The fact that you cannot fathom the government lying to you is exactly why the government is allowed to lie to you.

[edit]

For those of you who want something to think about, look here. It is a powerpoint created by Richard Gage.

Speaking for myself, I don't have any doubt I am lied to, I, and others, have doubts on the abilities of a Government to pull off, and keep quiet, on what you allege.

A video with a condescending metaphor of a orange is not proof, it is ammo for those that already believe such things.

There were government officials that didn't keep quiet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Shaffer_(intelligence_officer)

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10GnuWjXy0s&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEMA99vB8xk&feature=related

The first link didn't work for me.

I watched the video, I think if you look at it from a skeptical and a 'unbeliever' stance you will see it has no conclusive evidence, and again, supports claims of believers but does nothing for us who want clear evidence.

I'm sure our Government failed at the highest level to prevent these attacks, that mistake being labeled as malicious and as actually deliberate requires a lot more proof than I am seeing.

I do appreciate everyone's commitment btw, I wish you all the best in seeking your personal truths.

USAC (US AIR COMMAND) intercepts ~100 planes every year (remember Paine Stewart's plane? that was a USAC intercept).

So why do people believe that on 9/11/01, not one, but four jetliners flew around in US airspace, defeating the most sophisticated air defenses in the world, for a fucking hour, unchallenged, including hitting the best protected building in the world, the Pentagon without so much as a defensive rocket being fired?

The two planes that were scrambled were sent up late, and then told not to fly at maximum speed.

But this is all believable to certain people. I will refrain from further comment.

Some Payne Stewart info. Also some NORAD info.

I refuse to accept all the government claims of "mistakes" and "missed ccommunications." Four jetliners, all turning off their transponders at roughly the same time should have set off alarm bells from coast to coast.

The fact that this did not happen merely deepens the mystery of how the White House, POTUS, Congress and the Pentatgon could be left so open to attack.

It makes no sense that the holes in our air defense system were wide enough to drive an aircraft carrier through, and that this is acceptable as an "excuse". No one was demoted, no one discharged, no one called up on charges, civilian or military, about what was clearly a dereliction of duty, or a defense plan so inadequate as to be tantamount to criminal, allowing 3,000 deaths.

Quick Reply.

Unacceptable. We are not talking about routine traffic, here. We are talking about the physical safety of POTUS, and the Pentagon.

This is not a busy day at O'Hare.

No one else is turned off by the "WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND" fervor of a lot of these statements?

If at the end of the day I don't believe you and you are correct I would honestly have to blame the way a lot of people have delivered this message. Even the calm ones point me towards unhinged sources.

Don't get on their bad side. They'll hunt you down and post personal information about you. Not fun.

"They"? Or a few psycho individuals? That's quite the blanket statement you make there.

Well obviously I'm hoping it's none of you.

For some reason the last parenthesis is not being included, so it won't link. Anyway, just look up Anthony Shaffer, he was blocked from investigating the supposed hijackers and then was silenced for speaking out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Shaffer_(intelligence_officer)

That video clip by itself was not supposed to conclude that 9/11 was an inside job, it was supposed to show you that there were whistle blowers from inside the government. You said there were not, which is flat out incorrect. I corrected you.

I thought twice when typing "and keep quiet," without a modifier but didn't follow my gut. Thank you for the information.

Future reference:

[Link name](http://www.url.com/some\_link\\(with\_parenthesis\\)\)

Put those backslashes in, and you won't get the parenthesis problem. For some reason this doesn't seem to work when you don't nest the link in the []() format.

Noted, thank you.

To make the last parenthesis work you need to escape it with a backslash.

9.2 seconds is pretty clear - 110 floors in two different buildings dropped at near if not exact free fall speeds. That indicates that the floors below were gone before the floor above "collapsed" on it. If you know some of the details of the structure you know that is impossible to have that happen from one floor "collapsing" near the top. Then explain that same phenomenon for WTC7 without any jet hitting the building.

You take a billiard ball drop it 110 stories with one sheet of paper per every floor and it takes over a minute and half to reach the ground. I don't know how you can get past that without dropping some acid.

If you know some of the details of the structure you know that is impossible to have that happen from one floor "collapsing" near the top.

Then why hasn't anyone published a paper that demonstrates this? If it's impossible then some bright structural engineer out there ought to be able to prove WTC7 could not have fallen due to structural failure, of the type specified in the NIST report, and gravity.

Why do you think this hasn't been done? Because it's not impossible. Or are all the structural engineers out there in on it too? All the Universities too?

At the very least were are all the published papers pointing out the obvious flaws in the NIST WTC7 report?

Here. You can choose from 4 different durations, I recommend the longest one if you have the time, patience, and interest.

oh shit look it's the same powerpoint I've already looked through, what almost a year ago? Bravo. Well since you are incapable of seeing even the slightest flaw in the video i'm going to go ahead and assume you're an idiot and ignore you.

Want to change my mind? Well address 1 flaw in the video. Certainly you can do the half assed search it'll take to find an error. then convince me it's not an error.

What, no? you're going to respond with a trite response that doesn't address my point? Figured.

Instead of being an asshole, I will just direct you to another video that you may watch (If you haven't).

Here.

I am trying to have civil discussion. Please let me know if you have seen the video. It's quite interesting.

BTW, I am not an "OMG INSIDE JOBXZZ" truther, I am just someone looking for answers.

Well I haven't actually watched this yet and at first pass it does ask a good question, why is the flight data and the animation off by so much... I'll watch it. though I'm sad you at least didn't admit there were problems with the powerpoint you linked to earlier. Do you really think that Power point is without flaw?

No I do not believe it is perfect, but when pointing others to it I just want them to be able to have an open mind to the subject, not so much the specifics. The same could be said about the official story, really.

If there was a more open investigation and it turned out that the official story was in fact true, then I would accept it. I just want a more open investigation. It's not because I want to blame Bush; I just feel bad for those who were killed, and want to be able to honor them properly.

[edit] Yeah, I believe the video is a good watch. Please let me know your reaction.

Loose Change man! OPEN UR EYEZ.

I only wish everyone had the same thought process that you do. You found a way to say exactly what you want, make your point crystal clear & did it in a productive manner. I wish I could upvote this harder.

If you click the "did you mean" for the first link it will go to it.

Iran-Contra. A conspiracy that involved many individuals and several countries. Many people in the US government, let alone the American people, knew nothing of it, and it went on for years. Able and did pull it off.

Named names, diagrammed connections: http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?p=9004

Iran Contra was a for profit scheme wrapped in false patriotism, it would be nowhere near the feat of convincing Government agents to willingly allow the slaughter of 1000's of American Civilians. The fact that your site has the format of a over the top conspiracy site and somehow manages to include all of a target audiences least favorite players is suspect in it's own. Again, I don't see evidence, I see something people want to believe, maybe stronger than a Kenyan birth certificate but at the end of the day it is in the same category of information.

All you have given me is a carpet of loosely bound threads, each one flapping in the air while you keep pointing out how beautiful the patterns are, it's still a shit carpet.

Not my site, fully referenced, not "loosely bound threads." If reading is too much to handle, there's video. http://www.rys2sense.com/hub2/ and the text again, consolidated. http://www.rys2sense.com/hub2/rys2sense-articles/55-all-roads-full.html

Reading is never a problem, this discussion just keeps making reread and rewatch similar information, so yes; I am skimming at this point.

There is in that last link alone 3 hours of video to watch. Honestly guys, best of luck to you, I don't believe you but I hope your right, I would love to see every single agency and country mentioned in these writing and videos come up before a trial, they all deserve to answer for at least one other thing.

I am done commenting, thank you for your time, your answers were largely patient and informative, thank you.

Short version: http://www.rys2sense.com/hub2/rys2sense-articles/48-all-roads.html

Yes, finally understanding that the government, at least the Bush Administration, was our enemy. That was hard.

It's really no different in this administration. To me that is the hard thing to get people to understand. I've been round for a LONG time and nothing is changing for the better despite all the promises ALL politicians have made through the years. Democrats and Republicans are just two different heads on the same snake. People putting their hopes and dreams in a failing , corrupt system over and over and never getting the big picture.

My kids don't even understand what freedoms I had growing up because they were removed or adjusted for our benefit before they were of age to understand what they were. Despite the fact that a lot of people here in Reddit not liking religion or Christianity (which is their right) it should also be noted that Christian's also have the same right in this once awesome country to practice what they believe whether or not they like it. When you start to say they can't it's no different then any other hate crime. If American is to remain free all people have the right to choose to do as they please - worship or not. When you make worship against the law something seriously evil is happening. I didn't mean to get off course here but stop and really take a look at what is happening today in government (both parties).

http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplayer/cbnplayer.swf?aid=9425

On the surface this like every other law they pass doesn't seem that bad and is there for somebody's protection (very admirable) so everyone agrees then it's used just as all laws are against something else. In this case it's Christians or making what the bible says a hate crime. Ok enough of this rant -

i totally agree!

When you start to say they can't it's no different then any other hate crime.

I agree, like it's so bad to keep shrimp off the school menu? Seriously, kids can eat anything. why do they have to eat shrimp!

When you make worship against the law something seriously evil is happening. I didn't mean to get off course here but stop and really take a look at what is happening today in government (both

Agreed! Just yesterday our church was raided and 1/4 of our members are still in for "questioning". Why can't america wake up!

What really pisses me off are people that want "God" taken off our currency! We just barely got it on there and now they claim it's not right? Well we have decades of history tied to "in god we trust" what are we going to do, go back to the dark ages when we didn't have it on our currency! Our founding fathers would have never approved!

