Scholars for 9/11 Truth

[sgtmac_46]

For one thing, this group formed on 12/15/2005. It's new. And I think you better take a second and a third look at that technobabble. A couple of others were put off by it, but people like me who have training in this sort of stuff are taking second and third looks. We have a couple of engineers on this board. I hope they pipe in soon...

It's a new 'sight' with some pretty old conspiracy theorists. Perhaps they believe they need to combine their resources, for added 'credibility'.

Again, i'm not that impressed with their 'scientific' arguments. What's more, it's not over my head. I know BS whenever I smell it, and I can tell when someone is making material intentionally dense in order to give the appearance of evidence, when none exists. I've worked around lawyers for years. They like to bring in 'so-called experts' who make all sorts of extremely dense and technical arguments, full of sound and fury....signifying nothing.

It's smoke and mirrors. It's a magic trick, pure sleight of hand. Once you know how the tricks work, you never look at the magician and go 'Oooohhh, Ahhhhhhh!!!!!' again.

 

[Makalakumu]

No, this is what 'can' melt steel. This is not the ONLY thing that melts steel. It's actually a relatively simple process to melt steel

It is a relatively simple process to melt steel. However, none of the physical processes offered in the official explanation can melt steel.

Translation: 'You're not privy to all the need-to-know information, man'. Which 'experts' are those? If they're such 'experts' why are they doing all their reviewing on hack-conspiracy theory sites?

Or it could be that I am urging you to read the articles and see what their peers have said...and then there is the fact that you could just click on the Who Are We link and get a list of the people who have join the group. BTW - many people who have commented on the research are not part of this group.

Which completely bogus, that's the point. They are merely 'ridiculing' the idea that 'planes' brought down the world-trade center....of course, ignoring the fact that two large jetliners DID, in fact, crash in to the two towers...an inconvenient 'factoid' that presents a bit of a credibility problem for them. Of course, those PLANES were just a 'diversion' from the 'REAL' mechanism that brought down the WTC....man.

There research clearly shows that the impact and the fires caused by the jet fuel COULD NOT have brought down WTC 1 and 2. The fact that WTC 7 went down is even more incredulous.

It must give them great satisfaction to have 'dismantled' the FEMA and NIST reports....in their fantasies.

Again, you need to dig into the research and take a look at what is actually being said. I know that you haven't had enough time to thouroughly read this stuff yet.

I question whether you're able to differentiate between wackos and REAL wackos.

You and me both... However, I think that I'm on the right track here...

I'm more fascinated in what makes otherwise normal people embrace conspiracy theories. The psychological mechanisms, I mean.

Abductivism.

The one advantage i've got on you, upnorth, is that I have conducted real world operations involving the coordination of dozens of people.

Hmmm...I actually think I could give you a run for your money on this...

Murphy's law rules this universe. Now, lets examine the complexity of the conspiracy theory you've seemed to have endorsed. Someone let me know if i've missed something.

The President, as soon as he takes office (or is it the Jews) decide that we need to blow up the WTC, (Why? to make way for a big parking lot, who knows). He also decides, what the heck, lets blow up the Pentagon, too. So he sets special operatives in to motion to carry out this plan. Why do they do it? I mean they are attacking their own country, killing thousands of Americans, for what? Money? Who knows, doesn't matter. (if it's inconvenient, simply ignore it, we'll come up with a reason later).

So, hundreds of US operatives set in motion a plan to attack the US.

US operatives, posing as 'hi-jackers' hi-jack airliners, to crash in to the WTC and the Pentagon, but only as a diversion for the REAL attack....Alternative, they are radio controlled.

More US operatives plant explosives, under the noses of workers, in the WTC, in order to bring it down.

These explosives are designed to appear as if the buildings collapse near the spot where the planes are going to impact.

Now, the world trade center is down, the pentagon attacked, now, lets frame Osama bin Laden. What's more, nobody is going to EVER say anything about it.

How am I doing so far? Who are the operatives? I don't know, the same people that framed OJ and killed Kennedy.

All of these questions are valid, but they are ancillary to the evidence presented. The bottom line is that the official story does not add up. It is physically impossible. The question of what actually happened has not been answered. Your series of questions assumes an answer to that question. I'm not sure if I've (or the researchers) have moved that far yet.

There are certainly alot of unknowns, but what we do know is enough for people to demand a second investigation...this time we need to take a look at ALL of the evidence.

