[jigglyspider] Yet another 9/11 conspiracy video

[phongn]

These are the things I'm hearing: Jet fuel fires don't burn long. Office fires don't burn hot enough to critically weaken structural steel, let alone fireproofed steel.

Ah, but everything and anything flammable more or less caught fire after ignition from the kerosene. Office fire temperatures can actually go very high, IIRC, especially given sufficient O2 to keep them going.

Let alone steel designed to take five times its given load before weakening.

That's weakening due to load under pressure, as opposed to weakening by thermal load - two different things.

Where did the careening top of the first tower to collapse suddenly stop careening? Why was the debris taken to scrapyards before detailed analysis could be done? Etc, etc, etc. Why is it so easy to ask these questions after days of looking into it?

NIST did analysis on the fire and collapse of the WTC, you might want to give it a read. As a warning, it is a long and technical paper: (NIST-NCSTAR 1)

[phongn]

I think the best way forward is to find out what most people can agree upon and work back from there.

Plurality is not the way to come to a conclusion in engineering or science.

1)The collapse of WTC buildings 1,2 and 7 certainly bear the hallmarks of controlled demolition. Many reporters, emergency service workers and civillians are on tape exclaiming as much - and initially many engineering experts said as much.

Reporters, emergency service workers and average civillians are not qualified to consider what a controlled demolition looks like, not neccessarily "engineering experts" - and which ones?

2)The FBI, CIA and intelligence agencies from at least 10 other countries knew of an impending attack using planes before 9/11.

They knew of the possibility.

3)The official investigation wasn't hopelessly inadequate to satisfy all the anomolies and much of the evidence has now either been destroyed or is whereabouts unknown (many reports of the FBI siezing evidence such as the footage from cameras around the Pentagon).

Have you read the NIST report published October 2005? Surely you can cite precisely where these problems are. Also, as evidence of course that data would be taken ... and we've also seen published footage from various cameras.

4)It was fortunate for the hijackers that the air defenses in the north east region were so ineffective due to jets flying too slowly once alerted and that there just happened to be a special exercise on that day that occupied many of the fighter jets that would normally have been available.

Yes, there were air-defense breakdowns, and which exercise was this?

5)The big losers from all of this were the Al Queda friendly Taliban, the big winners from this were intelligence agencies, military contractors, and popularity of the Bush administration.

There are alternative explanations to this that do not require a conspiracy.

6)Fireman from the scene had gag orders placed on them and victims' families had to take authorities to court in order to get emergency communication records released. Also FBI agents who have come out in public against the official line have also had gag orders placed on them.

How does this link to a conspiracy?

7)Many of the officials in various government agencies who failed to prevent 9/11 have since been promoted. No public enquiries or independent investigations have taken place.

What, the official 9/11 Report wasn't public?

The US media doesn't seem to be following up on any of the many anomolies from 9/11. The biggest terrorist event on US soil with so many unanswered and intriguing aspects and the basis of US military occupation in the middle east and yet so few documentaries and investigative reports on the issue.

Which anomalies?

There are other things that I think we can all agree upon, and maybe some may argue with the points i've made, but if anyone believes that there aren't problems with the official line that deserve investigation I'd like to know which government agency you are working for

A smiley on this board is not a free pass. And no, these are not neccessarily points "we can all agree upon."

[McC]

Ah, but everything and anything flammable more or less caught fire after ignition from the kerosene. Office fire temperatures can actually go very high, IIRC, especially given sufficient O2 to keep them going.

Can you cite something about this? I'm curious. I'd be very surprised (but certainly willing to accept given evidence) if office fires could reach kerosene fire-level temperatures.

That's weakening due to load under pressure, as opposed to weakening by thermal load - two different things.

Fair point. However, doesn't weakening of the steel thermally lead to reduction in ability to manage a pressure load?

