To those who believe the 911 official story

[Q24]

We've got the evidence of the eyewitness Bartmer that there were no explosive sounds immediately before WTC7 collapsed, so how could there have been any high explosive charges, linear, shaped, or otherwise?

I’m sure I have said this umpteen times before without it sinking in, but… perhaps the demolitions were initiated through thermite charges; negating the need for a series of explosions immediately prior to the collapses. That's how I would carry out a covert controlled demolition anyway.

Who's acting dumb? The important point is the delay of several seconds between high-up charges and low ones. Show me a single CD with this feature.

The point at hand was that you said initial damage to the structure at roof level could disrupt a controlled demolition setup at ground or basement level. Now you accept that is a false assumption you have decided a different point is now most important.

I could swear I have said this umpteen times before without it registering, but… the two differences between the covert controlled demolitions and a conventional method, were the type and timing of charges used. That said, the

clearly shows high level charges approximately 5 seconds before the building collapses.

Don't try to tell me how an engineering team works, I am an engineer. If you get your name on a report, you made a technical contribution, and most engineers take an interest in the final product, not just their own part.

You completely missed the point that it is the level and area of contribution that is important. I’m not arguing this point when it is clear as day there were only two individuals ultimately responsible for the narrative of NCSTAR1-6.

If any of our readers are sufficiently interested to read the long thread, they will find that I gave a detailed technical explanation of why NIST didn't need to run an intermediate case, centering on the fact that the the extra damage above the baseline case needed to initiate the collapse was the same extra damage needed for the simulation to match the observed bowing of the walls. As the bowing was observed, the damage must have been enough to initiate the collapse.

A “detailed technical explanation” – sorry but that’s a joke. You still can’t even grasp that to assume it was the impacts and fire that caused bowing is a preconception – the controlled demolition process could itself have caused the bowing. All you did is confirm that the actual damage situation on 9/11 was intermediate to the base and severe case. That the overstated case NIST use initiates collapse is no proof that the intermediate reality on 9/11 should have done so.

So any structural engineer that actually studies the collapses is automatically to be distrusted? Who would you trust then?

Where did I say that any engineer who studies the collapses is to be distrusted? For me, it is not even principally a case of ‘trust’ in the studies, but the basis that engineers like Gordon Ross and Tony Szamboti provide more comprehensive and supported work than the likes of Gilsanz and his half-theory.

[Q24]

Well, that was as predictable an answer as I could've envisioned.

Only select individuals in the administration would need to be in the know. God...

Yes, completely predictable because I stated what is the obvious. God… what? It’s not difficult – those members with long-held neoconservative views would consider 9/11 greatly beneficial – cui bono?

And the President himself wouldn't know?!

It is possible GW Bush was not involved in the planning and implementation of the 9/11 false flag operation; this does not rule out his foreknowledge and acceptance of creating a pretext for a ‘War on Terror’.

I can just see the conversation.

The Vice President, and the Secretary of Defense are sitting in the Oval Office, and they say,

"Mr President, we're gonna give you a pretext to attack Hussein. We'll work something out."

And the President says, "Oh, well geez, that'd be great. Cool!"

End of conversation.

No, as you demonstrate, some people are far too dramatic and do not have the forethought to ‘see the conversation’ in context: -

1. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is an American neoconservative think tank with the stated goal “to promote American global leadership”.

2. A PNAC document, Rebuilding America's Defenses, “proceeds from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the pre-eminence of U.S. military forces.” And further, the required, “process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

3. Members of PNAC including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Zalmay Khalilzad and a dozen others took up prominent positions within the US administration in 2001.

4. Knowing the above, it is nigh on guaranteed and entirely unremarkable that these PNAC members and GW Bush spoke together of the desired “American global leadership” and the “new Pearl Harbor” type event required in furthering this aim.

5. The immediate cause of WW2 was a false flag project known as Operation Himmler. Prior to this, Hitler had told his generals he would provide them with a “propagandistic causus belli” to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which was subsequently used to justify the invasion of Poland.

6. Now, providing GW Bush was convinced by those mentioned PNAC individuals appointed within his administration, consider him in the role of a general from the above scenario.

To truly comprehend the above scenario and motivations involved, it is entirely necessary to give consideration to the interests of the nation, rather than that of the individual.

[mrbusdriver]

Do commercial CD operations routinely use thermite for their operations? Has anyone discussed this thermite theory with a reputable CD company?

And how would the intricate wiring of the charges (thermite and HE) survive the chaotic situation involving a high speed, heavy airliner impact in the very vicinity where the charges needed to be placed?