Your problem is, that the technobabble isn't enough. They declare it 'impossible' that the airliners brought the buildings down, and that makes it so, why? Because they are convincing in their arguments? And, as we all know, when reality contradicts the 'facts' of noted (self proclaimed) experts, it's the experts that MUST be right, right? There are FAR more problems with their theory, that somehow 'convincing' you that the airliners, for some esoteric reason, couldn't produce the heat to melt the girders and reduce the structural integrity of the building....FAR MORE problems than that.

The real problem is that the official version does not explain all of the data. In fact, when one takes into account the entire data set, the real version does not just become improbable...it becomes impossible. Other theories suddenly must be contemplated. Including ones where the buildings were intentionally demolished. I have no idea how this could have been accomplished, however, if one reads the oral histories that were just released via court order, one can start to see many opportunities for things to occur.

You know what's so funny, though? They can carry out a HUGE covert operation to commit the biggest mass-murder and terrorist attack in US history, pull it off in FRONT of the eyes of the ENTIRE world......BUT THEY CAN'T PLANT A LITTLE WMD IN IRAQ?! Please. Of the two, planting some fake evidence of WMD would seem a much simpler conspiracy. But they didn't? I mean, these men just committed mass-murder on an epic scale against their own people, surely they could plant some WMD in the middle of Iraq to make the invasion look good.

I think that the people in PNAC honestly believed that they would find WMD somewhere in Iraq. They made a bet that they thought was a slam dunk, but Saddam ****ed them all by actually doing what he was told by the UN. One of the problems with these PNAC people is that they make a lot of a priori assumptions and they can't conceive that someone might actually do something different. I'm sure that they are scratching their heads because a bunch of conservative, highly educated, professionals would take their lies to task. It's kind of like that "we will be greeted as liberators," BS.

 

[Makalakumu]

It's a new 'sight' with some pretty old conspiracy theorists. Perhaps they believe they need to combine their resources, for added 'credibility'.

Again, i'm not that impressed with their 'scientific' arguments. What's more, it's not over my head. I know BS whenever I smell it, and I can tell when someone is making material intentionally dense in order to give the appearance of evidence, when none exists. I've worked around lawyers for years. They like to bring in 'so-called experts' who make all sorts of extremely dense and technical arguments, full of sound and fury....signifying nothing.

It's smoke and mirrors. It's a magic trick, pure sleight of hand. Once you know how the tricks work, you never look at the magician and go 'Oooohhh, Ahhhhhhh!!!!!' again.

The arguments are actually quite simple...


(1) The 9-11 Commission refused to examine the vast majority of evidence about 9/11, and even the former director of the FBI says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission

(2) The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building

(3) Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House

(4) A retired Air Force Colonel who flew over 100 combat missions and was the director of the Star Wars defense program under both Republican and Democratic administrations (and a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth) recently said:

"If our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the twin towers would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. That is treason!"​

(5) Recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also committing terrorist murders against U.S. citizens on American soil, and then blaming it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba

(6) The Secret Service, which is highly trained to whisk the president away from danger and to a secure location in the event of a threat, breached all standard procedures and allowed President Bush to remain at a highly-publicized location for 25 minutes after it was known that the nation was under attack

(7) The U.S. defense agency responsible for protecting the U.S. had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and "numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft". In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run

(8) The military had also conducted drills of planes crashing into the Pentagon

(9) On the morning of 9/11, 5 war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one "live fly" exercise using REAL planes. And the drills apparently included the injection of false "radar blips" onto the screens of air traffic controllers

(10) The government was running a simulation of a plane crashing into a building on the morning of 9/11

(11) While the government has consistently stated that it did not know where the aircraft were before they struck, the Secretary of Transportation testified before the 9/11 Commission that Vice President Cheney monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon

(12) A third world trade center building, called building 7, collapsed on the afternoon of 9/11, but was never hit by plane, fell at the same speed as if there were no floors or walls to cause resistance, contained only small fires before the collapse, and became the first steel-frame building in history to collapse due to fire alone

(13) USA Today stated that the FBI believed that bombs in the buildings brought the buildings down

(14) MSNBC stated that police officials believe "that one of the explosions at the world trade center . . . may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some kind of explosive device in it, so their fear is that there may have been explosive devices planted either in the building or in the adjacent area"

(15) The NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were "bombs" and "secondary devices", which caused the explosions in the buildings

(16) NYC firefighters who witnessed attacks stated that it looked like there were bombs in the buildings. A NYC firefighter stated "On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building"

(17) The head of a national demolition association stated that the collapse of the towers looked like a "classic controlled demolition"

(18) Eyewitnesses have testified that substantial explosions occurred well BELOW the area impacted by the planes, and -- according to some witnesses -- they occurred BEFORE the plane had even hit

(19) A police officer testified that there were numerous, HUGE explosions at the top of one of the twin towers 15 minutes apart, before the tower collapsed
(20) Numerous, credible ex-government officials are warning that the U.S. government might very well attack its own people to justify a further clampdown on civil rights and to justify additional wars

The physical evidence is not that hard to understand. All it takes is a careful read...

