How can you possibly think that 9/11 was "delved into by the press and investigative journalism"? There are hundreds of serious problems with the official 9/11 account - and the mass media hasn't questioned/investigated or "delved into" even one of them!

The mainstream media has been nothing but a propaganda stooge for the "official" 9/11 story, from Day One.

Why doesn't the media care that there are no airport surveillance videos from the morning of 9/11 which show the supposed 19 hijackers, prior to boarding the planes?

Why don't you - or any other supporter of the official 9/11 story - care about that?

NIST's investigation was a farce. So was the 9/11 Commission.


"Good efforts"?!? It was a complete travesty.

There are numerous books, magazine articles, and television documentaries which have tried to look into what is known about most things related to 9-11. Speculative theories, raised about official reports, have had their day in the sun, too (alternative and mainstream media). Time is money, and without proof, no one is going to try and look like a fool or lose face by proposing baseless theories.

In general, the vast majority of positions which rely heavily on inductive reasoning or attack-dog politics have shown themselves to be swimming against the head-currents of plausible theories, time and again. They discount every one of the hundreds of pieces of wreckage, human remains, and frames of video and still pictures which are used to draw reasonable, best-effort theories and conclusions.

Everyone knows about media bias, in general. Everyone knows about ratings, advertising, and ownership issues. But, I don't think anyone in the press would fail to expose the biggest screwball act of national immolation, in our history. Someone would figure it out, someone would crack, something would unravel. The press is not covering up any story.

I don't know about airport security cameras at each of the respective boarding areas. Of course, we have all seen those brief images of Atta. As for the rest- maybe there are a few pictures, but they are withheld for one reason or another. That I don't know. The authorities could have interviewed the ladies who were at the gate, and I bet they did. I wonder if everytime I boarded a plane, there were cameras around. Probably not.

As for how I feel about that, or the rest of the events- I care. I wish they had never happened.

I can think of other ways to make an international political statement. What did they ultimately accomplish? They weasled a large system of people, by studying how to attack them for nearly a decade. What they did was surprising, and bold to the point of verging on insanity. They had to be nearly brainwashed. The leaders were radically conditioned to commit kamikaze, and the followers were like-minded in conditioning- ready to die. What they did was needless, pointless destruction.

Except in the eyes of the planners (UBL, etc). They had goals in mind.


Having read some of the NIST reports, I don't find them deceitful. There, I disagree with you. Were they able to detail everything? Of course not.

There were travesties before 9-11, as well. Like, radical events in the Middle East, Africa. Slip-ups in the vast world of intelligence-gathering, and immigration services. Foreign policy issues which used big-shoulders instead of brains.

Lots of things. But, in any case, two wrongs never make a right. And, especially, giant wrongs never solve anything.


Here is the report card on the 9-11 Commission. It is presented in generalities, which might have caused some to denouce the commission. But, not everything can be aired in public. Like security issues that are too sensitive for public debate.

December, 2005 Report Card On 9-11 Commission.

We could speculate on the questions you asked though I don’t see how they affect Mineta’s testimony in any way. You could, if so inclined, suppose that the 9/11 Commission is right and Mineta is wrong specifically regarding timing of the discussed ‘order’. This does not escape the fact that Mineta clearly and in a number of separate accounts places Cheney at the PEOC prior to his own arrival.



Thanks for the link – the ‘official’ story is falling apart on this one. The article does well to find every contradicting report that can be used to muddy the water and also tries to suggest times to the reader in an attempt to make events appear conflicting… all whilst never managing to rule out Mineta’s account. What the article does not and apparently cannot do is provide any reasonable alternative timeline for Mineta, which is a disappoint even if expected. The conclusion of the article is that Mineta arrived at the PEOC much later than he thought: -

“And that's why, with the current information, we believe the simpler explanation is more likely to be true: Cheney arrived in the shelter preceding the PEOC at 9:37, Mineta came later, and the conversation he overheard did not refer to Flight 77.”

We have to assume Mineta’s arrival time is completely mistaken - “I arrived at the PEOC at about 9:20 a.m.” We have to assume when Mineta said he heard the ‘order’ conversation “Probably about five or six minutes” after his arrival, that he was mistaken. We have to assume Mineta is lying that Cheney was at the PEOC prior to himself. We have to assume Mineta is lying again that Flight 77 crashed after his arrival at the PEOC – “Within a few minutes, American Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.”

