Let’s start with the assumption that 9/11 was an inside job, planned and executed by someone or some people within one or more US government agencies, with or without the involvement of non-US elements.

Now let’s suppose that WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7 were brought down in a controlled manner; that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon; and that Flight 93 was shot down. I don’t want to appear defeatists, but is it actually possible to prove any of these suppositions?

Six years worth of analysis, debate and argument have not, in my view, taken us much closer to being able to establish that this was an inside job, despite what we ‘know’. Those who believe it was (and I include myself among them), excitedly latch onto media mis-reporting and label it a ‘smoking gun’, when in truth, it’s probably no such thing. We get all triumphant when one anonymous person is reported by Prison Planet to have heard a 20 second count-down to the WTC-7 collapse, when really, we need so many more corroborating witnesses to come forward before we can make such a claim stick. We trembled with anticipation when analysis conducted on its FDR and eyewitness testimony revealed Flight 77 flew north of the Citgo station, not south as the official story would have us believe, only to find that even the so-called ‘truth’ community cannot agree on the provenance of the source data and its interpretation.

Some of the contributions I’ve seen here and at other boards have been simply breathtaking. There are so many researchers, analysts and thinkers doing some extraordinary work in this field and yet I’m beginning to fear that it’s all in vain. I’m beginning to fear that we’ll be told when ‘they’ are good and ready to let us know; that 50 years from now a McCollum or Northwoods style document will find its way into the public domain, courtesy of the FOIA. And by then, of course, our grandchildren will be embroiled in another ‘inside’ job and, in any event, too dislocated from 9/11 to really appreciate the significance.

So, my question is, is our current strategy one that will ultimately enable us to prove our case? If not, what should we be doing differently?

I believe 9/11 being an inside job is provable....and it will be proven years from now....if the US govt is behind 9/11; they certainly will not indict themselves....they've got the fbi,cia and nsa to run all their cover-ups that's alot of people...

Personally, I think the "inside job" on 9/11 was orchestrated by the Canadian government. Yes, that's what I said. Are you aware that not one single Canadian died in the 9/11 attacks? Canada had the motive, means, and opportunity to commit these attacks.


link to the truth



*Don't ya just love revisionism?

wow thats a new theory...canada huh....you never know.

Makes as much sense as any other conspiracy theory I've read on these forums. Could be true...why not?

We have pictures, videos, and more witnesses to what happen on 9/11 popping up with more damning testimony and I'm suppose to not add all that for the support of 9/11 being an inside job? My point is, initially the official story from the start had all the characteristics of a false flag operation. The people who the government claim were the cunning hijackers, moved around the U.S at will, in they're own names, they bought tickets in they're own names, yet they are monitored by the intelligence agencies but no action is taken to apprehend them, we even had 5 of the hijackers living outside of the NSA, across the street actually yet no action was taken, the hijackers also trained at secure military installations with the intellgence agencies watching they're every move but yet again no action was taken; 9/11 has all the hallmarks of a false flag operation. We have the U.S spending 60 billion a year on 26 intelligence services yet they maintain they were taken by surprize, despite foreign prior warnings.......dont believe it. I personally have no doubt in my mind that the 9/11 inside job proposition is provable. Lets just say this, six years of analysis,debate, and arguing presently still have not taken us any closer to proving the official storys account either! But on the contrary, just about every new piece of information that arrives in the public domain about 9/11 disproves the official story and leans towards inside job.
I totally disagree. YOU may latch on to media "mis reporting"(which just can be human error) but I try to keep my attention focused more on the things that have been proven fact and have been ignored by the media totally in what I'd call a media blackout, like the collapse of Wtc7, the media has a blackout about this topic, the most they would do is show pictures of the building as it was still standing, but they will not show its rapid collapse; its just something they're turning a blind eye towards and this makes the public more suspicious as to why, so it would be right if we label it a smoking gun, discrepancies surrounding building seven are in direct contradiction to the official story.
Are we suppose to ignore the testimony though? And are we not suppose to get all triumphant or happy at least when we get 'videos' of firefighters alike claming WTC7 is about to blow up and video of them stating "they're bombs in the buildings clear out" which is directly supporting our claim???? The amount of people who claimed on 9/11 they saw brief flashes of light emit from the towers, heard or felt a rapid succession of explosions before and the during collapse of the buildings are enough for me conclude insidejob. TOO MANY witnesses have already came forward to make the claim stick...........
See, there lies the problem. Too me your looking at it all wrong. You see, the public can have all the proof they want and need to convict the masterminds behind 9/11, but there is never going to be a conviction because 1.the accused members within the government will decline to testify under oath(cough* bush). 2, they control the filter of information in the media, they control whats put on the air and what isnt, so what if incredible evidence for inside job arrives, im talking extraordinary stuff, that information can be within the public domain and can be enough to shift public opinion to conclude yes 9/11 was an inside job, but the people behind the attacks will never confess more or less put themselves in a position to be brought to trial;so there becomes a point when you have to stop asking unanswered questions about 9/11 and start pointing the finger.