Were you dropped on your head as a child? I think there was an onion article about guys like you defending what they think the constitution is about, having not read it ever

Apparently you missed the dripping sarcasm, I tried really hard with the shrimp bit to make it obvious. Maybe that was too much, did I seem so crazy as to appear normal?

and def crazy enough to seem normal. Thats the problem with witty people, the truly stupid and derranged make it a lot harder for the former. If only people came in normal stupid, and stop trying to 'one up' each other

yes... yes i did. I swear we need some kind of punctuation mark, you can only read things the way you would say them, not the way the other person had. :7 is piss poor for a sarcasm emoticon in my opinion

Agreed. I guess I need to start using </sarcasm> or crazy people need to be less crazy.

best tag ever since http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/12511/original/html-tits-demotivational-poster.jpg

this is too funny! Well done. else if sarcasm== 0 goto line 2

Powerful keep the power - George Carlin (R.I.P.)

nuff said

Pretty much the only thing that ever has to be said is : WTC7. And when they haven't heard of that show them the youtube video. Game over.

Which video?

I think this one would work fine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

The last person I mentioned WTC 7 to was really curious as to why they don't talk about it more, or the pentagon. You hear about the towers all the fucking time but rarely the pentagon, muchless wtc7.

Maybe because the towers killed so many more people, were iconic and were never rebuilt?

[deleted]

What is there not to beleive? Did people die in WTC 7? No. Have the tower been rebuilt? No. Were the towers iconic? Yes. Is the pentagon Iconic? Yes. Do you hear about the Deutsch Bank building? Verizon building? WTC 3,4,5,6? The church across the street from WTC? No, so why would one be surprised by people not talking about 7?

[deleted]

Yes.

Fountainhead:

Maybe because the towers killed so many more people, were iconic and were never rebuilt?

DrGorilla:

Do people who say stuff like this actually believe it?

Cyince:

What is there not to beleive? Did people die in WTC 7? No. Have the tower been rebuilt? No. Were the towers iconic? Yes. Is the pentagon Iconic? Yes. Do you hear about the Deutsch Bank building? Verizon building? WTC 3,4,5,6? The church across the street from WTC? No, so why would one be surprised by people not talking about 7?

Whats wrong with the logic?

There is nothing wrong. You are just missing a whole lot.

Did the WTC7 fall? Yes. Did a plane hit it? No. Has a building ever collapsed by fire alone? No. Did three buildings all fall on the same day, the first time in history? Yes. So why is no one talking about building 7?

At the very least this event should have been reasoning for retraining all firefighters who deal with tall buildings. "No, we can't go put the fire out because it might fall on us."

It's easy to only see what you want to see.

It's been a day, upon rereading do you still find it that hard to believe?

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

You loose. Whole thing explained here.

Keep trying.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Awwwwww jeeeeeez you've ruined everything.

I definatly think the government let it happen however. As it would have been very easy to stop, its america afterall.

The planes crashing caused that.

Crashing into what? WTC7? Lul whut?

That would be tower 2 crashing into tower 7.

Pretty much the only thing that ever has to be said is : voice morphing.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Oh fuck. Thanks. I needed that. It helps to remember that there are people out there more deluded than you are.

Your name suits you well.

It's fun to be stupid. Have a great day!!

Its true. 2 planes, 3 buildings....

And, fire has never destroyed a high rise before, so even if building 7 had fires in it, it shouldn't have collapsed.

Just wondering how many high rises have had 110 story skyscrapers collapse on them before. People keep citing that there's no precedent. Well, duh.

I don't think you understand, I've read the whole NIST report. The twin towers did not collapse on tower 7. There were in fact, many buildings much closer than WTC 7 that did not collapse that day.

The 'official' story, as in, what the NIST report says happened, was that fires were ignited from debris, which caused the collapse.

To reiterate, both studies (FEMA and NIST) said damage from the twin towers did not contribute to the collapse.

Don't believe me, read the report. (conclusion section)

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

Don't bother with facts or NIST reports or other occasions of buildings burning for hours on end. It's all totally pointless.

In the span of two sentences you contradicted yourself.

"debris, which caused the collapse." "damage from the twin towers did not contribute"

I think he means that the cascading twin tower rubble did not bring down WTC7, but rather the fires that resulted. Though, this would mean that damage from the towers did in fact contribute, albeit indirectly.

was that fires were ignited from debris, which caused the collapse.

meaning Fires caused the collapse...

Was my grammar incorrect or just ambiguous?

fires were ignited from debris, which caused the collapse.

It's clear if you don't take things out of context. NIST claims the fires caused the collapse.

right, he means the fucking tower falling on the building in the second case, not the shit that set the building on fire in the second case that you point out.

I've read the report. You're just playing with semantics. Of course damage from the towers caused WTC7 to collapse. Because the debris from the towers ignited massive fires which brought WTC7 down.

I'm not. I don't understand how you can't see the distinction between damage caused by the debris resulted in collapse, vs. debris caused a fire which "resulted" in a collapse.

You're original state that a skyscraper 'collapsed on them' is completely false.

You also used the word 'massive' in regard to the fires. While a word like 'massive is arbitrary and subjective, i'd argue it is also a false claim, as compared to many other high rise buildings that have been on fire, this fire was quite small. It was only on a small percentage of floors, and couldn't burn in any one place for very long.

no youre just playing semantics. watch the youtube video, read the report. the report shows detailed structural analysis screenshots that show the collapse one way, but the video clearly and i insist on CLEARLY looks identical to a controlled demolition.

a few crumbling blocks can not impact an entire wide building and make it fall evenly. you are a fucking idiot

Funny, I could have sworn that the two 110 story buildings fell in upon themselves.

Don't let that little fact get in the way of your argument, though.

Yeah people don't seem to get that the building fell into themselves almost perfectly.

Really? What started the fires then?

oxygen

I don't know where you got that idea. Significant debris fell on WTC 7 igniting the fires which brought it down. You should really do some reading on the subject.

Arrogance, such as what you posted here does not bode well for your case against "truthers". You waste all of your time insinuating that those who are seeking the truth, don't seek the truth. That is completely ass backwards.

Yeah people don't seem to get that the building fell into themselves almost perfectly.

Correlation does not equate to causation.

It does not negate it neither.

Nice logic there.

Good contribution.

I'm not really a PHD phyisist, I am not going to anaylse the crashses or know the motives of whoever did this but when the government say terorrists blew up those buildings because "the terrorists hate our freedoms" instead of "our shitty foreign policy" that is a conspiricy itself.

This is where the real conspiracy is.

I said this to a friend the other day! their reply was "you make it (the official story) sound like a make-believe"

well, that's because it is...

I like this.

If only there was some proof. Has anyone published a paper demonstrating that WTC 7 should not have fallen? Nope. Has there been any hard evidence that there was demolition? Nope. Has there been any reliable whistle blowers? Nope.

The truth is the NIST gave their best guess as to why and how WTC 7 fell. Are they 100% accurate? Most definitely not. But since there weren't cameras or sensors on the inside monitoring the support structure to see exactly what failed, when and why the best we can do is an educated guess from the various videos and wreckage. There are still a lot of unanswered questions about the fall, even NIST admits that. All they have is their best guess.

This point seems lost on a lot of people. Even after they've read through the entire NIST report, which is laborious at best. It also saddens me that we spend so much time on this topic while completely ignoring the obvious lies like WMD in IRAQ.

Maybe we all just crave a feeling of righteous indignation at times.

The truth is the NIST gave their best guess as to why and how WTC 7 fell.

No, not when they outright ignored some evidence, fabricated others, changed their story back and fourth a few times, gave themselves a large margin of error for their fire simulation, refused to test physical samples for explosives, and ignored eye witness testimony that didn't fit with what they were trying to prove.

Let me ask you honestly, regardless of what happened, do you think that the NIST investigators were able to do their job without political pressure to reach a certain conclusion?

For the most part yes. Obviously there was political pressure and public pressure for them to reach a conclusion faster. I've not heard or read statements that there was political pressure for them to reach a predetermined outcome.

There were a lot of universities as well as NIST researchers, engineers and scientists that had to go over all the engineering and modeling for the reports. If there had been pressure we would have heard about it. The only criticism I've heard publicly is that they were underfunded and time constrained. Or are these researchers not to be trusted?

Could NIST done a better job? Yes. Are some of your criticisms accurate? Yes. Having said that I've seen no major papers contradicting the findings of the NIST. If their models or math was obviously wrong, we would know about it. There are a lot of master and PHD engineering students and professors around the world doing similar models and engineering. If there were glaring holes in NIST we would hear about them, just as we did when they first released their reports.

Let me ask you honestly, do you think all those scientists and engineers fabricated their work to adhere to what the pentagon wanted them to find?

There are a lot of master and PHD engineering students and professors around the world doing similar models and engineering. If there were glaring holes in NIST we would hear about them, just as we did when they first released their reports.

But thats what I've been saying all along!!! There are people who are speaking out against it!

I'm not an architect or engineer, but I am a computer scientist/software engineer, and I can tell you, they outright omitted some variables in their computer simulations that seem very 'arbitrary' (in the sense that it helps push the fire theory). Stuff where if I did it at work, I'd get fired.

I can't say how accurate their actual 'physics' are, because I only have an elementary understanding of physics, but there are certainly other professionals who are speaking out against the report.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

David Ray Griffin did a good job in his book pointing out the numerous flaws in the study without having to cite other conflicting studies, he does it simply pointing out the blatant contradictions in their own report.

http://www.amazon.com/Mysterious-Collapse-World-Trade-Center/dp/1566567866/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1259268541&amp;sr=1-1

The whole fire theory hinges on a few key facts that don't add up: How long it takes fire to bend steel, how long a fire burned in one place, how the design of the beams affect the collapse, and how the beams were dislodged and why.

Now, I don't necessarily draw the same conclusions he does which is "If it isn't fire, it must be An Inside Job".

For all we know the terrorists could have had a car bomb in front of the buliding, or the CIA had the whole thing pre-wired to go up, or a few dudes from Worldcom decided they didn't want to go to jail, who knows.