 

[Makalakumu]

Beyond that, the science is too technical for me.

Realy? How so? I don't know if you have the capability or time, but you may want to download Prof. Jone's lecture with the link I provided. It really goes a long way toward helping the layman understand some of the jargon.

 

[Makalakumu]

The 9/11 report DOES NOT EVEN MENTION the collapse of WTC 7. The CIA, the DoD, and the FBI all had high security offices in that building.

 

[sgtmac_46]

It is a relatively simple process to melt steel. However, none of the physical processes offered in the official explanation can melt steel.

It's not necessary to melt steel. It IS necessary to weaken it enough, through heat, to cause the structural collapse of untold tons of building.

Or it could be that I am urging you to read the articles and see what their peers have said...and then there is the fact that you could just click on the Who Are We link and get a list of the people who have join the group. BTW - many people who have commented on the research are not part of this group.

So we're simply appealing to the bandwagon?

There research clearly shows that the impact and the fires caused by the jet fuel COULD NOT have brought down WTC 1 and 2. The fact that WTC 7 went down is even more incredulous.

There research doesn't clearly show any such thing. All it shows is that they maintain it 'couldn't happen'. That's far from proving anything other than they've construct a very intricate conspiracy, complete with pseudo-evidence. I know many schizophrenics who do this all the time.

Again, you need to dig into the research and take a look at what is actually being said. I know that you haven't had enough time to thouroughly read this stuff yet.

I need to immerse myself in a paranoid delusion to fully understand it? I don't think so.

You and me both... However, I think that I'm on the right track here...

If by 'right track' you mean a sure and straight path toward losing touch with reality.

Come on, up, I respect you, but when you start getting in to the conspiracy theories, I think you're getting a little soft. It's ok, though, everybody needs a hobby.

Abductivism.

Thank you, Steven E. Jones.

Hmmm...I actually think I could give you a run for your money on this...

I guess we'll see.

All of these questions are valid, but they are ancillary to the evidence presented. The bottom line is that the official story does not add up. It is physically impossible. The question of what actually happened has not been answered. Your series of questions assumes an answer to that question. I'm not sure if I've (or the researchers) have moved that far yet.

There really isn't any evidence presented...there are crackpot theories, backed by other crackpot theorists.

There are certainly alot of unknowns, but what we do know is enough for people to demand a second investigation...this time we need to take a look at ALL of the evidence.

Demand all the investigations you want. However, the fact that your 'group' has already concluded, in it's mind, what happened pretty much makes that futile. There is no amount evidence that will disuade the 'true believer' who thinks it's a huge conspiracy. This is more about belief than science anyway. It's almost a religious crusade on the part of some people. Your 'experts' remind me of those religious fanatics attempting to use 'science' to prove intelligent design.

The real problem is that the official version does not explain all of the data. In fact, when one takes into account the entire data set, the real version does not just become improbable...it becomes impossible. Other theories suddenly must be contemplated. Including ones where the buildings were intentionally demolished. I have no idea how this could have been accomplished, however, if one reads the oral histories that were just released via court order, one can start to see many opportunities for things to occur.

Well, you got a problem there. That the official version doesn't explain all the data is not the same as proclaiming that it's a 'Huge Neo-Con conspiracy'. That's what your website is really about, not getting answers to unanswered questions. That the collapse of those towers was a complex incident, to be studied for years, is without question. That not having answers to every 'why?', however, is proof of a conspiracy theory, however, is just plain silly.

I think that the people in PNAC honestly believed that they would find WMD somewhere in Iraq. They made a bet that they thought was a slam dunk, but Saddam ****ed them all by actually doing what he was told by the UN. One of the problems with these PNAC people is that they make a lot of a priori assumptions and they can't conceive that someone might actually do something different. I'm sure that they are scratching their heads because a bunch of conservative, highly educated, professionals would take their lies to task. It's kind of like that "we will be greeted as liberators," BS.

