your obvious spin will not weasel you out of this-- even though they were designed to widthstand the impact of a commercial aircraft it wasnt the fact that they collapsed that proves explosives were used it was "the speed" at which they collapsed-- barry jennings tesimony while crucial is not all there is it does however cooberate the reports of a countdown,the free fall collapse with classic implosion crimp,the reporting of its collapse in advance by cnn and the bbc and the molten steel found in the basement area as reported by peter tulley and confirmed by mark loizeaux of CDI(controled demolition inc.)--

and buildings can and do fall in compression all the time the only thing is explosives are used to induce it and there is simply no other explanation for what was witnessed on 9/11/01-- you need to think about "why" the best you can do is have some guy write a paper based soley on the disappearance of 12ft of load support box columns,solid steel perimeter columns,elevator shafts,stairwells and drywall hoping no one notices!!

They were designed for an impact at approach speed, the actual impacts were at cruise speed. That is equivalent to about ten times the kinetic energy.

Could you provide some sort of engineering calculation for how fast the buildings should have fallen? Without this, your "too fast" is just your obvious spin.

How do news organisations misreporting something make it a suspicious? They do it all the time. Do you believe everything you see on TV news? If so you must be remarkably gullible.

Even if your link was actually there, I would not hold Mark Loizeaux to be a reliable witness, this is what others in the CD industry think of him:
http://www.implosionworld.com/natgeo.htm

You'd better ask q24 about molten steel in the basement. His version of the CD theory appears to require low temperatures there, so it's CD because the basement was hot and CD because the basement was cold.

You appear to believe that the aircraft impacts caused no damage to the building. Why is this? Is it just your obvious spin?

If you overload a box column or any other structural member it will collapse. By and large, compressed metal columns will collapse by bowing sideways. There is plenty of room in a building, the volume of which is mostly airspace, for the columns to do this. A collapsed column will not prevent its load from falling, whatever you want to think.

The fact that the Bezant & Zhou paper was published in a leading peer-reviewed engineering journal, while no paper disputing their conclusions has had such publication should give you a hint that your understanding of structural matters is somewhat deficient.

thats because they concluded what would happen if twelve feet of material disappeared and the floors above dropped without resistance in freefall acceleration conjuring up force that was nonexistant at the wtc demolition--

also the buildings were over engineerded period!! they didnt calculate the structure around a single commercial aircraft at approach speed it had to be able to excede the capabilities with dealing with hurricane force winds over every square inch of its surface and the engineers "knew" it could handle a single impact and even boasted about it enduring "multiple" impacts-- regaurdless of q's theories or your pathetic attempt to distract from the evidence the fact remains that cdi was incharge of clean up and if they had to report molten steel in the basements it was due to the obvious evidence encountered and nothing else-- besides the temperatures at the collpase sites remain consistent with those facts as it took "6 weeks" before excavation could even begin due to the massive heat and continued dowsing of water for the entire six weeks-- also dont forget the firefighter video where the obvious glow of molten metal is seen and the firefighters describe it as "flowing as a foundry"-- and the only calculation relavent is the one that explains the freefall collapse caught on video of 110 stories of concrete and steel in 10 seconds replete with the audible roar of demolitions explosives and assisting basement explosions

That proves your lack of engineering understanding. It's much easier to design a structure to bend and twist and absorb a uniform force across the entire surface of the structure than to deal with sudden and extreme force at a single piont in the structure.

Face it, no matter how well engineered (which I question anyway - ever hear of cutting corners to save a buck?) no commerical structure in the world is designed to withstand the head-on impact of a full-size commercial air plane at crusie speed or faster and a full load of jet fuel. It's an office building, not a fortress or bunker.

As Sunofone says, rather than “an” impact, WTC construction manager Frank DeMartini believed the Towers could “sustain multiple impacts of jetliners”.



Sunofone, I do not have a clue what flyingswan is talking about above. Satellite images show extreme hot spots in the rubble, eyewitnesses reported molten metal and FEMA found “a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel”. As kerosene/office fires cannot reach temperatures to cause this, the fact that an alternative energy source was at play, such as explosives/thermite, is a major problem for the official fairytale.

Demolition devices placed on the impacted columns seen in the figure above may have been damaged, whilst devices on the large majority of columns remaining would survive. I believe the NIST claim of sprayed on fireproofing falling off to be contentious and also believe that the demolition devices fixed securely to the steelwork would not fall apart from the impact vibrations.

Regarding signals reaching the devices – why would they not? The transmitter would be directed from outside the Towers to the device receivers within. I cannot find anything indicating that random fire/heat will disrupt the signal.



It does not matter how many columns are required to cause a controlled demoltion-like collapse as seen of WTC7. The point is that NIST’s exaggeration of damage is reprehensible; a desperate act of fabrication in a failing attempt to make the official fairytale seem plausible.

My calculations make the central debris hole at the South face to be 38.4% though the small inaccuracy in your measurement does not greatly alter the problem. The eyewitness that NIST referenced, indicated damage to between one quarter and one third of the face. Please tell me, is 36% less than, equal to, or more than one third? Please tell me, is it possible to touch those 6 columns that NIST have, with 33% coverage?



