I have a few things that I don't think have been posted yet (forgive me if they have).

1. Zogy, one of the most repected polling organizations in the world, determined that "Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” to act"
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

2. The 9/11 commission said above all 9/11 was a "failure of imagination."
The CIA running drills on 9/11 depicting flying planes into buildings doesn't sound like a failure of imagination. Maybe NORAD failed to act because they thought it was just a drill.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/cia-simulation.htm

The next two are very interesting video clips.

3. Protestors showing what a fraud the 9/11 commission is because they didn't ask Giuliani about WTC 7 command bunker.
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/...iuliani911.htm

4. Alex Jones on local access television on the summer of '01 telling people to call the white house and tell them not to carry out terror attacks. This one is quite amazing if you ask me.
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/...alexwarned.htm

I have to admit I had no idea about the clip from Alex Jones. That was a fantastic addition to this discussion. Thank you very, very much samcol.
Any doubts are fading...

Wow that was a great clip.

If this incident had happened in another country, there would have never been so many conspiration theories around...

If this had happened in another country, FEMA would have not investigated it (the 'f' in FEMA stands for federal, so their ruling is the official ruling of our government). If this had happened in another country, we probably would not have gone to war with Iraq. If this had not happened in America, 3000 people still would have died. If I died under odd circumstances, I would want people to know the truth. I would want my family to know the truth.

I just love it when you people go with this excuse. Have you ever heard of the Hapsburgs? Royal families that continue on in all the echelons of power for years and years? What makes you think they don't exist in America? You know Cheney, Bush and Rumsfield are related?

Just because you worked in some area of the federal government does not mean you know how the entire world works. Just because the army can't do x doesn't mean the SEALS can't.

Also, Alex Jones is my hero. Bill Hicks was too, too bad the government gave him cancer.

I noticed the flash from the plane in real time coverage. If you had the VCR on that day and still have the tape run it in slo-mo and it's obvious.

Since telling the truth seems to be rare in that mess i wonder if the death toll is actual. Were the airline flights even real? I recall a link somewhere that at least one of the flights was not even scheduled to fly. If the people reported to be on the flights are missing where are they?

The same day news is much more believable than news stories since. It's always been that way, the daily newspaper my dad has kept since November 22nd 1963 reports a bunch of gunshots... the official story hadn't been made up in time for a newspaper that came to a house thousands of miles away that same afternoon.

That movie wouldn't even fit on my hard drive, but here's a spectators view of the tower deal.

http://www.foureyes.com/towers/

The pictures are very nicely detailed, you can see the shrapnel flying when the plane hits. Look at the one of the tower collapse, smoke from the lower floors... don't most buildings they blow up on purpose do that?

Someone told me that's from the inside of the building, each floor collapsing on the lower in the inside, while the outer structure remains similar looking.
But i don't know.
I have trouble believing that every floor was rigged with bombs.
I wish we could know what truly happened.

I'm downloading this right now....I'll watch it tomorrow. I'm quite intrigued.

Ok, I have no idea how to use the winrar thing....anyone have any tips?

Edit: grrrrrr...I figured it out but the copy I downloaded was damaged or something because it wouldn't play. I really wanted to see this too :(

Downloading Movie now, will let you know what I think when I finaly watch it. That was a very interesting clip by Alex Jones

That was a pretty crazy movie, I am currently making VCD's of it to give to people I work with.

Would you be willing to make me one if I paid you for the time, cost of materials, and shipping? I really, really want to see this but I can't seem to get a good download of it. Actually, if there is anyone who would do this for me (I hate to put one person on the spot), please PM me...I would really appreciate it.

I finally got around to watching this. Holy shit. That's all I can really say. There was a little in there I'd already seen but a whole bunch of info I didn't know about. Very, very disturbing. My hubby thinks I'm crazy for "buying" into this, but I think he's crazy for not having an open mind about it.

Edit: ACK! I almost posted in this thread....christ what was I thinking.

id have you know that many of the highjackers lived in european and western countries and lived a quite 'unislamic' lifestyle except for the last few months prior to 911. they attended strip clubs, drank alcohol and dated women. hardly a lifestyle of those hardliners who hated america and what it stood for.

you comments make it sound like all middle easterners have a violent inclination of hatred towards the US through some form of brainwashing through their lives. i find this thought abhorrent in all honesty.

God , cant we just leave this in our past and move forward ?

Yeah, why not? And let's forget about finding out who killed JFK. And I'm not even gonna talk about forgetting the holocaust, and stuff like that...
If you wanna go ahead and forget about it, do so. I think 3,000 people killed demands some investigation. Also, because some pieces of the puzzle don't fit together, hence this whole "conspiracy theory" as some might call it (I just think its a search for what really happened), we want to know. And I haven't even lost anyone I know in this tragedy. Some people have, and the they have trouble believing what the media is telling them because a lot of it is unclear.
So this is the purpose of the thread, to learn, investigate and tell other people interesting facts to make them think. Before you bash on the thread, read it, watch the videos that were spoken of...you might find them interesting. If you disagree with them, you can say so as well. However we won't "move forward" because there's plenty of stuff we don't know yet.

WHERE ANY OF YOU THERE?
 

I can hear most of you guys now.... yeah right!... and you will all believe what you want.... I was there and myslef and 2 other cars saw what you would see on those pentagon tapes. I was on 395 south going to work in the middle lane, and nobody in sight in front of me, and 2 cars behind me in the slow lane a white 4 door compact and something else directly behind me and the way 395 is right past the pentagon is it makes a turn to the left and dips down, and this time in the morining the traffic going north was literally a parking lot so there is hundreds of eye witness to seeing the COMMERCIAL air lines fly over the highway seeming close enough to jump up and touch bu only heading south can you see the impact. I had been listening to the radio coverage of the Twin Towers all morning, and when I saw the plane fly over I could not take my eyes off of it, I it was watching a moive, a bad one. it did skip off the parking lot at the last min, and the sound of that above all I can never forget, the horrific sound of clanking echo sound. and boom, i swear to this day you can feel the heat.... i looked back and had drifter into the break down lane, 2 over to the left and hit the gas.... hard. I dont know how fast i was going but all i remebr is say holy shit.... holy shit.... holy shit.... it seem like a hundred times. When i finally 'came to' for lack of a better phrase i took the next exit and stopped at this little laudry mat place, it was the first place i came to off the exit that had a phone. My hands shock so bad and I asked ot use a phone and i can still remeber my voice cracking. This little old lady said yes and pointed it out, I dailed the only number im sure i capuld remeber at the time... and you dont know alone until you get a busy signal from 9-1-1. I hung up and dialed again... the operator picked up and all I could say is i just saw a plane hit the pentagon, all she said was 'i know' and hung up, not panicy but rushed, im sure there were a thousand more people with more important information then I had. So I walked out and drive to work, i dont rember get there just being there, I was working at target in woodbridge, VA and i walked through the door and of course everyone was at the electronic center eyes glued on the 20+ screens. A woman I work with looks up and imediatly asked me whats wrong, evedintly i'm white as a ghost.... "I saw it... I saw it" I tell the story 2 times to diffrent groups of people and even got the looks i'm sure some of you have now. My proof came later, as I told my story FOX was on the sceen talking to some idiot who was staying at a hotel across for the pentagon ans said he saw a 2 person little airplane hit the pentagon I was quick to point out he was incorrect, I told everybody i remeber the windows on the side all the windows, i could not see inside but i know what was there, my boss sent me home. and till this day, my hands shake, and I get chills.... I dont even know why, It was grusum, i guess i smart enough to fill the blanks of to put myslef in there shoes even if for a min. even writing this i will blame my grammer and spelling errors on that... but again you believe what you, be weary of storys of people that wernt there.... Believe me I wish I was one of them.

That's a great story, but let me thhrow some statistics at you. There are a little over 50,000 members currently signed up with TFP. TFP is about 50,000 out of about 6,450,628,805 people on the planet, and about 900,000,000 internet users. Now, to be generous, let's say there were 900 direct eye whitnesses not just on 395, but anywhere to see the Pentagon tragety. I think most people can see where I'm going with this. Do you know what the odds are that one of our nice TFPers was present at the Pentagon crash? I'll give you a hint. It's over 1/1,000,000,000. It's more likely that you are fibbing to try and support something you believe in than someone who was actually there. I'm sorry to be so blunt.

If you could perhaps be more specific about what you saw, I could determine from the photo evidence available how likely it is that you were there.

Note: Before I forget, this is the second person of TFP to claim that he or she was present at the Pentagon crash. I apologize for having to 'out' these people, but it is necessary for people to take responsibility for their presenting fiction as fact to support their views. If you believe your view tro be justified, you wouldn't have to lie. Maybe you should ask yourself why you feel that it's necessary to lie to support something you firmly believe in. In fact, maybe it's time to rethink your position. Then again, maybe not.

I hope this thread has been helpful and interesting to everyone.

willravel hit the nail on the head. I'm starting to get annoyed at these people making false claims. Why? Why are you so willing to defend something that's not true by lying..you don't have to give us your "hand-shaking" emotion stuff.
You're saying that there's enough cars on the highway to make it look like a parking lot, however you only remember two cars behind you? You try to make this seem like a vivid experience to make it real, but I call bullshit.
A lot of typos, and incomprehensible sentences. I recommend you stay off this board if all you want to do is talk b/s.

Will, your "stats" are incredibly misleading. I don't know if joecool is telling the truth or not, but let's try not to call the kettle black when it comes to using false or misleading information to support a point.

I almost went down this road when you accused me of lying (or perhaps it was only strongly suggested, to be fair), and decided it wasn't worth it.

