BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference

Subject: BS: 'Firefighters for 9/11 Truth' Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 07:46 PM

Why weren't guidelines followed? Why was so much of the evidence destroyed almost straight away?

These people are now demanding answers....

To start with the final segment, where one of the Firefighters speaks out, then going on through the other 5 segments of some amazing evidence and questions from highly intelligent people who are demanding an Investigation now takes place which follows the *correct* guidelines.


1,000 Architects and Engineers Press Conference - Youtube - Part 6 - The Firefighter Speaks Out

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth - Website

And taken from the Firefighters site:

>>>An Appeal to Firefighters, Present and Past from a retired FDNY Lieutenant

"Fellow Firefighters, A great tragedy befell our community on September 11, 2001, an unprecedented 343 deaths in the line of duty. As horrible as that toll is, if there were a rational explanation for it, we could accept it and mourn. We all understood the risk we accepted when we took the oath of office, that chance might cut short our lives when we placed ourselves in harm's way in the public's service. This is what we are paid for and it is our honor. However, in short, the official explanation of the events of that day are not only insufficient, they are fantastic and cannot bear rational examination. We are asked to believe that on that day three structural steel buildings, which have never before in history collapsed because of fire, fell neatly into their basements at the speed of gravity, their concrete reduced to dust. We are asked to believe that jet fuel (kerosene) can melt steel. We are asked to believe that the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, that responded to sixty-eight emergencies in the year prior to 9-11 in less than twenty minutes allowed aircraft to wander about for up to an hour and a half. We are asked to believe that the steel and titanium components of an aircraft that supposedly hit the Pentagon "evaporated". There is much, much more if anyone cares to look into it. Trade Tower #7 by itself is the "smoking gun". Not hit by an aircraft, with only a few relatively small fires, it came down in a classic crimp and implosion, going straight into its basement, something only very precise demolition can accomplish, which takes days if not weeks to prepare. The 9-11 Commission didn't even mention it, and F.E.M.A. actually stated they DIDN'T KNOW WHY IT COLLAPSED AND LEFT IT AT THAT. Brothers, I know that the implications of the above are hard, almost unthinkable, but the official explanation is utter nonsense, and three hundred and forty three murdered brothers are crying out for justice. Demand a genuine investigation into the events of September 11!"

-Anton Vodvarka, Lt. FDNY (ret)

Lt. Vodvarka served on FDNY Ladder Co 26, Rescue Co. 3, Rescue Co. 1, Engine Co. 92, Ladder 82 and Ladder 101. He was awarded the Merit Class 1 award, the Prentice Medal.<<<

So why DID Tower 7 fall down in exactly the same way as the other two, when it wasn't hit by a plane?

So many questions that have not been answered...


(taken from the first link above:
"...and 343 of our murdered brothers are crying out for justice!"


343 Firefighters lost in minutes, thousands of innocent people..and the bastards have served up one of the most breathtakingly incompetent investigations ever known to the Firefighters of New York.

WHY?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 07:48 PM

Could the title have the word 'Truth' inserted please, so that it reads:

'Firefighers for 9/11 Truth' Press Conference

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 07:48 PM

I was just reading about this today (received from another source). Seems like they wouldn't have any problem conducting a proper investigation if they don't have anything to hide.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 07:52 PM

And what about tellin' the folks who did the clean-up that the air was fine to breathe and now lots are dieing or sick of lung disease???

Lotta unanswered question... Lots...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 07:54 PM

Nothing new at all here Lizzie and all that crap has been asked and answered. A lot of it has been right here on Mudcat before and those who believe this was a giant conspracy will always see it as a conspiracy.

Believing this was something other thab the attack it was is nuts. If you think the truth is improbable, how can you believe in some of these wacked out theories?

I'm sorry Lizzie.....Its just complete horseshit.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 07:59 PM

Here's the Architects and Engineers Youtube site with some more info on.

A & E Truth Org - Youtube


If Congress has nothing to hide, Spaw, then they won't mind answering all these unanswered questions, I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: michaelr
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 08:09 PM

All that crap, spaw, has not been satisfactorily answered. If you could keep an open mind for a minute or two, you should look at the Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth site. There is no way you can just call all these scientifically trained professionals "nuts" and be done with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 08:12 PM

I think Bobertz has something that needs attention Lizzie but outside of a few questions of that sort, post tragedy things.......The rest has been answered repeatedly.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 08:22 PM

"Answered", and properly investigated are far from the same thing. Some people may be satisfied with a simplistic answer and a pat on the head, but as we can see, a lot of architects, engineers, and firefighting professionals aren't.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 08:27 PM

Yeah, y'all need to take up a collection and investigate the livin' shit out of it. Don't spend any of my money to do it.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 08:27 PM

It HAS all been answered...in excruciating detail. There are websites devoted to answering it. There have been at least two TV programs devoted to detailed explanations!

There's no way to 'answer' those who just stare at the answers and refuse to believe those answers, no matter WHO explains it. Anyone who just can't accept that such a catastrophe can happen without some 'vast conspiracy' directing it and covering it up will just bring up the same 'questions' over & over. They want to believe that it's all a plot and that 'someone is lying to us'.

Go READ all the other threads on this and look at the answers.....

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 08:35 PM

Bill, you never answered my last question on this subject. At that time, you were claiming that the then current official "explanation" was that the brackets that held the floors up in the twin towers had softened just enough to allow the floors to slip off of them, and then the floors pancaked down one on top of the other. I pointed out that had that been the case, the core would have been left standing. You never "explained" how the official "explanation" of the day that you had chosen to accept could account for the core not remaining intact.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 08:46 PM

?? That explanation was not my invention....it was part of the explanation of the designers of the building and structural engineers. Why should your 'opinion' the "the core would remain" override them?

I don't have a complete answer right at hand...but my 'off the top of my head' image is of the roofs of the towers, with lots of machinery on them, not realizing they were supposed to avoid the cores.

(Smart alec answer? No... I mean that...and remember, parts OF the cores were damaged by initial impact...and all sorts of other stresses.)

Why not look for the answer to your question by doing a search as if you were on my side and trying to convince doubters? *I* am already convinced....*I* need a BETTER contrary answer to change my mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 08:51 PM

Remember...any theory that involves more than Osama, 19 young terrorists, several planes and a lot of luck, involves also theorizing HOW such a vast conspiracy could be put together with no leaks and explaining WHY anyone would do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 08:52 PM

They don't address the issue of the core in that report. But you tell me anyway. How would the core not remain standing if the floors simply slip off the brackets on which they were hanging from the core? If you have a shelf hanging from your wall, and the hanger bends and the shelf slips off, does your wall fall down with the shelf? If so, why?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 09:03 PM

*sigh* It was not just "slip off", and it was not "brackets".... certain areas collapsed when structural beams lost integrity and allowed the weight of the roof and upper floors to start downward. This was not a 'totally' symmetrical collapse, but due to fire having 40 or so minutes to heat beams which had no fireproofing left, it was close....and those beams were connected to the core! It was not two separate structural entities....but the ROOF, when it fell, hit ALL areas.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 09:05 PM

ummm.. "that report"?? Which report? The 9/11 report? There were many reports and studies.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 09:08 PM

Now... 20 seconds of Googling got me this from experts. Am I expected to do better and find MORE?

"Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 09:08 PM

That's NOT how they explained it in the link YOU provided, Bill. In the link you provided, giving what you claimed was the official "explanation", it was a structure that functioned as a bracket, holding the floors up, that warped and allowed the floors to slip off, in the same way that a shelf might slip off a bracket holding it up to a wall. That's from the source that YOU said you endorsed.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: michaelr
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 09:13 PM

I'm finding two things wrong with that just skimming it:

1. "...spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets"

Problem: No jet crashed into Building 7.

2. "'I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn"

Problem: Large puddles of molten steel were discovered under the towers' debris.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 09:23 PM

It was also a case of the distortion of the steel as well as the softening of it. The WTC was like a monocoque chassis you find in some cars. The entire structure relies on the other pieces to retain the integrity of the whole. This make for a very strong assembly or structure until a part of it becomes so compromised as happened in here by softening and distortion that the structure fails. The inner core was not some monstrous self-standing monolith any more that the outer core was.

AS for WTC7.......

"Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse."

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 09:26 PM

1) Building 7 was a separate issue..it caught fire and burned for hours under different conditions.

2)WHO says molten steel was found, and what did 'they' say was the source of it? If steel from the upper floors were in fact melted, it seems to me it would be on top the debris, not under it.

Remember, it is not required for me to 'prove' that the official explanations are wrong...it is for those who insinuate otherwise and claim a conspiracy to provide reasonable reasons! (reasons which must explain HOW beyond just assertions of 'planted explosives'.... you just cannot assert 'it couldn't have happened the way you say' without better evidence than amateur conjecture.)

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 09:29 PM

Thanks, 'spaw...I didn't have time to dig up the whole story...but I do remember that building 7 had an interior atrium which was not like most buildings....it meant less support in the center of lower floors.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 09:51 PM

Just a note... I have other things to do than continue to refute conspiracy theories and follow doubters in circles as they repeat the same conjectures over & over.

I leave you with the reminder that:

The burden of proof is on the asserter! If you have a better answer than the official one, YOU need to provide something more than repetitive claims expressing doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 09:55 PM

Here's one of your posts were you reference the article I'm talking about, Bill...

http://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=102658&messages=715&page=11&desc=yes#2102836

And here's the article...

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/eagar-0112.html

You were citing this as your proof of how the buildings fell. As you can see, they are saying the angle clips (the things I was describing as functioning like brackets) are the week point. In the illustration, we can see the the angle clips were positioned at the ends of the joists, where the joists were affixed to the outer perimeter, and also the core structure. If the angle clips were the week point, they would have given way at the point where they joined the joists to the core structure, and the core structure would have remained standing...

"Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips."


These are YOUR experts, Bill, that you were waving around as proof that all questions have been answered. Anyone with any grasp of physics, and with the explanation being given by these "experts", can see that what these people are suggesting happened is not possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 10:07 PM

Carol....Look at the info on the USA Today site......Note the inner and outer cores......Go through the sequence. I can't see what it is that doesn't make sense.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 10:16 PM

then....read this follow-up report by James B. Meigs, Editor-In-Chief, Popular Mechanics,(read all 4 pages!) as he explains in DETAIL what *I* have been trying to say about the process of dealing with conspiracy theories, and why it is (my language) like fighting ants at a picnic.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 10:25 PM

Catspaw, if your sources didn't have anything to hide, they wouldn't be pretending that the massively built and thoroughly reinforced core structure doesn't exist. In your graphic, they make it look like it's just hollow in the middle, and that's simply a lie.


Bill, your article doesn't address the core at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 10:29 PM

By the way, Bill, that's the tactic you used last time we had this discussion. Rather than deal with the very real problems I have pointed out that are inherent in the version of events that you have chosen to embrace, you tried to change the subject. Both times.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 11:18 PM

Massively built? What is that?

Like I said, and I should have stayed with it, go investigate the crap out of this but don't spend my money on it.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Dave Swan
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 12:52 AM

OK, everybody take a deep breath. There are too damn many variables here. It would be great if we could answer this once and for all of us.

I'd love to think that debate and investigation and speculation could keep crews safe the next time the horror strikes. In the fire service we talk a lot about lessons learned in hopes that we can save the next crew in a similar situation. We've learned some new lessons, revisited others, and been stunned by what we couldn't have imagined.

343 of my kind were killed. It would be nice it we could keep it from happening again.

No one in this conversation is an expert.

At many levels, this remains a personal matter and many of us in the fire service would be happy to keep it that way.

D

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 01:17 AM

The cores of the twin towers were massively built and thoroughly reinforced skeletons of immense steel columns and massive bracing. They were designed to carry the full load of the buildings several times over. Just the fact that they're misleading and lying about, and suppressing information about the actual construction of the cores of the towers is evidence enough of a cover-up, and reason enough for a proper investigation.

Here's the blueprint of the 110the floor core of the north tower. It shows the placement of the columns and bracing. You can change the resolution so you can see them in much greater detail...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html


Here's some pictures of the core as it's being built. You can see the columns and the bracing...

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_core.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/docs/low_core.jpg


Here's more information about the construction of the cores...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html


This video graphically shows how the cores were constructed...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ11i6fi7KQ

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 01:19 AM

Looks like some of your brothers and sisters don't agree with you, Dave. They want an investigation.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 04:17 AM

Mysterious Deaths of 9/11 Witnesses - Youtube


So, Spaw, are you asking me to believe the politicians? Are you asking me to believe the George Bush Administration? Are you asking me to believe the Corporate Bastards?

The 'official' investigation was just that, an 'official' one. It was one, so it would seem that was a complete cock-up and cover up.

WHY, in this, of ALL disasters, would ANY evidence...***ANY*** evidence be removed before it had all been carefully investigated, let alone DESTROYED???   Geez, this investigation should STILL be going ON, even after all this time, in an effort to ensure that NO stone has been left unturned, that NOTHING has been overlooked.

Why were the bin Laden family allowed to leave the country before any announcements were made? The very family that Bush Snr was so chummy with were allowed to leave by Bush Jnr.   How did they know the bin Laden's were even involved?

The death of the babysitter of Marvin Bush's family, the death's of so many of the others in that video there? Yes, people die, all the time, that's what we do, as a species, but so many 'suicides'? So many mysterious deaths? The woman who, just a few days before was found hanging from a tree, publicly stated that she had no thoughts of suicide whatsoever, just to set the record straight, in case she was found to have 'apparently done exactly that' prior to giving evidence in court?

I mean???????

The Enron scandal suddenly disappeared into oblivion pretty much....and wasn't there a guy who'd just taken out new insurance on one of the buildings?


What I DO know though, is that we are living in an age of corruption, the likes of which has never been known before, on such a worldwide scale...and 9 years down the line, questions still remain unanswered and the whole world is falling apart because of the Evil Bastards who've stitched this world up so tight!

At the time of 9/11 did you EVER envisage banks losing hundreds of billions of pounds/dollars, being bailed out by a public who are so unquestioning that they don't even take to the streets when these bastards STILL give themselves billions of pounds/dollars in bonuses????

I don't believe that 9/11 has been investigated correctly, and the very fact that so many hugely intelligent people have come together, nationwide, indeed, worldwide, to ask questions, on the same day, in order to create maximum publicity, means that there is a huge unease about the whole thing.

They have NOTHING to gain from this, nothing, other than answers!

I really do believe that Evil has crept right in and smothered this world in the last 2/3 generations, and it's happened because the Good Men and True have become so stressed out, so run down, so weighed down with trying to pay their bills, keep their jobs, pass their exams, be consumers, whatever has been 'worked out' for them...that there is little strength left, en masse, for people to take to the streets.

These people are trying to do just that, in their own way, to raise public awareness, to raise public anger, to get people to SEE and to get people to QUESTION!

Here, again, (from my first post) is one of the people that I choose to follow...because he has NO agenda, other than finding The Truth.

"....However, in short, the official explanation of the events of that day are not only insufficient, they are fantastic and cannot bear rational examination. We are asked to believe that on that day three structural steel buildings, which have never before in history collapsed because of fire, fell neatly into their basements at the speed of gravity, their concrete reduced to dust. We are asked to believe that jet fuel (kerosene) can melt steel. We are asked to believe that the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, that responded to sixty-eight emergencies in the year prior to 9-11 in less than twenty minutes allowed aircraft to wander about for up to an hour and a half. We are asked to believe that the steel and titanium components of an aircraft that supposedly hit the Pentagon "evaporated". There is much, much more if anyone cares to look into it. Trade Tower #7 by itself is the "smoking gun". Not hit by an aircraft, with only a few relatively small fires, it came down in a classic crimp and implosion, going straight into its basement, something only very precise demolition can accomplish, which takes days if not weeks to prepare. The 9-11 Commission didn't even mention it, and F.E.M.A. actually stated they DIDN'T KNOW WHY IT COLLAPSED AND LEFT IT AT THAT.

Brothers, I know that the implications of the above are hard, almost unthinkable, but the official explanation is utter nonsense, and three hundred and forty three murdered brothers are crying out for justice. Demand a genuine investigation into the events of September 11!" -Anton Vodvarka, Lt. FDNY (ret)

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 04:46 AM

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

--Joseph Goebbels

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 09:11 AM

People's reactions to this are mostly pretty much like deeply religious people's reactions towards anyone who questions their FAITH!

And I mean that regardless of whether they the ones who support the official explanation...or the ones who support the various challenges to it by 911 Truthers which propose other theories of a larger conspiracy.

You get the same reaction in both cases. The same contempt and total dismissal of arguments and theories put forth by those on the other side. The same jaw-dropped amazement and disbelief that the "other guy can't see the plain truth!!!".

It's sad watching people do this to each other. How can this many people be so utterly sure they are right about something they didn't personally witness? How can they be so sure that all the authorities they've decided to trust are trustworthy...or well informed?

In short, it's a complete waste of anyone's time debating about 911 on this forum.

In my opinion.

But if it turns your crank to do so, go right ahead.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 09:17 AM

By the way, as most of you probably know, I think it was an inside job and that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition...as well as hit by the airplanes (in the case of buildings 1 & 2).

However, I am not going to waste my time arguing about it further with anyone here on this forum, because it's like pounding sand with a hammer...completely useless. And it won't change anything anyway, and I know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 10:41 AM

LH, the ones who are not going on belief are the ones who are saying we don't know what happened, so we want an investigation to find out once and for all. That's the opposite of the religious kind of belief that you are talking about. The only ones in this discussion who are going on belief are the ones who believe they know what happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 11:25 AM

Part of what's operating here, Spaw, is the firmly intrenched belief by citizens of the Good Ol' US of A that the United States is and always has been somehow EXEMPT. These kinds of things may happen in other parts of the globe, but NEVER in or to the Red, White and Blue. Hence the refusal to accept what has actually happened.

Couple this with the insane belief that these random acts of terrorism can somehow all be prevented and that they require super-intelligence and planning to execute (couldn't a been a buncha guys with box-cutters, - had to be some MENSA-types ( Or Dr. No?)somewhere.

Get over it, gang! The US is NOT EXEMPT and it will ALWAYS be vulnerable to some extent.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 11:35 AM

Have you listened to or read any of the evidence presented that has been provided in this thread, Greg, that contradicts the official story line? That's really all that is needed to question the official version. No belief that the US is exempt is needed for that. The evidence speaks for itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 01:28 PM

9/11 myths...Reading between the lines

The web is full of sites covering various conspiracy theories. Many seem well-researched, and appear to have plenty of detailed documentation to prove their claims. But are they really true?

We don't know, but one good way to start is by checking a few claims for yourself. We tried that with a number of 9/11 sites, with surprising results. Many of the "facts" we read were distorted, or simply wrong. Quotes were routinely taken out of context. Relevant information was often ignored. And much of this could be discovered with a minimum of online research.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 01:39 PM

So tell us, Wolfgang, what caused the towers to fall? Give us the easily proven scientific explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 03:46 PM

I pretty much agree with you, Carol...but I have come to the conclusion that it's totally useless for me to argue endlessly with the people on this forum who wish to believe the official version of 911. Therefore I don't intend to consume any of my energy in doing so.

I might as well pound sand with a hammer. ;-) Empty the ocean with a bucket. Build a bridge to the moon. Get Woody Allen to convert to Islam. Etc.

***

Think about the arguments that have raged over the Kennedy assassination (JKF) ever since the Warren Commission made its report. Has a final answer been found that puts those arguments to rest. No. And it's been 46 years!!!

This 911 thing is rather similar, though even more serious. I bet we'll all be dead and gone, and people will still be arguing over the same stuff about 911. I'd rather focus on doing something possible than waste a large amount of my time engaging in futile verbal battles with people over stuff like this.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 04:00 PM

Different strokes, LH. Obviously I see it differently or I wouldn't be participating in this thread. While I don't expect that I will sway the minds of those who are firm in their belief about what happened, I do nevertheless feel that it's important, when legitimate questions about the official version exist, to put those questions where people can see them.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 04:04 PM

Yes, I get that. That's fine with me.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 04:47 PM

ummm...Carol.... since Wolfgang and Catspaw & I are not technical experts in structural architecture, physics, metallurgy, demolition, photo enhancement or firefighting etc... and since we have no knowledge of or access to any secret documents which may or may not exist, we cannot personally answer questions like..."..what caused the towers to fall? Give us the easily proven scientific explanation."

Wolfgang IS trained in and teaches how to analyze argument forms in various contexts, and I had a number of courses in such things...and Catspaw is no slouch in seeing thru slippery reasoning, either.

All we can do is read the various explanations on all sides of an issues and see who we think makes the most sense and answers the most questions with the fewest dangling, unanswered parts.

What we DO see is much like the fellow said in the article you say "doesn't address the core" (I have no idea whether you actually read it, so I will C&P some here.