Also it does not appear reasonable that Mineta confused the Pentagon impact at 09:37 with the Flight 93 ‘phantom’ trajectory coming in at around 10:15. He says he was made aware of Cheney’s order, “during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon” and it is clear the incoming flight he is referring to is Flight 77 as his testimony places this prior to 09:45 in the chain of events.

Mineta says that due to overhearing Cheney’s order, when the information on Flight 93’s crash was received this led to him to wonder if the flight was perhaps shot down. As Flight 93 crashed at around 10:03 the order Mineta was referring to could not have been in reference to the phantom flight incoming, as this occurred afterwards at around 10:15. This cannot be explained as a mistake or a lie on Mineta’s part.

How is this all explained in context of the ‘official’ story - is Mineta an idiot or a liar? All it takes is to read and understand Mineta’s testimony plus the few other accounts he has given and it becomes crystal clear that the 9/11 Commission covered for Cheney’s actions on the morning. Even the way Mineta was questioned by the Commission shows they were trying to put words in his mouth and discredit him because they didn’t like what he was saying! Why was Mineta’s video testimony deleted from the Commission archive?! Why on Earth did Cheney testify behind closed doors and only with Bush??? Why the hell can’t we see what was asked of them or the answers they gave?????

Accounts indicate Cheney was at the PEOC prior to Flight 77’s impact. During that time he was updated on the approach and had an undisclosed ‘order’ in place. An order that the 9/11 Commission don’t want us to know existed and were willing to fabricate a timeline for, putting Cheney out of the ‘official’ picture until 09:58.

This really is a piece of evidence that probably more than any other shows the ‘official’ story is a lie if only people could be bothered to look it up.

And dont you think religion has already had its day? i mean its been around for 6000+ years, and there is no doubt it was ALWAYS used to control.




Christianity = New age ancient Egyptian religion "hiding" sun worship. As a Roman Catholic this might interest you, like i said blatant sun worship...





As you wish to see it, but i beg to differ, and besides... a very strange thing happened a while back you should know about...
Above is a link to an audio file of nixon talking about bohemian grove, unfortunely my last post was edited unbeknownst to me, and i think the above makes it quite clear what i was saying.

now is that something you think the worlds Elite should be keeping secret? I mean what happened to honesty? its all a lie these days, they pretend to be our friends while they stab us in the back...



I was simply stating that i have yet to hear any scientific "expert" even so much as comment on bush being the most evil TarTarsauce president we have ever had the misfortune of being led by.




I would say that those who pierce the veil are recruited for real military projects or killed to keep the secrets secret, but thats just me.




Fema camps/underground

Enough said? look at how he dodges every single question, and simply will not answer...



Well, thats for americans only, as they trust that bush is not hiding a massive conspiracy from them, and trust him when he says "and let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories"



Shanksville...



You make it seem like conspiracies are all over the mass media, constantly suggesting and confusing the populace as to what is true and untrue. I have a quite fine theory of my own, as obviously the generations we are living in today have never seen a propagandaless society(I.E. no mass media that can reach millions of people at once and change their opinions all at the same time) thus brainwashing is introduced at the youngest age, and it takes a keen mind to realize that this is not a good thing AT ALL. The enemy here truly is ignorance and apathy as a knowledgable and driven people would rise up and stop this BS before it gets out of hand(which it is already far too late for).

My rebuttal is... read the above. 'Nuff said.

My god your right!!! how could i be so naive as to THINK........

You have claimed that courts in the US are government controlled and courts elsewhere do not have jurisdiction, but you have not actually provided any proof of either claim. Claims don't count in this case, only an actual court hearing. Why is your side so afraid of this?

So why isn't he giving evidence in a court?

If you think any of this evidence will stand up in court, why don't you take it there?

I won't argue with that.

OK, another quibble, how about "so incompetent as to cause the penthouse to collapse when it wasn't meant too".

I didn't say these things don't exist, but you have no evidence that they would be usable in the way you claim. How do you ignite tertiary explosives, for instance?

Where is your evidence that none of the security and maintenance staff were both honest and observant?

Actually, I've come back (guess from where) with a couple more counter examples to your mantra of thermite "evidence".