I have an argument – that is the majority of areas physically analysed, including those at the impact zones, reached temperatures no higher than 250^oC and that there is zero physical evidence of any temperatures high enough to melt aluminium.



Whether fire or thermite brought the Towers down there was an airliner impact in both cases. For our scenario, the steel poles we are using obviously represent those at the impact zone you suppose needed to be weakened for the collapses to occur. So, if we each have a steel pole, will you with your kerosene and office contents or me with thermite, weaken/cut it first?



Exactly what I thought – no delivery, no answers, no clue.



The characteristics I listed, indicative of a thermite reaction, can all be observed with your own eyes in video evidence. Here is a link to a side by side demonstration of the WTC molten metal compared to thermite. Below is a comparison of the WTC molten metal next to molten aluminium: -



The above is from an article attempting to debunk Jones' work on thermite. The 'unreferenced' and particularly the 'if real' comments really made me laugh. The debunkers are so afraid of this, they are hoping/praying/pretending it is not real.

No more needs to be said on my part. The official fairytale needs to come up with an example that actually matches the molten metal coming from the South Tower. As currently thermite is the only match within the conditions we are looking for, then thermite it must be.



The mass of evidence indicating a controlled demolition necessitates that people set it up. Wires all over the building to go with the flashing Mossad badges of men carrying sticks of dynamite under their arms through the offices you mean. I suppose for it to be an inside job we should have been able to follow all those wires back to a plunger with Dick Cheney’s fingerprints on as well should we not?



When the airliners impacted the Towers, the jet fuel ignited, seen not least in the fireballs outside the buildings. The fuel that was injected inside the building also visibly ignited as we see the fireball shooting out the opposite side from the impacts. Therefore I would fully expect any kerosene moving down elevator shafts to be burning before/as it went.

How do you suppose that the fuel passed through the building façade, survived the initial massive fireball and burning debris, before flowing untouched in a large quantity all the way down the elevator shafts and pooling in the basement? Was it magic, delayed burning kerosene perhaps?



We are back to you calling this a platypus. Cannot be a duck - lack of feathers, no quack, not in water.



Yes and the “sometimes not” is why I would not be entrusting an inside job to these suicidal lunatics. If you think Flight 93 failed and believe you know what really happened, you will have no trouble explaining the points I raise on this thread. From what you have said so far, I do not think you know the first thing about Flight 93.

I doubt that he meant ten of them all at the same time and the same location. I could believe he meant that if it was designed to take one approach speed impact, then it could take more in different locations.

Pardon me, I thought you had been recently arguing against my saying high temperatures in the pile were linked with sulphur corrosion:

Either it was hot enough for that or your "extreme hot spots" are wrong, you can't be right on both.
Who claimed that the only heat-source for the debris pile was the fires? What about the potential energy of the building, where did that go?

Believe what you like, where is the evidence? Does anyone with expertise in these matters agree with you?

Radio receivers need aerials for reception. Aerials are generally easily damaged.

For a start you are picking your witnesses. Boyle, for instance, says "about a third" which is certainly consistent with 36 or 38%.
Whoever you believe, you can certainly get 5 columns in 33% of the face.

How does "zero physical evidence of any temperatures high enough to melt aluminium" agree with your theory that the cascade is thermite, then? Zero evidence for molten aluminium is also zero evidence for thermiite.

What is the significance of speed in this argument? We are trying to explain a process that took about an hour. There are plenty of examples of steel structures in fires that have collapsed after much shorter times than that.

Er - I pointed out that you had also failed to deliver on an example of a thermite CD, so what do you say:
Who are you referring to?


A lot more needs to be said on your part. If it was thermite, then you have failed to give any reason in demolition logic for such a massive thermite charge - hundreds of kilos - at that point and a lack of any such cascade elsewhere. You have failed to link a charge at that point with the subsequent collapse sequence of the building.
I am not responsible for the content of some other article, whatever side of the argument it's on. Do I blame you for sunofone's style?
"Looks like" is not evidence, I do not see what you see in the video. For example it still looks to me like it's silvery grey by the time it gets to the cool end of the cascade.

So where are those people? "They must have been there because my theory requires them" is not evidence.
Any men, any wires, any plunger, any evidence at all? The complete lack of this type of evidence casts considerable doubt on your theory.

If you agree that kerosene can get in shafts, why do you dispute that it is a possible cause of explosions in shafts?

Those suicidal lunatics have a pretty good track record. Even if they didn't succeed in hitting their targets, the very fact that they could hijack/crash four aircraft at once would create a pretty big stir.
I know what I think about flight 93. I would be interested in how you think a fourth airliner crashing elsewhere is confirming evidence for your "inside job". Not your theory of what happened to it, but your theory of why.

I am giving this a separate reply because it is an important indicator of the basic flaw in most of your arguments.

As an aside, first note that you are misquoting me again. You produced the picture after I suggested that the verbal description you had produced could equally refer to a duck or a platypus. I did not say that the duck picture was a platypus.

Your use of this picture amounts to: "I think it was a duck, so here is a picture of a duck, QED", or to put it another way "I think it was thermite, so here is a video of some thermite, QED".

This is classic confirmation bias. You are supposed to test a hypothesis by looking for counter examples, not confirming ones.