[turbonium]

Perhaps you'd better check with q24 as to how large the supposed CD charges are supposed to be. He says the molten cascade down WTC2 was a misplaced charge going off, and estimates of the amount of material in the cascade range from severl hundred kgs to several tonnes. He's also posted a link to a video of a thermite device that can cut a column, and it's much bigger than the column it cuts.

You're talking about the total amount of charges required for the entire CD. A small amount of charges would be placed in various spots throughout the building. Read the following, where an expert states that it only requires small amount of charges to CD a building....

Brigadier General Benton K. Partin (USAF, retired). As one of the world's foremost experts in both the theoretical and practical applications of explosives technology, General Partin possesses virtually unparalleled qualifications to authoritatively evaluate the public-source information available on the bombing.

The entire building in Oklahoma City could have been collapsed with relatively small demolition charges against the base of the columns and with even less explosives if linear cavity cutting charges had been used," General Partin wrote in his letter to Senator Nickles. Partin's point was dramatically illustrated with the final demolition of the Murrah Building on May 23, 1995. As that event demonstrated, a very small amount of explosives is required to bring down a large building - if the demolition charges are strategically placed within, or in direct contact with, the key structural points of the building. A spokesman for Control Demolition, Inc. informed THE NEW AMERICAN that less than 150 pounds of explosives placed in 420 locations were used to fell the three- fourths of the building left standing after the April 19th explosion.

http://www.generalpartin.org/redflags.htm

Even Danny Jowenko, the conspiracists favourite demolition man, denies that the towers were CDs, and says that it would have taken the best part of a year to prep them. How do you get "just a few weeks"?

You're referring to "the towers", not WTC 7. And there would be plenty of time to prep the building for a CD before 9/11, with no fear of the charges being discovered beforehand.

This is all irrelevant, I never claimed that CDs were always done in one shot, I questioned why a part of the building at the top should be demolished several seconds before the rest of the building.

Your argument about a reinforced part of the building coming down outside the footprint of the rest of the collapse doesn't hold water, either, if that part is at the top. If its supports are cut it will drop, that's the way gravity works.

First of all, they still haven't released any technical information on the east penthouse, over six years later! That is totally ridiculous, and more than a little suspicious.

This information is too sensitive to release - quite possibly because it would lend support to the CD argument.

This information may reveal the specific reason(s) why it had to be demolished separately, before the main CD. As I said, it's already known that it was a heavily reinforced structural addition. The point is that there are certainly reasons for doing the CD separately, which cannot be ruled out.

[turbonium]

OK, it's the theory that the fireball came down the liftshaft rather than the fireball coming out of the liftshaft that Rodriguez changed his story about, satisfied? In context, I think it was obvious which of these I was using "fireball" as shorthand for, and I still think this is a quibble on your part, petty and irrelevant as you say.

It wasn't a petty quibble. You repeatedly said he questioned the existeince of the fireball itself. What else should we have thought, especially since you're the one trying to argue about someone's inconsistent statements? Anyway, I'm glad you realize the mistake you made, so we can move on...

It looks to me as if Rodriguez is interpreting the burned man's evidence and providing his own explanation for it, first as a fireball coming down the shaft, later denying it.

That's your take on it, which is fine. I see it differently, as being the account of the burned man. But your opinion doesn't make it a fact, and you can't treat it as if it's a fact, just so you can argue that he changed his story later on. You're interpreting it to fit your argument, and that tactic is simply unacceptable.

If he is relying on other peoples stories and has no first-hand experience, how is he so certain now that those other people were wrong?

Irrelevant. Your argument is that his story has changed. It has nothing to do with his opinion on what other people think happened.

If he always thought the fireball was actually a bomb at a low level in the building, why didn't he say so in his NIST interview? Why didn't he mention it among all his claims in his 2004 lawsuit?

He did mention it in several interviews with the media during this time, which is the relevant point. It's known that many witnessess felt intimidated during their testimonies, so he may have been reluctant to mention bombs to government officials as well. Obviously, if you think you're talking to people capable of mass murder, you'll think twice before you implicate them right to their face!

That apart, what are your opinions on the other areas where Roberts says that Rodriguez has lied? His conflicting accounts of his lawsuit? That he was the only witness before the 9/11 commission not to be questioned in public?

Same as before - I think Roberts is full of crap.

How about this from Roberts, quoting Rodruigez:

"My story has not changed." But, "It is a well known fact that I was believeing the goverment official story early on. As I asked questions and put things together, the whole thing changed from their side and also from mine." Then, "I do not say there were bombs in the building."