Please. It's getting really silly now, trying to explain why Bush DID plan 9/11, but DIDN'T plant WMD. If Bush planted 9/11, you can darn sure better there'd have been WMD in Iraq.



It's all ludicrous. The Bush administration has been embarassed by incident after incident, that could have been resolved by minor level conspiracies. But you want to have us believe that they pulled off perhaps the greatest conspiracy of all times, without a hitch? It not only defies reason, it defies reality.

What's more, it's nothing new. Holocaust denials, the Kennedy assassination, the moon landing. For every big event, there's a small group of people who desire to create their own version of it, no matter how irrefuteable the evidence is. Just replace 'Neo-Cons' with 'Illuminati' or 'ZOG' or some other such acronym of paranoia, and it's just another recycled conspiracy theory about 'They'.

In fact, the MORE evidence, the stronger the motive to twist it, so that 'They' are the only ones that know 'The Truth'.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The 9/11 report DOES NOT EVEN MENTION the collapse of WTC 7. The CIA, the DoD, and the FBI all had high security offices in that building.

So 'they' blew up 'their' own buildings? Why blow up WTC 7 if they didn't have a plane to fly in to it? Wouldn't 'They' know you'd be suspicious about why 'it' collapsed?

 

[sgtmac_46]

The arguments are actually quite simple...

(1) The 9-11 Commission refused to examine the vast majority of evidence about 9/11, and even the former director of the FBI says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission

A coverup of 'what'?

(2) The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building

And you know this how? Taped interviews? Taped by who?

(3) Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House

Was the FBI informant associated with terrorists, maybe? It's funny, but informants are usually criminals, and if he was an Islamic informant, do you think maybe he was involved with....gee, I don't know.....terrorists? What's more, not all 'informants' are truthful and honest. I've worked with informants, and some of them are just feeding you false information on purpose.

(4) A retired Air Force Colonel who flew over 100 combat missions and was the director of the Star Wars defense program under both Republican and Democratic administrations (and a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth) recently said:

"If our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the twin towers would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. That is treason!"​

And this statement is proof of a conspiracy how? I thought you said Bush blew up the buildings, how would our 'procedures' have prevented the destruction of the towers? Perhaps this 'retired Air Force' Colonel, formerly of sound mound, is in the early grips of dementia? Could that be?
​

(5) Recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also committing terrorist murders against U.S. citizens on American soil, and then blaming it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba

Here we go, I was wondering how long it would be until you drug out that tired old crap about 'Project Northwoods'. Everything old, is new again. If some fruitcake in the Pentagon brainstormed an idea in the 1960's, it MUST have been brought to fruition on 9/11, right?

(6) The Secret Service, which is highly trained to whisk the president away from danger and to a secure location in the event of a threat, breached all standard procedures and allowed President Bush to remain at a highly-publicized location for 25 minutes after it was known that the nation was under attack

Actually, up, nobody 'Knew' anything for the first 25 minutes, but that a plane hit the WTC. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the theory 'they' planed it.

(7) The U.S. defense agency responsible for protecting the U.S. had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and "numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft". In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run

Yeah.....because it was in a Tom Clancy book, and some senators freaked out. Gee. It's not hard to think "Suicide truck bomber/Suicide plane bomber". You are aware that the Japanese also used planes to attack US targets in a suicide manner in WWII, right? That's absolute proof it was the Japanese?! pfft.

(8) The military had also conducted drills of planes crashing into the Pentagon

And Tom Clancy wrote a book about an airliner crashing in to Congress. Maybe Tom Clancy did it.

(9) On the morning of 9/11, 5 war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one "live fly" exercise using REAL planes. And the drills apparently included the injection of false "radar blips" onto the screens of air traffic controllers

Those kind of drills are conducted all the time.

(10) The government was running a simulation of a plane crashing into a building on the morning of 9/11

If you say so, though I have yet to see the proof....or what it proves if it is true.

(11) While the government has consistently stated that it did not know where the aircraft were before they struck, the Secretary of Transportation testified before the 9/11 Commission that Vice President Cheney monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon

Really, Cheney was at a radar display? I doubt it, but if you say so.

(12) A third world trade center building, called building 7, collapsed on the afternoon of 9/11, but was never hit by plane, fell at the same speed as if there were no floors or walls to cause resistance, contained only small fires before the collapse, and became the first steel-frame building in history to collapse due to fire alone

Why wasn't it hit by a plane? Didn't 'They' suspect 'we'd' wonder?

