The actual evidence shows building 7 fall in the exact way controled demolition works. Its claimed the damage was done to the lower corner of the building. Even if the damage was enought to drop the building, it would have fallen face forward, not striaght down. Gravity demands this.

So you account for eyewitness reports as valid when trying to apply it as a support for your theories...but eyewitness accounts are immediately null and void when used to support anyone else's theories(i.e. molten steel)

How convenient for you.

There is a difference between what can and can't be reliably reported by an eyewitness. Molten metals all tend to look similar, so an eyewitness claim that a molten metal is steel rather than aluminium or lead doesn't carry any weight without actual analysis of the material. However, an eyewitness, particularly a fireman, should be able to tell how much of a building is damaged or on fire even if the smoke is too thick to get good pictures.

The last time I checked, gravity acted straight down.
No-one is claiming that WTC7 fell purely because of the damage to the south side. As with the towers, damage and fire interact. Following the damage, the building was on fire for hours and the fire department were unable to fight the fire for several reasons including damage to water supplies and the higher priority of searching for survivors from the tower collapses. The resulting damage to the building from this fire isn't easy to assess, but the eventual collapse shows differences from what would be expected from a controlled demolition, in particular the movement of the penthouses several seconds before the main collapse. This evidence has prompted a theory that the collapse was due to fire damage to one particular column in the east side of the building:
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-...lsanz-Nov07.pdf

Molten steel, lead and aluminum all bear differing characteristics and flow patterns when beyond their melting points. As for lead, it will easily press through many forms of material to make it's way to the bottom of the pile due to it's density and liquidity, and as such would never be seen near the surface. If the fire is hot enough to make the lead glow then that fire will also be hot enough to disrupt material compression allowing for the lead's higher mass to press through and sink. Compared to steel lead requires very little energy at a molecular level to separate in flow, and as such it tends to be seen more in pools rather than "rivers".

At the temperatures being described at only the surface of debris pile, the insulation being presented by the pile would therefore also indicate a much greater temperature below. Aluminum vaporizes between 1800F and 2200F and even at molten states doesn't look or behave anything like lead or steel. It also does not retain heat well and would irradiate energy quickly and becomes solid in a short period of time. Also after it solidifies in pools it still tends to look like aluminum...lightweight, easily broken up, and still retaining it's grey and silverish colours. It would never be mistaken for molten steel...even an apprenticing welder could easily tell the difference.

As for molten steel, it radiates heat well while still remaining in a molten state, and in a solidified state continues to radiate heat considering it's enormous capacity for retaining energy(which is why it is used for building high rises). If insulated it takes a while to become solid and large blocks of recently solidified steel can exhibit radiation signatures for extended periods of time even out in the open. A short visit to any steel foundry can establish that for you. If insulated it will continue to radiate heat for longer durations and in some cases remain pliable and viscously mobile. It's movement characteristics are easily noted in comparison to lead and aluminum at the same temperatures...due to it's higher melting point it would not be fluid. Steel also requires more energy to separate at a molecular level, and as soon as it starts to cool, yet remain viscous, it will then exhibit patterns of flow that simulate rivers etc.(although I still doubt that anyone would have seen "rivers" of steel. Such witnesses would have also received a "sunburn" without protection)

The only place molten steel could originate from in the WTC complex could be from Thermite/thermate. It takes far too long to melt a ton of steel even in a foundry under controlled conditions...there is not enough heat present in the WTC fires or collapse to melt steel.

p.s. HE ordnance has been known to melt steel in enclosed environments with the proper applications(structural shockwave insulation) but there is no way that this could be the cause of any molten steel found in the WTC...the nature of using HE for bringing down a building does not leave available any enclosed conditions favourable to recreating such an occurrence.

And how much of that information is likely to be known to the average eyewitness? None of them report in enough detail to know if what they saw was steel or another metal. What if lead does percolate downwards, the molten metal reports frequently report finding it as a result of digging into or pulling things from the debris.
Personally, I think it might be possible for the long-duration fires in the rubble to actually melt steel, after all, how else did our ancestors discover the technology of steel-making, but in the absence of hard evidence that molten steel was actually present this is irrelevant.
As to thermite/thermate, do you realise how much of the stuff needs to be smuggled into the buildings to have the effects you want? Do you realise the difficulties of cutting vertical columns with the stuff? Do you realise the difficulties of getting the split-second sequencing needed for a CD from it?

Can I ask a question? What if sulphuric acid is figured into your calculations? Thank you.

Mr. Preacherman 76-

You have pointed to a website of conspiracy minded individuals- "The enemy is organized, and in control!" folks. Aside from the ususal, I don't yet subcribe to that notion.

The website (IIR) is http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

Randomly, I selected Commander Ralph Kolstad. He lists his credentials in aviation, and raises various objections.



He says-

"Where is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the wings? Where are the big pieces that always break away in an accident? Where is all the luggage? Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines that are part and parcel of any large aircraft? Where are the steel engine parts? Where is the steel landing gear? Where is the tail section that would have broken into large pieces?

I also personally knew American Airlines Captain "Chick" Burlingame, who was the captain of Flight 77 which allegedly hit the Pentagon, and I know he would not have given up his airplane to crazies!"


Did he attend his friend's funeral?

Does one espect someone to barge in and slit their thoat while sitting at ther office desk....especially by one trained in doing so? I suspect the pilots were dead or incapacitated shortly after the cockpit door was breached.

Cockpit security wasn't nearly adequate for this threat.

You still can't grasp what a bunch of rubbish this is. Your argument (above) has 3 basic points, so I'll address each one...

1. Rodriguez "..may say that he is not an expert.."

Yes, indeed, he does say that he is not an expert. And why do you think he makes that point very clear to the listeners/viewers, flyingswan? So nobody will think he is an explosives expert, perhaps? So everyone will understand that he is only giving his personal, layman's opinion on the matter. So nobody will misconstrue his opinion as an expert opinion.