Let me ask you honestly, do you think all those scientists and engineers fabricated their work to adhere to what the pentagon wanted them to find?

This isn't the first time science has been manipulated for political purposes, and the Bush administration was notorious for this.

There are glaring holes in the NIST report, and we are trying to assist others in 'hearing' about them. The thing is, WTC 7 is largely unknown. I'm trying to spread the word, and I think we are being outright lied to regarding tower 7. I'm not saying the government knows what happened, but it sure seems like they don't want to know either...

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Which I would take seriously if anyone else in the architecture and engineering field would take it seriously. As it is they can't even get articles published in anything other than there own newsletter.

I'm not an architect or engineer, but I am a computer scientist/software engineer, and I can tell you, they outright omitted some variables in their computer simulations that seem very 'arbitrary' (in the sense that it helps push the fire theory). Stuff where if I did it at work, I'd get fired.

Then write up a technical critique and post it. Send it around to a few professors or researchers and see if they agree. Other people have, that's how the first round of errors were caught. That's how errors are caught in everything that's published.

The whole fire theory hinges on a few key facts that don't add up: How long it takes fire to bend steel, how long a fire burned in one place, how the design of the beams affect the collapse, and how the beams were dislodged and why.

Then one would expect journals are researchers in the field to agree. Problem is they don't. They tend to see the NIST report as the best guess. Are you saying they are deliberately closing their eyes and publishing papers and research that agree with the NIST findings? Are they all in on it? Are there any researchers in the field that support this idea that fires couldn't have done it?

This isn't the first time science has been manipulated for political purposes

That's what they said about the moon landings too.

There are glaring holes in the NIST report, and we are trying to assist others in 'hearing' about them.

It would help a lot to get some actual researchers in the appropriate fields to back you up. I'm totally willing to read papers and reports, but what I mostly see are arguments like yours. Put yourself in my shoes. What facts have you given me? None. Your fire theories aren't based on science. You have no research to back you up. David Ray griffin wrote a bunch which no one in the fields of research he is addressing take it seriously. If they don't take it seriously why should I, who know nothing about the field, take it seriously?

I'm trying to spread the word, and I think we are being outright lied to regarding tower 7.

It would really help the movement to have the support of some third party researchers. The thermite debacle is a good example of how not to gain credibility.

Which I would take seriously if anyone else in the architecture and engineering field would take it seriously. As it is they can't even get articles published in anything other than there own newsletter.

Ok it seems now your arguments have gone from using logic to just believing something because the majority haven't contradicted it.

I find it convenient that you along with many other 'mainstreamers' have decided that 'truthers' as a group don't count, but yet anyone who agrees with their ideas, becomes a 'truther'. Kind of convenient...

Are you saying anyone in the ae911 truth group isn't legit, or suddenly loses their credentials? Yes, some are crackpots, but are you saying all of them are? Labeling someone as a 'truther' doesn't render their arguments invalid by default.

Interestingly enough, when reading up on the 911 truth movement, Assistant Director Michael J. Heimbach of the FBI (counter terrorist division) gave praise to AE's presentations. Its on wikipedia.

The whole fire theory hinges on a few key facts that don't add up: How long it takes fire to bend steel, how long a fire burned in one place, how the design of the beams affect the collapse, and how the beams were dislodged and why.

I was confusing in my last post. The fire theory is not mine actually. Thats what the actual NIST report reaches in its conclusion.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

And yes I agree its a bit far fetched.

Then one would expect journals are researchers in the field to agree. Problem is they don't. They tend to see the NIST report as the best guess. Are you saying they are deliberately closing their eyes and publishing papers and research that agree with the NIST findings?

Where is this happening? I hope you are not just making a guess, but I really am interested in reading other published articles supporting NIST's WTC 7 findings. I would also be just as interested in reading critiques of Griffin's work.

Believe me, I went back and fourth on the WTC 7 thing. At first I found the evidence questioning the mainstream story. Then I read the NIST report and their FAQ, and thought it was pretty legit. Then I read some of the contradictions Griffin pointed out in their study. Then I scrutinized the NIST report even further and found even more fishy things about it.

I haven't found anything that does a good job supporting the NIST study. Most people on 911 debunking sites are quoting the Popular Mechanics article which is full of crap. NIST's own report debunked that one.

I'm keeping an open mind, so I will read anything you point out. But saying that 'people who aren't truthers don't agree' is not a legit argument, especially considering how new the report is and how little media attention its gotten compared to the Twin Towers.

I believe the final NIST report on WTC 7 wasn't released until around a year ago.

Silence and ignorance by the scientific community (on a whole) is not the same as their stamp of approval.

Ok it seems now your arguments have gone from using logic to just believing something because the majority haven't contradicted it.

I could care less about a majority. I care about what people that do this for a living think about the science. Most of this stuff seems bogus to me, but what do I know, i'm an amateur. I'd like to know what other people in the relevant fields think. For the same reason you go to a doctor when you're sick. Also, I never talked about a majority, you tossed that in.

Are you saying anyone in the ae911 truth group isn't legit, or suddenly loses their credentials? Yes, some are crackpots, but are you saying all of them are? Labeling someone as a 'truther' doesn't render their arguments invalid by default.

No I'm saying it'd be nice if there were researchers outside of 911 truth that agreed. Just like it's nice to have researchers outside of the NIST that are willing to publish papers supporting the NIST findings. At the very least 911 truth should be able to get papers published that support their findings. So far the only one that I know about that has has been on thermite. I would like to see more papers published like that.

The fire theory is not mine actually. Thats what the actual NIST report reaches in its conclusion.

Yes which is why you say:

The whole fire theory hinges on a few key facts that don't add up: How long it takes fire to bend steel, how long a fire burned in one place, how the design of the beams affect the collapse, and how the beams were dislodged and why.

To which I say, if it doesn't add up submit a paper and demonstrate the problems with the NIST report. BTW, be sure that before you link to an article or paper purporting to have demonstrated this that it hasn't already been looked over by researchers in the field and have found it lacking.

Where is this happening? I hope you are not just making a guess, but I really am interested in reading other published articles supporting NIST's WTC 7 findings.

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&amp;id=JPCFEV000021000006000414000001&amp;idtype=cvips&amp;gifs=yes

http://www.springerlink.com/content/d0g645331077xl3m/

there are a bunch. Most aren't exactly on the internet to read but you can get most at your university library or email the professor and ask if he doesn't have it in a PDF form you can read. This is where I found these two: http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?start=10&amp;q=WTC+fire&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2000

As far as critiques of Griffin's work, what have you already read?

Most people on 911 debunking sites are quoting the Popular Mechanics article which is full of crap.

Really? What sites are still quoting popular mechanics? Seriously, I'd be happy to send them email telling them they shouldn't reference it.

I believe the final NIST report on WTC 7 wasn't released until around a year ago.

I'm not sure I'm following your logic here. Why is it a problem it was released a year ago and how does that affect the findings it reached?

Silence and ignorance by the scientific community (on a whole) is not the same as their stamp of approval.

Maybe this gets to the heart of the discussion. If what you say is true then there should be a rabid fight inside the scientific community to prove it one way or another. As it is, it's totally one sided, NIST released their report and pretty much everyone agrees with it. There has been exactly one "controversial" paper, the thermite paper. Why aren't there more? Where are the papers talking about how the building couldn't fall like it did? Where are the papers talking about how the fire couldn't have brought down the buildings? The onus is on the truth movement to provide these detailed explanations.

Don't you think the onus is on the truth movement? Or do you think it's up to everyone else to prove you wrong?

Maybe this gets to the heart of the discussion. If what you say is true then there should be a rabid fight inside the scientific community to prove it one way or another. As it is, it's totally one sided, NIST released their report and pretty much everyone agrees with it. There has been exactly one "controversial" paper, the thermite paper. Why aren't there more? Where are the papers talking about how the building couldn't fall like it did? Where are the papers talking about how the fire couldn't have brought down the buildings? The onus is on the truth movement to provide these detailed explanations.

I thought about what you said, and while I think I'm right about the flaws in the NIST report, I realize that even if I make a damn good case at the end of the day some people are going to want an 'authority' in the subject to weigh in with an opinion.

So even if I get you to say "yes your critiques sound correct", I could always be missing something being that I'm not a structural engineer.

Basically I think you're right in that I need to find someone who is more qualified to give an opinion on the report if I want to convince a large group of people.

Any ideas where to start? I live by a few universities, not sure if emailing a professor some homework is the best way to go...

If you really do have some ideas, I'm open, and i'll keep you updated if I make any progress.

I know others that have written up papers and had engineering friends review them. If you don't have any friends or acquaintances that would be willing to do that you can boldly step into sites that will do it for free. I've seen a few such examples on the JREF forums where people have posted their work for critique. The problem with that is they are harsh and you'll also have to wade through comments to find the decent critiques.

Another avenue you might try is emailing some of the people in the A&E truth group. That actually might be the best place to start. After you get their feedback and make modifications, I'd try a more open format like JREF. Really if it makes it through JREF intact then you should be able to submit it to more areas without fear of it being dismissed. it's a hellish process and it takes a while but the rewards are pretty good.

The worst that happens is that you waste a lot of time and don't come up with anything convincing but at least are far more knowledgeable.

The best is that you're able to point out some flaws in the NIST report and I'd imagine get response from not only NIST but from other researchers on both sides looking for even more errors in the report.

gee, you make it all sound so nice. wake the f up and look at what really happened. an event that benefited many parties was permitted to be carried out leading to a new mideast policy and a new "war on terror" replacing the previous demon "war on drugs". the events of that day were carried out by mossad with the backing of the us government. don't be so naive to think that fires caused steel framed buildings to collapse (at free fall speed), air defenses to become prostrate, a bill curtailing OUR freedoms to be rammed through congress at breakneck speed. if that fall guy osama did really pull it off why was his family permitted to fly out of here 2 days after on 9/13? the gullibility of the citizenry will permit the government to stick it to us for a long time

f that fall guy osama did really pull it off why was his family permitted to fly out of here 2 days after on 9/13?