NIST did analysis on the fire and collapse of the WTC, you might want to give it a read. As a warning, it is a long and technical paper: (NIST-NCSTAR 1)

Will do. I'd only ever seen the FEMA report before, which was...heh. Not convincing.

[McC]

By the by, phongn, I return your suggestion of the NIST report by suggesting you have a look at the video link I mentioned. Jones actually responds to stuff in the NIST report. Interestingly, the NIST report on WTC7 (at least as of January when the video was made) was still not yet released.

[aerius]

More blurry, questionably edited videos which have been dicked around with and digitally manipulated to create artifacts which support the whack-a-loon theories. Same story every single time.

[theski]

If I may wade in on this TIN FOIL fest..

Lets start here.

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

NO MORE 911 TIN FOIL

[McC]

I've read that article too (though I must've been asleep when I read the firt part, 'cause I don't recall anything beyond the first paragraph there).

Anyway, the second two points:

Pancaking: If this were happening (which appears valid), then wouldn't the collapse be slowed by it? Instead, the buildings came down literally in line (with allowances for air resistance) with free fall speeds. You can go to google, watch any of them, time it, and then do the math. 80 stories of building should slow this fall somewhat, shouldn't it? (That's not a rhetorical question -- I'm actually asking)

WTC7: The progressive collapse notion makes sense, except for the 'perfect' fall of WTC7 into its own footprint, much like a controlled implosion. It's the precision of its collapse that bugs the crap out of me. It's an oft-cited fact in these various videos that 9/11 is the first time in history that a steel high-rise has failed due to heat-related stresses, let alone three in the same day. It's just...gah.

[theski]

McC.. Most Big building are BUILT to collapse into their own foot print.. you cannot have them toppling over ..

[aerius]

Debunking the controlled demolitions theory is easy. Where were the explosions? In every controlled demolition there is a sequence of timer-delayed explosions, lasting anywhere from a few tenths of a second to several tens of seconds depending on the size of the building to be imploded. You can see this by watching "The Blasters" on The Discovery Channel or any other documentary on building demolitions. For something the size of the WTC, that delay sequence of explosions would last several seconds. There were no such explosions in ANY of the WTC buildings.

[theski]

Debunking the controlled demolitions theory is easy. Where were the explosions? In every controlled demolition there is a sequence of timer-delayed explosions, lasting anywhere from a few tenths of a second to several tens of seconds depending on the size of the building to be imploded. You can see this by watching "The Blasters" on The Discovery Channel or any other documentary on building demolitions. For something the size of the WTC, that delay sequence of explosions would last several seconds. There were no such explosions in ANY of the WTC buildings.

OH the Nuts have that covered too.. Just check out the WEBFAIRY site..

[McC]

McC.. Most Big building are BUILT to collapse into their own foot print.. you cannot have them toppling over ..

Makes sense. How is this accomplished, though?

<snip>

I'm not trying to put forward the idea of any theories. Period. I'm not saying there was government involvement, that the official explanations are cover-ups, or anything else.

I'm asking how the existing explanation accounts for certain things which are attacked as unaccounted for by the people with the "alternate theories," as it were. Basically, I want to be able to torpedo the counter-arguments and feel like what I'm saying sufficiently does it. So far, I don't feel capable of doing that.

On NIST

Interestingly, I'm looking at page 47 in document 1-5G. They have a computer upper layer temperature figure in there that shows the tower. The hottest portions are shown away from the core, with the coolest portions being in the core. For the official explanation to work, that'd have to be where the hottest temperatures are, since the WTC towers were principally supported in this structural core (rather uniquely, I might add). Indeed, there are pockets in there reaching not more than 20°C. Some areas get up to about 400° C (750° F), but certainly not the 1000+ mark that has been mentioned as necessary to weaken steel to sufficient levels for collapse. If one combines what phongn mentioned about steel strength (unless I misinterpreted) reacting differently to fire, and then what theski quoted from Popular Mechanics about temperatures steel strength vary at, the fires as calculated by NIST aren't hot enough to even get the steel to 50%, let alone the 33% or <20% required for a failure.