2. Rodriguez is "..putting forward opinions that require expertise.."

Wrong. He is putting forward his personal, layman's opinion on the subject. He does not "require expertise" in order to be 'allowed' to speak. The First Amendment hasn't been repealed (not yet, anyway!).

3. Rodriguez is "..effectively making himself out to be an expert."

Total nonsense. He is not "..making himself out to be an expert"! You already know that, because he specifically points out that he is NOT an expert!! How can he be "making himself out to be an expert", when he makes it very clear to everyone that he is NOT an expert??


I'm going to recap the main points of this issue. It began when you cited Roberts' diatribe as evidence that Rodriguez was not a reliable witness, that he kept changing his story, etc.

So I addressed Roberts' article in post #137, where he tries to pin Rodriguez with making false claims - "I’m the last survivor pulled from the rubble." "I saved hundreds of people." Roberts' accusations were shown to be false.

Then you posted another example, flyingswan...

"In his early statements he says that a ball of fire went down the lift shaft, in his later statements he denies this." - your post #188

"..he also suggests that there was no fireball." - your post #195

So I showed how your 'fireball' argument was false (see post #204). Rodriguez did not dispute there was a fireball. That prompted you to revise your argument - into the 'fireball theory'....

You tried to excuse your revision as "irrelevant", and said I was just "quibbling". That was a complete crock, of course. And it was very ironic, considering that your whole argument is based on nitpicking Rodriguez' comments, ad nauseum.

The new 'fireball theory' argument was subsequently trashed, just like all the others had been (see post #342).

Then in post #351, you asked me about Roberts' claim that Rodriguez had lied. But it was Roberts who lied, falsely attributing his made-up quote to Rodriguez...

"I do not say there were bombs in the building."

You tried to excuse Roberts' lie - you suggested that he was just "paraphrasing" what Rodriguez actually said. You said it wasn't a big deal, because Roberts didn't change the "meaning" of the actual quote. Yet again, this is a complete crock. Roberts does not mention that he is paraphrasing what Rodriguez said. Furthermore, Roberts includes quotation marks, which are not used when paraphrasing. And Roberts further tries to give the impression that this is a direct quote, by noting: "Two incompatible statements followed by a false statement." Roberts is lying, in a deliberate attempt to smear Rodriguez.

The made-up quote has a very different meaning than the actual quote, here...

"I always talk about explosion, not bombs- since I am not an explosives expert."

You tried to argue that in the above quote, Rodriguez is claiming that 'he never mentions (or talks about) bombs'.

Which was wrong, as I explained to you. His reason for not always talking about bombs was because he's not an explosives expert.

And that led to your last argument - that Rodriguez is "making himself out to be an expert". I've already addressed this above..

I also explained that Roberts' so-called "greatest change" in Rodriguez' story is not even part of his "story" (his account of events on 9/11).



I prefaced the section with "as I see it". You have never talked to (or been in contact with) Rodriguez directly. The section has an obviously sarcastic tone. From all those clues, it's really not that difficult for you to recognize that it was meant as a satirical barb, is it?

You (somehow) forgot to mention that video and photo coverage of WTC 7's north, east and west sides is plentiful.



As long as you cherry-pick the most extreme damage reports to puff up your argument, I assume?



Many things are beyond you, it seems.



First of all, he actually went inside the building, unlike all (or nearly all) of the other firefighters who were there.

As noted in FEMA's report on WTC 7...

According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner.

Compare that to NIST's Apr. 2005 WTC 7 report...

Debris Damage from WTC 1

South Face Damage –
• middle 1/4 -1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground
• large debris hole near center around 14th floor
• 1/4 width south face, above 5th floor, atrium glass intact
• 8th / 9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more
damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%...pse%20Final.pdf

Uh oh!! NIST's account seems to conflict with FEMA's account...

How could NIST have ignored or dismissed FEMA's firefighter account for their damage assessment? It's utterly absurd and irresponsible!

Obviously, the firefighter didn't have to jump over a massive gouge on the 9th floor - he walked on solid flooring the whole time!



Now that's a good one. Actual evidence? Like photos and videos? Please show me your "actual evidence"...



Do try and read your own links....

"It was fully engulfed, that whole building." – Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy

Oh, sure. Just ignore the other 99% which was identical to "what would be expected" in a CD.

Actually, even the 1% (penthouse collapse) you claim is different than "expected" in a CD is wrong. Look at some CD's on video, so you'll understand how vastly different they can be - how the collapses progress in various ways, etc.

These are frames from a CD video...



Mini "Twin Towers", but they collapse quite differently. Right-side tower - the 'penthouse' totally collapses, before most of the main structure below it has collapsed. But it stays intact on the other tower until the main structure below it has collapsed about halfway. (There are other differences - much more smoke (squibs) expels out of the left tower than the right tower, for example.)

So was the right-side tower not a CD, just because its 'penthouse' collapsed first? Was it not a CD because it was different than "what would be expected" in a CD? No.

Penthouses can certainly collapse before the main structure in a CD. That takes care of the 1% you thought was different from a CD.

And of course, you still have to address the other 99% that is just "what would be expected" in a CD.



Another lousy paper, full of unfounded claims, off-the cuff assumptions, factual errors, and feeble conclusions. Other than that, it's just fine.

Quibble as much as you want, Rodriguez has changed his story and here is the evidence:
http://911stories.googlepages.com/home
http://www.911myths.com/html/william_rodriguez.html

Yeah, so it's OK for you to paraphrase and make up quotes, but if anyone else does it they are dishonest, and the reason you can do it and nobody else can is that you are a joke, sorry, you are joking.

But the south side is obscured in photos by the smoke pouring out of it, which fact in itself suggests both fire and damage.

Several dozen witnesses, mostly firefighters.