It was actually September 20th when air traffic resumed.

hmm, I disagree http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMXY2we_8Oc&amp;feature=related

Why do you beleive Micheal Moore over the 9/11 commission, Richard Clarke, and the FBI (among others)?

wake the f up and look at what really happened

Wow, you're already off to a very convincing start. Let me put down my food and wake the fuck up.

an event that benefited many parties was permitted to be carried out leading to a new mideast policy and a new "war on terror" replacing the previous demon "war on drugs".

Wow already you are throwing on fact after fact, it's hard to take it all in.

the events of that day were carried out by mossad

Well with this kind of proof, I've just woken the fuck up. Amazing! Why doesn't anyone else have these facts at their disposal? Someone needs to get this straight to the public pronto!

you're right, that was more of a rant than an informative reply you can start here http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/9-11BasicQuestions.html there's much more but a lot of the questions that stand out are in there

how about you pick the most cogent "fact" or question and list it as something you stand behind. Otherwise I'm just going to post a link to another website. We can post websites all day. How about we actually stick to discernible points?

okay, in the history of the world no steel framed building has ever collapsed because of fire yet three fell on 9/11 and one wasn't even hit by a plane. It is physically impossible for those buildings to have collapsed in 14 to 16 seconds unless there was no resistance underneath. The only way to eliminate resistance is to blow them up in a controlled demolition.

It is physically impossible for those buildings to have collapsed in 14 to 16 seconds unless there was no resistance underneath.

Where are you getting this "fact"? (I want the source to be credible, I don't want you to just link to a website and be done. i want you to be confident that the math at the website will prove it's impossible)

That's my main point but I'm still awake, i have no idea why, so I'll jump at your other points.

okay, in the history of the world no steel framed building has ever collapsed because of fire yet three fell on 9/11 and one wasn't even hit by a plane.

The Kader Toy Factory fire, which occurred on May 10, 1993

(before you say "ok that's one, what about others" how about you actually do some research before you ask another question)

The only way to eliminate resistance is to blow them up in a controlled demolition.

Source? Seriously, I want to see some math explain this. From my very limited knowledge shape charges simply cut the beam they don't get rid of it providing enough structural instability for the whole thing to fall. But then I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about so i'd like to see some actual engineering demonstrating that the towers couldn't have fallen at the speed they fell.

I love it. It's like a brain teaser for ignorant people.

Hmmm I think it's more of a critical thinking test. I know a lot of people that know a lot about evolution that are still creationists, they aren't ignorant.

Anyone that watches Bush reading that goat fucker book and NOT seeing the secret service drag his ass kicking and screaming out of the room has a pretty clear picture of what Bush/Cheney knew ahead of time.

Because one of the kids was apt to shoot him? I'm not following the logic.

He was in a known, well publicized location at a known, well publicized PR event. EVERYONE knew where he was. If it is true what we have heard in countless versions of his schedule that day, then that event should never had happened and he should have either been flying circles around the country, or stuffed away in some nuke proof bunker. Bush has claimed he watched a video of the WTC and thought to himself, "Gosh, that guy sure must be a bad pilot!"

Yet where I was, INSIDE THE PENTAGON ON MY WAY TO WORK, everyone I passed was commenting on the terrorist attack. And then we got hit too.

Are you going to tell me that the leader of the free world was under the impression that a bad pilot had just hit the WTC, but a civilian contractor working for the military was privy to better intelligence than the President of the United States?

Well, what Bush actually said was:

And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

There is a problem with the above statements. There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn't be. Video of the first plane hitting the tower did not surface until AFTER the second plane had hit World Trade Center 2. So what you are saying is actually evidence in support of a conspiracy.

Thanks! That's what I was trying to find but just couldn't get the wording right. It was some sort of town hall or something and he was answering some kids question. December 4, 2001

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html

There is a problem with the above statements.

Problems? He obviously has no clue what the hell was going on. He doesn't have any of his facts straight. He hardly remembers where the hell he was.

So what you are saying is actually evidence in support of a conspiracy.

Maybe, but one would expect if they were able to carry out a conspiracy they would be able to figure out the story they were going to go with. As it is it just makes him look like an idiot. There is tape of where he was at. Eye witness accounts and testimony of when Bush was told and his reaction after. I'm just not seeing the angle, I'm just seeing an idiot that can't remember shit about the most important moment in his life.

He was in a known, well publicized location at a known, well publicized PR event. EVERYONE knew where he was.

Exactly. So what would you do? Keep him in the room where the children could kill him or move him to safety outside where they'd only have to worry about everyone with a rifle outside of the school. You're probably right, far safer away from the enclosed secure schoolroom and away from those kids!

If it is true what we have heard in countless versions of his schedule that day, then that event should never had happened and he should have either been flying circles around the country, or stuffed away in some nuke proof bunker.

yes, because moving him out of that secure school room to a car outside in a very public environment is the first thing you should do to secure him from those kids! Shit, one of them might have had a bomb on them! The odds of some religious nut with a rifle or anti tank missile waiting for the president to leave the school is far less likely.

Bush has claimed he watched a video of the WTC and thought to himself, "Gosh, that guy sure must be a bad pilot!"

He's an idiot. I think we all know that by now.

Are you going to tell me that the leader of the free world was under the impression that a bad pilot had just hit the WTC, but a civilian contractor working for the military was privy to better intelligence than the President of the United States?

BTW, if you want to know the actual timeline this is a good place to start:

http://www.historycommons.org

This talks about when he first heard about it: http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a906petgoat#a906petgoat

As to the

"Gosh, that guy sure must be a bad pilot!"

i can't find that quote. Did you make it up or do you have a source for it? I remember reading something like that but it must not have been his actual quote. Do you have it? Or did you just make it up?

[deleted]

I rather hope you are talking about Fountainhead and not me.

Well he quoted fountainhead...

It doesn't bother you at all to not provide evidence does it? You post a lengthy reply without actual sourcing the quote. As if what you posted actually had a leg to stand on.

Why not source the quote? Is it really that hard? oh yeah, that's right it is, because he never said that. He said something like that. But fuck details right? As long as it's half true right? Ends justify the means and all that?

Why? I pretty much dont care what your opinion is, I mean its been a long time if you still need me to teach you about these kinds of things whats the point, really? I do find it funny you are going on and on like this about something so trivial.....

Well at least you had the decency to delete your response.

BTW, if you want to know the actual timeline this is a good place to start:

Oh, I don't need to look up the fucking timeline. I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF GETTING BLOWN THE FUCK UP BY TERRORISTS. Fuck you. You were probably jerking off into a sock in your bedroom when your mommy came in and let you know that the junior college was shut down for the day.

Calm down. You worked in the Pentagon, so did my sister. I spent that morning trying to figure out if she was alive. Stop using this as evidence to back up what ever you want it to.

Bush said something like what you said but not what you put in quotes. Calm down, get some fucking control over your emotions.

Did Bush let this shit happen? Yeah, they did, but not deliberately. At least that's what all the evidence points to. Do you have any other information or are you basing all your facts on being in the Pentagon during 911?

so did my sister

Isn't that convenient. I have nothing more to say to you.

Nicely played.

I've questioned it, thoroughly examined it with a completely open mind - I know far more about it than the average truthers I've come across - and I've concluded that the official story is basically correct.

I don't mind if someone doesn't share my view, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I hate it when they assume that because I have a different view I must be an uninformed sucker, when in fact I probably have more knowledge of the events in my little finger than they'll ever possess.

Please elaborate...

I'm just tired of the intellectual dishonesty of the conspiracy theorists. Their so called badge of honor is supposed to be that they're such free thinkers. Yet some of the most close minded, least inquisitive stuff you'll ever see is on conspiracy sites.

Anything which doesn't conform to their view is discarded and ridiculed. Yet if a truther uncovered 0.1% as much hard evidence for his view as exists for the official story, he would be hailed as a god.

Then give us (or me, since I'm not a conspiracy theorist other than when it comes to 9/11) some proof as to why you're so awesome and smart.

I don't know how smart he is but his statements can be backed up. One example is by the number of downvotes he initially got for sharing his opinion. I know it's a small thing, and he was a bit arrogant, but it's a reflection of the attitudes in the conspiracy community regarding 911.

Disagreement = you're wrong = downvotes

Not all, obviously, but quite a few, enough to turn off a majority of people.

I didn't downvote him, I offered for him to give me evidence for anything, which he hasn't and wont.

You are an ass. I challenge you to provide evidence that you are not. you haven't and won't. Some_cool_guy? Without evidence I think we've proved you are some_cool_ass.

See how that works? How is your comment any difrerent than mine? Please tell me. i'm all ears.

Difference is one's a handle and one's a baseless factless claim.

Edit: And I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about him.

I didn't mean to imply I'm awesome and smart. Only that I'm well informed. I've had conspiracy believers (in person, not on internet) whose sum knowledge came from watching a couple of scary videos on YouTube tell me what a dumb ass I was. Whatever.

That's not what I was asking for, I'm asking for some sort of evidence. As it stands you're just a total jackass who thinks he's better then everyone else. Give us some evidence.

I'm not saying I'm better than everyone else. I just hate it when people assume I'm uninformed when I don't agree with them.

That's all I wanted to say. I'm not here to chat about 9/11. I'd rather go get teeth pulled.

That's all I wanted to say. I'm not here to chat about 9/11. I'd rather go get teeth pulled.

If you didn't want to be told you're uninformed, why did you say anything at all? This all started because you told everyone we were uninformed and had closed minds.

I can see where you are coming from.