Maybe later tonight when I have the time I will go through and explain. Suffice to say that when you are looking at far too large a range of people, and discounting several factors that call your analysis into question.

You aren't a statistician (and neither am I), so you need to be careful when using "stats". Of course, you aren't an architect, engineer, accident investigator, photoanalyst or any of the other specialties you so gleefully opine on, either, so why should statistics get in your way?



SNARF!

Ok, CSI, what exactly do you have in mind? Detecting the skid marks from his car in the satellite photos, or checking hist story against your preconceived ideas about what happened.

I can see it now: he says a plane hit the pentagon. It is clear from the photos that a plane did not hit the pentagon. Therefore, he is lying.

Do you see the flaw?

It is time for this thread to go back to the topic it was designed for.....please dont make me close it.

No, please do close it. I, as a tool of the media, fear the raising of new ideas about the Truth of September 11.

</sarcasm>

Please don't close this thread, just because it got a little off track doesn't mean it needs to go away. :D

I was suggesting that it is more likely that joecool is lying than it is that he was there, on that highway, on that day, at that moment, and he happens to post about it. Do you think my suggestion is so unreasonable? Reason, after all, is what most of this thread is about. I think that it's reasonable to ask questions. You think a few of my questions are not reasonable, and that's fine. No, I am not a statician. I'm not a lot of things that would help in this thread. I do my best, though.
Initially, in the realm of programming languages, snarf meant to grab a large document or file and use it without the author's permission. Since the development of UNIX, the UNIX community -- since there is not the same sense of proprietary ownership as there is in the commercial computer industry because it is based on an open source idea -- uses the term to mean the acquisition of a file or set of files across a network. It is a command line resource grabber, transferring files through the HTTP, gopher, finger and FTP protocols without user interaction. (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/snarf.html)
I can't stand CSI. The invesrtigations are usually overcomplicated and unreasonable. :thumbsup:

There are obvious conclusions to draw from the photos take at the crash site and the highway that I can compare to his story. If, for example, he said he saw the heads of the streetlamps fall to the ground, he might be telling the truth. If he said that the plane was only 30 feet from the ground as it passed over the highway, he would be lying. I see no flaw in either of those hypothetical conclusions.

I'm sorry. I felt that joecool's post took away from the topic of discussion and it needed to be addressed in order for people not to be distractd by it.
:hmm: Comon. I love sarcasm as much as the next guy, but Tec wasn't taking sides. Besides, a tool of the media wouldn't take this story on head on like you do, they'd distract from it with a story about how well the war against the insurgency is going! :D

Buildings collapse - have done for centuries. Knowing this, mightn't planners in large cities require tall buildings to collapse neatly in the event of structural failure? Imagine the mess if a large tower fell over sideways in a crowded city. I think it would be prudent to ensure that any tall building collapsed neatly built into its design. It makes sense.

Some buildings, due to their own structural requirements may need 'assistance' to collapse neatly, such as explosives etc - again, if this means that a single building collapse remains contained, that seems sensible to me.

The idea that every tower is wired for demolition is probably not something a building's manufacturer/owner wants to broadcast to the general populace, it's unlikely to convince people to pay their rent on time.

Now, I'm not sure what the issues are here, but I keep hearing about how the way the towers collapsed so uniformly appears to be suspect. It seems reasonable to me that in such extraordinary circumstances, people responsible for those buildings may need to make the decision to demolish the buildings neatly, rather than risk them toppling over and causing further devestation.

Does that sound reasonable?

On its own, I really don't think that issue alone is enough to warrant a governmental conspiracy.

That is a very intelligent and reasonable theory. Have you ever been in a really tall building? I know I've been in the Empire State building, the St. Louis Arch, and the Eiffel Tower. Would you go anywhere near a building if you knew it were wired with explosives, even if they were there for your own good? If your theory is correct, that means that many people died and their families and friends don't know what really happened. That's the core of what the 9/11 discussions are about. These 3000 lives that were lost are of pinnacle importance, as they are the basis of several wars and policies. If the buildings were demolished, that means that it is likely that they were going to fall in a way that was less safe than a controlled demolition. If that saved livs, great. But if that costes lives, it is wrong. The reason secrets are dangerous is that sometimes those who keep the secret miss something those outside of the secret can see. What if the charges had gone off prematurely? What if they had gone off accedentally long before 9/11? Did those working in the building know that they were working near thermite (the most likely type of charge to be used on a steel reinforced building, such as the WTC)? Oddly enough, look up 'thermite' on Google. The third page is a 9/11 conspiracy page. It's a link to whatreallyhappened.com.

I don't know about intelligent, but reasonable I can agree with. I can see why someone would want to keep it quiet for equally reasonable (if debatable) reasons too.

I think the way the events of 9/11 were used as leverage for otherwise unpalatable foreign, and home security policies is questionable, but I think it's a step too far to suggest they were orchestrated by the US government.

Yes, by all means investigate evidence that differs from the accepted story, but anyone doing so should wait until you they have full and uncontrovertible evidence before linking it to notions of conspiracy and cover-up - Doing so prematurely skews further investigation and (equally importantly) makes it harder for others to view it from an unbiased standpoint.

Taking the (hypothetical) decision to take down a building still containing people because it may risk more lives if allowed to fall in an uncontrolled manner has got to be one of the most difficult decisions anyone is likely to make. It must be done with as much cool-headed composure as is (or isn't) humanly possible - should people in that position have to live through that, and then have to justify their choice to the families of those they chose to kill?

Thank you both for setting this thread back on track.....I honestly appreciate it

I hope you're right! 'Hope for the best, prepare for the worst' has always been my philosophy.
Well, in my mind just one of the presented facts is enough to take a closer look. The fact that the investigation that did happen was so crappy is reason enough to investigate further. Let's put it this way: the collapses were obviously suspect. If your theory is correct, then why wasn't it covered in the 9/11 commission? Only a few pages from that report were classified, and they had to do with the financing of 9/11, not the collapses or crashes. Also, the extreem tardiness of the NORAD interceptors in response to the hijackings (something that should have taken 5 minutes, but took over 2-4 hours) was never addressed.
The military has to justify civilian casualties (at least they should). I see this as basically the same thing. Say, "I'm sorry we had to do this, but it was necessary", not "Conspiracy theories are for crazy people, let's go to war."

If I had to sacrafice one person to save 1000, I wouldn't lie about sacraficing the one person. I would apologize.
My pleasure. :thumbsup:

willravel, you are right, there should be more openess - especially about important events like these - if anything, keeping things hidden or attempting to hold back information is a policy that will often backfire, since people are usually able to see through lies etc.

Now, I've just watched the video linked, these are the points it raises.
1) Pentagon hole too small for 757 and the suggestion that may have been a missile.

I agree that the hole looks smaller than I might expect, but then, I'm not sure what to expect. The impacts on the WTC saw the plane entering the building in its entirity, not leaving any parts around either.

2) WTC controlled collapse/detonation

I think it's perfectly reasonable to prime skyscrapers for detonation, so as to avoid dangerous toppling scenarios. No conspiracy there.

3) WTC plane not a commercial liner

This is something I'm not convinced about - some eye-witnesses (out of hundreds, if not thousands) say it was a non-commercial flight - many others may disagree - there's just no real evidence either way - including the footage available. Further, and I'm not sure how to corroborate this, I remember friends of mine mentioning that they had seen the flights on their flight-paths via internet air-traffic-control information sites - these sites may have the information showing the flightpaths on that day - but it shows that either the air-traffic people were fooled too, or that they are in on it as well, or that they were commercial flights, hijacked by terrorists.

4) WTC plane with attached pod

I don't know about the pod - not much I can say about it.

5) Mysterious flashes at point or just prior to point of impact

I don't understand the big deal made about these - I'd pass it off as static charge - Same as you can get when you step out of your car after a long journey. No big deal.

Wow, it feels good to come back to a serious thread.
zen_tom, your mentioning of the pre-rigged building theory being jutsified by the saving of human lives seems totally acceptable.
Anyway, it seems kind of hard to know if it really was rigged in the first place or not.
If it was though, I don't know what to think... So many questions unanswered, it's frustrating.
Intuitively, I don't think the gov't is behind the whole thing. However I do consider it as a possibilty, even if it is unlikely.
I do think, on the other hand, that some people of the govt', or related to it, have a hand in it.
And I do know that some people from the gov't know things that they won't tell us... but no big surprise there. The day we have truthful gov't a and an accurate and non-biased media is far from now.

Well there's more to that particular theory. Right off the bat I have to admit that I am not any kind of trained expert in airplane crashes, but there are some things that make sense. Did you see the four frame video released by the Pentagon, the only video of the actual crash? It was quite disturbing for several reasons. Reason one is that the American DOD released to the world media a five frame video of the crash at the Pentagon. These were broadcast first on the internet, and then made their way to television. The problem with this is that those frames do not show a plane that fits the dimentions of a boeing 757-200, the plane said to hit the Pentagon on 9/11. I found some photos that might help to show the difference in size.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pe...cs/pcstrip.jpg
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomfive/P...hanalysis1.jpg
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/penta...tagonxox30.jpg
The Pentagon measures 921.6 feet along each external face, half of this distance, marked on the diagram between the central corridor and the upper-left corner of the Pentagon (cyan) is 460.8' . Take this base measurement as a scale and measure the distance from the rear of the plane in the photo (red dot), along the approximate path of the jet (dark-green line) to the impact point. The distance the tail traveled between frames (heavy red line) is approx. 450', which is just short of the originally estimated 465' or 3 lengths of a 757, which is 155'.
So, 450 feet traveled in 1/30th of a second = 13500 feet/sec. = 2.55 miles/sec. = 153.4 miles/min. = 9204.54 mph = 7997 kts. = Mach 12.11
Even if you alter the path of the jet to a direct (90 degree) impact trajectory, (which introduces other unexplainable issues such as intact light-posts and trees, clearing the embankment, not to mention those anomalous hydro spools) you still end up with a final velocity exceeding Mach 6. (sorry to ramble on)
Well, it will be a consipracy until they fess up to it.
All we have is these peoples words. It is only with other evidence that these reports become noteworthy.
Check out the 'In Plane Site' video about 9/11. It has a lot of video of the pod. Of course, no one know what it means, so we can file that in misc. 9/11 stuff.
Possibly. Like the pods, I feel these are neither here nor there until I can see or think of a reasonable explaination.