The FEMA report has several pages of reports of fires at lots of locations in the building, but you still think the fires were minor.

As did Barry Jennings, who describes the building being severly damaged at the 8th floor. Now who's cherry-picking witnesses?

Perhaps you could give the original evidence of this firefighter rather than FEMA's second-hand one? His evidence seems to tally with Jennings if the initial damage was from the eigth floor down. In that case, there could have been a collapse of floors above that later in the fire.

Thank you, I'd forgotten that one. You have found one firefighter who completely disagrees with your position, to match the one who disagrees with mine. How about this as evidence:
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/fst/FST-D1.pdf
Pictures and video links on pages 21 and 22.

Still doesn't change the fact that you still confuse "fully involved" with "engulfed".

The key factor in the WTC7 collapse is the time delay between the penthouse and the rest. What is the time delay in your example, as it is rather difficult to asses this from a couple of stills?

The only thing about WTC7 that resembles a CD is the final collapse. Other key differences between WTC7 and all controlled demolitions are the fact that the set-up would have had to survive several hours of uncontrolled fire and unpredictable damage from the tower collapses, that the charges would have had to be installed in an occupied building without anyone noticing and the long list of witness statements that the building would collapse without extra help before it actually did. It's the CD case that has the 1% resemblance, much less if you go on the fraction of the timeline - nothing like a CD for hours, then a superficial resemblance for a few seconds.

Gilsanz is a qualified structural engineer with a considerable reputation. You are...?
(and of course you are not setting yourself up as an expert by giving your unbacked opinion of a technical article).

Sounds like something you might have written... it certainly seems to be in your style at least. Have you been moonlighting? Maybe that's why you seem to have lots of time to post about 9/11 here yet for some reason still can't get back to certain other forums more than once in two months to answer questions posed of you there...

By the way... how's that Trieste investigation going? And have you confused any more craters for tortoise shells in pictures of the Moon's surface yet...?





Cz

If the damage was the center beams being cut, then yes the building would fall striaght down. Which is in fact what happened. But the actual damage was to the lower corner, if thats what caused it, the building would litteraly lean to one side, and fall face first. A 6 hour fire couldnt cause that building to fall, it just makes zero sence.

A six-hour fire has ample opportunity to damage other parts of the building. Damage can start a fire, the fire can spread, and the place where the collapse initiates can be away from the original damage. The initial damage causes load redistribution that brings other components nearer to their ultimate load, and which of these other components is first weakened to the point that it loses its remaining load margin or is further loaded to its ultimate from thermal stresses depends on how the fire spreads. Compare the NIST theory of the collapse of WTC1, where the aircraft impacts the north side of the tower but the collapse initiates from fire effects to the south side, because that is the side where the fire was fiercest.

Fire couldnt make the center beams fall. NTM I dont believe NIST theory regarding WCT 1 either.

I would refer you to these two pages, on this thread-

Page 41

Page 42

I have noticed that sometimes, the images don't load on the page. It is usually a temporary problem.

The posts I made were to draw some rough comparison between the events of WTC 5 and WTC 7. Inspection after the events found that some connections between the structural steel beams failed in the fires in WTC 5.

The fireproofing did not protect the connections, and there was a partial collapse in WTC 5. Its design and construction was similar to many steel-framed high rises. However, it was the first major collapse of its kind, caused by failure of connections due to fire damage.

The first of it's kind. As well, WTC 7 was the first protected steel structure ever known to collapse solely due to fire. It burned uncontrolled for seven hours. It also had some impact damage, whether or not it contributed to the collapse. There were fuel lines for diesel generators in WTC 7, whether or not that played a role.

I don't have links to further information, because of a recent short in my PC. So, I may try later to give other detail.

Why would anyone demolish WTC 7 that day? And, what about cd explosions? And, why did firemen all concur WTC 7 was going to fall? According to news video, it gave signals of danger- noises, shifting structure.

So, like I said, there were many first-time occurances that day.




Heat-buckled column from WTC 5

Why not? Let's have the detailed explanation, not the usual "I don't know anything about structural or fire engineering, but my opinion's as good as anyone's" routine.

I find it ironic that you accuse people of not bothering to do research on this subject and yet within a couple of minutes of googling I managed to find links which provide vastly more research, quotes and sources than you've ever provided. Which you then dismissed.

I have read your arguments and links, it interested me enough to search for more information. When I found that information I read that as well and it convinced me that what you were saying was wrong. It is by no means 'practically impossible' to determine the official viewpoint from the evidence provided. The accuracy of the sources you've given are gone over in great detail; all the points you've raised are discussed at multiple points; Cheney's arrival and Mineta's timeline are focussed on in depth and compared with a wide range of sources and witnesses.

I don’t deny there are many contradictions to be found in the ‘official’ story. But there are huge amounts of contradictions in the Mineta-version of events too. Given you are happy to ignore those contradictions (and the explanations of the events you cannot comprehend to be wrong) you leave yourself open to an equal accusation that you’ve not bothered to read the research provided to you or you want to believe your conspiracy story so much you refuse to acknowledge in your mind that there is a problem with it. See, it works both ways, so it’s all a bit pointless.

Also, you’re suggesting conspiracy in the 911 commissions when the fact is there is contradictory evidence to Mineta’s story (whether you believe it or not), so they could have taken into account all the evidence and honestly decided on what they did as most likely (remembering this was only one tiny part of a very large report). Hell, I’ve looked at all the evidence and I think their official timeline sounds reasonable – maybe they’re not conspirators, maybe they’re just as much of a sheeple and need to WAKE UP!!1! as much as I do.

Anyway, as I said before you’re entitled to your opinion, but don’t be too surprised if nobady wants to debate your personal charge at windmills.

This is one area I am not familiar with- all these timelines and agency interactions. But, here is something that at least clears up the some of the "shoot down, stand down" controversy.