First is a sudden, near-symmetric and rapid collapse of a building with no suggestion of explosives. This one also fits the high height-to-width criterion you introduced to rule out my earlier examples:
"On 14th July 1902, around 10 in the morning, the campanile of St. Mark's collapsed almost without warning, falling in on itself."
http://www.basilicasanmarco.it/WAI/eng/bas...si_costrutt.bsm

Second is a building that collapsed due to fire, and the debris remained too hot to approach for 18 days, again without thermite:
"All this work put into the Fenice was destroyed on December 13, 1836, when the theater caught fire, reputedly sparked by a newly installed Austrian stove. The fire burned for three days and nights, and continued to smolder for another fifteen days."
http://itotd.com/articles/601/teatro-la-fenice/

So Jones has samples, but he doesn't claim to have found high explosive residues, or any thermite/thermate residue apart from sulphur, which is a common building component.

Well, that's progress. Last time around you were denying that iron microspheres could come from construction work. What differences is Jones claiming?

Slag could come from post-collapse use of torches to cut up the debris. The molten cascade has been explained as coming from a room full of lead-acid batteries that could produce this effect if damaged. None of the eyewitness reports distinguish "metal" from "steel". You still have no evidence.

So you need both areas of expertise, so what?

A few minutes after your second use of the quote, but six days after your first one. You let it go for six days, then had to admit you made it up.

The only basic concept I see here is that you had to admit to making up a quote, and have been spending pages of replies trying to wriggle out of it, like your attempt above to mislead over my "six days" claim.

I gave sources for my claim, dozens of quotes, mostly from firefighters on the spot who should know a fully involved fire when they see one. What are your sources?

Well, one thing's for sure, you can certainly twist things around. I'd be surprised if anyone coming on that exchange for the first time would put the spin on it that you do. In your posts on this forum you do the same trick as Rodriguez all the time, so you don't see how expressing an opinion on a technical matter for which you have no qualifications is in effect setting yourself up as an expert.

flyingswan, reluctant as I am to seem as if I am supporting a CT point here, I have to say that it is the frequent mantra of the debunker that just because a government has lied doesn't mean they aren't capable of telling the truth. This same principle must, surely be applied both ways and too an individual.

Turbonium was less than honest in that case and admits it (whether as a joke or out of dishonest is something only he knows). Just because he was not honest then does not mean he is being dishonest now. To go down the road of "once a liar always a liar" is the first step towards becoming a CT yourself.

It seems to me that it is time to drop this old, tired argument.

OK, though I think the points I've been trying to make are not "once a liar always a liar", but first that it was a response to turbonium claiming that someone else was making up quotes, so pot and kettle, and second that turbonium is still being dishonest in his defence of his conduct on that occasion.

Provided turbonium doesn't impunge someone else's honesty in future, I won't mention this again.

Welcome back! Paris? Madrid? Amsterdam? Oh I give up.



Nice find… did you bring back the 16th Century building regulations to go with that as well?



It appears the building did not collapse as such but was burnt down. Three of the eighteen days you mention were when the building was actually burning and the other fifteen days the remains are described as smouldering. Was any molten metal found in the foundations up to a month after the fire?

• Firefighter O’Toole remembers seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within Ground Zero, “It was dripping from the molten steel” he said.
• Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. stated, “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel.”
• A presentation given by structural engineer Leslie Robertson stated, “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.”
• Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center.
• Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. said he saw “molten steel in the basements” at the bottom of the elevator shafts “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed”.
• Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe recounted, “I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally been melted because of the heat.”
• Alison Geyh, PhD. who worked on environmental issues at the WTC site reported, “In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.”
• A member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal which stated, “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains.”
• A geological study of the debris thermal progression describes “molten steel hotspots”.
• Fire department personnel, recorded on video, reported seeing “molten steel running down the channel rails”.
• Bart Voorsanger, an architect hired to save “relics from the rubble,” stated about the multi-ton “meteorite” that it was a “fused element of molten steel and concrete.”

Eyes wide shut as usual.



I kind of object to that.


Has anyone put a timeline on Mineta’s movements on the morning of 9/11 yet according to the ‘official’ story? Have you got anything like a comprehensive answer to the Mineta/Cheney discrepancy that I have been trying to discuss for the last few pages, flyingswan? Nobody from the ‘official’ story point of view seem to want to touch it… wonder why.

I'm sure I, or anyone else, could come up with an alternative Mineta timeline that fits the 'official story', but what would be the point? By definition it would have discrepancies to what Mineta says and you would just repeat the comments you have already made. There are discrepancies between the 'official story' and Mineta's story. But there are also discrepancies between what Mineta is saying and other evidence. You feel the evidence is more in favour of Mineta being right, personally I find it plausible that Mineta is wrong.

