[asedra] Ed Asner on 9/11 - Building 7

[Sea Skimmer]

Not only was WTC 7 damaged by debris, and on fire for hours, it also had a 5,000 gallon diesel fuel tank on fire inside it and, like the main towers, it had an unusual structural design, in its case the basement of the building had to span a very large existing transformer substation, which reduced the ability of its structure to handle damage. In fact its collapse can be shown to be related to the area of this substation and the location of the main damage. Report here, but its from the government so its clearly all lies!!!
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

Not like any bit of it fucking matters though, because zero visual proof of a controlled demolition exists, every image cited by the idiots blatantly shows no such thing (like the little puffs of dust coming out of windows just below the collapse) to anyone with any goddamn sense, and the signs of thousands of pounds of explosives being detonated would be utterly unmistakeable in sight and sound to a hundred thousand plus close witnesses. Another fundamental wrong basis of the idiot controlled claims is of course, a building wont fall in its own footprint without controlled demolition, which is absurdly untrue and proven by hundreds of building collapses from totally uncontrolled wartime damage, but facts have nothing to do with this.

[Sea Skimmer]

The report above BTW, briefly addresses what would have been required to blow down WTC 7 with the damage from debris included to reduce the size of the required charges, great conspiracy planning required to predict THAT! The conclusion is that a shitload of windows in the building would have been blown out and the blast heard at least a mile away.

[CJvR]

The report above BTW, briefly addresses what would have been required to blow down WTC 7 with the damage from debris included to reduce the size of the required charges, great conspiracy planning required to predict THAT! The conclusion is that a shitload of windows in the building would have been blown out and the blast heard at least a mile away.

Ah!

But not if you use magical mystery paint on super duper thermite, available in the same store where Jack bought his beans...

Besides WTC7 is the stupidest bit of the conspiracy, utterly pointless and hardly noticed by anyone. I recall some vague reports about yet another collapse on 9/11 and the day after but it wasn't until I started hearing paranoid ramblings about WTC7 that I even put a name to it.

[Justforfun000]

I look back at the way this was presented to me in its entirety and I'm getting really annoyed at the stupidity being perpetuated at such a level of apparent sincerity.

The average person of course doesn't automatically think ill of the ruling government in anything remotely resembling terror attacks..what the hell would be the point? As said above..it asks far more questions then it even begins to suggest alternative theories to with any measure of equal plausibility. But idiots like these people start sowing seeds of doubt and dissention and it just turns into a clusterfuck of denial.

The whole thing stank to me in many ways..but I still keep getting thrown off by the (seemingly) big movement of "1500 architects and engineers"..coupled with celebrity endorsements with no specific reason to profit from it..they are obviously just as befuddled as the average joe..but their star power lends credibility.

As I mentioned before..I learned a big lesson about conspiracy theories and pseudoscience by the HIV dissident movement. I've lived in Toronto for more then half of my life and it was a significant influence even here..a lot of friends and acquaintances from the village were of the mind that this was an equally probable position to hold. There are STILL a couple more that I can't reach and will undoubtedly see going into their grave because of their refusal to critically think and listen to the consensus. I think the problem is that we've had a gap between professionals and people that has grown into a divide...in the past..doctors were listened to and in the main they were correct insofar as their medical competence was sound..but medical science is so bloody nebulous and even 1 case of spontaneous remission can seem like "the doctors don't know anything! They said I had 4 months to live".

This kind of scepticism has bleeded over into many fields I think. People question experts and their field of expertise as if they have the RIGHT to grade them. That's what is so distrubingly common now and somehow it's just become accepted as "open-minded".

Humans are disturbingly hard-wired for dogmatic thinking it seems...I guess only the truly educated/enlightened people are able to keep not only an open mind..but a discerning one.

[K. A. Pital]

Conspiracy theories are easy to buy in not because they are completely crazy, but because they often follow a logical train of thought and offer some patterns of behaviour similar to what we often see in real life, except taken to the extremes.

For example, given the shit the US government has been pulling in the last whatever years, a person might obviously find a conspiratorial crime the government is implicated in deeply believable. After all, the crimes in Iraq, MKULTRA and many, many other crimes only surface years after the government perpetrated them.

