Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The 9/11 conspiracy theory.
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > News, Media & World Events > Conspiracies & Secret Societies
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
panther10758
QUOTE(Sub-Zer0 @ Oct 28 2005, 07:22 PM) [snapback]907344[/snapback]

I've skeptical, I'm only going where there is credible information, and there is litterlaly tons for the alternative 9/11 scenario, which you seem to call so kooky. Perhaps you need skepticism on the side of not trying to simply prove what the majority of people think, there is a very real possibility they could be wrong, and a multitude of evidence that suggests they are.

Is someone willing to have a one on one debate w/ me, that no one else will interupt? and we can take a poll on it afterwords and see who won? Lemme know



A poll like that is useless no one will change their minds the kooks will remain kooks and the blind ones (there I used both names for both sides lol) will remain blind. This debate has gone on for months names have been called flames have resulted but nothing has changed. Your debate is for self gratification at best with the "assumption" you will win. I can predict winner right now its simple take a head count. Those who conspiracy theory and those who dont whatever comes out as majority will win debate its that simple!
PadawanOsswe
thank you Debunker, these 9/11 conspiracies need to be laid to rest. thumbsup.gif
Sunofone
QUOTE(PadawanOsswe @ Oct 28 2005, 02:29 PM) [snapback]907363[/snapback]

thank you Debunker, these 9/11 conspiracies need to be laid to rest. thumbsup.gif

no.gif
QUOTE(rigorousintuition)

one poem that took the top of my head clean off this year was the film adaptation of Frank Miller's Sin City.

Dominating the city's religious and political life are two brothers, a Cardinal and a Senator. The family is respected, and protected, acting above the secular and divine laws they administer. The Roark dynasty harbours serial killers, paedophiles, cannibals. The marginalized characters who challenge their authority doom themselves by doing so, though they leave small victories that survive them. Is this America? No, just something like it. Maybe more than Frank Miller knows. Maybe not as much as I think.

"What the hell do you know?" Cannibal Cardinal Roark asks Marv, the monster of vengence. Marv replies, "I know it's pretty damn weird to eat people." In the end, the esoteric meaning - the consumption of souls - is irrelevant. It is simply pretty damn weird. And wrong.

As Senator Roark tells the good cop Hartigan, as Hartigan lies in hospital, wounded and framed for having protected a young girl from Roark's predatory son:

Power doesn't come from a gun, or a badge. Power comes from lies. Once you got everybody agreeing with what they know in their hearts ain’t true you got ‘em by the balls.

There’s what, maybe, 500 people in this hospital? I could pump you full of bullets right now and I wouldn’t even be arrested. Everyone would lie for me. Everyone who counts. Otherwise all their own lies, everything that runs Sin City, it all comes tumblin’ down like a pack of cards.


Those who know things go deeper, weirder and darker than Scooter Libby know the cards haven't tumbled yet. Those who don't have yet to see the deck.

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/
Sub-Zer0
QUOTE(panther10758 @ Oct 28 2005, 01:27 PM) [snapback]907360[/snapback]

A poll like that is useless no one will change their minds the kooks will remain kooks and the blind ones (there I used both names for both sides lol) will remain blind. This debate has gone on for months names have been called flames have resulted but nothing has changed. Your debate is for self gratification at best with the "assumption" you will win. I can predict winner right now its simple take a head count. Those who conspiracy theory and those who dont whatever comes out as majority will win debate its that simple!



True, except the part about self gratification, but this is ridiculous. Would you mind showing me how the towers fell then? There is zero explanation for it, other than controlled demoliton, from symetrical collapse, to falling at virutal freefall speed, and puliverized concerete no way fires could do that. It's absolutely ridiculous to say that they could. There is a ton of evidence for this side of the story, and calling people kooks for giving it merit suggests you have not taken an objective look at this at all.
panther10758
QUOTE(Sub-Zer0 @ Oct 29 2005, 03:21 AM) [snapback]907891[/snapback]

True, except the part about self gratification, but this is ridiculous. Would you mind showing me how the towers fell then? There is zero explanation for it, other than controlled demoliton, from symetrical collapse, to falling at virutal freefall speed, and puliverized concerete no way fires could do that. It's absolutely ridiculous to say that they could. There is a ton of evidence for this side of the story, and calling people kooks for giving it merit suggests you have not taken an objective look at this at all.



You and others HAVE been shown many times over you "choose" to ignore it. Which is why I said poll is useless!
Sub-Zer0
QUOTE(panther10758 @ Oct 28 2005, 09:26 PM) [snapback]907895[/snapback]

You and others HAVE been shown many times over you "choose" to ignore it. Which is why I said poll is useless!



COME ON MAN, I can tell junk from real information, I would believe the information if it was credible, but Popular MEchanics, the 9/11 commissions and the mainstream media scenarios are EXTREMELY out there. I'm not going to believe it just because popular mechanics does a story about it, anyy magaznie can be bought off, come on man, do you really think the mainstream media is that good of a source? There is no way fire in two floors of building seven would bring the building down, a symetrical collapse requires simultaneous pulling of all suupport beams, amd that's just common sense, no way fires on two floors can do that. In addition if you think it can pulverize concrete into 100 micron power, I'm sorry but you're just wrong. But don't take it from me take it from a physics proffesor.

This is a letter a Physics Professor wrote to his academic colleagues and that he e-mailed to me. He is interested in feedback on it.

"Dear colleagues:


I hope you have taken the minute required to actually look at the fall of WTC 7:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html

http://tinyurl.com/7drxn


To summarize from previous emails, the reasons I believe WTC collapses to be due to controlled demolition are:

1. My own analysis of the "pancaking" floors model (the FEMA/NIST model) combined with Conservation of Momentum considerations gives a much longer time for the fall (over 10 seconds) than that which was actually observed for WTC-7 (about 6.3 seconds, just over the free-fall time of 6.0 seconds). I find no evidence in their reports that government researchers (FEMA, NIST, 9-11 Commission) included Conservation of Momentum in their analyses.

2. The fact that WTC-7 fell down symmetrically, onto its own footprint very neatly, even though fires were just observed on one side of the building. A symmetrical collapse, as observed, requires the simultaneous "pulling" of support beams. By my count, there were 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns in WTC-7. Heat transport considerations for steel beams heated by fire suggest that failure of even a few columns at the same time is very small. Adding in the Second Law of Thermodynamics ("law of increasing entropy") leads to the conclusion that the likelihood of near-symmetrical collapse of the building due to fires (the "government" theory) -- requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns -- is infinitesimal. Yet near-symmetrical collapse of WTC-7 was observed. (If you still haven't gone to the links above to see the actual collapse for yourself, please go there now.)