Perfect example.......



Personally, I feel there needs to be an oust or a revolution, because any other way, those in the white house responsible will just use they're control to keep themselves in power; after all its our right to overthrow those in government who seek to overthrow the constitution and our freedoms. The founding fathers wouldnt have put that right within the constitution if they're didnt expect us have the ability to one day use it.

Judging from your response, I either haven’t explained myself very well or else we are a mile apart on this one. I’m on about ‘proving’ the claim more widely to those who currently accept the 'official' version of events, not simply reinforcing our own beliefs.

I did not and, of course, I do not advocate ignoring any fresh photographic or video material. My point was simply that we already have a voluminous amount; it’s all been minutely examined; and yet it ‘proves’ nothing to those who accept and refuse to disavow the ‘official’ version of events.

Again, this ‘proves’ nothing. The media could issue a constant stream of WTC-7 collapse footage, utilising every available piece of footage taken from all angles, and it would ‘prove’ nothing other than to those of us who are already convinced.

No, this testimony is extremely valuable… when it’s on film and attributed, not when it’s being reported by a well-known conspiracy web site, citing a single anonymous source, which is the scenario I described.

And here you appear to be agreeing with me having spent a considerable effort apparently disagreeing. There is only so much ‘information’ people can absorb. We are not going to gain revolutionary momentum through more photograhic/video analysis, the exposure of media blunders and unattributed ‘smoking guns’. If 9/11 was an inside job, we will only be able to reveal it by getting those with specific, verifiable knowledge to come out and share it. In my opinion, this will never happen until such time as we can offer proper co-ordinated support to those who are currently bound by ‘gag orders’ or simple fear.

Ahh!

Sorry, it just the way you spoke about it, you came off as a debunker lol. But ok, why do you think believers of the official version of 9/11 wont accept our inside job hypothesis and subsequent conclusion? There is only so much we can do to prove something to someone, and if they still deny what it blantly obvious, I just claim ignorance for they're defense.

Why wouldnt it!? Just showing the footage alone may not make them believe but surely it should instil reasonable doubt in the official account. Along with the footage it would help if the media explains the building wasnt hit by a plane, had extremly high temperature present in the debris weeks after the collapse and that witnesses heard and felt explosions going off. Nah, but they wont do that.

Got'cha. Im following ya.... The sources need to be made public, names, names!

I've always agreed with you but its just I misunderstood a certain point you were trying to get across. Well hell man, we've had so many government whitsle blowers/ professionals go public stating 9/11 was an inside job until its ridiculous, I dont know what more can we do besides producing Bush saying "I did it". We have photographic evidence, video analysis, witnesses, and government whistleblowers, I dont know what else we can do if all of this doesnt suffice; perhaps society is deeper into ignorance than previously thought.

when mohammed atta was in florida he traveled to the winterhaven area and to knoxville tennessee....I believe he was contracted by the carlyle group and h keith henson to clean up a mess in florida....just one of the plans they had for him and his gang.....

You just blew your case that this is a conspiracy by saying, "that's a lot of people..." The more people you have in a conspiracy the more leaks there will be, you can't tell me all involved were paid a lot of money to keep it secret, what about the guy who "pushed" the button to bring down the towers? He's gotta be making $50,000 a year right? That's plenty to keep secret that you killed all those people, I know I'd be bought for that amount... the conspiracy doesn't make sense. Reality doesn't always make sense either, but it makes for sense than these stupid conspiracy theory ideas!