However, maybe a reason they are so quick to ridicule those who oppose them is because of the fact that they themselves are ridiculed for having their own viewpoints?

Just trying to keep it open.

And just to let you know, grouping those who believe something other than the official story of a certain event as 'conspiracy theorists' does not help anyone in this situation. That is like calling someone black because they like chicken. Bad analogy, but I am trying to get a point across.

Happy Thanksgiving! (Unless you are not from the US, in which case, have a good day!)

However, maybe a reason they are so quick to ridicule those who oppose them is because of the fact that they themselves are ridiculed for having their own viewpoints?

Have you seen ben stein's expelled no intelligence allowed? You'd love it!

And just to let you know, grouping those who believe something other than the official story of a certain event as 'conspiracy theorists' does not help anyone in this situation.

Agreed, most of the conspiracy nerds I know are a whole lot more critical and see all this as psi ops.

Amazing how you regale us with your incredible intellect's ability to divine an objective understanding of reality, all with out any hard data or specific refutations of assertions and theories.

Amazing.

I'm not here to debate. Just pointing out that truthers feel anyone who doesn't agree with them must be an idiot. That's all. I really don't care what you're opinion of me is.

hes not debating you. hes saying that you make no point. and btw, how does one achieve 'completely open mind' status? id like to know in all seriousness.

I've read a lot too, and drew the opposite conclusion. I was a skeptic also though, so unlike some of the others (angry facing looking around this reddit here) I'm not going to mock you or insult you.

What I'm curious though, is what your views of tower 7 are, and if you do in fact think the official story is correct for that? It seems in the other post, you had thought the building was brought down because of damage from the collapsing twin towers...

I basically believe the NIST report because there is no compelling reason or evidence not to.

Here.

Seen it before. Pretty painful to watch the barrage of outdated, or just plain incorrect information, filled in with meaningless biased speculation. This is exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

How do you know it is outdated information? Are you qualified to say that it is incorrect?

I am not saying that I think it is truth, it is something to give you a different perspective.

Uh.. consider the source and follow the money? Two big reasons right there.

Having Tower 2 take off the leeward side of tower 7 would compel me to somehow study the engineering of a light weight, steel frame structure such as tower 7 and conclude that they hadn't actually planted high explosives when it was constructed, or shut the building down for a month to gut it to place some type of nano-thermite that has not been invented even today.

It's not that you're uniformed, it's that you're an intellectual coward.

It's not that you're uniformed, it's that you're an intellectual coward.

This is the kind of retarded shit that he's (very badly) trying to address. You don't help anyone by being an unhelpful douche berry.

I don't care what he's trying to address. He can do all the research himself. If he sees what is so very obvious but then cowers away from the logical conclusion that U.S. Intelligence was active in orchestrating the attacks on 9/11, I'm sorry, he's a coward.

I don't care what he's trying to address. He can do all the research himself. If he sees what is so very obvious but then cowers away from the logical conclusion that U.S. Intelligence was active in orchestrating the attacks on 9/11, I'm sorry, he's a coward.

Anyone who is this sure of anything has problems in their logic. That applies to both of you.

I've already had this debate a million times. First of all, Logic fails in this universe, as quantum mechanics demonstrates - (Logic comes from the idealism of Socrates and Plato, the logos, influencing Western thought and science, but it's ultimately a failed belief on the most fundamental levels of reality). Secondly, human beings will still make determinations. I assumed the sun was going to come up today, and I was right. I can determine that 9/11 was an inside job as much as I can determine that dinosaurs walked the earth and that I'm commenting on reddit right now. The "you can't be sure of anything" argument is pseudo intellectual cowardice for people that want to impress others with their fake skepticism.

This.

We are trying to make a point. Being an ass hat doesn't help us; It makes us look like buffoons.

Why? I read many sources with many points of view and am not 'afraid' of any of them.

So whats your opinion on the hundreds of verified suspect events related to 9/11? I suppose i don't need to bring them up considering you've "thoroughly examined it". I suppose you’ll point me to the debunking websites, I’ve been there too. Here is what one of the main debunking site said about the melted steel in the basement.

From www.debunking911.com “However, for simplicity and to allow for losses, assume 1 gJ/tonne of yellow hot steel in the basement(s) of WTC 1 & 2(?). This could easily be supplied by a pressure pulse down the box columns as each floor is stripped off.”

If you believe that a “pressure pulse” caused high grade construction steel in the basement to liquefy then don’t reply, you’d be wasting both our time.

There is good and bad on debunking sites just like there is the other side.

That was the highest rated on google, but I'm always open to new info could you provide me with a link?

BTW you still haven't answered my question......?

Have you read the timeline? It's well worth your time. It's very well sourced and goes into detail. It's the best resource I've found for getting a detailed knowledge of 9/11 and the events leading up to it. It's a read, but worth it.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline

First, learn to spell steel and people will be more likely to continue reading past the first sentence.

Ok, thanks....

What is second?

I echo your sentiments. I have looked at plenty of evidence and come to the conclusion that the official story is (for the most part) correct. While posting here, and on other boards I've seen dozens of truthers expose their ignorance of the facts surrounding 9/11, and exhibit a wilful ignorance to new information or facts that challenge their beliefs.

I've seen your post and you've yet to engage one of us in a healthy debate concerning 'known' facts and problems with the official story.

I'm perfectly fine if someone doesn't want to believe that it was false flag terrorism, but for someone to say that the official story is correct seems like they're going off faith and not off facts.

I regret that some truthers would rather insult than debate, but I'm not one of them.

So, if you really are here with an open mind (and not just wasting your time trolling this board) you believe fires burning for a few hours resulted in WTC 7 coming down at near (and sometimes in actual) free fall speed?

You might, I don't know, take the time and look through his history and actually find out. Nah, you're right, it's better just to assume he might be going off faith and never really engages in a healthy debate. But I'm not here to insult you.

Touche. I'm not going to be one of those assholes that can't admit when he was wrong.

Cyince has made a ton of awesome contributions to this forum. I apologize. It has seemed that the few times we've crossed paths, he's avoided debating with me. I shouldn't take that to mean he's never had a good debate with others.

This does not however, mean his facts are correct all the time. Looking through is post history, he's spread a lot of misinformation just like many of the hardcore truthers with the most far fetched theories do.

I still disagree with his position and would like to engage him in a debate, primarily because I don't think I'm as off putting as some of the others and I might just bit a bit more informed.

Looking through is post history, he's spread a lot of misinformation just like many of the hardcore truthers with the most far fetched theories do.

Could you point me to examples of this.

So, if you really are here with an open mind (and not just wasting your time trolling this board) you believe fires burning for a few hours resulted in WTC 7 coming down at near (and sometimes in actual) free fall speed?

Yes

ETA: I don't avoid debates with anybody, but often if I make a post like this one, I might get half a dozen replies, and I can't (don't have the time) to answer all of them.

you claim that the officialy story is "for the most part" correct. what is the minority portion that you claim to be incorrect?

I still think there were greater errors, miscommunications, and general incompetence in the intelligence community prior to 9/11. I think it will probably be a few years before their full extent is revealed. Think of the small pieces we have seen through Gates', Clarks' and Farmers books. They all reveal more of the inner workings of the National Security apparatus prior and post 9/11, and expose its shortcomings. I don't beleive this was part of an elaborate plot as most truthers do, but bureaucratic and organizational arrogance and incompetence.

So I guess I don't think things are 'incorrect', I just put that as a caveat in my post to try and avoid about a dozen youtube videos.

Please share this knowledge of which you speak. If you cannot produce it, then how are you any different than those you ridicule?

I hope you follow that up with a smug smirk. That'll show em.

Most people who don't question the events never really looked into them or thought too much about personally.

the fact that i have brown skin, I cannot believe in any conspiracy theories relating your issue

Not to get all picky, but 2 planes knocked down (or significantly burnt) 4 buildings...

Don't forget the "airplane" that hit the pentagon.

LMAO! Classic

Two planes clearly hit the two towers. Flight 77 supposedly hit the pentagon. What happened to Flight 77 if it didn't hit the pentagon?

who knows - people smelled rocket fuel, the plane that was there was a plane too small to be of the size that flight 77 was, insta-seize of all camera footage of the surrounding buildings. some say that the plane is still in use today.

Some say your mom is a hooker.

and she may have raped and killed a young girl in 1991.

actually, all say that. and we make rather large sums of money because shes apparently "gifted." I drive a bmw 320i, and I have to use a cam-corder when the customer wants visual records, but whatever its cool.

So 3 planes could have potentially knocked down 3 buildings then. Just sayin.

?

And I assume you make lots and lots of new friends in doing so.

Because that is the point of life, making friends. Stupid ones are best as well.

Those crazy people and their theory that thousands gallons of jet fuel burning over a period of time can melt metal.

NUTS!

Oh wait... it actually... makes perfect sense?

And the impact of a building falling can knock over another building? I doubt that something as silly and insignificant as shaking could take a building down!

The jet fuel burned off very fast. Most of it went up in the fireball. Besides the maximum temperature for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C. It is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. Which would not melt steel.

Neither tower fell on WTC7. Whatever brought it down it was not the towers. A Danish expert in controlled demolition looked at the collapse of WTC7, which he had never heard of before. and said it was due to controlled demolition.

But don't let the facts confuse you.

[deleted]

There were not pools of weakened steel in the basements of both towers and WTC7. Also as the above poster said MAX temp of a hydrocarbon fire is 1000 degrees which this fire most certainly did not reach, the heavy dark smoke pouring out of both towers is indicative of a oxygen starved fire. Also even if it had perfect oxygen and perfect fuel mix even then it doesn't STAY at 1000 degrees it only reaches that point during what is called flashover if memory serves.

Also the steel heats up not in isolated areas but spreads along every other thing it is connected to specifically around 15 tons of steel in just the area of the fire.

