15 questions for 9/11 "truthers"

159 posts / 0 new
Last post
aka Mycroft
15 questions for 9/11 "truthers"

From counterknowldege.com

 

Quote:

(1) On 9th September 2001 Ahmed Shah Massoud, the
most effective military commander of the anti-Taliban coalition (the
Northern Alliance, or NA) was killed by two Arab suicide bombers posing
as journalists. The assassination of Massoud had taken months to plan,
and the latter had received the bogus request for an ‘interview’ in May
2001 (See Steve Coll, Ghost Wars, pp.574-576; Jason Burke, Al Qaeda, p.197; Daniel Byman, Deadly Connections,
p.210. Two days before 9/11, Al Qaeda killed the Taliban’s main enemy,
who had also played a pivotal role in keeping the NA factions together,
and who would have been the obvious figure to liase with if the
Americans had decided to effect regime change in Afghanistan. If
Al Qaeda were not responsible for 9/11, then why was Ahmed Shah
Massoud’s assassination so well co-ordinated with the attacks on New
York and Washington?

(2) Conversely, prior to 9/11, the US government
had minimal contacts with Massoud and other Northern Alliance figures,
much to the latter’s frustration (See Coll, passim). If
9/11 was a “false flag” operation intended to justify a pre-determined
plan to invade Afghanistan, then why didn’t the CIA and other US
government agencies do more to facilitate ties with the NA? 

(3) Just before 9/11, Osama bin Laden, Ayman
al-Zawahiri and other key Al Qaeda personnel left their quarters in
Kandahar to hide in Tora Bora (Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower, pp.356-358). Why
did bin Laden and al-Zawahiri suddenly leave their known locations and
go to ground, if they were not anticipating imminent military action by
the USA?

(4) In the days following 9/11, the Bush
administration asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a plan to invade
Afghanistan. The JCS had to admit that they had no contingency plan for
such an invasion, and in the weeks preceding Operation Enduring Freedom
the CIA and the Department of Defense were obliged to improvise a plan
of attack against the Taliban and its Al Qaeda allies (Benjamin
Lambeth, Air Power Against Terror; Bob Woodward, Bush At War). If
9/11 had been an inside job, and if there was a long-standing intention
by Bush and his advisors to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the
Taliban, then why did they have to scrabble around for a workable plan?
Why was one not prepared beforehand?

(5) We are being asked by the truthers to believe
that the 19 hijackers were “patsies”, or non-existent. If that was the
case, and if the intention of the real plotters in the US government
was to justify military interventions to overthrow hostile regimes in
the Middle East, why were 15 out of the 19 ‘bogus’ Al Qaeda terrorists
given Saudi nationality? The other four hijackers consisted of an
Egyptian, a Lebanese and two citizens of the UAE. We are being
asked to believe that the conspirators behind 9/11 decided that they
would make the hijackers citizens of allies of the USA, not enemies.
Why were they not given Iraqi, Iranian or Syrian identity?
Why
were they not given forged links with terrorist groups (such as the Abu
Nidal Organisation, the PLFP-GC or Hizbollah) with closer links to
Tehran, Damascus and above all Baghdad? If we are supposed to believe
that the Israelis had a hand in 9/11, then why were none of the patsies
Palestinians linked to Fatah or Hamas? What kind of conspirator sets up
a plot to frame an innocent party without forging the evidence to
implicate the latter?

(6) Following on from this point, if the
identities and the nationalities of the hijackers were faked, then why
did the Saudi, Egyptian, Lebanese and UAE governments accept that
citizens from their own countries were involved?
What
incentive did Saudi Arabia have for accepting that 15 of its own people
had committed mass murder on US soil? Why would the Saudis co-operate
in a plot which would blacken their country’s name, benefit Israeli
interests in the Middle East, provide the pretext for the overthrow of
one fundamentalist Sunni regime in Afghanistan, and contribute to the
destruction of a Sunni Arab dictatorship in Iraq long seen by the Saudi royal family as a bulwark against Iran

(7) Afghanistan is a landlocked country
(truthers may need to be reminded of this fact), and any invasion is
logistically impossible without the support of its neighbours. Prior to
9/11, Pakistan was a staunch ally of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (see
Ahmed Rashid, Taliban, passim).
The former Soviet Central Asian states of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and
Uzbekistan backed the NA, but were also wary of antagonising their
former imperial master, Russia. Pre-September 2001 these states would
not have contemplated admitting any US or Western military presence on
their soil. Although Russian President Vladimir Putin backed the USA’s
invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, it took the Americans
considerable effort to persuade him to permit the US and NATO forces to
use bases on Uzbek and Tajik territory as part of Operation Enduring
Freedom. It also took time and considerable pressure to force General
Pervez Musharraf to abandon the Taliban - despite resistance from the
military and ISI. Given the geo-political realities of Central Asia in
mid-2001, there were no guarantees of any host nation support for any
attack on Afghanistan. Assuming againt that 9/11 was an inside
job, how could the US government realistically presume that the
Russians and Pakistanis would actually permit the USA to effect regime
change against the Taliban?

(8) Assuming that claims of Mossad complicity in 9/11 (”dancing Israelis”, etc.) are correct, can the truthers suggest a feasible motive for the Israeli government conniving in an act of mass murder on US soil?
Since 1967, the mainstay of Israel’s security and survival has been its
alignment with the USA, and the military assistance it has received as
a result. This relationship is based on a bipartisan political
consensus (both the Republican and Democratic parties are predominantly
pro-Israeli) and considerable public support in the USA. Why engage in
a “false flag” attack against the civilian population of an ally, when
you have so little to gain and so much to lose if your responsibility
is ever disclosed?

(9) Following on from this, assuming that
the “five dancing Israelis” story isn’t a complete fabrication, what
kind of secret service recruits undercover agents who compromise
themselves by acting so ostentatiously in public?
And if the
five arrested Israelis were part of a conspiracy organised with the US
government, then why did the FBI hold them in custody for over two
months, instead of releasing them on the quiet a matter of hours and days after their apprehension?

(10) If the WTC towers in New York City
were destroyed by controlled demolitions rigged by US government
agencies, then why were the fake terrorist attacks used to cover up
these controlled demolitions so insanely convoluted?
Why
concoct a scenario involving the hijacking of planes which are then
crashed into tower blocks (involving complicated planning involving
remote controlled flights timed with explosives detonated in the
towers, which allow plenty of opportunities for gliches and technical
errors)? Why not use a more simple means, such as a truck bomb?

(11) Assuming that Niaz Naik’s account of his alleged meeting with retired US officials in July 2001 is true, then where
were the 17,000 Russian troops who were supposedly ready to invade
Afghanistan when it came to the commencement of military operations in
October 2001?
And if the main motive behind the invasion was
to build a natural gas pipe-line which would be under US control, then
why was no attempt ever made to build one once the Taliban were
overthrown?

(12) We are being asked by the conspiracy theorists
to assume that NORAD was stood down on the morning of 11th September
2001 so as to enable the success of the attacks on the WTC and the
Pentagon. NORAD is a combined command, not a purely American one - it
has a binational staff drawn from the US military and the Canadian
Forces (CF). We are either supposed to believe that the CF
personnel assigned to NORAD were too stupid to notice anything amiss in
their headquarters - and query it - or that the Canadian government and
the CF were complicit in 9/11. Which of these scenarios is true?

(13) If Al Qaeda were set-up for the 11th September
attacks, then why have its leaders and spokesmen repeatedly affirmed
their responsibility for - and pride in - these attacks (see hereherehere and here for examples)? Why
are we supposed to believe that repeated video pronouncements by bin
Laden and Zawahiri are fake, while just one written statement allegedly
from bin Laden denying responsibility -
which was handed by courier to al-Jazeera without any confirmation of its origins - was genuine?