If anything, 9/11 conspiracies actually demonstrate that people, while being gullible and stupid, demonstrate a tendency to follow at least some sort of a pattern that derives from logical analysis and observation. While logic may be temporarily discarded to "prove" the theory, it is logic that moves many people to such a conspiracy theory in the first place.

In fact, even moonbat theories (e.g. "No Moon landing, fake!") do derive from arguments that are deeply tied to what seems to be logical (except, once again, taken to an extreme): with good cinematography/photoshop and government secrecy, you can fake and manipulate news. That has been the case since god knows how long.

Reality:

Photoshop:

However, once you take that to an extreme, you end up with bullshit.

[Logicomix]

I know, man, they fooled them so completely! I mean, if the FBI had actually suspected such an operation was being planned, they might have sent a memo to the President saying "Bin Ladin determined to strike in US," and further clarifying that there were "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." Oops, they totally sent that memo to the President about a month before the attacks.

So the Bush administration ignored FBI intel that explicitly stated Osama was determined to strike the US, and that there was suspicious activity consistent with preparations for hijacking planes. So, WHY wasn't Bush and his lackeys impeached for making a conscious and responsible decision to ignore intel that could have saved more than 3000 Americans on 9/11 and hundreds of thousands of people in the two war that followed?
You might want to stop posting GWU documents. GWU is the #1 source of material for people that want to impeach Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rise, and Co.
Have a look at the IraqGate Docs:
Link
BTW I never argued that the CIA & FBI were in fact taking a nap. That is what the Bush administration argued - that they were caught unaware.

Bush went after them (note: The Taliban) for harbouring Bin Laden.

Allegedly. The Taliban did not harbor or protect Osama. They were simply following Islamic custom and being hospitable. The Taliban didn't even like or trust Osama. It was the 2001 US invasion that forced the two to co-operate.
Evidence contradicts perceived relationship between Taliban and Osama bin Laden
Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden
THE OSAMA (BIN LADEN) ISSUE BETWEEN THE TALIBAN AND AMERICA

So the actual story is 'some fundie muslims with some training from Al Qaeda camps got into America, got flight training and hijacked some planes', which is eminently believable.

You've watched too many Hollywood movies.

Is it so incredible to think that the CIA could just be incompetent? Or that they didn't communicate properly with the FBI?

Is this supposed to outright refute something I said?
According to another poster I have quoted in this post, the FBI not only knew of the danger, but also warned the Bush administration who in turn did nothing to prevent the attacks.

The attack wasn't flawless, you may have noticed that one of the four planes crashed in a field.

What plane? There is no plane visible in any of the photos published.
There is also no plane visible in the one and only video of the Pentagon attack.
Show me the planes bro.
I WANT TO BELIEVE!!!

People are calling your 'controlled demolition' 'idea' nutty bullshit because that is what it is - anyone can look at the evidence presented here and come to the obvious conclusion. The entirety of your evidence against the mainstream story seems to be that the CIA=God and therefore nobody could have perpetrated a terrorist attack without their knowledge.

Meh...what evidence? The NIST report does not even touch the subject. All the "evidence" you speak of have been invented and compiled by apologists of the Bush administration.

[CaptainChewbacca]

You think in the 2004 election if there had been any whiff of wrongdoing on the part of the Bush administration that the dems wouldn't have torn DC apart to find it and nail his ass?

[Logicomix]

If anything, 9/11 conspiracies actually demonstrate that people, while being gullible and stupid, demonstrate a tendency to follow at least some sort of a pattern that derives from logical analysis and observation.

So, if you believe whatever your government tells you, you are NOT gullible and stupid.
If you question, criticize, challenge, and scrutinize whatever your government tells you, you ARE gullible and stupid.

I do not believe in conspiracies - that is why I have rejected the Bush administration narrative from day one.

You think in the 2004 election if there had been any whiff of wrongdoing on the part of the Bush administration that the dems wouldn't have torn DC apart to find it and nail his ass?

Yes. I'm 100% certain of it.
Are you by any chance under the impression that the Democratic party of the USA was ever against the invasion of either Afghanistan or Iraq?

[Executor32]

Do you honestly think that after an aircraft impacts a building or the ground at over 500 MPH, the wreckage is going to in any way resemble the form of an intact aircraft?

[Omega18]

What plane? There is no plane visible in any of the photos published.
There is also no plane visible in the one and only video of the Pentagon attack.
Show me the planes bro.
I WANT TO BELIEVE!!!.