Add to this the time involved .. what was it from 2nd impact to 2nd fall 50ish minutes? So a fire of less than 1000 degrees heated 15 tons of steel to 800 degrees in 50 minutes?

Ok sure ... it isn't even hard to debunk this shit anymore.

[deleted]

Weakened steel wouldn't pool correct but there were pools of molten steel in the basements for weeks after the collapse. The official stories don't account for that at all.

My earlier post, I am not sure what you are referring to, I think it probably someones post you attributed to me so I don't know how to reply to it.

As far as the danish expert he seems credible but I don't need his opinion for my conclusions, I didn't mention him.

I can provide much more evidence to support my questions, I have almost no claims about that day nor conclusions. I am hoping my questions are infectious and you start trying to find out answers for yourself.

Samples of questions that make sense to me.

Why did they sell the steel mere days after the collapse, if the story they tell is true that should not have happened. It was illegal. Tampering with a crime scene, tampering with evidence etc. Why did the investigation receive so little funding originally (less than a 'normal' plane crash). Why does the NIST report conflict so heavily with eye witness testimony and observable fact. I will give an example.

Eyewitness: Mark Loizeaux, President of Controlled Demolitions Inc. which was involved in the clean up operation, said that several weeks after 9/11, when rubble was being removed, "hot spots of molten steel" were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven (basement) levels."

Peter Tully, President of Yully Construction, which also was involved in the clean up operation, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the site.

Leslie Robertson, a member of the engineering firm that designed the twin towers said "as of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."

William Langeweische the only journalist with unrestricted access to ground zero wrote "areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."

Captain Philip Ruvolo, a firefighter involved in the recovery efforts said (in a video online) "you'd get down below and you'd see molten steel molten steel running down the channel rails like you're in a foundry like lava"

I can list hundreds of these quotes of eye witness testimony otherwise known as "evidence" however here is the NIST quote about molten metal at ground zero.

NIST-"NIST investigators and experts ... found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse"

This isn't the issue of course, the whole question is since the fire couldn't have melted the steel why was the steel there in a molten state?

The NIST handles with easily with this next statement.

"The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e. whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing"

Does that sound as stupid an answer to you as it does to me? I am pretty sure that I am safe saying that I DO know the condition of the steel before collapse, It was solid, it was in beam form, and it was supporting a building.

I don't want to convince you I am right, as I said before none of this leads me to any conclusion other than these two "we are being lied to" and "I don't know what happened". I hope I helped move you to also be interested in asking more questions.

[deleted]

What can make steel molten after a collapse? Yes it could have been iron which melts at lower temps but still not low enough. However where did all the iron come from? These were steel buildings.

Every answer I have ever found on this topic (9/11) only leads me to more questions unless I accept what I am told with very little critical thought.

You bring up the steel being messed up, I can list quotes from the crane drivers about the steel being cherry red and girders dripping steel at ground zero. I can also link to images of steel a foot thick bent like a straw with no stress cracks or fractures, this also takes incredible heat. Heat that could not have been present with the current story.

You can speculate as to what they mean by the answers but you have to admit the fact that the answers they provide requires your speculation means they didn't answer the questions well enough. Keep in mind the NIST report is the 2nd report on this because the first one was such obvious bullshit. NIST didn't do much better, I have read both reports.

Your speculations are basically the same thoughts I had and as a result I still don't know shit, I still know I don't know shit and I still have questions. That is after years of research and reading every government report issued on the subject.

Yes, I have a lot of free time.

[deleted]

I am not trying to go into specific proofs, if you want them they are available. I am hoping to convince you to try to go find them yourself. I am hoping to validate questions that already seem valid to me by spreading them to the point they can no longer be ridiculed as you see happening in other locations in this thread.

You raise excellent points, better points than 1200+ people who worked on those reports I spoke of could come up with in 5 years. That raises more questions for me, doesn't it for you?

You at least have to admit that none of these items you claim no knowledge about are beyond your knowledge right? You could take the time to learn it and then have some pretty valid conclusions that would at least stand up to moderate scrutiny? Why have the members of the 9/11 commision the Fema Report and the NIST report all failed to do this then?

My only conclusion is if 1200 scientists had truth on their side supported by evidence, this conversation would have been over years ago.

Also the steel heats up not in isolated areas but spreads along every other thing it is connected to specifically around 15 tons of steel in just the area of the fire.

You have a good answer but this hard to stomach. Sure heat travels but it also does it pretty slowly. the building wasn't made of aluminum, don't assume it was. Steal isn't that great of a conductor of heat otherwise in the civil war they wouldn't have been able to wrap railroad ties around posts. Heat just doesn't' travel that fast along steel.

Add to this the time involved .. what was it from 2nd impact to 2nd fall 50ish minutes? So a fire of less than 1000 degrees heated 15 tons of steel to 800 degrees in 50 minutes?

Well now you are just ignorant or lying. (i'm wrong? well prove it)

I know heat travels, I know it travels slowly, this is a factor though and it is ignored.

I am not sure which part you have issue with in the heating of steel issue so I will simply provide more information about the whole thing and see where we stand after that.

From NIST - "In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires." It goes further saying "melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 Fehrenheit), ... NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1000 degrees Celsius (1,800 Fahrenheit."

So maximum fire temp 1000 degrees, notice the word maximum.

NIST reports that its metallographic analysis of recovered steel found "no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 degrees Celsius" - and this is a statement about recovered steel of every type, not simply steel from core columns.

Now from MIT's Thomas Eager "It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true ... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual ... In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame .... A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types .... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 degrees Celsius .... But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio."

Edgar goes on to point out that the black smoke being emitted from the towers was a sign that the fires in the towers, far from having the best ratio of fuel and oxygen, were oxygen starved fires. He estimated the fires were burning at 648-704 degrees celsius.

Also according to NISTs final report - "the initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes." - so after that it was only desks and carpet and files and plastics etcs burning in a quite normal oxygen starved hydrocarbon fire, unable to melt steel.

I checked the timing of the fire as well in case you had issue with the 50 minutes of time available to heat the steel to failure with a 600-700 degree fire. I found you are correct in this issue I was ignorant, but only by 6 minutes. The south tower fell 56 minutes after being struck. With the plane causing damage to only, and again according to the NIST not me-

13 exterior columns severed, 1 heavily damaged 10 core columns severed, 1 heavily damaged 39 of 47 core columns stripped of insulation on one or more floors.

I can further show these estimates to be a bit excessive if you like.

I have a lot more information if you need it, I do hope I have convinced you however that I am neither ignorant nor lying, and that this issue is NOT fully resolved.

I know heat travels, I know it travels slowly, this is a factor though and it is ignored.

?

I am not sure which part you have issue with in the heating of steel issue so I will simply provide more information about the whole thing and see where we stand after that.

Sounds good.

A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air as was the WTC fire.

How does he know that? It's not like it was this vast office floor on fire. It had been impacted by an airliner. Who knows what the hell the floor looked liked. It could have very well had pockets of not diffuse flame. Where is the evidence for this claim? Because shit, NIST can't claim to know.

Edgar goes on to point out that the black smoke being emitted from the towers was a sign that the fires in the towers, far from having the best ratio of fuel and oxygen, were oxygen starved fires. He estimated the fires were burning at 648-704 degrees celsius.

All the fires? Some of the fires?

so after that it was only desks and carpet and files and plastics etcs burning in a quite normal oxygen starved hydrocarbon fire, unable to melt steel.

Who the fuck is talking about melted steel. Wait. You believe there was melted steel? Is there any hard evidence that proves this?

I read through your post and am a little confused at what you are debating. I agree with most of what you posted. it's 4am though, i hope you take pity on me if you explained it and I just missed it. Please explain what you find as the questionable bits. I've read a bit on the subject so I'm pretty knowledgeable on both sides of the debate.

I am answering both posts you just made to me in this one thread. I will start with the other post you made (more recently) and then address this one.

I got my info about the FAA from a few books, I am not sure which but I think it was Debunking 9/11 Debunking (an answer to popular mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory) by David Ray Griffin.

As far as your jail comments, yeah someone should be. Who is the question, many of these people are telling the truth or think they are.

As far as fires just look up the definitions of the three types of fires and you will see why it basically had to be one of them. Any pockets of fire would be inconsequential to the collapse of one of these towers even if the pocket was a whole floor. Steel buildings are known to burn for many hours with no structural integrity lost. A quick google search will reveal testimony, images and video of enough of these to convince you.

All the fires, yes.

As far as melted steel yes there are hundreds of eye witnesses of molten steel, satellite images of excess heat weeks later, fire officials reporters crane operators etc all saw it. People also speak of cherry red girders being recovered days later and dripping steel at ground zero sticking out of the ground.

This whole thing is fishy as hell....

Let me ask, what is your opinion of that day, we have been talking about mine for a while.

As far as fires just look up the definitions of the three types of fires and you will see why it basically had to be one of them. Any pockets of fire would be inconsequential to the collapse of one of these towers even if the pocket was a whole floor. Steel buildings are known to burn for many hours with no structural integrity lost. A quick google search will reveal testimony, images and video of enough of these to convince you.

A quick google search also reveals shit turns people on. I want to see what convinced you. Site your sources.

All the fires, yes.

And you know this how? NIST doesn't even claim that.

As far as melted steel yes there are hundreds of eye witnesses of molten steel

Hundreds? Really you can point me to 200 eye witnesses? Seriously? I'd agree there are 50-70 but 200+ Give me a break. But by all means link them. Seriously I want to see it. If you don't i'm going to stop talking to you. I am sick as shit of talking to people that pull numbers out of their ass. So before I continue I want either A: a link to 200 eye witnesses or B: admission that it's not really 200 and you made up the number.

I am fine if you don't want to talk anymore. I was not in this conversation to prove myself to you. I was in this to spread information and engage in civil discourse. If you feel I owe you anything including proof and can make demands like this well.... stop being lazy and find your own proof.