"Argument by Anomaly

In an article about the Popular Mechanics 9/11 report, Scientific American columnist Michael Shermer makes an important observation about the conspiracist method: "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the 'evidence' for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy."

A successful scientific theory organizes masses of information into a coherent, well-tested narrative. When a theory has managed to explain the real world accurately enough for long enough, it becomes accepted as fact. Conspiracy theorists, Shermer points out, generally ignore the mass of evidence that supports the mainstream view and focus strictly on tiny anomalies. But, in a complex and messy world, the fact that there might be a few details we don't yet understand should not be surprising.

You Carol, are over & over asking us to explain anomalies which YOU are not happy with...even in the face of expert testimony which does explain them.
This begins to 'feel' like a child who can't have what he wants demanding "why, Mommie?", over & over. If he doesn't LIKE the answer, there's little one can do.

(and to Lizzie...that building 7 nonsense about "...Not hit by an aircraft, with only a few relatively small fires, it came down in a classic crimp and implosion" **HAS** been explained, and it was NOT "..a few...small fires..."...it was many fires which grew very large and burned for hours! Read ALL the sites and look at the images!!! There are interviews with firefighters which TELL you how it happened!)


So..... I will repeat one-last-time. There ARE coherent, expert, scientific explanations to all your questions and doubts. If you have read them and either don't understand or just have a strong 'need' to distrust them, there's little *I* can say to reassure you. When I see...over & over... repetition of false data & disproven claims, gleaned from conspiracy sites, I can only shrug.

I will NOT be badgered into a circular, redundant process of 'answering' hypothetical questions forever. I accept that 19 guys hijacked 4 planes and with a bit of luck, did a lot of damage. I do NOT accept, with the evidence I have seen, that any complex plot involving our own government was coordinated with the terrorists and aided the destruction with 'controlled demolition'!
If you should discover any new information that gets us out of this cycle, feel free to contact me.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: catspaw49
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 04:55 PM

Well done Bill.......and thank you.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 05:02 PM

So once again, Bill, where is the proof that the towers fell the way you are saying they fell? In order for them to have fallen in that way, there needs to have been an investigation into the structural deficiencies that would allow the core to simply disappear. Your sources of information do not mention such an investigation. The official sources of information do not discuss it either. Their only method of dealing with the problem of the massively built and reinforced core is to pretend that it didn't exist. Now, you please explain to me with your superior reasoning skills and logic, how ignoring evidence is the same thing as conducting a rigorous scientific investigation.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 05:04 PM

I should rephrase:


So once again, Bill, where is the proof that the towers fell the way you are saying they fell? In order for us to be able to say that they fell in that way, there needs to have been an investigation into the structural deficiencies that would allow the core to simply disappear. Your sources of information do not mention such an investigation. The official sources of information do not discuss it either. Their only method of dealing with the problem of the massively built and reinforced core is to pretend that it didn't exist. Now, you please explain to me with your superior reasoning skills and logic, how ignoring evidence is the same thing as conducting a rigorous scientific investigation.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 05:17 PM

What did I just say?


We are going off to the Royal Mile to sing Sea Chanties tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 05:29 PM

Bill the NIST falsified the structure of the core. I have provided both the blueprints of the core as well as pictorial proof that the core was not constructed as the NIST has said that it was.

You are using a lot of superstitious gobbldygook as a way of trying to divert attention away from the fact that the NIST has falsified information. Given that the NIST has falsified information, none of us has any reason whatever to regard them as a credible authority on this subject, and we similarly have no reason whatever to take anything you have to say seriously on this subject either.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 05:32 PM

And by the way, falsifying information is not an "anomaly". It's just plain old lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 05:55 PM

"...NIST falsified the structure of the core."

Now THAT is a new point...is that your analysis/opinion/conclusion? Or is it from some expert?
If it is true, it is important and should be/have been cited and investigated by someone who knows what to do with such serious 'data'.
If it is just your personal interpretation of the blueprints + your view of how the information is relevant, I can't see why I should be alarmed, as *I* am not competent to evaluate those areas of physics and construction.

**serious accusations require serious evidence**

(clothes changed and heading out the door.)

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 02:23 AM

Bill, just read my posts. I've already posted the evidence, and then I even listed what evidence I provided in a subsequent post. Really, if you're going to be responding to my posts, the least you could do would be to read them.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 02:28 AM

By the way, you don't just interpret blueprints. The actual information is right there in the blueprints. It's all there for everyone to see. If the government produces a diagram that specifies a certain number of columns, and the blueprint shows a different number, it's not necessary for someone to be able to "interpret" a blueprint to know that the government is lying. If the government produces a diagram that shows an absence of crossbracing, and we can look at a photograph that shows the presence of crossbracing, we know that the government is lying. You don't need to be an expert to understand these things.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 04:15 AM

If Bill wants to continue he can but I won't bother with it. Feel free to post another hundred pieces of your valuable information here Carol but remember a lack of response on my part doesn't mean you're right or that you've won some great victory.

Hawk does have that part right.........Each side thinks the other is deluded and at this late date after so many times around the track it is ridiculous to even try to keep going.......kinda' like the old story about numbered jokes. Just yell out your number (Cover-Up 83) and we can respond with our number (Myth Debunker 69).

In the end Carol, arguing with you on this matter is like trying to sew with a broken needle.........You don't really get anywhere and there is no point to it.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 05:20 AM

Can't imagine why you bothered in the first place, catspaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 12:18 PM

"Bill, just read my posts. I've already posted the evidence..."

I gather that means that it is your conclusion that the NIST 'falsified' data and that therefore the govt. is lying about something.
Since I have said that *I* do not feel competent to make that determination, and that I see FAR too many problems with the very process of basing a conspiracy theory on data that experts should already have seen, if it were relevant, I must now agree with catspaw and decline to continue this. If YOU feel it is that clear & obvious, I suggest you badger some 'authority', or write your congressman, rather than expecting me to keep answering questions I cannot answer.

MY concerns (as should be obvious) continue to be about the very nature and process OF conspiracy theories.

I may read any future posts, but I will not debate or respond unless I see something really new.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 12:27 PM

No, Bill. It is not my conclusion. It is fact. Just look at the blueprints and the photographs. To conclude otherwise is magical thinking based on your superstitious belief that the government couldn't possibly be lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 12:36 PM

And I might add, photographs and blueprints are evidence. Government generated charts are not evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 12:42 PM

please do not distort what I have said. I have no 'superstitious belief', and I do NOT assume the govt. cannot lie...I just do not agree that it is obvious that they DID in this case. MY 'conclusion' is that 'it is not obvious'. You may call me stubborn, or dumb, or decide that I am part of the conspiracy, or that *I* am lying....it makes no difference to me.

And..." It is not my conclusion. It is fact"

it IS your 'conclusion' that is is 'fact'.

"further, deponent sayeth not!"

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 12:45 PM

All theories which are about any event which might have been planned and caused by more than one person ARE...by definition...conspiracy theories, Bill.


That includes the popular theory espoused by the official report on 911. It is a conspiracy theory.

Conspiracies are hatched by a great variety of people, including sometimes people IN governments and other high authority structures of all kinds. Matter of fact, they happen every day...the only question is in regards to what and by whom and for what purpose (good or evil?)?

Therefore I can say that my concerns are the same as yours, which is to say... "MY concerns (as should be obvious) continue to be about the very nature and process OF conspiracy theories."

;-)

See what I mean? Who is better equipped to maintain the coverup of a major conspiracy....someone who controls the government and mainstream media outlets? Or a few private individuals who don't control the government and mainstream media?

I would submit that the former group of people are far better equipped to conceal their conspiracies than the latter are.

It happens all the time. Governments (and specific sections IN governments...like the CIA, etc) do stuff that they keep top secret...even from practically everyone else who is IN the government. They have the power and the security arrangements to do that. They are set up to do that right from the start.

Example: The Manhattan Project - A large number of scientists and governmental people conspired secretly to create a terrible new weapon in the 1940s that could be used to blow up an entire downtown metropolitan area. They invested a vast amount of money and effort in doing it, eventually succeeded, did an above ground test of the weapon....and STILL managed to keep it all totally secret from the general public, the press, most other nations, etc. No one knew about it who wasn't supposed to know about it...or if anyone did, it certainly didn't reach the press...not till the day they dropped one of the damn things on Hiroshima and proudly uncovered their own successful conspiracy to blow a foreign city to blazes!

That's how well a government can keep secrets if they want to, Bill. It can be done.

Just a possibility...but they DO have the power to keep something enormous a secret if they want to, primarily by controlling their own personnel and the main media sources, and that's done in a variety of ways...money, influence, command structure, invoking "national security", connections, threats, direct orders to certain people in management positions to proceed as instructed. It can be done.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 12:47 PM

What you're doing is magicking away physical evidence, Bill. You choose to ignore real evidence in favor of fabricated props that have been created by the government. Props that run counter to the actual evidence. And you favor those fabricated props because they support what you already believe, and what you prefer to believe. But it's still just belief, Bill, which is what makes your line of thinking superstition rather than logic or reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Confere
From: Gervase
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 05:37 PM

Fuck me, Google makes structural engineers of us all! Impressive amount of knowledge shown here - not.
The trouble is, people want conspiracies. They're more satisfying and provide a crunchier narrratie. Me, I think Princess Di did it.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 05:44 PM

Yeah, only a structural engineer can count how many columns there are in a blueprint or a diagram and whether or not a photograph shows the presence of cross bracing. Not. The trouble is, people want to label anyone who questions their cherished beliefs about 9/11, a conspiracy theorist. That's more satisfying and it provides them an opportunity to engage in a little gratuitous abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 05:51 PM

"The trouble is, people want conspiracies. They're more satisfying and provide a crunchier narrratie."

True. And that's one of the reasons why they were so receptive to the government's officially-backed conspiracy theory about Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and 19 guys with boxcutters. ;-) It's exciting, it's crunchy, it's scary, and it features evil foreign fanatics with facial hair. What could possibly be better for a conspiracy theory than that?

Obama Bin Laden was being named already ON the very day of 911 on national television, in connection with the attack. Wow. That is FAST deduction by our brilliant news services, I must say. I wonder where they got the information?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: robomatic
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 06:07 PM

There's a book out about conspiracies in history, its author is mentioned here: 9/11- Science and Conspiracy

And there's a fresh book on the market: Voodoo Histories

I wonder if conspiracy theories appeal because it feeds the desire that large scale happenings have a purpose behind them.

Where I work we have a weekly engineers' meeting and we end it with the CTOTW.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 06:10 PM

Excellent post, LH. And the other thing that makes the official narrative so enticing is that it provides such handy scapegoats, and it's so much less disturbing to be able to blame it on people who are culturally and physically so different from them.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 06:22 PM

"I wonder if conspiracy theories appeal because it feeds the desire that large scale happenings have a purpose behind them."

Certainly. And there was undoubtedly a purpose behind the 911 attacks...whoever the conspirators were. What that purpose was is subject to multiple interpretations...depending on which conspiracy theory is the one closest to the truth.

Now, you notice that no one has proposed any conspiracy theory for the Chilean earthquake? Of course not. No one thinks there could have been any human purpose behind it....just an act of Nature, that's all. Same for the Haitian earthquake.

911, however, was not an act of Nature. It was planned and carried out by human beings. Therefore it most definitely had to be a conspiracy,(it didn't just happen spontaneously for no reason) and any theory about it has to be a conspiracy theory. The 911 Commission presented us with their conspiracy theory...but its supporters claim to be above such foolishness as believing in conspiracy theories.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 06:36 PM

The only people who are conspiracy theorists in this thread are the ones who think they know what happened on 9/11. That includes the ones who believe the conspiracy theory promoted by the government. Those of us who say we don't know what happened, and would like a proper investigation, are the opposite of conspiracy theorists. We're the ones who want science to answer the questions for us, rather than settling for whatever simplistic and glib "explanations" the government deigns to hand us.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 06:40 PM

I think I know what happened - two planes flew into two towers, a third into the Pentagon, and a fourth into a field. It happened in 2001.
end of story.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 06:51 PM

That's certainly part of the story, Joe. But it's hardly enough information to justify the kind of response our government has had to what happened on that day (or to rule out a different kind of response).

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: michaelr
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 07:00 PM

Joe just handily illustrated "simplistic and glib".

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 07:21 PM

A two hour video, two years old now....giving some more facts, and pointing out how important it is to ensure the truth is told, because two wars have started because of this happening, with over 1,000,000 people killed.

Richard Gage, the man who started 9/11 Architects and Engineers for Truth:

9/11 Blueprint for Truth

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 09:27 PM

On Tuesday 9/11 two jets launched a deadly attack on the Presidential Palace of La Moneda in the heart of Santiago, Chile. A military coup led by Augusto Pinochet ousted the presidency of Salvador Allende, the world's first democratically-elected Marxist head of state.

That was in 1973.

In the following days of this American backed coup over 3000 people were executed or simply disappeared off the face of the earth.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 10:25 PM

Hmmm.

Yes, indeed. You don't hear much about it these days, do you?

A bunch of large American corporations got their way when Allende's government was brought down in Chile.

A bunch of large British and American corporations got their way when Mossadegh's democratically elected government was brought down in Iran by a CIA-backed coup and replaced with rule by the Shah. You don't hear much about that these days either, but the Iranians have not forgotten.

I know a Chilean woman who fled Chile when the Pinochet dictatorship took over and started "disappearing" (murdering) a lot of people. She has not forgotten.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 10:43 PM

People need to start waking up.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 11:35 PM

A bit of thread drift (but not entirely, since it's all a part of the same pattern), here's some perspective from Naomi Klein on the subject of what happened in Chile...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-klein/chiles-socialist-rebar_b_484143.html

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 12:09 AM

I'm sorry, but I don't see any particular skulduggery or deeply hidden secrets in the World Trade Center destruction. I've found that the obvious explanation is usually the best one. I find the fantastic theories about as credible as those of the "birthers" who think Obama was born in outer space, or whatever.
I'm sure the terrorists who commandeered the aircraft on 9/11 were sincere about their cause, and it seems quite clear that they were working for a terrorist organization headed by the wealthy Osama bin Ladin; and I think their American opponents were likewise sincere.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 12:14 AM

But Joe, the government's version of events is one of the more "fantastic" ones. Maybe you can explain to me how the towers fell, if you feel you've been given an "obvious" explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 12:57 AM

Who would dream that people would hijack two airplanes and fly them into two of the tallest buildings in the world? I imagine the architects and engineers didn't foresee this possibility, and didn't design the buildings to be impervious to airplane crashes. To this day, I find it hard to believe it all happened.
I wasn't particularly impressed by the architecture of the World Trade Center. It seemed like a cheaply-made behemoth, not an architectural masterpiece like the nearby Woolworth Tower, or the Empire State Building or the Chrysler Building.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 02:01 AM

Actually I have seen the designer of the building say that he planned precisely for that very possiblity, Joe. That was a big part what he was thinking about when he was designing the building. This was filmed before 9/11. He died in the event on 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 02:02 AM

But please explain how it was possible for the buildings to fall. What was the mechanics and the physics of it?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 02:55 AM

"This documentary was made in 1983 by The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. It contains footage of when the twin towers were constructed from the mid 60's through early 70's..."

Youtube - 1983 documentary on the building of the Towers

Part 2

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 03:02 AM

Similar buildings and stories to the Twin Towers - They did NOT collapse - Youtube

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 03:20 AM

I realise that we may never know the truth, but I admire these people for trying their best to get their questions answered.

So, what if.....?

What if the Bush government *knew* that the attacks were going to happen?

What if they had prior knowledge of it, but chose to keep that to themselves, for their own reasons?

What if it was then secretly organised for both towers to be set up with explosives?

What if, those explosives lay dormant until a very short while AFTER the planes had hit?

And what if, those who *may have* planned it, watched it happening, knowing that all the legal evidence that lay in that building, about Wall Street wrong doings and more which they may have wanted destroyed, disappeared in an instant?

What if they then organised for as much evidence as possible to be removed from the scene and destroyed, going against all normal investigatory procedures?


I dunno. I just ask questions, try to always look at things in a different way....



And what if, this whole prior knowledge about the attack was the reason that George Bush allowed all members of the Bin Laden family (his family's friends) to get out of the USA, before the shit hit the fan?

If they had left *before* 9/11 it would have added to the prior knowlege theory...but did letting them leave at all mean that someone, somewhere already knew that Bin Laden had ordered these attacks?

After all, hadn't they foiled a World Centre attack once before, and with prior knowledge?

1993 WTC Bombing - Wiki


"FBI involvement
In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, a former Egyptian army officer named Emad Salem. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of hundreds of possible suspects.

Salem, initially believing that this was to be a sting operation, claimed that the FBI's original plan was for Salem to supply the conspirators with a harmless powder instead of actual explosive to build their bomb, but that the FBI chose to use him for other purposes instead. He secretly recorded hundreds of hours of telephone conversations with his FBI handlers.[23]"

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 11:42 AM

easy for you to say...Fagelelllok

keep hammering away at them, ladies

Splitting the Sky's trial starts March 08th in Calgary, he tried to arrest GW Bush last March 17 (for war crimes)... more later

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 12:37 PM

"So, what if.....?"

What if there were WAY too many 'what ifs' used instead of facts?

Are rhetorical questions muddling our thinking processes? ;<)

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: robomatic
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 01:23 PM

Just to send the wingnut portion of this thread further down the rabbit hole:

planehuggers

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 01:46 PM

What if there were WAY too many 'what ifs' used instead of facts?

Well, duh. That's what some of us keep saying, over and over and over, to the people with closed ears and minds. The way to correct this situation is to conduct a rigorous, proper scientific investigation to answer the "what ifs" in a way that can stand up to a rigorous peer review process. Anyone who objects to doing this either has something to hide, or they just don't want anyone to shatter their cherished beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 03:03 PM

"planehuggers".... sheesh! Now I have to add THAT to my 'treehugger' persona....


"... conduct a rigorous, proper scientific investigation .."

...and I assume that you will be able to identify one by how well it agrees with your own analysis? I have this suspicion that any new investigation that agrees with the original one will be summarily dismissed as part of the conspiracy. Who me? cynical?......ummm....yeah, I guess so...

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 03:08 PM

No, I'll be satisfied with any results that can withstand a rigorous peer review process. You're projecting your own closed mindedness onto me in your little comment there, Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 03:40 PM

This one's very funny...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDHN1gBkx0M&feature=related

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 03:40 PM

Many 'peers' already have reviewed the process and the data and agree with most of the salient conclusions of the 9/11 Commission....you just don't agree with them.

As to my 'close-minded' comment, that is simply a smart-alec direct reference to my basic view that most of you who are still questioning this, years after all the explanations and technical answers and photos and measurements and refutations of conspiracy theories, will NEVER be convinced. That site just noted, about 'planehuggers', actually claims that there never WERE any airliners that his any buildings, and that passenger list were fabricated, and that video of the crashes was modern 'digital fakes'..... (I just looked again to be sure it really said stuff like that)....and the 'explanations' of how all this fakery was done simply beggars belief!

All it shows in that the human mind is ABLE to look at evidence and flatly deny and ignore it..(like photos OF 757 debris on the Pentagon lawn).

Yeah, I am being cynical now, because as I said, I will no longer patiently explain what experts have found and why I accept the 'silly notion' that 19 young men managed to exploit system flaws and do all that damage.

I keep reading out of curiosity...................

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 03:53 PM

Ok, Bill. Show me, first of all, the scientific investigations that have been conducted into the collapse of the twin towers. I want to see the results of the testing for outside accelerants, and the testing of the metal of the core at the points where the failures took place. I want to see the results of the tests done on the metal in the areas where it was supposed to have been weakened by high temperatures. I want to see what the maximum temperature was that was reached in that metal. I want to see all of the research that was done to justify the government's various theories about what happened.

And then, I want you to show me the peer reviews of this work.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 04:46 PM

I do not KNOW whether the precise tests you say YOU need have been done. I said 'peers' have reviewed the process. Perhaps their review concluded that some of those tests were not required.... or perhaps not even possible.
(I don't KNOW how possible it was then, or would be now, to test significant portions of debris for 'accelerants'! At time, I'm sure no one thought that 'testing for accelerants' would be require, after watching planes crash into buildings. Maybe all they would find is residues of jet fuel?) I also don't know why you want ME to know whether such tests were done. If they were not done, and you are so sure they should be, you should ask those who are in a position to know or to order such tests...or who could explain whether such tests are possible.
   What I do know is that much research and analysis HAS been done, and that I am reasonably satisfied with coherent, documented answers. I am willing to LOOK at any new research that goes beyond just denying 'official' reports. I cannot personally do such research....

What I, as I have said, do have some training in, is comparing various arguments and rhetoric... and I see many basic flaws in the general construction **OF** the conspiracy theories. That means, even IF they were correct, they are inconsistent and full of bad reasoning.