In my opinion, Alex Jones is a $20 a pop dvd peddling hack. anyone that is truly interested in getting "to the truth of a matter" would not charge people to view their "findings". they would simply contact national news sources and try to get the word out some other way.they would want everyone to know, not just people that can afford to buy or view their films. i'm not contesting the validity of his work, nor am i personally promoting it's merit. i am simply stating that if the man had profound evidence and/or felt that something he had uncovered had any worth in solving some of the inconsistencies pertaining to the events of that day or possible links proving the higher ups in our govt were involved in some monumental cover up, the facts should stand by themselves. he shouldn't have to dress it up and pimp it like a prostitute. if he felt so strongly that the investigations were compromised, why isn't he presenting his case before congress for all to see? why is he wanting to charge average american people money to listen when we really have no way of doing anything about it even if it IS true? go to the people that have power, for god's sake! that's like finding someone that is an eye witness to a murder, getting their story and then telling the lady down the street "hey if you give me 20 bucks, i'll tell you what i know!oh, and i can't tell you who it is that told me about this...you'll just have to trust me on this!" what the heck is she going to do about it? you go to a homicide detective with that sort of thing! he's just one of a million entrepreneurs out there trying to grab a buck from a terrible tragedy. you don't know how many websites i have read that claim they have "eyewitnesses" to certain events up to and including the 911 theorists. i'm not trying to say that what these people are claiming they saw did not happen, i'm simply trying to argue that most people that did in fact "hear things" or "witness things" that day were a)not experts, b)were under extreme diress and c)may not really understand what they were looking at (i.e.shock) the idea of someone hearing what they felt to be "explosions" in WTC7 before the collapse is really not that big of a stretch of imagination. there were, in fact, two large plains lodged in buildings loaded down with explosive fuels and the structure of the buildings were greatly compromised. now unless this guy is a demolitions expert and immediately afterwards called the proper authorities to come and investigate this matter, i'm going to have to assume that it may not have happened exactly as he surmised it did. it has even been stated that the terrorist organizations themselves felt that the world trade center situation turned out even better than they had planned. they did not expect the buildings themselves to collapse. why, therefore, would they plant explosives in the building to ensure collapse? just food for thought. i can't remember the news source i heard this particular idea discussed on, so let's just consider that hearsay. all of my personal opinions aside though, can someone explain to me why someone possessing such profound "truths" would have to charge people to view their investigative findings?

sonny im not sure what rock you crawled out from under but if you are unaware of who alex jones is you are in no position to make any sort of claim period-- he has been around since 95 and everybody here knows already that alex jones is the lone enigma that has the rock solid reputation for personally uploading his videos to google and officially announcing via his mon-fri radio show broadcast on shortwave 9.985 then 9.975 between 11a and 2p everyday that anyone at anytime has full permission to duplicate and distribute his documentaries as long as it is without profit as much as they want-- i challenge you to find another filmaker with this sort of reputation-- also alex pimps nothing up and in fact his rogue aggressive ranting attitude is a turn off for more than it is a turn on -- use you common sense and learn the truth as alex says dont believe him but investigate the claims for yourself -- dont assume anything!! -- if you research it the truth will grow in you on its own-- instead of falling for the deceitful talking points that elude true debate spewed by flyingswan find out why the physics prof from Brigham Young University steven jones,27yr cia analyst ray mcgovern,col robert bowman,major general stubblebine and many many more believe that explosives were used and that it was an inside job!

start here
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Veterans for 911 Truth, Operation Vigilant Truth

firefighters

k first off, im not a "sonny" i'm a woman and for someone that talks about investigation so much it's funny how you didn't take the time to peruse my profile where it states that in black and white before referring to me in such a ridiculous manner. i have seen alex jones and yes i know who he is. i don't have enough time in my day to listen to people like him blather on for hours on the radio about how evil he thinks the govt is or what new conspiracy theory he has cooked up this week. a couple of his nationally televised interviews were enough for me to a certain that he's a crackpot. everyone has their own opinion of him and they're welcome to it. that's why i started my post of with the words "in my opinion". simply put, when he's willing to actually stop talking and make a difference i may take more notice. no offense but you strike me as one of those people that may claim that people like michael moore or rush limbaugh have "rock solid reputations", but i digress. just because someone makes public claims in their filmmaking or on a radio show doesn't make them the end all on any subject. he may upload his videos to youtube (i appologize for not knowing this as i have little to no interest in him)and i suppose that's halfway commendable, but when you say that he gives "anyone at anytime full permission to duplicate and distribute his documentaries as long as it is without profit as much as they want" does this include himself? because he does, in fact, sell his documentaries online for 20 dollars a pop....

start here....

http://lc911.com/lc911/catalog/

(i will find you more if you like...look at all that yummy overpriced merchandise! mmm mmm!)