If you are unwilling to do that AT ALL I must conclude truth is not your goal, winning this discussion is. I am not interested in that sorry. I don't want to win. I want to learn and I want others to learn.

As far as the melted steel if you recall one of the videos contains molten metal so in fact FAR more than 100 people saw it. I also have first hand testimony of many many people, I list several names and incidents where and when this molten metal was sighted. These examples indicate clearly how many other people must have been involved. One of these people is a reporter, in fact others are police and fire response teams.

Here are some names to start you off, but listen to me when I say I have no intention of tracking down 200 names even though I am certain it is possible. If you want knowledge take responsibility to gain it. I have, and I will take no shit from you based on you NOT doing it.

Eyewitness: Mark Loizeaux, President of Controlled Demolitions Inc. which was involved in the clean up operation, said that several weeks after 9/11, when rubble was being removed, "hot spots of molten steel" were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven (basement) levels."

Peter Tully, President of Yully Construction, which also was involved in the clean up operation, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the site.

Leslie Robertson, a member of the engineering firm that designed the twin towers said "as of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."

William Langeweische the only journalist with unrestricted access to ground zero wrote "areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."

Captain Philip Ruvolo, a firefighter involved in the recovery efforts said (in a video online) "you'd get down below and you'd see molten steel molten steel running down the channel rails like you're in a foundry like lava"

Each one of these people with the exception of the reporter had a TEAM of people working with them, no I won't be naming each member of each team simply because you demand it.

stop being lazy and find your own proof.

So there aren't 200 people are there?

I don't want to win.

I don't want to win either. I just want to talk to people that don't make shit up.

I want to learn and I want others to learn.

I want to learn facts, not shit people pulled out of the air.

As far as the melted steel if you recall one of the videos contains molten metal so in fact FAR more than 100 people saw it.

Let me remind you of what you said:

As far as melted steel yes there are hundreds of eye witnesses of molten steel

eye witnesses usually means people that actually witness something in real life, not on the TV. I want to know where you got this 200 number. I already said I know there are many people that claim to have seen molten steel but I'm saying it's not 200. You keep side stepping the issue.

Here are some names to start you off, but listen to me when I say I have no intention of tracking down 200 names even though I am certain it is possible.

Then don't say 200. Stick to the facts. Do you understand why this makes me so upset?

But lets move on to the few eye witnesses you actually have, lets start with the first: Mark Loizeaux

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

So you can't even get that right. Or has he been converted by the government?

I really hope you answer me because I really want to know why you think what you wrote is ok.

I don't see how it's worth my time to fact check the rest of your names.

Can you understand my frustration?

Right, I don't understand why truthers insist that the steel would have to literally turn into liquid before the tower collapsed... clearly it would collapse at some point before the structure was liquefied.

you lose, not only at being rational, but also pretending to be knowledgeable of things you have no clue about.

And the impact of a building falling can knock over another building? I doubt that something as silly and insignificant as shaking could take a building down!

This is a common misconception. A building did not fall into another building. Some debris damaged WTC 7 (the third tower to collapse that day), but it was very minor damage and two government reports concluded that damage from the collapsing twin towers did not contribute to the collapse.

The 'official' story was that fires burning for a few hours on a few floors weakened the support beams enough to the point that the whole building...collapsed (evenly) upon itself. They also had quite a margin of 'error' in their simulations to prove this is what happened also. Don't believe me, read the report.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

agreed. And not to mention the fact that a conspiracy that huge would be next to impossible to maintain over all these years.

[deleted]

It has a lot in common with 9/11.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/31/politics/31war.html?_r=1

The N.S.A. historian, Robert J. Hanyok, found a pattern of translation mistakes that went uncorrected, altered intercept times and selective citation of intelligence that persuaded him that midlevel agency officers had deliberately skewed the evidence.

Mr. Hanyok concluded that they had done it not out of any political motive but to cover up earlier errors, and that top N.S.A. and defense officials and Johnson neither knew about nor condoned the deception.

Mr. Hanyok's findings were published nearly five years ago in a classified in-house journal, and starting in 2002 he and other government historians argued that it should be made public. But their effort was rebuffed by higher-level agency policymakers, who by the next year were fearful that it might prompt uncomfortable comparisons with the flawed intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq, according to an intelligence official familiar with some internal discussions of the matter.

...

"Rather than come clean about their mistake, they helped launch the United States into a bloody war that would last for 10 years," Mr. Aid said.

And again, more information a few years later proves that what you just posted was at best "incomplete" and at worst yet another lie, reported by the exact same agency (NSA):

WASHINGTON (AFP) — North Vietnamese made hoax calls to get the US military to bomb its own units during the Vietnam War, according to declassified information that also confirmed US officials faked an incident to escalate the war.

And, possibly another rabbit hole:

On several occasions "the communists were able, by communicating on Allied radio nets, to call in Allied artillery or air strikes on American units", it said.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hzFIeNFkO1z6p7PHHwx5k_ig11-Q

Maybe, just maybe, you need to be a tad more skeptical of government? Indeed, it DOES have a lot in common with 9/11 :)

US officials faked an incident to escalate the war.

They did? Where does the report say that? Seriously, after acting like an ass and insinuating I'm a liar, I would like to know! Or is it you who is lying? What it does say is:

As much as anything else, it was an awareness that President Johnson would brook no uncertainty that could undermine his position. Faced with this attitude, Ray Cline was quoted as saying "... we knew it was bum dope that we were getting from Seventh Fleet, but we were told only to give facts with no elaboration on the nature of the evidence. Everyone know how volatile LBJ was. He did not like to deal with uncertainties."[31]

Are you saying the NSA gave them bad information to escalate the war? So the other information in the report about the captain admitting it probably was ghosts is just a lie and he was really wanting to escalate the war? Along with the other people involved in relaying false information to the johnson administration? They were all just wanting to escalate the war?

LOL you're a laugh riot. You know I didn't write that statement, right?

Geeeze....

You know I didn't write that statement, right?

Yes. I know. You copied it from the article. Which in fact is false, or can you actually find a place that the article is referencing that demonstrates what the article is saying is correct? This is my whole point. Or is any article on the internet proof enough for you? Have you even read the report the article is talking about? Seriously? Have you read it?

I didn't think so. So either you are A: A shithead that believes everything on the internet or B: A liar.

So Which are you? If you aren't A or B then you'll be able to answer my original question instead of just trying to dodge the question.

I take it you failed history class? ... no wait..i know, you never took history in school...

Manhattan project had over 150, 000 different involved employees. That secret was 'blown' when they dropped The bomb. Keeping secrets..yah they are really hard...till you add a gun to the head and life time prison sentences...it gets really easy after that

ps. do you also think we should ban dihydrogen monoxide?

Dihydrogen Monoxide!? My God!

The Iranians can use that to build nukes!

Use it to quench their thirst....

FOR BLOOD!

It's even easier to keep secrets when the conspirators have already demonstrated their willingness to kill civilians.

Dihydrogen monoxide should only be banned if it is over my head.

So you're saying Russia never new about it?

http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/espionage.htm

The point is that the average citizen didn't know about it.

Lots of average citizens did know about the Manhatten project, they just knew it was for national security and the war effort and for the most part kept quiet. Tens of thousands of civilians were involved. It took the press not reporting about it and people not talking about it. Both of those conditions would not be met if the government had involvement or let 9/11 happen.

What we have evidence of is the pentagon and other government agencies responsible for our safety failing and then desperately trying to cover up their ineptness so that they can maintain their relevance and not be blamed and in some cases prosecuted or at the very least sued. Why do you think the government was so quick to provide a benefits package so people wouldn't sue? They wanted to save their reputations and positions.

Hani: You Americans are incapable of secrets because of your democracy

I really want to know do people really think the government is that competent that they can keep THAT many secrets?

Remember the Iraq war? Remember how well they "covered up" their lies?

If the government was that good at bullshitting us, they would have just fucking lied and SAID they found weapons of mass destruction.

But of course it's all under control of the illuminati who keep control even through different presidents and administrators and the fuckton of people who would have to have been involved and somehow not one bit of it got out with any shred of reliable evidence.

They did lie. That's the fucking point you retard. Do you remember anything from our history?

"Osama Bin Laden blew up the twin towers. In retaliation, we are going into Afghanistan (He's Saudi) and fuck with all the poppies. Oh yeah, we're going to fuck Iraq too, since they have Oil I MEAN WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ZOMGZ"

If you look with even half a brain you will see clearly they covered up the WTC lies as well as they covered up the WMD lies. Have you looked at both with the same intensity and drive for truth?

I have to admit, posting in this subreddit has been the most hilarious reddit experience I've ever had.

Thank you.

Np, come back when you actually want to talk about the topic. Or stick around and waste both our times now, I got time to waste.

Nah, I should really let you get back to your tinfoil hat making.

My daughters friend points out I am not wearing my tinfoil hat I am wearing my Santa hat.

Ha? Don't you know the CIA assassinated Santa 10 years ago, little girl?

Amateur, Santa is a CIA information collection front aimed at the indoctrination of future America through gift ideas and naughty and nice lists.

Dude...

Did you know that even some of the participants of the 9/11 Commission themselves have openly stated that they don't trust their own "official report"?

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_cleland.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html?sub=new

http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies/index4.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/02/9-11panel.pentagon/index.html

And speaking of keeping secrets.... ever hear of the Manhattan Project?

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

Yes it can be done, and has been done.

So... dig up some more clever talking points next time, would ya? You guys are starting to bore me....

Did you know that even some of the participants of the 9/11 Commission themselves have openly stated that they don't trust their own "official report"?

Why be deceptive? Who has openley stated that "they don't trust their own 'official report'"?