You only give three possible options - one, Mineta is completely right in what he's saying, anything/anyone that contradicts him is wrong/a liar and the 911 Commission are conspirators to cover up 'smoking gun' evidence of whatever you want to believe; two, Mineta is wrong and he's an idiot; three, Mineta is wrong and he's a liar. There is another option that Mineta is simply wrong - he doesn't have to be an idiot or a liar. Personally I can recall a few times when I've been sure of a certain run of events until someone else has reminded me of something that has made me realise I was wrong. About two weeks ago I had a long discussion with someone where they completely denied something had happened and only after I managed to find written evidence about it did they finally agree they were wrong, but they still had no recollection about it. So the idea that Mineta could sincerely believe his timeline but be inaccurate on his timings I have no problem with. If Mineta is wrong and the 911 commission have multiple other sources to suggest a different timeline then it's not surprising they would go with the other sources for their 'official story'.

I know the point of a discussion forum is to discuss differences in opinion, and for all I know there may be a number of other posters currently putting together complex arguments about your points. But as you seem to have an issue about people not discussing Mineta, it seems fair to point out that it's not necessarily that you have a strong and undefeatable argument, it just may be people don't see it as a particularly convincing or a major point as you do so they're not likely to put time and effort into discussing it.

What does that have to do with the way it falls down? You have claimed that sudden, near-symmetric and rapid collapses are evidence for controlled demolition, so you are wrong.

Still ended up as a heap of rubble with long-duration fires. Much smaller building, so you'd expect a shorter time before the fires ended. I doubt if they had aluminium in those days, but an ordinary building fire is certainly hot enough to melt it. You have claimed that such long-duration hot-spots are evidence for thermite, so you are wrong.

Quibbling again. All those reports are basically of molten metal, not molten steel. No-one seems to have analysed any of it to see what it actually was, and a building contains plenty of aluminium. As far as I can see, the GeoNews piece just detects hotspots and assumes they are due to molten steel, no evidence at all.

Many engineers and architects have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This section is a collection of their public statements. This website is not an organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

Listed below are statements by more than 460 engineers and architects that contradict or are critical of the 9/11 Commission Report. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed.

These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their professional responsibilities related to building design, construction, and other areas of engineering, demonstrates that criticism of the Commission Report is not inherently irresponsible or illogical, and that, in fact, it can be just the opposite.


http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

Pilots and Aviation Professionals
Question the 9/11 Commission Report
Many pilots and aviation professionals have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This section is a collection of their public statements. This website is not an organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

Listed below are statements by more than 110 pilots and aviation professionals that contradict or are critical of the 9/11 Commission Report. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed.

These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their professional responsibility for air traffic safety demonstrate that criticism of the Commission Report is not inherently irresponsible or illogical, and that, in fact, it can be just the opposite.
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html


Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement,
and Government Officials Question
the 9/11 Commission Report Many well known and respected senior U.S. military officers, intelligence services and law enforcement veterans, and government officials have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report or have made public statements that contradict the Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This website is a collection of their statements. It is not an organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

Listed below are statements by more than 130 of these senior officials. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed. These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the Report is not irresponsible, illogical, nor disloyal, per se. In fact, it can be just the opposite

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

The Experts Are Starting To Say The 9/11 Conspiracy Wackos May Be Right
» The Experts Are Starting To Say The 9/11 Conspiracy Wackos May Be Right Dvorak Uncensored: General interest observations and true web-log.

"A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves, consisting of many and various powerful interests, combined in one mass, and held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in banks." ~ John C. Calhoun

"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." ~ J. Edgar Hoover

When stupidity is considered patriotism, it is unsafe to be intelligent. ~ Isaac Asimov

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=17897

I randomly clicked on this-

AE911truth Member-

Does it instill confidence? In so many words, no.


Then, I clicked on this-

Protestation

I don't get this 911/Truth/Conspiracy claimed by all of these signed up persons on AE911 and PatriotsQuestion911. Yes, there are engineers and architects (who did not do their homework- where is THEIR evidence?). And, what do they want? Yet, another group of qualified individuals to do another study. They repeat the same, tired old arguments- computer models, disbelief, political conspiracies. There may be some imperfections in the studies, but that goes with the nature of these events.

On this page, there is this item-



And, what lawyers would not be advising their client to get the most terrorist-proof insurance policy, for the notorious WTC? After 1993, anybody would want protection up to the hilt.