IT IS NOT MY JOB to 'prove' anything to you.... it is for doubters to find evidence (evidence...not suspicions) to support THEIR ideas - or to find someone who can.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 05:55 PM

Which peers have reviewed the process and accepted it, Bill? And how about the peers who have reviewed it an have not accepted it? You don't seem to think that those peers need to be listened to (no doubt because their conclusions don't agree with your own analysis).


You haven't watched the videos in the opening post of this thread, have you, Bill? The guy in this video here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZFDsAH-CLA&feature=related

...is a firefighter. In this video, he reads from the manual with the national standards for conducting investigations into events like this that involve fire. He shows in what ways the government violated the guidelines. He also says that it is considered the national standard to test for exotic accelerants, especially in the presence of melted steel or concrete.

You seem to endorse the "because I told you so" school of scientific inquiry, Bill. I wonder if you would be so quick to accept what the Bush administration would have to say if the subject being considered was global warming or creationism. And if you wouldn't, that shows that you are applying a different set of standards to the 9/11 issue than you are to other issues. Which shows that the only factors that determine which government explanations you are willing to accept and which ones you aren't is whether or not they agree with your own analysis.

The fact is, however, that the process the government has employed to provide their conclusions has not withstood a vigorous peer review process. The main critique of many scientists, investigators, engineers, and architects is that the government's investigation is far too incomplete to be able to form any conclusions about what happened on 9/11. Some of these experts even served on the 9/11 commission. But these people are of no consequence to you because what they're saying doesn't agree with your own analysis. When peers raise these kinds of questions about an investigation, the way to put them to rest is to conduct whatever investigations and tests are needed to answer the questions they raise. In the absence of such further inquiry, the results continue to be inconclusive, and no one can reasonably draw any conclusions about what happened. In the absence of this further investigation, all you have to go on is faith and belief. Which is all you have to go on, Bill. You are going entirely on belief, because you simply don't have enough facts to form a conclusion. Which means that it is you who are representing the tin foil hat brigade in this particular discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 06:01 PM

That is exactly what I was telling Bill about his faith-based form of "rationality" for years, Carol, but I got sick of arguing with him about it. I can't be bothered any more. It wastes my time and energy for nothing. It would't make any difference anyway, because even if I got Bill to change his mind.....then what? Would the government reopen the investigation because I changed BillD's mind? ;-) I don't think so.

But I'm certainly enjoying reading what you have to say to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 06:13 PM

What chance to you think there is that he would accept the results of an investigation conducted in a similar manner to the government's 9/11 investigation, if the subject was paranormal activity, eh, LH? I'm guessing not much.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 06:23 PM

Zilch! That would be contrary to his faith. ;-)

Oh, by the way...

100!!!

Where is my free Hillary Clinton inflatable doll?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:08 PM

Oh, I have seen that video, and I have Googled the name of the firefighter, (who was not there) and it seems that HIS opinion/information can be traced back, thru several steps, to former Prof. Stephen Jones (BYU) who'investigated' the alleged accelerants to further his personal theory:

"Although the article draws no conclusions about the source and purpose of the explosives, Jones has previously supported a theory that the collapse of the WTC towers was part of a government conspiracy to ignore warnings about the 9/11 terrorists so that the attack would propel America to wage war against Afghanistan and Iraq."

Where did these supposed samples of thermite come from? Why, they were " collected by a "Manhattan resident" about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later."

Where did he get the 1st sample? From the Brooklyn Bridge, he says, soon after the incident. Other 'samples' were scooped up in a couple other places nearer the site, they explain.

"Another man collected dust in his apartment, about five blocks from the World Trade Center, on the morning of Sept. 12. There was a layer about an inch thick on a stack of folded laundry near an open window.

Red/gray chips, averaging in size between .2 and 3 mm, were found in all four dust samples."

Wow! There's some detailed, documented scientific inquiry for you! Who did the fancy 'analysis' of the 4 tiny chips (.2 mm)? A lab in Denmark. When did they do it? Evidently in 2006, after Stephen Jones, who was needing to support his already controversial theory 'requested' some samples of dust, and 'received' it from those carefully documented sources noted above. (I cannot find where Jones' 'request' was made, and why he trusted the source).

The analysis 'revealed' that the samples were mostly iron oxide, with 'some' fine aluminum....both of which 'can be' associated with thermite.

THIS is the complex chain of 'evidence' which has prompted Eric Lawyer and several others to assure us that we are being deceived and prevented from 'finding the truth'.

These sites also either originate or repeat that line about "only a few small fires" in WTC 7.....when firefighters who were there assure us that the fires were much larger and did so much damage that they were not even able to enter the building...and were damn glad of it!

Do you wonder why close-minded ol' Bill D. sighs in frustration when I am accused of just relying 'on my own beliefs' when THAT is how the evidence you want me to consider is presented?

I have read YOUR evidence....have you followed and read the links *I* have provided for several years? Go that very long thread noted above (like...700+ posts..) and re-read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:10 PM

Ok... I just read what Carol & LH said about me while I was following the trail Carol suggested....

that's enough...................

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:11 PM

From Ron Bankley:
"Splitting the Sky's trial starts March 08th in Calgary, he tried to arrest GW Bush last March 17 (for war crimes)... more later"



So, let's start giving this man some of the coverage he deserves:


Splitting the Sky trying to arrest George Bush

Splitting the Sky's Website (and on there, you can here 'Anthem for Dissent', an amazing piece of writing, and oh so true!)

STS talking passionately about 9/11





'Splitting the Sky - Exposing The Bush Cheney Cabal - TruthConvergence 2009'

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4 (Twin Towers)

Part 5

Part 6

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:19 PM

But he's reading from the manual that specifies the national standards for conducting such investigations, Bill. So your ad hominem, and your guilt by association against the firefighter in question, and Stephen Jones, can't really apply to the manual itself. What you're doing is not logical. You're saying that because it was a firefighter with associations with Dr. Jones who is reading the manual with the national standards for conducting fire investigations, that means that the manual itself is not valid. This surely violates all kinds of rules of logic.

Furthermore, you are using a straw man argument when you try to debunk Dr. Jones' assertions in reference to thermite, because nobody is suggesting that Dr. Jones' test results be accepted. What I am saying, and what others are saying is that testing for the presence of exotic accelerants needs to be done on whatever materials they do have. The way to prove that Dr. Jones is wrong is to do tests on materials for which the chain of evidence cannot be questioned.

It appears that the kind of logic of which you are a practitioner is very much like the Christians who believe that it's ok for them to sin because they're Christians and they're forgiven. You seem to think that it's ok for you to commit any kind of logical fallacy you want, because you studied logic, so you're forgiven. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:26 PM

And by the way, I don't know how you could possibly ask me in seriousness whether or not I have read the links you have provided over the years, considering the fact that I had to remind you right here in this thread of what is contained in at least one of those links.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:50 PM

When I read something like THIS REPORT I wonder what it is that I should be questioning.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:56 PM

Very good, catspaw. Now I would like to see the peer reviews of that report.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 08:01 PM

Already I can see a lot of holes in it myself. I don't have time to list them now, but I'll try to do it later. They're not holes you have to be an expert to recognize, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 08:38 PM

Here's a couple of observations for now. The guys who made that report don't claim to know what happened. They only sought to show what, in their opinion, was wrong with Dr. Jones' hypotheses. They acknowledge that they don't have enough evidence to disprove some of what Jones is asserting, and they say themselves that further study is needed. On some of the points, they say only that Jones has not adequately proven this points. So this paper acts as a peer review of Jones' papers, and some of it no doubt has some validity. It's clear that Jones has not proven anything as of this point in time. And as the authors of this paper themselves admit, we need more investigation before we can draw any conclusions about what did happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 08:51 PM

Unreal................Jones hasn't been able to prove squat and Protec has shown why while showing the how. They'd like more data so they can show even more how whupped Jones is......LOL

You will never be satisfied Carol...........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 10:12 PM

I suggest you read my post again, catspaw. Either that or stop deliberately distorting my words. I draw your attention to this from my last post...

It's clear that Jones has not proven anything as of this point in time.


But you go ahead and show me where they say they've disproved all of his points. In the meantime, I'll show you where they said that further study is needed. On the subject of the possibility that exotic accelerants were used...

We have come across no evidence to support this claim. (They do not say that such evidence couldn't possibly exist, and it is quite reasonable for them to not have seen any evidence since the government has not conducted any tests for exotic accelerants on the materials in its possession. They only say that the claim has not been proven. They do not say that it has been disproven.)

We do not know the answers, but these and many related questions should be addressed if this assertion continues to be pursued.


Here, they say that they don't know how building 7 fell. They only say that the possibility that the government version is correct has not been ruled out. They do not say that all other possibilities have been ruled out. The possibility that it could happen in a particular way is not proof that it did, and it doesn't rule out the possibility of other ways it could have happened. It also doesn't tell us which, of the possible ways it could have happened, is the one that did happen...

We do not know exactly how or why WTC 7 fell when it did, and we decline to hypothesize here. All we can offer is that, from a demolition and structural failure standpoint, available data does not rule out the possibility of the building collapsing as a direct result of the structural conditions detailed above.

On the subject of the jets of air that people like Jones are suggesting are squibs, they say that the floors were pancaking inside of the outer shell in a way that's not immediately visible from the outside, and they are saying that this is why what they are calling jets of air and debris could be seen coming out of windows several floors below where the damage could be seen in videos and photographs. But earlier they tried to support their contention that there could not have been any explosive events in the basement or bottom floors because we can't see any damage to the outside of the building in videos or photographs. They're trying to have it both ways on that one.

Really, catspaw, If I presented a paper with holes in it as big as the ones in that one as proof that the buildings had been brought down with a controlled demolition, you wouldn't accept it for a nanosecond. The paper proves nothing. It only shows that Jones has not proven anything, either. But, like Bill, you are also going on faith and belief, and not on logic or science, so I don't see any reason to be surprised that you are so quick to see proof where it does not exist. How does the rain sound when it hits that tin foil hat of yours?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 10:18 PM

Another thing that is conspicuously absent from that paper is any explanation whatever of how the core could have failed given the conditions present. They don't offer any analysis of how that could have happened. They just say essentially, "it did because we say it did, and we're experts so you should believe us".

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Confere
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 12:04 AM

"...just sees what (she) wants to see..."    Hey, now it's a music thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 12:24 AM

Here's some other problems with that report. We can rule out their "belief" (their word, not mine) that there could not have been any disruption of the structural supports on the bottom few floors (because they have demonstrated themselves that such damage would not necessarily have been visible, unless we want to discard everything they're saying about the jets of air).

Then they say that controlled demolition using explosive charges is not possible because in order for explosive charges to be able to bring the building down, it would have required placing charges on too many load bearing columns to make it practicable. If that's the case, then how could those load bearing columns have been brought down in the absence of such charges? What caused the columns (and their extensive cross bracing) to fail?

They only address the sound of explosions reported by witnesses, but they don't address the orange and red flashes of light that witnesses reported accompanying the sounds. This was reported by Capt. Karin DeShore of the New York Fire Department, who was right there at ground zero when the towers fell...

"Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I can see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."

And she describes the sounds as "popping noises". She doesn't describe them as loud explosions. So it's possible that there isn't any reason to expect them to show up in seismographic records. The report doesn't address what was witnessed by Captain DeShore at all.

Again, the only thing we can say for sure at this point in time, is that we can't say for sure what happened on 9/11. Anyone who says otherwise is operating on belief. We need a thorough investigation into what happened on 911, and we need a rigorous peer review process to evaluate the results.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 12:31 AM

Here's the URL for the DeShore quote...

http://sfgate.com/gate/pictures/2005/09/10/ga_karin_deshore.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 08:09 AM

Hey, Spaw, you sorry-assed son of a broke-dick mamalucca...I know what your real problem is. You read way too many of them lousy Cheech Wizard comics when you were young and impressionable. They rotted your brain (not to mention making your nuts shrivel up into little dessicated raisins, but that's another matter...). Anyways, if ya hadn't wasted yer youth on that salacious tripe, you wouldn't now be giving comfort to people like Dick Cheney by believing the snow job they delivered to the nation after 911. Get a life, man. Better yet, get a Dachshund! ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 08:14 AM

Interesting paper here...

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: robomatic
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 09:51 PM

Carol, I think you are displaying a similar error in thinking to that of folks who insist that Creationism is a valid theory. One of the questions they think they can frame is "What is the probability of life, the universe, and everything?" and they come up with made up probabilities and they conclude that the reality we know is well nigh imossible by 'laws of nature' and therefor, a Creator was required.

But the probability of "Life, The Universe, and Everything" is well known. It is 100%.

Likewise, we've got planes flying into buildings, the buildings on fire, and the buildings collapsing. It happened within a very short period of time, it is documented on all sorts of media, and the folks who claim that an airplane didn't hit the Pentagon, other little apparent inconsistencies like that, have been disproved.

The fact that structural engineers may still be arguing over the details of what collapse led to what further collapse does not change the facts of the collapse itself.

Now, as far as the more scientific 'appearing' articles that are coming out claiming metallurgical evidence of thermite, I'm not that kind of engineer. I can't tell if there is any sense to it, but I also can't tell if those photos are what they are supposed to be, the 'scientists' who they are supposed to be, that folks aren't doing their best attempt at falsification and lying. I think that is the sort of thing we may be seeing, because folks have staked reputations on some very wild theories, and they might very likely be lying like hell.

Therefore, it is coming time that we start to do a bit of epistemology on these articles. So and so wrote this and is actually in a position to know this.

I believe the planes and passengers were real, the terrorists and their backgrounds were real, and the buildings really fell because of them. The 'truther' movement has been marked not by a coherent strain of logical consistency, but by a multiplicity of claims woven out of any little fragment of unknown elements that can be exploited. It is sort of like saying anything that is not only plausible, but remotelty believable by anyone with any axe to grind, the theme being: "you can't trust anyone but me".

It gets old after a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: LadyJean
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 10:08 PM

It would take at least a hundred people several days to set charges in the towers.
Somebody would have seen them, especially in Tower 7, where security would have to be pretty tight.
Have you ever tried to get into an office building? There's generally somebody somweplace who wants to know who you are and what you're doing there, and check some I.D. I would think this would be especially true of the World Trade Center, since the buildings were bombed in 1993.
I loathed Bush and Cheney, and I would put very little past them. But I don't believe there was any 9/11 conspiracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 10:52 PM

You couldn't possibly be more laughably wrong, robomatic. Whereas the study of creationism requires the suspension of the use of scientific method, what I am suggesting is that we apply the scientific method to the investigation of what happened on 9/11 (for the first time). I'm sure that if your cherished beliefs about what happened on 9/11 are valid, they will withstand the rigors of the scientific process. But perhaps that's what you're worried about. Maybe you're concerned that they won't, and that's why you don't agree that we need a thorough scientific investigation into what happened on 9/11 and a rigorous peer review of the results.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 11:20 PM

Lady Jean, that is an assumption. It's quite possible that you are correct, but your assumption is not proof of anything. The only way to know for sure is to investigate.

There was a lot of work being done on the WTC during the weeks leading up to 9/11, and there were a lot of workers accessing the parts of the building were people would need to go if they were going to plant charges. There was a maintenance space in between each floor where people could move about and do whatever they needed to do without the tenants of the buildings being aware of them. And the Bush family was closely tied to the company that had the security contract on the buildings of the WTC. So we really can't say with any certainty that there wasn't sufficient opportunity for someone to plant charges in the buildings. The only way to know for sure is to conduct a thorough, scientific investigation, and a rigorous peer review of the results.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 11:55 PM

"Marvin P. Bush, the president's younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served. ... According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center 'up to the day the buildings fell down.'"

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html

I've been fighting this since day one. Asymmetrical plane damage does not cause symmetrical collapse. One in a billion chance, maybe, but twice in one day? That kind of collapse would be like cutting a tree with an axe, and then when you think it's going to fall over, it disintegrates into toothpicks in front of you. Come on. We all know we were lied to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_0CkvzqidE (5 minute video)

The shooting at the pentagon today. They're saying the guy was a mentally ill "truther." You're now mentally ill if you admit to the truth of government involvement in 9/11. You'd better get off your asses on the 9/11 issue, people. The criminal consortium that controls the world NEEDED 9/11 in order to continue their massive crimes. And now they're fixing to subject you to mental-institution tortures if you question them about it. The window of opportunity to question the crime is now closing. You'd all better suck it up and speak out about what happened.

And this isn't just a "Bush" crime, now. Obama's refused to investigate. If you cover for a murderer, you can be charged with the murder yourself. Obama is now part of the 9/11 crime. They're counting on your willingness to give the "other team" a chance, and they're counting on your self-restraing notion of "racism" to let this mass murderer continue the cover-up, but don't fall for it. A "bi-partisan" team covered up the crime in the first place, and now a change of administration is continuing the cover-up.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 12:08 AM

No, ichMael, I think the reason people are saying he was mentally ill was because he went up to one of the most heavily guarded buildings in the world and started shooting people.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 04:58 AM

John F. Kennedy talking from the past, about a future he dreaded happening...

JKF and Truth


We are now living inside the future he tried so hard to stop happening......

So ask yourself if what happened to JFK and what has since happened in this world are, in any way, linked by those who have the ultimate power on this planet.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 11:15 AM

Yes, we are indeed, Lizzie. I have seen with my own eyes the accomplishment of much of what is in George Orwell's novel "1984" during my own lifetime.

The novel described a future society which appeared to be an alliance of the Anglo countries...the UK and the USA (and probably Canada and Australia) which had turned into a surveillance-controlled society with a centralized command and a controlled media and a common ruling purpose.

The primary purposes of the media were to establish rigid conformity and obedience in the public, to suppress truth, to entertain and distract people, and to whip up extreme paranoia about "foreign enemies" and extreme patriotism so that the public would support an eternal state of war in distant places.

The war was never supposed to end, therefore it was based on fighting an ill-defined enemy in many places, and on never reaching any final conclusion. It would flare up in one place for awhile, then shift to another place.

The controlled mass media could fake anything they wanted to through their total management of what the public was exposed to in "the news"...the news being mainly just propaganda.

We're not yet as badly off as the people in "1984", though, so the process has not completed itself. We still have a free interchange of ideas on the Internet and through commercially available books by many authors. We still have political columnists who dare to step outside the conventional boundaries of opinion.

It's not easy to pull off something like the dictatorship in "1984", but it can be done. The easiest way to do it is through supposedly protecting "national security" against an outside threat.

That has been the means of achieving domestic enslavement. It took huge steps forward under the Bush administration. I haven't seen much yet to give me confidence that the Obama administration will not follow along the same lines...notwithstanding the fact that Obama sounds much more agreeable than Bush.

Our political system is far more subtle and clever than the one Orwell wrote about in 1984, because it uses multi-party politics to throw up the illusion of a healthy democracy in front of people.

The political parties are used in the old "good cop - bad cop" game to keep the public bouncing back and forth between one and the other. This gives people the feeling that they have a genuine democracy and repeatedly stires their hopes for change. That could be seen dramatically in the gigantic wave of hope and excitement that fueled Obama's successful campaign and election.

People thought it would turn everything around.

That's the way the system is designed. One party takes away your rights and makes things worse until people get so disgusted that they throw it out of office. Then the other pary takes over, and advances basically the same domestic and international policy, with some minor differences in style, and your rights are soon further eroded and things continue to get worse. So then people get furious, and they kick THAT party out, and the first one comes back in, and......

On and on. If both parties are really run by the same interests, you see, then the public is kept off balance by playing one against the other over and over again.

That's clever. It's much more clever than a single monolithic rule by a centralize command (like in 1984 or in the Soviet Union).

The best way to enslave people is to do it while convincing them they are "free"...because they have multi-party elections...but if both or all parties secretly serve the same interests...then the people are not free. They are under an oligarchic dictatorship which holds elections merely for show.

Note how the British public got exactly the opposite of what they expected and hoped for when they enthusiastically elected Tony Blair. That's how the game works. I suspect something similar is going to happen with Barack Obama...actually it's already well under way.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 02:40 PM

All of which is nicely encapsulated by Keefer Sutherland's grandfather, Tommy Douglas, in his Mouseland speech. Tommy would be turning over in his grave if he knew how eager his grandson is to make a buck peddling the cats' propaganda...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqpFm7zAK90

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 02:51 PM

"Yes, we are indeed, Lizzie. I have seen with my own eyes the accomplishment of much of what is in George Orwell's novel "1984" during my own lifetime."

Oh, Cripes!!!! YES!!!!

I've been banging on about that for so many years, Little Hawk!

The BBC told me to stop talking about social issues because it was upsetting people...and then they told me they'd take steps to deal with the Witch Hunt against me (their term)...so they banned ME!????