Two incompatible statements followed by a false statement. Rodriguez does say that there were bombs in the WTC towers, and several aspects of his story have changed drastically. His account of what he heard in the basements has changed. Perhaps the greatest change is that Rodriguez used to blame al Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks. Now he blames George Bush for sponsoring the terrorist attacks as an excuse to invade Iraq.

So what? Most people thought al Qaeda did it at first - after all, the government and media started bleating and carping non-stop about how al Qaeda did the whole thing, just a few hours after it happened!! We were all in shock, and it took some time to calm down and take stock of what had really happened.

His distrust of the government began more than a year after the attacks when he learned that the 9/11 Commission wouldn't include any family members of victims...or did that distrust begin within days, or weeks?

Again - so what? Most people, at first, naturally assumed their own government wouldn't murder - or be complicit in the murder - of its own citizens! After some time, it became clearer and clearer that this was not the case. The way the government conducted the investigation - ie: not including family members - only helped confirm that belief.

Roberts' (and your) accusations against Rodriguez are pure garbage.

Edited April 16, 2008 by turbonium

[flyingswan]

Then provide your list of independent construction professionals who support the official fairytale and prove me wrong. No? I didn’t think so.

The list in NCSTAR1 was a start, I didn't bother to count them, but I'm sure they outnumber the structural engineers in AE911Truth by a big margin.

[flyingswan]

I’m sure I have said this umpteen times before without it sinking in, but… perhaps the demolitions were initiated through thermite charges; negating the need for a series of explosions immediately prior to the collapses. That's how I would carry out a covert controlled demolition anyway.

In which case you were being dishonest in implying that turbonium's "charges under the fireproofing" theory had any merit. If you can hide charges in that way, then it rules out the sort of thermite charges which you've proposed.

The point at hand was that you said initial damage to the structure at roof level could disrupt a controlled demolition setup at ground or basement level. Now you accept that is a false assumption you have decided a different point is now most important.

You were the one who said ground or basement level, not me. I asked turbonium for a reason why a CD should involve rooftop demolition several seconds before the rest of the building, and I'm still waiting.

I could swear I have said this umpteen times before without it registering, but… the two differences between the covert controlled demolitions and a conventional method, were the type and timing of charges used.

Which boils down to the unfalsifiable "it's a CD if it looks like a CD and it's also a CD if it doesn't look like a CD"

That said, the

clearly shows high level charges approximately 5 seconds before the building collapses.

They drop one side of the building before the other, but that's a horizontal separation, not a vertical one.

Incidentally, that building was much smaller than the WTC, but look what it took to bring it down:

CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030225133807

Now how is anyone going to put that lot into a building without anyone noticing?

You completely missed the point that it is the level and area of contribution that is important. I’m not arguing this point when it is clear as day there were only two individuals ultimately responsible for the narrative of NCSTAR1-6.

They were the co-leaders of that section of the report, but it doesn't mean they did all the work without any help. The list of supporting people in NCSTAR1 applies to the whole report.

A “detailed technical explanation” – sorry but that’s a joke. You still can’t even grasp that to assume it was the impacts and fire that caused bowing is a preconception – the controlled demolition process could itself have caused the bowing. All you did is confirm that the actual damage situation on 9/11 was intermediate to the base and severe case. That the overstated case NIST use initiates collapse is no proof that the intermediate reality on 9/11 should have done so.

I gave my reasons for believing just that on the other thread. I know you have difficulty with engineering concepts, but do try to understand:

The analysis started from the impact and, for the severe case, predicted the bowing and the collapse. There was no need to involve any other cause, because the laws of physics incorporated in the simulation codes showed that the impact was cause enough. The bowing was an observed phenomenon that verified the prediction, not a pre-conception. It is also a phenomenon that I have yet to see predicted by the CD theory. You produce a lot of handwaving arguments, but where is the technical input from your "hundreds" of architects and engineers?

Where did I say that any engineer who studies the collapses is to be distrusted? For me, it is not even principally a case of ‘trust’ in the studies, but the basis that engineers like Gordon Ross and Tony Szamboti provide more comprehensive and supported work than the likes of Gilsanz and his half-theory.

To quote your earlier post - "he was also a member of FEMA’s original investigation team and is listed as one of NIST’s ‘contributors’ – he gets about a bit then and is hardly the most unbiased of sources" - you dismiss Gilsanz's article in Structure magazine because he had also contributed to the FEMA and NIST work. I might point out that neither Ross nor Szamboti is a structural engineer, and boy, does it show in their work.