(13) USA Today stated that the FBI believed that bombs in the buildings brought the buildings down

The FBI is not a single entity, who in the FBI?

(14) MSNBC stated that police officials believe "that one of the explosions at the world trade center . . . may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some kind of explosive device in it, so their fear is that there may have been explosive devices planted either in the building or in the adjacent area"

(15) The NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were "bombs" and "secondary devices", which caused the explosions in the buildings

(16) NYC firefighters who witnessed attacks stated that it looked like there were bombs in the buildings. A NYC firefighter stated "On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building"

(17) The head of a national demolition association stated that the collapse of the towers looked like a "classic controlled demolition"

(18) Eyewitnesses have testified that substantial explosions occurred well BELOW the area impacted by the planes, and -- according to some witnesses -- they occurred BEFORE the plane had even hit

(19) A police officer testified that there were numerous, HUGE explosions at the top of one of the twin towers 15 minutes apart, before the tower collapsed
(20) Numerous, credible ex-government officials are warning that the U.S. government might very well attack its own people to justify a further clampdown on civil rights and to justify additional wars

The physical evidence is not that hard to understand. All it takes is a careful read...

Smoke and mirrors, up, smoke and mirrors.

 

[Makalakumu]

The arguments are actually quite simple...

A coverup of 'what'?

And you know this how? Taped interviews? Taped by who?

Was the FBI informant associated with terrorists, maybe? It's funny, but informants are usually criminals, and if he was an Islamic informant, do you think maybe he was involved with....gee, I don't know.....terrorists? What's more, not all 'informants' are truthful and honest. I've worked with informants, and some of them are just feeding you false information on purpose.

And this statement is proof of a conspiracy how? I thought you said Bush blew up the buildings, how would our 'procedures' have prevented the destruction of the towers? Perhaps this 'retired Air Force' Colonel, formerly of sound mound, is in the early grips of dementia? Could that be?
[/indent] Here we go, I was wondering how long it would be until you drug out that tired old crap about 'Project Northwoods'. Everything old, is new again. If some fruitcake in the Pentagon brainstormed an idea in the 1960's, it MUST have been brought to fruition on 9/11, right?

Actually, up, nobody 'Knew' anything for the first 25 minutes, but that a plane hit the WTC. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the theory 'they' planed it.

Yeah.....because it was in a Tom Clancy book, and some senators freaked out. Gee. It's not hard to think "Suicide truck bomber/Suicide plane bomber". You are aware that the Japanese also used planes to attack US targets in a suicide manner in WWII, right? That's absolute proof it was the Japanese?! pfft.

And Tom Clancy wrote a book about an airliner crashing in to Congress. Maybe Tom Clancy did it.

Those kind of drills are conducted all the time.

If you say so, though I have yet to see the proof....or what it proves if it is true.

Really, Cheney was at a radar display? I doubt it, but if you say so.

Why wasn't it hit by a plane? Didn't 'They' suspect 'we'd' wonder?

The FBI is not a single entity, who in the FBI?



Smoke and mirrors, up, smoke and mirrors.

There are alot of assumptions and alot of valid questions above. Most of which is covered in the research on this site. There are a couple of things that I can add...

1. Most of your points (and this view is shared by many others) thus far have attempted to show that the complexity of actually pulling this off would have been too terribly difficult. Here is the problem with that assumption. It ignores the evidence that it DID happen. You have to start with that evidence and work outward...not with your assumption that this is impossible.

2. Don't you think that this could be a case of classing psychologic denial? The implications of this research are absolutely terrible and they threaten the very fabric of our society. It's much easier to brush it off as impossible and ignore it. This will not go away, though. If this is true (and the evidence is certainly compelling), then ignoring it threatens the fabric of our society just as much as the actual conspiracy.

It's a lose lose situation. Yet, I think we lose less by being honest with ourselves and really examining these arguments.

 

[Don Roley]

(16) NYC firefighters who witnessed attacks stated that it looked like there were bombs in the buildings. A NYC firefighter stated "On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building"

Ok, prove it.

I took this one example of several that you presented as "fact." Now I ask you, as the one who is trying to make the assertion, to prove it. The onus is on those that make the claims. There is no responsibility for others to disprove it.

I want you to take the time to prove the above statement. You want us to believe you? Then you best take the time to prove just one of many things you have presented as if it were fact.