" if you research it the truth will grow in you " i have researched the events of 911 plenty, thank you, and i have never heard any mention of any of this except, of course, from the discussion regarding mr. jone's documentary. you will never, through any venue, convince me that the united states govt willingly participated in the twin towers event. actually the pentagon situation has drawn questions from me, but the occurance at the twin towers were pretty cut and dry. it's not that i'm close minded, it's just that that assumption does not fit any data that i have seen so far and find to be verifiable. that's my opinion and i'm welcome to it. respectfully, i'm not trying to recruit people to believe like me, i was simply stating how i felt.

and in closing "you are in no position to make any sort of claim period" actually, yes i am. it's called freedom of speech. have a nice day.

edited: for spelling and to make sure the link worked correctly

well thanks for displaying the level of your logic-- so i guess not only is he supposed to give out permission to copy and distribute his material at will but press and distribute originals too huh?? and your comment about never accepting that the govt was responsible is furhter insight into your ability to reason-- so if the govt was caught in 1993 supplying the explosives and detonators in the first wtc attack by the retired egyptian air force officer,they paid a million dollars to,who recorded them ordering him to allow the bombing with real explosives instead of switching it with a fake substance as the original plan involved why dont you think they would be capable of doing it again???

So it's a deceitful talking point to ask you to do a simple experiment to test your theory? When are you going to try it?

As to who is the deceitful one, I seem to remember you getting a mod's warning recently for distorting my quotes.

flyingswan,

Throughout this thread, you've demanded numbers, evidence, proof etc from those who claim the towers were brought down in a controlled manner. It's fair to say not much has been forthcoming - circumstantial at best.

Out of interest, do you accept that the consensual mainstream account for the collapse of WTCs 1 & 2 - the NIST reports - are similarly lacking in specifics?

yikes! i am always one to admit when im wrong! i have mistaken Alex Jones for Dylan Avery!!! i have seen Dylan Avery in the interviews and it's possible he mentioned Mr. Jones at some point because for some reason that's the name that stuck in my head. however, if you replace the name Alex Jones with Dylan Avery on my two previous posts, my opinion of him still remains the same. I apologize for any confusion. And lastly, do you really believe this stuff? i've been doing some more research into not only this particular topic, but others that have been discussed by Mr. Avery and his entourage and it all sounds like it's all concocted by a bunch of anti-government, ill informed crazy people. again, just an opinion. it almost sounds as if they figure out what they want to be true, then scramble around quickly (using a thesaurus) to find theories to support their claims. *shrugs* you can claim the govt does the same thing. and they may very well do it....they just have better writers. you keep commenting on my capacity for reason. honestly, you don't know me. i'm not attacking you personally, just challenging some of your views. regarding reason, the same could be said for someone that watches a documentary or listens to a radio show and believes nothing but what these people say as gospel. i watch some of these documentaries, i watch the news, i read the newspaper, and i read things on the web (although very rarely do i actually pay attention to them unless they provide a reliable source.) it's human to question things. i don't fault these men for doing just that. but, don't automatically assume that anyone that holds a different opinion of them is "unable to reason". because, in essence, i'm doing the same thing they are...only instead of questioning everything that happens in the world and then blaming it on the govt, i'm questioning them.

p.s. but seriously though, don't you think that the baseball cap and t shirts are a little over the top?

"the govt was caught in 1993 supplying the explosives and detonators in the first wtc attack by the retired egyptian air force officer,they paid a million dollars to,who recorded them ordering him to allow the bombing with real explosives instead of switching it with a fake substance as the original plan involved why dont you think they would be capable of doing it again???"

what is your source on this? beofre you jump the gun, i'm not saying it didn't happen, just don't remember ever hearing about it. simply curious.

p.s. im adding you to my friends list...basically because i don't want to be enemies with you and honestly you are presenting some interesting theories and food for thought. we hold our curiosity as something in common, i just think we're listening to different people is all.

edited: for clarity. im half asleep lol!

When I say the temperature of "the debris pile was not sufficient to cause… " that is in the context of the official fairytale where kerosene and burning office contents were the main source of heat. Obviously we know there is evidence for ‘hot spots’, molten metal and high temperature steel corrosion in the debris pile, for which an added energy source, suggestive of thermite/explosives, was required.

Sure there was a lot of energy within the falling buildings, though much of this dissipated through the ground as evident by the collapses registering in excess of 2 on the Richter scale over 20 miles from the WTC site. There would have been a moderate amount of heat generated from the falling debris, though I doubt enough to ignite a piece of paper let alone melt holes through steel.



Many scholars and academics including structural engineers, mechanical engineers, civil engineers, consulting engineers, aerospace engineers, robotics engineers, electrics design engineers, builders and architects… [breath]… also mathematicians, physicists, chemists, geophysicists, university lecturers, computer technicians, software engineers, science data analysts, historians and attorneys agree with me.

Then there are firemen, WTC occupants, eyewitnesses, family members of 9/11 victims, pilots, demolition experts, ex-government officials, ex-forces personnel, CIA analysts, news reporters and to some degree 66% of New Yorkers who, polled by Zogby in 2004, called for a full investigation of the still unanswered questions.

Apart from the above sample, of which more could be added, given a full and unbiased trial of the complete 9/11 evidence, including that indicating the event as a false flag operation, I would think most of the world population would agree with me.



The aerials would be within the enclosed units. Modern mobile phones send/receive information relayed from the other side of the planet yet do not have a visible external aerial.