Note that the 9-11 Commission report does not even deal with the collapse of WTC-7. This is a striking omission of highly relevant data.

3.Squibs (horizontal puffs of smoke and debris) are observed emerging from WTC-7, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. (SEE: http://tinyurl.com/7drxn ) Yet the floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos, so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. I have personally examined many building demolitions based on on-line videos, and the presence of such squibs firing in rapid sequence as observed is prima facie evidence for the use of pre-positioned explosives inside the building.

4. The pulverization of concrete to powder and the horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of yards, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC towers, requires much more energy than is available from gravitational potential energy alone. Explosives will give the observed features. Other scientists have provided quantitative analysis of the observed pulverizations, and I can provide references if you wish. Here we are appealing to the violation of Conservation of Energy inherent in the "official" pancaking-floors theory-- a horrendous violation, forbidden by principles of Physics. (What is going on for the FEMA/NIST researchers to make such striking errors/omissions?)

5. I conducted simple experiments on the "pancaking" theory, by dropping cement blocks from approximately 12 feet onto other cement blocks. (The floors in the WTC buildings were about 12 feet apart.) We are supposed to believe, from the pancaking theory, that a concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto another concrete floor will result in PULVERIZED concrete observed during the Towers' collapses! Nonsense! My own experiments, and I welcome you to try this yourself, is that only chips/large chunks of cement flaked off the blocks -- no mass pulverization to approx. 100-micron powder as observed. Explosives, however, can indeed convert concrete to dust --mostly, along with some large chunks-- as observed in the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9-11-01.

6. The observations of molten metal (I did not say molten steel!) in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 is consistent with the use of the extremely high-temperature thermite reaction: iron oxide + aluminum powder --> Al2O3 + molten iron. Falling buildings are not observed to generate melting of large quantities of molten metal -- this requires a concentrated heat source such as explosives. Even the government reports admit that the fires were insufficient to melt steel beams (they argue for heating and warping then failure of these beams) -- but these reports do not mention the observed molten metal in the basements of WTC1, 2 and 7. Again we have a glaring omission of critical data in the FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports.


7. I understand that models of the steel-frame WTC buildings at Underwriters Laboratories subjected to intense fires did NOT collapse. And no steel-frame buildings before or after 9/11/2001 have collapsed due to fire. Thus, the "official" fire-pancaking model fails the scientific test of REPRODUCIBILITY. (Earthquake- caused collapses have occured, but there were no major earthquakes in NYC on that day. And buildings which have collapsed due to earthquakes collapse asymmetrically, as expected -- not like the nearly straight-down collapse of WTC 7 to a small rubble pile!)


8. Explosions -- multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence -- were heard and reported by numerous observers in (and near) the WTC buildings, consistent with explosive demolition. Some of the firemen who reported explosions barely escaped with their lives.

Essentially none of these science-based considerations is mentioned in the Popular Mechanics article on this subject, authored by B. Chertoff (a cousin of M. Chertoff who heads the Homeland Security Dept.) (Squibs are mentioned briefly, but the brief PM analysis does not fit the observed facts.)

I have performed other analyses regarding the WTC collapses on 9-11-01 which may be of interest --let me know if you're interested. The matter is highly interesting to me as a physicist -- and as a citizen of the United States. I conclude that the evidence for pre-positioned explosives in WTC 7 (also in towers 1 and 2) is truly compelling.

Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics/BYU"



http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=1780


You know not what you say
Essan
I still want to know where they got hundreds of tons of invisible explosives from, and how they managed to pull off the first ever controlled demolition that caused a huge building to collapse from the top down......
Sunofone
QUOTE(Essan @ Oct 29 2005, 05:00 AM) [snapback]908132[/snapback]

I still want to know where they got hundreds of tons of invisible explosives from, and how they managed to pull off the first ever controlled demolition that caused a huge building to collapse from the top down......

hundreds of tons of explosives?? you cant be serious--
first time ever?? no sir you are grossly misrepresenting the facts--the conventional method uses the technique that everyone is familiar with and the one that you have mistakenly accepted as the only form of demolition--the TRUTH is that there are many new techniques referred to as NON-CONVENTIONAL that reduce the amount of explosives necessary by blowing out supports from the middle or higher up first in order to use their momentum and weight to hammer the floors below and when properly applied can demolish buildings with far less explosives than the conventional method--here is an example--
user posted image
here are some more sites dedicated to the demolition of the wtc towers and bldg7
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html
http://www.rense.com/general67/9118.htm
http://www.rense.com/general68/caseforWTCtower.htm
the 9/11 event was an inside job and towers 1,2 and 7 were destroyed using explosives--case closed
********************************************************************
that letter was solid sub keep up the good work!!
Sub-Zer0
Thanks sun, I guess it's kooky to look at the laws of physics.
Sunofone
QUOTE(Sub-Zer0 @ Oct 29 2005, 01:35 PM) [snapback]908679[/snapback]

I guess it's kooky to look at the laws of physics.

w00t.gif yes the mind state of many americans is truly pathetic--what would i do without the soothing positive vibrations of GROUNDATION,bob,israel vibration,steel pulse or burning spear?!!? all i have in this world--songs of freedom
Babylon Rule Dem
Undivided
Confusing Situation
We Free Again
The Seventh Seal
PadawanOsswe
The 9/11 Conspiracy theory's are crap! extensive research shows that terrorists hijacked planes into buildings! which then cause the buildings to collapse ohmy.gif

SHOCKER!
mike^_^
really, please read the posts in this thread, or god forbid , actually check some of it out for yourself!

its basically a joke now, the hijacker myth and subsequent collapse from fire has been disproven time and time again.

also why would arabs want to start war with the united states..? ..so we can invade all their countries?

if you can, try and deprogram yourself out of this brainwashed stupor you seem so fond of living in, then try looking at the facts, and maybe you can interpret REALITY

man, you guys are something else. willingly ignorant
The Skeptic Eric Raven
QUOTE(mike^_^ @ Oct 31 2005, 03:55 PM) [snapback]911109[/snapback]

really, please read the posts in this thread, or god forbid , actually check some of it out for yourself!

its basically a joke now, the hijacker myth and subsequent collapse from fire has been disproven time and time again.

also why would arabs want to start war with the united states..? ..so we can invade all their countries?

if you can, try and deprogram yourself out of this brainwashed stupor you seem so fond of living in, then try looking at the facts, and maybe you can interpret REALITY

Thats your opinon. Not the majority of people. Sorry if I am in a brainwashed stupor, but this woo woo theory doesn't hold any water. Also those crackpot websites don't help.I won't make a comment about your beliefs. I will be nice.
PadawanOsswe
posted by: mike^_^

"really, please read the posts in this thread, or god forbid , actually check some of it out for yourself! "-Mike

- I did, its all disproven


"its basically a joke now, the hijacker myth and subsequent collapse from fire has been disproven time and time again."