I'm not going to bother cutting and pasting all of the pictures, so I recomend the full story here .

Also for fun, imagine what happens light aluminum aircraft wings that hit reinforced concrete, would they do a lot of damage or would they snap like twigs?

Another interesting flight 77 myth busting site...
http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/pent...nsions_est.htm

thanks ustwo... I did have a site that was created by some mechanical engineers that explained the forces at work for both the WTC and the Pentagon. I just wish I could find it again.

Maybe it was missiles?

DLing videop now , am anxious to watch . I have a question though .Do you guys honestly beleive that it would be possible to cover up wireing up ALL buildings with explosives for saftey? I think its a convienent explination but there is no way you could keep something like that a secret.

some industry news:

Thanks for that cynthetiq. I'll try to catch it.

I finally found the interview with Dr. Michael Dietrick from the 911 Citizens Inquiry in Toronto. Dr. Dietrick is a professional Piolet that I met once in passing who has spoken, despite threats, about the various inconsistancies surrounding the aeronautic aspects of 9/11. I stronlgy suggest that you listen to this entire radio episode, from 'Guns and Butter'. I'm looking for a written transcript.
http://www.kpfa.org/cgi-bin/gen-mpeg...31-Wed1400.mp3

Special thanks to KPFA for holding onto this speech, interview.

Let me see if I can head this one off at the pass.

First off, Dr. Dietrick is a psychoanalyst and a pilot. However, let's look at a few things he doesn't have :

Dr. Dietrick, at his own admission, does not have ATC rating. This means he cannot under current FAA regulations fly any commercially rated craft. He's flown planes, but he has never flown a 757.

I can drive a car, but I sure as hell can't drive a semi. I have no idea how one would react to any sort of control input. I don't know what it's like to drive one.

I've flown a plane before. I am not qualified to comment on how these planes fly.

Dr. Dietrick is not an air traffic controller. He does not have a full knowledge as to the way an air traffic control centre operates.

Dr. Dietrick is not a military officer. He does not have any inner knowledge in regards to how the military works.

Dr. Dietrick is not an aviation expert. He is a pilot.

His comments on NORAD SOP are true, but misleading. The ADS was not nearly so co-ordinated as he implies. When a plane disappears off radar, the air traffic controllor who is monitoring that plane is required to first ascertain that there is no mechanical malfunction. He is then required to attempt to establish contact. He then reports to his superior, who then reports to his superior, following the chain of command until the incident reaches an individual with the authority to contact NORAD and report a suspected hi-jacking. At this time the officials at NORAD, while following their own chain of command, must contact the airbase nearest to the last known location of the suspected hijacked aircraft, who (again, following that chain) will scramble fighters. Most of this notification occurred by voice. In other words, somebody has to physically pick up a telephone and make that actual phone call to manually relay the pertinent information. This is not an instant notification.

At this point, the aircraft who fails to transmit transponder codes or is otherwise suspected of being hijacked must be found. That's not as easy as it sounds. As Dr. Dietrick points out, there are thousands of aircraft in the air over the United States of America at any given time. Without that transponder code, somebody has to actually scan the radar screens and attempt to locate that one dot that might be the aircraft in question. The old adage about the needle and the haystack springs to mind.

It's also worth noting that at the time there was no coverage of the airspace over North America by NORAD. Picture NORAD like a donut, with the radar coverage pointing outward and the entire continent of North America in the 'hole'. The system was designed to protect us from outside threats - the idea of covering interior airspace was deemed unnecessary. I haven't confirmed this, but it was my understanding that this flaw has since been rectified.

Moving on...

I haven't heard about this "stand down order". I will look into it and give my thoughts at a later time. Again, it doesn't sound substantiated to me.

Who "reliably informed" the so-called truth seekers that President Bush was notified almost immediately that the hijackings had occurred? This is unsubstantiated and very unlikely; unless someone in direct contact with President Bush had some precognition of the hijackings, there's simply no way anyone could know in "near-real time."

This documentgives a more accurate description of the process involved from the NORAD side of the fighter scramble, as well as the actual timelines on the different fighter responses and makes it apparent why the planes weren't stopped. The response just isn't that quick.

His discussion of IFR rules are factually correct, but again misleading. See above for reasons.

I'm skeptical about his assertion that all control was taken from both civilian and military personnel for two reasons. The first being that it's simply impractical. As Dr. Dietrick himself observed, anyone who deviates from their flight plan by fifty feet vertically is asked to state intentions. If Mr. Rumsfeld was required to sign off on every altimeter malfunction he simply wouldn't hav time to do anything else. Further, if this is truly the case, why hasn't anyone come forward? Such an order would need to be known by thousands of civilian and military air traffic controllers. Why haven't some of these people come forward?

I'm not even going to comment on the war games...

I find it suspicious that the only substantiation of this so-called CNN tape that has seemingly vanished. I will, however, admit that I don't have all the facts on this. I have not done all the research. However, a google search turns up no substantiation immediately, but just a conspiracy theory sites.

Dr. Dietrick seems to have a lot of peronal contacts, but doesn't seem to be able to procure any names or documents to prove any of it.

I will not comment on his assertions in regards to Cheyenne Mountain - I have no facts as to the inner workings of NORAD. What he's suggesting doesn't seem very likely, however.

There are both photographs and video footage of an aide speaking with the president on the morning of September 11. However, this does not mean that there is any connection between the aide speaking with President Bush and with the attacks.

His claim that there was a mobile command centre in the basement of that grade school that was capable of watching the attacks in real time seems ludicrous to me. I will acknowledge that it's a possibility, but it seems unlikely to me.

I will not comment on the issue of Flight 93 because he refuses to make any definitive statements. However, he again makes a claim that his personal contacts can provide proof, but that he cannot identify them or provide any documented proof.

I do not represent myself as any sort of an expert or even knowledgeable on the subject. I don't know very much about what went on that day. Yet I can raise so many doubts about what this man says? Something just doesn't jive here.

I like that he addresses all of his documents by stating that they're available on the DoD website if you know how to find them, yet he does not provide any sort of methodology on how. This is what might be called hedging your bets; if anyone confronts him by saying they looked for said documents and were unable to find them, he can respond by suggesting the individuals did not know where or how to look.

Once more, Dr. Dietrick is not ATC rated. He has no clue how to fly a commercial aircraft any more than you or I do. Flying a 757 or 767 is nothing like flying a small single or dual engine commuter aircraft. He makes this admission himself. He is not qualified to make the claims he's making.

Once more, I don't understand a lot of what happened that day and I do not have all the facts. I didn't even do any research into this - my comments have all been made in real time as I listened. Personally, if I'm able to debunk or question every single assertion Dr. Dietrick makes with my very limited knowledge on the subject, I'm going to have a real hard time accepting that he is an expert or really, anything more than a scare-mongerer.

Ummm, OK. You sound like somebody that always touches the glowing orange stove element to decide if it's hot.

fastom - I'm not sure what you mean by that.

My overarching point was that this man isn't really any more qualified to comment on the things he's commenting on than I am. And that with a very small amount of research and knowledge (all of what I said being information I knew off hand from having double-checked previous such thoeries) it turns out that nothing he says makes sense anyway.

I guess all I'm trying to say is that it's a bad idea to assume that somebody who claims to be or is said to be an expert automatically knows more than you or I, or that anything they say is true by default. I've always been the type to gather my own facts and draw my own conclusions. It doesn't seem wise to me to accept what somebody else is saying at face value, especially when what they're saying is based on a hypothesis that seems far-fetched (ie, that the US Government would orchestrate or deliberately allow an attack on it's own citizens).

Hasn't this thread been made before? I remember this thread from long ago, and there was a clip that showed about this. There were a lot of eyewitnesses that swore they saw a 'military jet' rather than an airliner. However their statements are still rather doubtful and there are no proofs to certify their validity. Much credence could not be given to a few person's statements, but they do raise some ideas. Nonetheless, it is very clear that an airliner did not hit the Pentagon.

Regardless or whether an airliner hit the Pentagon or somebody lobbed a grenade at it from a passing car... your government IS lying you.

By the way a plane crashed into a building in the middle east yesterday, it was on the news... building is still standing too. :eek: Weird, aren't they supposed to crumble?

I'm sorry I cannot locate any information about a plane crashing into a building on any news sources can you please elaborate?

in iran. like 120 dead. a milatary plane if i'm correct. i'll link if i find it.
it was on fark yesterday.

must say that the more you look the real answers come out stay sheltered or get out and get saturated

If the JFK deal is still considered a mystery 42 years later don't expect the government to fess up to this anytime soon.

Didn't somebody say "You can't fool all the people all the time"? You only need to fool half, the other half may know the truth but when they argue it's a draw.

