetrical, near freefall – this needs explaining through your theory.

How is it necessary to provide a full description of a controlled demolition setup when you have said yourself the final visible WTC7 collapse does look like a controlled demolition? Even with the Towers, when I previously asked you what a controlled demolition beginning from the impact floors ‘should’ look like, you could not point out where there should be an observed physical difference from that witnessed.

The only physical characteristic of the WTC7 collapse you have suggested does not fit with a controlled demolition is the penthouse failure, and I have given good reason for that already. What I am asking is, what other observable collapse features don’t fit with a controlled demolition that should need an explanation?



Ain’t my car… I just found it on the ‘net… what evidence of explosives?



Ah, moving the goalposts I see. First you complain the structures in the examples I give collapse in segments and then you complain they don’t. I have suggested the possibility that initial high level charges to weaken WTC7 inadvertently caused the penthouse collapse, but what you are asking for is a carbon copy example. There will be no example like this because what I am suggesting is that the penthouse collapse was a by-product of these initial charges, not a design. What makes you think that all controlled demolitions should perform exactly the same way?

There have been accounts from former US government employee Richard Clarke and White House photographer David Bohrer that indirectly support Mineta’s testimony (see ‘Other Reports Supporting Cheney’s Early Arrival’).

Also, Mineta says he first learned of the “order” at around 09:25am or shortly after and hears, “The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out”… the Commission report states, “At 9:29, the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged; the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and approximately 38 miles west of the Pentagon”… thereby corroborating Mineta’s timeline.

The main evidence though is the transcript of Mineta’s testimony itself. He states his arrival time of 9:20am, that Dick Cheney is already there and that Flight 77 impacts the Pentagon whilst they are at the PEOC. The only way his account of the “orders still stand” could be in reference to the phantom Flight 93 trajectory, would be to somehow assume Mineta completely ‘lost’ an hour in his timeline somewhere or in fact lied – neither of which are plausible when viewing his testimony

Mineta has since been asked about the discrepancy between his account and that of the Commission Report – here. When presented with the Commission’s timeline, Mineta says he could possibly have been out on his timing but also that the Vice President was there before him and further says, “9:58? Oh no no no, I don’t know how that comes about.”

Somebody is lying… and there is no reason to believe it’s Mineta.




I have no reason to doubt the NEADS tapes either, mrbusdriver, and indeed the Vanity Fair article is very well written. As you pointed out, this is far from the full picture as there were multiple chains of command on the day, but still there are some areas that stand out: -

During the time between becoming aware of the hij