Not all 9/11-related conspiracy claims are stupid, although I do accept some are pretty far-fetched. But you also have to understand that the 9/11 Commission Report, which sets out the closest we have to an official version of events, is riddled with inconsistencies and some staggering contradictions.

Since government-sponsored terrorism is neither new nor unproven, it is right and proper to question these contradictions, is it not?

You're absolutely right, the Commission Report doesn't make sense completely, there are inconsistencies and so forth, but thats a BIG jump to: the government decided it would be a good idea to kill its own people. And I'll give you the fact that not all theories are stupid, however most have not been thought out very far and fall on their face. At best the theories that "may" have legitimacy to them at best make you think and don't prove anything.

Should we question contradictions? Absolutely but, why are we trying to question the ones that no one will every be able to answer with absolute satisfaction. Why not start with the smaller ones, such as "how can a FREE society be told that its illegal to eat trans-fat?" or "its illegal to smoke a cigarette in public" I know thats a bit of a stretch but the point remains... No one will ever fully explain how things happened on 9/11, no matter how many inquires or studies are done. There are simply too many variables in that equation. If and thats a big IF the government is to corrupt and evil, lets start where its easy to stop them.

I'm not so sure that, if 9/11 was an inside job, it could not be proven. The point I was making in the OP is that real progress is contingent upon providing the right environment for those who know for sure to come forward without fear. There are so many components of the alleged conspiracy; we're not tackling one giant impenetrable edifice. If specific proof can be obtained that proves any one of them (the controlled demolition of either WTC-1, WTC-2 or WTC-7, for example), then the game is up.

Actually Mcgee, you totally incorrect in your assumption. For the fact that its possible that a lot of people may be involved that doesnt nessisary at all mean they knowingly participated in such criminal activity. What makes this possible is a such thing called "compartmentalization". A conspiracy can be pulled of with no problem once compartmentalization is involed. The thing is, the orders to carry out questionable task would come straight from the top of an organization or agency and the people who follow those order wouldn't have a clue of the motive behind it. For instance, 3 men at the top of an organization can run a conspiracy no problem as long as they use compartmentalization, only allowed nessisary knowledge to certain people on a "Need To Know" basis.

Example. 10 men run a conspiracy, they only would let the people carrying out they're task know as much as is required to complete an assignment and nothing more.

Fbi agent: We have reason to believe a foreigner named Muhammad Atta may be a possible terrorist sleeper cell who is active within the U.S can we run wire taps and or possibly bring him in for quesitoning?

Fbi Director: Good work in your analyzing of information, but no a wire tap isnt nessisary we have already investigated this person and he is clean, drop the investigation.

Fbi Agent: Thank you sir. Will do.

Sept 11th............"supposedly" Muhammad Atta hijacks an aircraft and performs a kamikazi style attack into the trade towers. People then ask how was this possible.....

Its all about compartmentalization.

Compartmentalization- In matters concerning intelligence, whether public or private sector, compartmentalization of information means to limit access to information to persons who directly need to know certain such information in order to perform certain tasks. The idea is that the fewer people know, the better, because as the number of people "in the know" grows, so does the risk or likelihood that such information could be compromised or fall into the hands of the opposition. As such, there tend to be varying levels of clearance within organisations. However, even if someone has the highest clearance, certain "eyes only" information may still be restricted to certain operators, even of lower rank. In intelligence administration, it is particularly useful to keep close watch on "sources and methods" information, so as to prevent disclosure of people and their activities, whose lives may be at risk, if such information were publicly disclosed, or, once again, fall into the hands of the opposition.

*Note* Nearly every intelligence agency in the world uses compartmentalization for the protection of sensitive information. So with that being said, if there were a conspirtors within the U.S government it would make sense that they'd use the same methods of "need to know" to protection the information about they're conspiracy. So this makes 9/11 entirely possible to pull off.

So..........

Not directed at the OP, just generally speaking...

Taking a different approach, has our government "proven" the official story?

Would their "facts" hold up in a court of law? Not a military court, mind you, but the courts that let OJ off.