(14) If the hijacking and crashing of four
passenger planes was engineered by the US government, then why did UA93
crash into an empty field in Pennsylvania?
Why not crash it
into a target which would add to the death toll on 9/11, and further
inflame US public attitudes and popular demands for revenge against the
supposed perpetrators?

(15) Finally, if the US government is
institutionally ruthless enough to organise the massacre of thousands
of its own citizens in a series of “false flag” attacks, then why is it
too squeamish to arrange for the deaths of the supposed “truth-seekers”
(David Griffin, Kevin Barrett, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, the Loose
Change team, Alex Jones, etc.) who have exposed their complicity in one
of the most heinous crimes a government can commit against its own
people?
Why are these people still alive and well, and in a
position to publicise their “theories” on radio, television, in print
and online?

 

 

Fidel

aka Mycroft wrote:

(1) If Al Qaeda were not responsible for 9/11, then why was Ahmed Shah Massoud’s assassination so well co-ordinated with the attacks on New York and Washington?

I don't follow the connection between al Qa'eda killing Massood and 9-11. They said Massood's security was lax, like the national security state was incredibly lax on 9-11.

Counter question: What did Pakistani ISI, al Qa'eda, CIA, Brits and Saudis all have in common in their disenchantment with Massood when he declared war on the Taliban in 1992?

Quote:
If 9/11 was a “false flag” operation intended to justify a pre-determined plan to invade Afghanistan, then why didn’t the CIA and other US government agencies do more to facilitate ties with the NA? 

The CIA was prolly in on coordinating the assassination of Massood, like USA helped Saddam's army pinpoint the location of Iranian soldiers with spy satellite photos, or like how they ran down Pablo Escobar when the feds finally turned on him and his drug dealing friends for a bit of credibility in the war on drugs - or like how they helped Uribe's rightwing death squad government pinpoint the locations of FARC rebels before murdering them.

Quote:
Why did bin Laden and al-Zawahiri suddenly leave their known locations and go to ground, if they were not anticipating imminent military action by the USA?

I wasn't aware that they did flee to Tora Bora until the bombing campaign began weeks after 9-11. And it did take the criminal Bush regime weeks to decide which desperately poor country they would attack first, which international law says does not reflect the decision making of a country claiming it was under imminent danger and threat of attack.

A number of these questions amount to uninteresting bafflegab and not based on facts, or I, myself, am not sure how to answer.

Quote:
(5) We are being asked to believe that the conspirators behind 9/11 decided that they would make the hijackers citizens of allies of the USA, not enemies. Why were they not given Iraqi, Iranian or Syrian identity?

Who can say for sure? The shadow gov has demonstrated themselves to be far more treacherous with its own thirdworld allies and even amongst themselves than most people imagine. The CIA explanation about "blowback" makes sense, if you believe the CIA cut ties to Islamic militants after 1992. There is some evidence they did not.

Quote:
(6) if the identities and the nationalities of the hijackers were faked, then why did the Saudi, Egyptian, Lebanese and UAE governments accept that citizens from their own countries were involved? What incentive did Saudi Arabia have for accepting that 15 of its own people had committed mass murder on US soil? Why would the Saudis co-operate in a plot which would blacken their country’s name, benefit Israeli interests in the Middle East, provide the pretext for the overthrow of one fundamentalist Sunni regime in Afghanistan, and contribute to the destruction of a Sunni Arab dictatorship in Iraq long seen by the Saudi royal family as a bulwark against Iran

 The Saudis did pretty much whatever their powerful U.S. friends instructed them to do. And which included investing heavily in Saddam's Iraq during the first half of their war with Iran. We can imagine what Saudi sheihks were thinking when the U.S. decided to bomb hell out of Iraq after Saddam crossed Crazy George I and Rummy, and the Israeli's end up murdering CIA pawn and Canadian Gerald Bull for providing long range cannon technology to Iraqis. And all of this against the backdrop of the vicious empire arming both Iran and Iraq, two of Israel's most vaunted enemies, during the 1980's war.

Quote:
(7) . Assuming againt that 9/11 was an inside job, how could the US government realistically presume that the Russians and Pakistanis would actually permit the USA to effect regime change against the Taliban?

They haven't really achieved regime change in Afghanistan yet. Former Soviet commanders have suggested to the Americans in a helpful way that occupation of Afghanistan will be a lesson in frustration.

And former Soviet satellite nations experienced a surge in terrorist bombings, destablization efforts in Balkans and stani nations by mujahideen, U.S.-backed KLA, Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen operating in then Yugoslavia with aid and weapons from the CIA and SAS  since the CIA-Saudi-Brit orchestrated Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan of the 1980s-90s.

Quote:
(8) Assuming that claims of Mossad complicity in 9/11 (”dancing Israelis”, etc.) are correct, can the truthers suggest a feasible motive for the Israeli government conniving in an act of mass murder on US soil? Since 1967, the mainstay of Israel’s security and survival has been its alignment with the USA, and the military assistance it has received as a result. This relationship is based on a bipartisan political consensus (both the Republican and Democratic parties are predominantly pro-Israeli)

Truthers have pointed to high tech telecom companies in the U.S. with ties to Israeli government and private enterprisers in Israel ie. Comverse Infosys and Amdocs. The FBI has stated that those two companies provide high tech surveillance equipment, and which maintain detailed phone records of 90% of phone calls to and from the U.S., to the FBI and NSA for spying on Americans. The FBI stated that those two companies represent a compromise to U.S. national security.

Counter-question: And, why wouldnt hawkish Israelis want U.S. hawks to wage illegal war against Israel's age old enemies and murder millions of Afghans and Iraqis as they have in the mean time? We're talking about a country armed to the eye teeth whose most vaunted enemies were armed to the eye teeth by their closest allies, also armed to the eye teeth. Does that make any more sense? Does nihilism and fascism need to appeal to anyone's sense of democracy or justice? I've discovered over the years that there is no rhyme or reason to the vicious empire or the many brutal rightwing dictatorships it has propped up over time. 

 

Quote:
(10) If the WTC towers in New York City were destroyed by controlled demolitions rigged by US government agencies, then why were the fake terrorist attacks used to cover up these controlled demolitions so insanely convoluted?

Maximum carnage and death makes for an horrific show on broadcast TV. Could they be sure that the planes alone would take out the two towers? Truthers say they couldnt be sure.

 Counter question: Why did building seven fall down as if by controlled demolition without so much as an amateur pilot flying combat maneuvers with a Boeing 757 and slamming in to it on bulls' eye, and first attempt no foulups?

Quote:
(11)And if the main motive behind the invasion was to build a natural gas pipe-line which would be under US control, then why was no attempt ever made to build one once the Taliban were overthrown?

Counter question: Would you build a pipeline through Afghanistan today? 

Quote:
Why are we supposed to believe that repeated video pronouncements by bin Laden and Zawahiri are fake, while just one written statement allegedly from bin Laden denying responsibility - which was handed by courier to al-Jazeera without any confirmation of its origins - was genuine?

Counter question: Hitler was the biggest liar of the last century, and the reichstag burned to the ground just before the Nazis declared martial law and revoking civil liberties. (CC) Why should we believe anything herr Bushler or his entourage tell us? They lied about everything that went on between the election rigging of 2000 and that guy throwing his shoes at him this week.

Quote:
(14) If the hijacking and crashing of four passenger planes was engineered by the US government, then why did UA93 crash into an empty field in Pennsylvania? Why not crash it into a target which would add to the death toll on 9/11, and further inflame US public attitudes and popular demands for revenge against the supposed perpetrators? 