This is the sort of extreme nonsense which shows how utterly absurd the conspiracy theory actually is.

While its a little hard to even understand what you're trying to argue, there is the video and abundant witnesses regarding the first two planes crashing into the twin towers.

If you're questioning the existence of the crash site of flight 93, on top of the witnesses at the site, you did have NTSB investigators at the site shortly after the crash, on top of eyewitnesses of the crash at the site. (See this link among others options for eyewitness quotes.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

While the FBI took over things to a greater degree later, those NTSB investigators would have been in a perfect position to see any glaring discrepancies such as pretty much any of those alleged by any of the conspiracy theories regarding the site. (While I don't think you're suggesting this, its also very clear that its not like those killed on the flight were actually in the World Trade Center that day or something.)

If you're suggesting the flight didn't crash there as described in the official reports, that means making sure the NTSB on site investigators in on the conspiracy on top of whoever were the on site eyewitnesses. (And the government better make sure the local eyewitnesses don't have anything about their background which could allow a nosy press reporter to deduce something is looking screwy here.)

(I didn't cover the pentagon crash which is a separate detail where the details of how it actually occurred can be covered if absolutely necessary, but your previous post appeared to be talking about the other crashes and frankly you post was even more incoherent than I realized if you were solely talking about that crash.)

Again, a basic rule about a conspiracy like this is that you want as few as a number of people involved as possible. This means those NTSB investigators in particular would be an utterly needless complication involving people who ordinarily are not involved in keeping secrets like this, on top of the other eyewitnesses. A big basic issue is people involved with the conspiracy would have a major incentive to speak out because they are troubled by the government being involved with deliberately killed Americans. (The people I just mentioned could all get off with likely immunity in return for testimony because they could plausibly argue they didn't really understand what was really being planned by the government in advance.)

You also depending on the conspiracy theories I've heard on Flight 93 have either someone else sticking explosives on the flight or being involved with shooting it down, which is another potential source of someone with a guilty conscience spilling the beans.

In other words, pulling anything with the flight would be an incredibly dumb idea which needlessly significantly increases the odds of the conspiracy getting blown for no real good reason. (By the same token, blowing up Building 7 would be pointless since taking out the main Twin Towers would be sufficient to achieve any possible political objectives and it would be a needless and dangerous complication for the conspiracy.)

In case you're going to argue everyone involved with the actual conspiracy has kept quiet due to fear, even fairly shortly after the incident if someone like the NTSB investigator had gone to a creditable reporter with enough evidence, they could have blown the conspiracy open while being rather confident about their safety since it would have been way too obviously suspicious if something suddenly happened to them after the story of what they said was reported. Furthermore, they could go forward with their evidence with even greater safety after the Obama administration took over with mostly new top officials. You have to assume Obama is also in on it to try to explain this issue away.

Excessively large and complex conspiracy theories simply don't hold up to careful rational examination when you examine what's involved, and that's especially true with an event like 9/11 where obviously allot of those involved would be deeply troubled by evidence the government was really behind it.

[Broomstick]

Fire alone probably wouldn't have brought the WTC down but fire together with structural damage from crash did.

Fire alone wouldn't have brought down the building because if it had been JUST fire the automatic sprinkler system would have come on, and such systems greatly reduce the fire/heat damage (they also cause a lot of water damage, but that's repairable, and they do save the structural integrity of the building supports).

The jet crashes not only caused significant structural damage, they also severed the plumbing, rendering the automatic fire fighting systems inoperative. This, too, was a factor in the eventual destruction of the buildings.

[Flagg]

Fire alone probably wouldn't have brought the WTC down but fire together with structural damage from crash did.

Fire alone wouldn't have brought down the building because if it had been JUST fire the automatic sprinkler system would have come on, and such systems greatly reduce the fire/heat damage (they also cause a lot of water damage, but that's repairable, and they do save the structural integrity of the building supports).

The jet crashes not only caused significant structural damage, they also severed the plumbing, rendering the automatic fire fighting systems inoperative. This, too, was a factor in the eventual destruction of the buildings.

The crashes also blew the fireproofing off of alot of the steel beams allowing the fires to do more damage faster.

[Logicomix]

Do you honestly think that after an aircraft impacts a building or the ground at over 500 MPH, the wreckage is going to in any way resemble the form of an intact aircraft?