I picked the witness most in favour of the official fairytale! Boyle indicated "about a third", another eyewitness indicated "one quarter to one third" and another said a hole not bad enough to knock a building down. The actual NIST description says: -

"middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground"

So what happened in the damage estimation figure? NIST indicated the maximum one third and then thought, "ah what the heck, let’s whack another 5% damage on for good measure".

It gets worse though because not only do they exaggerate damage at the South face, you will notice from the damage estimation figure that NIST actually widen this area the further into the building they go, ie the damage area angles outward from the façade.

Conveniently all of this exaggeration, assumption and outright make-believe, bring the impact damage to the vital columns 69, 72, 75, 78, and 78A which NIST suppose were the initial components leading to WTC7’s failure. This is not a scientific study by NIST; it is a reprehensible stretching of the facts in a failed attempt to fit a preconceived conclusion.



When there is zero physical evidence from the analysed steel/panels that the fires were hot enough to melt aluminium, then in one corner we see a flow of red/orange hot molten metal, it is evidence of an added energy source, one which very much resembles thermite, in play.



I am proving the point that as you believe fire could cause the collapses, it is preposterous to imply that thermite could not. If we can agree thermite weakens/cuts steel at a faster rate than kerosene/office fires then we can agree, despite your protests, that thermite is a possibility.



I am referring to the official fairytale being unable to provide a reasonable alternative to the molten metal flow from the South Tower that fits the visual evidence, other than thermite.



Massive thermite charge for a massive structure? The lack of cascade elsewhere would be due to the charges being placed inside the buildings, ie not meant to be visible, though the way the airliner impacted the South Tower obviously displaced this charge.



I was making a general observation of the article I took the picture from and the ‘if in doubt, deny it’ attitude of some ‘debunkers’ – my comments were not directed specifically at you. "If real"



Looks orange/red at the lowest visible point of the cascade to me: -





There are the Mossad agents celebrating the collapses and reported with explosives arrested at the scene on 9/11, there were power downs, reduction of bomb sniffing dogs and heavy equipment moving on vacant floors in the Towers all shortly prior 9/11, plus there is all the evidence indicating controlled demoltions. Do you doubt there were many maintenance and/or security workers within the buildings before 9/11?



Explosions are caused where the fuel pools and the fumes from it are ignited. So you would need to answer my previous post instead of wilfully ignoring the question: -

How do you suppose that the fuel passed through the building façade, survived the initial massive fireball and burning debris, before flowing untouched in a large quantity all the way down the elevator shafts and pooling in the basement? Was it magic, delayed burning kerosene perhaps?



I will quote this on the Flight 93 thread and get back to you there.



You gave ducky his very own post.

When you state "CD because it doesn't look like a CD" you are implying that because the WTC structures did not have all the features, or varying characteristics, of a conventional demolition then it cannot in fact be a controlled demolition.

Following that argument, as ducky has no feathers, is not quacking and is not in water, he cannot in fact be a duck.

The above is not true as despite these differences/omissions, ducky is/was still a duck. Therefore every time you pull out the "CD because it doesn’t look like a CD" line, ducky will show up to remind you that yes, he is still a duck despite his differences.

Hi MysteryEm Don't mind Sunofone, he knows a lot about the subject and gets a little frustrated when other people cannot see what he can. He is absolutely correct though that Alex Jones' documentaries are available completely free on the net. So too is Loose Change directed by Dylan Avery.

If you do not like the attitude or approach of these two (I must admit Alex Jones even grates on me sometimes), there are plenty of others in the 9/11 Truth Movement you can get good information from, ie lookup Steven Jones, a physics professor who has discovered and researched evidence for thermite at the WTC, and his Scholars for 9/11 Truth movement.

You commented earlier that you could never be convinced elements of the US government were involved in the carrying out of 9/11. Do you know there is evidence of the highest levels of the US military having planned false flag operations on US citizens before to justify attacking another country? - see the Operation Northwoods link in my signature and let me know what you think.

As I'm sure you know, Q24, you and I are on similar wavelengths. Thats said, it does frustrate me a little to see Northwoods constantly regurgitated. Not because it isn't interesting - it certainly is - but because there are better examples, in my view.

I have repeated a post below that I made elsewhere, since it not only offers an alternative to Northwoods that others should explore, but also because it sets the whole event into some sort of an historical and wider geopolitical context - something I think is missing from the whole debate.

The post was made in response to a request for people to set out their theories and the evidence they have to support them. The post gets a little tight towards the end, since there is a post length limit, but hopefully the message is still clear.



The problem with evidence-based ‘theories’ (which is a misnomer for most of the 9/11-related alternative conspiracy discussion I see) is that there are very few if any of them. Even the consensual mainstream theory is supported by very little hard evidence. Its biggest ‘sell’ is that the government wouldn’t perpetrate a crime of this magnitude against itself. But – and I know it’s cliché - ‘every man has his price’. If the drivers were compelling enough, the government certainly would perpetrate a crime of this magnitude. So that’s my starting point.

Now, although debunkers like to ridicule the claim, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that oil was one of the principle drivers. I’ve expanded upon this theme at length elsewhere so I’ll keep it shorter here.

There are several convergent factors to consider:

• Industrialised nations require oil as collateral for their economic growth and stability.
  