Simple Math demonstrate that the Official 9/11 Account is a Fabrication

Quote:
(15) Finally, if the US government is institutionally ruthless enough to organise the massacre of thousands of its own citizens in a series of “false flag” attacks, then why is it too squeamish to arrange for the deaths of the supposed “truth-seekers” (David Griffin, Kevin Barrett, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, the Loose Change team, Alex Jones, etc.) who have exposed their complicity in one of the most heinous crimes a government can commit against its own people? Why are these people still alive and well, and in a position to publicise their “theories” on radio, television, in print and online?

Why should they fear the truth when warmongering plutocrats in both U.S. governments since Clinton have already gotten away with mass murder in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq and hundreds of billions of dollars in government contracts? With Bush pardoning every criminal who asks including immunity for himself from prosecution, and refusal to sign on to world criminal court justice, who or what could they possibly fear? 

pilotsfor911truth.org/

Former FBI Director charges 9-11 cover up

9-11 Commish panel members charge 9-11 cover up

Lawyers for 9-11 Truth

25 military officers for 9-11 Truth

German authorities and judges for 9-11 Truth

Victims' Families For 9-11 Truth

9/11 and the "American Inquisition"

aka Mycroft

What I never understood about the "inside job" theory is this - Cheney et al wanted to go to war with Iraq months before 9/11 - that's verified in David Frum's book, for instance and yes, they definitely exploited 9/11 in order to justify a war on Iraq to the extent of Cheney lying to Senators in one on one discussions and claiming they had proof that Saddam Hussein's family was linked with Al-Qaeda.

So the problem is if 911 was a setup job to justify a war on Iraq then why were there no links to Iraq built into the setup - certainly if you're going to go to the trouble and expense of setting up an attack on the US to justify a war on Iraq the least you can do is plant evidence that at least one of the hijackers is an Iraqi citizen or falsify some sort of bank transactions or communications links leading back to Baghdad. 

Fidel

aka Mycroft wrote:
So the problem is if 911 was a setup job to justify a war on Iraq then why were there no links to Iraq built into the setup - certainly if you're going to go to the trouble and expense of setting up an attack on the US to justify a war on Iraq the least you can do is plant evidence that at least one of the hijackers is an Iraqi citizen or falsify some sort of bank transactions or communications links leading back to Baghdad. 

They lied about WMD in Iraq. In fact, the lies began early on with Bush senior and Maggie Thatcher lying to US and British parliaments about having any knowledge of aiding and abetting Saddam Hussein. There were lies about "nurse Nayirah" and Kuwaiti babies pulled from incubators by Iraqi soldiers and "left to die in agony on cold cement floors." The lies were inconsistent, but the lies were constant. They lied so many times that just a large enough percentage of Americans wouldnt know the truth anymore if it was handed to them. As Canadian Michel Chossudovsky says about it, very little needs justifying when the American inquisition is in full force. Their chief weaponry are: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, a ... wait I didnt go yet. I'll come in again. Their chief weaponry are: fear and surprise, ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope.

aka Mycroft

You haven't answered my question Fidel. My point wasn't that they lied about the WMD's, it was if they had anything to do with 911 why didn't they set it up so that it looked like the Iraqis were involved?

aka Mycroft

Quote:

Quote:

(10) If the WTC towers in
New York City were destroyed by controlled demolitions rigged by US
government agencies, then why were the fake terrorist attacks used to
cover up these controlled demolitions so insanely convoluted?

 Fidel's response:

Quote:
Maximum carnage and death makes for an horrific show on broadcast
TV. Could they be sure that the planes alone would take out the two
towers? Truthers say they couldnt be sure.

You're not answering the question Fidel. The point is not why would there need to be controlled demolition in addition to the planes but why would the planes be needed at all? You snipped out the explanation of the question which was:

Quote:
Why
concoct a scenario involving the hijacking of planes which are then
crashed into tower blocks (involving complicated planning involving
remote controlled flights timed with explosives detonated in the
towers, which allow plenty of opportunities for gliches and technical
errors)? Why not use a more simple means, such as a truck bomb?

 

aka Mycroft

You're still not answering the questions. You know, your evasiveness is proving counterknowledge.com's point.

Quote:

One of the standard claims of 9/11 “truthers” is that they are
merely sceptical individuals with a healthy and understandable desire
not to swallow US government propaganda at face value. The mantra “just
asking questions” allows them to pose as wary and intelligent souls too
accustomed to the concept of duplicity in high places to accept the
“official story” of Al Qaeda’s role in planning and perpetrating the
largest mass casualty terrorist attack in modern history. It also
allows them to adopt an indignant tone when dealing with their critics,
and to conflate attempts by debunkers to undermine their claims with
both unquestioning acceptance of an “official cover-up” (irrespective
of whether the debunker happens to be a supporter of the current US
administration or not) and a systematic effort to deprive them of
freedom of speech. It goes without saying that in the process the
“truthers” set up two straw-men for them to knock down, but then
they’re not very good at dealing with tougher critics. 

The “just asking questions” approach has three further advantages to
those of a paranoid mindset and a less than scrupulous approach to
evidence and facts (if George Orwell were alive today, he’d appreciate
the irony of serial disinformation merchants like Dylan Avery and David
Ray Griffin posing as members of a “truth movement”, given their fast and loose
approach to the historical record and scientific fact). Firstly,
conspiracy theorists know that mud sticks: if you can make an
accusation against an individual or group through innuendo and sly
hints the latter has the hard task of proving the calumnies against
them to be false. Film buffs will no doubt recall George C. Scott’s
performance as the malevolent prosecutor in Anatomy of a Murder,
and his repeated question to the defendant Ben Gazzara: “Exactly when
did you stop beating your wife?” This approach sums up “truther
debating tactics nicely. 

Secondly, the claim that one is “just asking questions” is
liberating, as it frees the truther of the obligation of actually
constructing a coherent alternative theory - based on the evidence at
hand - which is more convincing than the “official theory”. Why worry
if the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolitions or not?
Why worry if the hijackers were patsies or ghosts? Why worry if the
Pentagon was hit by a missile or a jumbo jet piloted by remote control?
Why worry if the passengers of the four planes are alive or not? With
one or two exceptions (notably Michael Ruppert),
9/11 conspiracy theorists and their supporters do not actually outline
a scenario which explains how and why the US government (in cahoots
with the Israelis, or the military-industrial complex, or whoever else)
slaughtered nearly 3,000 people - most of whom were American citizens -
in a co-ordinated series of attacks which were then blamed on Arab
Islamist terrorists. Most truthers lack sufficient moral courage to
produce a real theory about 9/11 being an ‘inside job’ which combines
motive with method and which can be tested against the evidence. Deep
down, they know that once they venture into specific claims their case
will be torn to shreds, and they will be exposed as ignorant frauds.

Thirdly, it makes the task of a truther an easy one: all he or she
(there seem to be few female truthers around, which hopefully means
that they won’t reproduce) has to do is google to get the appropriate
“story” from Prison Planet, 9/11 Blogger, What Really Happened
or a similar website. Hey presto, they get what they want: “The FBI
said there were no phone calls from AA77!”; “4,000 Jews didn’t turn up
to work at the WTC on 9/11!”; “Silverstein ordered the demolition of
WTC7!” And so on and so forth. 