Am I missing something important?

[theski]

McC.. Most Big building are BUILT to collapse into their own foot print.. you cannot have them toppling over ..

Makes sense. How is this accomplished, though?

<snip>

I'm not trying to put forward the idea of any theories. Period. I'm not saying there was government involvement, that the official explanations are cover-ups, or anything else.

I'm asking how the existing explanation accounts for certain things which are attacked as unaccounted for by the people with the "alternate theories," as it were. Basically, I want to be able to torpedo the counter-arguments and feel like what I'm saying sufficiently does it. So far, I don't feel capable of doing that.

On NIST

Interestingly, I'm looking at page 47 in document 1-5G. They have a computer upper layer temperature figure in there that shows the tower. The hottest portions are shown away from the core, with the coolest portions being in the core. For the official explanation to work, that'd have to be where the hottest temperatures are, since the WTC towers were principally supported in this structural core (rather uniquely, I might add). Indeed, there are pockets in there reaching not more than 20°C. Some areas get up to about 400° C (750° F), but certainly not the 1000+ mark that has been mentioned as necessary to weaken steel to sufficient levels for collapse. If one combines what phongn mentioned about steel strength (unless I misinterpreted) reacting differently to fire, and then what theski quoted from Popular Mechanics about temperatures steel strength vary at, the fires as calculated by NIST aren't hot enough to even get the steel to 50%, let alone the 33% or <20% required for a failure.

Am I missing something important?

Part 1..

Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over.

another great place to debunk the TINFOIL
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

[McC]

another great place to debunk the TINFOIL
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

This is an excellent article, theski. Thank you.

[jigglyspider]

Plurality is not the way to come to a conclusion in engineering or science.

Indeed. Testable data is needed. However in my original statement I'm suggesting that certain facts exist that don't require new theories such as "pancake theories" and other untested assertations.

Reporters, emergency service workers and average civillians are not qualified to consider what a controlled demolition looks like, not neccessarily "engineering experts" - and which ones?

Firstly people are certainly qualified to say what the collapse of buildings looks the same as controlled demolitions they've seen. That is not the same as them saying they "know" it was controlled demolition, merely that is what it resembled to them based on their experience. Secondly I will provide you a link to what some experts have said.

http://prisonplanet.com/Fire_Not_Extra_ ... t_Says.htm

http://www.rense.com/general17/eyewitne ... ersist.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Ryan

Have you read the NIST report published October 2005? Surely you can cite precisely where these problems are. Also, as evidence of course that data would be taken ... and we've also seen published footage from various cameras.

Have you seen published footage from cameras around the Pentagon at the time of the impact? All I've seen are 4 still frames, none of which are conclusive - why not show the whole thing and put this to rest? As to the NIST report, I've read sections, but the innaccuracy of the figures they are working with mean that conclusions drawn without the hard evidence are worthless. In any event I don't trust FEMA or NIST because of their political ties.

Yes, there were air-defense breakdowns, and which exercise was this?

Yes there were breakdowns, how very fortunate and lucky for the terrorists on that particular day. The exercise was called Northern Vigilance.

http://www.ringnebula.com/northern-vigilance.htm

What, the official 9/11 Report wasn't public?

I wasn't an independent investigation. The people in charge had political ties to the administration and omitted any witeness testimony that challenged the official version.

Which anomalies?