Believe in it enough that it's ok for thousands of innocent people to die?


Guess you don't need my answer.

Respectfully... Flight 77 DID hit the Pentagon. The pattern of destruction was analysed by an almost infinite number of experts, who determined down to the gallon how much fuel the plane was carrying, the angle at which it hit, what path it followed over DC, etc. I live half an hour away from the Pentagon and have friends who watched the plane descend towards its target. It might be that some Jihadists infultrated into the local eschelons of the government. But ti was not an "inside job".

I respect and sympathize with your distrust of our government but I think this particular conspiracy theory is completely unfounded. Twisting history to heighten the intrigue is satisfying, but I think it's kind of dangerous, as well as sad (and, in a weird way, disrespectful to the people who died on 9/11).

I think that this particular conspiracy theory is born out of an intuitive sense that our government (ie- the Bush government) has not been playing straight with us. We sense they've been manipulating us, and it's dramatically satisfying to assume their corruption caused the most appalling event in recent history. The evidence supporting the "inside job" theory strikes me as very weak. Essentially, I believe that the "inside job" theory is an expression of our indignation and anger, but isn't an honest analysis of the facts.

Oh it did? Oh good, can I see the air craft reconstruction? If you show me I'll believe it hit the pentagon. Oh they watch "the plane" descend to the target, they watching "something" descend to the target. Do you fail to realize that there were "many" witnesses to what hit the pentagon, among them some claim the plane didnt look like an american airlines jet, some claim it they saw a small passanger jet, a missle, a drone, and last a military plane. Among all of those accounts, why should I believe your friends account is accurate. Many different people claim they saw different things, which is accurate, we dont know, but what we do know is we didnt see a boeing on the pentalaw 3000. You claim 9/11 wasnt an inside job yet the official story hasnt been proven true, AT ALL! To be frank with you us on the conspiracy side have more evidence for our claims they the government defending the official fable does.

Unfounded? lol! Can you say Reichstag fire. What's sad is our own government wont investigate the anomolies about 9/11, maybe thats because it will point back to them.

The government hasnt been straight with us for decades. You believe we live in pleasant ville thats it. The government is here to help us and we're only blaming them for 9/11 because we cant accept reality and we dont want to acknowledge we were attacked by radical muslims who hate us because we're free even though the government is taking our freedoms away!!!!

I believe something has been lost in translation here. I was basically trying to say that, even working on the basis that every one of the conspiracist's theories was true, we're at a point where none of them have been proven and it's unlikely that they will be without attributable testimony from someone with first-hand knowledge. I was not saying that I agreed or disagreed with the specific examples I gave.

The fate of Flight 77 is far from clear, in my opinion. Right from the moment it is said to have been hijacked, we've been led a merry dance by the authorities. Please read about the [topic="91093"]contradictions[/topic] in the official account. It's a long post, by necessity, but in essence, it reeks of a cover-up.

In addition, work done by a group of people at pilots for 911 truth, who are analysing the flight data recorder, suggests that the aircraft did not take the same path as that claimed in the official report. In fact, they argue that the aircraft was flying too high immediately before impact and could not, therefore, have hit the Pentagon building. An affiliated site has also produced a video, called The PentaCon, which includes eyewitness testimony that also appears to place the flightpath too far to the north to have hit the building in the manner described. It's true that this is all work in progress and, as yet, nothing has been proven. Having said that, their material has been out there for some time now and no one, to my knowledge, has shown their flightpath calculations to be wrong.

As for my personal opinion, I have said several times in UM threads that I cannot, for the life of me, see why the hijackers (whomsoever they were) would not fly the aircraft into the building. Clearly a large aircraft was Pentagon-bound that morning - the FDR and the eyewitnesses confirm this (although no one can say for certain that it was Flight 77) - and the hijackers appear to have no compunction about flying the plane into a building having already done it twice that morning. To me, the idea that 'they' would fly a large aircraft to within touching distance of the Pentagon only to exercise a flyover whilst simultaneously firing a 'missile' from a different direction, seems a little far-fetched. We'll just have to see where that research leads us.