Any genuine sceptic dealing with truthers - whether online or in the
flesh - then has to (1) work out what the hell his or her interlocutor
is talking about, and (2) ask themselves how exactly they made this
claim, and if it has any substance. Anyone lacking either patience or
detailed knowledge of the events of 11th September 2001 may be tempted
to give them the benefit of the doubt. Debunkers are left with the
time-consuming task of researching the historical background, and
trying to assemble the relevant technical and scientific information,
before they can actually verify the facts for themselves.  In short,
the truther can throw out a red herring or an outright distortion in a
matter of minutes, leaving it up to other net users to take the time
and trouble to verify their origin and accuracy.

 

Fidel

aka Mycroft wrote:

You're not answering the question Fidel.

It sounds as if you want a legit investigation into 9-11 and questions answered. Lots of people do.

Quote:
The point is not why would there need to be controlled demolition in addition to the planes but why would the planes be needed at all? You snipped out the explanation of the question which was: ...  Why not use a more simple means, such as a truck bomb?

I believe Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, previously a CIA-ISI client terrorist in 1970s-80's Afghanistan and allegedly an on again off-again independent terrorist working for his own cause, did bomb the WTC in 1993. Were that and 1998 embassy bombings false flag Gladio-lites building toward the ultimate Gladio by 9-11-2001?  Bombay 1993? London bus bombing? Madrid's 3-11? Turkish stay behind reactivated in February 2008? Mumbai in '08? Are what we seeing today around the world part of a larger Gladio frenzy to destabilize Central Asia, and Africa, Bolivia etc?

Fidel

More questions!? You must really want a follow up to the Warren Commish's slip-shod investigation of 9-11. Here's a good one:

 GLADIO - DEATH PLAN FOR DEMOCRACY

And dont worry about the security certificate. The CIA's been trying to shut those guys down for years

And when youre done with that one, 9-11 Pilots for truth and some other people would appreciate your expert opinions on everything from flying combat maneuvers with Boeing 757 to intricate knowledge of 3rd generation cellular phone technology as existed on commercial airlines in '01 to inside scoops on what the Pentagon refused to divulge to supreme court justices in at least two countries and citing "U.S. national security" as an excuse for denying justice. Yes, justice ...

The Gray Lady of Bagram and the American Inquisition 

Counter reverse-cross-examination question: What makes any of the 9-11 "I'll buy that bridge" groupees think it's about truth and justice? Are those people out of their minds?

 

 

Stargazer

Aw Fidel, haven't you heard? The US of A and it's war criminal leaders would NEVER do anything to intentionally harm all those people. Nope, not the US government. After all, they've been known to be stand up people.

 

Wink

aka Mycroft

Fidel wrote:

More questions!?

No, the same questions which you haven't deigned to answer. 

Quote:

You must really want a follow up to the Warren Commish's slip-shod investigation of 9-11.

You're getting your conspiracy theories confused. The Warren Commission was JFK, not 9/11.

Tommy_Paine

Questions are not answers.

 I find the style of the 15 questions not much different than the style of all conspiracy theorists, 9/11 ones and otherwise.

 If there are those who believe that the Bush administration played a role in the attacks on Sept. 11, it is up to them to provide the evidence for such an hypothesis. Period.  End of debate.

9/11 conspiracy theorists remind me of creationists, in that they believe it is enough to raise questions about another hypothesis in order to prove theirs.

Such an approach to problem solving is so fundamentaly flawed, it's not even wrong.

 

Fidel

Whatever you say, Tommy. The war criminals are safe from justice, and, four more wars under Obomba!!  That's the real conspiracy. The inquisition needs produce no proof and answer few questions for its faithful. And this is what the gullible are relying on, really - faith in the inquisition. If we can say anything positive about the undiscerning followers of American Inquisition, we can at least admire their uncritical and unconditional faith.

Jingles

Question 1: Whose conspiracy theory do you believe? 

a. The official US government version of events, whose authors are completely lacking in credibility, and have a well established pattern of fabricating evidence and lying to achieve policy goals which are manifestly illegal, whose past track record of covert operations includes overthrowing governments, using citizens as guinea pigs in chemical, nuclear and biological warfare, assassinations, drug running, and weapons deals with "hostile" nations (to name just a few)

b.  The questions raised by concerned citizens, witnesses, and victims about what went down, incidents of foreknowledge, lack of rigourous investigation by authorities that goes beyond incompetence, deviation from normal procedures, bizarre "coincidences", suppression, destruction, or fabrication of evidence, including amature "leaks" (Atta's magic passport, etc), lack of transparency, stalling or refusing to answer questions, refusal to even have an inquiry, etc.

  

 That "controlled demolition" canard is obviously thrown in as a way to discredit legitimate questions about the whole event. Not all theories of what went down are the same, and most don't buy the more ridiculous extremes that are thrown out to muddy the waters. 

As far as Israel is concerned, they benefited enourmously from 9/11. Increased aid, unquestioned support for their brutal genocide of Palestinians and the vicious attacks on their neighbours, and the use of the mighty US military as a proxy force to take out their regional rivals. Can anyone seriously doubt Israel's interests have been fully served by a rampaging US behemoth? What 9/11 did for Israel was to mobilize the US to go to war against all Muslims and all Arabs, which fits nicely into Israel's goal of an ethnically cleansed fertile crescent.

For those who don't believe that Israel would dare such a thing, I suggest you read about the USS Liberty.

Quote:
 9/11 conspiracy theorists and their supporters do not actually outline a scenario which explains how and why the US government (in cahoots with the Israelis, or the military-industrial complex, or whoever else) slaughtered nearly 3,000 people - most of whom were American citizens - in a co-ordinated series of attacks which were then blamed on Arab Islamist terrorists. Most truthers lack sufficient moral courage to produce a real theory about 9/11 being an ‘inside job’ which combines motive with method and which can be tested against the evidence.

I'd suggest that subsequent events (invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, billions and billions and billions served up to connected corporate interests, erosion of civil liberties, formation of gigantic government agency to suppress domestic dissent, to name a few) go a long way to the "motive".

The author of that article seems to make that most common mistake in assuming that the US government is unlike any other government that has ever existed on earth. He assumes that the US government is somehow concerned for the welfare of its citizens, and that the almost uncountable number of government agencies of intelligence and force are there to defend the people. It is a deeply held yet naive belief.  For example, the "Department of Defense" with the clever use of "defense" in it's name throws a lot of people off.

Governments have always been at war with their people. Governments are instituted by those powerful individuals and organizations in order to concentrate and protect their privilege, property, and power. From time to time, they need to exercise that power, but still make the people believe that it's in their interests too.  

 

Fidel

aka Mycroft wrote:
Fidel wrote:

More questions!?

No, the same questions which you haven't deigned to answer. 

I did answer a few of them. But you've answered none of mine. And they are straightforward questions that should be easy enough to answer for the faithful. 

Fidel wrote:

You must really want a follow up to the Warren Commish's slip-shod investigation of 9-11.

aka Mycroft wrote:

You're getting your conspiracy theories confused. The Warren Commission was JFK, not 9/11.

Oh right, "the Warren Commission"!!  You mean that slip-shod investigation which the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded was seriously flawed, as well as the original FBI investigation. Thanks for straightening that out for us, because we can be sure that a certain percentage of the faithful might even want to be sure that the megalomaniacal psychopaths in cosmetic and shadow guvmints from Crazy George I through Crazy George II's regime weren't just having them on all this time. And democracy is safe now that Barack "I'm down with the empire's agenda" Obomba and his brand new cosmetic government are in control of things.