Slow moving fighter jets, the lack of bodies recovered from flight UA93, the lack of large engines from AA77. Black boxes not being recovered. The workers at ground zero getting sick. Incredibly hot molten metal at ground zero at temperatures well above those possible from the fires. Building 7's total yet neat collapse into its own footprint - and no these buildings are not designed to conveniently implode. The CIA assisting some of the hijackers in getting visa's after they were initially rejected. The FBI agents who went public with information about how their warnings of the impending attacks were supressed. The way the secretive service responded with President Bush on 9/11. Put options purchases on United Airlines and American Airlines stock rose to six times normal levels in the days preceding the attack. Two employees of Odigo, the instant messaging service, received e-mail warnings of the attack two hours before the first assault on the WTC. An emergency response team from FEMA arriving Monday 10th September. No video of any of the 19 hijackers at any of the three originating airports of the four flights has been made public, except for a video allegedly showing hijackers of Flight 77. At least six of the alleged hijackers have turned up alive since the attack. The only 4-1/2 minutes of the phone call from Flight 11 Attendant Betty Ong made public describes a stabbing but does not provide any details indicating that Arab hijackers were on board. Building 7 contained a 23-million-dollar emergency command center, but instead of using it for its ostensible purpose, then-Mayor Giuliani evacuated his team to a makeshift command center as soon as the September 11th attack started. The emergency command center was destroyed along with the rest of the building, even though it was constructed as a bomb-hardened shelter. The remains of Building 7 were rapidly removed and the steel recycled, evidently without any on-site and only extremely limited off-site examination. The rapid disposal operation proceeded despite the fact that no one was believed buried in the rubble, and the tidy rubble pile was not blocking adjacent roads. The building's owner, Larry Silverstein, stated on a PBS documentary that he had conferred with the fire department commander on a decision to "pull it." Neither the FEMA nor NIST reports commented on this remark. Firefighters reached the crash zone of the South Tower and calmly described controllable fires. Smoke from the fires in the South Tower became progressively darker up to the time it collapsed. A June 1, 2001 order stripped commanders in the field of autonomy in responding to hijackings. The FAA banned firearm possession by commercial pilots two months before the attack.

Note that General Richard Myers, Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on September 11th, was confirmed as Chairman on September 13th in spite of being unable to provide any meaningful answers to questions regarding the air defense failures.

General Richard Eberhard, commander of NORAD on September 11th, was promoted to head the newly created NORTHCOM.

NORAD's vague timeline raises far more questions than it answers, yet officials have never been required to give a full account.

The 9/11 Commission advanced a new timeline which contradicts NORAD's earlier timeline and the testimony of military officials to the commission itself.

Also note that the official theory is in itself a conspiracy theory

[theski]

OMG>>>>>> PRISONPLANETand RENSE....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA

passes out... You need to stay away from any microwaves with that much tinfoil....


YOu forgot.. Webfairy..

[jigglyspider]

OMG>>>>>> PRISONPLANETand RENSE....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA

passes out... You need to stay away from any microwaves with that much tinfoil....

Score one for my predictive powers.

In any case a lot of the original news articles mysteriously dissappeared so I'm having to reference sites such as those.

Oh I get to post stuff in cyberspace and act like a wally - boo ya for me. So by this posting you are suggesting that all of that stuff is made up?

[jigglyspider]

http://911busters.com/video/WMV/CC10_Mi ... orists.wmv

[theski]

OMG>>>>>> PRISONPLANETand RENSE....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA

passes out... You need to stay away from any microwaves with that much tinfoil....

Score one for my predictive powers.

In any case a lot of the original news articles mysteriously dissappeared so I'm having to reference sites such as those.

Oh I get to post stuff in cyberspace and act like a wally - boo ya for me. So by this posting you are suggesting that all of that stuff is made up?

So your "REAL" articles are Missing.. PLEASE

How about I post some things from the sites you use as reference.. And yes.. both sites MAKE SHIT UP..

example//

The Murder Of Hunter S. Thompson

The Tsunami: More Than a Natural Disaster

Come on jiggly I could post these all day..

[jigglyspider]

http://911busters.com/video/WMV/CC10_Mi ... orists.wmv

Worth watching if you don't know about how the terrorists got into the US.

[theski]

http://911busters.com/video/WMV/CC10_Mi ... orists.wmv

Worth watching if you don't know about how the terrorists got into the US.