As for your final point, you're right; these theories are borne out of a deep sense of mistrust of the US government, but you have to understand that 9/11 is the root of that mistrust, not a symptom. And, when the explanation of the circumstances surrounding the perpetration of one of history's most appalling crimes turns out to be deeply flawed and is known to have been founded, in part, upon lies, it is incumbent upon everyone to ask questions. There is absolutely nothing disrespectful, in my opinion, about this process - quite the opposite.

If I was inclined to be a conspiracy theorist, I'd say that theories such as "controlled demolition", "no plane at the Pentagon" and particularly "directed energy weapons" were started by the powers that be in order to discredit the opposition, along the lines of "We must be doing the right thing, as all that our opponents can do is come up with ludicrous ideas with a tenuous connection with reality".

You may well find evidence of incompetence in the pre-9/11 efforts to keep track of known terrorists and in the reaction of the military on the day, but none of the alleged "anomalies" put forward as proof of an inside job would stand up in court. If you doubt that, I challenge you to start legal action against anyone you think responsible.

Given the outrageous claims of these theories compartmentalization just doesn't work. How many people would it take to wire up the towers for demolition? If a missile hit the pentagon, how many military personal - i mean grunts - would have been involved? You couldn't tell the sailors to point a gun in a direction and not worry about where the missile is going to hit, you can't tell hundreds of demolition experts to wire up a a building with explosives and say don't worry about when its going to go off. compartmentalization does not work in this case.

All the words I've type on the matter combined to date don't add up to how well you've explained our side of the fence with this one post.

Absolutely great.

the official story (conspiracy) is Just as Un-Provable as any of the supposed CT'S that are out there

Agreed, if you throw reputable eyewitness testimony, math, and common sense out the door.

nice try ....all the same can be said of your "pfficail conspircay"
you have no "PROOF" all you have is witness reports ..circumstantial
evidence and flawwed reports built on Models of what supposedly


sorry you have nothing but a conspiracy happened

I am no physicist, But according to Jones, those towers fell at damn near free fall speed. Now this is testable and demonstratable. If they did fall at near free fall speed, that is proof that we have a conspiracy IMHO.

the towers did fall at ALMOST freefall speeds
this is shown time and time again in videos as
well as proven by engineering teachers and
others

I'm glad you're out here preaching the truth, sister!




Very elegantly and thoughfully put.

Right on Jaylemurph! I mean, what do we really know about all this anyway? I've heard that perhaps the World Trade Center wasn't even there to begin with (?). Perhaps it's all an elaborate fantasy orchestrated by the NWO! See link to whistle blower E-mail.

*ain't revisionism grand!

I can /personally/ attest to the fact the whole time I've lived in New York I've never gone to the WTC nor met anyone who worked there.
It clearly did not actually exist and was a hologram.
Can't you people see what's going on?!

--Jaylemurph

(okay, Lilly, this is where you make a snide ad hominem attack on me)

The thing with 9/11 is that it has all the eliments needed to for it to become become a conspiracy theory, i.e. none of the wild speculation thrown around on forums like this can be proven, if it could then there would be a massive court case going on as we speak, & so we get wackier & wackier assertions thrown into the mix on a daily basis.
I think it was the third gunman on the grassy knole what did it.

One thing is known, however, and that is that the 9/11 Commission was lied to. As a result, its findings are, at least in part, unreliable. Isn't that something that should be put right?

Lilly,

I believe you are onto something here. But your supposition must be qualified by stating the fact all this occured after the invasion of Canada by Mexico, with their 90 plane, bi-winged 1926 era crop dusters, which make up the bulk of their daunting and undefeated Air Force. You failed to point that out, plus the ongoing racist and violent ground war between Mexico and Canada raging at this very moment. Billions are missing and/or fallen from this conflict.

Care to comment on that little fact.

RAMS

Some people have expressed the view that asking questions about the possibility of US government or government agency involvement in the 9/11 attacks is disrespectful to the victims and their families. I happen to believe the opposite is true. Even if people like me are eventually proven wrong, they will have the comfort of knowing that this matter has been exhaustively analysed.

However, I do think that parodying the the so-called 'conspiracy theorists' is disrespectful. I'm sorry to say, I just don't believe this is the appropriate forum for 'Mad Revisionism'.