-oh yeah! there was no plane hijacking and no fire! just edited by the media eh? rolleyes.gif

"also why would arabs want to start war with the united states..? ..so we can invade all their countries?"

-answer: simple, because to them we are infedels who should die. we are also westerner's (another group they hate). We support Isreal which they really dont like. ect...

"if you can, try and deprogram yourself out of this brainwashed stupor you seem so fond of living in, then try looking at the facts, and maybe you can interpret REALITY"

- were you talking to yourself or me? huh.gif
Sub-Zer0
QUOTE(PadawanOsswe @ Oct 31 2005, 04:49 PM) [snapback]911095[/snapback]

The 9/11 Conspiracy theory's are crap! extensive research shows that terrorists hijacked planes into buildings! which then cause the buildings to collapse ohmy.gif

SHOCKER!




Care to support those claims? Extensive research shows that, the offical story of 9/11 is tottlaly impossible. Even a physics prof addmitted that there's no way building seven fell from fire, hell the owner even admitted it. Oh well, people were burnt at the stake for saying the world was round.
Sub-Zer0
QUOTE(ericraven2003 @ Oct 31 2005, 04:59 PM) [snapback]911123[/snapback]

Thats your opinon. Not the majority of people. Sorry if I am in a brainwashed stupor, but this woo woo theory doesn't hold any water. Also those crackpot websites don't help.I won't make a comment about your beliefs. I will be nice.



It does, and you can't even refute anything we've said, all you've done is posted your own oppinons. It's moronic to believe the offical story.
Sub-Zer0

"really, please read the posts in this thread, or god forbid , actually check some of it out for yourself! "-Mike

- I did, its all disproven


No it's a complete strawman with enormous holes in it and some outright lies, if you're refering to the PM hit peice. They say that Steel losses 50% of its str. at 2000 degress, but there is no jet fuel in building seven and it's just plain quackery to think that fires on two floors of building seven can bring the building down like that, or bring it down at all. I've read the hit peices, if you have no idea about any of the real information conercing 9/11, but if you know all the facts there are simply humerous.



"its basically a joke now, the hijacker myth and subsequent collapse from fire has been disproven time and time again."

-oh yeah! there was no plane hijacking and no fire! just edited by the media eh? rolleyes.gif
When did we ever say that? Of course there were planes hijacked, but by whom is the question. We never said that, so watch yourself. You don't want to strawman like your boys at PM.

"also why would arabs want to start war with the united states..? ..so we can invade all their countries?"

-answer: simple, because to them we are infedels who should die. we are also westerner's (another group they hate). We support Isreal which they really dont like. ect...

Perhaps you could tell me why those same Hijackers went to a stripclub and got lap dances? Or why they got drunk, when drinking alchohol is against Islamic law.




PadawanOsswe

No it's a complete strawman with enormous holes in it and some outright lies, if you're refering to the PM hit peice. They say that Steel losses 50% of its str. at 2000 degress, but there is no jet fuel in building seven and it's just plain quackery to think that fires on two floors of building seven can bring the building down like that, or bring it down at all. I've read the hit peices, if you have no idea about any of the real information conercing 9/11, but if you know all the facts there are simply humerous.
"[b]its basically a joke now, the hijacker myth and subsequent collapse from fire has been disproven time and time again."


-it could have fallen from the unstabillity of the nearby ground when the two towers fell.

-oh yeah! there was no plane hijacking and no fire! just edited by the media eh? rolleyes.gif
When did we ever say that? Of course there were planes hijacked, but by whom is the question. We never said that, so watch yourself. You don't want to strawman like your boys at PM.

-what the hell is PM? and to answer your question, The Taliban.

"also why would arabs want to start war with the united states..? ..so we can invade all their countries?"

-answer: simple, because to them we are infedels who should die. we are also westerner's (another group they hate). We support Isreal which they really dont like. ect...

Perhaps you could tell me why those same Hijackers went to a stripclub and got lap dances? Or why they got drunk, when drinking alchohol is against Islamic law.


just because its religious law doesnt mean that one will ALLWAYS follow it.
mike^_^
you realise these are supposed to be islamic jihadists.. right? more fanatical than a nun at catholic school

QUOTE
-it could have fallen from the unstabillity of the nearby ground when the two towers fell.


LOL

okay, its obvious now, you're just scrambling for flimsy explanations now, whether it be political, or just out of fear that the government could do something like this, you're hiding yourself from the truth

- have you actually seen the building 7 collapse? it collapsed a couple hours after the towers fell, in a symetrical fashion.
The Skeptic Eric Raven
QUOTE(Sub-Zer0 @ Oct 31 2005, 07:11 PM) [snapback]911376[/snapback]

It does, and you can't even refute anything we've said, all you've done is posted your own oppinons. It's moronic to believe the offical story.

The popular mechanics article, using experts, refutes every part of the conspiracy theory. So I gues the majority of people must be morons. What does that make you?
Sunofone
QUOTE(ericraven2003 @ Nov 1 2005, 11:11 AM) [snapback]911977[/snapback]

The popular mechanics article, using experts, refutes every part of the conspiracy theory. So I gues the majority of people must be morons. What does that make you?

saying it refutes every part does not make it so--please demonstrate an example where that cover-up nonsense refutes anything other than their straw men arguments like missles and pods rolleyes.gif
panther10758
QUOTE(Sunofone @ Nov 1 2005, 04:50 PM) [snapback]912019[/snapback]

saying it refutes every part does not make it so--please demonstrate an example where that cover-up nonsense refutes anything other than their straw men arguments like missles and pods rolleyes.gif



Here is the problem with your posts

You asked for evidence. You got it. You blew it off

You asked for links. you got them. you blew them off.