However, the figures are grossly overstated.

Here is more accurate information-

Read It

Read It

Read It

And Finally, Read It

"Tishman Construction Corporation of New York began work at the new 7 World Trade Center in 2002, soon after the site was cleared of debris. Restoring the Con Ed electrical substation was an urgent priority to meet power demands of Lower Manhattan. Because 7 World Trade Center is separate from the main 16 acre (6.5 ha) World Trade Center site, Larry Silverstein required approval only from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and rebuilding was able to proceed quickly. Building Seven was not included in the original World Trade Center master plan by Daniel Libeskind, but was designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill under the leadership of David Childs, who largely redesigned the Freedom Tower.

Once construction of the power substation was complete in October 2003, work proceeded on building the office tower. An unusual approach was used in constructing the building; erecting the steel frame before adding the concrete core. This approach allowed the construction schedule to be shortened by a few months. Construction was completed in 2006 at a cost of $700 million. Though Silverstein received $861 million from insurance on the old building, he had $400 million remaining in mortgage to pay off. Costs to rebuild were covered by $475 million in Liberty Bonds, which provide tax-exempt financing to help stimulate rebuilding in Lower Manhattan and insurance money that remained after other expenses.

In 2007, Silverstein and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey filed a lawsuit against some of its insurers for failure to pay out insurance proceeds following the 2004 verdicts, and that litigation was settled in late May, 2007. Silverstein's lease with the Port Authority for the World Trade Center requires him to continue paying $102 million annually in base rent. He is applying insurance payments toward the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site."

From Wikipedia 7 World Trade Center

"The total potential payout was capped at $4.577 billion for WTC buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5.

In 2007, Silverstein and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey filed a lawsuit against some of its insurers for failure to pay out insurance proceeds following the 2004 verdicts, and that litigation was settled in late May, 2007. Silverstein's lease with the Port Authority for the World Trade Center requires him to continue paying $102 million annually in base rent. He is applying insurance payments toward the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site.

Silverstein had the legal right to rebuild office buildings including the Freedom Tower at the World Trade Center site and while the site is unoccupied, he continues to pay $10 million per month in rent to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. After several months of negotiation, in April 2006 he yielded some of those rights back to the Port Authority.

Ground was broken on the construction of the Freedom Tower on April 27, 2006. Lack of financing had prevented construction from commencing earlier. The proceeds of the insurance payments from the destruction of the previous buildings alone were insufficient to cover the cost of rebuilding all the planned buildings.

After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the United States Congress approved $8 billion in tax-exempt Liberty Bonds to fund development in the private sector at lower-than-market interest rates. $3.4 billion remained unallocated in March 2006 designated for Lower Manhattan, with about half of the funds under the control of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the other half under the control of former Governor George Pataki.

Negotiations were held to obtain concessions from Silverstein in exchange for allocating the Liberty Bonds to the World Trade Center rebuilding. The concessions were to give back to the Port Authority rights to build and operate the Freedom Tower and another office tower, a share of the insurance payments, and not to contest the allocation to the Port Authority of Liberty Bonds. The Port Authority, a public agency, already has the ability to issue its own tax-exempt debt. The Port Authority will have its proposal in final form in September 2006. In return, the Liberty Bond funds were allocated to Silverstein and government agencies will be anchor tenants in his three office towers. This allows construction to commence.

In March of 2007 Silverstein appeared at a rally of construction workers and public officials outside of an insurance industry conference to highlight what he describes as the failures of insurers Allianz & Royal and Sun Alliance to pay $800 million in claims related to the attacks. Insurers cite an agreement to split payments between Mr. Silverstein and the Port Authority as a cause for concern.

In summary, Silverstein retains rights for Towers Two, Three, and Four. The Freedom Tower (designated as Tower One) will be owned by the Port Authority as well as Tower Five which may be leased out to another private developer and redesigned as a residential building."

From Wikipedia Larry Silverstein


This all speaks for itself. No evidence of bilking, conniving, or collusion.

So, they claim WTC 7 was "rigged". However, who could predict the damage which it DID incur? And rig the circumstances to follow suit?

This goes for WTC 1 and WTC 2, as well as the other buildings and streets and utilities.

To merely say the buildings were rigged brings no proof! The events (random) contradict all similar assertions!

To say the studies are limited is understandable.

You dont get it, cause you dont want to get it. Part of me cant blame you.