Frankly, your post that starts this thread is the most eloquent and profound supposition I have seen on the three sites I have trafficked on, over the last 3 weeks I have been exposed to the 911 conspiracy movement. Your post is also presented quite fairly.

My gesting with Lilly is in no way meant in disrepect, but to be frank as well, I tired within a few days of interfacing with the 911 conspiracy community in that it is and was more like a religious cult, a mantra, a frothing at the mouth delusional regime with its own popes-gods, dogma, mantra. No matter what was offered in corrective data, it remained that Americans murdered Americans.

That, I will take issue with entirely, and is far more offensive than the offense toward the 'truth' movements feelings, as it is called.

I'm not sure how to answer the 'winning' the argument about 'inside job' question, since I am convinced from data, experience in interfacing with this government for over 25 years, and how it works from a contracting view, that our government had nothing to do with 911, save for some ignored intelligence prior to, coupled with some negligence.

RAMS

Oh sure, let's ban all 'mad revision', but all other forms of revisionism should be allowed (?). Frankly, there's just as much evidence that implicates the Canadian government as there is that implicates the American government.

I'm going to quote myself (in this particular instance the issue at hand was the moon landing hoax, but various 9/11 conspiracy theories fit just as well):



This is what I see happening here. Now, you may not agree with me but I should be able to voice my thoughts on this matter.

Here's a question for you: Why isn't there a vast army of structural engineers (from all corners of the world) raising their voices in protest at the current theory of destruction/collapse of the World Trade Center? Oh, and please don't tell me that the United States government is putting the QT on every structural engineer in the entire world.


link to original post

No, there is not. This was an atrocity (inside job or not) committed on American soil by either a number of 'foreign' hijackers; elements within the US government or its agencies; or a combination of the two - a scenario that I happen to think is the most likely.


I don't know. Unlike most on the CT side of the fence, I am still genuinely open to the idea that the towers fell in a manner that is broadly in line with the OT. However, even if they did, it would not change my perspective. My belief in a likely conspiracy does not hinge on CDs, no-planes-at-the-Pentagon, holograms or alien Tesla rays.

So rather than just leave it at "I don't know" and have some blank spaces, you're willing to fill in those blanks with knowledge you don't possess, substituting increasingly complex and self-referential supposition?

Explain to me how it essentially differs from this -- admitted -- nonsense:
'I don't know why eating ice cream makes my head hurt, but it could well be a pack of angry nose goblins acting in concert with Ben and Jerry. Prove it to me if I'm wrong!"

--Jaylemurph

Everything that points to a conspiracy on 9/11 is web based. Even the half assed 'documentary' that started it all, was by a bunch of internet nerds pouring over low quality videos on youtube or whatever, adding 1+1 & getting 5.
And this is still the type & quality of proof put forward as evidence. Laughable.

it's web based because there is no investigation....and the official story doesnt add up...

What 'blank spaces' have I filled in and what have I filled them in with? What do you mean by self-referential?

And I suspect that all the research you may have done in order to articulate your support of the so-called 'official' version of events is Internet-based. Do you, for example, have a hard copy of the 9/11 Commission Report? What about a hard copy of NISTAR1?

Don't knock the Internet for the sake of knocking it. I wonder how much more quickly the world would have learned about the CIA's (and other intelligence agencies) participation in false flag civilian bombing campaigns, principally in Italy, between 1970 and 1980, had the Internet been widely available then.

When confronting anything on the net or any other source, I have learned and been trained to then evaluate the source in each case. Either by contact, visit, investigation or all three, then, careful analysis of all data. This generally will result in a granular synopsis of what is fact and what is allegory.

I have done this in several different venues and it proves worthy of truth over fiction for results. This is not the methods of the conspiracy ilk, all of them, all subjects, ever.

RAMS

lol, and you know this becuase you have used your training to contact every "conspiracy ilk", "all of them" about every subject?? You claim a method of "careful analysis of all data" on a case by case basis, then turn around and make a broad assumption about all conspiracy theorists on every subject. Thats fairly grandiose for someone who has been researching 911 conspiracy theories for 3 weeks.