The nice thing is that we have a trump card: building 7. The fact that FEMA coulnd't figure it out is pretty much indisputable. If that's under question, then the twin towers are under question. If the nyc attacks are udner question, then all the attacks are under question. You could also ask where the evidence was that linked Saudis to the attacks, espically considering they keep turning up alive. When people actually listen to me, most of them accept that there are a lot of unansered questions about 9/11, and that' my goal. The more people that ask questions, the more they'll want answers and the more pressure will be put on those who know the answers. I'm going to sleep now.

NO ONE in charge of anything would make a decision that he KNEW would result in the immediate death of multiple members of his own subordinates. Anyone who doubts this has clearly never served in any of the services. (Most of the people killed in the actual collapse were emergency services personel.)
Also, buildings do not come loaded with self-destruction charges, nor a big red button labeled 'do not push'.
Besides, having actually read the 9-11 report, i doubt very much that there was a conspiracy on the scene. Things sounded pretty disorganized, not deliberate in any way. (They moved thier command center twice and didn't tell anyone, no one realized there weren't any trucks in the city with ladders tall enough to reach beyond floor 20, their radios couldn't function due to structural interference...etc.)

Research into conspiracy theories
 

I don't know if anyone has found this but there has been an independant and fairly exhaustive look into these theories.

Check out:

9/11: Debunking The Myths
PM examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=1&c=y

Yeah, we went over that article a lot in another 9/11 related thread: Building 7 Thread.

wllravel,

I read your rebuttal to PM's assertions in the other thread.

It seems your issue with their take on it (which I think we can label as the official explanation) is that the collapse of WTC 7 doesn't look progressive. The problem with that is that assuming that the building is designed the way they say it is a progressive collapse wouldn't be the gradual process you seem to expect. It would appear spontaneous, since the one side coming down would place a high level of strain on the other two columns (due to the crossmembers on the fifth and seventh floors) and pull them down as it went. The whole thing would appear spontaneous. What makes it progressive isn't the duration or appearance of the actual collapse, but the pattern of stresses on the load bearing members.

Obviously, I don't have access to the blueprints for WTC 7 but the design suggested, while unconventional, isn't unfeasible. With four main columns supporting the building, the cross members on the fifth and seventh floors would serve the purpose of equalizing the load, so that no one column is carrying an inordinate amount of the building's weight. By placing the cross members low in the buildings structure, the equalization takes place near the bottom of the main columns, where the load is highest. In the event of a collapse, it would be nearly impossible for only half or even a quarter of the building to come down without taking the rest with it; if one of those columns went, it'd pull the rest of the building down with it.

The building did collapse into it's footprint. This is what any superstructure will do without some outside force. It's a safety measure, to keep undue damage and harm occuring to the surrounding people and property due to one collapse.

I have yet to be convinced that there was anything untoward being perpetrated by the US government on that day. I am a natural skeptic, but it goes both ways. If you're going to cry foul, especially if you're going to suggest something that seems contrary to common sense, you'll need irrefutable evidence before I'll buy it. Suggesting that the United States government would intentionally allow or even perpetrate an attack on it's own people is, to me, contrary to common sense.

The burden of proof is on the United States government not the conspiracy theorists. Remember the 9/11 investigations goal was to find what went wrong and not who was to blame. It's their job to prove to us who did it and they haven't yet. We went to 2 wars and destroyed many civil rights without enough evidence against al qaida to even beat them in court.

Things like the 4 military drills depicting the same event on 9/11, insider CIA put options on airline companies, a mayor being called by the whitehouse and being told not to fly to New York, NORAD and the FAA disregarding all standing operating procedure, Bush's brother Marvin running security on the WTC complex during 9/11, and the declassified official government plan to carry out terror attacks on it's civilian population and blame it on it's enemies are just a few red flags that you should seriously question. Why doesn't the 9/11 commission or pop mech. answer some of those key questions instead of focusing on the things that can't really be proven one way or the other.

Just because YOU wouldn't do this to the civilian population doesn't mean they wouldn't. You have to look at the evidence. If you were on the jury during a murder trial just saying I don't think the person would do it really means nothing.

First off, that's ludicrous. The United States government has provided ample proof that the attacks were perpetrated by means of commercial airliners and that the collapse of the builings in the World Trade Centre was a result of these airliners. I have none of the evidence used to prove that the Al Qaeda perpetrated the attack handy, but I do seem to recall that they did initially claim responsibility for it.

Care to back up any of those allegations? I've seen no proof of any of it, a fair amount of evidence contrary to some and a few others are things I hadn't heard before today.

This has nothing to do with what I would or wouldn't do. It's more to do with what seems reasonable. The United States government is (ideally) an embodiment of it's people. I realize that the real world isn't nearly so clear-cut as that, but it seems a bit far-fetched that a democratic government founded by a nation who apparently holds peace and freedom as core values would perpetrate an attack on it's own people for any reason, let alone some of the spurious motives that have been put forward. I'm of the belief that if one wants to make such a claim, one must have unassailable evidence of the veracity of that claim if one expects to be taken seriously. I've seen no such evidence; the fact that there's even debate tells me that it likely doesn't exist.

I'm looking for more footage of the WTC 7 collapse, but it is scarce. As I have stated before, no steel reinforced buildings besides the WTC have ever collapsed because of fire. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. Why did it fall at all, let alone all columns giving way at once?
The blueprints weere classified after 9/11. Even with the unorthodox design structure, making it seemingly more likely to collapse, why did it fall from a few small fires?
Well the WTC towers were each hit from one side, ripping through the outer supports. Why didn't they fall into the side that they were struck? Why did the top floor collapse first? I know heat rises, but it can't be hotter above than it is in the middle (the source of the heat), and the middle had much more stress (namely the top 1/3 of the building) to deal with.
It's not a matter of attacking the American people per se. In fact I'm not convinced that the intent was entirely murderous. Earlier someone p[ut fourth the theory that the building was wired to go down to minimize the footprint in case of an attack not unlike 9/11. That seems, while terribly dangerous, to be reasonable froma certian perspective. Of course if you follow the PNAC, you'd probably think otherwise.

I can't believe I am diving into this again....

WTC was hit by one of the WTC towers as they collapsed, so it was not just fire. Most of the pics you see are from the north, which faced away from the towers, so you do not see the damage on the south side.

Plus, the fires continued for hours with little or no effort to put them out.

Your stat that no steel-reinforced buildings have collapsed from fire isn't a fair comparison, as those other buildings likely (a) had not suffered extensive structural damage at the same time, and (b) had someone trying to put the fire out.


See above. (And I recall seeing detailed schematics of WTC 7 floor plans in at least one report from the feds, so I'm not sure what your point is on floorplans being classified....other than adding a layer of spookiness)

we've been through this before. A rigid structure would tip over if the support were taken out from one side. Like a tree being chopped down.

A building is not a tree. It collapses upon itself if it fails.

I'm not an engineer, but I suspect Martian is right when he says they are designed to do this.

I don't believe the top did collapse first. I assume you are referring to the slight drop in the antenna before the building collapsed to suggest that the top fell first. But wouldn't that also be consistent with the central core beginning to collapse somewhere near the impact, thus lowering all of the structure resting upon it?

The actual collapse started around the middle (with the little puffs of debris all around the exterior that you equate with demo charges).

In 1991 One Meridian Plaza in Philidelphia (38 floor building) burned for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors. Building 7 collapsed at 5:20pm eastern time, not 6 hours after firefighters were alerted to fires in the building (the building is estimated to ahve caught fire roughly an hour after the second strike). Compare these two events. The One Meridian fire was substantially larger than the fire in WTC 7, and it burned longer. Yet not only did the Philidelphia tower not implode and collapse in 6.5 seconds, it did not collapse at all. Who said that one of the towers hit the WTC 7?
You had them before they were classified. i called about 6 months ago and they will not release them anymore. Your source had them before this classification was in place. No spookiness about it.
Buildings are partially flexable and partially rigid. I've never seen a building touch the ground during a severe wind storm, but I have seen them sway. What we are talking aobut is degrees of flexability versus rigidness. The building is made from a steel structure that takes quite a bit to bend, and steel supports CAN SNAP when put under enough pressure. The problem is that the rigidness claim doesn't hold up. If the structure of the building was as flexable as you claim, what's to stop the supports on the opposite side of the building BEND and the building falls onto one side? This is all moot of course, because steel can't be melted by airplane fuel, and therefore the structure should have not given at all - whether snapping or bending.
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/col2c.jpg
These puff lines are above the airplane entry hole. This isn't just the antenna falling. The upper floors poofed first. Poof lines (forgive me I don't know the technical term) can only be formed when the floor below is solid, othewise the necessary compression wouldn't be enough to blow out smoke, dust and debres.

These melting buildings (made of steel like barbeques and car exhausts, no?) got so hot that the people on the floors that had holes in the walls are seen waving for help. At 1800 degrees who can blame them! They must have been wearing racing driver fireproof suits, ordinary clothes would have burnt off.

Even if the building was made of aluminum it wouldn't have collapsed from fire.

OK, say the building designers fucked up and used low temperature solder instead of steel. Stuff that melts in a fire. How can you explain the worlds biggest engineering failure been swept away before any investigation was done?

If a bridge collapses it would be thoroughly analyzed before anybody carted off anything. Look what they do in a airliner crash, wreckage carted off to a building and reassembled. WTC was a rush to destroy evidence.

A common idea going around is that the steel must've melted and therefore the fires must've been 1800 C. That's quite untrue. Steel needs not melt to collapse - in fact, it loses roughly half it's structural integrity at around 600-700 C. It becomes pliable and will bend easily under a much smaller amount of pressure than would be required cold.