I want to contact a NYC firefighter who will confirm that he said this. I want to make sure the story is not made up or a gross distortion of a statement. I want to make sure that there is not another very obvious explination. I want to determine with his employers that he is what he says and was in a position to say what he did with certainty.

What I do not want is a reference to a web site. I want a real person that I can talk to.

I do not want a conspiracy theory as to why the proof of your conspiracy theory can't be presented.

And I do not want an excuse that you do not care enough about the matter to not go to the trouble of proving even a single thing you have presented as if it were fact. Certainly, not after the hundreds of posts you have made here trying to convince us of various conspiracy theories.

I have see comments about no one seeing a plane before it crashed into the Pentagon and statements about an air defence system there that I know are not true made without challenge. I am taking the time to challenge just one out of many comments made.

I am willing to write and call if this firefighter is found to determine if it is as said. In fact, I am toying with the idea of going to Pennselvania to a little get together in August and would be willing to extend my trip to the big apple if needed.

All I need is the name and contact info for the statement made in one little thing presented as if it were "fact."

I have seen you say that we would understand what you say if we did more research. I don't see why we should accept your version of events if you are not willing to present things in a verifiable and confirmable manner. If you are not willing to go the distance to prove even a single little statement I do not see why anyone should take your word or version of events for anything.

So go ahead. Prove what you have said.

I do not think you can do it. I doubt you will even try. I think that the best I can expect from you is a feeble excuse as to why you expect us to believe you but you have no responsibility to prove even a single statement you have made.

The onus is on you. Go ahead and back up what you say.

 

[Makalakumu]

What you are asking me to do is repeat what has already been done. I can track down one person and verify a statement that person made or I could take a look at others who have done the same thing, except that they have taken these statements in writing, on camera, and in many cases in front of a judge. So, what is the point?

Maybe you'll take this as a feeble excuse. However, I can think of a better use for my time. I'm going to take this a step futher. I'm going to find a list of ALL of the people who contributed opinions to the "oral histories" testimony that was recently released by the City of New York. Then we can cross reference the people who made the statements with the videos of these people that are circulating on the internet.

Don, I want you to think about this. If any of this is even remotely true, then this research that I'm going to do is potentially very dangerous. I will make some "list" somewhere because of this, guarenteed. Yet, I'm willing to put it on the line because I think that there is something to this. If I'm wrong, I'm just another fool among a sea of fools who waste their time on this stuff. If I'm right...

 

[Makalakumu]

What you are asking me to do is repeat what has already been done. I can track down one person and verify a statement that person made or I could take a look at others who have done the same thing, except that they have taken these statements in writing, on camera, and in many cases in front of a judge. So, what is the point?

Maybe you'll take this as a feeble excuse. However, I can think of a better use for my time. I'm going to take this a step futher. I'm going to find a list of ALL of the people who contributed opinions to the "oral histories" testimony that was recently released by the City of New York. Then we can cross reference the people who made the statements with the videos of these people that are circulating on the internet.

Don, I want you to think about this. If any of this is even remotely true, then this research that I'm going to do is potentially very dangerous. I will make some "list" somewhere because of this, guarenteed. Yet, I'm willing to put it on the line because I think that there is something to this. If I'm wrong, I'm just another fool among a sea of fools who waste their time on this stuff. If I'm right...

I guess the New York Times beat me too it.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_02.html

These words are from Captain Karen Deshore. “Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."

I'm still going to find a way that I can contribute...

 

[Blotan Hunka]

I have been in situations where every person in a group who saw or heard something thought that something different happened. The fireman could have heard a girder snapping and thought it was a bomb. Other people probably thought they heard gunfire. I think SgtMac will agree that witness accounts are very inaccurate. Here you are saying they are but somehow if this were a death penalty case you would be saying otherwise.

I also agree with SgtMac. The Pres. and the NeoCons can pull this off but cant silence Rove critics, cant plant WMD, cant make himself look better in the media? This is just like the moon landing, JFK assassination crap. Too much to swallow. If they were JUST saying that the hijackers were CIA agents MAYBE I would think something is fishy. This is just WAY to complicated to be pulled off without something going wrong, something being leaked or somebody tipping off the Democrats. Why do you like this type of stuff so much? This isnt the first theory like this you have mentioned here is it?

 

[Makalakumu]

I have been in situations where every person in a group who saw or heard something thought that something different happened. The fireman could have heard a girder snapping and thought it was a bomb. Other people probably thought they heard gunfire. I think SgtMac will agree that witness accounts are very inaccurate.