>500 MPH
Is that a FACT? Did they find the 'black box'?
Intact? No. But to argue that 99% of the plane evaporated is simply unacceptable.

The crashes also blew the fireproofing off of alot of the steel beams allowing the fires to do more damage faster.

The jet crashes not only caused significant structural damage, they also severed the plumbing, rendering the automatic fire fighting systems inoperative. This, too, was a factor in the eventual destruction of the buildings.

How do you know these things?
Via ANSYS and LS-DYNA simulations performed by NIST?
The WTC site was a crime scene. Why was it sealed off and cleared out so fast?
Why not let NIST experts examine the site? Why not let anti-terrorism units inspect the site?

1-This is the sort of extreme nonsense which shows how utterly absurd the conspiracy theory actually is.
2-While its a little hard to even understand what you're trying to argue...

1-The conspiracy theory is indeed absurd, but what really baffles me is that the the official theory is even more absurd. Planes do not evaporate almost entirely, and fires do not pulverize buildings. Yet both of these things happened on Sept11.
2-I'm not arguing anything. I'm questioning. It seems to me that NIST fiddled with a couple of simulators and produced a rather ambiguous and inconclusive report.

[Omega18]

1-The conspiracy theory is indeed absurd, but what really baffles me is that the the official theory is even more absurd. Planes do not evaporate almost entirely, and fires do not pulverize buildings. Yet both of these things happened on Sept11.

2-I'm not arguing anything. I'm questioning. It seems to me that NIST fiddled with a couple of simulators and produced a rather ambiguous and inconclusive report.

As noted, there is nothing that doesn't fit with what happened to the World Trade center if you properly rationally study the physics. The "pulverization" as you put it of the building was due to the damage caused to the steel supports for the towers, followed by the heat eventually weakening the steel sufficiently to cause the collapse. (It was gravity which caused the actual pulverization to be exact.)

You second statement is frankly a cheap debating tactic which allows you to avoid addressing the issue that various elements you are questioning only make sense to question if you buy into utterly absurd conspiracy theories which don't hold up to rational examination. Its almost exactly the sort of tactic "intelligent design" supporters use to question evolution where they avoid actually ever having to provide real actual support for their "scientific theory."

[Logicomix]

You second statement is frankly a cheap debating tactic which allows you to avoid addressing the issue that various elements you are questioning only make sense to question if you buy into utterly absurd conspiracy theories which don't hold up to rational examination. Its almost exactly the sort of tactic "intelligent design" supporters use to question evolution where they avoid actually ever having to provide real actual support for their "scientific theory."

So, you actually place a label on me simply because I question your theory?
I see...the good old "you're either with us or against us" mantra.

[Omega18]

So, you actually place a label on me simply because I question your theory?
I see...the good old "you're either with us or against us" mantra.

You can't come up with an explanation on why you are bringing specific points up in the first place, because they are indisputably irrational conspiracy theories which don't even hold up to casual sufficient logical examination. (In other words the "official version" clearly makes a million times more sense than any other possible explanation that has been yet brought up. Unless you can come up with a logical sound reason for instance that Flight 93 would be faked as part of a conspiracy theory, there is no sense wasting our time with it, and you appear to be simply missing this point)

In case you're confused, I'm a Democrat who despised G.W. Bush.

[aerius]

Intact? No. But to argue that 99% of the plane evaporated is simply unacceptable.

Keep in mind that a fighter jet is a hell of a lot more solid than an airliner. Passenger jets are pretty much flying pop cans.

[Crossroads Inc.]

You second statement is frankly a cheap debating tactic which allows you to avoid addressing the issue that various elements you are questioning only make sense to question if you buy into utterly absurd conspiracy theories which don't hold up to rational examination. Its almost exactly the sort of tactic "intelligent design" supporters use to question evolution where they avoid actually ever having to provide real actual support for their "scientific theory."

So, you actually place a label on me simply because I question your theory?
I see...the good old "you're either with us or against us" mantra.

Ok, this will be my one and only comment in this debate because frankly this will argument will be made by people FAR more intelligent than I, but...
if you REALLY cared about being "open" about both sides of the debate, if you REALLY cared about an actual discussing... Then you would already be addressing a whole list of points made perviously, instead of making cheap potshots about someone calling you a bad name...