[flyingswan]

You're talking about the total amount of charges required for the entire CD. A small amount of charges would be placed in various spots throughout the building. Read the following, where an expert states that it only requires small amount of charges to CD a building....

Brigadier General Benton K. Partin (USAF, retired). As one of the world's foremost experts in both the theoretical and practical applications of explosives technology, General Partin possesses virtually unparalleled qualifications to authoritatively evaluate the public-source information available on the bombing.

The entire building in Oklahoma City could have been collapsed with relatively small demolition charges against the base of the columns and with even less explosives if linear cavity cutting charges had been used," General Partin wrote in his letter to Senator Nickles. Partin's point was dramatically illustrated with the final demolition of the Murrah Building on May 23, 1995. As that event demonstrated, a very small amount of explosives is required to bring down a large building - if the demolition charges are strategically placed within, or in direct contact with, the key structural points of the building. A spokesman for Control Demolition, Inc. informed THE NEW AMERICAN that less than 150 pounds of explosives placed in 420 locations were used to fell the three- fourths of the building left standing after the April 19th explosion.

http://www.generalpartin.org/redflags.htm

This is all irrelevent, q24 says it needs big thermite charges, you say it could be done with small HE charges. You take the argument to him, not me.

You're referring to "the towers", not WTC 7. And there would be plenty of time to prep the building for a CD before 9/11, with no fear of the charges being discovered beforehand.

Is that an admission that you don't think the towers were CD?

First of all, they still haven't released any technical information on the east penthouse, over six years later! That is totally ridiculous, and more than a little suspicious.

This information is too sensitive to release - quite possibly because it would lend support to the CD argument.

This information may reveal the specific reason(s) why it had to be demolished separately, before the main CD. As I said, it's already known that it was a heavily reinforced structural addition. The point is that there are certainly reasons for doing the CD separately, which cannot be ruled out.

No doubt you would have found it equally suspicious if NIST had turned their initial attention to WTC7 and treated the towers as an afterthought. There is certainly now a plausible explanation of the WTC7 collapse:

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-...lsanz-Nov07.pdf

[flyingswan]

He did mention it in several interviews with the media during this time, which is the relevant point. It's known that many witnessess felt intimidated during their testimonies, so he may have been reluctant to mention bombs to government officials as well. Obviously, if you think you're talking to people capable of mass murder, you'll think twice before you implicate them right to their face!

Seeing what else he included in that lawsuit, this is hogwash.

Same as before - I think Roberts is full of crap.

How about addressing his points rather than just insulting him?

So what? Most people thought al Qaeda did it at first - after all, the government and media started bleating and carping non-stop about how al Qaeda did the whole thing, just a few hours after it happened!! We were all in shock, and it took some time to calm down and take stock of what had really happened.

Again - so what? Most people, at first, naturally assumed their own government wouldn't murder - or be complicit in the murder - of its own citizens! After some time, it became clearer and clearer that this was not the case. The way the government conducted the investigation - ie: not including family members - only helped confirm that belief.

Roberts' (and your) accusations against Rodriguez are pure garbage.

Are you now admitting he's changed his story, after spending pages denying it?

Roberts' gives plenty of examples of Rodriguez changing his story, then gives two quotes, one of Rodriguz saying he hasn't changed his story and the other of him saying he's changed it. Address the issues.

[MID]

Yes, completely predictable because I stated what is the obvious. God… what? It’s not difficult – those members with long-held consideration to the interests of the nation, rather than that of the individual.

Whew...

That about says it all. A confirmation of sorts, of where your mindset is at...it's somewhat sad to think that people with the interest of the nation at heart ("Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country") can be thought of as having participated in the greatest act of murderous treason that can be imagined...in the interest of the nation!

Thanks Q.

Your comments have explained everything about what you argue in this thread...

Your right. It's not difficult...to see...at all.

[turbonium]

This is all irrelevent, q24 says it needs big thermite charges, you say it could be done with small HE charges. You take the argument to him, not me.

No, I'm addressing your argument, so it's up to you to answer for it. Don't try and avoid it.

Is that an admission that you don't think the towers were CD?

Hardly. I was pointing out that Jowenko is absolutely certain that WTC 7 was a CD.

No doubt you would have found it equally suspicious if NIST had turned their initial attention to WTC7 and treated the towers as an afterthought.

Actually, I would have been amazed if NIST had done that.

There is certainly now a plausible explanation of the WTC7 collapse:

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-...lsanz-Nov07.pdf

Just as "plausible" as the notion that pigs can fly.