THIS IS YEARS OLD>>>>> WE KNOW HOW THEY GOT HERE>> next

[jigglyspider]

CIA agents helped them get here and you're okay with that?

[theski]

CIA agents helped them get here and you're okay with that?

Well we also Trained Bin laden... Whats your point.. ??

It was a Complete Fuck up of INTEL and Communication between FBI and CIA and DIA.. and NSA were no exsistant and both Clinton and Bush Ignored the problem..

[aerius]

Alright jigglyspider, here's your chance for the big time. Describe in your own words, your theory of what really happened on 9/11. Support said theory with scientifically based evidence.

[The Spartan]

Why do people try to shit on my beloved profession?

Indeed. Testable data is needed. However in my original statement I'm suggesting that certain facts exist that don't require new theories such as "pancake theories" and other untested assertations.

Pancake theory? Do you mean the way the buildings were fucking designed to collapse in upon themselves, pancaking, as it were, in order to minimize damage.

Oh, and as for the steel, I feel the need to reiterate the fact that steel loses much of its strength when heated above 800F. As an example, I work in Jacobs Piping Engineering and when I'm determining the thickness necessary for a particular piping spec, I have to take the temperature into account. In my ASME code books (specificaly B31.3 Process Piping) there are allowable stresses listed for all the steels we use. For A53 Carbon Steel the allowable stress up to 300F is 20 ksi but, if you go up to 1100F the allowable stress drops to 1 ksi. Hmm... I wonder why....

Firstly people are certainly qualified to say what the collapse of buildings looks the same as controlled demolitions they've seen. That is not the same as them saying they "know" it was controlled demolition, merely that is what it resembled to them based on their experience. Secondly I will provide you a link to what some experts have said.

Your first claim? Bullshit, plain and simple. The average person, untrained in engineering, is not qualified in any way to determine engineering failures.

And the second, that experts have weighed in? That's fine, unfortunately they're overruled by the voluminous other, PHYSICAL evidence that contridicts the idea that it had anything at all to do with explosives.

One question though: If they were planting explosives, why exactly, did no one ever spot the demo teams, surveying and then prepping the sites?

Have you seen published footage from cameras around the Pentagon at the time of the impact? All I've seen are 4 still frames, none of which are conclusive - why not show the whole thing and put this to rest? As to the NIST report, I've read sections, but the innaccuracy of the figures they are working with mean that conclusions drawn without the hard evidence are worthless. In any event I don't trust FEMA or NIST because of their political ties.

Maybe because it's not a high speed camera you fucking moron. There are some security cameras, particularly in areas where the threat level is considered low, that are essentially time lapse, taking a picture every few seconds or so, rather than 24 or more ever second.

And again, physical evidence, from the crash site, blows your shit out of the water. Such as, light poles knocked down by the plane as it flew over the highway, the skin from the aircraft found not far from the impact site, the FUCKING LANDING GEAR!

I wasn't an independent investigation. The people in charge had political ties to the administration and omitted any witeness testimony that challenged the official version.

Care to back that up without resorting to someone wearing tinfoil?

Slow moving fighter jets

More like middirected, because, you know, there are just a few aircraft in the sky and when you don't know which are hijacked or where the hijacked aircraft are... it's easy to find them!!

, the lack of bodies recovered from flight UA93

I take it you're unfamiliar with fire? I'm surprised really, evidently it's been around for quite a while.

the lack of large engines from AA77.

Oh, horseshit. Aircraft engines are remarkably fragile objects that tend to , you know, shatter, when smashed against things.

Black boxes not being recovered.

There's that fire thing again....

The workers at ground zero getting sick.

Yeah, because huge volumes of dust from a modern building that's filled with toxic(when burned and crushed) substances is good for ones health.

Incredibly hot molten metal at ground zero at temperatures well above those possible from the fires.