Also, let's not forget that the columns were not heated evenly; the fire burned inside the building, meaning that the inner face of the columns would have been hotter than the outer face. Heat causes metal to expand; if the inner half of the column were to expand more than the outer portion, the whole thing would've buckled, causing failure.

willravel - You've gone and done it now. I actually had to research this.

You get a gold star.

First off, the issue of steel melting or bending I have addressed. Further to that, a building will not collapse sideways unless there is some sort of load on one side, such as a sustained wind. The force of the airplane strikes was long since disspated by the time the buildings collapsed; there was nothing to cause them to collapse to the side. Hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete hold a lot of potential energy and when that energy is released in a collapse the materials are going to collapse downward. Some debris was deflected in the fall and landed outside the footprints of the two towers; many people lost their lives to that falling debris and it also caused extensive damage to many of the surrounding buildings including (according to many of the reports and summaries I've been able to find) the south face of WTC 7.

In the picture you've provided there is far too much smoke obscuring the building to conclusively state anything about the collapse.

Here is a picture of the collapse of the south tower; it clearly shows the top floors falling at the point of impact (at a slight angle here; they broke up due to repeated impacts with the floors below shortly after) :

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc_collapse4.jpg

Revisitng WTC 7 once more, it's important to remember that it wasn't the fire alone that caused the collapse, although with the presence of a large quantity of diesel fuel on the premises it's possible that this might've occured anyway. It's a combination of the structural damage caused by the falling debris of the other two towers and the uncontrolled fires that had raged within the building for hours without any attempts at fighting them. Steel doesn't melt in building fires, but it twists and bends and buckles. If the structure is already weakened it's not hard to see how that might lead to a collapse.

Yes, but the steel they used in the towers was intended to withstand a fire, even from diesel fuel or a bomb. Bear in mind that the 1993 bombing, which was a bomb made from urea pellets, nitroglycerin, sulfuric acid, aluminum azide, magnesium azide, and bottled hydrogen, created much more heat initially than the burining fuel did 8 years later. My point is not that the original attack was more likely to bring down the building, in fact it was almost impossibl for a urea-nitrate bomb of that size to bring down the building. My point is that the building is a known national landmark. It has always been a target for terrorism. As a matter of fact, the engineers who designed them specifically said that they could withstand a collission from a plane not much smaller than the ones that hit them. Included in this were the ability to not topple due to the initial force of a strike, the destruction of supports by a strike, the subsequent fire due to a strike (planes don't fly without fuel), and the ability to evacuate the building in the event of a strike.

One very important thing we have to remember is that almost ALL of the fuel was burned up on impact. The initial strike breeched the tanks and ignighted the fuel (thus the big explosions), what was left no one can say, but the fires could not habve burned at airplane fuel temperatures for long. In other words, the estimate heat of the fire based on the fuel is not a temperature that was consistant from strike to fall. There was a sharp drop immediatally after the collission, and then it probably went down to the 400-500 degree range or lower (office furniture, paper, carpert, etc. burning temps). This would have done nothing to the steel.
:D I'm glad you're doing research, this will enrich the discussion even further.
Okay, bear with me. This is going to be mathimtical...

We know from seismic records that one of the WTC towers too approx 8.4 seconds to collapse. s=½at² is the formula for distance and time. s is distance in feet, a is gravatational constant (32 ft/sec²), and t is time.
s = ½ * 32 * 8.5² = 1156'
WTC Tower 1 had a roof height of 1368'. Tower 2 was 1362'. As far as I'm concerned, it's proven that the towers' structures were destroyed at very close to free fall speed, perhaps faster since there is air resistance to consider. Impossible without explosives. (some help from reopen911.org for the math).

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid.../docs/3073.jpg
This is a picture from the southeast side of the building. There is almost no damage from Towers 1 or 2.

The towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 that had gotten lost during landing maneuvres. Even if we assume that the aircraft was near maximum operating weight (technically impossible but, as you noted, quite close to that of a 757) a 707 flying at approach speeds will do much less damage toa structure than a 757 or even an identical plane with the throttle jammed wide open. This becomes important if we assume, as the FEMA report seems to indicate, that the damage to the insulation around the steel supports was a factor in the collapse. The speed of the aircraft would greatly affect the extent of the damage.

This site seems to suggest otherwise. According to this as well as other sources I've read, steel will lose a lot of it's strength at relatively low temperatures - 650C is sufficient to rob a steel support of half of it's support strength and it begins to weaken much lower than that, close to 400C. I haven't checked his sources, but that site does explain both the heat ranges and temperature ranges far more succinctly than I'm capable of.

I do hope you understand my skepticism, then. It's telling that I haven't even finished high school, yet I'm able to refute a great many of the claims made with no additional research or effort made.

This math at a glance appears to be accurate; however, it seems to be in direct contradiction to what I've read. Earlier sources of mine seemed to indicate a collapse duration of approximately 10 seconds, which obviously changes the numbers completely. I'm unable to find those sources right now, but if I dig them up I'll post them. Either way, it's not surprising even if the towers did fall at near free-fall speed. The resistance offered by the lower floors would be nearly insignifigant in the face of the energy being released in the fall of severl hundreds of thousands of tons of building. The lower floors gave instantaneously, lending an appearance reminiscant of a controlled demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid.../docs/3073.jpg
This is a picture from the southeast side of the building. There is almost no damage from Towers 1 or 2.[/QUOTE]

Do you have another source for this image? i can't see it.

The speed is less my concern as the fuel issue. I remember watching the second strike on tv, and the great fireball. When airline fuel creates a massive burnoff like that, you are seeing all of the fuel ignite at once. Imagine that you put a match inside of a car gasoline tank. It explodes, creating a sudden, massive amount of fire. That fire is working its way suddenly through the whole fuel tank (the fire won't stop half way through the tank). Thre explosions is also the fact that the tanksa re enclosed, and air tight (or close to it). This suggests that the initial explosion occoured before or while the tanks were being ripped apart by the building. To me, a layman, this seems to be that a great deal of the fuel would have burned off immediatally.
But like I said above, the hotter fire caused by the airplane fuel would have been short. The fire would have been mostly fueled by the other stuff in the towers after a short time.
Don't forget that a HS education in Canada is the equivelant of a BA down in the states. :thumbsup:
I'm going off seismic records I've had for a while. I'll find the link durring lunch. EDIT: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html But even at 10 seconds, that is still about a freefall, which is impossible for a building like that.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid.../docs/3073.jpg

Try reloading the page, I'll try to find another pic.

OK, i'm a metalworker and welder... i heat up metal and try to bend it quite often. Granted i don't usually try to knock skyscrapers over but i think the theory applies.

I'd be a very old man if had to wait for a kerosene fire to make even a flimsy piece of sheetmetal soft enough to bend.

No way will a big girder fall over at 650 degrees, not even double that.

What you are suggesting would mean new exhaust systems would fall off cars very soon after starting them, assuming they'd even run since the spark plugs would have melted already.

Hang on... he said "650C" ... hmmm freezing is 32F and 0C and boiling is 100C and 212F, right?

So we double it and add 30? Or is that just for speed limits? :)

Steel will soften at high temperatures (1000+ "normal" degrees) but a jet fuel fire won't do that, and like Will says it was a big burst of flame and a much lesser continous fire. Bet you could have touched those beams after that initial blast.

I've been speaking in Ferinheit the whole time, as this I am an american, and thus am too lazy or stubborn to convert to metric. If we want to speak in metric...it is equally impossible. Let's put the fire thing to rest once and for all.
Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft have a maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

What we propose to do, is pretend that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the "official" explanation is a lie.

Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 3,500 gallons weighs 3,500 x 3.1 = 10,850 kgs.

Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.

It is also known as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.

It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 - C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.

It has a flash point within the range 42° C - 72° C (110° F - 162° F).

And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).

Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:

(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O

(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O

(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O

Reaction (1) occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.

Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes the smoke very dark.

In the aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center, the impact (with the aircraft going from 500 or 600 mph to zero) would have throughly mixed the fuel that entered the building with the limited amount of air available within. In fact, it is likely that all the fuel was turned into a flammable mist. However, for sake of argument we will assume that 3,500 gallons of the jet fuel did in fact form a pool fire. This means that it burnt according to reactions (2) and (3). Also note that the flammable mist would have burnt according to reactions (2) and (3), as the quantity of oxygen within the building was quite limited.

Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, that the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel.

We need to know that the (net) calorific value of jet fuel when burnt via reaction (1) is 42-44 MJ/kg. The calorific value of a fuel is the amount of energy released when the fuel is burnt. We will use the higher value of 44 MJ/kg as this will lead to a higher maximum temperature than the lower value of 42 (and we wish to continue being outrageously generous in our assumptions).

For a cleaner presentation and simpler calculations we will also assume that our hydrocarbons are of the form CnH2n. The dropping of the 2 hydrogen atoms does not make much difference to the final result and the interested reader can easily recalculate the figures for a slightly more accurate result. So we are now assuming the equation:

(4) CnH2n + 3n/2 O2 => n CO2 + n H2O

However, this model, does not take into account that the reaction is proceeding in air, which is only partly oxygen.

Dry air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen (by volume). Normal air has a moisture content from 0 to 4%. We will include the water vapor and the other minor atmospheric gases with the nitrogen.

So the ratio of the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, is 1 : 3.76. In molar terms:

Air = O2 + 3.76 N2.

Because oxygen comes mixed with nitrogen, we have to include it in the equations. Even though it does not react, it is "along for the ride" and will absorb heat, affecting the overall heat balance. Thus we need to use the equation:

(5) CnH2n + 3n/2(O2 + 3.76 N2) => n CO2 + n H2O + 5.64n N2

From this equation we see that the molar ratio of CnH2n to that of the products is:

CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2 = 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles
= 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs
= 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs
= 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs

In the conversion of moles to kilograms we have assumed the atomic weights of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are 1, 12, 14 and 16 respectively.

Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 ≈ 500,000 kgs. We will assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum temperature.

Each story had a floor slab and a ceiling slab. These slabs were 207 feet wide, 207 feet deep and 4 (in parts 5) inches thick and were constructed from lightweight concrete. So each slab contained 207 x 207 x 1/3 = 14,283 cubic feet of concrete. Now a cubic foot of lightweight concrete weighs about 50kg, hence each slab weighed 714,150 ≈ 700,000 kgs. Together, the floor and ceiling slabs weighed some 1,400,000 kgs.

So, now we take all the ingredients and estimate a maximum temperature to which they could have been heated by 3,500 gallons of jet fuel. We will call this maximum temperature T. Since the calorific value of jet fuel is 44 MJ/kg. We know that 3,500 gallons = 31,000 kgs of jet fuel

will release 10,850 x 44,000,000 = 477,400,000,000 Joules of energy.

This is the total quantity of energy available to heat the ingredients to the temperature T. But what is the temperature T? To find out, we first have to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by each of the ingredients.

That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise:

39,857 kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C,
97,429 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C,
349,680 kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C,
500,000 kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C,
1,400,000 kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C.

To calculate the energy needed to heat the above quantities, we need their specific heats. The specific heat of a substance is the amount of energy needed to raise one kilogram of the substance by one degree centigrade.

Substance Specific Heat [J/kg*C]
Nitrogen 1,038
Water Vapor 1,690
Carbon Dioxide 845
Lightweight Concrete 800
Steel 450

Substituting these values into the above, we obtain:

39,857 x 1,690 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the water vapor from 25° to T° C,
97,429 x 845 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the carbon dioxide from 25° to T° C,
349,680 x 1,038 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the nitrogen from 25° to T° C,
500,000 x 450 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the steel from 25° to T° C,
1,400,000 x 800 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the concrete from 25° to T° C.

The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the temperature range 25° - T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out to be relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this assumption once again leads to a higher maximum temperature (as the specific heat for these substances increases with temperature). We have assumed the initial temperature of the surroundings to be 25° C. The quantity, (T - 25)° C, is the temperature rise.

So the amount of energy needed to raise one floor to the temperature T° C is

= (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 + 1,400,000 x 800) x (T - 25)
= (67,358,330 + 82,327,505 + 362,967,840 + 225,000,000 + 1,120,000,000) x (T - 25) Joules
= 1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) Joules.

Since the amount of energy available to heat this floor is 477,400,000,000 Joules, we have that

1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) = 477,400,000,000
1,857,653,675 x T - 46,441,341,875 = 477,400,000,000

Therefore T = (477,400,000,000 + 46,441,341,875)/1,857,653,675 = 282° C (540° F).

So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T - 25 = 282 - 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed.

Remember, this figure is a huge over-estimate, as (among other things) it assumes that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb the heat, whereas in reality, the jet fuel fire was all over in one or two minutes, and the energy not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period (that is, almost all of it) would have been vented to the outside world.

Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.

Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway."

Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."

Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived.

Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

Conclusion:

The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.

(research found via http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...tc/how-hot.htm)

I think everyone is getting tied in knots a little here.
I am an Architect . . here are the facts : -
1 - Think of the towers as tall square 'tubes'. The external skin IS structural and acts with a very lightweight lattice floor plate structure spanning to the central core (to acheive collumn free commercial spaces).
2 - It was not 'big steel girders' which 'melted'. The towers were the worlds first masonry-free high rise towers and the steel was protected with lightweight fire-board (drywall as I think you guys call it over there).
3 The aircraft hit the buildings at slightly different angles. One had more damage to the central core than the other and in both cases the impact and explosion 'blasted off' varying amounts of fire protective boards in each case.
4 It is widely accepted that it was failure of the connection of the lattice floors to the central core which precipitated the collapse. It doesnt take much heat to warp lightweight lattice steel, especially when its fire protection is gone, plus the fact that the external stressed skin facade was seriously weakened in the initial impact.
5 When the critical number of lattice connections had failed in fires which were burning entirely uncontrolled (fueled not only by aviation fuel but by offices full of carpet furniture and paper) then the floor plate would collapse. When that happened, the weight of the concrete slab on top of the lattice structure would fall 12' and slam into the floor below and so on and so on.

If you are a construction professional its not so hard to understand. Remember, these were the days before progressive collapse building codes were introduced.
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

The aircraft with no windows? . . .well thats maybe another story.

God knows I've been tied in knots about this topic before, so I wouldn't be surprised.
Yes, this is 100% true, and is supported by both the conspiracy and the non conspiracy side of the discussion.
Also completly true. Right there with you so far.
Yep. I'm with you there. An explosion from 3,500 gallons of exploding jet fuel is more than enough to strip a lot of drywall.
I've never heard that. Actually, I've never heard of "lattice steel". "Steel lattice" is the way people describe the hollow steel tubes surrounding a strong central core (as opposed to bracing the buildings corner-to-corner or using internal walls). A steel lattice was put in place to try and fix the problem with space versus the problem of wind sway. The steel used in the outter supports, the steel lattice, was still primarily iron and carbon. The melting point of iron is 1538 °C (2800 °F). Carbon belts at 3527 °C (6381 °F). The exterior walls were the light steel you speak of and concrete. Those did not bear any weight. The central core of both WTC buildings takes all the gravity loads of the building. Those are not made of a light steel. Those are the reason the building would have collapsed. Those are made of the metal that cannot melt because of a kerosene fire. The imagery of the WTC doesn't even reveal the aluminum siding of the WTC towers deforming. Let's also not forget about the time frame. Even the lightest steel takes a while to begin to lose it's strength.
I'll work on this one when I have more time.
Well, as I said I'm ony a layman.
I've seen no evidence of this beyond eyewhitness reports (which are unreliable). Thanks very much for the post! I hope I have given you as much to think about as you have me.

Stop viewing the world from your own small little world. Yes, I'd love to think that the US is a model country and wouldn't do anything wrong. However, if we are to have a debate about whether or not to believe everything we have been told about 9/11 please don't use words like reasonable, ideally, and continue describing the US as a model of freedom and democrazy. Obviously a government of the people for the people and by the people would not do this to the people, but that's not what this debate is about. It's about finding out what really happened on 9/11. So please stop using rhetoric and start objectively looking at the full spectrum of information regarding 9/11, not just what you've been force fed.

The "allegations" I made do have very solid sources. I will cite them if you want me to, but it takes a while to dig them up so I haven't yet. However, may I ask you first if it will make a difference? Do you understand the significance of the government running drills of the exact same scenario on the exact same day, or past plans to carry out terror attacks on the civilian population? If you can't then there is no point to continue this debate.

willravel, apologies for the confusion . . .. the steel lattice I refer to is not the external lattice of the facade (which purpose is to take out wind loads), but the prefabricated lattice trusses which made up the floor plates. These were light-weight steel sections, prefabricated into zig-zag truss beams (to save weight and allow services to pass through) and were connected to the central core. It was supposedly the failure of these light-weight floor plate trusses (at their connection with the core)which resulted in the floor collapse. Once just one part of one floor starts crashing down, the whole thing is going to go down like a pack of cards. Strong as the building was . . . the large span floor plates were not designed to withstand the impact of a concrete floor from above dropping down 12' . . and even if it could, you would now have the weight of TWO concrete floors bearing on weakened connections with fires still raging. Stunned as I was at the time . . in hindsight, the collapses are not really hard to understand.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=loose+change

911 Loose Change 2nd Edition with extra footage


better than 911:In Plane Site

I saw loose change 2. Definetly one of the best 9/11 movies out. I was amazed at how many eye witness accounts the movie had that said there were bombs or explosions. Nearly 5 years ago and the government won't come forward and release the pentagon tapes or answer simple questions regarding 9/11. Nothing about 9/11 makes much sense.

That was a very interesting hour and a half. The actual news footage from that awful day speaks volumes. They are always candid early on before somebody hands them a script.

Wow, it's been a while since I checked in here. First off, a big shout out to ducknutz, who has summarized my understanding of the whole situation in a much more concise (and educated) fashion.

Having said that, a rebuttal is in order.

samcol, I don't live under a rock. I am well aware that the world is not a nice place; corruption and scandal abound, even within the government of the United States of America. The system obviously doesn't work the way it was intended to when it was set up some 200 years ago.

But there's an order of magnitude between what happened during, for example, Watergate and what happened on September 11. Do I believe that your government hides things from you? Naturally I do. Mine does the same; some of it is necessary, some of it is the above mentioned corruption.

However, you are making a rather extraordinary claim.. I have yet to see that contended. There is a lot riding on the premise that your government would either allow or commit an attack on it's own people, on it's own soil. It presupposes a level of corruption, a level of callousness and a level of greed that most don't believe is there. The very fact that you still operate a government 'by the people, for the people' is evidence that the majority of Americans believe the system works; if they didn't, I can't believe it would still be in operation.

I have never claimed perfection on the part of your government. There's a reason I haven't immigrated. But being imperfect is a far cry from being evil.

As I have previously said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you want to make the claim that your own government is perpetrating large-scale attacks on it's own people and have that claim taken seriously, you do have to provide evidence and that evidence has to be reliable and trustworthy. A few grainy stills and questionable web sites don't cut it here. If something akin to the Watergate tapes surfaces on the issue, then I'll take notice. For the time being, I'll continue believing that the more reasonable explanation is the more likely one. I don't deny the possibility that what you say is true, but to me it seems like the less viable option. What is proposed in the official explanation is not only plausible, but actually quite likely, especially when taken in light that the people blamed in the official story have actually corroborated that story by claiming responsibility.