Wrong. Besides sulfur, the samples also contain iron, zinc, manganese, and fluorine. Flourine isn't found in structural steel. But it is present in an oxidizer used in thermite charges. Read this paper for more information.....

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...hemistryWTC.pdf



Different chemical composition - see above link. Different structure - some of Jones' microspheres are hollow.

But aside from the physical differences, your suggestion makes no sense. Jones' microspheres were found in the dust from inside nearby apartments, etc. This had nothing to do with any supposed "construction work"!!



Not these slags.



That's a feeble argument. There is whitish smoke present, rising above the molten metal as it pours out of the 81st floor. Even if there were banks of batteries filling up this floor (and there is no evidence for that claim, anyway), they still would not have produced those effects.



Wrong. There were several such reports.



Wrong again.



Nothing. Just that you changed your original claim...after I finally got you to realize why it was wrong.



It's hopeless - you still can't grasp the basic points I've explained to you about what really happened.

One more time - I had to explain that it was a joke. I didn't "let it go" for "six days". I had no reason to believe that it was misunderstood, until MID's post six days later. So I obviously had to explain to MID that it was simply a joke. He understood that, and suggested that I include smileys to clarify the intent next time. I agreed this was a good idea, no matter how obvious it seems to be, because someone will still not clue in otherwise.

The only problem here is yours, not mine.



I've spent pages trying to explain the facts to you, and it's been an enormous waste of my time. You can't grasp the simplest explanations I've offered you.

And so, I've written a fable just for you, flyingswan. You most certainly deserve it....


Turbonium was certain that Apollo was a hoax. But others did not. So Turbonium came up with a clever plan...

"Hehehe. I'm going to invent a quote, and attribute it to NASA!", he snarled to himself, fiendishly.

"The entire pro-Apollo group will immediately believe it. They've always accepted my word as the gospel truth, and have never questioned me on anything I say."

After much thought, Turbonium exclaimed "I have it! I will claim NASA came up with the phrase "What you don't know can't hurt you!".

Six days passed, and nobody had challenged Turbonium's horrible lies about NASA. He seemed to have fooled everyone. But, that was all about to change...

Someone asked for a source for the quote! "I don't recall NASA saying that", a pro-Apollo'er noted in a post to Turbonium. "Where is your source?"

"Drat", Turbonium cried. "I fear that my fiendish plot has been uncovered by those clever pro-Apollo people!"

Trying to wriggle out of it, Turbonium came up with an excuse - "I, uh, well, I made it up....as a joke", he stammered.

This excuse was accepted by some, but not by all, of the pro-Apollo people. Indeed, if not for those few naysayers, Turbonium would have succeeded in his evil deception.

And the whole world would now think NASA came up with the quote "What you don't know can't hurt you!"


Is that a more believable story for you, flyingswan?

I'm going to wrap up this issue here.

It's ironic that I'm accused of being dishonest, when in fact I've gone out of my way to BE honest in dealing with this matter.

Why would I make up a completely SILLY quote, and try to fool everyone into believing NASA said it? You can't answer that, because you know very well that it would serve NO PURPOSE for me to do so!!

Sure - I'm going to post a stupid quote, provide NO SOURCE for that quote, and then sit back and watch all the pro-Apollo'ers buy it - hook, line and sinker!!

Even though EVERY comment I had ever made PREVIOUS to that post has been picked at with a fine-toothed comb, ad nauseum!

Yes, I was really trying to pull a fast one on all of you!!

"Uh, huh! We shore caught you, Turbonium, we did, uh huh, yup!!"


It's time to end this, flyingswan. It'll only get worse if you don't.

What a joke! Rodriguez even says he's not an explosives expert in the same interview you cited!

Maybe you didn't listen up to the point he says that? Or maybe you did listen to it, and hoped I wouldn't?

Either way, your smear campaign against Rodriguez is a pile of dung. And you and Roberts are probably the only ones here who can't smell it.

Again, all those elements are common in building components and contents. Fluorine is found in plastics, solvents and electrical components. No evidence for thermite.

I can't see any mention of this in the link. Why shouldn't normal microspheres be hollow?

Microspheres would be produced in the construction of the building, subsequent maintenance, the aircraft impacts and the final collapse. The basic process is the same in all cases - the frictional heat of metal and other surfaces rubbing against each other is focussed into small volumes, sufficient to melt that volume even if the average temperature of the metal is much lower. Microspheres from all these processes will be present in the debris and in any dust ejected from the buildings.