Fidel

That's right, Jingles. The obfuscators and 9-11 faithful would have us believe that this particular bunch of war criminals and warmongering plutocrats who lost the 2000 elections were simply victims of circumstance. Imagine being forced into seizing power in 2000 and having to endure all that they did. Dick Cheney was right, that the CIA tricked the cosmetic gov into waging yet another expensive and immoral and illegal war on a thirdworld country which, and by some wild luck of the draw, just so happened to be endowed with one of the largest deposits of oil in the world at the very same time Iraq had nothing to do with the 9-11. Ultimate Gladio for the ultimate necon con of American taxpayers and the western world duped into fighting a phony war on terror. No one in their right minds or lowly positions beneath the dictatorial hierarchy is able to seriously challenge the validity of an American inquisition, because the inquisitors are embedded bureaucrats and a billionaire oligarchy as well as the cosmetic leaders who they themselves own and control. And they are usually the same supporters of the conservative right who normally don't trust the government to do anything with any degree of competence.

TOP 40 REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001

 The doubt is reasonable.  Faith in half-baked, slip-shod "official government" fairy tales is not. The truthers are saying that 9-11 deserves a second investigation, just like the JFK assassination warranted a series of subsequent investigations, it's that serious an issue.

  

 

Fidel

They denied Gladio as soon as it became a news story in 1991, too.

"Facts mean nothing, facts can be used to prove anything remotely true" -- Homer (Simpson)

Tommy_Paine

My latin is rusty.  I thought it was cui bono.  And it's always a good question to ask-- but you are right it is not an answer.

 There are conspiracies of course, and there seems no limit to what the U.S. government is capable, evidenced by the Tuskegee Syphilis study.

Interestingly, no doctor or government official was ever charged with a criminal offence in what can honestly be described as a medical study the Nazi's would have been proud of.

To me, that's the real "conspiracy".  Educating a public so that it can't tell fact from fiction, and educating them that it's pointless because there's no consequence for the criminal acts of those in power and responsibility anyway.

No real need for cover up.  No real need to go to complicated plans. 

 

aka Mycroft

Tommy_Paine wrote:

My latin is rusty.  I thought it was cui bono.

You're right - that's what I get for googling  

aka Mycroft

Cui bono is a fairly basic logical fallacy. Just because somone may benefit from an event does not mean they caused it to happen yet most conspiracy theories are based on the supposition that if someone can be said to have benefitted from some action they must have caused it. [spelling corrected -btw the crossout feature doesn't work]

aka Mycroft

Fidel wrote:

They denied Gladio as soon as it became a news story in 1991, too.

"Facts mean nothing, facts can be used to prove anything remotely true" -- Homer (Simpson)

No one is denying that the US government engages in covert activities and commits crimes however this fact does not validate 911 conspiracy theories. Gladio and 911 are on a completely different scale and the fact that one was done by the US does not mean the other one was.

Fidel

Opinion polls in the US reveal less than half of Americans are satisfied with the slip-shod 9-11 investigation and commissioned report.

And somewhere around 70 million American adults support a new and legit 9-11 investigation.

Scholars for 9-11 Truth & Justice

 

Fidel

aka Mycroft wrote:
Fidel wrote:

They denied Gladio as soon as it became a news story in 1991, too.

"Facts mean nothing, facts can be used to prove anything remotely true" -- Homer (Simpson)

No one is denying that the US government engages in covert activities and commits crimes however this fact does not validate 911 conspiracy theories. Gladio and 911 are on a completely different scale and the fact that one was done by the US does not mean the other one was.

So you're saying that because various US cosmetic and shadow governments have demonstrated a propensity to commit ultra violent terrorist attacks around the world and have, in fact, been the largest sources of terrorism in recent history, this is no time to be accusing them of false flag Gladio in their own country in order to justify ongoing colossal defense spending before Congress and American taxpayers?

 

Tommy_Paine

I think one of the glossed over things is that the U.S. Airforce-- after all the money that was spent over the years-- wasn't capable of a response to the 9/11 attacks.   Now, you can say that was part of a "conspiracy", but the admitted facts seem enough for court martial,  or other serious criminal charges for the incompetence alone.   There must have been a whole lot of old Soviet Generals on 9/12 slapping their foreheads and saying "you mean it was that fucking easy????"

And no one ever got fired. (!?) 

There's been enough to justify action on many levels, based on accepted facts, and no one has been interested so far.

If the "truthers" ( I am pronouncing that with a short 'u', just for fun) think that at the end of the day, someone in authority will pay, they might as well save their time and money and take up knitting.

 

Fidel

Tommy_Paine wrote:

  There must have been a whole lot of old Soviet Generals on 9/12 slapping their foreheads and saying "you mean it was that fucking easy????"

And no one ever got fired. (!?) 

Exactly. And the cold war is supposed to be over, too.  Who would benefit from a renewal of cold war?

Which cold war principal nuclear-armed uberpower has attacked and bombed several resource rich sovereign nations since 1991 and murdered several hundred thousand innocent civilians from 1991 through medieval siege of Iraq and bombing the Balkans to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Who destabilized Yugoslavia in softening them up for a good shellacking?

Why have bombs been going off everywhere from Kabul to Baghdad, Bishkek to Grozny to Belgrade, Bombay and London to Belgrade since the CIA and Saudi's Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan?

Which uberpower's military Humvees were captured in Ossetia and shipped back to them by the Rooskies in '08? 

Did the CIA really cut all covert ties to Islamic Gladios after 1992?

Who's backsliding on democracy now?

Questions. More questions than answers. "Extreme ways are back again"

johnpauljones

I have only one reason to think that their was no conspiracy.

 

How can 5 people keep a secret in washington dc?

 

Seriously a conspiracy on a scale this big would involve hundreds if not thousands to create and implement it.

No one has talked. So were they all murdered? or did a magical gag suddenly appear to keep all of these people from talking, writing etc.

Stargazer

I don't know. What forces propped up Nixon all those years? How did Oliver North get to be a "hero" despite all the evidence to the contrary?

aka Mycroft

Fidel wrote:
 

So you're saying that because various US cosmetic and shadow governments have demonstrated a propensity to commit ultra violent terrorist attacks around the world and have, in fact, been the largest sources of terrorism in recent history, this is no time to be accusing them of false flag Gladio in their own country in order to justify ongoing colossal defense spending before Congress and American taxpayers?

 

No that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that because they did one thing is not proof they did the other and that you need to produce evidence if you expect people to believe your claims. Gladio etc is not evidence that the US is behind 9/11. 

 

As that great apologist for US imperialism, Noam Chomsky, argues, something like 911 would involve thousands of willing co-conspirators. It's simply beyond the realm of possibility that not one of them would have talked by now. 

The Bish

I think it was Alex Cockburn who initially made these points, and I'll repeat them because I think they're worth noting:

1. The 9/11 truth movement is not progressive, it's anti-progressive, because it posits a conspiracy so vast and powerful that nothing could possibly be done about it.

2. The 9/11 truth movement is typically based on some form of racism, whereby "people who live in caves" aren't sophisticated enough to pull off attacks of that nature.

Of course, the most obvious point is the one made by Tommy Paine, when he said

Quote:
If there are those who believe that the Bush administration played a
role in the attacks on Sept. 11, it is up to them to provide the
evidence for such an hypothesis. Period.  End of debate.

That is, after all, the way rational debate works.  If something is true, show that it's true.  If you can't show that it's true - or at least very likely to be true - most reasonable people will ignore you, and I don't see how you could blame them.

Buddy Kat

 

 What seems to be certain is that the US was very familliar with what was going on and allowed the terror to take place for a reason. One of those reasons is the fact the US was the biggest terror organization on the planet and it was becoming very obvious.

Now they are what? the biggest terror fighting organization on the planet.

They have been caught lieing about too much and have caused the needless death of 100's of thousands of innocent people. They have made a deathbed for themselves in the future, I really don't think they will get away with what they have done.