9-11 Commission-

MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down.

MR. MINETA: Well, I don't know that specifically, but I do know that the airplanes were scrambled from Langley or from Norfolk, the Norfolk area. But I did not know about the orders specifically other than listening to that other conversation.

MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down.

MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out.

MR. HAMILTON: With respect to Flight 93, what type of information were you and the vice president receiving about that flight?

MR. MINETA: The only information we had at that point was when it crashed.

MR. HAMILTON: I see. You didn't know beforehand about that airplane.

MR. MINETA: I did not.

MR. HAMILTON: And so there was no specific order there to shoot that plane down.

MR. MINETA: No, sir.

MR. HAMILTON: But there were military planes in the air in position to shoot down commercial aircraft.

MR. MINETA: That's right. The planes had been scrambled, I believe, from Otis at that point.


And, Mineta relates-

When I overheard something about 'order still stands', what I thought of was that they had already made the decision to shoot something down. I remember later on, when I heard about the Shanksville plane going down, the Vice President was right across from me. I said, "You think that we shot it down ourselves?"

He said, "I don't know."

He said, "Let's find out."

So, he had someone check with the Pentagon. But, that was maybe about 10:30 or so. And, we never heard back from the DOD until about 12:30. And, they said no, we didn't do it.

Mineta interview, 2:00-3:00


(In other words, Mineta is asking if someone shot down Flight 93. And, Cheney responds he does not know, and wonders if jet fighters might have.

The President had ordered the implementation of some sort of shootdown policy, not a stand down order for Flight 77.

Flight 93, which crashed 20 minutes later, had no particular order relating to it. If there had been a stand down order, Cheney would have known, and Mineta would have found out.

As for who's on first, maybe it's best to keep the enemies of the U.S. guessing.)

Camp David, Maryland
September 16, 2001

The Vice President appears on Meet the Press with Tim Russert

VICE PRES. CHENEY: National security adviser, my chief of staff, Scooter Libby, Mary Matalin, who works for me, convened in my office, and we started talking about getting the Counterterrorism Task Force up and operating. I talked with the president. I'd given word to Andy Card's staff, who is right next door, to get hold of Andy and/or the president and that I wanted to talk to him as soon as they could hook it up. This call came in, and the president knew at this point about that. We discussed a statement that he might make, and the first statement he made describing this as an act of apparent terrorism flowed out of those conversations. While I was there, over the next several minutes, watching developments on the television and as we started to get organized to figure out what to do, my Secret Service agents came in and, under these circumstances, they just move. They don't say "sir" or ask politely. They came in and said, "Sir, we have to leave immediately," and grabbed me and...

MR. RUSSERT: Literally grabbed you and moved you?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yeah. And, you know, your feet touch the floor periodically. But they're bigger than I am, and they hoisted me up and moved me very rapidly down the hallway, down some stairs, through some doors and down some more stairs into an underground facility under the White House, and, as a matter of fact, it's a corridor, locked at both ends, and they did that because they had received a report that an airplane was headed for the White House.

MR. RUSSERT: This is Flight 77, which had left Dulles.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Which turned out to be Flight 77. It left Dulles, flown west towards Ohio, been captured by the terrorists. They turned off the transponder, which led to a later report that a plane had gone down in Ohio, but it really hadn't. Of course, then they turned back and headed back towards Washington. As best we can tell, they came initially at the White House and...

MR. RUSSERT: The plane actually circled the White House?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Didn't circle it, but was headed on a track into it. The Secret Service has an arrangement with the F.A.A. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was...

MR. RUSSERT: Tracking it by radar.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: And when it entered the danger zone and looked like it was headed for the White House was when they grabbed me and evacuated me to the basement. The plane obviously didn't hit the White House. It turned away and, we think, flew a circle and came back in and then hit the Pentagon. And that's what the radar track looks like. The result of that--once I got down into the shelter, the first thing I did--there's a secure phone there. First thing I did was pick up the telephone and call the president again, who was still down in Florida, at that point, and strongly urged him to delay his return.

MR. RUSSERT: You told him to stay away from Washington.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I said, `Delay your return. We don't know what's going on here, but it looks like, you know, we've been targeted.'

MR. RUSSERT: Why did you make that judgment?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, it goes to--you know, sort of my basic role as vice president is to worry about presidential succession. And my job, above all other things, is to be prepared to take over if something happens to the president. But over the years from my time with President Ford, as secretary of Defense, on the Intel Committee and so forth, I've been involved in a number of programs that were aimed at ensuring presidential succession. We did a lot of planning during the Cold War, Tim, with respect to the possibility of a nuclear incident. And one of the key requirements always is to protect the presidency. It's not about George Bush or Dick Cheney. It's about the occupant in the office.

And one of the things that we did later on that day were tied directly to guaranteeing presidential succession, and that our enemies, whoever they might be, could not decapitate the federal government and leave us leaderless in a moment of crisis. That's why, for example, when we have a State of the Union speech and we've got the entire government assembled--the president, vice president, congressional leaders, Cabinet and so forth--we always leave a Cabinet member out. He's always taken to a secure location and set up there in case something should happen in the House chambers so we still have a president.


Link

There is a paper here, written by a US Attorney in Law, which outlines why the “order” Cheney has in place cannot be a shootdown in regard to Flight 77 and therefore by logic must be the opposite. Basically put, the testimony of NORAD's General Arnold shows that no shootdown authority was received until after 10:00, some time after Flight 77 had impacted the Pentagon.

Yes, there is a good amount of information in the link you provided, though I like to go by quality rather than quantity. I have not dismissed the bulk of information contained within but as I first said, the article is leading and does well to muddy the water whilst not showing Mineta’s testimony to be false.



That is incorrect – if you look through the muddied waters you will see the only source directly contradicting Mineta’s testimony is the 9/11 Commission report, based on the words of a couple of Secret Service agents and Cheney himself.