• The US consumes around 25% of all oil produced.
  
• Oil is becoming less plentiful.
  
• Within the next 5 years or so, the Middle East will produce more oil than the rest of the world combined – the so-called ‘crossover event’.
  
• Competition for oil is rising with rapidly industrialising countries such as China and India set to double their consumption every ten years or so.

In addition, we have the future of the US currency to consider. Since 1973, the unit of accounting for virtually all oil transactions globally has been the $US. This has allowed the US to run up extraordinary trade deficits whilst other countries, most notably Japan and China, have accumulated significant dollar reserves.

Since 1999, some oil-producing countries have been talking about adopting the Euro for the settlement of oil transactions - in fact Saddam went ahead and did just that. More recently, Iran has followed a similar route and Chavez would dearly love to. Meanwhile, troubled by the weakening $US, some countries have started to move away from $-denominated debt instruments. Additionally, there was talk for some time of an Iranian bourse, which has fizzled out, ostensibly for logistical reasons.

If there is to be a transition away from the $US, it needs to be managed at a rate that doesn’t precipitate an economic disaster in the US and, by extension, the world.

Put these two themes together and you have a compelling need, from a US perspective, to establish a widespread physical presence in the Middle East and Caspian Region. In so doing, it has gone some way to securing access to energy resources; it has deterred or else made life very difficult for competitors; and it is also in a strong position to shape the policies of others in the region.

It seems to me that this is what the War on Terror is really all about. Next stop Pakistan – in pursuit of al Qaeda of course – which will have the added benefit of further isolating China and Russian from the Middle East, leaving the US in a battle with them for influence over the littoral Caspian republics.

As for precedent, a lot of ‘theorists’ get very excited about the Northwoods Document, which describes a never-actioned plan to blame the Cubans for a series of terrorist incidents as a pretence for war.

It’s a neat distraction, albeit an interesting one. No one seems to pay enough attention to Operation Gladio and the Strategy of Tension – a real, fully-actioned, US sponsored terrorist campaign throughout Europe, the purpose of which was to prevent Communism gaining traction in Europe during the Cold War.

I cannot understand why so few people find this interesting. Terror cells that were deeply embedded in governments across Europe were, with CIA funding and training, killing civilians and politicians, and blowing up public infrastructure in order to frame the Communists. And this was happening during the 1970s and 1980s not some dim and distant past. It was even condemned by the European Union. Yet ‘truthers’ would rather debate the details of Northwoods. Baffling.

Now bring in the US association with the mujahideen in Afghanistan during its war with Russia, and we start to see a clear pattern of the US achieving its objectives through the actions of others.

US support to the mujahideen was channelled through the MAK - bin Laden’s organisation – via the Pakistani ISI, which was itself, of course, said to have supplied funds to Atta.

Today, in Iran, the CIA is attempting to unsettle that country – Operation Ajax-style - by working through Jundullah, a known ‘terrorist’ organisation with well-established links to al Qaeda.

The list goes on, but you get the idea. The CIA’s very existence, and that of any similar organisation, is founded upon the ability to conduct covert operations…


That brings us to the day itself.

It seems to me that nothing can be proven either way. As a community, the ‘truth’ movement is even trying to argue itself out of believing the most basic ‘facts’, such as planes hitting buildings. There’s very little, if anything, we agree on anymore.

The one thing we do all seem to agree upon, however, is that there are simply too many inconsistencies in the official account. Too many implausible scenarios and too many loose ends. Important avenues have been left to go cold, such as Able Danger and the question of who funded the alleged hijackers. Too much emphasis has been placed on collapse models of questionable legitimacy and judgements affected by the ‘fog of war’.

I believe that, if 9/11 was a self-inflicted wound, the only way we’re ever going to start to unravel the mystery of the method is if someone – an insider – comes clean.

Of course I agree other CIA schemes such as Operation Gladio, Operation Ajax and funding of the Mujahideen are of great interest and importance in understanding the motivations of this agency.

Do you not think though Operation Northwoods is entirely more relevant than the above to 9/11 when it details all of the following: -

• Staged terrorist attacks on US soil
• Fake plane hijackings,
• Fake passenger lists on a non-scheduled flight
• Mock victims and fabricated newspaper casualty lists
• Repainting of aircraft to resemble another
• Duplicate aircraft converted to drones
• Pilots under an alias
• Disappearing aircraft
• Shoot down of a plane and planted wreckage
• Creating public backing against the Cuban government
• Justification for the military invasion of another country

Regarding your oil theories, I believe you are correct in that it is a major factor. I read an article of the opinion somewhere that in years to come, these current Middle East conflicts will be referred to in history as the ‘Energy/Oil Wars’ – I would agree with that too.

Interesting, yes. More relevant, not necessarily.

Northwoods, which unlike Gladio and the Strategy of Tension was never implemented, tells us what these people are capable of conceiving. But I think of it as a scheme within a broader operation - back then it was one element of a wider plan to engage Cuba. In other words, a tactical operation within a wider strategy.

For me, the modern-day War on Terror is the strategy, in much the same way as the Strategy of Tension was an overall strategy, with Gladio stay-behind armies carrying out their own tactical 'Northwoods' operations (I know none included faked hijackings but I'm just trying to position things in context).