I suppose it could happen that some may have seen something and misinterpreted it, but if you take a look at the testimony people scattered all over the scene in the building and out of it and watching from far away, were reporting what looked like explosions far beneath the actual fires moving up and down the buildings. These explosions can actually be seen on video complete with squibs and flame trails. The entire building was not on fire, so there must have been a secondary source for the squibs and the flames.

I also agree with SgtMac. The Pres. and the NeoCons can pull this off but cant silence Rove critics, cant plant WMD, cant make himself look better in the media? This is just like the moon landing, JFK assassination crap.

If they were JUST saying that the hijackers were CIA agents MAYBE I would think something is fishy. This is just WAY to complicated to be pulled off without something going wrong, something being leaked or somebody tipping off the Democrats.

The fact that this would be hard to pull off is no reason to ignore the evidence presented. In order to get a real truthful accounting, you need to start there and work outward.

Why do you like this type of stuff so much? This isnt the first theory like this you have mentioned here is it.

I don't think this needs to be about me personally. And, for the record, I don't like THIS STUFF at all. I get a sick feeling when I read it.

Too much to swallow.

This comment explains alot about your reaction and I can empathize. I've been running this by others just to see what they think in my attempt to get as many POVs as possible and this reaction is common. It really is too much to swallow...if this is even remotely true, 9/11 will be a day that lives in infamy for other reasons entirely. It really would be another Reichstagg fire...

 

[Don Roley]

Upnorthkyosa,
When you can find something that fills the requirement I laid out, I will be willing to listen. Not only did your source fail to mention anything about bombs being in the building, it actually weakens the case for them being there.

If you deal with explosives and building demolition, the explosive charges are set to go off at the exact same instant. They take out the support structures all at once and everything goes splat.

But when something collapses without being purposefully demolished, the weakest link in the support chain snaps first. When you are dealing with something with the mass of the WTC, these snaps can be rather large. Dare I say....explosive.:wink2: The weight is then spread over the remaining methods of support and the second weakest link goes shortly after that and so on... As the weight is supported by less and less structure, the sequences get closer and closer together. The later snaps tend to be stronger than earlier ones as more pressure is put on them.

Since the quote talked about things going off in a sequence, it follows the way a building goes down due to structural collapse and not a planned explosive. Talk to an engineer with experience in taking down buildings and they will laugh at the idea of being able to control that many explosives in a sequence for something that size. Let us not even start to mention the problems of trying to get all those explosives in place without anyone noticing. When you blow a building, you drill holes and various other things that are hard to miss. Nobody seems to have noticed them setting up all these explosives in a very well traveled building.

So, as soon as you can find that fireman that said they thought there were bombs set in the buildings, I will be willing to listen. But as you can see, the quotes you give do not support the idea and it takes a more lot of space to explain why it is not true than for you to throw it out. I can hardly take the time to shoot down all the problems with everything you try to present to support your side.

So, get me that firefighter who said he thought there were bombs set in the building. Untill then, I will be waiting.

 

[Makalakumu]

When you can find something that fills the requirement I laid out, I will be willing to listen. Not only did your source fail to mention anything about bombs being in the building, it actually weakens the case for them being there.

There are other sources in who testified in the oral histories who witnessed the bombs going off in the buildings.

If you deal with explosives and building demolition, the explosive charges are set to go off at the exact same instant. They take out the support structures all at once and everything goes splat.

But when something collapses without being purposefully demolished, the weakest link in the support chain snaps first. When you are dealing with something with the mass of the WTC, these snaps can be rather large. Dare I say....explosive.:wink2: The weight is then spread over the remaining methods of support and the second weakest link goes shortly after that and so on... As the weight is supported by less and less structure, the sequences get closer and closer together. The later snaps tend to be stronger than earlier ones as more pressure is put on them.

Since the quote talked about things going off in a sequence, it follows the way a building goes down due to structural collapse and not a planned explosive. Talk to an engineer with experience in taking down buildings and they will laugh at the idea of being able to control that many explosives in a sequence for something that size. Let us not even start to mention the problems of trying to get all those explosives in place without anyone noticing. When you blow a building, you drill holes and various other things that are hard to miss. Nobody seems to have noticed them setting up all these explosives in a very well traveled building.

This really demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about compared to these guys.