That shoe that was thrown at Bush could of been a gernade and instead of a shoe on a pole bobbing up and down with people chanting slogans in the future could be Bush , Cheney and Rumsfields heads bobbing up and down .

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkM5eyN8ytI&feature=user

Fidel

aka Mycroft wrote:
 

As that great apologist for US imperialism, Noam Chomsky, argues, something like 911 would involve thousands of willing co-conspirators. It's simply beyond the realm of possibility that not one of them would have talked by now. 

And there hasnt been a legitimate enquiry yet either. What if no one was actually accusing the Bush war criminals of perpetrating false flag on 9-11?

What if there were dozens and dozens of professional people and 9-11 panelists themselves and tens of millions of Americans who simply want some fairly large questions answered regarding 9-11? What have the Bush war criminals, Pentagon, CIA, and FBI got to lose except to satisfy  widespread demand for second enquiry, like the JFK assassination warranted a subsequent enquiry to conclude that the Kennedy killing likely was a conspiracy, and that the first investigations were slip-shod at best?

Or are we only assuming that the findings would be similar to those arrived at by the HSAC - House Select Committee on Assassinations of the 1970's? (as opposed to the current Homeland Stupidity Advisory Council of the 2000's)

And your suggestion that because the USA has been guilty of horrendous war crimes and fomenting terrorism around the world is no proof of 9-11 guilt is not exactly a compelling line of defence. This is exactly what important American lefties like Michael Parenti and Edward S Herman(Manufacturing Consent) have been getting at over the years. They say that the shadow gov and successive cosmetic guvs have actually used this line of defence so many times that it's no longer believable for most thinking people. The hawks and Liberal Democrat enablers might as well say,

"Yes we supported that sonofabitch but had no idea he would turn out to be a monster", or, "Sure we supported proliferation of militant Islam and Gladio terror in 1980's-90's Central Asia, but we cut all covert ties to them in 1992. 9-11 was obviously "blowback"" And they have actually said such things. 

Well, it's not obvious to a lot of people, no.  In fact, the Republicans have accused the Democrats of aiding and abetting al Qa'eda and various militant Islamic groups throughout the 1990's, and vice versa tit for tat, right up to the time of 9-11-01. It's been a low level running war of words between the two groups of warmongering plutocrats. That doesnt instill a great deal of confidence for them in people either.

aka Mycroft

Quote:
What if no one was actually accusing the Bush war criminals of perpetrating false flag on 9-11?

Which takes us back to one of the main points of counterknoweldges argument - the troothers are being disengenuous when they claim they're "just asking questions" and don't have a theory of their own. In fact, troothers are accusing Bush (or Israel or the Jews) of doing just that. The gaping problem is they don't have one scintilla of evidence to back up their beliefs so rather than go out and make a factual assertion they pretend to just have "questions". 

Fidel

At least two 9-11 commission panelists and one former FBI chief have said the 9-11 report isn't just missing a few facts here and there but actually a deliberate attempt by the Pentagon and cosmetic government to hide the truth behind a facade of "national security"

And as far as I can tell,  the I'll swallow anything pro-government side can't fill in the missing facts without a proper investigation either. Some say it's no wonder America is a divided nation today. I think the pro-government side want to believe. 

Al Qaeda and the "War on Terrorism"

> Chossudovsky 

Quote:
To be "effective" the fear and disinformation campaign cannot solely rely on unsubstantiated "warnings" of future attacks, it also requires "real" terrorist occurrences or "incidents", which provide credibility to the Administration’s war plans. Propaganda endorses the need to implement "emergency measures" as well as carry out retaliatory military actions.

 

Both the terror warnings and the terror events have served as a pretext to justify far-reaching military decisions.

 

Following the July 2005 London bombings, Vice President Dick Cheney was reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". Implied in the contingency plan is the certainty that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11.

 

This "contingency plan" used the pretext of a "Second 9/11", which had not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran, while pressure was also exerted on Tehran in relation to its (non-existent) nuclear weapons program.

 

What is diabolical in this decision of the US Vice President is that the justification presented by Cheney to wage war on Iran rested on Iran's alleged involvement in a hypothetical terrorist attack on America, which had not yet occurred

The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)

Sounds like pre-emptive Islamic Gladio Part II is in the skunkworks. Millions of desperately poor people in oil-rich Middle Eastern states and "strategically" situated Central Asian states seem to have a string of bad luck for goading the Americans and Brits, formerly a vicious empire in their own right, into bombing and invading them. Someone should inform the would-be hijackers and terrorists with good educations under their belts and "who like to drink and party" that they are playing with fire when they attack America, because the USA's is an economy based on wicked levels of oil consumption and speculation and war.  

Jingles

Quote:
2. The 9/11 truth movement is typically based on some form of racism, whereby "people who live in caves" aren't sophisticated enough to pull off attacks of that nature.

Nonsense. It has nothing to do with racism. It's about available resources, opportunity, and infrastructure. It's a lot easier for some black ops cell of the CIA to pull off such a plan than guys in caves can, simply because the black ops guys have the cake.

I mean, I've had some doosie plans, but lacking the requisite illicit drug profits and off-the-books budgeting, they don't amount to much. Does that mean I'm not sophisticated enough to pull something off, or does it mean I'm not plugged in to the right places to get the juice?

I shoulda taken my flight training in Florida at those flight schools connected to Iran/Contra, too. 

 

 

Fidel

Yes, the racists and war criminals' bigoted support base will typically accuse the bad people daring to second-guess the very slip-shod 9-11 report of racism or anti-semitism in order to ward off evil spirits. It's all part of maintaining an air of credibility for the American inquisition and goes without saying.

Joe Biden prophesying in October said:

Quote:
"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities

 

"Save the cheerleader save the world." -- Heroes TV Series Season One

 

 

thorin_bane

Mycroft I will chime in here. I deal with steel as that is my business. I took metalurgy and what not for my profession. I know a few engineering students that say "under the right condition this COULD happen" yeah but none of those conditions were met on that day. Even before  I saw loose change, my dad and I talked about it. To heat a 1 inch peice of metal for the simple function of changing it's crystaline structure for hardening purposes takes 1 hour at 1550 degrees F, it is also a minmum additional hour for each additional inch of thickness. (Remember this is in a wind proof oven with the temperature surrounding the steel) this only brings steel to a dark to medium cherry, tongs do not leave imprints in the steel because it isn't that hot, nor is it melting. This is for regular everyday cold rolled steel of the 1060 variety(a surface hardening steel) anything below 1200 won't do much at all to the steel. They used structural steel which is usually an alloy and has an even higher melting(and chrystalizing) point. So how did both buildings go down in less than 2 hours. did they make these buildings out of 1/2 inch think steel to support the thousands of tons(or tonnes) that towered above it?

1993 a car bomb exploded at the base.

The 1,500 lb (680 kg) urea nitrate-hydrogen gas enhanced device[1]
was intended to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into the South Tower
(Tower Two), bringing both towers down and killing thousands of people.[2][3] It failed to do so, but did kill six people and injured 1,042.

If the building was able to withstand a blast at the base of this same building (you know thin steel one that melted) why didn't the BOTTOM corner of the building do anything more than make some work for the local cement union in new york? Should that bomb removing all this material at the base of the building certainlyhave a greater burden of the 110 floors above it than the 10-15 above the burning section of the buildings on 9/11.

Now please answer me the quesion of the huge fireball when the one plane crashed, taking out the vast majority of the planes fuel(you know the fuel to make the building a supercombustion chamber). In fact the two buildings had very different plane collisions yet they both went down. 