What kind of metal was it? Do you even know? Do you even know what the melting point of the various metals there was? Do you even know how hot the fucking fire was?

Building 7's total yet neat collapse into its own footprint - and no these buildings are not designed to conveniently implode.

Yes they are you fucking moron, for just such an occurance.

The CIA assisting some of the hijackers in getting visa's after they were initially rejected.

Standard investigation techinique. You string along the little guys to open a way to the biguns. It just bit us in the ass this time.

The FBI agents who went public with information about how their warnings of the impending attacks were supressed.

Supressed? Or ignored? Have you never heard the expression, "Dont' subscribe to malice what can be explained with ignorance."

The way the secretive service responded with President Bush on 9/11.

What the hell are you talking about?

Put options purchases on United Airlines and American Airlines stock rose to six times normal levels in the days preceding the attack.

The stock market flucuates, deal with it.

Two employees of Odigo, the instant messaging service, received e-mail warnings of the attack two hours before the first assault on the WTC. An emergency response team from FEMA arriving Monday 10th September.

Sources?

No video of any of the 19 hijackers at any of the three originating airports of the four flights has been made public, except for a video allegedly showing hijackers of Flight 77.

And it, or course, never occured to you that said video does not exist. Or, alternatively, that if it does exist, it doesn't really show anything that we dont' already know? You're really grasping at straws with this one.

At least six of the alleged hijackers have turned up alive since the attack.

This should be good... Details.

The only 4-1/2 minutes of the phone call from Flight 11 Attendant Betty Ong made public describes a stabbing but does not provide any details indicating that Arab hijackers were on board.

Riiiiight... because when your hijacked the important thing to note is that they're arab, not that, you know, you'reindangerandneedhelpandthere'sbeenastabbingandtheyhavetheplaneandIdon'tknowwhatshappening
(mods: sorry for the lack of spacing there, I'm trying to make apoint with it)

Building 7 contained a 23-million-dollar emergency command center, but instead of using it for its ostensible purpose, then-Mayor Giuliani evacuated his team to a makeshift command center as soon as the September 11th attack started.

Ye-ah. Um... DUST!!!!!!! Fuck are you dumb.

The emergency command center was destroyed along with the rest of the building, even though it was constructed as a bomb-hardened shelter.

Bomb hardened against what is in effect a direct hit? Oops, didn't think so.

The remains of Building 7 were rapidly removed and the steel recycled, evidently without any on-site and only extremely limited off-site examination. The rapid disposal operation proceeded despite the fact that no one was believed buried in the rubble, and the tidy rubble pile was not blocking adjacent roads. The building's owner, Larry Silverstein, stated on a PBS documentary that he had conferred with the fire department commander on a decision to "pull it." Neither the FEMA nor NIST reports commented on this remark.

Oh, my god, someone fucked up! IT MUST BE A CONSPIRACY!

Firefighters reached the crash zone of the South Tower and calmly described controllable fires.

Holy shit you mean proffesionals were non-plussed by large fires!! Holy shit a conspiracy!

Smoke from the fires in the South Tower became progressively darker up to the time it collapsed.

And?

A June 1, 2001 order stripped commanders in the field of autonomy in responding to hijackings.

Oh no. They're attempting to set up a central command to eliminate contradicting orders. They failed to implement a perfect system in time so it must be a conspiracy!

The FAA banned firearm possession by commercial pilots two months before the attack.

Proof that the pilots onboard the hijacked aircraft would have been among the pilots choosing to carry weapons?

Note that General Richard Myers, Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on September 11th, was confirmed as Chairman on September 13th in spite of being unable to provide any meaningful answers to questions regarding the air defense failures.

You mean an expert in attacks from military aircraft was promoted even though he was unable to affect the outcome of what was, in essence a civilian breakdown.

Hell, some of the people in charge, during the Abu Ghraib scandal were promoted. It's called croynism (old boys network, in other words) not a fucking conspiracy.