It's something that won't go 'away' in my head, because no-one at the BBC would talk to me...apart from a really nice lady, who was head of their Customer Services Dept. She said she'd go off and investigate it all because she could see from the board that something very wrong was going on. She told me she'd come back to me in a week or so. She didn't come back, so I went to her. She sounded so embarraseed when she told me that she wasn't allowed to discuss *anything* with me at all anymore...and that this had come from higher up. I tried so hard to get her to talk to me, but she kept repeating that she wasn't allowed to. I told her she'd given in....and she said..."Lizzie, I'm *so* sorry"

WHY did the BBC do that? Why was I literally 'forbidden' to talk, on a public messageboard, about what was happeing 'out here' in the big wide world? It released an anger inside me that won't go away, even to this day..and I see that same Corporate Silencing going on all around me...just as I see people who've given in, like that lady did...preferring to toe the company line and keep their lives 'easy'

So many people have sold their souls to those who are far worse than the Devil could ever hope to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 03:06 PM

That's a good video, Carol..

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 03:30 PM

Banned by the BBC ? you must be doing something right, Lizzie...

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 04:06 PM

I'm working on it, Ron. ;0)

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 05:45 PM

Tommy Douglas explains the undemocratic nature of the modern party system perfectly in his little story about "Mouseland". The cats are in charge of the parties. The mice vote them in.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 07:41 PM

This link is to a segment from Chris Matthews' show. He says the pentagon shooter was a "truther." Asks if he was a "building 7 guy."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKquk2ssryA (5 minute video)

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 07:47 PM

A question for the people trying to rationalise with the conspiracy theorists: Why? Why would you bother? Do you imagine there to be any point to your effort?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 08:09 PM

*still reading but....*

Royston....in person, it's best to stop as soon as you realize you are getting nowhere. In a public forum, I like to at least be sure my side of the issue is well-presented and counter arguments scattered thru the thread, just in case anyone stumbles on it and has not heard the .... ahem... rational side before.

It is the case that those supporting conspiracy theories or just 'doubting' the official answers have amazing tenacity and tend to copy and repeat the same set of claims over & over until it takes a LOT of effort to sort it all out. A search on '9/11' + 'truth' will get you many more accusers than defenders.

I've done about all I can do...as have several others. Once my personal honesty and ability to separate reason from prejudice was called into question, I called it 'enough'.

(no...I will not respond to critiques of THAT post)

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 08:13 PM

COINCIDENCE THEORIST.

That's a term I read the other day. If you don't think that the two towers coming down the way they did on 9/11 was a CONSPIRACY, then you must think it was a COINCIDENCE.

It's more comforting to believe that political life is just natural cause and effect, just...coincidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 08:26 PM

Royston, that term, "conspiracy theorist" really has no place in a logical discussion about the events of 9/11, because the way it is being used is a logical fallacy. It is used to try to silence people who are asking legitimate questions through the use of an ad hominem argument. And it ignores the fact that the government's theory is also a conspiracy theory, so it is illogical also because it is inconsistent.

So I would ask you a similar question - why would you try to rationalize with people who are approaching the discussion of the events of 9/11 in such an illogical and inconsistent manner, and who are so opposed to approaching the question of what happened on 9/11 in a manner that is scientific and logical?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 08:27 PM

Thanks, Bill D.

I, for one, do appreciate the efforts. When this thread reared up, I did flex my fingers in preparation, but then when I looked over it and at the related thread, I just lost the will to type.

Lizzie sums it all up - the reason people refuse to talk to her is that the effort is just pointless, any disagreement with her is a conspiracy and then the refusal to keep bludgeoning one's head against the brick wall becomes the crowning proof of the machinations against her.

Sorry, Liz, it's not all about you, but you raised that BBC thing again and that makes you the most clear and present example of this problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 08:31 PM

Heh. I read your post wrong, Royston. I see your post was addressed to the people who are themselves using illogical arguments as if they were the ones who were being rational. LOL. Good one, Royston. Very funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 08:39 PM

So let me rephrase my earlier post.

Here we have an example of two people, Royston and Bill D, who are themselves guilty using logical fallacies as the basis for their arguments, and whose entire argument in favor of accepting the government's version of events with no evidence to back it up, is that they believe in that version of events, so it must be true. And these two people, who are operating entirely on belief and faith and not on science and logic, are accusing others of being irrational.

Pot and kettle, my friends, pot and kettle.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 08:40 PM

You know, I will just make one post on this subject.

I sat there on 11 September 2001 in my house in Charlton, and I watched two planes crash into the WTC towers. Both of them - I saw them - slammed into the buildings and disappeared. Ejecta was thrown out the other three sides of both towers. It was perfectly obvious that the cores of both buildings had been sliced.

That the cores of both buildings were structurally compromised to a fatal extent was confirmed by the testimonies of people who escaped below the crash sites and by the pre-mortem testimonies of the people trapped above the crash sites and by the fire-fighters that were sent in to find a way up.

I have some bitter experience of tearing down reinforced concrete marine structures. I have even more experience of fire damage in steel structures (ships and platforms) and in steel/concrete portal-frame buildings. I was talking by 'phone with a number of people - who will probably come on here to attest to the discussions if people doubt me - on that morning about what we regarded as the inevitable fact that both buildings were going to come down before the morning was finished.

It really is that simple, to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 08:41 PM

CarolC,

I find all your other posts intelligent and lucid.

I am surprised by your views on this subject, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 08:45 PM

How many of the core columns were damaged at the level of the plane crashes in both buildings, Royston? And just for the sake of argument, let's say that the core columns at the level of the plane crashes were fatally damaged (there is also evidence that they were not, however), how would that effect the columns below the level of the plane crashes? What caused all of the rest of the core to fail? What is the mechanism that allowed this to happen? How did that work?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 08:58 PM

Welcome to the club of gullible, irrational, stubborn suckers, Royston...wanna come to our annual picnic? We serve cotton candy & humble pie.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 09:15 PM

People are always surprised by other people's views on this subject...unless they happen to agree with them.

Nobody can fathom how the other guy couldn't possibly see it the way they do. ;-)

And you cannot determine by that division anything about those people on the other side...such as their intelligence level, their rationality, their sanity, or anything else. All you can determine from it is what they believe about 911. Period. They might be just as smart and rational and every other good thing as you are.

Each side would apparently love to live with the smug certainty that those who disagree with them are fools, crackpots, and idiots.

Alas! Life is just not that simple, kids. ;-D If it was, we'd all have been born wearing black hats and white hats...like in a 1950 Hollywood western.

And no one would have to think about anything then, would they? You could just kill all the guys wearing the black hats and feel quite righteous about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 09:24 PM

I know Carol, by the way, and yes...she is intelligent and lucid.

She just happened to take a different path up the mountain on this particular matter than you did (Bill and Royston). So did I. You take a different path and you notice different stuff along the way.

I don't know of any way that anyone here can prove which path is the best one, but it's plain to me that we are all intelligent and lucid people.

How did it happen that you saw the first plane hit, Royston? You just happened to be looking the right way at that time? (I'm not expressing skepticism about what you said, I'm just curious how it happened, that's all.)

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 09:35 PM

Welcome to the club of gullible, irrational, stubborn suckers, Royston...wanna come to our annual picnic? We serve cotton candy & humble pie.

Bill, you have no difficulty making these kinds of accusations against other people. Surely you're man enough to be able to take a little bit of what you so frequently dish out.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 09:49 PM

Why is this particular thread drawing so many spam attacks? What makes us so special?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: LadyJean
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 10:50 PM

You know this discussion might work a little better if both parties would stop calling each other names.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 11:03 PM

Indeed, LadyJean. I'm perfectly happy to just carry on a discussion based on the actual arguments and not on whether or not other people are rational or logical. But for years, people who question the official version of events on 9/11 have been subjected to all kinds of ad hominem attacks, including right here in this thread, to the point that it drowns out our ability to carry on a reasonable discussion. As we can see right here in this thread, as soon as someone brings the subject up and asks questions, the thread is descended upon by hoards of people who don't want to actually carry on a reasoned discussion, but only to abuse those who see things differently than themselves. And they are operating on belief at least as much as, and often far more so, than those they are abusing.

It's time to show which people are really being irrational, and which people just want more information. It's time to show people that ad hominem attacks will not shut us up.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: michaelr
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 11:43 PM

Hear, hear, Carol.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 04:59 AM

CarolC, and LH: just to be clear, I don't think anyone here is unintelligent. Far from it. I said that knowing CarolC and others to be highly intelligent and lucid, causes me to be surprised that some of the conclusions expressed here have been reached. Please don't mistake what I said.

I simply think that you are wrong, and I know that this conspiracy theory is mostly based on a strong desire not to believe in a world where such tragic and stupid and pointless things can happen. I understand that. Like a lot of conspiracy theories, it starts with the conclusion that is desired and then everything else is carefully selected and interpreted working back from the conclusion to the initiating event.

And that reverse engineering of an otherwise unsuspported conclusion will akways be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 05:08 AM

Royston, the term "conspiracy theory" has no place in a logical and rational discussion of this subject. It is an ad hominem argument that is designed for only one purpose - to smear those to whom it is applied, and thereby silence them. It is not a rational argument or counter argument. I can understand that you need to believe the official version, even with no evidence to back it up, because it's traumatic to think that the US government could possibly be responsible for something as tragic and disturbing as what happened on 9/11. This is a very understandable impulse. But it's not science.

So give me the scientific explanation of how it was possible for the towers to fall.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 06:59 AM

CarolC,

You can read the official explanation. It is the explanation that I believe, it is the explanation supported by science that is within my personal experience of construction, fire, explosion and impact (I work as a field-investigator in the marine insurance industry - everything from ships to port and terminal infrastrucutre, offshore and energy infrastructure.)

That you believe the official reports to be other than accurate, logical and factual then that is your prerogative, just don't expect anyone to take that leap of faith with you.

Take note: My respect for you and others is undiminished. I remain simply surprised at the conclusions you come to.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 07:30 AM

Royston, there is no official explanation for the failure of the core.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 07:39 AM

In fact, rather than give an explanation of what made it possible for the core to fail, the government prefers to pretend that it never existed.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Mr Happy
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 08:52 AM

What does it mean 'official explanation'?

Is it the US Govt. account?

Since the event, there's been alternative, yet independent research culminating in other qualified explanations.

Which do we believe?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 11:59 AM

So, royston...WHAT caused Building 7 to come down in exactly the same way that the Twin Towers did?

There was no plane, remember.

Yet, seven hours later, it ....ooopsadaisy....fell down...

boom boom boom...

down down down...

Did you watch that video I posted earlier, about huge towers around the world that burned for up to 24 hours, yet were still left standing? Did you see the plane that crashed into the Empire State Building in the 1940s yet, it was still left standing?

Did you listen to the video of John F. Kennedy saying how he was going to fight the secrecy, open up the Amercian Government as never before....

Did you bother to read anything I posted, other than the bit about the BBC, which was actually to do with freedom of speech being removed from someone who had been told to stop talking about social issues..because it was upsetting the proles, which related to Little Hawk's post about 1984?

Or did you just ocme in here to do your ususal Lizzie Bashing?

This thread is really interesting and I'm sure I'm not the only one who's learning a lot by reading it.

Go back, look at those videos, and when you have, please explain to me why Building 7 came down in the way it did. Indeed, why it came down at ALL.

Sorry, but I believe the architects, the engineers and the firefighters, rather than a bunch of Corporate Bosses who also happened to be politicians in a cabinet that was awash with Corporate Bastards, headed by a man so stupid that they could tell him anything, get him to do anything and he would. He was their Ideal President, because Bush enabled them, through his utter stupidity to do whatever they damn well wanted.

And if you truly believe there was no conspiracy, then explain to me why Greece has no money, England has no money, the banks have no money...yet the Bankers have billions of pounds in bonuses!

WAKE UP!!!!


And then, watch the machinations of the trial of Splitting the Sky, which starts tomorrow. Watch ALL the videos of his that I posted above, read his story, watch him try to arrest Bush, watch HIM getting arrested...and listen to what he says, because he knows one helluva lot more than most of us on this forum, and he's been willing to risk his life to try to draw the world's attention to the corruption and lies that are all around us!

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 12:44 PM

"mostly based on a strong desire not to believe in a world where such tragic and stupid and pointless things can happen."

Royston, let's assume that the official report is correct and that Osama Bin Laden and various people in Al Qaeda planned and carried out the 911 attacks all by themselves...with no domestic assistance from American sources in the US government or its covert agencies.

If so, the results definitely were tragic. But they weren't pointless! Osama Bin Laden's whole reason for wanting to strike at the USA has always been clearly explained in things he has said when issuing his statements. He is angry at the USA because of:

1. the presence of American military forces in Saudi Arabia
2. the presence of American military forces in other parts of the Arab world, which he sees as a form of colonialism
3. the USA's continual support of Israel, and the unresolved plight of the Palestinians

He wanted to strike back privately at the USA over those issues, since the Arab governments will not do so. He wanted to do major financial damage to the USA, since he felt that would be the most effective way of eventually getting the USA to pull its forces out of the Middle East. He wanted to provoke the USA into a series of extremely costly wars in various places, wars which would eventually bankrupt the USA.

He's fighting an empire. He has concluded that the American empire's weakest link is not its military, which is the world's strongest by far, but its financial structure.

For him to have attacked the WTC buildings would not be pointless at all. The destruction of those buildings would do major financial damage in the first place and would most definitely provoke the USA into a series of costly foreign wars.

*****

Now, suppose instead that 911 was a plot hatched in the USA by people in the Project for a New American Century...people like Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, the Bushes, etc...

They wrote a paper in the 90s on the need for a "Pearl Harbour-level event" which was what they felt would be required in order to take the next steps in establishing the USA as the undisputed superpower and boss of the whole world. Such an event would be needed in order to get the American public onside to support at series of foreign wars aimed at securing control of various oil-producing areas in the Middle East and the Caspian Sea region. The countries which would need to be attacked included Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and possibly Syria...perhaps Pakistan, depending on how things went there.

There was no way the American public could possibly be persuaded to support such a series of wars unless the USA were first openly attacked by someone.

But by whom???? No one out there is stupid enough or suicidal enough to openly attack the mainland USA on the level that Japan did in 1941 at Pearl Harbour, because such an attack would doom any government which carried it out.

So no Muslim government was going to do it. A bit of a problem there for the people in the PNAC!

They had to instead get some non-governmental outfit to either do the attack...or take the blame for it. So they decided upon Al Qaeda...a very small and not very capable group of people gathered around Osama Bin Laden.

They may have made it easy for Al Qaeda to set up the attack by just keeping an eye on their preparations and not stopping them...in which case the guys in Al Qaeda would just think, "Gosh, things are going well there. I think we're going to pull this thing off!"

That's one possibility.

Another possibility is that Al Qaeda personnel didn't do any of it...though I doubt that...but it is possible. You can remotely control a modern airliner or other large plane and fly it into any building you want using computers, and you can knock out its crew with gas in the cockpit, etc. There are ways to do that.

You can further prepare the buildings by placing exposives in them over a period of several weeks prior to the attack so that a controlled demolition can be done after the airplanes make the highly visible public hits on the buildings.

The purpose of the airplanes would be to give people a visual foreign "enemy" to blame for the attack, namely Al Qaeda. If the airplane hits themselves were not enough to bring the buildings down, then the pre-placed explosives would do the rest.

The control center from which radio signals would be sent to the detonators would be Building 7, which would itself be destroyed to remove all evidence after Buildings 1 and 2 came down. The physical evidence would be removed from the site as quickly as possible after the attack (which was done).

Those buildings were losing money steadily. They were unviable in a financial sense. They had asbestos all through them which by law would have to be removed...at a gigantic cost! The handiest thing for the new owners to do, under the circumstances, was to insure the buildings for the maximum $$$ possible, then destroy them...supposedly by a foreign terrorist attack...and cash in.

All these are theories. I don't know which conspiracy theory is nearest to the truth...the government's or various others...but there was certainly a conspiracy.

Any one of those conspiracies would have been far from pointless. It makes sense from Bin Laden's point of view to knock down those buildings and get the USA embroiled in financially devastating wars. It makes sense from the PNAC's point of view to knock down those buildings and get the imperial expansionist policy they wanted in the world. It makes sense from the WTC's new owners to knock down those buildings, get rid of a financial sinkhole, and cash in on the insurance.

It makes sense any way you look at it...if you are an ammoral son of a bitch who doesn't care how many people die in order to advance a plan that you think benefits you.

Now, watch this video:

Firefighter speaks on 911 coverup.

Watch it and give it fair consideration. This guy is a firefighter. He speaks on behalf of himself and many other firefighters who were there on 911, and who feel there was a coverup of a controlled demolition of the 3 buildings which came down. Those are eyewitnesses. They are professionals. Like you, they feel well qualified to judge the evidence of their own eyes, but they see it differently from you.

There are many qualified and intelligent people on both sides of the argument. Neither side can just be casually dismissed as "tinfoil hat" people. One has to consider all the evidence, all the eyewitnesses, and all the opinions.

I don't know for sure what happened on 911. I can only wonder, and continue to read whatever I can find about it. I don't consider the case "closed".

Subject: RE: Is this the WTC?
From: GUEST,johnny prophet
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:42 AM

911 was an inside job. Ask yourself. Did The New World Order declare war on the Constitution and Bill of rights. Does Temple of Set leader General Michael Acquino know what happened? I do believe it's the second largest Satanic cult under the Church of Satan. Does he have the answers. Maybe he can save us form the other devils in the military, house and congress if he is a patriot. Investigate 911. Someone in the military should know unless they are afraid the Anthrax created at Fort Detrick Md. will be sent to them if they sing as it was sent to that office.
Killing Congressmens secretaries who wanted to investigate 911? Wasn't another senators plane from Minnesota shot down when he wished to investigate? The families are right. This Nation is dummied down totally. I didn't use spell check so am i a dummy too? God bless the families. God save those who have an agenda for a new world order contray to our law. Turn them from darkness to Christ.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 02:48 AM

Excellent post, Little Hawk, and I agree with so much you say there. I never knew this bit though...

"Now, suppose instead that 911 was a plot hatched in the USA by people in the Project for a New American Century...people like Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, the Bushes, etc...

They wrote a paper in the 90s on the need for a "Pearl Harbour-level event" which was what they felt would be required in order to take the next steps in establishing the USA as the undisputed superpower and boss of the whole world. Such an event would be needed in order to get the American public onside to support at series of foreign wars aimed at securing control of various oil-producing areas in the Middle East and the Caspian Sea region. The countries which would need to be attacked included Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and possibly Syria...perhaps Pakistan, depending on how things went there."


....Geez!


A New American Century - Wiki



Part 1 of 10 - The New American Century - Youtube -

Parts 2 - 10 are all easily available from the first link...

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 03:22 AM

It's not just the PNAC people.

Zbigniew Brzezinski (who worked with both Democrat and Republican presidents) was writing very similar things also.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 04:45 AM

LH, LC, CarolC

I just said that I think you are wrong. I haven't questioned your parentage or accused you of being child-murderers.

Keep calm!

The biggest problem with the controlled demolition theory is where were the explosives put and how were they kept from being involved in the uncontrolled fire that burned for hours before the buildings came down?

Thank whatever deity you pray to that the hjiackers weren't able or intelligent enough to fly those planes into the twentieth floor: because if they had, the outcome would have been a whole new world of catastrophe.

But, you see, now I am getting involved in this - and I have no intention of being so.

My judgement and experience tells me that there is nothing to fault the "official" reports of that day.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 05:00 AM

Royston, why are you telling me to keep calm? All I did was ask you to provide some evidence for your assertions. If this is too much for you, I don't know why you would project your own distress onto me.

So far, I have given you three opportunities to back up your assertions with some evidence. So far you have not answered any of my questions. So I ask again - what made it possible for the cores to fail? How was this possible? You have told me twice that you have some expertise in this area. Fine, show me what you've got. How did the cores fail?

If you can't support your assertions with any evidence, you really are only going on faith, which is not rational or logical. It is superstitious.

Remember, you're the one who came on the thread and accused those of us who want more information of not being rational. People who accept that we don't have proof of anything are being rational. People who believe they know what happened without any proof are not being rational.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 05:13 AM

Also, to answer this question...

The biggest problem with the controlled demolition theory is where were the explosives put and how were they kept from being involved in the uncontrolled fire that burned for hours before the buildings came down?

The answer is, I don't know. You're the one who claims to know what happened. I do not make any such claim. The only thing I claim to know is that we don't know what happened, and we need to have a thorough investigation to find out.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 08:53 AM

CarolC,

The cores of the WTC towers were not the principal load-bearing members - that was done by the external steel columns. The cores provided some static (gravity) load bearing, but were mainly a central structure for tying the external columns (by way of the floor trusses and slabs) to keep them from splaying in or out.

The planes sliced each sliced a large proportion of the external columns and, for what it's worth, sliced the cores. That is why people could not get up and down past the crash-sites.

With the load bearing connections from the upper floors to ground cut at the crash sites, and the raging fires, it was only a matter of time before the partly or wholly unsupported upper floors collapsed.

As the floors are tied together, the collapsing floors immediately above the crash sites, dragged down the higher floors and that dyamic load caused the cascade failure of everything below it.