You asked for expert opinions. You got them. You blew them off.

You post dribble from unreliable sources or bias ones at best. you twist fact to mold it to fit your own view an dstate it as "truth". OBL himself could walk up to you and prove every ounce of 911 report true and yoyu would denounce it. So I go back to my signature line. If you dont want to hear the answer dont ask the question.
DR. YO
Did somebody call for a doctor? gunsmilie.gif
Sunofone
QUOTE(panther10758 @ Nov 1 2005, 11:55 AM) [snapback]912023[/snapback]

Here is the problem with your posts

You asked for evidence. You got it. You blew it off

You asked for links. you got them. you blew them off.

You asked for expert opinions. You got them. You blew them off.



really??? well then since you are unable to demonstrate an example from the PM article that refutes anything maybe you could find the post you are referring to--please enlighten us to the post where anything other than the "link" to the bogus PM article was offered--if what you say is true you should be able to use the search feature to locate and link to your "alledged" refuting--the ONLY thing PM can refute is their strawmen arguments like missles and pods--ill be waiting--please offer the segment from the PM article that refutes a legitamate argument OR a link to a post that does--i wont hold my breath though no.gif

QUOTE
So I go back to my signature line. If you dont want to hear the answer dont ask the question.

whuuh??? where did you percieve a question?
muddyfrog
A few things.

Stop saying that you or anyone else has disproven the "kooks."

If you had then they wouldn't be here would they?

And they have not proven to you their position either.

DEBUNKER you are funny you can stop quoting your science article already.

"healthy skepticism has curtled into paranoia" has it?

It did actually, but that was on 9/11. Now come back to the healthy side DEBUNKER.

physics people come on!

Seriously study it. I am a noob at physics (only took AP at highschool) and I can see the impossibilities in what these "experts" say. I know they know what they are saying is wrong. It is the basics they are ignoring.

Can't even get potential energy right.
And like subzero's quoted professor says "conservation of momentum" <--- big time.
example: 1 newton apple hits another 1 newton apple going 1 m/s. If you can tell me how that ends up then you know the very very basics. And you can disprove these experts.

weight = mass X aceleration
aceleration = 9.81 m/s squared in this case. <-- for freefall
momentum = mass X velocity
starting mass X starting velocity = resulting mass X resulting velocity

^^ that is conservation. Just like conservation of energy. Study it and then look at what these experts are saying. Think for yourselves.

-MuddyFrog
DEBUNKER
ROFLMAO.
Sunofone
QUOTE(DEBUNKER @ Nov 1 2005, 01:24 PM) [snapback]912143[/snapback]

Not as funny as you,talking about ...
Or was that the other HB frogfish.

diversion and agitation are signs of desperation --is this all you can offer?
DR. YO
It was the evil George Bush devil.gif devil.gif devil.gif devil.gif
DEBUNKER
QUOTE(muddyfrog @ Nov 1 2005, 06:24 PM) [snapback]912066[/snapback]

I am a noob at physics (only took AP at highschool) and I can see the impossibilities in what these "experts" say. I know they know what they are saying is wrong. It is the basics they are ignoring.



You have no idea how funny you are right now. laugh.gif
Sunofone
QUOTE(DR. YO @ Nov 1 2005, 01:33 PM) [snapback]912154[/snapback]

It was the evil George Bush devil.gif devil.gif devil.gif devil.gif

more relavent than you think
book written about bush while he was govenor detailing the six month "mass murder" investigation of dubya
DEBUNKER
QUOTE(Sunofone @ Nov 1 2005, 07:31 PM) [snapback]912153[/snapback]

diversion and agitation are signs of desperation --is this all you can offer?


None of the above,I just cant help laughing out loud every now and then. thumbsup.gif Thx guys.
Sub-Zer0
QUOTE(DEBUNKER @ Nov 1 2005, 01:39 PM) [snapback]912163[/snapback]

None of the above,I just cant help laughing out loud every now and then. thumbsup.gif Thx guys.



It seems you can't refute anything we say either. You are equally as funny. 9/11 being an inside job is the most provable thing on this board. You can't refute what the NEWB of physics said w/ any real physics knowledge, so perhaps you should be laughing at yourself.
mike^_^
case closed

inside job

if one of you koolaid drinkers has any real evidence that the WTC center collapsed from fire, please offer it. rather than trolling trying to provacatuer a flame
Sub-Zer0
Oh and one more thing,

Since building seven's collapse completly lacks and reproductibility, perhaps you could show me an example of any building that collapse under similar circumstances.

Not only that, I posted an article by a physics professor who has done the most detailed work of explaining the collapse of building seven. If you really know what you're talking about you should be able to refute his research. Even a lamen somewhat in the know could refute the PM article.
hazzard
What are you talking about,none of you(muddyfrog,with your high school physics)have proven any of the PM experts wrong. laugh.gif I bet you havent even read the whole PM report.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=1&c=y

The very thought that our government could pull this incredibly complex, convoluted, and supremely risky hoax off, fooling a vast cadre of experts world-wide, yet ineptly unable to pull the wool over the eyes of a few ideologues on some fringe web sites is just ludicrous.
Or does that make perfect sense to you. wacko.gif

Inconsistencies are the foundation of these sorts of conspiracy theorys.
The HB's create them because they don't understand the details, then they project them onto "the establishment" as proof, implying that the "masterminds" of these events were somehow so inept in the execution of "their plan" that anyone could see right through it.

What so amusing to me is the fact that the CTs are the"masterminds"and ends up debunking their own silly theory of what happened.

Priceless.
The Silver Thong
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=1&c=y

This is so Biased,why do you keep posting it?

Geez Sun & scoob make a way better case
Lilly
QUOTE(hazzard @ Nov 2 2005, 08:05 AM) [snapback]912995[/snapback]

The very thought that our government could pull this incredibly complex, convoluted, and supremely risky hoax off, fooling a vast cadre of experts world-wide, yet ineptly unable to pull the wool over the eyes of a few ideologues on some fringe web sites is just ludicrous.
Or does that make perfect sense to you. wacko.gif

Inconsistencies are the foundation of these sorts of conspiracy theorys.
The HB's create them because they don't understand the details, then they project them onto "the establishment" as proof, implying that the "masterminds" of these events were somehow so inept in the execution of "their plan" that anyone could see right through it.