Because?

I might point out that the argument came from an engineer familiar with such battery systems. Your qualification for doubting him is...?
NIST have confirmed that he is right about the batteries being at that location.

Then why didn't you include them in your list?

Then where is your evidence?

As I've been asked by a mod to cease this line of argument, I'll leave the last word with him:

Flyingswan has ended it, it's time you did the same.

A general note to all here, keep your responses civil and polite, some of the comments here are bordering on personal attacks; stick to arguing the points presented.

Thank you.

He says he's not an expert and then proceeds to express opinions that require him to have such expertise. Maybe you don't see the contradiction, but maybe that is because it is a common tactic in your own posts. How anyone can read Roberts' link:
http://911stories.googlepages.com/home
or this one
http://www.911myths.com/html/william_rodriguez.html
and still think that Rodriguez hasn't changed his story is beyond me.

I think the bottom line here is, there are over 460 engineers and architects, more than 110 pilots and aviation professionals, more than 130 Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials, who have serious problems with the reports. For any of us to say we know more then them about it is rediculas. And for folks to say that "they didnt do there homework" is a serious cop out.

What about the 10s or 100s of thousands of their peers who don't have a problem with the reports? Do they count for anything in your figuring?

Indeed, I am the one person here who knows it was a joke, and that I was not being dishonest. So this issue has now been settled, once and for all.

I could build a house of cards that collapses virtually symmetrically at near freefall. What I am claiming is that a smaller section of a high-rise steel-framed structure, being a relatively lightweight ‘grid’ construction, should not crush a larger section of said structure virtually symmetrically at near freefall. I am claiming that virtual symmetry and near freefall collapses of this type of building are a trademark of controlled demolition. It all comes down to the relevance, or not, of my house of cards… or the 16th century St. Mark’s campanile.

There is no merit in the Fenice example either. The fact that a fire in 1836 “continued to smolder for another fifteen days” does not justify the fact that “700^oC+ temperatures were present at the surface of the WTC debris after 5 days of cooling and being sprayed with water”. The vagueness of the example is shown when we ask the question - what was the temperature of the smouldering Fenice building anyway?

I did find the Venice buildings interesting to read about but the best evidence that has come out of Italy is the statement of the former president, Francesco Cossiga, who said: -

“All of the democratic circles of America and of Europe [...] now know well that the disastrous [9/11] attack was planned and realized by the American CIA and Mossad with the help of the Zionist world to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and to persuade the Western powers to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

You said, “None of the eyewitness reports distinguish "metal" from "steel"” where I have shown clearly they do. There has been no testing of the molten substance, another failing of FEMA and NIST, though I do not believe this is necessary to see what is the obvious. All of the witnesses describe what they specifically considered to be “molten steel” with O’Toole, Fuchek and Trimpe all referring to this actually coming from the beams. Based on the evidence, logic says there was molten steel. For anyone to say that it was not molten steel is illogic borne only by the desire that they want it to be something else.

You fiendish devil turbonium, your cunning was matched only by that of the naysayers themselves!

Yes, that is true, so what we would need from the ‘official’ point of view are explanations for how Mineta allegedly got his account so wrong. The reason I believe the 9/11 Commission fabricated a timeline is because they are not interested in what really happened but only of backing the ‘official’ story and absolving Cheney of responsibility in this case. You do touch on this below...



This cannot be explained through simple inaccuracy of timings on its own. For instance, the article you previously linked, as an excuse concludes it likely that Mineta did not reach the PEOC until after 09:37 but Mineta says he was already there at the time the of the Pentagon impact. Did he dream this and incorporate it into his story? Was he so disturbed by the events that he subconsciously created a story so as he was there at the time of impact?

As another example, Mineta, on a number of occasions, says Cheney was there prior to his arrival. Was there in fact a carboard cut-out of Cheney at the PEOC that Mineta took for the real thing? Was Mineta actually not at the PEOC until after 09:58 (the ‘official’ time of Cheney’s arrival), in which case what on Earth was Mineta doing up to that time that he ‘missed out’ of his testimony? Did Mineta at some point take a knock to the head thus causing him to lose an hour and confuse the sequence of other events?

There are other issues but what we find in trying to explain away Mineta’s testimony is that in addition to being completely mistaken on his timings, he also has to be either a liar or mentally unstable if the ‘official’ story is true.