That is what you see when the top parts of the towers keel over slightly before dropping like pancakes and tearing down the rest of the buildings.

It's what you see as the floors continue to fall, tearing away from the cores, like a banana being peeled. The disintegration of the cores can be seen proceeding at a pace just behind the falling away of the floors. The cores are what guided the collapsing floors and external columns down in a straight line.

I'm sorry, CarolC, it just isn't at all complicated.

Now if people are going to make an extraordinary claim that this was a controlled demolition - for that is an extraordinary claim - then this is what must be done to support it.

* Find a way of rigging the buildings with explosives at a particular floor without anyone noticing.

* Find a way of protecting the explosives from being involved in a high energy impact, jet-fuel explosion, and then general fire that burns for hours in an unpredictable and uncontrolled way.

* Get two planes to crash into exactly the place that you planted your explosives, without interfering with the explosives.

Sorry CarolC - I am not some sort of leading expert, but I have a degree of practical experience and knowledge of these issues. What I saw and what I have read makes perfect sense. The controlled demolition theory does not. The cores are not the big deal, people are wrong to think that they provide a lot of support for the gravity load of a super-tall building. They do not. The people who propose controlled demolition as a theory, need to explain how the explosives were installed, installed in just the right place for the subsequent plane-attacks and how they were protected from early detonation.

WTC 7 was another structure supported largely by its steelwork. It was on fire from the early morning until it collapsed later that day. It was hit by the collapsing North Tower. It had a deficient sprinkler system. Firefighters were in the building throughout the day and reported the spreading fire, lack of water pressure and structural damage from falling debris. at 14:00, fireighters noticed the SW corner of the building was bowing outwards and they evacuated it at 15:30. It collapsed at about 17:20.

It just isn't complicated.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 09:01 AM

You're wrong about the cores, Royston. They were the principal load bearing members. And they were designed and constructed to be able to hold up many times the weight that they actually held up. The perimeter construction served the purpose of holding up the outside edges of the floors, and allowing the building to have some flexibility so it could absorb some of the forces from the wind.

The towers were built with maximum redundancy in mind and the designer of the building said he designed them so that they could withstand several airplane crashes.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 09:02 AM

...several airplanes the size of the ones that hit the towers, along with the fires that would accompany such crashes.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 09:10 AM

Also, the connections between the cores and the floors were the weakest part of the construction. So if the floors are peeling away from the core, there is nothing whatever that could cause the cores themselves to fail below the level of the crashes. The core construction was stronger by many orders of magnitude than the connections between the floors and the core. With the scenario you describe, and given how the cores and the buildings were constructed, if your scenario is the correct one, the cores would have remained standing.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 09:16 AM

In closing, I will just say that the reason you believe that the cores were not the major load bearing members is because the government has promoted that lie. But that lie is easily debunked by looking at the blueprints, listening to the man who designed the buildings, and looking at the pictures of the buildings as they were being constructed. There is only one reason why the government would lie about the construction of the cores. And that is because they have something to hide.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 10:32 AM

Royston, why did Building 7 collapse in exactly the same way...er..when no plane had flown into it?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 10:39 AM

CarolC

I challenge you to prove that Minoru Yamasaki (archtitect of the TWC towers) supports your claims about the structural load-bearing inolvement of the cores. Because I know how the building was designed to stand and I know that you cannot prove that comment, because it is wrong. Sorry, Carol, it' just that simple.

The angle braces that hold the floor trusses to the core structure are the weakest links - the ones involved in the fire failed. That started the collapse. The weight of the collapsing upper section overwhelmed everything below it, a combination of the falling debris and the undamaged floor slabs tearing away at the fabric of the core structure, explains everything that you see in all the photos and videos of the collapses.

CarolC - do you seriously imagine that the core structure has any independent strength? You say that the core should have stood independently. Do you really believe that? That a 400m concrete column can stand on its own?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Mr Happy
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 10:39 AM

Lizzie,

From Royston's last post above:

WTC 7 was another structure supported largely by its steelwork. It was on fire from the early morning until it collapsed later that day. It was hit by the collapsing North Tower. It had a deficient sprinkler system. Firefighters were in the building throughout the day and reported the spreading fire, lack of water pressure and structural damage from falling debris. at 14:00, fireighters noticed the SW corner of the building was bowing outwards and they evacuated it at 15:30. It collapsed at about 17:20.

**********

I've highlighted the relevant bits to make it easier for you

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 11:39 AM

I'll leave the technical debates about buildings cores and such to the rest of you.

I'd like to comment instead about the geopolitical plans espoused by the people in the PNAC and by Zbegniev Brzezinski...

The funny thing is, there's nothing all that unusual about such plans being made by people in a dominant military power. That kind of thing has been done by most, if not all, dominant and expanding geopolitical powers. They always hatch a variety of possible contingency plans to see how they might be able to enlarge their "footprint" on the world, as it were. Those plans usually involve the possibility of war, if necessary to achieve an objective (assuming that less violent methods cannot accomplish said objective).

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union the world became a very unstable place, because there was no longer a balance of power in the world betwee the 2 largest imperial systems: the Soviets and the American military-industrial collossus. With the Soviets falling apart and much of their former empire splintering into small independent states, there was a huge opportunity for corporate "carpetbaggers" to rush in and take financial advantage...which they did, of course. There was also a huge opportunity for playing various political games, and that provoked further instability in the world.

This soon morphed into terrible wars in the Balkans, during Clinton's administration. It also produced a series of wars in the Middle East and in other areas.

It was natural for imperial planners in the USA to seek every possible advantage and every way of increasing the USA's strength and power in the world following the collapse of the Soviets. All empires attempt to take advantage of such situations when they arise. They extend their power into the vacuum....and the local people usually resist the extension of that power...and wars follow.

The USA had pressing strategic reasons to secure power over key oil-producing areas in the Middle East and in the Caspian...given the fact that we have probably already reached "peak oil" and are on the downslope toward more and more expensive oil and a shrinking supply.

Outright official colonialism isn't politically acceptable anymore...so one achieves it now by causing "regime change" in a small country, and by then putting in a client regime which does what you tell it to in regards to oil policy. That is, you do that if bribery and other forms of influence can't accomplish it first. The last resort in achieving regime change and putting a client government in place is to invade and conquer a country, tell the world that you are doing it to give them "democracy" (Ha! Ha! Ha! Rolling on the floor here...) Anyway, you invade them, crush their army, bring down their government, put in a bunch of puppet pet politicians who are toothless phonies, create the appearance of democracy by producing at least two political parties to run against each other...but you don't allow the creation of any political party which represents the people of the old regime. It's a very nicely orchestrated piece of propaganda nonsense to give the world the impression that you attacked the place out of the goodness of your heart and to help the people, when in fact you were simply adding another key piece to the jigsaw puzzle of your imperial order.

Hence, war in Afghanistan and war in Iraq.

But how do you get your own public to support going to war when there is no overt cause or real threat that would make them want to go to war against Iraq or Afghanistan?????

Well, you invent supposed threats, number one. But that may not prove sufficient to get your public to agree to fighting an unprovoked war.

Okay....you provide an overt cause. An attack on the USA. If no one else will do it, you do it yourself and put the blame on someone else. If no other national government will do it, you find a few fanatical idiots somewhere in the population of the other country and you help them accomplish an attack on the USA...there will be way of helping them, and they won't even realize that you are helping them...all the better.

One way or another, whatever works, you make sure that some kind of attack occurs...something that will infuriate the American public enough so that they lose all coherent judgement and give support to foreign wars for which there is no rational justification.

And that is why I think there was a domestic plot to in some way orchestrate or enable the 911 attacks, and a plot at high levels...whether or NOT there was a controlled demolition of any building...whether or NOT the attack was committed solely by 19 hijackers from Al Qaeda....I think it was part of an overall much larger strategic plan hatched by people in the USA.

I don't KNOW so. I merely think so. It seems very likely to me...because it provided precisely the "Pearl Harbor-level event" that the planners in the PNAC desired in order to make the geopolitical moves they wanted to make in the new century...and these were moves they considered absolutely NECESSARY to the future postion of the USA, and that's why they would do it. They would feel that the cost was justified by the result.

Too convenient by half to be mere happenstance, if you ask me.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 11:45 AM

Carol, LH, Lizzie and others,

Look, I should have stuck to my instincts and stayed out of this because I do not want to end up falling out with people that I don't really have a disagreement with. If that makes any sense.

The thing about the collapse theories is that they probably take the debate away from where it should be - did the US government allow the 9/11 attacks to happen?

Now that is a far more worthy subject of debate and investigation.

But did the US government demolish the WTC towers using twin plane-strikes as a cover? I'm sorry, but that I believe that is folly and utterly diversionary.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 11:58 AM

Thank you, Mr. Happy.   

Apologies, Royston, I didn't see your post earlier on.


I still find it very hard to believe that Building 7 fell down in exactly the same way.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:00 PM

You might be right, Royston. I see no reason to have a falling out between any of us over talking about this. People develop very strong opinions about these kind of things, because they are things that go emotionally very deep. I remember well the day that it all happened and how shaken everyone was by it. People were talking about it on the street and in restaurants to other people they didn't even know. I'd never seen anything like that since the day(s) on which John and Robert Kennedy died. It was an absolutely terrible feeling.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:00 PM

Royston, I challenge you to have a look at the blueprints and the photographs of the core as it was being built that I've already posted here in this thread. It wasn't a concrete column. It was a massive structure of very highly reinforced steel columns and crossbraces. It occupied the majority of the buildings' footprints. You are the one who is wrong. Stunningly wrong, at that, if you think it was a concrete column. In the meantime, I'll find the interview with the designer.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:02 PM

And I'm totally with Little Hawk, theory wise.

Royston, did you ever believe that the banks would run out of money, steal it from us, then award themselves billions of pounds/dollors of our money as bonuses for doing such a great job?

There are people out there in positions of power who have NO conscience whatsoever.

And......they are running our world.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:04 PM

Yes, indeed, Lizzie. They play a very big game, and the only thing that ever matters in that big game is winning.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:37 PM

Yup...

I've a great deal of respect for the Firefighters, Engineers and Architects who are daring to stand up and be counted..because they are up against some of the deadliest and most dangerous people in this world.

Today is the start of Splitting the Sky's trial. Tomorrow, Cynthia McInney is speaking on his behalf. Will they listen to her? Or will they try to paint her as being 'a little different'?


I find it intriguing that Splitting the Sky is standing trial, right at this moment in time I'd imagine, whilst the man he tried to arrest remains free, despite being seen as a War Criminal by many hundreds of thousands of people.

George Bush is free.
Splitting the Sky is on trial.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:41 PM

Below concerns a story from 2008 when Senator McInney was prevented from leaving the US to speak in Damascus on Human Rights..

Taken from here:



"....Has McKinney been put on a terrorist watch list merely for speaking out in support of 9/11 first responders and passionately questioning the official 9/11 story?

As many will recall, McKinney was perhaps the first major public figure to doubt the official version of events way back in 2002, which at the time was tantamount to treason.

McKinney has since become a vocal advocate for the 9/11 truth movement and appeared at numerous 9/11 truth conference and events.

She also made headlines for attempting to get answers on what had happened to $2.3 trillion dollars that was quietly declared "missing" from the Pentagon budget the day before 9/11...."

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:45 PM

Donald Rumsfeld talking about the loss of that $2.3 TRILLION from the Pentagon, the day before 9/11

Rumsfeld on Youtube 8/11

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Confere
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:58 PM

fact check....Cynthia McKinney was never a senator...

and the only way you can tolerate her 'loose cannon' behavior is to already buy into her basic conspiracy theories....which obviously is not too difficult for some. "I 'believe' that XYZ happened" is a lot easier than "I 'know' that XYZ happened".....

"From false premises, anything follows."

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:11 PM

Thanks, Bill. My mistake. 'Congresswoman'.


The trouble is, we don't KNOW, that's the problem. And when you have so many people who design buildings, build buildings and deal with buildings on fire who are disputing what has been put down in the report, then it's only common sense to start looking a little deeper.

After all, WHAT does the US government have to hide?

If all it takes to reassure people is to answer the questions now being asked, truthfully, then they should stand up and answer them, inviting them in.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:12 PM

and the only way you can tolerate her 'loose cannon' behavior is to already buy into her basic conspiracy theories....which obviously is not too difficult for some. "I 'believe' that XYZ happened" is a lot easier than "I 'know' that XYZ happened".....

"From false premises, anything follows."

This sounds like a perfect description of the official version of events and its adherents. But you don't know that her premises are false. You only know that they are unproven. All else is merely belief.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:20 PM

Lunch break, no time to read this all right now, but you know that the core collapsed first, before any outer supports:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_smoking_gun.html

Look at the stuff about the mast, at the top of the page. And those were HUGE support columns. Govt-controlled wikipedia has changed its tune over the past few years and now talks about the walls being the load-bearing element, but that's not true.

As far as Brzezinski, he's the man now running America's foreign policy. He did under Carter and he's doing it under Obama. Brzenskinski's goal is to create what he calls a crescent of fire in the Middle East. A crescent of wars (Pakistan & Iran will complete the crescent). This crescent will deny China oil from the Mid east and block it's overland trade routes to Africa. China will be forced to turn on the former Soviet Union for natural resources. That's the Brzezinski plan.

The Neo-con wars and the Obama wars are all built on the 9/11 lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:24 PM

Lizzie (talking about WTC 7): "I still find it very hard to believe that Building 7 fell down in exactly the same way.

It was on fire from the morning to the time it collapsed at 17:20.

The Southwest corner of the building was bending outwards (pulling away the support for the floors) from 14:00 onwards and that's why the firefighters abandoned it at 15:30 - because they could see it was going to collapse.

Just like the WTC towers, fire weakened the steel support structure and left floors unsupported. It was exacerbated by impact damage (from falling debris). Eventually one or more floors collapsed causing a cascade failure.

Like I say, that is how and wht any (and all) tall building(s) will fail if a fire burns long enough and/or if there is sympathetic structural damage.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:32 PM

ichMael: The Neo-con wars and the Obama wars are all built on the 9/11 lie. "

You could be right, but the WTC towers did not have to collapse to achieve the neo-con objectives.

All this crap about controlled demolition blah blah blah is a smokescreen.

It makes people who question 9/11 on those grounds look stupid. Because the controlled demolition idea is a stupid idea.

By association it makes anyone that questions 9/11 look stupid. But there are intelligent questions to ask about 9/11.

It makes it impossible to engage on the real issue of if/why the US government allowed the terrorists to do what they did. Any attempt to question that big issue is drowned out by the wilder freakshow of the collapse theorists.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:34 PM

Building 7 had just undergone a multi-million dollar reinforcement and refurbishment makeover. It was the regional headquarters of the FBI, CIA, NSA...just about every intelligence organization you could name. At the time, it was one of the most hardened buildings in the world.

And it suffered very little damage from falling debris. Look at the photos of the OTHER buildings in the WTC complex. They suffered MUCH more damage and remained standing. WTC fell into its own footprint at freefall speed. Jane Standley on BBC reported it falling twenty minutes before it actually did. She was reading from a script. The video of her reading that, with the building still standing over her shoulder, is on the internet.

Most likely, the plane that went down in Shanksville was supposed to hit Building 7 (the command bunker for the operation), a little while after the first two impacts, to give the collapse some believability. But a rogue general shot down the Shanksville plane, and the criminals were left with their asses hanging out in public. The owner of the building announced it was going to be "pulled" late in the day, firefighters told people to get back because the building was about to come down, and it was demolished. Video of Silverstein saying it would be pulled, and video of firefighters telling people to get back can be found on the internet. And they didn't wire that building in an hour. It was pre-planned.

Or was it all just a coincidence? Or maybe it was just people screwin' up.

Jeez.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:36 PM

CarolC

A note about concrete construction. You can pour a concrete form really, really quickly. If a concrete core structure was even remotely capable of standing unsupported, then civil engineers would pour the full 400 or more metres of concrete in one fell swoop, clear the concrete plant and contractors off site for a fraction of the cost and then let the steelworkers catch up at leisure.

But it doesn't work that way. The core can't stand without the outer structure and the outer structure can't stand without the core. In super-tall buildings, the outer structure is the principal load bearing element.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:39 PM

There are a long series of USA wars which were started over some surprisingly fortuitous "attack" by some supposed foreign party. ;-) The sinking of the Maine in Havana Harbor was a spectacular example. God knows why the ship blew up, but the least likely candidate for causing it to do so was the Spanish! They were desperate to avoid war with the USA...a war they could only end up losing. Yet the Spanish got the blame for it in the American media, of course, and the war went ahead.

The sinking of the Lusitania was the best excuse in WWI. The ship was probably carrying munitions illegally, and it was probably deliberately exposed to extreme risk by the German U-boats in hopes that it would be sunk, but they wouldn'd have told anyone about that, would they? In that case it would have been the British admiralty who were the primary schemers in the matter, not the USA.

Then there were the supposed attacks on the US fleet by North Vietnam in the Tonkin Gulf...which enabled Lyndon Johnson to pass a resolution putting massive USA forces into Vietnam.

Those attacks were a complete fiction. They never happened. But American media bought it, and Congress responded accordingly.

Then there was FDR's need to somehow get the USA into WWII, despite a public and a Congress who didn't want to go to war. So he put an embargo on Japan's overseas sources of oil and steel....which absolutely guaranteed that Japan would go to war within a year or less. I think Roosevelt was probably shocked and horrified by the tremendous amount of damage the unexpectedly capable Japanese Navy did at Pearl Harbor when the war came...I doubt he thought they would hit Pearl Harbor at all...but he did get his war. Mission accomplished.

Another example: The American people were ambivalent about whether or not to go to war over Saddam's invasion of Kuwait...UNTIL they heard about the Iraqi army killing Kuwaiti babies by taking them out of hospital incubators! The story was completely untrue. But it was believed by everyone at the time, and it was reported even by Amnesty International, who later apologized for having unwittingly spread disinformation.

The American people, like people in pretty much any nation, do not particularly want to fight a war unless it becomes unavoidable. Then they go off patriotically and fight it.

The people in the PNAC needed a casus belli to get the American people onside for wars in the Middle East and central Asia. It had to be done somehow. I can think of no better way of getting it done than to either directly arrange....or indirectly enable someone else to carry out a terrorist attack like the one on 911.

Matter of fact, I keep wondering when and if they'll arrange for something similar or even worse to justify a full scale attack on Iran...possibly even using "tactical" nuclear weapons. I shudder to think of it, but there is nothing these people might decide to do which would surprise me.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:41 PM

I wish folks would start to learn that so many conspiracy theories are an essential part of the plan for perpetrators to "get away with it"

The wilder conspiracy theorists are the enablers of the real, more subtle, conspiracies.

Forget cores, forget explosives, forget WTC7.

Go back to the beginning and look at the alleged 'failures' of intelligence and all the reasons why all the chances to stop the terrorists 'failed'.

That is the conspiracy, if there is one. Everything else is just consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:51 PM

The neocons SAID they needed an event, Royston. In the PNAC document.

Anyway, to me, the most conclusive evidence that the govt did the job is what they did afterward. The coverup. No time to go into all that now.

But this is something new. Because the world dosn't give a damn about the 9/11 crime (why doesn't Britain sue over the deaths of their people in the WORLD Trade Center?), because these animals are continuing to get away with their crime, we have things like The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010 working its way through the U.S. senate:

http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/ARM10090.pdf

A person is considered a "high value detainee" if they fulfil one of the following criteria.

(1) poses a threat of an attack on civilians or civilian facilities within the U.S. or U.S. facilities abroad; (2) poses a threat to U.S. military personnel or U.S. military facilities; (3) potential intelligence value; (4) is a member of al Qaeda or a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda or (5) such other matters as the President considers appropriate.

In the Chris Matthews clip I posted before he's frothing about "truthers," but he also mentions that you may be a terror risk if you have tax problem or had a disability claim denied. The 9/11 attacks allowed for the redefining of Domestic Terrorism in the PATRIOT Act, and now we're ALL terrorists. Television will convince you that "Truthers" should be locked up, and then who will it be?

9/11 was designed to dupe Americans into surrendering control of domestic and international affairs to a group of mafioso bankers.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Confere
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 02:00 PM

"If all it takes to reassure people is to answer the questions now being asked, truthfully, then they should stand up and answer them, inviting them in."

When people get it into their heads that a conspiracy 'probably' exists, there is no end to the questions and demands for 'investigations'. Each answer and each investigation only sets off a new round of questions & demands for answers. It is, as we see, possible to object to or be suspicious of, even the most honest and expert answers and reports. The embedded assumption seems to be "...even *I* can see the flaws in your answers. Someone must be either stupid and careless or lying."