Maybe some of the Commission members were “sheeple” as you say, but most of them had a conflict of interest whether through political or business dealings. How about Fred Fielding who, “maintained close ties to Mr. Cheney, whom he has known for decades, and had occasionally been an informal adviser to him.” Surely someone like that would neeever cover for Cheney now would they.



Can you address the questions I am asking or not? Ok, let me make this easy for the ‘official’ story and assume for a moment, unlikely as it is, that Mineta has repeatedly made a monumental botch of his arrival time… and time of overhearing the “order”… and was confused about which flight he was witnessing incoming as the “order” was in place. Assuming the Commission are correct in ignoring Mineta’s testimony: -

1. Why did Mineta say he was at the PEOC at the 09:37 time of the Pentagon impact if he wasn’t?
2. Why did Mineta say he was at the PEOC at the 09:45 time that the order to ground aircraft was given if he wasn’t?

Here is the relevant section of Mineta’s testimony regarding the above: -

“Within a few minutes, American Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. At this time, as we discussed the situation with the North American Aerospace Defense commander and his staff, we considered implementing an emergency system of coordinated air traffic management to allow maximum use for defensive activities.

It was clear that we had to clear the air space as soon as possible to stop any further attacks and ensure domestic air space was available for emergency and defensive use. And so at approximately 9:45 a.m., less than one hour after I had first been notified of an airplane crash in New York, I gave the FAA the final order for all civil aircraft to land at the nearest airport as soon as possible.”

Now if he wasn’t at the PEOC at the above times (as your article concludes), the ‘official’ story needs a plausible reason why Mineta lied in the above, or for whatever reason made-up the account. If he was at the PEOC at the above times as he says, then the ‘official’ story needs to explain why on a number of occasions Mineta has stated that Cheney was there before him. In this interview for instance, Mineta says that Cheney was “absolutely” there before him.

So again, does the ‘official’ story maintain that Mineta is a liar or an idiot?

Q24- I have addressed the shoot down, stand down issue regarding Mineta. There was no evidence of any stand down order. And, statements to the contrary.

I provided a video link. You referenced the same video, but at a conspiracy website (if I may be so bold).

The blurb at that website says-

Mineta confirmed his statements with reporters, saying "When I overheard something about 'the orders still stand' and so, what I thought of was that they had already made the decision to shoot something down."

Norman Mineta made it clear to reporters-- who verified his quotes in written text alongside him-- that Mineta was indeed talking about a stand down order not to shoot down hijacked aircraft headed for the Pentagon.


(I ask, is that not a contradictory or twisted appraisal of Norm Mineta's words?)


Finally, the link says-

After no shoot down took place, it became clear that Cheney intended to keep NORAD fighter jets from responding-- evidence that Cheney is guilty of treason, not negligence for allowing the Pentagon to be hit.

The idea that "the order still stands" matches up with a change in NORAD and Pentagon orders-- issued on June 1, 2001, only months before 9/11. The document revoked the default standing orders to shoot down errant or hijacked aircraft and instructed them instead to stand down until they were given orders by the President, Vice President or Secretary of Defense.


(They provide a document, which to me, says nothing to indicate any wrongdoing.)

Jones Report Bruha About Norm Mineta

'Muddy the water'? Please. There's no doubt the site I linked to takes an anti-CT view point, but it's the author's opinion (I'm sure the sources you looked at to form your opinion on Mineta didn't take a pro-CT viewpoint). Let's face it, it's not like the author of that site has done vastly more investigation and research on the topic than you, presented all original sources, presented the opposing view, discussed his reasoning (including strengths and weaknesses of his argument), and (whilst inviting the reader, and giving all the links, to further investigate and make their own mind up) gave his personal conclusion which just happened to disagree with you. Oh no, obvioulsy he's blindly following anything the goverment says and finding any excuse to 'muddy the waters' of your truth. Perhaps he's a government shill.


I've already said I'm not interested in getting into any debate about this. I only got involved firstly because I was name checked in a question, and then because I thought your repeated foot-stamping and belief of the importance of the issue was rediculous enough to comment on. I've spent time looking into this issue and have satisfied myself with what I believe. I'm not really bothered what you believe and I've said how there's so many contradiction on both sides it makes a debate pretty pointless. If I had the time perhaps I would enjoy the debate for the sake of it, or just to inform any general lurkers, but as I'm pretty busy IRL I'm not going to.

Your questions just re-iterate the pointlessness of the debate. You ask about Mineta being at the PEOC before the Pentagon impact and quote one source. Clearly ignoring all the other direct Mineta interviews when he refers to being informed of it - indeed he slightly contradicts himself in every quote, from placing it 10 minute before it happens(!) to specifically stating it was confirmed as American Airlines (something which could easily place the discussion after 1000). There's a big difference between it happening at a confirmed point in time and somebody finding out about it (or having it specifically confirmed) who knows how long after, and you ignore those quotes. You ask about the 0945 grounding order when there is an entire section on the Mineta page about the FAA doing the ground order at 945 and Mineta only getting informed until an indeterminate time afterwards (confirmed by FAA sources who must be in on it too), including why he could have been mistaken. These allow Mineta not to be an idiot or a liar, just mistaken and still there after Cheney (which is explained even more on the Cheney page).

Now, I've given you quick reponses, above, but that's all I'm doing. The fact that you needed to ask those question which I can find quick, clear references to suggest that either you've not bothered to look into the links I gave you in any depth (so I'm not going to bother to search it for you), or you've read the information and ignored it/didn't get it/didn't make any difference to you (so me repeating it isn't going to change your opinion). Either way, anyone else want to debate with you, go ahead, but as far as I'm concerned it's a pointless, dead topic.