Edited April 17, 2008 by turbonium

[turbonium]

Seeing what else he included in that lawsuit, this is hogwash.

His lawsuit does mention explosives in the towers' sub-basements. From pgs. 9 -10 in the paper...

7. Plaintiff's RICO claim is supported by the following compelling facts, among others,

which he intends to prove at trial:

a. Scientific data clearly indicates that the World Trade Center buildings, including the little-discussed Building 7, were destroyed by means of controlled demolitions, of the sort that take weeks or months to prepare and could only have been an "inside job"; there were large explosive charges in the sub-basements of both of the Twin Towers, as well as smaller charges used to bring the buildings down in an orderly fashion, and neither tower collapsed due solely to the aircraft impacts or heat generated by the burning of jet fuel on the aircraft;

http://rodriguezlawsuit.googlepages.com/Ro...ezComplaint.pdf

How about addressing his points rather than just insulting him?

That's exactly what I've been doing all along.

Are you now admitting he's changed his story, after spending pages denying it?

No. I'm trying to show you why it's utterly irrelevant.

Roberts' gives plenty of examples of Rodriguez changing his story, then gives two quotes, one of Rodriguz saying he hasn't changed his story and the other of him saying he's changed it.

flyingswan - I've asked you several times now to post the actual quotes and specific details for any points you want to make. Do you think it's my responsibility to sift through all the material, guessing at what you might be referring to?!?

If you're trying to make another point here (as I assume you are), then please include the actual quotes in your post, citing specific page(s) within the article (if necessary), etc.

I'll be more than happy to respond to your claim afterwards....

Edited April 17, 2008 by turbonium

[Cebrakon]

1 comment:

Among other things you wrote: >>Don't you know everything you see around you is obsolete compared to what the military(the secret military that is) are researching and developing?<<<

Ah, so you think the military is smart or something? Why, then are they unable to detect and disarm simple homemade booby traps without losing troops? I refer to the IED in the Iraq war, and the trail side booby-traps, made of bamboo, in Vietnam. Most of our casualties and the reason for our defeat has been due to such simple, homemade booby-traps. Our response? B-2s at 2 billion a whack.