People can arrive at incredible conclusions by taking the extreme stance that nothing is as it appears, that everything is a conspiracy. These people sincerely believe that the most simple logical explanation just can't be valid...sort of an anti-Occam's razor, if you will. Why do people believe these weird things? Here's a nice explantion by Michael Shermer:

QUOTE

Rarely do any of us sit down before a table of facts, weigh them pro and con, and choose the most logical and rational explanation, regardless of what we previously believed. Most of us, most of the time, come to our beliefs for a variety of reasons having little to do with empirical evidence and logical reasoning. Rather, such variables as genetic predisposition, parental predilection, sibling influence, peer pressure, educational experience and life impressions all shape the personality preferences that, in conjunction with numerous social and cultural influences, lead us to our beliefs. We then sort through the body of data and select those that most confirm what we already believe, and ignore or rationalize away those that do not.


So, how many of those supporting this conspiracy theory of 9/11 have really asked structural engineers and aviation experts what it would take to bring down these buildings? I read the Popular Mechanics article and see that in this case that is exactly what was done. Why this is being called biased is beyond me to comprehend. There's always some way to put a spin on something, to make it seem as if the reasonable explanation just can't be correct. If someone chooses to take this path then there's little that can be said or done to dissuade them from their beliefs. There will always be those who will simply refuse to accept certain historical events that don't fit into their belief system.
Lostchild1962
It is very sad indeed If Bush had something to do with 9/11, It wouldnt surprise me at all..I didnt vote for the scumbag,hes no better than Hilter. Maybe Bush is the devil, Only time will tell I reckon..Just sad to know you cant trust the Gov't.
Essan
Lets face it: some folk believe in fairy tales and no matter how many times you try to prove that there isn't a bogeyman hiding under the bed, they still won't go to sleep unless the lights are left on.......

Personally, given the number of massive global conspiracies around, I'm wondering just how many people posting on UM are actually involved in them. Quite a few I should imagine.
Lilly
QUOTE(Lostchild1962 @ Nov 2 2005, 01:47 PM) [snapback]913121[/snapback]

It is very sad indeed If Bush had something to do with 9/11, It wouldnt surprise me at all..I didnt vote for the scumbag,hes no better than Hilter. Maybe Bush is the devil, Only time will tell I reckon..Just sad to know you cant trust the Gov't.


The founding fathers knew that one should never *trust* the government. This is why we have a Consitiution and a Bill of Rights.

In a Democratic Republic, like the United States of America, everyone is free to voice their dislike of the government and elected officials. You're even free to call them names! Do you really think one could have engaged in this manner of free speech in Nazi Germany?

Bush is a conservative, right wing Republican, and an Evangelical, Fundamentalist Christian. Now, one may not like his political viewpoint but he is no more "the devil" than Osama bin Laden is "the devil". OBL being a Fundamentalist, Wahhabist, Islamic extremist, and the leader of a world terrorist organization (Al Quada).

Now, one could argue that the political dynamic of recent times might have been better served if the United States had elected someone with different political and personal beliefs. But, this is pretty much a moot point since the election took place a year ago. However, since we do have our Constitution and a Bill of Rights everyone is free to complain, voice their reasons for dissent, and finally to vote again in 3 more years. Try doing that in the type of society the supporters of OBL want to set up.
mklsgl
The problem with the Popular Mechanics article is that the credibility and reliability of it's sources has come into question by peers and academics. Having 2 corroborating sources for each claim of evidence is the minimum, 3 is the academic standard, and the PM article fails in this aspect. There are simply too many opposing viewpoints. One source claims what another disputes.



hazzard
QUOTE(mklsgl @ Nov 2 2005, 06:58 PM) [snapback]913385[/snapback]

The problem with the Popular Mechanics article is that the credibility and reliability of it's sources has come into question by peers and academics.



Link please.

If one chooses to wallow in the ignorance of psedo-science then go ahead.
As soon as I see this type of posting, I urge the poster to take a science 101 course. One can't be critical of science if one doesn't know what science is.
The Silver Thong
since we do have our Constitution and a Bill of Rights everyone is free to complain, voice their reasons for dissent, and finally to vote again in 3 more years. Try doing that in the type of society the supporters of OBL want to set up


OBL did not want to set up any sort of goverment regime, he was a puppet of the C.I.A.

If OSB and his FAMILY wanted to set something up well they have George in there pocket.
The Silver Thong
QUOTE(hazzard @ Nov 3 2005, 12:21 AM) [snapback]914335[/snapback]

Link please.


Sunofone I think posted it allready, it is bias in so many ways, it's a propaganda tool that many will read and accept. It is not an independent study by any means,but looked at oh it's pop mech must be true type crap.

How do you not see through BS. Oh to much FOX t.v. you must know who run's that sh** show. Propaganda is todays best weapon.
hazzard
QUOTE(The Silver Thong @ Nov 2 2005, 09:23 AM) [snapback]913000[/snapback]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=1&c=y
This is so Biased,why do you keep posting it?
Geez Sun & scoob make a way better case


You are as sure about this 9-11 pseudo science as you were about the moon/Earth synchronous rotation debate laugh.gif and I think that says a lot.

What you need to do,is a little homework before getting into a debate,otherwise you will risk ending up looking like a fool,and we cant have that,can we.

Lilly
QUOTE(The Silver Thong @ Nov 3 2005, 08:04 AM) [snapback]914348[/snapback]

OBL did not want to set up any sort of goverment regime, he was a puppet of the C.I.A.

If OSB and his FAMILY wanted to set something up well they have George in there pocket.



Wow, this is flat out amazing. I want to say, "ya gotta be kidding"...But, I guess you aren't.

user posted image
hazzard
QUOTE(The Silver Thong @ Nov 3 2005, 09:13 AM) [snapback]914350[/snapback]

it's a propaganda tool that many will read and accept. It is not an independent study by any means,but looked at oh it's pop mech must be true type crap.
How do you not see through BS.


More "thinking outside the box" nonsense ,you can only know that you are thinking "outside of the box" by the process of elimination.
You must first understand, define and measure all the constituents and the related forces of what lies "inside of the box", including its boundary, before you can make any distinction.
__Kratos__
"Able Danger" & 9/11 Foreknowledge

The ongoing coverup concerning the secret Able Danger operation provides further evidence that the "war on terror" is a farce.