There is no way out of this circular pattern. If you try to answer after a certain point, you will never finish answering, because the built-in assumptions is always that "it couldn't have happened that way", therefore there WAS faked data, lying by investigators and hidden plots. Qusetions about how, if it is so obvious that fakes and lying are involved, no one in authority can see it and re-open the case are just met with.."they refuse because they are hiding something!". There is no-way-out of this circular set of demands

Above, Royston & I have been asked to 'prove' our silly 'faith-based' opinions, and I have declined to do this, and my explanation...that it is not my job or my expertise or my inclination to "show" how it all happened simply is ignored, or I am insulted for my refusal.

I said that **IF** one feels they see a flaw in the official reports,(which I think satisfy ME) it is their right to question those responsible for the reports thru some sort of official channels...not by demanding *I* explain what has already been explained to my satisfaction.

Many, many of the claims can be traced back to Prof. Stephen Jones...who, if you want to question motives, already HAD a theory about political agendas and conspiracies when he began asking for 'samples' of dust to test...4-5 years after the event.

ONE MORE TIME... I am not qualified to evaluate blueprints or metallurgical standards....but I CAN recognize a circular argument and know when to opt out of one.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 02:03 PM

I wish folks would start to learn that so many conspiracy theories are an essential part of the plan for perpetrators to "get away with it"

Royston--

The U.S. govt has controlled the debate on 9/11 from day one. They control television, and they disseminate the talking points. They treat certain things as given and then establish the parameters of what will be defined as "kooky."

But if you stand back and look at the govt story, you'll see that it is the wildest conspiracy theory of all. The Cavemen of Tora Bora were sent out from by Osama. The Cavemen couldn't even fly Cessnas, but they did trick flying to slam into the WTC towers. They also got NORAD to stand down. They even got Dick Cheney to issue an override order on the plane coming into the pentagon.

A ten year old would roll his eyes at that story.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=cheney+mineta+testimony+youtube&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=

Watch Mr. Mineta (U.S. Transportation Secy in 2001), describe how Dick Cheney allowed the plane to hit the pentagon.

Lunch over.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 02:33 PM

ichMael,

Errm, you seem to agree with me?

I said that the conspiracy - if there is one - is in how/why terrorists got the planes and then flew them unopposed into the NY skyline.

It is not in whether spooks blew down the buildings with explosives or not. That argument is diversionary.

It is also designed to divert the attention of people from the fact that a comparable fire or combination of fire and structural damage in a similar building, will have the same awful consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 04:22 PM

"I wish folks would start to learn that so many conspiracy theories are an essential part of the plan for perpetrators to "get away with it""

Your point is well taken, Royston. I do think that a great many well-known conspiracy theories have been deliberately planted in the national dialogue by the very group of high-level conspirators who arranged for 911 to occur. It's a classic Black-Ops disinformation propaganda campaign designed to confuse people, distract people, waste their energy chasing false trails, set them against one another, and discredit ALL related conspiracy theories about 911 merely by association.

A very effective means of protecting the original perpetrators, wouldn't you say?

I also think that if people as high up as, say, Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and key people in the intelligence services were involved......and if a later USA administration found out about it or knew about it....they would NOT utter a peep about it publicly. They would never admit it had happened. It would never be uncovered by any succeeding administration, and you know why? Because it would have a catastrophic effect on the American political system, America's position in the world, and the American public's trust in their own government, and no American government could contemplate opening that can of worms. Plus, it would totally invalidate 2 foreign wars and occupations to which the USA has deeply committed itself, and no American government would be willing to see that happen either. Like Japan in its tragic China war adventure (late 30s to 1945), the USA will go to any lengths to avoid giving up on what they have already committed themselves to in their Middle Eastern wars.

Too much damage would occur if the truth was revealed. Accordingly, if they have covered up a high level domestic conspiracy in regards to 911, they will continue to cover it up till hell freezes over, no matter WHO gets elected president. No matter which party is in office. No matter what.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 04:39 PM

****

In regards to Japan's lengthy war in China, which eventually got them into a world war, that was launched on a false pretext too. The Japanese claimed that they Chinese army had attacked them at a bridge between Japanese and Chinese-controlled areas on the mainland.

The Japanese charge was untrue. It was they who had initiated the fighting, but they blamed the Chinese for doing it. Millions of people died on account of that trumped-up excuse for war, and it's typical of the way aggressive empires arrange excuses for going to war. The vast majority of their people always believe the excuses, and always believe that the war is an act of self-defense.

Hitler arranged a false "Polish" attack on a German radio station just before the Germans invaded Poland. Same basic deal...an attack that was not made by the people who were blamed for it. And the German people believed the official story, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: frogprince
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 05:38 PM

It's obvious from what has been said that WTC7 had been pre-wired with very slow working explosives, so that it would show more gradual signs of impending collapse, in an effort to throw off the clever people who were apt to see through the conspiracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 05:43 PM

I think you may have it, frogprince! Maybe mixed with those fizzy things you drop in Coke.

200?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 06:27 PM

This video is was made during the construction of the WTC. In it, one can see how the WTC was constructed. The massive steel core columns were bolted to the bedrock under the WTC buildings, and were thoroughly crossbraced This video even says that the outer shell was designed to transfer some of its load to the core (not the other way around)...

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1puqt_building-the-world-trade-center-1-o_news

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1purh_building-the-world-trade-center-2-o_news



This video has footage of one of the people responsible for the construction of the WTC (I believe he was the project manager), and some quotes from John Skilling, who was the chief structural engineer of the WTC. I had heard him referred to as a designer, but I guess that may not be the best way to refer to him. However, these two people were part of the team that was tasked with realizing the architect's intention for the way the buildings were to be constructed. Both of these people talk about the focus on constructing the buildings in such a way that they would be able to withstand the kind of event that happened on 9/11. The relevant footage is a little more than halfway through. The rest of the video has relevant material as well, and Simple scientific principals guide the approach being taken by the makers of this video...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4617650616903609314&ei=BTiVS42uJo6mqgKO9qnLAg&q=blueprint+for+truth+gage&hl=en&view=3#



This paper has a lot of documentation that debunks a lot of the government's version of events, and it also effectively destroys a lot of the assertions made in the paper catspaw linked in this thread, including the alleged seismographic evidence...

Click here

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 06:30 PM

It makes people who question 9/11 on those grounds look stupid. Because the controlled demolition idea is a stupid idea.

By association it makes anyone that questions 9/11 look stupid. But there are intelligent questions to ask about 9/11.

Actually, Royston, it doesn't make anyone look any more stupid than the people who accept the government's version of events without question even despite the lack of evidence for this version of events, and the overwhelming evidence that contradicts it.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 06:34 PM

A note about concrete construction. You can pour a concrete form really, really quickly. If a concrete core structure was even remotely capable of standing unsupported, then civil engineers would pour the full 400 or more metres of concrete in one fell swoop, clear the concrete plant and contractors off site for a fraction of the cost and then let the steelworkers catch up at leisure.

But it doesn't work that way. The core can't stand without the outer structure and the outer structure can't stand without the core. In super-tall buildings, the outer structure is the principal load bearing element.

Royston, the core structure was not concrete construction. This is a fiction and a fantasy that you appear to need to cling to because you can't face the reality of the situation. I have already provide proof that the core was not concrete construction (which I have already invited you to examine) and I just now posted some more. If you continue to choose to cling to the fantasy that it was a concrete construction, you make yourself look far more stupid than the people you are accusing of looking stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 06:42 PM

Above, Royston & I have been asked to 'prove' our silly 'faith-based' opinions, and I have declined to do this, and my explanation...that it is not my job or my expertise or my inclination to "show" how it all happened simply is ignored, or I am insulted for my refusal.

Bill, if you were capable of carrying on a discussion in which you didn't persistently insult people in the exact same manner as you are saying you're being insulted, you might have an easier time of it in discussions like this one. And one of the most ridiculous aspects of the way you do this is you tell other people they are not being rational because they are not working with the facts, and then you proceed to use only your own belief in your rightness as your evidence to back up your assertions. If you're going to expect us to accept anything you have to say, you really can't expect us to accept it just because you say so. You seem to think that you have an inherent rightness that doesn't require any evidence whatever, and all you have to do is say a thing and you expect everyone to just accept it because of your inherent rightness. Doesn't work that way, I'm afraid, and it makes me wonder what kind of ego is required to have such an attitude about oneself.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 06:48 PM

Royston, it is not necessary to show how things did happened in order to successfully refute the government's version of events. That is a straw man. The only thing that is necessary is to prove that it was not possible for them to happen the way the government is saying they did. That's all. We already have enough evidence that the government's version of events is not credible. That alone is reason enough to have a thorough investigation into what happened on 9/11.

And there are many good reasons to do this. We need to know the truth, whatever it is. Even if it makes people like you and Bill uncomfortable.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 06:52 PM

Bill, you're contributing nothing to this discussion. Your complete lack of respect for people who won't agree to see it the way you do negates your ability to contribute anything here. Why not just go to another thread where you can contribute something?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 07:05 PM

Errm, CarolC, if you think the WTC towers did not have a reinforced concrete core, then you are sorely mistaken.

What do you think they made it from? Pixie dust?

Honestly, CarolC, if you think that, there is absolutely no point whatever discussing this with you.

Your first video (2:00 to 2:30) talks about how the outer shell carries most of the gravity load and all of the wind loading of the structure.

Madness, madness.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 07:15 PM

Madness, Madness..........

Nice try Royston but welcome to the "poor dumb fools club." I tried several tacks with Carol and I was impressed with yours but alas, you too have come to the same conclusion.........Madness, Madness.

If you don't mind fools like Bill and I, the company isn't too bad at all.........Coffee's free anyway........


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 07:38 PM

about Richard Gage who was NOT involved in the tower design.

from that page:
"The mainstream of the scientific and engineering community has rejected the position taken by the group. In 2005, a report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the destruction of the World Trade Center towers was initiated by a "progressive collapse" caused by the jet impacts and the resultant fires. A 2008 NIST report described a similar progressive collapse as the cause of the destruction of the third tallest building located at the World Trade Center site, 7 WTC. Many mainstream scientists choose not to debate proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories, saying they do not want to lend them unwarranted credibility.[38]"

...I sure see their point...


from a link at the bottom of that page, giving more detail than even I had read before.

Q&A giving main claims about WTC7 and specific, detailed answers

But.. since some have already decided that the NIST is hiding something, I don't expect them to give any credence to it.... this is for those who may look in and be unsure... just to show that qualified experts HAVE replied to all the major accusations.

With a little searching, it is possible to find official explanations, counters TO those; some of the most unbelievable theories one can imagine, a few replies to THOSE theories, and more arcane technical data than most of us can even cope with.

Despite some allegations otherwise, I have looked at the links and watched the videos Carol and others have posted, and when I say I am unconvinced, it is because I have compared those hypothetical 'questions' to the official replies.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 07:47 PM

Royston, I have already shown you proof that the core was massive steel columns that were bolted to the bedrock and that were thoroughly cross braced with steel beams. I have provided the blueprints of the core that show this, I have provided photographs of the core as it was being constructed, I have provided videos of the core as it was being constructed, and of people who were a part of the design and construction talking about them. Now, if you choose to cover your eyes and go "la la la la la la" and pretend this proof does not exist, that, I think, says far more about you than it does about me.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 07:50 PM

Bill, I didn't say that Richard Gage was involved in the design. That is a straw man argument (not logical). John Skilling was the chief structural engineer, and there were two other people, whose names I don't remember, who were on the team that designed and constructed the buildings, who are either shown talking in the video, or in the case of Skilling, was quoted in the video. Watch the whole video.

You don't successfully make any points whatever by mischaracterizing what I said.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 07:53 PM

Nice try Royston but welcome to the "poor dumb fools club." I tried several tacks with Carol and I was impressed with yours but alas, you too have come to the same conclusion.........Madness, Madness.

Neither one of you has answered my questions. Neither one of you has even tried to answer them. You, like Bill, just think that we should accept what you are saying for no reason other than because you say so. As I said about Bill, I have to wonder what kind of ego would give a person such an attitude about himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 07:55 PM

Bill, since you think the NIST evidence is so compelling, why don't you show me which evidence, in particular, addresses my questions about how the core was able to fail?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 08:25 PM

In the Richard Gage video, Gage reads a response to a "Request for Correction" that he, Steven Jones, PhD (physics), Kevin Ryan, B Chem, Bob McIlvaine, and others, submitted to the NIST. This was NIST's response...

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse [of the Twin Towers]" 9/27/07

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 09:45 PM

"I wish folks would start to learn that so many conspiracy theories are an essential part of the plan for perpetrators to "get away with it""

Your point is well taken, Royston. I do think that a great many well-known conspiracy theories have been deliberately planted in the national dialogue by the very group of high-level conspirators who arranged for 911 to occur. It's a classic Black-Ops disinformation propaganda campaign designed to confuse people, distract people, waste their energy chasing false trails, set them against one another, and discredit ALL related conspiracy theories about 911 merely by association.

A very effective means of protecting the original perpetrators, wouldn't you say?

I have to agree with all that. But what constitutes a conspiracy theory? The government's report is incomplete, contradictory and in some places intentionally misleading. That's a fact, not a conspiracy. If YOU issued such a statement regarding a crime that occurred on your watch, you would become suspect # 1. And discussion of the hundred inconsistencies in the report (like the stuff about steel, cores, etc) is not "conspiracy theory."

The government gave us the first "conspiracy theory" when it said 19 men with boxcutters did the job. 19 men CONSPIRED, then the government told us not to pay attention to conspiracy theories. They immediately presented us with a conundrum, and they've been building on it ever since, 24/7, never letting up.

And the U.S. has built an internal police state since 9/11. The Dept of Homeland Security was created and then hired Markus Wolf (former head of the East German Stasi) and Yevgeni Primakov (former head of the KGB). Hired two of the most notorious killers in the western world to "advise" the U.S. on how to "fight terrorism." You see, AMERICANS are the terrorists. Government documents talk about the "legitimate power monopoly" of the U.S. government, and when they talk about threats to that monopoly, they don't mean al qaida. They mean Baptists, Catholics, Democrats. They mean folk musicians, students, blacks, whites. If you can oppose them, then you are part of a terrorist group, and you will be dealt with.

You'd better stand up to this, people. You have nothing to lose. 9/11 was used to initiate "emergency borrowing," and that seed money led to the mafioso bankers being able to manufacture the current "banking crisis." Now the moneymen are targetting the European Union. Greece first, then Spain and Italy, then the rest. The 9/11 criminals are going to take EVERYTHING YOU HAVE before they kill you.

If you want to get back to basics on investigating 9/11, look at Buzzy Krongard, #3 in the CIA in 2001. He worked for A.B. Brown, a German bank, before he went to the CIA. Brown was involved in placing stock market put options against the airlines used in the attacks. Insider knowledge. This was reported on less than a week after the attacks, but then the U.S. govt started issuing "national security" seals to protect the information.

9/11 created the seed money for what will ultimately result in the destruction of the fiat paper money system in the western world. The lunatics running the scam will reduce us to barbarism and cleanse the planet of us, because we didn't hold them accountable for what they did on 9/11. That's what they hope, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 10:50 PM

Bill, I see you have decided to make some serious comments here after all. Great. I withdraw my previous remarks, and I look forward to further serious discussion, as opposed to just ridiculing people who are of a different opinion.

Now, regarding the possibility that the towers did indeed fall simply because the airplanes hit them...and that certainly is a possibility one could give some consideration to, depending on which evidence from which sources one chooses to go with...then how about the possibility that the administration could have been complicit in enabling the attack to go forward in any case?

To put it simply, what if a few powerful people in the USA wanted Al Qaeda to commit such an act of terrorism so they could go ahead and fight some wars they very much wanted to fight anyway?

That doesn't challenge your beliefs about how the towers fell at all, Bill, but it still raises the possibility of a domestic conspiracy at a high level...and not one that would have required the complicity of very many individuals or the placement of any bombs to pull it off. Just a few people in key command positions would be all that was required. A tiny group of individuals in the Bush administration could have done it, providing they were the right people who could issue the necessary orders to NORAD, the intelligence services, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 03:07 AM

Look Carol, if you don't even know how the damn thing was built - even in spite of watching it go up and having access to all the explanations. Even if in spite of that, you still believe that it was built from mashed potato and butterfly wings, what point is there in discussing it with you.

It wasn't built as you say it was. You are just plain wrong. You are watching videos about a process you don't understand and you are living in total fundamental error as a result.

Even if the core of the building was made from jam, snowflakes and prayers, it doesn't change the process of the collapse. Damn, it happened three times - 2 x WTC towers, 1 x WTC 7. Steel frame buildings involved in raging, uncontrolled fires exacerbated by structural impact damage.

That is the way all tall buildings will fail in the same circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 03:39 AM

CarolC, I think I see your confusion.

The steel box-beams (that I think you are seeing and mistaking for the entire core structure) are just an element of the core structure. They rose up on the outside of, or were integrated into, the core-walls. I would need to check, but I would expect that these boxes were also filled with re-bar and concrete as the pouring progressed upwards. The box-beams are NOT the beginning and end of the core structure, there is an awful lot more to it than that. It is a reinforced concrete structure - even probably inside the boxes that have caused you so much confusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Confere
From: Stu
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 09:54 AM

the code draws back


hmmmmm . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 01:11 PM

And if anyone is any doubt about why these collapse theories are actually hazardous to our lives today, go and look at the intelligent and diligent efforts of concerned citizens at http://skyscrapersafety.org/

All this stuff about controlled demolition and comments to the effect 'the towers were so marvellous, they should have stood burning for days' not only detracts from whatever real conspiracy might have existed, it detracts from informed and cogent arguments about the dangers inherent in these buildings today.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 01:26 PM

Let's skip the implicit contemptuous racism of the "19 Arabs with boxcutters" argument of which "Dreaded Guest" was a champion.

Let's also skip the recent abuse (or, more neutral: change of use) of "conspiracy theory" as any theory which includes a conspiracy. That's not the original use.

When I think about what might be the truth in a complex series of events, I don't go down to single bits of facts or theories for at least two reasons. The main reason is of course that I do not understand enough to be able to judge for myself who is right with one particular argument. The next reason is that I do not expect every detail to be correct or each theory why something happened to be the best theory even in what I think is the most reasonable story line. I try to look at the whole picture and what makes most sense of it.

Who, why, and how?
I don't believe even for a moment that a false flag operation of the US (and most other as well) administration would be unconceivable. It has happened and even Hitler who did not care much about world opinion has staged a false flag operation as a "reason" to attack Poland.

So, disregarding for a moment the 19 Arabs (at least one of them wasn't Arab, BTW) scenario and taking a false flag scenario serious, who could be the culprit? (1) Some small group in the USA, led by big C (C like clever, or what had you thought), in order to drag the USA into an action (Afghanistan, Iraq) they would normally not have started. (2) A secret service outside the USA hoping for the same sequence of events, either with the intention to help their own country (Mossad, for instance) or (3) with the intention to damage the USA (that could be the KGB hoping to push the USA into the Afghanistan quagmire; or the Chinese counterpart of the KGB).

So we have several people/groups who could hope to gain from 9/11 and the later sequence of events.

If I was among the few chosed by big C or KGB or Mossad what would I have done?. As much as necessary to trigger US "re"action but as little as possible to avoid blowing the job. Two missiles with conventional explosives, one against one tower (could be Chicago, or even the WTC) for the commercial and human lives damage and one against the White House or, if that's too small a target, the Pentagon, for the damage to the American soul. If the group I would have worked for was a pro/inside USA group the amount of explosives carried would have been smaller than if I would have worked for the KGB, but that's just a detail.

I wouldn't have made it too easy for the police, but 2 or 3 fingerprints and bits of DNA at the later found launch sites would have helped the police to trace some never to be found perpetrators who had shown Arab passports in Motels or at Airports. That would have been enough, easy to implement, and difficult to spot.

I would have avoided as much as possible (1) any complication of the plan, (2) any dependence of success upon events I had not under full control and (3) I would have used the minimum of people knowing the plan. In particular, I would not have included Bush among the conspirators. He only would have been a liability for success. His role would have been restricted to the useful (in this context) idiot (in general).

Looking at the sequence of events, the conspirators in this scenario would have been incredibly stupid for staging such a complicated story needing many years of preparation (long before Bush became president). Arabs training flying aircrafts; waiting for a morning with enough Arabs bording aircrafts; hoping that no uninformed general of the airforce would react too quickly; hijacking four aircrafts but using only two of them (in some conspiracy theories); and so on.

All these scenarios simply are outrageously improbable and would involve too many people and too many loose ends. The planners would have to be one the one hand incredibly stupid, in general, to hope to get away with a much too complicated plan and, on the other hand, to be incredibly clever, in detail, to be able to plot all that.

It simply makes no sense when thinking it through.