Stupidity to the googleplex power! Clearly, we could be invaded and conquered by simple peasants at any time.

~~~~~~~~~~Cebrakon

[turbonium]

You were the one who said ground or basement level, not me. I asked turbonium for a reason why a CD should involve rooftop demolition several seconds before the rest of the building, and I'm still waiting.

They've kept all the east penthouse information under wraps for 6 1/2 years. This info is necessary to help answer your question, so you'll probably be waiting forever.

[flyingswan]

No, I'm addressing your argument, so it's up to you to answer for it. Don't try and avoid it.

I have been addressing your argument. Look again at all that was required to CD the JL Hudson store, and see if it would fit under spray-on insulation: "CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition."

It's just that q24 chipped in to support you, while ignoring the fact that your two theories are mutually incompatible. Why should I try to argue against a CD, when the two CD proponents disagree so widely on how the CD could have been done? You pick on the smallest detail of the "official story" as proof that it is wrong, but here you and q24 are pursing completely different CD techniques. You can't both be right, so which of you is it?

Hardly. I was pointing out that Jowenko is absolutely certain that WTC 7 was a CD.

He is equally certain that the towers were not CDs. Once again, is he an authority to be trusted, in which case you must admit the towers were not CDs, or is he fallible, in which case you can't trust him about WTC7 either?

Just as "plausible" as the notion that pigs can fly.

If this is so implausible, how does it get published in "Structure" magazine without the readership - the qualified structural engineering community - taking exception to it?

Well, at least you agree with q24 in saying that structural engineers don't know what they're talking about.

They've kept all the east penthouse information under wraps for 6 1/2 years. This info is necessary to help answer your question, so you'll probably be waiting forever.

You said that in your previous post, why repeat it when we're already discussing the matter?

[flyingswan]

His lawsuit does mention explosives in the towers' sub-basements. From pgs. 9 -10 in the paper...

7. Plaintiff's RICO claim is supported by the following compelling facts, among others,

which he intends to prove at trial:

a. Scientific data clearly indicates that the World Trade Center buildings, including the little-discussed Building 7, were destroyed by means of controlled demolitions, of the sort that take weeks or months to prepare and could only have been an "inside job"; there were large explosive charges in the sub-basements of both of the Twin Towers, as well as smaller charges used to bring the buildings down in an orderly fashion, and neither tower collapsed due solely to the aircraft impacts or heat generated by the burning of jet fuel on the aircraft;

http://rodriguezlawsuit.googlepages.com/Ro...ezComplaint.pdf

As I said, he makes plenty of accusations in the lawsuit, and that completely scuppers your argument that he is scared of the consequencies of speaking out: "Obviously, if you think you're talking to people capable of mass murder, you'll think twice before you implicate them right to their face!"

What does appear to be missing is any mention of fireballs in lifts, which was my claim.

flyingswan - I've asked you several times now to post the actual quotes and specific details for any points you want to make. Do you think it's my responsibility to sift through all the material, guessing at what you might be referring to?!?

If you're trying to make another point here (as I assume you are), then please include the actual quotes in your post, citing specific page(s) within the article (if necessary), etc.

I'll be more than happy to respond to your claim afterwards....

Nothing new, the quotes were in my post #351, and the quotes, with their links, are from the top page of Roberts' Rodiguez link, which I've given several times now:

http://911stories.googlepages.com/home

Do you mean that you didn't actually read this the first time I mentioned it? You were certainly very sure that Roberts was wrong, but how did you know if you didn't know what his accusations were?

Edited April 17, 2008 by flyingswan

[tipsy_munchkin]

Is it so hard to believe that there were people who hated america so much they were willing and able to do something like this. SUre it may have been later used by the government in propogande for to drum up war support but to claim they organised it still seems more far fetched that you know... some really p***** off muslims. Not everyone in the world is going to see eye to eye and there will always be some who oppose large powers, wether tehy are ones close to home or far away. Terrorism has always been a part of the world and this act though on a terrifying scale is far from uniqe in history.

[merril]

Three links (requires time, I know.)

Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley, Webcast- Lawrence Wright

Counterterrorism Evolves, Chapter 3, P.88 of 585

FBI Agent John O'Neill-

"America's $30 billion intelligence community, spread over more than a dozen agencies, was disorganized, fractured and impaired by organizational and legal restrictions on the sharing of information.

These disclosures directly relate to John O'Neill's story. He came tantalizingly close to possibly uncovering the 9/11 plot. But his investigations into the USS Cole terrorist attack and into Al Qaeda's presence in the United States were both undermined by the CIA and FBI's failure to share information with each other.

The FBI was not capable of functioning as a domestic intelligence service because of limited resources as well as a culture and organization that emphasized a traditional law enforcement approach to counterterrorism. FBI agents were trained to build criminal cases that could be prosecuted. As the 9/11 Commission's Staff Statement noted, "The Bureau rewarded agents based on statistics reflecting arrests, indictments and prosecutions. As a result, fields such as counterterrorism and counterintelligence, where investigations generally result in fewer prosecutions, were viewed as backwaters."

John O'Neill had run up against this FBI culture; his counterterrorism efforts directly threatened the dominance of the group who held sway over the bureau - the criminal division. O'Neill also fought to improve the FBI's resources and capabilities to fight the new terrorism, arguing for a plan that represented a seismic shift in the way the FBI had always operated. One example: He would have given authority to a new more analytic agent who would have enhanced technology to fight terrorism. Sixty six percent of the bureau analysts were not qualified to perform analytic duties..."