The first two pages of this thread are full of virtually every argument needed to debunk the 9/11 conspiracy...
Any point that you can raise has already been addressed...
If you honestly cared about a discussion, you would take the time to read through the arguments raised here and consider how they affect your own views.

But I will make this prediction now, that you will not. Because people like you are more concerned about challenging "The man" about stirring the pot and "making waves".
You come here not looking to change minds, and not looking to have your own views questioned.
You come here to stand up to "us" make your speech, and then slink away proclaiming "LOOK AT ME!! I stood up to the feared members of SD.Net!"

I deeply ask that you prove this prediction wrong.

[Executor32]

>500 MPH
Is that a FACT? Did they find the 'black box'?
Intact? No. But to argue that 99% of the plane evaporated is simply unacceptable.

Yes, in fact they did find the black boxes. Flight 77's cockpit voice recorder was too badly damaged to be useful, but the flight data recorder was still usable. Obviously, that's also the one that would indicate how fast the plane was going when it hit the Pentagon. As for Flight 93, both of the recorders were recovered and usable. Know where the cockpit voice recorder was? Buried 25 feet deep under the already eight-to-ten-foot-deep impact crater, due to the violence of the impact and the soft soil of the crash site.

No one ever said that 99% of the plane simply disintegrated, either. Flight 77 penetrated 310 feet into the building, and most of the wreckage you seem to think should be visible in or around the collapsed area in the photograph to which you referred earlier was in fact found much further inward, in areas which appear to be undamaged in that same photograph. Flight 93's wreckage was thrown up to eight miles away in the case of paper and other light materials, and up to 1.5 miles away for fragments of the actual aircraft. Most of the debris was found within a couple hundred yards of the crater.

Honestly, if you're going to call into question the facts presented in the official story, at least know what those facts are.

[K. A. Pital]

So, if you believe whatever your government tells you, you are NOT gullible and stupid.

No, moron; you shouldn't "believe" anything, you should check the facts first and foremost.

If you question, criticize, challenge, and scrutinize whatever your government tells you, you ARE gullible and stupid.

If you question anything simply because it coincides with a "government version" of an event, that is good. If you never question alternative versions and see if they stand or fall on their own, yes, you are a gullible idiot.

I do not believe in conspiracies - that is why I have rejected the Bush administration narrative from day one.

Raising legitimate questions about their narrative doesn't need you to cross over to cuckoo land where "planes have not existed", sorry. Like I said, sensible arguments are all well and good. Idiocy about "flight 93 not existing" is certainly not sensible.

Read what I said about the framework of the typical 9/11 conspiracy not being able to conform to the facts. We are seeing exactly that here. If you want to argue anything here, refrain from hysteria. I'm not going to play the "blame the messenger" game.

[Aufbruch]

Long time Twoofer-hunter here--no interest in getting too involved in the current back and forth (I'm just not drunk enough tonight), but I thought I would provide a few links for use to those who are either looking to prevent Truther brainwashing in their friends and family, or just want to be better prepared to troll conspiracy nests on the intarweb:

This is Screwloose Change: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3129565561

More or less this is the actual Loose Change "documentary", played in it's entirety, but with (very) frequent pauses to correct the many exaggerations, mined quotes, and in many cases, flat out lies that riddle the original.

It's very thorough, and relatively well cited with each of its many interruptions. Sadly...in the same sense that it takes far less time to make a mess in the kitchen than it does to clean it up, the running time is almost doubled as a result of taking the time to crucify each and every 'less than honest' moment of Loose Change.

Unfortunately, this is the only way to truly win against "Proof by Verbosity" type arguments--you can't always opt out of wrestling that greased pig and claim the dry cleaning bill as an excuse.

And....as a somewhat more generalized source, debunking911.com is an excellent informational hamstring to all the most common Twoofer crap. WTC 7, The Zogby Poll, "Pull it", Thermite silliness, etc.

Hope those two resources help someone, or at the very least, leave them a bit better prepared. I also recommend alcohol. You tend to think less about the fact that you share a species with these people if you're inebriated. : )

[Surlethe]

debunking911.com is a must-read for our friend here.