In the world view of most 9/11 CTers, the WTC towers were demolished and events didn't unfold as the 9/11 Commission says they did. The source, in the case of the former, is NIST and their collapse modelling; and in the case of the latter, it is the testimony given to the 9/11 Commission. Since NIST have refused to release their modelling for scrutiny and the 9/11 Commission testimonies are full of errors, ommissions and inconsistencies (and in some cases, outirght lies), it is not possible for either the OTers or the CTers to evaluate the evidence in the way you are suggesting.

I have been researching the 911 conspiracy ilk for actually far less than 3 weeks. If you were coherent and could read, you'd read that I spoke of conspiracy in toto, not myself in first person. It is known that conspircacy, by its name, functions by willing subscribers, not on fact.

Kiddies with keyboards. Oh well.

I've put you on the ignore list function here.

RAMS

I totally disagree fully with the above, since conjecture is only fitting where it serves, on any side.

But when math, science, engineering, or failure analysis is factored in, it becomes a moot point.

For instance, repeating, 164+ tons of aircraft coming to a complete stop in less than 100' from a speed of 552mph+, translates to 94,500+ tons of impact energy. Something must absord and dissipate that energy. In the case of WTC 1, 2, it was those structures that absorded same. Fire then finished what the impacts started. For WTC-7 debris damage+fire uncontrolled compromised that structure. These are known givens. Deduction from same confirms what is reported, seen, witnessed, and what resulted.

From there, anything beyond that is hyperbole, fiction, opinion, and fantasy.

RAMS

There were two statements you cannot disagree with:

'NIST have refused to release their modelling for scrutiny'; and

'[T]he 9/11 Commission testimonies are full of errors, ommissions and inconsistencies (and in some cases, outirght lies)'.

Since the towers were designed to withstand the impact of an aircraft, albeit one of a contemporary specification (see document below); and since the designers would assume that such an aircraft would be carrying a quantity of fuel, which would lead to widespread fires, some consideration would have been given, I'm sure, to the effects of the impact energy you are describing. This is not something that would have taken them by surprise. Further, this video clip of Frank A. DeMartini indicates that the desingers believed that the buildings could withstand not just one but multiple impacts and still remain standing.

Click to view attachment

As for 'math, science, engineering, or failure analysis [being] factored in', that's all well-and-good if the shroud of mystery is removed, but unfortunately, NIST has chosen to keep all but its conclusions secret. We do know that NIST was very selective with the models it chose to examine (even discarding those it believed would not lead to a global collapse), and liberal with its manipulation of the input parameters. It is, therefore, only right and proper that its modelling should be subject to independent scrutiny in my opinion.

Your last line, your opinion, is most valid, of course, on this topic.

I would like to present something for you that may be of value, exonerating either of us on opinion.

When Challenger failed, it failed beyond all design expectations, heyond Rockwell's designers-engineers who designed-built the vehicle, NASA safety managers, Morton Thiokol who built the SRMs, and everyone involved.

Failure of the shuttle stack was never expeced to be like that, not caused by a small thin O-ring allowing hot gases to escape through the SRM casings.

In comparison, no one ever expected a fully loaded 164+ ton airliner full of people to be flown into the WTC buildings. It is and was and still is, unprecedented.

No matter who is quoted, including me or you or anyone else, the available observation and resulting data and the fact the WTC structures are gone, is testament that no matter what is surmised, no matter how carefully preplanned and investigated thereafter, surprise always replaces expectation in catastrophe.

The 911 event happened as it did. Challenger and Columbia failed as they did. And no one in goverment killed anyone. I truly think if rational thought comes into play, this is the merit of truth.

RAMS

Yeah anyway, when you look at the mathmatical posibilities of the drills occuring on both 911 and 7/7 mirroring the exact attacks. Coupled with the PNAC documents which call almost prophetically call for such an event, the enormous windfall for the industries so closely tied to this administration, NORAD standing down, the short lived interest in bringing the people said to actualy be behind the attacks to justice and the half baked attempt to document the official story, then something begins to not not add up.

But I guess if an airplane can actualy bring down a building, then why should we question anything else.

A debate well worth the read, finally absent of the dumbed down sarcasm - Keep it up guys!