Please what? Look at the very first “Questioning the Mineta timeline” point raised, “Packed timetable”. The section attempts to say that Mineta could not fit all of his actions into the time available to fit with his testimony. They say that his timeline “looks very rushed” but in the end, “we certainly can't say it's impossible for Mineta to have followed that kind of timetable.” So what was the point in that section? The only reason for it is to plant doubt, unwarranted at that, in the reader’s mind and as I say, muddy the water.

How about the second point, “Order of events”. Mineta says there was a ground hold in place specifically from Atlanta “maybe about 8:30 or 8:40 in the morning”. This is the timeframe that the FAA notified NORAD there was a problem so it is quite possible that the first ground holds from some airports were considered at that time. The other note is that Mineta says, “Now this is about 9:27” where he should have said “about 9:37”. That in one interview, out of the handful he has given, Mineta placed a timing 10 minutes early does not alter the main body of evidence in his testimony.

The third point, “Evacuating the White House”. This section says that as a full scale evacuation of the White House occurred at 9:45 and Mineta recalls “People were coming out of the White House”, this must have been when he arrived. The section though also references a CNN report which places the initial evacuation at approximately 9:22 and as authorities were aware of the incoming airliner shortly prior to this time, again Mineta’s account of people evacuating at approximately 9:20 is quite possible.

We can go through all of 911myths so called ‘questioning’ in this way and find that, for all the speculation and obfuscation the author pushes, it does not rule out Mineta’s testimony.



The other Mineta interviews you mention very much support his testimony to the Commission that he was at the PEOC prior to the Pentagon impact.

The Acadmey of Achievement interview: -

• Some young man came in and said to the Vice President, "There's a plane 50 miles out coming towards D.C." So I said to Monty Belger, who is the No. 2 at FAA, I said, "Monty, what do you have on radar on this plane coming in?" He said, "Well, the transponder has been turned off, so we don't know who it is, and we don't know the altitude or speed." I said, "Well, where is it?" He said, "It's somewhere beyond Great Falls right now." Then, the young man came in and said it's 20 miles away. I'd say, "Well, Monty, where is this plane in relationship to the ground?" On radar it is hard to associate with a ground point, but they'd be able to tell you roughly the distance from wherever you are, but he couldn't tell you the speed or altitude, and then all of a sudden, as I was talking to him, he said, "Oh, I lost the bogie. Lost the target." I said, "Well, where is it?" He said, "Well, it's somewhere between Rosslyn and National Airport," and about that time someone broke into the conversation and said, "Mr. Secretary, we just had a confirmation from an Arlington County police officer saying that he saw an American Airlines plane go into the Pentagon."

This account is interesting as Mineta refers to the radar display of the incoming airliner and how the target was lost. This is proof that Mineta is referring to Flight 77 and not the projected trajectory of Flight 93 as some promoting the ‘official’ story try to say – a predicted ‘phantom’ flightpath will obviously not show on radar (I hope you are reading, mrbusdriver). You also said, ifisurvive, that a report could be received “who knows how long” after the event, but it is clear from Mineta’s interview that the report of the Pentagon impact was received within very short order of losing the target.

The MSNBC interview: -

• And a little later on, someone said, "Mr. Vice President, there's a plane 50-miles out." So I was talking to Monte Belger, the Deputy Director of the FAA, and I said, "Monte, what do you have 50-miles out?"
  
  He said, "Well, we have a target, bogey, on the radar, but the transponder's been turned off, so we have no identification of this aircraft. We don't know who it is. We don't know what altitude it's at, speed or anything else. All we're doing is watching with the sweep of the radar, the dot moving from position to position."
  
  So then someone came in, the same person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, it -- the plane's 30-miles out." So I said, "Monte, can you see it, and where is it in relationship to the ground?"
  
  He said, "Well, that's difficult to really determine. I would guess it's somewhere between Great Falls and National Airport, coming what they call the DRA, the down river approach."
  
  And so then the person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, the plane's ten-miles out," and so I said, "Monte, where is it?" and he said, "Well, I'm not really sure but I'd be guessing somewhere maybe between the USA Today building and, and National Airport."
  
  And then pretty soon he said, "Oh-oh, we just lost the target." And so a few moments later, someone came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, there's been an explosion at the Pentagon."

Again, mention that the incoming flight is being tracked on radar – this can only be Flight 77. This time Mineta says “a few moments” after losing the target, word of the Pentagon impact is received.

Interview with the Daily Californian: -

• Someone came in and said, 'Mr. Vice President, there is a plane 50 miles out.' I asked our FAA people, 'Can you see an aircraft coming in 50 miles out?' and they said, 'Yeah, we're tracking it, but the transponder is off, so we don't know what the identification of that airplane is.' Pretty soon the same person came in and informed the vice president, sitting right across from me at the conference table, that the airplane is 30 miles out. I asked the FAA about it and they said, 'Yeah, we know where the plane is, but we don't know who it is.'
  
  Then they came in and said it was 10 miles out. Soon after that, I was talking to the deputy director of the FAA, and he told me they had lost the target off the screen. Soon after that, then, the vice president was informed that there was an explosion at the Pentagon.

Exactly the same again - Mineta recalls how updates of Flight 77’s approach are being given, how the flight is being tracked on radar, then they lose the target and soon after a report is received that the Pentagon has been impacted.

Now, reading the interviews carefully, this is not a series of events that Mineta could displace in his timeline – he either was at the PEOC prior to the Pentagon impact to recall these events or he wasn’t. I know that your position, ifisurvive, is to fall in line with the article you posted. The article concludes that Mineta did not arrive at the PEOC until after the Pentagon impact, therefore supposing that the above three Mineta interviews in addition to his testimony are incorrect. This is to say that the Mineta accounts above are a complete fabrication on his part, i.e. a lie.

Thank you for your time, that’s all I wanted to know. I just wanted someone who accepts the Commission Report to confirm their belief that Mineta’s testimony can only be explained as a lie. Well, after all, any witness evidence that opposes the ‘official’ story must be false mustn’t it.