The question is- where do we go from here? How will we continue to secure the sale of .5 to 1 million bbl of crude from Iraq, and perhaps some LNG (I don't know the exact figures or desired targets), for the U.S.? I hope there is some breakeven- somewhere. 9-11 may have provided an excuse to get a geo-strategic foot in the door, in southwest asia. I don't know.

[flyingswan]

http://www.theonion.com:80/content/video/9...videomrss_77269

[Q24]

Do commercial CD operations routinely use thermite for their operations? Has anyone discussed this thermite theory with a reputable CD company?

Do smokers routinely light their cigarettes with thermite? Has anyone discussed this thermite method with a reputable tobacco company? No and no – so the contention is it’s not possible, right?

Seriously though, putting aside the covert achievement of the job for a moment, it is an almighty double-standard to believe a sporadic 1,000^oC diffuse flame could cause collapse but a dedicated 2,500^oC thermite reaction could not.

And how would the intricate wiring of the charges (thermite and HE) survive the chaotic situation involving a high speed, heavy airliner impact in the very vicinity where the charges needed to be placed?

The thermite charges would be placed giving wide coverage of the core columns at a level. Where the airliner impacts columns, these charges would be destroyed or displaced, though leaving the majority remaining to initiate collapse. The charges themselves could be prefabricated enclosed units, utilising electrical or chemical detonators and triggered by radio control.

[Q24]

The list in NCSTAR1 was a start, I didn't bother to count them, but I'm sure they outnumber the structural engineers in AE911Truth by a big margin.

in•de•pend•ent

1. not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself: an independent thinker.
2. not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free: an independent businessman.
3. not influenced by the thought or action of others: independent research.
4. not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.

In which case you were being dishonest in implying that turbonium's "charges under the fireproofing" theory had any merit. If you can hide charges in that way, then it rules out the sort of thermite charges which you've proposed.

My demolition theory involves both conventional shaped explosives to weaken the structure and thermite charges to initiate collapse - they are different devices and may be setup and concealed in different ways without either ‘ruling out’ the other.

Which boils down to the unfalsifiable "it's a CD if it looks like a CD and it's also a CD if it doesn't look like a CD"

Or simply, “it’s an unconventional controlled demolition because it looks like an unconventional controlled demolition”. That means despite the type and timing of the evident charges being non-conventional, it is given away further by a number of features: sudden initiation, virtual symmetry, near freefall, complete collapses, amongst others.

They drop one side of the building before the other, but that's a horizontal separation, not a vertical one.

If it was necessary to bring the penthouse down first, this would require a horizontal separation from the rest of the structure. Even if the penthouse was not necessarily required to be removed first, we know that in a controlled demolition, charges are placed at high levels and can detonate in the seconds before collapse initiates.

Incidentally, that building was much smaller than the WTC, but look what it took to bring it down:

CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

Yes, it is quite ridiculous that an office fire should imitate the results of that setup.

The analysis started from the impact and, for the severe case, predicted the bowing and the collapse. There was no need to involve any other cause, because the laws of physics incorporated in the simulation codes showed that the impact was cause enough. The bowing was an observed phenomenon that verified the prediction, not a pre-conception.

The observed bowing is nothing more than evidence that some given damage situation will cause as much - that the impacts caused this situation is a preconception. Indeed, NIST’s base case showed that the impact was not cause enough to induce bowing or collapse. Here is how NIST had to extend that expected case to reach the required damage situation: -

“For the more severe case, the

impact speed was increased

to the upper bound obtained from the analysis of aircraft impact conditions, while the aircraft vertical trajectory

angle was reduced to impart more impact energy

inward toward the core. A

5 percent increase in the total aircraft weight

was considered for the more severe case, while the

failure strain was varied to be 125 percent

of the baseline value to inflict more damage on the towers. For the tower model, the

failure strains of the tower steels were reduced to 80 percent

of the baseline value, and the

mass of the building contents was reduced

. These variations contributed to more severe damage to the tower structure, by making the tower structure weaker and the aircraft structure stronger.”

How NIST justified altering so many and so severely the parameters from the base case in one fell swoop is not explained in the report. This severe exaggerated case may have been acceptable, unlikely though it is, in an “oh ok, the impact was just more extreme than our best guess”, kind of way… if the resultant damage had best matched that observed in photographic evidence… but it didn’t: -

“The overall agreement with the observed damage to the north wall was good for the base case and the more severe case,

with the

base case

analysis providing the

better match

to the observed damage.

”

The two quotes given above are incontrovertible evidence that in increasing the severity of the impact simulation as they did, NIST were moving further away from the observable reality of the situation on 9/11 in their desperate quest to ‘prove’ the official story.

To quote your earlier post - "he was also a member of FEMA’s original investigation team and is listed as one of NIST’s ‘contributors’ – he gets about a bit then and is hardly the most unbiased of sources" - you dismiss Gilsanz's article in Structure magazine because he had also contributed to the FEMA and NIST work. I might point out that neither Ross nor Szamboti is a structural engineer, and boy, does it show in their work.

I dismiss Gilsanz’ article first and foremost on the basis it is a vague half-theory that explains nothing to any acceptable level. In addition, I point out that he was a member of the FEMA and NIST teams and will be working to the same preconceived conclusions that they are.