I do recognize the signifigance of the evidence you mention. Do you? Drills and exercises are circumstantial at best. Former plans could be damning, if they can be proven true, but even then are still not incontrovertible. They may lend credence to your side of things, but they prove nothing.

If you can provide your sources, I will most definitely check them out when I have the time available. Please note that free time is something I have precious little of lately, so it may be some time before I can properly review anything you put up here. But the other side of it is that until I see verifiable evidence of the claims made, they're only that. They are not fact until proven as such.

I will not be so presumptuous as to tell you what to believe. You are free to draw your own conclusions. I will present the other side of the debate if you bring the topic up for discussion, but I do not and will not present my arguments as the only possible explanation; they are merely, as I said, the most logical conclusions according to the evidence I have found.

I don't take kindly to being accused of being naive, or a fool. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

So you are refering to the theory that the lateral trusses became detached by the heat of the fire and fell down on each other, leaving the columns bare and without the latteral support the columns fell. Of course this makes no sense. Even if you believe this idea that the peremeter columns, lacking lateral support, would somehow buckle and fall, you certianally can't apply that logic to the core structure because the core columns are not free standing. The core was also a lattuce of steel. This was a crossbraced structure with these huge steel columns, the dimensions of which were 36" by the outside dimensions and they were fabricated of steel that was 4" thick at it's base. So if your theory is true, then the outside would have fallen around the core, leaving the core standing. On top of that, when you examine pictures of the collapse, you do not see free standing portions of perimeter columns that are buckling. You see the building systematically being exploded from top to bottom.

Yep, if fire weaking had anything at all to do with it why did the top floors seem to disintegrate first?

One thing nobody has brought up is the whole "9-1-1" thing. Right from the outset it was claimed an Islamic group was responsible and that the date was chosen for it's 911 emergency phone number implications. Do they even have 911 in Arab countries? It sounds like something an American would have thought up.

In this post: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=56
...over on the "Tilted Politics" Forum, I responded to Marvelous Marv's comment about my earlier statement that, on the morning of 9/11, there occured a <b>""staged inability of the federal government to muster a timely air defense of the east coast skies.""</b>

My reasons for stating this are:
<b>( Consider that the fighter reductions at Langley, and the inordinate numbers of 9/11 "War Games and exercises", were scheduled against the backdrop of Bush's receipt of the now infamous Aug. 6th PDB that advised Bush that Al-Qaeda was planning to hijack airliners and use them as weapons. Bush later fought to keep from disclosing to us, that PDB's contents. )</b>
<b>[1]</b>The record shows that air defense fighters, in Aug. 2001, were removed from Langley Air Force Base.
<b>[2]</b>A large number of "War Games and "Special Exercises" were discovered to have been planned by military and intel agencies on 9/11, an effort was made to hide the numbers and extent of these "events", and we were ultimately told that these "events" heightened air defense response to the hijacking of four jet airliners, while the actual defense response and testimony of military and government officials seems to indicate that the opposite is true.
<b>[3]</b>The false premise, from the 9/11 Commission report, that War Games and "exercises" that "coincided" with the 9/11 attacks, enhanced response performance by NORAD and it's military defense response. The scope and numbers of the actual "exercises" were minimized in the Commission report.
<b>[4]</b>A report of a scheduled 9/11 "exercise" by the "NRO", reported in
2002 by AP and UPI as a "bizarre coincidence".
<b>[5]</b>A key, 9-17-2001 CNN report, attributed to sources in the military, that details the timeline of Flight 93 on 9/11. The timeline was exactly matched by testimony in 2003 to the 9/11 Commission by Mr. Scott, on behalf of General Arnold. The Flight 93 take-off time was, however,wrong.
<b>[6]</b>2003 Testimony of General Arnold & Mr. Scott, and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, before the 9/11 Commission, as well as an examination of General McKinely and the circumstances of his receipt of the "first shootdown order of an airliner in history, (Flight 93). The timeline testimony of Mr. Scott matched the above CNN report from two years earlier.
Mineta's testimony that placed Cheney and Mineta in the underground,Washington Command center before 9:30 am, was later altered by the 9/11 Commission, and pushed just past 10:00 am, with no explanation.
<b>[7]</b>In June, 2004 shortly before the final 9/11 Commission report was issued, it's staff "amended" the time that the FAA notified the military of the hijacking of Flight 93...from the previously testimony of 9:16 am, to <b>"no report until after it crashed at about 10:02 am !!!!!!!!"</b> Ignoring Mineta's 2003 testimony that he arrived at Cheney's location at 9:24 am, the 9/11 Commission revised the facts to a determination that Cheney did not even arrive until just after 10:00 am !
<b>[8]</b>Link to page of info now deleted from the web that shows phone calls from Flight 93 passengers that reported it's hijacked status, began at 9:20 am. Also contains info concerning takeoff time of Flight 93.
<b>[9]</b>Link and display of BTS website data for Flight 93 that shows the flight's wheels lifting off runway in Newark, NJ at 8:28 am, not at the 8:40 am
time from the 9/11 Commission report. You can duplicate that data search at the link. Just choose "Newark", "United", and "Sept. 11, 2001". The data is known to be a reliable record of every airliner wheel lift-off and touchdown in the U.S.
<b>[10]</b>Links to documentation of the attempts by Rumsfeld, Myers, Bush administration members, and 9/11 Commission members to alter, cover up, and avoid openly and accurately reporting on the events of 9/11 and the military response to the attacks, along with congresswoman Cynthia McKinney's successful attempt to expose the concealed 9/11 War Games, complete with video. In addition to the War Game cover up, there is a convincing case that a desperate, but transparent attempt has been made to
conceal Cheney's role in the Flight 93 shootdown order, as well as the timeline of that Flight, to falsely place the blame on the FAA for delayed notification of the hijacking to NORAD, from 9:16 am, until after Flight 93 crashed.
<b>[1]</b>
<b>[2]</b>
<b>[3]</b>
<b>[4]</b>
<b>[5]</b>
<b>[6]</b>
<b>[7]</b>
<b>[8]</b>
<b>[9]</b>
<b>[10]</b>
<b>Give the above material a thorough read, and then try to persuade me that it was proper to bury Mineta's testimony about when he arrived at Cheney's side on 9/11, when Flight 93 took off, when it's hijacking was reported to NORAD by the FAA, that the War Games and "exercises" on 9/11 were just coincidental, but needed to be concealed from the public and from accurate disclosure in the 9/11 Commission Report, or that the Commission members delivered the facts about Cheney and the shootdown order and the quality of the NORAD air defense response to the 9/11 attacks, to the American people in a sincere, complete, and straightforward manner.

Tell me why, given this sad record of blatant distortion and misinformation, accompanied by the fact that not one of the four hijacked airliners was intercepted, that I should change my mind that the U.S. east coast air defense response on the morning of 9/11 was intentionally "staged" to underperform, by the responsible officials in charge. The only other possibility, if they are not liars and suspected traitors, is that they are too stupid, incompetent, and or delusional to still be in positions of governance or other responsibility. No one was demoted, disciplined, or fired !

I think we have changed places, Host. I believe that, based on the science, this is far more machiavellian than complacency. In fact, I believe that forces in deeper hiding are responsible, in connection with those not 'morally bound' in the current administration, for recruiting is Saudi Arabia for purpouses including financing, planning the dissapearance of 3 commercial jets, grounding intercepter fighters, striking the pentagon with a missle or UMV, hitting the world trade buildings with planes after having them expertly wired with demolition charges, planting evidence, stealing footage of the pentagon attack, having FEMA (and now the NIST) wrapped around their fingers so much so that they'd say pretty much anything, strangleholding the media, and making a mockery of our whole country.

I think that your theory about the government simply not responding and allowing goes in tandum with my theory. Please read post #171 for proof of demolition.

How about the odd changes to rules that occured months before September 01. Pilots were allowed to be armed until that was changed. Planes were allowed to be intercepted and shot down without the Secretary of Defense giving personal approval until they changed that too. Both in June/July 2001.

Just so many things don't add up. Who paid to haul away the building debris? How is it that a paper passport survived intact when any other debris from the plane made of a more resilient substance was badly damaged? The WTC owner buys the place and gets a giant windfall insurance settlement all within a few months.

dropping the infobombs
 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...6alexvideo.htm

9/11 conspiracy is going more mainstream everyday. Here's a piece about a charlie sheen interview on the alex jones show.

My God, can you imagine Charlie Sheen being the man who is credited with bringing the 911 truth movement to the mainstream press?! This is fantastic. EXCELENT link, samcol. Thanks very, very much.

Funny how the media won't listen to 9/11 family members, government workers, engineers or scholars who have tried to bring this forward, yet they listen to Sheen :crazy:

Regardless, I hope this story can survive the weekend before it falls off the face of the earth again. Maybe the 9/11 truth movement could gain some real traction in the mainstream if it does.

Welcome to a world that revolves around hollywood.
Hopefully Charlie Sheen can stay clean so that the story doesn't get drowned in the controversy of drug use in hollywood.

Just wondering if any of the conspiracy theorists have read this site and if they have any rebuttal. http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=1&c=y

Yes that's been discussed in this thread and the WTC building 7 thread. Most of it's the typical strawman. They take a microcosm of the 9/11 information and pretend like they are addressing the hardest hitting evidence of a cover-up.

Oh ya, don't forget Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Michael Chertoff of homeland security, is one of the lead reporters for this article. Almost as independent as appointing Henry Kissenger to the 9/11 commission as was first intended, or they conflict of intrests of most of the current 9/11 commission. What a joke.