That is a part of the issue as well – who is confirming the ‘official’ Cheney timeline except for himself, a couple of Secret Service agents and the 9/11 Commission? The Commission report references the PEOC log but does not provide details. The log cannot refer to 09:58 as the Commission report states, “We have concluded, from the available evidence, that the Vice President arrived in the room shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58.” They don’t sound at all sure, do they? The log may refer to 09:37 when Cheney supposedly entered the PEOC tunnel but then the Commission report states, “Secret Service personnel told us that the 9:37 entry time in their timeline was based on alarm data, which is no longer retrievable.” How convenient. Are there any other sources you know of?

I have previously given links and details supporting Mineta’s testimony here.



I think this subject is being avoided as it takes a bit of research to get your head around which people cannot be bothered with and, after doing so, is practically impossible to excuse from the ‘official’ standpoint. And further, some people know all this but because they want to believe the ‘official’ story refuse to acknowledge in their mind that there is a problem.

No. You obviously didn't listen to the whole interview. He expresses his opinion first, and then proceeds to say that he's not an explosives expert.

And who are you to judge whether or not someone is 'entitled' to give their personal opinion on an issue?

Especially when Rodriguez makes a point of clarifying to everyone that he is not speaking as an explosives expert! He is giving his personal opinion, as a layman. And he's perfectly entitled to give his opinion. A personal opinion does not "require" having expertise on a subject.

Your basic argument, as I see it...

flyingswan: "Hey, you can't give an opinion on explosives! You aren't an explosives expert"

Rodriguez: "But I made sure to mention that I was not an explosives expert. I was only giving my personal opinion, as a layman on the subject."

flyingswan:: "No, no, no. That's not good enough. Opinions on explosives can only be given by an expert on the subject! It's required. Nobody else is allowed to talk about it."


How you come up with such nonsense is simply amazing.

Wrong - there is evidence for thermite. Fluorine (and sulfur) are not present in 'normal' (construction) microspheres (see link below). But they were present in the WTC samples.



Several online sources explain why they shouldn't be hollow, such as this one...

Welding fumes are a complex mixture of metallic oxides, silicates and fluorides. Fumes are formed when a metal is heated above its boiling point and its vapours condense into very fine, particles (solid particulates).

http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/safety_haz/welding/fumes.html

Another source describes how these particles are solid (not hollow)....

Many welding, cutting, and allied processes produce fumes and gases, which may be harmful to your health... Fumes are solid particles

http://www.aircleaning.co.za/airclean2/Con...lding_fumes.asp



As noted above - 'normal' microspheres produced by construction are solid, not hollow.

And the aircraft impacts and collapses couldn't (and didn't) produce these iron-rich microspheres. As you know, the fire temperatures were far too low to melt the steel. And there is no way "frictional heat of metal and other surfaces rubbing against each other" could have reached the temperatures needed to produce the microspheres.

How do they account for the white smoke?

Did they actually reproduce the effect with batteries, or do they just say "This is what melted batteries look like"?

What temperatures are required to melt the batteries?

Where are your sources for this argument?

The FEMA report notes the limited fires in WTC 7, according to firefighters on the scene (and after studying WTC 7's fires in the videos and photos)...

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

The firefighters who claim WTC 7 had "fully involved" fires? Well, I'd really like to know just what they were looking at, because absolutely none of the videos and photos show "fully involved" fires in WTC 7!

FEMA's report also mentions this...

According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner.

That account alone blows away the claim about a "huge gouge" in the building's south side being caused by flying debris.

What if 15 or 20 firefighters claimed to have seen a giant pink elephant fly over WTC 7 that afternoon? But nobody else there did? And not a single photo or video showed a giant pink elephant fly over WTC 7?

I guess you'd believe there was a giant pink elephant, despite all the evidence to the contrary...just like you believe WTC 7 was totally engulfed in flames, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunatly not really. See you either agree with FEMA, or you dont work. Not to say they arent telling the truth, but under there curcumstances, its clear why they would hesitate to tell the whole story. Alot of these folks on the web site I provided, are in the top of there fields.

I notice alot of folks here against the idea of a conspiracy think that we "want" to believe the goverment did this. I can only speak for myself, but it seems to me nothing could be further from the truth. Why would anyone want to believe our own goverment was willfully responcible for the deaths of 3000 Americans? And if it is true that the goverment was responcible for it, surly much more is still to come, possibly changing the way we all live. No one wants that.