There was nothing in outward appearance to draw attention to the four-bedroom apartment at 54 Marienstrasse. Nonetheless, the attention of the intelligence services of Germany, the U.S., Israel, and other Middle Eastern and European countries had been drawn to the nondescript flat in Hamburg, Germany, as early as 1998. That was when Mohammed Atta signed the lease and he and Ramzi bin al Shibh moved in. Soon thereafter, it was identified by intelligence agencies as a target of interest. It became known as the hub of al-Qaeda's "Hamburg Cell."

Over the next two and a half years, dozens of al-Qaeda operatives, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the reputed 9/11 "mastermind," passed through the 54 Marienstrasse apartment. Twenty-nine al-Qaeda recruits from the Middle East or Northern Africa listed it as their registered address. Mohammed Atta would later be labeled, after the fact, as the "ringleader" of the 9/11 terrorists who hijacked four jetliners to use as missiles against targets in New York City and Washington, D.C. Atta is believed to have been the suicide pilot who flew American Airlines Flight 11 into the north tower of the World Trade Center. His Hamburg roommate, Ramzi bin al Shibh, captured in Pakistan in 2002, has been described by U.S. officials as the al-Qaeda "coordinator and paymaster" for 9/11. In the months leading up to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terror network were under intense scrutiny by intelligence services worldwide.

Cover Story Wearing Thin

Over the past several years, as more and more evidence has come out, it has grown more and more difficult for U.S. government officials to sustain the cover story that they had no way of anticipating the attacks. As it turns out, U.S. intelligence agencies and their foreign counterparts were almost tripping over each other as they shadowed the al-Qaeda network across the face of the planet. The FBI and CIA were tracking al-Qaeda operatives and their activities in the U.S. and overseas. The National Security Agency (NSA) was intercepting and recording the telephone calls of many al-Qaeda operatives, including Osama bin Laden himself. More recently, it has come to light that a super-secret Pentagon operation, known as "Able Danger," was also tracking and monitoring al-Qaeda. Using advanced computer "data mining" capabilities, the Able Danger team reportedly identified Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Khalid al-Midhar, and Nawaf al-Hazmi as members of an al-Qaeda cell code-named "Brooklyn" because of its connections to New York City.

According to Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), in September 2000 the Able Danger team initiated at least three separate efforts to get its information on the hijackers to the FBI "so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists." That was one year before 9/11. Army Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Schaffer, one of the principal members of Able Danger, has stated in interviews given this past August that Able Danger had identified five al-Qaeda cells, including two of the three cells that ultimately would be used to pull off the 9/11 terror attacks. Lt. Col. Schaffer set up one Able Danger/FBI meeting in the fall of 2000. It was canceled — as were all other efforts to inform the FBI — per orders from higher-ups in the Department of Defense.

Was the intelligence developed by Able Danger of sufficient quality, specificity, and credibility that it could have and should have been used to prevent the attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., that claimed almost 3,000 lives? We don't know the answer to that question since the executive branch has been blocking efforts by Congress and the public to gain access to information about Able Danger. This much we do know: first, the Clinton administration in 2000 and then the Bush administration in 2001 failed to heed the Able Danger warnings on al-Qaeda. Moreover, Clinton administration officials ordered the main Able Danger files destroyed in 2000; Bush administration officials ordered Lt. Col. Schaffer's duplicate Able Danger files destroyed in 2004. Both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration have attempted to cover up the existence of Able Danger and its findings. The official, bipartisan 9/11 Commission also covered up the existence of this operation and its findings. In recent months, members of the Able Danger team who have spoken out have been subjected to official harassment and intimidation. Considerable effort is being expended by Donald Rumsfeld's minions in the Defense Department to keep all information about this operation under wraps.

The first major exposure of Able Danger came on June 27 of this year, when Rep. Curt Weldon, who is vice chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the Homeland Security Committee, delivered a 45-minute speech on the House floor outlining the nature of the operation and the data it had developed on al-Qaeda prior to 9/11. Since then, Operation Able Danger has been the subject of growing controversy and intense international interest. Congressional hearings on Able Danger were scheduled, postponed, and rescheduled. Finally, on September 21, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held a long-awaited hearing on Able Danger. It was a letdown; the Pentagon blocked the star witnesses from testifying. Able Danger team members James D. Smith and Lt. Col. Schaffer sat mute in the audience, prevented from testifying by the Bush/Rumsfeld Defense Department. Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and other committee members, both Republicans and Democrats, angrily accused the Defense Department of obstructing the Senate's investigation.

Stung by the congressional criticism and the unfavorable public and media reaction to its stonewalling and obstruction, the Pentagon suddenly became cooperative — or so it seemed. On September 23, Senator Specter announced that new Able Danger hearings had been rescheduled for October 5 and that now the Pentagon would allow the witnesses to testify. However, Mark Zaid, the attorney for Schaffer and Smith, said the Defense Department had told him that his clients would not be allowed to testify. Mr. Zaid turned out to be correct. The October 5 hearings were canceled. When THE NEW AMERICAN contacted Mr. Zaid on October 5, he expressed the hope that there would still be hearings before the end of the year, but he had no idea when they might be.

Unfettered hearings in which Able Danger members are allowed to testify freely might provide useful information about al-Qaeda as well as about who was responsible — in both the Clinton and Bush administrations — for failing to heed the warnings of the Able Danger staff. However, there are some false assumptions underlying the arguments of Rep. Weldon and other advocates of Able Danger. Chief among these is the assumption that if only the FBI and the CIA had been given Able Danger's data on the al-Qaeda cells, they would have "taken out" the terrorists — either overseas or in the U.S. — prior to 9/11.

This line of argument dovetails with the standard conclusion of virtually every other official "investigation," to wit, 9/11 was an "intelligence failure" that demonstrated "lack of coordination and cooperation" among U.S. agencies. And the solution to this problem, we have been told, is to reward incompetence by giving the agencies involved still larger budgets and more manpower, and to combine them all together in a new gargantuan super-bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland Security.