Now we get to the MOST perplexing of all, WTC 7 That doesn't even make any sense. It is the furthest structure(across other WTC building and a street) and it somehjow caught on fire for a few hours and then falls down? I don't even need to get into the other 2 supposed plane crashes.

So in all this carnage that took down both buildings, they found the actual passport of "one of the terrorist" I guess paper doesn't burn but steel does. Nevermind the fact he wasn't on the passenger manifest, nore why would he carry his passport on a transamerican flight that wouldn't require him to have it as it was a one way trip. Then the managed to identify the other terrorist from their DNA...umm yeah ocrams razro works both ways once you start asking real questions.

Why chomsky says he doesn't believe it is he will be called a crackpot if he does and won't be taken serious. In addition it takes away from the overall fight(in his mind) of changing the government that exist. He feels it saps the strength from the base from getting at the real(other) problems that exist in the government. I would say this is the wy to change government once people understand how corrupt things are that they would kill their own citizens in the name of oil.

Afghanistan was going to have a pipeline running through it from Iran to china, as did russian oil, how much do you think this played into the lets kill the taliban when they even offered to hand over bin ladden if evidence was provided, but there wasn't any because despite the fact a traffic accident is roped off for a few hours for something as routine as that, no one did this at WTC and they hauled all the material away on boats to another country to be melted down??? How the hell does that make any sense. These are the question we need answered. You can't provide any proof(like you suggest) because they have disposed of it all. 

______________________________________________________________________________________
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
Noam Chomsky

Tommy_Paine

Well, I've worked with steel for almost 30 years myself.   I know you can do a lot of neat things with steel by changing it's shape, usually, to distribute stresses so that you can get away with using less steel for the purpose it's designed for.

Your views seem to gloss over the fact that subjecting steel to the kinetic energy it wasn't designed for changes much.  

And, as we've seen in the movies, we can get a pretty impressive fire ball from a wee bit of gasoline and a bag of flour.   Just because we saw a huge fireball from a fully fueled jet at impact doesn't mean all the fuel was consumed at impact.

All beside the point, really.

So, if it wasn't the jets and ensuing fires that brought down the Towers, what did, Thorin?

Where's the evidence for your alternative hypothesis?

 

The Bish

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Where's the evidence for your alternative hypothesis? 

If there was evidence, it would have been presented by now.

aka Mycroft

thorin_bane wrote:

Even before  I saw loose change, my dad and I talked about it. To heat a 1 inch peice of metal for the simple function of changing it's crystaline structure for hardening purposes takes 1 hour at 1550 degrees F, it is also a minmum additional hour for each additional inch of thickness. (Remember this is in a wind proof oven with the temperature surrounding the steel) this only brings steel to a dark to medium cherry, tongs do not leave imprints in the steel because it isn't that hot, nor is it melting. This is for regular everyday cold rolled steel of the 1060 variety(a surface hardening steel) anything below 1200 won't do much at all to the steel. They used structural steel which is usually an alloy and has an even higher melting(and chrystalizing) point. So how did both buildings go down in less than 2 hours. did they make these buildings out of 1/2 inch think steel to support the thousands of tons(or tonnes) that towered above it?

 

From Popular Mechanics: Debunking the 911 Myths

Quote:

"Melted" Steel

Claim:
"We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net.
"The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the
cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to
melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At
The WTC."


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."

 

thorin_bane wrote:
Now we get to the MOST perplexing of all, WTC 7 That doesn't even make
any sense. It is the furthest structure(across other WTC building and a
street) and it somehjow caught on fire for a few hours and then falls
down? I don't even need to get into the other 2 supposed plane crashes.

 

Also from Popular Mechanics

Quote:

WTC 7 Collapse

Claim:
Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed.
According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a
collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition:
amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

Fire Storm:
WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers.
Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages
for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style
implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive
collapse. (Photograph by New York Office of Emergency Management)

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.

SwimmingLee

4 resources for people that are interested in researching 9-11-

Michael Ruppert's website
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/
.
Jim Hoffman's website
http://911research.wtc7.net/
.
Paul Thompson's 9-11 timeline, meticulously lists dozens of instances of foreknowledge
http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

(was at cooperativeresearch.org, since moved to historycommons.org)
.
Mark Rabinowitz' website
http://www.oilempire.us

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

http://LASIK-FLap.com ~ Website Created by Injured LASIK Patients

thorin_bane

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Well, I've worked with steel for almost 30 years myself.   I know you can do a lot of neat things with steel by changing it's shape, usually, to distribute stresses so that you can get away with using less steel for the purpose it's designed for.

Your views seem to gloss over the fact that subjecting steel to the kinetic energy it wasn't designed for changes much.  

And, as we've seen in the movies, we can get a pretty impressive fire ball from a wee bit of gasoline and a bag of flour.   Just because we saw a huge fireball from a fully fueled jet at impact doesn't mean all the fuel was consumed at impact.

All beside the point, really.

So, if it wasn't the jets and ensuing fires that brought down the Towers, what did, Thorin?

Where's the evidence for your alternative hypothesis?

 

 

Good point HOW CAN I when they HAULED IT ALL AWAY. No investigation while it was still available, they took it away. That is what we are all asking, how can you just get rid of everything when you spend 2 hours on somehing as insignifcant as a traffic aacident yet you don't leave things in tact at something of this level....oh yah passport and DNA. You still didn't answer that this very same twisty building managed to stay standing when the base was hit with a bomb some 8 years earlier (you know a lot more wieght) but it must have weakened over those 8 years I guess with substacially less weight from the 10 floos above, nor the fact that both building fell down within a quarter hour of each other...I guess it was a coincidence given the divergence in the way the plans hit the building.

 Am I saying it was an inside job, probably, though it wouldn't have to be, the problem is the package is too neat for the explaination given. I don't think you even understand the truthers point, that the reasons given are so flawed that there has to be SOMETHING else. Why did the military stand down? How did the empire state building survive after a plane flew into it? What about burning buildings worldwide. No steel building has ever fallen down from fire, and most completely immolated over the course of 20 hours. So how was it possible for the steel structure to have een left standing in those instances.

______________________________
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
Noam Chomsky

thorin_bane

So let me understand that  even though we don't trust fox news you will trust

Hearst Communications, Inc. is a privately-held American-based media conglomerate based in the Hearst Tower in New York City, USA. Founded by William Randolph Hearst as an owner of newspapers,
the company's holdings now include a wide variety of media. The Hearst
family is involved in the ownership and management of the company.

Hearst Corporation is one of the largest diversified communications
companies in the world. Its major interests include 16 daily and 49
weekly newspapers, including the Houston Chronicle, San Francisco Chronicle and Albany Times Union; as well as interests in an additional 43 daily and 72 non-daily newspapers owned by MediaNews Group, which include the Denver Post and Salt Lake Tribune; nearly 200 magazines around the world, including Cosmopolitan and O, The Oprah Magazine; 28 television stations through Hearst-Argyle Television which reach a combined 18% of U.S. viewers; ownership in leading cable networks, including Lifetime Television, A&E Television Networks, The History Channel and ESPN; as well as business publishing, Internet businesses, television production, newspaper features distribution and real estate.

OK at least now I know that FOX is OKey Dokey in your books, all that yellowcake that saddam had was true, the only problem was it was the birthday variety.