They have said openly that they were lied to by several government bodies, for example, the Pentagon. Or do you actually have a quote of someone saying that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html?sub=new

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

Which is a misleading as well. They knew they were being lied to by the pentagon and other agencies. If they had had balls at all they would have referred the matter to the justice department who because of bush also would have done nothing. So far, from all I've read, the Pentagon lied to try and cover up their ineptness which the commission didn't do anything about. But non of the members said anything about not trusting their own report, just that it's incomplete.

Reading comprehension fail :)

edit Ok... I better do the comprehending for you: If the report is based on lies (pentagon lies, whitehouse lies, etc), which is exactly what they are saying, then how the hell can you call it a truthful account of what happened??? Those "lies" can make all the difference.

Just as an example: Did they know or didn't they know ahead of time?

From the salon article:

"There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version," Kerrey said. The commission had limited time and limited resources to pursue its investigation, and its access to key documents and witnesses was fettered by the administration. "I didn't read a single PDB," Kerrey said, referring to the president's daily intelligence briefing reports. "We didn't have access to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed," the mastermind of the plot. "We accepted a compromise, submitting our questions to him through the CIA. Now, that's not the best way to go about getting your questions answered.

If you don't see "doubt" and "mistrust" of the official story expressed in that paragraph, then I'm just wasting my time with you (probably am).

So then Why not answer my question:

Who has openley stated that "they don't trust their own 'official report'"?

Or do you actually have a quote of someone saying that.

Yep.... waste of time lol.

I'm still waiting for:

Who has openly stated that "they don't trust their own 'official report'"?

Or are you admitting that you just pulled

Did you know that even some of the participants of the 9/11 Commission themselves have openly stated that they don't trust their own "official report"?

Right out of thin air? (to put it kindly)

If you are willing to lie, err I mean, make stuff up, why should I answer any of your questions or even discuss this with you?

Please, answer my the question I started with and I'll be happy to answer the rest of your questions. Otherwise you just look like a liar.

Dude- cut the hyperbole ("liar"). It's right here:

"There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version,"

That's openly stating "doubt" in their own official report. Are you just dense?

they don't trust their own 'official report'

is not the same as

There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version

And don't pretend it is.

Semantics.

Keep believing everything that is spoon fed to you, I'm sure it'll all work out. The least you could do is stop making shit up. Next time you post something you should be sure you have your facts straight or else you'll look like a complete ass again.

I say semantics and you conclude all that? You do know I am not the same guy you just argued with right? You do check names before you ramble on with assumptions right?

Shit, sorry. That's what I get for staying up too late. I end up being an ass. My bad. sorry. I'll edit my posts if you want, otherwise I'll leave them untouched to demonstrate my lack of attention.

Either way man, I jumped in at the end without introducing myself. It's cool.

Well thank you for being nice about it. I still feel like an idiot, it certainly doesn't help my case :(

You are doing fine in the other two threads we are replying to each other in .. don't stress it.

So far, from all I've read, the Pentagon lied to try and cover up their ineptness which the commission didn't do anything about. But non of the members said anything about not trusting their own report, just that it's incomplete.

Thats an interesting conclusion. What evidence do you have for the motive of their deception?

What evidence do you have for the motive of their deception?

ineptness, a small sampling, I encourage you to read through them:

This was the military trying to come up with a story that made its performance during 9/11 look reasonably competent, when in fact the military had effectively left the nation’s skies undefended that morning.” In particular, tape recordings of communications at NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) indicate that the military did not know of the hijacking of Flight 93 until it had crashed. 9/11 Commission team leader John Farmer will even say that it is “99 percent” certain that Pentagon officers knew they were lying when they made statements to the Commission, sometimes under oath.

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1003subpoenas#a1003subpoenas

Mid-May 2001: CIA Withholds Photo of Al-Qaeda Leader from FBI

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=mid0501khalladphotowithheld#mid0501khalladphotowithheld

Wilshire also asked that the FBI be officially told bin Attash attended the summit in Malaysia, but this information is again withheld

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a071301millerallocated#a071301millerallocated

WBZ-TV prepared a story on Ptech, but withheld it from the public for more than three months after receiving “calls from federal law enforcement agencies, some at the highest levels.” The station claims the government launched its Ptech probe in August 2002, after they “got wind of our investigation” and “asked us to hold the story so they could come out and do their raid and look like they’re ahead of the game.”

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0502singh#a0502singh

Newsweek’s main conclusion is: “The investigation turned up no damning single piece of evidence that would have led agents directly to the impending attacks. Still, the report makes it chillingly clear that law-enforcement and intelligence agencies might very well have uncovered the plot had it not been for blown signals, sheer bungling—and a general failure to understand the nature of the threat.”

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a072403finalreport#a072403finalreport

I'd also like to say how inept the FAA is though I can't find a good link for that. Did they try to cover it up? Hell yeah. They should be prosecuted!

Of course they could be lying to cover up the fact that Bush let, or led the attack, but then all the people involved would have to be lying, not just the people that were trying to cover up the people that were "lying". That sounds confusing because it is. Why would FAA administrators try to cover up the "lies" of their air traffic controllers? Why would NORAD try to cover up the "lies" of their officers? The reason we know about these blatant attempts at a cover up is that the air traffic controlers and officers at NORAD and the Pentagon were telling the truth that people above them were trying to hide... which was ineptness at an institutional level.

The FAA flawlessly executed a grounding of every flight in north america and every flight inbound to north america and redirect all those flights in a few hours that day. It is extremely odd to me that the ineptness that was evident that day was so isolated and the ways it was isolated.

Reply and I'll look up a source, but if I remember right the airline actually found out first that they were hijacked and then FAA knew about it and then like 15 minutes later Norad new about it. One might expect the FAA to find out first then, within minutes, (say 2) they would alert the defense department.

I think you have me wrong. Individuals performed amazing that day. The system however was fundamentally flawed. Remember Katrina? That was another case of people performing amazingly well (and bad) but the system being completely foobar. I'll also add that it it wasn't for the honesty and bravery of the FAA air traffic controllers the situation would have been far worse and we never would have known about the fuck ups because the FAA tried to cover it up.

Yeah that's all true but what is also true is the FAA performed the tasks they failed to perform that day on other days, repeatedly, flawlessly, for years. The system wasn't flawed except on that day ...

what is also true is the FAA performed the tasks they failed to perform that day on other days, repeatedly, flawlessly, for years.

Source?

From my memory the FAA was chastised because they had shitty tests. But really I want to see your source. If you can't find you're I'll try to find mine.

We should merge replies.

My source for this is the FAA itself, intercepts of airliners happen every week and have been happening every week for years. I have quotes from that day, call logs, and testimony of the FAA and NIST. They show basically that a lot of stuff sounds fishy and more is unclear about who fucked up, but again it mostly raises more questions.

Again I want to state, I don't think I know what happened, I don't think the government was "behind it". However, I do think we have been lied to in many ways and I do believe that the investigation was shoddy and illegal, in fact I can prove it. (disposal of evidence from a crime scene, tampering with evidence) Also several government agencies deviated from normal procedure in the extreme. Just compare the funding and investigation of TWO plane crashes that day against any other crash in the history of commercial air travel.

My source for this is the FAA itself, intercepts of airliners happen every week and have been happening every week for years.

yeah. I know. I'd just like to know where you're getting your info. This kind of stuff makes me want to keep a notebook so I can look up where I saw what information.

have quotes from that day, call logs, and testimony of the FAA and NIST. They show basically that a lot of stuff sounds fishy and more is unclear about who fucked up, but again it mostly raises more questions.

yeah, the timeline has most of that. I'm pretty sure that's where I remember this from.

but again it mostly raises more questions.

Fuck that, it makes me want people to go to jail.

However, I do think we have been lied to in many ways and I do believe that the investigation was shoddy

Well that's for sure. It pisses me off that the Obama administration was willing to gloss over this injustice. it pisses me off that Bush facilitated the lies.

i'll stop... Ok, maybe a little extra. Fuck them. Fuck them. People should be in jail. A lot of people should be in jail. It's insane that they are not. No responsibility. But I digress.

I think you make a good argument against the idea that the whole thing was orchestrated by the government, pointing out that the lower level guys would have no reason to lie.

I believe it begs the question though, is it possible that a few key orders or actions resulted in this ineptness, and if so, were those orders/actions done out of ignorance or out of malicious intent?

I believe it begs the question though, is it possible that a few key orders or actions resulted in this ineptness, and if so, were those orders/actions done out of ignorance or out of malicious intent?

That's an excellent question. i don't know. It pisses me off that no one wanted to find fault. Same thing happened during katrina. We let these assholes get away with homicidal negligence at the very least. I have a hard time typing it makes me so upset. There is so much our government is doing wrong it pains me to even think about it. Torture, lies, corruption, conspiracy, you name it, these fuckers think they are above it. i don't know what else to say.

Basically I'm pissed that we at least haven't tried to find out. i'd really like to know if our government is this inept, or if they are corrupt. I'm fighting a losing battle though. Ironically I bring this up to my conservative friends and they label me a conspiracy nut, I bring this up to my liberal friends and they just assume the Bush administration is already guilty.

Because that is the point of life, making friends. Stupid ones are best as well.

Touche. I'm not going to be one of those assholes that can't admit when he was wrong.

Cyince has made a ton of awesome contributions to this forum. I apologize. It has seemed that the few times we've crossed paths, he's avoided debating with me. I shouldn't take that to mean he's never had a good debate with others.

This does not however, mean his facts are correct all the time. Looking through is post history, he's spread a lot of misinformation just like many of the hardcore truthers with the most far fetched theories do.

I still disagree with his position and would like to engage him in a debate, primarily because I don't think I'm as off putting as some of the others and I might just bit a bit more informed.

Why do you beleive Micheal Moore over the 9/11 commission, Richard Clarke, and the FBI (among others)?