I agree, there is no firm evidence that Cheney had a stand down order in place but we also know that the “order” in relation to the incoming Flight 77 was certainly not for a shoot down. This is confirmed by General Arnold's testimony I linked on the previous page where he states that shoot down authority was not received until after 10:00. The fact this was not a shoot down order in place as the flight approached the Pentagon is not in serious dispute between the ‘official’ and ‘alternative’ theories and is something that myself and mrbusdriver agreed on earlier in the thread.

So Cheney has an “order” in place in relation to the incoming Flight 77. We know this is not a shoot down order. So what is it?

My current thinking is that the “order” may have something to do with the fighters out of Langley that ‘somehow’ flew in completely the wrong direction despite the NEADS controllers’ clear request for cover over Washington due to the incoming threat.

I'm not at all convinced this is about AA77. And "somehow" flew in...the wrong direction does not take into account a standard departure procedure under civil ATC operating procedures and control. And the "incoming threat"...NEADS had no position, no radar contact, they only heard mention of an aircraft heading towards DC. They had no "target".

I know you have been unconvinced that the “order” Mineta witnessed was in reference to Flight 77… you believe it was perhaps the ‘phantom’ Flight 93 trajectory at approximately 10:15. I would be interested to know what you think of Mineta’s interviews that I gave excerpts of in my post to ifisurvive above. If you read them you will see that Mineta refers in each one to the incoming target being tracked on radar until it disappears. It is best if you read the full sections above to get an idea of Mineta’s chronology but here are the relevant sections regarding radar: -

• So I said to Monty Belger, who is the No. 2 at FAA, I said, "Monty, what do you have on radar on this plane coming in?" He said, "Well, the transponder has been turned off, so we don't know who it is, and we don't know the altitude or speed."
  
  
• He said, "Well, we have a target, bogey, on the radar, but the transponder's been turned off, so we have no identification of this aircraft. We don't know who it is. We don't know what altitude it's at, speed or anything else. All we're doing is watching with the sweep of the radar, the dot moving from position to position."
  
  
• Someone came in and said, 'Mr. Vice President, there is a plane 50 miles out.' I asked our FAA people, 'Can you see an aircraft coming in 50 miles out?' and they said, 'Yeah, we're tracking it, but the transponder is off, so we don't know what the identification of that airplane is.'

Now how can this possibly be in reference to the predicted trajectory of the ‘phantom’ Flight 93? No, they were apparently tracking a very real flight that was displayed on radar and that could be none other than Flight 77.

While I may be wrong, my thinking here is that we will never know. Because there are intracasies of communication and national security that won't be made public. The public will have to accept that political oversight of these matters, in closed session, is about as close as most of us will get. It is handled through Congress.

I think mrbusdriver mentioned Class Bravo on 9-11. Perhaps it was enacted by the President much earlier than is written about. We don't know what mode they went into, and when, after WTC 1 or WTC 2, despite public knowledge.

Maybe the "nervous" messenger (military) was double checking on a devloping situation with his superior- the VP.
There might have been some concern about shooting down an airliner which was, at that time, unknown as FoF.

Which I have repeatedly not said:


please don't deliberately mis-quote me.


And any witness or documentary evidence or argument that supports the ‘official’ story must be false mustn’t it.

The clear implication of what you are saying is that Mineta is a liar, even if you do not have a good enough grasp of the topic to realise it. If you had followed what I said in my previous post, if Mineta had arrived after the Pentagon impact, then there are no two ways about it, his testimony and interviews must be a lie. If you don't like that then perhaps you need to reassess your own explanation to provide a way that doesn't necessitate Mineta lying.

Mineta describs the incoming Flight 77 which is being tracked to within 10 miles of the White House and is lost from radar shortly after, before in short order a report is received that the Pentagon has been impacted. If you are giving a firsthand account, in some detail, of an event that you did not in fact witness, that is not simply “mistaken”, that is “lying”.



That would depend on the source and what exactly is being said. In this particular case we either support the 9/11 Commission and Cheney or we support Mineta. Now there are very obvious reasons according to the ‘alternative’ theory why Cheney would lie about his actions on that morning. But from any stance, what I cannot begin to figure, is any serious reason for Mineta to have lied.

I agree it is likely we will never know exactly what the “order” was that Cheney had in place. Though when this was an “order” that the 9/11 Commission attempted to hide from us by deliberately omitting it from their timeline and further went to the lengths of fabricating a timeline for Cheney to absolve him of any responsibility, it is not something that anyone should accept.

As I understand, the President and Vice-President were grilled in private. Nothing came of that. Don't think they would still be around if there was any discrepancy- which there was no reason to be. The U.S. was attacked by outsiders, not persons from the U.S. There is no reason to expect, otherwise. There is no reason to expect GWB, DC, or anyone connected to them had inside culpability. Some may knee-jerk and say so, and that is their right.

There was at least one particular individual on the Commission- Timothy J. Roemer.

"From 1991-2003, Roemer represented the Third District of Indiana in the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Science."

He would not have tread lightly on treason, as some might imply.

It's now 2008. Nearly seven years. And, people think just because they want to, they deserve to analyze every iota of our defense apparatus. Good luck-

No Q24, when I explicitly state three times that I don't think someone is a liar the clear implication of what I am saying is that I don't think someone is a liar.

There are counter arguments to your points. There are huge amounts of points that support Mineta being wrong (without him being a liar). I have clearly expressed my opinion on this.

You think Mineta is either right or a liar. I think Mineta can be mistaken without being a liar - don't express your opinion and claim it's mine.

Ok… then can you explain how Mineta can give an account of the incoming Flight 77 which he says is tracked to within 10 miles of the White House and lost from radar, before in short order a report is received that the Pentagon has been impacted… when in fact you are claiming he was not there at the time of the Pentagon impact… and somehow in your opinion he can recall events that he was supposedly not witness to without being a liar?