Just one more instance that makes me doubt the critical thinking ability of those convinced by one of the conspiracy theories. Let us look a Building 7 as one of the prime examples of conspiracy theorists. Why include building 7? Would that have been the straw to break the camels back? The USA would have turned the other cheek with a hole in the Pentagon and the two main towers downed? But Tower 7 would have set them on a revenge course. Think just for a moment: Tower 7 adds nothing in effect but adds a lot of work in preparation and adds some more possibilities to be found out. No one in her right frame of mind would have included Tower 7 in the plan (and that includes of course the 19 Arabs for whom that was windfall but not part of the plan).

Or do you seriously think that when everything was thought through, big C would have suggested a series letter to the owners of surrounging buildings: "Dear Sir, for reasons that I am not at liberty to disclose to you now, the two main WTC towers will burn and fall at a not too far away date. If you think it could be a financial gain to you to get your building scrapped at the same big event, we would be ready to give you more details for a considerable cut of your profit."

But perhaps the whole series event was actually staged by the owner of building 7 who thought he could get away with his plan to scrap his building by explosion if the focus of attention of police and press was on the other three buildings. But I think not even Little Hawk would consider that conspiracy theory worth of his attention.

If the whole story was much less complicated than it is I'd seriously consider an alternative view as possible. But as it is, the puzzle pieces don't fall into place when seriously considering another than the official story. Some bits of the official story too are bound to be wrong, some people may have even reasons to lie about details, but it is the only big scenario that makes sense.

I'm fond of conspiracy theories for they are a good area for research. One of my students writes his dissertation (PhD thesis) about conspiracy theories, who believes in which theory and whether there is pattern among the believers. I'll see his first presentation of his data at a congress sometime in May and I'm looking forward to it.

Perhaps he has even a good theory why people believe in such theories and who does more than others (females?, young people?, religious people?, people with a distrust in science?, politically left?,...). I don't know yet. (Though I'd bet that the believers would score fairly high on the Magical Ideation Scale)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 01:51 PM

Royston, you tell me how the cores were built. And explain to me how the pictures and videos I saw of them being built were fabricated.

By the way, did you happen to look at any of the pictures, videos, and blueprints I posted?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 01:55 PM

Who knows? There are a vast number of possibilities. I've never said that I know what happened, because I don't. I merely think it quite possible that some things happened which have been covered up, and I'd like to see further serious investigations done in that direction, because there are a number of very odd things about 911.

Like you, Wolfgang, I doubt that George W. Bush would have been included in the members of a conspiracy hatched by people within his administration, because he would have served much better as, to put it in your words, "a useful idiot" who did not know or understand what was going on.

I think it far more likely that Dick Cheney and some other individuals at a high level would have been directly involved, but not George Bush.

I think these gentlemen are of the "you've got to break a few eggs to make an omelet" school of thought...that is, they are willing to sacrifice a number of innocent lives in order to achieve a much larger strategic objective that they feel will benefit a greater cause they also think is a good cause.

If so, they have a lot of company among the political leaders of both past and present. Most successful (and unsuccessful) leaders of powerful nations have a strong element of ruthlessness in their makeup.

I would think that the best reason for using passenger airliners would be to get the ordinary public to be as upset as possible by:

1. a spectacular visual demonstration on nation-wide TV
2. the tremendous fear that it would spread in ordinary people, because it's much more frightening to imagine that your airliner may be hijacked than that a cruise missile may be shot into some skyscraper.

It makes the incident much more personal, and it stirs outrage over the helpless passengers trapped on the airplanes.

Outrage is the best possible emotion for stirring a public to support a foreign war. Hitler knew that. Any leader who wants to start a war knows that. Always work on the angle that will most outrage your public, and they will support the country going to war over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 01:59 PM

Oh my god. I didn't see this before my last post...

The steel box-beams (that I think you are seeing and mistaking for the entire core structure) are just an element of the core structure. They rose up on the outside of, or were integrated into, the core-walls. I would need to check, but I would expect that these boxes were also filled with re-bar and concrete as the pouring progressed upwards. The box-beams are NOT the beginning and end of the core structure, there is an awful lot more to it than that. It is a reinforced concrete structure - even probably inside the boxes that have caused you so much confusion.

Royston, have you looked at any of the pictures, videos, or blueprints I've provided here in this thread? I don't know how you could possibly have seen them and still be pursuing this line of idiocy. There may have been concrete involved long after the actual load bearing structure was built, but the concrete had nothing whatever to do with what gave the core it's structural integrity. In the pictures and the videos, there is no concrete involved whatever while the structure is being built from the ground up. It may have been added later, but it was not integral to the structure of the cores.

If you keep hammering on about concrete without having seen the pictures, videos, and blueprints, you really are embarrassing yourself in ways you can't even imagine right now, because everyone else who has looked at them can see what a fool you're making of yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 02:06 PM

There probably isn't one person in 100,000 who ever has looked at those pictures, videos, and blueprints, Carol. ;-) But they all have a strong opinion about it regardless.

Most people just don't have enough time for this stuff. They're too busy doing other things, more immediate things.

And those few who do have enough time for it can't do anything about it, anyway...because they'd have to convince the other 999,999 people about it first before anything would happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 02:19 PM

Here is a picture of one of the cores as it's being built, Royston. Show me the concrete...

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/wtc2small_1.jpg


Here is a cross section photograph of one of the columns. Show me the concrete and rebar...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/corebase1.jpg


Here is a thorough explanation of how the cores were built...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 02:21 PM

It doesn't take any more time to look at a photograph than it does to type in a post and make a fool of oneself, LH, but I guess some people are suckers for punishment.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 02:24 PM

CarolC

I have looked at all the available pictures and blueprints, they show the construction of a reinforced concrete core. I have seen such construction literally hundreds of times.

You are looking at something that you don't understand.

You are simply, completely wrong. There is nothing more to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 02:31 PM

Interesting stuff, Carol. I looked at it.

You know why 99% of people engage in a conversation or a discussion? They do it to talk.

Not to listen.

They do it to send out, not to take in.

And therein lies the continual problem of the general lack of real human interpersonal communication.

I've seen that in a lot of marriages, families, and other relationships too. It basically becomes a case of two or more human solitudes, all busily broadcasting their own reality out like a radio station, but consciously being aware of receiving very little in return (outside of something they can immediately react to with further strenuous broadcasting of their own story.

Eventually that results in a breakdown of the relationship.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 02:33 PM

Do you have a link to some of those pictures you speak of, Royston?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 02:35 PM

When I think about what might be the truth in a complex series of events, I don't go down to single bits of facts or theories for at least two reasons. The main reason is of course that I do not understand enough to be able to judge for myself who is right with one particular argument. The next reason is that I do not expect every detail to be correct or each theory why something happened to be the best theory even in what I think is the most reasonable story line. I try to look at the whole picture and what makes most sense of it.

As a scientist, I would expect you to use the scientific method. I would expect you to first ask the question - "what happened on 9/11 and in the days leading up to 9/11", and then I would expect you to ask all questions that would help you arrive at an answer. As a scientist, I would not expect you to determine, before any inquiry took place, what you believed happened, and then only pursue those lines of inquiry that supported your belief. But this has been the nature of what passes for official investigation so far.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 02:35 PM

Were is the concrete in the pictures, Royston?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 02:37 PM

Also, Royston, explain to me how the structure I just showed you pictures of, all questions of concrete aside, could have failed.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 03:12 PM

CarolC,

The picture you show (black and white) of some steelwork is at such an early stage of construction, they weren't even above lobby level!. I told you that I did not know whether the box-beams were concrete-filled, I said that they probably were, this being a normal construction method.

That the core had a steel *frame* is not disputed - what do you imagine is meant by "steel reinforced structure"?

But tell me this - if they made liftshafts and stairwells and corridors without poured concrete, does that not shoot your arguments down? If the core had no curtain walls to protect it from fire and blast?

The core has sweet FA to with the collapse anyway - as I explained to you - the floors and exterior load-bearing columns were cut, the floors were unsupported, the fire degraged the remaining load bearing steel when the floors started to collapse they tore down the building around them and including whatever core structure was there.

I know that this may come as a shock, but 1,300ft concrete or steel or jam cores that were designed to be held up by, while holding up, a mutually supportive structure (of floors and exernal columns) won't survive the floors and columns being torn down around it.

Whatever the core was made from, it was buggered when the planes crashed - because people weren't able to escape through it.

Now I am not getting drawn any further into your private hell.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 03:29 PM

You're trying to use verbal sleight of hand to avoid the real question, Royston.   The structure I showed you a picture of continued in that way all the way to the top of the building. I have already provided pictures of its construction at much higher levels. How would a structure like that one, with massive steel columns that are welded together to form continuous columns from the bottom to the top of the buildings, and that are connected together with steel I beams going crosswise at regular intervals, all welded together to form the kind of massive steel cage that you see in those pictures, how would such a structure fail?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 03:34 PM

Specifically, tell me how such a structure, in all of the floors below the level of the airplane crashes, could have failed (how many was that, 80?, 90?). Explain how that happens, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 03:41 PM

CarolC, I am not using any sleight of anything.

I told you how the structure failed on 8 March at 10:39am

The angle braces that hold the floor trusses to the core structure are the weakest links - the ones involved in the fire failed. That started the collapse. The weight of the collapsing upper section overwhelmed everything below it, a combination of the falling debris and the undamaged floor slabs tearing away at the fabric of the core structure, explains everything that you see in all the photos and videos of the collapses.

It's that simple.

The core - whatever fantasies you hold for it - is dependent on the floor trusses and external beams, as they are dependent on the core.

What could have withstood the collapse of the surrounding structures? You say that the core had no concrete, it was just steelwork. So that's answered your question then, hasn't it? How could it have stayed up unsupported?

I am coming up against the same problems that others have experienced it. You just aren't listening to anything other than the voices in your head.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 03:56 PM

That makes no sense, Royston. How far did the sections that were above the plane crashes fall? How much downward momentum did they have? How much force did they exert in their fall? How much upward thrust was provided by the rest of the building below the sites of the crashes? How much downward force were the cores of the buildings designed to take?

If a failure of the "angle braces" cause the collapse, how did this effect the core structure below the level of the plane crashes? If it was a failure of the angle braces, then the floor sections surrounding the cores would simply have fallen away from the core structures and would not have effected them at all. The floors inside the core structures were not integral with the floors of the area outside of the core structures. They were completely independent of them, so their falling would not have impacted the floors inside the core structures.

The scenario you describe, with the angle braces failing, does not support the hypothesis that the reinforced steel cage construction of the core could have been caused to fail as a consequence. If it could be supported by that, the people at NIST wouldn't have admitted that they can't explain why the buildings fell.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 03:57 PM

Alfred Russel Wallace and the flat earth controversy

I don't know whether this link will allow you to see the article, so I'll provide some quotes:

Wallace had enraged Hampden in March 1870 by claiming victory in a £500 wager to provide proof of the earth's rotundity. Notoriously, Hampden publicly declared that the earth was a flat, circular disk surrounded by ice

Wallace was to rue the decision to engage a crank until the end of his life. Hampden followed him with letters, "documents" etc. the rest of his life.

Wallace later realised to his cost that 'paradoxers can never be convinced' .

'Paradoxers' only follow you with more and more of what seems true to them and never give up. Do not enter any debate with them. They believe in winning an argument by the quantity of material they collect.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 04:01 PM

I see you are not a scientist, Wolfgang.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Confere
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 04:23 PM

peruse this

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 04:23 PM

For those, like Wolfgang, who don't understand science, here's how a scientific inquiry would go...


Question: What happened on 9/11 and during the period leading up to 9/11?

Evidence: Airplanes flew into the Twin Towers. There were fires. The buildings were designed to withstand being hit by airplanes and the resulting fires. The buildings fell.


Hypothesis 1: The fires caused the buildings to fall.

Question 1: Was it possible for fires to cause the buildings to fall?

Question 1b: How would the fires cause the buildings to fall?

Question 2: If it was possible for the fires to cause the buildings to fall, is there evidence that this is what happened?

Question 2b: What is the evidence that fire caused the buildings to fall?

Question 3: Are there any other possible explanations for what caused the buildings to fall other than fire?

Question 3b: If there are any other possible explanations for what caused the buildings to fall, what are they?


Hypothesis 1b: Failure of the angle braces caused the buildings to fall (this hypothesis also presumes that it was fire that caused the buildings to fall).

Question 1: Was it possible for the buildings to fall as a result of the angle braces failing?

Question 1b: If it was possible for the buildings to fall because of a failure of the angle braces, how did this happen?

Question 1c: If it was possible for the buildings to fall because of a failure of the angle braces, what evidence is there that this is what happened?

Question 2: Are there any other possible explanations for how the buildings could have fallen?

Question 2b: If there are any other possible explanations for how the buildings could have fallen, what are they?


Hypothesis 2: The buildings were brought down through the use of controlled demolition.

Question 1: Was it possible for the buildings to have been brought down through the use of controlled demolition?

Question 1b: If it was possible for the buildings to have been brought down through the use of controlled demolition, what are the possible ways this could have been done?

Question 2: Is there any evidence that the buildings were brought down through the use of controlled demolition?

Question 3: Are there any other possible explanations for how the buildings could have fallen, and if so, what are they?


Further questions: Given all of the possible scenarios that could account for the buildings falling, for which scenarios do we have the most evidence?


This is how the scientific method works. If any of the lines of inquiry that are generated by the hypotheses do not lead anywhere, then those lines of inquiry, and the hypotheses they are intended to support, are abandoned. So far, the line if inquiry into how the core structures could have failed has not lead anywhere, either in this thread, or in the official "investigations". So as of now, the hypothesis that it was fire that caused the buildings to fall is not supported by the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 04:28 PM

Bill D, all of the actual physical evidence contradicts what that page is saying. And those pictures looking through the buildings don't show the steel reinforced cage that comprised the load bearing structure of the core. They only show the elevator shafts. This is because the steel reinforced core is a latticework of steel and can be seen through. The elevator shafts cannot be seen through.

Again, I refer you to the blueprints of the core structures, the pictures of the core structures as they are being built, and the videos that actually show the core structures being built. And also, the part in the video where they say that the perimeter structures were designed to transfer load to the core structures.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Confere
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 04:35 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center#Structural_design

*shrug*

"The core of the towers housed the elevator and utility shafts, restrooms, three stairwells, and other support spaces. The core –a combined steel and concrete structure–[28][29] of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m) and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower."

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 04:47 PM

What is that supposed to prove, Bill? The people who built the towers say that the core was designed to support more than 50% of the building's load, and that the perimeter supports were designed to transfer load to the cores. They say that the core was designed to be the primary load bearing support in the buildings.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Confere
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 04:56 PM

It shows that some, who seem to know, insist there WAS concrete, to counter some who claim there was NOT concrete.

Put them all in a room together with some guys who worked on it....pouring, or NOT pouring concrete.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 05:12 PM

I took a quick look at this thread when it started. An almost equally quick look now confirms where I thought it would go. Wolfgang, you're spot on. Royston, you'll never win an argument in this particular company. Be content that you're correct, and move on.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 05:24 PM

One thing for sure, and this is a strictly neutral comment...

If this thread had legs it would qualify for the Olympics...track and field competition.

I check in through the day and am amazed at the number of posts and verbiage that it generates over a given period of time.

If all of that yielded some kind of tangible reward, that would be great. But it won't.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 05:55 PM

I never said there was no concrete, Bill. I said that whatever concrete there was, was not a part of the structural support. In other words, concrete may have provided support for people in the building, and furniture, etc, but it was not an important part of what gave the buildings their structural integrity in terms of their ability to remain standing. And all of the physical evidence proves that to be true.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 05:56 PM

I see some people think they can make a cogent argument by doing nothing but sniping from the sidelines. They are mistaken. Such people haven't got a leg to stand on.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 05:58 PM

LH, I think you are wrong. I find that a lot of change happens in the world these days through people discussing important matters over the internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 06:26 PM

That may be so. I can't say for sure that it isn't.

But it kind of depresses me to see people endlessly nattering away at each other here, that's all, each of them so certain he is right and that the other is deluded.

As I've said before: "politics is the Great Divider"

It sets people against one another who would otherwise get along just fine.

Secondarily to that, most organized religion becomes a Great Divider too...but I don't think that's the fault of religion itself so much as it is the fault of people's insatiable desire to be "right" at the expense of anyone else who thinks differently from themselves.

Both religion and politics give them a particularly fertile and mentally engrossing field of subjective beliefs for engaging in that sort of competitive mental habit of enhancing their own sense of rightness by attacking someone else's.

I'm not focusing on anyone in particular here in what I say...I'm just expressing sadness at the general condition of humanity which is, as I've said below....they want to talk, all right, but they don't want to listen. That's because talking reinforces their sense of identity. Listening would diminish it...or so they think.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 06:54 PM

I don't claim to know what happened, LH. I just want a real, scientific investigation to determine what happened. I think that's a reasonable stance to take. Other people feel threatened by this stance and feel that they need to make those of us who adopt such a stance out to be "conspiracy theorists", non-rational, and stupid (all terms that have been used by such people here in this thread. I don't see any reason why such people should be allowed to have the last word. I also don't see any reason why they shouldn't provide valid and verifiable evidence to support what they are saying, when asked to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 07:52 PM

"You are looking at something that you don't understand."

"You are simply, completely wrong. There is nothing more to say."

"You just aren't listening to anything other than the voices in your head."

25 Tactics for Truth Suppression
Tactics used by disinformation agents

1. Hear no Evil   
2. Incredulous
3. Rumormonger
4. Straw Man
5. Ridicule
6. Hit & Run
7. ? Motives
8. Authority
9. Play Dumb
10. Old News
11. Fake Confession
12. Too Complex
13. False Logic   
14. Not Enough
15. Twist Facts   
16. Lose Evidence
17. Change Subject
18. Antagonize   
19. Ignore Proof
20. False Evidence
21. Subvert
22. New Truth
23. O.J.   
24. Silence Opp.
25. Vanish

http://benfrank.net/disinfo/


Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all 'conspiracy theorists'

In a lengthy academic paper, President Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban "conspiracy theorizing."

...Continued Sunstein: "We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity."

...Sunstein said government agents "might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=121884

It was bad under Bush, CarolC, and it's now become a government program under Obama. Just keep smackin' them down. Royston has no arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 08:00 PM

Americans were infantilized on 9/11. Trauma-based mind control. Shown something horrific, looped endlessly for 8 days on TV, and we were made to feel helpless. Had to turn to Big Daddy government to make safey poo.

Most Americans have now recovered from that and see that the "official version" doesn't add up. Some thumbsuckers are still stumbling around but there aren't very many anymore. As jobs are lost and pensions are raided, Americans have less and less to lose. The 9/11 criminals will be exposed out of sheer anger before long. It'll be a BIG issue in the 2010 elections. Get out to your local mayoral races, state rep and senate races, and ask what the people running have done to expose the lie of 9/11. Preface it with "concern for the families of the dead" before they beat you to it. They've hid behind that phony concern long enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 08:03 PM

Well, if that's the case, their first mistake is to call my advocacy for a thorough, scientific investigation, a conspiracy, since calling for an investigation is the opposite of championing a "theory".

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 08:40 PM

No ma'am, you're a conspiracy theorist! 'Nuff said! I proved my point!

Let me scan down some of the arguments that have been thrown at you on this page:

Royston, you'll never win an argument in this particular company. (He'll never win an argument. Astute observation.)

Whatever the core was made from, it was buggered when the planes crashed - because people weren't able to escape through it. ... Now I am not getting drawn any further into your private hell. (And yet he keeps coming back. Gotta earn that paycheck.)

Look Carol, if you don't even know how the damn thing was built - even in spite of watching it go up and having access to all the explanations. Even if in spite of that, you still believe that it was built from mashed potato and butterfly wings, what point is there in discussing it with you. (Yes, Carol. Your insistence that the damn thing was built from mashed potato and butterfly wings does nothing to support your case.)

This is bush league stuff. Denial and Debunking 101.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 10:18 AM

World Net Daily? Ya gotta be kidding, ich! home of the born-again wackoes.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 10:47 AM

There is one advantage in letting someone else, like a barking dog, have the last word, Carol...

They will shut up and go away after having achieved that glorious little ego satisfaction of having their LAST word, and you can then get on with whatever else it was that you wanted to spend your valuable time on without having to listen to them bark at you! ;-)

I have done this with barking dogs, and it worked.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 11:26 AM

True, LH, but these are not just barking dogs. They're people who are trying to silence any discussion of something that needs to be discussed. People who are doing something like that shouldn't be allowed to succeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 11:32 AM

Righto.

I was just reminiscing in a general sense. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 01:21 PM

Greg F., you are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Specifically, you seem to be using tactic # 19 from the previously-posted list. "19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs." If you had bothered to click on the link to the WND article you would have seen it leads to further links leading to Cass Sunstein's writings on the topic mentioned. The first link in the article leads to an abstract of Sunstein's Harvard Law paper. The abstract says:

"Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined. ... Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light."

That's from the abstract. Sunstein goes on to conclude that government operatives should infiltrate social networking sites on the internet and muddy the waters with further government lies.