However, as we noted above and will detail further below, the failure to "take out" the al-Qaeda cells before the deadly 9/11 attacks was not due to a lack of information. Whatever useful data Able Danger might have been able to offer concerning Mohammed Atta and his associates would have been superfluous. The FBI and CIA had been tracking the al-Qaeda 9/11 conspirators very closely for years — both in the U.S. and overseas, using both technical means and human intelligence. Dedicated FBI and CIA field operatives had warned their superiors repeatedly and had urged them to authorize the arrest of the terrorists. Those sensible pleas by agents in the field were rejected repeatedly by decision makers at the top levels of the federal government. Even worse, as we will show, co-conspirators with the 9/11 terrorists have been allowed to remain free and roaming at large in the United States. Many U.S. decision makers, instead of being penalized for their failures (or worse) in regard to 9/11, have received promotions! The agents who tried to warn and protect the country have been muzzled.

Disturbing Pattern

The continuity of coverup and conspiracy from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration to suppress Able Danger follows a disturbing pattern that is demonstrated in these cases directly related to 9/11:

• Hamburg Cell. Mohammed Atta, Ramzi bin al Shibh, and their roommates in Hamburg came under surveillance by German intelligence and the CIA in 1998 because of their association with al-Qaeda operatives in Hamburg who had been linked to the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Those operatives included Mamoun Darkazanli, Mohammad Haidar Zammar, Said Bahaji, and Mounir al-Motassadek. The CIA station chief in Hamburg, Tom Volz, who posed as a U.S. embassy employee, actually tried to recruit Darkazanli as an informant in late 1999 and 2000. CIA agent David Edger shadowed the Hamburg Cell for several years, before returning to the U.S. in 2001 to take a professorship of political science at Oklahoma University at Norman, coincidentally, just a few blocks from an apartment where an al-Qaeda cell operated that included 9/11 terrorists Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, and Zacarias Moussaoui.

• San Diego Cell. Even the 9/11 Commission Report, which whitewashed federal government failures, acknowledged that the failure to identify hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar when they entered the U.S. was one of the biggest "lost opportunities." The CIA had tracked both men to the "secret" al-Qaeda planning meeting for 9/11 in Malaysia, where they and other participants were photographed and videotaped by the CIA and Malaysian intelligence. The FBI claims that the CIA didn't inform them about the two men, so they had no way of knowing about them.

That won't wash. Available evidence shows the FBI had multiple tails on the duo in San Diego, where Hazmi and Midhar lived with former San Diego State professor Abdussattar Shaikh, an acknowledged longtime undercover asset of the FBI! What's more, the two terrorists had regular contacts with several other area jihadists who had long been under FBI surveillance, including Omar al-Bayoumi, an agent of the Saudi government whom federal authorities acknowledge as a primary financial conduit for Hazmi and Midhar. Hazmi worked (illegally) at a San Diego convenience store/gas station owned by Osama Mustafa, a militant who had been under FBI surveillance since 1994 because of his violent threats and his membership in the PLO and PFLP terrorist groups.

These and a host of other red flags had caused FBI Agent Stephen Butler to press his superiors to take action against Hazmi and Midhar, but they refused. "He saw a pattern, a trail, and he told his supervisors, but it ended there," said one congressional investigator of Butler's predicament. FBI officials have blocked Butler from testifying before any of the 9/11 investigations.

• Phoenix Cell. FBI informant Aukai Collins, who monitored Middle East terrorist suspects for the FBI for four years in Phoenix, claims to have told the FBI about 9/11 hijacker Hani Hanjour while Hanjour was in flight training in Phoenix. Collins said the FBI knew Hanjour lived in Phoenix, knew his exact address, his phone number, and even what car he drove. "They knew everything about the guy," Collins claims. In July 2001, Phoenix FBI agent Ken Williams sent an electronic memo to FBI headquarters in Washington outlining his investigation into area flight schools that led him to believe al-Qaeda may be using U.S. flight schools to train terrorists as pilots. He recommended that the FBI should conduct an investigation of flight schools nationally to see if this was happening. His memo was never acted on.

• Brooklyn Cell. The official 9/11 Commission Report has this to say about Ali Mohamed and his terrorist cell: "As early as December 1993, a team of al Qaeda operatives had begun casing targets in Nairobi for future attacks. It was led by Ali Mohamed, a former Egyptian army officer who had moved to the United States in the mid-1980s, enlisted in the U.S. Army, and became an instructor at Fort Bragg. He had provided guidance and training to extremists at the Farouq mosque in Brooklyn, including some who were subsequently convicted in the February 1993 attack on the World Trade Center." Known as "Al Qaeda's California connection," Mohamed worked for the FBI's Sacramento office, while training terrorists and escorting top al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri on a fundraising tour of the Golden State in 1995.

Mohamed pleaded guilty to terrorism charges in 2000 and was held in U.S. custody. Incredibly, he has been released and is now again on the streets. He can hardly be anything except a government agent provocateur.

• Minnesota. Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called "20th hijacker," would have gotten away scot-free if FBI officials in Washington had had their way. Thanks to FBI field agents like Coleen Rowley, who tenaciously dug in their heels on the issue, he was not released and was still in custody when the 9/11 attacks occurred.

• Norman Cell. In addition to Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, and Zacarias Moussaoui, the al-Qaeda cell that operated out of Norman, Oklahoma, included convicted felon Melvin Lattimore, a convert to militant Islam who now goes by the name Majahid Abdulquaadir Menepta.

Mr. Lattimore/Menepta's credit card was used to help finance the 1993 World Trade Center bombing masterminded by Ramzi Yousef. He was identified by an FBI informant as a top suspect in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and was identified by witnesses interviewed by this magazine as being in the company of Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City. Menepta's roommate Hussain al-Attas drove Moussaoui to Minnesota. According to FBI documents, 9/11 hijacker Salem al-Hazmi was also seen at Menepta's apartment, and when FBI agents visited the apartment three weeks before 9/11, they saw several men fleeing through the back door of the apartment. The airline ticket for 9/11 hijacker Ziad Jarrah (United Airlines Flight 93) was purchased from an Oklahoma University computer terminal just a few blocks from Menepta's apartment.

Like Ali Mohamed, Mr. Lattimore/Menepta is almost certainly a federal agent provocateur. As we have reported in a previous article ("Al-Qaeda's OKC-9/11 Ties," July 26, 2004), it is almost impossible rationally to explain his record in any other way. When Menepta was picked up and prosecuted, it was for only a minor weapons violation. He was sentenced to a few months in prison and is now back on the streets. Thus, a man who has been tied to the three most important terrorist attacks in U.S. history — 1993 WTC, 1995 OKC, and 9/11 — has been purposely set loose.