General Richard Eberhard, commander of NORAD on September 11th, was promoted to head the newly created NORTHCOM.

See above.

NORAD's vague timeline raises far more questions than it answers, yet officials have never been required to give a full account.

Why should they, we know what happened?

The 9/11 Commission advanced a new timeline which contradicts NORAD's earlier timeline and the testimony of military officials to the commission itself.

Oh, my god, you mean that after analyzing all the evidence they came up with a timeline that didn't synch up with evidence from one set of sources. Could it be, perhaps that the set of sources lacked the necessary evidence to make the complete timeline the commission came up with!?

Also note that the official theory is in itself a conspiracy theory

OOOOO, semantics whoring.

In conclusion: fuck you and your bullshit conspiracy. You obviously have a brainworm and need to excise it immediately. Try the bandsaw in the garage.

[jigglyspider]

The Spartan, insulting me personally doesn't add anything to the debate. Lets take it as read that you wish to insult me and yo won't have to type out so much in your responses. I'll simply add a few "moron" and "tin foil hat" barbs at various intervals to recreate your debating style for you.

It seems that much of the necessary information is not in the public domain and there is now a growing movement by professionals and experts for the government to make available all the evidence.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060301/ ... eb352979_1

Pancake theory? Do you mean the way the buildings were fucking designed to collapse in upon themselves, pancaking, as it were, in order to minimize damage.

No they weren't. The pancake theory did not exist until after 9/11 when experts who were at a loss for how such buildings could come down without the use of explosives and without access to the hard evidence attempted to come up with an explanation. However, pancaking has never been proven in testing and remains simply a theory. Further, the tower's designers expressed shock that they fell following the planes hitting them because they were designed to withstand such impacts. Why would the designers be "shocked" in response when they knew that the planes were deliberatley flown into the towers at high speed?



http://aardvarko.snappyanswers.com/mirr ... wers.story

Evidently "pancaking" or progressive collapses of buildings are not desireable so designers wouldn't engineer their buildings to collapse in such a way.

" Second, progressive collapse – which refers to the spread of failure by a chain reaction that is disproportionate to the triggering event – was also responsible for the extraordinary number of deaths in the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. Yet, the United States has not developed standards, codes, and practices to assess and reduce this vulnerability. Adding to the problem for modern structures is their smaller margin of safety – and the reserve capacity to accommodate abnormal loads – due to increased efficiency in the use of building materials and refinements in analysis techniques. The work carried out at NIST in the early 1970s continues to provide the basis for the extremely limited guidance that is available in current United States standards. NIST would develop cost-effective solutions to reduce building vulnerability to progressive collapse using a multi-hazard approach that exploits synergies in resisting extreme loads from blast, impact, earthquakes, and fires. "

from
http://www.nist.gov/testimony/2002/abwtc.html

In fact the buildings were designed to behave like metal mesh that retains it's structural integrity even after multiple plane impacts. Frank DeMartini, the on site construction manager gave an interview saying as much.

The only link of him being interviewed is on PrisonPlanet, but the clip should still be viewed as it's just a hosting site. If anyone knows where I can find the original television show with Mr DeMartini I'd appreciate it.



http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/no ... totake.htm

I have to admit that in my quest to find a plausible explanation for the government destroying and with holding evidence, association with extreme conspiracy theorists and their websites makes it difficult to have serious dialogue.

I have to wonder if perhaps there were explosives placed in the buildings by terrorists as they were in 1993. Afterall they did succeed in causing a huge explosion that ripped through 3 floors.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 516469.stm

Perhaps the idea was to attract emergency services to the towers after the initial impact and then to set off bombs later to cause maximum carnage. Maybe the government has been covering it up because it exposed the fact that secuirty measures were still woefully inadequate to prevent another 1993 type bombing. Even worse because this time the terrorists worked out how to take out the building entirely.

I will answer the rest of your point in my next post, but I have to go out for a while.