Today we have the CIA and CIA-backed 'terrorist' organisations running around destabilising other countries in very much the same way as Gladio armies were terrorising Europe and blaming the Communists. I believe it's possible that this is the model and that al Qaeda et al appear to be the delivery mechanism.

cool, now that i have your attention i implore that you investigate the truth behind 9/11-- it was surely an inside job and much of the data has been thoroghly debated here-- it all has its roots in the elites (wealthiest 5%) plan to eliminate 80% of the worlds population and enslave the remaining 15% under a global tyranny the likes history has never seen-- throughout history elites have risen and overthrown each other but the current ruling bloodlines have developed an "ENDGAME" that is very soon approaching and it will not be incrimental as it has been-- its a secret hidden in plain site available for all to know-- here is a link the latest 9/11 film 9/11 truth and endgame link-- pay attention to the evidence and there is also a link to the documentary endgame on that page

Obviously you cannot pin down every detail of such an uncontrolled event, but there is plenty of engineering evidence that the general effects of the impacts were well within the bounds of possibility. Apart from the NIST studies of the effects of impact and heat on the tower structural elements and their computational modelling of the fire, there are independent studies like the Purdue computational model of the impact and Bezant and Zhou's paper that showed how the design loads of the structure were much less than the dynamic loads of a collapse. I would not be surprised if the complete collapse sequence was eventually modelled as a university engineering project, but it is a complex and expensive business.

Ah, another quantative argument. What should the temperature be without thermite and how much thermite would you need to reach the temperatures you think were present? Any answers, or is this yet another unsupported opinion?

Numbers, please.

I never realised so many people had published papers on the effect of impact damage on fireproofing materials. You can of course give references?

OK, drop an aircraft on your mobile, set fire to it, then give me a call.

The NIST diagram gives two curves which presumably correspond to the range of eyewitness reports. The wider curve is consistent with Boyle's statement, the narrower curve is consistent with a quarter of the face damaged. I see no evidence of exaggeration. Presumably the depth of the damage is based on the evidence of people like Barry Jennings who saw the damage from inside the building. There are plenty of statements from firefighters that the building appeared likely to fall.

You are shifting the goalposts again. If you demand physical evidence for the temperature of molten aluminium, you should also demand physical evidence for the temperature of thermite.

I am not saying that thermite would not cut through steel, I am saying that a CD set-up would not survive the impacts and fire. I still fail to see what relevance your experiment has to the situation.

Just your opinion. I find the aluminium and debris explanation reasonable.
Meanwhile, I am referring to the conspiracy theory being unable to provide a single example of a thermite CD.

Ah, another hypothesis. What was particularly massive at that corner? How did the charge work after being "displaced" by an airliner?

Look at what's below the orange part of the cascade - it fades to a silvery grey.

You have conspicuously failed to back up your assertions about the Mossad agents and explosives. You have yet to provide any evidence for controlled demoltions apart from "looks like" and "doesn't look like". Of course there were plenty of people in the building, but none of them report strangers doing suspicious work.

Explosions are caused when a kerosene/air mix of the right proportions is ignited. Kerosene does not burn infinitely quickly, not is it instantly vapourised. Look at any video of a burning aircraft and see how long the fire lasts.

I am saying that your main argument for a CD is because it looks to you like a CD. When I point out various ways in which it differs from a CD, you start adding all sorts of twists to your CD theory to make it look more like the evidence. This aspect is what I've been calling "CD because it doesn't look like a CD". You seem quite happy that your theory can be adapted to accomodate any evidence whatever, and in fact seem to think that this makes your theory better. However, it in fact means that your theory is unfalsifyable, and in the scientific method an unfalsifyable theory has no value. If it cannot be tested, there is no way to tell if it is true.

So - and without meaning to appear to be putting words into your mouth - your answer to my question is "yes, I do accept that the consensual mainstream account for the collapse of WTCs 1 & 2 - the NIST reports - are similarly lacking in specifics." Would that be fair?

If not, then you might want to prepare yourself for some questions that explore the specifics.

If so, then please accept that any alternative theory is going to be similarly lacking in specifics.

I think we need to be a bit more specific about what is meant here. I am saying that you will never be able to say exactly how each structural component failed on the day, which went in the impact, which failed during the fire, the exact order that they went in the final collapse. The best you can do is develop simulations that are consistent with the available evidence. I am not saying that there is insufficient evidence for the "official story" that the sequence from impact to collapse is in no way suspicious. For example, the Bezant and Zhou paper doesn't say how each floor failed, but it does show that even in the most favourable collapse sequence the loads on the structure are far greater than anything it was designed to carry. This is a general result that covers all the possible specific cases.