BTW the pop mec doesn't explain it at all well either. There is no way the fireproffing in the ENTIRE building fell off, nor does it explain the explosions in the basement or much of anything, just pablum to shut up the masses. OH my god a chain reaction colapse...then they HAD to take down the other buildings in the area too. The deisel fuel doesn't seem convienant  to you that the only one that happen to be large was on the same floor as the fire? Large enough for a slow leak for 7 hours. In addition to none clean burning fire...Holy cow it gets funnier just typing it. They didn't have a blue butane fire from you science lab that can actually heat steel to even close to the numbers given. They had a garden variety building fire. 3 steel building colapse all on the same day when no other steel building colapsed in 50 years from fires of much higher intensity yet that doesn't seem strange. Ok I guess I am the kook.If you haven't watched any of the resources(other than even loose change) do yourself a favour and look at some of them. Pop Mec didn't cover much of anything. Hey I know lets see the tapes confisgated from the hotel across from the pentagon? You could get a clear picture of a 747 disintigrating 3 times through 3 rings of a building leaving no trace of the aircraft but lots of DNA to identify the terrorists, who happen to not be on the passenger manifest, but somehow had their DNA match on the CIA computer for someone who had never been convicted of a crime. Makes perfect sense.

 

I am not trying to attackyou guys but I would like to point out that it seems more like a conspiracy theory if you believe the official report. Which is what the truthers are after, even if it more of had foreknowledge or someone inside was compromised(the military) it makes more sense than 19 people directed by bin laden his dialysis machine in a cave in afghanistan, with no skills managed to pull this off. Hell look at the toronto 17 how ridiculous that is the charges are spurious at best with 1 weapon brought by the police insider. The cops at the SPP to incite riots? Barn burning in the west by RCMP. If we have these levels of shinanigans then why not take down your own buildings for the love of oil.

______________________________________________________________________________________
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
Noam Chomsky

The Bish

thorin_bane wrote:

So let me understand that  even though we don't trust fox news you will trust

Hearst Communications, Inc. is a privately-held American-based media conglomerate based in the Hearst Tower in New York City, USA. Founded by William Randolph Hearst as an owner of newspapers,
the company's holdings now include a wide variety of media. The Hearst
family is involved in the ownership and management of the company.

Academic journals are typically published by organisations affiliated with major universities, who are themselves key contributors to establishment ventures such as the Iraq war.  Presumably, based on the post you just made, we can assume you also refuse to believe the vast majority of peer-reviewed scientific literature as well, correct?

Tommy_Paine

Rosebud......

If you furnish the pictures, Thorin, I will furnish the war.Wink

Anyway.   Your argument reminds me of creationists who point to "gaps" in the fossil record.  No matter how much an evolutionary biologist and paleantologists fill those "gaps" they will always remain, when you think of it.  These "gaps" however, are "evidence" enough for some to maintain the literal "truth" of Genisis.

There really is no arguing with these people.

You should understand, Thorin that I don't reject a government conspiracy concerning 9/11 out of hand, just like I don't reject the existance of Bigfoot, or ghosts out of hand.  

It's just the onus of proof is on those making the claim.  Poking holes in the accepted facts concerning 9/11 is one thing.  But, like pointing to gaps in the fossil record, it hardly proves anything else.

 Earlier, you mentioned occam's razor.  We invoke Occam's razor when we have two competing hypothesies.  We have one, the accepted facts around the events of 9/11.   In order to use Occam's razor, we have to have some evidence and facts regarding an alternative hypothesis.

So far, you have not presented anything that would even make me pull out Occam's butter knife, let alone razor.

 

 

 

HUAC
thorin_bane

Tommy I am not a detective, How can I show you proof when they destroyed the evidence, Their assumptions are no more based on proof than the truthers are. They are making assumptions on hypothetical. The fire retardants being knocked off...they even say they have to assume this happened in the pop mec "debunking". I say try this, why don't they prove the fire retardant was knocked off. They can't because they got rid of the proof.  This swings both ways. How can they prove their pan cake theory? Show me YOUR proof for the pan cake theory. Why didn't the building slump toward the side missing the corner where the plane went in. Instead we had a systematic collapse of the entire structure in freefall without any kind of resistance from the floor below. I am provinding all the evidance I can see from what managed to escape A the memory hole and B confiscation. If they have proof of the intercontinental airliner crashing into the pentagon from the tapes they seized, why not show them to the public so we know it was real. That would be a start. So let me put the burden on proof on them the same as you did to me, Show me YOUR evidence that it happened how they assumed it happened. You will come back empty handed because they have nothing to support their hypothosis. Only conjecture.

I knew you would bring in ID but as has been pointed out evolution(the scientific consensus, not some report) has disproven the ID people with EVIDENCE. There is none in this example that proves any of their assumptions.

______________________________________________________________________________________
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
Noam Chomsky

The Bish

thorin_bane wrote:

If they have proof of the intercontinental airliner crashing into the pentagon from the tapes they seized, why not show them to the public so we know it was real.

There were large numbers of independent eyewitnesses and the wreckage of a plane is clearly visible in photos taken on the site.  There were people on the plane whose family members are still around and have lost loved ones.  I don't know how much stronger the evidence could get.  It's one thing to suggest that the official story about what happenned isn't completely truthful, but the scale of deception that would have had to have occurred in order for the plane crash at the Pentagon to have been faked is mindblowing.

HUAC

Here's our friend Damian Thompson of counterknowledge, linked from shill heaven, aka nat pisst.  The ignorance exhibited in his remark re aircraft transponders is absolutely staggering, for openers.

 

An aptly named site indeed. 

thorin_bane

The Bish wrote:
thorin_bane wrote:

So let me understand that  even though we don't trust fox news you will trust

Hearst Communications, Inc. is a privately-held American-based media conglomerate based in the Hearst Tower in New York City, USA. Founded by William Randolph Hearst as an owner of newspapers,
the company's holdings now include a wide variety of media. The Hearst
family is involved in the ownership and management of the company.

Academic journals are typically published by organisations affiliated with major universities, who are themselves key contributors to establishment ventures such as the Iraq war.  Presumably, based on the post you just made, we can assume you also refuse to believe the vast majority of peer-reviewed scientific literature as well, correct?

Hey Bish again go look at all the assumptions in the literature. Do you think kennedy died because of oswald, because remember conspiracies can't be covered up because too many people know. 1 bullet managed to go through a cranium, an arm bone and into a leg. They proved it in court! So Oswald had the greatest bullets ever invented, not to mention he was the greatest sharp shooter to ever live. They proved it with scientists in court that he could do it. What do you think, oswald or not?

 

______________________________________________________________________________________
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
Noam Chomsky

thorin_bane

The Bish wrote:
thorin_bane wrote:

If they have proof of the intercontinental airliner crashing into the pentagon from the tapes they seized, why not show them to the public so we know it was real.

There were large numbers of independent eyewitnesses and the wreckage of a plane is clearly visible in photos taken on the site.  There were people on the plane whose family members are still around and have lost loved ones.  I don't know how much stronger the evidence could get.  It's one thing to suggest that the official story about what happenned isn't completely truthful, but the scale of deception that would have had to have occurred in order for the plane crash at the Pentagon to have been faked is mindblowing.

Yes go listen to the CELL PHONE call from the guy who was losing his life while on the phone with his mom who has to tell his mom his last name? Have you ever called your mom and told her your last name. Hi this is your son thorin bane am dying in a plane i just wanted you to know. I have never said hi mom it's thorin bane when calling, even when I was in several car accidents. I have only seen reports about families of those that died at ground zero. I want to ask all you faith in the system types, have you seen loose change? I thought it was fishy on sept 11 but I'm a kook much like the firefighters, pilots, medics, cops etc.(My buddy is a helicopter paramedic that went there on the 13th , but I won't use him because it would sound like BS anyways.)who have made statements that contradict the official report, but I guess being there means they have no idea what happened either.

______________________________________________________________________________________
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
Noam Chomsky

HUAC

Here's the link from #47. Sorry.

Pages

Topic locked