There are building implosion experts who are part of the this group as well as structural engineers and civil engineers. All of these people testify that sequenced charges like the ones witnessed are EXACTLY what it would take to bring the building down in a professional implosion. The biggest hole in the official stories "pancake theory" as outlined by the NIST report and FEMA is the fact that these buildings fell at near free fall speed. That is only accomplished in a professional building implosion and has never ever been witnessed in other circumstances.

Two professional companies CEOs that specialize in implosing of large buildings have stated that the way WTC 1, 2, and 7 went down are exactly what one would see with their work. See the research presented.

So, as soon as you can find that fireman that said they thought there were bombs set in the buildings, I will be willing to listen. But as you can see, the quotes you give do not support the idea and it takes a more lot of space to explain why it is not true than for you to throw it out. I can hardly take the time to shoot down all the problems with everything you try to present to support your side.

So, get me that firefighter who said he thought there were bombs set in the building. Untill then, I will be waiting.

What is it really going to prove? How is that going to be productive when its already been accomplished? Why would this suddenly make me more credible?

You can talk about trying to shoot down my arguments, but they aren't mine at all. I'm just giving little summaries of the research presented on this site. If you want to try and "shoot down" their points go for it...thus far, you haven't even come close. Sit down and do a little homework...

 

[Don Roley]

There are other sources in who testified in the oral histories who witnessed the bombs going off in the buildings.



This really demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about compared to these guys.

There are building implosion experts who are part of the this group as well as structural engineers and civil engineers.

I am going to cut you off right there. You can't get even the one source I asked for, but you want me to believe there are other. And then you use the 'appeal to authority' logical fallicy. I do not know that these guys know what they are talking about anymore than I know that there really was a guy who made the original quote. And even if they are, we don't know if they are correct.

You are telling us to think for ourselves and not accept the official version, and yet say we should shut up and accept what your "experts" say?

Discussion over as far as I am concerned until you get even that single source I was talking about. You can continue on with your agenda.

 

[Makalakumu]

I am going to cut you off right there.

That is kind of hard on an internet bb...

You can't get even the one source I asked for, but you want me to believe there are other.

I called the New York Times today and I contacted a grad student, Mark Everett, who compiled and checked some of the material used. If I said that it checked, why would you believe me? There is no point in doing what you asked me to do, other then to run me around on some wild goose chase. Instead, I've written a few letters, one to MN Senator Mark Dayton questioning him on some comments he made to the 9/11 commission, and one each to Dr. Fetzer and Dr. Jones to see if they have the paper print copies of some of the articles they site. Often scholarly groups have packets of further research that one can order.

And then you use the 'appeal to authority' logical fallicy. I do not know that these guys know what they are talking about anymore than I know that there really was a guy who made the original quote. And even if they are, we don't know if they are correct.

If we are discussing a bit of research and I refer you back to the research in order to answer questions certain questions, that is not an appeal to authority. I am merely pointing out that you are not on my level as far as the understanding of various peices. When you are there, then we can actually discuss the details and then we can discuss how one can check some of these facts.

You are telling us to think for ourselves and not accept the official version, and yet say we should shut up and accept what your "experts" say?

If you would read the research, you would find that these people are not my experts. They are the experts in the fields. And these people are saying that, "the reports are a half baked farce..." That is very strong language for a professional journal...but it is there. And you can see for yourself if you really want to...

Discussion over as far as I am concerned until you get even that single source I was talking about. You can continue on with your agenda.

Actually, this part of the discussion was over when you dismissed everything as "technobabble" and refused to make any attempt to understand or read further. You are asking questions that are answered in the research in ways that give you a clear path to check facts. Until you do this, you will stumble in the dark. And I will continue on with my agenda of trying to get to the bottom of this without your help.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm

 

[Blotan Hunka]

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

However, as fire raged in the upper floors, the heat would have been gradually affecting the behaviour of the remaining material. As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel, which then ignited any combustible material in the building. While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections.

The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel
There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength.

There would have been variations in the distribution of the temperature both in place in time. There are photos that show people in the areas opened up by the impact, so it obviously wasnt too hot when those photos were taken, but this is not to say that other parts of the building, further inside were not hotter. In addition, to make a reasonable conclusion from these photos, it would be important to know when they were taken. It might be possible that just after the impact the area wasnt very hot, but as the fire took hold the area got hotter.

The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions
One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.

Why did the building fall so quickly?
The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.

The author respect people's right to question theories, but at the present time the author does not believe there is enough evidence for him to change his views on this incident.