Last you spoke of Gordon Ross and his Momentum Transfer Analysis paper, you agreed that, “his basic calculations agree with B&Z”. After I pointed out Ross had made a number of assumptions in favour of collapse continuation, still demonstrating that the collapse would not continue, you then could only gripe about the quantity of dust reasonably assumed to be pulverised.

It's just that q24 chipped in to support you, while ignoring the fact that your two theories are mutually incompatible. Why should I try to argue against a CD, when the two CD proponents disagree so widely on how the CD could have been done? You pick on the smallest detail of the "official story" as proof that it is wrong, but here you and q24 are pursing completely different CD techniques. You can't both be right, so which of you is it?

The reasoning turbs has set out for the initial demolition of the penthouse is different to my own, though both are very reasonable – there is more than one way a demolition may be carried out. What we both seem to absolutely agree on is that the official story is pure nonsense.

[Q24]

That about says it all. A confirmation of sorts, of where your mindset is at...it's somewhat sad to think that people with the interest of the nation at heart ("Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country") can be thought of as having participated in the greatest act of murderous treason that can be imagined...in the interest of the nation!

I am glad I got my mindset across. So we understand each other now – I think world leaders strive and make sacrifices for power and the pre-eminence of their nation, whereas you think as a priority they have the individuals’ own personal welfare at heart.

I did like the way you spliced my first and last sentence, though unfortunately that ignored the body of evidence leading me to my mindset. So which part didn’t you get? Neocons? PNAC? New Pearl Harbor? Historical precedent? Tell me how your mindset manages to be oblivious to those points I laid out.

[MID]

I am glad I got my mindset across. So we understand each other now – I think world leaders strive and make sacrifices for power and the pre-eminence of their nation, whereas you think as a priority they have the individuals’ own personal welfare at heart.

?

Not at all.

You think American leaders commit crimes against their citizens (sacrifices)...for the benefit of the nation (?).

What they actually do is their jobs, by and large, which is assuring American sovereignty and the safety and security of it's population.

Individuals have their own personal welfare as their personal responsibility. It's not the government's. However, the government strives to maintain the system whereby Americans can have the opportunity to execute their personal responsibilty.

I think you have it all wrong.

I did like the way you spliced my first and last sentence, though unfortunately that ignored the body of evidence leading me to my mindset. So which part didn’t you get? Neocons? PNAC? New Pearl Harbor? Historical precedent? Tell me how your mindset manages to be oblivious to those points I laid out.

It's not oblivious. It simply acknowledges the mindset that creates such things. It's not evidence...it's imaginative, CT mind-set based wishful thinking.

You're a CT. And, based on your arguments....with a qualified engineer who actually knows what he's talking about, I think it's apparent what you're all about.

[merril]

I commend anyone for vigilance. However, sometimes certain concerns, no matter how sincere, are misplaced.

That is why I cited the three links, above. They show one side of the story of 9-11, that certainly tries to explain important and relevant events- like one top agent's experience in the FBI.

As for the buildings (it's been seven years, and no proof of explosives), here are two simple videos which seem to illustrate an inward cave-in of the outer columns at WTC 1. Not an outward explosion.

WTC 1, impact site close up, tower collapse close up, long shot, people shouting

South Tower Falls, shot front of Trinity Church

No explosions, that I could hear.

I just found this image of damage to the North Tower-

Entire image-

Source

[turbonium]

I have been addressing your argument. Look again at all that was required to CD the JL Hudson store, and see if it would fit under spray-on insulation: "CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition."

Are you actually suggesting that this is the one and only way to CD a building? I hope not. There are countless variables, not to mention any cutting edge advancements and techniques kept under wraps.

He is equally certain that the towers were not CDs. Once again, is he an authority to be trusted, in which case you must admit the towers were not CDs, or is he fallible, in which case you can't trust him about WTC7 either?

But the towers were not conventional CD's, and he is not an authority on them. He certainly is qualified to state that the towers were not conventional CD's. And I agree - they were not conventional CD's. He may be certain that the towers were not CD's, but that is only his personal opinion.

He's an authority on conventional CD's - and he is fully qualified to claim with certainty that WTC 7 was a CD.

If this is so implausible, how does it get published in "Structure" magazine without the readership - the qualified structural engineering community - taking exception to it?

Implausible theories didn't stop the FEMA and NIST reports from being published without a whimper of complaint from the engineering "community", either. But the FEMA and NIST reports have something else in common with that paper - Ramon Gilsanz took part in writing all of them!

Yes. In fact, NIST hired him to come up with a "plausible theory" for the collapse of WTC 7. There's much more to the story of Ramon Gilsanz, but I won't get into it here.

The main point is that you fail to realize the serious ramifications at play here. It's not a simple case of two engineers with opposing theories for an event, debating over various technical points. It goes far, far beyond that.

If an engineer disputes the NIST / FEMA / Guy who worked for NIST and FEMA/ theories, he is also disputing that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by fire and/or structural damage alone. That implies that other factor(s) were involved in causing the collapse. But there's only one factor that could be considered - explosives.

In a nutshell, he's saying that it was a CD. Which leads to only one horrible conclusion.

There is nothing to gain, and everything to lose, if he speaks out. As you said, it's a "community". Who's going to take a stand against the entire community, when it might cost him his career?