Thank you for your excellent example of disinformation tactics.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 09:50 PM

6 out of 10 of the official 9/11 Commissioners on record, discuss how the govern

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation".

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people.

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."

9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".

9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that "We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way – conflicts of interest".

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true."

(Links embedded in story)

~~~~~~~~~

Used that in a piece I put together tonight. It's no secret that Obama's getting set up to be whacked (if he doesn't go through with an attack on Iran), but I wondered why the Secret Service wasn't under scrutiny for their part in what's shaping up. The bit about Lincoln and the Secret Service in the thing I just uploaded is interesting:

9/11 Truthers are being set up for a fall

Don't know how long I'll leave that up...right click and save as if you want to hold onto the links and such.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 10:28 PM

I have to say, ichMael, I think you hand the people who are trying to silence discussion about 9/11 a lot of ammo, and unnecessarily so, in my opinion. If we could just stick to the science, I think the rest of it would have a much better chance of getting sorted out. All of the other considerations are not necessary for getting to the bottom of what happened. All we need is the science. The rest of it just makes it harder for you to accomplish what you're trying to do (assuming that what you're trying to do bring the truth to light).

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 10:42 PM

No, the stuff about the commissioners is good. I'm talking about the other stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 10:54 PM

Okay. Logged back in. Still figuring this out.

You mean the stuff at the link, Carol? About Obama? That's all valid, but I didn't paste it onto this thread because it's not really germane to the discussion here.

The man's a monster. But I go easier on him than I did on G.W. Bush. I watched Bush wreck my state before he went on to do the same to the U.S. So far I've just had 14 months of the pig Obama, so I haven't built up the Bush-level nausea.

I stand by what I perceive to be the facts, and the conclusions I draw from them. We can agree to disagree.

But how 'bout that commission? When they handed over the report and said it was a fraud...well, I don't know how anyone could use it as a basis of argument after that.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 11:40 PM

I mean you don't have to establish what did happen. At this point in time, you only have to establish what didn't happen, and let science sort the rest out. We know, for instance, that NIST admits that they didn't establish an explanation for how the towers fell. The government does not officially have an explanation for what made it possible for, or what caused the towers to fall. That's all we really need in order to have a very credible case for insisting on a new investigation.

We know two things. We know that the government has not established the cause of the collapse. We also know that much of the evidence points to other possible causes. As of now, we don't need to know anything else. All we have to do is insist on a thorough, scientific investigation, the results of which are subjected to vigorous peer review. Science will give us the answers. And by science, I mean forensic science. This was a crime, and it should be investigated exactly the way crimes are investigated. This was never done.

But when people try to persuade others of their ideas about did happen, those people make it really easy for anyone who wants to shut down discussion to do this by diverting attention away from what is important, which is that the government does not have an explanation for what happened and the fact that there is enough evidence of possibilities that have not been pursued or investigated by the government to justify a new investigation, and divert the attention to you and all of the labels that they want to apply to you. Labeling you is easy for them, because they see you as a caricature, not as a person.   And that is a big part of the problem. If people can label you, they will find it really easy to shut you out and shut down discussion, because the discussion then becomes all about what they think of you instead of what happened on 9/11.

So trying to get peoples' attention by behaving in ways that they may find extreme and disturbing will not work. They'll just shut down discussion with their personal attacks. And as a consequence, they also make things difficult for anyone who advocates for a new investigation, because they will lump them all in with the people like you whom they have already labeled and dismissed in their minds. So you not only make it more difficult for yourself, you also make it more difficult for everyone who is trying to get a new investigation.

Obviously there are some who are so threatened by any discussion of other possibilities that anyone at all who advocates for a new investigation will seem extreme to them. But there are a lot of people who aren't so entrenched in their beliefs, and you don't want to be shutting those people down. That is a mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 07:46 PM

Carol...

Regarding September 11--people have had their minds made up for them by television, or by that pension they're protecting, or by fear of public opinion. I mean, SIX OF THE TEN Keane commisioners said their 9/11 report was bogus. If some chowderhead can't internalize that and get pissed off, then he's as good as dead. And kicking a dead man around won't hurt him. Maybe you get better results with finesse, but the steel-toed approach seems to work pretty well for me.

9 years since 9/11, and now Obama and Cass Sunstein are going to launch corps of people into the social networking internet system to bicker with "conspiracy theorists." Man.

SIX OF THE TEN Keane commissioners said the report they generated about 9/11 is a FRAUD, people! Maybe you still want to put the whole thing off on Bush, but now OBAMA'S approved of the crime by DOING NOTHING. If YOU AND I know that the Keane Commission admitted that it generated junk, then Obama knows. So, where's the action? Where's the "change?"

Anyway, do you have a NIST link similar to the Keane link I posted, Carol? I need to start posting the most damaging NIST link I can along with the Keane link. With those two legs cut out from under the govt's arguments, it should be pretty easy to make people see that they're believing a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 08:10 PM

Personally, I think you're making a very big mistake, ichMael. There's a lot of people who haven't formed a solid opinion on the subject, and I can tell you, if my first introduction to the subject was the kind of stuff you post, I would be pretty turned off, too. You're shutting people down who don't need to be shut down, and you're losing allies, unnecessarily.

I don't have a link to the actual document in which the people at NIST admit that they can't explain what happened, but you can see it in this video. I'm guessing if you email the people at this site, they might forward you a scanned copy of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 09:04 PM

Obama/Sunstein are now institutionalizing mole work, Carol--going into forums like this in order to negate "conspiracy theorists." Sunstein and Obama want to "BAN" conspiracy theorists. There'll be a BOUNTY on your head next.

I'm just sick of thumbsuckers. Mollycoddle them all you want. In the end they'll still turn you in for the bounty. The blow to the solar plexus is the way to go. At least they'll remember that when they're kicked out of their homes and sucking their thumbs in a ditch.

But your opinion's noted and appreciated.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 09:25 PM

ichMael, do you honestly think that the government only just now started using the internet for its psyops? Really?

The only way to fight back against that kind of thing is to not be the stereotypes they're using as their ammo against reasonable requests.   Because it doesn't matter how many times you tell them they are using disinformation method number whatever, if they are able to define how others see you, they have succeeded in doing what they set out to do.

Personally, I think I'm getting a lot more done with my approach than you ever will. You're only preaching to the choir. I'm talking to everyone. I understand the sense of urgency you have about things, but you are not accomplishing what you think you are accomplishing, and you're making it more difficult for others to do what needs to be done.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 09:25 PM

...and YOUR incredible opinion is rather frightening, ichMael.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 09:28 PM

So do you support the Keane Commission report, Joe?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 09:42 PM

Actually, yes. All these conspiracy theories are so much hogwash, ichMael.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 09:45 PM

http://jayinreallife.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/6-out-of-10-of-the-official-911-commissioners-on-record-discuss-how-the-government

6 out of 10 of the Keane commissioners said their report was a fraud. So you CHOOSE to believe a lie?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 01:22 AM

IchMael,

That blog story is about the controversy over the Pentagon's reaction to the attacks on the day in question. It implicitly touches on the controversial - but plausible - view that The Pentagon *might* have reacted in weak way deliberately.

It does not support any of the bollocks that you have been mumbling about. Not a word of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 01:49 AM

You're playing a little loose with the facts, ichMael. You misquoted the article you cited. The article says that 6 of 10 Keane commissioners claimed that Bush Administration officials gave them false information - that's common knowledge.

Yes, I'm sure there are mistakes and discrepancies in the Keane report, but it appears to me that the report is basically sound and factual. I suppose that in the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I spent 25 years as an investigator for the Federal Government, and another 3 years in intelligence. I came to expect not to get the whole truth from politically appointed officials, but that simply motivated me to dig deeper. I'm very sure that the 9/11 incidents were fully investigated - and that the investigations are still going on. Were there coverups? Oh, I suppose there were - but nothing of any significance. And besides, the legitimate press serves as a good counterbalance, to keep the government investigators honest. There was no way that I wanted a newspaper reporter to uncover something I missed.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 09:33 PM

A Tale of Two Conspiracies

Thank you folks for the inspiration.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 09:43 PM

ichMael, do you have any sources for the Lee Hamilton quote other than copy/pastes in blogs? I've been looking and I can't find one.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 09:53 PM

Let me just scroll down, Carol...ah, yes, the CBC and his book Without Precedent.

I sourced everything, but I don't really like links. It's so easy to search on the internet now. I mean, look at Joe Offer. I could get Lee Hamilton to scream the information in his ear and Joe would still say, "Were there coverups? Oh, I suppose there were - but nothing of any significance." Why do legwork for people like that? They wouldn't click on the links anyway. 9//1 wasn't significant enough. Just face it--those people are goners.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 10:15 PM

Ok. Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: robomatic
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 10:52 PM

I remember seeing the NOVA program how the towers fell, which covers the outside support vertical structure AND the inside vertical structure.
One rather unique feature to the WTC buildings was that the outer and inner structure allowed the floor beams to be rather long and supported, like bridges at either end. What this also means is that BOTH ends must be supported, the outer structure is as important as the inner structure. It is impossible for the floor beams to exist supported at one end ONLY.
In any case, the progress of the flaming jet debris took out a large section of both outer and inner supports, also stripping much insulation from around the supports, making them more vulnerable to the heat of the fire that ultimately weakened the vertical support structure critically.

So, there is no denial in this publicly aired TV show of any part of the WTC structure.
It is obvious that the inner structure alone would not support the floors without outer structure to hold up the other end of the beams, that kind of structure would be called 'cantilevered' and this was not.
The heat of the fire weakened enough of the metal in the impacted area to allow the top part of the building to collapse as a pile driver onto the rest and start a cascade of pancaking floors.

(This is also where some of the folks who claim the towers collapsed too fast for physics. they are ignoring the fact that the collapse started not from the top but from the weakened area).

And finally, about a month after the coalition went into Afghanistan they recovered a tape of Osama taking full credit for the deed, and telling his buds that the total collapse of the structures was something they hoped for but it was mostly a lucky, forgive me, 'break'.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 11:20 PM

The NOVA program completely falsified the nature of the core structure, and all of the physical evidence (photographs, videos, and blueprints) proves that. What the NOVA program describe happening could not have happened with the way the buildings were actually constructed. They were lying, pure and simple. Which raises the question of why there were lying. Obviously they were trying to cover something up.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 11:26 PM

In criminal investigations, lying about evidence is itself considered to be evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 11:31 PM

Oh yeah, the Nova show was gutted long ago. Been a while since I've watched TV, but isn't Nova aired on PBS? That's government-funded, so of course they'd run a pseudo-science show shifting suspicion away from the government.

Anyway, I've learned from the government believers on this thread that the core had little to no role in holding up the towers. It was the outer shell that provided support. So, if I cut my skin, then my skeleton will fail? Learn something new every day.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc2_firefighters.html

9/11 Radio Transmissions
of WTC 2 Firefighters

contains the final transmissions made by firefighters located in the aircraft impact area of WTC 2 (floors 77 and 78). Floor 78 was officially being ravaged by an 800ºC inferno at this time.

The transmissions document that only isolated pockets of fire were reported by the firefighters, so where was the all-consuming inferno?

Also of note is the fact that these transmissions were made seconds before WTC 2's collapse. There were supposedly massive structural failings occurring in this section of the building at this time yet no mention is made of this. The firefighters should have been screaming "the building's coming down, everybody get out!", instead they are calmly preparing to move up to the 79th floor.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Tower one. Battalion Seven to Ladder 15.

Fifteen."

Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam stairway to knock down two fires. We have a house line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, kay."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're coming up the stairs. We're on 77 now in the B stair, I'll be right to you."

Battalion Seven Operations Tower One: "Battalion Seven Operations Tower One to Battalion Nine, need you on floor above 79. We have access stairs going up to 79, kay."

Battalion Nine: "Alright, I'm on my way up Orio."

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 11:34 PM

This part right here (from the transcript of the NOVA program) is a lie...

But the tall vertical columns of the inner core and outer walls were like freestanding stilts until Robertson tied them together with floor trusses.

They're calling the core columns "freestanding stilts". This it totally proven false by all of the physical evidence. They're lying, and they're doing it for a reason. If they didn't have something to hide, they wouldn't be lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: LadyJean
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 12:14 AM

I remember thinking on 9/11, Those Bastards! They've just given George W a second term! I also remember hoping that there would be a good thorough investigation of the events of the day, since I knew that conspriacy theories would sprout like mushrooms in the days to come.
I have heard them before. I have heard all about how the CIA killed Kennedy, and the Kennedys kille Marilyn Monroe, and a number of notorious dead people are still alive. I once saw a television documentary, meant for children, about Lincoln's assasination, that made it clear that Secretery Stanton was behind it all. (Yes, I know that is extremely unlikely.)
I also have heard about a good many conspiracies, like Watergate. They just couldn't keep that one quiet. Or the coup in Chile, couldn't keep that under wraps. I learned in seventh grade history class that the Spanish didn't blow up the Maine. Conspiracies are tough things to hide. Which is why I am always skeptical when someone talks about a conspiracy.
One of the things that makes me skeptical about 9/11 is the way Bush and Cheney conducted themselves that day. Bush was with a class full of first graders, reading about a goat. He is either a world class actor, or he was genuinely bewildered. He gave us an uninspired speech, then disappeared for the rest of the day. (I suspect he spent much of it worsipping the porcelain god, but never mind.) Dick Cheney was conspicuous by his absence, hiding in a bunker. You'd think, if they knew it was coming they'd make themselves look more heroic.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 12:37 AM

You're still speculating though, LadyJean, and that's not proof. The only way we can get something even resembling proof is to conduct a forensic investigation. Right now, not only do we not have any proof, we don't even have any evidence that things happened the way the official story claims they happened. And we don't even have a full explanation of what happened in the official story from the government. For instance, in order for the buildings to have fallen from fire or airplanes crashing into them, it would need to be possible for this to happen. The government hasn't got any explanations of how the twin towers could have fallen, or even any evidence that was possible for fire or airplane crashes to cause them to fall, whereas we have a lot of evidence that this would not be possible.

People use the way Bush behaved as evidence that he was aware of what was going to happen ahead of time as well. Nobody would accept that as evidence of a government conspiracy, and they would be right not to. We shouldn't accept it as evidence that the governments story is correct, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 01:11 AM

ichMael, I just listened to part of an interview with Lee Hamilton on an old Charley Rose show, and I don't think he is saying what one might think he's saying if one reads those quotes from him out of context. I don't think what you're trying to do is very well served by using those quotes from the 9/11 Commissioners.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 07:02 AM

By the way, there is no evidence that the guy in that one video is bin Laden. It doesn't look anything like him, and other than that one video, bin Laden has consistently denied responsibility for the attacks on 9/11. The FBI doesn't even include bin Laden on their list of most wanted for 9/11, because they don't have any evidence that he was involved. That one's a non-starter.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 07:57 AM

Carol, you say, "...I don't think he is saying what one might think he's saying if one reads those quotes from him out of context."

None of that stuff is out of context. The Commissioners said those things. What's left out is the petty partisan bickering. Some of those people were convering for Bush and some wanted to blame him.

Party politics is stopping progress on this issue even now. A lot of people mistakenly think they have something to gain by not dragging Obama into the 9/11 situation.

Fact, the Kean Commissioners said they were lied to and were misled. Fact, Obama refuses to address the issue. Fact, Obama is now part of the coverup crime and subject to trial and execution, same as the Bush people.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 08:10 AM

What he's making a case for is not what one might think from reading the quote, though. He's saying that the Bush administration and the Pentagon were not forthcoming about their behavior during the attacks and afterwards, but from the standpoint that they weren't sufficiently addressing the threat of al Qaeda.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 08:47 AM

Logged out, made an entry as GUEST that'll be deleted. Here it is again:

Yeah. Blaming Bush. He was holding a freakin' goat-story book upside down in a classroom in Florida at the time. He's the fall guy. The patsy, if things ever get that far.

We need to stop the partisanship. 9/11 wasn't a Democrat or a Republican job. It wasn't even a job carried out by our representative government. It was carried out by our 'shadow government.' The one initiated by Roosevelt/Truman and named 'the military-industrial complex' by Eisenhower. The CIA did 9/11. In cooperation with the British and Israeli intelligence agencies.

BUT, the president has the power to investigate. Congress has the power to investigate. Bush did his bit and sealed his fate. He DEFINITELY became part of the crime by going along with the coverup. And now Obama's part of the crime through inactivity.

9/11 isn't a political issue. It's a crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: GUEST,Al Kyder
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 12:31 PM

Friends in truth, ichMael and Carol.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 01:00 PM

Thank you, Al. Your picture just came back from the developers.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Confere
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 01:02 PM

I haven't read this entire wonderful thread, but just on a cursory glance, it seems Carol and ichMael have left out a few of the obvious culprits:   the Illuminati, the Masons, the Bilderberg Group and Opus Dei.   And please don't forget "The Protocols of the
Elders of Zion".   I mean that one predicted the whole thing, didn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 02:02 PM

Ah....that's number 5. (Ridicule)

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Confere
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 02:53 PM

No, LH, actually it's number 1, truth.   Didn't you recognize it?   I'm surprised--you're usually so perceptive.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 02:59 PM

I got some real truth for all of you................

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 02:59 PM

300

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 04:42 PM

Oh, YEAH!!! ;-)

Okay, let's see...

That was...

17. Change Subject

and...

18. Antagonize

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 06:46 PM

just got some good links to the Calgary conference this past Tues..
Splitting the Sky and Cynthia McInney... maybe Lizzie will post them

don't let the bastards grind you down...

or as the RCMP once said 'Smear tactics are our specialty' from backroom footage of one of their planning sessions concerning the Gustafsen Lake stand-off...

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 07:59 PM

Don't forget "straw man", LH.

LOL. If you can't prove your point using science, make fun of them and demonize them. That's the same tactic the church used when people started using science to question the doctrine that the earth was the center of the universe. Some people never learn.

Please repeat after me...

SCIENCE IS OUR FRIEND


Those of you who want to continue to cling to superstition are just making yourselves look silly. And I would imagine it would start to get a little sweaty under those tin foil hats of yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 08:02 PM

Correction:

If you can't prove your point using science, make fun of them and demonize those who can.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 14 Mar 10 - 11:01 PM

WTC Towers did NOT fall because of fire

A new page I just uploaded. Also, I pared down the one below so it's more to the point.

9/11 Truthers are being set up for a fall

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 09:36 PM

Here's something new:

Senior Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission against probing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, according to a document recently obtained by the ACLU.

The notification came in a letter dated January 6, 2004, addressed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and CIA Director George J. Tenet. The ACLU described it as a fax sent by David Addington, then-counsel to former vice president Dick Cheney....

"In response to the Commission's expansive requests for access to secrets, the executive branch has provided such access in full cooperation," the letter read. "There is, however, a line that the Commission should not cross -- the line separating the Commission's proper inquiry into the September 11, 2001 attacks from interference with the Government's ability to safeguard the national security, including protection of Americans from future terrorist attacks."....

"The Commission staff's proposed participation in questioning of detainees would cross that line," the letter continued. "As the officers of the United States responsible for the law enforcement, defense and intelligence functions of the Government, we urge your Commission not to further pursue the proposed request to participate in the questioning of detainees."....

9/11 Commission members Thomas Kean and Lee H. Hamilton wrote that although US President George W. Bush had ordered all executive branch agencies to cooperate with the probe, "recent revelations that the CIA destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot."

http://rawstory.com/2010/03/revealed-ashcroft-tenet-rumsfeld-warned-911-commission-line-should-cross/

We've always known the Commission was cautioned, but here's the smoking gun letter.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: LadyJean
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 11:15 PM

Now if you want to tell me that Dick Cheyney knew the attacks were coming and let them happen, I'll believe you. I wouldn't put anything past that man. He's the kind of person who gives rat bastards a bad name.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 11:29 PM

Oh, Cheney knew. Secretary of Transportation at the time, Norman Minetta, told congress about Cheney letting a plane reach its target. Minetta was in the bunker with Cheney. In my opinion, this story is the most under-reported in the WORLD:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO-9LQDFE2Y

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Apr 10 - 11:32 PM

I'm just putting this here for those who are interested. Anyone who has difficulty coping with this sort of thing should just not read it...

http://world911truth.org/bombshell-silverstein-wanted-to-demolish-building-7-on-911/

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Apr 10 - 08:40 AM

Yup - The publication of a wholly-owned subsidiary of the paranoid tinfoil hat brigade.

Brings Barney Frank to mind: What planes do they spend most of their time on?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 10 - 10:30 AM

I bet there were a few paranoid tinfoil hat people around in the 20's too...claiming that a nondescript little failed painter with a big mouth, a chip on his shoulder, and a silly little mustache would someday lead a few ragtag fanatics into a huge political movement that would take over Germany, conquer most of Europe, set up mass exterminations of minorities, and cause the most devastating war in history...

These fools and their ridiculous conspiracy theories. As if anything like that could ever happen!