Wow, that sure had a lot of straw men in that article.

I'll do as much as I can durring lunch. I have a question, though...If I can prove that every argument from PM is either fundamentlaly flawed, incorrect, or a strawman, will you consider that there are unanswered questions asbout 9/11?

Of course there are unanswered questions about 9/11. I don't think anyone is arguing that there aren't. But thats not your arguement either. I believe your arguement goes along the lines of:
Something I think PM does a good job of discrediting.

Maybe 'we' are stretching, but several things have to be taken into account.
1)This wonderful picture displays the Tower 2 crash:
http://www.letsroll911.net/images/Ex...ll.caption.jpg
It shows a picture of the collission where you can clearly see two engines, and something else on the bottom, left of the fuseloge.
I'm no professor of aeronautics (although I was accepted to Embry Riddle back in 2002), but that looks fishy to say the least. Let's take a look at out Boeing 767-200ER:
http://cruisinaltitude.com/images/sp...2rnosebfil.jpg
Well that's odd. All I can see are two very large engins. I see no large mas on the BOTTOM of the plane.
Here's a pic of one with it's landing gear down:
http://www.malev.hu/pics/20021220767.jpg
It seems we *might* not be streching as much as the professor insinuates.

The standard U.S. air defense protocols for dealing with errant instrument flights were in place many years before Sept. 11. These procedures are automatic and require no special order. Within minutes after a flight ceases to respond to ground control, the FAA is expected to alert NORAD - which scrambles jet fighters to intercept the errant flight for reconnaissance purposes. These are supposed to be airborne within 10 minutes of the problem arising.

This routine was activated on at least 67 occasions in the year prior to June 1, 2001 and on 129 occasions in 2000. Exceptional as the events of 9/11 proved to be, the procedures should have also been activated automatically within minutes of each flight diversion on that day (i.e., long before anyone needed to realize that hijackers would fly multiple airliners into buildings). This did not happen.

NORAD's story (above) was disputed in the FAA statement of May 21, 2003. The FAA claimed that regardless of the official notification times claimed by NORAD, phone bridges were established immediately after the initial attack (at 8:46). NORAD was informed in real time throughout of all developments, including about the plane that ultimately hit the Pentagon, the FAA said.

Check this link out: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...40731213239607
Huh, I don't remember ever hearing this theory. I'm all ears if anyone has info on it. I'll call it a straw man until we can see someone of at least some reputation in the 9/11 truth movement mention this. How odd.
OOPS! Pm has made a tiny mistake here. In an AP article, one of PM's own experts, Maj. Douglas Martin said "From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001". That's what I'd call a glaring flaw.
If you've read my previous posts, you can see this is already debunked.
Debunked on 1/14 by yours truely.
It's impossible for the top floor to have fallen first, so the rest of the puff line explaination is irrelevent. Had this been a truss failure, as the NIST report claims, it would have failed near the crash site first, where the highest temperatures were. I've debunked that NIST report too, btw.
Strawman. The seismic records have nothing to do with proving bombs go boom. They have everything to do with the speed at which both buildings collapsed. If you've read my posts, you know that the steel reinforced buildings collapsed at free fall speed, which is of course impossible.
o rly?

What physical damage? Where are the photos that prove 25% of Building 7 was scooped out? The photos published in reports, and those available on me Internet do not show anything other than trivial damage, such as some broken windows.

Tom Franklin, a professional photographer for a New Jersey newspaper, traveled quickly to the World Trade Center to get photographs. According to his own report, he was standing in front of Building 7 at about 4 p.m.. He took lots of photos, but where are his photos of Building 7? Why would he ignore a skyscraper with 25% of its first 10 floors scooped out?
Where is a photograph that shows a hole 75 feet wide? All the photos available in reports and the Internet show only small holes. I call BS. These areguments are getting old. In this very thread I've posted many times about how it's impossible that there could have been a 75 foot hole. It's absurd.
Withstanding a hurricane is impressive, but withstanding a plane crash is down right amazing. Check out post #136 in this thread. It shows that the wing of a plane hit a window and it didn't break. Can I get some windows like this? Are they nuke resiastent, too?
Not okay. THERE WAS NO BLACK BOX FOUND AT THE SITE OF THE PENTAGON CRASH. She lied.


This is all I have time for during a 1 hour lunch. I'll finish a bit later.

Did you know that the guy who prepared daily security briefs for Reagan and also briefed Bush I thinks 9/11 was an inside job (Ray Mcgovern)?

Also, the former chief economist for Bush I thinks the same thing(Morgan Reynolds)?

Regarding PM, why didn't they ask why Ashcroft stopped flying commercial airliners prior to 9/11, or why Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco was told not to fly to New York that day. Did Bin Ladin call them and tell them it was too dangerous?

Why doesn't the government just release the videos of the plane hitting the pentagon to clear that whole issue up?

Don't forget about the numerous military drills that depicted flying planes into buildings that day. Of course PM can't answer those questions.

Ummm this was a great conspiracy (right wing, NWO, Illuminatus, whatever) and someone decided to save the Mayor of San Francisco?

It's not about secret organizations or lost treasure or Nicholas Cage. It's a simple matter of some people are willing to do a lot to get what they want. It is a hell of a coincedence that on 9/10, Mayor Willie Brown was told to miss his flight to NY, is it not?

There are questions without answers, and it seems like a lot of people are avoiding asking those questions. Do you ever wonder about any of the occourances surrounding 9/11, Ustwo?

I'm not sure what you're implying, but apparently the mayor was important enough to be spared. I don't know why and don't really care and it's not really important because all this call shows is that there was prior knowledge by a person, or group in the government that an event was going to happen in New York that day. Which goes against what we've been told that know one ever knew or thought that such a thing could happen.

i think the bush admin benefited from attacks, it makes you wonder if the attacks were generated to democratize worldwide and make an excuse to declare war on the iraqis. with everything going on with oil prices, i think the people need to look at the bigger picture instead of analyzing everything

We will NEVER know the truth of 9/11. Whether it was truly terrorists, or a government conspiracy or both, we just will not know and thus theories will always come out.

The problem existing isn't 9/11. The problems are: what has the government done since, what is it that is happening that makes the conspiracies so believable and what is being done to refute the conspiracies.

Well, since 9/11:

we have gone to war with a country not involved (yet tried to blame them, falsely) resulting in 1000's maimed and dead and billions that we cannot afford being spent.......... and all the while if anyone complained they were terrorist sympathizers, whackos and their patriotism questioned.

We have seen rights taken away, wiretaps without warrants, due process on hold, trial by jury laughed at, torture in prison camps......... and all the while if anyone complained they were terrorist sympathizers, whackos and their patriotism questioned.

We have seen more of our country sold including most recently our ports security to the Chinese to the point where after the Chinese inspect ships coming in, we cannot.

Finally, we hear how we must lose our rights to protect us from the "next attack" yet we have an administration that allows and almost gleefully promotes illegal aliens to cross our borders, this administration has offered them free healthcare setting aside BILLIONS to take care of them, knows that by allowing them in they can destroy prevelant wages, and so on.... all based on their own or their donators' wallets, not the true safety of ALL US citizens. In which case any one of those aliens can be terrorists ready to make the "next act"............. and all the while if anyone complained they were terrorist sympathizers, whackos and their patriotism questioned.



The only true refuting of anything is attacking the people asking questions and trying to question their sanity. Yet, the government continues to hide information, change stories and outright lie to the people...... so one has to ask, why are they working so hard to refute in these ways and not just bring out the evidence and truly be open?


The biggest and most important question need to be answered: WHO IS PROFITTING THE MOST? Not the US, not the citizens, not the taxpayers..... in fact we are losing far, far more than we did on just 9/11. So Then who is???????????? Follow the money, the insurance, the government billions to rebuild (when nothing has been done yet..... we haven't even fucking accepted a blueprint that I know of.... and if we have it's not been very well publicized), the media's right winged talking heads who carry blindly Bush's agenda, the money spent on the wars (the over charging of fuel to the army, or the payment of goods never delivered, or the substandard armor and protection we have given our men)............ we just truly need to follow OUR TAX MONEY. ............. AND YET: ......... all the while if anyone complained they were terrorist sympathizers, whackos and their patriotism questioned.


We cannot change 9/11. IMHO perhaps the government didn't "do" anything but there is no doubt in my mind they knew it was going to happen and allowed it to happen.

There is far too much money not accountable, too many coincidences and lies and coverups and fraudulent claims and weird unexplainable incidences our government and this administration keep trying to sweep under the carpet and the defensiveness is outlandish. If they have nothing to hide why are they so defensive??????????

FOLLOW THE TAX MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and we will have the answers we seek.

As said on Coast2coast last night (paraphrased): "the US was this great mansion and we ignored the stealing of small stuff.... but not these people have taken the artwork, the furniture, the computers, the games, etc. and are now ripping out the chandeliers, the gold pipes, the marble pillars and even the hardwood floor and aren't even attempting to hide any of the looting anymore."

It's time to speak out, rebel and demand our government be held accountable to its citizenry and not foreign investors, governments or rich. IT IS OUR COUNTRY, IT IS OUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AND IT IS OUR CHILDRENS FUTURE THAT WE MUST FIGHT TO PROTECT AND IF WE ALLOW WHAT IS HAPPENING TO CONTINUE..... OUR PROGENY WILL LOOK BACK ON US AND CURSE US FOR NOT DOING ANYTHING TO PROTECT AND MAKE SURE THEY HAD THE SAME OPPUTUNITIES AND FREEDOMS WE SO ENJOYED.