The current coverup of the terrorist bombing in Norman, Oklahoma, outside the stadium during the Oklahoma University-Kansas State football game on October 1 is yet another wake-up call. The 85,000 fans inside the stadium — and a national television audience — were the intended targets. Fortunately, the suicide bomber was unable to get inside the stadium and took only his own life. However, federal authorities have rushed to cover up all evidence that the bombing was a terrorist effort involving foreign nationals.

The official story is that the bomber was a mentally unstable student, Joel Henry Hinrichs III, with no ties to Islamic jihadists. However, news organizations and confidential sources in Oklahoma have challenged that account, producing contradictory evidence showing that Hinrichs was indeed involved with a ring of Pakistanis who were Islamic fanatics. (See article on page 19.)

Time for Truth, Not Partisan Politics

Predictably, Republicans and Democrats are both trying to use the Able Danger revelations for partisan purposes, to portray the opposition as weak and irresponsible on terrorism and national security. But like the Oklahoma football bombing and a number of other incidents, the ongoing Able Danger stonewalling demonstrates a continuity of pernicious policy that transcends party lines.

According to Rep. Weldon, two weeks after 9/11 he was provided with data from Able Danger that included "an extensive analysis chart of Al Qaeda, which I immediately took to the White House and personally delivered to then-Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. Mr. Hadley was extremely interested in the chart and said that he would take it to the President."

During his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 21, Rep. Weldon said: "And I can tell you this — I talked to Mr. Hadley three months ago when I briefed him on another issue, and I said, remember that chart that I gave you? And he said, yes, I remember it." However, Mr. Hadley, who has since been promoted to national security adviser, has been mum on the issue of that meeting.

One of the peripheral issues that has become a main bone of contention in the whole matter is whether or not the chart provided to Hadley actually included a photo of Mohammed Atta. According to Lt. Col. Schaffer and other Able Danger team members, the chart (roughly four-and-a-half feet by five feet) included a photo of Atta and showed his linkage to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the blind sheik Omar Abdul-Rahman, who was convicted and sent to prison on bombing conspiracy charges.

The Pentagon's story on the chart evolved through several stages. Initially, Defense Department officials claimed that there was no evidence that a chart ever existed. Then the chart's existence was acknowledged, but it was alleged that the data on it was non-specific. Then it was asserted that the chart had not included a photo of Atta. But on September 2, Rep. Weldon announced that on the previous day he had been to a Pentagon briefing in which officials "confirmed that five credible witnesses did see the 9/11 ringleader, Mohammad Atta, in data produced by Able Danger prior to the 9/11 attacks."

That "official" line could change again, of course, if an investigation proceeds. But Lt. Col. Schaffer and other Able Danger members are being pressured to drop the matter.

Likely as a penalty for not keeping silent, Schaffer's security clearance has been revoked. In October 2003, while stationed in Afghanistan, Schaffer briefed Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and other Commission staff members on Able Danger. According to Schaffer, Zelikow stated that this was very important information, gave Schaffer his card, and told him to get back in touch when he returned to Washington, D.C. However, Schaffer says that when he called Zelikow's office in January 2004 to set up an appointment, he was given the brush off. When he called again, he was told Dr. Zelikow had all the information he needed on Able Danger and there was no need for a meeting. Shortly thereafter he was hit out of the blue with charges that he had run up unauthorized telephone charges, to the tune of $67. According to Schaffer, the Pentagon spent "in our estimation $400,000 to investigate all these issues simply to drum up this information." That fits a pattern of retaliation against other government whistleblowers who have been faced with similar charges.

Many additional examples could be cited to amplify this pattern. It is a pattern that reflects not incompetence or "lack of coordination" but something much worse. It is a pattern of conscious, purposeful action aimed at thwarting those who are tasked with defending America in the "war on terror." It is a pattern that is being carried out by policymakers at the highest levels of our government, and it is time to ask why.
Source
Sunofone
QUOTE(hazzard @ Nov 3 2005, 01:21 AM) [snapback]914335[/snapback]

Link please.

If one chooses to wallow in the ignorance of psedo-science then go ahead.
As soon as I see this type of posting, I urge the poster to take a science 101 course. One can't be critical of science if one doesn't know what science is.

psuedo science is paper and computer generated hyptotheticals--all one has to do is observe the collapse of bldg 7 to know the official story is a hoax-- if you are unable to discern the logical from the irrational perhaps you had science class after lunch and were asleep most of the time and need to re-take it--here is one link of many--perhaps if you can counter this with someone elses quote whose credentials are equal or better i will post more--i dont believe you can muster one up though--
**************************************************************************
"Burning Questions...Need Answers": Fire Engineering's Bill Manning Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse

Fair Lawn, NJ, January 4, 2002-Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief, is summoning members of the fire service to "A Call to Action." In his January 2002 Editor's Opinion, "$elling Out the Investigation" (below), he warns that unless there is a full-blown investigation by an independent panel established solely for that purpose, "the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals."

Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?

No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

LINK
pick your word
hazzard
QUOTE(Sunofone @ Nov 4 2005, 01:03 AM) [snapback]915368[/snapback]

perhaps if you can counter this with someone elses quote whose credentials are equal or better i will post more--i dont believe you can muster one up though--


You should talk,the undisputed king of C and P. laugh.gif

And about your favorite "smoking gun" .When the third building in the World Trade Center complex, Building 7, collapsed at about 5:20 p.m. Authorities had been moving people out of the area prior to the collapse (4:10 pm: Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex is reported on fire) , as a fire in the lower part of the 47-floor building had made it unstable.

Falling debris caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors.

Remember the one tank holding 6,000 gallons of fuel was in the building to provide power to the command bunker on the 23rd floor. Another set of four tanks holding as much as 36,000 gallons were just below ground on the building's southwest side for generators that served some of the other tenants.

Considering the type of fuel that was inside the building all along created intensely hot fires like those in the towers, diesel fuel, thousands of gallons of it, intended to run electricity generators in a power failure.

But thats right, you dont belive that this was a terrorist attack,and you are 100% sure that a missile hit the Pentagon.

Always favor the conspiracy angle over the boring angle. thumbsup.gif

Seriously.
At low levels these CT are no big deal, but when it reaches a certain threshold it becomes sickening.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.