I genuinely want to understand what you are thinking because it hasn’t made much sense so far.

I seriously doubt that.

That's enough bickering, Q24 & ifisurvive, it's irritating and unproductive. Also, let's refrain from making accusations regarding what you percieve people are saying when they've gone out of their way to clarify their position. Whether their explanation is satisfactory or not is not a reason to continue to harp on it. Move on to something else or stop commenting, this is a requirement, not a request.

MM

No. This frame was taken from a video, and shows that almost all of the smoke actually originates from outside of WTC 7....



The smoke isn't "pouring out of" WTC 7 - it's billowing up from the nearby debris. That is further confirmed by the fact that NO fire can be seen inside WTC 7. Not a single window that comes into view through the smoke shows any signs of fire.



Maybe you should look at what Jennings really said...

Jennings: "Well, I’m just confused about one thing and one thing only, why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place? I’m very confused about that.

I know what I heard; I heard explosions.

The explanation I got was it was the fuel oil tank. I’m an old boiler guy. If it was the fuel oil tank, it would have been one side of the building. ...

As I told you earlier, both buildings were still standing. Because I looked to, I looked one way, looked the other way, there's nothing there.

When I got to the 6th floor before all this happened, I got to the 6th floor, there was an explosion, that’s what forced us back to the 8th floor, both buildings were still standing."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NttM3oUrNmE

His account doesn't support your argument - it actually destroys it. He "heard explosions" inside WTC 7 when "both buildings were still standing."

It collapses just before the lower structure. Are you trying to say that they couldn't have delayed the collapse of the lower structure by a few more seconds? If that's your argument, it's nonsense. They can easily set the lower structure charges to go off a few seconds later.



That's hilarious - the "only thing"! The entire collapse resembles a CD - because it is a CD.



Small fires and limited damage that had no effect on achieving a successful CD. As planned.



That's the same feeble argument you make for the towers. And it's just as irrelevant to the WTC 7 issue. Even moreso, since it was not nearly as accessible to the public as the towers were.



Because they were informed that it was going to be demolished. That's the only reason.



Someone who recognized that this paper has several problems.



No. One doesn't need to be a "qualified structural engineer" to understand that there are significant problems with this paper.

Gilsanz is hardly independent, is he? Indeed, he was part of FEMA's team and NIST's team of investigators.

He was even involved in selecting WTC steel for analysis. So why does he claim that WTC 7 steel was collected, when NIST claims that "no steel was recovered from WTC 7" ??!?

The problems go well beyond that errant claim. It's just one example.

Another high quality post from Czero, as usual.

Well, at least my posts have more verifiable facts than yours seem to...


Cz

Of course, it's impossible to replicate such an event (or series of events) with physical models. And there are no real world examples which one could point out to validate your theory.

But those problems aren't the least bit important to you, are they?

Anyone can make up a theory. It's quite another thing to substantiate it.

We have, but you have not. You can't.

Isn't it about time to finally admit that you can't back up what you claim?

Smiley faces don't count as verifiable facts, Czero.

Perhaps the request to refrain from childish bickering should have been extended to anyone submitting contributions to the topic?

Apologies, Magikman... just felt the need to point out certain hypocrisies being perpetrated...

I'll stop now...


Cz

First, Barry Jennings has a slightly different story, here. He is standing amid post-collapse dust, too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxAuN5lKLio...feature=related

Regarding the other recordings of Jennings, presented by Alex Jones (or whoever compiled them).

1. Jennings said he made several calls, once he reached the OEM office. One call advised him to get out. Of course someone told him to get out- OEM in WTC 7 was already evacuated. The building was probably cleared, already. About that time, those in the lobby of WTC 7 were pulled out.

2. The OEM decided to evacuate WTC 7. Jennings and those with him just arrived late, and were out of that loop. He probably arrived just before 9:30 a.m. The 9-11 Commission says WTC 7 was fully evacuated by about 9:30 a.m. (which meant roughly everyone, but those few in Jenning's group- himself, City Attorney M. Hess, and the security and police escort who Jennings did mention as going with them in first ride to the 23rd floor).

3. Jennings and those with him, went up to floor 23. They were told on the phone to get out. One of their party went looking around, and ran back saying the floor was empty, and they'd better get out! They had to walk down the stairs. They probably reached the either the eighth or sixth floor (depending on whether you accept his street interview on 9-11, or his later version) by 9:59 a.m., just as WTC 2 collapsed.

4. I never heard him say exactly that he got out of the WTC 7 before WTC 2 collapsed. He never said he escaped, and then subsequently witnessed WTC 2 collapse. I think he needs to sit down and explain himself in an unedited interview. And make clear, one explosion, multiple explosions- which is it? When was he inside and for how long? When did he exit WTC 7?

5. The OEM was considered a possible target, prior to 9-11. They always figured it would be, and on 9-11, it was understood to finally evacuate WTC 7 because of more possible attacks.

Link-

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive..._2004-05-18.htm

COMMISSION MEMBER MR. ROEMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm not a native New Yorker and I certainly have a great deal of respect for the great citizens, first citizens of this city who were first responders in many ways and helped save tens and dozens and hundreds of lives.

A lot of respect for the three of you as commissioners that showed heroic actions toward your fellow citizens and helped saved people's lives as well. And I'll never forget reading the eulogy delivered by the father of a firefighter who happened to be his son. And the last words in this eulogy given by the father about his son was, "He is now in good hands. I wish he were in my hands."

I'll never forget that. And one of our missions is to try to make sure that while you helped save thousands and thousands of lives, if we can save 100 with our recommendations the next time, if we can save 50, if we can save a dozen or one, we want to do it. And we're not here to blame the three of you or anybody else, but to find a