Also, here are pictures of airplane parts at the Pentagon: http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

[Lonestar]

I'm going to start with this:

I suppose I’m the kind of person that’s never really been “in to” conspiracy theories. In general, I find the vast majority of them tend to assume a lot of things in order to validate themselves. Being someone that bases his opinions off of logic and obvious evidence, conspiracy theories are something I just don’t tend to agree with. Also, conspiracy theories usually involve the government, and having worked for them directly I find it hard to believe they’d at all be capable of pulling 90% of this stuff off. With that said, I’m sure all of you have either run into this or at least heard of or seen some bullshit YouTube scientists “exposing the truth” about the September 11th terrorist attacks.

Being a Netflix subscriber and a slut to modern technology, I noticed that “Loose Change” was available to watch on my PS3′s Netflix app. I figured, why the hell not? I sat through the entire series of “Ancient Aliens” and found it entertaining enough to laugh at the ill-informed Greek guy with the crazy hair, how bad could it be? (Has anyone noticed that his hair gets crazier and he gets more spray-tanned every new time he’s on screen?)

So I start watching “Loose Change” and for about an hour I’m like, “Okay, I guess this could make sense if I believed everything I saw on TV.” The majority of the film seems like it is relatively well-researched, genuinely trying to make a point and asking some real questions about the attack. I’m at a point where I’m starting to question my own beliefs, I’m starting to think, “Hey, maybe these crazed hippies are onto something…”

And then it happened.

Yup, Smedley-tittyfucking-Butler shows up in the “documentary”. You know, one of the most famous Marines in Marine Corps history? Two Medal of Honor awards? Yeah, that one. Only, within the film in question, they said he was in the Army.

Yup. I know right? Take a moment to clean the shit out of your pants before reading on.

Apparently, for the all the effort it took to compile YouTube videos in a pizza and Mountain Dew-filled basement into a “documentary” about the “conspiracy” of the 9/11 attacks, the creators of Loose Change couldn’t even be bothered to do a fucking Google search about Smedley Butler. My patchouli-scented, unkept-hippy fantasy about the “conspiracy” of 9/11 was completely shattered around me. You could say my conspiracy-boner went from 12 o’ clock to 6. No way in fucking hell was I going to believe a single word this hack-job movie says if they can’t even get that one relatively minor detail correct. For a movie that relies entirely on details, it lost all credibility the instant they claimed Smedley Butler was a hooah.

Anyway, moral of the story? Most conspiracy theories are bullshit, created by people with nothing better to do.

But to expand on it from a MI point of view...people talk. It is very, very hard to keep shit secret in the US Military. If airplanes were "remote controlled" into the Twin towers, than that means either satellite bandwith was used or that there was at least one(more likely two) "control" aircraft elsewhere. This is something that some E4 at SPACECOM is going to notice and be shooting the shit about in the smoke pit. Not including all the personnel needed for the ground crew.

Oh well, maybe it was a secret missile then...from where? Airplanes? Well, again, you have ground crew and pilots involved, not counting whatever looky-loos are on the base. From a ship? Well, now you have a * lot* of sailors who are aware that we're shooting missiles, and that's just the ship in question. It would have to be one specialized missile too, to make that hole in the Pentagon.

So why's this important in the context of Building 7? Well, either you can say that that the CIA(or whoever) blew up Building 7(after it was evacuated) for it's own reasons...in which case why hide it? Doesn't make sense. It only makes sense when it's part of the greater conspiracy, which sucks as a conspiracy, because it hinges on a couple hundred junior enlisted not posting on the internet "YO DAWG I WAS ON THE WATCH FLOOR ON 9/11 AND WE LOST A LOT OF SATELLITE UPLINKS BEFORE THE PLANES IMPACTED".

[Broomstick]

>500 MPH
Is that a FACT? Did they find the 'black box'?

Aside from Executor32 mentioning that the Pentagon black box was found, it is possible to calculate the speed via other means. For example, if one knows the mass of the moving object (and commercial airlines do calculate and record the weight of their aircraft at time of take-off, which, combined with a known rate of fuel burn to account for fuel consumed during travel over a known distance) and calculates the force needed to knock something down the speed becomes an unknown that can be easily determined by basic algebra.

If one knows the length of an object, and one is able to measure the time it takes for the object to get from point A to point B, speed is likewise an easily variable.

In other words, even if you doubt the black box, there are at least two alternative means to calculate that speed.

I will note that the WTC black boxes did not survive – but then, while black boxes are engineered to withstand an airplane crash and a jet fuel fire I do not think the designers anticipated having a 1,500,000 ton/1,360,000,000 kg building dropped on one.