There is nothing comparable to this on the conspiracy side. Apart from the lack of specifics about exactly what sort of explosive or where demolition charges were used, there is no general theory of why such charges were needed at all, or rationale for the obvious differences between the WTC collapses and other CDs. There is only a belief, a willingness to say "I want it to be a CD so I interpret this bit of evidence as being for a CD", even though it doesn't really resemble any previous CD. An excellent example is q24's take on the initial collapses of the towers. He agrees that the two towers started to collapse in different ways, with the more angled impact of the South Tower aircraft damaging the side of the tower towards which the upper part started to lean, while the more centred impact on the North Tower was associated with more of a vertical fall than a lean as the first movement. I deduce from this that the fires added to the initial impact damage so that the collapses started from the same points as that damage. However, q24's deduction from this is that his charges had to be placed in the towers so that they could be detonated to extend the impact damage in both cases. This gets him into a lot of trouble in trying to explain how charges could be set to work in the exact location where they were most likely to be damaged.

Got it. So we're saying that there are degrees of specificity (or lack thereof), and that the theory you subscribe to is less unspecific than the alternatives.

I am saying that at a much higher level than the specific details, there is a lack of evidence for the conspiracy theory. For instance, everyone on the conspiracy side says the towers fell too fast, but none of them has written a technical paper saying how much slower the towers should have fallen.

The temperature of the rubble pile on 9/11 without thermite/explosives, bearing in mind the upper limits of an average office fire (the kerosene was estimated to have burnt off within 20 minutes of the impacts), I would expect to be no more than approximately 500^oC, ie not enough to melt steel and/or aluminium and lower than those in NASA’s thermal image.

As it is quite clear to anyone that thermite originally burning at approximately 2,500^oC can account for the hot spots and molten metal, then you should be providing me with ‘numbers’ of how the energy within the Tower collapses supposedly caused the witnessed results. This is an example of coughymachine's current argument where you ask for specifics from others but cannot provide them yourself.



I am glad you are impressed with the size of the list. You did not ask for people who had published papers; you asked for people with expertise who support me. There is an immense pool of expertise across all these people who support that the official story is false.



If my mobile were fireproofed, in a protective casing and to the side of an aircraft impact, as the demolition units possibly were, then I would.



Do try answering the questions for a change. NIST’s own description says: -

“middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground”

Please tell me, is the widest area NIST show less than, equal to, or more than one third? You can do this through column percentage or area percentage and the answer is the same.

Furthermore, why do NIST find it acceptable to widen the damage area the deeper into the building they go, particularly on the East side?



Obviously because aluminium would require these initial temperatures, around 600^oC, to become molten in the first place, whereas thermite did not require these temperatures, ie detonators caused the reaction to begin, not the fire.



I set the scenario in response to you originally saying, “If your cascade is thermite, it takes several seconds to act and then there's a wait until the building starts to move - nothing like the precision sequence of a normal CD”. The relevance of the experiment is that if you believe fire can cause the sudden onset of collapse, so could thermite even better.



You find the aluminium with debris explanation reasonable even though it is disproved by Steven Jones’ experiment where upon attempting to mix wood and plastic with molten aluminium it floated on top of the aluminium in patches. You cannot mix debris in that finely with aluminium to give the completeness of the orange/red glow in the same way that oil and water do not mix.



The charge may not have been placed at that corner but was displaced by the airliner. I have explained how the units may have been contained/enclosed/protected.



If you are talking about the two dots right at the bottom of the picture, they do not appear to be a part of the main cascade. It looks like façade debris to me. If the cascade was aluminium we would expect to see large silvery areas throughout.



What do you mean failed to back up? That Mossad agents were arrested in New York on 9/11 specifically for celebrating the collapse of the Towers, whilst trying to blame the attacks on another group and reported with a van of explosives, is not in any doubt. Even myself and ifisurvive agreed this is true, with only the validity of the initial reports describing explosives open to opinion.

Are you implying that “looks like” and “doesn’t look like”, ie visual evidence, is of no use?

I did not ask if there were people in the building, I asked if you believe there were many maintenance and/or security teams in the building leading up to 9/11?



I agree. But still: -

How do you suppose that the fuel passed through the building façade, survived the initial massive fireball and burning debris, before flowing untouched in a large quantity all the way down the elevator shafts and pooling in the basement before igniting? Was it magic delayed burning kerosene perhaps?



Then you need to rephrase from “CD because it doesn’t look like a CD” to “CD despite a couple of differences from CD”.



Yes, I do think a theory accounting for all of the evidence is better. Regarding unfalsifiability, from what I understand, a particular theory only has value compared to others if it can be hypothetically tested to be right or wrong. In which case, individual aspects of the false flag theory are in fact hypothetically falsifiable in many ways: -

• If steel analysis from the Towers' impact zones showed physical evidence of widespread, consistently high temperatures, this would remove the idea fires were relatively weak.
• If it was demonstrated that an aluminium with debris mix really could appear in the way we see from the South Tower, this removes the theory that the cascade can only be thermite.
• If NIST could provide photographic evidence of WTC7 damage supporting their estimation, this would show they were not exaggerating.

We could roll through the whole conspiracy theory in this way. The fact that the required evidence above, and a lot more, is not forthcoming, that it is hypothetical only, because it does not exist in reality, actually puts the theory of an inside job in an extremely strong position.

What on Earth are you babbling about? The South Tower initially tilted due to the impact being on one side. By whatever means the collapses began, the tilt will always be toward the most weakened area. The very reason that the tilting did not continue, is explained due to demolition charges further down the structure removing the pivot the upper block was acting on. Charges were not required at the exact location of the airliner impacts.