Intact? No. But to argue that 99% of the plane evaporated is simply unacceptable.

Why? Because you say so? What are your credentials in this matter?

Leaving that aside – large chunks of the Pentagon airplane were recovered:

The crashes also blew the fireproofing off of alot of the steel beams allowing the fires to do more damage faster.

The jet crashes not only caused significant structural damage, they also severed the plumbing, rendering the automatic fire fighting systems inoperative. This, too, was a factor in the eventual destruction of the buildings.

How do you know these things?

Engineers who know a fuck of a lot more than any of us here about how high rise buildings are constructed have spoken at length. The architect of the WTC has spoken about how the buildings were constructed. Fire experts have discussed the issue of broken sprinker systems. Survivors report seeing broken pipes, and water flowing down the emergency stairs from those same broken pipes. There are pictures of that water as well, going down stairwells instead of being sprayed on the fires.

Tests have been done using beams fire-protected in the same manner as in WTC being subjected to strong impacts. As the technique used was common as dirt for a couple decades in high-rise construction it's not like the beams and their fire-proofing were unique or anything.

The WTC site was a crime scene. Why was it sealed off and cleared out so fast?

Standard procedure – crime scenes are cordoned off. Why wouldn't we clean up the site as fast as reasonable possible? You do realize that both the Shanksville site and the Pentagon site were both “cleared out” even faster? How long do you think is a reasonable time to leave wreckage like that just sitting anyway?

Why not let NIST experts examine the site? Why not let anti-terrorism units inspect the site?

Why not let your Aunt Dorothy and her little dog To-to inspect every major plane crash? It's not like the site and clean-up weren't extensively documented.

As for “anti-terrorism units” - do they have the expertise to do engineering analysis? Maybe we can give them some tin-snips for clearing the wreckage instead of allowing actual, experienced steelworkers cut and remove the steel beams safely?

1-The conspiracy theory is indeed absurd, but what really baffles me is that the the official theory is even more absurd. Planes do not evaporate almost entirely, and fires do not pulverize buildings. Yet both of these things happened on Sept11.

Well, there's you're problem! You're misinformed! The Pentagon plane did not, in fact, “evaporate”, there is definitely photographic evidence of plane parts inside the building. A simple Google search will find them. Also NO ONE has said that fires “pulverized” the WTC except for those denying the truth. It was the collapse of those buildings that “pulverized” substantial quantities of concrete, drywall, etc. which happens in ANY building collapse. If there was more of it than typical on 9/11 it's because the WTC towers were fucking huge, and more than one building came down.

2-I'm not arguing anything. I'm questioning. It seems to me that NIST fiddled with a couple of simulators and produced a rather ambiguous and inconclusive report.

No, you're refusing to consider anything but your pet theory. You're implying that “simulators” don't provide good information, yet we rely on simulators not only to reconstruct accidents but to train people for life-and-death situations so they will react properly in emergencies. You're attempting to discredit a valid tool used daily in life.

So, you actually place a label on me simply because I question your theory?

No, we label you because of HOW you question the theory.

If you used arguments rooted in actual physics, and were willing to look at ALL the evidence and account for it, your discussion would be welcomed. As it is, you deny facts and demonstrate an incredibly poor understanding of physics. Also, apparently an inability to use Google or Wikipedia which is a really low bar to meet.

[Zaune]

Apologies if this is wandering off topic, but there's something about the 9//11 conspiracy theories that always puzzled me. Why do all of them seem so focused on making it out to be 100% staged from behind the scenes when all the Bush administration needed to do was turn a blind eye to warnings from their intelligence agencies, like Roosevelt is sometimes accused of doing for Pearl Harbour?
Even that theory falls down flat, of course, Dubya would have had a perfectly adequate smoking gun if the hijackers had been stopped before they could kill anyone. But it would certainly be simpler to achieve than killing three thousand US citizens with airliners controlled by the CIA's orbiting brain lasers or whatever.

Actually, I've always thought it possible that this was what Bush was trying to do, only he wanted to wait until the very last minute for added dramatic effect and left the security services with too little margin for error. A taste for cheap theatrics and a cavalier attitude to human life do seem to be common Republican traits, but then on the other hand I don't think Dubya or his cabinet were capable of being that subtle.